0
Technical Briefs

Modeling the Material Microstructure Effects on the Surface Generation Process in Microendmilling of Dual-Phase Materials

[+] Author and Article Information
A. M. Abdelrahman Elkaseer

Institute of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Cardiff School of Engineering,  Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK; Faculty of EngineeringProduction Engineering and Mechanical Design Department,  Port Said University, Port Said, 42526, EgyptElkaseerAM@CF.AC.UK

S. S. Dimov

School of Mechanical Engineering,  University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

K. B. Popov, M. Negm

Institute of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Cardiff School of Engineering,  Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK

R. Minev

Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment,  London South Bank University, London, SE1 0AA, UK

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 134(4), 044501 (Jun 27, 2012) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006851 History: Received October 01, 2010; Revised May 10, 2012; Published June 26, 2012; Online June 27, 2012

The anisotropic behavior of the material microstructure when processing multiphase materials at microscale becomes an important factor that has to be considered throughout the machining process. This is especially the case when chip-loads and machined features are comparable in size to the cutting edge radius of the tool, and also similar in scale to the grain sizes of the phases present within the material microstructure. Therefore, there is a real need for reliable models, which can be used to simulate the surface generation process during microendmilling of multiphase materials.This paper presents a model to simulate the surface generation process during microendmilling of multiphase materials. The proposed model considers the effects of the following factors: the geometry of the cutting tool, the feed rate, and the workpiece material microstructure. Especially, variations of the minimum chip thickness at phase boundaries are considered by feeding maps of the material microstructure into the model. Thus, the model takes into account these variations that alter the machining mechanism from a proper cutting to ploughing and vice versa, and are the main cause of microburr formation. By applying the proposed model, it is possible to estimate more accurately the resulting roughness because the microburr formation dominates the surface generation process during microendmilling of multiphase materials. The proposed model was experimentally validated by machining two different samples of dual-phase steel under a range of chip-loads. The roughness of the resulting surfaces was measured and compared to the predictions of the proposed model under the same cutting conditions. The results show that the proposed model accurately predicts the roughness of the machined surfaces by taking into account the effects of material multiphase microstructure. Also, the developed model successfully elucidates the mechanism of microburr formation at the phase boundaries, and quantitatively describes its contributions to the resulting surface roughness after microendmilling.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
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

Microstructure of WCu [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Tool workpiece engagement [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Material microstructure mapping procedure (a) captured picture of the AISI 1040 sample, (b) gray-scale picture, (c) binary picture, and (d) phase boundaries’ picture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Tool geometries and flute trajectories under perfect process conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Tool geometry effects on surface roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Surface generation cases: (a) Cutting, (b) ploughing and (c) mixing between cutting and ploughing, (d) generated surface with defects due to altering machining conditions, cutting, and ploughing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Floor surface generation process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Micrographs of the two samples (a) AISI 1040 and (b) AISI 8620

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of experimental and simulation results in micromilling a dual-phase AISI 1040 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of experimental and simulation results in micromilling a dual-phase AISI 8620 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Optical images of the machined surfaces (a) AISI 1040 and (b) AISI 8620

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

White light microscope limitation

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