Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
531
532 S. fVugun0 et al.
Horizontal
Workpiece
/-
Regenerative effect
i- Tool
Fig. 3. Conceptional illustration of the regenerative effect.
Fig. 1. Merritts model.
chattering model based on the l-DOF vibration cutting force F is a function of u(t) and is given
system gived by Merritt [5]. Considering outer as
cutting in this model, the short tool is fixed
while the workpiece is sustained by a spring and F(t) = k,(u)t (2)
a damper. For inner hole cutting using a boring
bar, a workpiece is large enough to be fixed where k, is a cutting stiffness varying according
while the bar should be represented by a mass- to cutting conditions such as workpiece
spring-damper combination as shown in Fig. 2. material, cutting speed, feed and stiffiness of
In the figure, F, is the cutting force acting in the lathe. Based on the l-DOF system shown in
the tangential direction. Due to this force, the Fig. 2 the governing equation for a boring bar is
bar is bent in the vertical plane. FH is the radial given by
force acting in the radial direction of the hole
(radial force is known as shear force in outer F( t ) = mji( t)+cj( t)+ky( t) (3)
cutting). This force causes the bar to bend in
the horizontal plane. Figure 3 illustrates how where m is an equivalent mass of the boring
the regenerative effect due to former cutting bar, c and k are an equivalent damping coeffi-
traces occurs. cient and an equivalent stiffness of the bar,
Actual cutting depth u(t) at time t is defined respectively. By solving eqn (3) in conjunction
as with eqns (1) and (2), it is obvious that high
n equivalent stiffness and damping ability give
u(t) = uo- y(t)+py(t - (1)
high chattering stability to boring bars.
where ug is the initial cutting depth: y is the It is known that the frequency of chattering is
displacement of the cutting edge in the direc- almost equal to the first resonant frequency of a
tion of the radial force: p is all overlap ratio of boring bar. From eqn (4), if the maximum
the cutting edge determined by cutting edge acceleration of a cutting edge, a, is constant, the
shape, cutting depth and feed: i_~governs the displacement of the cutting edge 6 decreases
magnitude of the regenerative effect; T is a with increasing chattering frequency f
periodic time for the workpiece revolution. The
Boring-Bar
Equation (5) shows the well-known relation-
ship betweenf, m and k
Carbon fibers
considered. Near the neutral axis of a beam, the cal plane. The vertical plate is effective for the
shear stress becomes high when the beam is shear deformation due to cutting force.
subjected to not only a bending moment but
also a shear force. Therefore, if a material with
Type H
a high shear rigidity is used as the center plate Type H CFRP composite boring bar has a
core of the composite bar, the total deflection 2 mm center plate core horizontally embedded.
of the bar can be reduced. Figure 5(b) shows a The horizontal plate is effective for shear defor-
Type V CFRP composite boring bar with a mation due to the radial force. Usually, the
2 mm center plate core embedded in the verti- radial force is smaller than the cutting force.
Figure 5(c) shows Type H bar. This bar is made
by rotating the Type V bar on its longitudinal
CFRP axis by 90.
FEM ANALYSIS
Bending stiffness
(a) Type P CFFLP boring bar (b) Type V CFRP boring bar
0.80 I
01234 5670
Thickness of the steel part of
the CFRP boring bars, mm
Pig. 8. Relationship between the thickness of the steel
core of the CFRP boring bars and bending stiffness (Ll
D = 7).
straining shear deformation of CFRP layers in for bending stiffness, the maximum gain is
the Y-Z plane. On the other hand, the cemen- obtained at 6-7 mm. In the present study, the
ted carbide boring bar has a bending stiffness thickness of all steel plate cores is 2 mm as it is
2.37 times higher than that of the steel boring expected that the resonant frequency is effective
bar. One resolution to improve the bending for the chattering stability.
stiffness is to use carbon fibers with a higher
Youngs modulus. Although some fibers have
Youngs modulus higher than 1000 GPa, they CUTTING EXPERIMENTS
are not yet commercially available.
Cutting experiments were conducted to evaluate
Resonant frequency cutting performance and stability against chat-
tering for CFRP bars (Type P, Type V, Type C,
Modal analysis of the models was also con- Type H and Type C) as well as conventional
ducted to estimate the first resonant frequencies steel and cemented carbide bars. The diameter
of the bars (bending mode I). In Fig. 9, a com- of all bars is 32 mm. A conventional lathe (not
parison of the first resonant frequency for a NC lathe) was used for the tests. Here, all
CFRP, steel and cemented carbide bars at Ll boring bars were fixed using the specially
D = 7 is given. The variation of the first devised bar holder to provide equal conditions
resonant frequency with respect to core thick- of holding in the tool fixture as shown in
ness is also given for the Type C boring bar. Fig. 10. An overhang of 224 mm gives an L/
The ordinate is normalized by that of the steel D = 7. Thick cylindrical pipes (inner diameter:
boring bar as well as in Fig. 9. 60 mm, outer diameter: 100 mm) whose
In contrast to bending stiffness, the resonant material was mild steel were used as a work-
frequencies of CFRP boring bars are always piece for the tests. Before the cutting
higher than that for the steel bar. They are also experiment, the surface of the workpiece was
comparable to the resonant frequency of the smoothed to give a constant testing condition.
cemented carbide bar because the composite Two tiny accelerometers were attached on the
bars are one third to one quarter lighter than cutting head near the cutting edge to measure
the steel bar. The cemented carbide bar has a accelerations in the tangential and radial direc-
higher bending stiffness but it is extremely tions during the cutting operation. Cutting
heavy. From a viewpoint of resonant frequen- conditions are given in Table 2.
cies, high performance of CFRP boring bar can As noise occurs and chatter marks can be
be expected. It is obvious that the first resonant distinguished on the cutting surface of the
frequency increases once with increasing in workpiece when chattering occurs, it is easy to
thickness and then it decreases from the Type C identify whether chattering has occurred or not.
bar result. The maximum increase in resonant
frequency is about 30% at 2 mm thickness while
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Workpiece Screw of
t Boring bar
E 1.10 -
T tooi post
holder
E
Steel boring bar \ .\
s 1.00
s! Boring bar
jJ 0.90 /
ii 0 1 234 56 70
Thickness of the steel part of
the CFRP boring bars, mm
Fig. 9. Relationship between the thickness of the steel
core of the CFRP boring bars and first resonant frequency
(LID = 7). Fig. 10. System for cutting test.
Development of a composite boring bar 537
Table 2. Cutting conditions in the measurement that the bending stiffness in the radial force
Revolution Cutting Feed direction is also as important as the bending
(rpm) depth (mm/rev) stiffness in the cutting force direction.
(mm) Figures 12 and 13 show the dynamic response
630 0.4 0.3 for Type C CFRP and steel bars during cutting
0.2 :*:
operation. Parts (a) are the acceleration-time
0:2 history plots, parts (b) are the power spectra for
500 0.4 0.3 trace (a) and parts (c) are the Lissajious plots
0.2
of acceleration in X and Y directions. It must be
0.2
::: noted that the surface of the workpiece cut by
the steel boring bar was extremely rough and
chattering occurred. Even for the Type C bar,
oscillation occurred but the magnitude of oscil-
As before mentioned, the steel bar was not able
lation is much smaller than that for the steel
to cut without chattering when the L/D value bar. The period of the main oscillation corre-
was greater than 4. Even when L/D was smaller sponds to the first resonant frequency for both
than 4, it was difficult for the steel bar to cut cases.
without chattering under several conditions. No Here, the maximum acceleration of Type C
marks in the figure mean that smooth cutting and steel bars are 11 and 280 G and the fre-
without chattering was not attained for the quency of oscillation for the bars are 500 and
corresponding bars. Therefore, a mark for the 375 Hz, respectively. Maximum displacement of
steel bar cannot be found in this figure. It is the cutting edge of the Type C and steel bars
found that the Type C CFRP bar has excellent are calculated as 0.011 and 0.43 mm, respec-
performance. Although the cemented carbide tively, from eqn (4). It is found that the
sometimes attained smooth cutting at lighter machined surface cut by the Type C bar is
conditions than those for the Type C bar, even acceptable for the roughness and dimensional
at L/D = 7, it was not always stable. Once chat- accuracy. However, it is realized that the maxi-
tering occurred, it did not stop for the mum displacement of the cutting edge of the
cemented carbide bar while the Type C CFRP steel bar is larger than cutting depth and the
bar was always stable. Good stability and cutting edge was beating the surface of the
cutting performance could not be obtained for workpiece. In this point, the advantage for chat-
both Types V and H bars. In particular, the tering stability of the Type C bar is obvious.
Type V bar shows a high bending stiffness Although the Type C bar has a high cutting
almost equal to the Type C bar and the first ability and chattering stability as above, it has
resonant frequency is higher than that of the no problem entirely. From Fig. 12(b) and
Type C bar in the cutting force direction. How- Fig. 13(b), the resonant frequency for the Type
ever, the bending stiffness of the Type V bar in C bar is higher than that for the steel bar. How-
the radial force direction is equal to the bend- ever, an increase of the resonant frequency is
ing stiffness of the Type H bar and it is much not remarkable, as expected in Fig. 9. No
lower than that of the Type C bar. It is shown apparent reasons could be found for this dis-
crepancy. Holding CFRP boring bars tightly is a
problem and this could be one of reasons for
0.8 the above discrepancy. The method for holding
0 Type C boring bar
rD Type V boring bar
the bar must be considered in the near future as
E 0.6 well as how to attach the cutting head to the
9 Type H boring bar
S-
8 0.4 0 Type P boring bar bar. Surface protection for lubricant and tips is
e Cemented carbide
boring bar
also one of issues to be considered for practical
.-@ 0 Steel boring bar use.
2 0.2
CONCLUSIONS
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Nomarkmeans
impossible to cutting
Feed, mm/rev 1. A boring bar made from unidirectional
Fig. 11. Cutting limit of the boring bars. CFRP which has a high stability against chat-
538 S. Nuguno et al.
-20 I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, ms
12
10
-ml I
0 20 40 60 60 100
Time,ms
300 ,
250
0 _..J L u 200
0 500 1000 1500 2000
.g 150
Frequency, Hz %
h
100
(b) Power spectrum for (a) 4
50
Frequency.Hz
15
(b) Power spectrum for (a)
10
4001
0
s 5
E 200
E O (3
s
s
8 -!j E
!! 0
s!
a -10
3
-15 4 -200
-20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-200 0 200 400
Acceleration, G Acceleration, G
Fig. 12. Dynamic response for the Type C CFRP boring Fig. 13. Dynamic response for the steel boring bar
bar (630 rpm, cutting depth = 0.4 mm, feed = 0.3 mm/rev): (630 rpm, cutting depth = 0.4 mm, feed = 0.3 mm/rev): (a)
(a) acceleration-time history, (b) power spectrum for (a), acceleration-time history, (b) power spectrum for (a), (c)
(c) Lissajious plot of acceleration in X and Y directions. Lissajious plot of acceleration in X and Y directions.
Development of a composite boring bar 539