Silicone rubber and EPDM micro composites filled with silica and ATH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1970's two basic polymer compositions have been in use for outdoor electrical insulation applications as an alternative to porcelain and glass; these compositions are based on silicone rubber (SiR) and Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) and a mixture of these two compositions, called an alloy, is also in use. To impart erosion and tracking resistance under dry band arcing to these compositions when used for outdoor electrical insulation, various fillers such as alumina trihydrate and various silicas, natural and synthetic, are used. This paper discusses the effect of the addition of inorganic microfillers into silicone and EPDM compositions. Two types of microfillers were used in this study; namely, ATH and micro silica. The inclined plane test, according to ASTM D2303, was used to evaluate the tracking and erosion resistance of the micro filled composites. For SiR composites, at the same filler loading, no clear distinction could be found between the two types of fillers in the prevention of erosion in the inclined plane test. However, it became quite clear that EPDM composites with ATH filler are less prone to erosion than EPDM composites with silica filler.
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 | 0.001 | 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".