Production Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 599–606 | Cite as

Self-optimizing process planning for helical flute grinding

  • B. Denkena
  • M.-A. Dittrich
  • V. Böß
  • M. Wichmann
  • S. FriebeEmail author
Production Process


Grinding of helical flutes is an important step in the process chain of cylindrical tool manufacturing. The grinding process defines the dynamic performance of the manufactured tool. Moreover, the surface quality and flute shape are primarily determined. For this reason, finding optimum process parameters is essential, especially in process planning of individual tools. In the industry, manual experiments are carried out for the machine set up. This leads to high costs due to machine hours, labor and material costs. This paper presents a self-optimizing and adaptable process planning method to reduce costs for process planning and improve the process result. The developed method allows to identify optimum cutting speed and feed with respect to economic efficiency and quality for new tools without additional machining experiments. Geometric-kinematical cutting simulations in combination with empirical models are used to predict the process outcome. The empirical models are derived from machine learning and improved automatically with an increase of process data. Applying the presented method in a case study, the machining time could be reduced by up to 38.1% and the core diameter deviation by up to 73.7%. Moreover, it is shown that the presented methods allow a continuous improvement of the process models.


Tool grinding Machine learning Optimization Simulation-based planning Process planning 



The investigations were conducted within the DFG transfer project BO 3523/6-1 of the priority program 1180. We thank the German Research Foundation for supporting this project.


  1. 1.
    Zhou W, Tang J, Chen H et al (2019) Modeling of tooth surface topography in continuous generating grinding based on measured topography of grinding worm. Mech Mach Theory 131:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinksmeier E, Aurich JC, Govekar E et al (2006) Advances in modeling and simulation of grinding processes. CIRP Ann 55(2):667–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deichmueller M, Denkena B, De Payrebrune KM et al (2010) Determination of static and dynamic deflections in tool grinding using a dexel-based material removal simulation. In: CIRP 2nd international conference process machine interaction, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uhlmann E, Schröer N (2015) Advances in tool grinding and development of end mills for machining of fibre reinforced plastics. Procedia CIRP 35:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Snoeys R, Peters J (1974) The significance of chip thickness in grinding. CIRP Annals 23:227–237Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deichmueller M, Denkena B, De Payrebrune KM (2013) Modeling of process machine interactions in tool grinding. In: Denkena B, Hollmann F (eds) Process machine interactions—prediction and manipulation of interactions between manufacturing processes and machine tool structures. Lecture notes in production engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–176Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinert K, Blum H, Jansen T et al (2007) Simulation based optimization of the NC-shape grinding process with toroid grinding wheels. Prod Eng Res Devel 1(3):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Payrebrune KM, Kröger M (2016) An integrated model of tool grinding: challenges, chances and limits of predicting process dynamics. Prod Eng Res Devel 10(4–5):421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinert K, Mehnen J, Stautner M (2004) The application of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms to the optimized tool paths for multi-axis die and mould making. In: Intelligent computation in manufacturing engineeringGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aurich JC, Biermann D, Blum H et al (2009) Modelling and simulation of process: machine interaction in grinding. Prod Eng Res Devel 3(1):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abele E, Fujara M (2010) Simulation-based twist drill design and geometry optimization. CIRP Ann 59(1):145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pandiyan V, Caesarendra W, Tjahjowidodo T et al (2018) In-process tool condition monitoring in compliant abrasive belt grinding process using support vector machine and genetic algorithm. J Manuf Processes 31:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arrazola PJ, Özel T, Umbrello D et al (2013) Recent advances in modelling of metal machining processes. CIRP Ann 62(2):695–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denkena B, Böß V (2009) Technological NC simulation for grinding and cutting processes using CutS. In: Proceedings of the 12th CIRP conference on modelling of machining operationsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hook TV (1986) Real-time shaded NC milling display. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 20(4):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altintas Y, Kersting P, Biermann D et al (2014) Virtual process systems for part machining operations. CIRP Ann 63(2):585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science (New York NY) 220:671–680MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Production Engineering and Machine ToolsGarbsenGermany

Personalised recommendations