4.6 Article

Effects of parameter selection strategy on tool wear when milling 3D-printed functionally graded materials with textured tool under minimum quantity lubrication

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-022-10733-y

关键词

Functionally graded materials; Parameter selection strategy; Tool wear; Minimum quantity lubrication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functionally graded materials (FGMs) are promising engineering materials, highly desirable in extreme environments. The Ni-Fe FGMs produced by 3D-printing require post-cutting treatment in nuclear industry. The machinability of the FGMs is challenging due to the gradient of mechanical property.
Functionally graded materials (FGMs) are a promising engineering material, which is highly desirable in extreme environments of aerospace, nuclear, and bio-implants. Although the surface accuracy and quality of 3D-printed Ni-Fe FGMs can meet most application scenarios, it still requires post-cutting treatment especially in nuclear industry. The FGMs, with the gradient of mechanical property, are a new type of difficult-to-cut material. However, no ready-made post milling process can be referred. The poor-machined surface quality induced by excessive tool wear still cannot be handled even with textured tool under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). In this paper, the mechanical properties and machinability of the Ni-Fe FGMs as well as its 5 isotropic component 304L(x)IN625(y) were firstly studied and correlated. Then, two milling parameter selection strategies were proposed by minimum milling force and by minimum surface roughness, corresponding to strategy I and strategy II. The results show that tool breakage occurs in bottom cutting edge when strategy I is adopted. On the contrary, strategy II can reduce tool major flank wear 40.1% by forming an elastohydrodynamic lubrication between bottom cutting edge and the machined surface, which is a prospective method to solve the tool failure during milling of 3D-printed Ni-Fe FGMs.

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