An Experimental Method to Study the Sensitivity of Transmission Laser Welding of Plastic Parts to Interfacial Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hollow polymer-based automotive components cannot, in general, be directly injection molded because they cannot be ejected from the mold. The common practice is to injection mold two or more parts, and then join these together with a welding process. Of the many joining process available, laser welding has an advantage in geometric design freedom. The laser weld joints are also generally stronger than those of vibration welds because the weld joints are located in the walls rather than on external flanges. Eliminating the external flanges also makes the part more compact. In transmission laser welding processes, the laser beam passes through a transparent part to its interface with an opaque part. The beam energy is absorbed near the interface in the opaque part, and heat flows back across to the transparent half to make the weld pool. So successful laser welds are possible only when there is a continuous interfacial fit between the parts. The new method measures what sort of interfacial non-contact areas can be tolerated, without degrading the integrity of the welded part. The test samples comprise two “hemispheres” joined together on mating flanges. Within the flange region of the mold are ten sub-inserts that create 66 different molded-in interfacial gaps on each flange. These are then welded at various laser welding parameters, and for 2 levels of carbon black in the opaque materials. Void healing is evaluated by inspection of transverse polished sections and fracture surfaces, as well as by hydraulic burst testing. An ancillary result is the burst strength tolerance of the welds to the level and size of the porosity created when the joints are overheated.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".