RIA-81-U91
m
rp;T'i riT
\ LIBRARY
MHSMP-80-20
Dist. Category UC- *fS~
TOOL FORCE EVALUATION OF LATHE MACHINED
HIGH EXPLOSIVES
Gcuiy L. VloiMQM
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
April 1980
Process Development Endeavor No. 30 2
19970805 117 DTIC QUALITY IBSIEOTHID 3
ERATED FOR THE
P- O. BOX 30020 AMARILLO, TEXAS 79177
806-335-1581
%K i^ma
Department of Energy UNDER
U. S. GOVERWMEFNJT CONTRACT DE-AC04-76DP-
NOTICE
This reoort was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the i in?tPd StatesGovernment. Neither the Un.ted States nor the MnitPd States Department of Energy, nor their employees, nor anv of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal EfhiHtv or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usu ness ofaSy ^formation, apparatus, product or process Ssed or represents that its use would not mfr.nge pn- vately-owned rights.
Printed in the United States of America Available from
National Technical Information Service U. S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 3..S0. Price: Printed Copy &C0 I Microfiche-
TOOL FORCE EVALUATION OF LATHE tlACHINED HIGH EXPLOSIVES
Gcuiy L. TlowoM,
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (April 1980)
Process Development Endeavor No. 302
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the effects of machining properties upon tool forces encoun- tered during lathe machining of high explosives, in order to optimize machining conditions for mechanical properties test specimens. Monetary considerations dictated that the tooling either already exist or be fabricated in-house using limited machine shop capability. The design chosen which fit between the tool holder and the tool post and interfaced to existing signal conditioners was easily fabricated. The study evaluated all forces on the cutter during machining of two types of high explosives at four cutter radii, four feed rates, three depths of cut and two cutting speeds.
The study pointed out design problems, instrumentation drift, tool chatter and detection levels. It also showed that the type of high explosive was more significant than first thought toward influencing tool force levels.
INTRODUCTION
With the spiraling cost of labor and materials coupled with the stringent safety requirements involving the machining of high explosives, safer and more efficient machining conditions must be found. In an effort to move in this direction, a study was undertaken to better understand the effect of various machining parameters with the forces exerted upon the cutting tool during lathe machining operations. This tool force study, while only a beginning, demonstrated the type of tooling required, signal levels to be anticipated, some of the problems associated with setup, calibration, data reduction, etc., and the overall feasibility of on-line measurement of tool forces during machining operations.
The experiment was designed as a six variable complete block matrix. These six variables, along with the specific values for each of them are as follows:
Type of High Explosive -- LX-10 (95% HMX/5% Viton), RX-03-BB [92.5% TATB/7.5% Kel-F)
Cutter Radius -- 0.005, 0.030, 0.100, 0.250 inch
Feed Rate -- 0.003, 0.012, 0.024, 0.0336 inch/revolution
Depth of Cut -- 0.020, 0.100, 0.250 inch
Cutter Attack Angle -- 0, 30, 45 degrees
Cutting Speed -- Near 210, Near 75 SFM (surface feet per minute)
Since virtually all machines in use today still employ the English dimen- sioning system, this report will be written in this system to facilitate correlation of data with current machining practices.
DISCUSSION
THEORY AND DESIGN
The equipment for tool force measuring had to be relatively inexpensive and either already in existence or capable of being fabricated in-house. In addition, the transducer(s) had to mount between the existing tool post holder and cutter holder without changing the height of the cutter or adding excessively to the overall tool setup dimension. Several designs were considered with the one in Fig. 1 being selected. This design allowed fabrication of the two steel sensor arms (Fig. 2), in- stallation of the strain gages and insertion of these arms between the tool post holder and the cutter holder.
Depth of Cut
FORCES ON CUTTER
Y ® »-X
TOOL POST HOLDER
Fig. 1. Tool Force Measurement Setup for Lathe Machining
-2-
• 2.000 ±0.010 dia.
17/32 dia. Thru
3/4 Rad.
z 0.002 C | 0.0021
MA |.OO2|
IB
6.000
m
Fig. 2. Tool Force Transducer Sensor Arm
This design employs three pairs of semi-conductor strain gages identified in Fig. 1 as T]_, T2 and T3. As can readily be seen in the figure, T3 is a function only of forces in the Y direction, whereas T]_ and T? are each functions of X and Z. By knowing the moment arm lengths (L^, Eg, Lp and Lp) through which these forces act, it is possible to calculate the X, Y, and Z forces exerted on a cutter during machining.
The strain gages employed were SR-4 semi-conductor gages manufactured by BLH Electronics of Waltham, Mass. The gage type was SPB3-12-12. The gages used were single element gages with a nominal backed resistance (Rg) of 119 a and a nominal gage factora of 119. Two gages in a half bridge (see Fig. 3) were employed to measure the bending moments shown in Fig. 1. Bending torques of as little as 1.0 in-lb can be measured with the 1-3/4 inch diameter steel transducers before noise becomes a significant problem.
Gage Faatov = (•=— ] at a tensile strain of 500 pin/in.
Applied Voltage
Fig. 3. Strain Gage Electrical Bridge
The basic cutter employed at Pantex for high explosive machining is a carbide tipped design as detailed in Fig. 4. The 7° relief angle coupled with the flat top of the cutter actually makes this a "scraper" rather than a "cutter." Tool forces could be minimized even further if a sharp cutter were employed, but this was not considered in the study. The 7° relief angle also puts another restriction on the system. To prevent dragging of the explosive on the 7° relief face, there is a critical relationship between feed rate and cutting speed. The point at which dragging will occur can be defined as:
fF") fS) F Tan (relief angle) = v\^\^ = ^
where,
F = Feed rate (inch/revolution)
S = Speed (.RPM)
D = Piece diameter (inches)
If one arbitrarily chooses the worst case feed rate of 0.035 inch/revolution, then one can plot the minimum allowable diameter (below which dragging will occur) as a function of cutter relief angle (see Fig. 5). Since the nominal cutter relief angle used at Pantex is 7°, Fig. 5 easily shows that even allowing substantial deviations from this, the critical diameter is still very small and therefore dragging of a cutter due to relief angle should never occur.
1 1/2-
1/2 STK >
I 1-
3/4
3-1/4
Radius "R"
\
/ 1/2 STK
1
-5/8 —
t __ 1/2 1-
1/8 '
—-7°
1/8
^-4. s> Fig. 4. Typical Cutter
0.90 -
0.85 •
0.80 -
0.75 .
0.70 -
0.65 •
0.60 -
"": 0.S5 •
T 0.50 -
I 0.45. a o 0.40 - a>
& 0.3S .
0.30 -
0.25 •
0.20 -
0.15 ■
0.10 -
0.05 .
0 3-4 5 6
Cutter Relief Angle (°)
Fig. 5. Minimum Diameter to Induce Drag vs. Cutter Relief Angle (0.035 inch/revolution Feed Rate)
SETUP AND OPERATION
The recessed areas of the transducer arms were potted with a silicone potting compound (Sylgard 184)" to reduce the potential of handling damage and the effect of temperature on bridge balance. Signal drift due to_ cooling water and ambient temperature changes as well as instrumentation drift was present throughout the experiment. However, while the signal output could easily be reset to zero prior to each test run, this nuisance could present a significant problem for other applications and would there- fore require additional work to resolve.
Calibration of the system involves knowing the moment arm lengths very accurately and insuring that the angular relationship among components is maintained accurately. This task proved to be considerably more dif- ficult than was first anticipated and was eventually responsible for the loss of some data. Calibration was accomplished on the lathe with a = 0 and a special cutter in place allowing dead weights to be applied via a pulley system.
During machining, water was used as the coolant. A tailstock was used to minimize sample deflection during machining.
In an effort to minimize the amount of explosive machined away during testing and since the lathe on which testing was done is a specific, selectable RPM machine, the cutting rate in terms of surface feet/minute (SFM) could not be maintained constant. Using the available RPM selectors, the cutting rate was maintained as close to 75 SFM and as close but below 210 SFM as possible. As an example, for the RX-03-BB machining, the cutting rates varied from 75.6 to 85.2 and from 138 to 158 SFM. For 160 test points, the 7,750 inch diameter by 6.750 inch long billet was machined down to a diameter of 7.00 inches.
Tool chatter and electronic noise were somewhat of a problem in being able to interpret the strip chart records of the transducers accurately. Fig. 6 shows two typical T3 transducer (Y force) records for RX-03-BB. Fig. 6A is the record for a Ü.100-inch radius cutter machining a 0.250-inch deep cut at 0.0336-inch/revolution cutting rate. Notice the minimal noise level at zero load compared to the 2-pound load variation during machining. Fig. 6B is the record for a 0.100-inch radius cutter machining a 0.020-inch deep cut at 0.024 inch/revolution cutting rate. The noise sensitivity was high but the signal variation during machining was low. In all cases, the signal was read at the average value.
DATA REDUCTION
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the forces exerted on the cutter during machin- ing exert bending moments on the three pairs of strain gages. By measuring the bending strain on each pair of strain gages and by knowing the distances through which the forces were applied, the forces can be readily calculated.
Product of Dow Corning, Midland, Michigan.
-6-
u u o
16
14 -
12
10
13.46 lbs
Time
0.100" Radius,- 0.0336"/rev, 0.250" depth, 154 SFM
1.6 r
1.4
1.2 -
1.0
8 0.8 o
0.6
0.4
0.0
r — 1.46 lbs
WH Time
0.100" Radius, 0.024"/rev, 0.020" depth, 82 SFM
t>A LB
Fig. 6. Typical Transducer Strip Chart Outputs For Heavy Cut and Light Cut on RX-03-BB
-7-
Torque 1^ = LgCF^) - I^CF^ = (Ti chart) (T1 calibration factor)
Torque T2 = LACFZ) - Lp(Fx) = (T2 chart) C1^ calibration £actor)
Torque T3 = LB(Fy) = (T3 chart) (T3 calibration factor)
FX = (LA) tLßJ " l^F) IV
T 3
T^Lp) + T2CLg) FZ = (LA) (LB) - tLpj (Lp)
In order to insure that the equations for Ti and T2 remain independent simultaneous equations, (LA) (Lg) must not equal (Lp) (LD).
EFFECT OF CALIBRATION WEIGHT ERROR
Forces of Fx = + 10, Fy = + 10 and Fz = 0 pounds were used to calibrate T]_, T2 and T3. The error in being able to apply the weight due to a non-frictionless pulley system for T^ and T2 calibration was estimated at ±0.1 pounds or ± 1%. The calibration factors for T^ and T2 can be cal- culated by:
(Fy) CTn moment arm)
Ti chart reading
(Fy) (To moment arm)
ip _ ___________ 1 cal T^ chart reading
T, '2 cal To chart reading
A ± 11 error in Fy results in a + II error in both T1 ^ and T2 cal
Solving for the actual Fy and Fy errors at various attack angles and dividing them by the corresponding Fy and Fy true values yields the following:
A ± \% calibration weight error yields
± 1% Fy error at a = 0
± 2% F-£ error at all other angles
± 2% F~ error at all angles
There are many other error possibilities in the system which will be men- tioned but not discussed due to the complex interaction of these errors. A Monte Carlo analysis technique could be employed if a better understanding is desired.
1. Moment arm lengths
2. Attack angle
3. Transducer 1 location relative to coordinate axis
4. Transducer 2 location relative to coordinate axis
5. Sensitivity drift
6. Linearity of sensitivity
7. Effect of cutter chatter
8. Electrical noise
Data were gathered for LX-10 at attack angle of 0, 30, 45 and 60°. Sub- sequent data reduction showed large variations in F^ and F^ values for 45 and 60° data sets. This is explained by the relationship the moment arms at these angles had on the reduction equations, where very small errors had very large effects on the calculated forces. As a result, only the 0 and 30° data sets were planned to be used. The attack angles 0 and 30° were then used for RX-03-BB machining. It was during the RX-03-BB machining series that an unexplainable problem became evident in the separation of the Fy and F^ forces, especially at attack angles other than 0°. Non-real forces for both Fy and Fz were encoun- tered (example: decreasing Fy_ and increasing negative F^ as feed rate increases). An exhaustive study and post test calibration failed to locate the cause of this problem but did point to the problem occurring to a lesser degree on the LX-10 data sets.
Under certain machining conditions, all three forces should be the same regardless of attack angle. For example, a 0.250-inch radius cutter presents the same cutter profile to the explosive during machining at 0° as it does at 30° for cuts less than 0.250-inch deep. While Fy agrees with this for both LX-10 and RX-03-BB, Fy and Fz do not. As a result, all non-0° F^ and F^ data are suspect and are not reported. Since at 0°, all Fy's are functions of T-j_ only and since Ti was calibrated at 0°, these F^ s are believed to be accurate. F^ for RX-03-BB is known to be erroneous in all cases and are not reported. F^ for LX-10 is reported for 0° but should be used with caution. These data are dis- played graphically in the Appendix.
-9-
CONCLUSIONS
For the transducer used in this experiment, the design is inadequate to allow accurate force vector separation at all reasonable attack angles.
The design of holding fixtures for the explosive charge during machining depends very heavily on the type of material to be machined since the forces change dramatically with the type of explosive. For example, at low feed rates, the Fx force to machine LX-10 is 20 to 30% greater than for RX-03-BB, while at high feed rates, the difference is 200 to 300%. For the Fy forces, the figures differ by over 100% in all cases.
The slower the RFM, the greater the forces on the cutter. This effect becomes very pronounced as the feed rate is also increased.
For a given set of machining conditions, the Fx and Fy forces are essentially independent of cutter radius.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• To minimize signal drift due to instrumentation and temperature, additional work would be required to allow equipment to be used in a production environment.
• In situ calibration should be designed into the next generation transducer.
• The transducer should be redesigned and/or a commercially-available dynamometer be evaluated to eliminate force interaction and separa- tion problems.
A computer model should be prepared which would allow force predic- tions for any reasonable set of operating conditions for any explo- sive based upon a few measured points for that material.
-10-
APPENDIX
Figure Title
A-l Fx vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-2 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-3 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-4 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-5 FY vs. Depth of cut for LX-10 with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-6 FY vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-7 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-8 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-9 Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-10 Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-11 Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-12 Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-13 Fx vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-14 Fy vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-15 Fz vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-16 Fx vs. Feed Rate for LX-10 at Various Cutter Radii
A-17 Fy vs. Feed Rate for LX-10 at Various Cutter Radii
A-18 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-19 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-20 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-21 Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-22 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-23 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-24 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-25 Fy vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-26 Fx vs. Cutter Radius for RX-03-BB at Different Cutting Depths
A-27 Fy vs. Cutter Radius for RX-03-BB at Different Cutting Depths
A-28 Fx vs. Feed Rate for RX-03-BB at Various Cutter Radii
A-29 Fy vs. Feed Rate for RX-03-BB at Various Cutter Radii
K *
LX-1Q TOOL FORCE STUOT FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.005 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 OEGREES
,0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S ,0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o to.
o o
Q
C\J.
o o
ID ..
Q_
o -Q
o o
^b.oo 0.G4 G.03 DEPTH
0. 12 ■ CF CUT
o. is • (INCHES:
0.20 0.24 0.28
Fig. A-l. Fxvs. Depth o£ Cut for LX-10 with 0.U05 inch Radius Cutter
A-l
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.030 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0335 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F <5> .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y :0336 IPR S
o
"3-1
o o
o o CM.
