7 views

Uploaded by Suman Chatterjee

paper

save

- Multi Objective Calibration of a Distributed Hydrological Model Using a Genetic Algorithm
- 1-s2.0-S1876619614000485-main
- Chak Har Mousseau in Book 2007 b
- Report_Wind Turbine Rotor Optimization
- Streamline Thesis
- Managerial Decision Analysis On Goal Programming
- 06070190
- Charcoal Press Build It Teaching Notes
- Optimal placement of on-load tap changers in distribution networks using SA-TLBO method1-s2.0-S0142061514005602-main
- 1) Genetic Algorithm
- manutenção inglês.pdf
- Lattice Tower
- Optimal Demand Side Bidding
- or gati
- Chemical Reaction optimization
- Operation Research
- DOK_MKD_Boring-bits.pdf
- Simulation optimizationa for repetitive projects
- Bosch - Catalog Accesorii Profesionale 2012-2013
- LINGO8 Tutorial
- De - Your Software Suggests a Design Revision
- optimazation Chapter_2
- RelaySimTest AppNote Systembased Testing Line Differential Protection Transformer 2017 ENU
- Carp 1
- 0072
- Section 14
- Carpentry I
- Assignment 2 Nov 2013
- Carpentry I
- Power System with PSS.pdf
- Aimtdr2014 Fullpaper Template (2)
- 1-s2.0-S1526612513000959-main
- 1-s2.0-S089069551400011X-main
- Wind Energy Nguyen Hoang Viet Final 18102
- 1-s2.0-S2212827112001138-main
- Doc1
- 2012 PEEK Hdbk Roeder
- 1-s2.0-S1003632614630715-main
- 1-s2.0-S089069551400011X-main(1)
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs10589-007-9108-y
- 1-s2.0-S0141635909001354-main
- Reference
- Ci
- Certificate of the Guide
- FMS Fundamentals
- ijest-ng-vol2-no1-pp92-102
- 090606-363.1
- 1482.fulld
- 14-J2009-05246_2253-2259-2260백_.pdf
- ff
- Pe1103.pdf
- Kelken-US-Metric-Chart-ASTM-A276-SS-304.pdf

E. Abele

1

(1), M. Fujara

1

Institute of Production Management, Technology and Machine Tools

1

Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany

Abstract

Designing a high-performance twist drill is difficult due to the complex relationship between drill geometry and numerous and conflicting

design goals. Earlier approaches of computer-aided twist drill design are limited to only few design aspects. This article presents a new

holistic method of using computing power for twist drill design and optimization. A complete drill geometry model is used to obtain drill

performance characteristics and to ensure functional capability. Numerical simulation models calculate structural stiffness and stability,

torque and thrust force, coolant flow resistance, chip evacuation capability and chip flute grindability. A multi-objective geometry

optimization is realized by implementing metaheuristic optimization algorithms. As a result, a numerical overall optimization of twist drill

performance is possible.

Keywords: Drilling, Tool Geometry, Optimization

1 Introduction

Even today, more that 200 years from the date of invention, the

design of an efficient and powerful twist drill is still a very difficult

task. The complex geometry compared to other types of cutting

tools incorporates numerous conflicts of design objectives such as

low cutting forces, wear resistance, torsional and axial stability, chip

evacuation capability and more. Handling those interdependencies

requires a high level of experience from the tool designer. Most

approaches of simulation-based drill design focus on a limited

number of geometrical aspects such as optimization of cross-

section geometry or optimization of drill point grinding parameters.

Chen et al. and Paul et al. investigated the relationship of a

parametric twist drill point geometry and mechanical loads with the

aim of cutting force reduction but without consideration of drill

stability and chip evacuation [1, 2, 3]. Audy developed a method for

computer-assisted drill point design with consideration of cutting

forces for arbitrary cutting edge geometries [4]. Treanor et al.

applied the finite element method (FEM) to twist drill stress analysis

not for design but verification [5]. These approaches are limited to

specific design aspects and do not propose new drill geometries

automatically. Due to new twist drill applications, such as deep hole

drilling, micro machining, high-speed and dry machining, an

automated holistic drill design and optimization strategy becomes

desirable. Jang et al., Chen et al., Schulz et al. and Abele et al.

developed design and optimization strategies for multiple design

aspects including a twist drill FEM analysis [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

These studies have limitations because of their simplified drill

geometry models or too few optimization criteria. An effective

computer-assisted twist drill design requires multiple conflicting

optimization criteria to be incorporated simultaneously. Furthermore

a drill geometry model is required to represent important design

features of modern twist drills, such as reverse web taper and

internal cooling channels which are absent in most previous

approaches. All pre-existing drill design approaches lack of an

integrated grindability verification, which is considered essential for

cross-section design. In contrast to earlier approaches, this article

describes a new approach of a holistic simulation-based method of

twist drill design using multiple design objectives. A drill geometry

model, capable of representing modern deep hole drilling tools with

reverse web taper and multi-faced point grinding is used to

determine the most relevant drill performance characteristics. For

the determination of optimal drill geometry for given requirements,

multi-objective optimization algorithms are implemented.

