0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Geometrical Simulation System of Ball End Finish Milling Process and Its Application for the Prediction of Surface Micro Features

[+] Author and Article Information
Xianbing Liu1

IMS—Mechatronics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering,  University of California, Davis, CA 95616xbliu@ucdavis.edu

Masakazu Soshi, Abhijit Sahasrabudhe, Kazuo Yamazaki

IMS—Mechatronics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering,  University of California, Davis, CA 95616

Masahiko Mori

 Mori Seiki Co., Ltd., Nara, Japan

1

Corresponding author.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 128(1), 74-85 (Jan 28, 2005) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2039098 History: Received November 11, 2003; Revised January 28, 2005

Finish milling with a ball end mill is a key process in manufacturing high-precision and complex workpieces, such as dies and molds. Because of the complexity of the milling process, it is difficult to evaluate the microcharacteristics of machined surfaces real time, which necessitates the simulation of the process. In this area, the existing related simulation researches mainly focus on scallop height evaluation, but few have presented a whole picture of the microcharacteristics of milled surfaces. This paper develops a comprehensive simulation system based on a Z-map model for predicting surface topographic features and roughness formed in the finish milling process and studies the effect of machining parameters. The adoption of the discretization concept of the tool’s cutting motion makes it possible to dynamically track the cutting tool-workpiece interaction with the tool movement and to describe the cutting edges-workpiece discrete cutting interaction more realistically and, therefore, the microcharacteristics of the machined surfaces more accurately. Also, the effects of the cutting tool run-out and wear are incorporated into the developed model through modifying the tool center motion and the cutting-edge shape, respectively. As a fundamental study, the tool-swept envelope has been simulated. The developed simulation system is applied to thoroughly study the surface features formed by the 2.5-axis finish milling process. The application for general three-axis machining is discussed. Additionally, this paper studies the effect of the tool inclination, which is the most common characteristic in 3+2- or five-axis milling processes, on the machined surface features. Experiments are carried out to study the milling process and to verify the simulation results. The difference between the simulated and experimental results is discussed, and the reason behind the difference is explored.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Representation of the cutting edges in the simulation: (a) bottom view and (b) side view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Modeling of the cutting edges in the simulation: (a) two-flute tool, (b) three-flute tool, and (c) four-flute tool

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Cutting-tool motion discretization with the tool normal to the workpiece surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Experimental evidence of the discrete tool cutting action: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 6000 rpm, and (c) polygon line on machined surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Kinematical relationship between cutting tool and workpiece, and material removal modeling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Projection of the tool-cutting edge on the workpiece surface and Scan algorithm in 2.5- or three-axis machining: (a) side view and (b) top view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Projection of the tool-cutting edge on the workpiece surface and Scan algorithm when the tool inclined to the surface: (a) side view and (b) top view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Effect of the tool radial run-out on the tool-center motion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Effect of tool wear on the cutting-edge geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Machining experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of simulated and experimental 3D tool-swept envelopes formed in 2.5-axis machining: (a) simulated 3D tool-swept envelope in a workpiece and (b) experimental 3D tool-swept envelope in a workpiece

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Magnified comparison of simulated and experimental results of the cutting-tool-swept envelopes formed in 2.5-axis machining: (a) simulated and (b) experimental

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of simulated and experimental results for surface roughness in 2.5-axis machining: (a) without the consideration of tool wear and tool run-out; (b) with the consideration of tool wear only; (c) with the consideration of tool run-out only; and (d) with the consideration of both tool run-out and wear

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Three-dimensional topography of simulated surface in 2.5-axis machining (feed=0.04mm∕rev): (a) without the consideration of tool wear and run-out; (b) with the consideration of tool wear only; (c) with the consideration of tool run-out only; and (d) with the consideration of both tool wear and run-out

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Three-dimensional topography of measured milled surface in 2.5-axis machining (feed=0.04mm∕rev)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of simulated and experimental results of the cutting-tool-swept envelopes when the cutting tool inclined −15deg in the feed direction: (a) simulated; and (b) experimental

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison of the simplified and analytical cutting edges: (a) 3D view and (b) top view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Comparison of the simulated results from the simplified and analytical cutting-tool models in 2.5-axis machining: (a) with simplified cutting-tool model and (b) with analytical cutting-tool model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Comparison of the simulated results from the simplified and analytical cutting-tool models, cutting tool inclined −15deg with respect to the feed direction: (a) with simplified cutting-tool model and (b) with analytical cutting-tool model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Workpiece Z-map modeling in the simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Simulation system flowchart

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