CD o
to
ZD ■
Q_
X o "O
C\j'
^b.oc 0.Ü4 0.CI8 DEPTH
0. GF
12 CU"
0. 16 (INCHES!
0.2C 0.24 Q.2t
Fig. A-2. Fxvs, Depth o£ Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-2
.0336
.0120 IPR I PR
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS « O.iOO INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S S CD .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
Q O
O O
u o
en o o
Q_
X
o o
o
^.0 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-3. Fx vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-3
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS - 0.250 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DECREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S
* .0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y .0335 IPR S
a CD
CO
o
o o 3*. fvl
CD
a"
Ci_
xg CM
O
^.00 0.04 0.0S 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-4. > Fy vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-4
LX-10 TOOL FORCK STUDY FT V3 DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS - 0.005 INCH, ATTACK ANCLE - 0 DECREES
X .0336 I PR F A . Q2MC I PR F + .0120 I PR F X .0030 I PR F <J> .0030 I PR S ^ .0120 I PR S CTJ .0240 I PR S Y .0335 I PR S
0_
1/7 CJ'T
Q-
™T
o
CO
^t.C'G 0.Ü4 C.08 0,i2 DEPTH OF CU"
O.iS 0.20 (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-5. Fy vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-5
LX-10 TOOL FORCE 5TU0Y FY VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.030 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S Q .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o
^.00 0.Q8 DEPTH
0. 12 CF CUT
0.16 0. (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-6. Fy vs, Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-6
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FT VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = C.IOO INCH, ATTACK ANCLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F & .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F <!> .0030 IPR S ♦ .0120 IPR S H .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o
rX
O Q
en
o. CO
a in.
in
QCNJ
Q_
o Q
Q_
O O
O O
^.00 0'. 04 G'. 08 0.12 0.i6 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-7. Fy vs. Depth o£ Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-7
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RflOIUS - 0.250 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE - 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F ♦ .0030 IPR S ♦ .0120 IPR S CD .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o
^.00 G.G4 0.G8 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-8. FY vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter lY
A-8
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FZ VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RA0IU3 = 0.005 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
,0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR ■0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o
CO_
o o
o o t\J_
CD
en
rvj CD
■o
to"
CD CD
CD CD
%\ 0.04 0.09 DEPTH
0. OF
12 CUT
0. 16 (INCHES:
0.20 0.24 0.28
Fig. A-9. Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-9
LX-1Q TOOL FORCE STUDY FZ VS DEPTH OF CUT 0 030 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE - 0 DEGREES
X .0030 IPR F 0 .0030 IPR S CUTTER RADIUS
X 0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F * "oi20 IPR S E3 .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
CD
C3
^.00 0.04 0" 08 0. 12 0. 16 0.2G DEPTH CF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-10. Fz vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-10
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FZ VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RflOIUS = Q. 100 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR 5 m .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o lO_
O O
o o C\J_
o
o.
en
O -.
0_
rxj
o
o o
o o
^.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 DEPTH OF CUT
0.16 0.20 (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-11. Fzvs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-11
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FZ VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.250 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
« .0336 IPR F * .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F ♦ .0030 IPR S + .0120 IPR S D .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
Q O
CO.
Q O
o
C3 CD
CO
^D •. 53 co Q_
o CO
^.OC 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-12. F7 vs. Depth of Cut for LX-10 with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-12
'
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS CUTTER RADIUS 210 SFM flNO G.0336 IPR FEED
Q 0.250 DEPTH A 0.100 DEPTH X 0.020 DEPTH
o o CO_
O O
3*_
a CD
CM_
o o °\ ^_-
- ' Q_
^-^^^^^^
(PO
UN
DS
) 8
.00
xg i-l- ■_
CO
o
T ^""^■- —»■
o a
^ —
CM"
^ K- r " o o
M _^ .
