Study on mechanical properties and material distribution of sandwich plaques molded by co‐injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the sandwich injection molding process (co‐injection), two different polymer melts are sequentially injected into a mold to form a part with a skin/core structure. Sandwich molding can be used for recycling, improving barrier and electrical properties, or producing parts with tailored mechanical properties. In this study the evaluation of flexural modulus and impact strength of co‐injected plaques have been investigated. Virgin and short glass fiber reinforced (10 and 40%) polypropylene were used in six different combinations of sandwiched layers. The skin and core thicknesses were measured by optical microscopy and used to calculate the theoretical flexural modulus, which was compared to the experimentally measured modulus. Fiber orientation states were also observed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) at some specific locations and their effect on mechanical properties discussed. The experimental results indicate that an important improvement in transverse modulus, near the gate, is obtained when the virgin polypropylene (PP) is used as a skin and 40% short glass fiber polypropylene (PP40) as core. When both skin and core are made of PP40, the flexural moduli are slightly higher than conventionally injected PP40. POLYM. COMPOS. 26:265–275, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".