Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of solid model and three-orthogonal dexelfield methods for cutter-workpiece engagement calculations in three- and five-axis virtual milling

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Virtual simulation of three- and five-axis milling processes has started to become more important in recent years in various industries such as aerospace, die-mold, and biomedical industries in order to improve productivity. In order to obtain desired surface quality and productivity, process parameters such as feedrate, spindle speed, and axial and radial depths of cut have to be selected appropriately by using an accurate process model of milling. Accurate process modeling requires instantaneous calculation of cutter-workpiece engagement (CWE) geometry. Cutter-workpiece engagement basically maps the cutting flute entry/exit locations as a function of height, and it is one of the most important requirements for prediction of cutting forces. The CWE calculation is a challenging and hard problem when the geometry of the workpiece is changing arbitrarily in the case of five-axis milling. In this study, two different methods of obtaining CWE maps for three- and five-axis flat and ball-end milling are developed. The first method is a discrete model which uses three-orthogonal dexelfield, and the second method is a solid modeler-based model using Parasolid boundary representation kernel. Both CWE calculation methods are compared in terms of speed, accuracy, and performance for three- and five-axis milling of ball-end and flat-end mill tools. It is shown that the solid modeling-based method is faster and more accurate. The proposed methods are experimentally and computationally verified in simulating milling of complex three-axis and five-axis examples as well as predicting cutting forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altintas Y, Kersting P, Biermann D, Budak E, Denkana B, Lazoglu I (2014) Virtual process systems for part machining operations. CIRP Ann 63(2):585–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chappel IT (1983) The use of vectors to simulate material removed by numerically controlled milling. Comput Aided Des 15:156–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hook TV (1986) Real-time shaded NC milling display. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 20:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Drysdale R, Jerard R, Schaudt B, Hauck K (1989) Discrete simulation of NC machining. Algorithmica 4:33–60

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Jerard RB, Drysdale RL III, Hauck KE, Schaudt B, Magewick J (1989) Methods for detecting errors in numerically controlled machining of sculptured surfaces. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 9:26–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fussell BK, Jerard RB, Hemmett JG (2001) Robust feedrate selection for 3-Axis NC machining using discrete models. J Manuf Sci Eng 123:214–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fussell BK, Jerard RB, Hemmett JG (2003) Modeling of cutting geometry and forces for 5-axis sculptured surface machining. Comput Aided Des 35:333–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roth D, Gray P, Ismail F, Bedi S (2007) Mechanistic modelling of 5-axis milling using an adaptive and local depth buffer. Comput Aided Des 39:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Voelcker HB, Hunt WA (1981) Role of solid modelling in machining-process modelling and NC verification SAE preprints

  10. Spence AD, Altintas Y (1994) A solid modeller based milling process simulation and planning system. J Eng Ind 116:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spence AD, Abrari F, Elbestawi MA (1999) Integrated solid modeler based solutions for machining. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM symposium on solid modeling and applications. ACM, Ann Arbor, pp 296–305

  12. Imani BM, Sadeghi MH, Elbestawi MA (1998) An improved process simulation system for ball-end milling of sculptured surfaces. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:1089–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Imani BM, Elbestawi MA (2001) Geometric simulation of ball-end milling operations. J Manuf Sci Eng 123:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferry W, Yip-Hoi D (2008) Cutter-workpiece engagement calculations by parallel slicing for five-axis flank milling of jet engine impellers. J Manuf Sci Eng 130:051011–051012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Du S, Surmann T, Webber O, Weinert K (2005) Formulating swept profiles for five-axis tool motions. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:849–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang WP, Wang KK (1986) Geometric modeling for swept volume of moving solids. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 6:8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim GM, Cho PJ, Chu CN (2000) Cutting force prediction of sculptured surface ball-end milling using Z-map. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:277–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lazoglu I, Boz Y, Erdim H (2011) Five-axis milling mechanics for complex free form surfaces. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60:117–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Erkorkmaz K, Layegh E, Lazoglu I, Erdim H (2013) Feedrate optimization for freeform milling considering constraints from the feed drive system and process mechanics. CIRP Ann 62:395–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Manav C, Bank HS, Lazoglu I (2013) Intelligent toolpath selection via multi-criteria optimization in complex sculptured surface milling. J Intell Manuf 24:349–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lazoglu I, Layegh SE, Mamedov K A, Erdim H (2014) Process optimization via feedrate scheduling in milling. In: Laperrière L, Reinhart G (eds) CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering. Springer, pp 979–987

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manufacturing and Automation Research Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Koc University, Sariyer, 34450, Istanbul, Turkey

    Y. Boz & I. Lazoglu

  2. Product Development, The Boeing Company, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA, 98124, USA

    H. Erdim

Authors
  1. Y. Boz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Erdim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Lazoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Lazoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boz, Y., Erdim, H. & Lazoglu, I. A comparison of solid model and three-orthogonal dexelfield methods for cutter-workpiece engagement calculations in three- and five-axis virtual milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81, 811–823 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7251-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7251-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation