Advertisement

The effect of composite boring bars on vibration in machining process

  • S. GhorbaniEmail author
  • V. A. Rogov
  • A. Carluccio
  • P. S. Belov
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

One of the challenges of machining process is to improve the quality of machined surface by reducing the vibration of cutting tools. The research aims to suppress vibration using composite boring bars with an enhanced damping capacity. A new design of boring bars with different cross-sections is considered. Static and dynamic behavior of the proposed tools is investigated. A mathematical model for determining the eigenfrequency is proposed, and it is compared with computer simulation and experimental results. The validity of the proposed models is verified by conducting experimental machining tests in order to study the changes in vibro-acoustic signals depending on the cross-sections of the toolholder. The results show that the composite material significantly improves damping of boring bars, which leads to a reduction in the vibration compared to conventional boring bars.

Keywords

Damping Epoxy granite Vibration Machining process Vibro-acoustic signal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The publication has been prepared with the support of the «RUDN University Program 5-100.

References

  1. 1.
    Tobias SA (1977) Machine tool vibration. China Machine Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turkes E, Orak S, Neseli S, Yaldiz S (2012) Decomposition of process damping ratios and verification of process damping model for chatter vibration. Measurement 45:1380–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Preś P, Skoczyński W, Jaśkiewicz K (2014) Research and modeling workpiece edge formation process during orthogonal cutting. Arch Civ Mech Eng 14:622–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siddhpura M, Paurobally R (2012) Review of chatter vibration research in turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 61:27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altintas Y, Weck M (2004) Chatter stability of metal cutting and grinding. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 53(2):619–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor FW (1907) On the art of cutting metals. Trans ASME 28:310–350Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnold RN (1946) The mechanism of tool vibration in cutting of steel. Proc Inst Mech Eng 154:261–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tobias SA, Fishwick W (1958) A theory of regenerative chatter. Engineer 205:16–23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tlusty J, Polacek M (1963) The stability of machine tools against selfexcited vibrations in machining. Inter Res Prod Eng ASME 465–474Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith S, Tlusty J (1990) Update on high-speed milling dynamics. J Eng Ind Trans ASME 112:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merritt H (1965) Theory of self-excited machine tool chatter. J Eng Ind Trans ASME 87:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altintas Y, Budak E (1995) Analytical prediction of stability lobe in milling. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 44(1):357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parker EW (1970) Dynamic stability of a cantilever boring bar with machined flats under regenerative cutting conditions. J Mech Eng Sci 12(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang GM, Kapoor SG (1987) Dynamic modeling and analysis of the boring machining system. J Eng Ind 109(3):219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao PN, Rao URK, Rao JS (1988) Towards improved design of boring bars part 1: dynamic cutting force model with continuous system analysis for the boring bar performance. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 28(1):33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andren L, Hakansson L, Brandt A, Claesson I (2004) Identification of dynamic properties of boring bar vibrations in a continuous boring operation. Mech Syst Signal Process 18:869–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sortino M, Totis G, Prosperi F (2012) Development of a practical model for selection of stable tooling system configurations in internal turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 61:58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sortino M, Totis G, Prosperi F (2013) Modeling the dynamic properties of conventional and high damping boring bars. Mech Syst Signal Process 34:340–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akesson H, Smirnova T, Hakansson L (2009) Analysis of dynamic properties of boring bars concerning different clamping conditions. Mech Syst Signal Process 23:2629–2647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazoglu II, Atabey F, Altintas Y (2006) Dynamics of boring processes: part III—time domain modeling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:1567–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozlu E, Budak E (2007) Analytical modeling of chatter stability in turning and boring operations—part I: model development. J Manuf Sci Eng 129:726–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ozlu E, Budak E (2007) Analytical modeling of chatter stability in turning and boring operation—part II: experimental verification. J Manuf Sci Eng 129:733–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moetakef-Imani B, Yussefian NZ (2009) NZ. Dynamic simulation of boring process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49:1096–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qinghua S, Jiahao S, Zhanqiang L, Yi W, Feng X (2015) Boring bar with constrained layer damper for improving process stability. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(9):1951–1966Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cook NH (1996) Manufacturing analysis. Addison-Wesley Educational Publisher Inc., United States of America, p 229Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris GM (1998) Shock and vibration handbook. McGraw-Hill, United States of America, p 1465Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blanter MS, Golovin IS, Neuhäuser H, Sinning H-R (2007) Internal Friction in Metallic Materials. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Atsushi M, Minetaka M, Iwao Y (2014) Vibration suppression of boring bar by piezoelectric actuators and LR circuit. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 63(1):619–642Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Golovin IS (2006) Damping mechanisms in high damping materials. Key Eng Mater 319:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nagano S, Koizumi T, Fujii T, Tsujiuchi N, Ueda H, Steel K (1997) Development of a composite boring bar. Compos Struct 38(l–4):531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ema S, Marui E (2000) Suppression of chatter vibration of boring tools using impact dampers. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40:1141–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hwang HY, Lee HG, Lee DG (2004) Clamping effects on the dynamic characteristics of composite machine tool structures. Compos Struct 66:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee DG, Hwang HY, Kim JK (2003) Design and manufacture of a carbon fiber epoxy rotating boring bar. Compos Struct 60:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee DG, Lee CS, Lee HG, Hwang HY, Kim JW (2004) Novel applications of composite structures to robots, machine tools and automobiles. Compos Struct 66:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miguelez MH, Rubio L, Loya JA, Fernandez-Saez J (2010) Improvement of chatter stability in boring operations with passive vibration absorbers. Int J Mech Sci 52:1376–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saffury J, Altus E (2009) Optimized chatter resistance of viscoelastic turning bars. J Sound Vib 324(1–2):26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rubio L, Loya JA, Miguelez MH, Fernandez-Saez J (2013) Optimization of passive vibration absorbers to reduce chatter in boring. Mech Syst Signal Process 41:691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rogov VA, Ghorbani S (2015) Research on selecting the optimal design of antivibrational lathe tool using computer simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng E-J Pro 229(3):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Antonio PF, Flamínio LN (2010) Behavior of granite epoxy composite beams subjected to mechanical vibrations. Mater Res 13(4):497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nashif AD, Jones DI, Henderson P (1985) Vibration damping. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, p 453Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Koch SF, Bauera J, Wagner H, Horsch J, Brecht S, Fleischer J (2014) Characterization of an eigenfrequency adaptable machine tool carriage. Procedia CIRP 14:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Poznyak GG, Rogov VA, Choudhury S (1999) Device for continuously measuring the wear of cutting tool. STIN 6:34–35 (in Russian languageGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kosilova AG, Meshcheryakov RK (1986) Handbook of the technologist for mechanical engineering, Vol. 2, 4 ed. Moscow, Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Choudhury SK, Goudimenko NN, Kudinov VA (1997) On-line control of machine tool vibration in turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37(6):801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Archenti A (2011) A computational framework for control of machining system capability, PhD Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tewani SG, Rouch KE, Walcott BL (1991) Cutting process stability of a boring bar with active dynamic absorber, vibration analysis. Anal Commun ASME:205–213Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee DG, Suh NP (1988) Manufacturing and testing of chatter free boring bars. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 37:365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moradi H, Movahhedy MR, Vossoughi G (2012) Dynamics of regenerative chatter and internal resonance in milling process with structural and cutting force nonlinearities. J Sound Vib 331:3844–3865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stepan G, Insperger T, Szalai R (2005) Delay, parametric excitation, and the nonlinear dynamics of cutting process. Int J Bifurcation Chaos 15(9):2783–2798zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hanna NH, Tobias SA (1974) A theory of nonlinear regenerative chatter. J Eng Ind 96(1):247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rivin E (2000) Tooling structure: interface between cutting edge and machine tool. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 49(2):591–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Davim JP (2011) Machining of hard materials. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Paul PS, Varadarajan AS, Mohanasundaram S (2015) Effect of magnetorheological fluid on tool wear during hard turning with minimal fluid application. ACME 15:124–132Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bouacha K, Yallese MA, Mabrouki T, Rigal JF (2010) Statistical analysis of surface roughness and cutting forces using response surface methodology in hard turning of AISI 52100 bearing steel with CBN tool. Int J Refract Met Hard 28:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nath C, Rahman M (2008) Effect of machining parameters in ultrasonic vibration cutting. Int J Mach Tool Manu 48:965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dimla DE Sr (2000) Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal cutting operations—a review of methods. Int J Mach Tool Manu 40:1073–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Benga GC, Abrao AM (2003) Turning of hardened 100Cr6 bearing steel with ceramic and PCBN cutting tools. J Mater Process Technol 143–144:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kozlov V, Huang Z, Zhang J (2016) Strength of inserts in titanium alloy machining. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 124:1–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Ghorbani
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. A. Rogov
    • 1
  • A. Carluccio
    • 2
  • P. S. Belov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Instrumental Engineering, Academy of EngineeringPeoples’ Friendship University of RussiaMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Russian Language and Teaching MethodsPeoples’ Friendship University of RussiaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations