Effect of Flax/PP pellets’ morphology on the mechanical properties of injection-molded parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax and polypropylene (PP) pultrudates of 4.76 mm in diameter were produced using a multi-die pultrusion system. The flax content was 50 vol.%. Pultrusion conditions were varied to produce four porosity content between 4% and 22%. The pultrudates were pelletized into lengths of 6 and 15 mm, and injection-molded with pure PP to reduce the part flax content to 25 wt.%. Results showed that well consolidated pultrudates, having porosities up to 8%, were more resilient to the pelletizing process such that the pellets remained structurally intact after the process. These pellets went smoothly through the hopper into the injection molding machine screw. Pellets with void content higher than 8% lost integrity during pelletizing leading to uniform mixing. Exposed fibers segregated from the polymer in the hopper leading to ununiform mixing. The highest mechanical properties improvement compared to pure PP was using 15 mm pellets that had a prorosity of 8%. The tensile modulus doubled at 4652 ± 113 MPa. The impact strength increased by almost five times at 10.5 ± 0.7 [Formula: see text]. 15 mm pellets provided 1.7 times the impact strength of the 6 mm pellets. These improvement are attributed to low flax fiber thermal degradation and improved fiber dispersion.
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".