4.7 Article

Prediction of crater depth, surface roughness and erosion rate during abrasive jet machining of glass

Journal

WEAR
Volume 468, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2020.203596

Keywords

Crater depth; Surface roughness; Erosion rate; Glass; Abrasive jet machining

Funding

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [15/RP/B3208]
  2. State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs
  3. Ministry of Education of China [B07014]
  4. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [15/RP/B3208] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the mechanism for brittle material removal via solid particle impact and identifies an overestimation issue in the existing analytical formulation. By prescribing a realistic shape and mechanical properties to the impinging particle, the research proposes new geometries for the particle's impacting tip to achieve accurate prediction of erosion. The results suggest that implementing the actual particle penetration depth can improve the accuracy of predicting erosion in glass.
Understanding the mechanism for brittle material removal via solid particle impact is important for various areas such as energy and aerospace industries. The existing analytical formulation of erosion damage, consistent with indentation fracture theory, overestimates actual erosion by over 200%. This study complements an existing analysis by prescribing a realistic shape and mechanical properties to the impinging particle. We quantitatively show that a lateral crack in glass does not nucleate at the indenter's tip or the theoretical plastic depth, but at an intermediate depth. This depth can be found by implementing the actual particle penetration depth into Hill's ratio. Several new geometries of the particle's impacting tip are proposed as ways to achieve adequate particle penetration depth instead of an expanding hemispherical cavity. The crater depth, surface roughness, and erosion efficiency of borosilicate glass are predicted with 10%, 24%, and 23% error, respectively, using a simple analytical routine.

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