Improved inverse solutions for on-line machine tool monitoring
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, ISSN: 1087-1357, Vol: 126, Issue: 2, Page: 311-316
2004
- 3Citations
- 6Usage
- 8Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- CrossRef3
- Usage6
- Abstract Views6
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
The identification of tool/chip interface temperatures from remote sensor measurements is a steady inverse heat transfer problem that arises in online machine tool monitoring. In a previous paper we developed a set of inverse approaches, vector projection inverse methods, specifically for this problem. These methods rely on two types of sensor measurements: temperatures and heat fluxes. However, because of the extreme ill-conditioning of the tool configuration we studied previously, only a very limited amount of information could be obtained using any of the inverse approaches examined. In an effort to understand the impact of physical parameters on the conditioning of the problem we examined two modifications to the simulated cutting tool: we increased the thermal conductivity of the tool insert, and we reduced the thickness of the tool insert. Inverse solutions were computed on both configurations with all methods for two temperature profiles and various noise levels. The estimated tool/chip interface temperature for the high conductivity tool showed no improvement compared to the original configuration, since the temperature profiles on the sensor surface were unchanged. However, for the thinner tool, the estimated temperatures were substantially more accurate than with the original configuration. With this thinner tool configuration, an optimal set of four sensors could be used to estimate these temperatures at the tool/chip interface to within a few degrees, even with noisy sensor data.
Bibliographic Details
https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/electrical_fac/277; https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/mechanical_engineering_fac/288
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=12344279064&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1688374; https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article/126/2/311/446059/Improved-Inverse-Solutions-for-OnLine-Machine-Tool; http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/126/2/311/5566508/311_1.pdf; https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/electrical_fac/277; https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=electrical_fac; https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/mechanical_engineering_fac/288; https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=mechanical_engineering_fac; https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1688374
ASME International
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know