Experimental study on gap bridging in contour laser transmission welding of polycarbonate and polyamide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laser transmission welding (LTW) is a technique for joining thermoplastics. During contour LTW, any gaps or spaces between the two parts along the weld seam may prevent a weld from forming. This work presents an experimental study on the effects of material property (carbon black level, glass fibers, and crystallinity), process parameters (laser scan power and scan speed), and weld gap thickness on the strength and microstructure of contour welds made of polycarbonate (PC), polyamide 6 (PA6), and PA6 reinforced with 30% glass fiber. Lap specimens, with weld lines parallel to the load direction during mechanical testing, were used to assess the weld shear strength. The results indicated that low concentrations of laser absorbing pigment accompanied by high laser power improve gap bridging. The study also indicated that a novel noncontact test method can be used to search for the optimized process parameters for gap bridging. The maximum gaps bridged were 0.2, 0.4, and 0.25 mm for PC, PA6, and reinforced polyamide 6, respectively. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2011. © 2011 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".