1 s2.0 S0141635907001079 Main

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172
Review
Review of vibration-assisted machining

D.E. Brehl , T.A. Dow
Precision Engineering Center, North Carolina State University, United States Received 10 January 2007; received in revised form 20 July 2007; accepted 8 August 2007 Available online 22 August 2007
Abstract Vibration-assisted machining (VAM) combines precision machining with small-amplitude tool vibration to improve the fabrication process. It has been applied to a number of processes from turning to drilling to grinding [9,36]. The emphasis on this literature review is the turning process where VAM has been applied to difcult applications such as diamond turning of ferrous and brittle materials, creating microstructures with complex geometries for products like molds and optical elements, or economically producing precision macro-scale components in hard alloys such as Inconel or titanium. This review paper presents the basic kinematic relationships for 1D (linear vibratory tool path) and 2D VAM (circular/elliptical tool path). Typical hardware systems used to achieve these vibratory motions are described. The periodic separation between the tool rake face and uncut material, characteristic of VAM, is related to observed reductions in machining forces and chip thickness, with distinct explanations offered for 1D and 2D modes. The reduced tool forces in turn are related to improvements in surface nish and extended tool life. Additional consideration is given to the intermittent cutting mechanism and how it reduces the effect of thermo-chemical mechanisms believed responsible for rapid wear of diamond tools when machining ferrous materials. The ability of VAM to machine brittle materials in the ductile regime at increased depth of cut is also described. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Vibration-assisted machining; Ultrasonic vibration machining; Vibration cutting
Contents
1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinematics of vibration-assisted machining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. 1D VAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. 2D VAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VAM cutting systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. 1D VAM systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Resonant 2D VAM systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Non-resonant 2D VAM systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tool forces and cutting dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Force measurement considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Tool forces and cutting dynamics in 1D VAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Tool forces and cutting dynamics for 2D VAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benets of vibration-assisted machining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Extended tool life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1. Diamond tool life extension for ferrous and hard metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. Tool life extension for brittle materials and non-diamond tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Improved surface nish and form accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 154 154 155 157 157 157 158 159 159 160 160 161 165 165 165 167 167
3.
4.
5.
Corresponding author. E-mail address: debrehl@unity.ncsu.edu (D.E. Brehl).
0141-6359/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2007.08.003
154
D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172
6.
7.
5.3. Ductile regime machining of brittle materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Burr suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Microstructure fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Precision optical surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Specialty fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Tool life and precision surfaces in hard-to-cut materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
168 168 169 169 169 170 170 170 171 171
1. Introduction Vibration-assisted machining (VAM) adds small-amplitude, high-frequency tool displacement to the cutting motion of the tool. The tool tip is driven in a small reciprocating (1D VAM) or elliptical motion (2D VAM) whose centroid moves in the direction of the cutting velocity. For appropriate combinations of cutting velocity, tool amplitude and frequency, the tool periodically loses contact with the chip (or leaves the workpiece entirely, in the case of 2D VAM). As a consequence, machining forces can be reduced and thinner chips can be generated. This in turn leads to improved surface nishes, better form accuracy, and near-zero burr compared to conventional machining. Tool life, especially of diamond tools cutting ferrous materials, is dramatically extended by VAM. When cutting brittle materials, VAM has also been found to increase the depth of cut for which ductile-regime cutting can be achieved, allowing complex optical shapes to be made without grinding and polishing. 1D VAM was rst used in the late 1950s for traditional macro-scale metal-cutting applications [18,28,59]. The desire to machine materials not normally considered diamond-turnable led to signicantly greater interest in VAM starting in the mid-1980s. VAM experiments in steel, glass, and brittle ceramics conrmed that diamond tool life could be extended and allow economic machining of such materials and also demonstrated improvements in surface nish and ductile cutting when compared to conventional machining [42,43,50,64]. 2D VAM systems were introduced in the 1990s and this process was shown to achieve tool force reduction and tool life extension beyond that already achieved by 1D VAM [10,12,41,44,49,55,56,57,60]. In recent years such systems have been used to create precision microstructures from steel and optical materials, with complex geometries and surface nishes approaching those previously achieved in copper or aluminum [8,53,54]. Meanwhile research using 1D VAM systems has continued, both for precision applications and to machine macro-scale parts in a variety of previously difcult to machine materials such as nickel-based alloys, titanium and aluminum-SiC metal matrix composites. The objective of the latter application is to be able to machine precision components while obtaining economical tool life for polycrystalline diamond and conventional carbide tools [7,19,23,68,69]. VAM has reached a level of maturity where it is used by industry in a wide range of machining roles. But the understanding of the fundamental processes is limited and considerable work remains to develop predictive theories and
quantitative models that would allow machining processes to be optimized for specic materials and operating conditions. A conference sponsored by the ASPE [9] in the spring of 2007 brought together experts and practitioners to discuss the state-of-the-art in this important and emerging eld. This paper provides a comprehensive review of current capabilities and limitations of VAM. The rst part describes the implementation of vibration-assisted machining. Kinematic relationships and key parameters describing machining cycles are presented for 1D and 2D VAM, along with a description of the main types of hardware systems. The cutting dynamics and tool forces observed with VAM are examined in some detail, since they appear to be the source of most of the benets. VAM capabilities and experimental results are next presented for four main areas - tool life extension, form error and surface nish, ductile regime cutting, and burr suppression. A nal section presents a sampling of recent VAM applications. 2. Kinematics of vibration-assisted machining Fig. 1 shows the coordinate system used in this paper. The X-axis is in the primary cutting direction and is designated the upfeed direction. The Y-axis lies along the crossfeed direction (equivalent to the feed direction in a turning operation). The Z-axis is normal to the nominal uncut surface of the workpiece and is the direction of the depth of cut (DOC). 2.1. 1D VAM Fig. 2 shows idealized 1D vibration-assisted machining. The tool is driven harmonically in a linear path, which is superimposed on the upfeed motion of the workpiece. For a given vibration frequency f, there exists a critical upfeed velocity
Fig. 1. Coordinate system.
155
Fig. 2. 1D vibration-assisted machining.
below which the rake face of the tool will periodically break contact with the uncut material surface. Relative to a workpiece moving at upfeed velocity V, the tool position and velocity are given by: x(t) = A sin(t) + Vt x (t) = A cos(t) + V (1) (2)
The intermittent contact between the tool and the chip, indicated in Fig. 2, can be dened by two time variables: t1 when the tool enters the uncut work material and t2 when it separates. A sin(2ft1 ) = A sin arccos V t1 V 2fA (4)
arccos(V/2fA) 2f
where x(t) and x (t) are the instantaneous position and velocity at time t, A is the amplitude of the tool vibration, and the angular frequency is related to the vibration frequency f by = 2f. The upfeed velocity V has a positive sense in Eqs. (1) and (2) even though the workpiece motion in Fig. 2 is shown directed toward the negative X direction. This is because V is the relative velocity between the tool and workpiece: holding the workpiece xed and moving the tool at v in the positive X direction will give the same relative tool displacement. In panel 1 of Fig. 2, the tool velocity x (t) relative to the work is greater than zero. The tool rake face has just come into contact with the uncut material and is starting to cut. The time of initial contact with the uncut work material is designated t1 in the gure. In panel 2 the tool is at the limit of the linear vibration path with x (t) = 0, and is about to reverse direction. The time the tool breaks contact with the workpiece material at the end of its cutting motion is designated t2 . In panel 3, x (t) has reversed so that the tool withdraws from the work. In panel 4, x (t) is again positive, and the tool is shown advancing into contact with the workpiece as it commences another cutting cycle, with t1 now representing the time of initial contact with the uncut work material in the new location. The duration of the full cycle is T, equal to 1/f. The portion of the cycle in which the tool is cutting is t2 t1 . Eq. (2) leads to the denition of the critical upfeed velocity Vcrit , above which the tool rake face never separates from the uncut work surface: Vcrit = 2fA (3)
t2 =
arccos(V/2fA) 2f
(5)
Eq. (4) must be solved numerically. Upfeed increment FUP and horizontal speed ratio HSR are dened as: FUP = HSR = V f V 2fA (6) (7)
FUP is the distance between equivalent points on the tool vibration path for successive cycles. It is equal to the distance traveled by the tool in one vibration cycle, relative to the workpiece. HSR is the ratio between workpiece upfeed velocity and the peak horizontal vibration speed of the tool. Non-interrupted cutting occurs when HSR 1.0. FUP and HSR are useful parameters for characterizing a VAM machining cycle. A duty cycle, DC1 , can be dened for 1D VAM, based on the portion of each vibration cycle that the tool is cutting the workpiece [12,25,47]. DC1 = t2 t1 = f (t2 t1 ) T (8)
If V < Vcrit , periodic interruption of cutting takes place at frequency f. If V Vcrit , then cutting is continuous although the relative velocity between the tool and workpiece varies harmonically. In general, interrupted cutting, V < Vcrit , is desirable as most of the benets of VAM (extended tool life, improved surface nish, etc.) derive from the periodic separation of the tool rake face from the uncut material. However Liu [32] used non-interrupted 1D VAM to machine tungsten carbide.
The period of the tool vibration cycle is T (equal to 1/f) and the variables t1 , t2 , and f were previously dened. The larger the value of the duty cycle, the larger the proportion of each cycle that the tool is cutting. In conventional machining as well as non-interrupted 1D VAM, the tool rake face is continuously in contact with the work, so for these situations the duty cycle is 1.0. Fig. 3 shows duty cycle as a function of HSR. 2.2. 2D VAM 2D VAM adds vertical harmonic motion to the horizontal motion of 1D VAM. This causes the tool tip to move in a tiny circle or ellipse, which is superimposed on the upfeed motion
156
and the instantaneous rake face angle (t) and clearance angle (t), relative to the workpiece, are: (t) = 0 + (t) (t) = 0 (t) (14) (15)
Fig. 3. 1D VAM duty cycle chart [12].
of the workpiece. Fig. 4 depicts 2D VAM as a series of overlapping ellipses, which is an acceptable approximation when the distance the workpiece moves each cycle is small compared to the horizontal vibration amplitude A. Kinematic equations for 2D VAM are given below. The tool vertical position and velocity relative to the workpiece are respectively z(t) and z (t), while B is the amplitude of vertical vibration. Other variables are as dened for 1D VAM. A and B are the lengths of the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the toolpath ellipse. Tool position relative to workpiece can be written as: x(t) = A cos(t) + Vt z(t) = B sin(t) Tool velocity relative to workpiece can be written as: x (t) = A sin(t) + V z (t) = B cos(t) (11) (12) (9) (10)
where 0 and 0 are the tool rake and clearance angles, respectively. VAM parameters should be selected so that the tool ank face does not touch the work material on the downward portion of the elliptical toolpath. This implies (t) 0 when Eq. (15) is solved for t = t1 . At time t1 , the tool contacts the workpiece during the downward portion of the vibration cycle (t1 corresponds to 1 in Fig. 4). The denitions for critical upfeed velocity Vcrit , upfeed increment FUP , and horizontal speed ratio HSR are the same as given for 1D VAM in Eqs. (3), (6) and (7). In this paper, only research on interrupted cutting 2D VAM (HSR < 1) is reviewed. Duty cycle in 2D VAM is dened in Eq. (16) to be the length of the elliptical toolpath spent in contact with workpiece material, compared to the perimeter of the ellipse [12]. DC2 = arc(2 1 ) 2 (A2 + B2 )/2 (16)
Fig. 4 shows an angular position , with equal to t. Eqs. (9)(12) are referenced to = 0 at the position indicated in Fig. 4. The instantaneous direction of the tool motion relative to the workpiece, (t), is given by: (t) = arctan B cos(t) A sin(t) + V (13)
Arc( 2 1 ) is the length of the contact arc and the denominator is an approximate formula for the perimeter of an ellipse, expressed in terms of the horizontal and vertical amplitudes A and B. The numerator in Eq. (16) must be calculated numerically for each specic ellipse geometry and HSR. The angular position of tool entry 1 is established by HSR and the ellipse dimensions A and B. The exit angular position 2 is determined by the depth of cut d and the ellipse dimensions. When d/B 1, 2 = so d/B = 1 established the maximum value for the duty cycle at each HSR. The maximum meaningful value for duty cycle in 2D VAM is 0.5, which occurs when FUP is large enough that successive elliptical cycles do not overlap, and when the depth of cut is equal to or greater than the ellipse vertical amplitude B. Fig. 5 is a plot of the 2D VAM duty cycle as a function of HSR and d/B for a tool ellipse with A = 11 m and B = 2 m.
Fig. 4. 2D VAM.
Fig. 5. Duty cycle for 2D VAM as function of HSR and d/B for an elliptical toolpath with A = 11 m and B = 2 m [12].
157
3. VAM cutting systems 1D VAM systems are used for both precision diamond machining of optical-quality surfaces [22,27,42,43,47,69] as well as in traditional machining applications with depths of cut as large as 0.5 mm [6,16,19,31,65]. 2D VAM systems tend to be used in precision machining applications only, with depths of cut from 1 m to less than 50 m [11,12,44,50,53,54,62,63]. VAM cutting systems are generally one of three types: 1. 1D resonant systemsan ultrasonic generator is used to create high-frequency linear tool motion. 2. 2D resonant systemsthe tool supporting structure is made to vibrate at resonant frequencies in two dimensions, thereby creating an elliptical tool path. 3. 2D non-resonant systemspiezoelectric actuator stacks are excited by sinusoidal voltage signals and a mechanical linkage is used to convert the stack linear expansion and contraction into an elliptical tool path. Fig. 6 maps the range of vibration frequency and horizontal amplitude for VAM systems described in 33 technical references. The amplitudes range from 2 to 100 m and the frequency from a few Hz to 40 kHz, with the majority of these systems operating at 20 kHz. A 60 kHz 1D VAM system is reported under development [14]. The main advantage of a high vibration frequency is that it allows higher upfeed velocities while maintaining desired values of HSR and FUP . This results in decreased machining time to cut a surface. 3.1. 1D VAM systems Resonant 1D systems are the most common type for VAM, used in approximately 80% of the references reviewed for this paper. Fig. 7 shows a typical system. An ultrasonic generator uses a piezoelectric or magnetorestrictive actuator to create reciprocating harmonic motion of high frequency but low amplitude. A shaped acoustical waveguide booster and horn (also called a sonotrode) amplies this ultrasonic motion. A cut-
Fig. 7. Typical 1D VAM system utilizing an ultrasonic generator.
ting tool is attached at the end of the horn, aligned so that the rake face is normal to the direction of vibratory motion. Fig. 6 indicates that 1D VAM systems tend to operate at discrete frequencies of approximately 20 or 40 kHz which are achievable by commercial ultrasonic generators. Amplitudes are typically 320 m. Bending stiffness of 1D systems must be large to prevent transverse vibrations. These cause tool excursions from the ideal linear path that could allow the tool to hit the workpiece when withdrawing from the uncut material face. The result can be impact damage to the cut surface causing greater surface roughness and chipping of the tool on the ank side of the cutting edge. To prevent possible contact, some researchers operate 1D systems with the tool vibration direction inclined at an angle to the work upfeed motion [20,41,43]. Ultrasonic generators are high Q resonant systems. Interrupted cutting is a repetitive, non-linear, impulsive-type load leading to the possibility of several amplitude regimes where the system can operate. The result can be instabilities in the tool motion which adversely affect surface roughness. Babitsky et al. [5,6] developed an autoresonant control scheme which uses the ultrasonic generators position and velocity feedback to dynamically establish and maintain a resonant frequency optimum for the specic machining circumstances at hand. Application of this scheme resulted in a 50% improvement in surface nish when turning macro-scale Inconel components as compared to operation without autoresonant control. There are few examples of non-resonant 1D VAM systems. Han et al. [17,67] made a system in which the tool was mounted to a exure driven by a piezoelectric actuator. A sinusoidal voltage signal applied to the piezo stack caused it to expand and contract along its length. This actuator motion was amplied by the exure to produce an amplitude of 10 m at ultrasonic frequencies. Cuttino and Overcash [45] developed a non-resonant 1D VAM system which can be operated over a wide range of ultrasonic frequencies. Piezoelectric actuators cause transverse deection of a notched exure that holds the tool. To achieve high frequencies without the need to actively cool the piezo stacks, multiple actuators are used. The activation sequence is phased so that individual actuators operate at an acceptable frequency lower than the tool vibration frequency. 3.2. Resonant 2D VAM systems Resonant 2D VAM systems create a circular or elliptical tool motion by causing the supporting structure to vibrate at its res-
Fig. 6. Operating ranges (f vs. A) for VAM systems.
