Polymerization compounding of HDPE/Kevlar composites. I. Morphology and mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this work is to perform the polymerization compounding to improve the properties of Kevlar/PE composites. The approach consists in involving the surface of a reinforcement in a polymerization process of a polymer to be used either as a matrix in the final composite or as a special surface treatment to enhance solid/polymer interface properties in the composite. The polymerization compounding process is illustrated here with the polyaramid fibers as reinforcements and polyethylene as a matrix. The number of active sites on the fiber surface, initially insufficient to anchor the catalyst, were increased by a hydrolysis reaction prior to the polymerization. The anchored catalyst was subsequently used to conduct the Ziegler–Natta polymerization reaction of ethylene. The modified fibers were incorporated into the polyethylene resin to produce composites at fiber concentrations as high as 15 wt%. The morphology of the fibers and the composites was tested using electron microscopy. Finally, the mechanical properties of the composites (in impact and tensile tests) were measured to characterize the properties of model composites. Polym. Compos. 27:129–137, 2006. © 2006 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".