A Cohesive Law for Carbon Nanotube/Polymer Interface Accounting for Chemical Covalent Bonds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of chemical bonds formed between a single-walled carbon nanotube (CNT) and a polymer matrix upon the interface behavior has been studied through the development of an interfacial cohesive law. By using the interatomic potential directly, the tensile cohesive stress and cohesive energy for the interface with opening mode separation are expressed in terms of the area density of the carbon atoms of the CNT, the volume density of the polymer molecules, the material constants of the CNT and the polymer matrix, the parameters in the van der Waals potential, and the Brenner potential and the chemical bond density. This cohesive law avoids any phenomenological assumption between the normal traction and interface opening displacement. For a CNT in an infinite polymer, the shear cohesive stress vanishes, and the tensile cohesive stress depends only on the opening displacement. The cohesive properties, such as the total cohesive energy, have increased significantly, which results in a stronger interfacial bonding due to the creation of new chemical bonds at the interface. The developed cohesive law is useful to study the interaction between the CNT and the polymer, such as in CNT-reinforced 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".