US5691909A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method of virtual machining to predict the accuracy of part to be made with machine tools
Assignee: Cinetic Landis Grinding Corp
•
Filing: 1995-12-29
•
Granted: 1997-11-25
•
Expires: 2015-12-29
Abstract
Abstract A method is provided for virtual machining which helps predict the accuracy of parts to be made on machine tools, allocates errors in design and manufacture of machine tools, and diagnoses the source of errors in machine tools. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method which calculates the "error shape" of a part being manufactured based upon the position, orientation, velocity and shape of the machine tool. The method predicts the statistical distribution of part size, form, and profile errors in a population of parts by superposing "error shapes." The machine errors are diagnosed by matching post process gauging data with a linear combination of "error shapes." The method predicts the magnitude and pattern of errors in a machined part, performs a simulation taking into account the geometry of the machine, the commanded machine motions as a function of time, error motions of the machine's components as a function of time, and the shape of the tool. The output is the location of a set of discrete points on the surface of a part.
Inventors
- 👤 Daniel D. Frey
- 👤 Timothy W. Hykes
- 👤 Kevin N. Otto
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-05 00:43
CPC Classifications
G; G05; G05B; G05B19/00; G05B19/02; G05B19/18; G05B19/406; G05B19/4069; G05B2219/00; G05B2219/30; G05B2219/32; G05B2219/32221; G05B2219/35; G05B2219/35303; G05B2219/37; G05B2219/37525; G05B2219/37576; G05B2219/40; G05B2219/40472; Y; Y02; Y02P; Y02P90/00; Y02P90/02
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 25
Claim 1
Independent Claim
115 words
A method for virtual machining to predict the accuracy of parts to be made with machine tools, to allocate errors of said machine tools and diagnose a source of said errors, comprising the steps of: performing a simulation taking into account nominal geometry of said machine tool, commanded machine tool motions as a function of time, error motions of said machine tool as a function of time, and a shape of a cutting tool; calculating an error shape which is a set of discrete points on a surface of said part based upon position, orientation, direction of motion and shape of said cutting tool; and predicting a magnitude and pattern of errors for said part.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
115 words
A method for virtual machining to predict the accuracy of parts to be made with machine tools, to allocate errors of said machine tools and diagnose a source of said errors, comprising the steps of: performing a simulation taking into account nominal geometry of said machine tool, commanded machine tool motions as a function of time, error motions of said machine tool as a function of time, and a shape of a cutting tool; calculating an error shape which is a set of discrete points on a surface of said part based upon position, orientation, direction of motion and shape of said cutting tool; and predicting a magnitude and pattern of errors for said part.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
23 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said calculating step is based on a homogeneous transformation matrix model of said machine tool.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
56 words
A method as recited in claim 2, wherein said machine tool geometry is derived from one of machine drawings and a CAD database, said commanded machine tool motions are determined from one of control mathematics and nominal part geometry, and said error motions are determined from anticipated sources of error from said homogeneous transformation matrix model.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
44 words
A method as recited in claim 3, wherein said machine tool geometry, said commanded machine tool motions, and said error motions are used to determine said cutting tool position, said cutting tool orientation, and said cutting tool position is used to determine tool velocity.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
24 words
A method as recited in claim 4, wherein said cutting tool velocity, position and orientation are used to determine a shape of said tool.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
29 words
A method as recited in claim 2, wherein said error motions are determined from one of engineering estimates and computer models of sources of error in a machine tool.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
63 words
A method as recited in claim 2, wherein said homogeneous transformation matrix model is one of three types of matrices, comprising: matrices which describe geometry of said machine tool in a home position, matrices which describe a pose of said machine tool resulting from said commanded machine tool motions, and matrices which describe all variations in performance of said machine tool from nominal.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
23 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said machine tool geometry is derived from one of machine drawings and a CAD database.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
24 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said commanded machine tool motions are determined from one of control mathematics and nominal part geometry.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
24 words
A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of calculating a location of a point on a surface of said part.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
141 words
A method as recited in claim 10, wherein said step of calculating a location of a point, comprises the steps of: transforming a location of a point along an axis of rotation of said cutting tool into a local coordinate system of said part, calculating a direction of motion of that point, and constructing a vector perpendicular to both said direction of motion of said point and said axis of rotation of said cutting tool and originating at said point along said axis of rotation of said cutting tool and having a length equal to a radius of said cutting tool at said point along said axis of rotation of said cutting tool; said radius of said tool being a known function of said axial location and an endpoint of said vector is a position on said surface of said part.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
