Injection Molded Strong Polypropylene Composite Foam Reinforced with Rubber and Talc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lightweight plastic foams are of great significance for saving resources and reducing energy consumption. Foam injection molding (FIM) shows a promising future to provide lightweight and shape‐complex plastic components. However, it is still challenging to produce lightweight and strong polypropylene (PP) foams by FIM due to PP's poor foaming ability. Herein, rubber and talc are employed to improve PP's foaming ability, and hence to enhance PP foam's mechanical properties. Due to the significantly enhanced rheological properties, injection molded PP composite foam exhibits greatly refined and homogenized cellular structure compared with pure PP foam. Thanks to rubber toughening effect and improved cellular morphology, PP/rubber foam shows much higher ductility than pure PP foam. Moreover, talc particles lead to remarkably enhanced rigidity of PP/rubber foams. Thus, lightweight and strong PP/rubber/talc composite foam is achieved with tensile toughness increased by 82.58% and impact strength increased by 106.21%, and they show broad industrial application prospects.
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".