Modeling and experimental investigation of induction welding of thermoplastic composites and comparison with other welding processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-dimensional finite element model of the induction welding of carbon fiber/polyphenylene sulfide thermoplastic composites is developed. The model takes into account a stainless steel mesh heating element located at the interface of the two composite adherends to be welded. This heating element serves to localize the heating where it is needed most, i.e. at the weld interface. The magnetic, electrical, and thermal properties of the carbon fiber/polyphenylene sulfide composite and other materials are identified experimentally or estimated and implemented in the model. The model predicts the temperature–time curves during the heating of the composite and is used to define processing parameters leading to high-quality welded joints. The effect of the heating element size and input current on the thermal behavior is investigated, both experimentally and using the developed model. The welds quality is assessed through microscopic observations of the weld interfaces, mechanical testing, and observations of the fracture surfaces. A comparison with two other welding processes, namely resistance welding and ultrasonic welding is finally conducted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".