Impact of fiber orientation on cutting forces and surface quality in flax/epoxy composite machining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax/epoxy composites are recognized as an eco-friendly alternative to synthetic fibers in engineering. Understanding how fiber orientation affects cutting forces and surface characteristics is essential for machining these materials. This study investigates the relationship between fiber orientation and cutting forces (feed, normal, passive) as well as surface roughness in flax/epoxy composites. Results show that fiber orientation significantly impacts cutting forces. Cutting parallel to fibers (0° and 90° orientations) generally requires less force, with 0° needing higher normal force. At 0° orientation, feed force is 46.47 N, normal force is 58.86 N, and passive force is 54.44 N. At 90° orientation, feed force is 56.66 N, normal force is 44.68 N, and passive force is 50.95 N. Oblique orientations (45° and −45°) require higher forces, especially 45°, with the highest normal force of 77.95 N. Surface roughness analysis shows 90° orientation results in the lowest average roughness (Ra) of 10.97 µm but the highest surface roughness (Sa) of 34.25 µm. Conversely, 45° orientation has the highest Ra of 14.2 µm but lower Sa of 22.6 µm. Ra and Sa values for 0° orientation are 13.72 µm and 24.6 µm, and for −45° orientation, they are 12.3 µm and 21.8 µm. Correlation analysis reveals significant relationships between cutting parameters and surface quality, with higher feed rates correlating with smoother surfaces (lower Sa and Ra values). Fiber orientation also significantly influences fluffing defects, with 0° orientation minimizing these defects, while 45° and −45° orientations result in varied patterns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".