MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134090603 · doi:10.3390/ma14051161

3D Finite Element Model on Drilling of CFRP with Numerical Optimization and Experimental Validation

2021· article· en· W3134090603 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillThrustDrillingMaterials scienceFinite element methodFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When drilling Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) materials, achieving acceptable hole quality is challenging while balancing productivity and tool wear. Numerical models are important tools for the optimization of drilling CFRP materials in terms of material removal rate and hole quality. In this research, a macro-Finite Element (FE) model was developed to accurately predict the effect of drill tip geometry on hole entry and exit quality. The macro-mechanical material model was developed treating the Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) as an Equivalent Homogeneous Material (EHM). To reduce computational time, a numerical analysis was performed to investigate the influence of mass scaling, bulk viscosity, friction, strain rate strengthening, and cohesive surface modelling. A consideration must be made to minimize the dynamic effects in the FE prediction. The experimental work was carried out to investigate the effect of drill tip geometry on drilling forces and hole quality and to validate the FE results. The geometry of the drills used were either double-point angle or a "candle-stick" profile. The 3D drilling model accurately predicts the thrust force and hole quality generated by the two different drills. The results highlight the improvement in predicted results with the inclusion of cohesive surface modelling. The force signature profiles between the simulated and experimental results were similar. Furthermore, the difference between the predicted thrust force and those measured were less than 9%. When drilling with a double-angle drill tip, the inter-ply damage was reduced. This trend was observed in FE prediction.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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