Mechanical Deformation of High-Impact Polystyrene under Uniaxial Tension at Various Strain Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tensile properties of two high-impact polystyrenes (HIPS), named 0.84S and 0.45S, were evaluated at four strain rates, from 2.7 × 10 -3 to 1.8 × 10 s -1, using un-notched dumbbell specimens. Under the strain rates up to 1.6 × 10 -1 s -1, 0.84S showed slightly higher fracture energy than 0.45S, where the fracture energy is defined as the total area under the force−displacement curve. However, when the strain rate was further increased to 1.8 × 10 s -1, the difference was remarkably increased, due to a dramatic increase of the fracture energy for 0.84S at the highest strain rate, 1.8 × 10 s -1 . The high fracture energy for 0.84S was found to come mainly from the fracture strain. The microscopic examination, using optical microscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), shows the trend of deformation behavior, which supports the tensile test results, and suggests that the adiabatic deformation process, which has long been known to cause the fracture energy increase at high strain rates for many polymers, does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the results presented here. Instead, it is believed that at the highest strain rate the molecular stretch, instead of the molecular flow, dominated the craze fibril deformation and resulted in the craze proliferation around the rubber particle. Such a craze proliferation mechanism did not occur in 0.45S, because unlike 0.84S, the displacement misfit between particle and matrix was insufficient to initiate crazes. As a result, the fracture strain and the fracture energy were limited. We conclude from the study that the different capability to initiate crazes is a dominant factor for the significantly different fracture energy of the two HIPS at the highest strain rate.
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) | 0.003 | 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".