MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028553492 · doi:10.1177/0954405414563420

Belt grinding process with force control system for blade of aero-engine

2015· article· en· W2028553492 on OpenAlexaff
Jihao Duan, Youmin Zhang, Yaoyao Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindingMachiningAbrasiveMechanical engineeringSurface roughnessProcess (computing)Grinding wheelMaterials scienceControl theory (sociology)EngineeringComputer scienceComposite materialControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In abrasive belt grinding process for surface of blade, elasticity, deformation and abrasive belt wear are major factors affecting the machining stability, efficiency and quality. In order to improve the grinding process and realize optimal grinding, a new controllable and flexible belt grinding mechanism is designed and assembled in a special computer numerical control grinding machine, accompanied with a constant grinding force control system. Based on the analysis of proportional valve and cylinder system in this grinding mechanism, a mathematic model of normal grinding force is constructed. Afterward, a fuzzy proportional–integral–derivative control strategy is proposed to deal with the uncertainty and nonlinearity of this system. A Simulink model of force control process is developed, and the good performance is achieved according to the simulation result. Finally, several grinding experiments for an aero-engine fan blade are carried out. The measurements show that the proposed grinding process with fuzzy proportional–integral–derivative force controller enhances the machining stability and efficiency considerably. What is more, the machining qualities, such as surface roughness, form accuracy and consistency, are improved significantly. And all the grinding results satisfy the machining requirements in the manufacturing process of blade.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering ManufactureSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207