MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206968285 · doi:10.1007/s00170-021-08322-6

Analytical model for predicting tool wear in orthogonal machining of unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)

2022· article· en· W4206968285 on OpenAlex
Lukas Seeholzer, Thomas A. Krammer, Parvaneh Saeedi, Konrad Wegener

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersInnosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung
KeywordsMachiningTool wearMaterials scienceAbrasiveEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMechanical engineeringGeometryComposite materialComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Progressive tool wear due to abrasive carbon fibres is one of the main issues in machining of CFRP and responsible for the short tool life. Because of occurring wear during machining, the tool’s micro-geometry changes continuously resulting in higher process forces and an increasing risk for workpiece damages. In this paper, a novel analytical model is presented in order to predict the wear-related change of the micro-geometry in orthogonal machining of CFRP depending on the fibre orientation and the initial tool geometry. For this purpose, a concept called the wear rate distribution is introduced which represents a measure to quantify the wear rate along the active micro-geometry. Based on experimental investigation, it is shown that the shape of an arbitrary wear rate distribution between two closely spaced wear states can be approximated and parameterised with a “line - curve - line” approach. Using the authors’ previously published analytical force model, the wear rate distribution can be calculated as function of five wear parameters that are used to parameterise the active micro-geometry of an arbitrary wear state. Based on an iterative solver, this is used to simulate the tool wear progression during machining. For model validation, the simulation is compared to experimental data in terms of the cutting edge profiles, the amount of worn tool material and the process forces. Accordingly, the wear model is capable to reproduce the most important wear characteristics, e.g. the cutting edge rounding, the decreasing clearance angle and the increasing contact length at the flank face.

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.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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