Modeling and Control of Contouring Errors for Five-Axis Machine Tools—Part I: Modeling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aerospace, die, and mold industries utilize parts with sculptured surfaces, which are machined on five-axis computer numerical controlled machine tools. Accurate path tracking for contouring is not always possible along the desired space curves due to the loss of joint coordination during the five-axis motion. This two-part paper presents modeling and robust control of contouring errors for five-axis machines. In Part I, two types of contouring errors are defined by considering the normal deviation of tool tip from the reference path, and by the normal deviation of the tool axis orientation from the reference orientation trajectory defined in the spherical coordinates. Overall contouring errors are modeled during five-axis motion that has simultaneous translation and rotary motions. The coupled kinematic configuration and the rigid body dynamics of all five drives are considered. The contouring error model is experimentally validated on a five-axis machine tool. The error model developed in this paper is then used for simultaneous, real-time robust control of all five drives in Part II.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it