0
Research Papers

Bore Cylindricity 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

Juhchin A. Yang

Virtual Manufacturing Section,
Ford Motor Company,
Livonia, MI 48150
e-mail: JYANG3@ford.com

Albert J. Shih

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

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received October 26, 2017; final manuscript received January 24, 2018; published online April 2, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Radu Pavel.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 140(6), 061015 (Apr 02, 2018) (18 pages) Paper No: MANU-17-1661; doi: 10.1115/1.4039442 History: Received October 26, 2017; Revised January 24, 2018

Finish boring is a machining process to achieve the cylinder bore dimensional and geometrical accuracy. The bore cylindricity error sources, including the workpiece thermal expansion and deformation due to cutting and clamping forces, and spindle radial error motion, in finish boring were identified using combined experimental and finite element method (FEM) analysis. Experiments were conducted to measure the workpiece temperature, cutting and clamping forces, spindle error, and bore shape. FEM analysis of the workpiece temperature, thermal expansion, and deformation due to cutting and clamping forces was performed. The coordinate measurement machine (CMM) measurements of the bore after finish boring showed the 5.6 μm cylindricity and a broad spectrum from the second to tenth harmonics. The FEM revealed the effects of workpiece thermal expansion (1.7 μm cylindricity), deformation due to cutting force (0.8 μm cylindricity), and clamping force (1.9 μm cylindricity) on the finished bore and the dominance by the first to third harmonics using the three-jaw fixture. The spindle synchronous radial error motion (3.2 μm cylindricity) was dominated by the fourth and higher order harmonics and matched well with the high (above the fourth) harmonics in CMM measurements (2.9 μm cylindricity). The spindle error was the dominant error source for bore cylindricity in this finish boring study, contributing to about half of the total cylindricity error.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ma, Z. , Henein, N. A. , Bryzik, W. , and Glidewell, J. , 1998, “ Break-In Liner Wear and Piston Ring Assembly Friction in a Spark-Ignited Engine,” Tribol. Trans., 41(4), pp. 497–504. [CrossRef]
Rodrigues, M. R. , and Porto, S. F. , 1993, “Torque Plate Honing on Block Cylinder Bores,” SAE Paper No. 931679.
Matsuo, K. , Kiga, S. , Murata, S. , Satou, N. , Miyake, H. , Suzuki, K. , Sugiyama, K. , and Monchujo, T. , 2005, “Reduction of Piston System Friction by Applying a Bore Circularity Machining Technique to the Cylinder Block,” SAE Paper No. 2005-01-1656.
Meadows, J. D. , 2009, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing Handbook: Applications, Analysis & Measurement, ASME Press, New York. [CrossRef]
Subramani, G. , Kapoor, S. G. , and DeVor, R. E. , 1993, “ A Model for the Prediction of Bore Cylindricity During Machining,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 115(1), pp. 15–22.
Kakade, N. N. , and Chow, J. G. , 1993, “ Finite Element Analysis of Engine Bore Distortions During Boring Operation,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 115(4), pp. 379–384.
Zheng, Y. , Li, H. , Olson, W. W. , and Sutherland, J. W. , 2000, “ Evaluating Cutting Fluid Effects on Cylinder Boring Surface Errors by Inverse Heat Transfer and Finite Element Methods,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 122(3), pp. 377–383. [CrossRef]
Tang, Y. , Ding, K. , Sasahara, H. , Nishimura, K. , and Watanabe, T. , 2008, “ Clarification of the Amount of Machining Error Resulting From the Cutting Force and Thermal Expansion During the Cylinder Liner Boring Process,” J. Adv. Mech. Des., Syst., Manuf., 2(3), pp. 332–342. [CrossRef]
Kim, K. , Eman, K. F. , and Wu, S. M. , 1987, “ In-Process Control of Cylindricity in Boring Operations,” ASME J. Eng. Ind., 109(4), pp. 291–296. [CrossRef]
Martin, D. L. , Tabenkin, A. N. , and Parsons, F. G. , 1995, “ Precision Spindle and Bearing Error Analysis,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 35(2), pp. 187–193. [CrossRef]
Choi, J. P. , Lee, S. J. , and Kwon, H. D. , 2003, “ Roundness Error Prediction With a Volumetric Error Model Including Spindle Error Motions of a Machine Tool,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 21(12), pp. 923–928. [CrossRef]
Subramani, G. , Whitmore, M. C. , Kapoor, S. G. , and DeVor, R. E. , 1991, “ Temperature Distribution in a Hollow Cylindrical Workpiece During Machining: Theoretical Model and Experimental Results,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 113(4), pp. 373–380. [CrossRef]
ISO, 2011, “Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Cylindricity—Part 1: Vocabulary and Parameters of Cylindrical Form,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, Standard No. ISO 12180-1:2011.
ISO, 2015, “Test Code for Machine Tools—Part 7: Geometric Accuracy of Axes of Rotation,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, Standard No. ISO 230-7:2015.
Chen, L. , Tai, B. L. , Yang, J. A. , and Shih, A. J. , 2017, “ Experimental Study and Finite Element Modeling of Workpiece Temperature in Finish Cylinder Boring,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 139(11), p. 111003. [CrossRef]
Coleman, T. F. , and Li, Y. , 1994, “ On the Convergence of Interior-Reflective Newton Methods for Nonlinear Minimization Subject to Bounds,” Math. Program., 67(1–3), pp. 189–224. [CrossRef]
Coleman, T. F. , and Li, Y. , 1996, “ An Interior Trust Region Approach for Nonlinear Minimization Subject to Bounds,” SIAM J. Optim., 6(2), pp. 418–445. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finish cylinder boring process: (a) overview for boring a four cylinder engine block, (b) top view of the workpiece, boring bar, and cutting tool, and close-up views of (c) the nominal depth of cut, and (d) the actual depth of cut

