Advertisement

Improvements of machinability of aerospace-grade Inconel alloys with ultrasonically assisted hybrid machining

  • Wei Bai
  • Anuj Bisht
  • Anish Roy
  • Satyam Suwas
  • Ronglei SunEmail author
  • Vadim V. SilberschmidtEmail author
Open Access
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Aerospace-grade Ni-based alloys such as Inconel 718 and 625 are widely used in the airspace industry thanks to their excellent mechanical properties at high temperatures. However, these materials are classified as ‘difficult-to-machine’ because of their high shear strength, low thermal conductivity, tendency to work-harden and presence of carbide particles in their microstructure, which lead to rapid tool wear. Machining-induced residual stresses in a machined part is an important parameter which is assessed since it can be used to evaluate overall structural resilience of the component and its propensity to fatigue failure in-service. Ultrasonically assisted turning (UAT) is a hybrid machining technique, in which tool-workpiece contact conditions are altered by imposing ultrasonic vibration (typical frequency ~ 20 kHz) on a tool’s movement in a cutting process. Several studies demonstrated successfully the resulting improvements in cutting forces and surface topography. However, a thorough study of UAT-induced residual stresses is missing. In this study, experimental results are presented for machining Inconel 718 and 625 using both conventional turning (CT) and UAT with different machining parameters to investigate the effect on cutting forces, surface roughness and residual stresses in the machined parts. The study indicates that UAT leads to significant cutting force reductions and improved surface roughness in comparison to CT for cutting speeds below a critical level. The residual stresses in machined workpiece show that UAT generates more compressive stresses when compared to those in CT. Thus, UAT demonstrates an overall improvement in machinability of Inconel alloys.

Keywords

Ultrasonically assisted turning Machinability Residual stress Structural integrity Inconel alloys 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) grant No. 2013CB035805. This work received financial support from the China Scholarship Council. This work also received funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) through grant EP/K028316/1 and Department of Science and Technology (India) through grant DST/RC-UK/14-AM/2012 for project “Modeling of Advanced Materials for Simulation of Transformative Manufacturing Processes (MAST)” which supported the research performed in UK and India.

References

  1. 1.
    Thakur D, Ramamoorthy B, Vijayaraghavan L (2009) Study on the machinability characteristics of superalloy Inconel 718 during high speed turning. Mater Design 30:1718–1725.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ezugwu E, Bonney J, Yamane Y (2003) An overview of the machinability of aeroengine alloys. J Mater Process Technol 134:233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)01042-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharman ARC, Hughes JI, Ridgway K (2006) An analysis of the residual stresses generated in Inconel 718™ when turning. J Mater Process Technol 173:359–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Outeiro J, Dias A, Lebrun J (2004) Experimental assessment of temperature distribution in three-dimensional cutting process. Mach Sci Technol 8:357–376.  https://doi.org/10.1081/MST-200038984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wardany T, Kishawy H, Elbestawi M (2000) Surface integrity of die material in high speed machining, part 2: microhardness variations and residual stress. J Manuf Sci Eng–T ASME 122:632–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noyan IC, Cohen JB (2013) Residual stress: measurement by diffraction and interpretation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pawade R, Joshi SS, Brahmankar P (2008) Effect of machining parameters and cutting edge geometry on surface integrity of high-speed turned Inconel 718. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2007.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arunachalam R, Mannan M, Spowage A (2004) Residual stress and surface roughness when facing age hardened Inconel 718 with CBN and ceramic cutting tools. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:879–887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dudzinski D, Devillez A, Moufki A, Larrouquere D, Zerrouki V, Vigneau J (2004) A review of developments towards dry and high speed machining of Inconel 718 alloy. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:439–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00159-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maurotto A, Muhammad R, Roy A, Silberschmidt VV (2013) Enhanced ultrasonically assisted turning of a β-titanium alloy. Ultrasonics 53:1242–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2013.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Babitsky V, Mitrofanov A, Silberschmidt VV (2004) Ultrasonically assisted turning of aviation materials: simulations and experimental study. Ultrasonics 42:81–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2004.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitrofanov A, Ahmed N, Babitsky V, Silberschmidt VV (2005) Effect of lubrication and cutting parameters on ultrasonically assisted turning of Inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 162:649–654.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.02.170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nath C, Rahman M (2008) Effect of machining parameters in ultrasonic vibration cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:965–974.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2008.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nath C, Rahman M, Neo KS (2009) Machinability study of tungsten carbide using PCD tools under ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49:1089–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma V, Pandey PM (2016) Optimization of machining and vibration parameters for residual stresses minimization in ultrasonic assisted turning of 4340 hardened steel. Ultrasonics 70:172–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2016.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nestler A, Schubert A (2014) Surface properties in ultrasonic vibration assisted turning of particle reinforced aluminium matrix composites. Procedia CIRP 13:125–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahmed N, Mitrofanov A, Babitsky V, Silberschmidt VV (2006) Analysis of material response to ultrasonic vibration loading in turning Inconel 718. Mater Sci Eng A-Struct 424:318–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bai W, Sun RL, Leopold J, Silberschmidt VV (2017) Microstructural evolution of Ti6Al4V in ultrasonically assisted cutting: numerical modelling and experimental analysis. Ultrasonics 78:70–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2017.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu J (1996) Handbook of measurement of residual stresses. Fairmont PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prevéy PS (1996) Current applications of X-ray diffraction residual stress measurement. Dev Mater Charact Technol:103–110Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devillez A, Schneider F, Dominiak S, Dudzinski D, Larrouquere D (2007) Cutting forces and wear in dry machining of Inconel 718 with coated carbide tools. Wear 262:931–942.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2006.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liao YS, Shiue RH (1996) Carbide tool wear mechanism in turning of Inconel 718 superalloy. Wear 193:16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(95)06644-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lalwani D, Mehta N, Jain P (2008) Experimental investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel. J Mater Process Technol 206:167–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halverstadt R (1959) How to minimize and control residual machining stresses. Am Mach 103:138Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dahlman P, Gunnberg F, Jacobson M (2004) The influence of rake angle, cutting feed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard turning. J Mater Process Technol 147:181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Capello E (2005) Residual stresses in turning: part I: influence of process parameters. J Mater Process Technol 160:221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK
  3. 3.Department of Materials EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations