PDA

View Full Version : BUILD LOG: A sufficiently strong machine



Jonathan
28-08-2013, 11:32 PM
[Please note this post is not quite finished - I will be editing it in the next few days to include costings among other things]

Just over two years ago, when I made the steel frame for my router giving it the ability to machine aluminium, my friend (Sasha) wanted an increasing number of parts made. We decided to design and make a CNC Router together, which Sasha would keep, leaving me free to use mine. Just to make things clear, this project had no link whatsoever with Sasha and myself being at University, it was simply done during our free time.

For anyone with a short attention span, here's a picture of the very nearly finished machine:

9803

In particular Sasha wanted to machine computer water cooling parts, so the side of a standard ATX computer case was chosen as the required machining area of the machine. Since these parts would primarily be made from metals, including steel, the machine had to be strong yet still portable to fit in rented accommodation. The latter rules out just getting a big enough milling machine. The basic specifications we agreed upon are therefore:

1) Portable (Fits through door)
2) 500x500x??150 axis travel.
3) Able to machine non-ferrous metals efficiently and accurately
- High stiffness (from 4)
- Flood coolant (from 4)
- Zero backlash
4) ATC

Why so much? We wanted a DIY machine to rival a professional one. We wanted to try out some new things. We think many DIY machines achieve very poor value for money, and many designed by 'professional' businesses leave much to be desired.

The drawings for this machine are released under the Creative Commons Attribure-ShareAlike License.

[Drawings to be added within next few days]

9812

The drawings and this post are not intended to be used as instructions for how to build this machine, merely guidelines so if you wish to make a copy I advise discussing it with myself first.

Initially, we planned to design our own ATC spindle using two hobbyking PMSMs (http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__11188__Turnigy_600_H37404_Brushless_Outrunner_91 0kv.html), however this was a project in and of itself and we decided to postpone it. I made a prototype inspired by <link>, however it didn't achieve the required gripping strength and the design doesn't lend itself to high RPM.

98049805

Instead we chose the usual 80mm diameter 2.2kW spindle, but higher quality with ceramic bearings (although the spindle rotor conducts electrically to the case, so the verdict remains open on weather they're actually ceramic or if the rotor is somehow grounded). Impressively, the runout was measured to less than 5 micrometers. This (http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/2-2kw-four-bearing-engraving-machine-spindle-carving-machine-spindle-water-spindle-motor/413580_628435649.html) is the exact one we bought from aliexpress.

98069807

To increase reliability, eliminate moving parts and save space we decided to water cool everything in the control box. After the stepper drivers and VFD were dismantled, water blocks were attached to the motherboard, stepper drivers and VFD. These were then mounted alongside the power supply and breakout board inside the control box. Since the spindle already required water cooling, this was pretty straightforward.

Obtaining zero backlash

To achieve 'zero backlash' two identical ballnuts were preloaded against each other other - nothing new here, it's just not normally seen on CNC routers. This will eliminate backlash up until the point when the axial force applied to the nut exceeds the preload force, above which the system will exhibit backlash. This is not a significant limitation since the preload force was selected to be sufficiently greater than the force each axis would experience, be that due to cutting force or acceleration.

The Z-axis is easy since gravity pre-loads it, due to the large mass of the Z-axis, so there was no need incorporate a second nut here. Although the cutting force parallel to Z could exceed the weight of the axis whilst drilling, a <0.05mm error introduced due to backlash is insignificant here. For the X and Y axes two ballnuts were used on each screw, with one attached as normal and the other preloaded against the screw using disk springs. This nut is constrained rotationally via pins, since any rotation would introduce backlash. Easiest to explain with a picture, so here's the finished mechanism on one side of X, which is identical to the other side:

9808

The Y-axis uses a similar system, with the nuts embedded in cylindrical cutouts to save space and get the ballscrew closer to the rails:

98099810

The frame:

The high stiffness requirement dictated making a substantial frame, however it could not be too heavy for portability reasons. After a suitable mixture of calculation and guesswork we opted for 60x60x5mm box section and a largely generic frame was designed with the obvious diagonals added for additional strength:

9811

The required stiffness for the machine dictates using an adjustable height bed, so an array of holes were drilled in the frame to accommodate this:

9813

We did not want to sacrifice strength of the frame just to make it easier to mount the X-rails accurately, so we decided to fully weld the frame and compensate for any discrepancies in the rail mounting surfaces later on. M12 tapped holes have been added in various places so that the frame can be filled with sand or some other material to aid damping. This will be done some time in the future if deemed necessary - for now the frame is empty. The following images show the process:

9814
My free bandsaw paid for itself here.
981598169817981898199820

Senior supervisor Sparky scrutinised the process:
9897

The frame was powder coated by a local company, costing 30 which was their minimum order. Nice finish and very much worth it:

9821

The bed:

982298239824

At the expense of tapping a large array of holes (15x15, about 4 hours with a cordless drill), a clamping system with the following features was selected:


Resurfacing or otherwise machining into the bed isn't a permament mark on the bed the strips can relatively cheaply be replaced.
Clamping via T-slots and nuts.
Countersunk screws can be removed to bolt directly to the bed using the existing grid.
Remove required screws and clamp from the bottom of the bed through the tapped holes using a smaller bolt size awkward but nice to have for that one time that it's crucial to have an uninterrupted machining surface with virtually no possibility of collision with clamping fixtures.


