ArticlePolymers2022
Void Content Determination of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers: A Comparison between Destructive and Non-Destructive Methods.
Article in Polymers, 2022. 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical and physical properties investigations of carbon fiber prepreg composites fabricated by the out-of-autoclave method with rapid curing for prosthetic foot applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Recent Trends in Non-Destructive Testing Approaches for Composite Materials: A Review of Successful Implementations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analysis of the Influence of Manufacturing Technology on Selected Static, Fatigue and Morphological Properties of CFRP Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterization of the Polyetheretherketone Weldment Fabricated via Rotary Friction Welding.Polymers · 2023Article
- Article
- Laser-Generated Guided Waves for Damage Detection in Metal-Lined Composite-Overwrapped Pressure Vessels.Polymers · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The properties of composite materials are highly dependent on the fiber and matrix fraction and on the porosity resulting from micro voids. This paper addresses void content characterization and the constituent content of composite materials by resorting to a comparison of destructive and non-destructive methods. The work presents the detailed procedures of two destructive methods, using acid digestion of epoxy resins matrices, and compares their processes. It also presents the results of a non-destructive method, by means of Micro Computed Tomography (MicroCT). The results of both destructive and non-destructive methods are compared, and a recommendation is made based on the application and the type of composite being analyzed. The MicroCT showed better and more consistent results in detecting voids in the material, while the acid digestion tests provided better results about the fiber and matrix percentage. Exported results from the MicroCT scanning with actual locations of voids were used in numerical analysis, to examine the feasibility of using them, whether by developing models that map damage in the proximity of the void, or by developing models that predict the properties of the entire material with respect to the content, shape, and distribution in the material.
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.