Tensile and hardness properties of polycarbonate nanocomposites in the presence of styrene maleic anhydride as compatibilizer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the tensile strength and M‐Rockwell hardness of polycarbonate (PC)‐nanoalumina composites are investigated under various processing parameters. For this purpose, PC using a twin‐screw extruder is melt compounded with nanoparticle of Al 2 O 3 in the presence of styrene‐co‐maleic anhydride (SMA) as the compatibilizer. Influences of weight percentage of nanoalumina and injection processing parameters including injection pressure and holding pressure (all in four levels) are investigated on tensile and hardness properties of nanocomposite samples using Taguchi's L 16 orthogonal array. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results reveal that an appropriate distribution of nanoparticles in polymeric matrix is achieved. According to the results, nanoalumina content is the most effective parameter on tensile strength and hardness with about 51% and 85% contribution, respectively. Results indicate that by addition 1.5 wt% of nanoalumina, the tensile strength and hardness of samples increase as much as 4.5% and 11%, respectively. Also, the results reveal that injection pressure and holding pressure are also effective parameters to change hardness and tensile strength.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it