Machining optimization in rotary ultrasonic drilling of BK-7 through response surface methodology using desirability approach

Technical Paper
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

In the present work, optical glass BK-7 was drilled by rotary ultrasonic machine. Response surface methodology was amalgamated with desirability approach to frame the experimental matrix and seek pragmatic solutions to cope with the real machining problems. Spindle speed, ultrasonic power and feed rate were extensively scrutinized to evaluate the machining proficiency in terms of material removal rate (MRR) and surface roughness (SR). Thereafter, ANOVA check was exercised to scrutinize the adequacy of developed SR and MRR models and cast light on the significant model terms with their impact intensity on responses. The feed rate was observed to be the most influential factor in determining the qualitative (SR) and quantitative (MRR) aspect of the machining process. The machined surface along with tool surface was examined by scanning electron microscope to shed light on the material fractography and tool wear. Processed surface topography revealed the concluding evidence of brittle fracture dominance along with few traces of plastic flow of material. Severe tool wear was observed in the initial stage of experimentation due to bond fracture and grain fracture. Confirmatory tests validated the prediction accuracy of developed models by keeping the error within 5% between the predicted and experimental value at 95% confidence level.

Keywords

Material removal rate Surface roughness Optimization Response surface methodology Desirability Microstructure Tool wear Rotary ultrasonic drilling 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India for providing requisite facilities to accomplish this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Pal RK, Garg H, Sarepaka RGV, Karar V (2016) Experimental investigation of material removal and surface roughness during optical glass polishing. Mater Manuf Process 31:1613–1620.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1103867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu D, Tang Y, Cong WL (2012) A review of mechanical drilling for composite laminates. Compos Struct 94:1265–1279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aich U, Banerjee S, Bandyopadhyay A, Das PK (2014) Abrasive water jet cutting of borosilicate glass. Proc Mater Sci 6:775–785.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    El-Hofy HA-G (2005) Advance machining processes. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi JP, Jeon BH, Kim BH (2007) Chemical-assisted ultrasonic machining of glass. J Mater Process Technol 191:153–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang H, Lin H, Wang C et al (2016) Laser drilling of structural ceramics: a review. J Eur Ceram Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2016.10.031 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeo CY, Tam SC, Jana S, Lau MWS (1994) A technical review of the laser drilling of aerospace materials. J Mater Process Tech 42:15–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-0136(94)90073-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kozak J, Zybura-Skrabalak M (2016) Some problems of surface roughness in electrochemical machining (ECM). Proc CIRP 42:101–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pachaury Y, Tandon P (2017) An overview of electric discharge machining of ceramics and ceramic based composites. J Manuf Process 25:369–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2016.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cong W, Feng Q, Pei Z et al (2012) Rotary ultrasonic machining of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic composites: using cutting fluid vs. cold air as coolant. J Compos Mater 46:1745–1753.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998311424625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain AK, Pandey PM (2016) Experimental investigations of ceramic machining using µ-grinding and µ-rotary ultrasonic machining processes: a comparative study. Mater Manuf Process.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2016.1198024 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang J, Feng P, Zhang J et al (2016) Modeling the dependency of edge chipping size on the material properties and cutting force for rotary ultrasonic drilling of brittle materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 101:18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2015.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumaran S, Ko T, Li C, Yu Z (2017) Rotary ultrasonic machining of woven CFRP composite in a cryogenic environment. J Alloys Compd 698:984–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.12.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cong W, Zou X, Deines T et al (2012) Rotary ultrasonic machining of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites: an experimental study on cutting temperature. J Reinf Plast Compos 31:1516–1525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684412464913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lv D (2016) Influences of high-frequency vibration on tool wear in rotary ultrasonic machining of glass BK7. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 84:1443–1455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7204-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdo BMA, Darwish SM, Al-Ahmari AM, El-Tamimi AM (2013) Optimization of process parameters of rotary ultrasonic machining based on Taguchi’s method. In: 2013 4th international conference on material and manufacturing technology (ICMMT), vol. 748, pp 273–280.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.748.273
  17. 17.
    Wei SL, Zhao H, Jing JT et al (2017) Investigation on surface residual stress distribution and evaluation of engineering ceramics in rotary ultrasonic grinding machining. Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part C J Mech Eng Sci 231:2773–2782.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406216640575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 53:141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2011.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 50:303–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Churi NJ, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2006) rotary ultrasonic machining of titanium alloy: effects of machining variables. Mach Sci Technol 10:301–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10910340600902124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Churi NJ, Pei Z, Shorter D (2009) Rotary ultrasonic machining of dental ceramics. Mater Sci Forum 6:270–284.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.532-533.361 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ya G, Qin HW, Yang SC, Xu YW (2002) Analysis of the rotary ultrasonic machining mechanism. J Mater Process Technol 129:182–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00638-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pei Z, Ferreira P, Kapoor S, Haselkorn M (1995) Rotary ultrasonic machining for face miling of ceramics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 35:1033–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ning FD, Cong WL, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2016) Rotary ultrasonic machining of CFRP: a comparison with grinding. Ultrasonics 66:125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2015.