Fabrication and Mechanical and Thermal Behaviour of Graphene oxide/Epoxy Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bulk amount of graphite oxide was prepared by oxidation of graphite using the modified Hummers method and its ultrasonication in organic solvents yielded graphene oxide (GO). X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern, X-ray photoelectron (XPS), Raman and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy indicated the successful preparation of GO. XPS survey spectrum of GO revealed the presence of 66.6 at% C and 30.4 at% O. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of the graphene oxide showed that they consist of a large amount of graphene oxide platelets with a curled morphology containing of a thin wrinkled sheet like structure. AFM image of the exfoliated GO signified that the average thickness of GO sheets is ~1.0 nm which is very similar to GO monolayer. GO/epoxy nanocomposites were prepared by typical solution mixing technique and influence of GO on mechanical and thermal properties of nanocomposites were investigated. As for the mechanical behaviour of GO/epoxy nanocomposites, 0.5 wt% GO in the nanocomposite achieved the maximum increase in the elastic modulus (~35%) and tensile strength (~7%). The TEM analysis provided clear image of microstructure with homogeneous dispersion of GO in the polymer matrix. The improved strength properties of GO/epoxy nanocomposites can be attributed to inherent strength of GO, the good dispersion and the strong interfacial interactions between the GO sheets and the polymer matrix. However, incorporation of GO showed significant negative effect on composite glass transition temperature (Tg). This may arise due to the interference of GO on curing reaction of epoxy.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".