Stamping of high performance thermoplastic composite intrusion beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, an experimental investigation was performed to evaluate the potential of thermoplastic composites to be used for the fabrication of an automotive intrusion beam using the composite stamping process. To assess the potential of this technology, mechanical properties of several high performance thermoplastic composite materials were first evaluated on coupons. Due to their higher load and displacement at failure, the most promising materials for the fabrication of a composite intrusion beam were found to be glass fibre/polypropylene (GF/PP) and carbon fibre/polyamide 66 (CF/PA66) laminates. Then, stamped intrusion beams were manufactured from these composites using three different stacking sequences. The beams were later tested under three-point flexural loading. For all components, failure occurred at the attachment points. However, higher properties were obtained for ± 45 laminates for which shear-out failure could be avoided. From the load-displacement curves obtained, it can nevertheless be concluded that stamping of thermoplastic composites is promising for the fabrication of intrusion beams, but that further development will be required to avoid failure at the attachment points.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".