Optimization of surface texturing parameters in additively manufactured continuous fiber composites using abrasive waterjet technique for composite repair applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Abrasive waterjet and additive manufacturing provide novel solutions for texturation. • Waterjet pressure and traverse speed are key factors affecting surface texturation. • Cv and Sa are more reliable surface profile metrics than Ra, Rv, and Rz. • Texturation prediction models for Cv and Sa closely align with experimental results. • Microscopy reveals material removal mechanisms and abrasive particle embedment. Surface texturing is critical in adhesive bonding strength, hence crucial for composite repair. This study evaluates the influence of abrasive waterjet (AWJ) machining as a texturing technique for surface preparation of additively manufactured (AM) composite parts. Effects of waterjet pressure (WP) and traverse speed (TS) on crater volume (Cv) and arithmetic mean height (Sa) were studied. Digital and electron microscopy validated surface textures, observed damage patterns, and assessed contamination due to abrasive embedment. Increasing WP from 60 to 100 MPa significantly increased Cv by 179.6 % and Sa by 410.6 %, highlighting its strong influence. In contrast, TS showed a secondary effect when increased from 10 to 20 m/min, with higher speeds producing smoother surfaces and reducing Cv and Sa by 30.78 % and 28.59 % respectively. The findings, supported by statistical analysis and multi-objective optimization, show that Cv and Sa are effective metrics for surface texture quantification in AWJ textured AM composite specimens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".