Influence of Hybridization on Mechanical Properties and Water Absorption in Jute and Jute /E-Glass Reinforced Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of composite materials is increasingly present not only in several industrial areas but also in daily life. With the escalating environmental concern, it is necessary the search for materials that prove to be ecologically sustainable and economically viable. Vegetable fibers have been presenting themselves as an excellent alternative, however, because their disadvantage of having a high moisture absorption capacity, the introduction of synthetic fibers, forming hybrid composites, is a good solution since it combines the characteristics of both types of reinforcements. The present research aims to carry out a comparative study between two types of laminated polymer composites, one reinforced with Jute fibers and the other hybrid, composed of Jute and E-glass fibers. The mechanical performances of the composites submitted to the Uniaxial Tensile, Three-point Flexural and Shear tests were evaluated, as well as fracture analyzes. A comparative study to analyze the influence of hybridization on moisture absorption was carried out. The results showed that the hybridized composite showed an increase in the elastic modulus, as well as in its resistance to flexion and shear, which shows the formation of a more rigid material. Hybridization also changed the moisture content of the composite.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".