MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082833593 · doi:10.1115/imece2007-41353

Virtual Five-Axis Flank Milling of Jet Engine Impellers: Part 2 — Feed Rate Optimization of Five-Axis Flank Milling

2007· article· en· W2082833593 on OpenAlexafffund
W. Ferry, Yusuf Altıntaş

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPratt and Whitney Canada
KeywordsDeflection (physics)ImpellerMachine toolControl theory (sociology)TorqueMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents optimization schemes for the five-axis flank milling of jet engine impellers based on the mechanics model explained in Part I. The process is optimized by varying the feed automatically as the tool-workpiece engagements, i.e. the process, varies along the tool path. The feed is adjusted by limiting feed-dependent peak outputs to a set of user-defined constraints. These outputs are tool shank bending stress, tool deflection, maximum chip load (to avoid edge chipping) and the torque limit of the machine. The linear and angular feeds of the machine are optimized by two different methods — a multi-constraint based virtual adaptive control of the process and a non-linear root finding algorithm. The five-axis milling process is simulated in a virtual environment, and the resulting process outputs are stored at each position along the tool path. The process is recursively fitted to a first order process with a time varying gain and a fixed time constant, and a simple Proportional Integral controller is adaptively tuned to operate the machine at threshold levels by manipulating the feedrate. As an alternative to virtual adaptive process control, the feedrate is optimized by a non-linear root-finding algorithm. The optimum feed is solved for iteratively, respecting tool stress, tool deflection, torque and chip load constraints, using a non-linear root finding algorithm. Both methods are shown to produce almost identical optimized feed rate profiles for the roughing tool path discussed in Part I of the paper. The new feed rate profiles are shown to considerably reduce the cycle time of the impeller while avoiding process faults that may damage the part or the machine.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207