MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2357582425

Effect of Nano-silica Content on Properties of Waterborne Polyurethane Composites

2008· article· en· W2357582425 on OpenAlexaff
Dhen Jing

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer composites and self-healing
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyurethaneUltimate tensile strengthThermogravimetric analysisIsophorone diisocyanateDifferential scanning calorimetryComposite materialThermal stabilityChemistryComposite numberMaterials scienceChemical engineeringOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have prepared waterborne polyurethane(WPU) nano-SiO2 composites by in situ polymerization,during which modified silica sol was first mixed with the N-methyl-pyrolidone(NMP),and then polyme-rization was carried out with the addition of isophorone diiocyanate(IPDI),polycaprolactone(PCL) dimethylol-propionic acid(DMPA) and dibutyltin dilaurate.Effects of nano-silica content on the thermal and mechanical properties of WPU/nano-silica composites were investigated by thermogravimetric analysis(TGA),differential scanning calorimetry(DSC),transmittance electron microscopy(TEM) and dynamic mechanical analysis(DMA).The experiment results show that the nano-silica particles were well dispersed in the WBPU solution when the silica content was lower than 3.0%,a wider Tg gap and higher microphase separation degree between soft and hard segment were observed for WPUNS,and the thermal degradation temperature of the composite was higher than that of a pure WPU at temperature over 50 ℃.Besides,as the nano-silica content was increased from 0 to 0.5%,the elongation at break and water swell were decreased from 550% to 430% and 16.8% to 4.5%,respectively,while,the tensile strength was increased from 3.4 MPa to 5.95 MPa.As the nano-silica content was increased to 2.5%,the elongation at break and water swell decreased to 210% and 2.3%,and the tensile strength increased to 7.58 MPa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolymer composites and self-healingFrench-language works237,207