158
onant frequency, in one or two dimensions. Brinksmeier and Glabe [10] built a simple resonant 2D VAM system by mounting the center of mass of the diamond tool away from the centerline of a 1D ultrasonic system like those described in Section 3.1 The off-center mass of the tool caused bending vibration of the supporting structure in the depth-of-cut (Z) direction. This motion combined with the horizontal vibration to produce an elliptical tool path. Changing the position of a small counterweight relative to the tool allowed limited adjustment of the toolpath geometry. The elliptical path was inclined relative to the upfeed motion because of the phase difference between the bending and longitudinal vibrations. This system operated at a frequency of 20 kHz with upfeed amplitude A = 6 m. A similar concept is used by Li and Zhang [30]. In this design the ultrasonic transducer and sonotrode are replaced by a specially shaped beam, on which the cutting tool is mounted off-center. A disc-shaped piezoelectric actuator at the base of the beam is driven at ultrasonic frequency of 20 kHz. The beam is designed so that the small-amplitude longitudinal vibration of the piezoelectric element is converted to combined longitudinal and bending vibration, to create an elliptical tool path with A = 8 m and B = 1 m. Moriwaki and Shamoto developed the resonant 2D VAM system shown in Fig. 8 [41,50,63]. Piezoelectric actuators attached to the side faces of the beam structure are activated in opposed pairs to induce bending in the upfeed and vertical directions at the third resonant frequency. A phase difference exists between the two pairs of actuators. The beam is supported at its nodal points. Bending vibration of the beam ends amplies the motion induced by the piezo strips. The diamond tool is mounted on the end of the beam and the combination of the two bending vibrations at right angles make it move in an elliptical path. This system has been used at discrete frequencies in the range 2040 kHz. Vibration amplitudes are selected depending on the specic workpiece material and application. The maximum amplitude in each direction is approximately 15 m, although typical operating ellipses had toolpaths of 3 m 3 m to 8 m 4 m (A B). A 3D version of this tool, adding vibration in the crossfeed direction, has also been tested [53,61].
Fig. 9. Non-resonant 2D VAM system developed at Pusan University [1].
In the above design, the modal frequencies of the two vibration directions are very close to one another. This permits energy transfer back and forth between the two modes, or crosstalk, causing the tool path to become distorted. A corrective feedback system was developed that uses piezoelectric strain gauges to sense the beam position and compensates for crosstalk by dynamically changing the voltage signal to the driving actuators. As a result, form accuracy when turning a stainless steel mirror was improved from 2 m without the control to 200 nm with the control system activated [52]. 3.3. Non-resonant 2D VAM systems In non-resonant 2D VAM systems, sinusoidal voltage signals are applied to piezoelectric actuators causing them to extend and contract but at a frequency below the rst natural frequency of the system. The linear motion of the piezo stacks is converted into elliptical tool motion by a mechanical linkage. Fig. 9 shows a non-resonant 2D VAM system created at Pusan National University [1]. Piezoelectric actuators are oriented at right angles to one another and aligned along the upfeed and vertical directions. The exure has an internal cross-shaped cut-out to limit crosstalk between the two directions of motion. The tool is mounted on the exure opposite to the actuators. The tool tip is driven in an elliptical path when the stacks are activated by sinusoidal voltage signals with a phase difference between the two channels. The system operates at 1 kHz with ellipse dimensions of 5 m 5 m. Fig. 10(a) shows the operating concept of a non-resonant 2D VAM system developed at North Carolina State University. Sinusoidal voltage signals are supplied to the two parallel actuators. The toolholder serves as a mechanical linkage to convert the linear motion of the actuators into elliptical tool motion. Advantages of this system are its abilities to operate over a range of frequencies and for the toolpath size, aspect ratio, and orientation to be varied by changing the amplitude and phase difference of the voltage signals to the actuators. The low-frequency design in Fig. 10(b) had air-cooled piezo stacks and operated at 200 Hz with ellipse amplitudes of 20 m 4 m (A B). Fig. 10(c) shows a high-frequency version used by the present authors. It can operate with ellipse amplitudes of up to 18 m 3 m (A B). This system can be used at up to its rst natural frequency of 12 kHz with suitable power electronics, but the current
Fig. 8. Resonant 2D VAM system by Shamoto and Moriwaki [52].
159
Fig. 10. Non-resonant 2D VAM systems. (a) Concept of operation. (b) Low-frequency air-cooled prototype. (c) 4 kHz version with continuous liquid cooling of piezo stacks [12,44].
design, cooled by a continuously-circulating dielectric liquid, limits the operating frequency to 4000 Hz. 4. Tool forces and cutting dynamics 4.1. Overview Experimental data shows that tool forces in VAM are signicantly smaller than those measured during conventional machining [3,7,12,35,44,49,50,62,64,69,70] for similar operating conditions. These tool force reductions are observed for a range of tool geometries, ductile, brittle and hard metal materials, tool-work material combinations and depths of cut. Tool forces in 2D VAM are usually smaller than in 1D VAM for the same tool geometry and machining conditions. Typical data showing VAM tool forces are plotted in Figs. 11 and 12. Fig. 11 shows average thrust force as a function of cutting distance as measured in conventional machining, 1D VAM and 2D VAM using a carbide tool to cut aluminum (no details on the VAM conditions). The average thrust forces drop to 20% of the conventional machining value for 1D VAM, and to 2% for 2D VAM. Fig. 12 compares the average tool forces (thrust and cutting) between conventional machining and 1D VAM as a function of cutting distance for 304 stainless steel machined using a polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tool. This gure illustrates both the reduced force attributed to VAM as well as the increase in force with cutting distance thought to be due to wear of the diamond tool in contact with stainless steel. At low cutting distance, the thrust force for VAM is 20% of the conventional turning value and while it grows with cutting distance, it is only 10% at 300 m where the convention turning case is halted. The improvement in tool life obtained with VAM is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.1. The reduced average tool forces seen with VAM can be explained by the fundamental dynamics of vibration machin-
Fig. 11. Average thrust force comparison for conventional cutting, 1D VAM (conventional vibration cutting), and 2D VAM (elliptical vibration cutting) for carbide tool in aluminum workpiece at f = 18.66 kHz [35].
