Simultaneous Clamping and Cutting Force Measurements with Built-In Sensors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intensity of the clamping force during milling operations is very important, because an excessive clamping force can distort the workpiece, while inadequate clamping causes slippage of the workpiece. Since the overall clamping force can be affected by the cutting forces throughout machining, it is necessary to monitor the change of clamping and the cutting forces during the process. This paper proposes a hybrid system in the form of a vise with built-in strain gauges and in-house-developed piezoelectric sensors for simultaneous measurement of clamping and cutting forces. Lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensors are fabricated and embedded in a layered jaw to measure the dynamic forces of the machine tool. A cross-shaped groove within the jaw is designed to embed strain gauges, which predominantly measure the static clamping forces. Sensor fusion technology combining the signals of the strain gauges and PZT piezoelectric sensors is used to investigate the interactions between cutting forces and clamping forces. The results show average errors of 11%, 17%, and 6% for milling forces in X, Y, and Z directions, respectively; and 19% error for clamping forces, confirming the capability of the setup to monitor the forces in milling.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it