Question with 3D contour - won't cut near vertical wall, pic and part file attac

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Last week we got our handlebar back and I was so excited to fit it with the triple tree you guys helped with. Just to find out that the top clamp was 0.25mm too narrow at the opening to fit the handlebar. I checked my toolpath and realized the 3D contour I used to cut the clamp did not reach to the end of the wall. In previous step I used 3D clearing but with 0.02" leftover so I'm guessing that extra material was the problem.
Can someone show me how to get the clamp cut more precisely? Pic and file attached.

thanks for your time

daz

[Rob_Lockwood]

dalianharley wrote:

Hi, Last week we got our handlebar back and I was so excited to fit it with the triple tree you guys helped with. Just to find out that the top clamp was 0.25mm too narrow at the opening to fit the handlebar. I checked my toolpath and realized the 3D contour I used to cut the clamp did not reach to the end of the wall. In previous step I used 3D clearing but with 0.02" leftover so I'm guessing that extra material was the problem. Can someone show me how to get the clamp cut more precisely? Pic and file attached. thanks for your time daz

Re-upload the assembly using Solidworks' Pack-and-Go feature. Currently, nobody can help you because they don't have the actual model file..

[lenny_1962]

3d scallop or flow cut would work for this

[Anonymous]

Sorry, here are the packed files.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

dalianharley wrote:
Sorry, here are the packed files.

Actually the toolpath is spot on!
So something else is probably the problem, tool deflection, tool size?

[Anonymous]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
dalianharley wrote: Sorry, here are the packed files. Actually the toolpath is spot on! So something else is probably the problem, tool deflection, tool size?

well that's good to know 🙂 but it's still off a little. I ended up clamped the part on the vise and filed it down a little bit. I doubt it's deflection - it was cutting with a nice humming sound and it was only going 6 in/min for the 1/8" 4FL.
Anyway, thanks for all the help. If I have to cut another one i'll play with it more.

[scottmoyse]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
dalianharley wrote: Sorry, here are the packed files. Actually the toolpath is spot on! So something else is probably the problem, tool deflection, tool size?

I just had a look, and I could see where the toolpath resulted in leaving 0.25mm. The tool path was being restricted by this setting being enabled:



Disable it and the tool will continue to climb up the face until the center of the tool reaches your boundary... or the top of the surface.

Personally I would have used a parallel strategy here, and got the toolpath to follow the important shape. So the tool would have machined an arc in the YZ plane with each pass.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

scottmoyse wrote:

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote: dalianharley wrote: Sorry, here are the packed files. Actually the toolpath is spot on! So something else is probably the problem, tool deflection, tool size? I just had a look, and I could see where the toolpath resulted in leaving 0.25mm. The tool path was being restricted by this setting being enabled: Disable it and the tool will continue to climb up the face until the center of the tool reaches your boundary... or the top of the surface. Personally I would have used a parallel strategy here, and got the toolpath to follow the important shape. So the tool would have machined an arc in the YZ plane with each pass.

Actually there is no need for the tool to have passes higher than in his file.
Now the side of the tool touches the highest part of the part which is fine.
Simulated and see that it machines it correctly.

[scottmoyse]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
Actually there is no need for the tool to have passes higher than in his file. Now the side of the tool touches the highest part of the part which is fine. Simulated and see that it machines it correctly.

Occasionally Laurens, you are wrong. This unfortunately is one of those occasions.



There may well be other factors at play as well, but the entire face hasn't been machined here. If you disable the option I suggested above, the entire surface gets machined.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

scottmoyse wrote:
Occasionally Laurens, you are wrong. This unfortunately is one of those occasions. There may well be other factors at play as well, but the entire face hasn't been machined here. If you disable the option I suggested above, the entire surface gets machined.

That actually is the first step down right? I mean with that off you get so many non use full passes, and this setting works all the time. So I personally don't think it leaves 0.25 mm.

And trust me I know I'm wrong occasionally.

See attached image. I really don't think that what you found can be the cause of it being of by 0.25.

[scottmoyse]

Yes that's the last tool path from the top.I agree that isn't 0.25mm but its contributing towards it. I just wouldn't use a contour there personally.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

scottmoyse wrote:
Yes that's the last tool path from the top.I agree that isn't 0.25mm but its contributing towards it. I just wouldn't use a contour there personally.

It really depends on how steady you can hold it.
If it's really vibrating I might do it with a contour. Because it doesn't push on the model too much.
But this probably is one of those things where everything added up.

Have you considered the model bending in a little when you took it out of the machine? I mean that could have happened due to the material tension.

[Anonymous]

Ha you guys deserve another round of shirts from Autodesk. I'm gonna cut another piece later today see if this helps and report back what I found.
There might be slight vibration due to the way I clamped it. I'll post some pics later. basically I left a parallel ledge on the A side and it's only 1/4 of the total width of the part. so when I flip it over it's held like a fork, these 4 footers may have some vibration I'd imagine.

thanks again for the help

Daz