49 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein a monte carlo simulation is employed to estimate a statistical distribution of errors in machined parts, wherein for a designated number of trial parts probability distribution functions are sampled to determine a magnitude of an error source for each individual part.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
49 words
A method as recited in claim 12, wherein said magnitudes are multiplied by error shapes, point by point, and said error shapes are superposed to yield an error shape for a particular trial part, said particular part error shape is processed to determine errors in size, form and profile.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
45 words
A method as recited in claim 13, wherein said values of said errors are stored for each trial and are used to produce a statistical distribution of said error as one of a histogram, a mean value, a standard deviation, and percentage out of tolerance.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
21 words
A method as recited in claim 13, wherein error shapes for a variety of error sources are maintained in a database.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
75 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said error shape is associated with an error source which is produced by setting all but one error source value to zero, to yield a set of points on a surface of said part, distances between said points on said surface of said part to corresponding points on an ideal part are ordered into a set which is a distinct error shape associated with said error source.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
77 words
A method as recited in claim 16, comprising: multiplying each error value of each error shape by a gain factor, each error shape having a distinct gain factor; summing corresponding error values of each error shape to yield a composite error shape; comparing said composite error shape to post process gauging data; and varying said gain factors of said each error shape to minimize a difference between said composite error shape and said post process gauging data.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
33 words
A method as recited in claim 17, further comprising the step of employing linear regression to minimize a sum of squared differences between said composite error shape and said post process gauging data.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
39 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said method is incorporated in an automated system to perform a least squares fit of said post process gauging data with a linear combination of error shapes stored in a database.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
51 words
A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said method is used to produce a systematic account of sources of error in said machine tool, to estimate an accuracy of a machine during design, and to identify major contributors to overall machine error so that better design decisions can be made.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
40 words
A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of predicting a statistical distribution of part size, form and profile errors in a population of parts by superposing said error shapes sampled from statistical distributions of error sources.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
29 words
A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of diagnosing machine errors by matching post process gauging data with a linear combination of said error shapes.
Claim 24
Independent Claim
164 words
A method for virtual machining to predict the accuracy of crank pins made with a grinding machine, to allocate errors in design and manufacture of said grinding machine and diagnose a source of said errors, comprising the steps of: calculating error shapes of a crank pin based upon a position, orientation, velocity and shape of a said grinding wheel; predicting a statistical distribution of crank pin size, form, and profile errors in a population of said crank pins by superposing said error shape; diagnosing grinding machine errors by matching post process gauging data with a linear combination of said error shapes; predicting a magnitude and pattern of errors for said crank pin; performing a simulation taking into account geometry of said grinding wheel, commanded grinding wheel motions as a function of time, error motions of said grinding wheel as a function of time, and a shape of said grinding wheel; and outputting a set of discrete points on a surface of said crank pin.
Claim 25
Independent Claim
164 words
A method for virtual machining to predict the accuracy of crank pins made with a grinding machine, to allocate errors in design and manufacture of said grinding machine and diagnose a source of said errors, comprising the steps of: calculating error shapes of a crank pin based upon a position, orientation, velocity and shape of a said grinding wheel; predicting a statistical distribution of crank pin size, form, and profile errors in a population of said crank pins by superposing said error shape; diagnosing grinding machine errors by matching post process gauging data with a linear combination of said error shapes; predicting a magnitude and pattern of errors for said crank pin; performing a simulation taking into account geometry of said grinding wheel, commanded grinding wheel motions as a function of time, error motions of said grinding wheel as a function of time, and a shape of said grinding wheel; and outputting a set of discrete points on a surface of said crank pin.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
DE211202C
Cited
GB2049995A
Cited
US4283669A
Cited
US4621434A
Cited
US4660148A
Cited
US5150305A
Cited
US4868761A
Cited
US4769763A
Cited
US4837703A
Cited
US4918627A
Cited
US4833617A
Cited
US5249135A
Cited
US5323325A
Cited
US5122717A
Cited
US5337249A
Cited
US5274574A
Cited
US5309364A
Cited
US5257204A
Cited
US5247651A
Cited
US5276974A
Cited
US5315525A
Cited
US5402354A
Cited
US5396160A
Cited
US5351196A
Cited
US5317519A
Cited
US5377116A
Cited
US5325308A
Cited
US5355062A
Cited
US5565748A
Cited
US5596256A
Cited
US5416715A
Cited
US5587937A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2000-11-24 | 2001-05-26 | 2001-11-25 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2004-11-24 | 2005-05-26 | 2005-11-25 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2008-11-24 | 2009-05-26 | 2009-11-25 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |