0
Research Papers

Force Modeling of Five-Axis Microball-End Milling

[+] Author and Article Information
Chi Xu

Department of Mechanical
Science and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 West Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: chixu2@illinois.edu

James Zhu

Department of Mechanical
Science and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 West Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: zhu11@illinois.edu

Shiv G. Kapoor

Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical
Science and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 West Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: sgkapoor@illinois.edu

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MICRO- AND NANO-MANUFACTURING. Manuscript received February 19, 2015; final manuscript received May 29, 2015; published online July 7, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Sangkee Min.

J. Micro Nano-Manuf 3(3), 031007 (Aug 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: JMNM-15-1012; doi: 10.1115/1.4030767 History: Received February 19, 2015; Revised May 29, 2015; Online July 07, 2015

This paper presents a five-axis ball-end milling force model that is specifically tailored to microscale machining. A composite cutting force is generated by combining two force contributions from a shearing/ploughing slip-line (SL) field model and a quasi-static indentation (ID) model. To fully capture the features of microscale five-axis machining, a unique chip thickness algorithm based on the velocity kinematics of a ball-end mill is proposed. This formulation captures intricate tool trajectories as well as readily allows the integration of runout and elastic recovery effects. A workpiece updating algorithm has also been developed to identify tool–workpiece engagement. As a dual purpose, historical elastic recovery is stored locally on the meshed workpiece surface in vector form so that the directionality of elastic recovery is preserved for future time increments. The model has been validated through a comparison with five-axis end mill force data. Simulation results show reasonably accurate replication of end milling cutting forces with minimal experimental data fitting.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Polar angle discretization of ball tip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Ball-end mill cutting edge location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Coordinate frames transformations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Intermediate tool frame runout parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of tool inclination angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Ball-end mill location and orientation parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Chip thickness evolution with 3 μm/flute : (a) no runout and (b) parallel offset runout (ɛy = 0.5 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Discretized tool path swept area and the workpiece mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Bilinear mapping of the tool path quadrilateral to the local unit square

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Workpiece updating algorithm with local historical elastic recovery vectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Ball-end mill force components

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Differential radial force contributions: dfr, dotted outline and dfr,cut, solid surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Tool plunge test for ID model fitting

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Average high and low peak-to-valley force difference observed in test and simulation for test cutting condition feed rate = 2 μm/flute, DOC = 50 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

RMS x-, y-, and z-force comparisons between experiments and simulations for orthogonal cutting with varying (a) feed rates and (b) DOC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

RMS x-, y-, and z-force/simulation comparison for nonorthogonal cuttings with varying (a) tilt angles and (b) lead angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Force profile experiment/composite model comparison for test # 4, where feed = 3 μm/flute, DOC = 50 μm, lead = tilt = 0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Force profile experiment/composite model comparison for (a) test # 13, where feed = 2 μm/flute, DOC = 50 μm, tilt = 0 deg, and lead = 15 deg and (b) test # 7, where feed = 2 μm/flute, DOC = 50 μm, tilt = − 30 deg, and lead = 0 deg

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