Fig. 12. Average tool forces comparison between conventional machining and 1D VAM. PCD tool and 304 stainless steel workpiece. HSR = 0.10, f = 40 kHz, [69].
160
ing. In 1D VAM, the peak instantaneous forces are essentially the same as the steady-state value in conventional cutting but the average tool forces are reduced because the tool spends only part of each cycle cutting the workpiece. In 2D VAM, peak forces as well as average forces are smaller than in conventional machining. The reduced tool forces for 2D VAM appear to be the result of several mechanisms that modify chip geometry as well as interactions between the tool rake face and the chip as it is extracted from the workpiece. A comprehensive model for predicting 2D VAM forces has not yet been published but it appears that that the dominant cause of tool force reduction depends on the geometry of the elliptical tool path. For a narrow, horizontal ellipse, tool forces are smaller because the consecutive overlapping toolpaths results in chips that are thinner than the depth of cut in conventional machining [44]. When the toolpath is a circle or a narrow vertical ellipse, the reduced tool forces appear be caused by the tool velocity exceeding the chip velocity, producing a reversal of the direction of the tool-chip friction force and reduction or reversal of the thrust force. Improved lubrication resulting from periodic tool-work separation in VAM has been offered as an explanation for reduced tool forces [1,24,68,69]. However this appears to be an effect of secondary importance. Mitrofanov et al. [37] used nite element modeling to estimate the effect of lubrication when using 1D VAM, and found for the specic case of carbide tools cutting macroscopic parts made of Inconel that peak VAM cutting force was reduced 1020% for the well-lubricated case. However as will be described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, reduced friction is not necessary to explain observed force reduction behavior in VAM. 4.2. Force measurement considerations The effect of the dynamics of the force measurement system must be carefully considered when evaluating the dynamic forces measured during ultrasonic VAM. Often, these tool forces are measured by a piezoelectric force sensor supporting the tool or the workpiece or on a drive motor shaft. The tool forces are transmitted to the force sensor through these intervening elements as well as the VAM system structure itself. These intermediate elements can be modeled as a mass-spring-damper system with a relatively low natural frequency due to their signicant mass. The interrupted cutting of a VAM system can be approximated by a periodic set at of pulses exciting these structural elements at several times the structural natural frequency. For this condition the structural system acts as a low pass lter and the peak force measured by the sensor will be severely attenuated. Therefore, it is possible for articially small tool forces to be recorded. The authors believe that some reported results underestimate actual VAM machining forces by a factor of 25 due to force attenuation by the measurement system structure. To avoid attenuation when making force measurements, Negishi [44] used a small piezoelectric load cell holding a lightweight workpiece sample. The natural frequency of this arrangement was about 12 kHz and capable of measuring forces with a 2D VAM system running from 1 to 4 kHz.
Fig. 13. Instantaneous cutting and thrust force comparison between 1D VAM and conventional machining. Steel tool and copper workpiece. Redrawn from data in [49].
4.3. Tool forces and cutting dynamics in 1D VAM Fig. 13 shows instantaneous force measurements obtained by Shamoto and Moriwaki [49] from a low-frequency 1D VAM system operating at f = 06 Hz with upfeed velocity V kept to less than 260 m/min so that FUP , HSR, and duty cycle are similar to those of ultrasonic VAM units.1 This system operated in an SEM vacuum chamber so aerodynamic and lubrication effects were avoided. The peak cutting and thrust forces in VAM are seen to be the same as the continuous cutting and thrust forces in conventional machining. When the forces are non-zero in Fig. 13, the tool is in contact with the workpiece. Since the 1D duty cycle is dened as the fraction of each cycle spent cutting, the average VAM cutting force FC,AVG and the average VAM thrust force FT,AVG are approximated by multiplying the conventional cutting and thrust forces FC,C and FT,C by the 1D VAM duty cycle: FC,AVG = DC1 FC,C FT,AVG = DC1 FT,C (17) (18)
These approximations are larger than are average values obtained by integrating the instantaneous forces over a complete cycle because they ignore the dynamic response of the cutting process and the measurement system. These effects will inuence the rise and decay time of the measured forces in Fig. 13. Astashev [4] and Astashev and Babitsky [3,6] developed an analytical model to predict 1D VAM cutting (principal) force by considering the elastic-plastic behavior of the workpiece material. The cutting force in conventional machining, and the peak instantaneous cutting force in VAM, is considered to result from the combination of tool-workpiece friction and the force required for plastic ow in the material. This total cutting force is assumed to be the same for both continuous and 1D VAM machining. In VAM, there are portions of each cycle when the tool rst moves into contact with the workpiece and when
1
Although this reference is principally concerned with 2D VAM, it reported 1D VAM forces measured throughout the vibration cycle and conventional, 1D, and 2D VAM forces were measured under similar machining conditions.
