MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200025104 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2021-0139

Sliding-friction wear of a seashell particulate reinforced polymer matrix composite: modeling and optimization through RSM and Grey Wolf optimizer

2021· article· en· W4200025104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Vasanthkumar, R. Balasundaram, N. Senthilkumar

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialResponse surface methodologyComposite numberPolymerTribologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we investigated the friction wear of a thermoplastic polymer (nylon-6) reinforced with particles of seashell. Seashells are made of calcium carbonate in the mineral form of calcite or aragonite, which makes them one of the most robust materials known. A twin-screw extruder was used to blend the seashell particles (SPs) and nylon-6, and an injection molding machine was used to fabricate the composite. Various proportions of SPs (12%, 15%, and 18%, by weight) were added to the nylon-6. We studied the wear of the polymer composites as per the standard ASTM G99, focusing on the loss of material due to wear, the friction coefficient, and the interface temperature. We used a response surface methodology (RSM) based Box–Behnken method (BBD) for our experimental design, and multiobjective analyses were performed incorporating desirability analysis. Our results show the following: the interface temperature was highly influenced by rotational speed (41.61%); the reinforcement with SPs (%) significantly (35.71%) affected the loss of material due to wear; and, the coefficient of friction (CoF) was significantly affected by rotational speed (41.48%) and reinforcement with SPs (18.18% w/w). A novel metaheuristic algorithm (Grey Wolf Optimizer) was used to constrain our optimizations, and the results showed that with CoF = 0.3 and an interface temperature of 25 °C as constraints, the loss due to wear was 35.77 μm for 15.09% w/w reinforcement with SPs, but at CoF = 0.3 and an interface temperature of 30 °C, the loss due to wear was 28.99 μm for 18% w/w reinforcement with SP.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207