MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031144465 · doi:10.1115/1.4006768

Modified Primary Shear Zone Analysis for Identification of Material Mechanical Behavior During Machining Process Using Genetic Algorithm

2012· article· en· W2031144465 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossam A. Kishawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShear (geology)MachiningEquidistantShear rateMaterials scienceConstitutive equationNonlinear systemSimple shearShear zoneMechanicsAlgorithmComputer scienceStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringFinite element methodComposite materialPhysicsRheologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current work, an inverse analysis on the primary shear zone was introduced to determine the five constants in Johnson–Cook’s material constitutive equation under the conditions of metal cutting. Based on the detailed analysis on the boundary conditions of the velocity and shear strain rate fields, Oxley’s “equidistant parallel-sided” shear zone model was revisited. A more realistic nonlinear shear strain rate distribution has been proposed under the frame of nonequidistant primary shear zone configuration, so that all the boundary conditions can be satisfied. Based on the presented analysis, the shear strain, shear strain rate and temperature at the main shear plane were calculated. In conjugation with the measured cutting forces and chip thickness, a genetic algorithm (GA) based optimization program has been developed for the system identification. In order to verify the effectiveness of the developed algorithm, the obtained material constants were used in a forward analytical simulation. The acceptable agreement with experimental data validates the proposed method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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