Effect of high pulling speeds on the morphologies of pultrudates in a thermoplastic pultrusion process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During thermoplastic pultrusion, increasing the pulling speed generally leads to a melted polymer pressure rise in the pultrusion dies. Yet, it was not clear if the polymer pressure’s increase would result in a faster impregnation flow that would compensate for the lower residency time inside the heating dies. Thus, the aim of this study was to verify if the speed-induced pressure can counterbalance the decrease in residency time that is required for impregnation quality and to analyze possible pultrudate morphology’s reconfiguration. Three distant pulling speeds were selected: namely 50, 500 and 1000 mm/min. Using a model, the polymer pressure in the pultrusion dies was computed to reach up to 1.0, 10.42, and 20.6 MPa for the respective pultrusion pulling speed. The morphology’s characterization showed a reconfiguration of the pultrudate at a higher pulling speed leading to larger unimpregnated agglomerations and polymer rich areas. The highest tensile strength achieved was 233.4 ± 1.5 MPa at 50 mm/min and dropped by around 20% when the pulling speed was raised to 1000 mm/min. The pultrudate reconfiguration at higher speed, attributed to delayed melting of PP fibers in underfilled dies, is deemed responsible for the loss in impregnation and mechanical properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".