Vulcanization behavior and mechanical properties of organoclay fluoroelastomer nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The vulcanization behavior and mechanical properties of clay/fluoroelastomer nanocomposites produced by melt‐mixing of Dyneon FPO 3741 (a terpolymer of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, and tetrafluoroethylene) with 10 phr of unmodified montmorillonite (CloisiteNA) or di(hydrogenated tallow‐alkyl) dimethyl ammonium‐modified montmorillonites (Cloisite15A and Cloisite20A) were studied. The properties of clay/FKM nanocomposites were compared with composites prepared using 10 and 30 phr of carbon black. The effects of clay surfactant and surfactant concentration on the vulcanization behavior, mechanical, and dynamical properties of peroxide cured composites were studied. XRD results of cured composites showed a decrease in d‐spacing and indicated deintercalation of the clays after the vulcanization process. It was also found that organoclays retard the FKM peroxide vulcanization process. Significantly, higher maximum torque on vulcanization was obtained with organoclays versus unmodified clay and carbon black. Although the morphologies of organoclay/FKM nanocomposites studied by XRD and TEM suggest similar intercalated/exfoliated structures, the organoclay with the lowest concentration of surfactant (95 meq/100 g clay) resulted in the highest increase in torque, modulus, hardness, and tear strength in the clay/FKM nanocomposites. It was also found that organoclays can increase both the hydrodynamic reinforcement and hysteresis loss of FKM nanocomposites. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2011
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".