MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889918415 · doi:10.1177/0021998318798444

An infrared thermography-based method for the evaluation of the thermal response of tooling for composites manufacturing

2018· article· en· W2889918415 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Zobeiry, Cheol Park, Anoush Poursartip

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermographyMaterials scienceEmissivityThermocoupleComposite materialThermalInfraredConvectionHeat transferConvective heat transferBoundary value problemOpticsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The manufacture of large complex aircraft structures made of advanced composites is done by heating the parts on complex, thermally massive tools using convective heating inside autoclaves. In recent years, numerical simulation of the process has shown great value, but lack of knowledge of the convective heat transfer boundary conditions remains a major obstacle to widespread adoption. An infrared thermography method is presented, suitable for evaluating the thermal response of these processing conditions. The method is based on increasing the emissivity of a tool surface with a painted vacuum bag before thermal imaging. Accurate readings with an average temperature difference of 1.1℃ compared to thermocouple data were achieved. The benefit of the thermography method is the highly detailed surface temperature map. Three tools with very similar geometries but made of Invar, aluminum and carbon fibre composite, respectively, were tested, and results interpreted using analytical solutions for the different tooling feature and convective boundary condition combinations. Analytical simulations, which were validated by comparison to numerical models, explain well the effect of autoclave airflow, tooling material and sub-structure variation on the temperature profiles measured by this infrared thermography method.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207