MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023786481

CAM-Based Planning, Programming and Execution of Large-Scale Machining Operations by a Robot-Mounted Gantry System

2011· article· en· W3023786481 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jason Michel Lambert, Martin De Montigny, Claude Perron

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningScale (ratio)Computer scienceRobotEngineeringEngineering drawingOperations managementArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines issues related to planning, programming and execution of machining operations by a robot in the context of machining large parts with complex geometries by a gantry-mounted robotic system. Parts were created from surface data in a CAD/CAM environment. The same environment was used to generate tool paths using a conventional machine tool approach. These paths were converted to robot trajectories and validated using mathematical kinematic models of the robotic system. Validation was performed according to various criteria related to process performance. Associated robot programs were then automatically generated. The manufacturing cell was progressively integrated according to requirements resulting from iterative process characterization. A metrology-based calibration procedure was designed that considerably improved the system's positioning precision. A custom user interface for online process monitoring was created as well as online cell program management capabilities to accommodate the large quantity of trajectory information. The system went from conceptual, to prototype-level to full production mode, thereby covering several Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL). The various strategies used in planning the process and programming the system demonstrate the viability of CAM-based approach for robot machining path generation without resorting to the use of OLP packages for validation of program generation. This could create a shift in the dependency on robotic specialists, allowing machine tool experts to carry about the programming of robot machining cells using the conventional machine tool approach.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207