MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6993077633

Numerical simulation of shrinkage and warpage deformation of an intermittent-extrusion blow molded part: validation case study

2018· article· en· W6993077633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInjection Molding Process and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageBlow moldingMolding (decorative)ExtrusionThermoplasticDeformation (meteorology)MoldComputer simulationResidual stressWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intermittent extrusion blow molding is increasingly being used in polymer forming processes for the production of complex thermoplastic industrial parts with short cycle times. During this process residual stresses caused by inhomogeneous cooling and relaxation of polymer chains, often result in shrinkage and warpage of the final part. One challenging quality requirement of industrial blow molded parts is geometric tolerances. Therefore part deformation, due to cooling and solidification, needs to be controlled and optimized according to specific design criteria. In particular, the complex design shapes of plastic fuel tank (PFT) shells exacerbate these challenges which need to be resolved upfront, in the early stages of product development and tool design. Consequently, the development of an accurate simulation tool, well suited for industrial applications, to predict thermoplastic part deformations due to cooling and solidification, has become essential for part designers to help achieve an efficient production with minimum manufacturing cost. The aim of this work is to present the latest advancements in predicting the shrinkage and warpage deformation of a curved PFT, designed for agricultural machinery, using NRC’s BlowView software. This case study validation considers the entire blow molding stages (i.e., polymer flow in the die, parison formation, inflation, and finally in and out of mold cooling during part solidification). The simulation results, in terms of thickness distribution and displacements, are compared to an actual scanned part using the best fit technique in order to exemplify the accuracy and reliability of the modelling approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicInjection Molding Process and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207