Research Papers

Combined Effects of Stress and Temperature During Ductile Mode Microlaser Assisted Machining Process

[+] Author and Article Information
Saurabh R. Virkar

e-mail: saurabh.r.virkar@wmich.edu

John A. Patten

e-mail: john.patten@wmich.edu
Manufacturing Engineering,
Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. Manuscript received December 6, 2010; final manuscript received February 5, 2012; published online July 17, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Prof. Shreyes N. Melkote.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 135(4), 041003 (Jul 17, 2013) (7 pages) Paper No: MANU-10-1358; doi: 10.1115/1.4024633 History: Received December 06, 2010; Revised February 05, 2012; Accepted January 18, 2013

This work emphasizes the stress and temperature effects during the microlaser assisted machining (μ-LAM) process using three approaches: normalized cutting force approach, yield strength as a function of temperature approach and yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature approach. μ-LAM is a ductile mode material removal process developed for precision machining of nominally brittle materials augmented with thermal softening (provided by laser heating). In the μ-LAM process, a laser is used for heating the workpiece where the laser passes through the optically transparent diamond tool and emerges at the tool-workpiece interface, in the chip formation zone. This work is mainly focused on ductile mode machining of Silicon Carbide. 2D Numerical simulations were conducted using the software AdvantEdge (developed by Third Wave Systems) to predict the cutting forces and pressures that occur during the μ-LAM process. A thermal softening curve was developed based on various references to incorporate this behavior in the simulations. A thermal boundary condition was defined on the workpiece top surface to mimic the laser heating effect. The thermal boundary temperatures were varied from room temperature (20 °C) to 2700 °C, close to the melting point (2830 °C) of silicon carbide (SiC). The decrease in yield strength is also predicted from the thermal softening curve. The first approach (normalized cutting force) is based on the cutting forces obtained from the simulation output. It is an approximate way to represent the relative dominance of stress and temperature. The second approach determines the temperature (percentage) contribution using the yield strength at room temperature and at higher temperatures. The third approach (yield strength) is based on calculated yield using the Drucker–Prager pressure sensitive yield criterion. The stress values for the calculation of yield are obtained from the simulation output. The results from all of the approaches show a similar effect of stress and temperature on the workpiece at the simulated temperature points. The cutting pressures also decrease rapidly above the thermal cutoff point.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Osiander, R., Champion, J., and Darrin, M., 2006, MEMS and Microstructures in Aerospace Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 321.
Shayan, A., Poyraz, B., and Patten, J., 2009, “Force Analysis, Mechanical Energy and Laser Heating Evaluation of Scratch Tests on Silicon Carbide (4H-SiC) in Micro-Laser Assisted Machining (μ-LAM) Process,” ASME Manufacturing Science Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, Paper No. 84207.
Virkar, S., and Patten, J., 2010, “Simulation of Thermal Effects for the Analysis of Micro Laser Assisted Machining,” ICOMM Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Patten, J. A., Gao, W., and Yasuto, K., 2005, “Ductile Regime Nanomachining of Single Crystal Silicon Carbide,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 127(8), pp. 522–532. [CrossRef]
Shim, S., Jang, J.-I., and Pharr, G. M., 2008, “Extraction of flow properties of Single Crystal Silicon Carbide by Nanoindentation and Finite Element Simulation,” Acta Mater., 58, pp. 3824–3832. [CrossRef]
Naylor, M. G. S., and Page, T. F., 1979, “The Effect of Temperature and Load on the Indentation Hardness Behavior of Silicon Carbide Engineering Ceramics,” Proceedings on International Conference on Erosion of Soil and Impact, p. 32-1.
AjjarapuS. K., Cherukuri, H., Patten, J., and Brand, C. J., 2004, “Numerical Simulations of Ductile Regime Machining of Silicon Nitride Using Drucker Prager model,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 218 (C), pp. 1–6.
Yonenaga, I., 2001, “Thermo-Mechanical Stability of Wide-Bandgap Semiconductors: High Temperature Hardness of SiC, AlN, GaN, ZnO and ZnSe,” Physica B, 308-310, pp. 1150–1152. [CrossRef]
Yonenaga, I., Hoshi, T., and Usui, A., 2000, “High Temperature Strength of III-IV Nitride Crystals,” J. Phys: Condens. Matter, 14, pp. 12947–12951. [CrossRef]
Samant, A. V., Zhou, W. L., and Pirouz, P., 1998, “Effect of Test Temperature and Strain Rate on the Yield Stress of Monocrystalline 6H-SiC,” Phys. Status Solidi A, 166, pp. 155–169. [CrossRef]
Tsvetkov, V. F., Allen, S. T., Kong, H. S., and Carter, C. H., 1996, “Recent Progress in SiC Crystal Growth,” Inst. Phys. Conf. Series, 142, pp. 17–22.
CREE material data sheet www.cree.com
AdvantEdge User Manual version 5.3, 2009, Third Wave Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Gilman, J. J., 1975, “Relationship Between Impact Yield Stress and Indentation Hardness,” J. Appl. Phys., 46(4), pp. 1435–1436. [CrossRef]
Jacob, J., 2006, “Numerical Simulation on Machining of Silicon Carbide,” Master's thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Patten, J., Cherukuri, H., and Yan, J., 2004, “Ductile Regime Machining of Semiconductors and Ceramics,” High Pressure Surface Science and Engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 534–633.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Hardness versus temperature curve for 4H-SiC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Yield strength versus temperature curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tool and workpiece geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Workpiece boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Forces versus temperature curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cutting pressure versus temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Percentage pressure versus temperature using normalized cutting force approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Percentage pressure versus temperature using yield strength as a function of temperature approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Percentage pressure versus temperature using yield strength as a function of temperature and pressure approach




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