MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096865813 · doi:10.3390/met10111459

Experimental Characterization of Tool Wear Morphology and Cutting Force Profile in Dry and Wet Turning of Titanium Metal Matrix Composites (Ti-MMCs)

2020· article· en· W3096865813 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoomeh Safavi, Marek Balazinski, Hedayeh Mehmanparast, Seyed Ali Niknam

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsMachinabilityMaterials scienceAbrasion (mechanical)LubricationMachiningComposite materialTitaniumTool wearMetallurgyCarbideTitanium carbideTribologyEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionTitanium alloyAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal-matrix composites (MMCs) are made of non-metallic reinforcements in metal matrixes, which have excellent hardness, corrosion, and wear resistance. They are also lightweight and may pose a higher strength-to-weight ratio as compared to commercial titanium alloys. One of the MMCs with remarkable mechanical properties are titanium metal matrix composites (Ti-MMCs), which are considered a replacement for super-alloys in many industrial products and industries. Limited machining and machinability studies of Ti-MMCs were reported under different cutting and lubrication conditions. Tool wear morphology and life are among the main machinability attributes with limited attention. Therefore, this study presents the effects of cutting and lubrication conditions on wear morphology in carbide inserts when turning Ti-MMCs. To that end, maximum flank wear (VB) and cutting forces were recorded, and the wear morphologies within the initial period of the cut, as well as the worn condition, were studied under dry and wet conditions. Experimental results denoted that despite the lubrication mode used, abrasion, diffusion, and adhesion mechanisms were the main wear modes observed. Moreover, built-up layer (BUL) and built-up edge (BUE) were the main phenomena observed that increase the tendency of adhesion at higher cutting times.

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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207