See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245385606

Design of special tools by CAD/CAM systems

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · May 1998
DOI: 10.1243/0954405981515969

CITATIONS READS

0 676

4 authors:

Carlos Rico S. Mateos

University of Oviedo University of Oviedo
71 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eduardo Cuesta Carlos Suarez

University of Oviedo University of Oviedo
142 PUBLICATIONS   655 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   323 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digitizing process planning of free-form surfaces by using Coordinate Measuring Machines with Laser Technology View project

Effects of hydrogen in the fracture and fatigue behavior of medium and high strength steels used in the storage and transportation of pressurized hydrogen View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Cuesta on 25 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 357

Design of special tools by CAD/CAM systems

J C Rico, S Mateos, E Cuesta and C M Suárez
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, School of Engineering, Gijón, Spain

Abstract: This paper presents a program for the automatic design of special tools developed under a CAD/
CAM (computer aided design/manufacture) system. In particular, the special tools made with standard com-
ponents have been considered. Since the design of these types of tools was essentially related to the selection
of their components, this paper deals with this aspect, insisting upon the selection of those components
directly related to the removal of material: the toolholders or cartridges and the inserts. To select these com-
ponents it is necessary to take into account not only geometrical or technological rules but also economical
ones, owing to the high amount of possible components they can select. Consideration of economical aspects
required the formulation of the cost equation associated with the use of these types of tools, characterized
because their cutting edges coincide with different cutting velocities. Likewise, consideration of economical
aspects allows the selection of the optimum cutting conditions and the cutting components to take place at
the same time. Some of the geometrical and technological parameters related to the selection of cutting com-
ponents are automatically identified by the system through an automatic identification of the workpiece
profile.

Keywords: special tool, cartridges and inserts, geometry identification, automatic tool components selection

NOTATION NC numerical control

P maximum machine tool power (kW)
a cutting depth (mm) Q batch size (pieces)
amin minimum feasible cutting depth due to the chip- re insert nose radius (mm)
breaker constraint (mm) Rmax maximum allowable surface roughness (mm)
amax maximum feasible cutting depth due to the chip- s tool feed rate (mm/rev)
breaker constraint (mm) smin minimum feed rate due to the chipbreaker con-
Cc cutting cost (£) straint (mm/rev)
Cd design cost (£) smax maximum feed rate due to the chipbreaker con-
Ci, ai, bi constants in the tool life equation by cutting straint (mm/rev)
edge i s 0max minimum value between smax and sR,max (mm/rev)
Cm manufacturing cost of the tool body (£) sR,max feed rate calculated for the greater nose radius
Cn cost due to loading and unloading tools (£) and taking into account the superficial rough-
Cr tool replacement cost (£) ness constraint (mm/rev)
CT total cost per component (£) t2 cutting time of the operation (min)
Ct tool cost (£) t2i cutting time for each cartridge–insert i combi-
Cv specific manufacturing cost of the cartridge nation (min)
pocket (£/mm3) t2eff, i effective cutting time for each cartridge–insert i
Di diameter for each workpiece area i (mm) combination (min)
Dmin minimum bore diameter (mm) t3 tool change time per cutting edge (min)
k approach angle (deg) t4 tool change time of the machine tool (min)
la length of approach (mm) Ti tool life for each insert i (min)
le effective insert cutting edge length (mm) Vi cutting velocity by cutting edge i (m/min)
li length machined by cutting edge i (mm) Vpi volume of cartridge pocket i (mm3)
n amount of workpiece area i x cost rate of the machine (£/min)
nce number of cutting edges of the insert y cost per cutting edge (£)
N spindle speed (r/min) yi cost per cutting edge for each cartridge–insert i
The MS was received on 5 July 1996 and was accepted for publication on combination (£)
27 November 1997. z number of cutting edges of the special tool
B05196 q IMechE 1998 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
358 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ
1 INTRODUCTION
Special tools are used for the simultaneous machining of
several parts in the same workpiece, but with only one
feed motion (Fig. 1). Thus, an important productivity
increase is obtained as a result of the reduction in the
amount of necessary tools for the whole workpiece machin-
ing. Therefore, a non-productive time reduction is asso-
ciated with the tool changes.
This productivity increase is obvious when using these
types of tools for mass production, where the special and
transfer machines are commonly used. It appears that the
usual tendency to reduce the size of the series and use
more flexible tool machines (NC machines) could lead to
a reduction in the use of special tools. However, this is
not due to the generalized use of NC machines and their
high cost rate (cost per hour). For that, improvements
have to be made in the process and the use of the special
tools considered [1, 2].
The main problem with using special tools has to do with
its complex design. In order to design the special tool body
it is necessary to know its components and its location. For
this reason the developed system combines the geometrical
tool design with the selection of components.
In many cases, the design needs specialized companies or
Fig. 1 Types of special tools: type 1, without cartridges; type 2,
with standard cartridges
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
even the manufacturers themselves. Therefore, it is interest-
ing to have a system that simplifies and facilitates the design
process according to the flexibility of tool machines used in
the workshop. In this sense, the CAD/CAM (computer aided
design/manufacture) systems make a powerful tool. The
special tools are specifically designed and manufactured
for each application. Their design and fabrication are based
on the assembly of the cutting edges over the tool body cor-
responding to the necessary operations in the piece.
Two different kinds of special tools can be distinguished:
(a) tools with cutting edges or inserts directly assembled on
the tool body (type 1, Fig. 1);
(b) tools with inserts assembled on the tool body through
small elements called cartridges (type 2, Fig. 1).
The developed program that is referred to in this paper is
the three-dimensional design for the second type of tool.
Generally, these tools have a modular design. For this
reason, the manufacturers of cutting tools include different
components in their catalogues so that the users can select
and combine them correctly when making their tools
(Fig. 2):
(a) cartridges and inserts,
(b) tool body (where the cartridges are assembled),
(c) adapters (to adapt the tool body to the shank),
(d) shank.
2 RELATED WORK
The design of special tools is usually made by the
manufacturers of tools or specialized companies. For this
reason it is very difficult to find information about these
kinds of tools. One of the most difficult aspects in the design
of special tools is the selection of its cutting components
(cartridges and inserts). This is because the work conditions
for each cutting edge are different (different diameter to
machine, different velocity, etc.). However, the general
aspects (variables, parameters, constraints, etc.) taken into
account in the selection process are similar to the selection
of components of any type of tool. Therefore, it is necessary
to deal with the general contributions about the tool cutting
selection.
The large number of cutting tools currently available and
the consequences of a bad choice make it imperative to use
computerized tool selection systems (the same may be said
about the cutting components used in the design of special
tools). This is even more important when considering not
only functional and technological aspects but also
economical ones, due especially to the high calculation
requirements.
Major research efforts in the area of tool selection started
in the early 1980s. Some of the main selection systems of
tools and cutting conditions developed up to now have taken
into consideration geometrical aspects about the profile
B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS
Fig. 2 Modular components for special tools
shape of the workpiece or its surface finish. Other systems
have taken into consideration technological aspects and
the operation constraints (mainly machine power and cut-
ting forces) and a few have considered economical aspects.
Giusti et al. [3] include a certain amount of technological
parameters in order to predict the machining behaviour of a
tool. However, a selection methodology was used based on
‘weight’ factors that were not accessible to the user; there-
fore, these factors are heavily subjective.
A hybrid approach for automatic tool selection was
proposed by Domazet [4] that used both algorithmic and
non-algorithmic programming techniques. First of all, the
cutting conditions were selected taking into account the
tool manufacturers’ recommendations, but in the end an
optimum tool selection was made by considering the cutting
costs, tool costs, etc. The Domazet procedure offers some
advantages compared to the conventional decision methods
using a rule matrix method. These matrices allow an analy-
sis to be made of the different factors that affect the solution
of one particular problem and of the greater or smaller
B05196 q IMechE 1998
359
influence (‘weight’) on each of them. Besides, the user
can easily access the decision matrices and modify the
rule base by changing the ‘weights’ of each influence fac-
tor. A similar system combining algorithmic and decision
rules was developed by Chen et al. [5] for the selection of
rough turning operations.
Maropoulos and Hinduja [6] developed a program for
the automatic tool selection in turning operations, keeping
in mind the different geometrical and technological
parameters of the process. This is similar to the planification
programs developed by Houten et al. [7], Cederquist [8] and
Zhang and Hinduja [9]. In all these programs a selection
methodology has been established taking into account the
batch sizes. In order to select the tool associated with the
smaller machining cost, Maropoulos and Hinduja [6] deter-
mined the cost using each tool. The calculation of the cut-
ting velocity was made using the minimum cost criterion.
For each tool, the possible range of feed depth is established
and the system selects the point of smaller cost within this
range, taking into account the system constraints.
Macfadyen [10] and Enparantza [11] used a knowledge-
based approach to the tool selection for turning and milling
respectively. Also, researchers like Arezoo and Ridgeway
[12], Nau and Luce [13] and Syan [1] have developed
similar systems.
With the increased use of machines at a high cost rate,
economical and technological factors must be taken into
consideration. These economical factors allow the selection
of optimum cutting conditions and have an influence on the
selection of the tool and its components. Several research
workers have attempted to calculate the optimum cutting
conditions. In this sense, research workers such as Petro-
poulos [14], Saxena and Khare [15] and Ramaswamy and
Lambert [16] in the 1970s developed different programming
methods to determine the cutting conditions in finishing
operations. Kals et al. [17] and Houten [18] developed opti-
mization procedures for external turning. They took into
account constraints about the workholding, the power avail-
able and the workpiece rigidity. Besides, they considered
that the tool should carry out several passes that have the
same cutting depth. However, only a small number of turn-
ing operations was considered.
Hinduja et al. [19] used a procedure to select the cutting
conditions based on the determination of optimum depth/
feed point combination in the a–s work diagram of the
geometry of each tool and which is compatible with the
system constraints. For this point depth/feed the optimum
velocity was calculated under an economical criterion
(minimum cost or maximum productivity). If this
velocity is not suitable for the constraints, it is modified to
suit them.
Wang and Wysk [20] developed a knowledge-based sys-
tem in 1986, taking into consideration a combined use of
empirical equations and data used in previous operations.
In an effort to automate small-batch manufacturing, Wright
[21] presented a system in 1989 to capture the expertise of
machinists, using knowledge-based engineering techniques.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
360 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ
A similar approach was propozed by Nagurka [22] and
Singh and Raman [23].
Similarly, Maropoulos and Gill [24] developed a program
to process planning of turned components, whose main
function was the selection of tools that satisfy the geometri-
cal constraints of an operation. This is also a knowledge-
based system that allows the selection of tools according
to the level of similarity between the part to be machined
and the parts previously studied.
3 GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE DEVELOPED
SYSTEM
The aim of the developed application is the design of a spe-
cial tool. It consists of three main modules (Fig. 3):
(a) Identification and validation of the workpiece profile,
(b) tool components selection,
(c) tool geometrical design.
From the two-dimensional workpiece profile the system
automatically identifies several geometrical parameters.
These parameters will be used in the components selection
process and also in the geometrical design of the tool.
Together with the identification process, the system makes
an automatic profile validation in order to look for specific
profile areas that could be machined by special tools.
The profile identification determines geometrical infor-
mation, but the system also needs technological and eco-
nomical data for selecting the components. In this sense it
has access to four databases (Fig. 3). The components data-
base contains the ISO cartridges and inserts codes, including
its range of use, carbide grades, acquisition prices, etc. The
geometry database contains the essential dimensions for
generating three-dimensional models of cartridges and
inserts. The constants in the tool life equations are stored
in the material database. Finally, the machines database
Fig. 3 Structure of the developed system
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
contains information about the spindle power, speed range,
etc.
The location and orientation of different components (in
relation to the workpiece profile) are taken into account to
build the three-dimensional model of the tool body. For
that reason the previous geometry database is required.
The application was implemented over the Intergraph
EMS system and was developed using the Intergraph
Parametric Programming Language (I/PPL), which is simi-
lar to C language in syntax.
3.1 Workpiece geometry identification
If the design process is managed automatically, the system
should be able to take out the greatest amount of informa-
tion possible from the workpiece. In this sense, an automatic
identification system was developed to know all the entities
of the workpiece profile. In this work, only two-dimensional
straight lines were considered.
The identification process of the profile begins with the
interactive selection of the following entities: the workpiece
axis and the input and output boundaries. Thus the system
knows the limits of the profile (Fig. 4). At the beginning
of the work and once the current drawing file is open, the
identification program searches for all single straight lines.
The system then stores the found entities in a file keeping
the line generation order.
The next step consists of analysing the entities one by
one, extracting the final and initial point coordinates. Hav-
ing calculated all the coordinates for each entity, the first
entity can be determined by detecting which entity has a
point just over the input boundary. In order to do this, the
developed program calculates the distance between both
extreme points from the input boundary line. If this distance
is zero, the point was on the boundary and the entity was the
first entity of the workpiece profile for machining. If there
are more entities with extreme points on the input boundary,
the system highlights the entity on the screen and asks the
user to reject or accept. If the entity is not accepted by the
user, the searching algorithm continues.
In order to find the second element of the profile, the
Fig. 4 Geometrical information required by the identification
process: boundaries and axis
B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS 361

