Comparison of Automation-Supported and Conventional Methods for Measuring Energy Consumption in Computer Numerical Control Machining
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
Optimizing energy consumption in machining processes is critical for achieving sustainable manufacturing. This study introduces an Automation-Supported measurement approach that integrates a custom power analyzer with real-time data logging and visualization capabilities to accurately measure energy usage during CNC (computer numerical control) operations. Statistical comparisons were conducted using the independent samples t-test and Taguchi analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method against traditional measurement techniques. The results revealed that there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the current measurements across X, Z, and spindle motors between the proposed and conventional methods. The advanced method based on automation reduced the error rate in measuring spindle motor power consumption due to the selection of processing parameters from 34.17% to 2.7%. Additionally, Taguchi analysis demonstrated that the measurement method influenced the optimization of machining parameters, with S/N ratio improvements observed. These findings confirm that the proposed method enhances energy efficiency, reduces environmental impact, and supports sustainable manufacturing practices.
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