MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307511277 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2022-0073

Single- and multi-objective optimization of internal gear flowforming process based on increasing tooth height and reducing force and built-up edge

2022· article· en· W4307511277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majid Khodadadi, Khalil Khalili, Amir Ashrafi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandrelEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMulti-objective optimizationSimulated annealingProcess (computing)Mechanical engineeringMaterials scienceReduction (mathematics)Structural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsGeometryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flowforming is an incremental metal forming process in which deformation occurs gradually between the roller and mandrel. This process has been widely used for manufacturing of high-precision tubular parts and seamless tubes. Internal gear flowforming process is a new method for manufacturing an internal gear that requires no additional machining process. In this study, the design of experiment method and regression analysis were used to obtain tooth height, force, and built-up edge as functions of the effective parameters, including feed rate, roller diameter, attack angle, and thickness reduction percentage. Next, the simulated annealing and genetic algorithm were used for, respectively, single- and multi-objective optimization of the obtained functions. The goal of optimization was to reduce the force and built-up edge and increase the tooth height. In single-objective optimization, the maximum tooth height was 0.576 mm, the minimum force was 1606.63 N, and the minimum built-up edge was 0.448 mm. In multi-objective optimization, an optimal set of tooth height, force, and built-up edge (Pareto front) is obtained.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207