Advertisement

Chipping minimization in drilling ceramic materials with rotary ultrasonic machining

  • Jun Wei Liu
  • Dae Kyun Baek
  • Tae Jo KoEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Ultrasonic machining (USM) has been considered as a new cutting technology that does not rely on the conductance of the workpiece. USM presents no heating or electrochemical effects, with low surface damage and small residual stresses on workpiece material, such as glass, ceramics, and others; therefore, it is used to drill microholes in brittle materials. However, this process is very slow and tool wear dependent, so the entire process has low efficiency. Therefore, to increase microhole drilling productivity or hole quality, rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM) is considered as a strong alternative to USM. RUM, which presents ultrasonic axial vibration with tool rotation, is an effective solution for improving cutting speed, precision, tool wear, and other machining responses beyond those of the USM. This study aims to reduce the microchipping or cracking at the exit of the hole, which inevitably occurs when brittle materials are drilled, with consideration of tool wear. To this end, response surface analysis and desirability functions are used for experimental optimization. The experimental results showed that the proposed RUM scheme is suitable for microhole drilling.

Keywords

Ultrasonic vibration Rotary ultrasonic machining Tool wear Exit chipping Response surface analysis Optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Singh R, Khamba JS (2006) Ultrasonic machining of titanium and its alloys: a review. J Mater Process Technol 173:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jahanmir S, Ives LK, Ruff AW, Peterson MB (1992) Ceramic machining: assessment of current practice and research needs in the United States, NIST Special Publication 834Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh R, Khamba JS (2007) Macromodel for ultrasonic machining of titanium and its alloys: designed experiments. J Eng Manuf 221(2):221–229, 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li ZC, Cai L, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2006) Edge-chipping reduction in rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramics: finite element analysis and experimental verification. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:1469–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zeng WM, Li ZC, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2005) Experimental observation of tool wear in rotary ultrasonic machining of advanced ceramics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1468–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Legge P (1964) Ultrasonic drilling of ceramics. Ind Diam Rev 24(278):20–24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Legge P (1966) Machining without abrasive slurry. Ultrasonic 4(3):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pei ZJ, Ferreira PM (1998) Modeling of ductile-mode material removal in rotary ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:1399–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li ZC, Jiao Y, Deines TW, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2005) Rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramic matrix composites: feasibility study and designed experiments. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1402–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu J, Zhang D, Qin L, Yan L (2012) Feasibility study of the rotary ultrasonic elliptical machining of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP). Int J Mach Tools Manuf 53:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu D, Cong WL, Pei ZJ, Tang Y (2012) A cutting force model for rotary ultrasonic machining of brittle materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 52:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu P, Zhang JM, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2002) Modeling of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machining: designed experiments. J Mater Process Technol 129:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ya G, Qin HW, Yang SC, Xu YW (2002) Analysis of the rotary ultrasonic machining. J Mater Process Technol 129:182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gong H, Fang FZ, Hu XT (2010) Kinematic view of tool life in rotary ultrasonic side milling of hard and brittle materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 50:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiercigroch M, Neilson RD, Player MA (1999) Material removal rate prediction for ultrasonic drilling of hard materials using an impact oscillator approach. Phys Lett A 259(2):91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    www.sonicmill.com (2012) Sonicmill Company
  17. 17.
    Chun SH, Ko TJ (2011) Study on the response surface model of machining error in internal lathe boring. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 12:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montgomery DC (2005) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York, pp 405–463Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuller D, Scherer W (1998) The desirability function: underlying assumptions and application implications. University of Charlottesville, VA, 22903Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringYeungnam UniversityGyeongsanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Mechanical Engineering TechnologyKyungpook National UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations