Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res.

Vol. 13, pp. 155-164.

Pergamon Press 1973.

Printed in Great Britain

AN INVESTIGATION OF D R I L L POINT S H A R P E N I N G BY THE STRAIGHT LIP CONICAL G R I N D I N G M E T H O D - - I . BASIC ANALYSIS

E. J. A. ARMAREGO* and A. ROTENBERG*

(Received 23 October 1972)

Abstract An analysis of the straight lip conical grinding method for drill point sharpening is presented. It is shown that the standard drill specification is such that a variety of grinding cones may be used to satisfy the specified drill geometry. One further condition or equation is required to uniquely determine the drill point sharpening parameters. NOMENCLATURE

Cx, Cy, Cz
Cl

absolute value o f coordinates of cone apices O1, 02 with respect to origin O on the drill axis lip clearance angle at any point on the drill lip (angle between a plane normal to the drill axis and the tangent, at the point on the lip, to the drill flank in a plane normal to the radius at the point in question) lip clearance angle CI at the outer corner of the drill Galloway's grinding parameter [8] (the projection o f the distance between the grinding cone apex and drill axis on a plane parallel to the lip and drill axis) drill outside diameter drill point angle radius of an arbitrary point on the drill

Clo d

D 2p
r R =

D 2

outside radius of the drill web thickness (or drill core diameter) coordinates o f a point with origin O on drill axis coordinates o f a point on Cone 1 with origin O1 at the cone apex coordinates of a point on Cone 2 with origin 02 at the cone apex web thickness to diameter ratio semi-cone angle of grinding cone the projection of the angle between the cone generator coincident with the drill lip and the cone axis on a plane normal to the drill axis the projection of the angle between the cone generator coincident with the drill lip and the Y 1 coordinate axis on a plane parallel to the drill and cone axes the angle between the projections o f the cone and drill axes on a plane parallel to these axes

2W
.X', y , Z

X1, Y1, Z1 X2, Y2, Z 2

2W/D 0 h

* Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 155

156

E. J. A. ARMAREGO a n d A. ROTENBERG

CO

coo

chisel edge angle (the obtuse angle between the tangent to the projection of the chisel edge at the drill dead-centre and the projection of the lips on a plane normal to the drill axis) tan -1 (dx/dy) at x = y ~- 0 web angle at an arbitrary point on the lip (-- sin -1 (W/r)) web angle at the outer corner (--: sin -1 (W/R))
INTRODUCTION

TWIST drills could be regarded as some of the most geometrically complex tools in common use. In spite of the considerable and valuable efforts made to improve our understanding of the geometry, cutting action and drill performance, there is much to be learnt about drills and drilling. The nomenclature describing the general geometry of twist drills has been standardized in various countries [1-3] while handbooks [4-6] give quantitative values of angles and sizes for common usage. Nevertheless, some ambiguity exists in the geometrical definitions and diagrammatic representations of twist drills in standards and handbooks. Handbooks refer to two clearance angles on the flank, namely: the lip clearance (or relief) angle at the lips specified at the outer corner of the drill and a clearance angle involving the outer corner and another point on the flank at the drill circumference. Standards refer to the lip clearance angle only, although the diagrammatic representations are inconsistent with the verbal definitions given for this angle. The lip clearance angle in Fig. l(a) should be illustrated in a plane normal to the drill radius and parallel to the drill axis rather than in the plane shown in the diagram. Figure 1 also shows the various ways by which the "same" clearance angle has been illustrated, from which the ambiguity is obvious. A major cause of the difficulties experienced in defining and illustrating the relevant drill angles is due to the limited knowledge of the geometrical and kinematic details of tile multitude of machines used to produce and sharpen twist drills so that the resulting drill geometry is not fully and generally known. There is a need to further our understanding

Lip clearanceangle

Clearanc e..JJ~t ~ angle ~----~

(b) Clearance/\ angle

(a)

(c)

FIG. 1. Various c o m m o n m e t h o d s of illustrating the clearance angles on a drill.

Drill Point Sharpening by the Straight Lip Conical Grinding Method--I. Basic Analysis

157

f Grinding wheel \~ /Grinding cone

', \

Viewalong "M"

~" ~,~

FI~. 2. An illustration of conical grinding often shown in handbooks.

of the geometry and physical dimensions of twist drills in order to appreciate the interrelationships between the various angles and sizes and their influence on drill performance. Since the cutting action occurs at the drill point, the geometry generated in this region by drill point grinders is of particular interest. Thorough studies of actual drill sharpening techniques have been seriously lacking in the literature although drill point sharpening machines based on conical grinding methods have been used early this century [7]. Handbooks give vague diagrams, such as that shown in Fig. 2, in an attempt to illustrate the basic principles. A sophisticated analysis of drill point sharpening based on a conical grinding concept for straight lipped drills was presented by Galloway [8]. In this work the geometry in the vicinity of the drill lips was thoroughly studied including methods of specifying and measuring the lip clearance angle. Equations for the relevant part of the flute geometry required to give straight lips were derived together with expressions for lip clearance and rake angles along the drill lips. The chisel edge region was not seriously considered and the approximate expression for the chisel edge angle given showed that this angle was entirely dependent on the other specified drill parameters and as such was redundant in so far as the grinding method was concerned. Galloway pointed out that the flank surface of the drill would be fully determined if the semi-cone angle 0, and the cone apex position with respect to the drill axis (denoted by parameter d in Fig. 3) were known in addition to the specified lip clearance angle Clo, point angle 2p, web thickness 2W and diameter D. It was also suggested that actual drill point grinders could be represented by instantaneous cones so that the above analysis was claimed to be generally applicable. A closer look at this analysis shows that it is incomplete since the chisel edge was ignored. Furthermore it becomes apparent that the cone parameters d and 0 cannot be located uniquely from the specified drill variables so that a variety of cones could be used to produce the required drill lip clearance and point angles for uncontrolled chisel edge angles. Recently Fujii et al. [9-11] published a penetrating study of the drill geometry in an attempt to arrive at an optimum drill design. In the first two papers, Fujii et al. [9, 10] used Galloway's analysis, and the cone parameters d and O were assumed to be known. The geometry of the flute and flank surfaces was studied by sectioning the drill and grinding cones with planes in the drill point region. This method resulted in a series of ellipses,

158

E.J.A. ARMAREGOand A. ROTENBERG

parabolas and hyperbolas (depending on the inclination of the sectioning planes) with a correspondingly large number of constants to be evaluated so that a digital computer and plotter were required and used. The chisel edge and the chisel edge angle were numerically determined from the intersection of various ellipses formed by the sectioning planes normal to the drill axis. The drill geometry described by this method of sections on Galloway's model was compared to an actual drill sharpened on a commercial grinder. Although reasonable correlation between the actual and "computed" drill geometry was shown, a few problems were evidently encountered in this work. The geometry of the grinder used was not proved to be consistent with Galloway's conical grinding concept. Furthermore, difficulties were experienced in setting and measuring the cone parameters d and 0 as well as the lip clearance angle Clo. These difficulties are probably evident by the fact that the chisel edge angle ground on the drill was 102 (107 from the analysis) compared to 120-135 recommended in handbooks and normally achieved by drill point grinders. In a third paper, Fujii et al. [11] reconsidered their previous work. They derived an expression for the chisel edge angle ~b from the common tangent to the ellipses obtained by sectioning the grinding cones with planes normal to the drill axis at the drill dead-centre. The chisel edge angle equation was very complex mainly due to the analytical method used and the parameters selected. The problem of setting or visualizing the relevant parameters on an actual drill point grinder was not considered in developing this analysis. Although the chisel edge angle ,/~ was not ignored as was done in Galloway's analysis, once again it was found that a variety of cones could be used to produce the specified drill angles 2p, Clo and ~b. The drill geometry for two grinding cones was numerically studied and compared in order to select the optimum grinding method, but no significant differences were demonstrated. In a fourth paper, De Vries [12] described the design features of a prototype straight lip conical grinding attachment to suit an existing drill grinder. The previous computer programmes based on the sectioning planes method [9-11] were used to locate the drill with respect to the cone although again no optimum geometry was recommended. The grinding attachment was evaluated by comparing the actual and "design" drill angles, from which good correlation was demonstrated. In this investigation the conical grinding concept will be reconsidered by using more direct analytical methods with a view to derive equations for describing the drill geometry and for designing drill point grinders. An attempt to arrive at the grinding parameters for optimum drill geometry will be made. The desirability of geometrically similar drills with respect to the drill sharpening method will be studied. The basic features of a few actual drill point grinders will be investigated to test whether the conical grinding concept is applicable as previously suggested. In this part of the study a basic analysis of the straight lip conical grinding method will be developed. ANALYSIS OF THE C O N I C A L G R I N D I N G M E T H O D FOR S T R A I G H T LIP D R I L L S The general configuration of the conical grinding method is shown in Fig. 3. For easier visualization, the elevation is selected to show the drill and cone axes in true lengths, while the plan view is in a plane normal to the drill axis. Since the drill should be symmetrical about its axis, the grinding cones are also symmetrically situated about the drill axis. Each cone produces one flank of the drill with one generator coincident with the

Drill Point Sharpening by the Straight Lip Conical Grinding Method--J. Basic Analysis

159

required straight drill lip. The half point angle p is the acute angle between the projections o f each generator coincident with the lips and the drill axis on a plane parallel to the drill axis and these generators. The intersection line o f the two cones between the drill lips is the chisel edge which passes through the drill axis. The chisel edge is therefore not a straight line and the chisel edge angle may be defined as the obtuse angle between the tangent to the projection o f the chisel edge at the dead centre and the lips on to a plane normal to the drill axis. For the purposes o f this analysis the drill axis and the relevant drill lip are taken in the first quadrant with respect to apex O~ of cone 1 (i.e. Cu > 0, 0 ~ A < 90 and X ~ P as in Fig. 3).

0 2 Y

'/

Y2

XI

cone I

\,

ix2

:~: /
/

\
'\... ~

c,/Z~/~ ' A i~
/ /i

Vl

~A

o,

t ~_~ ~

FIG. 3. The relevant geometry of the conical grinding method for straight lip drills. The equations for cones 1 and 2 about their respective origins O1 and 02 can be expressed by X12 + (Z1 sin X -- Y1 cos X) 2 -- ( Z I cos X + Y1 sin X) 2 tan 2 0 = 0 X22 + (Z2 sin X - - Y2 cos X)2 -- (Z2 cos x + Y2 sin X) ~ tan 2 0 = 0. (1) (2)

These equations can be rearranged with respect to the origin O on the drill axis (Fig. 3) so that

(Cx + x) 2 + (Cz + z)2(1 -- cos 2 x see s 0) -- 2(Cz + z)(Cv -- y) sin X cos X sec~ 0 + (Cv - Y)2(1 - sin 2 x sec2 0) = 0
(3)

160 for cone 1, and

E . J . A . ARMAREGOand A. ROTENBERG

(Cx -- x) 2 + (Cz + z)2(1 -- cos 2 X sec2 0) -- 2(Cz + z ) ( C v + y) sin X cos X sec2 0 + (Cu + y)2(1 -- sin 2 X sec 2 0) = 0

(4)

for cone 2. Since

X1 = Czr + x Y I ~ Cuy X 2 = Cx - x

and

Y2=

Cu+y

(5)

Z 1 = Cz + z

Z 2 = Cz + z

where

X ---- angle between the drill axis and cone axis in a plane parallel to both axes 0 = the semi-cone angle of the circular cones
Cx, Cu, Cz ~ coordinates o f origin 0 on the drill axis with respect to the cone

apices. Equations (3) and (4) represent the chisel edge. The chisel edge equation in a plane normal to the drill axis can be found by solving equations (3) and (4) and eliminating the z coordinate. The slope dx/dy at x y = 0 represents the tangent to the chisel edge ill the x - y plane at the dead centre of the drill. Hence from the geometry of Fig. 3, the chisel edge angle is given by 4 , - 180 ' ~ - A - ' (6) where

