Page 31 - StanochnyPark
P. 31

PROFESSIONAL ADVICE                                                                    PROFESSIONAL ADVICE

            The Taylor model
 Mathematical models effectively calculate tool     factors relevant to metal cutting. Taylor observed that increasing depth of cut had minimal effect on
            In the early 1900s American engineer FW Taylor developed a tool life model that included

 life     In  a  metal  cutting  operation,  a  tool  deforms  workpiece   abrasive wear  tool life. Increasing feed rate had somewhat more
                                                             effect, while higher cutting speeds influenced tool
 material and causes it to shear away in the form of chips. The   life the most. This prompted Taylor to develop a
 deformation process requires a significant amount of force, and   model  focused  on  the  effect  of  varying  cutting
 the tool endures a variety of mechanical, thermal, chemical and tribological loads. Over a period   speeds. The equation for Taylor’s basic model is
 of time, these loads eventually cause the tool to wear to the point that it must be replaced.  vC * Tm = CT, where vC is cutting speed, T is
    Accurately predicting tool life allows you to plan your metalworking processes based on   flank wear  tool  life,  and  m  and  CT  are  constants  with CT
 tool wear, control costs, and avoid unplanned downtime due to unpredictable tool behavior or   representing the cutting speed that would result
 unacceptable machining quality.                             in a tool life of one minute.
                                                                    Taylor  also  observed  that  tool  wear
                                                             typically accelerates  at  the  beginning of  an
    Accordingly, for more than a century, scientists and   time  operation, settles into a steady but slower rise
 engineers have created and tested mathematical models       in a second phase, and finally enters a third and
 that factor in the forces upon a tool to provide estimates of   final phase of rapid wear until the end of tool life.
 expected tool life. Many of these models focus on a specific   He designed his model to represent the length of
 tool’s  performance  in  a  certain  material  and  operation,   time between phases two and three.
 and simple formulas and repetitive testing produce valid      As a result, Taylor’s model does not apply at lower cutting speeds in which workpiece
 tool wear projections. However, generalised models that   material  adheres to  and  builds  up  on  the  cutting  edge,  affecting  the  quality  of  the  cut  and
 can be applied across a wide range of workpiece materials   damaging the tool. Also outside the model’s scope are cutting speeds high enough to promote
 and  tools are  more  useful  in industrial applications.   chemical wear. The low- and high-speed wear modes share the characteristics of unpredictability
 Because these models take into account a variety of tool   – wear resulting from adhesive or chemical mechanisms can occur either quickly or slowly. The
 wear factors, their mathematical complexity increases in   Taylor model is based on the second phase of tool life, namely steady and predictable abrasive
 accordance with the number of factors considered – the   wear.
 more factors, the more complex the calculation.     The original Taylor model concentrates on the effects of cutting speed and is valid if depth
    While simple tool life equations can be solved via handwritten mathematics and manual   of cut and feed do not change. After depth of cut and feed are established, speed is manipulated
 calculation,  today’s  computer-executed  analysis  is  necessary  to  solve  equations  of  complex   to modify tool life.
 models in an amount of time that is practical within a production environment. Digital calculations      Further experiments led to development of an extended Taylor tool life model equation
 are  very  reliable, but manufacturers  should maintain  a  critical attitude  towards  the  results,   that included more variables and consequently was more complex. The equation also includes a
 especially when machining advanced workpiece materials and employing extreme machining   variable that accounts for the rake angle of the tool, as well as constants for various workpiece
 parameters. Overall, progress in tool life model development has brought academic theory and   materials. Despite the additional factors, this model is most accurate when changing one cutting
 practical application into close alignment.  condition at a time. Altering several conditions simultaneously can produce inconsistent results.
    The Archard model     Also, the original Taylor model was unable to fully account for the geometric relationship
    Modelling of wear processes is not limited to   of  the  cutting tool to the  workpiece.  A  cutting edge  can  be engaged  in a  workpiece  in an
 normal tool wear - Taylor's model
 metal  cutting applications. In  the  1950s,  British          orthogonal  orientation  (perpendicular  to the
 engineer  John  F Archard  developed an  empirical             direction of feed), or obliquely (at a rake angle
                                                                relative to the feed direction). And, a cutting
 tool wear per unit of   time  surfaces based on deformation of the asperity, or   not  involved  in  cutting  and  "non-free"  when
 model for the rate of abrasive wear between sliding
                                                                edge  is considered  "free"  if  its corners  are
 roughness, of the surfaces.
                                                                the tool’s corner is engaged in the workpiece.

 His equation is: Q= KWL / H.
                                                                Free  orthogonal  or  free  oblique cuts  are
 Here, Q is the wear rate, K is a constant wear

                                                                rarely  present  in modern  metal  cutting, so
 coefficient, W is the total normal load, L is the sliding
 distance of the surfaces, and H is the hardness of
                                                                equation  added a  variable for  cutting edge
 the softer of the two surfaces. The model basically            their  relevance  is limited. Taylor’s  extended
 states that the volume of material removed due to              rake  angle,  but no  allowance  was  made  for
 abrasive wear is proportional to friction forces.              corner engagement of the tool.
 increasing cutting conditions     However,  the  Archard  model  does  not      The Taylor model has shortcomings when viewed in hindsight from today’s level of metal
 describe tool wear phenomena, but rather predicts   cutting technology and complexity. However, over its long history the Taylor model has been an
 the progression rate of wear over time. The model   excellent basis for tool life predictions and under certain conditions still provides valid tool life
 includes  the  influences  of  the  speed  with  which  the  two  surfaces  interfere  with  each  other,   data.
 mechanical load, surface strength, material properties and wear coefficient.     Role of chip thickness
    Nonetheless, it should be noted that the Archard model was not developed for application      As engineers developed and studied tool life models, it became clear that the generated
 at the high speeds common in metalworking, and it does not include the effect of temperature   chip thickness is closely related to tool life. Chip thickness is a function of depth of cut and feed
 on the wear processes. Both surface strength and wear coefficient will change in response to   measured perpendicular to the cutting edge and in the plane perpendicular to the direction of
 the 900 deg. Celsius temperatures generated in metal cutting. As result, the Archard model   cutting. If the cutting edge angle is 90 degrees (0 degrees lead angle in the US), depth of cut
 alone does not sufficiently describe tool life in metal cutting.  and chip width are the same, and feed and chip thickness are as well.
            The extent that the tool’s corner is engaged in the workpiece adds another variable to

 30  Stanochniy park                                                                              Stanochniy park       31
   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36