Methodology for numbering tools

Unsupported
1

It’s been a while since we discussed this.

I began discussing a scheme for this at:

In the course of writing:

it has of course been necessary to refer to various tools — since I work for Carbide 3D I’ve been using their tool #s where available, and those of various other manufacturers where C3D doesn’t make a given tool.

Naturally, that’s just a big, inconsistent mess…

So, if one wanted to make a system for numbering tools referring only to the geometry of the tools, what might it look like? What are the limitations? Requirements?

One notable limitation for my usage is that Carbide Create (I work for Carbide 3D, remember?) is limited to 6 digits for tool #s.

Requirements include:

  • describing a wide variety of tooling
  • consistent (one thing which drives me nuts is #101/#111/#121 are ball-nose while #201 is a square tool)
  • reasonably intuitive
  • reasonably accurate

One further consideration is that I’m old enough and set enough in my ways and located in a locale, and working with a company which sells tooling in Imperial sizes, so, sorry rest of the world — someone else will have to work up a similar system oriented for metric (which I would be glad to see and add/support as a second option).

Given all that, here is a more-or-less first rough pass:

image

Each digit (or pair of digits) represents one (or more) aspects of the tool. For each digit/pair we have:

image
image690×445 22.3 KB

image
image690×362 22.4 KB

image
image690×115 10.9 KB

image
image516×500 23.4 KB

which seemed reasonably workable when I used it to determine the numbers for the (basic) tooling which Carbide 3D sells.

Obviously, the notable lacunae is tip radius for tapered ball-nose tooling — what tapered ball-nose tooling do folks use? What are the tip radii?

4th and 5th digits cutting diameter as 2nd and 3rd above except 4th digit indicates tip radius for tapered ball nose and such tooling is only represented in Imperial measure:

4th digit (tapered ball nose)

  • 1 - 0.0025 in
  • 2 - 0.015625 in (1/64th)
  • 3 - 0.0295 (~0.75mm)
  • 4 - 0.03125 in (1/32nd)
  • 5 - 0.0335
  • 6 - 0.0354 (~0.9mm)
  • 7 - 0.0625 in (1/16th)
  • 8 - 0.125 in (1/8th)
  • 9 - 0.25 in (1/4)

which seems to cover anything I’m likely to use.

Does anyone else see any obvious gaps/problems? (other than not supporting metric — I really would like to see a similar system which works reasonably well for metric)

Thoughts/comments?

2 Likes
2

@WillAdams - Other than for database indexing and cataloging, what is the significance of the tool numbers?

Is there an upcoming auto-tool selection accessory targeted? Even then, the tool selector is basically a tool position selector. Right?

ADDED: Also, does any of this have to do with what is required or limited within the gcode file? At one time gcode was limited to 8-bits to represent a tool number.

3

The significance is trying to create a consistent system which is vendor neutral for my personal project which has no affiliation with Carbide 3D.

No involvement with product development, and I can’t speak to the development of an ATC.

No idea on G-code limitations — Carbide Create allows 6 digits which is what I am working with.

1 Like
4

I recently renumbered by tool database, with many of the same thoughts you expressed.
First digit was a basic style
(1=Up Cut, 2=Down Cut, 3=Compression, 4=Ball, 5=Ball but Bowl and tapered ball, 6=Vee, 7=Round over, 8=Metal (rarely use), 9=Other.

Then 3 digits to represent size and make each bit unique. So when you have 3 1/4 inch upcut bits you end up with 1+25+0, 1+25+1, 1+25+2

Here’s my current database with the numbering. I have this printed out and it hangs in my enclosure.

image
image815×1377 96.6 KB

And then the over-done bit box holding the entire collection… yea I know it is silly but I like it.

IMG_20250201_084143
IMG_20250201_0841431920×1440 353 KB

2 Likes
5

That’s a fancier scheme than me. I just number them sequentially but use the first digit to indicate the manufacturer. I will rethink it and see if your formula makes it easier for me.

I keep the bits stored in their original plastic boxes with the numbers written on the outside. They are in turn in slots carved into a foam insert in my drawer. It was very organized at one point and then I got more bits.

2 Likes
6

To me a Tool number is project based. So long as it is unique within the project I am good.

Now to catalogue your tool bit stash, that is a different point of view.

I would not limit the catalogue organization to Gcode tool numbers.
I would generate the Tool number as you use a bit from your stash for that project.

You may have a different Tool number for the same bit in a different project, who cares ?

You can put the catalogue id in a text field that is exposed/used by CM

1 Like
7

I tried the project-specific route, but in the long run, I find it helpful to have all the same bits, regardless of the manufacturer, numbered the same. I have two CNC machines, a Nomad and a bigger machine from a carbide competitor. Feeds and speeds for the same bit will vary between machines and, to a lesser extent, my work-holding approach - which is manageable. I’m also a Brit, so I have imperial and metric bits.

I haven’t landed on a sound numbering system yet.

I would like to hear folks’ thoughts on 3 digit system that accommodates imperial, metric and bit shapes (flat, vee, ball) and is intuitive enough for me to eyeball the gcode file/controller and assess that the bit geometry is aligned to what I have fitted.

1 Like