MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964945510 · doi:10.18280/jesa.520211

Prediction of Surface Roughness for CNC Turning of EN8 Steel Bar Using Artificial Neural Network Model

2019· article· en· W2964945510 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abhishek Srivastava, Adarsh Sharma, Aditya Gaur, Rahul Kumar, Yashwant Kumar Modi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkSurface roughnessBar (unit)Surface (topology)Surface finishMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMetallurgyArtificial intelligenceGeologyComposite materialMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing organizations are under tremendous pressure to produce quality products at reduced manufacturing cost with shorter time-to-market. A good combination of process parameters for any manufacturing process may ensure production of quality parts at reduced time and cost. Aim of the present study is to develop an artificial neural network (ANN) model for CNC turning operation to predict surface roughness of EN8 bar for a specific set of parameters. In this study, effect of CNC turning parameters, namely spindle speed, depth of cut and feed rate, each with three levels, on surface roughness of EN8 steel bar has been studied experimentally. Total 27 experiments have been conducted as per full factorial design of experiment approach and surface roughness of the turned pieces is evaluated using a Mitutoyo make roughness tester. One set of the roughness values has been used to train the ANN model and another set is used to test the predictability of the model in MATLAB 8.0 software. The average error between the experimental and predicted values is found to be 7.85 %.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207