Thermoplastic composite sandwich panels with recycled PET foam core: A manufacturing process assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempts to modify two distinct lamination processes of double-belt and compression molding to produce environmentally sustainable full thermoplastic sandwich panels. A precise assessment of fabrication parameters was conducted to ensure the quality of sandwich panels made of glass/Polypropylene composite skin and 100% recycled PET foam core sourced from consumer waste bottles. Evaluations of the skin-to-core adhesion properties revealed that the PET foam density in conjunction with the fabrication approach can affect the layers’ bonding. The formation of satisfactory interlayer connection under controlled process parameters was confirmed by Peel-off and flatwise tensile test results. Moreover, complementary three-point bending analyses highlighted deviations in panel performance. Panels manufactured by the compression molding method exhibited superior load-bearing capacity compared to those made via a double-belt machine. These observations are attributed to the inherent nature of the lamination procedures, taking single or multiple thermal treatment phases to fabricate the sandwich panels. Finally, the findings suggest that despite potential slight quality degradation, the production continuity capability of the double-belt method makes it a viable option for meeting industry requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 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".