MILLING TOOL WITH HELIX ANGLE TRANSITION

Abstract

A milling tool having a front end, a rear end, a longitudinal axis extending therebetween, a shank portion and a cutting portion. The cutting portion includes a plurality of teeth separated by a corresponding number of flutes. Each tooth extends axially along the cutting portion following a curved helical path around the longitudinal axis, and extends at a first helix angle from the front end to a helix transition, and at a second helix angle from the helix transition towards the shank portion. The second helix angle is greater than the first helix angle by at least 2° and at most 15°. The first helix angle (α) is 33°≤α≤50°, and the second helix angle (β) is 40°≤β≤55°, and wherein the helix transition is axially located from the front end by 0.2 to 0.7 of the longitudinal length of the cutting portion.

Claims

1. A milling tool comprising: a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween; a shank portion; and a cutting portion, which extends along the longitudinal axis from the front end towards the shank portion, the cutting portion including a plurality of teeth separated from each other by a corresponding number of flutes, wherein the teeth extend axially along the cutting portion following a curved helical path around the longitudinal axis, wherein each tooth extends at a first helix angle (α) from the front end to a helix transition, and at a second helix angle (β) from the helix transition towards the shank portion, wherein the second helix angle (β) is greater than the first helix angle (α) by at least 2° and at most 15°, the first helix angle (α) fulfills 33°≤α≤50°, the second helix angle (β) fulfills 40°≤β≤55°, and the helix transition is axially located within a distance, from the front end, of 0.2 to 0.7 of a longitudinal length of the cutting portion.

2. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first helix angle (α) fulfills 38°≤α≤45°, and the second helix angle (β) fulfills 45°≤β≤50°.

3. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the second helix angle (β) is selected from 3°, 7°, 8° or 12° greater than the first helix angle (α).

4. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal length of the cutting portion is at least 3 times a diameter of the cutting portion.

5. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal length of the cutting portion is 5 times, or substantially 5 times, a diameter of the cutting portion.

6. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the number of teeth is five or six.

7. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the helix transition is axially located within a distance, from the front end, of 0.4 to 0.7 of the longitudinal length of the cutting portion.

8. The milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the helix transition includes a transition region extending in the axial direction from a first axial point of the cutting portion at which the helix transition starts to a second axial point of the cutting portion at which the helix transition ends.

9. A milling tool according to claim 8, wherein the axial length of the transition region is between 0.05 and 0.2 times the axial length of the cutting portion.

10. A method for machining a surface of a workpiece with a milling tool according to claim 1, the method comprising machining the workpiece using a cutting depth in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the milling tool for each tooth larger than the axial distance from the front end of the milling tool to a point of the tooth at which the second helix angle begins.

11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the cutting depth is the same, or substantially the same, along the axial length of the cutting portion.

12. The method according to claim 10, further comprising machining the workpiece with a width of cut in a direction transversal to the longitudinal axis that is at most 7% of a diameter of the cutting portion.

13. A method for designing a milling tool having a front end, a rear end, and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween, wherein the milling tool comprises a shank portion and a cutting portion, which extends along the longitudinal axis from the front end towards the shank portion, and a plurality of teeth separated from each other by a corresponding number of flutes, wherein the teeth extend axially along the cutting portion following a curved helical path around the longitudinal axis, wherein each tooth extends at a first helix angle from the front end to a helix transition, and at a second helix angle from the helix transition towards the shank portion, wherein the method comprises the steps of: subjecting a force algorithm, designed for calculation of simulated cutting force during simulated machining of a surface of a workpiece with a milling tool, to an optimization routine in which the objective is to minimize the difference between the maximum force and the minimum force in a direction normal to the surface of the workpiece, and in which the variables are at least two of: the first helix angle (α), the second helix angle (β), and an axial location of the helix transition along the cutting portion; and, designing the milling tool on basis of the combinations of the first helix angle, the second helix angle, and the axial location of the helix transition, found to be optimal.

14. The method according to claim 13, wherein the variables in the optimization routine includes all of the first helix angle, the second helix angle, and the axial location of the helix transition along the cutting portion.

15. A computer program having instructions, which when executed by a computing device or system, cause the computing device or system to perform the method according to claim 13.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0059] FIGS. 1-4 illustrate the parameters used for quantifying the cutting forces.

[0060] FIG. 5 shows simulated cutting forces, both for a conventional end mill and for an end mill according to the present invention.

[0061] FIG. 6 shows simulated tool displacement as caused by the cutting forces according to FIG. 5.

[0062] FIG. 7 shows a milling tool according to an embodiment of the invention.

[0063] FIG. 8 is a side view of the milling tool in FIG. 7.

[0064] FIG. 9 illustrates the form error, as measured on a workpiece, resulting from machining with a milling tool according to the invention compared to a conventional milling tool.

[0065] FIG. 10 illustrates a machining method according to the present invention, showing a milling tool in machining engagement with a workpiece.

[0066] All the figures are schematic, not necessarily to scale, and generally only show parts which are necessary in order to elucidate the respective embodiments, whereas other parts may be omitted or merely suggested. Unless otherwise indicated, like reference numerals refer to like parts in different figures.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

[0067] In the following, a process for estimating cutting forces and optimizing the tool geometry for reducing force variation is described.

[0068] The mechanistic model predicting the cutting forces is constructed on a modified Kienzle cutting force model structure which relies on constant coefficients, K.sub.q1, m.sub.q and γ.sub.q.sup.corr, describing the workpiece materials cutting resistant, K.sub.q(h) in relation to the un-cut chip thickness, h, and cutting-edge's length in contact, b, and the rake angle, γ. Here subscript q denotes the directional orientation, q=[t, r, a], of the cutting force which corresponds to the tangential, radial and axial direction of a tool fixed coordinate system.

[0069] On general form the force equation is defined as

F.sub.q=k.sub.q(h).sub.qbh

where the un-cut chip thickness h is related to the feed per tooth f.sub.z and approach angle κ as h=f.sub.z sin κ, and edge contact length b is related to the depth of cut a.sub.p as

[00001]$b=\frac{a_p}{\sin \kappa }.$

[0070] The chip thickness dependent cutting resistances, k(h).sub.q, is defined as

[00002]${k\left(h\right)}_q=k_{q1}{h}^{-m_q}\left(1-\frac{\gamma }{{\gamma }_q^{\mathrm{corr}}}\right)$

[0071] where k.sub.q1 is the cutting resistance at an uncut chip thickness of 1 mm and m.sub.q is the slope coefficient describing the exponential cutting resistance relation to the un-cut chip thickness and γ.sub.q.sup.corr corrects for variations in radial rake angle.

[0072] This general cutting force description may be used as foundation for a milling force algorithm utilized in the optimization of the variable helix.

[0073] To apply the generalized Kienzle model to the time varying cutting conditions found in milling, the first step is to discretize the chip thickness variations. FIG. 1 shows this discretization. The discretization describes the un-cut chip thickness over incremental angular rotation steps, Δϕ, over one engagement cycle, wherein f.sub.z is feed per tooth, F.sub.x is the feed force, F.sub.y is the normal force, D.sub.C is the cutting tool diameter, a.sub.e is the radial width of cut, n is the spindle speed, Φ.sub.st is the entry angle, and Φ.sub.ex is the exit angle.

[0074] The feed force F.sub.x and the normal force F.sub.y are related to the radial force F.sub.r and the tangential force F.sub.t (indicated in FIGS. 3-4) according to:

F.sub.x=−F.sub.t cos ϕ−F.sub.r sin ϕ

F.sub.y=F.sub.t sin ϕ−F.sub.r cos ϕ

[0075] The helix angle of the tool results in a gradual cutting engagement. The tool body hence needs to be discretized along its axial direction as well, see FIG. 2, wherein the cutting depth a.sub.p is discretized into axial steps Δa.sub.p. This discretization allows for a variation in helix angle both gradually or, as in this optimization approach, at a discreet point, L.sub.T where the helix angle transitions from α to β. The cutter pitch angle, Φ.sub.p, is also indicated in FIG. 2.

[0076] This discretization approach may be used to generalize the milling force model to a versatile and easy to solve numerical structure where the cutting force contribution can be calculated for multiple cutting edges at incremental positions during the rotation, see FIG. 3, and over the total axial depth of cut, as displayed in FIG. 4. In these figures, F.sub.t denotes the tangential force, F.sub.r the radial force and F.sub.a the axial force.

[0077] The general framework of an exemplary force algorithm that may be used is presented below.

