Surface modification of ultra‐high‐molecular‐weight polyethylene. II. Effect on the physicomechanical and tribological properties of ultra‐high‐molecular‐weight polyethylene/poly(ethylene terephthalate) composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We performed surface modification of ultra‐high‐molecular‐weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) through chromic acid etching, with the aim of improving the performance of its composites with poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) fibers. In this article, we report on the morphology and physicomechanical and tribological properties of modified UHMWPE/PET composites. Composites containing chemically modified UHMWPE had higher impact properties than those based on unmodified UHMWPE because of improved interfacial bonding between the polymer matrix and the fibers and better dispersion of the fibers within the modified UHMWPE matrix. Chemical modification of UHMWPE before the introduction of PET fibers resulted in composites exhibiting improved wear resistance compared to the base material and compared to unmodified UHMWPE/PET composites. On the basis of the morphological studies of worn samples, microploughing and fatigue failure associated with microcracking were identified as the principle wear mechanisms. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2006
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".