Experimental implementation of artificial neural network-based active vibration control & chatter suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibration control strategies strive to reduce the effect of harmful vibrations such as machining chatter. In general, these strategies are classified as passive or active. While passive vibration control techniques are generally less complex, there is a limit to their effectiveness. Active vibration control strategies, which work by providing an additional energy supply to vibration systems, on the other hand, require more complex algorithms but can be very effective. In this work, a novel artificial neural network-based active vibration control system has been developed. The developed system can detect the sinusoidal vibration component with the highest power and suppress it in one control cycle, and in subsequent cycles, sinusoidal signals with the next highest power will be suppressed. With artificial neural networks trained to cover enough frequency and amplitude ranges, most of the original vibration can be suppressed. The efficiency of the proposed methodology has been verified experimentally in the vibration control of a cantilever beam. Artificial neural networks can be trained automatically for updated time delays in the system when necessary. Experimental results show that the developed active vibration control system is real time, adaptable, robust, effective and easy to be implemented. Finally, an experimental setup of chatter suppression for a lathe has been successfully implemented, and the successful techniques used in the previous artificial neural network-based active vibration control system have been utilized for active chatter suppression in turning.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".