4.5 Article

Delamination and Surface Roughness Analyses in Drilling Hybrid Carbon/Glass Composite

期刊

MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 1366-1376

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1103864

关键词

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); Carbon and glass hybrid composite; Delamination; Drilling; Response Surface Methodology (RSM); Taguchi method

资金

  1. Ministry of Education Malaysia
  2. Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP)
  3. Ministry of Education [9018-00019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous attempts at drilling of fibrous composites have been challenging due to the limited mechanical properties and presence of severe delamination damage at the top and bottom surfaces of the drilled hole. With the recent introduction of hybrid carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer (HFRP) composites in both research literature and industrial applications, the need for evaluating their drillability is inevitable prior to their final usage. This is mainly because of the unique properties of HFRP composites as compared to the single-type FRP composites. Therefore, this paper aims to present a research initiative that will elucidate the high-range parametric effects of drilling control factors on delamination damage and surface quality. Taguchi methodology and statistical analysis of variance were applied to determine the performance of the drilling process. Experimental results revealed that delamination damage and surface quality values were strongly influenced by the feed and special tool geometries rather than the spindle rotational speed. Changes in the feed are likely to contribute to increase in the thrust force and strain rate on the workpiece. Confirmation tests have shown the closeness of the calculated values via a regression model and additive rule with the experimental values. This indicates that the regression model from the response surface can be employed to estimate delamination damage and surface roughness during drilling of HFRP composite.

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

4.5
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