MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129782329 · doi:10.1177/0954406211423575

Effect of circular tool path on cutting force profile in micro-end-milling

2011· article· en· W2129782329 on OpenAlexaff
Avisekh Banerjee, Evgueni V. Bordatchev

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRADIUSPath (computing)ChipClassification of discontinuitiesMechanical engineeringGeometryEnd millingEngineeringMachiningComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro-end-milling requires high spindle rotational speed to achieve effective material removal. This results in the requirement of tool stoppage or slowdown during a micro-end-milling operation, a deterrent to productivity and to part acceptability. A circular tool path geometry can avoid discontinuities in the tool movements leading to a more consistent and smooth material removal. However, optimal process planning for such a tool path will require detailed understanding of the chip-formation mechanism in circular end-milling. The cut geometry during end-milling along a circular tool path is often approximated as that of a linear tool path. Although this assumption works well for circular tool paths with higher tool path radius, this is not the case for lower tool path radius often used in micro-milling. In this study, the effect of circular tool path on the cutting force for varying tool path rotation angle, tool path radius, and feed rate is experimentally investigated. Systematic signal processing was applied to analyse the measured cutting force signal along linear and several circular tool paths. Qualitative as well as quantitative differences were observed in the cutting force profiles obtained using different tool path radii, tool path orientations, and feed rates. This implies the need for an improved chip thickness formulation dedicated to micro-end-milling with circular tool path rather than approximating it with formulations derived for linear tool path.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering ScienceSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207