| Literature DB >> 34063586 |
Ankit D Oza1, Abhishek Kumar1, Vishvesh Badheka2, Amit Arora3, Manoj Kumar4, Catalin I Pruncu5,6, Tej Singh7.
Abstract
Many microslits are typically manufactured on quartz substrates and are used to improve their industrial performance. The fabrication of microslits on quartz is difficult and expensive to achieve using recent traditional machining processes due to its hardness, electrically insulating nature, and brittleness. The key objective of the current study was to demonstrate the fabrication of microslits on quartz material through a magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)-assisted traveling wire-electrochemical discharge micromachining process. Hydrogen gas bubbles were concentrated around the entire wire surface during electrolysis. This led to a less active dynamic region of the wire electrode, which decreased the adequacy of the electrolysis process and the machining effectiveness. The test results affirmed that the MHD convection approach evacuated the gas bubbles more rapidly and improved the void fraction in the gas bubble scattering layer. Furthermore, the improvements in the material removal rate and length of the cut were 85.28% and 48.86%, respectively, and the surface roughness was reduced by 30.39% using the MHD approach. A crossover methodology with a Taguchi design and ANOVA was utilized to study the machining performance. This exploratory investigation gives an unused strategy that shows a few advantages over the traditional TW-ECDM process.Entities:
Keywords: MHD; MRR; electrolyte; machining; microslits; roughness
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063586 PMCID: PMC8141110 DOI: 10.3390/ma14092377
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The TW-ECDM process [20].
Types of wire (tool electrode) used TW-ECDM processes [20].
| Ref. | Wire Material | Size of Wire (Diameter) | Workpiece Material | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Stainless steel wire | 0.25 mm | Optical glass, quartz, and ceramic (Al2O3 | Strong pulse DC supply was used to machine hard nonconducting materials. |
| [ | Zinc-coated brass wire | 0.15 mm | Quartz | Coated wire reduced the wire breakage and higher average surface roughness was observed because of craters, which could be minimized by providing flushing arrangements during the machining operation. |
| [ | Zinc-coated brass wire | 0.15 mm | Quartz | At a higher voltage and electrolyte concentration level, thin cracks with slim necking were observed at the opening of the machined surface. Furthermore, during machining, the debris became embedded at the workpiece and in the machining zone. |
| [ | Textured Stainless-304 wire | 0.20 mm | Borosilicate glass | Textured wire improved the localized electric field intensity. Lower ECD energy decreased the straightness of the microslits due to the edge-chipping effect. |
| [ | Tungsten | 0.05 mm | Quartz glass | Ultrasonic vibration refined the gas film’s thickness, improved the slit quality, and reduced the critical voltage. |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.15 mm | Quartz | By using a SiC powder-mixed titrated electrolytic flow, the surface quality and machining precision was improved. |
| [ | Steel wire | 0.070 and 0.090 mm | Al2O3 ceramic | Burrs, surface roughness, and slit expansion could be minimized by providing proper electrolyte flow. |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.25 mm | Glass and quartz | The reciprocating mechanism was beneficial for the machining of the irregular cross-section. Adding abrasive particles in the electrolyte reduced the slit expansion and improved the quality of the machined cut. |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.50 mm | Zirconate titanate | At higher voltages, large crack propagation and a slight workpiece melting phenomenon were observed. |
| [ | Molybdenum wire | 0.18 mm | Al2O3-particle-reinforced 6061 aluminum alloy | A longer pulsating supply reduced the MRR and improve the quality of surface and slit |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.25 mm | Borosilicate glass | Pulse DC power reduced the surafce roughness and Improve the material removal rate (MRR) |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.25 mm | Hylam-based composite | Under different experimental conditions, the surface finish, kerf width, and MRR improved. |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.25 mm | Borosilicate glass | Using a pulsed DC supply improved the MRR and reduced the kerf width via a selection of proper pulse on and off timings. |
| [ | Brass wire | 0.2 mm | Silica–epoxy nanocomposites | At higher voltages, the MRR and roughness were higher because of a decrease in the silica particle concentration. |
| [ | Zinc-coated brass wire | 0.15 mm | Quartz | The MRR increased from 21.47 to 75.82% and the surface roughness reduced from 22.25% to 7.93% under the application of the MHD approach with NaOH as an electrolyte. |
| [ | Tungsten | 0.1 mm | Glass | A rotating helical tool was proposed to construct a series of kerfs with a high aspect ratio. The gas film thickness could be increased using a proper electrolysis process. |
| [ | Ni-coated brass wire | 0.25 mm | SiC-reinforced z-pinned polymer matrix composites | Nonuniform cutting with a high diametrical overcut and lower material removal rate was observed. |
| [ | Zn-coated brass wire | Quartz glass | Wire breakage occurred frequently and higher surface roughness, chips, and burrs were observed during machining of the surface. |
Selected properties of quartz glass [20].
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Thermal expansion coefficient (20–320 °C) | 5.11 × 10−7 cm/cm·°C |
| Density | 2.2 × 103 kg/m3 |
| Hardness | 5.5–6.5 Mohs scale (N/mm2) |
| Dimension | 75(L) × 25(W) × 2(T) mm |
| Tensile strength | 50 × 107 Pa (N/m2) |
| Young’s modulus | 7.2 × 1010 Pa |
Figure 2The TW-ECDM setup.
Selected properties of the magnet.
| Variant | Diameter | Length | Magnetic Field |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nd-Fe-B | 20 mm | 10 mm | 0.38 to 0.45 T (approx.) at the top surface |
Figure 3Positioning of the magnet and the workpiece [43].
Initial trial conditions.
| Parameters | Range | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Voltage range | <10 V | No electrolysis process was observed. |
| 10–20 V | Gas bubble formation was low, resulting in poor sparking. | |
| 20–30 V | Low intensity of sparking with uniform electrolysis. | |
| 30–40 V | Electrolysis rate was higher and the spark intensity was uniform and higher. | |
| Above 42 V | Unstable sparking led to frequent wire breakage. | |
| Percentage of electrolyte concentration rage | <22% | Very narrow sparking was observed. |
| 22–40% | Sufficient and smooth sparking was observed. | |
| Above 40% | Uneven side sparking with high-strength sparking. | |
| Wire speed (m/min) | <0–3 m/min | Wire breakage phenomenon with a coarse machined surface. |
| Between 3–13 m/min | Wire breakage phenomenon was lessened and side sparking was reduced. | |
| Above 14 m/min | Cutting action was poor. |
Factors with their associated levels.
| Factors | Input Parameters | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| X | Applied voltage (V) | 30 | 35 | 40 |
| Y | Electrolyte concentration (%) | 25 | 30 | 35 |
| Z | Wire feed (mm/min) | 3 | 8 | 13 |
S/N ratio for response parameters.
| Exp. No. | Factor Levels | S/N Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | Y | Z | MRR | LOC | Ra | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −11.8453854 | 60.82982754 | −16.023956 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | −9.67193703 | 60.71603662 | −16.156110 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | −8.37238623 | 61.44080477 | −16.35395 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | −8.06366128 | 64.10852656 | −16.919315 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | −5.58524046 | 66.0414644 | −17.211551 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | −4.69109964 | 65.60068046 | −17.698171 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | −5.98938686 | 67.63446418 | −18.092147 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | −3.65795191 | 67.56984763 | −17.898499 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | −2.39287601 | 68.07781164 | −17.979985 |
Figure 4SN ratio plot for the MRR.
ANOVA for the MRR for the MHD approach.
| Factor | DOF | SS | MS | F-Value | Contribution (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | 2 | 0.15184 | 0.07592 | 48.28 | 0.02 | 71.672 |
| Y | 2 | 0.055429 | 0.027714 | 17.62 | 0.054 | 26.162 |
| Z | 2 | 0.00144 | 0.00072 | 0.46 | 0.686 | 0.679 |
| Error | 2 | 0.003145 | 0.001573 | 0.014 | ||
| Total | 8 | 0.211862 | 98.529 | |||
| Model Summary: R2—98.52%, R2Adj—94.06% | ||||||
Figure 5SN ratio graph for LOC.
ANOVA for the LOC for the MHD approach.
| Factor | DOF | SS | MS | F-Value | Contribution (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | 2 | 4,821,541 | 2,410,770 | 296.83 | 0.003 | 95.034 |
| Y | 2 | 230,663 | 115,332 | 14.20 | 0.066 | 0.045 |
| Z | 2 | 5003 | 2501 | 0.31 | 0.765 | 0.098 |
| Error | 2 | 16,244 | 8122 | 0.320 | ||
| Total | 8 | 5,073,450 | 95.499 | |||
| Model Summary: R2—99.68%, R2Adj—98.72% | ||||||
Figure 6SN ratio graph for the LOC.
ANOVA for the LOC for the MHD approach.
| Factor | DOF | SS | MS | F-Value | Contribution (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | 2 | 3.378 | 1.689 | 35.4 | 0.027 | 92.64934573 |
| Y | 2 | 0.119 | 0.059 | 1.2 | 0.444 | 3.276678725 |
| Z | 2 | 0.053 | 0.026 | 0.5 | 0.642 | 1.457459676 |
| Error | 2 | 0.095 | 0.047 | 2.616790133 | ||
| Total | 8 | 3.646 | 100.0002743 | |||
| Model Summary: R2—97.38%; R2Adj—89.53% | ||||||
Figure 7MRR with and without the MHD method being used.
Figure 8LOC (μm) with and without using the MHD method.
Figure 9Ra (μm) with and without using the MHD method.
Additivity test.
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| X | Y | Z | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C |
| 30 | 35 | 13 | 0.2684 | 0.2813 | 4.82 | 7.356 | 7.40344 | 0.644 | 991.15 | 1049.34 | 5.87 |
| 40 | 30 | 3 | 0.3992 | 0.3911 | −2.06 | 9.586 | 9.71499 | 1.327 | 2289.13 | 2316.29 | 1.18 |
| 30 | 25 | 3 | 0.2105 | 0.2055 | 2.4 | 6.872 | 6.75544 | 1.69 | 925.61 | 877.34 | 5.5 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| X | Y | Z | A | B | C | A | B | C | A | B | C |
| 30 | 35 | 13 | 0.3814 | 0.40942 | 6.843 | 6.572 | 6.6188 | 0.707 | 1329.15 | 1387.65 | 4.215 |
| 40 | 30 | 3 | 0.6563 | 0.66022 | 0.593 | 7.851 | 7.9783 | 1.595 | 3048.52 | 3042.2 | −0.207 |
| 30 | 25 | 3 | 0.2557 | 0.24782 | −3.18 | 6.327 | 6.3508 | 0.374 | 1100.25 | 1057.75 | −4.017 |
| where A signifies experimental values, B signifies mathematical equation values, and C signifies the error (%). | |||||||||||
Additivity test for the optimal parametric set.
| Optimal Parametric Set for the MHD Run | ||
|---|---|---|
| MRR (mg/min) | Ra (μm) | LOC (μm) |
| 0.8042 | 6.247 | 3415.29 |
Figure 10SEM images of slits produced (a) without using the MHD approach and (b) using the MHD approach.