# The Influence of Automated Machining Strategy on Geometric Deviations of Machined Surfaces
## 5 Results  
Based on the measurement of the defined elements performed on a coordinate measuring machine, values were obtained for the prescribed dimensions and geometric tolerances of the designed test part. The obtained results led to the following conclusions:  
1. The flatness comparison of the surfaces showed that the average flatness value for all surfaces was 0.023 mm for SolidCAM and 0.011 mm for Heidenhain. Average deviations in CAM system were significantly influenced by the flatness of plane Plane_C, which was higher than in system Heidenhain TNC 426. The comparison of the two systems in Plane_C showed the difference in the height deviations of flatness. In the CAM system, SolidCAM, where the tool overlap was 50%, the trajectory of the cutting tool was clearly visible. In the control system Heidenhain, where a tool overlap of 70% was used, the trajectory of tool was still visible, but the deviations from ideal plane were smaller. The Heidenhain control system showed more even height differences, which can be explained by the overlapping of the tool only during the milling process. The denser overlap of the toolpaths during machining increased the number of passes to machine the surface, which increased the milling time, but the surface showed better results in terms of flatness.
2. The comparison of the geometric tolerances of perpendicularity showed that the average value for the SolidCAM system was 0.020 mm and for the Heidenhain TNC 426 system 0.020 mm, so there were no significant differences between them.
3. The parallelism comparison in a global view also did not show a significant difference between the systems. For SolidCAM, the average deviation was 0.015 mm, and for Heidenhain, 0.016 mm. The comparison of the two systems in PAR_C_pd_A showed the difference in the distribution of deviations of parallelism. In the CAM system, SolidCAM, where the tool overlap was 50%, a greater surface waviness was observed than in the case of the Heidenhain system, where the tool overlap was 70%. The Heidenhain control system showed a lower surface waviness of the measured deviations of parallelism compared to the CAM system, SolidCAM, where the surface was machined earlier, but the deviations of parallelism were larger in this case. This was demonstrated by the greater surface waviness of the machined surface.
4. The total average deviation, including all geometric tolerances, was 0.020 mm for SolidCAM and 0.016 mm for Heidenhain TNC 426. The result was significantly affected by flatness, where the SolidCAM system showed significantly higher values in all other comparisons than Heidenhain.
5. For dimensional control, measurements between parallel surfaces B1_per-long and B2_per-long were realized. The average deviation for SolidCam was \(-\)0.233 mm, and for Heidenhain, \(-\)0.237 mm, so this was an inappreciable difference.
6. There was a significant difference in production time, with SolidCAM 25 min and 30 s, and Heidenhain 48 min and 19 s. In accordance with these findings, the SolidCAM system is more suitable for production.  
Figure 11: Distance Plane_B1 and Plane_B2.