Probably the most important metric of any machine bed however is the rigidity. After basic finite element simulations (which I see no point in posting as it amounts to just pretty pictures), we opted for 25.4mm sheet, with 9mm deep troughs to accomodate T-nuts and promote coolant drainage. The 10mm thick T-slot strips were accounted for to add further rigidity. The bed is mounted to the frame via 7 intermediate blocks milled from the same 25.4mm sheet and are attached via M12, M8 and some M6 bolts, each of which bolt onto one of the 7 vertical supports on the frame.

9825

The X axis:
Since we obtained two 25mm linear guides for a good price, the X axis is the strongest axis of the machine. It is driven by ballscrews on both sides, each supported by a preloaded pair of angular contact bearings to eliminate end float. Like with other driven ballscrews in X and Y, the angular contact bearings are mounted in a bearing cartridge which allows for adjustment in one dimension, while the mount for the cartridge allows adjustment in the other. This way adjustment in two dimensions can be obtained with slots which still offer very rigid mounting.
The following images shows us verifying that the bearings on the Z-axis screw are preloaded properly by measuring that there is no end float on each ballscrew:

98269827

Although early designs used steel box section for the gantry, we eventually decided to make the entire gantry out of aluminium sheet to increase rigidity, improve machinability and allow for greater flexibility in the design. In order to make better use of volume and reduce overhang, clearances between each axis were minimised (to 1mm) and rails and other features were sunk into their respective sheets. This resulted in a compact yet sufficiently rigid design. These are the sorts of things you can't do if you start making the machine before fully finishing the design.

The preloaded ballnuts are wiped by generic rotary shaft seals (http://www.bearingstation.co.uk/products/Oil_Seals/Oil_Seal_Metric/Oil_Seal_ID_11_-_20mm/OilSeal15X24X5) and contained completely inside the gantry. These seals are just standard shaft seals, but they seem to do a good job of wiping swarf off ballscrews, which leave us free to put the ballscrews in the best positions instead of worrying about keeping them away from swarf.
For the top and bottom plates, 20mm sheet was used with 1 thick flat bar for the rail mounts. For the remaining covers we used 10mm sheet. We milled the mounting surface for the X-rail bearings using my milling machine and milled the surfaces for the Y-axis rails using the bridgeport (clone) milling machine at school, as my machine didn't have sufficient travel. This obtained accurate smooth surfaces with reference edges to ensure accurate alignment of the linear bearings.

9855982898299830

X-axis rails: THK 25mm 760mm
Travel: 450mm with wide block spacing (current), 500 with reduced bearing spacing.
Ballscrew: 15:30 ratio using 5M HTD belt, RM1610-2 pitch double start ballscrews x2.

The Y-axis:

The Y-axis is essentially just a box which houses the Z-axis, and provides a rigid structure linking the Y-axis linear bearings and associated ballscrew. Again, the ballscrew is protected by rotary seals. In order to ensure the perpendicularity of the box and help with tramming, an accurate reference edge was machined on two plates to accurately mount the other two.

The Y-axis plates are 20mm and 25mm thick:

98519831983298339834

Rails: Hiwin 15mm, 540mm long
Travel: 500mm
Ballscrew: Same as X.

The Z-axis:

Rails: THK 25mm
Travel: 100mm
Ballscrew: RM1605

The Z-axis is a rectangular enclosure that contains a ballnut mount and two rails, the bearing blocks for which are mounted on to the Y-axis. Clearly the use of a box structure is substantially stronger than the standard single overhanging plate approach.

98359836983798389839

Unfortunately, the rails intended for Z were slightly shorter than anticipated, and as a result, only part of the Z axis travel is available until they are replaced. However with over 100mm of travel this currently doesn't pose a problem. Some of the holes in the Z-axis plates had to be positioned on the end, which meant the only way I could think of to drill them accurately was by putting the plate in the lathe and using the lathe to drill them:

9840

The bottom of the Z axis mounts the coolant assembly.

Coolant Assembly:
The coolant assembly holds the coolant hoses, as well as a servo operated spanner to lock the spindle to facilitate future more automated tool changing, in addition to being a mount for an air extraction pipe. There are also mounts for 2 webcams and lasers (perpendicular for onscreen alignment), which have not yet been added. Currently, a stripped down version involving just the coolant pipes is in use, until the spanner made from EN19 steel is completed. This was a surprisingly annoying part to machine, due to my lack of suitable size drills.

9841
9842

Spindle:
The aforementioned 2.2kW 80mm spindle had the endbell removed, and small encoder shaft was press fitted into a hole drilled into the back of the spindle shaft. To achieve low runout, the inserted shaft was skimmed in-situ from spindle power. The encoder was then mounted, along with a PCB incorporating a PIC microcontroller to add an index pulse and provide a divider on the quadrature output for sensible output frequencies at high speeds. In future, this feedback could potentially be used to accurately compensate spindle speed, PID control of the spindle using linuxCNC or field oriented control.

9843

Initially, the spindle was mounted on up to four 20mm thick spindle mounts, however due to problems with low thread engagement, this was later upgraded to two much thicker mounts I machined from 60mm thick pieces of 4" square bar for better rigidity.

98379844
98959896



Lubrication system:
The oil system was implemented late in the process, and despite being functional, it would have been beneficial to design it from the start. Despite this, oil is distributed via tubes to every rail bearing and ballscrew from three easy to access ports. This system is more important than usual, since the ballnut prealoading means the ballscrews aro continuously operating with a much higher force than on most CNC routers. Without adequate lubrication this would substantially shorten their life. The tubes are retained with pipe clips from arc euro (one of few parts sourced from England) and rest in channels routed through the various plates. The lubrication system took a long time to complete due to the significant number of small parts, and awkward routing of the tubes especially in the Y-axis. Automation of oiling via an intermittent pump remains a future upgrade.

984598469847984898499850

Mounting X rails:
This proved to be quite difficult to achieve accurately, although in the end we succeeded as a measured error of within just +-0.03mm in Z was achieved over the full length of each rail.

The plan was to measure how bent the X-axis box section was and compensate for this error. By using my surface plate and taking readings on to, or from, the box section, it is possible to accurately measure the profile which we have to compensate for. Since the surface plate is not automatically aligned to the box section, there will be a straight line error which is just the tilt of the surface plate, so we eliminated this by finding the linear regression function from our readings and subtracting it. This leave a plot showing the deviation of the rail from a straight line, so the maximum and minimum of this plot shows the overall error.

9852

The following graph shows the height error on the frame that we have to deal with - almost +-0.7mm:

9853

The initial plan was to use that graph to machine an aluminium strip, which the opposite profile on, such that when it is bolted to the frame the errors cancel out to leave a straight line, i.e. flat surface. Clearly it is important to make sure that this profile is machined on to the aluminum accurately, so we used my CNC router and made a jig to hold the aluminium strip. By surfacing the jig on my CNC router, then bolting the aluminium strip to be machined on top, any error due to my X-rails is cancelled out. That [I]just leaves machining the correct profile, which I did by making a spreadsheet to generate the g-code to move the cutter through the correct path. To measure the initial error, we bolted the rail to the aluminium strip just machined flat, placed a dial indication on one bearing block and indicated to the surface plate. Unfortunately I don't have a picture of this, but it's the same as this setup except the rail is mounted on the aluminium:

9854

Here's a couple of pictures showing machining it using the jig:

9856

After doing that, we measured the new error. This improved the error, but was still not good enough. So we used this new measured error, and subtracted it from the profile just machined to compensate - i.e. tried an iterative process to minimise the error. This didn't make much difference, in fact the second 'correction' made the error worse. This means there must be something else introducing the error, which wasn't compensated for by machining the strip. The following graph shows the two attempts:

9858

After failing to correct the error with shims we found, by indicating across the width of the rail surface, that the error we were measuring was due to twist:

985998609861

Since, when mounted to the linear bearing, the indicator is measuring on a long 'arm' a small angular error on the rail bearing is magnified. By trying to compensate for this iteratively, we were subtracting a measured combination of both linear and rotational error from the previous profile which was assumed to be a purely linear error, which explains why the second correction actually made the error worse. At this state it is interesting to note that the bearings slided smoothly on the rails, so although compensating for the heigh error with shims or a machined profile is sufficient for the bearings to run smoothly, this does not by any means assure accuracy since neither method compensates for the angular error.

Consequently, we opted for epoxy levelling. Another option would have been to measure the angular and height error, which could be done by taking readings with the indicator on two different length bars, and simple trigonometry, and use this to mill 3D surface to compensate.

The epoxy chosen was west system 105 with 209 hardener, since this is the lowest viscosity we could find and the long curing time gives it more time to set level. Two aluminium barrier pieces were cut and a temporary barrier was made across the back for resin to flow between each side, so that both surfaces end up at the same height - i.e. in the same plane. This was the setup:

9862

Pouring the resin:

986398649865

Result:

9866

The new error, using the same metric as earlier was extremely small along most of the length of the rail, with a ramp at the end which turned out to be the bearing rubbing on the aluminium resin retainer, which was easily solved, so in the end we obtained a much improved profile accurate to +-0.03mm. Just to emphasise how well the resin worked, here's the original frame error, the first compensation attempt and the resin plotted on the same scale:

9853

This plot shows the error arising from the X-rails once the gantry was assembled:

{Incomplete}

This is a perfect example of how many machines that 'work', or rather 'don't fail' can be seriously lacking. From reading build logs on forums like this one, it is evident that these small errors in rail mounting do not make a big difference, since the vast majority of people don't have the means to measure it - you need a surface plate or a precision straight edge to do it properly, yet these machines still work. Overall however I think it was time well spent since we can now rely on this machine being very accurate. I will mount my rails on to epoxy resin, since it seems to so quickly and easily solve all the problems.

Cutting parts from 20mm aluminium:
We tessellated all the parts from the design to make them efficiently fit on a 20mm sheet of aluminium, within the travel limits of my machine. This made the overall array 740*1400mm, so we ordered two 2.4*0.74m pieces of 20mm aluminium plate from ASC Metals. One to make this machine and the rest for general use and my new gantry. There's not much left now as I keep using it for other people's parts, and I haven't even started my new gantry! Here's the delivery:

98679868

Quote of the day, from the driver "Where's your forklift?". He had a point with the plates each weighing 96kg. Luckily the driver helped us carry it. By us I mean Sasha carried them whilst I supervised and my mum had kittens.

Some general pictures of cutting the parts:

9870987198729873987498759876

Unsurprisingly it took a long time to cut all of these parts, with no significant problems except even after much troubleshooting Mach3 deciding to make my machine consistently lose position, at which point we switched my machine to LinuxCNC and had no further issues.

25mm thick parts:

Most of these were pretty generic to machine, except for the bed took several hours to cut on my router and to date is the biggest and most expensive part I've cut on it. The finish is quite nice, as the MDF bed on my machine (at that point) helps damp the vibrations and with a big part like this the rigidity of the bed isn't a significant problem. I had trouble drilling the holes round the outside of the bed on the router, so they were just spotted and then drilled on my milling machine. These holes are to accommodate strips as an initial barrier to coolant (bit pointless). Also seen is the excessively massive drain at the front of the bed, again for coolant. This will have a contraption mounted to it to collect swarf and filter the coolant.

9823

Assembly:
For the most part assembling the machine is straightforward, but time consuming due to the sheer number of parts. In particular the oil system makes assembling the Y and Z axes more difficult as they have to be assembled in a very particular order. Some general pictures follow:

98329834987898359879988098819882988398849885

Stiffness measurement:
I have measured the stiffness of the machine by applying a constant force and measuring the deflection at the spindle using a dial indicator. To measure the force I used some cheap, but seemingly accurate, hanging scales, as can be seen in the following image:

By applying a force of 200N and measuring the deflection I found the stiffness in X and Y with the Z-axis at 50mm extension. I did the same test on my milling machine (Clarke CMD1225C column mill) and hence found that this machine is a similar stiffness to my milling machine, although a bit weaker in Y.

Delivery:
As specified initially, the machine needed to be portable. This was achieved by designing it to split easily into the three mains parts, specifically the frame, the bed and the gantry.

98869887

The frame weighs just over 100kg, so is manageable with two people when two bars are inserted through the top as picture above. The gantry, without motors and spindle, weighs 60kg and the bed weighs 40kg so these parts are easy to carry. The whole machine is around 225kg.

Electrical system:
Toroidal transformers to output 70V for drivers.
DQ860MA stepper drivers
3.1Nm Nema 24 stepper motors from cnc4you

Control box inside, unfinished but working, note the water cooling tubes:

9888

Feedrates:
Achieved 5m/min on X and Y, with acceleration 4m/s^2 on Y and 2m/s^2 on X. Not tested yet with the machine frame fixed down, so these may go up or down. Not much more to say really as that's plenty fast enough.

Testing:
Before finishing the machine, I assembled the majority of it to find any problems or parts that would need altering. This gave the opportunity to test cutting something, so I put an offcut of 20mm 6082-T6 aluminium plate on the bed:

9889

I tried a 6mm 2fl cutter and easily got 6mm depth of cut at 1200mm/min, so I tried a 10mm 2fl cutter. That easily did 5mm DOC, so cutting a slot 10mm wide by 5mm deep again at 1200mm/min. I tried milling with 70% stepover, and it worked fine up to 11mm DOC, however I didn't try more as I didn't want to push things until the machine was finished, especially since this was with no coolant and less than half the fasteners in place. The finish was still good after that cut, so more is clearly possible.

Due to an error with drilling some holes in the ballnut mounts, I had to make them again, which seemed like a good excuse to try some more cutting with this machine, again with 20mm plate:

98909891989298939894

I don't think I'll get away with not posting a video, so here's a taster of what's to come:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6vctryRfHU

Conclusion:

Overall we're happy with the machine. All the parts of the drive chain are adequate, and the main specifications of the machine have been met. It's strong enough to cut aluminium pretty quickly with just one X ballscrew attached.

However if I made another one of these machines (I could be persuaded), I would change change the following things (roughly in order of importance):


Add second ballscrew to Y-axis.
Incorporate greater than 80mm spindle.
Taller gantry beams.
Vertical strips under bed to strengthen.
More access for oil system tubes to aid assembly.
A trunnion table would be nice.


Other than that I'm pretty happy with it.

Clive S
29-08-2013, 12:30 AM
What an epic build well done ..Clive

JAZZCNC
29-08-2013, 12:37 AM
Congratulations that's a fantastic machine you've built there Jonathan. . :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: . . . . been waiting long time to see it but worth the wait. .:encouragement:

GTJim
29-08-2013, 08:13 AM
Jonathan, great build log and very well thought out.
Jim

kingcreaky
29-08-2013, 10:12 AM
I cant add anything more than what Jazz and Jim have already said, apart from as ive said to you before... you one day are going to be a very successful man. And once again, I take my hat off to you sir.

Greeny
29-08-2013, 12:17 PM
Great Machine
Thanks for posting all the photos and info.
Very interesting and educational.
Great job.:thumsup:

Boyan Silyavski
29-08-2013, 03:15 PM
Great machine and very informational build. I will implement some of your ideas on my next build, especially the system for oiling the bearings.

I am slightly curious about the ceramic bearing spindle. From my understanding, if you / god helps no to happen/ hit the spindle by accident on the table or a part, what would happen to the ceramic balls? You say there is an electric contact. Maybe only the lower pair is ceramic?

From where did you get that encoder for the spindle? Does your VFD support encoders?

deannos
29-08-2013, 07:59 PM
Very nice machine.

"However if I made another one of these machines (I could be persuaded),"

How much would persuasion cost

GEOFFREY
29-08-2013, 08:15 PM
Congratulations Johnathan, that is a fantastic machine and a very interesting and informative write up. Well done. G.

mart154
29-08-2013, 10:37 PM
Fantastic looking machine Jonathan!

I'm interested in that epoxy process.
Does the epoxy "self level" itself to a finish that doesn't need any more work at all? Just mount the linear rails?

Or was there more work involved?

Thanks,
Mart

mekanik
30-08-2013, 12:06 AM
Fantastic build Jonathan, many thanks for posting

Wobblycogs
31-08-2013, 12:30 PM
Great looking build Jonathan, a real work of art.

I'm only about half way through the first post, can't wait to finish reading it.

Jonathan
31-08-2013, 12:54 PM
Thank you for the comments so far.


Great machine and very informational build. I will implement some of your ideas on my next build, especially the system for oiling the bearings.

Please feel free to copy or develop the design, that's the general idea. You can have a better look at how it all goes together when I post the CAD models, which will be soon. Sasha's just updating them first, as for instance the model still shows the rails on aluminium strips not epoxy.


I am slightly curious about the ceramic bearing spindle. From my understanding, if you / god helps no to happen/ hit the spindle by accident on the table or a part, what would happen to the ceramic balls? You say there is an electric contact. Maybe only the lower pair is ceramic?

Yes that is a valid concern with ceramic bearing spindles, they are apparently more fragile. I'd come to the same conclusion with regards to which bearing are ceramic, but we're not keen on dismantling it to find out...


From where did you get that encoder for the spindle? Does your VFD support encoders?

eBay, like this one:
HEDS-5500#A06 - AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES - ENCODER, ROTARY, 500PPR, 2CH | Farnell United Kingdom (http://uk.farnell.com/avago-technologies/heds-5500-a06/encoder-rotary-500ppr-2ch/dp/1654880)
Part of the reason we had to put a PCB with the encoder was because the cheap one from eBay lacked the index pulse. If you're feeding the signal into the parallel port (e.g. to implement PID loop with linuxCNC) then the frequency needs to be reduced anyway. Sasha's just using the standard cheap Huanyang VFD.


Does the epoxy "self level" itself to a finish that doesn't need any more work at all? Just mount the linear rails?

Or was there more work involved?

Yes and no. In the pictures I posted you can see I had already drilled and tapped the holes in the frame when we decided to use epoxy. This meant that we had to plug them with bolts, covered in grease to stop them bonding, and use a countersink bit to remove the meniscus left around each bolt. To get a more complete surface for the rails to mount on you could leave the drilling and tapping until after the epoxy has set, since as there is no glass in the epoxy it drills easily with standard HSS drills.
Apart from that, no there's nothing else involved - it's a really easy process compared to the other options.



"However if I made another one of these machines (I could be persuaded),"

How much would persuasion cost

The problem is not so much the cost, it's the fact I'm still at University so available time to make CNC routers is limited. It's hard to say exactly how much, as Sasha and I obtained a lot of the parts cheaply on eBay and I can't rely on doing that again, but as a very rough estimate I'd say 4k-5k for everything. Maybe less, probably not more. I'll post the breakdown of the cost of the components in the first post soon, just looking for some of the invoices first.

Boyan Silyavski
31-08-2013, 01:15 PM
I have another question about your design.
The holes on the steel are for moving the bed up and down? So, how will you keep the original parallelism of the rails that move the gantry, shimming every time? Or using the supports i see on one of the pictures and shimming and adjusting in vertical position connecting the table to the supports instead directly to the steel frame?



About the epoxy. You mentioned the brand. Where did you get it from? Abroad? How much epoxy was used? I have to do this very soon.

Jonathan
31-08-2013, 01:37 PM
I have another question about your design.
The holes on the steel are for moving the bed up and down? So, how will you keep the original parallelism of the rails that move the gantry, shimming every time? Or using the supports i see on one of the pictures and shimming and adjusting in vertical position connecting the table to the supports instead directly to the steel frame?

The main reason for including an adjustable height bed is so that the machine can maintain sufficient rigidity whilst cutting tall and short parts. This machine is plenty strong enough to cut aluminium at a respectable rate even with Z-axis fully extended, so I don't think Sasha will be moving the bed at all often. When it is moved, it will either have to be skimmed or shimmed. Putting shims on the 7 aluminium support blocks that the bed mounts to is probably the easiest way. Also bear in mind the holes for mounting the bed were drilled accurately using my milling machine, so the error introduced by moving the bed should not be very large.

Just to be clear, changing the height of the bed only affects the parallelism of the rails with respect to the bed. The measurements of rail straightness (and twist) we took effectively subtracted the error due to the non-parallelism of the bed, as once the bed is skimmed using the machine this error will be largely eliminated.



About the epoxy. You mentioned the brand. Where did you get it from? Abroad? How much epoxy was used? I have to do this very soon.

It was from the UK - I contacted lots of different companies who sold similar resin to see if they could get the hardener. You might want to ask Clive S (http://www.mycncuk.com/forums/members/clive-s.html) where he got his as he got some much more recently than I did. The company 'Desperate Measures LTD' quoted 24.48 for 1kg of resin and 17.61 for the hardener to go with it. I think those prices do not include VAT, but I'm not sure.
I think we used about 600g of resin - I can't remember exactly. You can work out what mass of resin you need by just working out the volume (remember to include the bridge across the middle) and multiplying by the density they quote. About 4-5mm thick should be plenty.

Boyan Silyavski
31-08-2013, 10:42 PM
... The company 'Desperate Measures LTD' ... :hysterical: You made my day.


Thanks again for the information.

deisel
01-09-2013, 09:12 AM
Thats some thread mate,well you know im a fan of this machine,i saw it being built at various stages i used to stand there in awe lol just staring at it,its so busy,well done lads.

george uk
03-09-2013, 08:36 PM
Hi

you could not have timed this better for me, am just about to start a build. I want quite a heave duty machine for milling stone/ally

Question. Would there be a benefit from using larger motors Nema 34s or 42s or might it be a problem

Jonathan
03-09-2013, 09:50 PM
I want quite a heave duty machine for milling stone/ally

Question. Would there be a benefit from using larger motors Nema 34s or 42s or might it be a problem

For the machine in this thread, there would be no benefit - in fact it would probably make the machine worse. Larger stepper motors tend to not spin as fast, but output more torque. If the smaller motor can output sufficient torque to obtain the required aceleration and speed, there is therefore no point using a larger motor as it will just cost more and sometimes not go as fast.
You would have to be building a huge machine for Nema 42 motors to be the correct choice. See this thread (http://www.mycncuk.com/forums/faqs-problems-solutions/1524-what-size-stepper-motor-do-i-need.html) for a more detailed explanation.

george uk
04-09-2013, 11:36 AM
thanks, am reading that now. Brilliant stuff.

I have another 2 questions or request for your opinion.

1. To stiffen up Z and Y ( when in action together ), i was thinking off adding rails to the inside edge of the X top support. ( i may want to add an impact head to it in the future ). Any opinions ?

2. any idea when the files will be available, am eager to have a crack at this.

AdCNC
12-09-2013, 08:56 PM
What an epic build well done ..Clive

Speaking of epic build, hows your build coming along? :-)

Clive S
12-09-2013, 09:40 PM
Well thanks to your work on the machining for the gantry its now just about alive with all axis running. Watch this space and I will try and get a build log up soon. Working on the control box now.
Thanks again for the great machining work you did for me. ..Clive

AdCNC
12-09-2013, 10:15 PM
Well thanks to your work on the machining for the gantry its now just about alive with all axis running. Watch this space and I will try and get a build log up soon. Working on the control box now.
Thanks again for the great machining work you did for me. ..Clive

Any time Clive look forward to seeing it in all it's glory

JoeHarris
13-09-2013, 12:39 AM
Jonathan, this is awesome. A master class in how to do it properly!

Cheers Joe

Boyan Silyavski
20-09-2013, 07:24 PM
I am tinkering on the design, as i find it great. I am wondering if i can build something similar, simplifying it a bit?

Like:
- 2 x 100x100 steel box for the gantry
-The bearing blocks and rails on the gantry to be at the upper side/or at the lower side/ so i can use epoxy and level them easy
-2x ballscrews at the gantry near the rails

What worries me most is the Z, making the z box and adjusting rails and fitting everything in place there. maybe using some ready box section and fit the spindle inside and fix the bearing blocks to the sides of it.

Jonathan
20-09-2013, 07:40 PM
1. To stiffen up Z and Y ( when in action together ), i was thinking off adding rails to the inside edge of the X top support. ( i may want to add an impact head to it in the future ). Any opinions ?

It's hard enough to align 2 rails let alone four. If you really need the higher load ratings, it's easier to just use bigger rails.


2. any idea when the files will be available, am eager to have a crack at this.

Soon. Sasha's still sorting them out but he's more interested in making the enclosure for the machine at the moment!


- 2 x 100x100 steel box for the gantry

Could do, but clearly that makes getting an accurate surface to mount the rails on more difficult. An early design for this machine did use 60*60 box section, but we decided not to use it as aluminium is much easier to machine.


-The bearing blocks and rails on the gantry to be at the upper side/or at the lower side/ so i can use epoxy and level them easy
Definately lower side as you want to keep them as close to the bed as you can to minimize the overhang.


-2x ballscrews at the gantry near the rails
I presume you're referring to the Y-axis? If so then yes it will make a noticeable difference to the stiffness of the Y-axis, but bear in mind it's already exceptionally strong so it's by no means mandatory. You could achieve the same by increasing the spacing of the Y-axis bearing blocks quite significantly.


What worries me most is the Z, making the z box and adjusting rails and fitting everything in place there. maybe using some ready box section and fit the spindle inside and fix the bearing blocks to the sides of it.

We used separate plates as they can be adjusted to get the rails parallel. Also it means you can machine features inside the Z-axis and you're not restricted to limited standard sizes.

JAZZCNC
20-09-2013, 08:27 PM
It's hard enough to align 2 rails let alone four. If you really need the higher load ratings, it's easier to just use bigger rails.

I mentioned something similar to you in an email Jon and feel the machine would benefit from 1 more rail on both Y & Z axis. One Higher up on Y axis and on 3 sides of box on Z axis but more to help with resonance and vibration in all cutting directions rather than increase load ratings.?

Would also add another ballscrew to Y axis rather than increase bearing plates has the action of 2 screws pushing/pulling together would be smoother than widening the plates.?

Like you say it's very strong already but feel these changes would make it the close to ULTIMATE strong machine.!

george uk
11-10-2013, 06:01 PM
Hi

Thanks for your reply Jonathan. To add a second rail, i was going to set it up and level it following your excellent instructions, then use the level surface prepared for the first rail, to mark the second. I was thinking of adding the second rail 90deg relative to the first ( on the side ) for the reasons stated in JAZZCNC above.

In fact, if i get the first rail level, and use it to mark the second, it would be quite hard to make it to far out ( as long as am carfull ). The main reasons i require stiffnes to the gantry is so i can add a B/C head or plate if needed. Am also adding a turret/lathe to the bed.

Boyan Silyavski
26-10-2013, 05:26 PM
A couple of questions as i am designing my own build, using your ideas:

-so you believe 3kw spindle would be better than 2.2kw?
-how you did the oiling system? did you use the original nipples and modify them? why not grease? how much oil is used under operational condition? What oil?
-where did you get that spring shims that make the preload? what are the specifications? how did you calculate the distance between the 2 nuts , so that they would be mirroring each other exactly and the shims to fit in?

Jonathan
26-10-2013, 09:30 PM
I mentioned something similar to you in an email Jon and feel the machine would benefit from 1 more rail on both Y & Z axis. One Higher up on Y axis and on 3 sides of box on Z axis but more to help with resonance and vibration in all cutting directions rather than increase load ratings.?

As I'm sure you're aware, you can improve the response of a resonant system in just two ways - either raise the stiffness to reduce the magnitude of the deflection, or increase the damping so the error dies away faster. Therefore comparing the stiffness of each option is very much related to comparing the overall response for resonant conditions.

The linear guides do have some damping effect, due to the oil layer between the bearings and rail. Adding rail with two bearings, as you suggest, would therefore increase the damping factor, as it increases the surface area in contact. Instead of adding an additional rail and two bearings, you could increase the stiffness and damping by adding one bearing to each of the existing rails which is likely more cost effective. This also has the added slight bonus of evening out errors in rail straightness and generally aligning two rails is a easier than three. Either way, this damping effect isn't that large as the surface area in contact is small, so you're probably better off improving damping in other areas such as joints in the frame. You can also add non-load bearing sliding contact bearings to further improve the damping effect, which will make a bigger difference as sliding bearings will have a much greater surface area in contact.

If you take the load ratings from the Hiwin datasheet and plot them versus rail size, it seems that the load rating is proportional to the rail size raised to the power 1.7. So if we assume the stiffness of the rail is proportional to the load rating and that the magnitude of the force on each linear bearing is similar, to increase the stiffness by the same factor as adding one additional rail (i.e. 50% as you're spreading the load between 6 bearings instead of 4), you only have to increase the rail size by 27%. So for example going from a 15mm rail to 20mm, or 20mm to 25mm would gain slightly more stiffness than adding the additional rail. Similarly if you want to double the stiffness, then instead of going from two rails to four, you could increase the rail size by 50% (e.g use 30mm rails instead of 20mm).

Looking at it a different way, if you plot the price of the linear rails and linear bearings versus their size, it's a pretty convincing linear relationship. So by increasing the rail size you have an exponential gain (x^1.7) in stiffness for a linear increase in price. If you add more rails you have a linear gain in stiffness for a linear gain in price.


Would also add another ballscrew to Y axis rather than increase bearing plates has the action of 2 screws pushing/pulling together would be smoother than widening the plates.?

Both methods would work. If the bearing spacing is made large enough to prevent racking, then the stiffness of the axis would also be greatly increased since the deflection for a given force due to the bearings is proportional to the bearing spacing squared (based on combining the formulas in the manufacturer's datasheets). Similiarly, adding the extra ballscrew would eliminate racking and thus increase the stiffness, however it cannot increase the stiffness further so the former or a combination of both is required if the axis stiffness is still not sufficient.


Like you say it's very strong already but feel these changes would make it the close to ULTIMATE strong machine.!

Got to draw the line somewhere.


-so you believe 3kw spindle would be better than 2.2kw?

Yes, if one or more of the following are true:
1) You need to get more power than the 2.2kW spindle can deliver at low speed, e.g. for cutting steel, but still require a high speed spindle.
2) The machine is rigid enough for the stiffness of the spindle to be the limiting factor.
3) The machine is rigid enough to make cuts which exceed the power rating of the spindle.

Number 3) is definately the case for the macine in this thread. I'm not yet certain about the rest so wont comment.


-how you did the oiling system? did you use the original nipples and modify them?

No, if you look carefully in the photos you can see that to save space new nipples were machined which were the correct size for the tube to just push on to it and not fall off.


why not grease?

Oil is much less viscous, so it requires less pressure to push through the system which in turn makes the oil distribution system easier to manufacture. Oil also allows higher speed, but that's not really an issue here. Grease is commonly used for the linear bearings, but oil seems more common for ballscrews.


how much oil is used under operational condition? What oil?

Very little. The datasheets for the ballscrews and linear bearings do give recommenced values. Bear in mind the oil is also good at flushing out foreign bodies from the nuts, so certainly no harm in oiling them regularly. You can find the correct oil to use in some of the ballscrew datasheets, but I wouldn't worry too much about what you use as, although not recommended, the ballscrews will last a long time without oil, so anything will be a lot better than nothing. You probably don't want something with too low a viscosity as that would drain out quickly.


-where did you get that spring shims that make the preload? what are the specifications? how did you calculate the distance between the 2 nuts , so that they would be mirroring each other exactly and the shims to fit in?

I got them from Lee Spring, spring manufacturer for a variety of uses (http://www.leespring.co.uk). The preload force is set as a percentage of the screw's rating, so you need to find the rating for your screws and then find disc springs which can apply that force without being fully squashed. I didn't calculate the distance, instead a gap is left, measured, then a spacer made to the correct thickness to squash the springs by the calculated amount to obtain the required force.

Boyan Silyavski
27-10-2013, 01:04 AM
Thanks for the detailed explanation.

However i would like to design mine machine quite bigger, up to the point that i am tempted to reach and surpass the length limit of the ball screws on the long axis. I don't intend to do steel though. I wonder if i am right that with this gantry design + 2 nuts at each of the long sides/x/ i could go with longer 1610 screws, say like 1800mm or even 2000, cause if i separate the bearing blocks that move the gantry say 400mm that gives screw lengths like - (1800-400) /2 = 600mm from each side if gantry is in the middle and 1400 if gantry is at one end, which more or less i assume is the limit before whipping occurs.

So, from your point of view, what are the things i should concentrate if i upscale the machine?

Apart from the obvious, like sturdy frame and gantry. I intend to use 100x100x4 profile and 100x100x? for the gantry.
and possibly size 30 Hiwin rolller bearing slides, instead of ball. I am planning to mount possibly an impact air hammer, so it seems i will further strengthen vertically one side of the gantry adding one more profile
For now it seems to me the limiting factor to all will be the gantry weight/strength ratio, so if i am right i could upscale until one reaches limit/weight for the given motors or strength for the chosen length/

JAZZCNC
27-10-2013, 01:06 AM
As I'm sure you're aware, you can improve the response of a resonant system in just two ways - either raise the stiffness to reduce the magnitude of the deflection, or increase the damping so the error dies away faster. Therefore comparing the stiffness of each option is very much related to comparing the overall response for resonant conditions.

The linear guides do have some damping effect, due to the oil layer between the bearings and rail. Adding rail with two bearings, as you suggest, would therefore increase the damping factor, as it increases the surface area in contact. Instead of adding an additional rail and two bearings, you could increase the stiffness and damping by adding one bearing to each of the existing rails which is likely more cost effective. This also has the added slight bonus of evening out errors in rail straightness and generally aligning two rails is a easier than three. Either way, this damping effect isn't that large as the surface area in contact is small, so you're probably better off improving damping in other areas such as joints in the frame. You can also add non-load bearing sliding contact bearings to further improve the damping effect, which will make a bigger difference as sliding bearings will have a much greater surface area in contact.

If you take the load ratings from the Hiwin datasheet and plot them versus rail size, it seems that the load rating is proportional to the rail size raised to the power 1.7. So if we assume the stiffness of the rail is proportional to the load rating and that the magnitude of the force on each linear bearing is similar, to increase the stiffness by the same factor as adding one additional rail (i.e. 50% as you're spreading the load between 6 bearings instead of 4), you only have to increase the rail size by 27%. So for example going from a 15mm rail to 20mm, or 20mm to 25mm would gain slightly more stiffness than adding the additional rail. Similarly if you want to double the stiffness, then instead of going from two rails to four, you could increase the rail size by 50% (e.g use 30mm rails instead of 20mm).

Looking at it a different way, if you plot the price of the linear rails and linear bearings versus their size, it's a pretty convincing linear relationship. So by increasing the rail size you have an exponential gain (x^1.7) in stiffness for a linear increase in price. If you add more rails you have a linear gain in stiffness for a linear gain in price.


Wow that's lot of waffle just to say you don't agree Jon (well think that's what your saying.?) so I'll keep it short and simply say don't agree with your Waffle.!!

I'm sure if you where to model accurately this full machine in Cad and add the rails like I suggest so load is spread across 3 areas then do a Stress analysis on it in all directions and compare deflection at the cutting tip you'll see a difference worth the effort compared to just adding another bearing on each rail or increasing rail/bearing size.?

All said and done thou Whether it's worth the effort is dependant on it's use and it's current design it isn't exactly flimsy is it so probably fine for 99.9% of any HD-DIY work.!!

george uk
28-10-2013, 03:36 PM
Thanks Jonathan.

exactly the level of detail i needed to factor both the advantages and disadvantages and the associated costings. If ever am up your way, i owe you a coffie

superpot
21-11-2013, 05:21 PM
Absolutely brilliant machine and many thanks for posting the project Jonathon. Will you be posting the files and costings on here?

gavztheouch
21-01-2014, 02:31 PM
Fantasic machine Jonathan.

ramsbury
22-01-2014, 11:23 PM
Ive read The thread a couple of time and watched the video A very inspiring thread.

andrewuk
26-01-2014, 09:46 PM
That is impressive well done.

cropwell
03-02-2014, 01:55 AM
This is a great machine and it has sparked off some ideas for the design of my first build. Thanks for the detailed posting. VERY useful.

Ta

Rob

PAULRO
29-03-2014, 05:32 PM
hi Jonathan , super build, well done. where can i access the dwgs and BOM for this build. i am putting together a costing for a home build similar to this baby and would love to incorporate some of the ideas. any help to get me down the track that bit faster would be greatly appreciated. Dermot.

Robin Hewitt
29-03-2014, 09:43 PM
How did I miss this when it first came out? Maybe I didn't miss it, maybe it's my ancient memory box fading again. Whatever I like it :beer:

JAZZCNC
29-03-2014, 09:59 PM
How did I miss this when it first came out? Maybe I didn't miss it, maybe it's my ancient memory box fading again. Whatever I like it :beer:

Certainly is your crusty box robin because I remember Jonathan pointing you here when we had that little "Routers can't cut metal" debate.!! . . :stupid:

Robin Hewitt
29-03-2014, 10:12 PM
I remember Jonathan pointing you here when we had that little "Routers can't cut metal" debate.!! . . :stupid:

Blimey, that's mighty fine remembering. Bravo :encouragement:

JAZZCNC
29-03-2014, 10:40 PM
Blimey, that's mighty fine remembering. Bravo :encouragement:

Yep not only do I have Arse like an Elephant I have memory box the same.!!. . . . If Only I had a trunk same girlfriend would be well impressed. Lol