Advertisement

Effect of tool materials on performance of rotary tool micro-USM process during fabrication of microchannels

  • Sandeep KumarEmail author
  • Akshay Dvivedi
Technical Paper
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

The tool wear affects the efficiency of micro-USM process and the quality of machined micro-features. In this research endeavor, wear mechanism of soft/ductile and hard/brittle tool materials is investigated comprehensively. Stainless steel-304 (SS-304) and tungsten carbide (WC) were selected as tool materials for rotary tool micro-USM (RT-MUSM) process. The effect of tool material properties on tool wear and performance of RT-MUSM process is also discussed. The effect of RT-MUSM process parameters, viz. rotation speed, feed rate, power rating and slurry concentration on material removal rate (MRR), depth of channel (DOC) and width over cut (WOC) are reported. The experimental results showed that SS-304 tool worn out rapidly due to plastic deformation followed by strain hardening. The superior properties of WC such as high wear resistance, compressive strength and good acoustic property led to reduction in tool wear and thereby significantly improved the performance of RT-MUSM. Additionally, multi-response optimization was applied to obtain maximum MRR, DOC and minimum WOC simultaneously.

Keywords

RT-MUSM Tool material MRR DOC WOC Silica glass Optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly grateful to the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govt. of India for providing the financial support for this research work (Grant Code: SB/FTP/ETA/207/2012).

References

  1. 1.
    Guruparan GK, Sathish M (2006) Design and fabrication of micro channels for MEMS applications. Synth React Inorg Met Org Chem 36:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fan Y, Luo L (2008) Recent applications of advances in microchannel heat exchangers and multiscale design optimization. Heat Transf Eng 29(5):461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saranya S, Sankar AR (2018) Fabrication of precise microchannels using a side-insulated tool in a spark assisted chemical engraving process. Mater Manuf Process 33(13):1422–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rattan N, Mulik RS (2017) Experimental investigations and multiresponse optimization of silicon dioxide (Quartz) machining in magnetic field assisted TW-ECSM process. Silicon 9:663–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thoe TB, Aspinwall DK, Wise MLH (1998) Review on ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu X (2007) Mechanism, characteristics and modeling of micro ultrasonic machining, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nebraska-LincolnGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benedict GF (1981) Non-traditional manufacturing processes. Marcel Dekker Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maurotto A, Muhammad R, Roy A, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV (2012) Comparing machinability of Ti-15-3-3-3 and Ni-625 alloys in UAT. Proc CIRP 1:330–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riaz M (2013) Hot ultrasonically assisted turning of Ti–15V3Al3Cr3Sn: experimental and numerical analysis, Ph.D. thesis Loughborough University, LeicestershireGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khajehzadeh M, Akhlaghi M, Razfar MR (2014) Finite element simulation and experimental investigation of tool temperature during ultrasonically assisted turning of aerospace aluminum using multicoated carbide inserts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75(5–8):1163–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar MN, Subbu SK, Krishna PV, Venugopal A (2014) Vibration assisted conventional and advanced machining: a review. Procedia Eng 97:1577–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maurotto A, Wickramarachchi CT (2016) Experimental investigations on effects of frequency in ultrasonically-assisted end-milling of AISI 316L: a feasibility study. Ultrasonics 65:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zheng K, Li Z, Liao W, Xiao X (2017) Friction and wear performance on ultrasonic vibration assisted grinding dental zirconia ceramics against natural tooth. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39(3):833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sofuoglu MA, Çakır FH, Gürgen S, Orak S, Kuşhan MC (2018) Experimental investigation of machining characteristics and chatter stability for Hastelloy-X with ultrasonic and hot turning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(1–4):83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sofuoğlu MA, Çakır FH, Gürgen S, Orak S, Kuşhan MC (2018) Numerical investigation of hot ultrasonic assisted turning of aviation alloys. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40(3):122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moghaddas MA, Short MA, Wiley NR, Yi AY, Graff KF (2018) Performance of an ultrasonic-assisted drilling module. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94(9–12):3019–3028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu J, Jiang X, Han X, Gao Z, Zhang D (2019) Effects of rotary ultrasonic elliptical machining for side milling on the surface integrity of Ti–6Al–4V. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101(5–8):1451–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheema MS (2015) An ultrasonic micromachining approach to fabricate microchannels on glass. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT RoorkeeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu Z, Ma C, An C, Li J, Guo D (2012) Prediction of tool wear in micro USM. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 61:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jain V, Sharma AK, Kumar P (2011) Investigations on tool wear in micro ultrasonic machining. Appl Mech Mater 110–116:1561–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Komaraiah M, Reddy PN (1993) Relative performance of tool materials in ultrasonic machining. Wear 161:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adithan M, Venkatesh VC (1975) Tool wear mechanisms in ultrasonic drilling. Wear 34:449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheema MS, Dvivedi A, Sharma AK (2015) Tool wear studies in fabrication of microchannels in ultrasonic micromachining. Ultrasonics 57:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang J, Shimada K, Mizutani M, Kuriyagawa T (2018) Tool wear mechanism and its relation to material removal in ultrasonic machining. Wear 394:96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu Z, Hu X, Rajurkar KP (2006) Influence of debris accumulation on material removal and surface roughness in micro ultrasonic machining of silicon. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 55:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar S, Dvivedi A (2019) On machining of hard and brittle materials using rotary tool micro-ultrasonic drilling process. Mater Manuf Process 34(7):736–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar S, Dvivedi A (2018) Fabrication of microchannels using rotary tool micro-USM: an experimental investigation on tool wear reduction and form accuracy improvement. J Manuf Process 32:802–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pal RK, Garg H, Sarepaka RGV, Karar V (2016) Experimental investigation of material removal and surface roughness during optical glass polishing. Mater Manuf Process 31:1613–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar S, Dvivedi A (2019) On effect of tool rotation on performance of rotary tool micro-ultrasonic machining. Mater Manuf Process 34(5):476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pandey PC, Shan HS (1980) Modern machining processes. Tata McGraw-Hill, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar S, Dvivedi A (2017) Experimental investigation on drilling of borosilicate glass using micro-USM with and without tool rotation: a comparative study. Int J Addit Subtr Mater Manuf 1:213–222Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kumar S, Dvivedi A, Kumar P (2017) On tool wear in rotary tool micro-ultrasonic machining. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Pan American materials congress, Springer, Cham, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sreehari D, Sharma AK (2018) On form accuracy and surface roughness in micro-ultrasonic machining of silicon microchannels. Precis Eng 53:300–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yadav RN, Yadava V (2014) Slotted-electrical discharge diamond cut-off grinding of Al/SiC/B4C hybrid metal matrix composite. J Mech Sci Technol 28(1):309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harrington EC (1965) The desirability function. Ind Qual. Control 21(10):494–498Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharma V, Kumar V (2016) Multi-objective optimization of laser curve cutting of aluminium metal matrix composites using desirability function approach. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38:1221–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kumar V, Singh H (2018) Machining optimization in rotary ultrasonic drilling of BK-7 through response surface methodology using desirability approach. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40(2):83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singh RP, Singhal S (2017) Investigation of machining characteristics in rotary ultrasonic machining of alumina ceramics. Mater Manuf Process 32(3):309–3026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kumar A, Kumar V, Kumar J (2015) Semi-empirical model on MRR and overcut in WEDM process of pure titanium using multi-objective desirability approach. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37:689–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Popli D, Gupta M (2018) Experimental investigation of tool wear and machining rate in rotary ultrasonic machining of nickel alloy. Mach Sci Technol 22(3):427–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical and Industrial Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations