| Literature DB >> 33919300 |
Timur Rizovich Ablyaz1, Preetkanwal Singh Bains2, Sarabjeet Singh Sidhu3, Karim Ravilevich Muratov1, Evgeny Sergeevich Shlykov1.
Abstract
In the present work, a hybrid magnetic field assisted powder mixed electrical discharge machining had been carried out on the Aluminum-Silicon Carbide (Al-SiC) metal matrix composite. The aim of the study was to obtain higher surface finish, and enhanced material removal rate. The dielectric mediums employed were plain EDM oil, SiCp mixed and graphite powder mixed EDM oil for flushing through the tube electrode. The magnetic field intensity, discharge current, T-on/off duration and type of dielectric were the control variables used for present investigation. From the results, it was observed that the machining variables for instance, discharge current, T-on/off duration and type of dielectric conditions remarkably affected the material removal rate, micro-hardness and surface roughness of the machined composite material. The MRR augmented considerably with an increase in the magnetic field intensity along with peak current. Subsequently, the composite with lesser vol.% of SiC particulates witnessed sharp rise in MRR in maximum magnetic field environment (0.66T). In addition, quality of the machined surface improved significantly in graphite powder mixed dielectric flushing condition with intermediate external magnetic field environment. Besides, an enhancement of micro-hardness was quantified as compared to base material due to the transfer of the material (SiCp) during powder mixed ED machining.Entities:
Keywords: Taguchi; electrical discharge machining; material removal rate; metal matrix composite; micro-hardness; surface roughness
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919300 PMCID: PMC8143303 DOI: 10.3390/mi12050469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
MMCs properties (Source: CPS Tech, Norton, MA, USA).
| Property | W/P-1 | W/P-2 | W/P-3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aluminum Alloy (%) | 63 | 45 | 37 |
| SiC (%) | 37 | 55 | 63 |
| Thermal conductivity (W/mk) | 170 | 190 | 190 |
| Density (g/cc) | 2.89 | 2.96 | 3.01 |
| Specific Heat (J/gK) at 25 °C | 0.808 | 0.786 | 0.741 |
| Young’s Modulus (GPa) | 167 | 167 | 188 |
Figure 1SEM (Make: JSM-6610LV Joel, Tokyo, Japan) of un-machined surface of Al-SiC workpiece at X650 (SiC particulates are highlighted with yellow color arrows).
Figure 2Copper electrode with inner hole for dielectric flushing.
Figure 3(a) EDM used for experimentation (b) Schematic diagram of MFAPEDM set-up and (c) Powder mixed dielectric set-up (d) machined Al-SiC workpiece.
Input parameters and their levels.
| Variables/Notations | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Current (A)/I | 4 | 10 | 16 |
| Pulse-on (µs)/T-on | 30 | 45 | 90 |
| Pulse-off (µs)/T-off | 30 | 45 | 90 |
| Magnetic field intensity (T)/B | 0 | 0.33 | 0.66 |
| Dielectric medium | Plain dielectric | SiC mixed (220 mesh) | Graphite mixed (400 mesh) |
| Workpiece (W/P) | Al-37% SiC (W/P-1) | Al-55% SiC (W/P-2) | Al-63% SiC (W/P-3) |
Experimental Factors and Results.
| Process Parameters | Responses | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trials | Magnetic Field (T) | Current (A) | T-on (µs) | T-off (µs) | Flushing Type | W/P | MRR (mg/min) | MH (HV) | SR (µm) |
| 1 | 0 | 4 | 30 | 30 | 1 | 1 | 28.815 | 209.3 | 0.21 |
| 2 | 0 | 4 | 45 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 21.320 | 306.6 | 0.19 |
| 3 | 0 | 4 | 90 | 90 | 2 | 3 | 19.739 | 353.9 | 0.39 |
| 4 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 45 | 3 | 3 | 16.012 | 309.0 | 0.21 |
| 5 | 0 | 10 | 45 | 90 | 2 | 1 | 24.584 | 289.8 | 0.67 |
| 6 | 0 | 10 | 90 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 18.542 | 389.0 | 0.79 |
| 7 | 0 | 16 | 30 | 90 | 2 | 2 | 36.255 | 225.0 | 0.18 |
| 8 | 0 | 16 | 45 | 30 | 1 | 3 | 28.400 | 360.9 | 0.39 |
| 9 | 0 | 16 | 90 | 45 | 3 | 1 | 31.128 | 262.9 | 0.12 |
| 10 | 0.33 | 4 | 30 | 45 | 2 | 2 | 23.620 | 202.6 | 0.22 |
| 11 | 0.33 | 4 | 45 | 90 | 1 | 3 | 15.683 | 241.8 | 0.19 |
| 12 | 0.33 | 4 | 90 | 30 | 3 | 1 | 28.631 | 245.0 | 0.22 |
| 13 | 0.33 | 10 | 30 | 90 | 1 | 1 | 30.523 | 134.2 | 0.13 |
| 14 | 0.33 | 10 | 45 | 30 | 3 | 2 | 20.675 | 290.7 | 0.21 |
| 15 | 0.33 | 10 | 90 | 45 | 2 | 3 | 29.850 | 302.8 | 0.31 |
| 16 | 0.33 | 16 | 30 | 30 | 3 | 3 | 29.518 | 316.2 | 0.20 |
| 17 | 0.33 | 16 | 45 | 45 | 2 | 1 | 43.520 | 262.9 | 0.54 |
| 18 | 0.33 | 16 | 90 | 90 | 1 | 2 | 41.663 | 202.6 | 0.32 |
| 19 | 0.66 | 4 | 30 | 90 | 3 | 3 | 31.231 | 241.8 | 0.22 |
| 20 | 0.66 | 4 | 45 | 30 | 2 | 1 | 53.524 | 245.0 | 0.92 |
| 21 | 0.66 | 4 | 90 | 45 | 1 | 2 | 30.575 | 234.2 | 0.14 |
| 22 | 0.66 | 10 | 30 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 49.850 | 290.7 | 1.95 |
| 23 | 0.66 | 10 | 45 | 45 | 1 | 3 | 39.411 | 302.8 | 0.30 |
| 24 | 0.66 | 10 | 90 | 90 | 3 | 1 | 53.620 | 216.2 | 0.36 |
| 25 | 0.66 | 16 | 30 | 45 | 1 | 1 | 51.653 | 202.9 | 1.31 |
| 26 | 0.66 | 16 | 45 | 90 | 3 | 2 | 38.661 | 262.6 | 0.55 |
| 27 | 0.66 | 16 | 90 | 30 | 2 | 3 | 29.573 | 341.8 | 0.80 |
ANalysis of VAriance (ANOVA) for Material Removal Rate (MRR).
| Scheme | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic Field (T) | 2 | 1411.29 | 1411.29 | 705.646 | 12.95 | 0.001 ** |
| Current (A) | 2 | 336.98 | 336.98 | 168.488 | 3.09 | 0.077 * |
| T-on (µs) | 2 | 12.71 | 12.71 | 6.357 | 0.12 | 0.891 |
| T-off (µs) | 2 | 1.61 | 1.61 | 0.806 | 0.01 | 0.985 |
| Flushing Type | 2 | 89.80 | 89.80 | 44.898 | 0.82 | 0.459 |
| W/P | 2 | 640.96 | 640.96 | 320.480 | 5.88 | 0.014 * |
| Residual Error | 14 | 762.99 | 762.99 | 54.500 | ||
| Total | 26 | 3256.35 |
** Most significant, * Significant.
Figure 4Main effect plot for material removal rate (mg/min).
Figure 5Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of workpiece after machining (a) Al-37% SiC shows ablation mechanism of material removal; (b) Al-63% SiC shows melting as the dominating material removal mechanism.
ANalysisof VAriance (ANOVA) for Micro-Hardness (MH).
| Source | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic Field (T) | 2 | 15,287 | 15,287 | 7643.6 | 10.91 | 0.001 * |
| Current (A) | 2 | 3426 | 3426 | 1713.0 | 2.44 | 0.123 |
| T-on (µs) | 2 | 13,332 | 13,332 | 6665.9 | 9.51 | 0.002 * |
| T-off (µs) | 2 | 15,191 | 15,191 | 7595.3 | 10.84 | 0.001 * |
| Flushing Type | 2 | 3338 | 3338 | 1669.2 | 2.38 | 0.129 |
| W/P | 2 | 27,458 | 27,458 | 13,729.2 | 19.59 | 0.000 ** |
| Residual Error | 14 | 9811 | 9811 | 700.8 | ||
| Total | 26 | 87,844 |
** Most significant, * Significant.
Figure 6Main Effects plot for means for Microhardness (HV).
Figure 7X-ray diffraction of (a) Trial 8 and (b) Trial 16.
ANalysisof VAriance (ANOVA) for Surface Roughness (SR).
| Source | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic Field (T) | 2 | 1.10890 | 1.10890 | 0.55445 | 8.30 | 0.008 * |
| Current (A) | 2 | 0.30250 | 0.30250 | 0.15125 | 2.26 | 0.154 |
| T-on (µs) | 2 | 0.07783 | 0.07783 | 0.03891 | 0.58 | 0.576 |
| T-off (µs) | 2 | 0.47459 | 0.47459 | 0.23729 | 3.55 | 0.068 * |
| Flushing Type | 2 | 0.76963 | 0.76963 | 0.38481 | 5.76 | 0.022 * |
| W/P | 2 | 0.16805 | 0.16805 | 0.08403 | 1.26 | 0.326 |
| B x T-on | 4 | 0.92913 | 0.92913 | 0.23228 | 3.48 | 0.050 * |
| Residual Error | 10 | 0.66784 | 0.66784 | 0.06678 | ||
| Total | 26 | 4.49845 |
* Significant.
Figure 8Main effects plot for surface roughness (µm).
Figure 9Interaction Plot between Magnetic field intensity (B) and T-on.
Figure 10SEM analysis for comparative surface texture of various machined samples. (a) SiC mixed dielectric at 0.66T (b) Graphite mixed dielectric 0.33T.