MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975697703 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0110

Initial tool wear behavior in high-speed turning of Inconel 718

2019· article· en· W2975697703 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Morvarid Memarianpour, Seyed Ali Niknam, S. Turenne, Marek Balazinski

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInconelSuperalloyMaterials scienceTool wearFlankMetallurgyMechanical engineeringMachiningAlloyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three distinctive regions of tool wear, known as initial wear, steady-state wear, and accelerated wear, are well understood. However, the effects of cutting parameters on the initial tool wear mechanism, morphology, and size have received less attention as compared to the other two regions. Knowing that adequate control of initial tool wear may lead to extended tool life, in particular in hard-to-cut metals such as superalloys, this topic has become a source of attention. Amongst superalloys, Inconel 718 is considered as one of the most difficult to cut materials, which has a wide range of industrial applications. This study intends to evaluate the effects of cutting parameters on initial tool wear, as well as tool wear progression, when turning Inconel 718. Therefore, microstructural evaluation of the initial tool wear mode under various cutting conditions, as well as tool wear measurements, were conducted. It was observed that certain elements of the workpieces were migrated to the insert flank face. This is evidence of adhesion at the initial moments of the cutting process. In contrast to many other easy-to-cut materials, the steady-state wear period when turning Inconel 718 is significantly short under a higher level of cutting speed and feed rate.

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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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