Comparison of Two Machine Learning Models for Predicting Volumetric Errors From On-The-Fly R-Test Type Device Data and Virtual End Point Constraints

On-the-fly virtual end-point constraints consists in moving all five axes of the machine tool while nominally maintaining the coincidence of a sensing head centre point with a master ball centre attached to the workpiece table. The sensing head detects the deviations from the nominal coincidence as...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Min Zeng, J. R. R. Mayer, Miao Feng, Elie Bitar-Nehme, Xuan Truong Duong
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Publishing House of Wrocław Board of Scientific Technical Societies Federation NOT 2025-05-01
Series:Journal of Machine Engineering
Subjects:
Online Access:http://jmacheng.not.pl/Comparison-of-Two-Machine-Learning-Models-for-Predicting-Volumetric-Errors-From-On,203805,0,2.html
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:On-the-fly virtual end-point constraints consists in moving all five axes of the machine tool while nominally maintaining the coincidence of a sensing head centre point with a master ball centre attached to the workpiece table. The sensing head detects the deviations from the nominal coincidence as a 3D volumetric error vector. More than one ball can be so measured and a fixed length ball bar is also measured for detecting isotropic scaling effects. Initial processing of data using the SAMBA (scale and master ball artefact) method eliminates setup errors and provides estimates of inter- and intra-axis errors as well as volumetric errors vectors. Two ML models are trained and compared, Neural Network (NN) and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), to find the most suitable model and the required amount of training data to predict volumetric errors of a five-axis machine tool with wCBXfZY(S)t topology based on axis commands. The results show that NN marginally outperforms XGBoost and a kinematic model with ratios of prediction error over volumetric error norms of 0.12, 0.13 and 0.14, respectively.
ISSN:1895-7595
2391-8071