Fig. 5 Classification of profile entities

system checks the other point (which is not on the boundary)

of the first entity by comparing whether there are any iden-
tical points in the rest of the points on the current drawing
database. When more than one segment with this same
extreme point is found (which means several possible solu-
tions) the system highlights the first possible solution asking
the user for a confirmation. In this case, the system checks
whether the other extreme point is over the output boundary
or not. If this is so, the identification process will finish.
Following this searching algorithm, a sorting list is
obtained with all the segments of the profile. At the same
time that the system identifies each segment and stores it
in a file, it calculates the following information:

(a) type of graphic element: segment;

(b) extreme (initial and final) points coordinates;
(c) minimum diameter associated with the segment (given
by the nearest extreme point to the profile axis);
(d) direction angle with the axis (Fig. 5);
Fig. 6 Transformation of the initial profile for its validation
(e) segment length and machining length;
(f) type of element (Fig. 5).
(a) all the type (-1) entities (impossible to machine by spe-
cial tools);
3.2 Profile validation
(b) the non-accessible entities of type (0);
The identification process enables the identification of the (c) the non-accessible entities of type (1);
workpiece profile. However, the profile may not match the (d) the type (1) entities that are unable to be machined by
necessary requirements for machining using special tools. special tools (a Þ k).
For this reason, an automatic validation system of the profile
has been designed. These entities will be eliminated from the profile. In their
The validation process will detect the following type of place, other ‘artificial’ entities will be located, as shown in
entities: Fig. 6.
B05196 q IMechE 1998 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
362 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ
Once the non-machining areas are eliminated, the new
profile will be made from the following elements:
(a) type (0), type (1) and type (4) entities which are able to
machine (a = k) and are accessible;
(b) the new type (2) and type (3) entities generated in the
validation process.
Taking into account the machining process, only the type (0)
and type (4) entities will be associated with the cutting
edges:
1. Type (0). The approach angle (k) will be given by the
direction (a) of the next entity. If the type (0) entity is
the last element, the approach angle will be 908. If two
type (0) entities generate the same diameter, these enti-
ties will be associated with the same cutting edge.
2. Type (4). The approach angle (k) will be given by its own
direction (a).
The system must know the initial state of the workpiece
before determining the value of the different cutting depths
and lengths for each cutting edge. In this sense, two possi-
bilities have been considered:
(a) a previous boring blank part (the user has to enter the
bore diameter);
(b) a previous shape of the blank part (in this case, the user
has to enter the stock value to remove).
In order to make the further selection process of tool car-
tridges, other needed parameters such as surface roughness
or material type will be entered by the user.
3.3 Components selection of special tools
The cartridges and inserts are the most important compo-
nents of the special tool, because they are responsible for
removing material and therefore require a complicated
selection system based as much on geometrical design as
on technological or economical aspects. Selection of the
cartridges and inserts of the tool will be established taking
into consideration the corresponding ISO codes. A part of
the information included in the cartridges and inserts codes
is coincident (shape of the insert, clearance angle, insert size
and hand of tool). For this reason, aspects concerning the
selection of cartridges and inserts will be dealt with jointly
in this section.
An important aspect, to be noted when making a selection
of the cartridges and inserts of a special tool, is that a special
tool usually has several cutting edges and each of them is in
correlation with a different diameter to machine. This
should mean that the optimum solutions (cartridge–insert
combinations) obtained taking each machining area indivi-
dually do not have to be the same as those optimum solu-
tions obtained taking the special tool as a whole. For this
reason, the designed system makes the selection of
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
cartridges and inserts as a whole. In this way, the optimum
selection of them and of the cutting conditions will be
coherent.
The normal processes of cutting tool selection start by
establishing the most suitable clamping system for the
work conditions (rough or finish, internal or external
machining, chip flow, etc.). However, in a lot of cases, dif-
ferent clamping systems can be used for the same type of
operation and that selection is hardly ever clear. Here, the
method selected will allow the cartridges with different
clamping systems to be chosen for the final solution. It
will reduce the cartridge selection almost exclusively to
their existence and satisfy the rest of the process conditions.
3.3.1 Approach angle for each cutting edge
The shape of the part to be machined usually has steps and
each of the cutting edges of the tool (cartridge–insert com-
bination) will be responsible for machining each of them.
The corresponding approach angle for the possible car-
tridges adapted to each step or area of the part is selected
in relation to the part profile geometry in this area. This
angle is automatically calculated after the identification of
the machining profile (Fig. 7). If the part geometry is
cylindrical the approach angle adopted will be 908 in order
to avoid vibrations.
After the calculation of the approach angle for each area
of the part, the system automatically determines all the
possible cartridges.
3.3.2 Size of the cartridge and insert for each cutting edge
Apart from satisfying a given approach angle, the cartridges
must observe other important requirements. In this sense,
the cutting depth for each area of the part will determine
the necessary cutting edge length and, therefore, the insert
and cartridge size.
Likewise, the cartridge size will determine whether its
location over the tool body is possible or not without inter-
fering in the workpiece. The manufacturers of standard car-
tridges for special tools include data about the minimum
bore diameter of the workpiece needed to allow the car-
tridge assembly in the tool (Dmin). In the database about car-
tridges, the value of the minimum bore diameter is
associated with each cartridge.
The approach angle of the cartridge (k) and the cutting
depth (a) determine the effective length of the insert cutting
edge (le):
a
le ¼ ð1Þ
sin k
The manufacturers advise a cutting edge length smaller than
the theoretical insert length. For this reason, a correction
factor is applied to the theoretical insert lengths data
included in the components database. After the correction
of the insert length value, the cartridges whose ISO code
associated with the insert size has a smaller value than the
effective length will not be considered.
B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS
Fig. 7 Example of a profile: three different areas to machine
Looking over the workpiece dimensions, the system will
also eliminate those cartridges related to a minimum bore
diameter value (Dmin) greater than the dimensions of
diameters in the different workpiece areas.
3.3.3 Possible inserts for each cartridge
The following step is to select from the components data-
base all the inserts that can be assembled at the beginning
on the cartridges. At this moment, the only limitation for
the inserts will be their shape and size. Therefore, for each
cartridge, the system selects the inserts with identical ISO
codes associated with the shape and length to the corre-
sponding ISO codes of that cartridge.
The number of possible solutions is very high. In order to
decrease these correct solutions, the system takes on the
database only those inserts associated with the cartridge
whose geometry, carbide grade and nose radius is compati-
ble with the working conditions. If it is not possible to find
B05196 q IMechE 1998
363
inserts with the suitable chipbreaker and grade despite the
large inserts database, the previously selected cartridge
will be eliminated.
An important datum given by tool manufacturers is the
range of use (a–s diagram) for each insert. This range repre-
sents a combination of depths and feeds where each insert
can work efficiently. The chipbreaker geometry depends
on the range of use (a–s) for each machining area, each
material type of the workpiece and each cartridge type
(clamping system). Assuming that the feed rate is unknown,
the use region is determined in relation to the depth. On the
contrary, the type of cartridge (P, S or C) is known for each
previously selected cartridge. Taking into account these
parameters, and also the recommended rules given by the
tool manufacturers, the system determines a particular chip-
breaker geometry. The tool manufacturers associate one
‘weight’ (from 5 to 1) for each chipbreaker geometry
depending on the better or worse adaptation to the working
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
364 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ

(to allow the maximum possible feed rate) and calculates

the feed rate sR,max using the expressions in equations (2)
and (3). Therefore, the range of possible feeds will be
modified to smin ¹ s0max where s0max is the minimum value
between smax and sR,max (Fig. 8).
After the process shown, there will be a group of car-
tridges for each workpiece area, each of them associated
only with one insert.
3.3.4 Reduction of the number of solutions
To reduce the number of possible solutions, the system com-
pares the contribution of each cartridge–insert combination
to the total production cost. The total production cost can be
divided into six basic cost elements:

1. Cutting cost by actual time in cut:

Cc ¼ xt2 ð4Þ

where x is the cost rate of the machine and t2 is the total

machining time.
2. Cost due to loading and unloading tools. Other non-
productive costs are not considered:

Cn ¼ xt4 ð5Þ

where t4 is the tool change time of the machine tool.

3. Tool replacement cost:
Fig. 8 Range of use of the inserts taking into account the super-
ficial roughness constraint
X
z
t2eff; i
Cr ¼ xt3 ð6Þ
l
Ti
conditions. To select the best carbide grade of the insert a
where z is the number of cutting edges, t3 is the tool
similar process has been made (taking into account the
change time per cutting edge, teff,i is the effective cutting
advice of the tool manufacturers).
time for each cartridge–insert i combination and Ti tool
Regarding the nose radius, it is linked to the operation
life for each insert i.
type (finishing or roughing), surface roughness and feed
4. Tool cost:
rate. For finishing operations, the following expression
will be used: X
z
t2eff;i
Ct ¼ yi ð7Þ
s 2
l
Ti
Rmax ¼ 1000 ð2Þ
8re
where yi is the cost per cutting edge.
and to roughing operations, the following will be used: 5. Tool design cost (Cd).
6. Tool manufacturing cost (Cm).
s ¼ 0:5re ð3Þ
Therefore, the equation used to calculate the total produc-
where s is the tool feed rate, re is the insert nose radius and tion cost is the following:
Rmax is the maximum allowable surface roughness. This
CT ¼ Cc þ Cn þ Cr þ Ct þ Cd þ Cm
relation between the nose radius and the feed rate deter-
" #
mines the selection of the tool elements together with the X
z
t2eff;i
cutting conditions. To make the first feed rate estimate, ¼ Q xðt2 þ t4 Þ þ ðxt3 þ yi Þ þ Cd þ Cm
l
Ti
the system reads the feed range smin ¹ smax associated
with each insert in the corresponding database. ð8Þ
On the other hand, the superficial roughness is a new con-
straint to the feed rate. Thus, the system selects for each where Q is the batch size. The time reduction due to
chipbreaker geometry insert with the greater nose radius the simultaneous change of several cutting edges is not
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS 365

considered either. This expression was developed for this in the previous equation. From expression (15), the
work taking into account the total production cost model cartridge–insert combinations can be sorted from high to
suggested for multipass turning operations [25, 26]. low cost contribution. This sorting also allows the elimina-
Since the cutting edges cut different machining lengths tion of combinations (within the same feed range) with a
(li) during only one feed motion (Fig. 1), the total machin- higher cost contribution.
ing time t2 is given by the machining time of the longest
3.3.5 Optimum cartridge–insert combination solutions
length [27, 28]. Thus
For each cutting edge of the special tool, several cartridge–
maxðli Þ þ la insert options could be possible. Thus, the developed
t2 ¼ maxðt2i Þ ¼ ð9Þ
sN method chosen had one cartridge–insert for each cutting
edge (the optimum solution) with the final purpose of
and the machining time for each area (i) is given by
obtaining the minimum total cost. The minimum cost deter-
li mination involves knowing the optimum tool spindle speed.
t2eff;i ¼ ð10Þ The intersection of the feed-rate intervals (smin ¹ smax 0
)
sN
for each cutting edge will generate a new interval. The
where li is the machining length for each area (i). To sim- maximum value within this interval determines the tool
plify the calculation, the costs of tool manufacturing Cm feed rate that will be used for further calculations. The loca-
could be considered proportional to the cartridge pocket tion of the optimum N is found by differentiating equation
size: (13) and equating to zero:
 
X
z maxðli Þ þ la X z
1
Cm ¼ Cv Vpi ð11Þ 0 ¼ ¹x þ Ai ¹ 1 N 1=ai ðxt3 þ yi Þ
s i¼1
ai
l

ð16Þ
where Cv is the manufacturing specific cost (£/mm3) of the
cartridge pocket and Vpi is the volume (mm3) of each car- To solve this equation, it is necessary to use numerical
tridge pocket. methods. In this case the Newton–Rapson method was used.
If the insert carbide grade changes for each workpiece In some cases, the optimum cutting conditions deter-
area, the tool life expression changes for each workpiece mined above cannot be accepted because they are over
area. For a given depth of cut, the system has information some physical process constraints. In this sense, the devel-
about the different coefficients in the tool life expression oped system has considered the following constraints: the
maximum spindle speed and the machine’s maximum avail-
Ci able power. If the optimum spindle speed or the correspond-
Vi ¼ ð12Þ
Tiai sbi ing power, both determinated by the system, are greater than
the above constraints, the system chooses a new spindle
where Vi is the cutting velocity of the cutting edge, Ci, ai, bi speed value that is compatible with the maximum power
are the constants in the tool life equation by the cutting edge, available. Besides, the system determines the new value
Ti is the tool life for each insert and s is the tool feed rate. of the total cost.
Using the Taylor expression (12), the total cost equation For each combination, the system determines the opti-
(8) can be expressed as mum N. Next, by substituting this value and the tool feed
(   X ) rate in expression (13), the total cost associated with each
z
maxðli Þ þ la ð1=ai Þ¹1 combination can be determined. Finally, the system sug-
CT ¼Q x þ t4 þ ðxt3 þ yi ÞAi N
sN l
gests the cheapest solution.

þ Cd þ Cm ð13Þ
3.4 Geometrical design of tool components
where One important part of the work has been dedicated to the
i ðbi =ai Þ¹1
parametric design of the different components that make
li p1=ai D1=a
i s up this type of tool. This is obvious if the large amount of
Ai ¼ ð14Þ
10001=ai Ci1=ai special tool components included in the different manufac-
turers, catalogues is considered. Likewise, it is possible to
and Di is the diameter for each workpiece area. The contri- reduce the elements stored in the system memory obtaining
bution of each i cartridge to the total cost can be obtained as the rest of the elements through a certain number of them.
Qðxt3 þ yi ÞAi N ð1=ai Þ¹1 þ Cv Vpi ð15Þ 3.4.1 Parametric design of inserts and cartridges
The cost of tool design (Cd) is independent from the final The parametric design of the inserts does not only depend on
selected cartridges. For this reason, Cd is not considered their geometry (length, corner radius, thickness, etc.) in
B05196 q IMechE 1998 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
366 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ

Fig. 11 Parametric profile of the tool body to hold one cartridge

cartridges a cylindrical reference system (X, v, Z) is consid-

Fig. 9 Basic parametric solids for modelling the special tool: car-
tridge, insert, pocket and axial screw
ered (Fig. 10). The Z axis is from the point R to the point S
(two points of the profile axis). The X axis is in the radial
direction. The orientation of the cartridges (v coordinate)
order to adapt the existing standard shapes, but it also affects
is measured on a plane perpendicular to the Z axis. Thus,
those parameters and constraints used for getting their right
only three root points (A, B, C) are necessary to build and
position with regard to the whole cartridge and the work-
locate the cartridges (Fig. 9). Point A is given by the inser-
piece profile.
tion point (I) of the profile and the points B and C are given
To produce a parametric design each cartridge consists of
by two points on the Z axis, R and S respectively (Fig. 10).
four basic solids joined together (Fig. 9):
However, the cartridges can be oriented (v) around the pro-
file axis and with regard to the profile geometry plane of the
(a) the insert,
workpiece.
(b) the cartridge,
(c) the axial adjusting screw, 3.4.2 Tool body design
(d) a pocket to hold the cartridge in the tool body.
The tool body is automatically generated as a revolution
Each of these elements are created separately from para- solid from the profile which defines its geometry (Fig. 11).
The system generates it from the selected cartridges and all
metric profiles that can be modified depending on the differ-
the information around them:
ent cartridge models (several basic models have been
designed).
In establishing the right location and orientation for the (a) the ISO code,
(b) assembly geometrical data (given by the manufac-
turers),
(c) the point to set each cartridge.

From these data an associative profile and a revolution solid

(over the tool axis) are built (Fig. 11).
This operation is repeated for all cartridges. Then, the
solids are joined in one solid by a Boolean addition. The
tool body is obtained by subtracting the pockets of the car-
tridges from the last solid.

4 APPLICATION EXAMPLE

In order to understand the selection process easily, the car-

tridge and insert selections for a special tool designed to
machine the part of Fig. 7 will be taken as an example. In
this example, the part profile has three different areas: the
entry chamfer, the intermediate step and the bore exit.
The automatic geometry identification in Section 4.1
Fig. 10 Cartridge location and orientation in relation to the work- allows the data included in Table 1 to be calculated. The
piece profile next steps to make the component selections are as
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS 367

Table 1 Data obtained from the identification of the profile combinations for each workpiece area are shown in
Table 4.
a l k D 6. To determine the cost that represents every cartridge–
Machining area (mm) (mm) (deg) (mm)
insert combination in the total cost using equation (15).
1 2 2 45 70 The parameters used in this example are the following:
2 3 50 75 66 x = £20.45, Q = 5000 workpieces, t3= 2 min, t4 = 0.2
3 1 90 90 60
min, Cv = 1.82 × 10-4 £/mm3, Cd = 0.
7. To eliminate those that represent in advance a higher cost
(Table 5).
follows: 8. To determine all possible combinations to make the spe-
cial tool. In addition, the system determines the feed rate,
1. Cartridge selections with the right approach angle (k) for spindle speed, power and total cost (Table 6).
each area (Table 2).
2. Insert size determination (lengths of the cutting edges). The system will choose the solution with the lowest total
3. To eliminate the cartridge–insert combinations with less cost. However, the user will be able to select any possible
lengths than mentioned before. combinations (Table 6) for the graphic representation.
4. To remove the cartridges related to a minimum bore The selected cartridge–insert combinations will be repre-
diameter value greater than the dimensions of diameters sented from the three-dimensional parametric elements con-
in the different workpiece areas. tained in the geometry database—in this case, those
5. To select one insert for each cartridge, according to the corresponding to combination 16 in Table 6. Then they
above information (shape and size), the geometry, car- are positioned according to the workpiece profile and the
bide grade (Table 3) and the biggest value of the insert tool body profile is made with reference to each cartridge
nose radius. At this point, the possible cartridge–insert (Fig. 12). Next, revolution solids are generated with each

Table 2 Possible cartridges for the different areas to machine. Only the approach angle has been taken into account

Machining area

1 2 3

Order Cartridge Dmin (mm) Cartridge Dmin (mm) Cartridge Dmin (mm)

1 PSSNR 12 CA-12 50 PSKNR 12 CA-12 50 PCFNR 16 CA-12 55

2 PSSNR 16 CA-12 55 PSKNR 16 CA-12 55 PCFNR 25 CA-19 100
3 PSSNR 20 CA-15 70 PSKNR 20 CA-15 70 PTFNR 12 CA-16 50
4 PTSNR 12 CA-16 50 PSKNR 25 CA-19 100 PTFNR 16 CA-16 55
5 PTSNR 16 CA-16 55 SSKCR 10 CA-09 40 PTFNR 20 CA-22 70
6 PTSNR 20 CA-22 75 SSKCR 12 CA-12 50 PTFNR 25 CA-27 100
7 SSSCR 10 CA-09 40 SSKCR 16 CA-12 55 STFCR 06 CA-06 20
8 SSSCR 12 CA-12 50 CSKPR 10 CA-09 40 STFCR 08 CA-09 25
9 STSCR 06 CA-06 20 CSKPR 12 CA-12 50 STFCR 10 CA-11 40
10 STSCR 08 CA-09 25 CSKPR 16 CA-12 55 STFCR 12 CA-16 50
11 STSCR 10 CA-11 40 STFCR 16 CA-16 55
12 STSCR 12 CA-16 50 CTFPR 10 CA-11 40
13 STSCR 16 CA-16 55 CTFPR 12 CA-16 50
14 CSSPR 12 CA-12 50 CTFPR 16 CA-16 55
15 CSSPR 16 CA-12 55
16 CTSPR 10 CA-11 40
17 CTSPR 12 CA-16 50
18 CTSPR 16 CA-16 55

Table 3 Carbide grades and chipbreakers for the different areas to machine

Machining area

1 2 3

Clamping system Carbide grade Chipbreaker Carbide grade Chipbreaker Carbide grade Chipbreaker

P CT525 MF GC415 QM CT525 QF

S CT525 UM GC415 UR CT525 UF
C CT525 53 GC415 PMR CT525 53

B05196 q IMechE 1998 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
368 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ

Table 4 All possible cartridges and inserts for the different areas to machine taking into account only geometrical and technological
criteria

smin ¹ smax sR,max

Area Order Cartridge Insert Grade (mm/rev) (mm/rev)

1 1 PSSNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.15–0.40 0.8

2 PSSNR 16 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.15–0.40 0.8
3 PSSNR 20 CA-12 SNMG 15 06 16-MF CT525 0.14–0.40 0.8
4 PTSNR 12 CA-16 TNMG 16 06 16-MF CT525 0.15–0.40 0.8
5 PTSNR 16 CA-16 TNMG 16 06 16-MF CT525 0.15–0.40 0.8
6 SSSCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UM CT525 0.20–0.40 0.4
7 SSSCR 12 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UM CT525 0.20–0.40 0.6
8 STSCR 12 CA-16 TCMT 16 T3 12-UM CT525 0.20–0.40 0.6
9 STSCR 16 CA-16 TCMT 16 T3 12-UM CT525 0.20–0.40 0.6
10 CSSPR 12 CA-12 SPMR 12 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.4
11 CSSPR 16 CA-12 SPMR 12 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.4
12 CTSPR 12 CA-16 TPMR 16 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.4
13 CTSPR 16 CA-16 TPMR 16 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.4
2 1 PSKNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-QM GC415 0.20–0.50 0.43
2 PSKNR 16 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-QM GC415 0.20–0.50 0.43
3 SSKCR 10 CA-09 SCMR 09 03 08-UR GC415 0.20- 0.50 0.30
4 SSKCR 12 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UR GC415 0.20–0.50 0.38
5 SSKCR 16 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UR GC415 0.20–0.50 0.38
6 CSKPR 10 CA-09 SPMR 09 03 08-PMR GC415 0.20–1 0.30
7 CSKPR 12 CA-12 SPMR 12 03 12-PMR GC415 0.20–1 0.38
8 CSKPR 16 CA-12 SPMR 12 03 12-PMR GC415 0.20–1 0.38
3 1 PCFNR 16 CA-12 CNMG 12 06 12-QF CT525 0.10–0.25 0.38
2 PTFNR 12 CA-16 TNMG 16 06 12-QF CT525 0.10–0.25 0.38
3 PTFNR 16 CA-16 TNMG 16 06 12-QF CT525 0.10–0.25 0.38
4 STFCR 06 CA-06 TCMT 06 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 0.30
5 STFCR 08 CA-09 TCMT 09 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 0.30
6 STFCR 10 CA-11 TCMT 11 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 0.30
7 STFCR 12 CA-16 TCMT 16 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 0.30
8 STFCR 16 CA-16 TCMT 16 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 0.30
9 CTFPR 10 CA-11 TCMR 11 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.30
10 CTFPR 12 CA-16 TCMR 16 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.30
11 CTFPR 16 CA-16 TCMR 16 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.50 0.30

of these profiles and the Boolean addition is made to obtain
the body base of the tool. Finally, the cartridge pockets are
subtracted and the final shape is obtained (Fig. 13). All these
operations are made automatically.
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The developed system is an integrated system that allows
the design of special rotary tools. It includes optimum selec-
tion of the cutting components as well as the automatic
representation of the tool according to the parametric design
of its components and of its tool body.
The differences between the developed system and the
ones commonly used with other types of tools (turning tools,
milling tools, etc.) are the following:
1. The selection of components is made taking into account
geometrical, technological and economical aspects.
2. The geometrical parameters that will influence the selec-
tion of the cutting components are obtained through the
automatic recognition of the two-dimensional workpiece
profile. In this sense, the system recognizes the geometry
generated by the CAD system itself (used to develop the
application) or imported from foreign CAD systems.

Table 5 Final solutions of cartridges and inserts taking into account its contribution to the total cost

smin ¹ s0max Vp y
Area Order Cartridge Insert Grade (mm/rev) (mm3) (£/edge)

1 1 PSSNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.15–0.40 451602 0.65

2 SSSCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UM CT525 0.20–0.40 407737 0.48
2 1 PSKNR 16 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-QM GC415 0.20–0.43 462164 0.66
2 SSKCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UR GC415 0.20–0.30 412552 0.48
3 SSKCR 12 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UR GC415 0.20–0.38 451052 0.64
3 1 STFCR 06 CA-06 TCMT 06 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 163002 0.56
2 STFCR 08 CA-09 TCMT 09 T3 08-UF CT525 0.08–0.25 205929 0.54
3 CTFPR 10 CA-11 TCMR 11 03 08-53 CT525 0.20–0.31 323745 0.60

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS 369

Table 6 All possible combinations to make the special tool and its optimal cutting conditions

Feed rate N CT P
Combination Cartridge Insert Grade (mm/rev) (r/min) (£) (kW)

1 PSSNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.20–0.25 1478 807.28 17.5

SSKCR 12 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UR GC415
STFCR 06 CA-06 TCMT 06 T3 08-UF CT525
2 SSSCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UM CT525 0.20–0.25 1479 808.83 17.5
SSKCR 12 CA-12 SCMT 12 04 12-UR GC415
STFCR 06 CA-06 TCMT 06 T3 08-UF CT525
3 PSSNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.20–0.25 1499 799.68 17.7
SSKCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UR GC415
STFCR 06 CA-06 TCMT 06 T3 08-UF CT525
· · · · · · · ·
· · · · · · · ·
· · · · · · · ·
16 SSSCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UM CT525 0.20–0.30 1396 702.57 19.2
SSKCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UR GC415
CTFPR 10 CA-11 TPMR 11 03 08-53 CT525
17 PSSNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-MF CT525 0.20–0.30 1374 735.26 18.9
PSKNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-QM GC415
CTFPR 10 CA-11 TPMR 11 03 08-53 CT525
18 SSSCR 10 CA-09 SCMT 09 04 08-UM CT525 0.20–0.30 1375 709.60 18.9
PSKNR 12 CA-12 SNMG 12 06 16-QM GC415
CTFPR 10 CA-11 TPMR 11 03 08-53 CT525

3. The selection of the tool cutting components and of the
optimum cutting conditions have been considered
jointly.
4. The economical analysis to obtain the best solution
(minimum cost) is made considering all the tool cutting
edges simultaneously. Hence, the total cost equation is
made in terms of the spindle speed (only one for the
tool) because each cutting edge is related to a different
cutting velocity.
5. The process constraints such as the maximum power and
the spindle speed available in the machine have also been
taken into account.

Fig. 12 Three different profiles (one for each cartridge) used for
tool body modelling Fig. 13 Final design of the special tool
B05196 q IMechE 1998 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
370 J C RICO, S MATEOS, E CUESTA AND C M SUÁREZ
6. Databases used in the selection process are entirely
accessible to the user. This allows easy updating. For
instance, the rules used in the selection of chipbreakers
and carbide grades, can be modified by the manufacturer.
7. The system also permits the geometrical design of the
tool and its representation over the workpiece profile as
well as the selection of components. This is an essential
feature in the case of special tools since they are designed
and made (body, holders, etc.) for every piece.
The most remarkable advantages of the developed system
against the commonly used manual methods for the design
of special tools have to do basically with the automation of
the process. This automation based on the use of a computer
has the following advantages:
1. It eliminates the designer subject decisions.
2. It considers a high number of possible solutions.
3. It considers all of the cutting edges for the selection
simultaneously.
4. It selects all cutting components and cutting conditions
of the tool simultaneously.
5. It reduces design mistakes.
6. It makes the selection process and design faster and
therefore reduces the costs.
7. It considers economical aspects related to the selection of
components (very difficult to do by manual methods).
8. The designed tool will be integrated within a CAD/CAM
system, which makes it possible to use in other applica-
tions such as tool management, machining simulation,
etc.
9. At the end of the design process, the program generates a
list that includes all the components and all the necessary
auxiliary elements for the tool assembly. This improves the
reliability of the information transmitted to the tool store.
In this sense, from an economical point of view an impor-
tant time reduction in the tool assembly will be achieved.
This fact, along with the reduction of the design time,
allows the total reduction of the final cost.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is the result of a Spanish State Commission for
Science and Technology (CICYT) Research Project
(ROB91-01 01-C03-03) aimed at the design of modular
and rotary special tools using ISO standard cartridges.
REFERENCES
1 Syan, S. C. Selecting tools like the expert. J. Integrated Mfg
Systems, 1990, 187–189.
2 Tester, M., Greaney, J., Bancroft, M., Hinduja, S. and
Barrow, G. Calculation of cutting conditions for NC lathes.
Internal Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
UMIST, Manchester, 1984.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B
3 Giusti, F., Santochi, M. and Dini, G. COATS: an expert
module for optimal tool selection. Ann. CIRP, 1986, 35(1),
337–340.
4 Domazet, D. The automatic tool selection with the production
rules matrix method. Ann. CIRP, 1990, 39(1), 497–500.
5 Chen, S. J., Hinduja, S. and Barrow, G. Automatic tool
selection for rough turning operations. Int. J. Mach. Tools
Mfg, 1989, 29(4), 535–553.
6 Maropoulos, P. G. and Hinduja, S. Automatic tool selection
for finish turning Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B, Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 1990, 204(B1), 43–51.
7 Houten, van F. J. A. M., Erve, van A.-H., Boogert, R. M.
and Nauta, J. M. PART, selection of machining methods
and tools. In Proceedings of the 22nd CIRP International
Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, University of Twente,
Enschede, Nederlands, 1990.
8 Cederquist, A. Cutting tool development for automation and
FMS. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
FMS, Stocolmo, 1985, pp. 187–197.
9 Zhang, J. H. and Hinduja, S. Determination of the optimum
tool set for a given batch of turned components. Ann. CIRP,
1995, 44(1), 445–450.
10 Macfadyen, B. A knowledge engineering approach to aspects
of operation planning for the machining of turbine discs. MSc
thesis, University of Manchester, 1992.
11 Enparantza, R. Tool selection and cutting conditions optimi-
zation in milling. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1991.
12 Arezoo, B. and Ridgeway, K. An expert system for tool selec-
tion for turning operations. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna-
tional Conference on CAPE, Edinburgh, 1989, pp. 179–186.
13 Nau, D. S. and Luce, M. Knowledge representation and
reasoning techniques for process planning: extending SIPS
to do tool selection. In 19th CIRP International Seminar on
Manufacturing Systems, 1987, pp. 91–98.
14 Petropoulos, P. G. Optimal selection of machining rate vari-
able by geometric programming. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1973,
11(4), 305–314.
15 Saxena, P. C. and Khare, M. K. Optimization of turning pro-
cess by Lagrangian algorithm. In Proceedings of the 7th
AMTDR Conference, India, 1976.
16 Ramaswamy, K. V. and Lambert, B. K. Cost optimization
for a single pass turning operation including inventory and
penalty costs. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1974, 12(3), 331–344.
17 Kals, H. J. J., Hijink, J. A. W. and Van der Wolf, A. C. H. A
computer aid in the optimization of turning conditions in mul-
ticut operations. Ann. CIRP, 1978, 27, 465–470.
18 Houten, van F. J. A. M. The development of a technological
processor as a part of a workpiece programming system. Ann.
CIRP, 1981, 30, 363–369.
19 Hinduja, S., Petty, D. J., Tester, M. and Barrow, G. Calcu-
lation of optimum cutting conditions for turning operations.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B, Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 1985, 199(B2), 81–92.
20 Wang, H. and Wysk, R. A. An expert system for machining
data selection. Computer Ind. Engng, 1986, 10(2), 99–107.
21 Wright, P. K. Knowledge engineering for small batch manu-
facturing systems. J. Mfg Systems, 1989, 8(4), 245–256.
22 Nagurka, M. L. Toward an intelligent machine tool for
flexible manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Mfg, 1989, 6(3), 229–236.
23 Singh, R. and Raman, S. Metex: an expert system for machin-
ing planning. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1992, 30(7), 1501–1516.
B05196 q IMechE 1998
 DESIGN OF SPECIAL TOOLS BY CAD/CAM SYSTEMS
24 Maropoulos, P. G. and Gill, P. A. T. Intelligent tool selection
for machining cylindrical components. Part 1: logic of the
knowledge-based module. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B,
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 1995, 209(B3), 173–
182.
25 Gupta, R., Batra, J. L. and Lal, G. K. Determination of depth
of cut in multipass turning with constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res.,
1995, 33(9), 2555–2565.
B05196 q IMechE 1998
View publication stats
371
26 Shin, Y. C. and Joo, Y. S. Optimization of machining
conditions with practical constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res.,
1992, 30(12), 2907–2919.
27 Vizán, A. and Torres, P. Diseño de herraminetas especiales
con sistema de CAD/CAM. Revista de CAD, 1990, 3, 47–52.
28 Vizán, A. and Torres, P. Desarrollo de un programa de diseño
automático de herramientas especiales con sistemas de CAD/
CAM. Anales de Ingenierı́a Mecánica, 1989, 3, 87–94.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part B