“INVESTIGATION OF THE

EFFECTS OF HOLE MAKING

PROCESSES ON HOLE MAKING
CYCLE TIME AND HOLE
QUALITY”

Technical Report Submitted to: Dept. of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering

Prof. Edward C. De Meter
310 Leonhard Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802

Submitted by: Project Team 5

Sean Campbell, Gordy Tonkin, Ryan Turner
 Date: December 11, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this analysis, two experiments were conducted. The first of these

experiments involved a straight drilling process to create a hole in a solid workpiece
using a CNC drilling machine. Different combinations of linear feed rate and hole
depth are used to determine the accuracy of the created straight drilling cycle time
model. In all, nine different combinations were replicated six times. It is then
necessary to substitute the necessary variables into equation 1 of section 1 to find
the predicted cycle times for the straight drilling process. These values were then
plotted in a scatterplot and an R2(sys) value of 0.9623 was found. This shows that the
model excellently predicts the cycle time of a straight drilling process given the drill
depth, height of the reference plane above the work-piece, and the linear feed rate.
Therefore since the rapid traverse movements during straight drilling are not
considered within this prediction model and the prediction model does an
exceptional job of modeling said process, the rapid transverse time within the
process can be considered negligible.

An experiment was conducted using two different peck drilling processes.

The first process used a peck depth of 0.1”, while the second used a peck depth of
0.2”. This process was conducted similarly to the straight drilling process, using
nine combinations and replicated six times. The data collected was then used to
create two different time cycle models, the first of which neglected the rapid
tranverse time cycle of the process. An equation was found concentrating on the
number and time it takes to complete the peck drilling process. It can be found in
section 2 of this analysis in great detail. By substituting in the necessary variables,
a predicted feed time cycle was found for the peck depth of 0.1” and yielded a R2(sys)
value of 0.6804. Due to this low value, it shows that the model only fairly predicts
the actual cycle time. The reason for this low value is due to the fact that the rapid
transverse cycle time was not included in the model. Therefore, this shows that the
rapid transverse cycle time is not negligible, and does indeed have a significant
impact on feed cycle time.

A similar analysis was conducted for the peck drilling process involving a
peck depth of 0.2”. This implored another equation that also includes the
acceleration and de-acceleration time cycles within the model. When these values
are included in the feed cycle times found in section 2 of this report, an overall
predicted total cycle time can be found. These values were plotted against the
actual cycle times recorded in the experiment and a scatterplot was formed that
yielded an R2(sys) value of 0.8916. This high R2(sys) value shows that the acceleration
and de-acceleration time cycles do indeed have a significant impact on overall cycle
time. This value also shows that rapid transverse time again has a significant
impact on overall cycle time, and should not be considered negligible.

2
 The final analysis used collected times from four separate processes used to
created four holes in a solid steel workpiece. These time values were then used to
determine where if any money could be saved in the drilling process assuming a
cost of $1.00/min for the machining process. It was determined in this analysis that
although some of the steps did not add value to the workpiece itself, they were still
necessary steps to complete the workpiece. These steps must be completed if the
workpiece is to be machined to drawing specifications. It was also shown that any
unecessary steps should be eliminated if they are not pivotal to complete drawing
specifications.

Table of Contents
1. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE ON PROGRESSIVE HOLE
WANDER.....................................................................................................................4
1.1 Methodology....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Results............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE ON SIZE ERRORS............7
2.1 Methodology......................................................................................................7
2.2 Results..............................................................................................................8
3. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE ON ROUNDNESS ERRORS
.................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Methodology....................................................................................................10
3.2 Results............................................................................................................10
4. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE ON SURFACE
ROUGHNESS ERROR.................................................................................................12
4.1 Methodology....................................................................................................12
4.2 Results............................................................................................................12
5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE ON CROSS SECTION
AXIAL PERPENDICULARITY ERROR............................................................................14
5.1 Methodology....................................................................................................14
5.2 Results............................................................................................................14
6. HOLE MAKING PROCESS DESIGN..........................................................................16
6.1 Methodology....................................................................................................16
6.2 Results............................................................................................................16
REFERENCES............................................................................................................17
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................18

3
Appendix

1. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE

ON PROGRESSIVE HOLE WANDER
This experiment deals with four hole making sequences and their corresponding
effects on hole wandering. Each hole making cycle (1,2,3, & 4) has a different
sequence and combination of drilling processes, which will be explained further
later in this section. The objective of this experiment is to determine whether or
not progressive hole wander exists within each hole making sequence.
“Progressive hole wander denotes the situation in which the center point of a
circular element increasingly deviates in position as hole depth increases.”

1.1Methodology
The first step of this experimental analysis is to remove all irrelevant data from the
“Hole GeometricError Data” Excel spreadsheet. The only data that is necessary for
this analysis is the x and y positions for each repetition, and the “Hole Type” and
“Depth” columns. Next, the hole wander for measurement depths 2, 3, and 4 must
be found relative to the position of the central axis at measurement depth 1. This is
completed through the use of equation [1] below:

dj = [(xj – x1)2 + (yj – y)2]1/2 for j = 2,3,4

[1]

where:

xj = x-coordinate position at depth identification number j

yj = y-coordinate position at depth identification number j

The hole wander value is computed for each hole type and every replicate. Next,
the average hole wander value (dj) is calculated for each combination of hole type

4
and depth identification number (j = 2,3,4). This is computed by summing the hole
wander values for each replicate at the specified hole type and depth and then
dividing by the number of replicates. Subsequently, four scatter-plots are
constructed for each hole type showing the average hole wander (dj(avg)) for the
three depths (2,3, & 4). The scatter-plot’s dependent variable is average hole
wander (dj(avg)) and it’s independent variable is Depth Identification number ( j =
2,3,4). The aforementioned scatter-plots are then analyzed to find if progressive
hole wander is evident for all four hole making sequences and if there is visual
evidence that suggests that some hole making processes decrease progressive hole
wander.

1.2 Results
The hole wander values (dj), computed for all hole making sequences, their
replicates, and relevant depth identification numbers, and the average hole wander
values (dj(avg)) can be found within Table 1 of the Appendix. The data within Table
1 are the values that are represented in the scatter-plots shown below:

Progressive hole wander occurs when the center point of a circular element
increases its distance from the relative center point from which it is being
measured. Therefore for the hole making process to show evidence of progressive
hole wander the points on the graph must increase in the y-axis direction
(dj(Average)) as you increase the distance you travel from the origin on the x-axis
(Depth Identification Number). Consequently holes of type 1,2, and 4 show
evidence of progressive hole wandering, while holes of type 3 do not.

There is visual evidence to suggest that spot drilling prior to twist drilling
reduces wander of the twist drilled hole. Figure 1 illustrates the average hole

5
wander when only twist drilling and Figure 2 illustrates the average hole wander
when spot drilling prior to twist drilling. It is shown that in Figure 1 the maximum
average hole wander, at a depth identification number of 4, is 0.001091844 inches,
while in Figure 1 the maximum average hole wander, at a depth identification
number of 4, is 0.000822946 inches. This shows a reduction of hole wander of .
000268898 inches or 24.628%. This means that spot drilling decreases the amount
of progressive hole wander, therefore improving axial straightness.

There is no visual evidence to suggest that reaming is incapable of improving

the axial straightness of a previously twist drilled hole. Figure 1 illustrates the
average hole wander when only twist drilling is used and Figure 3 illustrates the
average hole wander when reaming the drilled hole post-twist drilling. The data
within Figures 1 and 3 show that reaming a previously twisted hole reduces hole
wander on average by .000116307 inches or 21.012% at a depth identification
number of 2, .000315595 inches or 47.272% at a depth identification number of 3,
and .000625391 inches or 57.278% at a depth identification number of 4. This
means at every depth the central axis of the hole is closer to the original relative
central axis, meaning that reaming a hole after it is twist drilled does decrease
progressive hole wander, therefore improving axial straightness.

There is no constant visual evidence to suggest that boring a twist drilled

hole prior to reaming will lead to improved axial straightness of the reamed hole. It
shows that for depth identification numbers of 3 and 4 that boring the hole prior to
the reaming operation shows no improvement in hole wander. But for depth
identification number of 2 there is an improvement on axial straightness. Therefore
there is no consistent and conclusive evidence that boring a twist drilled hole prir to
reaming will lead to improved axial straightness.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE

ON SIZE ERRORS
Refer to Section 1 for hole making sequence description. Each hole making
sequence was utilized and then size error measurements were taken at each depth
(j = 1,2,3,4). The purpose of this experiment is to determine the impact of each
hole making sequence ( i = 1,2,3,4) on size error.

2.1 Methodology

First, all irrelevant data contained within the Hole Geometric Error Data Excel sheet
must be removed. The only data columns that should remain are hole type, depth,
and each replicates (1, 2, & 3) size error measurements. Next a scatter-plot is to be
created illustrating the size error of the hole versus the hole’s hole making

6
sequence. The data that is contained within this scatter-plot is each replicates size
error measurements for every hole type and depth combination.

Then the sample mean and standard deviation of each hole making sequence
must be computed. The sample mean is computed by using the AVERAGE function
within excel. The standard deviation is then computed using the STDEV function
within excel. The data points contained within the two Excel functions above are
each hole making sequences 3 replicates and their 4 different points of
measurement. Next the lower and upper process limits must be solved for with a
95% confidence level and assuming that the population percentage within the
process limits is equal to 95% as well. First, the tolerance factor for the above
constraints with a sample size of 12 is found to be equal to 3.162 (2). Then the
sample mean, tolerance factor value, and sample standard deviation values must
be substituted into the following equations (1 & 2):

Upper Tolerance Limit = XU = x + k(v, 1- α, n) * s

Lower Tolerance Limit = XL = x - k(v, 1- α, n) * s

Where:

x = sample average

s = sample standard deviation

k (v, 1- α, n) = tolerance factor

Then, the acquired data must be analyzed to determine whether the different hole
making sequences improve the size error process limits.

2.2 Results
The scatter-plot that was created to illustrate the comparison of size error
(dependent variable) to hole making sequence (independent variable) is shown
below in Table XX.

This scatter-plot shows that the use of a reaming operation and a boring/reaming
operation significantly decreases the value of the holes size error. It also makes the
replicates values much closer to one another, meaning that repeatability is
increased.

The size error statistics for each hole making process and its replicates are
shown below in Table XX.

7
 Estimated 95% Estimated 95%
Hole Making Sample Sample St Size of Process
Lower Process Upper Process
Sequence Mean (in.) Dev (in.) Limit Area
Limit (in.) Limit(in.)
1 0.004167 0.002158 -0.002656596 0.010990596 0.013647192
2 0.003650 0.002434 -0.004046308 0.011346308 0.015392616
3 0.000242 0.000193 0.001809734 0.003030266 0.001220532
4 0.000275 0.000182 -0.000300484 0.000850484 0.001150968

The spot drilling of a hole prior to twist drilling does not appear to significantly
improve the size error process limits of the twist drilled hole. As shown by Table XX
above the size of the process limit area, or the distance between the upper and
lower process limits, increase when spot drilling prior to twist drilling. The process
sequences involving reaming and boring do yield significantly better size error
process limits than those in which twist drilling as the finishing process. As shown
by Table XX above, the size of the process limit area is significantly smaller when
not using a twist drill as the finishing process. Hole making sequences one and two,
sequences whose finishing process is twist drilling, size of the process limit area’s
are approximately 100% larger than hole making sequences three and four. The
boring of the hole prior to the reaming process does not appear to significantly
improve the size error process limits of the reamed hole. It only reduces the overall
size of the process limit area by 5.6%.

8
3. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE
ON ROUNDNESS ERRORS
In this analysis, the same experimental process was conducted as described
in Section 1 of this report. This section focuses on roundness error, which is the
distance between the maximum and minimum material conditions. Due to this fact,
roundness error can only take on nonnegative numbers. It will be proven later in
this section whether or not the data gathered is normally distributed. This section
will also focus on the difference between the four hole types drilled, and if any
process is significantly better at decreasing roundness error.

3.1 Methodology
In this analysis, three repetitions of data will be analyzed for each of the four
hole drilling processes. The data collected gives the roundness error of each hole.
Roundness error tolerances can be found on blueprints in a featured control frame
with by the following symbol:

The sample mean and standard deviation of the roundness errors will then be
found. By finding these two statistical values, it will be possible to determine if the
data is normally distributed. This is found by the following logic:

If Standard Deviation ×3<Sample Average, then it is assumed the data is normally

distributed [1]

If Standard Deviation ×3>Sample Average, then it is assumed the data is not

normally distributed [2]

If the data is proven to be normally distributed, the process limits can then be found
in a similar fashion as seen in section 2 of this report. If the data is not normally
distributed, it is still possible to carry out an estimate of the effectiveness of the
process by comparing sample mean and standard deviation

3.2 Results
The sample means and standard deviations are outlined in Table @#$%@#$
below with the necessary normality checks and any process limits that could be
computed.

