Comparing flax fibre/biopolymer woven composites with carbon fibre-enhanced, partially green alternatives: Mechanical performance versus sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural fibre/biopolymer matrix, known as green/fully sustainable, composites are emerging as alternatives to non-sustainable or partially sustainable composites, while ideally targeting similar material properties. This study first characterizes and compares thermo-mechanical performance of novel green composites made of Flax Fibre (FF) reinforced in thermosetting bioresin options, fabricated via two different manufacturing techniques. Namely, flax fibre-reinforced bioepoxy (Bioepoxy/35 %FF) woven biocomposite was fabricated via vacuum infusion, while FF-reinforced (bio)Polyfurfuryl Alcohol (PFA) woven prepreg was consolidated through vacuum bagging (PFA/45 %FF) as the second option. Additionally, for design comparisons, Carbon Fibre (CF)-PFA (PFA/60 %CF), as well as hybrid FF-CF-based PFA (PFA/45 %FF-15 %CF) samples were fabricated to understand the performance difference between the green composite options versus the latter partially sustainable or hybrid design alternatives. Results demonstrated that, despite their required different manufacturing techniques, Bioepoxy/35 %FF and PFA/60 %FF provided very comparable density, tensile strength, and impact properties. Both biocomposites outperformed the CF-added designs under damping property (by 150 %) at low frequency and specific energy absorption property (by 37 %), thanks to the unique micro-architecture of flax fibre that enhances deformation energy dissipation through inter- and intra-cell walls friction and internal failure mechanisms. However, incorporating 15 % of CF into PFA/FF (i.e. hybrid PFA/45 %FF-15 %CF) increased the tensile strength by 130 % and the tensile modulus by 90 %, while keeping a similar impact energy absorption as the fully flax-based biocomposite options. The fully CF-based PFA (as a least sustainable option among the tested samples) revealed the highest tensile properties, hardness, and thermal stability, clearly highlighting the necessity for formal trade-off analyses during design.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".