| Literature DB >> 28772653 |
Francesco Aggogeri1, Alberto Borboni2, Angelo Merlo3, Nicola Pellegrini4, Raffaele Ricatto5.
Abstract
The dynamic behaviour of a machine tool (MT) directly influences the machining performance. The adoption of lightweight structures may reduce the effects of undesired vibrations and increase the workpiece quality. This paper aims to present and compare a set of hybrid materials that may be excellent candidates to fabricate the MT moving parts. The selected materials have high dynamic characteristics and capacity to dampen mechanical vibrations. In this way, starting from the kinematic model of a milling machine, this study evaluates a number of prototypes made of Al foam sandwiches (AFS), Al corrugated sandwiches (ACS) and composite materials reinforced by carbon fibres (CFRP). These prototypes represented the Z-axis ram of a commercial milling machine. The static and dynamical properties have been analysed by using both finite element (FE) simulations and experimental tests. The obtained results show that the proposed structures may be a valid alternative to the conventional materials of MT moving parts, increasing machining performance. In particular, the AFS prototype highlighted a damping ratio that is 20 times greater than a conventional ram (e.g., steel). Its application is particularly suitable to minimize unwanted oscillations during high-speed finishing operations. The results also show that the CFRP structure guarantees high stiffness with a weight reduced by 48.5%, suggesting effective applications in roughing operations, saving MT energy consumption. The ACS structure has a good trade-off between stiffness and damping and may represent a further alternative, if correctly evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: CFRP materials; FE simulations; aluminium corrugated sandwiches; aluminium metal foams; damping; hybrid materials; machine tool kinematics; machine tool structures; modal analysis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772653 PMCID: PMC5503333 DOI: 10.3390/ma10030297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Active and passive methods to control and mitigate MT vibrations.
| Vibration Damping | Characteristics | References |
|---|---|---|
| Active methods | Installation of additional devices, such as actuators Use of advanced and complex control algorithms Knowledge of vibrations’ eigen-frequencies Model-based strategy | [ |
| Passive methods | Based on viscoelastic materials, viscous fluids, magnetic or passive piezoelectric, lightweight materials Vibration energy dissipation or redirection Cost effective Dampers are usually small size and easy to install | [ |
Figure 1Lightweight MT structure materials: Al foam sandwiches (AFS) (a); Al corrugated-core sandwiches (b); and composite materials reinforced by carbon fibres (CFRP) (c).
Material comparison: structural index versus loss factor.
| Material | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cast iron | 0.63 | 1.2 × 10−3–1.7 × 10−3 |
| Steel | 0.77 | 6.0 × 10−4–1.0 × 10−3 |
| Al alloys | 1.50 | 2.0 × 10−4–4.0 × 10−4 |
| Mg alloys | 1.90 | 1.0 × 10−3–1.0 × 10−2 |
| Al corrugated sandwich | 2.52 | 1.0 × 10−3–1.0 × 10−2 |
| Al foams | 2.67 | 4.0 × 10−3–1.0 × 10−2 |
| CFRP (unidirectional) | 4.00 | 1.5 × 10−3–3.0 × 10−3 |
Figure 2General machine kinematic model.
Figure 3Lightweight MT structure prototypes: Al metal foams (AFS) (a); Al corrugated-core sandwiches (ACS) (b); and carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) (c).
Figure 4FE model of AFS structure: the deformed shape (μm) in the X orientation (a) and in Y orientation (b), applying a static load of 60 N at tool tip point.
The structure mass comparison.
| Configuration | Mass (kg) | Conventional Mass (kg) | Mass Variation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFS ram | 116.0 | 97.0 | +19.6% |
| Al corrug. ram | 78.0 | 97.0 | −19.5% |
| CFRP ram | 50.0 | 97.0 | −48.5% |
FE results: the structure stiffness comparison in the X, Y, and Z directions.
| Configuration | Kx (kg/µm) | Ky (kg/µm) | Kz (kg/µm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional (steel) RAM | 2.20 | 3.43 | 22.05 |
| AFS RAM | 2.48 | 3.95 | 55.62 |
| Al corrug. RAM | 1.90 | 4.41 | 42.81 |
| CFRP RAM | 2.65 | 5.10 | 39.85 |
Figure 5Test bench setup overview (a) and the experimental results of the statistic tests performed on a ram (b).
Static test results: a comparison of the structure stiffnesses.
| Configuration | Direction | K (N/µm) | Simulation Error | Stiffness Comparison with a Conventional RAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFS ram | 2.50 | 0.80% | +13.64% | |
| 4.64 | 14.87% | +35.29% | ||
| Al corrug. ram | 1.75 | 8.57% | −20.45% | |
| 4.44 | 0.63% | +29.43% | ||
| CFRP ram | 2.30 | 14.97% | +4.78% | |
| 5.55 | 8.09% | +61.38% |
Numerical modes and frequencies of the AFS ram.
| Mode | FE Model Frequency (Hz) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 650 | Breathing | |
| 677 | Breathing and Bending | |
| 709 | Breathing | |
| 782 | Bending mode | |
| 816 | Torsion |
Figure 6The FE modes 1–3 at 650 Hz (a); 677 Hz (b); and 709 Hz (c) performed on the AFS ram.
Figure 7The frequency response function (FRF) of the excited point (centre of ram) in the Y direction.
The loss factor of the selected structures.
| Configuration | 1st Frequency (Hz) | Loss Factor (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional (steel) RAM | 670 | 0.08 |
| AFS RAM | 667 | 1.70 |
| Al corrug. RAM | 745 | 0.17 |
| CFRP RAM | 1286 | 0.23 |
Figure 8The result comparison: X-axis stiffness (a); Y-axis stiffness (b); mass (c); and damping (d).