Advertisement

Optimizing Component Production with Multi-axis Turning Technology

  • Peter MichalikEmail author
  • Michal Hatala
  • Luboslav Straka
  • Michal Petrus
  • Jozef Macej
  • Jozef Jusko
  • Peter Tirpak
Conference paper
  • 47 Downloads
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)

Abstract

The article deals with the optimization of an alternative solution for the production of a needle-shaped component. Nowadays, the classic milling machine, drill, shaping machine, and two-axis numerical control (NC) lathe are still used for the production of the aforementioned component. An NC program for the left and right components of the CTX alpha 500 multi-axis turning center has been designed. In the article, the optimized technology for the production of the needle and its contribution to the quality, economy, and efficiency of machining should be evaluated per year per 1000 pieces. At the same time, cost reductions and quality of component production should be achieved.

Keywords

Optimized Turning Double spindle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is a part of the research project VEGA 1/0045/18.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuram, E., et al. (2013). Multi-objective optimization using Taguchi based grey relational analysis for micro-milling of Al 7075 material with ball nose end mill. Measurement, 46, 1849–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulka, J., et al. (2016). Analysis of crane track degradation due to operation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 59, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miko, E., et al. (2012). Analysis and verification of surface roughness constitution model after machining process. Procedia Engineering, 39, 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michalik, P., et al. (2013). Programming CNC machines using computer-aided manufacturing software. Advanced Science Letters, 19, 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michalik, P., et al. (2010). Intelligently programming of holes machining. Manufacturing Engineering, 9, 63–65.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michalik, P., et al. (2011). CAM software products for creation of programs for CNC machining. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 141, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabian, M., et al. (2014). Influence of the CAM parameters and selection of end-mill cutter when assessing the resultant surface quality in 3D milling. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 474, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olejárová, Š., et al. (2017). Measurements and evaluation of measurements of vibrations in steel milling process. Measurement, 106, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balog, M., et al. (2016). Methodical framework of flexibility production evaluation in terms of manufacturing plant. Key Engineering Materials, 669, 568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fedorko, G., et al. (2015). Failure analysis of irreversible changes in the construction of the damaged rubber hoses. Engineering Failure Analysis, 58, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molnár, V., et al. (2013). Statistical approach for evaluation of pipe conveyor’s belt contact forces on guide idlers. Measurement, 46, 3127–3135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molnár, V., et al. (2015). Monitoring of dependences and ratios of normal contact forces on hexagonal idler housings of the pipe conveyor. Measurement, 64, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fedorko, G., et al. (2013). Failure analysis of textile rubber conveyor belt damaged by dynamic wear. Engineering Failure Analysis, 28, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knapčikova, L., et al. (2016). Material recycling of some automobile plastics waste. Przemysł Chemiczny, 95, 1716–1720.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Novotný, L. (2018). Imperfection generation in finite element models of welding. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, 23(2), 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Novak-Marcincin, J., et al. (2014). Use of alternative scanning devices for creation of 3D models of machine parts. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 21(1), 177–181.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murčinková, Z., et al. (2017). Research and analysis of stress distribution in multilayers of coated tools. International Journal of Materials Research, 108, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehocka, D., et al. (2017). Comparison of the influence of acoustically enhanced pulsating water jet on selected surface integrity characteristics of CW004A copper and CW614N brass. Measurement, 110, 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duplakova, D., et al. (2018). Determination of optimal production process using scheduling and simulation software. International Journal of Simulation Modelling (IJSIMM), 17, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michalik, P., et al. (2014). Comparison measurement of the distance between axes of holes with the Roundtest RA-120 and Thome Präzision-Rapid. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 616, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duplak, J., et al. (2018). Comprehensive analysis and study of the machinability of a high strength aluminum alloy (EN AW-AlZn5.5MgCu) in the high-feed milling. Advances in Production Engineering And Management, 13, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duplakova, D., et al. (2019). Illumination simulation of working environment during the testing of cutting materials durability. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Michalik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michal Hatala
    • 1
  • Luboslav Straka
    • 1
  • Michal Petrus
    • 1
  • Jozef Macej
    • 1
  • Jozef Jusko
    • 1
  • Peter Tirpak
    • 1
  1. 1.TU Kosice, FVT with a Seat in PresovBayerovaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations