Advertisement

Measurement of geometrical parameters of cutting tool based on focus variation technology

  • Lin Yuan
  • Tong GuoEmail author
  • Zhongjun Qiu
  • Xing Fu
  • Xiaotang Hu
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Optical free-form surfaces have been widely studied and applied because of their good performance, and ultra-precision manufacturing with round nose cutting tool is an effective method for machining such surfaces. Because of the direct interaction between the workpiece surface and the cutting edge, the geometrical parameters of the round nose cutting tool directly affect the shape accuracy and the surface topography of the workpiece and need to be measured accurately and comprehensively. At present, the main method to measure the geometrical parameters of round nose cutting tool involves the method using machine vision, but this imposes some limitations, such as the strong dependence on the measurement angle and the inability of measuring multiple parameters at the same time. In this work, we built a focus variation system to make three-dimensional measurement of round nose cutting tool and used this system to obtain multiple geometrical parameters in a single measurement. The types of geometrical parameters and the extraction process are discussed in detail. And a standard step height is measured to verify the high accuracy of the measurement system. The repeated measurement results show that the standard deviation of the nose radius measurement can reach hundred-nanometer scale and the relative standard deviation can reach 0.028%.

Keywords

Round nose cutting tool Focus variation Geometrical parameters Three-dimensional measurement 

Notes

Funding information

The authors acknowledge the support of the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFF0107001), the Key Technologies R&D Program of Tianjin (Grant No. 17YFZCGX00760), and the 111 Project Fund (Grant No. B07014).

References

  1. 1.
    Qiu ZJ, Fang FZ, Ding L, Zhao Q (2011) Investigation of diamond cutting tool lapping system based on on-machine image measurement. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56(1-4):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fang FZ, Chen L (2000) Ultra-precision cutting for ZKN7 glass. CIRP Ann 49(1):17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu K, Li XP, Rahman M, Neo KS, Liu XD (2007) A study of the effect of tool cutting edge radius on ductile cutting of silicon wafers. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 32(7-8):631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang P, Lee WB (2016) Cutting force prediction for ultra-precision diamond turning by considering the effect of tool edge radius. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 109:1–7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao T, Zhou JM, Bushlya V, Ståhl JE (2017) Effect of cutting edge radius on surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning of aisi 52100 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91:3611–3618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibrahim MR, Abd. Kadir AR, Omar MS, Osman MH, Sulaiman S, Razak MA, Abdullah AB (2013) Optimization of axial rake angle for face milling using Taguchi method and finite element analysis. Appl Mech Mater 465-466:746–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grzesik W, Rech J, Zak K (2014) Determination of friction in metal cutting with tool wear and flank face effects. Wear 317(1-2):8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sung AN, Ratnam MM, Loh WP (2015) Effect of tool nose profile tolerance on surface roughness in finish turning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76(9-12):2083–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lim TY, Ratnam MM (2012) Edge detection and measurement of nose radii of cutting tool inserts from scanned 2-D images. Opt Lasers Eng 50(11):1628–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao W, Asai T, Arai Y (2009) Precision and fast measurement of 3D cutting edge profiles of single point diamond micro-tools. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 58(1):451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao W, Motoki T, Kiyono S (2006) Nanometer edge profile measurement of diamond cutting tools by atomic force microscope with optical alignment sensor. Precis Engin 30(4):396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang XL, Liu ZQ, Yao GH, Wang B, Ren XP (2019) Investigation of surface topography and its deterioration resulting from tool wear evolution when dry turning of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Tribol Int 135:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    He GH, Liu XL, Wen X, Wu CH, Li LX (2017) An investigation of the destabilizing behaviors of cemented carbide tools during the interrupted cutting process and its formation mechanisms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(5-8):1959–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takaya Y, Maruno K, Michihata M, Mizutani Y (2016) Measurement of a tool wear profile using confocal fluorescence microscopy of the cutting fluid layer. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 65(1):467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demircioglu P (2014) Surface topographical evaluation of coated cutting tools with different coating technologies. Measurement 47:893–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devillez A, Lesko S, Mozer W (2004) Cutting tool crater wear measurement with white light interferometry. Wear 256(1-2):56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawson TG, Kurfess TR (2005) Quantification of tool wear using white light interferometry and three-dimensional computational metrology. Int J Mach Tool Manu 45(4-5):591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia-Garcia G, Vázquez E, Siller H, Ruiz-Huerta L, Caballero-Ruiz A (2017) Calibration of ball nose micro end milling operations for sculptured surfaces machining. Int J Mach Mach Mater 19(6):587–605Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherer S (2011) Focus variation - a new technology for high resolution optical 3D surface metrology. Stroj Vestn-J Mech E 2011(3):245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cha S, Lin PC, Zhu L, Sun PC, Fainman Y (2000) Nontranslational three-dimensional profilometry by chromatic confocal microscopy with dynamically configurable micromirror scanning. Appl Opt 39(16):2605–2613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nayar SK, Nakagawa Y (1994) Shape from focus. IEEE T Pattern Anal 16(8):824–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahmood MT, Majid A, Choi TS (2011) Optimal depth estimation by combining focus measures using genetic programming. Inf Sci 181(7):1249–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groen FCA, Young IT, Ligthart G (2010) A comparison of different focus functions for use in autofocus algorithms. Cytometry 6(2):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Subbarao M, Tyan JK (1998) Selecting the optimal focus measure for autofocusing and depth-from-focus. IEEE T Pattern Anal 20(8):864–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahn SJ, Rauh W, Hans-Jürgen W (2001) Least-squares orthogonal distances fitting of circle, sphere, ellipse, hyperbola, and parabola. Pattern Recogn 34(12):2283–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin Yuan
    • 1
  • Tong Guo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Zhongjun Qiu
    • 1
  • Xing Fu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaotang Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Precision Measuring Technology and InstrumentsTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Nanchang Institute for Microtechnology of Tianjin UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations