The effect of piercing and drilling processes on burr formation and delamination of aged carbon and aramid fiber-reinforced polymer composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two major problems with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites during their machining that need to be addressed. The first concern is the delamination and formation of burrs at machined edges, and the second is the effects of aging leading to mechanical deterioration. In this study, carbon FRP (CFRP) and aramid FRP (AFRP) composites were manufactured by vacuum infusion method and aged for 2 years under natural environmental conditions. Piercing with three different clearances (1%, 5%, and 10% of sheet thickness) and speed of 4 m/s were performed. Additionally, conventional drilling was carried out at a feed rate of 0.2 m/min. The highest delamination factor difference between piercing and drilling processes was calculated as 7.3% and 13.9% for CFRP and AFRP, respectively. The highest burr amounts for AFRP and CFRP composites were obtained as 91.5% and 39% at 10% clearance for piercing process and 123% and 32.1% for drilling process, respectively. Compared with drilling, piercing generates less burr formation except for CFRP composites in the case of 10% clearance and more precise hole production. It is understood that piercing results significantly improve when smaller clearances up to 5% of the sheet thickness are utilized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".