Manufacturing of Pitch Based Carbon Fibers through Microwave Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon fibers (CFs) are characterized by their excellent mechanical properties including high tensile strength and elastic modulus. In terms of manufacturing of CFs, the conventional thermal treatment processes, including stabilization and carbonization, account for at least 46% of the cost, which drastically restricts the widespread application of CFs. This study investigates the use of mesophase pitch-based CFs from different synthetic approaches based on the conventional thermal post-treatment versus microwave hybrid post-treatment processes. CFs were studied by using SEM, FTIR, TGA, XRD, and mechanical properties characterization. Compared with the CFs prepared from the conventional thermal post-treatment process (CFs-T), those by the microwave thermal hybrid post-treatment process (CFs-M) show similar crystalline degree which is confirmed by XRD analysis. The tensile strength and modulus of the CFs-T are 0.290 and 38.6 GPa, and those of the CFs-M are 0.176 and 18.5 GPa, respectively. Microwave treatment is expected to be a much more energy- and time-efficient way for CFs post-treatment and can serve as a potential alternative to the conventional thermal post-treatment process used in carbon fiber manufacturing. Implications of the findings, including the oxygen diffusion, and crystalline structure are highlighted and discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".