Transitioning from Control to Wear

[zmassingill]

Hello all! I landed a job helping to improve and update a machine shop, and it's been a real stretch but we're making progress. I'd like to transition from using Control Comp to Wear Comp, partly because it's easier and better for our programmers, partly because we want to standardize tooling and get away from using a 1/4" when the program was intended to be used with a 3/8" etc. Our machines are Mazak VT 200c's with parameters set to use the Tool Data Diameter value, and we have many hand-written legacy programs that were written using this method, so I can't just go and switch the parameters without ruining our proven legacy programs.

I have found that if I post a program using wear compensation, add the diameter to the Tool Data page as normal, then input the radius of the tool as a negative value in the diameter compensation, the program works exactly as expected. Could this be a viable strategy to program using wear while we transition? Then once we have a good amount of programs redone in Mastercam, we can switch the parameters over on at least one of our two machines.  I don't know any other way than to switch the parameter on and off , but our operators do not feel comfortable doing this and I agree. 

Any advice on making the transition from Control to Wear would be greatly appreciated!

[cncappsjames]

You can use control or wear and not need to change your machine's parameters. Diameter/Radius is just a calculation method for the control.

What I have seen people do when making this transition is in the header of the program put in G10's to set the tool's Diameter/Radius Geometry and Wear values then at the end of the program they clear those values out.

If you do this method then your starting Geometry/Wear values start out at 0 then adjust from there.

 

[JParis]

IMO, short of changing CAM systems...this is one of the hardest and dangerous changes that can be made in a shop. There are just too many opportunities for an operator or a setup guy that's not paying close attention to be bitten....HARD!

cncappsjames is offering a good way way to move down this path.

The key will be to have something in the new programs that is different and WILL STAND OUT....that's an attention getter...the other big thing is to try to make sure that you use Wear comp in a consistent manner...this helps operators to transition in the new more easily, instead of having to wonder how it's used in this program...for me, I use wear only, I make all of my cuts using wear & G41 for climb milling....this means a consistent use of +/- wear values reacting the same way. On those only a handful of instances where a feature gets cut in a conventional cut, I use G42 and i note the hell out of the program so that it stands out.

Trying to balance between the 2 uses will be fraught with danger.....make the change and automate as you can, loading offsets(G10) clearing diameter comp values, and notate, notate, notate.

 

[crazy^millman]

Honesty I read this a few times and debated even responding. Both have seen the very problem you are facing along with myself and at some point someone has to decide they are going to rip off the band-aid. Either the company is movimng forward embracing the technology the way it has progressed(sorry I don't like the word evolved) to or die the slow death by a 1000 paper cuts it has been for such along time. Companies embracing the technology shift that has been coming for the last 10 years understand this fact. The shops that are busy and have work are those moving their processes and technology into the forefront. Those lagging and falling behind are just like a tree rotting the inside. That tree looks strong and tall until one day a limb falls off the the true problem starts to show. /that falling limb could be a run of bad parts, lost contract because of late delivery or have not put backup processes or methods in place. Then the next event happens and another limb falls off or the whole trunk collapses and then it gone.

Put the safe guards in place and provide the training needed to make the process successful. Then don't look back and provide a process moving forward. Mistakes happen and until everyone is on board make a FAI part of every part run. No matter if they are just running 2-1000 parts. Easy to catch a problem on one part and a lot cheaper than realizing it after running 5-1000 parts. People might complain and gripe, but tell them the cost of scrapping a part is a three times cost loss. The original time, the replacement time and the lost time on the next part. The extra time spent making sure all possible problem have been sorted out until this is working as it should is time well spent.

[Leon82]

Can you use a system variable to warn in the program?

 

Like if dia comp is greater than .005 issue alarm or program stop?

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

You could always use a macro to check for offset values outside of a certain range.

[cncappsjames]

8 hours ago, Leon82 said:

Can you use a system variable to warn in the program?

Here's how that looks...

 

FANUC 3n Series "Name" Type System Variable check

IF[[#_TOFS[3]]GT.005]GOTO9003 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER GEOMETRY)

IF[[#_TOFS[4]]GT.010]GOTO9004 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER WEAR)

.........

N9003 #3000=3(TOOL R/D GEO. TOO LARGE)

N9004 #3000=4(TOOL R/D WEAR TOO LARGE)

 

FANUC 3n Series "Variable" Type System Variable check

IF[#5083GT.005]GOTO9003 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER )

IF[#5084GT.010]GOTO9004 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER WEAR)

.........

N9003 #3000=3(TOOL R/D VALUE TOO LARGE)

N9004 #3000=4(TOOL R/D WEAR VALUE TOO LARGE)

[cncappsjames]

After more thought...

A more bullet proof method may be to add a T capture in your tool change MACRO after the M06

........
M06
#196=#4120 (SENT CURRENT T TO #196)
......
M99
%

Then part program

......

FANUC 30i/31i/32i Series "Name" Type System Variable check

TnM06
IF[[#_OFSDG[#196]]GT.005]GOTO9003 ( DIAMETER GEOMETRY)
IF[[#_OFSDWG[#196]]GT.010]GOTO9004 ( DIAMETER WEAR)
...........
OR

TnM06
IF[[#_OFSRG[#196]]GT.005]GOTO9003 ( RADIUS GEOMETRY)
IF[[#_OFSRWG[#196]]GT.010]GOTO9004 ( RADIUS WEAR)
.........

M30

N9003 #3000=3(TOOL R/D GEO. TOO LARGE)
N9004 #3000=4(TOOL R/D WEAR TOO LARGE)
%

FANUC 30i/31i/32i Series "Variable" Type System Variable check

TnM06
IF[#[13000+#196]GT.005]GOTO9003 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER )
IF[#[12000+#196]GT.010]GOTO9004 ( RADIUS/DIAMETER WEAR)
.........

M30

N9003 #3000=3(TOOL R/D VALUE TOO LARGE)
N9004 #3000=4(TOOL R/D WEAR VALUE TOO LARGE)
%

[zmassingill]

Thank you everyone for your replies, I am reviewing them now. 

[zmassingill]

I think a combo of an attention getting M00 stop with a message reminder, and G10 automation will be a good strategy. I will need to learn how to use G10 and macro programming, but that will be fun and I love new tools in my brain. Setup sheets/work instructions for each part will now include a big orange font cover letter, saying "this program uses wear compensation" and an explanation of what that means with pictures of what the values should look like. 

[zmassingill]

Part of the problem was that it was my understanding that something HAD to be in the "Actual Diameter" field of the 640MN Controller, I was wrong. Testing showed that the machine will not alarm out with a 0 entered in this field. This makes things much easier. I was afraid that because of the nature of this controller and the parameter settings, I literally could not have both types of program without doing something like adding a negative radius value to the "Actual Diameter Correction" field when using wear.

[cncappsjames]

7 hours ago, zmassingill said:

Part of the problem was that it was my understanding that something HAD to be in the "Actual Diameter" field...

I run into legacy "information" that nobody knows the origin of that gets passed down from operator to operator to operator often. Depending on your machine tool builder/dealer often times they can help you dispel the myths and move forward with productivity enhancing tools within the machine's control.

For YEARS I have heard (and I still hear it from time to time) that you cannot run a program directly off a machine's Dataserver. This is 100% myth. This ability has been available on machines with FANUC controls since the 30 Series became available. Here's the timeline for FANUC's various control Series.

[huskermcdoogle]

IMHO, Using a macro variable to check for the right condition during execution is the best way.  This is easily be accomplished through some post mods.

Basically, when you do a tool change check to make sure the offsets are setup correctly for how you have it programmed.

So if that program is in the wear convention you will have the post output a check at each tool change to make sure the offset values are programmed to the expected magnitude, 10% of the tool diameter is usually more than enough. 

You could also do it at the operation level in Mastercam and throw an alarm during cutting execution, and check to see how comp is set for that op at both the tool change and null tool change portions between ops.

Many different options here.

G10's are fine, but then you would have to add them to all of the programs from the past to make sure those are correct, when you run a legacy program.

[jpatry]

On 9/30/2022 at 10:19 AM, huskermcdoogle said:

G10's are fine, but then you would have to add them to all of the programs from the past to make sure those are correct, when you run a legacy program.

Another solution is to utilize a G10 to zero out the radius geometry register of the relevant tool numbers utilized in the program.

I have put these in particular programs where a certain tool under no circumstances should have rad geometry values going on, although that depends on the guy at the machine not being a caveman who uses the wear and the geometry registers interchangeably.

 

Ultimately, yes, macros are the only way to be sure, but also tend to induce equal parts awe and severe consternation in the superstitious villagers.

[cncappsjames]

On 4/9/2023 at 7:27 AM, jpatry said:

Ultimately, yes, macros are the only way to be sure, but also tend to induce equal parts awe and severe consternation in the superstitious villagers.

I now have to clean off my monitor. Thank you.

[jpatry]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:21 PM, cncappsjames said:

I now have to clean off my monitor. Thank you.

>new thing is proposed

>we don't currently have new thing

>we've never needed new thing before

>therefore new thing is self evidently bad and dumb

>I and my main co-conspirator scrounge together a working example of "new thing"

>usual suspects are predictably baffled that such sorcery is even possible

 

Round and round it goes, the only reason I work for these fools is that I have a good manager, a couple good coworkers, and all the nearby shops are somehow even worse.

[cncappsjames]

Ya know, a good manager can make the work environment tolerable.