-- [sin s O - - s i n XCOS x s e c O J s i n ~ 0 Cx(cos20 Cu and

[C{~Z(cos2 O - c o s 2 X;]
\Cu]

(7,

cosZx)

A = angle between the lip and the cone axis is a plane normal to the drill axis. The angle A is related to the web thickness 2 W, Cx, and Cu since the lip and the coincident generator are tangential to the drill core, hence from Fig. 3 Cx
Cu

= tan A +

W
Cu cos A

(8)

The half point angle p can be expressed in terms of X, 0 and A by the equation cospcosx sin p sin x cos A -- cos 0 = 0. (9)

The lip clearance angle at any point on the lip is defined as the angle between a plane normal to the drill axis and the tangent (at the point on the lip) to the drill flank in a plane

Drill Point Sharpening by the Straight Lip Conical Grinding Method--I. Basic Analysis

161

normal to the radius at the point in question. For any point on the lip ground by cone 1 dZ 1 tan CI ~ dX1 cos (co -- A) cos (o~ -- A)[tan A + tan (~ -- Z)(cos 2 X -- sinZ X tanZ O) tan v tan (o~ -- A) sin X cos X sec2 O] tan v (sin 2 X cos 2 x tanZ0) - sin X cos~x sec2 0
-

(10)

where oJ = web angle = sin -1 (W/r) r = radius at any point on the drill lip and tan v .
Z1

(11)

. . YI

sin x c o s X se c2 0 - - x / s e c 2 A (cos z X sec z 0 - - 1) + sin 2 x sec 2 0

(1 -- cos 2 X see2 0)

(12)

Since the lip clearance angle is usually specified at the outer corner of the drill the relevant radius is r ---- R = D/2. Under these conditions C1 and co may be given the symbols Clo and co0 in equations (10) and (11) with r = R = D/2 in equation (11). Equations (6)-(12) are fairly intricate and any attempt to reduce all of these in explicit forms of , p and Clo will result in unnecessarily complex expressions. However, by considering these equations in general terms it is possible to test whether the drill angles and dimensions normally specified provide sufficient conditions to describe and locate the grinding cone with respect to the drill. In Fig. 3, the grinding method is fully described by the five parameters A, X, 0, W and Cu (other sets of parameters may also be used, such as A, X, 0, W and Cx). From equations (6), (7) and (8) it follows that the chisel edge angle is also a function of five parameters, i.e. = fl(A, X, O, W, Cy). Similarly, combining equations (10), (11) and (12) (13)

ct
or

f2(a, x, o, w, r)

(14) (14a)
05)

c t 0 = f 3 ( a , x, 0, w , g )

while from equation (9)

p = f 4 ( a , x, 0).

These three equations relate , Clo and p to the drill radius R and the five cone grinding parameters. Since , Clo, p, R and W for a drill are usually specified and known, it is not possible to uniquely determine the four remaining unknowns from the three equations available. As a result a variety of cones can be used to satisfy the above five specified drill angles and dimensions. This point was raised in Fujii et al. third paper [11] when they numerically found a d - 0 relationship to produce the same specified drill geometry. In their case d was the grinding variable Galloway [8] used and from Fig. 3 it is related to the above variables by the equation d = Cu cos (tan-) (Cx/Cy) -- A) (16) cos (tan -1 (Cz/Cu)) i.e. d = fs(A, Cx, Cu) (16a)

162

E.J.A. ARMAREGOand A. ROTENBERG

or combining equation (6) with equation (8) d--J6(A, W, Cu). (16b)