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental setup for finish boring experiment: (a) an overview, (b) three-piece three-jaw fixture with two load cells (LC1 and LC2), (c) a ring load cell for clamping force measurement, and (d) predrilled holes for thermocouple (TC1 to TC6) (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

CMM measurement: (a) experimental setup, (b) orientation and 6 scanning layers, (c) top view of the workpiece in measurement, and (d) cross-sectional view of the six scanning layers and their height (unit:mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimental setup for spindle error measurement using the spindle error analyzer: (a) overview of the setup, (b) dimensions and displacement capacitive sensors arrangement, and (c) distance between boring tool tip and spindle nose (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

FEM setup for analysis of workpiece deformation: (a) overall mesh and key components, (b) and (c) four bolts connecting the base plate of fixture and dynamometer, and (d) four regions on the base plate surface with fixed boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cutting force in close-up view of the FEM mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

FEM setups for workpiece deformation due to clamping forces: (a) rigid bolt connections and (b) clamping force load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Mesh for FEM thermal model: (a) the concept of spiral mesh and (b) the spiral mesh for finish boring (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

FEM workpiece temperature model concept: (a) ring heat model and (b) heat carrier model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

FEM boundary conditions for thermal expansion modeling: (a) three clamping areas, (b) cross-sectional and exploded views of the workpiece bottom support area, (c) three clamping areas in workpiece FEM mesh, and (d) bottom support area in workpiece FEM mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fx, Fy, Fz, and Mz measured by piezoelectric dynamometer for a 0.2 s time span during boring

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Temperature measurement by six embedded thermocouples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CMM measurement results at six layers (5.6 μm cylindricity): (a) top view and (b) perspective view of radial deviation from mean MZCY

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Spindle error of 32 revolutions at master ball #1: capacitive displacement sensor measurements at (a) X1 and (b) Y1, and error motions (c) ΔX1, (d) ΔY1, and (e) Δr1 and the synchronous radial error motion

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Spindle error motion at master ball #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) Spindle error motion at the boring tool tip based on linear extrapolation of spindle errors at master balls #1 and #2 and (b) radial deviation of the synchronous radial error motion from mean minimum zone reference circle (synchronous radial error motion value = 3.2 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison between FEM predicted and experimentally measured temperatures at six thermocouple locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

FEM model predicted workpiece thermal expansion (deformation scaled by 10,000 times) in three axial locations: (a) 14 mm, (b) 28 mm, and (c) 42 mm from the top of the bore

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Thermal expansion induced radial deviation of finished bore from mean MZCY along six CMM layers (1.7 μm cylindricity): (a) top view and (b) perspective view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Simulation result of workpiece deformation due to cutting force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Cutting force induced radial deviation of finished bore from mean MZCY along six CMM layers (0.8 μm cylindricity): (a) top view and (b) perspective view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of radial deformation at cutting edge due to cutting forces at areas with and without clamping support

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

FEM results of workpiece deformation due to clamping forces at LC1 and LC2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Clamping force induced radial deviation of finished bore from mean MZCY along six CMM layers (1.9 μm cylindricity): (a) top view and (b) perspective view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Radial deviation of combined FEM deformation results from mean MZCY in top and perspective views along six CMM layers: (a) combined thermal expansion and workpiece deformation due to cutting force (1.5 μm cylindricity) and (b) combined all three effects (thermal expansion and workpiece deformation due to cutting and clamping forces) (3.4 μm cylindricity)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Harmonic analysis: (a) CMM measurements, (b) FEM, and (c) spindle radial error motion

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

(a) The radial deviation from mean MZCY in polar plot of the fourth to tenth harmonics in CMM measurement (2.9 μm cylindricity) and (b) average radial deviation of six layers compared to the spindle synchronous radial error motion (after rotating 175 deg to minimize RMSD)

Tables

Errata

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