MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047697359 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.047

Survival Life Analysis of the Cutting Tools During Turning Titanium Metal Matrix Composites (Ti-MMCs)

2014· article· en· W2047697359 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Aramesh, Yasser Shaban, Marek Balazinski, Helmi Attia, Hossam A. Kishawy, Soumaya Yacout

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceTitaniumComposite materialMatrix (chemical analysis)MetalTitanium alloyMetallurgyAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal matrix composites (MMCs), as a new generation of materials; have proven to be viable materials in various industrial fields such as biomedical and aerospace. In order to achieve a valuable modification in various properties of materials, metallic matrices are reinforced with additional phases based on the chemical and/or physical properties required in the in-service operating conditions. The presence of the reinforcements in MMCs improves the physical, mechanical and thermal properties of the composite; however it induces significant issues in the domain of machining, such as high tool wear and inferior surface finish. The interaction between the tool and abrasive hard reinforcing particles induces complex deformation behaviour in the MMC structure. Sever tool wear is technically the most important drawback of machining MMCs. In this study a statistical model is developed to estimate the mean residual life (MRL) of the cutting tool during machining Ti-MMCs. Initial wear, steady wear and rapid wear regions in the tool wear curve are regarded as the different states in the statistical model. Hence, the valuable information regarding the estimated total time spent in each state, called the sojourn time, and the transition times between the states are obtained from the model. In this paper the standard cutting conditions, based on the recommendation of the tool supplier, are adopted. Based on a Weibull model, the reliability and hazard functions are obtained and are utilized in order to calculate the MRL and the sojourn times.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia CIRPSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207