ArticlePolymers2026
Effects of Curing Schedules on Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Laminates with a Bio-Based Epoxy Matrix.
Article in Polymers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites fabricated with bio-based epoxy resins represent a promising approach for sustainable lightweight structures produced by out-of-autoclave (OoA) technologies. The curing schedule influences the state of the epoxy matrix and, consequently, can affect the fiber-matrix interaction and laminate performance. This study investigates the effect of practical curing conditions on 2 × 2 twill woven carbon fiber laminates fabricated by vacuum infusion using a commercially available bio-based epoxy resin IB2. The manufacturer's recommended room-temperature conditions (25 °C for 24 h) were compared with accelerated mold heating schedules at 40, 50, 60, and 70 °C for 12 h. The laminates were characterized by three-point tensile and flexural tests, heat deflection temperature (HDT) measurements, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and SEM fractography. The tensile response showed limited sensitivity to the investigated curing conditions, with mean tensile strengths ranging from 634.01 to 672.95 MPa; T60 exhibited the highest mean numerical tensile strength (672.95 ± 53.60 MPa) and tensile modulus (53.39 ± 11.53 GPa), although the differences were small relative to the experimental spread. In contrast, the flexural response was more sensitive to the processing conditions. T70 exhibited the highest average flexural strength (980.60 ± 129.03 MPa), strain at maximum flexural stress, and strain energy density to maximum stress (8.75 ± 1.89 MJ/m
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.