Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
, ]
, ] j \ j \
, ]
+ +
, ] , ( , (
, ]
, ] ( , ( , ]
]
(5)
where is the plastic strain, is the strain rate (s-1),
0
is the reference plastic strain rate (s-1).
T is the material temperature (C), T
melt
is the melting material temperature (1400 C) and T
room
is
the room temperature (20 C). Coefficient A is the yield strength (MPa), B is the hardening
modulus (MPa), C is the strain rate sensitivity coefficient, n is the hardening coefficient and m the
thermal softening coefficient (Uhulmann,2007).
3. Case Study
A CCOC (Combustor Chamber Outer Casing) of an aeronautical engine in Inconel 718 has been
chosen to test the developed methodology. A part program that involves the use of milling
operations has been selected; this operation involves the use of two rough and seven finish tools.
The related Part Program which has about 15000 instruction blocks has been simulated and the
machining time has been computed. In Figure , it is reported the machining operation sequence: 1)
Pocket opening; 2) Chamfer roughing; 3) Pocket milling.
Figure 8: Tool-path simulation of examined PP (by courtesy of AVIO S.p.A).
Part Program obtained whit standard CAD-CAM procedure has been subjected to kinematic
optimization: this operation has as output a new Part Program. The new simulation predicted a
reduction in machining time of 48% compared to the not optimized Part Program. This reduction
is obtained increasing the F values but, the tool path trajectory is the same of the original Part
Program. The performed kinematic optimization does not take into account the physical
interaction between tool and workpiece. In the proposed multidisciplinary procedure the feed and
speed indicated in the obtained Part Program thanks to the kinematic optimization have to be
extracted and compared with the response surface in terms of temperature and forces generated
(Figure 9) (Del Prete, 2009).
8 2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference
Figure 9: workflow of the proposed procedure.
The multidisciplinary optimization tool draws F and S values from the kinematic optimized Part
Program and converts them into the required measure units of the response surface. In the Part
Program, F and S are respectively expressed in [m\min] and [rpm] and it is necessary to convert
them into [mm\tooth-rev] and [mm\s]. So proper equivalent relationships, Equation 6 and
Equation 7 have been used to obtain the correct parameters expressions:
F
f
S z
[mm\tooth-rev] (6) ;
60
t
S D
V
[mm\s] (7)
The obtained values of a
z
and V
t
have been introduced in the response surfaces. The correspondent
temperature, forces and surface roughness have been detected. This outputs must be less then the
given fixed physical constraints. If the correspondent values of cutting edge temperature T
max
, F
x
, F
y
for a single a
z
exceeded the established limits an inferior value has been considered in
compliance with the fixed limits of T
max
, F
x
, F
y
. The optimized f values, have been reconverted in
the unit of measure adopted in the Part Program and rewritten in the correspondent block of the
optimized Part Program (Figure 10).
2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference 9
Figure 10: Flowchart of input-output process parameters optimization.
3.1. Multidisciplinary optimization procedure: introduction
The aim of presented work is to develop a process with Isight in order to optimize the process
parameters: feed rate (F) and cutting speed (S) (minimize the time to work through the
maximization of values used in the process) present in a part program while respecting the
imposed constraints (maximum allowable cutting forces, maximum allowable cutting temperature
and maximum allowable surface roughness). The relationship among the parameters F and S for a
given cutting tool and the responses that we want to control are obtained through interpolation
with approximation technique of data on cutting forces and cutting edge temperatures obtained by
FEM simulations. The procedure introduces the instructions of tool substitution (cambut) in the
part program based on the tool life defined by the user for each tool. Finally, the procedure creates
a post-processing report that includes table of modified parameters in the PP and graphs that
comparing the time execution of different examined part programs (original PP, Kinematic
optimized PP and part program obtained respecting the physical constraints).
3.2. Multidisciplinary optimization procedure: description
In this section it is reported the procedure that characterize the automatic procedure for part
program optimization with imposed physical constraints. The flow of process activities takes place
from left to right, there is also a branch of the procedure dependent on the possibility of launching
an analysis of OptiPATH (Figure 11). The macro steps of developed procedure are listed below:
1. Reading and loading of the PP and VERICUT project in the procedure.
2. Simulation of the original part program in VERICUT and extraction of tools working time
information.
3. If the project Vericut has appropriate settings for the OptiPATH analysis, the process of
creating the kinematic optimized part-program is enabled in VERICUT and the new cutting time is
logged.
4. In the task called "Vericut CAE-CAM Optimization" are performed the operations below
indicated:
a. For each tool used in the part program, the cutting parameters feed (F) and speed (S) of
each blocks are extracted and optimized (the objective is to maximize the feed rate)
respect the imposed physical constraints.
b. For each tool used in the examined part program, the parameters F and S originally
indicated are replaced with those optimized
10 2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference
c. Then the new part program is executed and registered with VERICUT cutting times of
each step of the part program.
d. Depending on the working time indicated for each tool in the tools wear life database,
all preexisting cambut are removed and new cambut are inserted in the optimized part
program.
5. Finally, the report text file created during the procedure (time, speed of cut set, tool changes,
etc.) are read and processed in Excel charts.
Figure 11: Optimization procedure layout in Isight gateway.
The procedure requires two input files: the part program created by the user (of course consistent
with the Vericut project file) and the Vericut project file that defines the simulation configuration.
in Vericut environment . The procedure returns as output Excel files containing information of a
post-processing and the optimize part program according to the imposed constraints about cutting
parameters and tools wear life (Figure 12). The files returned from the procedure are:
Template_cambut: the Excel report on the changes included in the tool part-program
Total_Time: table containing the total time of different analyzed part-program
PPfile_optimized_RSM: optimized part-program.
2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference 11
Figure 12: Scheme of the main input/output parameters of the procedure.
The data about micro-scale physical cutting conditions for each tool, obtained through FEM
simulations, are contained in an Excel file, which has a name like:
RSM_UT_ <Tool id>. Xls, for example RSM_UT_55.xls
In this study the authors have used the RSM developed on the base of data obtained by FEM
calculations to represent the behaviour for the analyzed responses for all the tools used in the
analyzed PP. For each tool the process parameters design space has been adequate to its operative
range. All Excel files relating to the data obtained for each tools have been grouped in a zip file
and stored within the model.
3.3. Process parameters optimization
This activity aims to obtain a procedure that allows to minimize the execution time of the cutting
process in compliance to physical micro-scale limits (Max cutting edge temperature and Cutting
Forces). In this work, the optimization process is based on approximation methodology. This
methodology was used by lot of researchers for modelling machining processes. It has been also
successfully used for application in surface roughness analysis (Del Prete, 2010). In the presented
study, the authors have used the data obtained by FEA to build mathematical approximation
models by RBF technique (Radial Basis Function). These mathematical models have been coupled
with a Pointer Algorithmic to obtain the optimal set of machining parameters in according with the
constraints and objective function are indicated in the optimization problem of follow described :
Variables : V
t
within range of definition
f within range of definition
Constraints : max admissible cutting edge temperature T
max
max admissible cutting force F
x
,
max
max admissible cutting force F
y,
max
Objective Function : maximize feed rate f
12 2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference
The parameters: Feed (F) and speed (S) contained in the PP blocks, that previously have
underwent kinematic optimization, are optimized by optimization algorithm that queries the
approximation models, trained on the basis of numerical data, to meet the requirements of physical
constraints (T
max
, F
x
and F
y
) within the upper limits, imposed by user, and to maximize the feed
rate. The new set of process parameters have been converted into the units of measure used in the
Part Program and then they have been updated the respective blocks. The optimization algorithm
used in this study is a generic algorithm called Pointer: this algorithm has the peculiarity of using
different optimization techniques depending on the behavior of the objective function, because the
optimization algorithm initially interrogates the function trying to understand its nature (e.g. if is
continuous, or nonlinear or discontinuous) and therefore using the optimization technique most
appropriate. The Pointer technique consists of a complementary set of optimization algorithms:
linear simplex, sequential quadratic programming, downhill simplex, and genetic algorithms.
Since all the optimizer control parameters are automatically set with a special control algorithm,
Pointer can efficiently solve a wide range of problems in a fully automatic manner (Isight users
guide, 2009). After the rewriting of the optimized parameters, the new PP is simulated again in
Vericut and the execution time is recorded. Based on each tool maximum working time defined by
the user, new cambut instructions are included in the optimized part program. These new cambut
instructions replace the originals, that are deleted.
3.4. Optimization results
Parameter File iSight-FD called PPfile_optimized_RSM contains the part program with the
optimized F, S optimized and new Cambut instructions . The kinematic optimization does not
modify the tool path but, it produce some breaks in the path depending on the local quantity of
material that has to be removed. Spindle speed remains constant. The numbering of kinematic
optimized PP changes with a zero that is added respect to the numbering used in CAM part
program. Another characteristic of Optipath PP is that the tools displacements, when they are not
engaged are characterized by very high feed rate. This value is not subjected to optimization by
CAE CAM procedure. At the same time the CAMBUT instructions present in the Optipath PP
have been removed through the insertion and their repositioning in the CAE-CAM Part Program
in according with the imposed tool life time.
3.5. Post-Processing report
Post processing consist on a summary table that indicates which part program blocks have been
modified in terms of F , S and cambut added/ deleted. Table and and graphs on the number of
instructions for tool change (cambut) included in the optimized part program (Figure 13). For each
mill used in the PP, the number of the tool substitution and the total number of insert necessary to
execute the operation are reported. Finally, post processing report shows total work execution time
in the three cases examined by the procedure: original CAM part program (CAM), kinematic
optimized part program (OPTIPATH) and optimized with physical constraints (OPTI-CAE)
2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference 13
Figure 13: Table and graphs summary report about cambut insertions and working time of
analyzed part programs.
4. Conclusion
The presented application can be considered an effective procedure for the introduction, in the Part
Program previously optimized in terms of kinematic information, of the physics of the cutting
process (cutting edge temperature and forces exchanged between tool and workpiece). The
physical quantities were detected using response surfaces generated from data extracted from FEM
simulations performed on the basis of a DOE study. Three tool paths simulations have been ran
and the execution times have been compared in the case of: 1) Non optimized Part Program; 2)
Kinematic Optimized Part Program; 3) Optimized Part Program based on process parameters
selected in the kinematic optimization but updated with values for F and S parameters value
respecting the given physical constraints (Figure 13). The obtained results showed that the
kinematic optimization dramatically decreases the execution time of the analyzed Part Program
(reduction of 52% respect CAM PP). Moreover, the introduction of physical constraints reduces
this percentage to 18% but at the same time it allows to meet the technological constraints set to
control the tool wear. The CAE-CAM optimization (OPTI-CAE in Figure 13) has lowered many
of values (F and S ) present in the PP optimized kinematically (OPTIPATH in Figure 13). This has
caused an increase in processing time by 42% compared to the one required by the kinematically
optimized PP. As next step the authors will focus their efforts on the search of the numerical -
experimental correlation of the FEM models to improve the reliability of the RS models. Another
14 2010 SIMULIA Customer Conference
aim of future research is direct to the introduction in the multidisciplinary procedure of additional
information about surface roughness, dynamic analysis (chatter) and so on. In the future, the intent
of the authors is to focus their efforts to get, thanks to the development and the integration of the
tools used software, a fully automatic multidisciplinary procedure.
5. References
A. Del Prete, A. Spagnolo, A. A. De Vitis, A. Anglani "Experimental evaluation of the influence
of part program optimization algorithms on surface roughness in milling operation" - 9st
AITeM Conference Torino, Italy, 2009
A. Weissinger. "Lift distribution of swept-back wings". NACA pp.1120, 1947.
ENGINEOUS SOFTWARE - iSIGHT Version 3.0 User's Guide - 2008.
A A Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, D. Mazzotta, Design space investigation by RSM Techniques in
Aeronautical Metal cutting Applications - OPTI 09 Algarve, Portugal , 2009
E. Uhlmann, Finite Element Modeling and Cutting Simulation of Inconel 718. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, 56(1), pp. 61-64, 2007.
A. Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, D. Mazzotta, M. Cherubini Metal Cutting simulation as support tool
to Product and Process development of aeronautical components in Inconel 718 - 10th CIRP,
Scilla, Italy, 2007.
A. Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, D. Mazzotta, A. Anglani Numerical Simulation of Broaching
Process in Aeronautical Applications - AMST'08 8
th
Udine, Italy, 2008
A Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, A. Spagnolo, D. Mazzotta, Cutting Parameters Optimization through
an advanced CAE-CAM procedure - NAFEMS WC 09 Crete, Greece, 2009
A Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, A. Anglani, Roughness inprovement in machining operations
through coupled metamodel and genetic algorithms technique - 13 th Esaform Conference -
Brescia, Italy, 2010
A Del Prete, A.A. De Vitis, A. Spagnolo, Experimental development of rsm techniques for
surface quality prediction in metal cutting applications - 13 th Esaform Conference - Brescia,
Italy, 2010.