4.7 Article

A comparative study on tool life and wear of uncoated and coated cutting tools in turning of tungsten heavy alloys

期刊

WEAR
卷 482, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2021.203929

关键词

Tool wear; Tungsten heavy alloys; Tool life; Cutting force; Chip morphology

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2018YFA0702900]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of National Natural Science Foundation of China [51621064]
  3. LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program [XLYC1807230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the cutting performance of different cutting tool materials in turning of tungsten heavy alloys under oil lubrication condition. The TiAlN-coated carbide cutting tool exhibited the best cutting performance in terms of tool life.
In turning of tungsten heavy alloys (WHAs), severe tool wear and short tool life are usually encountered. In this paper, we investigated the cutting performance of common cutting tool materials in turning of WHAs under oil lubrication condition. Experiments were conducted on three different cutting tools, namely, the TiAlN-coated carbide cutting tool, uncoated carbide cutting tool, and Ti (C, N)-coated cermet cutting tool, to study their tool lives and wear behaviors. Tool life, wear progression, and cutting force were investigated under different cutting parameters. Meanwhile, the wear patterns and mechanisms were studied. Flank wear was found to be the major wear pattern of the three selected cutting tools. In all the selected cutting tools, adhesion and oxidation were the main wear mechanisms discovered. Compared with the other cutting tools, chipping, notch wear, and diffusion wear were observed in the uncoated carbide cutting tool. The experimental results revealed that the TiAlN-coated carbide cutting tool exhibited a better cutting performance than the uncoated carbide cutting tool and Ti (C, N)-coated cermet cutting tool in terms of tool life which reaches 15 km by using optimized parameters.

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