Experimental Investigation on the Effects of Tool Geometry and Cutting Conditions on Machining Behavior during Edge Finishing of Granite Using Concave and Chamfered Profiling Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granite edge finishing through grinding is a common process in the granite processing industry, crucial for achieving the final desired shape and edge quality of products. This study focuses on the granite industry, specifically delving into the significance of grinding and polishing for improving aesthetics and extending material longevity. The experimental design entails a comprehensive factorial experiment plan involving two workpiece materials (white and black granite samples) and two cutting tool edge shapes (chamfer and concave), each with two grit sizes: G150 and G600. The cutting conditions varied and consisted of variations in spindle speeds (1500, 2500, 3500 rpm), feed rates (500, 1000, 1500 mm/min), and lubrication modes (wet/dry). The results uncover intricate relationships among these parameters and part quality, underscoring the pivotal role of tool geometry in achieving superior surface finishes and in controlling the cutting forces. These findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of the dynamic interplay between tool characteristics, material properties, and machining conditions within the granite industry.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".