MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415382958 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20454-3

Multi-objective optimization of surface roughness and MRR in AISI 316L stainless steel processed by MQL end milling using taguchi, RSM, ANN, and RFR methods

2025· article· en· W4415382958 on OpenAlexaff
C. P. Natesh, N. G. Siddeshkumar, G. R. Srinivasa, A. Shivaramakrishna, H. M. Pruthvi, C. Durga Prasad, Y. M. Shashidhara, H. J. Amarendra, Amit Tiwari, Adem Abdirkadir Aden

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessMachiningTaguchi methodsLubricationSurface finishResponse surface methodologyTool wearLubricant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research improves the cutting parameters for end milling AISI 316L stainless steel, a material that is utilized in a variety of sectors, including nuclear power, food, medicine, chemicals, and the marine sector. It has remarkable corrosion resistance. Its great mechanical qualities and limited heat conduction make it challenging to manufacture. When milling with neem oil under Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL), the Taguchi technique was utilized to choose the cutting parameters, with an emphasis on Surface Roughness (Ra) and Material Removal Rate (MRR). Important factors such as feed rates, cutting speeds, and cut depths were examined, as well as morphological changes and chip formation. Tool dynamometers were used to quantify MRR, and a surface finish tester was used to evaluate surface roughness. The cutting parameters were optimized and validated using advanced optimization techniques such as Random Forest Regression (RFR), Back Propagation Artificial Neural Network (BPANN), Feed Forward Artificial Neural Network (FFANN), Desirability Function Analysis (DFA), Taguchi Design of Experiments (TDOE), and Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The findings show that machining efficiency is greatly impacted by Material Removal Rate (MRR). While MQL utilizes a prepared Neem oil enhanced tool life and surface quality, higher cutting speeds, feed velocities, and depths of cut increased MRR. At 150 m/min cutting speed, 250 mm/min feed velocity, and 2 mm depth of cut, the best MRR was obtained. At moderate feed velocities, shallow cuts, and medium cutting speeds (100 m/min), surface roughness was reduced. MRR and surface roughness were successfully predicted by the RSM, BPANN, FFANN, and RFR models; RFR proved to be the most accurate.

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)0.001
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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207