ArticlePolymers2026
Statistical Variability and Lower-Tail Performance Assessment of Tensile Properties in Flax, Jute, and Carbon Fiber Composite Laminates.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural fiber-reinforced polymer composites are attractive for lightweight and sustainable engineering applications; however, property scatter remains a major barrier to reliable design. Mean tensile properties alone are insufficient when material selection depends on repeatability and lower-tail performance. This study presents a statistical variability and lower-tail reliability assessment of flax, jute, and carbon fiber composite laminates using 590 open-access tensile test records from a published natural-fiber composite dataset. Flax and jute were selected as representative bast-fiber systems covering a range of woven, unidirectional, and short-fiber architectures; carbon fiber was included as a synthetic-fiber reference system. Three mechanically important properties were analyzed: the recalculated tensile modulus, tensile strength, and axial failure strain. Normal, lognormal, and two-parameter Weibull distributions were screened for each material-property combination using the Akaike information criterion (AIC); empirical fifth percentiles (P5) and bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed as lower-tail descriptors. The results show that Carbon-0 has the highest lower-tail modulus and strength, with empirical fifth percentiles of 104.95 GPa and 989.64 MPa, respectively. Among the natural fiber systems, Flax-0 and Flax-VE-0 provided the highest lower-tail strengths, whereas Flax-Twill and Flax-CP showed the highest lower-tail failure strains. The lowest tensile strength coefficient of variation was observed for Flax-90 (2.41%), followed by Flax-Twill (3.43%), Flax-0 (4.50%), Jute-Satin (4.83%), and Jute-Plain (4.92%). A balanced reliability ranking that combined lower-tail property ranks and coefficient of variation ranks identified Flax-0, Flax-VE-0, Flax-Twill, Flax-CP, and Jute-Satin as the most favorable natural-fiber systems. The lower coefficient of variation values observed in aligned and satin-weave architectures relative to short-fiber and plain-weave systems reflect the role of fiber orientation uniformity in moderating property scatter at the laminate scale. This study provides a reproducible statistical framework based on lower-tail performance descriptors for comparative screening purposes, not on formal design allowables for distinguishing high mean performance from reliable minimum-level performance in natural fiber composite laminates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.