MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390846800 · doi:10.1504/ijmmm.2023.136037

Numerical study on the impacts of tool edge geometry and cutting conditions in orthogonal machining of AISI 1045 steel

2023· article· en· W4390846800 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed El Wazziki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Machining and Machinability of Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGeometryMechanical engineeringEngineering drawingStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article presents a numerical study of the effects of tool geometries and cutting parameters on temperature, effective stress, chip thickness and tool wear depth during orthogonal cutting of AISI 1045 steel. This study consists to perform different numerical simulation tests using finite elements method on cutting chamfer tool. The important parameters that significantly influence the different studied machining characteristics were identified using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The obtained numerical results showed that the high values of temperature, stress, chip thickness and wear depth were almost obtained for the chamfer widths of (0.35, 0.45) mm. With increasing chamfer angle, there were different fluctuations of all the studied characteristics. In term of combinate influences, for different cutting speeds, the optimum chamfer width of (0.25, 0.35) mm produces respectively minimum and maximum cutting stress, chip thickness and wear depth. For different chamfer angles, cutting temperature, stress, and wear depth increase with increasing feed rate, whereas, maximum chip thickness was found for chamfer angle of 25°. The ANOVA showed that the feed rate, the cutting speed and their interactions influence almost significantly cutting temperature, stress, chip thickness and wear depth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Machining and Machinability of MaterialsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207