Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] One side gantry drive
Posted by
Doug Harrison
on 2002-10-23 08:03:34 UTC
For the purposes of this discussion I will declare the length of the table
as X and the length of the gantry as Y.
To make the single side drive work we must abandon the idea of a gantry as a
beam and think of it as a truss (triangle). Think of it as a right triangle
where the long leg is the Y axis and the short leg is the X axis.
The short leg if the triangle is roughly 50% of the long leg. Thus, for a
60X120 table the distance between trucks that run the X axis rail is about
30-36 inches. As such, the in-plane force (neglecting acceleration) on the
X axis trucks is about twice the tool load - not much.
The principle advantage of this method lies in the rigidity of the truss.
Bending is no longer an issue. Deflection in the XY plane is avoided without
resorting to adding bulk. Les Watts' router base is built this way. It
seems incredibly stiff though it is only 2X2 box tubing.
The one sided approach allows you to invest your ballscrew budget in one
good piece instead of two lesser units. The drive side rail should be
beefier than the opposite rail. No problem. A disadvantage is that the
drive side rail must be about three feet longer than the intended travel -
still better than with a moving table though.
One of our list members (was it Bob Campbell?) has built a few tables this
way and was happy with the results.
Doug
as X and the length of the gantry as Y.
To make the single side drive work we must abandon the idea of a gantry as a
beam and think of it as a truss (triangle). Think of it as a right triangle
where the long leg is the Y axis and the short leg is the X axis.
The short leg if the triangle is roughly 50% of the long leg. Thus, for a
60X120 table the distance between trucks that run the X axis rail is about
30-36 inches. As such, the in-plane force (neglecting acceleration) on the
X axis trucks is about twice the tool load - not much.
The principle advantage of this method lies in the rigidity of the truss.
Bending is no longer an issue. Deflection in the XY plane is avoided without
resorting to adding bulk. Les Watts' router base is built this way. It
seems incredibly stiff though it is only 2X2 box tubing.
The one sided approach allows you to invest your ballscrew budget in one
good piece instead of two lesser units. The drive side rail should be
beefier than the opposite rail. No problem. A disadvantage is that the
drive side rail must be about three feet longer than the intended travel -
still better than with a moving table though.
One of our list members (was it Bob Campbell?) has built a few tables this
way and was happy with the results.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: dakota8833 <dakota8833@...>
>
> Funny you should mention driving the ganty from one side ,.. I tried
> this and noticed that it was more efective to drive it down the sides
> or single down the middle. What one has to keep in mind is the lever
> action. Driving down the center halves these forces as opposed to a
> single drive at one side. Another problem with single
> sided drive is with the twisting of the ganty uprights. It is doubled
> for the same size mill. Any of these problems can be overcome though
> ,..by overbuilding. I like unconventional thinking and may use the
> same concept with my next mill. I would like to hear some more about
> your idea of a single sided drive.
>
> Frank ,.... CAD CAM FEA backround
Discussion Thread
Doug Harrison
2002-10-23 08:03:34 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] One side gantry drive
Robert Campbell
2002-10-23 10:20:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] One side gantry drive