MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395666855 · doi:10.3390/polym16091209

Multiscale Modeling and Characterization of Graphene Epoxy Nanocomposite

2024· article· en· W4395666855 on OpenAlexaff
Collins Ekeowa, Jacob Muthu

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpoxyGrapheneMaterials scienceNanocompositeCharacterization (materials science)Multiscale modelingNanotechnologyComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to characterize graphene epoxy nanocomposite properties using multiscale modeling. Molecular dynamics was used to study the nanocomposite at the nanoscale and finite element analysis at the macroscale to complete the multiscale modeling. The coupling of these two scales was carried out using the Irving-Kirkwood averaging method. First, the functionalization of graphene was carried and 6% grafted graphene was selected based on Young's modulus and the tensile strength of the grafted graphene sheet. Functionalized graphene with weight fractions of 1.8, 3.7, and 5.6 wt.% were reinforced with epoxy polymer to form a graphene epoxy nanocomposite. The results showed that the graphene with 3.7 wt.% achieved the highest modulus. Subsequently, a functionalized graphene sheet with an epoxy matrix was developed to obtain the interphase properties using the MD modeling technique. The normal and shear forces at the interphase region of the graphene epoxy nanocomposite were investigated using a traction-separation test to analyze the mechanical properties including Young's modulus and traction forces. The mean stiffness of numerically tested samples with 1.8, 3.7, and 5.6 wt.% graphene and the stiffness obtained from experimental results from the literature were compared. The experimental results are lower than the multiscale model results because the experiments cannot replicate the molecular-scale behavior. However, a similar trend could be observed for the addition of up to 3.7 wt.% graphene. This demonstrated that the graphene with 3.7 wt.% shows improved interphase properties. The macroscale properties of the graphene epoxy nanocomposite models with 1.8 and 3.7 wt.% were comparatively higher.

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)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207