Infrared observations and finite element modeling of a laser transmission welding process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser transmission welding (LTW), a technique to join thermoplastic components, involves a laser beam passing through a laser-transmitting part and then being absorbed by the laser-absorbing part at the weld interface. To form a strong bond, it is important that the weld interface be exposed to sufficient heat to melt the polymer without degrading it. A lap-joint geometry was investigated and the interaction between a stationary laser beam and the plastic was observed using a thermal imaging camera. Several coatings on the surface observed by the camera were evaluated. Time histories and temperature distribution on the sample surface transverse to the joint interface were obtained. Soot-coated surface was found to heat up in response to the scattered laser light, providing means for estimation of the scattered light intensity. The LTW welding process was modeled in three dimensions using a commercial finite element solver. This thermal model addresses the heating and cooling stages in a laser welding process in detail, including the effects of laser beam profile and laser beam scattering in a semicrystalline material. The model matched well the temperature distributions obtained by thermal imaging observations on the laser-absorbing part.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".