Comparing approaches for multi-axis kinematic positioning in machine tools. (August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rooker, Tim; Potts, Graeme; Worden, Keith; Dervilis, Nikolaos; Stammers, Jon
• Is Part Of: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Volume 235:Number 10(2021)
• Page Start: 1698
• Page End: 1711
• Publication Date: 2021-08
• Subjects: Multi-axis machining -- machine tool kinematics -- machining accuracy -- NC programming -- 3 + 2 machining -- rotation tool centre point -- computer numerical control -- artefact probing; Mechanical engineering -- Periodicals; Engineering -- Management -- Periodicals; Manufacturing processes -- Periodicals; 629.8
• DOI: 10.1177/09544054211019668
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0954-4054

Abstract

Maintaining minimal levels of geometric error in the finished workpiece is of increasing importance in the modern production environment; there is considerable research on the identification, verification and calibration of machine tool kinematic error, and the development of Postprocessor implementations to generate NC-code optimised for machining accuracy. The choice of multi-axis positioning function at the controller, however, is an often-overlooked potential source of kinematic error which can be responsible for costly mistakes in the production environment. This paper presents an investigation into how mis-management of the positional error parameters that define the rotary-axes' pivot point can lead to unintended variations in multi-axis positioning. Four approaches for kinematic positioning on a Fanuc-based controller are considered, which reference two separate parameter locations to define the pivot point – managing the kinematics within the Postprocessor itself, full five-axis positioning with a fixture offset, full five-axis with rotation tool centre point control and 3+2-axis with a tilted workplane. Error vectors across four sets of rotary-axis indexations are simulated based on the theoretical kinematic model, to highlight the expected differences in geometric error attributable to mismatched pivot point parameters. Finally, the simulation results are verified experimentally, demonstrating the importance of maintaining a consistent approach in both programming and operation environments.