Solid Lubricants Used at Extreme Conditions Experienced in Machining: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Developments and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contacting bodies in extreme environments are prone to severe wear and failure due to friction and seizure, which are associated with significant thermal and mechanical loads. This phenomenon greatly impacts the economy since most essential components encounter these challenges during machining, an unavoidable step in most manufacturing processes. In machining, stress can reach 4 GPa, and temperatures can exceed 1000 °C at the cutting zone. Severe seizure and friction are the primary causes of tool and workpiece failures. Liquid lubricants are popular in machining for combatting heat and friction; however, concerns about their environmental impact are growing, as two-thirds of the 40 million tons used annually are discarded and they produce other environmental and safety issues. Despite their overall efficacy, these lubricants also have limitations, including ineffectiveness in reducing seizure at the tool/chip interface and susceptibility to degradation at high temperatures. There is therefore a push towards solid lubricants, which promise a reduced environmental footprint, better friction management, and improved machining outcomes but also face challenges under extreme machining conditions. This research aims to provide a thorough insight into solid lubricant use in machining, discussing their mechanisms, effectiveness, constraints, and potential to boost productivity and environmental sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".