| Literature DB >> 31252524 |
Khulan Erdenechimeg1, Ho-In Jeong1, Choon-Man Lee2.
Abstract
In recent years, as replacements for traditional manufacturing materials, monolithic ceramics and carbon fiber reinforced silicon carbide (C/SiC) ceramic matrix composites have seen significantly increased usage due to their superior characteristics of relatively low density, lightweight, and good high temperature mechanical properties. Demand for difficult-to-cut materials is increasing in a variety of area such as the automotive and aerospace industries, but these materials are inherently difficult to process because of their high hardness and brittleness. When difficult-to-cut materials are processed by conventional machining, tool life and quality are reduced due to the high cutting force and temperatures. Laser-assisted machining (LAM) is a method of cutting a workpiece by preheating with a laser heat source and lowering the strength of the material. LAM has been studied by many researchers, but studies on LAM of carbon-ceramic composites have been carried out by only a few researchers. This paper focuses on deducing the optimal machining parameters in the LAM of C/SiC. In this study, the Taguchi method is used to obtain the major parameters for the analysis of cutting force and surface roughness under various machining conditions. Before machining experiments, finite element analysis is performed to determine the effective depth of the cut. The cutting parameters for the LAM operation are the depth of cut, preheating temperature, feed rate, and spindle speed. The signal to noise (S/N) ratio and variance analysis (ANOVA) of the cutting force and surface roughness are analyzed, and the response optimization method is used to suggest the optimal machining parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Taguchi method; laser-assisted machining; machining characteristic; optimal machining conditions
Year: 2019 PMID: 31252524 PMCID: PMC6651644 DOI: 10.3390/ma12132061
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The schematic diagram of laser-assisted machining (LAM).
Mechanical properties of C/SiC composite.
| Density | Young Modulus | Thermal Conductivity | Specific Heating | Flexural Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | 35 | 40 | 1200 | 67 |
The main components of C/SiC composite.
| The Composition by X-ray Analysis (%) | Open Porosity (qv) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| C | SiC | Residual Si | |
| 50.47 | 44.81 | 4.72 | 5.40 |
Figure 2The tensile stress value according to temperature of C/SiC composite.
Figure 3The finite element analysis model.
Figure 4The finite element analysis result and the effective depth of the cut according to the preheating temperature.
Figure 5Flow chart of the design of experiments for the laser-assisted machining (LAM) of the C/SiC composite.
Figure 6The experimental setup.
The machining conditions.
| Material | C/SiC Composite |
|---|---|
| Material size (T × W × L, mm) | 15 × 15 × 60 |
| Machining method | Slot milling |
| Cutting tool | D8 CBN flat end-mill, 2F, 70L |
The factors and levels used in the experiments.
| Symbol | Factor | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Depth of cut (mm) | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| B | Preheating temperature (°C) | 1100 | 1200 | 1300 |
| C | Feed rate (mm/min) | 100 | 200 | 300 |
| D | Spindle speed (rpm) | 2000 | 5000 | 8000 |
The experimental layout using an L9 orthogonal array.
| Experiment No. | Depth of Cut | Preheating Temperature (°C) | Feed Rate | Spindle Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM | 0.2 | 1100 | 100 | 2000 |
| 1 | 0.2 | 1100 | 100 | 2000 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 1200 | 200 | 5000 |
| 3 | 0.2 | 1300 | 300 | 8000 |
| 4 | 0.3 | 1100 | 200 | 8000 |
| 5 | 0.3 | 1200 | 300 | 2000 |
| 6 | 0.3 | 1300 | 100 | 5000 |
| 7 | 0.4 | 1100 | 300 | 5000 |
| 8 | 0.4 | 1200 | 100 | 8000 |
| 9 | 0.4 | 1300 | 200 | 2000 |
Figure 7The microphotographs of machined surfaces of C/SiC composite material in LAM.
