MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950738454 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0038

Multiple performance characteristics optimization in end milling of thin-walled parts using desirability function

2019· article· en· W2950738454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Djordje Cica, Stevo Borojević, Goran Jotić, Branislav Sredanović, Saša Tešić

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningFlatness (cosmology)Surface roughnessMechanical engineeringSurface finishMaterials scienceEngineering drawingEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of high-performance CNC machine tools, milling has been established as one of the main means of machining thin-walled parts. Thus, the selection of process parameters for milling operations is an important issue in end milling of thin-walled parts to assure product quality and increase productivity. The current study explores three machining parameters, namely wall thickness, feed, and machining strategies, that influence dimensional and form errors, surface roughness, and machining time milling of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy thin-walled parts. The effects of machining parameters on each of the response variables were analyzed using graphs of the main effects and three-dimensional surface plots. Analysis of the results show that the most influential factor for wall thickness deviation, dimensions deviation, perpendicularity deviation, flatness deviation, surface roughness of inner walls, surface roughness of outer walls, and surface roughness of reference plane was machining strategy, while feed is the most influential parameter affecting the machined time, followed by the machining strategy. The desirability concept has been used for simultaneous optimization in terms of machining parameters of the thin-walled parts machining process. Finally, a confirmation test with the optimal parameter settings was carried out to validate the results.

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 score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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