ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014
A robust nanoscale experimental quantification of fracture energy in a bilayer material system.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulatory mechanism of interface adhesion and moisture damage in aged SBS-modified asphalt-aggregate systems modified with waste plastic and oxidized graphene.Journal of molecular modeling · 2025Article
- Analytical solution of nano-concrete-epoxy interaction area considering static equilibrium.Discover nano · 2024Article
- Current Advancement and Future Prospects: Biomedical Nanoengineering.Current radiopharmaceuticals · 2024Review
- Assessment of High Thermal Effects on Carbon Nanotube (Cnt)- Reinforced Concrete.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Electron work function - a probe for interfacial diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Effect of Acetyl Group on Mechanical Properties of Chitin/Chitosan Nanocrystal: A Molecular Dynamics Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of interfacial properties is critical any time two materials are bonded--in composites, tooth crowns, or when biomaterials are attached to the human body. Yet, in spite of this importance, reliable methods to measure interfacial properties between dissimilar materials remain elusive. Here we present an experimental approach to quantify the interfacial fracture energy Γi that also provides unique mechanistic insight into the interfacial debonding mechanism at the nanoscale. This approach involves deposition of an additional chromium layer (superlayer) onto a bonded system, where interface debonding is initiated by the residual tensile stress in the superlayer, and where the interface can be separated in a controlled manner and captured in situ. Contrary to earlier methods, our approach allows the entire bonded system to remain in an elastic range during the debonding process, such that Γi can be measured accurately. We validate the method by showing that moisture has a degrading effect on the bonding between epoxy and silica, a technologically important interface. Combining in situ through scanning electron microscope images with molecular simulation, we find that the interfacial debonding mechanism is hierarchical in nature, which is initiated by the detachment of polymer chains, and that the three-dimensional covalent network of the epoxy-based polymer may directly influence water accumulation, leading to the reduction of Γi under presence of moisture. The results may enable us to design more durable concrete composites that could be used to innovate transportation systems, create more durable buildings and bridges, and build resilient infrastructure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.