METHOD AND MACHINE FOR CUTTING A WORKPIECE

Description

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for cutting a particularly plate-like workpiece, for example a sheet metal, comprising: cutting the workpiece along a predetermined cutting contour to separate a workpiece part from a remaining part, and checking whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during the cutting process.The invention also relates to a machine for cutting a workpiece, comprising: a machining head for aligning a machining beam onto the workpiece, at least one movement device for generating a relative movement between the machining head and the workpiece, a control device for controlling the at least one movement device for separating a workpiece part from a remaining part by cutting the workpiece along a predetermined cutting contour, and an evaluation device which is designed to check whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during the cutting machining.

[0002] The cutting of plate-like workpieces, e.g. sheet metal, can be carried out by thermal or mechanical processing. During thermal processing using a processing beam, for example a laser beam, a workpiece part is completely separated from a residual part along a cutting contour. The residual part can be a residual workpiece or a residual skeleton of the workpiece from which the workpiece part (good part) is cut free. Alternatively, the cut-free part can be a residual part (waste), for example a cutting slug that is possibly cut free from a good part. The cutting contour used for the free cutting can be a self-contained cutting contour, but this is not absolutely necessary.For example, if an edge of the part to be separated forms an outer edge of the workpiece, the part can be cut free from the residual skeleton without cutting a closed cutting contour.

[0003] During cutting operations, particularly laser beam cutting, it is possible that, due to parameter and / or process errors, workpiece parts and / or residual parts are not completely separated from the residual skeleton or residual workpiece and therefore do not fall downwards from the residual workpiece or from the workpiece plane, with the result that they form an interfering contour for further processing. Interfering contours that do not fall, caused for example by slugs, are particularly critical on machines with moving axis elements or support carriages throughout the entire machining process. Machine elements, particularly moving machine elements, can be damaged by slugs or good parts that are partially located below the workpiece plane. The workpiece can also be unintentionally moved or lifted due to form fitting, with the result that contour accuracy is no longer guaranteed.This can sometimes result in a poor cut or no cut, or the workpiece can be torn out of the clamping elements on which the workpiece is typically mounted during cutting due to sufficient frictional connection to the moving machine elements.

[0004] WO 2015 / 080179 A1 solves the problem of removing a large residual piece or scrap when cutting a hole in a workpiece by inserting a plurality of cutting lines into the workpiece in the area of ​​the hole to be cut in order to cut the large residual piece into several smaller residual pieces. The subsequent cutting of the hole along the contour line is performed starting from the residual piece that is intended to be the last to fall down in the direction of the profile line of the hole.

[0005] DE 10 2009 049 750 A1 describes a method for cutting material along a desired cutting path by applying a plurality of laser pulses of a modulated laser beam. In one example, the cutting path is repeatedly traversed by the modulated laser beam, with at least one cutting parameter being changed between two passes. In this way, first laser cutting points, which are introduced into the workpiece during a first pass of the cutting path, can be offset to second laser cutting points, which are introduced into the workpiece during a second pass of the cutting path.

[0006] DE 10 2011 004 117 A1 describes a method for controlling a cutting operation on a workpiece to separate a workpiece part from a remaining workpiece along a desired cutting contour. This method automatically checks whether a workpiece part has been completely cut free from the remaining workpiece after the cutting operation.

[0007] EP 3 075 485 A1 discloses a method for assisting in the removal of a workpiece part cut out by laser cutting from a residual workpiece, in which a process gas jet is directed onto the workpiece part along a predetermined contour after the workpiece part has been cut out. Aufgabe der Erfindung

[0008] One aspect of the invention is based on the object of providing a method and a machine for cutting a workpiece, which enable an automated removal of interfering contours that occur when a workpiece part is incompletely separated from a remaining part. Gegenstand der Erfindung

[0009] According to a first aspect, this object is achieved by a method of the type mentioned above, in which it is determined that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part and which is characterized by: retracing the specified cutting contour with a cutting gas jet without further cutting of the workpiece after determining that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part. The cutting along the cutting contour is carried out by means of a processing beam, usually a laser beam, but another type of processing beam, for example a plasma beam or a water jet, can also be used for this purpose.

[0010] In the method according to the invention, a suitable sensor or detector is first used to check whether post-processing is required after cutting in order to completely separate the workpiece part from the remaining part. If this is the case, a cutting gas jet is traced along the cutting contour without further cutting of the workpiece in order to completely separate the workpiece part (good part) from the remaining part (waste) and thereby prevent the incompletely cut good part or remaining part from forming an interference contour during further cutting of the workpiece. As already mentioned above, the specified cutting contour is traced with a cutting gas jet if it is determined during the test that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part.In this aspect of the invention, the workpiece is not cut again; instead, the cutting contour is traced with a cutting gas jet. A processing jet used for cutting is switched off when the cutting contour is traced with the cutting gas jet. By using the cutting gas jet, slightly jammed workpiece parts can be made to fall and removed downwards from the workpiece plane without affecting the quality, i.e. without influencing the edges of the remaining part or the workpiece part. After the cutting contour has been traced, further cutting can optionally be carried out. In particular, the cutting contour can be traced only partially, i.e. along a partial path or section, with the cutting gas jet.

[0011] In a further aspect of the invention or in a further variant, checking whether the workpiece part has been separated from the remaining part comprises the following steps: irradiating a preferably pulsed processing beam onto the workpiece at a test position within the predetermined cutting contour, detecting radiation generated by an interaction between the processing beam and the workpiece, and evaluating the detected radiation to check whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during cutting, wherein the intensity of the processing beam is increased at the test position during irradiation of the processing beam and the irradiation of the processing beam is terminated as soon as it is determined during the testing that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part during cutting. The processing beam used for the test can in particular be a laser beam.The method of checking whether the workpiece part has been separated from the remaining part essentially corresponds to the procedure described in DE 10 2011 004 117 A1 cited at the beginning.

[0012] The pulsed processing beam irradiated onto the workpiece can be a single pulse of the processing beam, in particular a laser pulse, or a plurality of laser pulses. The processing beam is typically generated by the same beam source that also generates the processing beam for cutting the workpiece. If necessary, a processing beam generated by a different beam source, for example, a pilot laser or the like, can also be used for the inspection.

[0013] In the event that the cut part (workpiece part or remaining part) has the potential to form an interference contour, the inspection or inspection step typically involves checking along the cutting contour immediately after cutting to determine whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part. In principle, all parts formed or cut free during cutting can potentially form an interference contour for subsequent cutting.

[0014] For testing, the machining beam is directed onto the workpiece at a test position within the specified cutting contour, more precisely within the cut-out part (workpiece part or remaining part), in order to detect, based on any radiation generated during the interaction, whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part. If the workpiece part is completely separated from the remaining part, it is typically ejected downwards out of the workpiece plane, i.e., the machining beam directed onto the workpiece at the test position shines into a hole formed within the cutting contour, so that virtually no interaction occurs between the machining beam and the workpiece, and no or only an extremely low radiation intensity is detected.

[0015] As explained above, testing to determine whether the workpiece part has been separated from the remaining part can essentially be carried out in the manner described in DE 10 2011 004 117 A1 cited at the beginning, i.e., without increasing the intensity of the machining beam at the test position and without terminating the irradiation of the machining beam as soon as it is determined during testing that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part during cutting. If a fixed machining beam power is used for the entire test duration, this generally requires a complex determination of key data for the workpiece materials being machined, workpiece thicknesses, etc., as well as maintenance of this key data in tables or databases.Despite this comparatively complex data acquisition, a fixed power of the processing beam cannot in certain cases achieve a particularly high level of robustness of the testing process, as will be described in more detail below.

[0016] The inventors have recognized that, depending on, among other things, the divergence of the processing beam and the position of the workpiece part relative to the remaining part, in unfavorable cases the irradiation of the processing beam merely heats up the material of the workpiece part, without the interaction between the processing beam and the workpiece part producing sufficient radiation for detection. Such an unfavorable case can occur in particular if the workpiece part is still connected to the remaining part, but has sunk several millimeters downwards in relation to the remaining part. In such an unfavorable case, the inspection may be carried out with an excessively low power of the processing beam.It can be concluded that the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part, without this actually being the case, which can subsequently lead to collisions between components of the processing machine and the workpiece part.

[0017] If the intensity of the processing beam at the test position is too high, this can result in the workpiece being marked by the processing beam and possibly even in the workpiece being pierced. Since at least one further cutting operation may be required - particularly laterally offset from the cutting contour (see above) - in order to completely separate the workpiece part from the remaining part, it is usually necessary to perform the test on one and the same workpiece part several times. If the processing beam pierces the workpiece part, a repeated test at the same test position can possibly lead to an undesirable result, since the radiation generated during the interaction can no longer be measured at the pierced point, even though the workpiece part is still present. In this case, too, the presence of the workpiece part is not detected and there is a risk of collision in subsequent processes.Even if the workpiece is not completely pierced, excessively high beam power can burn a crater into the workpiece, accompanied by massive flying sparks. These flying sparks can lead to contamination of the machine, for example, in the form of splashes on a protective glass panel attached to the processing head.

[0018] In the aspect of the invention described here or in the variant described here, the intensity of the processing beam is increased at the test position during irradiation of the processing beam, and the irradiation of the processing beam is terminated as soon as it is determined during testing that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part during cutting. In this way, on the one hand, sufficient interaction of the processing beam with the workpiece can take place during irradiation, thus reliably detecting a workpiece part that has not been completely separated from the remaining part. On the other hand, as soon as it is determined that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part, the irradiation is terminated, thus preventing crater formation or piercing of the workpiece.

[0019] In this way, the presence of the workpiece part can be reliably detected even if the distance of the workpiece part from the focus position of the processing beam or from the remaining part is unknown. The range of values ​​between the minimum intensity of the processing beam at the inspection position and the maximum intensity of the processing beam at the inspection position, assuming that the irradiation is not terminated prematurely, covers a range of values ​​that is useful for detecting the workpiece part. Terminating the irradiation of the processing beam at the inspection position can be accomplished in real time or with the help of a real-time interface, which switches off the beam source used to generate the processing beam almost instantly.

[0020] In one variant of the method, the power of the processing beam is increased step by step as it is irradiated to the test position. Increasing the power of the processing beam is a particularly simple way of increasing the intensity of the processing beam at the test position. In this case, at the start of irradiation or at the start of the test, the processing beam is irradiated onto the workpiece with a power that is below the maximum possible power of the beam source, and the power is increased continuously (i.e. in the manner of a power ramp) or step by step. In the event that no radiation generated during the interaction is detected during the entire test duration, the power of the beam source can be increased during the test duration, for example, up to the maximum possible power.In the event that the presence of the workpiece part is detected during the test duration, the irradiation of the processing beam is interrupted virtually in real time, i.e. the period of the test duration with the remaining power ramp or with the remaining stages is no longer carried out.

[0021] In a further development, the processing beam is irradiated onto the test position in pulsed form, and the power of the processing beam pulses is increased gradually. In this case, a (gradual) increase in the power of the processing beam can occur, for example, at a fixed time interval or after a fixed time interval. The power of the pulses that is increased gradually can be the average power of the pulses, but also another measure of the power of the pulses, such as the peak power (maximum power). The specified time interval can, for example, be on the order of a few milliseconds.

[0022] In a further development of this variant, the power of the pulses is at least doubled in each stepwise increase. By doubling or, if necessary, increasing the power even further in two consecutive pulses or steps, the number of pulses required to cover a comparatively large range of values ​​for the power of the processing beam can be kept low. For example, using five pulses or steps, each with a constant duration, a range of values ​​between approximately 100 watts for the first step and 1600 W for the fifth step can be covered.

[0023] In another variant, the intensity of the processing beam at the test position is increased by shifting the focus position of the processing beam towards the workpiece. In this case, the power of the processing beam is usually kept constant throughout the test period, but this is not absolutely necessary. At the beginning of the test period or test interval, the focus position in the beam direction of the processing beam is selected at a distance from the workpiece, and the focus position of the processing beam is shifted towards the workpiece during the test period. At the end of the test period, the processing beam can be shifted to the top side of the workpiece, but it is also possible for the focus position to be a defined distance below the top side of the workpiece, for example at the level of the underside of the workpiece.

[0024] The smaller the distance between the focus position and the workpiece part, the smaller the diameter of the processing beam on the workpiece part and the greater the intensity of the processing beam on the workpiece part. As described above in connection with increasing the power of the processing beam, the shift in the focus position and thus the increase in the intensity of the processing beam at the test position can also occur continuously or in stages. To change the focus position, the distance between a focusing device and the workpiece can be changed. For this purpose, for example, the distance between a processing head in which the focusing device is arranged and the workpiece can be changed, in particular reduced.

