Community
Fusion Manufacture
Talk shop with the Fusion (formerly Fusion 360) Manufacture Community. Share tool strategies, tips, get advice and solve problems together with the best minds in the industry.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Chip breaking- partial retrack problem.

27 REPLIES 27
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 28
helmut.kungl
1349 Views, 27 Replies

Chip breaking- partial retrack problem.

Hello,

 

I have a Tormach 100MX. When using fusion 360 to program a drilling operation (Chip breaking- partial retrack) what the simulation shows does not match the actual operation.

 

Drilling a 0.40" hole with 5 pecks as per the 360 simulation. However, the machine only performs 3 pecks ? Is that a bug ?

 

H

 

Tags (2)
27 REPLIES 27
Message 2 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

What does the posted code give you?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 3 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: seth.madore

It's produces 5 pecks (full retract) as does the simulation. But on the CNC
machine it only retracts 3 times at 0.20", 0.40" and then one more at about
0.45"

Helmut


Message 4 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Right, can you share the snipped of code that Fusion produced for you?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 5 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: seth.madore

Yes, I can provide the .nc file tomorrow as I just left office. I assume I
can just include an attachment.
Message 6 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Yep! And if you don't mind, the Fusion file would be great to see as well. You can attach them both here


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 7 of 28

My guess is you programmed a .08 chip break and used a .200 Accumulated Pecking Depth

Please click "Accept Solution" if what I wrote solved your issue!
Message 8 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: seth.madore

Here is a link to the Fusion360 file: https://a360.co/3v1kD7K
(not sure if that's the correct way to share the file)

Also, I have attached the .nc file
Message 9 of 28

Thanks for the reply.

I wish it was that simple. The numbers I used are as per the .jpg I
attached.

I should have explained that the simulation does 5 pecks as I would expect
based on the variables I inputted, but the actual CNC machining only does 3
pecks.

While nothing was broken, it is an issue I can't explain.

Helmut
Message 10 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Looking at the posted code and running it thru a backplotter, I do see 5 "peck" moves, but it does appear that some of them are retracting from the hole, and others are a small retract. It is posting out as long hand code (expanded). If you want to have it in a canned cycle, you can change the Accumulated Pecking Depth to be larger than the depth of your hole:

2024-03-15_11h12_25.png

Which will produce this code:
G98 G73 X-1.525 Y-1.525 Z-0.469 R0.192 Q0.1 F6.

Peck depth of .1" and retract up to .192 above part.


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 11 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: seth.madore

There's a 'Chip break' of 0.004" which I assume is applied between pecks.

However, the Fusion simulation clearly performs 5 full retracted pecks
whereas the CNC only performs 3 in total.

I'm still a novice and not an expert in Fusion or G-Code. I rely entirely
on Fusion and the Simulation which typically performs exactly like the
machine, except in this case. A month ago I experienced something similar
where I had multiple pecks but the machine drilled the entire hole in a
single go (that was even worse).

Thanks for your assistance. If it's a bug maybe they will fix it.

Helmut

Message 12 of 28

If you want to do 0.100 pecks, you should be using a Deep Drilling (G83) strategy instead. 

Chip break (G73) is only for small retracts to break the chip, which is only required on soft materials where the chip doesn't break by itself with proper feed (think of plastics) but "faster" then doing Deep Drilling. 

the chip break distance may say .004 in fusion, but for the Haas atleast that value is actually defined at the controller and is .01". It uses this value whenever it sees this canned cycle. 

Please click "Accept Solution" if what I wrote solved your issue!
Message 13 of 28

Thanks for the advice, I'll try that.

Helmut
Message 14 of 28

I tried Deep Drilling. The parameters and simulation produce 4 pecks as expected (with full retracts after every peck).

 

But the Tormach CNC machines produces six full pecks with retracts. Two of those pecks occur before the tool even touches my material.

 

Could there be a bug in Fusion360 ? Or the Tormach PathPilot.cps which is causing this ? How do you report potential bugs ?

 

Helmut

Message 15 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Are you getting a canned cycle in your posted code or is it "expanded" in that it's a slew of Z moves, in and out?

The issue most likely doesn't exist in Fusion, (but there may be one in the post) although I'm inclined to think not. It's possible you're missing something in Simulation, or Tormach is interpreting the code incorrectly.

 

As before, could you share your Fusion file and resulting code here?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 16 of 28

Your code should look a lot like this:

G83 X_ Y_   Z-.45   R_ Q.1   F_

Please click "Accept Solution" if what I wrote solved your issue!
Message 17 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: seth.madore

It made 4 holes using the 'Select Same Diameter' checkbox. But the attached
.nc is for just one hole.

Attached is the .nc file, and a Fusion360 link.
Fusion360: https://a360.co/4amWlUm

The Fusion360 simulation performs 4 pecks (full retracts), but my CNC
performs 6 pecks (full retracts).
Message 18 of 28
helmut.kungl
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Here's the .nc file attached again and an image.

Deep_drilling.jpg

Message 19 of 28
seth.madore
in reply to: helmut.kungl

Ok, so looking at your code, your machine should have done 6 peck and retracts, as that is what the math works out to. And, as you state, that's exactly what it does.

In Fusion, what you're seeing are only the pecks that take place in the material, not the pecks that are above the material. You can adjust your height settings to accurately simulate what you are expecting to see, as the values you were using are not what I would prefer to see. Your "Feed Height" was an offset from Top Height. If we set all our Clearance, Retract, Feed and Top Height simply to "Stock Top", we get a hole signature that looks like this:

2024-03-20_15h28_30.png

And a toolpath that shows the peck moves as expected.

2024-03-20_15h28_49.png


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 20 of 28

OP has the opposite issue. Simulation shows 6 pecks, but his machine does 3.

F2 also seems crazy slow to me for Aluminum, and F5000 is way too high for it to be steel. 

Please click "Accept Solution" if what I wrote solved your issue!

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums