MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064131725 · doi:10.1115/detc2009-87635

An Object-Space Based Machining Simulation in Milling: Part 1 — By Natural Quadric and Flat Surfaces

2009· article· en· W2064131725 on OpenAlexaff
Eyyup Aras

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorusQuadricIntersection (aeronautics)MachiningParametric surfaceEnvelope (radar)Surface (topology)GeometryMathematicsParametric equationMathematical analysisParametric statisticsComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This two-part paper presents an efficient parametric approach to updating workpiece surfaces represented by the Z-map vectors. The methodology is developed for up to 3 1/2 1/2-axis machining in which a tool can be arbitrarily oriented. In calculations the Automatically Programmed Tool (APT)-type milling cutters represented by the natural quadrics, planar and the toroidal surfaces are used. The machining process is simulated through calculating the intersections between the Z-map vectors and the tool envelope surface which is modeled by using a tangency function. Part 1 of this two-part paper presents the methodology for the cutters with natural quadrics and planar surfaces. For those surfaces intersection calculations are performed analytically. The geometric complexity of a torus is higher than those of the natural quadric and planar surfaces. Furthermore if the torus has an arbitrary orientation then the intersection calculations for the torus present great difficulties. In NC machining typically a torus is considered as one of the constituent parts of a cutter. In this case only some parts of the torus envelopes, called contact-envelopes, can intersect with Z-map vectors. For this purpose in Part 2 of this two-part paper an analysis is developed for separating the contact-envelopes from the non-contact envelopes. Then a system of non-linear equations in several variables, obtained from intersecting Z-map vectors with contact envelopes, is transformed into a single variable non-linear function. Later using a nonlinear root finding analysis which guarantees the root(s) in the given interval, those intersections are addressed.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207