MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Friction Modeling and Monitoring for Machine Tool Health Management

2025· article· en· W4412021586 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Sicard, Yuandi Wu, Quade Butler, S. Andrew Gadsden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHealth management systemMachine toolEngineeringMechanical engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring of machine tool (MT) health is essential to ensure maximum performance and reliability. One way to monitor the health of the MT is to monitor the various components of the MT, including the spindle, cutting tools, and feed drives. Feed drives, for example, have several parameters to monitor, such as the stiffness, preload, backlash, and the subject of this work, friction. Various factors will affect the friction in MTs, primarily preload, lubrication, and wear, these operating characteristics are of interest when monitoring the effects of friction on MT performance. Friction will change at different speeds, at different positions along the axis, as well as changing over time. To monitor it, the friction can be parameterized into a Stribeck friction curve (SFC), which can be monitored over time and position along the axis to get a holistic view of the MT health. This provides a sensor-less monitoring solution which can be part of a greater health management program for the MT. The effectiveness of this method is displayed in a case study where the friction is measured before and after a warm-up cycle and a clear distinction in the SFC is noted. It was observed that the friction is decreased after the warm-up cycle, likely due to the decrease in lubrication viscosity. In addition to the application case that was explored, this method could be used to monitor wear and identify other faults.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207