3.8 Proceedings Paper

Modelling and simulation of stress generation and temperature distribution in conical picks during linear coal-cutting process

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 1458-1464

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.472

关键词

Conical picks; Linear cutting of coal; Stress analysis; Heat distribution; FUSION 360 software

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper is an extended version of a previously published paper by the first author. It presents an analysis of stress generation and heat distribution using modeling and simulation approach in FUSION 360 software. The maximum stress generation and safe tilt angles are identified for two types of conical picks.
The present paper is an extended version of the paper published by the first author [1]. In the previous work, a linear cutting of coal was done in various tilt angles. Two different conical picks, tungsten carbide tipped pick and hardened steel tipped pick, were used to cut the coal. An optimum tilt angle was found out by considering the three different parameters-amount of coal removed; depth of cut; temperature generated at the tip. The stress and heat distribution analysis could not be done in that work. The same research gap has been filled in the present work. An analysis of stress generation and heat distribution have been carried out in the present work by using modelling and simulation approach in FUSION 360 software. All the cutting parameters have been kept same as previous work. Maximum stress generation was identified at each tilt angle of the tool in both types of conical picks-conventional (tungsten carbide based) and new (hardened steel). The tilt angle between 0 degrees-7 degrees has been found safe as far as stress gen-eration is concerned.Copyright (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-ence on Recent Advances in Modeling and Simulations Techniques in Engineering and Science.

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

3.8
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