MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080357101 · doi:10.1177/1077546305055542

A Structured Linear Quadratic Gaussian Based Control Design Algorithm for Machine Tool Controllers Including Both Feed Drive and Process Dynamics

2005· article· en· W2080357101 on OpenAlexafffund
ElSayed M. ElBeheiry, Waguih ElMaraghy, H.A. ElMaraghy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)Linear-quadratic regulatorController (irrigation)Control engineeringProcess (computing)Optimal controlContouringEngineeringComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new extension of the stochastic linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) regulator problem is developed and used for the design of new suboptimal cross-coupling controllers for machine tool drives. This new extension allowed us to combine both the drive and the cutting dynamics into a unified model driven by the static and the dynamic portions of the cutting force. The dynamic portion of the cutting force is considered as a stochastic random process in end milling contouring processes. The outputs of the axes are corrected by the cutting tool deflections which result from the cutting force-workpiece resistance interactive dynamics. Most importantly, the LQG extension developed here is directly applicable to the design and optimization of centralized, decentralized, and hierarchical machine tool controllers that have previously appeared in the literature. This is possible because our extension allows the assignment of a different control structure for each control input even if more than one control input are contributing to the same axis. Furthermore, the method admits each controller to function in any chosen subset of the available measurements. Thus, it provides us with a powerful means for designing any of the above-mentioned controllers using the same approach. The results of our suboptimal cross-coupling controllers were magnificent when compared to the commercially available positioning controllers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vibration and ControlSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207