Fracture of unsaturated polyester and the limitation of layered silicates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we explain why the incorporation of organically modified nano‐clay into unsaturated polyester resins, unlike epoxy, does not improve their fracture toughness despite continuing aggressive research activities based on this approach. The mechanism behind this phenomenon is explored by studying the effect of mixing method on improving the degree of exfoliation in simple nanocomposites and its final effect on fracture behaviour. Rheometry and X‐ray diffraction show that the two mixing methods lead to different degrees of exfoliation. The mechanical properties primarily depend on clay content and are less sensitive to degree of exfoliation. In the case of toughness, there is no observable effect of degree of exfoliation. This despite the increased fracture surface area evident in SEM images of the sample with finer exfoliation as compared with those of the sample with a lower degree of exfoliation. Dispersed silicate layers influence the toughness by increasing the tortuosity of the crack path locally while micron scale intercalated tactoids can result in crack deflection. Both of these mechanisms depend on localized plasticity for significant energy dissipation. Since unsaturated polyester has very low localized plasticity below ∼90°C, one cannot significantly improve its room temperature toughness by manipulating the micro‐/nanostructure of the nanocomposite the nanocomposite without incorporating another material. This new understanding of the fracture behavior of unsaturated polyesters and their nanocomposites allows for the development of more complex toughened systems. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 55:1303–1309, 2015. © 2015 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".