【正文】 削功率最大，但是主軸電機(jī)和主軸驅(qū)動(dòng)器上的負(fù)載卻比用 2號刀具在其余條件同等，將進(jìn)給速率調(diào)大兩倍或更大的倍率還要大。 2. 兩齒的錫涂層的硬質(zhì)合金立銑刀。 研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，高皮重機(jī)床的能耗主要依賴于處理時(shí)間方面，受制于 部分幾何、工具的路徑 、和 材料去除率 。因此，為了研究切削鋼件的能耗情況，本次研究通過研究了機(jī)床 切割鋁和聚碳酸酯的工件 所需要消耗的 功率進(jìn) 來進(jìn)行了比較。 Schlosser, R. (2020): Strategies for Minimum Energy Operation for Precision Machining, in: Proceedings of the Machine Tool Technologies Research Foundation (MTTRF2020) 2020 Annual Meeting, pp. 4750, Shanghai, China. [6] Inamasu, Y.。 Horvath, A.。 Helu, M.。 T246。利戴爾賽門，多費(fèi)爾德 切削能耗是用于去除材料的額外能耗。 所以在接下來的實(shí)驗(yàn) 雖然 刀具類型改為保持推薦工藝參數(shù) ,但加工能耗降低了 。因此，從能耗成本來考慮經(jīng)營者還是選擇提高材料去除率來降低能源消耗。因此 ，能量損耗可以用下式表達(dá)： tte ppp a irc uta v g ????? *)(* (1) 兩個(gè)方案將做比較。但是，在給定的工作體積、主軸轉(zhuǎn)速、工作臺進(jìn)給這些被機(jī)床所約束，同時(shí)，機(jī)床的主體框架無法提供無限大的極限載荷，主軸電機(jī)將損壞，一切辦法永遠(yuǎn)都不可能使得材料去除率接近無限。 由由于機(jī)床內(nèi)部的冷卻單元 的影響電能消耗呈現(xiàn)了一些變化，平均電能消耗 P avg 將在此處用到。 切削寬度為 時(shí)的功率幾乎是寬度為 1mm 時(shí)的功率的 9倍。同時(shí)， [6]進(jìn)行了比較平銑、立銑、鉆孔銑等銑削加工在提高切削速度后的能耗、加工成本和刀具磨損的實(shí)驗(yàn)。此處介紹的這個(gè)策略是為一個(gè)特定的產(chǎn)品提供一個(gè)更快的生產(chǎn)能耗評估的方法。 12 銑削機(jī)床使用的能源消耗特性及 減縮策略 南希 Helu, M.。Specific Energy Characterization 1 INTRODUCTION A product undergoes three lifecycle stages: manufacturing, use and endoflife. Consumer products whose environmental impact is dominated by the use phase include light fixtures, puters, refrigerators, and vehicles, in general products that are used extensively during their functional life. All the while these products consume resources, in particular energy in the form of electricity or fuel. The machine tool is one such product. The use phase of milling machine tools has been found to prise between 60 and 90% of CO2equivalent emissions during its life cycle [1]. This study presents a method for predicting the electrical energy consumed in manufacturing a product for the purpose of reducing its environmental impact. In conducting a life cycle assessment, product designers may choose to opt for a process, economic inputoutput (EIO), or hybrid approach. The drawback of the process LCA, though, is that because this method entails acquiring processspecific data it is time consuming and therefore resource intensive. An alternative to measuring the machine tool’ s electrical energy consumption directly, for example, is to use aggregate data as is done with EIOLCA [2]. An EIOLCA, therefore, is not specific to the design of a particular product. The strategies presented herein provide a method for more quickly generating manufacturing energy consumption estimates for a particular product. Cutting load profile As described by Diaz et al. in [3] the power demand of a machine tool is prised of cutting, variable, and constant power ponents. The cutting power is the additional power drawn for the removal of material. The machine tool used in this analysis, the 2 Mori Seiki NV1500 DCG, is a micromachining center with a relatively low standby power demand when pared to large machining centers. Therefore, the cutting power can prise a large portion of the machine tool’ s total power demand. Energy consumption for high tare machine tools was found to be primarily dependent on the processing time of the part, which is dictated by the part geometry, tool path, and material removal rate. One such method for optimizing the tool path for minimum cycle time was presented in [4]. This paper is concerned with the effect of the material removal rate on energy consumption. The material removal rate for a 3axis machining center can be varied by changing the feed rate, width of cut, or depth of cut. Since increasing the feed rate was found to have dire consequences on the cutting tool life [5], the experiments conducted herein varied material removal rate through width of cut and depth of cut experiments for the purpose of analyzing the material removal rate’ s effect on cutting power and more importantly, energy consumption. Although increases in the material removal rate translate to faster machining times, the loads on the spindle motor and axis drives increase as well, resulting in higher power demand. Since our main interest is energy consumed in product manufacture, the tradeoff between power demand and machining time was analyzed to confirm that the increased loads due to faster material removal was not increasing the total energy consumed. 2 POWER DEMAND FOR VARIED .’ S Since machine tool programmers and operators have an array of options when defining the process plan for part production, this analysis strives to reduce energy consumption by process parameter selection of a machine tool. Specifically, the parameters concerning material removal rate (.) were varied on a Mori Seiki NV1500 DCG while selecting appropriate tooling. The power demand was measured with a Wattnode MODBUS wattmeter. In previous work, experiments we re conducted in which spindle speed, feed rate, feed per tooth, and cutter type were varied to analyze the change in energy consumption while milling a low carbon steel, AISI 1018 steel [5]. Also, [6] conducted experiments on face milling, end milling, and drilling operations in which the energy consumption, machining cost, and tool wear were pared for increased cutting speeds. Tool wear and, consequently, cutting tool cost increased significantly when the process parameters veered away from the remended cutting conditions. So in the following experiments the cutting tool type was changed to maintain the remended process parameters, but reduce energy consumption while machining, noheless. Width of Cut Experiments Given the energy savings from changing the cutter type this project focused on varying material removal rate. First the width of cut was increased while machining with a: 1. 2 flute uncoated carbide end mill, 2. 2 flute TiN coated carbide end mill, and 3. 4 flute TiN coated carbide end mill. Peripheral cuts were made along the yaxis at a depth of cut of