MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966550924 · doi:10.1177/0954405411401687

Process planning for corner machining based on a looping tool path strategy

2011· article· en· W1966550924 on OpenAlex
Avisekh Banerjee, H-Y Feng, Evgueni V. Bordatchev

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMachiningDeflection (physics)Machine toolKinematicsTool pathCutting toolJerkMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A corner is an elemental machining feature for internal pockets that is difficult to plan and execute. During machining of a corner, there is continuous variation in radial depth of cut and frequent changes in magnitude as well as direction of the feed rate. These result in inconsistent machining leading to machine tool jerk, excessive cutting force, and poor surface finish. In this paper, an integrated process planning approach for optimal corner machining has been proposed that combines the tool path generation and machining parameter selection tasks. As a first step a looping tool path strategy was implemented to progressively remove material in multiple loops in order to keep the radial depth under a permissible limit. The tool path consists of G 1 continuous biarc and arc spline segments which allow a constant feed rate to be held over the entire tool path. The geometries of the corner and cutting tool and the kinematics of the machine tool structure were considered in the calculation of the allowable constant feed rate. In the next step, the machining time was minimized by iteratively adjusting the feed per tooth value under cutting force constraints. The constraint ensured that the tool deflection was always under a tolerance limit. The resulting tool paths for different test cases indicated the ability of the tool path generation strategy to minimize the number of loops. A comparison of the results on machining times based on initial and optimal feed values and their corresponding tool path lengths indicated the potential for the improvement in productivity of corner machining. The proposed integrated approach that combines both geometric and machining parameters can generate more optimal process plans than approaches that consider these parameters separately.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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