Effects of blown film process on initial properties of HPDE geomembranes of different thicknesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The differences in the properties of five high density polyethylene geomembranes (GMBs) of different thicknesses made by the same manufacturer from same GMB resin are investigated. The 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.4 mm thick GMBs investigated were manufactured during the same production run by changing the pulling speed of the GMB out of the extrusion die, such that, the pulling speed decreased with increasing thickness. There were no differences in the initial HP-OIT or Std-OIT values of the different GMBs. However, there were differences in the key mechanical and physical properties of the GMBs that cannot be simply explained by the increase in the amount of material due to increasing GMB thickness. These differences are explained by differences in the morphological structure of the GMBs arising from the different thermal and stress histories experienced during the manufacturing process. The effects of the differences in the morphological structure are discussed in terms of: the decrease in the relative differences between the stress–elongation curves in the machine and cross-machine directions as thickness increases; changes in the enthalpies of melting and crystallisation by differential scanning calorimetry with changing thickness; and the different stress crack resistance (SCR) for the GMBs. For example, thinner GMBs had a greater difference between the SCR in the machine and cross-machine direction. Increasing the GMB thickness from 1.5 to 2.4 mm resulted in increasing the SCR from ∼ 800 to ∼ 1100 h in the cross-machine direction and decreasing its SCR from ∼ 4100 to ∼ 2000 h in the machine direction. Thus, GMBs of different thickness manufactured from the same resin can be expected to have differences in their physical and mechanical properties that are dependent on the additional material but also the difference in the tension and cooling rate experienced during the manufacturing process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".