0
Research Papers

Tool Path Planning for Near-Dry EDM Milling With Lead Angle on Curved Surfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
Masahiro Fujiki1

 Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

Jun Ni, Albert J. Shih

 Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

1

Currently with Mori Seiki.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 133(5), 051005 (Sep 22, 2011) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004865 History: Received July 12, 2011; Revised September 09, 2011; Published September 22, 2011; Online September 22, 2011

This research investigates the strategy to achieve high material removal rate in tool path planning for the near-dry electrical discharge machining (EDM) milling process using tubular electrode with a lead angle. The proposed strategy to prevent leakage of dielectric mist from the tubular electrode is different from the conventional end milling process due to the difference in material removal mechanism. Tool positions and orientations to engage the electrode into workpiece, machining of workpiece edge, minimum lead angle to machine a curved surface, and minimum and maximum path interval to prevent the mist leakage are derived. Experiments are conducted to validate the model prediction of path planning. Experimental results show plunge method has the highest material removal rate for engaging method, and electrode hole must be located within the workpiece surface when edge of workpiece is machined. For curvature machining, the proposed path planning strategy yields higher material removal rate compared with that from the conventional strategy, which only avoids gouging. This study also reveals that, due to the tool wear and crowning of electrode tip, it is difficult to accurately determine the minimum path interval which will cause the mist leakage.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cross-sectional view of methods to engage tool and workpiece: (a) conventional with α = 0, (b) conventional with α ≠ 0, (c) plunge with α = 0, and (d) plunge with α ≠ 0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Top view of work and electrode during edge machining when w = (a) φOD2, (b) φOD+φID2, and (c) φOD

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Projection of electrode and workpiece on x∧  z∧ plane for convex surface (a) minimum α and (b) minimum D when α = 0°

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Picture of a tip of a worn electrode after machining (a) with α, front view (b) with α, side view, (c) without α, front view, and (d) without α, side view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Projection of electrode and workpiece on the x∧  z∧ plane for a concave surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Projection of electrode and workpiece on the y∧  z∧ plane for (a) convex and (b) concave surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Projection of electrode and workpiece on the y∧  z∧ plane for (a) convex and (b) concave surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Experimental set up for 4.5-axis near-dry EDM milling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Projection of electrode and workpiece on the x∧  z∧ plane for a flat surface (a) without α0 and (b) with α0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Exp. II results—MRR using four engagement methods (α = −5°)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Exp. III results—MRR for edge machining

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Workpiece with 25 mm curvature for machining experiments (a) convex curvature along feed direction, (b) concave curvature along feed direction, (c) convex curvature along cross-feed direction, (d) side view of convex curvature along cross-feed direction, (e) concave curvature along cross-feed direction, and (f) side view of concave curvature along cross-feed direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Exp. IV results—MRR from RF  = 25 mm for the (a) convex and (b) concave surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Exp. V results—MRR from R⊥  = 25 mm for the (a) convex and (b) concave surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Exp. VI results—MRR of three path interval tests (α = −5°)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Exp. I results—MRR at different offset angles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Coordinate system at the electrode contact point on the workpiece surface

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