2 Methodology

2.1 Geometry Optimization Concept

The optimization architecture is designed for the application of

evolutionary optimization algorithms (Fig. 1). A predefined drill

geometry solution set, the start generation, is evaluated by all

fitness functions and constraint functions. For the start generation,

measured drill geometries from existing drills and new designs are

used. It is important, that the start generation has a large variety of

drill geometries. Various simulation models are used as fitness

functions, such as finite element analysis of twist drill stiffness and

stability, semi-empiric cutting force model for drilling torque and

thrust prediction, analytical fluid dynamics for calculation of coolant

flow resistance and estimation of chip evacuation capability.

Constraint functions verify the validity and functional capability of

drill design solutions, such as a chip flute grindability verification

and compliance with size, orientation and location tolerances. While

a fitness function returns a quantitative fitness value, a constraint

function returns validity or invalidity of the drill solution. An overall

fitness value is calculated from the return values by an evaluation

scheme, for example with weighted sum method. Depending on the

complexity of optimization task, other evaluation schemes such as

Pareto-dominance-based rankings may become necessary.

Fig. 1. Twist drill geometry optimization flowchart

Hereafter the optimization algorithm generates new solutions.

Therefore, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is used, but other evolutionary

algorithms have also been proven suitable, for example evolution

strategy algorithm or particle swarm optimization algorithm. In the

next iteration loop step, the new solution set is evaluated again by

all fitness functions and constraint functions. The iteration loop

repeats until a stop criterion is fulfilled, for example the

achievement of a specified fitness value.

2.2 Twist Drill Geometry Representation

For the efficiency of the optimization approach, the drill geometry

representation is of great importance. All design attributes relevant

for twist drill performance should be represented as complete and

precise as possible. For the creation of all new drill geometries, a

very versatile geometry model is preferable. Conversely, for the

application of optimization heuristics to the drill geometry problem,

a low number of design parameters is preferable.

Fig. 2. Parametric model of twist drill cross-section profile

For the geometry model (Fig. 2), drill margin, body diameter and the

transition between them are modeled as radiuses. The flute from

body to margin or protection chamfer is a B-Spline of third order

with 6 control points. Due to the parametric description, a change of

few parameters does not compromise profile integrity. Only 5

parameters do a complete description from margin to heel. The

flute can represent virtually any design by adjusting the location of

point 4 and 5, optionally 3. Point 1 is always at heel, point 6 at

margin. Point 2 is near 1 on a virtual extension of drill body

diameter to cause the Spline to start tangential to drill body

diameter. To model a web taper, a second and third cross-section

model with some modification to the first but with same layout is

implemented to represent the cross-section with tapered web close

to shank. Very few parameters define the differences to the first

cross-section (points 3-5 + drill body width). Points 1 and 2 are

coupled to heel location. A facet point grinding with 3 flank faces

per lip is used. The faces are described as grinding plane normal

vectors (Fig. 3). The third flank face additionally has a point thinning

angle.

Fig. 3. Drill point geometry definition

Primary and secondary cutting edges are formed by intersection of

grinding planes and drill profile. For the calculation of the cutting

edge shape for cutting force models, it is divided into a number of

elemental cutting tools (ECTs) (Fig 4).

Fig. 4. Cutting edge geometry calculation

2.3 Optimization Algorithm

For the drill geometry optimization approach (Fig. 1) a conventional

GA [12] is implemented in Matlab. A direct coding of the cross-

section is used without abstract binary representation. Thus, the

recombination operator most likely creates valid solutions.

Therefore, the cross-section model has been found more

appropriate compared to Bezier curve based models formerly used.

For most parameters, additive mutation is used with exponentially

distributed summands and parameter specific expectation values.

For some parameters, flank face normal vectors for instance,

adapted mutation operators with normal distribution within limits are

used. Selection operator uses a roulette wheel algorithm. For multi-

criteria optimization, a weighted sum evaluation scheme is used to

calculate an overall fitness from single fitness values. This is easy

to adjust and appropriate for optimization scenarios with few fitness

functions. Scenarios with more than three fitness functions show a

problematic behavior. A gain in one fitness function

overcompensates losses in other fitness function, resulting

insufficient controllability of the optimization. For example an

excessive gain in torsional stiffness due to flute size reduction

overcompensates a loss in chip evacuation capability. For improved

multi-criteria optimization, Pareto-dominance-based advancements

of the GA, MOGA and NSGA-II are implemented. Using non-

dominance rankings and euclidean distances as a reference for

selection propability, a Pareto-based multi-criteria optimization of

the drill geometry is possible. As a result, the optimization is not

seeking for a global optimum, but is developing a pareto-optimized

solution set for various requirement profiles.

3 Fitness and Constraint functions

3.1 Finite Element Analysis of Drill Stiffness and Stability

The drill body takes torque and thrust force loads. A high torsional

stiffness K

1

reduces both dynamic load and torsional chatter

vibration. High bending stiffness K

B

improves drill centering ability

and avoids self-excited unbalance vibration of extra-long drills. The

torsional stress per torque K

c

I

in conjunction with carbide tensile

strength determines the maximal torque the drill may take. Some

investigations show a correlation of tool life and torsional stiffness

[5]. For the calculation of K

1

, K

c

I

und K

B

, an automated twist drill

FEM modeling and computation is built using Matlab and Ansys.

First, an APDL script (Ansys parametric design language) is

generated from Matlab scripts, containing modeling and

computation commands as well as drill profile in polygons (variable

along drills longitudinal axis). For the drill modeling in Ansys,

polygon points are approximated using splines and joined by ruled

surfaces. The drill body geometry is meshed using tetrahedron

elements. As clamping constraint, all nodes at shank side are fixed.

For torsion load, two tangential forces equivalent to H

z

= 1 Nm are

applied at drill corners. For the bending load case, nodal forces are

applied to drill point, equivalent to F

B

= 1 N. After computation of

static response, nodal displacements and maximum principal

stresses are saved to a text file for data import to Matlab.

Fig. 5. Twist drill FEM model, principal stress in drill cross-section

For K

1

, nodal displacements at margin in two reference planes

located with distance to loads and constraints are evaluated (Fig.

5). K

1

is calculated from nodal displacement difference u

2

-u

1

,

margin radius r

mu¡gìn

and reference plane distance l

¡c]

.

K

1

=

H

z

Iorsion

=

H

z

u

2

-u

1

r

mu¡gìn

∙ l

¡c]

The total torsional stiffness I = K

1

∙ l

d¡ìII

depends on drill length

l

d¡ìII

. This excludes misinterpretation cause by excessive stresses

due to nodal force application or notching effects. The maximal

principal stress o

I,cuIc

between reference planes divided by given

torque H

z,cuIc

is evaluated as torsional stress per torque K

c

I

. The

nominal drilling torqe limit H

z,Iìmìt

can by calculated with knowledge

of carbides tensile strength o

mux

.

H

z,Iìmìt

=

o

mux

K

c

I

=

o

mux

o

I,cuIc

H

z,cuIc

The bending stiffness K

B

is calculated from bending force F

B

and

maximal overall displacement max(u).

K

B

=

F

B

max(u)

It should be noted that because of the non-uniformity of twist drill

cross-section and because of cross-section warping, analytical

calculation methods using moments of inertia are not applicable for

torsional stiffness and stress analysis. Exemplary calculations have

proven that there is not even a reasonable correlation of second

moment of inertia and torsional stiffness from FEM. This points out

that a three-dimensional FEM calculation is essential for twist drill

design optimization. Only for straight-flutet drills, the membrane

analogy may be used in lieu of three-dimensional FEM.

3.2 Calculation of Cutting Forces

Drilling torque and thrust is usually desired to decrease or to remain

within certain limits. Therefore, a semi-empiric cutting force model

from Chandrasekharan [13] is used with some modification. The

cutting edge is split into primary and secondary cutting edge. The

secondary also incorporates the indentation zone around the dead

center. The large variation of cutting conditions requires a

discretization of cutting edges into ECTs (Fig. 6). For this modeling

technique it is assumed, that all forces acting on the cutting edge

can be expressed by two components, friction force F

]

in the rake

face plane and normal force F

n

normal to the rake face.

Fig. 6. Elemental cutting tool (ECT), cutting angles

Friction force F

]

and normal force F

n

are assumed as proportional to

the chip cross-section area A

c

of the ECT.

F

n

= K

n

∙ A

c

& F

]

= K

]

∙ A

c

The specific normal force K

n

und specific friction force K

]

are

different on each ECT. A power law models the relation of specific

normal and friction force and cutting-related parameters.

K

n

= o

0

∙ t

c

u

1

∙ :

c

u

2

∙ (1 -o

n

u

3

)

K

]

= b

0

∙ t

c

b

1

∙ :

c

b

2

∙ (1 -o

n

b

3

)

The coefficients o

0

, …, o

3

and b

0

, …, b

3

are specific for tool and

workpiece material and determined from calibration experiments

with multivariate regression. For the calibration, spot drilling

experiments are used with different cutting speeds and feed rates

and full factorial design. When the drill engages the workpiece, the

width of cut continuously increases and increments from thrust and

torque signal are assigned to each ECT. F

]

and F

n

are calculated

for each ECT by transformation. In a reverse direction, F

z

and H

z

can be calculated for arbitrary drill geometries from geometric data

and coefficients o

0

, …, o

3

and b

0

, …, b

3

. Verification experiments

show that prediction accuracy is increased if two separate models

for primary and secondary cutting edge are used. Calibration

experiments were carried out with six different twist drill geometries.

