MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306405747 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2022-0052

A comparison of four machine learning techniques and continuous wavelet transform approach for detection and classification of tool breakage during milling process

2022· article· en· W4306405747 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Habibe Gürsoy Demir, İsa Yeşilyurt

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakageMachine toolMachiningFault detection and isolationFrequency domainTime domainTool wearComputer scienceProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceVibrationWavelet transformContinuous wavelet transformEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionSupport vector machineFault (geology)Artificial neural networkCutting toolWaveletCondition monitoringEngineeringDiscrete wavelet transformComputer visionMechanical engineeringAcousticsActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In machining, the tool condition has to be monitored by condition monitoring techniques to prevent damage by the use of tools and the workpiece. Cutting forces acting on the tool between zero and maximum values cause the cutting edge to crack and break. Predetection of this situation in the cutting tool is very important to prevent any negative situation that may occur. This study introduces a vibration-based intelligent tool condition monitoring technique to detect involute form cutter faults such as tool breakage at different levels during gear production on a milling machine. Machine learning algorithms such as artificial neural network, random forest, support vector machine, and K-nearest neighbor were used to detect the broken teeth and its level of breakage. According to the results obtained, it was observed that all the algorithms are successful in detecting faults in different teeth; also they have identification advantages according to different fault levels. In addition, the time and frequency domain analysis and continuous wavelet transform were used to determine the local faults. The developed machine learning-based detection performances compared the classical time and frequency domain analyses and continuous wavelet transform to prove the effectiveness and precision of the proposed methods. The results showed that all of the machine learning techniques have satisfactory performance to be used as fast and precise detection tools without complex calculations for detecting tool breakage.

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 score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207