MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007986765 · doi:10.1115/1.4004322

Development of a New Model for the Varying Dynamics of Flexible Pocket-Structures During Machining

2011· article· en· W2007986765 on OpenAlexafffund
Mouhab Meshreki, Helmi Attia, József Kövecses

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMachiningAerospaceComputationVibrationFinite element methodStructural engineeringReduction (mathematics)Rayleigh–Ritz methodMechanical engineeringComputer scienceLimit (mathematics)Materials scienceEngineeringAlgorithmAcousticsAerospace engineeringGeometryMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the aerospace components are characterized by having pocket-shaped thin-walled structures. During milling, the varying dynamics of the workpiece due to the change of thickness affects the final part quality. Available dynamic models rely on computationally prohibitive techniques that limit their use in the aerospace industry. In this paper, a new dynamic model was developed to predict the vibrations of thin-walled pocket structures during milling while taking into account the continuous change of thickness. The model is based on representing the change of thickness of a pocket-structure with a two-directional multispan plate. For the model formulation, the Rayleigh–Ritz method is used together with multispan beam models for the trial functions in both the x- and y-directions. An extensive finite element (FE) validation of the developed model was performed for different aspect ratios of rectangular and nonrectangular pockets and various change of thickness schemes. It was shown that the proposed model can accurately capture the dynamic effect of the change of thickness with prediction errors of less than 5% and at least 20 times reduction in the computation time. Experimental validation of the models was performed through the machining of thin-walled components. The predictions of the developed models were found to be in excellent agreement with the measured dynamic responses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207