. .

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #6
    By popular demand I've updated the spreadsheet to include a range of sections for the gantry sides in bending.

    I've also added the 'channel' section to the torsion page. I referred to this as C section before, which is not quite correct, since C section is channel with small return flanges on the short pieces (like serifs).

    Anyway, see post#2 above for the updates.

    As expected the channel is similar to the I beam for torsion (i.e poor), but redeems itself in the bending load case. Overall though, closed sections are good all round choices. The flat plate option for the sides of the gantry looks less good that the other sections, but to get the advantages of the other sections you do need to get the load into them. The easy method of bolting through the flat outer surface is likely to distort the section locally before the rest of it gives you the benefit. A flat plate is likely to be fine for many applications, but if you can get a good connection to a sectioned part then it will be better.

    If you can afford the profile and carraige style on the X axis, the moment reaction these provide during Y cutting gives great benefits vs open bearings on supported rails (which rotate!), although they do have a max moment (check the bearing spec).

    Enjoy . . .

    Ah, another thing. The X axis bearing close together bit. I was surprised at this myself but the maths points to it if:
    You are machining thin 2D type parts whereby the tool is in about the same Z location during cutting, and you stick to the equation about relative position of parts (if you are machining deeper parts, then the tool is at different heights, moments creep in, and the geometry is no longer ideal, and you might want to not put the bearings so close)

    You are using modest acceleration rates - probably hobby rates would be OK. At very high production type rates the gantry inertia would start to have an effect and again you might not want them so close due to the moment.

    My next machine, or future mod to this one, will put them closer together, but I know why I'm doing it and what I want to achieve. You'll have to decide if it works for your application. If you're not sure, go with Ross and space them out a bit.
    Last edited by routercnc; 15-07-2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason: more info
    Building a CNC machine to make a better one since 2010 . . .
    MK1 (1st photo), MK2, MK3, MK4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Sturdy Steel Framed Machine Design
    By Boyan Silyavski in forum Machine Frames & Beds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 05:58 PM
  2. A concept design for a cnc machine
    By madprof1 in forum Gantry/Router Machines & Building
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 10:40 PM
  3. Router design thoughts
    By m_c in forum Gantry/Router Machines & Building
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 07:06 PM
  4. FUNdaMENTALS of machine design
    By Ross77 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-08-2010, 12:58 AM
  5. Full Machine Design/Display
    By Lee Roberts in forum Computer Software
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29-05-2009, 09:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •