MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116050860 · doi:10.82417/96qg-ct83

Impact of preparation methods on dielectric and mechanical properties of graphene-epoxy nanocomposites

2025· other· en· W7116050860 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberGrapheneDielectricDynamic mechanical analysisDispersion (optics)NanocompositeRheologyUltrasonic sensorRheometryViscosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proper dispersion of graphene in epoxy is essential for enhancing nanocomposite properties and requires control of processing methods. Here, epoxy/graphene composites (E/G, 1% wt) were prepared via solution mixing. To evaluate the effect of additional dispersion treatments, the graphene/acetone suspensions before mixing with epoxy, or uncured E/G samples, were further mixed using an ultrasonic bath (UB) or ultrasonic probe (UP). The rheological properties of the uncured materials were analyzed performing small amplitude oscillatory shear (SAOS). The morphology of the cured samples was observed by optical microscopy and their electrical and mechanical properties by broadband dielectric spectroscopy, and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) respectively.The modulus of the composites varied depending on the treatment applied. Untreated E/G exhibited a lower storage modulus (G') at low frequencies compared to the neat epoxy. This is attributed to the slippage of aggregates within the composite, a phenomenon known as ""lubrication effect."" UB treatment of the E/G composite did not significantly impact G'. Conversely, applying UB (1 h) to the graphene/acetone suspension increased G’, indicating an improved graphene distribution, favored by processing at lower viscosity that may facilitates the ultrasonic wave propagation. Microscopy images confirmed reduced agglomerates, though average particle size remained unchanged.UP treatment was more effective, leading to a higher G' after 10 minutes at 25% amplitude. However, excessive UP treatment (75% amplitude for 30 minutes) reduced G'. The lower G' is associated with graphene sheet fragmentation, as observed in microscopy images showing reduced sheet size, potentially compromising reinforcement. Direct UP application to the E/G composite led to polymer degradation.The dielectric properties of neat epoxy and E/G composites were analyzed using a combination of Havriliak-Negami function and a conductivity term to take into account charge fluctuations. The relaxation time of the dipolar processes was further modeled with the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation, providing the activation energy of the ?-relaxation mechanisms, reflecting molecular mobility restrictions. While untreated E/G showed activation energy similar to that of neat epoxy, UB treatment increased activation energy, suggesting improved graphene dispersion and greater restriction of molecular motion of the epoxy chains. This was confirmed by DMA, which showed increased storage modulus, loss modulus, and glass transition temperature, indicating a more rigid polymer with enhanced filler-matrix interactions.In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of optimizing processing parameters. The UP(25%-10min) applied to the graphene suspension improved the dispersion without fragmenting the sheets, resulting in higher activation energy and improved dynamic mechanical properties.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)French-language works237,207