MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092824369 · doi:10.1115/1.1445147

Numerical Analysis of Metal Cutting With Chamfered and Blunt Tools

2002· article· en· W2092824369 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad R. Movahhedy, Yusuf Altıntaş, Mohamed S. Gadala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChamfer (geometry)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMaterials scienceChip formationFinite element methodChipMachiningCutting toolCarbideProcess (computing)Tool wearStructural engineeringComposite materialGeometryMetallurgyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In high speed machining of hard materials, tools with chamfered edge and materials resistant to diffusion wear are commonly used. In this paper, the influence of cutting edge geometry on the chip removal process is studied through numerical simulation of cutting with sharp, chamfered or blunt edges and with carbide and CBN tools. The analysis is based on the use of ALE finite element method for continuous chip formation process. Simulations include cutting with tools of different chamfer angles and cutting speeds. The study shows that a region of trapped material zone is formed under the chamfer and acts as the effective cutting edge of the tool, in accordance with experimental observations. While the chip formation process is not significantly affected by the presence of the chamfer, the cutting forces are increased. The effect of cutting speed on the process is also studied.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations105
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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