MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108073982 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2024-0223

Prediction method of residual stress and deformation in belt grinding of thin-walled ring workpieces

2025· article· en· W7108073982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChang'an University
KeywordsResidual stressFinite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Rigidity (electromagnetism)ResidualMachiningNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thin-walled ring workpieces have been widely used in many fields because of their light weight and compactness. However, due to the characteristics of poor rigidity and low strength, residual stress is inevitably generated during machining processes, which is prone to deformation. In this paper, a residual stress prediction model of thin-walled ring workpieces based on finite element simulation and intelligent algorithm is established, and a deformation prediction method is proposed. Firstly, focusing on the nonlinear pressure distribution in flexible belt grinding, a cut-in depth distribution model is constructed based on Preston equation and Hertz contact theory, and furtherly, the finite element simulation of residual stress is carried out, which can provide sufficient learning data for the intelligent algorithm. Then the residual stress prediction model is established based on support vector regression algorithm, and the hyperparameters of the model are optimized by Bayesian optimization and cross validation. Finally, a deformation prediction model of thin-walled ring workpieces based on finite element method is established. Experimental results show that the average prediction errors of residual stress in X and Y directions are 16.28% and 19.51%, respectively, and the average deformation prediction error is 16.8%, which verifies the accuracy of the prediction models.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207