MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229374126 · doi:10.3390/ma15093369

A Numerical Model for Predicting the Effect of Tool Nose Radius on Machining Process Performance during Orthogonal Cutting of AISI 1045 Steel

2022· article· en· W4229374126 on OpenAlexafffund
Zakaria Ahmed M. Tagiuri, Thiên-My Dao, A. M. Samuel, Victor Songméné

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsRADIUSMachiningRake angleMaterials scienceFlankTool wearFinite element methodCutting toolStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMetallurgyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a numerical model for predicting and studying the effects of tool nose geometries and its interactions with cutting parameters during orthogonal cutting of AISI 1045 steel. The process performance characteristics studied were cutting temperature, effective stress, cutting forces and tool wear. The cutting simulations were done using the commercial DEFORM-2D R V 11.3 software, based on the finite element method (FEM). The cutting tool used had a round nose with various nose radii (0.01–0.9 mm), while the machining parameters tested were the feed rate (0.1–0.3 mm/rev), the cutting speed (100–500 m/min) and the rake angle (–5° to +10°). The interactions between the tool nose radius and the cutting parameters (speed, feed) were found to affect mostly the cutting stress and, slightly, the tool wear rate. These interactions did not much influence the cutting temperature, that was found to be high when the tool nose radius and/or the cutting speed were high. The maximum temperature was found to occur at the middle of the tool-chip contact length and at the interaction of nose radius and flank face of the tool. Except for some fluctuations, there was no significant difference in tool wear rate between small and large nose radius scales.

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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207