Study of Processing Conditions on the Forming of Ribbed Features Using Randomly Oriented Strands Thermoplastic Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compression molding of randomly oriented strands (ROS) composites offers the possibility to manufacture complex parts with a fast processing cycle. In this paper, effects of pressure, strand size, temperature, and material placement in the mold cavity on the quality of a T-shape part were studied experimentally with carbon/polyether ether ketone ROS composites. Minimum filling pressure was obtained for the consolidation of a 25-mm deep cavity. Parts processed at filling pressure showed a void content no greater than 1.2%. Increasing pressure to 70 bar resulted in decreased void content as low as 0.03%. Mechanical testing of the T-shape showed similar strengths for parts processed at filling pressure and higher (70 bar). At the component level, initial strand placement greatly affected mechanical performance as the presence of a knit line was responsible for a reduction of 60% in tensile strength. The main findings show that processing a complex feature at filling pressure P fill was sufficient to reach nominal mechanical properties. This suggested that moderate porosity was not detrimental to the mechanical performance for the given tests where fatigue performance was not evaluated.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".