Graphics-assisted Rolling Ball Method for 5-axis surface machining

Arc-intersect method for -axis tool paths on a 5-axis machine

“…Gray et al [8] presented a method to compute surface points and normals of triangulated surfaces using the computer's graphics card. The same method is used here for its simplicity.…”

“…The cross-feed distance calculations were based on the ''Rolling Ball Method'', RBM, for 5-axis tool positioning developed by Gray et al [8] in which the surface normal curvature at each ccp is estimated for a triangulated surface along the cross-feed direction. The estimated curvature was compared to the projected effective radius of the tool at the ccp for each tool position to compute a cross-feed distance.…”

“…To eliminate the need for iterative gouge checking and correction algorithms, some 5-axis tool positioning strategies attempt to match the tool's cutting geometry to the surface around the ccp such as the work by Warkentin et al [6], and Gray et al [7] who also used computer graphics to compute tool positions from triangulated surfaces [8]. Generating tool paths from triangulated data is not new; the works in [9][10][11][12] present 3-axis machining examples.…”

Reducing fluctuation of machining strip width by tool position modification for five-axis NC machining of sculptured surfaces

“…Numerical methods have been increasingly applied in tool positioning algorithms to avoid the problems caused by local differential geometry. Rolling ball method (RBM) [12,13] placed the cutter inside a ball's surface, Arc intersect method (AIM) [14] forced the forward pseudo insert to contact the surface at CC point and then tilted the tool until it touched a second point on the part surface, and Penetration-elimination method (PEM) [15] developed a quantitative definition for gouging concept and greatly reduced the computational burden. The middle-point error control (MPEC) method, which focuses on the error distribution between the cutter and surface, is introduced in this paper.…”

Verification of NC machining processes using swept volumes

“…The sweep-envelope differential equation method is probably the most elegant method to date that has proven to be suitable for NC verification [7,8]. Some of the works that have addressed NC verification but have not used swept volume methods include Voelker and Hunt [9], Menon and Voelcker [10], Oliver and Goodman [11], Narvekar et al [12], Takata et al [13], Jerard and Drysdale [14,15], Koren and Lin [16], Menon and Robinson [17], Oliver [18], Liang et al [19], Liu et al [20], Lee [21], Lo [22], Chiou et al [23,24], Elber and Cohen [25], Balasubramaniam et al [26,27], Rao and Sarma [28], Jensen et al [29], Bohez [30], Mann and Bedi [31], Yoon et al [32], Bedi et al [33], Gray et al [34,35], Fussell et al [36], Lauwers et al [37], Jun et al [38], Bohez et al [39], and Langeron et al [40].…”