MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229373731 · doi:10.1115/1.4054516

Condition Monitoring of Machine Tool Feed Drives: A Review

2022· review· en· W4229373731 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrognosticsMachine toolCondition monitoringEngineeringManufacturing engineeringControl engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The innovations propelling the manufacturing industry towards Industry 4.0 have begun to maneuver into machine tools. Machine tool maintenance primarily concerns the feed drives used for workpiece and tool positioning. Condition monitoring of feed drives is the intermediate step between smart data acquisition and evaluating machine health through diagnostics and prognostics. This review outlines the techniques and methods that recent research presents for feed drive condition monitoring, diagnostics and prognostics. The methods are distinguished between being sensorless and sensor-based, as well as between signal-, model-, and machine learning-based techniques. Close attention is given to the components of feed drives (ball screws, linear guideways, and rotary axes) and the most notable parameters used for monitoring. Commercial and industry solutions to Industry 4.0 condition monitoring are described and detailed. The review is concluded with a brief summary and the observed research gaps.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.264 · 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