Simulation of Machining with Planer using ANSYS Workbench

OBJECTIVE:

To perform machining using planar simulation (explicit analysis) using ANSYS Workbench. The following objectives have to be satisfied.

Case 1: Cutting velocity of 20000 mm/s

Case 2: Cutting velocity of 15000 mm/s

PROCEDURE FOR CASE SETUP:

1. Open ANSYS >> Drag and drop Explicit Dynamics module in the project schematic window.

2. Go to engineering data for defining the materials given in the problem. Select 'STEEL 1006' material from the explicit materials library.

3. Select the model tab to establish the meshing, contact definitions, and analysis settings definition. Rename the parts according to convenience. Assign the material steel 1006 to the workpiece. For tool assign stiffness behaviour as rigid which is shown in the figure below.

4. Delete all the default contact definitions in the contacts tab.         

5. For meshing, use patch conforming method with an element type of tetrahedrons for the cutting tool. For the workpiece use edge sizing with a total number of divisions as 10. This is explained in the figure below. 

The final meshed model is shown in the figure below.

The element metrics are shown in the figure below.

6. Go to analysis settings. The number of steps defined for this analysis is 1. For the time step, the definition is shown in the figure below.

7. The boundary conditions are shown below. Fixed support is defined for the workpiece.

For the second case, the velocity has to be changed to 15000 mm/s and simulation has to be performed.

8. The output requests for equivalent stress, total deformation, and user-defined result for temperature are placed. 

9. From the analysis settings, hit on solve to start the simulation. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

1. The total deformation for the two cases are shown in the figure below.

2. The equivalent stress obtained for two cases are shown in the figure below.

3. The temperature obtained for temperature are shown in the figure below.

ANIMATION FILES:

1. The total deformation obtained for both the cases are shown in the figure below.

2. The equivalent stress obtained for two cases are shown in the figure below.

3. The temperature animation files are shown in the figure below.

CONCLUSION:

From the simulation, it can be seen that for both cases the solution converged without any errors. The energy error was observed in case 2. For this, the value of maximum energy error was changed to 0.14 to avoid this error. From the simulation, it can be seen that the cutting tool is in the middle of the workpiece due to low cutting speed whereas for case 1 the reach of the cutting tool is more.

The output parameters are tabulated below.

From the above table, it can be seen that magnitude of total deformation is higher for a cutting velocity of 20000 mm/s with a value of 34.313 mm. For a cutting velocity of 15000 mm/s the value obtained is 23.61 mm.

The equivalent stress observed for both the cases almost remains the same with a value of 674 MPa.

The temperature for cutting speed of 20000 mm/s is higher with a value of 367.77 degrees Celsius. The value of temperature is low for the second case because of the low cutting speed of the cutting tool.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the maximum equivalent stress for the two cases remains the same. The total deformation is higher for case1 since it has a larger cutting speed. The temperature obtained in case 1 is higher in comparison to case 2. Hence, all the objectives are satisfied.