MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071107101 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-2325

Development of Low Cost Fuselage Frames by Resin Transfer Molding

2013· article· en· W2071107101 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEpoxy Resin Curing Processes
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsFuselageTransfer moldingMolding (decorative)Materials scienceComputer scienceComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper presents work on the development of a low cost fuselage C-frame for aircraft primary structure using a Light Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) process. Compared to labor intensive hand layup prepreg technologies, Light RTM offers some substantial advantages by reducing infrastructure requirements such as hydraulic presses or autoclaves. Compared to Prepreg, Light RTM tooling creates two finished surfaces, which is an advantage during installation due to improved dimensional accuracy. The focus of this work was to develop means of achieving high fiber volume fraction structural frames using low cost tooling and a low volume manufacturing strategy. In this case a three piece Light RTM mold was developed using an internal mandrel. To achieve the strength requirements, a combination of crimped and non-crimped fabrics were selected for the reinforcing preform. This made it possible to reduce the number of flat patterns by more than 8 times, saving layup time compared to the prepreg counterpart. The processing parameters were optimized to reduce cycle time. Permeability, in-situ resin cure monitoring and coefficient of thermal expansion tests were used in the numerical simulations. Process induced deformation and resin flow simulations were completed to provide input for the tool design. In addition to all the process improvements, risk mitigation testing was completed to validate the design allowables. This work was a collaborative effort by an integrated product development team consisting of design, stress and materials and processing functions.</div></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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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