From equations (14a) and (15) it will be noticed that given W and R, the specified angles 2p and Clo can be obtained from a number of combinations of A, X and 0. Furthermore for any one of these sets of angles, a variety of Cx and Cu values can be found to satisfy A in equation (8). Hence, when the chisel edge angle ~b is ignored, the drill angles 2p and Clo can be ground without fully locating the drill axis with respect to the cone apex provided the drill axis is at a distance W to the relevant cone generator (lip). This case is in effect the one studied by Galloway [8] since he assumed that the chisel edge angle ~b could be approximated to an angle ~: which was directly related to the other specified drill angles p, Clo, and co0 and as such ~b and ~: gave redundant information. It should be noted that by rearranging equations (13), (14a) and (15) the grinding method can be described in terms of ~b, CIo, p, 0 and Cu (or d). However, this approach tends to obscure the basic practical parameters which need to be set and adjusted on a drill grinder in order to achieve the required point geometry. This is consistent with the fact that there are few adjustments on actual drill grinders which can obviously be related to the specified drill angles. Thus, the chisel edge angle or the lip clearance angle are not directly set on a grinder but are achieved by a combination of practical parameters. Equations (6)-(12) in this analysis express various angles in terms of other angles and dimensionless length ratios (e.g. A is related to Cx/Cu and W/Cu while Clo depends on 2W/D as well as A, X and 0). A useful method for studying the results of this analysis is to divide all linear dimensions in equations (6)-(12) by the drill diameter so that the general expressions set out in equations (13) and (14a) become 4': /v(A, X, O, W/D, Cu/D) and (13a) (14b)

Clo --J~(A, X, 0, W/D)

while equation (15) remains unaltered, i.e.
p - j~(a, x, o).

(15)

Again a variety of solutions satisfy the above three equations when , Clo, p and W/D (or 2W/D) are given. However, any selected solution A, X, 0 and Cu/D applies for all diameter drills. The diameter simply acts as a scale factor which can be used to obtain all linear dimensions from the evaluated ratios such as Cu/D, Cx/D and d/D. Table 1 and Fig. 4 show some of the results obtained from the above analysis when the practical restrictions Cu > 0, 0 ~ A < 90 and 0 < X ~ P apply. The drill specifications used are within the range recommended for general purpose twist drills. The method of solution was to select X and determine A and 0 by iteration from equations (9), (10), (11) and (12) to satisfy the specified values Clo, p, and W/D. The ratio Cx/Cu for the required chisel edge angle ~b was found from equations (6) and (7) and Cu calculated from equation (8). Galloway's d was also found from equation (16). All linear dimensions were presented in dimensionless form by dividing by the drill diameter to generalize the data. From these results it is apparent that for any given drill angles and web thickness to diameter ratio 2W/D the parameters which describe the grinding method vary considerably and are difficult to represent in graphical form. The use of the X - 0 or d i D - 0 relations in Fig. 4 are of some limited use to illustrate that a variety of cones may satisfy a specified

Drill Point Sharpening by the Straight Lip Conical Grinding Method

I. Basic Analysis

163

drill geometry. It appears that as the semi-cone angle 0 decreases, A and Cx/D decrease while X, Cu/D and Galloway's diD increase for any one drill. However, the important problem of selecting the most suitable cone still remains at this stage. In part II of this investigation a search for a criterion for a unique grinding cone will be made.
TABLE 1. EXAMPLES OF VARIOUS G R I N D I N G CONE PARAMETERS W H I C H SATISFY A GIVEN DRILL SPECIFICATION

Drill specification
2 W/ D 2p Clo ~o Cx/ D

Grinding cone parameters

Cy/ D

Galloway's parameter -- diameter X 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 42 45 50 10 15 20 25 29 30 35 40 45 50 55 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 29 30 35 40 45 50 55

A 36"2 21.2 14"2 10'2 7.4 5"4 3"8 3"3 2"6 1'5 36"2 21"2 14"2 10"2 7-9 7.4 5"4 3'8 2"6 1'5 0"6 48-4 26.9 17.9 12'7 9"3 6.7 4"8 3.2 1'9 48-4 26-9 17-9 12-7 9.9 9.3 6.7 4.8 3.2 1"9 0.8

0 51.1 45.2 39"8 34.6 29.4 24"3 19-2 17-2 14.1 9-1 51.1 45"2 39.8 34.6 30'5 29-4 24-3 19"2 14.1 9"1 4.0 52.7 46"0 40"3 34.9 29'7 24"5 19-3 14-2 9'1 52.7 46.0 40-3 34.9 30"7 29-7 24'5 19-3 14.2 9.1 4'1

d/D
0.3609 0.4491 0.5418 0.6611 0.8015 0.9943 1.2716 1"4772" 1-8323 2'8640 0'1677 0-2095 0'2553 0'3093 0-3639* 0"3796 0.4730 0.6077 0"8463 1.3080 3'0551 0"4316 0"5484 0"6709 0-8159 0-9943 1-2371 1.6357 2'1817 3-5253* 0.1755 0.2259 0.2772 0.3384 0.4004* 0.4154 0-5168 0.6709 0.9332 1.4772 3-5253

