MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410928264 · doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2025.121196

Abrasive slurry jet machining of maskless helical micro-channels on rods: Process modeling using computational fluid dynamics

2025· article· en· W4410928264 on OpenAlex
Mohammad Ali Nasiri, Tarek Dehbi, M. Papini

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePowder Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRodMaterials scienceSlurryJet (fluid)AbrasiveProcess (computing)Mechanical engineeringComputational fluid dynamicsMachiningComposite materialMechanicsMetallurgyEngineeringComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel lathe setup and computational fluid dynamics approach were employed to assess the feasibility of using miniature abrasive slurry jets to direct-write helical micro-channels into 5 mm stainless steel rods. Multiple nozzle passes at offsets between 0 and 2.5 mm produced maskless channels of various depths and widths at a helix angle of 7.25°. Channels at aspect ratios up to ~0.5 were produced at depths of ~340 μm with a maximum depth variation of 2.4 %. At zero offset, the rods failed at a critical depth due to bending-induced stresses. Finite element analysis confirmed that using an offset reduced these stresses. At lower offsets where the jet footprint was fully on the rod, the channel depth increased linearly with the number of passes, while the channel width initially increased and then plateaued. An optimal offset of 1 mm yielded the narrowest and deepest channels. A CFD-aided model simulating the fluid flow, particle trajectories, and evolving channel topography was used to explain these trends. It utilized a virtual wall technique to correct particle impact data and predicted the eroded channel topography with a maximum error of 5.6 %. Variations in stagnation zone pressure and location at different offsets affected the particle trajectories and impact velocities. At the optimal offset, the particles at the jet centerline were less affected by the stagnation zone, thus maximizing their flux and impact velocity. This is the first study to demonstrate rapid direct-writing of helical micro-channels on rods using abrasive slurry jets, and it may have significant applications in inertial microfluidics.

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.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.279 · 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