MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152910626 · doi:10.1109/icma.2009.5246491

Dynamic model and modal testing for vibration analysis of robotic grinding process with a 6DOF flexible-joint manipulator

2009· article· en· W2152910626 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Rafieian, Zhaoheng Liu, Bruce Hazel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationModal analysisModalRobotMachine toolComputer scienceMachiningHammerMechanical engineeringEngineeringStiffnessAutomationProcess (computing)Payload (computing)Control engineeringSimulationStructural engineeringFinite element methodAcousticsArtificial intelligenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robot manipulators play an important role in industrial automation. Various aspects of robotic systems were subject of intensive investigations in the past, but the vibration problems in robotic machining processes have been rarely treated in the available literature. In this paper we present dynamic modeling of an ongoing research to study chatter vibration in robotic grinding process using a portable manipulator for rectifying the surfaces of hydro-electric equipments. This special-purpose robot manipulator was developed to automate on-site repairs such as grinding of eroded surfaces, depositing overlay welding and hammer peening. In this study, the structure of robot as the tool holder mechanism of the machining operation is modeled by articulated rigid bodies with flexible joints. The dynamic equations of the 6DOF flexible-joint manipulator are established using Lagrangian formulation. Impulsive grinding forces and periodically perturbed excitations existing in the process are exerted on the model to simulate its response. As an intuitive estimation for joints' stiffness parameters of the model, payload test experiments were performed on the robot. To validate predictions of the dynamic model regarding vibratory behavior, modal testing experiments were performed and measured natural frequencies and mode shapes were compared to their analytical equivalents. Some future trends of the research work are also addressed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207