MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321112896 · doi:10.1002/mawe.202200136

Optimization of cutting power and power efficiency during particleboard helical milling

2023· article· en· W4321112896 on OpenAlexaff
Rongrong Li, Qingzhao Yao, X. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePower (physics)MachiningSpiral (railway)Work (physics)Mechanical engineeringHelix angleEfficient energy useResponse surface methodologyComposite materialEngineering drawingMetallurgyEngineeringChemistryChromatographyElectrical engineeringThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the aim of providing scientific guidance for the application of spiral cutters in particleboard machining, this work studied the influence of milling parameters on milling power and power efficiency during helical milling of particleboard. And the response surface methodology was applied to optimize the milling parameters to reduce machining energy consumption and improve energy efficiency. The factors of milling depth, spindle speed and helical angle were selected as input parameters, and the mathematical models between the input parameters and the response parameters were established. Then, the significant influence of each factor and the interaction of two factors were determined by variance analysis, and the change trend of milling power and power efficiency was studied by response surface methodology. Results showed that the milling depth had the greatest impact on milling power and power efficiency, followed by the spindle speed and helical angle. An increase in the milling depth and spindle speed resulted in an increase in milling power and power efficiency, while the increased helical angle resulted in a decrease in milling power and power efficiency. The optimized values of helical angle, spindle speed and milling depth were 54°, 5650 min −1 and 1.3 mm, respectively.

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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialwissenschaft und WerkstofftechnikSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207