28 ^ .00 O'.QU 0'.08 0'. 12 0- 16 o'. 20 0.24 0 CUTTER RADIUS (INCHES)
•• Fig. i \-13. FY vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-13
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS CUTTER RflOIUS 210 3FM AND 0.0336 IPR FEED
Q 0.250 DEPTH & 0.100 OEPTH X 0.020 OEPTH
o a
to
o o o. en
o
CM
en"
2: in. .IV"
a >-°
o
o
0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 CUTTER RADIUS (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-14. Fy vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-14
CD 0.250 RflO
LX-10 TOOL FORCE-: STUOY FZ VS CUTTER RADIUS 210 3FM flNO 0.0336 IPR FEED
A 0.iOO RflO ' X 0.020 RflO
o
CO_
CO o
CD CD
CM-
CO
CD O
CD CD
-a
^.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 O.iS 0.20 CUTTER RADIUS (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-15. Fz vs. Cutter Radius for LX-10 at Different Cutting Depths
A-15
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS FEED RATE 210 SFM, 0 DEC ATTACK, 0.250 OEPTH
□ .250 RA0IU3 * .100 RADIUS X .030 RAOIUS 4 .005 RADIUS
Q
O O
o o
o o en
en
Q_
CD O
O o in
'Q'.OO 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 FEED RATE (I PR)
0.25 0.30 0.35
Fig. A-16. Fx vs. Feed Rate for LX-10 at Various Cutter Radii
A-16
a .250 RADIUS A
LX-10 TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS FEED RATE 210 SFM, 0 DEG ATTACK. 0.250 DEPTH
100 RADIUS X .030 RAOIUS * .005 RADIUS
O
3*.
CO
§§= "-DO.
Q_
O ID
CM-,
o o J0.GQ G.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
FEED RPTE (I PR) 0.25 0.30 0.35
*10"!
Fig. A-17. Fy vs. Feed Rate for LX-10 at Various Cutter Radii
A-17
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.005 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
« .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F ♦ .0030 IPH * .0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o a*
o to
CD CC
O
CO
ZD ■.
Q_
X o ■a*
o CO
o CO
o CD
^D.QO 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-18. FY vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter X
A-18
Ä .0336 + .0120
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS OEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.030 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F <J> .0030 IPR S B .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
IPR S
o CO
CD en
o CO
CO
go ZJ -.
Q_
o 'CO
o
CO
^Q 0.04 Q.08 0.12 CIS Q.20 DEPTH CF CUT (INCHES)
G'. 211 0.28
Fig. A-19. Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-19
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = O.IOO INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
« .0336 IPR F * .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F <J> .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S □ .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o
o in
o O
O
CO
Q_
o ■in
o 00
o IX)
o
^tj.OO 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-20. Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-20
RX-03-8B TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.250 INCH. ATTACK ANGLE = Q DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR * .0120 IPR S Q .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
CO
O CO
o CO
CO
go ZJ -.
X
a CO
o CD
^tj.OO 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH GF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-21. Fx vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-21
L
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS OEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS = 0.005 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F & .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S Q .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o
o
o o CM.
o CD
to
S) ■
)— o
-CD
o CD
CD CD
CD O
^.00 0.04 0.08 DEPTH
0. 12 3F CUT
0.16 0.20 (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-22. Fy vs, Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.005 inch Radius Cutter
A-22
RX-03-88 TOCL FORCE 5TU0Y FY VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS - O.Q30 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DECREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F ♦ .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S CD .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
"3-,
o o
o
o_
CO
go rj •.
Q_
>- u_5
o
^3.00 0.04 0.08 DEPTH
r 0.
CF 12 CUT
0. 16 (INCHES:
0.20 0.24 0.28
Fig. A-23. FY vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.030 inch Radius Cutter
A-23
0 .03 35 .0120
IPR IPR
RX-03-BBT0QI FORCE STUDY FY VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS « F A .0240 IPR F S E .0240 IPR 3
100 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR Y .0335 IPR S
DEGREES ♦ .0030 IPR
a o <o_
^.00 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.25
Fig. A-24. FY vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.100 inch Radius Cutter
A-24
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS DEPTH OF CUT CUTTER RADIUS - 0.250 INCH, ATTACK ANGLE = 0 DEGREES
X .0336 IPR F A .0240 IPR F + .0120 IPR F X .0030 IPR F O .0030 IPR S * .0120 IPR S D .0240 IPR S Y .0336 IPR S
o o co_,
C3
o o
CO
ro -. ISO CO
>— CD
CD o
CM"
°G.Q 04 0.08 0.12 0. i6 0.20 DEPTH OF CUT (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-25. F vs. Depth of Cut for RX-03-BB with 0.250 inch Radius Cutter
A-25
RX-03-B8 TOOL FORCE STUDY FX VS CUTTER RADIUS 150 SFM AND 0.0336 IPR FEED
□ 0.250 DEPTH A 0.100 DEPTH X 0.020 DEPTH
o 3*
v£>
O CO
tn
o CO
CD O
O a.
O CO
O
O a
^.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 CUTTER RADIUS (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-26. Fv vs. Cutter Radius for RX-03-BB at Different Cutting Depths A
A-26
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUDY FT VS CUTTER RADIUS 150 SFM AND 0.033G IPR FEED
□ 0.250 DEPTH A 0.100 DEPTH X 0.020 DEPTH
o o <o-
o o 3«.
o
C\J.
o o o_
-z. -.
>- a
CD
o o
o o
^.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 O.iS 0.20 CUTTER RADIUS (INCHES)
0.24 0.28
Fig. A-27. F vs. Cutter Radius for RX-03-BB at Different Cutting Depths
A-27
RX-03-8B TOOL FORCE STUDY FY VS FEED RATE 150 SFM, 0 DEG ATTACK, 0.250 DEPTH
0 .250 RADIUS A .100 RADIUS X .030 RA0IU3 ♦ .005 RADIUS
o
o o co.
o o 3*_
CO o CM-
CO
Q_
>-
o
co
o o
^t'.OO 0.C5 0.10 G.15 0.20 FEED RATE (IPR)
0.25 0.30 0.35
Fig. A-28. Fy vs. Feed Rate for RX-03-BB at Various Cutter Radii
A-28
CD .250 RADIUS
RX-03-BB TOOL FORCE STUQY FX VS FEED RATE 150 3FM.. 0 OEG ATTACK. 0.250 OEPTH
<* .100 RADIUS X .030 RAOIUS * .005 RAOIUS
o CO
m
o
o 3*
CD
Q_
X a ■CO
CO
O CO
CM
O'. 25 ^.00 0.05 0.10 0. 15 0.20 FEED RATE CIPR)
0.30 0.35 KlQ"
Fig. A-29. FY VS. Feed Rate for RX-03-BB at Various Cutter Radii
A-29
DISTRIBUTION
DOE
Ralph E. Caudle Assistant Director of Operations Military Application Attn: Robert E. Clough Washington, DC
ALO
H. N. Meyer, Director Weapons Development Division
R. R. Fredlund, Jr., Director Classification § Technical
Information
AAO
G. W. Johnson Operations Branch
Mound Facility
R. T. Braun
SNLL
R. D. Cozine - Org. 8180
LLNL
G. S. Root (15 Copies) Attn: A. C. Van Dyk
C. T. Brockett, Technical Information Dept.
LANSL
E. H. Eyster - WX-DO Attn: J. J. Wechsler
J. Aragon - WX-3
Report Library - ISD-4
SNLA
B. E. Arthur - Org. 4370
J. C. Crawford - Org. 2500/ D. H. Anderson - Org. 2510
C. B. McCampbell - Org. 2300
Central Technical Files - Org. 3141
TIC
Technical Information Center (27 Copies)
Oak Ridge, TN
PX
Division Manager, Mfg. Engineering Division Manager, Quality Division Manager, Development Division Manager, Manufacturing Division Manager, Safety § Fire
Protection Technical Library
Circulation Copy:
(1) Plant Manager (2) M§H-SMCo., Inc., Lexington, KY
B-l
