4.6 Article

Numerical Simulation and Experimental Validation of Surface Roughness by the Smoothing Small Ball-Burnishing Process

期刊

MACHINES
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/machines9030048

关键词

smoothing small ball-burnishing; numerical simulation; elastic– plastic contact simulation; surface roughness

资金

  1. Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT) [T-CK-2019-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a simulation procedure is proposed to predict the surface roughness of a burnished workpiece under varying burnishing forces. The roughness of the workpiece surface was approximated by parabolic functions, and the burnishing process was numerically simulated through elastic-plastic indentation and sliding movement. The results were verified through small ball-burnishing experiments on different materials.
The smoothing ball-burnishing process has commonly been used as a post-processing method to reduce the irregularities of machined surfaces. However, the mechanism of this process has rarely been examined. In this study, a simulation procedure is proposed to predict the surface roughness of a burnished workpiece under varying burnishing forces. The roughness of the workpiece surface was firstly approximated by parabolic functions. The burnishing process was then numerically simulated through two steps, namely the elastic-plastic indentation of the burnishing ball on the workpiece's surface, and the sliding movement of the burnishing tool. The results of the simulation were verified by conducting small ball-burnishing experiments on oxygen-free copper (OFC) and Polmax materials using a load cell-embedded small ball-burnishing tool. For the OFC material, the optimal burnishing force was 3 N. The obtained experimental surface roughness was 0.18 mu m, and the simulated roughness value was 0.14 mu m. For the Polmax material, when the burnishing force was set at its optimal value-12 N, the best experimental and simulated surface roughness were 0.12 mu m and 0.10 mu m, respectively.

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