The variance of the coefficients o

0

, …, o

3

and b

0

, …, b

3

from these

experiments was very low. This qualifies the cutting force model for

prediction of F

z

and H

z

of new twist drill geometries. A weak point is

the lack of a reliable cutting force model for thrust force from the

indentation zone. Currently, this force is included in the secondary

cutting egde force model. A significant extension of the indentation

zone would result in thrust force estimation errors. To prevent this,

a separate constraint function limits the indentation zone size.

3.3 Chip Evacuation Capability

An appropriate chip evacuation capability (CEC) is essential for

twist drills. CEC is considered as good if chip removal does not lead

to a significant torque increase while drilling depth increases. In

practice, multiple parameters are known to influence CEC.

Systematic investigations are difficult because of parameter

interactions. Some parameters, such as exact chip forming, are still

not predictable with adequate accuracy. A simple method for CEC

prediction is the evaluation of flute cross-sectional area [8, 9, 10,

11]. Hands-on experience does acknowledge its relevance on CEC.

However, this criterion neglects the influence of the flute shape. A

more sophisticated method is the calculation of the maximum

inscribed ellipse size in the flute cross-section [14]. An ellipse rather

than a circle is used as spiral chip representation because of the

drill twist. The cross-sectional shape of spiral chips is roughly

circular in a projection normal to chip flow direction. Due to the helix

angle of chip flow, it becomes an ellipse in a drill cross-sectional

view (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Iterative best-fit of the maximum inscribed ellipse to chip flute cross-section

In this assumption, the ellipses minor axis is aligned with the drill

center point and contacts the hole wall at one and the flute at two

points. Both criteria seem eligible for computer-aided geometry

optimization and do well in fist trials. However, they do only a very

inaccurate and abstract CEC estimation [11]. Experimental

investigations have been carried out to find a universal relation of

CEC and a model-based criterion. Even though the general

tendency that very small flutes are prone to chip clogging can be

acknowledged, no general relation between the flute size and CEC

could be found. As a result, the flute enlargement through reverse

web taper has the most significant effect on CEC. Spiral chips,

formed in a flute region close to the drill point are in a state of radial

compression. A comparing of the spiral chip diameter with the best-

fit ellipse diameter shows this phenomenon. A flute enlargement

reduces mechanical transmission due to reduced friction between

chips and the hole wall. Thus, it reduces torque increase. Even

though also chip formation and chip breakage influence chip

clogging, the chip clogging tendency is noticeably reduced. For an

improved CEC criterion, chip expansibility due to flute enlargement

is taken into account. In experiments short breaking spiral chips

from thick web twist drills deviate from a circular shape. A better

chip shape prediction was attained with a new chip forming model

(Fig. 8). The actual chip shape depends on chip flute shape in chip

flow direction. It is partially a copy of the chip flute curvature but has

also smaller radiuses.

Fig. 8. Chip shape and expansibility in chip flute estimation

In step 1 two ellipses with an empirically determined radius are

fitted to the upper and lower boundary. The drill center aligns with

the ellipse’s minor axis. The ellipse’s sections from the flute to the

hole wall contact point are considered as part of predicted chip

shape. In step 2, the missing segments of the chip shape are

determined from hole wall and chip flute. In step 3, the chip

expansibility is determined as the maximum possible scale-up of

the spiral chip shape. The chip shape prediction from step 1 and 2

is experimentally verified with 9 twist drills with different flute sizes

and shapes. The maximal diameter prediction error was 11%. A

qualitative CEC value is derived from the maximal possible scale-

up percentage while an increase is valued within certain limits.

Additionally, a minimum chip size threshold is set to avoid

unacceptable small chip flutes. Typical flute enlargements are

made by various grinding techniques. In a test series with different

web tapers, those drills with a chip flute enlargement of at least 8%

over 100 mm had a proper CEC, regardless of flute size.

3.4 Coolant Flow Resistance

An effective supply of aqueous cooling lubricants (abbreviated

coolant) reduces thermal and mechanical load to cutting tools.

Additionally, the coolant volume flow supports chip evacuation.

Particularly for extra-long twist drills, adequate coolant flow

resistance of twist drills coolant channels is critical for sufficient

coolant supply. The common method to overcome flow resistance

by high supply pump pressure is limited. Therefore, geometry

optimization to reduce flow resistance is desirable. This fitness

function predicts the coolant flow I

**for a given supply pressure p
**

1

with respect to drill length l

DrIII

, coolant channel diameter u

CC

,

distance from drill center to coolant channel center i

CC

, twist length

l

twIst

and gap width from coolant channel outlet to hole bottom w

u

.

The flow speed is gauged by catching and weighting the fluid.

Coolant density p is determined by weighting a measuring pitcher.

The comparison of flow speeds from water and coolant through a

capillary tube determines the dynamic viscosity p. For the first

investigation, the drill is considered to blow off freely without flow

resistance from workpiece. The coolant channel flow is assumed as

pipe flow with additional intake and outlet pressure drops. A

pressure drop caused by channel warping is negligible low.

Measurements on twist drills with D=3..20 mm and L/D=3..30 result

in Reynolds numbers of 16,000 to 148,000, far beyond laminar flow

threshold of 2,300. Therefore, the type of flow is turbulent.

Roughness measurements show that the channel surfaces are

hydraulic smooth without extra resistance from surface roughness.

According to [15] the pipe flow coefficient λ is

z =

u.S164

√Rc

4

Bernoulli’s equation applied to the twist drill states (Fig. 9):

p

1

+

p ∙ u

1

2

2

= p

2

+

p ∙ u

2

2

2

+Ap

d¡ìII

u

1

, u, u

2

refer to the flow speeds before intake, in the channel and

after outlet (Fig. 9). Because u

2

2

≫ u

1

2

, it is considered that u

1

2

= u.

For the flow speed after blow-off, a reference distance of 1u ∙ u

CC

is

used. Here p

2

equals the (negligible) atmospheric pressure and

u

2

= u.62S u [16]. Ap

d¡ìII

is the total pressure drop.

Fig. 9. Flow resistance model

Accordingly, the simplified Bernoulli’s equation is

p

1

=

p

2

(u.62S ∙ u)

2

+ Ap

d¡ìII

Ap

d¡ìII

consists of the following pressure drop terms.

Ap

d¡ìII

= Ap

Intukc

+ Ap

CC

+ Ap

0utIct

= ç

Intukc

∙

p

2

∙ u

2

+ ç

CC

∙

p

2

∙ u

2

+ ç

0utIct

∙

p

2

∙ u

2

The intake pressure drop Ap

Intukc

is described by a tube entrance

with coefficient of ζ

Intake

= 0.5 [17]. The ratio of channel length l

CC

to

channel diameter J

CC

determines the turbulent pipe flow pressure

drop (Darcy’s law).

Ap

CC

=

z ∙ l

CC

∙ p ∙ u

2

2 ∙ J

CC

witb ç

CC

=

z ∙ l

CC

J

CC

Assuming the outlet as a pipe enlargement the outlet pressure drop

according to [18] is

Ap

0utIct

=

p ∙ u

2

2

∙ (1 -

A

1

A

2

)

2

witb A

2

= ∞ ∶ Ap

0utIct

=

p ∙ u

2

2

So the total pressure drop of the twist drill becomes

p

1

(u) = u

2

∙

p

2

∙ _

121

64

+

z l

CC

J

CC

]

The twisted coolant channel length l

CC

is

l

CC

= _

_2 ∙ n ∙ r

CC

∙

l

Ð¡ìII

l

twìst

]

2

+l

Ð¡ìII

2

In summary, the required supply pressure p

1

for a given coolant

flow I

is

p

1

(u) =

8 ∙ p ∙ I

2

n

2

∙ J

CC

4

`

Í

Í

Í

121

64

+

_

_2 ∙ n ∙ r

CC

∙

l

KK,z

l

twìst

]

2

+l

KK,z

2

J

KK

u.S164 ∙ √u

4

√u ∙ J

4

/

¹

¹

¹

In validation experiments, the prediction error of flow rate was about

3.27%. In the actual drilling process, coolant outflow passes a gap-

shaped narrowing between flank face and hole bottom. The

additional flow resistance is of importance for tool design. Further

calculations use a simplified cylindrical model of the outlet gap

shape (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Coolant channel outlet gap, shape calculation and simplified model

A common formula for tube denting pressure losses determines the

pressure drop Ap

uup

.

Ap

uup

=

p ∙ u

2

2

∙ (

A

uup

A

KK

- 1)

2

Because of an insufficient correlation with experiments, a new

empiric function is set up from experimental data.

Ap

uup

= ç

uup

∙

p ∙ u

2

2

witb ç

uup

= ¡ _

A

uup

A

CC

]

For this purpose, a face-grinded carbide round stock with coolant

channels is positioned with gap distances over a baffle, measuring

the flow rate. This gives a characteristic curve of flow resistance

and gap width. It was determined that for

A

Gcp

A

CC

> 2 the pressure drop

is negligible low (this equates w

u

= u.S ∙ J

CC

). Two ranges apply for

values below this ratio.

Foi u.2 ¸

A

Gcp

A

CC

< u.6: ç

uup

= -1uS2.9 ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

+ 7u6.S6

Foi u.6 ¸

A

Gcp

A

CC

¸ 2: ç

uup

= -S1.986 ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

5

+ 4u4.S6 ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

4

-1,24u.S ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

3

+

1,877.8 ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

2

-1,4u8.S ∙

A

Gcp

A

CC

+ 422.66

The gap shape is calculated and averaged with a geometry model

in Matlab (Fig. 11). The neglect of a non-linearity regarding the gap

width averaging leads to a pessimistic estimation of the flow rate.

Fig. 11. Actual outlet gap width calculation and linear averaging

It is important that in the drilling process the hole bottom is not a

cone. The feed rate ¡ determines its obliqueness. The following

equation describes the hole bottom shape in the drilling process:

_

x

y

z

_

hoIc bottom

= _

cos o -sin o u

sin o cos o u

u u 1

_ ∙ _

x

y

z

_

LC1

-_

u

u

1

_ ∙

]∙u

360

Ap

uup

is experimentally verified with a non-rotating drill in a

predrilled blind hole. Because the finished hole bottom is a cone,

shape deviations cause increased gap widths w

u

and hence

decreased pressure drops Ap

uup

. Further mechanisms such as

centrifugal forces and two-phase flow in chip flute are very difficult

to model and assumed to be of minor relevance for twist drill

design. The final relation of p

1

and I

**ends in this equation:
**

p

1

(I

) =

8 ∙ p ∙ I

2

n

2

J

4

_

121

64

+

z ∙ l

CC

J

CC

+

ç

uup

2

]

The result is a coolant flow prediction with sufficient accuracy for

twist drill design.

3.5 Chip Flute Grindability

A verification of manufacturability is essential for twist drill geometry

optimization. The most critical part is the chip flute grinding in just

one grinding wheel engage. Therefore, a constraint function is built,

incorporating the approaches of Lin et al. [19, 20] and Hsieh [21]. It

solves the “inverse problem”, using a polygon-based drill profile

representation. Grindability is considered if the flute can be grinded

with one engage of grinding wheel with respect to setting angle λ

g

,

inclination angle α

g

, grinding wheel radius i

g

and maximum grinding

wheel width w

gr,max

(Fig 12).

Fig. 12. Grinding wheel engage angle definitions

For the calculation, grinding wheel is divided to a number of “discs”

with infinitesimal small width, according to the basic idea of Lin et

al. [20]. These discs contact the chip flute in one contact point (CP).

In this ideal-theoretic view, the surface normal of the chip flute

intersects the grinding wheel rotation axis at every CP (Fig. 12).

Due to the discretization of the calculation, it misses with some

skew distance. Therefore, an alternative criterion is used for CP

determination. Sectional planes intersect twist drill profiles to make

intersection curves (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13. Intersection curve generation on flute surface for contact point determination

Each intersection curve contacts the grinding disc at the CP (Fig.

14). The CP is determined by the least distance to the grinding

wheel axis in a normal to grinding wheel axis plane. Any point on

grinding wheel that concurs with the CP on the chip flute does not

cause unintentional material removal somewhere else in that

sectional plane.

Fig. 14. Grinding wheel to chip flute contact point determination

The contact curve (connection of the CPs) is not coplanar and

proceeds from heel to margin (Fig. 15). Using a fine discretization,

the contact curve gets continuous with tolerable small jumps

(Euclidean distance of two CPs). If the CP distance exceeds a

certain threshold, the discretization resolution is refined. If the

distance remains beyond the threshold, even if discretization is

refined by a factor of 2

8

, an intersection problem is identified [19,

20, 22]. The result is an incomplete material removal, unable to

grind the chip flute contour without contour violation somewhere

else (Fig. 15). Hence, the chip flute is not grindable for given

parameters.

Fig. 15. Model verification by CAD simulation of material removal

For verification and fine-tuning purposes, the CPs are transformed

into a drill cross-section plane. A comparison with an ideal twist drill

profile shows little contour errors in regions with large CP distance

due to discretization (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16. Grinding contour error verification

A model verification is conducted by Boolean operations with CAD

models of the drill and grinding wheel (Fig. 15).

Figure 17 shows the result of an investigation of the parameter

dependency of grindability regarding setting angle λ

g

and inclination

angle α

g

(Fig. 17).

Fig. 17. Grindability charts of different drill geometries

A line-by-line scanning is time-inefficient for the purpose of

grindability verification. The search may abort on first valid

parameter set detection. Checking those parameter sets with high

probability of validity first saves computing time. A histogram plot

shows that the valid parameter areas overlap in a certain region

(Fig. 18). First checks should be located within this region.

Fig. 18. Drill grindability histogram plot

Therefore, a search strategy implementation for fast grindability

checks five initial search points at first (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19. Two-stage meander-shaped search path for valid grinding parameters

If none of the initial points is grindable, the scanning continues

around the initial points on a meander-shaped path. The search

repeats with higher resolution if no point is grindable.

3.6 Further Constraint functions

Limitation of the effective (dynamic) clearance angle ∝

0c

.

∝

0c

= ∝

0

-p witb p = ton

-1

¡

2 ∙ r

LC1

∙ n

(∝

0

: static clearance angle, ¡: feed rate, r

LC1

: ECT radius). Within

the indentation zone, ∝

0c

is negative. To avoid excessive thrust

force, the indentation zone size is limited by a ∝

0c

limitation.

Flank face to hole bottom contact avoidance (in drilling process).

Transition angle limitation from primary to secondary cutting

edge, relevant for a predetermined chip breaking point formation.

Chip flute profile diameter limitation (heel and web).

Coolant channel position check (minimum distance to drill profile).

4 Exemplary Optimization Task

A twist drill geometry is optimized regarding 5 design objectives:

Chip evacuation, torsional stiffness and stability, torque and coolant

flow. The optimization algorithm is the classic Genetic Algorithm

with a weighted sum scheme and iteratively adjusted weights.

0:croll Fitncss = CEC ∙ w

CLC

+K

1

∙ w

K

T

+

1

K

c

I

∙ w

K

o

I

+I

∙ w

v +

1

H

z

∙ w

M

z

After 200 generations, the optimized solutions have various

property combinations, so no global optimum is found (90 ind./gen.,

~120h computing time). An overall fitness increase does not imply a

gain in all criteria. Thus, the user is required to pick a solution that

best fulfills the optimization goal. The optimization progress and an

examplary comparison of drill geometries before and after

optimization is illustrated in Figure 20.

Fig. 20. Optimization progress and exemplary fitness comparison of drill solutions

Improper weight settings and weighted sum design limitations can

cause unfavorable property combinations such as high torsional

stiffness and stability but extremely low chip evacuation capability

even with high overall fitness values. An alternative strategy to

avoid this, is the use of pareto-compliant ranking methods in lieu of

the weighted sum overall fitness aggregation (MOGA, NSGA-II).

5 Conclusion and Future Research Activities

In this paper a method for a holistic simulation-based twist drill

design and geometry optimization has been developed. Several

quality criteria for drill geometry solutions are implemented as

fitness functions. A three-dimensional finite elements model is used

to calculate the drill stiffness and stability. For an estimation of chip

evacuation capability, the size and shape of the spiral chip is

determined from chip flute profile. Chip size and chip expansibility

due to chip flute expansion is used as a chip evacuation capability

value. Drilling torque and thrust are computed from geometry data

using a semi-empiric cutting force model. For the prognosis of

coolant supply, the coolant flow resistance of drill is calculated.

Twist drill geometry solutions are generated and optimized

automatically by application of heuristic algorithms, such as Genetic

Algorithm, MOGA and NSGA-II. The validity of the drill geometry

solution is verified by constraint functions including a chip flute

grindability verification. This methodology gives the tool designer

extensive computer assistance. However, the automatic geometry

optimization has limitations that require further research work.

For the multi-criteria optimization, the specification of optimization

objectives using the weighted sum method is complex and may

lead to a poor controllability of the optimization progress. A self-

adaptive dynamic weight calculation may solve this problem.

The application of Pareto-dominance-based multi-objective

optimization algorithms such as MOGA and NSGA-II does not

require criterion weights to be set but does improve the initial

solution set in various directions. For drill optimization, Pareto-

based algorithms require much more computing time to achieve

equivalent results as the weighted sum scheme. For a

comparison of optimization efficiency, multi-objective particle

swarm and simulated annealing algorithms shall be implemented.

The twist drill geometry model that was used is a good trade-off

between freedom of design and required number of design

parameters (decision variables). However, such high shape

variety requires a large number of solution evaluations for

optimization convergence. A reduction in the number of decision

variables may noticeably reduce computing time.

Although fitness functions are validated separately, an

experimental verification of the entire twist drill geometry

optimization is pending. Therefore, commercially available twist

drills will be optimized and tested against each other.

6 References

[1] Chen, W.-C., Fuh K.-H., Wu C.-F., Chang, B.-R., 1996, Design optimization of

a split-point drill by force analysis, ASME J. Mat. Proc. Tech., 58:314-322.

[2] Paul, A., Kapoor, S.G., DeVor, R.E., 2005, Chisel edge and cutting lip shape

optimization for improved twist drill point design, ASME Int. J. Mach. Tool.

Manuf., 45:421-431.

[3] Paul, A., Kapoor, S.G., DeVor, R.E., 2005, A Chisel Edge Model for Arbitrary

Drill Point Geometry, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. eng., 127:23-32.

[4] Audy, J., 2008, A study of computer-assisted analysis of effects of drill

geometry and surface coating on forces and power in drilling, ASME J. Mat.

Proc. Tech., 204:130-138.

[5] Treanor, G.M., Hinds B.K., 2000, Analysis of stresses in micro-drills using the

finite element method, Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf., 40:1443-1456.

[6] Jang, D.Y., Kuo, C.-H., 1997, Geometric Parameter Optimization for Optimum

Stress in a Twist Drill using FEM, DOE, and Genetic Algorithm, Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, MR97-182.

[7] Chen, Y.R., Ni, J., 1999, Analysis and Optimization of Drill Cross-Sectional

Geometry, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, MR99-162.

[8] Schulz, H., Emrich, A.K., 2000, Optimization of the Chip flute of Drilling tools

using the Principe of Genetic algorithms, Intelligent Computation in Manuf.

Engineering, Vol. 2:371-376.

[9] Schulz, H., Emrich, A.K., 2001, Using the principle of Genetic Algorithms for

the Optimization of the Chip Flute of Drilling Tools, Production Engineering,

Vol. VIII/2:107-110.

[10] Abele, E., Schulz, H., Stroh, C., Emrich, A.K., 2002, Optimization of the Chip

flute of drilling tools with Methods of genetic algorithms, Int. Sci. Conf. Prod.

Eng. 8, Brijuni, pp. III:057-068

[11] Emrich, A.K., 2001, Optimierung des Spanraumes bei Bohrwerkzeugen mit

Hilfe Genetischer Algorithmen, Dissertation Technische Universität Darmstadt.

[12] Goldberg, D.E., 1998, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and

Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

[13] Chandrasekharan, V., 1996, A model to predict the three-dimensional cutting

force system for drilling with arbitrary point geometry, PhD Thesis, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

[14] Leadbetter, R.E., 1993, The influence of twist drill design on rigidity and chip

disposal, Thesis (MPhil), Aston University, Birmingham.

[15] Blasius, H., 1908, Grenzschichten in Flüssigkeiten mit kleiner Reibung,

Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, Vol. 56.

[16] Rinaldi, P., 2003, Über das Verhalten turbulenter Freistrahlen in begrenzten

Räumen, Dissertation, Technischen Universität München.

[17] Dubbel Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbauer, 20. Ausgabe 2007, Springer

Verlag.

[18] Spurk, J.H., Nuri, A., Strömungslehre - Einführung in die Theorie der

Strömungen, 6. Auflage 2006, Springer Verlag.

[19] Lin, C., Kang, S.K., Ehmann, K.F., 1996, A CAD approach to helical groove

machining - Part 1: Mathematical model and model solution, ASME Int. J.

Mach. Tool. Manuf., 36:141-153.

[20] Lin, C., Kang, S.K., Ehmann, K.F., 1997, A CAD approach to helical groove

machining - Part 2: Numerical evaluation and sensitivity analysis, ASME Int. J.

Mach. Tool. Manuf., 37:101-117.

[21] Hsieh, J.-F., 2005, Mathematical model for helical drill point, ASME Int. J.

Mach. Tool. Manuf., 45:967-977.

[22] Poritsky, H., Dudley, D.W., 1943, On cutting and hobbing gears and worms,

ASME J. Appl. Mech., pp. 139-146.

- Multi Objective Calibration of a Distributed Hydrological Model Using a Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byEndless Love
- 1-s2.0-S1876619614000485-mainUploaded byCorinaPîrvu
- Chak Har Mousseau in Book 2007 bUploaded byakhmadfadholi
- Report_Wind Turbine Rotor OptimizationUploaded byZaeem Khan
- Streamline ThesisUploaded byMohamed El Kiki
- Managerial Decision Analysis On Goal ProgrammingUploaded byRich Kitten
- 06070190Uploaded byEngr Muhammad Mansoor Ashraf
- Charcoal Press Build It Teaching NotesUploaded byandreo9
- Optimal placement of on-load tap changers in distribution networks using SA-TLBO method1-s2.0-S0142061514005602-mainUploaded bySatishKumarInjeti
- 1) Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byyash
- manutenção inglês.pdfUploaded byGiglliara Menezes
- Lattice TowerUploaded byGautam Paul
- Optimal Demand Side BiddingUploaded byeltower
- or gatiUploaded bygetkau6
- Chemical Reaction optimizationUploaded byKunal Yadav
- Operation ResearchUploaded bySwati Jaiswal
- DOK_MKD_Boring-bits.pdfUploaded byDeni Kurniawan
- Simulation optimizationa for repetitive projectsUploaded bydrdMunteanuMihaela
- Bosch - Catalog Accesorii Profesionale 2012-2013Uploaded byjo_rz_57
- LINGO8 TutorialUploaded byBetantya Lengkong
- De - Your Software Suggests a Design RevisionUploaded byMicheleDiSclafani
- optimazation Chapter_2Uploaded bybakhtyar21
- RelaySimTest AppNote Systembased Testing Line Differential Protection Transformer 2017 ENUUploaded bykarimi-15
- Carp 1Uploaded byanvaralizadeh
- 0072Uploaded byRebekah Schmidt
- Section 14Uploaded byHAFIZ IMRAN AKHTER
- Carpentry IUploaded byChuck Achberger
- Assignment 2 Nov 2013Uploaded byNajdi Mat Saleh
- Carpentry IUploaded bygodot011508
- Power System with PSS.pdfUploaded byroyclhor

- Aimtdr2014 Fullpaper Template (2)Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S1526612513000959-mainUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S089069551400011X-mainUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- Wind Energy Nguyen Hoang Viet Final 18102Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S2212827112001138-mainUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- Doc1Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 2012 PEEK Hdbk RoederUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S1003632614630715-mainUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S089069551400011X-main(1)Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs10589-007-9108-yUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1-s2.0-S0141635909001354-mainUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- ReferenceUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- CiUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- Certificate of the GuideUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- FMS FundamentalsUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- ijest-ng-vol2-no1-pp92-102Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 090606-363.1Uploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 1482.fulldUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- 14-J2009-05246_2253-2259-2260백_.pdfUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- ffUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- Pe1103.pdfUploaded bySuman Chatterjee
- Kelken-US-Metric-Chart-ASTM-A276-SS-304.pdfUploaded bySuman Chatterjee