MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096230864 · doi:10.1115/1.3123336

Modeling and Control of Contouring Errors for Five-Axis Machine Tools—Part II: Precision Contour Controller Design

2009· article· en· W2096230864 on OpenAlexaff
Burak Sencer, Yusuf Altıntaş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContouringMachine toolController (irrigation)KinematicsNumerical controlMachiningComputer sciencePath (computing)Tool pathControl theory (sociology)Orientation (vector space)Tracking (education)TrajectoryTracking errorControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The accurate tracking of tool-paths on five-axis CNC machine tools is essential in achieving high speed machining of dies, molds, and aerospace parts with sculptured surfaces. Because traditional CNCs control the tracking errors of individual drives of the machine, this may not lead to desired contouring accuracy along tool-paths, which require coordinated action of all the five drives. This paper proposes a new control approach where the tool tip and tool orientation errors, i.e., the contouring errors, are minimized along the five-axis tool-paths. The contouring error and kinematic model of the machine, which are presented in Part I of the paper, are used in defining the plant. A multi-input–multi-output sliding mode controller, which tries to minimize path tracking and path following velocity errors, is introduced. The stability of the system is ensured, and the proposed model is experimentally demonstrated on a five-axis machine tool. The path errors originating from the dynamics of five simultaneously active drives are significantly reduced.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207