Experimental and numerical investigations of the damages induced while drilling flax/epoxy composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of the drilling parameters and the stacking sequence of flax/epoxy composite laminate on the cutting force and the damage induced were studied experimentally and numerically. Drilling tests were carried out based on full experimental design and the delamination at the entry and exit of the hole were quantified using an optical microscopy. Moreover, the damages at the wall of the hole were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Based on the experimental results, it was observed that the drilling forces and the machining quality are influenced on the one side by the spindle speed and feed and on the other side by the stacking sequence composite plate. In fact, the cutting forces recorded when drilling a composite plate with [90/0/90/0] 2s is 30% higher to the one recorded when drilling a composite made with quasi-isotropic stacking sequence. A numerical model was developed in ABAQUS/Explicit using Hashin’s failure criteria in order to predict the cutting forces and the defects induced by the interaction of the drill and composite as a function of the machining parameters. The developed model has been validated at the macro-scale (thrust force) and the meso-scale (delamination at the entry and exit of the hole).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".