Abstract
A cubic-machining test has been proposed to evaluate the geometric errors of rotary axes in five-axis machine tools using a 3 × 3 zone area in the same plane with different tool postures. However, as only the height deviation among the machining zones is detected by evaluating the test results, the machining test results are expected to be affected by some error parameters of tool sides, such as tool length and profile errors, and there is no research investigation on how the tool side error influences the cubic-machining test accuracy. In this study, machining inaccuracies caused by tool length and tool profile errors were investigated. The machining error caused by tool length error was formulated, and an intentional tool length error was introduced in the simulations and actual machining tests. As a result, the formulated and simulated influence of tool length error agreed with the actual machining results. Moreover, it was confirmed that the difference between the simulation result and the actual machining result can be explained by the influence of the tool profile error. This indicates that the accuracy of the cubic-machining test is directly affected by tool side errors.
Highlights
Five-axis machine tools have been increasingly applied in free-formed surface machining because they can control the positional displacement and the relative orientation between the cutter and the workpiece
The height deviation Δh among ZONE I and other machining zones caused by the tool length error can be formulated as Equation (2)
As the tool length error values were set to ±10 μm, according to Equation (2), Δh the influence of other factors, such as geometric errors, can be assumed to be constant
Summary
Five-axis machine tools have been increasingly applied in free-formed surface machining because they can control the positional displacement and the relative orientation between the cutter and the workpiece. In ISO 10791-7 [9], there are error identification In this method, geometric errors are detected by machining a standard some types of standard machining specimens, such as the cone frustum test and S-shaped machining specimen and evaluating the results. The integrated of the machine tool, itthe does not evaluate geometric errors inmany studies accuracy have suggested that . As shown, the size of the machining test specimen was 48 × 48 mm, and the tool path of each machining zone was in the zigzag direction, and the scanning path interval was set to. As the evaluation standard represented the height deviation among machining zones, the measured surface property was assumed to be the profile of the square area surface.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
