# Presentation: 806128

## History

- V. Chandrasekharan (Caterpillar); S. Athavale, R. Furness (Ford);
- R. Stevenson (General Motors); R. Ghosh (Kennametal);  _M. A. Davies_,
-  R. Ivester, M. Kennedy (NIST); M. Leu (NSF);

- Assessment of Machining Models

- Goals
- Detailed Plan
- Timetable
- Logistics/Web Address
- Respondents
- Details & Contacts

- Simulation of cutting AISI 1045
- Vc = 5 m/s and feed = 25m.

**Notes:**
Good Afternoon.  I am Matt Davies from NIST, and I am the nominal coordinator of the Assessment of Machining Models Effort.  Today I want to summarize our progress on the effort, tell you how you can participate, and give you a rough timetable for the remainder of the effort.

The participants in the effort are listed here.  Vivek Shandrasekharan is the project leader at Caterpillar.  Shounak Atavale and Richard Furness lead the effort at Ford, Robin Stevenson at GM, Ranijit Ghosh heads the Kennametal effort and myself, Robert Ivester and Michael Kennedy are leading the NIST effort and coordinating the participation.  Ming Leu has driven us to develop the effort and has provided some funding for materials and to communicate the development and the results to the research community.

The organization of the talk today is as follows:
	(1) History of the effort from the first discussion of the idea a year ago.
	(2) A description of the goals as articulated by the industrial participants.
	(3) A detailed description of the technical approach developed in February; in 	fact this meeting is the “kick off” of the technical effort.  The materials will be 	ordered when I return to NIST on Friday.
	(4) A timetable for the future of the effort.
 	(5) A description of how to participate, web address for 			attaining data etc.

## Talks were given by by industrial representatives from Ford, General Motors,  Boeing, Caterpillar & Sandvik at 1st CIRP modeling meeting in Atlanta (May 1998)
Richard Furness suggested that the industrial representatives devise an industrially relevant example problem for assessing machining models.  This sparked an animated discussion.
 Meeting at GM tech center with Ming Leu, Richard Furness, Shounak Athavale, Vivek Shandrasakar & Robin Stevenson produced the Assessment of Machining Models (AMM) effort (Summer 1998)
Discussions continued at CIRP Athens where NIST agreed to participate (Aug. 1998)
Surveys distributed at ASME meeting in Anaheim (Nov. 1998)
More specific plan was developed (Feb. 1999)
Proposal for support for materials submitted to NSF (May 1999)
	Industry sponsors and NIST have secured matching support
Kick-off of the technical effort  (NAMRC 1999)

- Richard Furness suggested that the industrial representatives devise an _*industrially relevant example problem for assessing machining models.  *_This sparked an animated discussion.
-  Meeting at GM tech center with Ming Leu, Richard Furness, Shounak Athavale, Vivek Shandrasakar & Robin Stevenson produced the Assessment of Machining Models (AMM) effort (Summer 1998)
- Discussions continued at CIRP Athens where NIST agreed to participate (Aug. 1998)
- Surveys distributed at ASME meeting in Anaheim (Nov. 1998)
- More specific plan was developed (Feb. 1999)
- Proposal for support for materials submitted to NSF (May 1999)
- 	Industry sponsors and NIST have secured matching support
- Kick-off of the technical effort  (NAMRC 1999)

- History of the Effort

## Industrial Vision

**Notes:**
Currently, for process development, the process engineer in industry relies on empirical data and a large amount of past experience to develop new machining processes.  This procedure is expensive relies heavily on vendors.   

The goal of the AMM is to assess whether, at the current level of development, simulations and modeling can provide better insights and data than conventional empirical approaches.  The view adopted is that of the process engineer and the data that will be made available tot eh participants is the data that would be available on the shop floor. 

## To move toward the industrial vision by:
	(1) providing a consistent and complete set of machining data measured simultaneously at four industrial and government laboratories on a process of relevance to the industrial members; 
	(2) providing a mechanism for comparison of models to the measured machining data;
	(3) compiling a summary of the results to be used as a roadmap for future collaborative research.

Only data available on the typical modern industrial
shop floor will be provided: 
	process parameters; tool and material specifications; forces; average temperatures; tool wear.

- 	(1) providing a _*consistent and complete*_ set of machining data measured simultaneously at four industrial and government laboratories on a process of relevance to the industrial members;
- 	(2) providing a mechanism for comparison of models to the measured machining data;
- 	(3) compiling a summary of the results to be used as a roadmap for future collaborative research.
*Only data available on the typical modern industrial*
*shop floor will be provided: *
*	**process parameters; tool and material specifications; forces; average temperatures; ****tool wear.***

- Goals

## (1) A set of machining experiments will be conducted on AISI 1045 Steel
Orthogonal Cutting: Calibration of the models
Cutting Parameters will be released
Forces, Temperatures and results of Accelerated Wear Tests Released
Orthogonal Cutting: Assessment of the models
Cutting parameters released 
Forces and temperatures measured but not released
Turning:  Assessment of Models
Cutting parameters released 
Forces, temperatures & wear measured but not released
(2) Predictions collected
(3) Unbiased Report of Results Written
(4) Workshop held to discuss future directions

