ISSN 1068-798X, Russian Engineering Research, 2007, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 390–391. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2007.

Original Russian Text © V.G. Mal’tsev, 2007, published in STIN, 2007, No. 3, pp. 24–25.

Calculating the Accuracy of the Turning of Smooth Shafts

V. G. Mal’tsev
DOI: 10.3103/S1068798X07060172

When constructing the mathematical models that to the axial position of the characteristic point of the
make it possible to evaluate the accuracy of the shaping cutting edge. In this case the shaft is loaded by a unit
by turning of the outer cylindrical surfaces of the transverse force, whose line of action passes through
smooth shafts, two basic problems must be resolved: the given point. Then for the case of the installation of
obtain the numerical solution in a sufficiently simple the shaft in the chuck
fashion, and ensure the required accuracy of the model.
δ 1 = x / ( 3EI );
3
One way to simplify the model is to eliminate the non- (1)
essential factors from consideration.
for the case of the installation of the shaft in the centers
The accuracy of the turning of the outer cylindrical
δ 2 = x ( l – x ) / ( 3EIl ).
2 2
surfaces is influenced by a multitude of various techno- (2)
logical factors. Among the primary factors, particularly
in the preliminary machining process, there is the elas- Here x is the distance from the left support of the
tic deformation of the technological system (TS), workpiece to the characteristic point of the cutting
which is a function of the cutting force and the compli- edge; l is the distance between the supports (the length
ance of the given TS. of the shaft); E is the tensile elastic modulus; and I is
the axial moment of inertia of the transverse section of
The inherent compliance of the workpiece that is the shaft.
installed in a definite fashion on the machine tool Substituting into formulas (1) and (2) the value I =
makes its contribution to the compliance of the TS as a πd4/64, we obtain
whole. The instability of the dimensions of the work-
δ 1 = 64x / ( 3πEd );
pieces gives rise to the corresponding instability of the 3 4

compliance of the TS. However, in many cases this (3)

δ 2 = 64x ( l – x ) / ( 3πEld ).
2 2 4
instability can be neglected.
When calculating the deformations of the TS, it is It is best to reduce the formulas (3) to the following
necessary to determine whether or not we can neglect generalized form:
the change of its compliance. This change may be
δ = A/d ,
4
caused by the deviation of the actual diameter d of the (4)
shaft workpiece from the nominal value dnom upon tran-
sitioning from one workpiece to another in a given where A is a constant quantity that is determined by the
batch. For this, it is necessary to solve the following technique of the installation of the shaft on the machine
problem. and by its length, by the location of the examined trans-
verse section along the length of the shaft, and by the
The shaft is installed in the chuck or in the centers. tensile elastic modulus: with the installation of the shaft
We term the compliance of the shaft of the diameter in the chuck A = 64x3/(3πE); with the installation in the
dnom that corresponds to some (fixed along its length) centers A = 64x2(l – x)2/(3πEl).
position of the tool cutting edge the nominal value δnom. In application to the nominal compliance, formula (4)
It is required to find the upper ∆du and lower ∆dl limiting takes the form
allowable deviations of the dimension d from the nom-
inal value dnom that correspond to the upper ∆δu and δ nom = A/d nom .
4
(5)
lower ∆δl limiting allowable deviations of the values of
the actual compliance δ from its nominal value. It follows from the condition of the problem that the
interval of the values of the shaft diameter must be such
It is known [1 and 2] that the characteristic compli- that the values of the actual compliance δ of the shaft
ance δ of the shaft of the diameter d, corresponding to with deformation of the profile of the transverse section
a particular axial position of the tool cutting edge rela- will be in the following limits:
tive to the workpiece, is equal to the deflection of the
shaft at the point with the coordinate that corresponds δ nom – ∆ δl ≤ δ ≤ δ nom + ∆ δu . (6)

390
 CALCULATING THE ACCURACY OF THE TURNING OF SMOOTH SHAFTS 391

C1, C2 ∆dl, ∆du, mm

0.05 6
C2 = f(T1) ∆du
0.03 4
C1 = f(T2) ∆dl
2
0.01
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0 40 80 120 160 200
T1, T2 dnom, mm

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

The lower and upper limiting deviations of the com- C 1 = 1 – 10 log [ 1/ ( 1 + T 2 ) ];

pliance in relation to its nominal value are
∆ δl = T 1 δ nom ; ∆ δu = T 2 δ nom ,
where T1 and T2 are the coefficients that express the
fractions that ∆δl and ∆δu constitute in relation to δnom.
It follows from expressions (6) and (7) that:
( 1 – T 1 )δ nom ≤ δ ≤ ( 1 + T 2 )δ nom .
The inequality (8) expresses the interval of the
allowable values of the actual compliance. We can
express similarly the interval of the allowable diameter
dimensions that corresponds to the interval (8):
( 1 – C 1 )d nom ≤ d ≤ ( 1 + C 2 )d nom
or
d nom – ∆ dl ≤ d ≤ d nom + ∆ du ,
where C1 and C2 are the coefficients that express the
fractions that ∆δl and ∆δu constitute relative to dnom.
Comparing the inequalities (9) and (10), we find that
∆ dl = C 1 d nom ; ∆ du = C 2 d nom .
We see from the formulas (4), (8), and (9) that to the
smallest limiting value of the compliance, which is
determined by the expression (1 – T1)δmon, there corre-
sponds the largest dimension of the shaft diameter,
which is represented in the form (1 + C2)dnom, and to the
largest limiting value of the compliance, which is deter-
mined by the expression (1 – T2)δmon, there corresponds
the smallest diametral dimension, which is expressed as
(1 – C1)dnom. From this analysis with account for for-
mula (4) there follow the relations:
( 1 – T 1 )δ nom = A/ [ ( 1 + C 2 )d nom ] ;
4 Fig. 2 cause less than 10% discrepancy between the val-
( 1 – T 2 )δ nom = A/ [ ( 1 – C 1 )d nom ] .
4
0.2
(12)
(7) C 2 = 10
0.25
log [ 1/ ( 1 – T 1 ) ] – 1. (13)
We see from relations (12) and (13) that the connec-
tion between C1 and T2, and also between C2 and T1, is
independent of the quantity A and, consequently, of the
(8) parameters that determine it.The graphs of the func-
tions (12) and (13), characterizing the relationship
between the coefficients C1 and T2 and between C2 and
T1, are presented in Fig. 1.
When performing the practical accuracy calcula-
tions, it is generally sufficient to consider the parame-
(9) ters with an accuracy of 10%. If we apply this concept
to the compliance of the shaft and take T1 = T2 = 0.01,
we obtain from the formulas (12) and (13) the values
(10) C1 ≈ 0.0235 and C2 ≈ 0.0267. In this case formulas (11)
take the form
∆ dl ≈ 0.0235d nom ; ∆ du ≈ 0.0267d nom . (14)
It follows from the formulas (14) that the deviations
(11) ∆dl and ∆du for the specific values of the coefficients T1
and T2 are connected with the value of dnom by propor-
tional relationships. Figure 2 presents the graphs of the
functions (14) with 10% deviation of the actual values
of the compliance of the shaft from the corresponding
nominal values.
We note that in the examination of the allowable
deviations of the actual dimensions of the shaft diame-
ter it was assumed that the compliance of the TS is
determined only by the compliance of the workpiece. If
we consider the deformations of the other elements of
the TS as well, the values of ∆dl and ∆du that follow from
ues of the actual and nominal compliance.

Substituting into these relations the value of δnom REFERENCES

from the formula (5), we find
1. Korsakov, V.S., Tochností mekhanicheskoi obrabotki
1 – T 1 = 1/ ( 1 + C 2 ) ;
4
1 + T 2 = 1/ ( 1 – C 1 ) .
4 (Accuracy of Mechanical Treatment), Moscow: Mashi-
nostroenie, 1961.
Solving these equations for the coefficients C1 and 2. Matalin, A.A., Tekhnologiya mashinostroeniya (Machine-
C2 with the use of the logarithmization and potentiation Building Engineering), Leningrad: Mashinostroenie,
operations, we obtain 1985.

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 27 No. 6 2007