Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33375340›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020

A Review of Indirect Tool Condition Monitoring Systems and Decision-Making Methods in Turning: Critical Analysis and Trends.

Mustafa Kuntoğlu, Abdullah Aslan, Danil Yurievich Pimenov, Üsame Ali Usca, Emin Salur, Munish Kumar Gupta, Tadeusz Mikolajczyk, Khaled Giasin, Wojciech Kapłonek, Shubham Sharma

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 278 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Mustafa KuntoğluMechanical Engineering Department, Technology Faculty, Selcuk University, Selçuklu, 42130 Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-7291-9468
Abdullah AslanMechanical Engineering Department, Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Selcuk University, Akşehir, 42130 Konya, Turkey.
Danil Yurievich PimenovDepartment of Automated Mechanical Engineering, South Ural State University, Lenin Prosp. 76, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-5568-8928
Üsame Ali UscaMechanical Engineering Department, Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Bingöl University, 12000 Bingöl, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-5160-5526
Emin SalurDepartment of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Selcuk University, Selçuklu, 42130 Konya, Turkey.
Munish Kumar GuptaDepartment of Automated Mechanical Engineering, South Ural State University, Lenin Prosp. 76, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0777-1559
Tadeusz MikolajczykDepartment of Production Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology, Al. Prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5253-590X
Khaled GiasinSchool of Mechanical and Design Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3DJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3992-8602
Wojciech KapłonekDepartment of Production Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Koszalin University of Technology, Racławicka 15-17, 75-620 Koszalin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4531-8963
Shubham SharmaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, IKG Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-Kapurthala Road, Kapurthala, Punjab 144603, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9446-8074
Selçuk University · TRSouth Ural State University · RUBingöl University · TRBydgoszcz University of Science and Technology · PLKoszalin University of Technology · PLPunjab Technical University · INUniversity of Portsmouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complex structure of turning aggravates obtaining the desired results in terms of tool wear and surface roughness. The existence of high temperature and pressure make difficult to reach and observe the cutting area. In-direct tool condition, monitoring systems provide tracking the condition of cutting tool via several released or converted energy types, namely, heat, acoustic emission, vibration, cutting forces and motor current. Tool wear inevitably progresses during metal cutting and has a relationship with these energy types. Indirect tool condition monitoring systems use sensors situated around the cutting area to state the wear condition of the cutting tool without intervention to cutting zone. In this study, sensors mostly used in indirect tool condition monitoring systems and their correlations between tool wear are reviewed to summarize the literature survey in this field for the last two decades. The reviews about tool condition monitoring systems in turning are very limited, and relationship between measured variables such as tool wear and vibration require a detailed analysis. In this work, the main aim is to discuss the effect of sensorial data on tool wear by considering previous published papers. As a computer aided electronic and mechanical support system, tool condition monitoring paves the way for machining industry and the future and development of Industry 4.0.

Indexed as

acoustic emissioncurrentcutting forceindirect tool condition monitoring systemsindustry 4.0machiningtemperatureturningvibration

Identifiers

PMID33375340
PMCPMC7794675
OpenAlexW3114814413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.