4.5 Article

Mass flow rate measurement in abrasive jets using acoustic emission

期刊

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0957-0233/20/9/095402

关键词

abrasive jet; micromachining; powder blasting; acoustic emission; mass flow rate; process control; grit blasting

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canada Research Chairs (CRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The repeatability of abrasive jet machining operations is presently limited by fluctuations in the mass flow rate due to powder compaction, stratification and humidity effects. It was found that the abrasive mass flow rate for a typical abrasive jet micromachining setup could be determined by using data from the acoustic emission of the abrasive jet impacting a flat plate. Two methods for extracting the mass flow rate from the acoustic emission were developed and compared. In the first method, the number of particle impacts per unit time was determined by a direct count of peaks in the acoustic emission signal. The second method utilizes the power spectrum density of the acoustic emission in a specific frequency range. Both measures were found to correlate strongly with the mass flow rate measured by weighing samples of blasted powder for controlled time periods. It was found that the peak count method permits measurement of the average frequency of the impacts and the mass flow rate, but can only be applied to flow rates in which the impact frequency is approximately one order of magnitude less than the frequency of the target plate ringing. The power spectrum density method of signal processing is applicable to relatively fine powders and to flow rates at which the average impact frequency is of the same order of magnitude as that of the ringing due to the impact. The acoustic emission technique can be used to monitor particle flow variations over a wide range of time periods and provides a straightforward and accurate means of process control.

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

4.5
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