Advertisement

Nonlinear system modeling and damping implementation of a boring bar

  • Lie Li
  • Beibei SunEmail author
  • Haitao Hua
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Vibration is a concern in the boring process due to the low dynamic stiffness of long cantilever boring bars. Vibration has a negative impact on the processing quality and processing performance. Dynamic vibration absorbers (DVAs) are used to consume vibration energy to improve the performance of boring operations. In this study, a nonlinear model is established to study the dynamic characteristics of a boring bar. Due to the consideration of nonlinear factors, the amplitude-frequency characteristics of the boring bar appear as an interesting phenomenon. As the damping of the DVA has an important influence on the vibration amplitude of the boring bar, the engineering implementation of this damping is conducted. Since the damping oil fills a hollow cylinder within the DVA, the length, inner diameter, and outer diameter of the hollow cylinder, along with the oil pressure and excitation frequency, are selected as parameters to study their influences on the damping value.

Keywords

Nonlinear system modeling Boring bar Dynamic vibration absorber Damping implementation 

Notes

Funding information

This work is supported by the “Basic Research Funds of Southeast University,” the “Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,” the Innovative Plan of Academic Degree Graduate Students in Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. KYLX16_0186), and the National Science and Technology Major Project, China (Grant Nos. 2012ZX04002032 and 2013ZX04012032).

References

  1. 1.
    Wu JS, Qiao LH, Huang ZC (2018) Deviation modeling of manufactured surfaces from a perspective of manufacturing errors. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 98:1321–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang B, Liu ZQ (2018) Influences of tool structure, tool material and tool wear on machined surface integrity during turning and milling of titanium and nickel alloys: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 98:1925–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song QH, Shi JH, Liu ZQ, Yi W, Xia F (2016) Boring bar with constrained layer damper for improving process stability. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83:1951–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mei DQ, Kong TR, Shih AJ, Chen ZC (2009) Magnetorheological fluid-controlled boring bar for chatter suppression. J Mater Process Technol 209(4):1861–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yigit U, Cigeroglu E, Budak E (2017) Chatter reduction in boring process by using piezoelectric shunt damping with experimental verification. Mech Syst Signal Process 94:312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miguélez MH, Rubio L, Loya JA, Fernández-Sáez J (2010) Improvement of chatter stability in boring operations with passive vibration absorbers. Int J Mech Sci 52(10):1376–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hua YY, Wong W, Cheng L (2018) Optimal design of a beam-based dynamic vibration absorber using fixed-points theory. J Sound Vib 421:111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong WO, Fan RP, Cheng F (2018) Design optimization of a viscoelastic dynamic vibration absorber using a modified fixed-points theory. J Acoust Soc Am 143(2):1064–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vu XT, Nguyen DC, Khong DD, Tong VC (2018) Closed-form solutions to the optimization of dynamic vibration absorber attached to multi-degrees-of-freedom damped linear systems under torsional excitation using the fixed-point theory. P I Mech Eng K-J Mul 232(2):237–252Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srinivasan AV (1969) Analysis of parallel damped dynamic vibration absorbers. ASME J Eng Ind 91(1):282–287MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snowdon JC (1974) Dynamic vibration absorbers that have increased effectiveness. ASME J Eng Ind 96(3):940–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Febbo M, Vera SA (2008) Optimization of a two degree of freedom system acting as a dynamic vibration absorber. J Vib Acoust 130(1):011013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tursun M, Eskinat E (2014) H2 optimization of damped-vibration absorbers for suppressing vibrations in beams with constrained minimization. J Vib Acoust 136(2):021012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asami T (2017) Optimal design of double-mass dynamic vibration absorbers arranged in series or in parallel. J Vib Acoust 139(1):011015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang X, Yang BT, Yu H (2017) Optimal design and experimental study of a multidynamic vibration absorber for multifrequency excitation. J Vib Acoust 139(3):031011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang M, Zan T, Yang YQ, Fei RY (2010) Design and implementation of nonlinear TMD for chatter suppression: an application in turning processes. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 50(5):474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li L, Sun BB, He M, Hua HT (2018) Analysis of the radial stiffness of rubber bush used in dynamic vibration absorber based on artificial neural network. NeuroQuantology 16(6):737–744Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu XL, Liu Q, Wu S, Li RY, Gao HN (2018) Analysis of the vibration characteristics and adjustment method of boring bar with a variable stiffness vibration absorber. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 98:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas MD, Knight WA, Sadek MM (1975) The impact damper as a method of improving cantilever boring bars. ASME J Eng Ind 97(3):859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andrén L, Håkansson L, Brandt A, Claesson L (2004) Identification of dynamic properties of boring bar vibrations in a continuous boring operation. Mech Syst Signal Pr 18(4):869–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubio L, Loya JA, Miguélez MH, Fernández-Sáez J (2013) Optimization of passive vibration absorbers to reduce chatter in boring. Mech Syst Signal Pr 41(1):691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Wedyan HM, Bhat RB, Demirli K (2007) Whirling vibrations in boring trepanning association deep hole boring process: analytical and experimental investigations. J Manuf Sci Eng 129(1):48–62CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matsubara A, Maeda M, Yamaji I (2014) Vibration suppression of boring bar by piezoelectric actuators and LR circuit. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 63(1):373–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abele E, Haydn M, Grosch T (2016) Adaptronic approach for modular long projecting boring tools. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 65(1):393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen F, Lu XD, Altintas Y (2014) A novel magnetic actuator design for active damping of machining tools. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 85:58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen F, Hanifzadegan M, Altintas Y, Lu XD (2015) Active damping of boring bar vibration with a magnetic actuator. IEEE/ASME T Mech 20(6):2783–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker EW (1970) Dynamic stability of a cantilever boring bar with machined flats under regenerative cutting conditions. J Mech Eng Sci 12(2):104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu XL, Liu Q, Wu S, Liu LJ, Gao HN (2017) Research on the performance of damping boring bar with a variable stiffness dynamic vibration absorber. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89:2893–2906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alammari Y, Sanati M, Freiheit T, Park SS (2015) Investigation of boring bar dynamics for chatter suppression. Procedia Manuf 1:768–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suyama DI, Diniz AE, Pederiva R (2016) The use of carbide and particle-damped bars to increase tool overhang in the internal turning of hardened steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86:2083–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xia F, Liu ZQ, Song QH (2014) Boring bar with constrained damping. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 35(9):2652–2659Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations