MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W205334397

The Impact of Machining Parameters on Peak Power and Energy Consumption in CNC Endmilling

2013· article· en· W205334397 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Power · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy Efficiency and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningMachine toolEnergy consumptionPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringPower consumptionCnc millingAutomotive engineeringEnergy (signal processing)Numerical controlEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machining in a production environment commonly relies on trying maximizing material removal rates (MRR). This is done at the expense of increased peak power loads on the machine tool and machine spindle, and at the expense of potentially increasing energy consumption. To begin to develop an understanding of the relationship between peak power and energy consumption with machining parameters, spindle and total machine tool power are measured directly during a series of dry and wet endmilling tests on a 3-acis CNC milling machine. Cutting speeds, feedrates, and endmill immersions are varied and the resulting peak power measurements analyzed. Increasing any one of these parameters increases MRR and the peak power loads of the spindle and machine tool. However, the actual energy consumption varies widely for each parameter and in some cases such as when we increase feedrates, can actually decrease dramatically. The results of the direct measurements are presented and discussed as they relate to metal cutting.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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