INTELLIGENT MACHINING PROCESS CONTROL Cost optimization in machining

INTELLIGENT MACHINING & PROCESS CONTROL : Cost optimization in machining • Tool wear monitoring • Practical tool wear metrology • Continuous optimization • Process stability monitoring • Acoustic and vibration monitoring • Lab. VIEW based signal processing

Team: Sponsor: General Dynamics - OTS Coach: Dr. Tim Dalrymple Liaison Engineer: Mr. Keith Brown William Dressel Kevin Pham Steven Stone Sean Sullivan Phan Vu (ISE) (EE) (CSC) (ME)

MACHINELOGIC Pipe Coupling

MACHINELOGIC Project Goals & Objectives Minimize work piece cost Determine tool cost ○ Monitor wear and end of life ○ Implement practical metrology blackbetty 420. com Determine machining cost Balance the process to minimize cost

MACHINELOGIC Project Goals & Objectives Provide feedback to digital manufacturing framework Develop data acquisition system Automate data and error logging Monitor machine stability: chatter detection

MACHINELOGIC Minimizing Work Piece Cost Cp = Cfix + Cm + Ct Cp = Cost per part Cfix = Fixed cost associated with the cost of the material Cm = Machining cost Ct = Tooling cost related to tool life and tool change time T = C (v)p (fr)q T = Tool life v = Cutting speed fr = Feed rate C, p, and q = Constants

MACHINELOGIC Minimizing Cost Procedure Rearrange Cost per part equation: Take partial derivatives: Optimal cutting speed:

MACHINELOGIC Determining Tool Life Through Flank Wear Width Microscope: Dino-Lite® Wyko Profilometer Device Cost: $400 Device Cost: $180, 000

MACHINELOGIC Tool Wear Analysis Results

MACHINELOGIC Calculating Optimum Machining Parameters Nominal Optimal Suggested Nominal Cutting Speed Nominal Feed Rate Optimal Cutting Speed Optimal Feed Rate Suggested Cutting Feed Speed Rate 6338 in/min . 02 in/rev 9066 in/min . 02 in/rev 6972 in/min (~110%) . 02 in/rev

MACHINELOGIC Machining Controller Solution INPUT SYSTEM Power Data Acquisition System OUTPUT Vibration Audio Computer Lab. VIEW Human Machine Interface Analyze Data Human Machine Interface Log Data

MACHINELOGIC OKUMA LC-40 Lathe CM 100 Microphone Load Controls UPC Kistler Accelerometer

MACHINELOGIC Prototype GUI

MACHINELOGIC Chatter Detection: Variance

MACHINELOGIC Chatter Detection: FFT Model boring bar as fixed-pinned cylinder Calculate natural frequency 1 st mode = 3047 Hz Sample signal at 10 k. Hz Nyquist frequency of 5 k. Hz

MACHINELOGIC Chatter Detection: FFT

MACHINELOGIC Signal Process Analog Filtering Blue – Sampled Frequency Red - Aliased Frequencies

MACHINELOGIC Design & Test: Low Pass Filter Sallen-Key Gain in passband: 1 Gain at cutoff (7 k. Hz): 1/2

MACHINELOGIC Low Pass Filter Results

MACHINELOGIC Return on Investment Roughing Operations Optimized with Suggested Machining Parameters Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 56 13, 351 $3, 894 11. 9% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 340 80, 110 $23, 365 14. 7% Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. All Operations Optimized Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Part Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 58 13, 749 $9, 362 28. 5% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 351 82, 494 $56, 173 35. 2% 1 2 Based on 10 hour shift Based on one shift per day, 235 work days per year

MACHINELOGIC Return on Investment Roughing Operations Optimized with Suggested Machining Parameters Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 56 13, 351 $3, 894 11. 9% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 340 80, 110 $23, 365 14. 7% Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. All Operations Optimized Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Part Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 58 13, 749 $9, 362 28. 5% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 351 82, 494 $56, 173 35. 2% 1 2 Based on 10 hour shift Based on one shift per day, 235 work days per year

MACHINELOGIC Return on Investment Roughing Operations Optimized with Suggested Machining Parameters Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 56 13, 351 $3, 894 11. 9% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 340 80, 110 $23, 365 14. 7% Parts Produced Per Shift 1 Parts Produced Per Year 2 Cost Saved Per Year 2 R. o. I. All Operations Optimized Initial Investment Cost Per Units Ordered Total Investment Cost Saved Per Part Prototype Investment $20, 000 $12, 808 1 $32, 808 $0. 29 58 13, 749 $9, 362 28. 5% Industry Level Investment $106, 000 $8, 893 6 $159, 358 $0. 29 351 82, 494 $56, 173 35. 2% 1 2 Based on 10 hour shift Based on one shift per day, 235 work days per year

MACHINELOGIC Conclusion Cost savings achieved through higher cutting speeds Limited by stability issues Data acquisition system can help address stability issues Acoustic data more suitable for detecting chatter

MACHINELOGIC Recommendations for Future Develop alternative for Lab. VIEW Store logged data in database Automatically handle chatter through lathe control panel Continue tool wear analysis Automate tool wear measuring process Continue power data analysis

Questions?

Special Thanks to: IPPD Program General Dynamics Dr. Dean Bartles Dr. Keith Stanfill Mr. Keith Brown Dr. Tim Dalrymple Dr. John Schueller Mr. Gun Lee