Effect of cellulose and lignin content on the mechanical properties and drop-weight impact damage of injection-molded polypropylene-flax and -pine fiber composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing bio-composites for structural applications requires a thorough understanding of their mechanical behavior. In this study, we examined the differences in the tensile strength and drop-weight impact response between polypropylene reinforced with flax fibers and that reinforced with pinewood short fibers, as both fibers differ in composition (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) and length-to-diameter ratio. We found that flax fibers, which have higher cellulose content and are twice as long as pine fibers, increased the stiffness and shock resistance of bio-composite materials. However, pine fibers, which contain more lignin, showed increased material ductility and energy absorption. Impulse excitation, acoustic emission and micro-CT techniques were used to evaluate the post-impact mechanical properties and the contribution of each damage mechanism to the final material failure (tearing). The experimental results were used to validate a model based on finite elements. Our results revealed that the experimental and finite-element analyses were in good agreement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".