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiao Y, Hu P, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2005) Rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramics: design of experiments. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 7:192–206Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li ZC, Jiao Y, Deines TW et al (2005) Rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramic matrix composites: Feasibility study and designed experiments. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1402–1411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.01.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    (1964) Ultrasonic with a diamond drilling probe. Ulttrasonics 2:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-624X(64)90331-2
  28. 28.
    Chittaranjandas V, Engineering M, Of JCC (2016) Response surface methodology and desirability approach to optimize EDM parameters. Int J Hybrid Inf Technol 9:393–406Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zahrani EG, Marasi A (2012) Modeling and optimization of laser bending parameters via response surface methodology. Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part C J Mech Eng Sci 227:1577–1584.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406212461119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumaran ST, Ko TJ, Uthayakumar M, Islam MM (2017) Prediction of surface roughness in abrasive water jet machining of CFRP composites using regression analysis. J Alloys Compd 724:1037–1045.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.07.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurniawan R, Thirumalai Kumaran S, Arumuga Prabu V et al (2017) Measurement of burr removal rate and analysis of machining parameters in ultrasonic assisted dry EDM (US-EDM) for deburring drilled holes in CFRP composite. Meas J Int Meas Confed 110:98–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang C, Cong W, Feng P, Pei Z (2013) Rotary ultrasonic machining of optical K9 glass using compressed air as coolant: a feasibility study. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 228:504–514.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405413506195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang J, Feng P, Zhang J et al (2017) Investigations on the critical feed rate guaranteeing the effectiveness of rotary ultrasonic machining. Ultrasonics 74:81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2016.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cong WL, Pei ZJ, Mohanty N, Vleet EV, Treadwell C (2015) Vibration amplitude in rotary ultrasonic machining: a novel measurement method and effects of process variables. J Manuf Sci Eng 133:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004133 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang J, Feng P, Zhang J, Shen H (2017) Experimental investigation on the effects of thermomechanical loading on the vibrational stability during rotary ultrasonic machining. Mach Sci Technol 21:239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2017.1283962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zheng SY, Xu XP (2011) A comparative study on ultrasonic machining of red granite. Solid State Phenom 175:150–156.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.175.150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pei ZJ, Prabhakar D, Ferreira PM (1993) A mechanistic approach to the prediction of material removal rates in rotary ultrasonic machining. J. Eng, Ind, p 64Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Komaraiah M, Narasimha Reddy P (1991) Rotary ultrasonic machining: a new cutting process and its performance. Int J Prod Res 29:2177–2187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549108948077 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cong WL, Feng Q, Pei ZJ et al (2011) Dry machining of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composite by rotary ultrasonic machining: effects of machining variables. Compress Air.  https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2011-50116 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang J, Feng P, Zhang J (2016) Reduction of edge chipping in rotary ultrasonic machining by using step drill: a feasibility study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8655-8 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Samy GS, Kumaran ST, Uthayakumar M (2017) An analysis of end milling performance on B 4 C particle reinforced aluminum composite. J Aust Ceram Soc 53:373–383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41779-017-0046-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Akteke-Ozturk B, Weber GW, Koksal G (2015) Desirability functions in multiresponse optimization. In: Communications in computer and information science. Springer, Cham, pp 129–146Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 38:1221–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0487-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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 37:689–721.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-014-0208-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gu W, Yao Z, Li H (2011) Investigation of grinding modes in horizontal surface grinding of optical glass BK7. J Mater Process Technol 211:1629–1636.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Venkatesh VC, Izman S, Vichare PS et al (2005) The novel bondless wheel, spherical glass chips and a new method of aspheric generation. J Mater Process Technol 167:184–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yao Z, Gu W, Li K (2012) Relationship between surface roughness and subsurface crack depth during grinding of optical glass BK7. J Mater Process Technol 212:969–976.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Arif M, Xinquan Z, Rahman M, Kumar S (2013) A predictive model of the critical undeformed chip thickness for ductile-brittle transition in nano-machining of brittle materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 64:114–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Li HN, Yu TB, Da ZhuL, Wang WS (2016) Evaluation of grinding-induced subsurface damage in optical glass BK7. J Mater Process Technol 229:785–794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cong W, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2010) Comparison of superabrasive tools in rotary ultrasonic. In: International manufacturing science and engineering conference ASME, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Churi NJ, Pei ZJ (2007) Wheel wear mechanism in rotary ultrasonic machining of titanium. In: International mechanical engineering congress exposition ASME, pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentNational Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations