Fabrication of nonextruded recycled rubber–polyethylene composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study was conducted to investigate the possibility of one‐stage molding process skipping compounding extrusion for the fabrication of cross‐linked polyethylene (PE)‐ground tire rubber (GTR) composites. The process resulted in a wide range of composites with various properties. Response surface methodology technique based on central composite design was employed with variables: polyethylene content (PE: % per polymer fraction), dicumyl peroxide (DC: % per polymer fraction), molding residence time (RT: min), and filler content (F: % per total mass). A quadratic model was able to significantly describe tensile strength, elongation at break (EB), and impact resistance/energy of the composites as a function of PE, DC, RT, and F. Tensile strength (TS) was positively affected by PE, DC, and RT; however, it was negatively affected by the filler content. Tensile EB and impact resistance of the composites were improved by DC and RT, while reduced by PE and filler increment. Composites with TS, ultimate elongation, and impact resistance of 11.5 MPa, 140%, 244 MJ/m2, respectively, were obtained under optimized conditions. The nonextrusion molding process is recommended for the fabrication of PE‐GTR composites due to the higher stiffness/tensile modulus and a slightly lower strength of nonextruded composites compared to the extruded composites.
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".