[0078] Inputs:

[0079] Cutting Conditions

[0080] a.sub.p axial depth of cut [mm]

[0081] f.sub.z feed per tooth [mm/tooth]

[0082] n spindle speed [rev/min]

[0083] a.sub.e radial width of cut [mm]

[0084] Tool Geometry

[0085] D.sub.c cutting tool diameter [mm]

[0086] L.sub.T transition point between first and second helix [mm]

[0087] z number of cutting teeth's [−]

[0088] α first helix angle [rad]

[0089] β second helix angle [rad]

[0090] Δϕ integration angle [rad]

[0091] Δa.sub.p integration height [mm]

[0092] λ radial rake angle [deg]

[0093] Workpiece Material Model

[0094] k.sub.c1, m.sub.c, λ.sub.c.sup.corr cutting constants tangential direction

[0095] k.sub.r1, m.sub.r, λ.sub.r.sup.corr cutting constants radial direction

[0096] Variables

[00003]$\begin{array}{cc}{\varphi }_p=\frac{2\pi }{z}& \mathrm{Cutter}\mathrm{pitch}\mathrm{angle}\left[\mathrm{rad}\right]\\ K=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta \varphi }}& \mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{angular}\mathrm{integration}\mathrm{steps}\\ L=\frac{a_p}{\Delta a_p}& \mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{axial}\mathrm{integration}\mathrm{steps}\end{array}$

[0097] Conditional Variables

[0098] Up Milling

[00004]$\begin{array}{cc}{\varphi }_{st}=\pi -{\cos }^{-1}\left(\frac{\frac{D_c}{2}-a_e}{\frac{D_c}{2}}\right)& \mathrm{entry}\mathrm{angle}\left[\mathrm{rad}\right]\\ {\varphi }_{ex}=\pi & \mathrm{exit}\mathrm{angle}\left[\mathrm{rad}\right]\end{array}$

[0099] Down Milling

[00005]$\begin{array}{cc}{\varphi }_{st}=\pi & \mathrm{entry}\mathrm{angle}\left[\mathrm{rad}\right]\\ {\varphi }_{ex}=\pi -{\cos }^{-1}\left(\frac{\frac{D_c}{2}-a_e}{\frac{D_c}{2}}\right)& \mathrm{exit}\mathrm{angle}\left[\mathrm{rad}\right]\end{array}$

TABLE-US-00001 Algorithm: for i = 1 to K Angular integration loop ϕ(i) = ϕ.sub.st + iΔϕ Immersion angle of flutes bottom edge F.sub.x(i) = F.sub.y(i) = F.sub.t(i) = F.sub.r(i) = 0 Initialize the force integration register for k = 1 to N Force contribution of all teeth ϕ.sub.1 = ϕ(i) + (k − 1)ϕ.sub.p Immersion angle of tooth k ϕ.sub.2 = ϕ.sub.1 Memorize the present immersion for j = 1 to L Integrate along the axial depth of cut a.sub.p(j) = jΔa.sub.p Axial position if jΔa.sub.p ≤ L.sub.t if axial position is below helix trans. point then: [00006]${\varphi }_2={\varphi }_1-\frac{2\tan \alpha }{D_C}{a}_p\left(j\right)$ Update the immersion angle due to helix 1 else [00007]${\varphi }_2={\varphi }_1-\frac{2\tan \beta }{D_C}{a}_p\left(j\right)$ Update the immersion angle due to helix 2 if ϕ.sub.st ≤ ϕ.sub.2 ≤ ϕ.sub.ex If edge is engaged in cut, then h = f.sub.z sin ϕ.sub.2 Chip thickness at this point [00008]$\Delta F_t=\Delta a_p{k}_{c1}{h}^{1-m_c}\left(1-\frac{\lambda }{{\lambda }_c^{\mathrm{corr}}}\right)$ Differential tangential force [00009]$\Delta F_r=\Delta a_p{k}_{r1}{h}^{1-m_r}\left(1-\frac{\lambda }{{\lambda }_r^{\mathrm{corr}}}\right)$ Differential radial force ΔF.sub.x = −ΔF.sub.t cos ϕ.sub.2 − ΔF.sub.r sin ϕ.sub.2 Differential feed force ΔF.sub.y = ΔF.sub.t sin ϕ.sub.2 − ΔF.sub.r cos ϕ.sub.2 Differential normal force F.sub.t(i) = F.sub.t(i) + ΔF.sub.t Sum cutting forces contributed by all edges F.sub.r(i) = F.sub.r(i) + ΔF.sub.r F.sub.x(i) = F.sub.x(i) + ΔF.sub.x F.sub.y(i) = F.sub.y(i) + ΔF.sub.y Total normal force governing the form error else next j next k next i

[0100] Such force algorithm may then be subjected to an optimization routine. As described previously, the objective function is to be designed such that the variation of the dynamic component of the force should be minimized. This can be achieved by minimizing the difference between the maximum and minimum force amplitudes over the continuous periodic normal cutting force, F.sub.y.

[0101] To minimize the objective function the optimization algorithm is set to find the best combination of the three variables, α, β and L.sub.T from the cutting force algorithm.

