Surface Modification of Reinforcing Fibres for Enhanced Interfacial Properties in Polymer Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanical integrity of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites is dependent on the adhesion of the constituents at the fibre-matrix interface, as it is the primary location for stress transfer and dissipation. Surface modification of synthetic and natural reinforcing fibres allows for the modulation of the interphase region to promote enhanced mechanical properties in FRP composites. The present research aimed to understand the effect of graphene oxide (GO), a two-dimensional nanomaterial, and polyether amine (PEA), an amine-terminated, aliphatic polymer, based fibre surface coatings on the interfacial adhesion of carbon/epoxy and flax/epoxy composites. GO nanomodification, applied via dip coating, improved the interfacial adhesion of carbon/epoxy composites by 28%, while maintaining the inherent carbon fibre mechanical properties. Subsequently, flax/epoxy composites experienced a 30% and 46% improvement in the transverse fibre bundle tensile (TFBT) strength and strain-at-failure, respectively, upon the application of a bi-layer GO/PEA coating, producing a toughening effect within the interphase region.
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".