Research Papers

Experimental Study and Finite Element Modeling of Workpiece Temperature in Finish Cylinder Boring

[+] Author and Article Information
Lei Chen

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: leichan@umich.edu

Bruce L. Tai

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: btai@tamu.edu

Juhchin A. Yang

Virtual Manufacturing Section,
Ford Motor Company,
Livonia, MI 48150
e-mail: jyang3@ford.com

Albert J. Shih

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: shiha@umich.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 8, 2017; final manuscript received July 24, 2017; published online September 13, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Radu Pavel.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(11), 111003 (Sep 13, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: MANU-17-1138; doi: 10.1115/1.4037554 History: Received March 08, 2017; Revised July 24, 2017

Thermal expansion of the workpiece during cylinder boring process is one of the sources causing the bore cylindricity error. To study thermal expansion induced bore distortion, detailed workpiece temperature distribution in cylinder boring is required. Four finite element models, namely, the advection model, surface heat model, heat carrier model, and ring heat model, were developed to predict the workpiece temperature in cylinder boring. Cylinder boring experiments were conducted utilizing the tool–foil and embedded thermocouple experimental approaches to measure the workpiece temperature, predict the temperature distribution using the inverse heat transfer method, and evaluate the capability of the four models in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Results showed an accurate global temperature prediction for all models and a good correlation with the embedded thermocouple experimental measurements. Good correlation was also obtained between the tool–foil thermocouple measurement of machined surface temperature and model predictions. Advantages and disadvantages as well as applicable scenarios of each model were discussed. For studying detailed cylinder boring workpiece temperature, it is suggested to use the ring heat model to estimate the moving heat flux and the heat carrier model for local workpiece temperature calculation.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Four FEM thermal models for boring

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental setup for finish boring experiment with embedded thermocouples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Six embedded thermocouples in the workpiece: (a) predrilled holes for thermocouple insertion and (b) cross-sectional view of the workpiece after cutting

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Tool–foil thermocouple method for finish boring: (a) exploded view of workpiece and (b) close-up cross-sectional view of tool–foil contact during boring

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental setup for tool–foil thermocouple measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental setup for tool–foil thermocouple calibration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Structured mesh and (b) spiral mesh based on tool motion

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

FEM mesh of the workpiece and the radial cross-sectional view of the spiral mesh step (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cutting forces and torque measurement by piezoelectric dynamometer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Workpiece temperature measured by six embedded thermocouples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Calibration curve of the tool–foil thermocouple voltage output (U) and temperature (T)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Finish boring test with tool–foil thermocouple: (a) the measured Fz, Mz, and tool–foil thermocouple voltage and (b) close-up view of Mz and tool–foil thermocouple voltage in a 0.25 s span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the TC1 temperature between experimentally measured data and FEM thermal model predicted results based on the value of B solved using the inverse heat transfer method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between (a) four FEM thermal models and (b) model #4 and experimentally measured temperatures at six thermocouple locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Peak temperature prediction by four models at machined surface node corresponding to TC1 location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of computation time of the four FEM models




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