Surface waviness of medium-density fiberboard and edge-glued panel after edge milling

This article deal with investigation of mean arithmetic deviation of the waviness profile (Wa) on edge surface after edge milling of medium-density fiberboard, medium-density fiberboard with single-sided lamination and spruce edge-glued panel. Edge milling afftected feed rate 4, 8, and 11 m.min-1 and cutting speed 20, 30, 40 a 60 m.s-1. There were used for milling 3 types of tungsteen carbide blades with different composition and treatment (HW1, HW2 and HW1 + CrTiN coating). Working results show that the lowest values of waviness were found with a spruce glulam. Considering the machined surface quality the most suitable blade is HW1, then HW1 + CrTiN coating and the worst one is HW2. The lowest measured values of Wa were found with the feed rate of 4 m.min-1 and cutting speed of 60 m.s-1. The increase in cutting speed resulted in the drop in the values of average Wa, while the increase in feed rate had the opposite effect.

Medium-density f iberboard and edge-glued panel after edge milling – surface waviness after machining with different parameters measured by contact and contactless method

This article deals with the quality of the milled surface of board edges. The quality is evaluated using the Wa (mean arithmetic deviation of the surface waviness). The Wa was measured by two methods (contact and contactless). Form Talysurf 50 Intra was used for the contact method, and the LEXT 3D measuring laser microscope OLS4100 was used for the contactless method. The variable factors whose effect on the resulting waviness was determined were the machined material, milling cutters, cutting speed and feed rate. The boards used were medium-density fiberboard, medium-density fiberboard with single-sided lamination and spruce edge-glued panel. Three different cutters were used for the milling, all of which were made of sintered carbide, and one of them was coated (CrTiN). The cutting speeds were 20, 30, 40 and 60 m.s-1, and the feed rates were 4, 8 and 11 m.min-1. All the above-mentioned factors as well as their mutual interaction had an effect on the waviness. There was no significant difference between the two methods for determining the waviness. In terms of waviness, both methods are interchangeable.