| Literature DB >> 30875801 |
Irene Buj-Corral1, Jose-Antonio Ortiz-Marzo2, Lluís Costa-Herrero3, Joan Vivancos-Calvet4, Carmelo Luis-Pérez5.
Abstract
In the present study, the groups of cutting conditions that minimize surface roughness and its variability are determined, in ball-end milling operations. Design of experiments is used to define experimental tests performed. Semi-cylindrical specimens are employed in order to study surfaces with different slopes. Roughness was measured at different slopes, corresponding to inclination angles of 15°, 45°, 75°, 90°, 105°, 135° and 165° for both climb and conventional milling. By means of regression analysis, second order models are obtained for average roughness Ra and total height of profile Rt for both climb and conventional milling. Considered variables were axial depth of cut ap, radial depth of cut ae, feed per tooth fz, cutting speed vc, and inclination angle Ang. The parameter ae was the most significant parameter for both Ra and Rt in regression models. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are used to obtain models for both Ra and Rt as a function of the same variables. ANN models provided high correlation values. Finally, the optimal machining strategy is selected from the experimental results of both average and standard deviation of roughness. As a general trend, climb milling is recommended in descendant trajectories and conventional milling is recommended in ascendant trajectories. This study will allow the selection of appropriate cutting conditions and machining strategies in the ball-end milling process.Entities:
Keywords: high speed milling (HSM); modeling; roughness; surface finish
Year: 2019 PMID: 30875801 PMCID: PMC6471961 DOI: 10.3390/ma12060860
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Manufactured part and high-speed machining center employed.
Tool details.
| Tool Type | End Mill VC2SBR0300 KOBELCO Series MIRACLE (Kobe Steel, Chūō-ku, Kobe, Japan) |
|---|---|
| Tool material | (Al, Ti)N coated micro grain carbide |
| Number of flutes | 2 |
| Diameter (mm) | 6 |
Figure 2Schematic drawing of (a) machined workpiece (units in mm), (b) measured position angles.
Low and high levels for factors a, a, f and v.
| Levels |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 0.100 | 0.100 | 0.020 | 150.0 |
| High | 0.300 | 0.300 | 0.060 | 250.0 |
Figure 3Schematic drawing of milling strategies. (a) climb (down) milling; (b) conventional (up) milling.
Figure 4(a) Example of roughness profile; (b) Taylor-Hobson Form Taylsurf Series 2 profile roughness tester.
Ra and Rt values using climb milling (Figure 3a) and conventional milling (Figure 3b) for experiment 16 in different angular positions.
| Parameter | Climb Milling ( | Conventional Milling ( | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15° | 45° | 75° | 90° | 105° | 135° | 165° | 15° | 45° | 75° | 90° | 105° | 135° | 165° | |
|
| 1.56 | 1.68 | 0.88 | 1.23 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 1.22 | 1.06 | 0.70 | 1.05 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 1.15 |
|
| 7.04 | 7.05 | 3.82 | 6.54 | 4.17 | 3.08 | 3.65 | 5.41 | 4.72 | 4.52 | 7.05 | 6.00 | 5.18 | 5.25 |
Figure 5Machined surfaces corresponding to experiment 16.
Figure 6Main effects plot for Ra (considering the position angle) in (a) climb milling and (b) conventional milling.
Figure 7Main effects plot for Rt (considering the position angle) in (a) climb milling and (b) conventional milling.
Figure 8Experimental deviation plots for Ra considering both manufacturing strategies: (a) Mean, (b) standard deviation.
Figure 9Experimental deviation plots for Rt considering both manufacturing strategies: (a) Mean, (b) standard deviation.
Optimal machining strategy selection.
| Minimum (Std | Minimum (Std | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 150 | Conv./Climb | Conv./Climb |
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 150 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 150 | Conv. Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 150 | Conv. Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 150 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 150 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 150 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 150 | Conv. Milling | Conv. / Climb |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 250 | Climb Milling | Conv./Climb |
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 250 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 250 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 250 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 250 | Conv./Climb | Conv. Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 250 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 250 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 250 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Climb Milling | Conv./Climb |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Conv./Climb | Climb Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.039 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.361 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 200 | Conv./Climb | Climb Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.039 | 0.04 | 200 | Conv./Climb | Conv./Climb |
| 0.2 | 0.361 | 0.04 | 200 | Conv. Milling | Conv. Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.008 | 200 | Climb Milling | Climb Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.072 | 200 | Conv./Climb | Climb Milling |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 119.641 | Climb Milling | Conv./Climb |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 280.359 | Conv./Climb | Conv./Climb |