Foamability of Thermoplastic Vulcanizates Blown with Various Physical Blowing Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) is a special class of thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) made of a rubber/plastic polymer mixture in which the rubber phase is highly vulcanized. It is prepared by melt mixing a thermoplastic with an elastomer and by in situ crosslinking of the rubber phase. Currently, TPV is replacing EPDM rubber dramatically because of the impressive advantages for automotive sealing applications. Some of the advantages of TPV compared to that of EPDM rubber are good gloss, recyclability, improved colorability, shorter cycle time, and design flexibility. The development of TPV foaming technology is to fulfill the requirement of achieving lower cost, lighter weight, and better fuel economy. Foaming of TPV has not been investigated extensively. The complete dissolution of the blowing agent in the molten polymer is the most critical step in TPV foaming processing, and this strongly depends on the solubility of the blowing agent, the saturation pressure, the degree of mixing, and residence time. In our study, we attempted to understand the foaming behavior of commercial TPVs in general, with various blowing agents. The effect of blowing agent type and concentration on the expansion behavior, the cell-number density, and the foam structure under the different processing conditions are examined. These experimental results will be used to determine optimized TPV formulations to ensure good foamability, while retaining the properties of TPV.
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".