0
Research Papers

Microstructural Modeling and Dynamic Process Simulation of Laser-Assisted Machining of Silicon Nitride Ceramics With Distinct Element Method

[+] Author and Article Information
Xinwei Shen

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,  Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAxwshen2@ksu.edu

Budong Yang

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,  Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAabuyang@gmail.com

Shuting Lei1

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,  Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAlei@ksu.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 134(2), 021011 (Apr 04, 2012) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005803 History: Received March 29, 2011; Revised December 28, 2011; Published March 30, 2012; Online April 04, 2012

The distinct element method (or discrete element method, DEM) is applied to simulate the dynamic process of laser-assisted machining (LAM) of silicon nitride ceramics. This is motivated by the fact that LAM of ceramics shows a few complicated characteristics such as spontaneous crack formation, discontinuous chips, etc. Thus, using the two-dimensional distinct element code, PFC2D , the microstructure of a β-type silicon nitride ceramic is modeled, and the resulting temperature-dependent synthetic specimens are created first, and then, machining simulations are conducted. The DEM model is validated through comparing the predicted results with those from the experiments under different cutting temperatures in terms of cutting force, chip size, and depth of subsurface damage. Furthermore, the mechanisms of LAM are analyzed from the aspects of material removal, chip segments, surface/subsurface damage, as well as crack initiation, propagation, and coalescence.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Physical mechanism for axial cracking [31]: (a) wedge cracking; (b) staircase cracking; and (c) idealization as bonded circular particles.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

SEM image of a β-type silicon nitride ceramic

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic of parallel bonds, clusters, and cracks in a β-type silicon nitride ceramic (note: the thickness represents the magnitude)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Schematics of LAMill: (a) configuration; (b) cutting zone (uncut chip)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Schematics of LAMill: (a) actual milling; (b) equivalent orthogonal cutting

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Orthogonal cutting configuration in the simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Experimental setup of LAMill

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Configuration of the orthogonal cutting simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Contact-force distribution from simulation (note: the line thickness represents the force magnitude) (Tc  = 1350 °C, DOC = 0.2 mm, Vc  = 1 m/s, f = 0.024 mm/rev/tooth)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Histories of the cutting forces from simulation (Tc  = 1350 °C, DOC = 0.2 mm, Vc  = 1 m/s, f = 0.024 mm/rev/tooth)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the experimental and predicted cutting forces under different cutting temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Tool wear under different cutting temperatures (Lc  = 10 mm): (a) 1080 °C; (b) 1260 °C; and (c) 1350 °C (DOC = 0.2 mm, Vc  = 1 m/s, f = 0.024 mm/rev/tooth)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Exit edge chipping at different cutting temperatures: (a) 1080 °C; (b) 1260 °C; and (c) 1350 °C (DOC = 0.2 mm, Vc  = 1 m/s, f = 0.024 mm/rev/tooth)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Chips from the LAMill experiments (Tc  = 1350 °C): (a) chips in optical image; (b) chip sizes in SEM image; and (c) enlarged chip in SEM image

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Chips produced in the simulation (Tc  = 1350 °C)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Subsurface damages detected from LCSM: (a) horizontal plane scan image (1 × 0.2 mm); (b) vertical cross-sectional scan image (1 × 0.04 mm); and (c) enlarged image (0.2 × 0.04 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Surface/subsurface damages from the simulation (Tc  = 1260 °C, DOC = 0.2 mm, Vc  = 1 m/s, f = 0.024 mm/rev/tooth)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of the maximum subsurface damages (d) at different cutting temperatures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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