MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983996627 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12992

Optimization of the Cutting Conditions for High Speed Drilling of Woven Composites

2013· article· en· W1983996627 on OpenAlexaff
Mouhab Meshreki, Karim Hamza, Ashraf O. Nassef, Helmi Attia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessPopulationKrigingThrustDrillingEvolutionary algorithmComputer scienceDelamination (geology)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMachine learningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work proposes a new algorithm for the optimization of cutting parameters in the high speed drilling of woven composites. The cutting parameters under consideration are the feed rate and the spindle speed. Three performance parameters are to be minimized. These are the exit delamination, the surface roughness and the thrust force. These performance parameters are observed experimentally. One of the challenges that face the experimental testing of these parameters is the high cost of the drilling tools and specimen materials. Therefore, the minimization of the number of experimental tests is a necessary requirement. The algorithm presented hybridizes Kriging as a meta-modeling technique with evolutionary multi-objective optimization to optimize the cutting parameters while intelligently selecting the new set of cutting parameters in each iteration. After starting with a factorial design of the search space, and after testing the performance criteria at these points, the algorithm fits a multi-dimensional surface using Kriging. This step is followed by an evolutionary search on the fitted model. The search spreads a population of search points in the direction of better performance criteria as well as in the direction of un-sampled space. The previous two steps are conducted iteratively for a pre-defined number of iterations. In the final iteration, the population of search points is clustered to yield a small number of new points at which the new experiments will be conducted. The whole process is iterated until the maximum number of allowable experiments is achieved. The algorithm is tested using an existing set of previously published experimental data that are dense enough to predict the actual response surface of the performance criteria. Results showed that the algorithm smartly moved into the direction of higher performance criteria with a low number of experimental trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207