Experimental and Finite Element Simulation of Polyolefin Elastomer Foams Using Real 3D Structures: Effect of Foaming Agent Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, polyolefin elastomer (POE) foams were prepared without any curing agent using a single-step foaming technique. The effect of azodicarbonamide (ADC) content as a chemical foaming agent on the foams’ morphology and mechanical properties was studied using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), mechanical properties (tension and compression) and hardness. The results showed that increasing the ADC content from 2 to 3, 4 and 5 phr (parts per hundred rubber) decreased the foam density from 0.75 to 0.71, 0.65 and 0.61 g/cm3, respectively. The morphological analysis revealed that increasing the ADC content from 2 to 4 phr produced smaller cell sizes from 153 to 109 µm (29% lower), but a higher cell density from 103 to 591 cells/mm3 (470% higher). However, using 5 phr of ADC led to a larger cell size (148 µm) and lower cell density (483 cells/mm3) due to cell coalescence. The tensile modulus, strength at break, elongation and hardness properties continuously decreased by 28%, 21%, 16% and 14%, respectively, with increasing ADC content (2 to 5 phr). On the other hand, the compressive properties, including elastic modulus and compressive strength, increased by 20% and 64%, respectively, with increasing ADC content (2 to 5 phr). The tensile and compression tests revealed that the former is more dependent on foam density (foaming ratio), while the latter is mainly controlled by the cellular structure (cell size, cell density and internal gas pressure). In addition, 2D SEM images were used to simulate the foams’ real 3D structure, which was used in finite element methods (FEM) to simulate the stress–strain behavior of the samples at two levels: micro-scale and macro-scale. Finally, the FEM results were compared to the experimental data. Based on the information obtained, a good agreement between the macro-scale stress–strain behavior generated by the FEM simulations and experimental data was obtained. While the FEM results showed that the sample with 3 phr of ADC had the lowest micro-scale stress, the sample with 5 phr had the highest micro-scale stress due to smaller and larger cell sizes, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".