0
Technical Brief

Adaptive Robust Control of Circular Machining Contour Error Using Global Task Coordinate Frame

[+] Author and Article Information
Tyler A. Davis

Mem. ASME
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2088
e-mail: zip.tyler@gmail.com

Yung C. Shin

Fellow ASME
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2088
e-mail: shin@purdue.edu

Bin Yao

Fellow ASME
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2088
e-mail: byao@purdue.edu

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received February 18, 2013; final manuscript received September 16, 2014; published online November 26, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Robert Landers.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 137(1), 014501 (Feb 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: MANU-13-1068; doi: 10.1115/1.4028634 History: Received February 18, 2013; Revised September 16, 2014; Online November 26, 2014

The contour error (CE) of machining processes is defined as the difference between the desired and actual produced shape. Two major factors contributing to CE are axis position error and tool deflection. A large amount of research work formulates the CE in convenient locally defined task coordinate frames that are subject to significant approximation error. The more accurate global task coordinate frame (GTCF) can be used, but transforming the control problem to the GTCF leads to a highly nonlinear control problem. An adaptive robust control (ARC) approach is designed to control machine position in the GTCF, while additionally accounting for tool deflection, to minimize the CE. The combined GTCF/ARC approach is experimentally validated by applying the control to circular contours on a three axis milling machine. The results show that the proposed approach reduces CE in all cases tested.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Circular cut arrangement, tool path indicated by dotted line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of simulated and experimental X axis response to 16.2 Hz sinusoidal input

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Bode plot of original and simplified X axis models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Bode plot of original and simplified Y axis models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental and model results for average milling peak force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Overview of deflection analysis components

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Simulated CE for control method in Ref. [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Simulated CE for the GTCF/ARC approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Measured CE for uncontrolled case with feedrate of 7.37 mm/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Measured CE for controlled case with feedrate of 6.52 mm/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured CE for controlled case with feedrate of 7.37 mm/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Measured CE for controlled case with feedrate of 8.21 mm/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Online parameter estimates for 8.21 mm/s case (typical of other cases). The peak at π/2 is due to startup transients.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In