the evaluation of cutting-force coefficients using surface error measurements
DESCRIPTION
The Evaluation of Cutting-Force Coefficients Using Surface Error Measurements Journal of Materials Processing Technology 196 (2008) 42-51 Mariana Dotcheva, Huw Millward, Alan Lewis Presenter: Andrew Gerla 07 October 2009. Purpose. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Evaluation of Cutting-Force Coefficients Using Surface Error Measurements
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 196 (2008) 42-51
Mariana Dotcheva, Huw Millward, Alan Lewis
Presenter: Andrew Gerla
07 October 2009
Purpose
To provide a new approach for the determination of cutting forces.
References
Cutting Force Affects...Required machine power rating
Tool wear
Tolerances
Surface finish
Required lubrication and cooling
Economy of prototyping and small batches
Old MethodsUse mechanistic models with empirical
coefficients
Require expensive instrumentation to gather empirical data
Require skilled technicians to record and process data
Applicable only to the conditions under which test was performed
Not easily implemented for prototyping or small batch work
The Proposed Method• Cutting force is proportional to tool
deflection
• Tool deflection is related to surface finish
• Empirical relationship may apply to operations with different cutting conditions
Find equations like these:
• Tangential force KT(tc) = Ct1(tc)−kt1
• Radial force KR(tc) = Ct2(tc)−kt2
Method
Method
Discretize cutting tool by:
• Flute
• Angle of rotation
• Discs normal to axis of rotation
Analytical Models
Cutting Forces:
FX(θ(i, k, j)) = KT(EX1 + KREX2)
FZ(θ(i, k, j)) = KT(EZ1 + KREZ2)
FY(θ(i, k, j)) = KT(EY1 + KREY2)
Analytical Models
Tool Deflection:
δ(h) = δs + θs(h) + δt(h)
)]()(3)()),0[(max(6
)(
))]()((2)([2
)(
)]()(3)([6
233
3
23
FtttFt
Yt
tFcttcttcts
Ys
Fcttcttcts
Ys
zLhLhLhzEI
Fh
hLzLLLLLEI
Fh
zLLLLLEI
F
Experimental Procedure
Experimental Procedure
Cutting Test• Cut two strips with the same cutting
conditions
• Vary axial depth by ∆a
• Calculate difference in surface finish
• Difference in surface finish mainly due to additional forces from elemental disc ∆a
• 12 different feed rates
Experimental Procedure
Cutting Test• End milling operation
• HSS 3-flute 16mm cutter
• Aluminum alloy 6082
• Down-milling (climb-milling)
• Radial depth 3 mm, axial depths 8 and 9mm
• ∆a = 1mm
Experimental Procedure
Data Acquisition• CNC operated profilometer
• Maximum error 3.2%
• Straight measuring tool paths, 0.1mm increment
Analysis
Results
MATLAB curve fit:
Conclusions
• Analytical model accurately predicts experimental data in similar cutting conditions
• Uncut chip thickness can be calculated
• Study needs more verification of accuracy for different cutting conditions
• Different materials require different coefficients