VARTM process of composites using double-bag air cushion method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduced the double-bag air cushion method (DBACM) as an economical and efficient manufacturing process of polymer composites associated with the vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) process. The method utilizes an improved double-bag along with several air cushions to create distribution channels for enhancing the resin flow during infusion. Experimental evaluation on resin infusion behavior and mechanical properties, including ultimate strength, void content, surface finish, and thickness uniformity, is performed for composites reinforced with both jute fibers and glass fibers. Results showed that the DBACM reduces the infusion time by more than 26.0% as compared with traditional VARTM. The difference in ultimate strength of the part between the DBACM and the VARTM is about 2.9%–3.9%. The void content of the E-glass composites is 1.3%–1.5% due to the few fissure-like microvoids, whereas the void content of the jute composites is high, about 2.4%–4.0%, because of the sparse spherical macrovoids. Additionally, there are no major differences in surface finish and thickness uniformity between the parts fabricated by DBACM and by conventional VARTM.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".