MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007669953 · doi:10.3390/met10020285

Effects of Microstructure, Mechanical and Physical Properties on Machinability of Graphite Cast Irons

2020· article· en· W3007669953 on OpenAlexaff
Jiangzhuo Ren, Fengzhang Ren, Fengjun Li, Linkai Cui, Yi Xiong, Alex A. Volinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetal Alloys Wear and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMachinabilityMaterials scienceSurface roughnessMachiningMicrostructureMetallurgyDrillingPearliteTool wearSurface finishThermal conductivityComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flake (FGI) and spheroidal (SGI) graphite cast irons are often used to produce workpieces, which often need to be machined. Machinability differences under various machining methods are the basis for choosing machining equipment and technology. In this work, FGI and SGI were used to produce tractor front brackets, and the machinability of both materials under turning and drilling processes was compared. The machinability (turning and drilling ability) has been evaluated in terms of machining load, chips shape, surface roughness, and tool temperature. The influence of materials microstructure and thermal conductivity on the machinability was analyzed. In the turning process, the cutting force and its standard deviation of the FGI were larger than the SGI due to the higher volume fraction of pearlite. The surface roughness was similar in both materials. In the drilling process, the even action of the friction and cutting force on the bit turned into similar drilling loads for both materials. Higher friction and lower thermal conductivity caused a higher bit temperature in SGI drilling compared to FGI. The chip breaking was worse in SGI drilling, where the longer chips scratched the internal surface of the holes, resulting in the higher surface roughness.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicMetal Alloys Wear and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207