4.7 Article

Temperature and wear analysis in function of the cutting tool coating when drilling of composite structure: In situ measurement by optical fiber

期刊

WEAR
卷 376, 期 -, 页码 1849-1858

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2016.12.015

关键词

Nano-composite; Interlock 3D composite; Wear; Temperature; Friction

资金

  1. PRC Composites project involving Safran Group
  2. Onera
  3. CNRS [ANRT: 2011.0459]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this paper was to study the influence of the nature coating and the machining parameters on the temperature of machining and tool wear of a new drilled 3D woven composite material used in carter fan of aircraft engine. For this various frictional contacts (tool/composite) have been analyzed for three types of cutting tools. The first tool is coated with a diamond layer and the other tools are coated with two new nano-composite multi-layers referenced as TiN/AlTiN/CrAlSiN and TiN/TiAlSiN/AlTiSiN. In addition, for the quantification of the in-situ temperature of drilling, an original technique based on the in situ instrumentation of the cutting tool by optical fiber with four Braggs sensors is proposed. The evolution of the temperature of machining as a function of the machining parameters and frictional contacts were investigated. Also, the wear mechanisms were quantified in function of the number of drilled holes using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The results have shown that the feed rate and the nature of coating were the main factors which affect the temperature of machining. However, the spindle speed did not have any impact on the temperature of machining. It was also found that, when the drilling is conducted with a small feed (0.025 mm/rev) with TiN/TiAlSiN/AlTiSiN coating the temperature of machining was greater than the glass transition temperature of the composite. Moreover, tool wear mechanisms were found driven by abrasion phenomenon on the flank face and cutting edge. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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