MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985934471 · doi:10.1504/ijmmm.2007.013789

Influence of material structure on deep hole machinability of super high strength steels: application to crankshaft manufacturing

2007· article· en· W1985934471 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Bomont Arzur, M. Confente, Olivier Bomont, Emmanuel Schneider, Christophe Lescalier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Machining and Machinability of Materials · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMitel (Canada)
FundersH2020 European Research Council
KeywordsMachinabilityCrankshaftForgingMachiningMaterials scienceMetallurgyUltimate tensile strengthLubricationDrillingMechanical engineeringManufacturing engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gain of productivity in machining is generally sought through tools and/or cutting conditions optimisation however an increase in productivity is achievable too through the work-material optimisation. The metallurgical structure as well as the chemical composition of steels widely influences their ability to be machined. Mittal Steel Europe Research and Development (R&D) develops new steel grades such as the Super High Strength Steels whose tensile stresses may reach 1000 or 1200 MPa. A cooperative research programme between Mittal Steel Europe R&D and ENSAM tends to propose a methodology able to sort the steel grades in terms of ability to be manufactured (in forging and machining). This study focuses on such an industrial application: the heavy vehicles crankshaft manufacturing. The operation investigated consists in deep hole drilling of the crankshaft lubrication holes. This paper proposes some relevant criteria to compare the different steel grades and/or structures. Some experimental results are proposed.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Machining and Machinability of MaterialsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207