CNC Profile Milling and Forces

A Lab Report

Submitted By

Neel Nadpara

ME 3217 Metal Cutting Principles

Instructor: Thomas Mealy

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Connecticut

November 18, 2015

Abstract:
Milling is a common metal cutting operation that is utilized to generate parts with various
complex geometries. However, there are three primary factors that affect the forces generated in
milling operations including depths of cut, feed rates, and the type of milling employed
(conventional or climb). The purpose of this lab is to evaluate how feed rates, depths of cuts, and
the type of milling (climb or conventional) affect the cutting forces.

Theory behind the Lab:

Metal cutting procedures, such as the milling of bar stock, material is removed from a workpiece
by shearing and deforming the material producing chips. In a milling process, the cutting tool
rotates at a given RPM (N) which engages the workpiece (which is fixed to a table) at a certain
depth of cut (d). The table is capable of moving in the X, Y, and Z directions at a certain feed
rate (v) allowing one to cut material off of the workpiece and generate various geometries. An
important factor in any metal cutting operation is the material removal rate (MRR) which
describes how much material is removed per unit of time since it dictates how long it would take
to turn a given workpiece into a finished part. Feed rate, depth of cut, and the type of milling
(milling direction) used are parameters that have significant impacts on the MRR. The material
removal rate for milling operations is defined by the equation:

𝐌𝐑𝐑 = 𝐰𝐝𝐯

Where w is the width of cut in inches, d is the depth of cut in inches, and v is the linear feed rate
in (in/min). It can be shown that, the greater the feed rate and the depth of cut the greater the
material removal rate. However, the more material that is being removed in a given period of
time means more energy is required to deform and shear the material that is being removed.
Thus, the cutting forces increases as the MRR increases. This in turn, also defines the
relationship between MRR and power. Since more energy is required to cut material at higher
rates more power is needed. Power needed for a metal cutting operation is defined by the
equation:

𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 = 𝐌𝐑𝐑 × 𝐒𝐏
Where MRR is the material removal rate in (in3/min) and SP is the specific power required for
cutting in (hp-min/in3). Since the depth of cut and the linear feed rate are directly related to the
MRR it can also be shown that with an increase in either variable one should see an increase in
the power needed for cutting. Moreover, milling direction is an important factor in milling
operations. There are two milling directions: climb milling (up-cutting) and conventional milling
(down-cutting). Each milling direction has its own advantages and disadvantages. In climb
milling, the flute contacts the workpiece at the top of the cut and the thickness of the chip
decreases as the flute cuts. Thus, the chips are evacuated behind the cut which is important since
the chips would clear the cutting tool without getting recut. This in turns translates to a better
surface finish and longer tool life. Additionally, less power is required from the spindle to climb
mill, and the result of the cut is down-force on the material, which allows you to have fewer
clamps on a workpiece. However, there are also disadvantages to climb milling. The worst
occurs with older manual milling machines; the pulling action of climb milling can translate into
serious backlash. The cutting tool will grab the workpiece and force the table to move the
distance of the backlash which is bad for the part being machined and it may even be dangerous
to the operator. For conventional milling the tool rotates clockwise and the tool cuts from bottom
to top. Thus, it goes against the rotation of the cutter which can cause the chips to get recut
leading to a worse surface finish and shorter tool life. Also, due to how the force applied the
workpiece has to be very well secured to the table. However, conventional milling is useful for
milling harder materials such as cast iron or hot rolled steels which have a harder exterior
surface. Overall, the two methods can be useful depending on the specific metal cutting
operation. In terms of this lab, climb milling should produce lower cutting forces and higher
thrust forces while the opposite is true for conventional milling.

Experimental Procedure:

In this lab, a 3-axis milling machine was set up with 1018 steel stock mounted to the table. A
force transducer was set up to measure the forces in the two axis of interest the x to measure the
thrust force, the y to measure the cutting force. The lab was set up in order to measure the forces
during cutting a stacked pyramid shape with different depths of cut and feed rates. Also, two sets
of cuts were made on each side of the workpiece in order to see the effects of conventional and
climb milling. The cutting tool used was a 4-flute cobalt end mill with a 0.375 cutting diameter.
The width of cut was held constant for all cuts as seen in Figure 1. Five different depths of cut
were utilized with five different feed rates as seen in Table 1.

Depth of Cut (in) 0.3125 0.2500 0.1875 0.1250 0.0625

Feed Rate (in/min) 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 12.000
Table 1: Table Listing Depths of Cut and Feed Rates Used

Figure 1: Drawing of the workpiece with the depths of cut and the constant width of cut

Figure 2: Render of the Finished Part (one side is done with conventional Milling while the other is done with climb milling.
A LabVIEW VI was also programed and used with a PC in order to record the forces that are
detected by the force transducers during each of the individual cutting operations.

