0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

8 visualizzazioni7 pagineEDM Copper Electrode

Jan 25, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

EDM Copper Electrode

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

8 visualizzazioni7 pagineEDM Copper Electrode

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

MATRIX COMPOSITE

S. Dhar and R. Purohit

Department of Manufacturing Processes and Automation Engineering, Netaji Subhash Institute of

Technology, Dwarka, New Delhi, India - 110087

E-mail: sushidhar@yahoo.com

Abstract In the past twenty years, materials R&D has shifted from monolithic to composite materials, adjusting to

the global need for reduced weight, low cost, quality, and high performance available readily in structural materials.

Additionally, Researchers are turning to particulate-reinforced aluminum-metal matrix composites (AMCs) because

of their relatively low cost and isotropic properties especially in those applications not requiring extreme loading or

thermal conditions (e.g., automotive components). However, these materials are hard to machine due to the

abrasive nature of the reinforcements present in them. Electrical discharge machining in the past few years has

proved an important process for machining these. The present work evaluates the effect of current (c), pulse-on

time (p) and air gap voltage (v) on metal removal rate (MRR), tool wear rate(TWR), radial over cut(ROC) on

machining of Al-MMC with 20% SiC reinforcement. The experiments were performed in a random order with

three successive trials using a PS LEADER ZNC EDM machine fitted with a copper electrode. 3 level 3 factor full

factorial method has been adopted for analyzing the results. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been performed

and graphs are plotted. A quadratic mathematical model has also been developed for the same relating output and

input quantities respectively.

1. INTRODUCTION

The metal matrix composite (MMC) are a type of composite material with at least two constituent

parts, one being a metal and other may be a different metal or another material.When at least three

materials are present, it is called a hybrid composite. MMCs are well known for their superior

mechanical properties over those of un-reinforced alloys. The composite materials are composed of

a metallic base material called matrix, which is reinforced with ceramic fiber, whisker or

particulates that impart a combination of properties not achievable in either of constituents

individually. Al-SiC is an example of this kind in which aluminum acts as matrix reinforced with

SiC particles. In view of difficulties encountered during machining of these composites like high

tool wear and high tooling cost with conventional machining, non-conventional machining

processes such as the electric discharge machining (EDM) are being developed

EDM is a method involving electrical discharges between an electrode and a conductive work piece

in a dielectric fluid. Material is removed from the work piece by a controlled electrical spark

generated in the machines power supply and discharged between an electrode and work piece. The

dielectric fluid becomes ionized during the course of a discharge. As ionization occurs, positively

charged ions strike the work piece, increasing the temperature at the surface of the work piece and

electrode. The temperature is so high at the surface, often reaching more than 10,000 C, that it

causes the work piece to melt or vaporize.

This paper deals with studying the effects of input parameters: Voltage, Current and pulse on time

on Tool wear, Metal removal rate, Radial over cut and taper obtained in the electro discharge

machining of Al-20 wt. % SiC composite. The effects were studied using a 3 level-3 factor full

factorial design. A mathematical model was developed to predict the MRR, TWR and over cut

within the operating region. A statistical analysis to optimize and verify the results was also made.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

2.1 Machining parameters

Three machining parameters were identified and their levels were fixed as given in the following

table:

Machining Parameter

Symbol

Unit

Level one

Level two

Level three

Current

10

20

30

Pulse-on time

Voltage

Ton

V

s

V

100

40

300

50

500

60

2.2.1 Material removal rate (MRR)

MRR is expressed as the ratio of the difference of weight of the work piece before and after

machining to the machining time.

MRR = (W2-W1)/t

(1)

Where,

W2 is the weight of the work piece before machining,

W1 is the weight of the work piece after machining

t is the machining time

2.2.2 Tool wear rate (TWR)

TWR is expressed as the ratio of the difference of weight of the tool before and after machining to

the machining time.

TWR = (W2-W1)/t

(2)

Where,

W2 is the weight of the tool before machining,

W1 is the weight of the tool after machining, and

t is the machining time

2.2.3 Radial over cut (ROC)

ROC is expressed as half the difference of diameter of the hole produced to the tool diameter, i.e.

ROC = (D2-D)/2

(3)

Where,

D2 is hole diameter at top.

D is the diameter of the tool electrode

2.3 Other Parameters

Al alloy with 20 wt. % silicon carbide particles was drilled using copper electrode on a PS leader

ZNC EDM Machine. Positive polarity was maintained for the work piece and negative polarity for

the tool. Commercial grade kerosene was used as the dielectric fluid and impulse jet flushing was

used to flush away the eroded materials from the sparking zone.

Electrode type

Diameter of electrode

Work piece

Sensitivity

Duty cycle

Tw

T

Pressure during machining

Copper

20 mm.

220mm X 120mm X 7mm

8

7

0.6

1.2

5 psi

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT

Experimental methods are widely used in research as well as in industrial settings, however,

sometimes for very different purposes. The primary goal in scientific research is usually to show the

statistical significance of an effect that a particular factor exerts on the dependent variable of

interest. In industrial settings, the primary goal is usually to extract the maximum amount of

unbiased information regarding the factors affecting a production process from as few observations

as possible.

3.1 Three-level full factorial designs

The three-level design is written as a 3k factorial design. It means that k factors are considered, each

at 3 levels. These are (usually) referred to as low, intermediate and high levels. These levels are

numerically expressed as 1,0 and 1. One could have considered the digits 0, 1, and 2 i.e. we can

also use the 0, 1, 2 scheme. The reason that the three-level designs were proposed is to model

possible curvature in the response function and to handle the case of nominal factors at 3 levels. A

third level for a continuous factor facilitates investigation of a quadratic relationship between the

response and the factors.

3.2 The 33 Design

This is a design that consists of three factors, each at three levels. It can be expressed as a 3 x 3 x 3

= 33 design. The model for such an experiment is

where each factor is included as a nominal factor rather than as a continuous variable. In such cases,

main effects have 2 degrees of freedom, two-factor interactions have 22 = 4 degrees of freedom and

k-factor interactions have 2k degrees of freedom. The model contains 2 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 8 = 26

degrees of freedom. Note that if there is no replication, the fit is exact and there is no error term (the

epsilon term) in the model. In this no replication case, if one assumes that there are no three-factor

interactions, then one can use these 8 degrees of freedom for error estimation.

In this model we see that i = 1, 2, 3, and similarly for j and k, making 27 treatments.

4. MODELING OF EXPERIMENTS

The purpose of developing the mathematical model relating the response variables and the process

parameters was to facilitate the optimization of the electric discharge machining of aluminum

matrix composites.

The mathematical model commonly used is represented by:

Y = (V, I, T)

Where Y is the response, is the response function and V(gap voltage), I (pulse current) and T

(pulse duration) are the process variables. In this study the model chosen was quadratic in nature

involving linear and quadratic interactions of process variables. A program was written in

MATLAB to obtain the desired model as reported in literature [5].

5. EXPERIMENTAL DATA

The data so observed has been arranged in a tabular form as shown below

s.no

Input

parameters

I

V

Ton

Time

Taken

(min.)

Upper

Dia(d1)

(mm)

Lower

Dia(d2)

(mm)

Tool

wear

(g)

Tool

wear rate

(mm/sec)

ROC

M.R

1.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

0

0

176

145

126

125

91

71

115

73

48

170

116

100

19.82

19.68

19.72

19.73

19.79

19.94

19.77

19.69

19.96

19.46

19.51

19.59

19.45

19.42

19.47

19.46

19.59

19.51

19.50

19.51

19.48

19.14

19.27

19.13

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.3

2.84

3.44

2.64

1.33

1.83

4.69

2.89

2.28

3.47

1.96

1.43

5.00

0.82

0.68

0.72

0.73

0.79

0.94

0.77

0.69

0.96

0.46

0.51

0.59

5.97

5.919

5.946

5.946

6.004

6.025

5.97

5.949

6.022

5.768

5.822

5.804

-1 -1

-1

0

-1

1

0 -1

0

0

0

1

1 -1

1

0

1

1

-1 -1

-1

0

-1

1

M.R.R

56.534

68.034

78.651

79.28

109.96

141.43

86.522

135.82

209.1

56.549

83.649

96.733

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

-1

-1

-1

0

0

0

1

1

1

-1

0

1

-1

0

1

-1

0

1

-1

0

1

-1

0

1

285

85

68

115

67

44

115

112

92

96

71

57

72

53

47

19.52

19.59

19.60

19.39

19.54

19.60

19.33

19.40

19.45

19.40

19.56

19.50

19.54

19.57

19.56

19.07

19.13

19.28

19.04

19.16

19.33

19.01

19.01

19.04

18.96

19.15

19.15

19.02

19.21

19.26

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.813

1.96

2.45

1.44

4.97

11.36

4.34

2.97

3.62

3.47

4.69

8.77

2.31

3.144

3.54

0.52

0.59

0.6

0.39

0.54

0.6

0.33

0.4

0.45

0.4

0.56

0.5

0.54

0.57

0.56

5.765

5.804

5.852

5.718

5.798

5.867

5.691

5.712

5.736

5.697

5.801

5.783

5.757

5.822

5.834

33.713

113.8

143.43

82.87

144.23

222.23

82.478

85

103.91

98.906

136.17

169.09

133.26

183.08

206.88

6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

A factorial ANOVA can examine data that are classified on multiple independent variables. It can

show whether there are significant main effects of the independent variables and whether there are

significant interaction effects between independent variables in a set of data. Interaction effects

occur when the impact of one independent variable depends on the level of the second independent

variable. For the above data related to Material removal rate, Sum of Square (SS) values and Mean

Square (MS) values are calculated and corresponding F and P values obtained.

Degrees of freedom

Source

Regression

9

Residual Error

17

Total

26

SS

60356.6

3298.2

63654.8

MS

6706.3

194.0

F value

34.57

P value

0.000

SS

16.6539

1.1562

17.8101

MS

1.8504

0.0680

F value

27.21

P value

0.000

SS

0.643828

0.037224

0.681052

MS

0.071536

0.002190

F value

32.67

P value

0.000

Degrees of freedom

Source

Regression

9

Residual Error

17

Total

26

Table 5. ANOVA table for Tool Wear Rate

Degrees of freedom

Source

Regression

9

Residual Error

17

Total

26

Table 6. ANOVA table for Radial Over Cut

Let x1, x2, x3 denote the variable values of levels for the factors- Voltage gap (V), Pulse Duration

(Ton) and Current (I ) respectively. Based upon the experimental design the possible values of either

x1, x2 or x3 are 1,0 and 1. The various combination of such sets of readings correspond to a

variety of experiments as shown in Table

With the aid of computer program developed in MATLAB, the mathematical formulae for the

experiments were determined subject to similar work / pressure conditions

TWR = 1.79 + 0.211 * x1 + 0.0908 * x2 + 0.767 * x3 + 0.612 * x1 * x1 + 0.657 * x2 * x2 - 0.053 *

x3 * x3 + 0.111 * x1 * x2 + 0.0633 * x1 * x3 + 0.0700 * x2 * x3

(4)

MRR = 108 + 13.0 * x1 + 38.5 * x2 + 36.7 * x3 + 11.6 * x1* x1 + 3.55 * x2 * x2 - 2.11 x3 * x3

+ 1.97 * x1 * x2 - 3.47 * x1 * x3 + 21.0 * x2 * x3

(5)

ROC = 0.550 - 0.149 * x1 + 0.0422 * x2 + 0.0800 * x3 + 0.106 * x1*x1 - 0.0322 * x2*x2

+ 0.0078 * x3*x3 + 0.0325 * x1*x2 - 0.0183 * x1*x3 + 0.0175 * x2*x3

(6)

8. GRAPHICAL RESULTS

Main effects plot for Material Removal Rate (MRR), Tool Wear Rate (TWR), Radial Over Cut

(ROC) are illustrated below:

Figure 1. Main effects plot of MRR with Voltage Gap, Pulse Duration and Current respectively.

Figure 2. Main effects plot of TWR with Voltage Gap, Pulse Duration and Current respectively.

Figure 3. Main effects plot of ROC with Voltage Gap, Pulse Duration and Current respectively.

9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Metal Removal Rate (MRR)

The MRR is found to increase in an almost linear fashion with increase in current for constant gap

voltage and Pulseon time. MRR is also found to increase slightly with increase in Pulse duration

clearly shown in fig. 1 And in agreement with the literature reported in [4].

9.2 Tool Wear Rate (TWR)

TWR is also found to increase with increase in current as high current results in higher thermal

loading on both electrodes (tool and work-piece) leading to higher amount of material being

removed from either. It is found to first decrease and then increase with pulse duration A similar

trend is noticed with Gap Voltage.

9.3 Radial Over Cut (ROC)

From fig 3, it is evident that an increase in current increases the Over Cut. An increase in pulse

duration also increases the Over Cut due to the prolonged presence of sparks. An uncommon

behavior is observed in the case of voltage gap.

REFERENCES

[1] W.S. Lau, T.M. Yue, T.C. Lee and W.B. Lee, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol.

48, 1995, pp.199-205.

[2] R Karthikeyan, G Ganesan, R S Naagarazan, B C Pai, , Journal of Materials Processing

Technology, Vol. 80, 1999.

[3] R Karthikeyan, P.R. Lakshmi Narayanan, R.S. Naagarazan, Journal of Materials Processing

Technology, Vol. 87, 1999, pp. 59-63.

[4] P Narender Singh, K.Raghukandan, M.Rathinasabapathi, B.C. Pai, Journal of Materials

Processing Technology, Vol.155-156, 2004, pp. 1653-1657.

[5] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, fifth edition, Wiley, New York,

2001.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.