MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101698175 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2008-0029

EFFECT OF FACE COOLING ON WORKPIECE TEMPERATURES USING 2D AND 3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CREEP-FEED GRINDING

2008· article· en· W2101698175 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David S. Anderson, Andrew Warkentin, Robert Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindingMaterials scienceFinite element methodCoolantCreepHeat generationSteady state (chemistry)Contact areaWork (physics)Intensity (physics)MechanicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work uses validated 2D and 3D finite element models of the creep-feed grinding operation to study the effects of face cooling on the workpiece temperatures. The results show that as the intensity of the face cooling is increased the maximum contact temperature decreases and the location of the maximum contact temperature shifts away from the finished workpiece material and towards the uncut workpiece surface. The finite element models are also used to study the maximum temperatures along the workpiece during a complete grinding pass. The temperature profiles show that there are four important temperature features on the workpiece, which are the cut-in, steady-state, temperature spike, and cut-out zones. Cut-in occurs when the grinding wheel initially engages the workpiece, steady-state occurs in the middle of the workpiece, the temperature spike occurs at the beginning of cut-out, and cut-out occurs as the grinding wheel disengages from the workpiece. Finally, the results show that face cooling need only be applied to the area immediately adjacent to the contact zone to be effective and that there is very little benefit to applying coolant to the entire front and back workpiece faces.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207