MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200439651 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1101476/v1

Turning of Inconel 718 Using Liquid Nitrogen: Multi-objective Optimization of Cutting Parameters Using RSM

2021· preprint· en· W4200439651 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Eskandari, S. Bhowmick, A.T. Alpas

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInconelFlankResponse surface methodologySurface roughnessMaterials scienceCutting toolMetallurgyComposite materialMathematicsAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of application of liquid nitrogen (LN 2 ) in turning of Inconel 718 compared to flooded cutting and select suitable LN 2 cutting parameters using response surface methodology (RSM). The results of turning experiments conducted by spraying LN 2 to the cutting area of Inconel 718 bar showed that using either low or high cutting parameters, cutting performance of Inconel 718 under the cryogenic condition was generally worse than the flooded cutting. However, using the medium cutting parameters the cutting performance was as good as flooded cutting showing the values of 90 N of cutting force, 60 µm of flank wear and 0.5-0.6 µm of surface roughness (Ra). These parameters were further optimized using desirability function of RSM to determine the set of parameters that provide the lowest cutting force, flank wear and Ra and the highest material removal rate (MRR) under cryogenic cutting. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on the developed regression models showed that cutting speed was the significant factor on cutting force. Feed rate was the most influential parameter on flank wear. Feed rate and depth of cut was significant factors affecting Ra. Multi-objective optimization showed that a cutting speed of 87 m/min, a feed rate of 0.06 mm/rev and a depth of cut of 0.37 mm constituted the optimum cutting parameters for achieving the, cutting force of 78 N, flank wear of 58 µm, Ra of 0.49 µm and the MRR of 1.97 cm 3 /min under cryogenic cutting condition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207