4.6 Article

A better understanding of the cryogenic environment and the effect of nozzle location on the machinability of low carbon steel

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 544-556

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.12.031

关键词

Cryogenic machining; CFD; FEM; CO2; Tool wear

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the cryogenic effect during cryogenic machining of low carbon steel by changing the nozzle location. Through simulations and experiments, the optimal nozzle position for minimizing cutting forces is determined. The results show that the separation distance is a key parameter affecting the cryogenic effect.
Cryogenic machining of metals has emerged as a sustainable machining method in manufacturing industries. This research paper presents a better understanding of the cryogenic effect during cryogenic machining of low carbon steel by varying the nozzle location in terms of separation distance from the tool-chip interface and inclination angle from the vertical. Finite Element and Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations are used to compare the cooling effect for each nozzle location, while the experiments compare the cutting forces to determine the optimal nozzle location for industrial use. The simulations recreate the complex cryogenic environment from the nozzle to the tool-chip geometry to give a better understanding of the cryogenic effect. The dominant nozzle parameter affecting the results is determined to be the separation distance, and the optimal nozzle position to ensure the minimum cutting forces is the smallest separation distance and smallest inclination angle from the vertical. The convection coefficient is shown to be variable across the tool-chip interface and related to the static pressure and evaporation rates of the cryogenic fluid. Finally, tool wear and workpiece surface roughness are shown to benefit from cryogenic application, indicating a practical solution to optimize cryogenic systems for industrial use.

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