Effect of tool temperature on dimensional fidelity and strength of thermoformed polyetheretherketone composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents an experimental study of the effect of tool/consolidation temperature on dimensional fidelity and curved beam strength of thermoformed carbon/PEEK composites made of continuous fibers and random oriented strands (ROS). When processing continuous fiber carbon/PEEK composites, higher tool/consolidation temperatures give higher curved beam and inter‐ply strength and more repeatable process induced deformations. Spring‐in increases with tool temperature but the spring‐in is repeatable and flange warpage is reduced because of lower resin viscosity and increased material flow during consolidation. For the ROS material form, no increase in curved beam strength was observed with higher consolidation temperatures and failure was not governed by the inter‐ply strength of the laminate because of the shorter fibers. Lower tool/consolidation temperatures gave less spring‐in and flange warpage was not dependent on consolidation temperature. Spring‐in for both material forms was found to be thermo‐elastic with no effects from crystallization shrinkage.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".