4.7 Article

A decision tree approach for energy ef fi cient friction riveting of polymer/metal multi-material lightweight structures

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 292, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125317

关键词

Friction riveting; AA 6063; Polycarbonate; Bonding; Hybrid joint

资金

  1. Mepco Schlenk Engineering College (Autonomous), Sivakasi, Tamilnadu, India [OF/GT/F01/5309/2017-2018]
  2. [OF/EDC/3163/2016-2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Friction riveting is an efficient method for joining polymers to metals, with potential for achieving maximum tensile load of 5.75 kN by selecting suitable process parameters such as rotational speed, friction time, and depth of friction riveting.
Friction riveting has emerged out as a promising candidate for joining polymers to metals, since it is energy efficient, fast and eco-friendly without material wastage and pre and post processing and cleaning. For sustainable manufacturing of car ports, automobile panels and aircraft structures, there is a need for joining of polycarbonate to AA 6063 using friction riveting technique. Hence in the present work, Polycarbonate/AA 6063 combination is joined employing friction riveting with a new slotted end rivet. Microstructural examination reveals a visible deformation during the penetration of AA 6063 rivet that provides excellent anchoring. Decision tree is an exploration approach that is applied on friction riveting experimentation data and it has derived meaningful information out of testing data to reach the maximum possible tensile load carrying capacity by a friction riveted joint within the production constrains. The maximum tensile load of 5.75 kN can be achieved when rotational speed, friction time and depth of friction riveting are kept above at 2050 rpm, 37.5 sec and 9 mm respectively. It is helpful in industries during selection of different combination of process parameters to obtain the desirable joining strength. ? 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据