Investigating and modeling tool-wear rate in the ultrasonic machining of titanium

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Titanium is known as the metal of the future because of its excellent combination of properties such as high specific strength, low thermal conductivity, and high corrosion resistance. There is a critical need for developing and establishing cost-effective methods for the machining of titanium, especially in terms of tool-wear optimization. This paper addresses the application of ultrasonic machining, an impact machining process for the cost-effective machining of commercially pure titanium (ASTM Grade-I) and evaluation of tool-wear rate under the effect of different process parameters. Tool material, abrasive material, slurry concentration, abrasive grit size, and power rating of the ultrasonic machine were included as the input factors in this investigation. The optimal settings of these parameters were determined through experiments planned, conducted, and analyzed using the Taguchi method. The significant parameters contributing most to the variation in tool-wear rate were identified and the results obtained were validated by conducting the confirmation experiments. Thereafter, the outcome of the Taguchi model has been used for developing a micro-model for tool-wear rate (TWR); using Buckingham’s pie theorem. A comparison of the experimental results obtained assists in the validation of the model.

Keywords

Titanium Ultrasonic machining Tool-wear rate Taguchi method Micro-model Dimensional analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thoe TB, Aspinwall DK, Wise MLH (1998) Review on ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38(4):239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benedict GF (1987) Non-traditional manufacturing processes. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh R, Khamba JS, Grewal JS (2005) Machining characteristics optimization using Taguchi technique in ultrasonic drilling of titanium alloys. Proceedings of international conference on emerging technologies in intelligent system and control (EISCO-2005). Kumaraguru College of Tech. Coimbatore, India, pp 81–87Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh R, Khamba JS (2005) Development in USM for drilling of titanium alloys. Proceedings of the national conference on advances in condensed matter physics (ACMP-05). Thapar University, Patiala (India), pp 333–339Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adithan M (1981) Tool wear characteristics in ultrasonic drilling. Tribol Int 14(6):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith TL (1971) Parametric influence in ultrasonic machining. Dissertation of B.Sc., Nottingham Trent University, UK, pp 23–32Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adithan M, Vanktesh VC (1974) Parametric influence on tool wear in ultrasonic drilling. Tribol Int 7(6):260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riddie V (1973) Cavitation erosion—a survey of the literature 1940–1970. Wear 23:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adithan M, Vanktesh VC (1976) Production accuracy of holes in ultrasonic drilling. Wear 40(3):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Komaraiah M, Reddy PN (1993) Relative performance of tool materials in ultrasonic machining. Wear 161(1/2):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komaraiah M, Reddy PN (1991) Rotary ultrasonic machining-a new cutting process and its performance. Int J Prod Res 29(11):2177–2187MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soundrajan V, Radhakrishnan V (1986) An experimental investigation on the basic mechanisms involved in the ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tool Des Res 26(3):307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross PJ, Taguchi (1988) Taguchi technique for quality engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 45–48Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barker TB (1990) Engineering quality by design: Interpreting the Taguchi approach. Marcel-Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 78–82Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilmore R (1991) Ultrasonic machining—a case study. J Mater Process Technol 28:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennedy DC, Grieve RJ (1975) Ultrasonic machining: a review. Prod Eng 54(9):481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moreland MA (1988) Versatile performance of ultrasonic machining. Ceram Bull 67(6):1045–1047Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jadoun RS et al (2006) Manufacturing process optimization for tool wear rate in ultrasonic drilling of engineering ceramics using the Taguchi method. Int J Mach Machinabil Mater 1:94–114Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith TJ (1973) Parameter influences in ultrasonic machining. Tribol Int 11(5):196–198Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jatinder Kumar
    • 1
  • J. S. Khamba
    • 2
  • S. K. Mohapatra
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College of Engineering, Punjabi UniversityPatialaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThapar UniversityPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations