Special Section: Micromanufacturing

Microstructure-Level Machining Simulation of Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Polymer Composites—Part I: Model Development and Validation

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Dikshit, J. Samuel, R. E. DeVor, S. G. Kapoor

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 130(3), 031114 (May 16, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2917378 History: Received November 14, 2007; Revised January 16, 2008; Published May 16, 2008

A microstructure-level finite element machining model has been developed to simulate the machining of carbon nanotube (CNT) reinforced polymer composites. The model integrates a failure model with a previously developed microstructure-based material model. The competition between ductile and brittle modes of failure in the polymer phase (polycarbonate) is captured by implementing the Gearing and Anand failure model calibrated at different temperatures. The CNT phase is given a simple strain-to-failure criterion. The proposed machining model has been validated at different orthogonal machining conditions for the plain polycarbonate and for composites with two different percentage loadings of CNTs. On an average, the model is seen to successfully predict the cutting forces with an accuracy of 8% and the thrust forces with an accuracy of 13.4% for all the materials. The machining model also predicts the continuous chip morphology and formation of adiabatic shear bands in plain polycarbonate and for composites with lower loadings of CNTs. On an average, the chip thicknesses are predicted within an accuracy of 14% for plain polycarbonate and 10% for the CNT composites.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Experimental validation setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

PC failure curves (experimental versus model): (a) ductile failure and (b) brittle failure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Composite A uniaxial compression curves at three different strain rates (experimental versus predicted)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Machining modeling strategy

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Experimental data for all three materials (Case 4) (solid lines represent cutting force and dashed line represents thrust force)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Machining forces from simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of experimental and simulated chips machined under conditions of Case 4; the arrows indicate the thickness of the chip

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Temperature bands (experimental versus simulation)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In