MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792439233 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00554

Estimation of state and material properties during heat-curing molding of composite materials using data assimilation: A numerical study

2018· article· en· W2792439233 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ryosuke Matsuzaki, Takeshi Tachikawa, Junya Ishizuka

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Science and Technology CorporationSwine Innovation Porc
KeywordsThermosetting polymerMolding (decorative)Materials scienceCuring (chemistry)Thermal conductivityMoldComposite materialComposite numberData assimilationComputer simulationThermalComputer scienceSimulationThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate simulations of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) molding are vital for the development of high-quality products. However, such simulations are challenging and previous attempts to improve the accuracy of simulations by incorporating the data acquired from mold monitoring have not been completely successful. Therefore, in the present study, we developed a method to accurately predict various CFRP thermoset molding characteristics based on data assimilation, a process that combines theoretical and experimental values. The degree of cure as well as temperature and thermal conductivity distributions during the molding process were estimated using both temperature data and numerical simulations. An initial numerical experiment demonstrated that the internal mold state could be determined solely from the surface temperature values. A subsequent numerical experiment to validate this method showed that estimations based on surface temperatures were highly accurate in the case of degree of cure and internal temperature, although predictions of thermal conductivity were more difficult.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207