Comparison of wear between Wet and Dry hobbing
m2.5 , PA16°, NT46, no coating on cutting face | |||||||
|
Example | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | |
Work Dimension | Module Pressure Angle No.of Teeth Helix Angle Material |
2.45 17.5 41 25 LH SCr420H |
1.56 14.5 73 30 LH SCM415 |
2.6 20 67 32.5 LH SCr420H |
Cutting Condition | Cutting Method Speed (m/min) Feed (mm/rev) |
Climb Hobbing 105 2.0 |
Climb Hobbing 120 2.3 |
Climb Hobbing 115 2.5 |
Hob Dimension | Outside Dia. No.of Threads No.of Gashes Coating on cutting face |
75 |
75 4 14 NON |
100 5 16 NON |
Comparison of Performance | Crater Wear (mm) |
Cost reduction in production ! Dry hobbing is now by newly developed HSS material and coating film ! |
Excellent performance in Dry Cutting comparing to other brand
|
Tool life in Dry Cutting is longer than that in Wet Cutting.
|