[0102] The optimization problem along with the objective function can be formulated as

[00010]$\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,L_t{P}^3}{\min }f\left(\alpha ,\beta ,L_t\right)=.Math.F_y^{\max }\left(\alpha ,\beta ,L_t\right)-F_y^{\min }\left(\alpha ,\beta ,L_t\right).Math.$

[0103] Various constraints, for example to favor solutions that are feasible from a production point of view, may be used to facilitate solving the optimization problem. For example, a constraint could relate to a minimum required distance of the transition from the front end. Other constraints could for example relate to maximum and/or minimum helix angles allowed, in order to avoid solutions involving helix angles that are unsuitable for other reasons.

[0104] The optimization is performed using a computer. The term “computer” refers to any electronic device comprising a processor, such as a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), a specific purpose processor or a microcontroller. A computer is capable of receiving data (an input), of performing a sequence of predetermined operations thereupon, and of producing thereby a result in the form of information or signals (an output). Depending on context, the term “computer” will mean either a processor in particular or can refer more generally to a processor in association with an assemblage of interrelated elements contained within a single case or housing.

[0105] Any suitable nonlinear programming solver designed for solving nonlinear multivariable functions, may be used. As an example, fmincon, being a built-in function in MATLAB®, may be used. The function fmincon is a nonlinear programming solver designed to find the minimum of constrained nonlinear multivariable functions.

[0106] The optimization described above may constitute a step in a method for designing a milling tool. The method may be embodied by a computer program or a plurality of computer programs, which may exist in a variety of forms both active and inactive in a single computer system or across multiple computer systems. For example, they may exist as software program(s) comprised of program instructions in source code, object code, executable code or other formats for performing some of the steps. Any of the above may be embodied on a computer readable medium, which include storage devices and signals, in compressed or uncompressed form.

[0107] An example of the results that the optimization strategy can provide will be presented. In this case a comparison between a single helical concept will be compared with the results after introduction of a second helix at an optimized position along the axial depth of cut. This is a reduced example with respect to the number of variables that are considered in the optimization. A conventional design with five teeth, diameter D.sub.C=12 mm, maximum cutting depth α.sub.p.sup.max=60 mm, and helix angle 42° was considered. In the optimized design, the first helix α is kept the same as in the original design, such that two rather similar solutions can be compared. Hence, only two design variables are passed through the optimization: the second helix β, and the transition point L.sub.T.

[0108] The optimization resulted in a second helix β=50° and a transition point L.sub.T=33.5 mm (i.e. approximately 0.56×a.sub.p.sup.max). FIG. 5 shows the simulated cutting forces in the Y-direction, both for a conventional design CD with constant helix 42° and the optimized design OD, wherein the cutting depth used is 60 mm (i.e. the maximum cutting depth possible), the radial width of cut is 0.2 mm, the feed rate is 0.08 mm/tooth, the cutting speed is 80 m/min, and the workpiece material is Ti6Al4V. FIG. 6 shows the corresponding simulated response in the Y-direction, i.e. the simulated tool deflection with respect to the generated surface of the workpiece, for the conventional design CD and for the optimized design OD. As seen in FIG. 5, with these cutting conditions, the optimized solution almost eliminates the force variation over time completely, thus significantly reducing the vibrations during cut, as seen in FIG. 6. A similar effect, at least to some extent, would be expected also for other cutting conditions.

[0109] In the following, the design of a tool with optimized geometry according to the invention will be described in more detail.

[0110] FIG. 7 is an isometric view of a milling tool 1 according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention. The milling tool, which in this case is an end mill, has a front end 2, a rear end 3, a shank portion 4 located at the rear end side, and a cutting portion 5 located at the front end side. A longitudinal axis C extends between the front end 2 and the rear end 3. The cutting portion 5 comprises five cutting teeth 6 and five flutes 7. Each cutting tooth 6, and each corresponding flute 7, extends from the front end along a first helix angle to a transition 8, at which the helix angle is changed.

[0111] The transition 8 is shown in FIG. 7 as a distinct, sudden transition between the different helix angles, and indicated by a line. However, even though a short transition may be beneficial, the transition may also be a smooth transition extending over a certain axial distance of the tooth. In practice, it may be difficult to obtain a completely abrupt transition. Hence, the transition may be considered as a transition region, having a certain extension along the longitudinal axis. This is illustrated in FIG. 8 wherein it can be seen that each tooth 6 extends along a first helix angle α from the front end to an axial point 8a at which the transition region begins. The transition region ends at another axial point 8b, from which the tooth extends along a second helix angle β towards the shank 4.

