Manufacture of Integral Skin PP Foam Composites in Rotational Molding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of applying the single-charge rotational foam molding processing principle to the fabrication of integral skin polypropylene (PP) foams comprising a PP solid skin and a PP foamed core is investigated in this study. A systematic process interruption and sample evaluation approach was used to quantify the experimental results and explore possibilities for improving the process control strategies to ultimately achieve a desired homogeneity and thickness uniformity of the solid PP skin layer that would be fully encapsulating the PP foamed core of a desired cell population density and average cell size. The experimental results revealed that this is quite a challenging task, not only because of the well-known intrinsically poor foaming nature of PP due to its low melt strength at elevated temperatures, but also because, in single-charge rotational molding, the processing parameters are often conflicting with each other and therefore, have to be optimized within a very narrow processing window. However, simultaneous, single-charge, quality PP integral skin and foamed PP core formation in rotational foam molding is feasible. Optimizing the heating profile, heating rate, heating time, and the mold rotational speed as well as careful selection of PP resins (or resin blends), chemical blowing agents (CBA), and their composition formulations is strongly recommended.
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".