Study of Positive Feed Drilling Parameters for Optimized Drilling in Stackups of Composite/Metallic Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Design limits in aerospace are constantly being challenged forcing engineers to look for materials and material combinations that will provide the strength needed, yet meet the lightweight requirements demanded throughout the industry. These material combinations provide demanding and unique challenges to all involved in the development of robust, reliable assembly processes. As advancements are pushed forward in aircraft materials, advancements must also be made in the technologies/methodologies used to drill close tolerance holes in these complex materials. These advancements will be discussed in the following paper.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Common stack-ups of aircraft materials include various combinations of graphite, aluminum, and titanium. Many problems arise when trying to drill the different combinations of these materials due to the extreme differences in physical properties. The primary factors considered in our studies were feed rates, cutter speed, and preferred cutter geometries for each material. In addition, the effects of forced air along with various coolants were studied and analyzed for possible application.</div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".