Foam injection molding of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites with laminate skins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sandwich panels which consist of discontinuous glass‐fiber reinforced polypropylene composite foam core and continuous glass‐fiber reinforced polypropylene laminate skins were manufactured using industry‐scale equipment in a streamlined manner. The streamlined process included two stages: (1) continuous glass‐fiber reinforced polypropylene laminates as the face skins were produced using an automated, rapid tape layup machine and a hydraulic press, and (2) discontinuous glass‐fiber reinforced polypropylene composite as the core was foam injection‐molded onto the laminate skins (i.e., overmolding), which eliminated bonding process of the foam core and laminate skins, with a physical blowing agent, nitrogen. Optical microscopy results suggested that the increase of void fraction by the core‐back (or mold opening) technique increased the average cell size and cell size distribution, but had little effect on the cell density of the foam core. Mechanical test results suggested that the addition of laminate skins increased the flexural modulus and flexural strength of the solid as well as foam composites significantly. In addition, the material indices were calculated for the sandwich panels manufactured in this study, and the results suggested that the addition of the laminate skins and foaming by the core‐back (or mold opening) technique can greatly reduce the weight of material needed to have the same bending stiffness and maximum bending force. COMPOS., 39:4322–4332, 2018. © 2017 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".