4.7 Article

Controlling of compliant grinding for low-rigidity components

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2020.103543

Keywords

Compliant grinding; Material removal rate; Tool offset; Thin wall machining

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY20E050014, LQ20E050006]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51975302, 51805281]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration [MSV201908]
  4. Ningbo Science and Technology Bureau [2019A610154]
  5. University of Nottingham Ningbo China [I01180800099, I01190100001, I01180900005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The machining of low-rigidity components (e.g. thin-walled) with compliant tools presents accuracy challenges as both sides in contact are being deformed. The controlling method presented in this paper enables, for the first time, to obtain the desired and uniform material removal rate by controlling the nominal tool offset when two bodies (workpiece and tool) are compliant in grinding. A contact deformation model is proposed to predict the relation between the nominal and actual tool offsets. The function of nominal tool offsets and material removal rates is obtained based on the calibration tests. Spot grinding tests have been performed for the validation of the calculated material removal rates, normal grinding forces and spot sizes, presenting position-dependent characteristics. The controlling method has been tested for the case of continuous grinding the whole area of a circular aluminium thin wall. The surfaces ground under the time-variant tool offsets (proposed approach) reach the desired removal depth with an average error of <= 10% and achieve 11.2 mu m-24.2 mu m (P-V) accuracy in the elastic domain, compared with the error of 76.8%similar to 113.7% and accuracy of 42.6 mu m-50.1 mu m (P-V) in the circumstance of constant tool offsets (conventional approach).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available