Effect of butyl rubber type on properties of polyamide and butyl rubber blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyamide‐12 was blended with butyl rubber, bromobutyl rubber, and chlorobutyl rubber with and without a sulfur curing system. Mechanical properties for dynamically vulcanized blends generally exceed those made with no vulcanization. Chlorobutyl‐containing blends prepared by dynamic vulcanization have higher tensile strength and elongation at break values in comparison to those made from other butyl rubbers. For a variety of polyamide/rubber blends made by dynamic vulcanization, there is very little effect of rubber percentage unsaturation and Mooney viscosity on the mechanical properties of the blends. In chlorobutyl‐containing blends prepared by dynamic vulcanization, the swelling index values attributed to the rubber portion decrease as rubber content decreases, and it is likely that the polyamide phase completely surrounds the rubber particles at compositions exceeding approximately 25% polyamide. Swelling index results can be correlated with elongation at break values for similar blends. The results of differential scanning calorimetry suggest that the polyamide phase is not a neutral component in high shear mixing with butyl rubbers with or without curing agents. Rheological studies indicate strong non‐Newtonian behavior for all blends of polyamide‐12 with butyl rubbers. Scanning electron microscopy on polyamide‐12/butyl rubber blends indicates compatibility for butyl rubbers in the order of chlorobutyl > bromobutyl > butyl rubber. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 93: 1423–1435, 2004
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".