Minimization of Nonproductive Time in Drilling: A New Tool Path Generation Algorithm for Complex Parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In computerized tool path programming, the operator/user can generate the tool path based on the shape and geometry of the part to be produced by choosing from a set of predefined strategies available in the library of Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software. These tool paths are typically not optimum, specifically for complex geometries. This paper employed Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) as a foundation to propose a new tool path optimization algorithm for drilling to minimize the tool path length and subsequently reduce the time spent on nonproductive movements. The proposed algorithm was solved using local search approach in the presence of multiple constraints including geometric obstacles and initial location of tool origin. The outcome was a near-optimum tool path for drilling operations with no collision with workpiece features. The computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm was also compared with other methods in available literature using a standard workpiece as a benchmark. The results confirmed that for given examples, the near-optimum collision-free tool paths using the developed model in this paper were almost 50% shorter than the tool path generated by a commercial CAM software.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".