2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.11.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Penetration–elimination method for five-axis CNC machining of sculptured surfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the local methods (Vickers and Quan 1989, Bedi et al 1997, Rao and Sarma 2000, Jensen et al 2002, Yoon et al 2002, only normal curvatures of C (or W i ) and S are considered to orient C. The main disadvantage of the local methods is that there could still be rear gouging, and consequently a secondary iterative gouge-check and correction algorithm has to be implemented (Gray et al 2005). The global methods overcome the disadvantage by using an area of S beneath C to determine the orientation (Warkentin et al 2000, Gray et al 2003, Hosseinkhani et al 2007, Fan and Ball 2008. In particular, the quadric method (QM) (Fan and Ball 2008) exploits fully the orientation angles (α, β) with respect to the machined strip width w. Further, the width evaluation is involved in the method, and its approximation error is conservative and acceptably small.…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the local methods (Vickers and Quan 1989, Bedi et al 1997, Rao and Sarma 2000, Jensen et al 2002, Yoon et al 2002, only normal curvatures of C (or W i ) and S are considered to orient C. The main disadvantage of the local methods is that there could still be rear gouging, and consequently a secondary iterative gouge-check and correction algorithm has to be implemented (Gray et al 2005). The global methods overcome the disadvantage by using an area of S beneath C to determine the orientation (Warkentin et al 2000, Gray et al 2003, Hosseinkhani et al 2007, Fan and Ball 2008. In particular, the quadric method (QM) (Fan and Ball 2008) exploits fully the orientation angles (α, β) with respect to the machined strip width w. Further, the width evaluation is involved in the method, and its approximation error is conservative and acceptably small.…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 2 compares of the IM with some alternative machining strategies introduced in Section 1.2 for machining the inverse mouse surface, and figure 8 illustrates the corresponding machined strips in parametric space. In some published 5-axis machining methods (Gray et al 2003, Hosseinkhani et al 2007, the screw angle β is kept at 0 • and the lead angle α is optimised by placing the cutter as close as possible to the design surface. The computational time for this method to generate 24 tool passes to cover the The example illustrates the potential efficiency savings of the IM compared to the other strategies, with reductions in the machining times of 33% and 68% respectively.…”
Section: Inverse Mouse Surface Machiningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this situation, traditional processing methods cannot efficiently meet the rapid development of the high-end equipments. With the development of 5-axis NC machining in complex curved surface [1,2], the high efficiency NC machining technology for such parts becomes a popular and difficult issue in the industrial field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AIM is an area-based method that generated gouge-free tool positions without using iterative gouge-check and correction algorithms. Hosseinkhani et al [7] proposed a PEM method. This method developed a quantitative definition for the gouging concept and used this definition in conjunction with powerful numerical root-finder algorithms to determine the optimized tool orientations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%