Rheological and mechanical properties of PEO/block copolymer blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small quantities of block copolymers from two families, styrene‐butadiene‐methylmethacrylate (SBM) and methylmethacrylate‐butylacrylate‐methylmethacrylate (MAM) have been added to a polyethylene oxide (PEO) in order to improve its processability, namely increasing its elastic modulus without increasing too much its shear viscosity. The copolymers contain one block of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) that is compatible with PEO; the other blocks create nano phases, dispersed in the PEO matrix. Considerable efforts were devoted to finding the best blending method, either melt processing or solution casting. PEO is very sensitive to shear, and was found to degrade both in the bulk and in solution. Degradation, which cannot be avoided, was quantified through intrinsic viscosity measurements. The rheological characterization of blends containing 1, 2, and 5 wt% block copolymer was carried out. The elastic modulus was found to increase more than the complex viscosity. Blends obtained by solution casting technique gave better results. The elongational viscosity obtained for one blend containing 5 wt% of SBM showed a slight increase with respect to the pure PEO. Mechanical properties were then investigated, through tensile tests and dynamic mechanical analysis in flexion and in torsion; the copolymer generally enhanced the mechanical properties. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:1385–1394, 2005. © 2005 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".