1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0951-5240(98)00033-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Grind-free tool path generation for five-axis surface machining

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the proposed equation is no longer adequate for intricate surfaces, as both complete removal and local removals are not equivalently distributed in the entire contact area due to the complex geometry of the workpiece that is machined. According to the brief literature review above, it can be concluded that most of the previous research works concentrated on cutting path optimization, thereby making regular contact resulting in constant material removal [6][7][8][9]. Though the removal of material in the belt grinding process from the workpiece surface can be written as a function of several parameters, their influence and interaction have not been reported in the literature that will be covered and bridged in this research work.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, the proposed equation is no longer adequate for intricate surfaces, as both complete removal and local removals are not equivalently distributed in the entire contact area due to the complex geometry of the workpiece that is machined. According to the brief literature review above, it can be concluded that most of the previous research works concentrated on cutting path optimization, thereby making regular contact resulting in constant material removal [6][7][8][9]. Though the removal of material in the belt grinding process from the workpiece surface can be written as a function of several parameters, their influence and interaction have not been reported in the literature that will be covered and bridged in this research work.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The forward step is usually determined by the maximum chordal deviation (Pi, Red, and Jensen 1998). Chordal deviation is the distance between the line connecting 2 CC points and the actual curve on the free-form surface (Figure 2(d)).…”
Section: Generation Of Initial Semi-finishing and Finishing Tool Pathsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The geometry of surface curve S(u 0 , v) at the vicinity of C i can be considered as a circular curve, as shown in figure 4(a), and the radius of the circle is the radius of curvature n at C i in the direction of cutter direction. Then the step-forward size L i is given by (Pi et al 1998): L i is then converted to the parameter increment Áv i , so that we can get the next CC point S(u 0 , v i þ Áv i ). As shown in figure 4(b), the conversion is determined by solving the following equation:…”
Section: Determining the Cutter Contact (Cc) Pointsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, much work focuses on the detection and avoidance of gouging and collision. Gouging is the main problem in finishing sculptured surfaces (Lee 1997, Pi et al 1998, Rao and Sarma 2000, which occurs when portions of the cutter's bottom extends below the part surface. Collision is regarded as the global gouging in which the cylindrical portion of the cutter interferes with the part surface or the machine tool.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%