P. 1
Toyota Drilling Project Poster

Toyota Drilling Project Poster

|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by Ravi Shankar V

More info:

Published by: Ravi Shankar V on Nov 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Tool-life Analysis of Crankshaft Oil Hole Drilling and Optimization

Principal Investigator: Professor I.S. Jawahir Graduate Students: Abhijit Kardekar Ashish Deshpande Masaya Hagiwara Niranjali De Silva Shi Chen Technical Staff: William Young Sponsor: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky (TMMK)

College of Engineering

Objectives • Increase tool-life in crankshaft deep oil hole drilling process • Identify the effect of crank shaft material property variation on drilling performance • Optimize drilling conditions for improved cycle time and drilling performance • Optimize drill geometry for improved drilling performance • Recommend tool material coating for drills Crankshaft Deep Oil Hole Drilling Process
Coolant S upp ly (2 Nozzles) Drills Coolant S upp ly (2 Nozzles)

Speed-Feed and Geometry Optimization
Predicted num b er of holes for pro jected flank w ear
 w1 , max  N 1, max =  α1  C1 ⋅ V ⋅ f

   


Pred icted num b er o f holes for pro jected w id th of crater w ear
 w 2 , max  N 2 , max =  α2  C2 ⋅V ⋅ f


   



N m ax (V, f) = m in(N 1 ,ma x(V, f), N 2,max (V, f))

Speed – Feed Optimization Model
Predicted number of holes for projected flank wear
w1,max     N 1, max =    C 3 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) 

Predicted number of holes for diameter reduction
w3, max     N 3,max =    C 4 ( x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 ) 


⋅ B1 ( x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 )


⋅ B 2 ( x1 , x 2 , x3 , x 4 )

N max(x 1,x2,x3,x4) = min(N 1,max(x1,x 2,x3,x4),N 3,max(x1,x2,x 3,x4))

Speed – Feed Optimization Result

Geometry Optimization Result

Coolant S upp ly (2 Nozzles)


Coolant Supp ly 90 mm Drill (2 Nozzles)

Schematic Picture of the Crankshaft Deep Oil Hole Drilling Process

Problem Description
• Large variations in tool-life in crankshaft deep oil hole drilling process • Actual tool-life, lot lower than the expected toollife in crankshaft deep oil hole drilling process • Irregular and non-progressive tool-wear in crankshaft deep oil hole drilling process • High degree of inconsistency in geometry of the reground drills
Inco nsistent Initial Drill Geometry

Poor Drill Alignment and Large Positioni ng Errors Drill Geomet ry Opti mization

Inconsist ency in Reground Drill Geometry

Excessive Tool-wear and Drill Breakage

Speed-F eed Optimization

Geometry Optimization Model x1 = Point angle (degree) x2 = Chisel width (mm) where: x3 = Lip clearance angle (degree) w1 = Projected flank wear (mm) x4 = Relative lip height (mm) w2 = Projected width of crater wear (mm) V = Cutting speed (m/min) w3 = Diameter reduction (mm) f = Feed (mm/rev) N1 = Number of holes for projected flank wear C1, C2,α, β, γ = Empirical constants N2 = Number of holes for projected width of crater wear N3 = Number of holes for diameter reduction C3(x1,x2,x3,x4) = Geometry effects function for projected flank wear C4 (x1,x2,x3,x4) = Geometry effects function diameter reduction B1(x1,x2,x3,x4) = Drill breakage function for projected flank wear B2(x1,x2,x3,x4) = Drill breakage function for diameter reduction

Grai n Structure and Hardness Variatio n Chip Ramming Poor Chip E vacuatio n

No Geometri c Standardization due to Lack of Tool-wear Standards in Drilli ng

Tool-wear Patterns Comparisons between Non-Optimized and Optimized Drills
Validation tests were conducted successfully on the production line. Comparison of tool-wear between the non-optimized drill geometry, normally used on the production line for the process, and the optimized drill showed that the optimized drill with the optimized speed-feed conditions has uniform and progressive tool-wear with a tool-life of 270 holes. The tool-wear rate is more uniform and progressive as opposed to accelerated tool-wear and abrupt tool failure before implementation of the optimized drill geometry and optimized speed-feed conditions. The process is also more stable and predictive without any occurrence of thrust or torque faults.

Overview of the Problem
Eccentricity 80 microns

Drill Alignment Errors and Chip Ramming

After 30 Holes After 60 Holes After 100 Holes Tool-wear Patterns for Non-Optimized Drills Geometry (N = 795 rpm f = 0.094 mm/rev)

50 microns

Misalignment of Drill and Hole Axis


After 50 Holes

After 100 Holes

Drill Stage 2


Stage 2

d fee n d pi /mi Ra 3 m 1

Drill Stage 2 Drill Stage 3

α 1> α


Drill Stage 1

Metal Chip Drill

Stage 3

β 1> β
Drill Stage 1 Hole boundary

Tool holder assembly


Previous Hole

Air Gap = 1 mm

Hole boundary

Reference Plane

After 150 Holes After 200 Holes After 270 Holes Tool-wear Patterns on Drills with Optimum Geometry and Optimum Speed-Feed (N = 600 rpm f = 0.08 mm/rev)

Chip Ramming

Tool-wear Comparisons between Non-Optimized and Optimized Drills
Diameter Reduction 4.8
Projected Flank Wear (mm)

Angular Deflection

Recommended to check and maintain precise alignment Recommended to increase the air gap to more than 3 mm
Diameter (mm)

P ro jecte d F la n k W e ar

4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 0 50 100 150 200
Num ber of Holes Optimized Drill Limit Non-Optimized Drill


Grain Structure and Microhardness at Different Stages of Drilling
20 mm 1A 10 mm 1B 2A 2B 3B 3A

Stage 1 0-30mm


Stage 1 0-30 mm

Stage 2 30-60 mm

Stage 3 60-90 mm

Sections of Drilled Hole
Average Microhardness 300 Microhardness (HV) 280 260 240 220 200 1 2 Stage 3
Average HV

Stage 2 30-60mm

Observations and Analysis • Grain size decreases dramatically from stages 1-3 • Average microhardness values increases slightly from stages 1-3 Recommended normalizing the crankshaft to austenite temperature after it has been forged and cooled down to make the grain structure uniform




0 0 50 100 1 50 Nu m b e r o f H o le s 200 250 O pt im iz ed Drill W ear Lim it No n-O pt im iz ed Drill 300

Diameter Reduction Comparison for Non-Optimized and Optimized Drills

Projected Flank Wear Comparison for Non-Optimized and Optimized Drills

Tool-life and Cost Saving Improvements in Crankshaft Deep Oil Hole Drilling Process
CPU: Tool & Scrap

Stage 3 60-90mm

$0.60 $0.50


160 140 120

$0.43$0.44 $0.40

3 month Savings= $17,557
$0.34 $0.32 $0.29 $0.23$0.22$0.24 $0.28 $0.26 $0.24

50 X Magnificatio n

No. of Holes

$0.40 $0.30 $0.20


Microhardness Variation Along Depth of Hole

80 60 40

$0.22 $0.20

$0.10 $Dec03 Jan04 Feb- Mar04 04 Apr- May04 04 Jun04 Jul- Aug04 04 Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec04 04 04 04 Jan05 Feb05

Types of Tool-wear in Crankshaft Deep Oil Hole Drilling Process



Original cutting condition

Alignment + Chip ramming recommendation + No Pecking

Optimum Geometry

Optimum Geometry + Optimum SpeedFeed

Summary of Validation Results

Summary of Cost Savings

Project Accomplishments
Unworn Worn Projected Flank Wear Projected Corner Wear • Increased drill-life from 55 holes to 270 holes, an increase of about 500%, through optimization of drill geometry and cutting conditions. • Predictable and uniform drill-wear, as opposed to random and frequent drill breakage. • Reduced drill breakage from 192 drills per month to 4 drills per month. • An average annual savings of about $96,000 due to successful implementations of UK recommendations at TMMK alone. We believe that the other Powertrain plants (e.g., plant at West Viginia) also benefited significantly from our work, but we do not have details of the financial gains from other Toyota plants. • Significant improvement in operators’ morale. • Toyota hired two of our MS graduate students from the UK research team: one at TMMK (Abhijit Kardekar) and the other at TMC - Nagoya, Japan (Masaya Hagiwara)

Worn Unworn Diameter Reduction

Worn Unworn Projected Width of Crater Wear

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->