Preform shape and operating condition optimization for the stretch blow molding process
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, a new design approach was developed to automatically and consecutively predict optimal preform geometry and optimal operating conditions for the stretch blow molding process. The numerical approach combines a constrained gradient‐based optimization algorithm that iterates automatically over predictive finite element software. The strategy allows for targeting a specified container thickness distribution by manipulating consecutively the preform geometry (thickness and shape) and the operating parameters subject to process and design constraints. For the preform shape optimization, the preform geometry is mathematically parameterized for simplified treatment and the corresponding sensitivities are evaluated using a finite difference technique. A finite difference technique is also employed for the operating condition optimization. The constrained optimization algorithms are solved via the use of the sequential quadratic programming method that updates the design variables accordingly. Predicted optimization results obtained on an industrial case are presented and discussed to assess the validity when compared to experimental results and the robustness of the proposed approach. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 47:289–301, 2007. © 2007 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it