4.6 Article

An experimental study of process variables in turning operations of Ti-6Al-4V and Cr-Co spherical prostheses

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-012-3955-0

关键词

Ti-6Al-4Valloys; Cr-Co alloys; Prostheses; Turning; Process parameters

资金

  1. Fundacio Caixa-Castello Bancaixa [INV-2009-39]
  2. Tecnologico de Monterrey through the Research Chair in Mechatronics and Intelligent Machines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ti-6Al-4V and Cr-Co alloys are extensively used in manufacturing prostheses due to their biocompatibility, high strength-to-weight ratio and high resistance to corrosion and wear. However, machining operations involving Ti-6Al-4V and Cr-Co alloys face a series of difficulties related to their low machinability which complicate the process of controlling the quality levels required in these parts. The main objective of this paper is to study the influence of cutting parameters, machine tool control accuracy and metrology procedures on surface roughness parameters and form errors in contouring operations of Ti-6Al-4V and Cr-Co workpieces. The machining performance of the two biocompatible materials is compared, focusing the study on part quality at low feed per revolution and the stochastic nature of plastic deformations at this regime. The results showed a better surface roughness control for Ti-6Al-4V, whereas for Cr-Co alloys, the performance presents high variability. In the case of form errors (sphericity), contouring errors and metrology procedures are important factors to be considered for quality assurance. In addition, the study analyses the correlation of the machining performance with different sensor signals acquired from a low cost non-intrusive multi-sensor, showing a high correlation of signals from acoustic emission sensors and accelerometers in the machining of spherical features on Ti-6Al-4V parts. The findings of this research work can be taken into account when designing prostheses components and planning their manufacturing processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据