0
Research Papers

Calibration and Validation of a Mechanistic Micromilling Force Prediction Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Massimiliano Annoni

Politecnico di Milano,
Dipartimento di Meccanica,
Sezione Tecnologie Meccaniche e Produzione,
Via G. La Masa, 1,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: massimiliano.annoni@polimi.it

Nicola Pusterla

Politecnico di Milano,
Via G. La Masa, 1,
Milano 20156, Italy

Lara Rebaioli

Politecnico di Milano,
Via G. La Masa, 1,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: lara.rebaioli@polimi.it

Quirico Semeraro

Politecnico di Milano,
Via G. La Masa, 1,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: quirico.semeraro@polimi.it

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received August 5, 2014; final manuscript received March 20, 2015; published online September 9, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Z. J. Pei.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 138(1), 011001 (Sep 09, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: MANU-14-1421; doi: 10.1115/1.4030210 History: Received August 05, 2014

Mechanistic force prediction models require a calibration phase to determine the cutting coefficients describing the tool–target material interaction. The model prediction performance depends on the experimental correctness and representativeness of input data, especially in micromilling, where facing process uncertainties is a big challenge. The present paper focuses on input data correctness introducing a clear and repeatable calibration experimental procedure based on accurate force data acquisitions. Input data representativeness has been directly connected to the calibration window choice, i.e., the selection of the space of process parameters combinations used to calibrate the model. Also, the model validation has to be carefully carried out to make the model significant: the present paper proposes a clear and repeatable validation procedure based on the model performance index calculation over the whole process operating window, i.e., the space of parameters where the process works correctly. An objective indication of the model suitability can be obtained by applying this procedure. Comparisons among prediction performances produced by different calibration windows are allowed. This paper demonstrates how the calibration window selection determines the model prediction performance, which seems to improve if calibration is carried out where forces assume high values. Some important considerations on the process parameters role on cutting forces and on the model capability have also been drawn from the model validation results.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Topics: Calibration , Cutting
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Model reference system and symbols [37]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison between measured, compensated, and low-pass filtered cutting forces. (a) Time domain and (b) frequency domain. (mill: Dormer S150.5; D = 0.5 mm; I = 2; re = 4 μm; αr,n = 0 deg; θh = 30 deg; workpiece: Aluminum 6082-T6; cutting parameters: ap = 0.05 mm; ae = 0.25 mm (only one cutting edge engaged at the same time); fz = 4 μm; vc = 27.85 m/min; n = 17,730 rpm; milling approach: up-milling; fs = 25,600 Hz; anti-aliasing filter cut-off frequency = 11,500 Hz; fifth order Butterworth low-pass filter cutoff frequency = 6000 Hz (in case of measured and compensated forces); 1300 Hz (in case of low-pass filtered forces)).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Specimen mounted on the dynamometer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

RMSEx,complete map at vc = +1 (28.04 m/min (17,850 rpm)) and ap = +1 (0.1 mm). Solid dots represent points where both calibration and validation have been carried out. Empty dots represent points where only validation has taken place.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

RMSEx,reference map at vc = +1 (28.04 m/min (17,850 rpm)) and ap = +1 (0.1 mm). Empty dots represent points where only validation has taken place. No calibration points are visible on this plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

RMSEx,suggested map at vc = +1 (28.04 m/min (17,850 rpm)) and ap = +1 (0.1 mm). Solid dots represent points where both calibration and validation have been carried out. Empty dots represent points where only validation has taken place.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison between measured and predicted cutting forces for one tooth passage. (a) ap = 0.1 mm; ae = 0.250 mm (0.5D); fz = 3 μm; vc = 13.90 m/min. (b) ap = 0.1 mm; ae = 0.5 mm (D); fz = 4 μm; vc = 28.04 m/min.

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