Memo - astvik.comPSMi Tooling Dept Memo 4 Figure 1. A typical drawing (tool PT14A07330) 2. Coarse grind of the tool flank and rake faces and unsuitable carbide grades. The flank and

PSMi Tooling Dept Memo

1

Tooling Research and Application Department

Dr. Viktor P. Astakhov

Memo To: Gabe Marsh, TTO Site manager, Ryan Smith 6 speed RWD Program

manager

Cc:

From: Viktor P. Astakhov, Tool Research and Application Manager

Date: March 16, 2009

Re: TTO TC Housing drills PT14A07320, PT14A07330, PT14A07341,

PT14A07385, PT14A03636, PT18A07325 by XXXX1 and XXXX2

Part 1 – Engineering Level

Problem statement: Low tool life of the above-listed drills

Been a PSMI Tool Engineer, I had analyzed tool failure modes, machining regimes and

technical documentation for above-listed drills and I arrived to the following conclusions:

1. All the analyzed tools are made (besides few insignificant exceptions) exactly to

the corresponding tool drawings made by XXXX1 and XXXX2 and approved by

GM CME. All the drawing by XXXX1 indicate that “Missing

specifications according to experience of

manufacturer.” Because XXXX1 is one of the biggest and experienced

tool manufacturers of drills for the automotive industry, I should assume that the

company made proper tool design and tool manufacturing choices and decisions

for the application as the application conditions were known to XXXX1 since the

beginning of the tool stage of the project. Moreover, XXXX1 representatives

were involved in runoff stages at the machine tool builder facilities and in TTO


2

and no a design change has been made to the tools after observing their

performance at both runoff stages,

2. The machining regimes used are the same as was initially indicated in the tool

layouts.

3. The coolant concentration is the same as initially assigned by the tool layouts.

4. The coolant pressure as indicated by the tool pressure manometers goes up to 57

bars which is more than needed (50 bars, according to XXXX1) for the normal

tool performance.

5. The composition of the work material is the same as that indicated on the tool

drawings.

6. The tool pre-setting was standard for this kind of tools, the tool holders were of

standard quality.

Engineering conclusion: Because the analyzed tools were made exactly according to the

tool drawings designed by XXXX1 and approved by GM and the applications conditions

were the same as indicated in the tool layouts designed by GM, I, as a PSMi tool

engineer, do not see any apparent reason from the application standpoint for tool

premature failure. In my opinion, it is XXXX1’s sole responsibility to improve tool life

of these tools. I would suggest asking XXXX1 to write a memo addressing tool failures.


3

Part 2 – Expert Level Having analyzed tool failure modes, machining regimes and technical documentation for

above-listed drills and I arrived to the following conclusions:

General for all the analyzed tools

1. Incomplete tool drawings. The prints of the analyzed tools CANNOT be considered as

tool drawings as the most essential information and data are missed. Example of these

drawings is shown in Figure 1. My major concerns are as follows:

• The drawings do not have a datum (the datum distinguish a drawing and a

picture).

• The drawings do not show any parameters of tool geometry: location of the

cutting edges, normal flanks angles, side flank angles, margins and their width

etc according to International Standard ISO 3002-1 Basic quantities in cutting

and grinding. Part 1: Geometry of the active part of cutting tools - general

terms, reference systems, tool and working angles, chip breakers. 1982 or

American National Standard ANSI B94.50-1975 Basic nomenclature and

definitions for single-point cutting tools. 1975 (reaffirmed 1993).

• The drawings do not show the symmetry of the drill edges (lips), which

happen to be one of the major problems with these tools.

• Although backtaper is mentioned in requirement, the unit of this backtaper is

not clear. Moreover, it does not follow from the drawing if it is included

backtaper or not.

• The drawings do not indicate the shape and positions (particularly, with

respect to the cutting corners) of heels.

• The drawings do not contain any information of the chip flute geometry and

location.

• The drawings do not indicate the tool material (grade and make).

• The drawings do not show surface finish on the ground surfaces.