The experimental data value of cutting force and surface roughness.
| No. | Depth of Cut (mm) | Preheating Temperature (°C) | Feed Rate (mm/min) | Spindle Speed (rpm) | Surface Roughness (μm) | Cutting Force (N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM | 0.2 | 1100 | 100 | 2000 | 5.95 | 105.90 |
| 1 | 0.2 | 1100 | 100 | 2000 | 3.94 | 62.80 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 1200 | 200 | 5000 | 3.20 | 87.77 |
| 3 | 0.2 | 1300 | 300 | 8000 | 6.80 | 50.79 |
| 4 | 0.3 | 1100 | 200 | 8000 | 2.54 | 55.60 |
| 5 | 0.3 | 1200 | 300 | 2000 | 4.65 | 129.50 |
| 6 | 0.3 | 1300 | 100 | 5000 | 1.26 | 42.25 |
| 7 | 0.4 | 1100 | 300 | 5000 | 1.95 | 72.58 |
| 8 | 0.4 | 1200 | 100 | 8000 | 1.85 | 159.36 |
| 9 | 0.4 | 1300 | 200 | 2000 | 4.30 | 90.63 |
Figure 8The main effect plot of C/SiC composite on the cutting force and the surface roughness. (a) Cutting force; (b) Surface roughness.
The response table mean signal to noise (S/N) ratio for the cutting force according to the machining conditions.
| Level | Depth of Cut (A) | Preheating Temperature (B) | Feed Rate (C) | Spindle Speed (D) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −36.31 | −36.03 | −37.51 | −39.12 |
| 2 | −36.55 | −41.72 | −37.64 | −36.20 |
| 3 | −40.14 | −35.26 | −37.86 | −37.69 |
| Delta | 3.82 | 6.46 | 0.35 | 2.92 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
The response table mean S/N ratio for the surface roughness according to the machining conditions.
| Level | Depth of Cut (A) | Preheating Temperature (B) | Feed Rate (C) | Spindle Speed (D) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −12.888 | −8.602 | −6.420 | −12.643 |
| 2 | −7.818 | −9.598 | −10.290 | −5.970 |
| 3 | −7.938 | −10.442 | −11.933 | −10.030 |
| Delta | 5.070 | 1.840 | 5.513 | 6.672 |
| Rank | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
The analysis results of variance for cutting force.
| Factors | Degree of Freedom | Sum of Squares | Mean of Squares | Contribution (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed rate | 2 | 157.1 | 78.56 | 1.31% |
| Spindle speed | 2 | 1192.9 | 596.44 | 9.91% |
| Depth of cut | 2 | 2714.9 | 1357.46 | 22.55% |
| Preheating temperature | 2 | 7972.5 | 3986.27 | 66.23% |
| Error | 0 | * | * | * |
| Total | 8 | 12037.5 | - | 100 |
The analysis results of variance for surface roughness.
| Factors | Degree of Freedom | Sum of Squares | Mean of Squares | Contribution (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed rate | 2 | 6.728 | 3.364 | 27.93% |
| Spindle speed | 2 | 7.525 | 3.763 | 31.24% |
| Depth of cut | 2 | 7.152 | 3.576 | 29.69% |
| Preheating temperature | 2 | 2.681 | 1.341 | 11.13% |
| Error | 0 | * | * | * |
| Total | 8 | 24.087 | - | 100 |
The response optimization.
| Parameter | Goal | Target | Upper | Weight | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting force | Minimum | 42.25 | 159.36 | 1 | 1 |
| Surface roughness | Minimum | 1.26 | 6.80 | 1 | 1 |
Response optimization results.
| Depth of Cut (mm) | 0.3 |
| Preheat temperature (°C) | 1100 |
| Feed rate (mm/min) | 200 |
| Spindle speed (rpm) | 5000 |
| Cutting force optimization plot (N) | 34.55 |
| Surface roughness optimization plot (µm) | 0.946667 |
| Desirability | 1 |
The machining conditions for confirmation experiments.
| Exp. No. | Depth of Cut (mm) | Preheating Temperature (°C) | Feed Rate (mm/min) | Spindle Speed (rpm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2 | 1200 | 100 | 2000 |
| 2 | 0.3 | 1200 | 200 | 5000 |
| 3 | 0.4 | 1200 | 300 | 2000 |
Figure 9The comparison of the cutting force between the prediction equation results and the confirmation experiment results.
Figure 10The comparison of the surface roughness between the prediction equation results and the confirmation experiment results.