Face Grooving - Single Groove

[infoL6PB5]

Would love to know how to do this kind of operation. Right now, Fusion complains that face grooving tools are not supported if you use a Single Groove operation.

So, using a regular groove operation you can come up with this:

Which you must then either waste cycle time cutting twice, or remember to remove that gcode every post. Here is the config tab.

In this case, changing to not use roughing passes doesn't work, however in other operations where the groove can be very shallow it does, the only caveot is that it needs to translate slightly along the bottom.

So please, can we get some support for this? It seems like a basic oversight that has been posted about before, and while I've heard it would be fixed years back on other posts, it's still not.

[akash.kamoolkar]

Hi @infoL6PB5

Could you attach your sample file so we can use it for testing once we implement face single groove, just so we make sure we're actually satisfying your user requirements?

Thanks and best regards,

Akash Kamoolkar

[infoL6PB5]

Sure, attached is actually the most common scenario, which can't be done with the correct tool. Example is: 4mm wide groove, with the 4mm wide insert. Right now a groove can't even be done, you would need to narrow the insert or widen the groove slightly.

This part is also the basic type used for face grooving as an o-ring is popped in there, so typically most people probably use face grooving this way to plunge directly into a part and mostly not need any step overs.

What I envision is just being able to select the "Turning Single Groove" option, use the same tool, select the geometry (Fusion even right now gives you a preview that looks good)...and for it to accept that toolpath. Right now as mentioned if you try that it will give you an error of: "Toolpath is not supported for the given tool and settings"

[matthewM5R6M]

Single groove still doesn't support Face Grooving? Has this just been forgotten about? This couldn't have been fixed since 2018? It doesn't seem to be that complicated an operation! @akash.kamoolkar 

[programming2C78B]

Does the new Turning Trace work with it? 

[matthewM5R6M]

Trace works with it, but it has a multitude of it's own issues, such as not trimming leads at the clearance radius, no override for return on contour feed, no dwell settings for dwell at depth like single groove, and retract isn't at rapid, even though it shows rapid lines with trace.   All that, and extend/shorten contour lines is completely ignored, so you manually have to shorten the contour by the radius of the grooving tool! 

[akash.kamoolkar]

if you can attach a sample file where trace isn't working i can take a look at the issues you are having. Also, groove finishing should work with single grooves. Single groove is a legacy strategy that is not aware of the model and won't be enhanced but groove finishing should be able to machine single grooves with better functionality in terms of leads and gouge checking with the model.

Regards,

[matthewM5R6M]

I'll get a file made up for trace, to show it not functioning as it should.  

Groove finishing is a good strategy, but doesn't have dwell at depth like single groove does? I know that single groove is not model aware, but it's a powerful legacy strategy that still has a function along side groove finishing.  Would it really be that hard to make it do face grooving? That would complete the single groove strategy.  

[akash.kamoolkar]

Instead of adding face grooves to single groove which is not a trivial project and will likely not be implemented, i have created a ticket to add dwell to single grooves in groove finishing.

Regards,

[Christoph_360]

Hi

Thank you for your support.

I would recommend specifying the number of revolutions instead of the dwell time. This would save you the work of manually calculating the dwell time based on the current speed and the desired number of revolutions. In addition, the calculated dwell time would always be automatically updated when the cutting speed changes.

Thanks

Christoph

[matthewM5R6M]

Do you have the radius on your grooving tools?  The brilliance of the single groove toolpath is it just went where you told it to.  It's situations like that that I would have to fiddle with the geometry of the model or the tool, as it's not going to the bottom of the groove. You can see the toolpath stopping short.  

Single groove is a much more reliable toolpath to get to generate single grooves, even though it is not model aware, and never should be model aware.   It also has pecking, where as finish grooving does not support pecking.  Pecking is especially imporatnt during single grooving operations.

I have a formula set up for drilling, to caculate two revoloutions, but in constant surface speed turning this would be more difficult.  

Not to pretend to be a computer programmer in any way, shape, or form,  is it a huge task to convert the motion of the single groove toolpath from the X, to the Z direction?  It still uses the same motion, same compensation point of the tool, it just swaps the radial depths for front, and back depths?  

The legacy turning groove is a toolpath I would not miss when it's discontinued.  I would sorely miss single groove. 

I'll make another topic about all the Trace toolpath issues.    There's a few other features i'd like to present my case for in threading, and a few other toolpaths that would be valuable to add.   Not to hijack the thread, but I've brought up issues with the thread toolpath before that present themselves during use, but not in the simulation.  

[Christoph_360]

Hi

---

@matthewM5R6M wrote:

Single groove is a much more reliable toolpath to get to generate single grooves, even though it is not model aware, and never should be model aware.   It also has pecking, where as finish grooving does not support pecking.  Pecking is especially imporatnt during single grooving operations.

---

Single Groove is not suitable for me because no Chamfer or Fillet is created at the beginning of the Groove, and I don't know of any Shopfloor that would accept an NC program that lacks Chamfers or Fillets at the beginning of the Groove.

But I agree with you on one point, and I wanted to mention this to @akash.kamoolkar.

For Groove Roughing, it is still necessary to be able to select Single Groove in order to define a Dwell time. Use Pecking is already available for Groove Roughing.

For Groove Finishing, it is still necessary to be able to define a Dwell time and Use Pecking when Single Groove is selected.

In terms of the process, I would prefer Groove Roughing, or there could be a new cycle for Single Groove that reflects this Model-oriented approach to Groove Roughing, but that is just my opinion, of course.

Thanks Christoph

[matthewM5R6M]

I fully agree with you that rads, and chamfers are necessary for grooves, except when you have customers call out sharp edges to prevent seal frittering. 

I usually use groove finishing as a strategy after single groove, to add the rads or chamfers alone, limiting the path to the top of the groove.  That way you get all the control of single groove, including pecking, dwell, the lot; then you can chamfer with no side load on the grooving tool, keeping the groove's true position accurate.  Groove finishing is the optimal strategy for this. 

Sometimes I'd point out that your groove could be modelled as a few hundredths wider than the grooving tool, but the actual size of the groove would be just fine with a single plunge.  Trying to advocate for the single groove strategy as a whole.  Not every tool path needs to be model aware, some gain their strength from lack of model awareness. 

[jodyF8L9L]

I just used a groove tool (without holder) to do a single groove operation that had multiple groove locations. Worked out slick. The only trouble I had was with the start/end heights, which I usually have set to safe z. A little gcode edit fixed that.

But if I may add on to the ticket, can you please add the ability to have Z approach/retract be set separately from the retract height for traversing to other grooves.

@infoL6PB5, if you need more screen shots of how I have my tool setup, let me know.

[akash.kamoolkar]

@matthewM5R6M It seems we do support face grooving in single groove operations. You just need to select a face grooving tool. I apologize for the incorrect information. We did add this capability a while back.

Regards,

[matthewM5R6M]

Turning mode still only lets you select outside grooving, or inside
grooving though?

[jodyF8L9L]

Outside turning works with a grooving tool oriented correctly in mine. However, this brings up a question/point that I have:

At this point, I am not sure if being able to select "Face..." as a turning mode matters in any operation. I always use outside turning as a mode for combined face/od profiling, and inside turing as a mode for face/ID profiling. And this works for me especially well when doing things like picking up an id or od chamfer/radius on a face. Seems like there could be some simplification there in future updates...

[akash.kamoolkar]

@matthewM5R6M You can select outside grooving and when you select a face grooving tool it will treat it as a face groove. This will also work for any angled grooving tool.

Regards,

[matthewM5R6M]

Just tried setting single groove up as you said, it seems to be missing inputs for front and back, either this is a bug, or i'm not setting it up correctly.  Could you try to set up a single face groove, and let me know if it works for you?

[akash.kamoolkar]

@matthewM5R6M if you attach your file here I can take a look since I'm not sure I understand the question.

Regards,