Effect Of Support Distance On Damage Of Drilled Thin Cfrp Laminates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe damages may occur during the drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP). In practice, this damage is limited by adding a backup support to the drilled parts. For some aeronautical parts with curvatures, backing up parts is a demanding process. In order to simplify the operation, this research studies the effect of using a configurable setup to support parts on the resulting quality of drilled holes. The test coupons referenced in this study are twenty four-plies unidirectional laminates made of carbon fibers and epoxy resin. Different signals were measured during the drilling process for these laminates, including the thrust force, the displacement and the acceleration. The processing of these signals demonstrated that the damage is due to the combination of two main factors: the spring-back of the thin part and the thrust force. The results found were confirmed for different feeds and speeds. When the distance between supports is increased, it is observed that the spring-back increases but the thrust force decreases. The study proves the feasibility of unsupported drilling of thin CFRP laminates without creating any observable damage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".