Profile Grinding of Solid Shank Cutting Edges With Fewer Operations

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The complexity of cutting edge geometries in solid material shaft tools increases manufacturing effort and costs due to the need for multiple grinding processes and different grinding wheels, limiting the efficiency of producing intricate geometries.

Innovation Solution

A method involving a first grinding tool to create shell-side grooves and a profile grinding wheel to simultaneously process the rake face and open surface adjacent to the cutting edge, reducing the number of grinding processes and enabling the production of more complex geometries with greater flexibility in tool design.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If multiple grinding processes are used to manufacture complex cutting edge geometries, then manufacturing precision is improved, but manufacturing time and costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecutting edge geometry precisionVSAvoidmanufacturing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The grinding process is segmented into two distinct phases: a first grinding process that creates the groove geometry with substantial material removal, and a second grinding process that machines the back sections and cutting edges with minimal material removal. This segmentation allows each process to be optimized independently, reducing total manufacturing time while maintaining precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The groove geometry is created in advance during the first grinding process before the final cutting edge geometry is formed. By preparing the groove structure beforehand, the second grinding process can focus solely on precision work for the cutting edges and back sections, eliminating the need for subsequent finishing operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Productivity

If simultaneous grinding of groove and back sections is performed, then productivity is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemanufacturing efficiencyVSAvoidgrinding device complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The method merges the groove machining and back section machining into a coordinated two-step process using sequentially applied grinding tools. The first grinding tool creates the groove, and the second grinding tool with profile grinding wheel simultaneously finishes both the groove area and back sections in one operation, achieving functional merging without mechanical complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Productivity

If a single-step process is used to create final geometry, then productivity is improved, but adaptability decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveproduction speedVSAvoidgeometry flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The manufacturing process is made dynamic through the sequential application of different grinding tools with varying geometries and parameters. The first grinding tool is optimized for groove creation, while the second grinding tool with profile grinding wheel is optimized for finishing cutting edges and back sections. This dynamic approach allows rapid adaptation to different tool geometries by simply changing the grinding tool configuration rather than redesigning the entire process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This method significantly reduces manufacturing time and costs by decoupling material removal phases, allowing for the production of tools with varied diameters, tooth counts, and geometries, while enhancing tool performance and stability.

Implementation Method 1

a) Grinding at least one groove on the shell side into a blank with a first grinding tool

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectGrinding: Abrasion

Implementation Method 2

b) machining the blank with a second grinding tool comprising a profile grinding wheel

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectGrinding: Abrasion

Data Source

PatentEP3804906B1Method for producing a sheath-side cutting geometry in a full material shaft tool for material processing
Publication Date: 2024.05.15 FRAISA
  • EP3804906B1 patent drawingFigure 1~3
  • EP3804906B1 patent drawingFigure 4~5
  • EP3804906B1 patent drawingFigure 6A~6D

AI summary

A method for producing a cylindrical cutting geometry in a solid-material shank tool for material processing comprises the step of grinding at least one cylindrical groove (11) into a blank (150) with a first grinding tool, and subsequently the step of machining the blank (150) with a second grinding tool comprising a profile grinding wheel (100). The profile grinding wheel (100) has two contact surfaces (103, 106) on its circumferential surface, which axially enclose a recessed area (111). The profile grinding wheel (100) for machining is brought into contact with the blank (150) such that a first of the contact surfaces (103) creates a rake face (12) adjacent to a cutting edge (10), and simultaneously a second of the contact surfaces (106) creates a clearance face (13) adjacent to the same cutting edge (10).The process enables a reduction in the number of grinding operations required when manufacturing a solid material shank tool for material processing, while maintaining a high degree of flexibility with regard to the possible cutting edge geometry.