MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988977240 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.10.042

Effects of Harmonic Vibrations of Cutting Speed on Cutting Force and Surface Quality in Al 7075-T6 Broaching

2019· article· en· W2988977240 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Sadeqi Bajestani, Behnam Moetakef Imani, Ali Hosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroachingMachiningVibrationMechanical engineeringQuality (philosophy)Phase (matter)EngineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broaching is a single-pass machining operation for producing complex profiles with finished surface qualities, which is mostly used in mass production where short manufacturing lead-time is desired. Despite its importance in machining industry, broaching received little attention in academic studies after emergence of high-speed CNC machines. The present study was carried out in two phases with the aim of enhancing surface quality and lowering cutting force in broaching of Al 7075-T6. In the first phase, broaching tests were performed with four constant cutting speeds (5, 10, 15, and 20 m/min). In the second phase of the experimentation, harmonic vibrations (dithers) with tailored amplitude and frequency were intentionally added to the cutting speed in order to investigate the effects on the process performance. In this phase, the tests were conducted with two different cutting speeds (5 and 10 m/min). All the experiments were performed using a servo hydraulic system with position and speed control. Results reveal that increasing the cutting speed and applying dither, not only enhance surface quality but also lower the cutting force. The results of this study can be applied to achieve higher productivity with lower cost in a modern industrial setting.

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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207