[0025] In one variant, to check whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during cutting, the intensity of the detected radiation is compared with an intensity threshold, and the irradiation of the processing beam is stopped as soon as the intensity threshold is exceeded. With the help of the detector described above, the radiation generated during the interaction is detected, which can, for example, be at wavelengths in the infrared wavelength range. If the intensity threshold is exceeded, the presence of the workpiece part in the remaining part is detected and the beam source is ideally switched off in real time. As described above, this can effectively prevent craters from forming in the material or the material of the workpiece part from being pierced by the processing beam.

[0026] If the analysis of the detected radiation reveals that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part during cutting, another cutting process can be performed immediately afterwards. Alternatively, a follow-up test can be performed first, and the test step can be repeated by shining the processing beam onto the workpiece again—typically at a different test position—and evaluating the resulting radiation. Only if the follow-up test also shows that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part will another cutting process be performed.

[0027] It is understood that if the test shows that the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part, the machining of the workpiece will continue.

[0028] In a further development, the machining beam is irradiated at a test position within the specified cutting contour, which is spaced from the specified cutting contour and / or an approach contour by at least the cutting gap width of the cutting contour. The test position should have a minimum distance to the cutting contour so that the machining beam is not inadvertently irradiated wholly or partially into the area of ​​the cutting contour during the test, which could falsify the test result. If the cut-free part is a residual part, it typically also contains an approach contour emanating from a piercing position, which is required to start the cutting process. A minimum distance to the approach contour should also be maintained during the test to avoid falsifying the test result. The test position should also be as close to the end of the cut as possible, i.e.as close as possible to the free-cutting position, so that the distance between the free-cutting position and the inspection position is as small as possible and the inspection can be performed quickly. The minimum distance can also be selected to be larger than the cutting gap width, for example, if the machining beam has a so-called pulse effect radius, in which the machining beam influences the workpiece material outside the beam diameter, e.g., if the machining beam causes warping of the workpiece material there. In this case, the minimum distance should be at least equal to the sum of the cutting gap width and the pulse effect radius.

[0029] In a further aspect of the invention or in a further variant of the method described above, in which the checking of whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining workpiece comprises irradiating a processing beam onto the workpiece at a test position within the predetermined cutting contour, if it is determined during the checking that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part during cutting, at least one gas pulse is applied to the test position or, if necessary, to any other position within the cutting contour in order to eject the workpiece part from a support plane. The gas pulse is typically applied to the test position by a cutting gas nozzle of the processing head, through which the processing beam is also directed onto the workpiece.It is also possible to apply one or more gas pulses, generated by a lateral gas nozzle, at an angle to the test position. The gas pulse can last in the order of seconds, e.g., two seconds, and have a high gas pressure of, e.g., more than approximately 10 or 15 bar. The gas used to generate the gas pulse can, in particular, be an inert gas, e.g., nitrogen. "Blowing out" the workpiece with the gas pulse(s) has no quality impact, i.e., the edges of the workpiece or the remaining workpiece are not affected. After the gas pulse(s) have been applied to the test position, a further test can be carried out at the same test position to determine whether the workpiece has been removed from the support plane.If necessary, the at least one gas pulse can be applied to a different position within the cutting contour, in particular if the probability that the workpiece part will be ejected when the gas pulse is applied at this position is greater than when the gas pulse is applied to the test position.

[0030] In a further variant, the method additionally includes: (Re-)checking whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during the next cutting operation. In this case, after re-processing or after the next cutting operation, a new check is carried out to determine whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining workpiece. If the new test is carried out by shining the machining beam onto the workpiece, the new test can be carried out at the same test position as the previous test, but it is also possible to carry out the new test at a different test position. The latter is particularly advantageous if the machining beam influences the workpiece, for example if it causes the workpiece material to warp. In this case, the distance between the two test positions should correspond at least to the cutting gap width and, if necessary, also to the pulse effect radius.If, upon further testing, it is determined that the workpiece part has still not been separated from the remaining workpiece, a further post-processing step can be carried out, i.e. a further cutting operation with a laterally offset cutting contour, followed by a further testing step, etc.

[0031] To avoid an endless loop, in the case described above, an adjustable tolerance threshold can be specified which corresponds to a defined number of repetitions of (repeated) cutting machining steps. If the tolerance threshold is exceeded, the machine is switched to pause mode, i.e. the cutting machining of the workpiece is interrupted. Additionally or alternatively, further actions can be carried out, e.g. an acoustic warning and / or a message and / or a real-time image of the machine's machining area and / or a notification can be sent to a machine operator's communication device. The further action(s) can take place when the first iteration stage is reached, the last iteration stage, i.e. when the tolerance threshold is exceeded, or at any iteration stage in between.

[0032] A further aspect of the invention relates to a machine of the type mentioned at the outset for cutting a workpiece, in which the control device is designed or programmed to control the at least one movement device to repeat the predetermined cutting contour with a cutting gas jet without further cutting of the workpiece, provided that the evaluation device determines during testing that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part. The movement device controlled by the control device can be a movement device for moving the processing head, typically a laser cutting head. Alternatively or additionally, the control device can control a movement device designed to move the workpiece. A relative movement between the processing head and the workpiece is defined as a movement in orparallel to a plane in which the typically plate-shaped workpiece is arranged.

[0033] In a further aspect of the invention or in a further embodiment, the machine comprises a detector for detecting radiation generated by an interaction between the processing beam and the workpiece, which radiation arises when the preferably pulsed processing beam is irradiated onto the workpiece at a test position within the predetermined cutting contour, wherein the evaluation device is designed to check on the basis of the detected radiation whether the workpiece part was completely separated from the remaining part during the cutting process, and wherein the control device is designed to increase the intensity of the processing beam at the test position and to stop the irradiation of the processing beam at the test position as soon as it is determined during the test that the workpiece part was not completely separated from the remaining part during the cutting process.

[0034] In one embodiment, the machine has a beam source, and the control device is configured or programmed to control the beam source, particularly to gradually increase the power of the processing beam during irradiation at the test position. As described above in connection with the method, by changing the power of the beam source, a continuous or gradual increase in the intensity of the processing beam at the test position can be achieved very quickly, so that the test duration does not need to be extended, or only slightly, compared to a test using a constant power.

