Comparative Analysis of Flax Fiber-Reinforced Composites and Hybrid Configurations for Enhanced Low Energy Impact Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the low energy impact properties of flax/epoxy, glass/epoxy and hybrid flax-glass/epoxy laminates are evaluated for two different stacking sequences: a unidirectional [0]8 and a cross-ply [0/90]2s. For flax laminates, the base reinforcement is made of the combination of a unidirectional flax layer and a flax mat layer, where the mat phase consisted of short flax fibers used as a binder for the unidirectional phase. All laminates were tested under uniaxial tension both before and after impact and were molded at a fiber volume fraction of 40%. The results indicate that the specific stiffness of the flax fiber composite is approximately 7% higher than that of the glass fiber composite, regardless of the stacking sequence used. Concerning low-energy impact resistance, the cross-ply laminate demonstrates superior performance with higher impact resistance and less permanent deformation compared to the unidirectional laminate. The study also explores the hybridization of flax and glass fibers, suggesting a promising approach that leverages the synergistic effects of employing two different types of fibers in the composite. The comparison of energy absorption during impact shows that the hybrid fibers/epoxy composite has a higher energy absorption capacity than the glass fiber/epoxy composite. Additionally, hybridization helps mitigate the degradation of tensile properties caused by impact, representing an effective strategy to enhance the mechanical properties of the flax fiber composite post-impact.
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 | 0.001 | 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".