MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163005782 · doi:10.3390/jcs5050137

Temperature Study during the Edge Trimming of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic [0]8/Ti6Al4V Stack Material

2021· article· en· W3163005782 on OpenAlexaff
Arquimedes Castillo-Morales, Xavier Rimpault, Jean-François Châtelain, Gilbert Lebrun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMachinabilityRivetComposite materialTitanium alloyMachiningFibre-reinforced plasticDelamination (geology)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDrillingTrimmingThermal conductivityMechanical engineeringAlloyMetallurgyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) and Titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) stacks are used extensively in the modern aerospace industry thanks to their outstanding mechanical properties and resistance to thermal load applications. Machining the CFRP/Ti6Al4V stack is a challenge and is complicated by the differences in each constituent materials’ machinability. The difficulty arises from the matrix degradation of the CFRP material caused by the heat generated during the machining process, which is a consequence of the low thermal conductivity of Ti6Al4V material. In most cases, CFRP and Ti6Al4V materials are stacked and secured together using rivets or bolts. This results in extra weight, while the drilling process required for such an assembly may damage the CFRP material. To overcome these issues, some applications employ an assembly that is free of bolts or rivets, and which uses adhesives or an adapted curing process to bond both materials together. The present research analyzes a thermal distribution and its effect on quality during the edge trimming process of a CFRP/Ti6Al4V stack assembly. Different types of tools and cutting parameters are compared using thermocouples embedded within the material and others on the tool cutting edge. In contrast to previous studies, the feed rate was the most significant factor affecting the cutting temperature and quality of the workpiece, while the cutting speed had no significant impact. The temperature in the workpiece increases as the feed per tooth decreases.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites ScienceSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207