• The drawings do not show the diameters and location of the coolant holes and

their outlets.

• The drawings do not have information on the required coolant flow rate.

• The drawings do not have information of the re-grinding limit.

Without knowing what is the actual tool design including the tool geometry and tool

material, it is impossible to give any recommendation on tool improvement. I would

recommend to re-do all the drawing according to PSMi requirements (Appendix A). An

example of proper drawing is presented in Appendix B.


4

Figure 1. A typical drawing (tool PT14A07330)

2. Coarse grind of the tool flank and rake faces and unsuitable carbide grades. The flank

and rake faces of all analyzed tool are coarsely ground. Figure 2 shows some typical

examples. In my opinion, the surface finish is totally unacceptable because, combined

with high-cobalt carbide grades, it causes aluminum built-ups as the Al matrix material

adheres to the rough surface. Figure 3 shows typical built-up’s.

Although the built-up always presents on the carbide with cobalt, its adhesion strength

directly depends the finish of the contact surfaces. The coarser the finish, the higher the

strength. When this strength is low, the built-up formed on the previous run is easily

removed by the fresh layer on the current run with minimum effect on tool wear. When

this strength is high, the removal of the built-up formed on the previous run requires

much greater forces. Moreover, when the adhesion strength exceeds the strength of

carbide, the built-up removal causes micro-erosion of the tool carbide that promotes tool

wear.


5

Figure 2. Course grind of the major flank: (a) tool T14A3636, (b) PT14A7320, (c) Flank adjacent to

the chisel of tool PT14A7330, (d) Flank adjacent to the periphery point of tool PT14A7341.

Figure 3. Typical built-up’s due to combined influence of coarse grind and improper carbide grade:

(a) tool PT14A7330, (b) tool PT14A7385

(a)

(b)

(d) (c)

(a)

(b)


6

3. High contact temperature. Unusually high temperature occurs over the tool-chip

contact surfaces. Figure 4 shows that the depth of the temperature-affected layer reaches

1/3 of the size of the prime relief. This depth, following classical pattern of temperature

distribution in dry drilling of steels (Astakhov, V.P., Tribology of Metal Cutting,

Elsevier, London, 2006), increases towards drill’s periphery reaching the size of the side

margin. Normally, such a pattern is not observed in machining of aluminum alloys

because: (a) the amount of the thermal energy generated in machining of such alloys

(Astakhov V.P., Xiao, X.R, A methodology for practical cutting force evaluation based

on the energy spent in the cutting system, Machining Science and Technology, An

International Journal, Vol.12, Issue 3, pp. 325-347, 2008), is relatively low, and (b)

thermoconductivity of aluminum alloys is high so the thermal energy, generated over the

contact surfaces due to friction at the contact interfaces and due to plastic deformation of

the work material, does not cause significant rise of temperatures.

Figure 4. Temperature-affected layer (Drill PT14A07320).

Particularities

Tool PT14A07320

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the tool print and actual drill. Although there are no

dimensions on the tool print, two design features are quite different on the tool print and

on the actual drill. First, distance d that defines the beginning of the so-called web

thinning is correctly indicated on the print as been approximately ¼ of the drill diameter

while on the actual drill this distance is much longer. This causes problems with the tool-

in-machine rake angles along the cutting edge. Second, the locations of the coolant holes

are not the same. On the print, this location is in the conditional center of the hill which is

preferable in terms of coolant distribution over the flank surfaces adjacent to the

periphery point. In the actual drill, the coolant holes locate in probably worst position.

The depth of the temperature-affected layer increases towards the

periphery Dep

th o

f the

tem

pera

ture

-


7

Moreover, these holes are provided with the notches which do not appear on the tool

print. Such a location combined with notches has harmful consequences for coolant

delivery to the places where is mostly needed because the coolant flows into the chip

flute and thus does not flow to the drill flanks to cool and lubricate the contact areas. In

my opinion, this is one of the reasons for high temperature on the tool-chip contact

surfaces.

Figure 5. Comparison of the tool print and the actual drill.

To understand and thus to correct the issue one should consider the following.

While drilling, the drill geometry results in the formation of the sculptured surface

known as the bottom of the hole being drilled. This bottom, from one side, with the

drill’s flanks from the other side, form a space termed as the bottom clearance space. The

topology of the bottom clearance can be appreciated in different cross-sections as shown

in Figure 6. The coolant is supplied into the bottom clearance under pressure through the

internal coolant holes. The coolant pressure in the bottom clearance space has a major

influence on the cooling and lubrication condition on the drill flanks as well as on the

additional supporting pads (margins). The higher coolant pressure in the bottom

clearance, the greater tool life as this pressure provides a better penetration of the coolant

to the extremely narrow passages (see SECTION A-A in Figure 6) between the tool

flanks and the bottom, that is better conditions for lubricating and cooling of the flank

contact areas. This is particularly important for coolant penetration in the regions

adjacent to the drill periphery point where this coolant is mostly needed. Unfortunately,

it is not achieved in the considered drills thus the tool wear in this zone is much higher

then in any other.

The pressure in the bottom clearance space are defines by the hydraulic resistance of the

coolant path from the outlets of the coolant holes to the chip flutes. In the considered

designs, the locations of these outlets on the hills are the worst as seen in SECTION B-B

of Figure 6. This is because these outlets are a way too close to the bottom of the hole

being drilled. The coolant jet leaving the outlet hits the bottom loosing a great amount of

energy and then flows in the direction of the least hydraulic resistance through the

notches into the chip flutes. Nothing forces the coolant to flow to the tool flanks no

matter how high is the coolant pressure and thus its flow rate supplied to the drill.

d


8

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

A

B

B A

Tiny clearance at the prime flank in the

region of the drill periphery point

The outlet of the coolant hole is too close to the

bottom of the hole being drilled

Figure 6. The concept of the bottom clearance space.

Figure 7 shows that the flank surfaces are excessively rough from the region of the chisel

edge to the drill periphery. As such, the cutting edges (lips) are just invite the built-up to

occur.

Figure 7. Coarse grind of the flank surfaces.

Figure 8 shows unusual appearance of the built-up on the inclined part of the cutting

edges where it normally does not occur. Moreover, non-symmetrical built-up on the

chisel edge clearly indicates non-symmetrical location of the major cutting edges. The

latter causes a number of problems in drilling including hole over sizing.

The cutting speed (400 m/min) and feed rate (3158 mm/min) are close to the upper limit

of the machining regime recommended for the application.


9

Figure 8. Built-up over the entire major cutting edges and non-symmetrical location of these edges.

Tool PT14A07339

This tool posses all negative features of the previously discussed tool as seen in Figure 9.

However, there is a difference. As seen in Figure 9(b) insufficient flank angles in the

region adjacent to the chisel edge caused interference of the flank faces with the bottom

of the hole being drilled. This is the prime cause for hole oversize.

Figure 9. Heavy built-up on the cutting edges (a) and interference of the rejoin adjacent to the chisel

edge (b).

Another distinctive feature is the differences in point grind and grind marks between the

tool made by XXXX1 Germany and that ground by XXXX1 USA. Figure 10(a) shows

that there is not interference in the region adjacent to the chisel edge for XXXX1

Germany-made drill. Figure 10(b) shows that grinding marks on the tool made by

XXXX1 Germany are at the certain angle to the cutting edge while those on the tool

ground by XXXX1 USA (Figure 10(c)) are perpendicular to the cutting edge which is the

worst scenario for the built-up to occur. As a result, the built-up on the tool made by

XXXX1 Germany is significantly smaller that that observed on the tool ground by

XXXX1 USA.

(b) (a)


10

Figure 10. :on-symmetry of the chisel edge on a XXXX1 Germany-made drill (a); Grinding marks

of a XXXX1 Germany-made drill (b), Grinding marks on the drill ground in XXXX1 US- made drill.

