Effect of uniaxial stretching on thermal, oxygen barrier, and mechanical properties of polyamide 6 and poly(m‐xylene adipamide) nanocomposite films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the effect of uniaxial stretching on the thermal, oxygen barrier and mechanical properties of aliphatic polyamide 6 (PA6) and aromatic Poly(m‐xylene adipamide) (MXD6) nylon films as well as their in‐situ polymerized nanocomposites with 4 wt% clay were studied. Cast films were prepared by extrusion process and rapidly cooled using an air knife. The precursor films were uniaxially stretched at 110°C with draw ratios varying from 1.5 to 5. DSC results showed that the cold crystallization temperature ( T cc ) of the uniaxially stretched MXD6 and MXD6/clay films drastically shifted to the lower temperatures when draw ratio increased. The aromatic nylon films had lower oxygen permeability than those of the aliphatic films, due to more rigidity and chain packing. However, the oxygen permeability of the stretched films increased with draw ratio (DR) up to a critical value for each sample, while further stretching resulted in a reduction in the oxygen permeation. This phenomenon was related to the changes in free volume upon uniaxial stretching. The ability of different geometrical models to describe the experimental relative permeability data was investigated. The Bharadwaj model that took into account clay orientation was the most successful one to predict the oxygen barrier characteristics of the stretched nanocomposites at high draw ratios. The Young's modulus and tensile strength of the aliphatic and aromatic nylons increased with uniaxial deformation, while the flexibility and elongation at break of the former decreased with increasing DR. A larger increase in the Young's modulus of the uniaxially stretched nanocomposite films compared with the neat samples was observed and could be related to the improvement in the clay orientation as well as a better alignment of the crystalline phase due to incorporating the clay platelets in the polymer matrix. In contrast, the flexibility of the stretched MXD6 improved remarkably (ca., 25 times) compared with the precursor film (DR = 1) when the draw ratio increased to 1.5. This could be related to the effect of hot stretching on the enhancement of polymer chains relaxation and mobility at low draw ratios. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 55:1113–1127, 2015. © 2014 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 | 0.001 | 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".