For validating the simulation, the parameters shown in Fig. 2 have been used. Due to the profile of the welded contour, the depth of cut \(a_\mathrm {p}\) varies with \(a_\mathrm {p,max}\,=\,0.5\,\hbox {mm}\). The workpiece is considered stiff as well as the axial direction of the tool. The tools FRFs in x- and y-direction have been approximated by 28 modes total (Tables 1, 2). The five modes with the lowest frequency in x- and y-direction are the most relevant. The process parameters have been selected according to typical semi-finishing operations when re-contouring parts from Ti-6Al-4V.
Table 1 Modal parameters of the tool in x-direction Table 2 Modal parameters of the tool in y-direction
Process forces and process stability
For the given process parameters in Fig. 2, the experimental and simulated process forces and their corresponding frequency spectrum are shown in Fig. 3 for one pass of the TIG weld. \(F_\mathrm {f}\) is the process force in feed direction, \(F_\mathrm {fN}\) is the process force in feed normal direction and \(F_\mathrm {p}\) is the passive force.
The maximum forces are reached, when the depth of cut \(a_\mathrm {p}\) reaches its maximum in the middle of the symmetrical weld shape. The process forces are in good agreement regarding magnitude and frequency. For better comparability, the process forces shown for one tooth pick have been filtered using a low pass filter with a cut-off frequency of \({1.4}\,{\hbox {kHz}}\) to minimize the impact of the dynamometer. The graphs underline the accuracy of the chosen approach. The dynamometers eigenfrequency is visible in the frequency spectrum at \(f_\mathrm {dyn}\,=\,2.29\,\hbox {kHz}\). Additional differences arise from the actual geometry of the specimen differing slightly from the ideal CAD-geometry. Moreover, machine inaccuracies and fitting of FRFs as well as specific force coefficients lead to further deviations. For ball end milling, it must be noted that specific force coefficients are required for each set of process parameters individually if a high accuracy is needed. This can be attributed to the varying engagement conditions depending on e.g. tool orientation. To underline the accuracy of the approach, the maximum simulated and measured passive forces as well as process stability are shown in Fig. 4 for additional processes, where dm is down milling, um is up milling, \(b_\mathrm {r}\) is the radial depth, \(\lambda \) is the lead angle and \({\overline{S}}\) the cutting edge rounding. The cutting coefficients were calculated for every combination of lead angle and cutting edge rounding \({\overline{S}}\) individually. Therefore, ploughing effects of the cutting edge rounding and the varying engagement conditions for different lead angles were considered. Due to the high requirements of the process on the geometric accuracy, the main stability criteria is the workpiece surface. If the characteristic surface “bowl structure” of the ball end mill process is clearly distorted, the process is classified as unstable. Additionally, processes were classified as unstable if distinct chatter frequencies were detected. The simulation is able to predict process forces and the corresponding process stability correctly for all different sets of process parameters, regardless of tool orientation, strategy and cutting edge rounding.
Surface topography and simulation performance
Due to the dexel-based approach, an analysis of the resulting surface topography is possible. For the process parameters listed in Fig. 2, the resulting surface topography of the re-contoured area is shown in Fig. 5, top. The characteristic shape of the experimental topography is predicted in good agreement using the simulation. The maximum shape deviation occurs when the tool exits the weld in both, simulation and experiment. The maximum error is \(\approx \,{20}{\upmu \hbox {m}}\) in both cases during the tool exit. A possible explanation is the increased elastic tool deflection during the tool exit. However, it has to be mentioned that the tool orientation strongly influences the shape error at the tool exit. The influence of the tool orientation on the shape error will be subject of future investigations.
Depending on the dexel resolution and tool discretization, a simulation even faster than the actual needed process time is possible as depicted in Fig. 5, bottom. In this example, a dexel resolution of 2,048 in each direction equals 4.9 \(\mu \mathrm {m}\)/dexel in x-, 5.9 \(\mu \mathrm {m}\)/dexel in y- and 0.7 \(\mu \mathrm {m}\)/dexel in z-direction. Despite of the high resolution used with 2,048 Dexels in each direction, the simulation needs approximately \({8.2}\,{\hbox {s}}\), whereas the actual process is finished after \({14.5}\,{\hbox {s}}\). The simulation is run on an Intel Core i7 9900K processor using multiple cores and AVX instructions to increase performance. It has to be mentioned that the process parameters already converge at a dexel resolution of 1,024.
An additional example for predicting surface topography is shown in Fig. 6. Thereby, different process paremeters are used if compared to the ones listed in Fig. 2. Besides a lower cutting speed \(v_\mathrm {c}\) and step over \(b_\mathrm {r}\), a cutting edge rounding \({\overline{S}} = {30}\,{\upmu \hbox {m}}\) for inducing compressive residual stresses is applied. However, the cutting edge rounding leads to higher process forces due to additionally ploughing [17], thus tool deviations are increased. Furthermore, when using rounded cutting edges as depicted in Fig. 6 for machining titanium, the elastic material springback \(h_\mathrm {el}\) has to be considered regarding shape deviations. For \({\overline{S}} = {30}\,{\upmu \hbox {m}}\), the elastic material springback is \(\approx {9}\,{\upmu \hbox {m}}\) according to experimental investigations by [18]. This leads to direct deviations from the nominal depth of cut. Because the dexel-based material removal simulation does not consider any elastic-plastic material behaviour, the profile of the simulation is overall corrected by \(\approx {9}\,{\upmu \hbox {m}}\). Then, the surface topographies are in good agreement as shown in Fig. 6. For the tool exit on the right side of the topography, the characteristic peak seen in the experiment can be predicted by the simulation. Comparing profiles of both, experiment and simulation, the high accuracy of the simulative approach is underlined.