Advertisement

Comparison on gas bubble and pulse trains of deep-cavity electrical discharge machining with/without rotary ultrasonic assistance

  • Albert Wen-Jeng HsueEmail author
  • Tian-Jun Hao
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Fundamental observation of bubbles and debris in deep-cavity electrical discharge machining (EDM) with an ultrasonic spindle aimed at achieving higher machining efficiency is proposed and compared. Various discharge pulse trains for EDM, rotary EDM (R-EDM), ultrasonic vibration-assisted EDM (UA-EDM), and rotary ultrasonic EDM (RU-EDM) are investigated. Their effects on the removal efficiency, machining stability, and the tool wear rate are studied as well. It is found that EDM in deep cavity is actually discharged in the gas bubble most of the time except the short period at the very beginning stage. The main bubble at EDM tool jumping is maintained with a constant volume. And, the volume results in the boundary height of the bubble at the next EDM stroke. In which, ultrasonic vibration of sufficient strength was found to split main bubble quickly and improve the material removal rate at about 49 % through much higher frequency of pulse trains. Appended with rotation, the rotary ultrasonic vibration EDM can improve the tool wear rate but reduces the MRR in compared with conventional EDM.

Keywords

EDM Bubbles Debris Pulse trains MRR Rotary ultrasonic spindle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Declaration

1. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere nor has it been submitted for publication at the other journal.

2. Grammatical errors and writing style in the original version have been corrected by our colleague who is a native English speaker.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

ESM 1

 (WMV 17793 kb)

ESM 2

 (WMV 18658 kb)

ESM 3

 (WMV 19773 kb)

ESM 4

 (WMV 17664 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ghoreishi M, Atkinson J (2002) A comparative experimental study of machining characteristics in vibratory, rotary and vibro-rotary EDM. J Mater Processing Tech 120(1–3):374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kunieda M, Yoshida M (1997) Electrical discharge machining in Gas. CIRP Ann 46–1:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang QH, Zhang JH, Deng JX, Qin Y, Niu ZW (2002) Ultrasonic vibration electrical discharge machining in gas. J Mater Process Tech 129(1–3):135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shervani Tabar MT, Shabgard MR (2010) Numerical study on the effect of the frequency and amplitude of the tool on the material removal rate in ultrasonic assisted electrical discharge machining. Proc IMechE Part B: J Eng Manuf 225:408–413Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prihandana GS, Muslim M, Hamdi M, Mitsui K (2011) Effect of low-frequency vibration on workpiece in EDM processes. J Mech Sci Tech 25(5):1231–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cetin S, Okada A, Uno Y (2004) Effect of debris distribution on wall concavity in deep-hole EDM. Int J Series C of Japan Soc Mech Eng 47–2:553–558Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y.S. Liao, P.S. Wu, F.Y. Liang (2013) Study of debris exclusion effect in linear motor equipped die-sinking EDM process. Procedia CIRP 6:123–128Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsue AW-J, Yan M-T, Chung C-H (2013) Effective pulses discriminator and control strategy for high speed direct-drive electrical discharge machining. J Chinese Soc Mech Eng 34(2):167–176Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang J, Han F, Cheng G, Zhao F (2012) Debris and bubble movements during electrical discharge machining. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 58:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang J, Han F (2014) Simulation model of debris and bubble movement in consecutive-pulse discharge of electrical discharge machining. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 77:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitamura T, Kunieda M, Abe K (2014) Observation of relationship between bubbles and discharge locations in EDM using transparent electrodes. Prec Eng 40:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ji R, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Cai B, Ma J, Li X (2012) Influence of dielectric and machining parameters on the process performance for electric discharge milling of SiC ceramic. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59(1–4):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ji R, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Cai B, Li H, Ma J (2010) Optimizing machining parameters of silicon carbide ceramics with ED milling and mechanical grinding combined process. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 51(1–4):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shervani-Tabar MT, Mobadersany N (2013) Numerical study of the dielectric liquid around an electrical discharge generated vapor bubble in ultrasonic assisted EDM. Ultrasonics 53:943–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koyano T, Hosokawa A, Suzuki S, Ueda T (2015) Influence of external hydrostatic pressure on machining characteristics of electrical discharge machining. Ann CIRP Manuf Tech 64:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mold and Die EngineeringNational Kaohsiung University of Applied SciencesSanmin DistrictTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations