MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236900361 · doi:10.1515/ipp-2007-0012

Surface Defects of TPO Injected Foam Parts for Automotive Applications

2007· article· en· W4236900361 on OpenAlexaff
A. Santoni, Ming‐Cheng Guo, Marie‐Claude Heuzey, Pierre J. Carreau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Polymer Processing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolypropyleneMaleic anhydrideFourier transform infrared spectroscopySurface modificationComposite materialAutomotive industryThermoplasticPolymerChemical engineeringCopolymerEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Benefits of reduced vehicle weight can have an important environmental impact since there is a 6 to 8% improvement in fuel efficiency for every 10% in weight reduction. In this work, foaming technology is used to produce injection molded TPO parts (thermoplastic olefin compounds) for the automotive industry with a minimum of 20% weight reduction while retaining a glossy surface quality. It was found by Guo et al. (2006, 2007) that the best strategy to raise the surface quality was to decrease the shot size, the cycling time and the temperature of the injected melt. However, the targeted objective of a minimum of 20% weight reduction was not achieved in these preliminary experiments. Therefore, in this work a blend of TPO and maleic anhydride modified polypropylene (PP-g-MA) was used in order to promote TPO foamability and improve the surface quality of injected parts. Under these conditions, we managed to produce injected molded TPO samples with a 24% weight reduction and good surface quality. Moreover, we investigated the effect of PP-g-MA in the TPO system by performing rheological measurements and photoacoustic Fourier transform infrared (PA-FTIR) analysis to characterize the PP-g-MA physico-chemical interactions with TPO.

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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Polymer ProcessingSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207