4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Effects of Mo2C, Ni binder and laser surface modification on WC inserts for turning Ti-6Al-4V

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2019.105145

Keywords

WC; Mo2C; Ti-6Al-4 V; Turning; Wear

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology
  2. National Research Foundation, South Africa
  3. ESRC [ES/T003812/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of rapid pulse electric current sintering (PECS), Ni as a Co binder substitute, Mo2C additions and laser surface modification (LSM) on the microstructure, mechanical properties and machining performance during roughing and finishing turning of Ti-6Al-4 V were investigated. Additions of Mo2C reduced the carbide grain size from 0.65 +/- 0.01 mu m to 0.5 +/- 0.01 mu m in liquid phase sintered (LPS) WC-Co/Ni cermets, with the PECS manufactured WC-0.5Cr(3)C(2)-3.5Mo(2)C-10Co (wt%) having the highest hardness. The LSM technique produced a similar to 2.5 mu m self-carbide coating, increasing the surface hardness of all the samples. LSM was done to improve abrasion, attrition and thermal wear resistance. Turning was done at cuttings speeds (v(c)) of 45-120 m/min, depths of cut (a(p)) of 0.25-2.0mm and feeds of 0.15-0.2 mm/revolution, under lubricated conditions. The developed inserts were compared to TH10 (an industrial reference), and performance was assessed by cutting forces, tool wear and tool life. The liquid phase sintered WC-0.5Cr(3)C(2)-10Co (wt%) and WC-0.5Cr(3)C(2)-3.5Mo(2)C10Co (wt%) inserts had longer tool lives than TH10 during roughing at a cutting speed (v(c)) of 45 m/min, depth of cut (a(p)) of 2mm and feed of 0.2 mm/revolution, although TH10 had the best tool life during finishing (v(c) = 120 m/min, a(p)= 0.25mm and feed = 0.15 mm/revolution). Generally, LSM had a negligible effect on tool life, WC-Ni based inserts had the shortest tool lives and LPS inserts performed better than PECS inserts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available