The role of crystallinity and reinforcement in the mechanical behavior of polyamide‐6/clay nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mechanical behavior of compression‐molded polyamide‐6 (PA6) reinforced with 2 wt% of organo‐nanoclay (montmorillonite intercalated with ω‐amino dodecanoic acid) has been studied and compared to that of PA6. The tensile strength and the Young's modulus of the PA6/clay were 15% higher than those of PA6. Differential scanning calorimetry, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and X‐ray diffraction showed that the crystalline structures of PA6 and PA6/clay differed considerably. A crystallinity of 25% with a dual structure composed of the γ and α forms was obtained in PA6/clay, while a crystallinity of 31% with the α form as the dominant crystalline structure was obtained in PA6. To understand the role of the crystalline structure of PA6, the molding process was modified to obtain PA6 specimens with different levels of crystallinity and different crystalline forms. Quenching molten PA6 at a cooling rate sufficiently high to prevent crystallization gave a material that was predominantly amorphous (crystallinity of 7%) with traces of the mesomorphic β or γ* form. Annealing this material at 80°C considerably increased crystallinity to 21%, which was also of the mesomorphic β or γ* form. PA6 with a predominant crystalline γ form could not be generated. Comparisons with PA6/clay in terms of crystallinity and mechanical behavior lead to the conclusion that the improvements in rigidity and strength observed when montmorillonite is added to PA6 are related to the reinforcing filler and not to a modification of the crystalline structure.
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".