Fracture and yielding behaviors of polystyrene/ethylene‐propylene rubber blends: Effects of interfacial agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this work is to investigate the effects of two triblock copolymers, used as coupling agents, on fracture and yielding behaviors of a blend of 80 volume % of polystyrene (PS) and 20 volume %of ethylene‐propylene rubber (EPR), over a large range of loading rates and temperatures. For this purpose, blends containing different concentrations of two triiblock copolymers were studied at various test conditions. The focus was put on the time‐temperature dependence of fracture performance of the blends. Addition of triblock copolymer makes the PS/EPR blend more ductile. The time‐temperature dependence of the brittle‐ductile transition in fracture performance of the blend is controlled by an energy activation process. The interfacial agent lowers the temperature at brittle‐ductile transition and reduces the energy barrier controlling the fracture process. This effect, however, is much more pronounced for the lower molecular weight interfacial agent. The correlation between temperature, loading rate and yield stress of the blends seems to be controlled by a molecular relaxation process according to the Ree‐Eyring theory. This model, based on the assumption of two relaxation processes (α and β) acting in parallel, allows prediction of yield stress at various loading rates and temperatures. Addition of the interfacial agents results in a reduction of the activation energy and an increase in the activation volume V * for both the α and β processes. Furthermore, the similarity of the value of the activation energy Δ H β in the β yielding process and the energy barrier Δ H controlling the brittle‐ductile transition in fracture seems to suggest that a similar secondary relaxation mechanism controls the yielding and the fracture behavior of the blend.
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".