Method for Vibration Response Simulation and Sensor Placement Optimization of a Machine Tool Spindle System with a Bearing Defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bearing defects are one of the most important mechanical sources for vibration and noise generation in machine tool spindles. In this study, an integrated finite element (FE) model is proposed to predict the vibration responses of a spindle bearing system with localized bearing defects and then the sensor placement for better detection of bearing faults is optimized. A nonlinear bearing model is developed based on Jones' bearing theory, while the drawbar, shaft and housing are modeled as Timoshenko's beam. The bearing model is then integrated into the FE model of drawbar/shaft/housing by assembling equations of motion. The Newmark time integration method is used to solve the vibration responses numerically. The FE model of the spindle-bearing system was verified by conducting dynamic tests. Then, the localized bearing defects were modeled and vibration responses generated by the outer ring defect were simulated as an illustration. The optimization scheme of the sensor placement was carried out on the test spindle. The results proved that, the optimal sensor placement depends on the vibration modes under different boundary conditions and the transfer path between the excitation and the response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".