[0035] In a further embodiment, the control device is configured to control the beam source, irradiate the processing beam in pulsed form onto the test position, and increase the power of the pulses of the pulsed processing beam in steps, wherein the power of the pulses is preferably at least doubled in each stepwise increase. When doubling the power, a comparatively small number of steps is required to cover a wide range of laser beam power values, which allows the test duration to be shortened while maintaining identical pulse durations. Instead of a stepwise increase, the power of the processing beam can also be increased continuously, particularly when using a continuous wave (cw) processing beam.

[0036] In a further embodiment, the machine additionally comprises a focusing device mounted in the processing head and a further movement device for moving the processing head in a direction perpendicular to the workpiece. The control device is designed to control the further movement device in order to increase the intensity of the processing beam at the test position in order to shift the focus position of the processing beam in the direction of the workpiece while the processing beam is being irradiated to the test position. The smaller the distance between the focus position of the processing beam and the workpiece, the smaller the diameter of the processing beam on the workpiece and the greater the intensity of the processing beam at the test position. In order to increase the intensity of the processing beam at the test position, the distance between the focus position and the workpiece orthe workpiece part can be reduced continuously or, if necessary, gradually. Instead of moving the machining head, the focus position can also be adjusted in another way, for example, by moving the focusing device relative to the machining head.

[0037] In a further embodiment, the evaluation device is designed to compare the intensity of the detected radiation with an intensity threshold value to check whether the workpiece part has been completely separated from the remaining part during cutting. As described above, particularly when using a non-spatially resolving detector such as a photodiode, the intensity of the detected radiation can, in the simplest case, be compared with an intensity threshold value. If the intensity falls below the threshold value, there is no workpiece material at the test position and the NC cutting program continues to cut another workpiece part. If the intensity of the detected radiation is above the threshold value, it is assumed that interfering workpiece material is present at the test position, so that the workpiece part has not been completely separated from the remaining part.In this case, the irradiation of the processing beam to the inspection position is ideally completed in real time, as described in more detail above.

[0038] Further advantages of the invention will become apparent from the description and the drawings. Likewise, the above-mentioned and further listed features can be used individually or in combination. The embodiments shown and described are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather serve as examples for describing the invention.

[0039] They show: Fig. 1 a schematic representation of an embodiment of a machine for cutting a workpiece in the form of a laser processing machine, Fig. 2 a schematic representation of a cutting gap formed in the workpiece during cutting, Fig. 3 a representation of a predetermined cutting contour formed in the workpiece during cutting for separating a residual part from a workpiece part, Fig. 4a,b schematic representations of the predetermined cutting contour of Fig. 3 and a further cutting contour which is offset from the predetermined cutting contour, Fig. 5 a schematic representation of a beam profile of a laser beam irradiated onto the workpiece at a test position, and Fig. 6 a schematic representation of the time course of the power of the laser beam irradiated at the test position and the time course of the intensity of IR radiation which is detected during the interaction of the irradiated laser beam with the workpiece.

[0040] In the following description of the drawings, identical reference symbols are used for identical or functionally identical components.

[0041] Fig. 1 shows an exemplary structure of a machine 1 for laser processing, more precisely for laser cutting, a plate-shaped workpiece 2 (shown in dashed lines) using a laser beam 3. For cutting the workpiece 2, another type of thermal processing beam can also be used instead of the laser beam 3. During processing, the workpiece 2 rests on two workpiece support surfaces 4, 5, which in the example shown form the upper sides of two workpiece tables and define a support plane E (XY plane of an XYZ coordinate system) for supporting the workpiece 2.

[0042] By means of a conventional movement and holding device 7, which has a drive and clamping devices 8 in the form of clamping claws for holding the workpiece 2, the workpiece 2 can be moved in a controlled manner on the workpiece support surfaces 4, 5 in a first movement direction X (hereinafter: X-direction) and moved to a predetermined workpiece position XW.

[0043] A gap 6 is formed between the two workpiece support surfaces 4, 5, which extends in a second direction (hereinafter: Y-direction) over the entire travel path of a processing head in the form of a laser cutting head 9, which aligns and focuses the laser beam 3 onto the workpiece 2. The laser cutting head 9 can be moved in a controlled manner in the Y-direction within the gap 6 by means of a driven carriage 11, which serves as a movement device and is guided on a fixed gantry 10. In the example shown, the laser cutting head 9 can also be moved in a controlled manner in the X-direction within the gap 6 and can be moved in a controlled manner in the X-direction with the aid of an additional movement device 12, for example in the form of a linear drive, attached to the carriage 11.With the aid of the successive movement devices 11, 12, the laser cutting head 9 can be positioned both in the X direction and in the Y direction at a desired cutting head position XS, YS within the gap 6. Two support carriages 13a, 13b are arranged within the gap 6, each extending across the entire width b of the gap 6 and being controlled and independently movable in the Y direction within the gap 6.

[0044] In addition, the laser cutting head 9 in the example shown can be moved along a third movement direction Z (gravity direction, hereinafter: Z-direction) by means of a further movement device 13, which is based on the first movement device in the form of the carriage 11, in order to adjust the distance between a processing nozzle 9a of the laser cutting head 9 and the surface of the workpiece 2 or to position the laser cutting head 9 at a desired cutting head position ZS or at a desired distance in the Z-direction relative to the workpiece support plane E.

[0045] The support carriages 13a, 13b can each be moved in the gap 6 to a desired position Y UA , Y UB in the Y direction in order to support the workpiece 2, or more precisely, the workpiece parts 17 to be cut free from the workpiece 2 or cut during machining, by means of a support surface 14a, 14b attached to the respective support carriage 13a, 13b. In the case shown, the support surface 14a, 14b of a respective support carriage 13a, 13b is flush with the workpiece support surfaces 4, 5 in the Z direction, i.e., the support surfaces 14a, 14b are located in the support plane E for the workpiece 2.

[0046] To control the cutting process, the machine 1 has a control device 15 which serves to coordinate the movements of the workpiece 2, the laser cutting head 9 and the support carriages 13a, 13b in order to set a desired workpiece position XW , a desired cutting head position XS , YS , ZS as well as a desired position Y UA , Y UB of the support carriages 13a, 13b in order to enable the cutting of a predetermined cutting contour 18a and, if necessary, to support the workpiece in the region of the gap 6. The movement of the first support carriage 13a can take place synchronously with or independently of the second support carriage 13b. The control device 15 also serves to control a beam source 31 in the form of a laser source.

[0047] In the Fig. 1 In the example shown, a covering element 16a, 16b is attached to each of the outer edges of the support surfaces 14a, 14b, which extend in the X direction and face away from one another, to cover the gap 6 outside the cutting area formed between the support carriages 13a, 13b. The covering elements 16a, 16b extend over the entire width b of the gap 6 and are moved along with the movement of the support carriages 13a, 13b in the Y direction.

[0048] When cutting a workpiece part 17 free from the workpiece 2, more precisely from a remaining part of the workpiece 2 in the form of a residual skeleton 19, the last connection between the workpiece part 17 and the residual skeleton 19 is severed at a free-cutting position FP. For this purpose, the two support carriages 13a, 13b can be moved closer together so that only a very small distance or no distance remains between them in the Y direction.

[0049] Fig. 2 shows a detail of workpiece 2 of Fig. 1 in a sectional view showing a cutting gap 26 with a cutting gap width B, which is formed along the specified cutting contour 18a in the workpiece 2. The cutting gap width B of the cutting gap 26 is determined by process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, laser power, etc. If the Fig. 1 If the cutting operation shown is carried out correctly, the workpiece part 17 is completely separated from the remaining part 19 at the free-cutting position FP along the predetermined cutting contour 18a. The workpiece part 17 is then removed from the workpiece plane E, for example by the two support carriages 13a, 13b being moved in opposite directions in the gap 6, so that the workpiece part 17 is no longer supported and falls downwards into the gap 6, where the workpiece part 17 can be ejected from the machine 1 by means not described in more detail.

[0050] In order to check whether the workpiece part 17 has actually been separated from the remaining part 19 during cutting, a test or test step is carried out, which is subsequently described using Fig. 3 is described in more detail. Fig. 3 shows a plan view of the workpiece 2 with a workpiece part 17 separated from the (remaining) workpiece 2, from which, unlike in Fig. 1 shown, a circular remaining part 19 is cut out, for example, to form an opening in the workpiece part 17 for fastening a screw or the like. In the present example, the cutting contour 18a is circular, but it is understood that the geometry of the cutting contour 18a can in principle be arbitrary. Fig. 3 Also shown are a piercing point 20a and a linear approach contour 20b, which serve for piercing and approaching the laser beam 3 before it separates the remaining part 19 from the workpiece part 17 along the predetermined cutting contour 18a. The machining direction 23a of the predetermined cutting contour 18a runs in Fig. 3 for example clockwise.

[0051] In order to check whether the remaining part 19 has been completely separated from the workpiece part 17 and has thus fallen downwards from the workpiece plane E, the laser cutting head 9 is positioned with the aid of the two movement devices 11, 12 and / or the workpiece 2 with the aid of the movement and holding device 7 in such a way that the laser beam 3 used for processing is aligned substantially perpendicular to the surface of the workpiece 2 and radiates onto the remaining part 19 at a test position, wherein Fig. 3 Two possible test positions 21a, 21b are shown as examples. If there is a part at the test position 21a, 21b that has not been completely removed, for example the part in Fig. 3 shown residual part 19, the laser beam 3 interacts with the residual part 19, thereby generating radiation 27, which in Fig. 3 is indicated as an example for the first test position 21a.

[0052] The two in Fig. 3 The test positions 21a, 21b shown are located at a distance A1 from the approach contour 20b that corresponds at least to the cutting gap width B. Likewise, the test positions 21a, 21b are at a distance A2 of at least 1 mm from the specified cutting contour 18a, that corresponds at least to the cutting gap width B, in order to prevent falsification of the measurement result due to the radiation of a part of the laser beam 3 into the cutting gap 26 or into the approach contour 20b. For the rapid execution of the test step, it is advantageous if the respective test position 21a, 21b is not too far away from the free-cutting position FP. In the event that the laser beam 3 influences the material of the workpiece 2, the two test positions 21a, 21b should also be arranged at a distance from one another that corresponds at least to the cutting gap width B.In the event that the laser beam 3 has a pulse effect radius in which it influences the material of the workpiece 2 also outside the beam diameter, e.g. by material projections, the pulse effect radius should be taken into account when determining the respective distance A1, A2, typically by increasing the respective distance A1, A2 by the pulse effect radius.

[0053] As shown in the DE 10 2011 004 117 A1 cited at the beginning, the radiation 27 produced during the interaction with the laser beam 3, which can be intrinsic process light, thermal radiation due to the heating of the workpiece 2 and / or reflected laser radiation, is detected by means of a detector 22 (see Fig. 1 ), for example in the form of a photodiode. If the remaining part 19 was Fig. 3 or the workpiece part 17 in Fig. 1 completely cut free, no or only a slight radiation intensity of the radiation 27 generated during the interaction is detected by the detector 22. An evaluation device 28 (cf. Fig.1 ) uses the detected radiation 27 to check whether the part 17, 19 has fallen downwards out of the workpiece plane E. For the test, for example, the intensity of the detected radiation 27 can be compared with an intensity threshold. If the intensity of the detected radiation 27 is below the intensity threshold, it is assumed that the part 17, 19 has fallen downwards out of the workpiece plane E, so that practically no interaction occurs between the laser beam 3 and the part 17, 19 at the test position 21a, 21b.

[0054] If the test reveals that the workpiece part 17 has not been completely separated from the remaining part 19, a further cutting operation can be carried out immediately, as described in more detail below, according to a variant excluded from the scope of protection of the claims. If necessary, before the further cutting operation, it can be checked again whether the workpiece part 17 has been completely separated from the remaining part 19, i.e., the test step can be repeated in the manner described above, generally changing the test position. In this case, the further cutting operation is only carried out if both test steps show that the workpiece part 17 has not been completely separated from the remaining part 19.

[0055] As in Fig. 4a,b as well as in Fig. 2 As can be seen, the renewed cutting machining is carried out along a further cutting contour 18b, which is offset laterally to the predetermined cutting contour 18a, in the examples shown by a constant amount V in the direction of the remaining part 19. The Fig. 4a and in Fig. 4b The examples shown differ in that Fig. 4a as in Fig. 3 the remaining part 19 is circular, while in Fig. 4b the good part 17 is circular and is cut out of the remaining part 19, which in this case forms the residual skeleton of the workpiece 2. As in the Fig. 3 The example shown is also the one in Fig. 4b In the example shown, the piercing point 20a and the approach contour 20b are formed in the remaining part 19. In the Fig. 4b In the example shown, the test position(s) 21a, 21b are also selected within the closed cutting contour 18a, ie within the circular good part 17.

[0056] In the Fig. 4a In the example shown, the further cutting contour 18b is offset radially inwards in the direction of the remaining part 19, while in the Fig. 4b shown example, the further cutting contour 18b is offset radially outwards in the direction of the residual skeleton 19. The amount V of the offset of the further cutting contour 18b is selected such that the processing beam 3 striking the workpiece 2 for cutting the further cutting contour 18b does not touch the edge 25 of the workpiece part 17 (good part) or only touches it at the outer edge of the Fig. 2 shown distribution of intensity I (Gaussian profile), so that the edge 25 of the workpiece part 17 is not damaged by the laser beam 3 during further cutting. The amount V of the lateral offset can be selected such that the laser beam 3, during cutting along the further cutting contour 18b, hits the edge 25 of the workpiece part with an intensity I that is less than 50%, preferably less than 30%, in particular less than 20% of the maximum intensity I MAX (cf. Fig. 2 ) of the beam profile of the laser beam 3 hits the radially symmetrical to the Fig. 2 indicated beam axis of the laser beam 3. The amount V of the lateral offset can in particular be more than approximately 2% or more than 5% of the cutting gap width B of the specified cutting contour 18a.

[0057] In addition, the amount V of the offset is typically selected such that it is less than the cutting gap width B of the cutting gap 26 along the predetermined cutting contour 18a. It is understood that, unlike in Fig. 4a ,b the amount of the offset V is not necessarily constant, but rather can change along the further cutting contour 18b. As in Fig. 4a ,b, the further cutting contour 18b can be traversed in the opposite processing direction 23b to the predetermined cutting contour 18a, but it is also possible for the processing direction of the predetermined cutting contour 18a and the further cutting contour 18b to correspond, so that both cutting contours 18a, 18b are cut clockwise. It may also not be absolutely necessary for the further cutting contour 18b to extend over the entire length of the predetermined cutting contour 18a; rather, the further cutting contour 18b can extend only along a section 29 of the predetermined cutting contour 18a, as shown in Fig. 4b is shown.

[0058] As in Fig. 2 As can be seen, a cutting gas jet 33 is used for cutting along the predetermined cutting contour 18a, which jet exits through the processing nozzle 9a of the laser cutting head 9 in the direction of the workpiece 2. In the example shown, the processing process is a flame cutting process, ie the cutting gas jet 33 consists of a reactive gas or the cutting gas jet 33 contains a reactive gas, in the example shown oxygen O 2 . The cutting gas jet 33 is also used for further cutting along the further, laterally offset cutting contour 18b, although in this case an inert cutting gas in the form of nitrogen N 2 is used.The use of an inert cutting gas for the further cutting along the further cutting contour 18b has proven to be advantageous since, on the one hand, a higher gas pressure can be used than is the case with a reactive gas and, on the other hand, the use of the inert cutting gas N 2 reduces the risk of a thermal reaction with the workpiece material.

[0059] Instead of the renewed cutting of the workpiece 2 along the laterally offset cutting contour 18b by means of the processing beam 3, according to the invention the predetermined cutting contour 18a is followed with the cutting gas jet 33 without the processing beam 2 being activated. When following the predetermined cutting contour 18a, a gas pressure is exerted on the workpiece part 17 by the cutting gas in order to push it downwards out of the support plane E and to discharge it downwards. When following the cutting contour 18a with the cutting gas jet 33, typically only slightly tilted workpiece parts 17 in the remaining part 19 can be made to fall, i.e. the effectiveness of the renewed cutting with the processing beam 3 is greater than the effectiveness of following the cutting contour 18a by means of the cutting gas jet 33. The use of the cutting gas jet 33 is, however, quality-neutral, i.e.there is no influence, in particular no damage, to the cutting edges of the remaining part 19 or the workpiece part 17.

[0060] After tracing the specified cutting contour 18a with the cutting gas jet 33, a further check can be carried out to determine whether the workpiece part 17 has been completely separated from the remaining part 19. The repeated check can be carried out in the manner described above, but it is also possible to carry out the check and, if necessary, the repeated check using a different sensor system, e.g. in the form of a light barrier arranged below the workpiece plane E and which detects a fall of the part 17, 19. If the repeated check shows that the part 17, 19 has not been completely cut free, a further cutting process can be carried out, followed by a further check step. It is understood that, to avoid an endless loop, an abort criterion should be provided so that the machine 1 pauses after a predetermined number of repetitions of the cutting process and the check.

[0061] Fig. 5 shows the beam profile of the laser beam 3, which is focused onto the workpiece 2 by a focusing device 32 (focusing lens) arranged in the processing head 9. In the Fig. 5 In the example shown, the position ZS of the machining head 9 in the Z direction and thus the distance A between the machining head 9 and the workpiece 2 is selected such that the focus position ZF is located exactly on the top side of the workpiece 2, which in the example shown (arbitrarily) coincides with the coordinate origin of the Z axis (ZF = 0). At the focus position ZF, the laser beam 3 has its beam waist or its minimum beam diameter d, which in the example shown is approximately d = 150 µm. The radius R of the laser beam 3 in the Z direction in the vicinity of the focus position ZF is, to a good approximation, given by: R Z = d / 2 1 + Z Z R 2 , where ZR denotes the Rayleigh length of the laser beam 3, which depends, among other things, on the wavelength of the laser beam 3 and which, in the example shown, is approximately 1.0 mm. In the example shown, the workpiece 2 is made of steel, for example structural steel or stainless steel. Assuming a thickness D of the workpiece 2 of, for example, D = 6 mm, the cross-sectional area of ​​the laser beam 3 on the underside of the workpiece 2 is 37 times larger than the cross-sectional area of ​​the laser beam 3 on the top side, i.e., at the focus position ZF in the example shown. In the event that the workpiece part 16 that has not been completely cut free has sunk to a level close to the underside of the workpiece 2, the cross-sectional area of ​​the laser beam 3 is increased by this factor and the intensity IP of the laser beam striking the workpiece part 17 is correspondingly reduced by a factor of 1 / 37.

[0062] If the laser beam 3 is irradiated onto the workpiece 2 with a comparatively low power P, there is a risk that a workpiece part 17 that has sunk downwards but is still connected to the remaining part 19 will not be detected due to the insufficient interaction of the laser beam 3 with the workpiece part 17, and that collisions with the sunken workpiece part 17 will occur as the process continues. If, on the other hand, the laser beam 3 is irradiated onto the workpiece 2 with a comparatively high power P, a scratch can be burned into a workpiece part 17 that is at the level of the top side of the workpiece 2, which is generally accompanied by massive flying sparks. The flying sparks can lead to contamination of the machine, for example to the generation of splashes on a protective glass provided on the processing head 9.

[0063] With a comparatively thin workpiece 2, the laser beam 3 may also pierce the workpiece 2. Piercing the workpiece 2 or the workpiece part 17 means that a valid test cannot be performed again after repeated cutting - at least at the same test position 21a - because such a test may no longer result in any interaction with the material of the workpiece part 17, even if it is still connected to the remaining part 19. In this case, too, there is a risk that a workpiece part 17 still connected to the remaining part 19 will not be detected, which could lead to unwanted collisions when the process continues.

[0064] If a constant power P of the laser beam 3 is used for the test, it must, on the one hand, be large enough that a workpiece part that has sunk close to the underside of the workpiece 2 can just be detected, and, on the other hand, the power P must not be so large that a crater is burned into a workpiece part 17 located on the upper side of the workpiece 2. For a comparatively thick workpiece 2, these conditions generally cannot be met with one and the same power P of the laser beam 3.

[0065] In order to carry out a robust test despite the uncertainty of the position of the workpiece part 17 relative to the remaining part 19, the power P of the pulsed laser beam 3 shown in the example is increased step by step during the test, as shown by way of example in Fig. 6 shown below. In Fig. 6 is the power P, or more precisely the average power, of the pulsed laser beam 3 for five consecutive pulses P1 to P5. The average power of the pulses P1 to P5 of the laser beam 3 is doubled in each case during the stepwise increase in the example shown, ie the first pulse P1 has an average power of 100 W, the second pulse P2 has an average power of 200 W, the third pulse P3 has an average power of 400 W, the fourth pulse P4 has an average power of 800 W and the fifth pulse P5 has an average power of 1600 W. The duration of a respective pulse P1 to P5 or a respective stage can be in the order of a few milliseconds, so that the entire Fig. 6 shown pulse sequence and thus the total test duration is not more than, for example, approx. 20 ms.

[0066] As described above, during the irradiation of the laser beam 3 onto the workpiece 2, the intensity I IR of the detected radiation 27, for example, in the infrared wavelength range, is detected by the detector 22. The intensity I IR of the detected radiation 27 is continuously compared with an intensity threshold value I IR,S during the test, as shown in Fig. 6 shown above. In the event that the detected intensity I IR of the radiation 27 is above the intensity threshold I IR, the irradiation of the laser beam 3 onto the workpiece 2 is ideally terminated in real time. To terminate the irradiation quasi in real time, the control device 15 acts on the beam source 31 via a real-time interface to switch off the laser beam 3.

[0067] By promptly switching off the laser beam 3, only the power P required for testing whether the workpiece part 17 has been completely separated from the remaining part 19 is irradiated onto the workpiece 2 or the workpiece part 17. This prevents unwanted crater formation or possible piercing of the workpiece 2 by the laser beam 3. Fig. 6 In the example shown, the intensity threshold value I IR , S is already exceeded at the second pulse P2, which is why the pulse sequence ends after the second pulse P2 and the third, fourth and fifth pulses P3, P4, P5 of the pulse sequence are no longer executed.

[0068] Instead of the Fig. 6 In addition to the stepwise increase in the power P of the laser beam 3 shown, a continuous increase in the power P of the laser beam can also be achieved. In particular, instead of a pulsed laser beam, a continuous laser beam 3 can also be used, the power of which is increased in the manner of a ramp or the like during the test period up to a maximum power.

[0069] Instead of the Fig. 6 In addition to the increase in power P of laser beam 3 during the test interval shown, the intensity IP at test position 21a can also be increased by continuously or stepwise changing, typically reducing, the distance A between processing head 9 and workpiece 2 while the laser beam 3 is irradiated. In this case, at the beginning of the test time interval, processing head 9 is positioned, for example, at a distance A from workpiece 2 at which focus position ZF is located above the top side of workpiece 2. The distance A between processing head 9 and workpiece 2 is subsequently reduced until focus position ZF is located at the top side of workpiece 2, at a position between the top side and the bottom side of workpiece 2, or at the bottom side of the workpiece.

[0070] Even when increasing the intensity IP of the laser beam 3 at the test position 21a by shifting the focus position ZF of the laser beam 3, the irradiation of the laser beam 3 onto the test position 21a is terminated as soon as the intensity threshold I IR,S is exceeded in order to avoid excessive interaction with the workpiece 2, which could lead to crater formation or possibly to piercing the workpiece 2. In addition, by increasing the power P of the laser beam 3 on the workpiece 2 during the test process, the robustness against fluctuations in the nature of the material surface of the workpiece 2 and against the adjustment of the focus position relative to the workpiece 2 can be increased.The method described here, in which the intensity IP at the test position 21a is increased during testing, can be advantageously combined with the method described above, in which the renewed cutting of the workpiece 2 occurs along a further cutting contour 18b offset laterally from the specified cutting contour 18a. However, this method can also be performed without a lateral offset of the cutting contour 18a occurring during the renewed cutting.

[0071] Regardless of whether the intensity IP at the test position 21a is increased during testing or not, the distance A between the laser cutting head 9 and the workpiece 2 can be increased during subsequent cutting operations in order to increase the robustness and process reliability of the cutting process. This has proven particularly advantageous for cutting processes using a bypass nozzle, where the distance A between the laser cutting head 9 or the nozzle 9a and the workpiece 2 is very small and can, for example, be only approximately 0.4 mm. For subsequent cutting operations, the distance A can be increased to 3 mm, for example.

[0072] In order to keep the focus position ZF constant relative to the workpiece 2 despite the increased distance A, the focus position ZF is shifted towards the workpiece 2 when the distance A is increased. For this purpose, for example, the focusing device in the form of the focusing lens 32 in the laser cutting head 9 can be moved, as shown in Fig. 5 indicated by a double arrow. This ensures that the subsequent cutting operation is carried out with essentially the same cutting gap width B as the cutting operation.

[0073] Irrespective of whether the intensity IP at the test position 21a is increased during testing or not, if it is detected during testing that the workpiece part 17 has not been completely separated from the remaining part 19, an attempt can be made, instead of a further cutting operation, to discharge the workpiece part 17 downwards from the support plane E by applying a gas pulse 33a (cf. Fig. 5) is applied to the test position 21a. The gas pulse 33a typically has a high gas pressure, e.g., approximately 15 bar. As a (cutting) gas, an inert gas, for example nitrogen, is generally used for this purpose. The duration of the gas pulse 33a can be on the order of magnitude of one or, if necessary, several seconds. As with the tracing of the cutting contour 18a or the further contour 18b with the cutting gas jet 33 described above, the application of the gas pulse 33a is quality-neutral, i.e., it has no influence on the quality of the cut edges. The effectiveness of applying the gas pulse 33a for ejecting the workpiece part 17 from the support plane E is, however, lower than is the case with repeated cutting with the processing jet 3. Therefore, an attempt can first be made to eject the workpiece part 17 by applying the gas jet 33a.In the event that a further inspection reveals that the workpiece part 17 is still in the support plane E, further cutting may be carried out.

[0074] It is understood that the method(s) described above for testing the cutting processing were described in connection with a laser cutting machine 1, but that these methods can also be carried out on other machine tools, for example on machines in which a punching function is combined with a laser cutting function.

Claims

1. A method for cutting a workpiece (2), comprising: cutting the workpiece (2) along a predetermined cutting contour (18a) to separate a workpiece part (17) from a residual part (19), and checking whether the workpiece part (17) has been completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting, determining that the workpiece part (17) has not been completely separated from the residual part (19), characterized by retracing the predetermined cutting contour (18a) with a cutting gas jet (33), wherein a processing beam (3) for cutting is switched off after it has been determined that the workpiece part (17) has not been completely separated from the residual part (19).

2. The method according to claim 1, in which checking whether the workpiece part (17) has been separated from the residual part (19) comprises the following steps: irradiation of a preferably pulsed processing beam (3) onto the workpiece (2) at a test position (21a, 21b) within the predetermined cutting contour (18a), detecting radiation (27) generated by an interaction between the processing beam (3) and the workpiece (2), and evaluating the detected radiation (27) to check whether the workpiece part (17) has been completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting, wherein the intensity (IP) of the processing beam (3) at the test position (21a, 21b) is increased during the irradiation of the processing beam (3) and the irradiation of the processing beam (3) is terminated as soon as it is determined during the check that the workpiece part (17) was not completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting.

3. The method according to claim 2, in which the power (P) of the processing beam (3) is increased in particular in stages during the irradiation at the test position (21a, 21b).

4. The method according to claim 3, in which the processing beam (3) is irradiated onto the test position (21a, 21b) in a pulsed manner and in which the power of the pulses (P1 to P5) is increased in stages.

5. The method according to claim 4, in which the power of the pulses (P1 to P5) is at least doubled in each stage of the incremental increase.

6. The method according to one of claims 2 to 5, in which the intensity (IP) of the processing beam (3) at the test position (21a, 21b) is increased by shifting the focus position (ZF) of the processing beam (3) in the direction of the workpiece (2).

7. The method according to one of claims 2 to 6, in which the intensity (IIR) of the detected radiation (27) is compared with an intensity threshold value (IIR,S) to check whether the workpiece part (17) has been completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting and in which the irradiation of the processing beam (3) is terminated as soon as the intensity threshold value (IIR,S) is exceeded.

8. The method according to one of claims 2 to 7, in which the processing beam (3) is irradiated at a test position (21a, 21b) within the predetermined cutting contour (18a), which is spaced apart from the predetermined cutting contour (18a) and / or a starting contour (20b) by at least the width (B) of the cutting gap of the cutting contour (18a).

9. The method according to one of claims 2 to 8, further comprising: applying a gas pulse (33a) to the test position (21a, 21b) to eject the workpiece part (17) from a support plane (E) if it is determined during checking that the workpiece part (17) was not completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting.

10. A machine (1) for cutting a workpiece (2), comprising: a processing head (9) to orientate a processing beam (3) onto the workpiece (2), at least one movement device (7, 11, 12) to generate a relative movement between the processing head (9) and the workpiece (2), and a control device (15) to control the at least one movement device (7, 11, 12) to separate a workpiece part (17) from a residual part (19) by cutting the workpiece (2) along a predetermined cutting contour (18a), an evaluation device (28) designed to check whether the workpiece part (17) was completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting, characterized in that the control device (15) is designed to control the at least one movement device (7, 11, 12) to perform a renewed tracing of the predetermined cutting contour (18a) with a cutting gas jet (33) wherein the processing beam (3) for cutting is switched off if the evaluation device (28) determines during the check that the workpiece part (17) has not been completely separated from the residual part (19).

11. The machine according to claim 10, further comprising: a detector (22) to detect radiation (27) generated by an interaction between the processing beam (3) and the workpiece (2), which is produced when the preferably pulsed processing beam (3) is irradiated onto the workpiece (2) at a test position (21a, 21b) within the predetermined cutting contour (18a), wherein the evaluation device (28) is designed to check, on the basis of the detected radiation (27), whether the workpiece part (17) has been completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting, wherein the control device (15) is designed to increase the intensity (IP) of the processing beam (3) at the test position (21a, 21b) and to stop the processing beam (3) from being irradiated at the test position (21a, 21b) as soon as it is determined during the check that the workpiece part (17) was not completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting.

12. The machine according to claim 11, which has a beam source (31) and in which the control device (15) is designed to control the beam source (31) to increase the power (P) of the processing beam (3), in particular in stages, during irradiation at the test position (21a, 21b).

13. The machine according to claim 12, wherein the control device (15) is designed to control the beam source (31), to irradiate the processing beam (3) onto the test position (21a, 21b) in a pulsed manner and to increase the power of the pulses (P1 to P5) of the pulsed processing beam (3) in stages, wherein, during the incremental increase, the power of the pulses (P1 to P5) is preferably at least doubled in each case.

14. The machine according to one of claims 11 to 13, further comprising: a focusing device (32) mounted in the processing head (9) and a further movement device (30) for moving the processing head (9) in a direction (Z) perpendicular to the workpiece (2), wherein the control device (15) is designed, in order to increase the intensity (IP) of the processing beam (3) at the test position (21a, 21b), to control the further movement device (30) in order to shift the focus position (ZF) of the processing beam (3) in the direction of the workpiece (2) during irradiation of the processing beam (3) at the test position (21a, 21b).

15. The machine according to one of claims 11 to 14, wherein the evaluation device (28) is designed to compare the intensity (IIR) of the detected radiation (27) with an intensity threshold value (IIR,S) in order to check whether the workpiece part (17) has been completely separated from the residual part (19) during cutting.