MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027954258 · doi:10.1142/s1758825115400050

Micromechanics Modeling of Bi-Axial Stretching Effects on the Electrical Conductivity of CNT-Polymer Composites

2014· article· en· W2027954258 on OpenAlexafffund
Chuang Feng, Liying Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Mechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and Innovation
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialMicromechanicsCarbon nanotubeElectrical resistivity and conductivityConductivityElectrical conductorPercolation thresholdComposite numberPercolation (cognitive psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the bi-axial stretching effects on the electrical conductivity of carbon nanotube (CNT)-polymer composites are studied by a mixed micromechanics model with the consideration of the electrical conductive mechanisms. The bi-axial stretching effects are characterized by volume expansion of composite, re-orientation of CNTs and change of conductive networks. Simulation results demonstrate that the bi-axial stretching decreases the electrical conductivity of the composites due to the dominant role of the stretching-induced change in conductive networks, i.e., the increase in the percolation threshold, the separation distance among CNTs and the breakdown of the networks. It is also found that the bi-axial stretching enhances the decreasing rate of the electrical conductivity and increases the distribution randomness of the CNTs in the bi-axial stretching plane, as compared to a uni-axial stretching case. Furthermore, the dependency of the variation of electrical conductivity on the CNT concentration and sizes is also investigated. Possible reasons for the variation trends are interpreted. The study in this paper is expected to provide an increased understanding on the stretching effects upon the electrical conductivity of CNT-polymer 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied MechanicsSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207