Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Experimental Modeling of the Experimental Modeling of the Sanding Process Sanding Process --
The Relationship Between Input and The Relationship Between Input and Output ParametersOutput Parameters
James B. TaylorJames B. TaylorRichard L. Richard L. LemasterLemasterAndres L. CarranoAndres L. Carrano
North Carolina State UniversityNorth Carolina State University
Project SponsorsProject Sponsors
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program (WMTRP) - NC State UniversityAmerican Furniture Manufacturer’s Association (AFMA)Furniture Manufacturing and Management Center (FMMC) - NC State University
Introduction Introduction
Abrasive finishing processes (sanding) – Production time– Cost
Impact perceived and actual quality of productRelationships between key input and responses have not been properly established Automation of process has been limited by lack of published information
ObjectivesObjectives
Identify key inputs and outputs
Model of process
Optimization
Automation
Modeling SchemeModeling Scheme
PressureMRRSurfaceRoughness
Grit SizeAbrasive
Species
Orientation
SANDINGPROCESS
Assessment of Surface QualityAssessment of Surface QualityMonitoring the Machining ProcessMonitoring Product QualityMachining Research
Objectives:• Measure and define surface topography• Quantify surface defects• Identify specific machining problems• Provide on-line surface quality monitoring
laser/camera optical profilometer
Experimental Setup and MethodsExperimental Setup and Methods
Statistical Design of Experiments– Split Plot Fractional Factorial– Full Factorial design– Response Surface
Stroke SanderCNC Router
Material Removal Rate Material Removal Rate -- MRRMRR
MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE
P-150 P-220
PINEOAK
MAPLE
CHERRY
Pressur
e (psi
)
MR
R (c
ubic
inch
/min
)
Z-Axis
Plot Title
Y-Axis
X-Axis
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50 0.450
0.6500.750
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
Plot Title
Z-Axis
20.0
Y-Axis
X-Axis 0.5500.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
0.450
0.550
0.650
0.750
0.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
X-Axis
Z-Axis
Plot Title
Y-Axis
5.0
P-100
MRRMRR
100 120 160 180 200 220 0
6090
0
2
6
8
10
Column3
Column2
Column5
4
14030
SiC
EFFECT OF GRAIN ORIENTATION IN MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE
MR
R (c
ubic
inch
es/m
in)
GRIT SIZE
Orienta
tion (
Degree
s)
Al2 O3
Surface RoughnessSurface Roughness
Column5
Column3
P-Spec2.PDW
P-100 P-150 P-220
0.501.00
1.50
2.002.50
3.00
3.504.00
4.500.45
0.60
0.75
70.0
117.5
165.0
212.5
Column2
Column4
Column3
P-Spec2.PDW
260.0
Rq
(mic
roin
ches
)
CHERRY
MAPLEOAK
PINE
0.501.00
1.50
2.002.50
3.00
3.504.00
4.50
0.600.75
70.0
117.5
165.0
212.5
260.0
P-Spec2.PDW
Column6
Column2
Column3
0.45
Pressur
e (psi
)
SURFACE ROUGHNESS
SurfaceSurface RoughnessRoughness
140 160 180 200 220 0.50
0.80100
150
200
250
Column2
Column3
Column5
Data3.PDW
300
100 1200.65
Al2 O3
SiC
SILICON CARBIDE Vs ALUMINUM OXIDE
GRIT SIZE
Rq
(mic
roin
ches
)
Pressur
e (psi
)
Future of SandingFuture of SandingMicro-Replicated AbrasivesCustom Sanding Tooling Designs– Minerals or combinations– Size and shape– Patterns / Directional
Control– Predictable performance– Wear– Monitoring
Proposed Modeling SchemeProposed Modeling Scheme
SANDINGPROCESS
GRIT SIZE
ABRASIVE
PRESSURE
SPECIES
ORIENTATION
MRR
ROUGHNESS
SUBSURFACE CRUSHING
BELT LOADING
FEED RATE
SPINDLE
RESILIENCE
CUTTERDIRECTION
ConclusionsConclusionsInput - Output Relationships
Surface Quality - Surface Roughness
Process Economics
Model for Optimization, Visualization and Robustness
Comments and Discussion