The influence of tool quality on the machining of additive manufactured and powder metallurgy titanium alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to investigate the impact the quality of the drill bits has on the machining behavior of additive manufacturing (AM) and powder metallurgy (PM) titanium alloys. Therefore, commercially available drill bits which typically reflect two extremes of drill bit quality were selected. The performance of coated carbide twist drills, typically recommended for the drilling of wrought titanium alloys was compared with that of high-speed steel (HSS) drills. The average torque value, specific cutting energy (SCE), and tool wear were used to evaluate the drilling performance of AM and PM titanium alloys. The results of drilling tests revealed the application of the coated carbide drill resulted in lower torque and SCE values, less flank wear, and lower build-up-edge (BUE) compared with the uncoated HSS drill bits for AM fabricated titanium alloys. However, the carbide drill appeared to offer negligible improvement over the uncoated HSS drill when employed with the PM fabricated titanium alloy. In spite of the improvement in the drilling performance offered by the carbide drills for the AM titanium alloy, TiB intermetallic particles (part of the AM titanium microstructure) contributed to the damage of the coated carbide drill which would limit the drill lifetime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".