MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029330789 · doi:10.1080/19397038.2011.634033

Initial analysis of cost, energy and carbon dioxide emissions in single point incremental forming – producing an aluminium hat

2011· article· en· W2029330789 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLubricantAluminiumEmbodied energyProcess (computing)Carbon dioxideProcess engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringMetallurgyMaterials scienceComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an initial analysis of cost, energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that occur in producing a unique aluminium hat using single point incremental forming (SPIF) for two scenarios is performed. The aluminium hat was custom designed and made from Al-3003 O and is formed using a custom steel alloy SPIF tool and vertical computer numeric control (CNC) mill. The second scenario (S2) involved doubling the feed rate and step down increment of the first scenario (S1), as well as using an eco-benign lubricant. The cost and energy used for the SPIF process without labour were found to be $4.48 and 4580 kJ (1.27 kWh) for S1 and $4.10 and 1420 kJ (0.39 kWh) for S2, respectively. The respective direct electrical energy required for making the hat was only 16% and 27% of the total required process energy for S1 and S2. Using virgin or traditional emission intensity inputs for the tool, lubricant, workpiece and energy, the embodied CO2 from the process was found to be 4.48 kg CO2e for S1. However, using 33% recycled aluminium, an eco-benign lubricant and a remanufactured tool resulted in an embodied CO2 of 3.24 kg CO2e or a 28% CO2 savings for the same process parameters. Similarly, in S2, the embodied CO2 was found to be 4.28 kg CO2e for traditional inputs and 3.09 kg CO2e for modified inputs. Comparing S1 traditional and S2 modified, there is a reduction in energy use and CO2 by 69% and 31% accordingly. As expected, the stock material dominated the embodied CO2 and cost, but the energy consumed was the next highest contributor. Future work will consider optimal parameters for cost, energy and embodied CO2 minimisation.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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