ArticleScientific reports2026
Multi-stimuli and AI-guided electrically-responsive self-healing nanocomposites for low-temperature structural applications.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self‑healing nanocomposites capable of operating under sub‑ambient aerospace conditions remain limited by slow reaction kinetics, single‑stimulus activation, and insufficient predictive control. In this work, we develop a multi‑stimuli and AI‑guided electrically‑responsive self‑healing nanocomposite based on urea‑formaldehyde nanocapsules (295 ± 58 nm; shell thickness 22 ± 4 nm) embedded in an aerospace‑grade epoxy matrix. The capsules incorporate conductive, magnetic, and photoactive domains, enabling activation by electric fields, magnetic fields, and optical stimuli. Mechanical testing (n = 5, ANOVA p < 0.05) shows that the system achieves rapid crack closure and healing efficiencies of 74% at - 10 °C and up to 92% at 0 °C under combined multi‑stimuli activation, significantly outperforming conventional thermally‑activated systems. Crack‑closure kinetics follow a first‑order model, with healing rate constants increasing from k ≈ 0 for pristine epoxy to k = 0.019-0.027 min⁻¹ for electrically and multi‑stimuli activated composites. High‑resolution SEM confirms capsule rupture and polymer bridging within the crack plane, while DSC verifies in‑situ polymerization of the released healing agent. Finite element simulations validate compatibility with aerospace electrical systems and confirm uniform field distribution around crack tips. A supervised machine‑learning framework (3,420 microscopy images; 1,150 FEA maps; F1 = 0.91) predicts crack initiation sites and optimizes activation parameters, reducing energy consumption to 0.27-0.42 J per healing event. A new Healing Availability Index 2.0, incorporating cyclic durability, multi‑cycle repairability, and energy demand, demonstrates a substantial improvement from 0.61 (pristine epoxy) to 0.93 (multi‑stimuli composite). These results establish a robust pathway toward intelligent, low‑temperature, and energy‑efficient self‑healing materials for next‑generation aerospace structures.
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.