A three-dimensional transient model for heat transfer in thermoplastic composites during continuous resistance welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resistance welding technique for thermoplastic composites (TPCs) entails melting the TPC polymer at the joint interface using heat generated by resistive (Joule) heating of a conductive mesh or heating element placed between the surfaces to be welded. The continuous resistance welding (CRW) is an automated large-scale resistance welding technique that consists of a moving voltage source along the heating element creating a continuous weld along its path. This paper presents a transient model that is developed to predict the heat transfer in TPCs in all three dimensions during the CRW process. The model is finite element in nature and includes both the resistive and thermal conductivity behaviors of the material involved. The significance of this modeling approach is that it captures the movement of the electrical connection, as well as the nonuniform distribution of the current and resistive heating along the length and width of the weld seam. The modeling results are compared with experimental data obtained by thermocouples and an infrared camera, and exhibit solid conformance for predicting the trend of variations in weld temperature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".