4.5 Article

Investigation of machining characteristics in rotary ultrasonic machining of alumina ceramic

Journal

MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 309-326

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2016.1176190

Keywords

Alumina; ANOVA; ceramic; chipping; machining; microstructure; MRR; optimization; rotary; RSM; ultrasonic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alumina ceramic is well documented as a much-demanded advanced ceramic in the present competitive structure of manufacturing and industrial applications owing to its excellent and superior properties. The current article aimed to experimentally investigate the influence of several process variables, namely: spindle speed, feed rate, coolant pressure, and ultrasonic power, on considered machining characteristics of interest, i.e., chipping size and material removal rate in the rotary ultrasonic machining of alumina ceramic. Response surface methodology has been employed in the form of a central composite rotatable design to design the experiments. Variance analysis testing has also been performed with a view to observing the consequence of the considered parameters. The microstructure of machined rod samples was evaluated and analyzed using a scanning electron microscope. This analysis has revealed and confirmed the presence of plastic deformation that caused removal of material along with brittle fractures in rotary ultrasonic machining of alumina ceramic. The validity and competence of the developed mathematical model have been verified with test results. The multi-response optimization of machining responses (material removal rate and chipping size) has also been attempted by employing a desirability approach, and at an optimized parametric setting the obtained experimental values for material removal rate and chipping size were 0.4166 mm(3)/s and 0.5134 mm, respectively, with a combined desirability index value of 0.849.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available