MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896493418 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2018.9.002

Multi-objective optimization of CNC turning parameters using genetic algorithm and performance evaluation of nanocomposite coated carbide inserts

2018· article· en· W2896493418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. R. Pratheesh Kumar, K. Saravanakumar, R. Saravanan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbideNanocompositeMaterials scienceGenetic algorithmComposite materialMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inconel 600 is a super alloy known for its properties like low thermal conductivity and work hardening. The work hardening property of this alloy makes it harder and harder during successive passes of the tool during machining. Therefore, machining of this type of material demands innovation in tool material, selection of proper combination of parameters and their levels for economical machining. Coated carbide tool inserts are most widely used for machining Inconel alloys. These inserts are coated with special materials by PVD or CVD technique to reduce flank wear, improve surface finish of machined components and increase the material removal rate (MRR). In this work carbide insert coated with nanocomposite coatings like AlTiN and TiAlSiN commercially known as Hyperlox and HSN 2 were used and their performance during machining of Inconel 600 was studied. As improper selection of process parameter influences on the quality of products and productivity, it is important to identify the optimum combination of input process parameters. Most of the time the influence of the input process parameters on the output parameters like MRR, surface roughness and flank wear is studied independently. Information obtained through single objective optimization may not be sufficient because industries desire to optimize all the output parameters, simultaneously. Multi-objective optimization is the only solution to satisfy the requirements of industries and genetic algorithm based multi-objective optimization is adopted in this work in order to get the optimum combination of input process parameters to obtain maximum material removal rate, minimum surface roughness and minimum flank wear simultaneously.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207