Resumen
The work presented in this paper focuses on sustaining machining performance in face contour turning of porous tungsten for controlled surface quality requirements. A study of the combined effects of tool geometry (i.e., cutting edge radius, tool nose radius, clearance angle, included angle, etc.), tool material (carbide and diamond tool inserts), work material properties, and machining conditions (cutting speed, depth of cut, and feed) on the porosity in the face-contour turning of porous tungsten was undertaken. Correlations are shown between the cutting edge radius and the cutting forces which progressively increase in continuous cutting as a result of progressive tool-wear. This research establishes the possibility of developing a base of knowledge from which an analytical model can be produced to predict smearing on the machined surface.
| Idioma original | English |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 903-908 |
| Número de páginas | 6 |
| Publicación | IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices |
| Volumen | 52 |
| N.º | 5 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Published - may 2005 |
Nota bibliográfica
Funding Information:Manuscript received July 30, 2004; revised October 15, 2004. This work was supported by SEMICON Associates. The review of this paper was arranged by Editor W. L. Menninger. S. Chen, D. Head, and I. S. Jawahir are with the University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). M. Effgen is with SEMICON Associates, Lexington, KY 40511 USA. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2005.846352 Fig. 1. Comparison of unacceptable (smeared) and acceptable surface-SEM pictures according to EIA-941(carbide tool, grade: C-7). (a) Acceptable pore structure: pore structures are open and uniformly distributed. No evidenced of smeared pores. (b) Marginal pore structure: pore structures are open and uniformly distributed. No evidenced of smeared pores. (c) Unacceptable pore structure: surface shows smeared pores. (d) Unacceptable: smeared pore structure shows smeared pores, flat and burnished surface.
Financiación
Manuscript received July 30, 2004; revised October 15, 2004. This work was supported by SEMICON Associates. The review of this paper was arranged by Editor W. L. Menninger. S. Chen, D. Head, and I. S. Jawahir are with the University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). M. Effgen is with SEMICON Associates, Lexington, KY 40511 USA. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2005.846352 Fig. 1. Comparison of unacceptable (smeared) and acceptable surface-SEM pictures according to EIA-941(carbide tool, grade: C-7). (a) Acceptable pore structure: pore structures are open and uniformly distributed. No evidenced of smeared pores. (b) Marginal pore structure: pore structures are open and uniformly distributed. No evidenced of smeared pores. (c) Unacceptable pore structure: surface shows smeared pores. (d) Unacceptable: smeared pore structure shows smeared pores, flat and burnished surface.
| Financiadores |
|---|
| Semicon Associates |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Huella
Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'An investigation of sustained machining performance for controlled surface quality requirements in porous tungsten'. En conjunto forman una huella única.Citar esto
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver