Milling machine X and Y axis out of square

[Russ BParticipant @russb]

I know I'm not helping much, but maybe helping give perspective. My chinese X1 was ALOT more than 0.31 out when I first got it

I got a good set of M&W bearing scrapers, some micrometer blue – and a small surface plate to help maintain flatness and just got stuck in, its a back breaking cycle

measuring, unbolting & lifting column out the way, scraping, bolting down, measuring again but I got there after a good few hours and when it's done, it's done, the only heart breaking thing is, I'll be selling soon, and it will be worth no more than an off the shelf unit despite all my mods and efforts

I would recommend a block and tackle or lift of some sort on anything bigger than an X1 unless your last name is Schwarzenegger 

Edited By Russ B on 13/02/2014 18:39:54

[paul raynerParticipant @paulrayner36054]

hello all

Ive been thinking about this thread and what Nobby wrote

If you bolt down a piece of square ali steel etc through the middle and take a skim off of all 4 sides then measure the diagonals would this indicate that the x & y axis were square to each other?

I do this all the time to square up kitchen cabinets so I don't see why it won't work the opposite way round

If it were out, how you would go about rectifying it is beyond my knowledge or ability

Regards

Paul

[I.M. OUTAHEREParticipant @i-m-outahere]

Hi Paul,

In theory yes but one would have to ensure there is not even so much as a microscopic burr on any of the corners as this would give a false reading and then there is the risk o tool deflection coming into the equation.

Ian

[Keith CooperParticipant @keithcooper70585]

Hello again Iam back.

Have been trying to contact Warco tech department all week by phone and e-mail as of yet zero response. Again thankyou for all your posts. Tramming is not the problem, the problem is that if I set the X axis the Y should be 90 degrees to this and by using different methods and standards, (please see attached photos) I still get almost the same errors…so it must be out of square machining of the casting(s), have tightened up the gibs etc but with nil diference in errors. However I try the machine is still to far out to make the machine of any practical use to me, I cannot understand how the test record supplied with the machine records this value at 0.02 at 150mm when the error I get is at BEST 10 times greater than this. If the only way to correct it is to scrape the surfaces that to me would be out of my depth, but thanks……..anyone would a cheap mill!

Regards

Keith

[Anonymous]

How do you know that the box cube is square to better than the accuracy that you are trying to measure?

Andrew

[Keith CooperParticipant @keithcooper70585]

Hi

The ground cube is of 'reference standard quality' all other equipment used to get to this conclusion has been checked and is of a very good quality and accuracy…..apart from the mill!

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

You could flip the box over front to back (so the side currently facing the camera is facing the column). True up for X again and check the runout of Y. If the runout is in the opposite direction the box is out if you get the same as before the axis are out. If the cube is out and the axis are correct the readings should be identical and opposite. If both are out the error on the axis is the first result minus the second result. I think.

regards Martin

[ASFParticipant @asf]

If I remember correctly, the mill has 2 adjusting screws. One front and one back of the casting on the Y axis. I would guess that if both are not adjusted correctly, then the mill will move on that axis.

[Anonymous]

There's a simple way of checking, without needing any references or measurement. Take a 100mm roughly square plate, say 10mm aluminium, and clamp it to the table. Make a cut in X with Y locked. Lock X, unlock Y and make a cut in Y. Repeat with a second plate. If the plates are then stood Y to Y on a surface plate if the X and Y axes on the mill are not square then there will be a gap top, or bottom, on the Y faces.

Andrew

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Keith Cooper on 14/02/2014 15:16:39:

… I cannot understand how the test record supplied with the machine records this value at 0.02 at 150mm when the error I get is at BEST 10 times greater than this. …

.

Keith,

You have my sympathy, and I suspect that goes for everyone contributing to this thread.

If you can ever reach Warco, to discuss this; I suggest that you ask them how they do their check. … If they are supplying an individual test certificate for each machine, this should obviously be a matter of record.

Could you please put a copy of the certificate in your Album, just in case there is clue.

MichaelG.

[LambtonParticipant @lambton]

Keith,

It is clearly a vital requirement that the horizontal axes of a milling machine must be at 90 degrees to each other within very close limits.

I think you only have two options- neither are probably very acceptable

1. Accept the error and work around it
2. Try to correct the fault yourself as Russ B did

I think Warco are now off the hook due to the timescale involved. It is a pity you only found the error 12 months after your purchase.

Your experience shows the problems associated with with Far Eastern equipment that is imported and not subjected to proper quality control procedures by the importer. Chinese manufacturer of all sorts of equipment can produced excellent things but only when they are properly controlled by the Japanese, USA or European company they are working for. Examples are "big name" computers, I Phones, digital cameras etc.

I appreciate that small UK importers do not have the same clout as large and powerful household name customers but this should mean that they put more effort into checking the quality of incoming goods even if only on a percentage basis. They appear to work on the basis of supply it as received and sort out any problems that arise.

Your experience also shows what I have always suspected that so called accuracy test reports included with these machine are not worth the paper they are written on..

[Brian WoodParticipant @brianwood45127]

Hello Keith,

May I add another check, which unlike Andrew's doesn't need you to cut anything.

Taking your pictures as a guide with the clock moved from front to back of the box and the recorded difference of 0.17mm, what happens if you do the same test on the other side of the box without moving anything except the mounting of the clock?

Assuming the box is square, as it should be, then I would expectthose readings will be reversed. that will reassure you that the box at least is as you believe.

You don't I think say how you aligned the box in the first place, was it by try square across the table? Again, testing on the other side of the box with that, using the inside edge this time should give the same degree of fit. Now turn the square over and butt it up and repeat the steps above. If the try square is wrong that will show as a gap on both sides.

These are simple tests and cost nothing to do except a little more time. They may help you sort out which things are wrong. I think the box would be true from it's stated quality, the mill also to be right and the try square wrong in that order of probablity. Even testing with another try square might reveal something before you condemn the mill and it might save face if challenged as you are likely to be.

I hope that shed some light

Brian

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

Having had a look at your photos, could I suggest repositioning the cube so that the table is centred (equal overhang each side of the saddle) & rerun the check, I have had "issues" with overhanging tables when checking CNC machines in my previous employment, getting strange results from instruments such as Renishaw ballbars & laser equipment that were tracked down to the table twisting & drooping when it was severely overhung. It might not be applicable here, but costs little more than a bit of time to check.

Where in the country are you ? The county would do – I am in West Yorks & would be happy to offer a second opinion if you were nearby.

It is unfortunate that you have not been able to contact Warco, but this is not an insurmountable problem – no need to put it in a skip for the sake of a bit of machining !

Nigel B.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graham Meek on 14/02/2014 16:25:18:

I would very much doubt that the supplier of a machine tool from the Far East would do an inspection check. The paper work system that is the "Quality Standard" these days relies on the Manufacturer doing the checks and supplying written confirmation that he has done this.

Obviously the test report is seen to have been done, BUT does this test sheet relate to this machine or the very first one of the batch?

.

Gray,

I was trying to avoid being so explicit … but that's basically why I asked to see a copy of the Certificate.

For info. here is Warco's Quality Statement from the website:

Even though we always strive to have the most competitive prices, Warco never compromise on quality. Independent quality control procedures which we have instigated with our suppliers have had a huge impact on the accuracy, feel and finish of our machines. Dedicated inspectors work closely with suppliers to ensure Warco's consistently high standards are always maintained.

MichaelG.

[LambtonParticipant @lambton]

Graham.

I fully understand about modern QA procedures having worked in industry all my life.

Are you saying that the end customer, as the first person to see the machine after it left the factory, should do their own quality control?

My point is that small companies such as Warco et al cannot impose modern QA procedures on their suppliers who are on the other side of the world as big customers (who usually have some of their own staff at the factory)can.

Warco and the other small importers must do some QC checks even if it means using the methods dating from some years ago.

[Martin WParticipant @martinw]

Hi

Having got a Warco WM14 mill the above thread made me think that it would be prudent to check the accuracy of the x and y axis on this mill. Using a similar procedure as described by Andrew I milled a 10mm aluminium plate in the x axis with the y locked and vise versa. The final cut was repeated without adjusting the either axis so as to take out any spring in the cutter or the system. The machined surfaces which were at right angles, hopefully, were checked using a Moore & Wright square with a 5 inch blade. With the stock held against one edge the gap from the blade to the other surface was examined by holding against a bright light, while a fine bead of light was observable along the whole length of the blade it did not look as if there was any change in the gap. This was checked by trying to insert a 1.5 thou feeler gauge between the blade and aluminium plate at points along the blade. At no point could the feeler gauge be inserted between the blade and the machined edge.

While I realise this is a fairly crude check it does give me confidence that there is little wrong with the mill's x and y axis. Needless to say that I am a happy bunny

Cheers

Martin

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graham Meek on 14/02/2014 17:45:57:

… Before you get up in the boughs I was responding to the post before yours, and was just merely pointing out that the perceived in house QA does not exist these days. …

.

Gray,

With the greatest repect; may I refer you to Warco's page about the WM-18

• Every milling machine we supply is fully checked and tested by a member of our qualified team, and is supplied with an individual accuracy test report.

As for ISO 9001 … Although nothing's impossible; I would be rather surprised if Warco was accredited certificated and did not prominently advertise the fact.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/02/2014 20:16:46

Edit: corrected terminology.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/02/2014 20:25:35

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Gray,

I don't want to argue semantics

Let's just wait until Keith posts the certificate and/or gets a response from Warco.

MichaelG.

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

I do not believe for one minute that the suppliers of " budget" machinery check each machine and issue a test report. It would be too costly to do so, if they received a complaint from someone who had the knowledge and skills to realise the m/c had a problem I imagine they would replace said m/c with no questions asked.

Tony

[Martin WParticipant @martinw]

The problem in just quoting whether a company is ISO9000/9001 certified relevant to a process/product does not define the accuracy to which a product is manufactured to but the processes involved to establish the quality the manufacturer wishes the product to achieve. This is highlighted by a quote from a page in Wikipedia on the subject as follows;-

' xxxxx argues that ISO systems merely gauge whether the processes are being followed. It does not gauge how good the processes are or whether the correct parameters are being measured and controlled to ensure quality. Furthermore, when unique technical solutions are involved in the creation of a new part, ISO does not validate the robustness of the technical solution which is a key part of advanced quality planning. It is not unheard of for an ISO-certified plant to display poor quality performance due to poor process selection and/or poor technical solutions.'

So it really just ensures that a company can repeatedly produce a product to their own standard and that the staff and quality procedures aim to maintain that standard, no smiley for tongue in cheek.

Martin

PS

Tony

Whether one believes them or not both my Chester lathe and Warco mill came with test reports and the latter identified the machine by serial number, test date, inspector's ID and both were completed by hand. This seems to be a lot of effort to go through if no measurements were actually made. Pays your money and takes your choice as they say.

Edited By Martin W on 14/02/2014 23:32:56

[I.M. OUTAHEREParticipant @i-m-outahere]

I don't take any certificate of accuracy with a grain of salt they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Back to the OP,

I see you have the cube clamped down to the table – take them off and try again .

The surface of the table may not be perfectly flat it may have a small burr or it may be bowed or twisted so clamping the cube is trying to make it confirm to the top of the table .
I would put little blue on the cube and give it a rub across the table where you want to set it up and see if there are any high spots on the table .
Try using a plain old angle plate set on its end , the cube has a much larger area of contact with the table and any indescrepencies will be magnified.
If you must use a clam to hold it down to the table only tighten the nuts finger tight.

You want to be 100% sure that the problem is not how you are measuring it before you try to get the supplier to exchange or repair it .

Even though it is out of warranty and not by years I don't see why Warco would not try to help you as it would be a machining fault that a customer could not easily identify -it's not like you got it home , opened the box and found a dirt big crack in the table that is easily seen .

If all else fails strip it down and take a look at it one of the dovetails may just have a high spot or a burr .

Ian

[Keith CooperParticipant @keithcooper70585]

Hello I am back again.

Have again carried out more cross checks on the squarness issue and however I conduct these checks I always get the almost the same results, so it has to x and y out of square.

After trying for over a week to get a reply from Warco I have finally managed to make contact with them and found their help to be excellent. Firstly they wanted to exchange the whole machine….but as my machine is installed on the first floor of my workshop it is almost impossible to get back down I know that's my problem, not theirs but after explaining this to them they are going to order and send me the part to correct this fault, I assume this will be the cross slide casting.

I will post the forum again when I have fitted the new part and of the result it gives. Again many thanks for all your posts and many thanks to Warco for their action on this issue.

Keith

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

QED

[egaParticipant @ega]

Comments on this interesting and lively thread:

1. I have had numerous good buys from Warco over the years and also a rotary table which I asked them to exchange and a bench grinder which they agreed to take back; on both occasions they were entirely cooperative. I agree that good communications are vital if you want happy customers. It is worth remembering that the purchaser is not limited to the seller's warranty and may well have a statutory remedy after its expiry.

2. ISO 9001: my then employers put us through the process of certification some years ago. I agree with the Wikipedia comment.

3. I have some fellow feeling for the OP who has installed heavy equipment and is not now sure he can get it out again. One of the first jobs for my new combination woodworker was the making of new workshop doors …

I look forward to a happy ending.

[Neil LickfoldParticipant @neillickfold44316]

Keith, how is the mill after the replacement part was installed?.

Neil

[Author]

Posts