MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402756108 · doi:10.3390/jmmp8050207

Feed Drive Control and Non-Linear Friction Interaction Effect on Machining Chatter Stability Prediction

2024· article· en· W4402756108 on OpenAlexaff
Oier Franco, Xavier Beudaert, Kaan Erkorkmaz, Jokin Muñoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningControl theory (sociology)Stability (learning theory)Control (management)Computer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In large-scale machine tool applications, the presence of low structural natural frequencies limits the cutting capabilities of the machine. The machine tool joints interact with the structural mode shapes, hence, the feed drive system characteristics can significantly influence the resultant dynamics at the cutting point. This paper investigates the effect of guideway non-linear friction and feed drive motion control parameters on chatter stability predictions. Field experimentation on seven machines reveals substantial differences between in-motion and idle dynamics, leading to errors in traditional process stability predictions. By using a one-degree-of-freedom model that incorporates non-linear friction and controller forces together with motion commands, the effect of axis motion on machine tool dynamics is analyzed. Later, the feed and force non-linearities are studied in a large-scale machine tool using traditional and alternative dynamic characterization techniques. The findings demonstrate that both feed and force non-linearities influence the frequency response functions at the cutting points, ultimately affecting the accuracy of process stability predictions. Proper selection of feed drive control parameters reduces the cutting point compliance, improving machine tool productivity by up to 50%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207