4.3 Article

Comparison of subsurface damages on mono-crystalline silicon between traditional nanoscale machining and laser-assisted nanoscale machining via molecular dynamics simulation

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2017.10.017

关键词

Molecular dynamics simulation; Subsurface damage; Traditional machining; Deformation mechanism; Laser assisted machining

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular dynamics is employed to compare nanoscale traditional machining (TM) with laser-assisted machining (LAM). LAM is that the workpiece is locally heated by an intense laser beam prior to material removal. We have a comprehensive comparison between LAM and TM in terms of atomic trajectories, phase transformation, radial distribution function, chips, temperature distribution, number of atoms in different temperature, grinding temperature, grinding force, friction coefficient and atomic potential energy. It can be found that there is a decrease of atoms with five and six nearest neighbors, and LAM generates more chips than that in the TM. It indicates that LAM reduces the subsurface damage of workpiece, gets a better-qualified ground surface and improves the material removal rate. Moreover, laser energy makes the materials fully softened before being removed, the number of atoms with temperature above 500 K is increased, and the average temperature of workpiece higher and faster to reach the equilibrium in LAM. It means that LAM has an absolute advantage in machining materials and greatly reduces the material resistance. Not only the tangential force (F-x) and the normal force (F-y) but also friction coefficients become smaller as laser heating reduces the strength and hardness of the material in LAM. These results show that LAM is a promising technique since it can get a better-qualified workpiece surface with larger material removal rates, less grinding force and lower friction coefficient.

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

4.3
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