Cell structure and dynamic properties of injection molded polypropylene foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cell structure and properties of branched and linear polypropylene (PP) foams containing organically modified nanoclay and maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (PPMA) have been thoroughly investigated. X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and melt rheometry were used to identify the structure and linear viscoelastic properties of the nanocomposites, as well as the effectiveness of two different compatibilizers. These nanocomposites were used in injection molding to investigate their foamability and the influence of experimental conditions such as chemical foaming agent concentration, shot size, back pressure, injection speed, as well as melt temperature and different injection methods on the resulting cell structure of the foams. Quite different results were obtained with the linear and the branched PP. While the foamability of the branched PP was intrinsically good, that of the linear one could largely be improved by modifying its rheological properties and favoring nucleation through the addition of nanoclay. The effect of cell structure on the dynamic mechanical properties of the foams was also investigated using dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). POLYM. ENG. SCI., 47:1070–1081, 2007. © 2007 Society of Plastics Engineers
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".