Aspects of foaming a glass‐reinforced polypropylene with chemical blowing agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work explores the influence of a chemical blowing agent on different aspects of producing a short glass‐fiber‐reinforced polypropylene foam, examining the rheology of the system, the developed morphology of the part, and the resulting mechanical properties. Two different forms of an endothermic blowing agent, namely powder versus masterbatch, were compared to determine their effects on the process history and properties of an injection molded part. Samples were produced on an injection molding machine between 230 and 270°C using the low‐pressure foaming technique. Rheology of the resulting plasticized melt by the two different blowing agents was measured on an in‐line rheometer, showing a greater reduction in shear viscosity for the masterbatch additive, which correspondingly reduced the extent of fiber breakage observed. The final molded samples were analyzed for their foam structure (i.e., cell size, cell density, and skin thickness) as well as the properties of the glass fibers incorporated (namely, fiber length distribution). Tensile properties were found to diminish with increasing blowing agent content, though differences were observed based on the type of CBA used despite the similarities in foam structure produced. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 102: 4696–4706, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".