9
 Hole
Making Sample Sample Normali Normally Estimated 95% Estimated 95%
Sequenc Mean Std Dev ty Distribut Lower Process Upper Process
e (in.) (in) Check ed? Limit (in.) Limit (in.)
0.00080 0.00023 0.0007
1 833 532 059 Yes 6.4229E-05 0.001552437
0.00079 0.00035 0.00107
2 166 791 37 No N/A N/A
0.00055 0.00033 0.00100
3 833 427 28 No N/A N/A
0.00056 0.00031 0.00094
4 666 430 29 No N/A N/A

It can be seen above that the only hole data that is normally distributed is the
peck drilling process only. The estimated lower and upper process limits are shown
in bold above, which show a large variation in data with a difference of ±0.0007.
This shows that there is a large variation in the drilling process which can lead to a
greater probability of a high roundness error. To determine the drilling sequence
that most significantly reduces roundness error, a scatter plot was created and is
shown in Figure @#$ below:

By analyzing the figure above and comparing mean, it can clearly be seen
that the best process for limiting roundness error involves the peck drilling process
along with the straight drilling process using a reamer. This data also shows very
little variation in roundness error when first spot drilling a hole prior to peck drilling.
The data also shows very little difference when a process involves boring a hole
before or after reaming the hole. This is mainly due to the fact that reaming acts
slightly enlarge a previously drilled hole with greater precision than boring.

10
4. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE
ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS ERROR
In this analysis, the same experimental process was conducted as described
in Section 1 of this report. This section focuses on surface roughness error, which is
the amount of deviations on the inner surface of the machined hole. The measured
surface roughness will be compared to the four separate hole drilling processes
completed. This will show the hole drilling process which most significantly
improves surface roughness error.

4.1 Methodology
In this analysis, three repetitions of data will be analyzed for each of the four
hole drilling processes. The data collected gives the surface roughness of each.
Surface roughness tolerances can be found on blueprints in a featured control frame
with by the following symbol:

A similar analysis to section 3 of this report will be carried out to determine

the most effective drilling process to limit surface roughness.

4.2 Results
The sample means and standard deviations are outlined in Table @#$%@#$
below with the necessary normality checks. It can be seen that by utilizing
equations 1 and 2 that hole making sequences 1 and 2 are normally distributed.

Hole Sampl Sample Estimated Estimated

Making e Std Normali Normally 95% Lower 95% Upper
Sequenc Mean Dev ty Distribut Process Limit Process Limit
e (in.) (in) Check ed? (in.) (in.)
214.58 32.5979 97.7939
1 33 87 62 Yes 111.5084969 317.6581698
178.41 45.3721 136.116
2 66 14 34 Yes 34.95004014 321.8832932
15.166 9.22283 27.6684
3 66 06 92 No N/A N/A
6.38179 19.1453
4 12 22 76 No N/A N/A

It can be seen that by utilizing equations 1 and 2 that hole making sequences
1 and 2 are normally distributed. By comparing their estimated process limits, it
can be seen that spot drilling prior to peck drilling does have an impact on overall
surface roughness error. Although the upper process limit for hole sequence 2 is
slightly higher than that of hole sequence 1, by comparing means and standard

11
deviations, it can be stated that sequence 2 is better than sequence 1. To better
show comparison, along with the remaining sequences, a scatter plot was created
and is shown in Figure @$# below:

It can be seen in the figure above that the processes that use a reamer
and/or a boring process are far more significant than a peck drilling process with or
without spot drilling first. This is due to the fact that the sole purpose of a reaming
or boring process is to slightly enlarge the hole with increased precision than that of
a straight drill. By comparing the sample mean and sample deviations for
sequences 3 and 4, the data shows that there is minimal difference in the surface
roughness between the two sequences. Sequence 4 has a slight edge on sequence
3 in minimal surface roughness. This can be due to the fact that two tools were
used that were designed to only minimally enlarge the hole to ensure a smooth
surface.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF HOLE MAKING SEQUENCE

ON CROSS SECTION AXIAL PERPENDICULARITY ERROR
In this section of the lab the perpendicularity error was analyzed for the four holes
made during the lab. The holes are to be analyzed to see if the process that was
used to create the hole affects the perpendicularity of the hole.

12
5.1 Methodology
A similar method was used in this section that was used in part 3 of this report, but
it was adjusted for perpendicularity error.

5.2 Results
The following graph and table shows the perpendicularity error for each hole and
some sample statistics from the data given.

Figure 1: Perpendicularity error for four holes

Figure 2: Sample statistics for holes 1-4

Lower Upper
Proces Average Perp Std Normality Process Process
s Error Deviation Check Normal? Limit Limit
0.000435 0.00130575
1 0.001177778 252 6 No N/A N/A
0.000294
2 0.000877778 863 0.00088459 No N/A N/A
0.000181 0.00054313
3 0.000344444 046 9 No N/A N/A
0.000204
4 0.000422222 803 0.00061441 No N/A N/A

It can be seen above that only hole 3 and 4 were within the tolerance limit for the
perpendicularity error for the holes (0.0006). Hole three was the best one created
when it comes to the perpendicularity error. Hole three was drilled and then
reamed. Hole four was also drilled and then reamed, but after that it was bored.
Obviously, the boring process added did not improve the perpendicularity error of
the hole; it actually made it worse. However the drilling cycle for hole 4 was second
best. Third best was hole 3 which used a spot drilling process prior to the drilling
process. The worst average error occurred in hole 1, which was just drilled with no
added process.

To sum up the processes analyzed, spot drilling a hole prior to twist drilling, while
slightly improving the perpendicularity error, does not significantly improve it so
that it is within the tolerance limit. The reaming and boring processes used did bring
the error below the allowed limit, but the boring process added did not improve on
the hole that was just reamed and then drilled. Boring the hole prior to reaming it
appears to make the perpendicularity error get worse.

13
6. HOLE MAKING PROCESS DESIGN

6.1 Methodology

6.2 Results

14
REFERENCES

1. Dr. De Meter. Laboratory #6: Investigation of the Effects of Hole Making

Processes on Hole Making Cycle Time and Hole Quality.
2. "Dimensions/Surface Finish". Roy Mech. 12/09/09
<http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Surface_Texture/draw_surfin.html
>

15
APPENDIX

Table 1 - Predicted Cycle Times for the Straight Drilling Process

Experiment # Predicted Cycle Time (sec)
1 6.12244898
2 3.06122449
3 1.530612245
4 11.37026239
5 5.685131195

16
 6 2.842565598
7 16.6180758
8 8.309037901
9 4.15451895

Table 2 - Predicted Cycle Times for the Peck Drilling Process when Q = 0.1
Experiment # Predicted T(pk-cycle-feed) (sec)
1 6.647230321
2 3.32361516
3 1.66180758
4 12.41982507
5 6.209912536
6 3.104956268
7 18.19241983
8 9.362099125
9 4.548104956

Table 3 - Predicted Cycle and Predicted Total Peck Drilling Process Times when Q = 0.1
Experimen Predicted T(pk-cycle- N Predicted T(pk-cycle-
t# feed) (sec) Q Ta (sec) Total) (sec)
0.0450769
1 6.647230321 4 36 6.827538063
0.0433255
2 3.32361516 4 05 3.49691718
0.0458294
3 1.66180758 4 19 1.845125256
0.0419931
4 12.41982507 7 7 12.71377726
0.0411586
5 6.209912536 7 22 6.498022892
0.0420607
6 3.104956268 7 93 3.399381816
0.0479721
7 18.19241983 10 9 18.67214173
0.0439855
8 9.362099125 10 31 9.801954432
0.0448002
9 4.548104956 10 87 4.996107823

17
 Table 4 –Predicted Cycle and Total Peck Drilling Process Times when Q = 0.2
Predicted T(pk-cycle- Predicted T(pk-cycle-
Experiment # feed) (sec) NQ Ta (sec) total) (sec)
0.059312
1 6.297376093 2 439 6.416000972
0.046924
2 3.148688047 2 738 3.242537523
0.048925
3 1.574344023 2 332 1.672194687
0.053748
4 11.89504373 4 785 12.11003887
0.052105
5 5.947521866 4 874 6.155945362
0.052210
6 2.973760933 4 344 3.182602311
0.058604
7 17.31778426 5 794 17.61080823
0.052098
8 8.658892128 5 693 8.919385596
0.058864
9 4.329446064 5 162 4.623766872

18