0
Research Papers

Envelope Surface Modeling and Tool Path Optimization for Five-Axis Flank Milling Considering Cutter Runout

[+] Author and Article Information
Zhou-Long Li

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System
and Vibration,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: lzl@sjtu.edu.cn

Li-Min Zhu

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System
and Vibration,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: zhulm@sjtu.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 20, 2014; final manuscript received April 5, 2014; published online June 5, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Xiaoping Qian.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 136(4), 041021 (Jun 05, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: MANU-14-1025; doi: 10.1115/1.4027415 History: Received January 20, 2014; Revised April 05, 2014

Cutter runout is a common and inevitable phenomenon impacting the geometry accuracy in the milling process. However, most of the works on tool path planning neglect the cutter runout effect. In this paper, a new approach is presented to integrate the cutter runout effect into envelope surface modeling and tool path optimization for five-axis flank milling with a conical cutter. Based on the geometry model of cutter runout which consists of cutter axis and cutter tilt, an analytic expression of cutter edge combined with four runout parameters is derived. Then the envelope surface formed by each cutter edge is constructed using the envelope theory of sphere congruence. Due to the cutter runout effect, the envelope surfaces formed by the cutter edges are different from each other, and the valid envelope surface is the combination of these envelope surfaces which contribute to the final machined surface. To measure the machining errors, the geometry deviations between the valid envelope surface and the design surface are calculated with the distance function. On the basis of the differential property of the distance function, tool path optimization considering cutter runout is modeled as a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem, which can be solved by the branch-and-bound method. Finally, numerical examples are given to confirm the validity and efficiency of the proposed approach. The results show that the geometry errors induced by runout can be reduced significantly using the proposed method.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ferry, W., and Altintas, Y., 2008, “Virtual Five-Axis Flank Milling of Jet Engine Impellers-Part I: Mechanics of Five-Axis Flank Milling,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 130(1), p. 011005. [CrossRef]
Wu, C. Y., 2012, “Arbitrary Surface Flank Milling and Flank SAM in the Design and Manufacturing of Jet Engine Fan and Compressor Airfoils,” ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 11–15, Vol. 5, pp. 21–30. [CrossRef]
Harik, R. F., Gong, H., and Bernard, A., 2013, “5-Axis Flank Milling: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Comput.-Aided Des., 45(3), pp. 796–808. [CrossRef]
Chiou, J. C., and Lee, Y. S., 2005, “Optimal Tool Orientation for Five-Axis Tool-End Machining by Swept Envelope Approach,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 127(4), pp. 810–818. [CrossRef]
Chiou, J. C., and Lee, Y. S., 2002, “Swept Surface Determination for Five-Axis Numerical Control Machining,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 42(14), pp. 1497–1507. [CrossRef]
Weinert, K., Du, S. J., Damm, P., and Stautner, M., 2004, “Swept Volume Generation for the Simulation of Machining Processes,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 44(6), pp. 617–628. [CrossRef]
Du, S. J., Surmann, T., Webber, O., and Weinert, K., 2005, “Formulating Swept Profiles for Five-Axis Tool Motions,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 45(7), pp. 849–861. [CrossRef]
Gong, H., and Wang, N., 2009, “Analytical Calculation of the Envelope Surface for Generic Milling Tools Directly From CL-Data Based on the Moving Frame Method,” Comput.-Aided Des., 41(11), pp. 848–855. [CrossRef]
Zhu, L. M., Zhang, X. M., Zheng, G., and Ding, H., 2009, “Analytical Expression of the Swept Surface of a Rotary Cutter Using the Envelope Theory of Sphere Congruence,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 131(4), p. 041017. [CrossRef]
Lartigue, C., Duc, E., and Affouard, A., 2003, “Tool Path Deformation in 5-Axis Flank Milling Using Envelope Surface,” Comput.-Aided Des., 35(4), pp. 375–382. [CrossRef]
Gong, H., Cao, L. X., and Liu, J., 2005, “Improved Positioning of Cylindrical Cutter for Flank Milling Ruled Surfaces,” Comput.-Aided Des., 37(12), pp. 1205–1213. [CrossRef]
Gong, H., and Wang, N., 2009, “Optimize Tool Paths of Flank Milling With Generic Cutters Based on Approximation Using the Tool Envelope Surface,” Comput.-Aided Des., 41(12), pp. 981–989. [CrossRef]
Zhu, L. M., Zhang, X. M., Ding, H., and Xiong, Y. L., 2010, “Geometry of Signed Point-to-Surface Distance Function and Its Application to Surface Approximation,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 10(4), p. 041003. [CrossRef]
Zhu, L. M., Zheng, G., Ding, H., and Xiong, Y. L., 2010, “Global Optimization of Tool Path for Five-Axis Flank Milling With a Conical Cutter,” Comput.-Aided Des., 42(10), pp. 903–910. [CrossRef]
Zhu, L. M., Ding, H., and Xiong, Y. L., 2012, “Simultaneous Optimization of Tool Path and Shape for Five-Axis Flank Milling,” Comput.-Aided Des., 44(12), pp. 1229–1234. [CrossRef]
Sun, Y. W., and Guo, Q., 2012, “Analytical Modeling and Simulation of the Envelope Surface in Five-Axis Flank Milling With Cutter Runout,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 134(2), p. 021010. [CrossRef]
Kline, W. A., and DeVor, R., 1983, “The Effect of Runout on Cutting Geometry and Forces in End Milling,” Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., 23(2), pp. 123–140. [CrossRef]
Zheng, L., and Liang, S. Y., 1997, “Identification of Cutter Axis Tilt in End Milling,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 119(2), pp. 178–185. [CrossRef]
Wan, M., Zhang, W. H., Dang, J. W., and Yang, Y., 2009, “New Procedures for Calibration of Instantaneous Cutting Force Coefficients and Cutter Runout Parameters in Peripheral Milling,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 49(14), pp. 1144–1151. [CrossRef]
Li, H. Z., and Li, X. P., 2005, “A Numerical Study of the Effects of Cutter Runout on Milling Process Geometry Based on True Tooth Trajectory,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 25(5–6), pp. 435–443. [CrossRef]
Zhang, W. H., Tan, G., Wan, M., Gao, T., and Bassir, D. H., 2008, “A New Algorithm for the Numerical Simulation of Machined Surface Topography in Multiaxis Ball-End Milling,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 130(1), p. 011003. [CrossRef]
Desai, K., Agarwal, P. K., and Rao, P., 2009, “Process Geometry Modeling With Cutter Runout for Milling of Curved Surfaces,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 49(12), pp. 1015–1028. [CrossRef]
Yang, Y., Zhang, W. H., and Wan, M., 2011, “Effect of Cutter Runout on Process Geometry and Forces in Peripheral Milling of Curved Surfaces With Variable Curvature,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 51(5), pp. 420–427. [CrossRef]
Guo, Q., Sun, Y. W., and Guo, D. M., 2011, “Analytical Modeling of Geometric Errors Induced by Cutter Runout and Tool Path Optimization for Five-Axis Flank Machining,” Sci. China Technol. Sci., 54(12), pp. 3180–3190. [CrossRef]
Yu, L., Wang, Y. H., and Jin, Y. Q., 2013, “Envelope Surface Formed by Cutting Edge Under Runout Error in Five-Axis Flank Milling,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 69(1–4), pp. 543–553. [CrossRef]
Zhu, L. M., Zheng, G., and Ding, H., 2009, “Formulating the Swept Envelope of Rotary Cutter Undergoing General Spatial Motion for Multi-Axis NC Machining,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 49(2), pp. 199–202. [CrossRef]
Liang, S. Y., and Wang, J., 1994, “Milling Force Convolution Modeling for Identification of Cutter Axis Offset,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 34(8), pp. 1177–1190. [CrossRef]
Arizmendi, M., Fernndez, J., Gill, A., and Veiga, F., 2010, “Identification of Tool Parallel Axis Offset Through the Analysis of the Topography of Surfaces Machined by Peripheral Milling,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 50(12), pp. 1097–1114. [CrossRef]
Engin, S., and Altintas, Y., 2001, “Mechanics and Dynamics of General Milling Cutters: Part I: Helical End Mills,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 41(15), pp. 2195–2212. [CrossRef]
Schrijver, A., 1998, Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, Wiley, New York.
Pauly, M., Kobbelt, L., and Gross, M. H., 2002, Multiresolution Modeling of Point-Sampled Geometry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Computer Science Department, Institute of Visual Computing, Computer Graphics Lab, CGL, Zurich, Switzerland.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry model of cutter runout: (a) schematic diagram of cutter runout in milling, (b) coordinate system construction, (c) sectional view of the cutter runout model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometry model of a conical cutter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Rotary surfaces generated by each cutter edge and (b) the valid rotary surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Geometry of rotary surface generated by the jth cutter edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Tool axis trajectory surface defined by two guiding curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cutter swept envelope surfaces formed by the cutter edges

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The valid cutter swept envelope surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Distance from a point to the envelope surface formed by each cutter edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Surface model of a blade of a centrifugal impeller

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Radius deviation curves contributed by the three cutter edges and (b) the combined radius deviation curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Distribution of the deviations of the valid cutter rotary surface from the nominal one

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Distribution of the deviations of the tool envelope surface with runout effect from the design surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Distribution of the deviations of the tool envelope surface without runout effect from the design surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Straight-line fitting to the discrete points on the valid generatrix of the conical cutter with runout

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Distribution of the deviations of the tool valid envelope surface after LS optimization from the design surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Distribution of the deviations of the tool valid envelope surface after min–max–min optimization from the design surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Results of the maximum undercut and overcut after each iteration

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