PYTHON · NUMPY

Process parameters

Choose spindle speed, feed, and depth-of-cut that complete the cut with no overload and an acceptable surface-finish score, and state the trade-off each parameter drives.

01Challenge

Your rough+finish plan reopens with parameters at deliberately wrong defaults (spindle_rpm=1200, feed_mm_min=600, depth_per_pass=6.0). Tune the three until the cut finishes with no OVERLOAD and finish_score ≥ 0.70. The defaults overload (6 mm depth in one bite), or crank feed too high and the floor scallops, or go tiny everywhere and run 5× par. Feel how they fight.

02Model

Same toolpath, same tool, but how hard you push it is a separate decision, and you can't win on every front. Three knobs: spindle speed sets how fast the edge moves through metal, feed sets the bite per tooth, depth sets how much you hog at once, and depth is mostly what loads the tool.

The triangle: TIME, TOOL LIFE, FINISH. Push toward fast (big feed, deep cut) and force climbs until the tool overloads. Push toward smooth (light feed, light depth) and finish is beautiful but slow. No setting maxes all three. So split the budget the way you split the toolpath: hog hard while roughing, spin fast and skim light while finishing.

▶ Live · scrub & hover — one speed, three competing objectives — throughput up, tool life down, cost U-shaped

03Guided practice

Step A (worked): rough at rpm 8000 / feed 480 / depth 2.0 (hot and deep, ugly on purpose), finish at rpm 10000 / feed 350 / depth 1.0 (light + fast buys finish 0.82).
Step B (fade): three broken sets, fix each with ONE move (depth too deep → OVERLOAD; feed too high → poor finish; everything tiny → SLOW).
Step C (independent): tab_slot in steel with a ∅4 tool: derive rough+finish params from surface-speed and chip-load formulas.

04Feedback

PASS WHEN overload False (peak load ≤95%), deflection ≤0.05 mm, finish_score ≥0.70 on finished faces, cut_time ≤2.0× par, cut complete, on seed 2202.

If your run fails, check:

OVERLOAD: peak spindle load 138% on rough pass (depth_per_pass=6.0). Force scales with depth; reduce depth to ≤2.5 mm or split into more Z levels.
POOR_FINISH: finish_score 0.52 (target 0.70). Scallops from feed 1500; lower feed_mm_min or raise spindle_rpm.
CHATTER: deflection 0.082 mm, the tool is bending; reduce feed or depth; the combination is too aggressive for a ∅4 tool.
MATERIAL_MISMATCH: 8000 rpm gives ~100 m/min, too fast for steel (recommended ~30 m/min). Lower spindle_rpm to ~1900.

05Retrieve & space

From 2.1: can changing depth_per_pass ever change corner_radius_ok? → no; corner reachability is set by tool radius, not feeds/speeds.
From M1.2: steel vs aluminum changed your whole parameter window; the process plan is downstream of the M1 material choice.
Interleave: at rpm 10000, ∅6, compute surface speed (≈188 m/min) and judge it for aluminum (high-normal, fine).

06Mastery & project

On the steel tab_slot, rough+finish parameters grade to overload False, finish_score ≥0.70, complete True, cut_time ≤2.0× par, and answer 'which parameter most directly drives spindle load?' → depth_per_pass.

These parameters make each toolpath survivable and fast; in M5 cut_time rolls into station cycle time (throughput) and finish_score into yield.

← From geometry to toolpath Sequencing a process plan →

PYTHON · NUMPY

Process parameters

Cut gauges are pure functions of the parameters (force ∝ feed×depth×material; finish ∝ feed/rpm). Tune the three numbers and run.

You read

the arrays and values already in scope

You change

the code you write in each cell

Fixed

the dataset and the checks that grade you