MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978193861 · doi:10.1115/detc2014-34312

Spiral Tool Path Planning Using Eccentric Parameters

2014· article· en· W1978193861 on OpenAlexaff
Baosu Guo, Qingjin Peng, Xiaosheng Cheng, Ning Dai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsSpiral (railway)DiagonalPath (computing)Parametric statisticsPlanarCurvatureMachiningPoint (geometry)Surface (topology)GeometryComputer scienceParametric surfaceAlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysisMechanical engineeringComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free-form surfaces can be machined continuously with minimum tool retractions and at the high speed by following a spiral tool path. This paper presents an improved planning method of the spiral tool path using eccentric parameters for machining free-form surfaces. The relationship between a 3D machined surface and the 2D circular region is established through the conformal mapping. In order to generate an even path, eccentric parameters are used in 2D parametric circular regions to optimize the path interval. The proposed method produces planar spiral segments as a diagonal curve between every two adjacent parametric tool paths. A 2D spiral tool path is gained by linking spiral segments in sequence. Inverse mapping of the 2D spiral tool path onto the machined surface generates the 3D spiral tool path. The main processes of the proposed method include reducing dimensions of free-form surfaces, calculating the eccentric parametric tool path, and generating the planar diagonal spiral tool path. Some applications are used to verify the proposed methods. The proposed method allows the start point to be arbitrary and generates more even tool paths than the existing methods by introducing the mapping distortion.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207