MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388698762 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2023-0066

On modelling the cutting forces and impact resistance of honed milling tools

2023· article· en· W4388698762 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Connor Hopkins, Tim Clarke, Nam Nguyen, N.Z. Yussefian, Ali Hosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionRADIUSMaterials scienceCrackingMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In milling operations, cutting tools are subjected to cyclic thermal and mechanical loads due to their intermittent engagement with the workpiece. As a result, they commonly fail due to edge chipping and thermal cracking, among which the former is directly related to the impact at the entry or exit, respectively, in downmilling or upmilling where the chip thickness is maximum. Among the many design factors that affect the impact resistance of milling tools, cutting-edge radius is one of the most important; however, it is often omitted in classic force models. In this paper, a force model that accounts for the edge radius was developed to predict the milling forces. Five sets of milling inserts with custom-made edge radii ranging from 25 to 45 µm were produced and tested. Test results were used to validate the force model and capture the effects of edge radius on the impact resistance of the prepared inserts. Results showed that increasing the edge radius initially improved the impact resistance and increased the tool life. However, increasing the edge radius beyond a certain threshold was proven to be detrimental since it made the tool blunt and drastically increased the cutting forces.

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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207