understanding adaptive clearing

[nickenglish8]

I was having trouble with the using the pocket operation because the first pass in the pocket operation has the bit fully engaged in the material.  So, I would either have to slow my speeds down just for this one pass, and could speed it back up after the first pass when the bit was only engaged by the set amount for stepover/step down.   Or, If ran it at the speed that I want to when the bit is not "fully engaged", I would have problems when the bit would make a first pass in the pocket and the bit would become bogged down.  So, with recommendations from other users, I have been trying the adaptive clearing.

My understanding of the adaptive clearing, is it keeps the bit engaged based on the "optimal load" setting.  I was under the impression that this would be what I needed.  However, I did a job the other day where it appeared to be fully engaged on its first pass just as a pocket operation would.  Am I doing something wrong, or do I just not understand what adaptive clearing does?

Thanks!

[programming2C78B]

Your entry is probably set to plunge, or your top height isn't set to top of stock. Add a helix entry and you should be good. 

[seth.madore]

@nickenglish8 could you share at least a screenshot of what you're running into? However, a file is always preferred:

File > Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d file in your reply

[nickenglish8]

This is not the actual file I had the issue with, but watching the simulation, appears to give the same error with this file as well.  There is another issue with this manufacture (which may be my main issue)  I have a green check which I assumed mean all was clear (no warning flags or errors).  However, during the simulation, I have a red line in the simulation timeline.  It appears to be when the tool plunges.  I am not sure what the "crash" is.  

@programming2C78B,  I have it set to Helix, but it actually isn't "helixing" It is plunging according to the simulation. I am not sure why.

The file is attached:

Thanks!

[j.mitch97]

have you tried selecting stock contours? your first cut shouldn't be that big then and it shouldn't plunge into the job as well.

I think helix will only work when it is trying to ramp into the material, but because it's not a pocket it doesn't need to ramp, so it just plunges outside the contour or stock if selected. 

I would prefer to use 3D adaptive over 2D adaptive. because it calculates the toolpath based on the stock and model rather than a selected contour. 

[nickenglish8]

@j.mitch97 @seth.madore 

I am not sure exactly what you mean by selecting the contours.  I played around with selecting the contours within the geometry selection, but none of them pocket what I want and not cause the bit to be fully engaged in the cut during the first couple of passes.  Any idea?

Thanks!

[leo.castellon]

I think J.mitch97 means selecting "stock contours" under the geometry tab, then you get the pictured result. You can increase your lead in to prevent the end mill from plunging into the part. I would also recommend a smaller stepover as I think you might end up breaking the end mill with the current settings. See attached pictures.

Leo C

[nickenglish8]

I am either not understanding, or I am not explaining what I mean very well.  Sorry.  The issue I am having is no matter which settings I am changing the first pass around the G the bit is fully engaged with the stock material.  After the first pass, the optimal load controls how engaged the bit is in the stock, but I can't figure out how to change it so that it will adjust the toolpath so the bit is never more engaged than the set optimal load.

Picture of first pass where the bit is fully engaged with the stock:

[leo.castellon]

See attached file. All I did is turn on "Stock contours" as J.Mitch79 suggested, I did not change your geometry selection. In this file, I also decreased the step over. Is this what you are looking for? As another poster suggested, sometimes 3d adaptative is a better choice as 2d adaptive is not model aware. 

Leo C

[kellings]

Hi @nickenglish8 The issue you are running into is that you are selecting the floor of the part. Instead of selecting the floor, you select the edge where the floor and the vertical face meet. Note in the image below that you see the toolpath going out to meet the bounds of the stock. 

This video should help to explain why this happens if you want to know more on the subject. 

https://youtu.be/fhVMybPl7KU

Thanks,

Kevin

[engineguy]

@nickenglish8 

Hmmm, looking at your file I see what you are saying, you have problems with the Tool going into the Material with "Full Engagement" which if you are cutting at full depth is not desirable.

So, what I think you are asking for is to be able to engage the material with only a light engagement, have a look at the image below, this may be of some help to you. I also did some other Toolpaths where at no time is there any full engagement of the tool on any toolpaths, so you should be able to keep some reasonable speeds/feeds, I will leave you to do those as you have more knowledge of your Machine/Tooling than I 🙂

I have attached a file for you to try out, just open it, run the Simulation and if it looks reasonable then start delving into the Operations settings, hope it is of some help to you and doesn`t confuse too much 🙂 🙂 🙂

[nickenglish8]

Wow! Thanks for the help!  This definitely help me understand some more about how to choose the contours.  Thanks!  However, if you look at "Top Outer" tool path, The first pass it makes, the bit is still fully  engaged or at least more engaged than the "optimal load".  Again, I could be looking at it wrong, but it still appears to be wrong for what "adaptive clearing" is for.  Thanks for all the help!!

EDIT:

Sorry, I may have been looking at it wrong.  The "top outer" is a contour operation, and the step over was set to .125 .   When I change that to a lower more acceptable stepover, it appears to be doing what I want.  So, I would need to use the "contour" operation instead of the adaptive clearing for this portion to clear as I want?

Thanks, and sorry for the confusion.

[nickenglish8]

Ok, I have played around with it a bit more using the file @engineguy provided and the advice he gave, and the video from @kellings.  Both were very helpful.  I am attaching the file.  I think I have the G being "pocketed" with the adaptive clearing operation, with one operation, and without taking a bite that is too big for the bit.  Selecting the geometry, I selected two seperate open loops (inside the G, and outside the G).  The two open loops meet, which I don't understand why selecting the entire loop doesn't give me the same result. However, it does appear to me to do what I am expecting.  I am attaching the file, I'd like for ya'll to look at and let me know if this is what I am expecting, and why I have to select the loops the way I am.  I really appreciate all of the help!!

Thanks!

[engineguy]

@nickenglish8 

No, you don`t have to use the Contour, see attached file. I have added a 3D Adaptive to remove all the excess stock  in one operation and moved the finishing Contour for the Inner G so that it clears all the material from inside the G, this means that as the 3D Adaptive is "Model Aware" I was able to set it to "Rest Machining" so it only cuts everything except the inner G, is this more what you are looking for, something more like the image below ??

There are usually several ways to get the job done, this is just an example 🙂

[nickenglish8]

Yes, that seems to work like I want kinda lol 🙊  Sorry.  What I wanted it to do is cut out exactly what it does with the "pocket" operation (except not over engage the bit), and then contour around the part to cut it out.  The pocket operation does not "clear the stock" it leaves corners of the stock.  Leaving the corners of the stock is fine because it is going to cut out the "ring around the G" any way.  I think either of these will work, but it just seems like the adaptive is wasting time and wear/tear on the tool.  I know I am being a little picky at this point, but I was just wonder if there was a way to do it.  I am attaching the file with the pocket operation to show what I want it to do except I want it to cut the same "pocket" with the adaptive technology of not over engaging the tool.  I hope that makes sense.

Thanks!

[engineguy]

@nickenglish8 

My apologies, I don`t see how your Pocket is faster and easier on the tool, from your file your method takes 6min and the Roughing Adaptive + the Finishing Contour + the Stock removal comes out at a fraction under 5min using the same feedrates and is way easier on the tool.

Total for your file with an added 2D Contour Finish around the inner and outer of the G is approx 6min 52 sec, my file to do the same total job is 6 min 37 sec, so, there is very little in it time wise but a lot in it as regards the Tool Life, the Adaptive toolpaths are specifically designed to reduce the load/wear on tooling 🙂

So I can only say that I am lost on this, I don`t have an answer other than that which I have uploaded !

Hopefully someone else will jump in

[nickenglish8]

NO! I don't think the pocket is faster or better.  I think the way you posted was the best way.  It just doesn't need to pocket out the corners of the stock because the contour is going to be cutting them away anyway.  I am obviously not being very clear.  I only posted the pocket to show that it is leaving the corners un touched by the tool and pocketing out the rest although not as good as the adaptive method.  Maybe if I define the stock size instead of choosing relative size it would eliminate this?  

Thanks!