The Influence of Density on the Mechanical Response of Reinforced High-Density Polyurethane Foams: A Statistical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, rigid polyurethane foams (RPUF) reinforced by micro fibrillated cellulose (MFC) were manufactured using the free rising method and also under confinement inside a closed mould, aiming to increase apparent density and improve mechanical response. Neat RPUF were also manufactured for comparison. The mechanical response, evaluated by compression (following ASTM D1621 standard) tests were correlated with the final composite apparent density (evaluated following ASTM D1622 standard). Simple linear regression statistical models, based on F-test, were developed using stat graphics software, aiming to understand and correlate the increment in density and its influence on the improvement in mechanical response. Different models were developed to describe the foam behavior. The main results show a more significant influence of the density on strength than stiffness for the neat RPUF, unlike the MFC-reinforced RPUF, which presented an opposite response. These effects could be caused by the lower content of voids when the foams were produced under confinement, and by the greater crosslink density, when MFC was added.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".