0.16

118

14

120

0.2777 0.2370 0.2105 0.1958 0.1826 0-1732 0.1641 0.1649 0"1630 0.1549 0.1636 0.1503 0-1402 0.1335 0'1293 0.1282 0.1242 0-1201 0.1183 0.1142 0.1120 0.3759 0.3195 0.2823 0.2574 0.2396 0.2238 0.2166 0.2017 0-1968 0.1844 0'1736 0.1613 0.1524 0.1476 0.1461 0.1397 0.1359 0.1320 0.1289 0-1292

0'2439 0.3898 0"5056 0-6365 0"7845 0'9824 1"2635 1-4701 1'8268 2-8610 0.0881 0"1664 0"2279 0-2903 0"3494 0"3662 0"4634 0"6010 0-8418 1'3054 3"0541 0"2268 0"4528 0"6138 0'7784 0'9683 1.2193 1'6233 2"1739 3"5207 0'0567 0'1653 0-2392 0'3126 0'3806 0.3970 0.5039 0-6619 0.9272 1"4737 3-5238

0"16

118

14

135

0"16

118

16

120

0"16

118

16

135

* Lower limit for 0 (see Part II [13]). 12

164

E . J . A . ARMAREGOand A. ROTENBERG

60 --

oPosition of limiting 4? Ct =14 CI =16o p=ll8 o 2W/D

-u ~
o

3 Posiion of limiting

=o.~6

o _ {
2
o c::
L

4c

\X
~=135" I~" '--

~ ~
~ -';:5 ~,

~// /cLo=W'
Jk/~//
CLo=14

,#=135

o = ~ 30 g .,20

Clo=16 0/=135
q,=12o

"~x~
20

~
o I
~

~//j

cto=,6 ~ =~2o

~o
I
I0

~ o
I
20

I
50 40

I
50 0 IO

i
20

I
SO

I
40

I
50

Semi-cone

angle

8 degrees

Fio. 4. The relationship between the semi-cone angle 0 and the grinding parameter X and Galloway's d for some drill specifications (for limiting 0 see part II [13]). CONCLUSIONS A n analysis o f the straight lip conical grinding concept is developed. F r o m the given drill specification only three general expressions relating the drill geometry to four basic grinding p a r a m e t e r s have been found. A s a result, an infinite n u m b e r o f grinding cones m a y be used to sharpen a drill to the given specification. It is a p p a r e n t t h a t a further equation should be sought to establish a unique grinding cone and drill p o i n t g e o m e t r y for a given specification. REFERENCES [1] British Standard, B.S.328, Part 1 (1959). [2] Australian Standard, B.45, Part 1 (1960). [3] American Standard, A.S.A.B5, 12 (1958). [4] A.S.T.M.E., Tool Engineers Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York (1958). [5] R. LE GRAND (Ed.), The New American Machinist's Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York (1955). [6] Metal Cutting Tool Handbook. Metal Cutting Tool Institute (1965). [7] P. TROESTER, Werkst. Betr. 94, 56 (1961). [8] D. F. GALLOWAY,Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Engrs 79, 191 (1957). [9] S. FuJII, M. F. DE VRIESand S. M. Wu, J. Engng Ind. 92, 647 (1970). [10] S. FuJII, M. F. DE VRIESand S. M. Wu, J. Engng Ind. 92, 657 (1970). [11] S. FoJn, M. F. DE VR[ESand S. M. Wu, J. Engng Ind. 93, 1093 (1971). [12] M. F. DE VRIES, S.M.E. TeehnicalPaper MR 72-158 (1972). [13] E. J. A. ARMAREGOand A. ROTENBERG,Int. J. Math. Tool Des. Res. 13, 165 (1973).