MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409583970 · doi:10.1115/1.4068487

Identification of Flexible Joint Multibody Dynamic Models for Machine Tool Feed Drive Assemblies Via Inertial Measurement Unit and Computer Numerical Control Data

2025· article· en· W4409583970 on OpenAlexafffund
Chia-Pei Wang, Kaan Erkorkmaz, John McPhee, Şerafettin Engin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCégep Marie-VictorinUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJoint (building)Inertial measurement unitIdentification (biology)Multibody systemComputer scienceControl engineeringMachine toolEngineeringAutomotive engineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High-accuracy modeling of machine tool dynamics is essential for advanced process planning and monitoring. However, modeling high-speed multi-axis machines is challenging due to the inherent coupled and nonlinear multibody dynamics and structural flexibility. This complex modeling task is addressed by a new approach in which the control dynamics and the open-loop plant dynamics are characterized by a multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) linear time-invariant (LTI) system coupled with a generalized disturbance, which is able to capture the open-loop coupled nonlinear dynamics. As a case study, different machine tool topologies of a flexible linear drive coupled with a rotary drive are systematically analyzed using the proposed modeling approach. The identification procedure for the proposed method requires capturing the internal structural vibration between the drives. This article also presents a method to reconstruct the internal structural vibration using data from the embedded encoders as well as a low-cost microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the machine table. This modeling-building approach is nonintrusive and practical for industrial implementation. The experimental validation shows a 2–6% error in predicting the tracking error and motor force/torque. Especially, the vibratory inter-axis coupling effect and posture-dependency are accurately predicted.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207