MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307266377 · doi:10.3390/pr10112171

Numerical Prediction of the Performance of Chamfered and Sharp Cutting Tools during Orthogonal Cutting of AISI 1045 Steel

2022· article· en· W4307266377 on OpenAlexaff
Zakaria Ahmed M. Tagiuri, Thiên-My Dao, A. M. Samuel, Victor Songméné

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChamfer (geometry)Materials scienceMachiningFinite element methodComposite materialStress (linguistics)Structural engineeringMetallurgyMathematicsGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a numerical investigation of the effects of chamfered and sharp cemented carbide tools using finite element method-based DEFORM-2D software and cutting parameters on different machining characteristics during the orthogonal cutting of AISI 1045 steel. The objective is to study the interactions between chamfer width, chamfer angle, sharp angle and the cutting speed and feed rate on the cutting temperature, effective stress and wear depth. These effects were investigated statistically using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The obtained numerical results showed that for the chamfer tool, high values of temperature, stress and wear depth were obtained for chamfer widths of 0.35 mm and 0.45 mm. In terms of combined influences, for the cutting temperature and stress, a strong interaction between the cutting speed and chamfer width was obtained. For the sharp tool design, and in terms of temperature, strong interactions are mostly observed between cutting speeds and feed rates. The ANOVA showed that for both chamfer and sharp tools, the feed rate, the cutting speed and their interactions are the most significant parameters that influence temperature and stress.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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