[0112] Preferred combinations of helix angles α and β, and locations of the transition L.sub.T, for various tools having different dimensions, were found by computer simulation and optimization, as discussed above. Preferred designs of the milling tools, based on the optimization results, are shown in table 1.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1 Ax. length Transition Diameter of cutting Helix 1 Helix 2 point Ratio (Dc) portion (α.sub.p.sup.max) (α) (β) (L.sub.T) L.sub.T/α.sub.p.sup.max 6 30 45,0 48,0  15,0 0,50 12 60 42,0 50,00 33,0 0,55 18 90 38,0 45,00 57,6 0,64 25 125 38,0 50,00 80,0 0,64

[0113] In table 1, the transition point L.sub.T is the location, measured from the front end of the milling tool, at which the second helix angle β begins, i.e. the end of the transition region. In the example embodiments according to table 1, the transition region of the 6 mm tool has an axial length of 5 mm, the transition region of the 12 mm tool has an axial length of 10 mm, and the transition region of the 18 mm and 25 mm tools has an axial length of 15 mm, such that, for example, the 12 mm tool has a transition starting at an axial distance of 23 mm from the front end, and ending at an axial distance of 33 mm from the front end.

[0114] Tests on prototypes showed that the form error of the machined surface was reduced when using any of the tools according to table 1.

[0115] Favorable results, at least to some extent, would be expected for any design not deviating too much from those disclosed in table 1, with respect to the helix angles α and β, i.e. within small ranges around the optimized parameters. Hence, helix combinations not too far from those in table 1, i.e. ±5° of any of the angles α and β, may result in reduced force variation and thus improved surface finish, as long as the difference between a and (3 is at least 2° and at most 15°. The ratio L.sub.T/a.sub.p.sup.max may preferably be within the range 0.4-0.7 (meaning that the transition, in view of similar transition region lengths as those mentioned above, will be located within a distance, from the front end of the milling tool, of 0.2 to 0.7 of the longitudinal length of the cutting portion).

[0116] FIG. 9 shows measurements of the form error resulting from machining a Titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) workpiece with a milling tool with diameter 12 mm according to table 1 (optimized design OD) in comparison with a conventional milling tool with the same diameter (conventional design CD), using a depth of cut a.sub.p=60 mm (i.e. corresponding to the maximum depth of cut a.sub.p.sup.max), a radial width of cut a.sub.e=0.2 mm, a feed rate of 0.04 mm/tooth and a cutting speed of 120 m/min. As can be seen in FIG. 9, in this example when using these cutting conditions, the global error is somewhat smaller for the optimized design. More important in view of the present disclosure, though, is that the “waviness” of the generated surface, i.e. how much the deviation fluctuates along the Z-axis (corresponding to the longitudinal axis of the tool), is also significantly smaller for the optimized design, which is a consequence of using the variable helix configuration as described above.

[0117] In FIG. 10, an end mill according to the present disclosure is shown in engagement with a workpiece 9 during machining. The end mill in this example corresponds to the 12 mm end mill according to table 1 above. In this machining operation, a surface 10 of the workpiece is cut when the end mill 1 is rotated around the longitudinal axis C in a rotation direction R and moved in a feed direction F transversal to the longitudinal axis. The axial length of the cutting portion, i.e. the maximum cutting depth possible a.sub.p.sup.max, is five times the diameter D.sub.C. The transition 8 is axially located at an axial depth L.sub.T of 2.75 times the diameter D.sub.C (or, in other words, 0.55 times the maximum cutting depth a.sub.p.sup.max). In this example, the actual cutting depth a.sub.p corresponds to the maximum cutting depth a.sub.p.sup.max. The radial width of cut a.sub.e is 0.2 mm, corresponding to approximately 1.7% of the cutting diameter D.sub.C. Since the cutting depth a.sub.p exceeds the required depth L.sub.T, the improved surface finish according to the invention will be obtained. This is because a cutting edge of at least one tooth at an axial position corresponding to the first helix angle and a cutting edge of at least one tooth at an axial position corresponding to the second helix angle will, at all times during the machining operation, simultaneously be in engagement with the workpiece. In particular, since the cutting depth a.sub.p corresponds to the maximum cutting depth a.sub.p.sup.max, at which the effect will be most prominent, and the width of cut a.sub.e is below 7% of the cutting diameter D.sub.C, the reduction of the form error will be significant. In FIG. 10, the transition 8 is indicated as an abrupt transition, but as discussed previously, the transition may be extended and comprise a transition region, in which case the line shown in FIG. 10 corresponds to the location at which the transition is completed, and the second helix angle begins.