MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226216888 · doi:10.3103/s1068366621060118

Influence of Cutting Conditions on the Wear Resistance of Tools with a TiB2 Coating during Titanium Alloy Machining

2021· article· en· W4226216888 on OpenAlexaff
Л. Ш. Шустер, German Fox‐Rabinovich, С. В. Чертовских

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Friction and Wear · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMachiningCoatingMetallurgyAlloyTitanium alloyCarbideLubricantTitaniumWear resistanceCutting toolComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of cutting conditions on the tribotechnical characteristics and wear resistance of cutting tools with and without TiB2 coating during processing of a TiAl6V4 alloyed titanium alloy has been investigated. It was found that when processing TiAl6V4 alloy, the efficiency of a TiB2 coating on carbide cutting tools significantly depends on the cutting conditions. Wear estimates in combination with XPS and SEM studies of worn surfaces show that TiB2 coated tools are most efficiently used for rough turning at low cutting speeds (45 m/min) and a large depth of cut (2 mm) under conditions of intense build-up. It is assumed that this is due to the formation of thermal barrier films of TiC, as well as a large amount of tribooxide B2O3, which serves as a liquid lubricant. During finishing (the finishing operation) at higher cutting speeds (80 and 150 m/min), when crater wear on the front surface of the cutter prevails, the wear resistance of the coated and uncoated tools is practically the same. This indicates that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for different machining conditions of alloyed titanium alloy when different wear mechanisms dominate.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Friction and WearSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207