MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955448054 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0003

Optimization in single point incremental forming of Inconel 718 through response surface methodology

2019· article· en· W2955448054 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncremental sheet formingResponse surface methodologySurface roughnessInconelDesign of experimentsFlexibility (engineering)Process (computing)Materials scienceForming processesSurface finishProcess variableSheet metalLubricantMechanical engineeringViscosityComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsComposite materialStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incremental sheet forming is a flexible and versatile process with a promising future in the batch production and prototyping sectors. With decreased design time and negligible production time, incremental sheet forming provides reliability, flexibility, and quality, while being an economical option in contrast to the traditional forming process. In this paper, Inconel 718, a material that has extensive use in aircraft engines, is considered for experimental work to obtain the optimum combination of process parameters. Response surface methodology is used to optimize the process parameters, in particular feed rate, step depth, and lubricant viscosity. The output responses are surface roughness, profile accuracy, and wall thickness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed using the experimental results to predict the statistical influence of the process parameters. The optimal combination of process parameters is further predicted using a numerical optimization technique to achieve better profile accuracy and surface finish. The results obtained are experimentally validated and are in good agreement with the predicted values.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.220 · 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