MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220764481 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090117

Experimental Investigation on the Performance of Different Cutting Fluids on Cutting Force During Turning of Duplex Stainless Steel-2205 under MQL Technique

2022· article· en· W4220764481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prashantha Kumar S.T., Thirtha Prasada H.P., M. Nagamadhu, Niranjan Pattar, S.B. Kivade, Ravichandra K.R., S. Hanumanthlal

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Technology Warangal
KeywordsCutting fluidLubricationMaterials scienceMachiningMetallurgyMineral oilComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duplex stainless steel (DSS)-2205 comes under hard-to-machine material owing to its inherent properties but more applications in severe working conditions. Hence, investigating the effect of cutting fluids and machining parameters is essential. In the present work, an attempt has been made with Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) the investigate the performance of Deionized (DI) water, neat cut oil, and emulsified fluid on Cutting Force (CF) during turning of Duplex Stainless Steel (DSS-2205). The experiments were conducted based on face central composite design (CCF) in response surface methodology, varying speed, feed, and depth of cut in three levels. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is to identify significant factors that influence the response. The results revealed that using emulsified fluid's cutting force gives better results than the DI water and neat cut oil. Feed rate is the most significant factor for emulsified fluid contribution was 53.61% for neat cut oil 48.89% and DI water 26.11%. It also reveals that the contribution of the depth of cut is slightly lesser than the feed rate. However, the contributions of cutting speed in all three Deionized (DI) water, neat cut oil, and emulsified fluid working fluids are negligible.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207