MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316087454 · doi:10.1115/imece2004-60395

Adaptive Control and Monitoring Using the Spindle Integrated Force Sensor System

2004· article· en· W2316087454 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon S. Park, Yusuf Altıntaş

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMachiningKalman filterBreakageMachine toolEngineeringVibrationTool wearTrajectoryControl engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceAcousticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applications of spindle integrated force sensors are examined where the cutting forces are reconstructed from the piezoelectric force sensors that are imbedded in the spindle housing. The reconstruction of the cutting forces using the disturbance Kalman filter effectively provides the high bandwidth sensor requirements. The three applications that are presented in this paper are Adaptive Control with Constraint (ACC), chatter detection, and tool breakage detection, all using the spindle integrated sensors. ACC provides effective means of increasing machining productivity through the adjustment of feed rates by constraining cutting forces. The detection of chatter vibration in machining operations is important in order to ensure quality surface finishes. The cutting forces measured from the spindle sensors provide sufficient information as to whether the cutting operations are stable or not. Tool breakage detection is performed using both a good tool and a damaged tool. Two residual indices based on the first order auto-regressive (AR) filter are examined to determine tool breakage. The experiments verify the successful monitoring strategies using the spindle integrated force sensors.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207