MACHINE TOOL GENOME PROJ ECT

Tony Schmitz
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Tom Delio
MLI
David Barton
BlueSwarf
Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited
Machining challenges
Path planning
Fixturing
Tooling (selection, balancing, holder type)
Coolant management
Tool wear
Machine accuracy
quasi-static positioning
dynamic positioning
thermal errors
Tool/workpiece vibrations (stable)
Chatter (unstable)
$$$$$
Issues affect parameter selections
2
Path planning
Fixturing
Tooling (selection, balancing, holder type)
Coolant management
Tool wear
Machine accuracy
quasi-static positioning
dynamic positioning
thermal errors
Tool/workpiece vibrations (stable)
Chatter (unstable)
$$$$$
While each item is important, we will
focus on the limitation imposed by
chatter and how to avoid it.
3
Machining challenges
b
A
x
i
a
l

d
e
p
t
h
,

b

Spindle speed
Unstable
Stable
Increased
MRR
Stability lobe diagram
Counter-intuitive results:
increased spindle speed can eliminate chatter
feed rate is not the primary adjustment
best speeds probably do not correspond to handbook values.
Best speeds
4
Stability lobe diagram
Why not the handbook values for cutting speed?
tend to be conservative (constantly changing workpiece materials and alloys, in
addition to new tool materials and coatings)
different dynamics between tool wear test setup and your machine (different
best spindle speeds)
can be used to bound highest cutting speed.
So, what do I need to generate a stability lobe diagram?
Thermal
effects
Mechanical
effects
Cutting speed
W
e
a
r

r
a
t
e

Combined
5
Stability lobe diagram requirements
A
x
i
a
l

d
e
p
t
h
,

b

Spindle speed
Unstable
Stable
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
R
e
a
l

(
m
/
N
)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-6
I
m
a
g

(
m
/
N
)
Frequency(Hz)
Frequency response
function (FRF)
Cutting force
coefficients
=
=
t t
n n
F k hb
F k hb
F
t

F
n

h
Signal
analyzer
6
1
2
Cutting force coefficients:
are not material properties, but
approximately represent the chip
formation as a lumped parameter
tabulated values are available
may also be obtained by measuring
the cutting force components for known
h and b values using a cutting force
dynamometer
hb k F
hb k F
n n
t t
=
=
F
t

F
n

Cutting force varies with chip
thickness, h, and chip width, b
Cutting force coefficients
Material k
t
(N/mm
2
)
Aluminum 500-1000
Titanium 3000-4000
Steel 2000-10000
h
7
x
y
z
Dynamometer
Workpiece
Feed
direction
1
X
1

F
X
1

t
t
1

1
n,1
t
1
f =
X
2
t
t
2

n,1
2
n,2
f
t
1
f > =
X
2

What is a frequency response function?
Example vibrating system: clamped ruler
Shorter beam: higher f
n
and dynamic stiffness
F
A frequency response function
(FRF) describes the natural
frequencies and stiffness.
8
A system wants to vibrate
at its natural frequency.
2
Natural frequencies and mode shapes
f
n,1
f
n,2

f
n,3


Multiple natural frequencies and mode shapes are present in every structure.
This information is captured in frequency response functions.
The clamped ruler is actually vibrating at multiple natural frequencies
simultaneously. Each natural frequency has an associated mode shape.
9
The ruler vibration stops after a while because all systems include damping.
What do we mean by damping?
damping refers to the leakage of the input energy into the vibrating system
not all of the input energy serves to cause motion, some of it is dissipated in
other ways (such as heat)
damping is often dissipated at interfaces (e.g., between the holder and tool or
between the holder and spindle)
a frequency response function also characterizes the system damping.
Damping
What does a frequency response function look like?
10
F
X
2

F
Frequency response functions
X
1

f
R
e
a
l

(
X
/
F
)


f
I
m
a
g

(
X
/
F
)

f
n

Higher natural
frequency, smaller
amplitude
11
R
e
a
l

(
X
/
F
)

I
m
a
g

(
X
/
F
)


f
n
f

f
n
f

f
n
Lower natural
frequency, larger
amplitude
More damping also reduces the
amplitude. Multiple f
n
s =multiple peaks.
Tool point frequency response function
To generate a stability lobe diagram, we need to measure the frequency
response function at the tool point (free end of the cutting tool).
This frequency response function is specific to the tool-holder-spindle-
machine combination.
If you change the overhang (stickout) length of the tool, the FRF changes.
If you put the same tool-holder in another spindle, the FRF may change.
This calls for a predictive capability
f
R
e
a
l

(
X
\
F
)

12
Modal
hammer
Accelerometer
Dynamic signal analyzer
Machine Tool Genome Project
13
Why is a predictive capability required?
There are 3053 models of CNC machining centers from 229 builders
1
.
Milling tools from 110 manufacturers and milling tool holders from 72
manufacturers are available
1
.
Assuming an average of 500 stock keeping units (SKUs) from each cutting tool
manufacturer and 100 SKUs from each tool holder company, there are over
1.210
12
potential tool-holder-machine-material combinations, where each tool-
holder-machine assembly has its own unique tool point FRF.
This scenario calls for an approach that can predict the tool point FRF for
arbitrary tool-holder-spindle-machine combinations using minimum input
information.
1,200,000,000,000 dynamic
fingerprints
1
http://www.techspex.com.
Machine Tool Genome Project
14
This problem is analogous to the Human Genome Project:
international scientific research effort
determine the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up DNA
identifying and mapping the 20,000 to 25,000 genes of the human genome
launched in 1990
completed in 2003
2,3
.

In the Machine Tool Genome Project:
the genes are the tool, holder, and spindle-machine
the mapping is performed using Receptance Coupling Substructure Analysis
(RCSA) to predict the tool point frequency response, i.e., the body
characteristic.
the spindle-machine genes are measured once and archived
the desired tool and holder genes are modeled.

Based on the predicted tool point FRF, preferred operating parameters are
selected which respect the limitations imposed by the process dynamics.
2
Barnhart, B.J ., 1989, DOE Human Genome Program, Human Genome Quarterly, 1:1.
3
DeLisi, C., 2001, Genomes: 15 Years Later A Perspective by Charles DeLisi, HGP Pioneer, Human Genome News 11:3-4.
FRF prediction steps
15
1. Determine spindle-machine FRF using standard holder
4
.

4
Schmitz, T., and Duncan, G.S., 2005, Three-Component Receptance Coupling Substructure Analysis for Tool Point Dynamics
Prediction, J ournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 127/4: 781-790.
+
F
X
2. Model tool and holder.

3. Couple tool-holder model to spindle response and predict tool point FRF.

+
Archive spindle-
machine FRF.

+ + + =
4. Use tool point FRF to predict milling process behavior and optimize process.

Gene
Gene
Mapping
Body characteristic
Example results
16
Three nominally identical Haas TM1 CNC machining centers were selected for testing.
Machines are located at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Left
Middle
Right
Example results
17
1. Insert standard holder in spindle and
perform impact test to determine
spindle-machine receptances
(dynamic response). Archived
response =gene.
2. Select tool and holder for machining
application.
3. Model tool and holder using:
geometry, material properties, and
connection stiffness between tool
and holder (depends on holder type
archived). Tool-holder model =
gene.
4. Couple tool-holder to machine-
spindle using RCSA to predict tool
point receptance. Gene +gene
mapping =body characteristic.
5. Use tool point receptance to
determine stability behavior and
represent using Tool Dashboard.
Example results
18
Begin with right TM1
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model (including connection stiffness identified using blank).
Measured
Predicted
Holder: Schunk Sino-R (12.7 mm diameter)
Tool: MA Ford TuffCut GP 2 FL 12.7 mm x 25.4 mm x 76.2 mm
Blank: 12.7 mm diameter x 76.7 mm carbide rod

For the 12.7 mm blank and Schunk Sino-R pair, the connection
stiffness was identified.
x y
Example results
19
Continue with middle TM1
Predict tool point receptance using middle TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-
holder model (including connection stiffness identified using blank).
x y
Measured
Predicted
Example results
20
Continue with left TM1
Predict tool point receptance using left TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model (including connection stiffness identified using blank).
x y
Measured
Predicted
Example results
21
New middle TM1 results
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model (including connection stiffness identified using blank).
x y
Measured
Predicted
Example results
22
New left TM1 results
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model (including connection stiffness identified using blank).
x y
Measured
Predicted
Example results
23
Stability prediction
Using the tool point receptance, a stability lobe
diagram can be generated for each tool-holder-
spindle-machine combination. The stability lobe
diagram is then used to build a Tool
Dashboard.
A
x
i
a
l

d
e
p
t
h
,

b

Spindle speed
Unstable
Stable
Example results
24
Begin with right TM1
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model. Compare stability lobe diagram for predicted and measured receptances.

6061-T6 aluminum workpiece, 50% radial immersion down milling, 2 teeth
Measured
Predicted
Best speeds identified by prediction. Slightly conservative good speed zone.
Example results
25
Continue with middle TM1
Predict tool point receptance using middle TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-
holder model. Compare stability lobe diagram for predicted and measured receptances.

6061-T6 aluminum workpiece, 50% radial immersion down milling, 2 teeth
Measured
Predicted
Best speeds identified by prediction. Slightly conservative good speed zone.
Example results
26
Continue with left TM1
Predict tool point receptance using left TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model. Compare stability lobe diagram for predicted and measured receptances.

6061-T6 aluminum workpiece, 50% radial immersion down milling, 2 teeth
Measured
Predicted
Best speeds identified by prediction. Accurate good speed zone.
Example results
27
New middle TM1 results
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model. Compare stability lobe diagram for predicted and measured receptances.

6061-T6 aluminum workpiece, 50% radial immersion down milling, 2 teeth
Measured
Predicted
Best speeds identified by prediction. Slightly conservative good speed zone.
Example results
28
New left TM1 results
Predict tool point receptance using right TM1 spindle-machine receptance and tool-holder
model. Compare stability lobe diagram for predicted and measured receptances.

6061-T6 aluminum workpiece, 50% radial immersion down milling, 2 teeth
Measured
Predicted
Best speeds slightly shifted. Still guides user to good speed zones.
Results summary
29
Case study evaluated two situations:
1. Spindle-machine receptances for selected machine was measured by
standard holder
2. Spindle-machine receptances for same model (not same machine) was
measured using standard holder.

Comparisons between tool point receptances and stability lobe diagrams were
provided for both situations.

Significantly improved ability to select chatter-free pre-process machining
conditions was observed in both instances.

Bottom line: stable machining conditions could be predicted without touching the
machine.
Summary
Stability lobe diagrams can be used at the process planning stage to select
chatter-free machining conditions. This can serve to increase MRR and reduce
process prove-out times.

To produce a stability lobe diagram, the frequency response function (FRF) at
the tool point is required.

To dramatically reduce the number of measurements, the Machine Tool Genome
Project goal is to archive spindle-machine responses and couple models of tools
and holders to these measurements to predict the tool point FRF.
30
Contacts for more information:

Dr. Tony Schmitz Mr. David Barton
University of North Carolina at Charlotte BlueSwarf
tony.schmitz@uncc.edu dbarton@blueswarf.com
(704) 687-8421 (814) 360-8747

Dr. Tom Delio
MLI
tdelio@mfg-labs.com
(702) 869-8142
Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited