MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Study on Grinding of a Nickel-Based Alloy Using Vitrified CBN Wheels

2011· article· en· W2056093440 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhong De Shi, Amr Elfizy, Benoît St-Pierre, Helmi Attia

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsGrindingMaterials scienceSurface roughnessAbrasiveMetallurgyAlloyGrinding wheelSurface finishComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental study is reported on the grinding of a nickel-based alloy using vitrified CBN wheels. This work was motivated by switching the grinding of fir-tree root forms of jet engine blades from creep-feed grinding with conventional abrasive wheels to vitrified CBN wheels. The objective is to explore process limits and practical grinding parameters for judging the switch in terms of overall costs and productivity. Straight surface grinding experiments were conducted with water-based fluid on rectangular blocks at a fixed wheel speed vs = 45 m/s, various depths of cut a = 0.05 - 1.0 mm, and workspeeds vw = 2 - 40 mm/s. Grinding power, forces, surface roughness, and radial wheel wear were measured. Specific material removal rate of 8 mm3/(mm.s) was reached in rough grinding using a wheel dressed for achieving surface roughness Ra = 0.8 µm in finish grinding. It was found that shallow depths of cut combined with fast workspeeds, or less creep-feed modes, are more suitable for achieving high material removal rates with vitrified CBN grinding. Rough grinding is restricted by high grinding temperatures with newly dressed wheels and by chatters with worn wheels.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207