MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323530005 · doi:10.14288/1.0098515

Design and analysis of a CNC system for machining and monitoring

2010· article· en· W2323530005 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Peng

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningEngineering drawingComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of unmanned machining systems has been a recent focus of manufacturing research. Computer Numerical Control (CNC) units, which monitor and control many tightly coupled machining tasks, are inseparable parts of the unmanned manufacturing system. This thesis addresses the detailed design and analysis of a modular CNC system for a milling machine. The feed drive control system of the machine tool is thoroughly studied. The mathematical model for the feed drive control system, which consists of a motion controller, power amplifiers and DC-servo motors, is developed and experimentally verified. A method of estimating cutting forces from current drawn by feed drive motors is developed. The viability of the current sensor as a feeding-force sensing component is illustrated and experimentally tested on the milling machine. Successful application of the current sensor to tool breakage detection in milling operation is presented. The performance of the multi-axis contouring system in precision machining is discussed. The contouring errors induced by feed drive positioning systems in CNC machine tools is investigated using the state space model of the CNC system. The influence of the cutting force on the accuracy of machining is shown to be negligible for feed drives driven by ball leadscrews. Various control strategies for the improvement of machining accuracy are tested in the simulation studies.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207