Tool PT14A07341

This tool posses all negative feature of the previously discussed tools. Figure 11 show a

new tool. As seen. The web thinning distance (d in Figure 5) is a way tool great that

makes geometry of this drill unsuitable for the application (Astakhov, V.P., Geometry of

Single-Point Turning Tools and Drills: Fundamentals and Practical Applications,

Springer, London, 2009).

Figure 11. :ew tool.

Figure 12 show excessively coarse grind of the flank surfaces that ‘invites’ the built-up

edge to occur.

(a) (b)

(c)


11

Figure 12. Coarse grind of the flanks adjacent to the chisel edge and to the drill periphery.

Figure 13 shows that heavy built-up forms over entire length of the cutting edges. Figure

14(a) shows the extent of the built-up over the rake face and drill corner. As seen, the

width of the built-up increase towards the drill periphery point that causes a significant

increase in the dill force and thus contact temperatures.

Figure 13. Built-up over the cutting edges.

Figure 14. Extend and size of the built-up edge.

Figure 14(b) shows harmful consequence of the built-up. As seen, the cutting edges

adjacent to the chisel edge are chipped by periodical break of the built-up on any new

drill dun. Moreover, non symmetrical interference of the chisel edge is also seen in this

picture. It is a consequence of a non-symmetrical location of the cutting edges and lack of

the flank angles (reliefs) in this region. Both are flaws of the drill design and

manufacturing

Figure 15 shows the conditions of the worn drill corner and adjacent margin. Excessive

wear of the drill corner shown in Figure 15(a) is due to insufficient cooling and

lubricating, wrong grade of tool carbide and aluminum built-up. Figure 15(b) shows

distinctive radial chatter marks having the pitch equal to the cutting feed. Such marks and

their pitch indicate that parametric chatter took place in drilling due to excessive drill

runout.

(a)

(b)


12

Figure 15. Drill corner and side margin.

Tool PT14A07385

Although this tool possesses all negative features of the above-discussed tools, its design

and manufacturing is probably the worst out of the analyzed tools. Figure 16 shows a

worn drill. As see, a heavy built-up covers all rake and flank faces.

Figure 16. Worn tool.

Figure 17 show the brad point of the worn tool. Beside being non-symmetrical as all

previous tools, this point has the aluminum built-up in the flank surface that clearly

indicates interference of the tool flanks and the bottom of the hole being drilled. In my

opinion, the design of the brad point is incorrect as it does not provide sufficient flank

(relief) angles over the cutting edges (Astakhov, V.P., Geometry of Single-Point Turning

Tools and Drills: Fundamentals and Practical Applications, Springer, London, 2009).

Figure 18 shows the conditions of the worn drill corner and adjacent margin. Excessive

wear of the drill corner shown in Figure 18(a) is due to insufficient cooling and

lubricating, wrong grade of tool carbide and aluminum built-up. Figure 18(b) shows

distinctive radial chatter marks having the pitch equal to the cutting feed. Such marks and

their pitch indicate that parametric chatter took place in drilling due to excessive drill

runout.

(a) (b)


13

Figure 17. Views of the brad point from the flank face and from the rake face.

Figure 18. Drill corner and side margin.

Tool PT18A07325

Although this is the only tool among analyzed made by XXXX2, it possesses all negative

features of the above-discussed tools as rough grinding of the rake and flank faces,

improper tool geometry, non-symmetrical location of the cutting edge etc. Figure 19(a)

shows a new and Figure 19(b) shows work tools.

Figure 20 shows the profile of the temperature-effected layer. Such a profile indicates

that there was no coolant in the rejoin adjacent to the tool periphery in drilling.

(a) (b)


14

Figure 19. :ew (a) and worn (b) tools.

Figure 20. Temperature-affected layer increases towards the drill periphery.

Conclusion:

All the analyzed tools are not suitable for the application in terms of their design,

manufacturing and tool material. Although the inlet pressure gage (manometer) shows

sufficient coolant pressure, the coolant flow rate through the drills may not be sufficient

due to improper design of the coolant holes in drills. For example, the coolant hole of the

drill drawing shown in Figure 1, show that the two smallest coolant hole run over entire

length of the drill. As such, the hydraulic pressure losses in these holes prevent the

sufficient coolant flow rate in the machining zone. To improve the issue, one big coolant

hole showily be made from the face till the flute. However, as discussed above, the

radial/angular location of the coolant holes is also incorrect. Even if the proper coolant

flow rate is delivered to the drill point, it cannot be used efficiently as discussed above.

Suggestions:

1. A carbide grade suitable for the application should be selected as the tool

material. For example, PlanseeTisit TCN20 grade is one of the possible

candidates as this grade was developed for high0silicon aluminum applications.

2. Drills should be re-designed to assure its proper geometry for high-speed, high-

silicon aluminum applications using guidelines provided in Astakhov, V.P.,

(a) (b)


15

Geometry of Single-Point Turning Tools and Drills: Fundamentals and Practical

Applications, Springer, London, 2009;

http://www.imts.com/conference/handouts/astakhov.pdf) or any other suitable

sources.

3. Drawings of the drill should be made according to PSMi requirements (Appendix

A). An example of proper drawing is presented in Appendix B.

4. TTO should verify the reading of the coolant pressure gage. It should be

investigated if this line goes directly into the tool holder. A digital flow meter

installed in this line would be very helpful in optimizing coolant flow through the

analyzed drills.


16

APPE:DIX A

Tooling Research and Application Department

Dr. Viktor P. Astakhov

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

What should be THE TOOL DRAWI:G submitted to PSMi

for approval? (from PSMi “Requirements for Drawing

Submitted for Approval to PSMI: Standards, Manual,

Working Examples)

There are three sets of requirements:

1. General: compliance with the drawing standards (ISO) and with Drawing

Manual; compliance with ISO Standards on tolerances and fits.

2. Specific: Compliance with ISO Standards on tool geometry and with particular

requirements set by the customer.

3. Performance: Guaranteed tool life in the number of cycles or in the munver of

holes for axial tools.

PSMi requirements are as follows:

1. In order to ensure the quality of tool produced, the datum features should be

clearly indicated. It assures proper inspection, selection of the proper tool holder,

pre-setting and performance.

Out of common datum features used, namely, design, manufacturing, inspection,

pre-setting, working datum features, a tool drawing submitted to PSMi for

approval should have the inspection and pre-setting datum features.

All shape tolerances should be specified with respect to these datum features.

2. Proper dimensioning and tolerancing with respect to the selected datum

features. Besides the required lengths and diameters, particular attention should

be paid to the:

• Profile and location (relative to the datum features) of the chip-removal

flutes.

• Profile, dimensions, spatial location and location of the outlet nozzles of

the coolant holes.


17

• Tool body dimensions that define the strength and rigidity.

3. Properly defined surface integrity including surface finish.

The primary ISO standard dealing with surface finish, ISO 1302:1992 is

concerned with the methods of specifying surface texture symbology and

additional indications on engineering drawings. This and all ISO standards are

expressed in SI metric units, with commas (,) used as decimal points. Other ISO

standards are referenced for constituent provisions, but not directly discussed in

the ISO 1302 standard. For instance:

ISO 468:1982 Surface roughness: Parameters, their values and general rules for

specifying requirements.

ISO 4287:1997 Surface texture: Profile method, terms, definitions and surface

texture parameters.

ISO 4288:1996 Surface texture: Profile method, rules and procedures for the

assessment of surface texture.

ISO 8785:1998 Surface imperfections: Terms, definitions and parameters.

4. Proper specification of the tool geometry according to the standards: ISO

3002/1 “Basic quantities in cutting and grinding – Part1: Geometry of the active

part of cutting tools – General terms, reference systems, tool and working angles,

chip breakers. Second Edition 1982-08-01:American National Standard B94.50

“Basic Nomenclature and Definitions for Single-Point Cutting Tools.”

5. The required coolant flow rate and pressure for tools with internal coolant

supply.

6. For the drawing submitted for approval when new design is to be tested, the

additional information should include:

• Suggested machining regime: cutting speed (spindle r.p.m.), cutting feed

(feed per revolution and feed per tooth for multi-tooth tools), depth of cut,

cycle diagram.

• The required coolant flow rate and pressure to assure reliable chip removal

and intended tool life.

• Criterion (criteria) of tool life and its assessment.

• Expected tool life.

• Tool reliability data. This important issue should be a subject to a special

meeting as one of the most important. This is because a prematurely fail

tool may cause great loses. For example, on the YTO case line, a failed

reamer causes up to 40 scraped cases and 1.5 hours lost of production

time.

7. Proper specification of the tool material (s), its properties and coating Although

standard ISO 513:1991 “Application of hard cutting materials for machining by


18

chip removal – Designations of the main groups of chip removal and groups of

application” defines different groups of tool materials, its intent IS NOT the

specification of a particular tool material on the tool drawing. This is because the

standard defines the APPLICATION groups so considerable different tool

materials can fall into the same application group. Therefore, it is of great

importance to specify tool material and coating on the drawing. Although the

exact specifications for various tool materials are yet to be developed, it is

reasonable to set the following requirements at this stage:

• For carbides: Exact grade and manufacturer. For example, TCN 20

PlanceeTizit. If the edge preparation is used, show it in a separate view

with proper dimensions.

• For PCDs: Exact grade and manufacturer, edge preparation parameters.

For example, DA90 Sumitomo Electric.

• For CBNs: Exact grade and manufacturer, edge preparation parameters.

For example, IB50 ISCAR.

• For HSS: Exact grade, manufacturer, hardness, place to check hardness.

For example, CPM4 Crucible, HRC 66-68. Metallurgical data (grain size,

maximum allowable phosphorus and sulfur etc) may be very helpful.


19

APPE:DIX B


20

A

Ø17+0.013

-0.033

60°±0.5°

B

B

Ø14.48-0.030

SECTIO

N B-B

ENLARGED

1±0.3

O.A.L.

NOTES:

1. 0.0008/0.0030-0.040 m

m INCL. BACKTAPER PER 25 m

m O

N DIAMETER 17.48

2. LARGE DIAMETER IS NON C

UTTING, NO SID

E C

LEARANCE O

R BACKTAPER IS REQUIRED

3. 0.3 M

AX. WEB TAPER, 0.03 M

AX. FLUTE RUNOUT

4. BURNISHIN

G M

ARGINS +0.0-010 BELOW FINISHED 17.48 dia.

5. LENGTHS AND D

IAMETERS TO BE M

EASURED TO T.S.C. WITH NO REGARD TO BACKTAPER O

R UNDERCUT

7. TOOL M

ARKIN

G TO INCLUDE TOOL#, REVISIO

N, MATERIAL, AND DATE.

8. CUTTING TIP AND ITS EDGES SHOULD N

OT H

AVE ANY VISIBLE CHIPS, CRACKS O

R DEFECTS @

x25

9 FIN

AL INSPECTIO

N SHOULD INCLUDE P.S.M

.I. INSPECTIO

N REPORT.

10. TOOLS SHOULD BE HANDLED W

ITH A PLASTIC CAP AFTER FINAL G

RIND.

6. DIM

ENSIO

NS AND TOLERANCES N

OT SPECIFIED TO BE PER NORTHERN STAR TOOL M

ANUFACTURING STANDARDS

VIEW E

0.005

A

0.010

A

View E

Ø2.18

Ø5.79

REF.

2.4

2

COOLANT G

ROOVE TO

INTERSECT THRU H

OLES

MATERIALS (DO N

OT D

EVIATE)

Carbide: CERATIZIT M

G12

Coating: Ti-B2

AERO-LAP CONTACT SURFACES

AFTER COATING

0.02

A

+0.1

4-PLC'S O

N14.48 DIA

0.80.15-0.25

O.D. RELIF PER

SIDE

40°

ENLARGED

SECTIO

N C-C

8°1+0.2

+1°

25°±2°

+0.1

+0.15

WEB D

IA.

GASH R

ADIUS

START

ZEICHNUNGSNUMMER:

+3°

C

C

160°±1°

0.02

A

DETAIL II

ENLARGED

POINT GRIND AV-1AL

DET. II

DET. I

ENLARGED

DETAIL I

Surface Roughness

as per ISO 1302 Standard

(not worse than)

Ground Prime Flanks Ra 0.25

Secondary Flanks Ra 0.4

Carbide M

argins Ra 0.25

Flute Ra 0.15

(polish)

D

D

SECTIO

N D-D

ENLARGED

20080205

001

REGRIND_INFO_ADDED

_YTO-532

PSMI

PSMI

MM

(YYYYMMDD)

DATE

CHANGE D

ESCRIPTIO

NSYM.

CHG

ORDER

NUMBER

CHK

BY

BY

APRV

BY

PT14A03442TT0001--001DETTX.DWG

PT14A03442

0001

TT

A1

0001

DET

YTO-532

A-BORE

FIRST-PASS

YTO

YTO

6223

SCALE

ENSHU_JE50_HORIZONTAL_MACHINING_CENTER

C00490

030

STA

LOWER-VALVE-BODY

6-SPD-R

WD

24240844

24240844

003

03MY07

NORTHERN

20080205

PSMI

20080205

PSMI

20080205

M.M

CMILLAN

20080205

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

F10

F11

F12

F13

SHEET NO.:

BREAK O

R DEBURR EDGES

UNLESS O

THERWISE SPECIFIED ACCORDING TO

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE O

F M

ANUFACTURER

PART N

AME:

ENGIN

EERIN

G PRIN

TS U

SED

DRAWIN

G NO.

Plane of projection Symbol

DATE (DDMMYY)

L.E.C.

TOLERANCIN

G ADDENDUM-2004

CHECKED BY:

GM ENG. APPROVED:

DRAWIN

G NO.:

SHEET SIZE:

PART N

O.:

DRAWN BY:

DESIG

NED BY:

SPECIFIE

D D

IM'S. ARE IN

UNLESS O

THERWISE

UNLESS O

THERWISE SPECIFIED THIS

DOCUMENT IS IN ACOORDANCE W

ITH

ASME Y14.5M - 1994 AS AMENDED

BY THE G

LOBAL D

IMENSIO

NING AND

MILLIM

ETERS

METRIC

DESCRIPTIO

N:

MACH. NO.:

MACH. NAME:

Plant:

LOC.:

DO N

OT M

AKE

MANUAL C

HANGES

ITEM TYPE:

DATE:

MODEL:

DATE:

DATE:

(YYYYMMDD)

(YYYYMMDD)

(YYYYMMDD)

(YYYYMMDD)

GM W

ORK O

RDER NO.:

DATE:

TOTAL NO. SHEETS:

OF

SUFFIX:

FACT.:

OP N

o.:

DEPT. No.:

STATIO

N:

SCALE:

Ø20h6

130±1.5

0.8x45°

2-P

LC'S

56±1.5 (SHANK LEN.)

72.5±1.5 (FLUTE LEN.)

50.72±0.13

0.6

20°

15°±1°

0.32

0.0025

-0.2

67°

100°±2°

3.3±0.15

2.9°R

EF.

40°

4±0.1

Ø0.8±0.1R0.5

0.4

R0.8±0.1

Aprx.1

Aprx. R1.5

1,32

2,67

ENLARGED

DETAIL III

Helical

secodary relief

- 2-P

LC'S

SHIPPING

LASER ETCH

IN THIS

AREA p. 7

DET. III


21

Documents

Memo - astvik.comPSMi Tooling Dept Memo 4 Figure 1. A typical drawing (tool PT14A07330) 2. Coarse grind of the tool flank and rake faces and unsuitable carbide grades. The flank and