4.6 Article

Effect of laminate configuration and feed rate on cutting performance when drilling holes in carbon fibre reinforced plastic composites

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 210, 期 8, 页码 1023-1034

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.02.011

关键词

CFRP; Prepreg form; Delamination; Composites; Drilling

资金

  1. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham
  2. Universities UK
  3. GM Aerospace (Isle of Wight)
  4. Element Six
  5. Unimerco Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Composites use in the aerospace industry is expanding, in particular carbon fibre reinforced plastics (CFRP) for structural components. Machinability can however be problematic especially when drilling, due to CFRP's inherent anisotropy/in-homogeneity, limited plastic deformation and abrasive characteristics. Following a brief review on composites development and associated machining, the paper outlines experimental results when twist drilling 1.5 mm diameter holes in 3 mm thick CFRP laminate using tungsten carbide (WC) stepped drills. The control variables considered were prepreg type (3 types) and form (unidirectional (UD) and woven), together with drill feed rate (0.2 and 0.4 mm/rev). A full factorial experimental design was used involving 12 tests. Response variables included the number of drilled holes (wear criterion VB(B)max <= 100 mu m), thrust force and torque, together with entry and exit delamination (conventional and adjusted delamination factor values calculated) and hole diameter. Best results were obtained with woven MTM44-1/HTS oven cured material (3750 holes) while the effect of prepreg form on tool life was evident only when operating at the higher level of feed rate. Thrust forces were typically under 125 N with torque values generally below 65 Nmm over the range of operating parameters employed. Finally, the delamination factor (F-d) measured at hole entry and exit ranged between similar to 1.2-1.8 and 1.0-2.1 respectively. (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

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