Kinetic Analysis of Thermal Degradation of Styrene–Butadiene Rubber Compounds Under Different Aging Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the impact of storage and operational aging on the thermal stability, structural degradation, and electrical properties of styrene–butadiene rubber (SBR) compound by analyzing three distinct materials: a laboratory-stored sample, an operationally aged one, and an original unaged reference. Thermal degradation was analyzed through thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), which examined weight loss as a function of temperature and time at different heating rates. Results showed that the onset temperature and peak position in the 457 °C to 483 °C range remained stable. The activation energy (Ea) was determined using the Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS), Flynn–Wall–Ozawa (FWO), and Friedman methods, with the original unaged sample’s (OUS) Ea averaging 203.7 kJ/mol, decreasing to 163.47 kJ/mol in the laboratory-stored sample (LSS), and increasing to 224.18 kJ/mol in the operationally aged sample (OAS). The Toop equation was applied to estimate the thermal degradation lifetime at a 50% conversion rate. Since the material had been exposed to electricity, the evolution of electrical conductivity was studied and found to have remained stable after storage at around 0.070 S/cm. However, after operational aging, it showed a considerable increase in conductivity, to 0.321 S/cm. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was employed to analyze microstructural degradation and chemical changes, providing insights into the impact of aging on thermal stability and electrical properties.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".