4.7 Article

A study of material removal and surface characteristics in micro-electrical discharge machining of carbon fiber-reinforced plastics

期刊

POLYMER COMPOSITES
卷 40, 期 10, 页码 4033-4041

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pc.25264

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents micro electrical discharge machining (mu EDM) of carbon fiber-reinforced plastics (CFRP) with rotating tool electrode and assisting electrode (AE). The experimental investigation majorly focused on establishing the mechanisms of material removal and surface integrity of the machined blind holes. Taguchi and regression analysis were carried out to assess the material removal rate (MRR). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to understand the significance of input parameters and their contribution toward achieving maximum MRR. The surface integrity of the machined hole and damage modes of composite constituents were also examined through micrographic images. The experiments were carried out varying the voltage, pulse duration, and tool speed at three levels. The investigations showed that mu EDM process can be applied for fabricating micro holes in CFRP if assisting electrode (AE) is used to initiate the spark. From the analysis of variance (ANOVA), it was observed that the percentage contribution of voltage, pulse duration, and tool rotational speed on MRR are 75.09, 5.20, and 16.09%, respectively. The optimal condition for the highest MRR was found to be V3/T1/S3 (voltage of 170 V, pulse duration of 10 mu s, and tool speed of 800 rpm). The calculated value of MRR (341,264.94 mu m(3)/s) at the optimum level of input parameters was found to be close to the experimental MRR (340,727 mu m(3)/s). The percentage error between the experimental and calculated value of MRR at the optimum level is very low as 0.15%. This indicates that the developed statistical model is quite significant in predicting MRR during mu EDM of CFRP. POLYM. COMPOS., 40:4033-4041, 2019. (c) 2019 Society of Plastics Engineers

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

4.7
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