Group – Exponential Machines

Conceptual design

The figure below shows the first conceptual design by Der Zhi Jeremy Sow.

Figure 1. First design (Der Zhi Jeremy Sow).

The figure below shows the second conceptual design by Clarence Xu.

Figure 2. Second design (Clarence Xu).

The figure below shows the conceptual design Louie Zacharapoulos.

Figure 3. Third design (Louie Zacharapoulos).

Engineering drawing

Main contributor - Louie Zacharapoulos

The figure below shows the engineering drawing. The side view was not drawn as it has been fully
defined already.

Figure 4. Engineering drawing.

Tool path sequence

Main contributor – Der Zhi Jeremy Sow

The first operation of the milling process would be face milling the stock. Face milling is done using the
face end mill, and 1 mm thickness from the surface is removed. The figure below shows the face milling
process of the stock block.

Figure 5. Face milling.

The second CAM operation would be drilling the holes for the pen. A ball end mill is used to drill the pen
holes 15 mm deep. The figure below shows the process of drilling the stock.

Figure 6. Drilling.

The third CAM operation would be performing a contour on the stock block. The 6 mm flat end mill is used
to perform the operation. The figure below shows the process of performing the 2D contour.

Figure 7. Contour removing.

The fourth operation would be milling the pocket for the model. The same tool is used for this process.
Since milling has to be done at 5 mm increments, the operation is repeated for 3 rounds, as the hole is 15
mm deep.
 Figure 8. Pocketing process.

The final operation would be engraving using the trace operation. A 1.5 mm face end mill is used to
engrave the words 1 mm deep. The figure below shows the process of engraving.

Figure 9. Engraving process.

Machining strategy

Main contributor – Der Zhi Jeremy Sow

For the machining strategy, the objective was to optimize the surface finish of the operation against the
time taken to manufacture it. Hence, proper tools and setup is done for each stage to perform this
optimization.

The first operation is the face milling operation. For this operation, the climb milling operation was
selected. Climb milling was used as it provides a better surface finish compared to conventional milling,
while the time taken to mill is still the same. The face milling operation was used as well, as the surface of
the stock top must be provided with a surface finish before further machining, i.e. it is a finishing
operation instead of a roughing operation. A surface finish of only 1 mm is used. Providing a greater depth
of surface finish would yield the similar results, however more machining time.

The face milling operation was placed first as the drilling and pocketing operations were based on the
model top height in Fusion 360 instead of the stock height. Using the stock height to drill and pocket would
have caused more time, as the operations have to drill and pocket 1 mm deeper. Additionally, the stock
height is irregular, which is not feasible to use the stock top height for the operations.

The second operation would be drilling the holes for the pen. Since holes need to be made,
a standard drilling operation was used to perform this operation. The ball nose mill is used to drill the
holes instead of the face end mill. End mills aren’t used as they are more suited towards clearing material.
Ideally, a drill bit would be used, however there were no drill bits available.

The third operation would be performing the 2D pocket operation. The 2D pocketing operation was used
to perform this operation. The 2D Adaptive clearing could have been used, however 2D adaptive clearance
is used to provide a larger material removal with a large step down size, which would lead to a poorer
surface finish. Furthermore, adaptive clearing does not provide a full width cut, however it removes
material progressively. This would lead to more time involved to remove the material. To provide a better
surface finish, Step down sizing is added to provide a better surface finish. The step down size value is 5
mm, which is the maximum available step down size of the tool. Climb milling was also used to provide a
better surface finish. Adding finishing passes would significantly increase the time, hence it was not used.

The fourth operation would be 2D contouring. Since a contour profile has to be done, and minimal
material needs to be removed, the 2D contour operation is used. The contour operation is placed after
the pocket operation as both uses the 6 mm flat end mill. The flat end mill is used for both operations as
the ball nose mills would cause a circular cut at the bottom instead of a flat cut if used. The biggest
diameter was also used to reduce machining time, along with the number of flutes or teeth. Climb milling
was used to provide a better surface finish of the contour.

The last operation would be engraving. The tracing operation as letters were needed to be engraved onto
the block. To provide a better surface finish and produce the letters, the letters were only engraved in for
1 mm. The engraving operation is time costly, hence, performing deep engravings would significantly
increase the time. Deeper engravings would also lead to poorer surface finish. Step sizing could be used
to provide a better surface finish and a deeper engraving; however, it costs more time. Similarly, climb
milling was used to provide a better surface finish.

Simulation and Actual Manufacturing Process Comparison

Main contributor – Clarence Xu

The simulation and actual manufacturing process for each operation was compared. The first noticeable
difference was the presence of lines left by the actual process compared to the simulated model. These
lines were step over witness marks, as each pass was cut with the exact size of the face mill. The drill
operation was accurate. The diameter of the holes were pretty much 6 mm, with only a very minor
difference. The slot for the pocket however was smaller by 1 mm. The length of the slot was relatively
accurate as well. The other noticeable difference was that the contour was not symmetrical at all. The
contour differences in shown in figure 10 and 11 below.
 Figure 10. Contour outcome.

Figure 11. Contour outcome.

This irregularity is due to the irregularity of the stock. Since the sides of the stock product were not
finished, the width of the contour was based on the stock model. This led to an irregular contour, as the
stock model is not straight in shape to begin with. In reality, the whole stock model has to be finished first
before performing further operations. The distances of the slots and holes from the contour were also
slightly inaccurate due this this effect as well. The depth of the cuts was also measured. Only the contour
and slot depth were measured, as a ruler could not be used to measure the engraving and the drilled
holes. The depth was also accurate, with only 0.5 mm off. The other causes of the inaccuracies of the
dimensions would be the tolerance, or control resolution of the machine.

The other issue was the marks that are left on the surface that were caused by the mill. These marks were
most likely chatter marks, which are caused by the vibration of the CNC machine. There can be many
causes to this, such as poor mounting of work piece and a CNC machine that has not been regularly
maintained. Although unavoidable, there can be steps to minimize it. One step used in this assignment
was to use climb milling to minimize the chatter marks. One more minor issue was that material leftovers
were stuck in the holes and the engraved text.

Timing of the operation was also compared. The value-added time was compared, as Fusion 360 does not
have values for tool changing time. The table below shows the comparison of each operation. The actual
time is estimated by watching the video. The time is compared such that the start and stop position of the
tool is the same in Fusion 360 and in the real model.

Table 1. Operation time comparison.

Operation Simulation time in Fusion 360 (s) Actual time (s)

Face operation 135 120
Drilling operation 39 32
Contour operation 39 24
Pocket operation 225 211
Trace operation 146 133

Based on the results, the actual time is faster by a few seconds.