- Orthogonal Cutting: Calibration of the models
- Cutting Parameters will be released
- Forces, Temperatures and results of Accelerated Wear Tests Released
- Orthogonal Cutting: Assessment of the models
- Cutting parameters released
- Forces and temperatures measured _but not released_
- Turning:  Assessment of Models
- Cutting parameters released
- Forces, temperatures & wear measured _but not released_
- (2) Predictions collected
- (3) Unbiased Report of Results Written
- (4) Workshop held to discuss future directions

- Summary of Proposed Effort

## Types of Experiments

Workpiece Material
AISI 1045 Steel
Single Batch, 30.5 meters of 102 mm diameter bar
 Subjected to Metallurgical and Chemical Analysis
 Tubes Machined from Bar at NIST and Distributed
Sufficient Material for Small Samples to be Distributed
Tools
P20 Carbide Inserts 
Standard Holders
Coolant
 None

- _Workpiece Material_
- AISI 1045 Steel
- Single Batch, 30.5 meters of 102 mm diameter bar
-  Subjected to Metallurgical and Chemical Analysis
-  Tubes Machined from Bar at NIST and Distributed
- Sufficient Material for Small Samples to be Distributed
- _Tools_
- P20 Carbide Inserts
- Standard Holders
- _Coolant_
-  None

- Detailed Plan - Types of Experiments

## Types of Measurements
Prediction goals: Force, Temperature, Tool Wear
	1. Forces 
Representative time series from Orthogonal Cutting Tests - Sample rate?
For turning experiments, three components will be measured at low sample rate (100 Hz) with long time constant setting on a piezoelectric dynamometer
Average forces reported at predetermined intervals through the wear tests 
	2. Temperatures
Two labs will report intrinsic thermocouple data
(Potential) NIST is developing new micro-pyrometry system 

	3. Tool Wear (ISO 3865 Used as a Guide)
Flank wear reported as VBmax measured optically at the
	same time as force measurements are taken
Qualitative SEM measurements of final tool condition
(Potential) White light interferometer or stylus measurements of final tool geometry
(Potential) Sample tool sections

- _Types of Measurements_
- Prediction goals: Force, Temperature, *Tool Wear*
- 	1. Forces
*Representative time series from Orthogonal Cutting Tests - Sample rate?*
*For turning experiments, three components will be measured at low sample rate (100 Hz) with long time constant setting on a piezoelectric dynamometer*
*Average forces reported at predetermined intervals through the wear tests *
- 	2. Temperatures
*Two labs will report intrinsic thermocouple data*
*(Potential) NIST is developing new micro-pyrometry system *
- 	3. Tool Wear (ISO 3865 Used as a Guide)
*Flank wear reported as VB**max **measured optically at the*
*	**same time as force measurements are taken*
*Qualitative SEM measurements of final tool condition*
*(Potential) White light interferometer or stylus measurements of final tool geometry*
*(Potential) Sample tool sections*

## Measurements to Ensure Lab to Lab Consistency 		
		1. Initial and Final Surface Finish 
Provides a check on cutting parameters and wear
		2. Material Chemical Composition and Microstructure 
Single batch will be used for all tests to be tested and distributed to test labs
		3. Tool composition and initial geometry
Single set of tool inserts will be obtained, checked and distributed to test labs
		4. Rudimentary characterization of CNC 	lathes 
		Characterization of Static errors & Tool Tip FRF’s with Dynamometer
		5. Chip form and morphology 
		Macroscopic digital photographs & rudimentary metallurgical examination

- Measurements to Ensure Lab to Lab Consistency 	**	**
**	****	****1. Initial and Final Surface Finish**
*Provides a check on cutting parameters and wear*
- 		2. Material Chemical Composition and Microstructure
*Single batch will be used for all tests to be tested and distributed to test labs*
*	**	*3. Tool composition and initial geometry
*Single set of tool inserts will be obtained, checked and distributed to test labs*
- 		4. Rudimentary characterization of CNC 	lathes
*	**	**Characterization of Static errors & Tool Tip FRF’s with Dynamometer*
- 		5. Chip form and morphology* *
*	**	**Macroscopic digital photographs & rudimentary metallurgical examination*

## Equipment

- Detailed Plan - Facilities

## NIST IR Microscopy Facility

-  ATP Funded 3 Year Project in Year 1
-  Manufacturing Lab
-  Physics Lab
-  Applied Mathematics Lab
-  Initial Focus: AISI 1045
-  Goal Specifications
-  Field of View: 0.5 mm square
-  Resolution: 5 m
-  Temperature Range: 2000 C
-  Bandwidth:???
-  Diamond-turning
-   class machine
-  Custom tool-post and
-    workpiece assembly

## Orthogonal Cutting 

- _Orthogonal Cutting_
-  Model Calibration Data
-  Force, Temperature
-  One Accelerated Wear Test

- Repeated for both coated and uncoated tools

## Orthogonal Cutting 

- _Orthogonal Cutting_
-  Data For Prediction
-  Only Parameters Released
-  Data is both inside and
-   outside the
-  “calibration box”

- Repeated for both coated and uncoated tools

## Turning 

- _Turning_
-  Data For Prediction
-  Only Parameters Released
-  Data is both inside and
-   outside the
-  “calibration box”

- Repeated for both uncoated, round-nosed & coated chipbreaker

**Turret and Slide**

**Spindle**

**Dynamometer**

**Tool Holder &**
**P20 Insert**

**1045 Bar**

**Tailstock**

## Feed (mm/rev)

- 0.03

- 0.1

- 1

- Speed (m/min)

- 1

- 10

- 600

- 100

- Built-up Edge
- Attrition

- Slow Diffusive
- Wear - Cratering

- Rapid Diffusive
- Wear - Cratering

- Detailed Plan - The "Physcial Ballpark"

-         (Trent,1991)

- 1000 C

- 600 C

## Availability of Data
Web site:  www.nist.gov/amm
Numerical data available as ASCII or Microsoft Excel
Visual data available as digital photo downloads
Participation
Obtain data on cutting experiments & make predictions by whatever means desired
Report results 
Description of Approach
Predictions
Discussion
Reports collected and reported in summary article
Workshop held at NIST with participants from the AMM

- Availability of Data
- Web site:  www.nist.gov/amm
- Numerical data available as ASCII or Microsoft Excel
- Visual data available as digital photo downloads
- Participation
- Obtain data on cutting experiments & make predictions by whatever means desired
- Report results
- Description of Approach
- Predictions
- Discussion
- Reports collected and reported in summary article
- Workshop held at NIST with participants from the AMM

## Preliminary Time Table

-   Order Materials (May 1999)
-   Conduct Chemical and Metallurgical Analysis on Material
-     (June 7, 1999)
-   Parse Material and Machine Tube and Bar Stock
-   (July 7, 1999)
-   Receive Tooling (July 1999)
-   Measure Machine Tool FRF’s at Each Lab (June 1999)
-   Distribute Bar and Tube Stock (July 14, 1999)
-   Orthogonal Cutting Tests for Model Calibration
-    (July-Sept.  1999)
-   Orthogonal Cutting Tests for Assessment (Sept.-Oct. 1999)
-   Turning Tests (Oct.-Nov. 1999)
-   Progress Report (ASME Nov. Meeting)

## 1.  	T. Altan, Ohio State University
2.  	E. J.A. Armarego, University of Melbourne, Australia
3. 	Y. Altintas, University of British Columbia
4.  	S. Bukkapatnam, USC 
5.  	T. Dow, North Carolina State University
6. 	I. S. Jawahir & O. Dillon, University of Kentucky 
7. 	T.-C. Jen, University of Wisconsin
8. 	J. C. Hamann, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France
9. 	S. Kapoor & D. Devor, Univeristy of Illinois, IC 
10. 	Y. Koren, University of Michigan
11. 	J. Leopold, Society for Production Engineering and Development, Germany
12. 	X. Li, National, University of Singapore 
13. 	V. Madhavan, Witchita State University
14. 	T. Marusich, Third Wave Systems
15. 	P. Oxely & T. Arsecularatne, University of NSW Australia 
16. 	Y. Shin, Purdue University
17. 	A. Srinivasta, IAMS
18. 	C.A. Van Luttervelt, Technical University of Delft, Netherlands
19. 	P. K. Venuvinod, City University of Hong Kong
20. 	P. Wright, University of California

- 1.  	T. Altan, Ohio State University
- 2.  	E. J.A. Armarego, University of Melbourne, Australia
- 3. 	Y. Altintas, University of British Columbia
- 4.  	S. Bukkapatnam, USC
- 5.  	T. Dow, North Carolina State University
- 6. 	I. S. Jawahir & O. Dillon, University of Kentucky
- 7. 	T.-C. Jen, University of Wisconsin
- 8. 	J. C. Hamann, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France
- 9. 	S. Kapoor & D. Devor, Univeristy of Illinois, IC
- 10. 	Y. Koren, University of Michigan
- 11. 	J. Leopold, Society for Production Engineering and Development, Germany
- 12. 	X. Li, National, University of Singapore
- 13. 	V. Madhavan, Witchita State University
- 14. 	T. Marusich, Third Wave Systems
- 15. 	P. Oxely & T. Arsecularatne, University of NSW Australia
- 16. 	Y. Shin, Purdue University
- 17. 	A. Srinivasta, IAMS
- 18. 	C.A. Van Luttervelt, Technical University of Delft, Netherlands
- 19. 	P. K. Venuvinod, City University of Hong Kong
- 20. 	P. Wright, University of California

## For More Information Contact...

- Details & Contacts

- Dr. Robert Ivester
- NIST
- 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8220
- Gaithersburg MD 20899-8220
- USA
- (301) 975-4392
- rob.ivester@nist.gov

- Dr. Matthew Davies
- NIST
- 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8220
- Gaithersburg MD 20899-8220
- USA
- (301) 975-3521
- matthew.davies@nist.gov

- Contact Rob if your name is not on the list of likely participants.