Results and Discussion:

Theoretical MRR, Power, and FPT Calculations

Depth of Cut (in) 0.3125 0.250 0.1875 0.125 0.0625
Feed Rate (in/min) 2 4 6 8 12
3
Theoretical MRR (in /min) 0.0625 0.1 0.113 0.1 0.075
1
Max Power (hp) 0.213 0.34 0.383 0.34 0.255
-4 -4
Feed Per Tooth (in/tooth) 4.17 x 10 8.33 x 10 0.0013 0.0017 0.0025
Table 2: Table showing calculated MRR, Power required for cutting, and FPT

Cutting Forces vs. Depth of Cut During Climb Milling

Depth of Cut (in) Fx (lbf) Fy (lbf)
0.3125 12.64 46.41
0.25 15.01 57.57
0.1875 14.72 56.22
0.125 11.96 46.29
0.0625 8.05 34.28
Table 3: Table showing the cutting forces at the different depths of cuts for climb milling

Cutting Forces vs. Feed Rate During

Climb Milling
Feed Rate (in/min) Fx (lbf) Fy (lbf)
2 12.64 46.41
4 15.01 57.57
6 14.72 56.22
8 11.96 46.29
12 8.05 34.28
Table 4: Table showing the cutting forces at the different feed rates for climb milling

Cutting Forces vs. Depth of Cut During Conventional Milling

Depth of Cut (in) Fx (lbf) Fy (lbf)
0.3125 44.68 5.05
0.25 53.82 7.27
0.1875 52.65 8.88
0.125 44.27 8.78
0.0625 31.96 6.78
Table 5: Table showing the cutting forces at the different depths of cuts for conventional milling

1
The SP value used was the max SP value for steel (3.4 hp-min/in3) which was obtained from Table 21.2 on page
579 of Manufacturing Engineering and Technology by Kalpakjian
 Cutting Forces vs. Feed Rate During Conventional Milling
Feed Rate (in/min) Fx (lbf) Fy (lbf)
2 44.68 5.05
4 53.82 7.27
6 52.65 8.88
8 44.27 8.78
12 31.96 6.78
Table 6: Table showing the cutting forces at the different feed rates for conventional milling

From the data that was generated it can be seen that many of the trends that should happen
theoretically do occur in this lab. As the depth of cut increases the cutting forces increase and as
the feed rate increases so does the cutting forces. For instance, in the climb milling scenario with
a depth of cut of .3125” the cutting force (Fx) is 12.6 lbf and the thrust force (Fy) is 46.4 lbf
which is rather large considering a low feed rate of 2 in/min is used. Additionally, when the
depth of cut is low (.0625 in) and the feed rate is maximized (12 in/min) the cutting force (Fx) is
8 lbf and the thrust force (Fy) is 34.3 lbf which is rather large considering a low depth of cut.
However, the maximum cutting forces are generated when a balance is reached between the
depth of cut and the feed rate (in the runs with depths of cuts of .25” and 3/16 in with feeds of 4
and 6 in/min respectively). This makes sense since the more material removed the higher the
power needed and higher the forces at play. Thus as the MRR increases (the MRR is the highest
for these specific runs), which it should when both depth of cut and feed rate are increased
rather than just maximizing one the forces should be at the maximum. Also, the effects of climb
verses conventional milling are clearly evident as the larger force values change sides. In climb
milling the cutting force is lower while the thrust force is higher and for conventional milling the
cutting force is higher while the thrust force is lower. For instance, in climb milling with a depth
of cut of .3125” and a feed rate of 2 in/min the cutting force (Fx) is 12.6 lbf and the thrust force
(Fy) is 46.4 lbf. However, in conventional milling the cutting force (Fx) is 44.7 lbf and the thrust
force (Fy) is 5.05 lbf.
Conclusion:

From the data that was obtained for this lab the theory that large feed rates and depths of cut
should increase the cutting forces is validated. Also, the theory that climb milling should have a
lower cutting force and higher trust force and vice versa for conventional milling is also
validated by the data. However, it must be noted that there are some sources of error within this
lab. First, the force transducer is not very accurate since it is calibrated with a spring scale and
the cutting forces in the Z direction were not accurate as they fluctuated significantly. Moreover,
there is some error due to machining tolerances when machining anything thus the depths of cut
and width of cut may not have been held constant which could contribute to some minor error for
the force transducers sensing of the cutting forces. Additionally, the cutting action in milling is
not constant since the cutting edges are constantly hitting the material which could lead to some
error. Furthermore, friction is not accounted for in theoretical calculations leading to the actual
values being relatively different since for large depths of cut there should be significant friction
leading to greater resistance making the theoretical values of the cutting forces higher than what
should actually occur. These minor errors aside, the theories are still validated by the data that
was obtained by this lab.
Appendix:

Sample Calculation Set (Climb Milling, d = .3125”, v = 2 in/min):

For the actual calculations, Microsoft Excel was used to perform these calculations to speed up
the process. Also, the cutting force and the thrust force average was obtained by graphing the
forces in the x and y and selecting two data points in the middle (see below) and averaging all
the data points between those two points by using excel.

60

50
46.431909 Average
45.059239
Fx Fy
40
12.63955 46.41262
30 forceX (Arith. Mean)
forceY (Arith. Mean)
20
12.347604 13.064547
10

0
175
349
523
697
871

1915
1

1045
1219
1393
1567
1741

2089
2263
2437
2611

𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝟑
𝐌𝐑𝐑 = 𝐰𝐝𝐯 = (. 𝟏𝐢𝐧)(. 𝟑𝟏𝟐𝟓𝐢𝐧) (𝟐 ) = . 𝟎𝟔𝟐𝟓
𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐢𝐧𝟑 𝐡𝐩 − 𝐦𝐢𝐧
𝐌𝐚𝐱 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 = 𝐌𝐑𝐑 × 𝐒𝐏 = . 𝟎𝟔𝟐𝟓 ∗ 𝟑. 𝟒 = . 𝟐𝟏𝟑 𝐡𝐩
𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝟑

𝐢𝐧
𝐯 𝟐 𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧
𝐅𝐏𝐓 = = = 𝟒. 𝟏𝟕 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟒
𝐍𝐧 𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟎 𝐑𝐏𝐌 ∗ 𝟒 𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐡

Sources:

Kalpakjian, Serope. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.