161
it disengages where the tool is in contact with the uncut work material but not cutting because the stress in the material is smaller than its yield value and the material interacts elastically with the tool. The slope of the elastic loading/unloading line is related to the type of material and the elastic modulus E. An elasto-plastic material such as a ductile metal will show a definite slope as in Fig. 13 while a rigid-plastic (brittle) material will have a steeper load/unload line. To determine the average cutting force, the cutting force is integrated over a full cycle and divided by the cycle period. As the duty cycle grows smaller, the time of tool contact grows smaller. The time of cutting (plastic deformation) is less than or equal to the tool contact time and thus also grows smaller, so the average cutting force grows smaller with decreasing value of duty cycle as has been previously asserted. Fig. 14 compares measured average cutting force to predictions made using Astashevs model, for a 29 mm diameter steel workpiece cut by a tungsten carbide tool [3]. Due to the complexity of toolworkpiece interaction in VAM, the preceding analytic model ignores many important real-world effects, including the effect on tool forces due to work hardening and time-varying plastic strain rates caused by the continuouslyvarying tool velocity. Mitrofanov, Babitsky, and various co-authors [7,3740] performed a series of nite element analyses that modeled transient behavior of 1D VAM throughout a cutting cycle. The situation considered was machining of macroscale structural components (diameter > 20 mm) made from Inconel 718 using tungsten carbide tools at 100 m depth of cut. In its nal form, the FEA included the effects of tool rake angle, 3-D cutting geometry, transient heat transfer in workpiece and tool, resultant work material property changes with temperature, friction between the tool and workpiece, changes in friction due to lubrication and work hardening due to variable strain rates. Fig. 15 shows instantaneous cutting force results obtained from FEA with and without friction for f = 20 kHz, A = 15 m, and HSR = 0.16. The frictionless case ( = 0) shows
Fig. 15. Predicted cutting force prediction using FEA for 1D VAM with friction ( = 0.5) and no friction ( = 0). Tungsten carbide tool and Inconel 718 workpiece. Depth of cut 100 m, f = 20 kHz, HSR = 0.16 [37].
a reduction of 15% in instantaneous cutting force compared to the case with assumed friction coefcient of 0.5. Concurrent with the above FEA studies, Mitrofanov et al. conducted experimental evaluation of 1D VAM machining at ultrasonic frequencies. Surface hardness studies were performed on Inconel 718 parts machined by 1D VAM and conventional methods [7,3739] using nanoindentation. The parts machined by VAM had a surface microhardness of 7 GPa, only slightly greater than that of the unworked material, while parts cut by conventional machining had a surface microhardness of 15 GPa. The depth of the hardened region in the nished parts was almost twice as deep in the conventionally machined parts as in those machined by VAM. A high-speed digital camera (9000 to 27,000 frames/s) imaged tool-workpiece interaction for 1D VAM machining of PMMA, mild steel, and Inconel [7]. Signicant differences were observed between VAM and conventional cutting. Deformation processes in VAM were seen to be localized to the region of the cutting edge/chip and were not evident in the newly cut surface beneath the ank face but were evident with material machined by the conventional process. The chips produced by VAM were continuous with small serrations while chips made by conventional machining were segmented with vivid shear bands. Infrared thermography of the tool cutting edge was also performed for Inconel workpieces [37]. Tool tip temperatures were 15% higher for VAM than conventional machining across a wide range of variation in depth of cut, upfeed speeds, and lubricant type. This result is surprising as other researchers have theorized that VAM produces lower tool temperatures leading to reduced tool wear. The temperature rise was attributed to work hardening of the material due to higher maximum strain rates in VAM, different chip formation mechanisms and the additional energy imparted to the cutting process by ultrasonic vibration. In this work, carbide tools were used and depths of cut were quite large (100 m to 1 mm). As a result, the temperature results may not be useful for understanding equivalent processes in precision diamond machining. 4.4. Tool forces and cutting dynamics for 2D VAM
Fig. 14. Predicted vs. measured average cutting force FC,AVG for 1D VAM using model developed by Astashev [3,4]. Figure drawn by the authors using data in [3].
Shamoto and Moriwaki [49], Cerniway [12] and Negishi [44] have undertaken detailed investigations of machining forces in
162
Fig. 16. Dynamic cutting (top) and thrust (bottom) forces in 2D VAM. Steel tool and copper workpiece. Redrawn from data presented in [49]. HSR values calculated by the present authors.
2D VAM. In these efforts, the 2D VAM machining forces were measured at low frequency throughout the elliptical vibration cycle. A signicant difference between the two research groups is in the geometry of the 2D tool path. ShamotoMoriwaki used a round tool path, while CerniwayNegishi used a long, narrow ellipse oriented with the major axis along the upfeed direction. Another difference is that Shamoto and Moriwaki measured tool forces with depth of cut ratio d/B 3, while most of Cerniways and Negishis measurements were made with d/B < 1 (although Negishi reported tool forces in one test at d/B = 2.2). Fig. 16 shows instantaneous 2D VAM tool forces recorded by Shamoto and Moriwaki [49] cutting with the same experimental low-frequency system used to measure 1D VAM tool forces in Fig. 13. The maximum instantaneous tool forces in 2D VAM are smaller than the tool forces in conventional machining. As the frequency is increased and HSR becomes smaller, the peak tool forces decrease further. For example at HSR = 0.345 (f = 0.4 Hz) the maximum cutting force is approximately 40% of the conventional cutting force, while the maximum thrust force is about 60% of the conventional thrust force. At HSR = 0.023 (f = 6 Hz) the maximum cutting force is less than 20% of the conventional cutting force and the maximum thrust force is only about 15% of the conventional thrust force. It is also clear in Fig. 16 that the thrust force reverses direction for part of each cutting cycle. Shamoto and Moriwaki attribute this force reversal to a change in the friction on the rake face of the tool. During the portion of the machining cycle where the tool is moving upwards relative to the workpiece, its vertical velocity can approach and exceed the speed of the chip. If the tool is moving faster than the chip, the direction of the friction force is reversed and the friction helps to pull the chip away from the workpiece. The relative velocity changes when the angle between the direction of tool motion and the horizontal axis is larger than the material shear angle [41,49,50]. Fig. 17 illustrates the elliptical vibration cutting model developed by Shamoto et al. [51]. The tool operates in a nearly circular motion and it is the vertical velocity component that drives the thrust force reversal. After the tool motion direction exceeds the shear
angle, the tool is moving faster than the chip and the friction direction is reversed. From this point onward, the friction is no longer restraining chip motion but is assisting it. The reduced or reversed friction leads to signicant reduction in cutting force, energy and heat generation [51]. Another example of forces developed in elliptical VAM is shown in Fig. 18. These forces were measured by Cerniway [12] using the 2D VAM system shown in Fig. 10(b). In this case a single-crystal diamond tool is used to cut C1100 copper at a 22% duty cycle with HSR = 0.08. Only the portion of the cutting cycle is shown where the tool forces are non-zero. The gure also shows predicted cutting and thrust forces from a model which is described below. The frequency f = 10 Hz is comparable to that used in Fig. 16 (0.46 Hz) although the depth of cut and d/B < 1 are substantially different. The 2D VAM instantaneous thrust and cutting forces are considerably smaller than the thrust and cutting forces for conventional machining. The cutting force is reduced by 80% compared to the predicted value for conventional cutting, and the thrust force is reduced by 48%. For a signicant portion of the tool contact interval, the thrust
Fig. 17. Sketch of Shamoto model of the cutting process showing the circular tool motion and the friction force lifting the chip due to the velocity of the tool.
163
Fig. 18. Thrust and cutting forces from Cerniways model (lines) compared to experimental force data (circles) for single crystal diamond tool. C1100 copper, f = 10 Hz and HSR = 0.08 [12].
force exceeds the cutting force. This behavior was found to persist until the duty cycle exceeded 25%, after which the cutting force was larger than the thrust force through most of the cutting interval. For this operating condition, there is no evidence of the thrust force reversal seen in Moriwaki and Shamotos results. For the narrow horizontal elliptical toolpath employed by Cerniway, vertical velocity increases relatively slowly as a function of horizontal position along the toolpath, so that the tools direction exceeds the material shear angle for only a small portion near the end of each cutting cycle. For a circular toolpath employeed by Shamoto, the vertical velocity increases much
more quickly relative to toolpath horizontal position, so that the shear angle is exceeded for a large part of the cycle. This suggests two regimes based on the toolpath geometry. When the toolpath ellipse is horizontal and elliptical, the dominant mechanism for reduction in tool forces is the reduction in chip thickness caused by overlapping toolpaths. When the toolpath is circular, or elliptical and vertical, the vertical component of tool velocity is large throughout most of the cutting portion of the toolpath, and thrust force reduction/reversal is the primary cause of tool force reductions. A comprehensive study of 2D VAM tool forces, examining a large range of toolpath geometries and d/B ratios, would be valuable for clarifying the mechanisms causing tool force reduction. Cerniway derived a tool force model for EVAM from the geometry of overlapping ellipses [12] and it is compared to the measurements in Fig. 18. Fig. 4 indicates that the instantaneous uncut chip thickness at each point in the tool path is less than the depth of cut for conventional machining. The force required to make a chip will therefore be smaller for all points in the 2D VAM cutting cycle. The model is based on the instantaneous uncut chip thickness and the contact area between the tool and workpiece. It builds on a tool force model developed by Arcona [2] for conventional diamond turning but adds the effects of the changing cutting geometry arising from the elliptical motion of the tool. The Arcona model assumes both the cutting and thrust forces are related to the face area of the chip and friction between workpiece and tool. The instantaneous work-tool friction area is determined based on the tool geometry, the depth of cut at time t, and the instantaneous direction of tool motion (t) and instantaneous rake angle (t) from Eqs. (13) and (14). This area
Fig. 19. Variation in contact area with tool motion in 2D VAM. Position #1contact area consists of ank, wear land, and edge radius. Position #2wear land edge radius compose contact area. Position #3only edge radius in contact. Redrawn from [12].
164
Fig. 20. Modeled and measured thrust and cutting forces for 1000 Hz elliptical VAM. 6061 aluminum with HSR = 0.053. d/B = 2.2 (d = 8.9 m) [44].
is used to determine the friction components of the tool forces. Fig. 19 shows how the work-tool contact area varies at several points on the elliptical path. The uncut chip area for each point on the tool path, needed to calculate the plastic deformation force, is found from the overlapping ellipse geometry on successive cutting passes. As the tool progresses upward in its elliptical path, the rake angle becomes progressively more negative. This
means that the shear angle for the material cannot be treated as a constant [13,21]. Cerniway assumed the effective shear angle at any point in the 2D VAM toolpath to be the bisector of the angle formed between the rake face plane (vertical, for 0 = 0 ) and the instantaneous rake angle (t). The model uses material and friction parameters from conventional diamond turning experiments to predict the experimental measurements in Fig. 18. The peak cutting and thrust forces for conventional diamond using a sharp tool turning under these conditions are 2.44 and 1.29 N, respectively. The EVAM forces are approximately 30% of this value. Negishi [44] used the 2D VAM system shown in Fig. 10(c) to machine features on a variety of materials and operating conditions for frequencies from 1 to 4 kHz. Fig. 20 shows predicted and measured tool forces for cutting 6061 aluminum at f = 1000 Hz and HSR = 0.053. In this case the depth of cut was such that d/B = 2.2, making it roughly comparable to the ratio used by Moriwaki and Shamato. The forces are about 50% of the value measured with a sharp diamond tool in conventional diamond turning under these conditions (Fc = 2.0 N and Ft = 1.1 N).
Fig. 21. Chip formation in 2D VAM. (a) d/B 1 produces thin, discrete chips. Aluminum cut with diamond [44] (b) d/B > 1 results in continuous chip. Aluminum cut with diamond [44] (c) d/B = 2 with circular path (A = B = 5 m). Steel cut with diamond [51].
165
Fig. 22. Comparison of average tool forces (left) and surface nish with distance (right) for 1D VAM and 2D VAM. Single-crystal diamond tool and hardened die steel workpiece [50].
The model follows the experimental measurement but there are features at the natural frequency of the load cell (12 kHz) visible in the thrust measurement. The thrust force shows a small dip at the trailing edge indicating the friction reversal observed by Shamoto. Chip formation in 2D VAM is inuenced by the ellipse geometry and the ratio d/B of depth of cut to ellipse vertical vibration amplitude. Fig. 21 shows chips produced by Negishi [44] and Shamoto et al. [51]. Fig. 21(a) was created using a using a narrow horizontal ellipse of 18 m 3 m (A B). The depth of cut was less than the minor axis of the ellipse, d/B 1. In this case, the tool exits the workpiece during each cutting cycle and creates long, narrow, discontinuous chips. The result is near-zero burr formation on the end and side edges of the cut. Fig. 21(b) has the same operating conditions but the depth of cut is about 2 the minor ellipse axis. A long continuous chip is produced but regularly spaced thin segments from the intermittent contact are visible. Fig. 21(c) is from Shamoto et al. [51] machining steel with a diamond tool. Because the depth of cut is >2 the tool path vertical amplitude B, a continuous chip is formed and looks similar to those produced by conventional diamond turning processes. 5. Benets of vibration-assisted machining 5.1. Extended tool life VAM can extend tool life signicantly, compared to conventional machining methods. This improvement is seen when diamond tools are used to machine ferrous metals, and also for non-ferrous hard metals and brittle materials cut by diamond, cBN, and carbide tools [50,64,66,69]. Different wear mechanisms appear to be operative depending on the combination of tool and work material. 2D VAM generally provides longer tool life than 1D VAM for the same depth of cut, tool geometry, and tool-workpiece material combination. 5.1.1. Diamond tool life extension for ferrous and hard metals Conventional precision cutting of ferrous metals is rarely economical because diamond tools wear out in a machining dis-
tance of a few meters. Wear rates nearly as great are observed for diamond tools cutting hard metals such as nickel and titanium. In contrast, conventional diamond machining of ductile metals like aluminum or copper causes very gradual wear, with tool life in the tens of thousands of meters of machining distance. Wear is frequently assessed by measuring the change in average tool forces, and/or changes in roughness of the cut surface,2 as machining distance accumulates. The extended tool life possible with VAM is illustrated by Fig. 22, which compares 1D and 2D VAM when using single-crystal diamond tools to machine hardened carbon steel at HSR = 0.093. The conventional machining case is not shown due to the extremely short tool life. Fig. 22(a) compares average thrust and cutting forces for 1D and 2D VAM, while Fig. 22(b) shows the deterioration in surface roughness with increasing machining distance. In 1D VAM the tool forces increase steadily showing continuous tool wear, reaching an unacceptable level after about 1000 m machining distance. In 2D VAM, the tool forces increase slowly, suggesting a low rate of tool wear. The surface roughness for 1D VAM is seen to be always greater than for 2D VAM and deteriorates at a relatively constant rate with machining distance. In contrast, the surface roughness for 2D VAM stays nearly constant until a machining distance of 2300 m, then suddenly deteriorates. For a high-precision process requiring optical quality surface nishes, this is the effective life of the tool. For this example, the change in surface roughness was a more denitive indicator of tool wear than change in tool forces, especially for 2D VAM. Figs. 23 and 24 are SEM images of diamond tools machining comparing wear results from VAM and conventional machining of steel. In Fig. 23 single-crystal diamond tools were used to machine tool steel by conventional cutting and by 2D VAM. The conventional machining produced large wear scars at the feed rate of the process while the EVAM produced uniform wear that would not degrade the surface nish. Fig. 24 compares the differMeasuring tool wear with these secondary measures can be misleading. Mitrofanov et al. [7] found that VAM at ultrasonic frequencies eliminated the built-up edge when machining soft ductile materials such as aluminum and copper. The presence or absence of a built-up edge will have a large effect on surface nish (and forces).
2
166
Fig. 23. Diamond tool wear after machining W2 tool steel [12]. Left: irregular fracture on cutting edge after 40 m distance using conventional tool. Right: 2D VAM resulted in smooth beveled edge (2D VAM tool had 20 m cutting distance).
ence in wear for a polycrystalline diamond tool machining steel by 1D VAM and conventional cutting. The conventional process produced more wear but it was also visible for VAM. Such comparative images, plus other published results [50] indicate that tool wear does in fact occur during VAM. However it is modied so that it has less effect on surface nish. Conventional machining typically produces irregular damage to the cutting edge of the tool, while VAM produces a smooth, beveled wear feature. In fact the wear feature produced by VAM creates a small region of negative rake, and bears a distinct similarity to advanced edge designs suggested for conventional machining of hard metals [26]. Thermochemical mechanisms appear to be the main cause of wear when diamond tools are used to cut ferrous metals. In conventional diamond machining of steels, the highest wear rates are observed when cutting relatively soft iron of zero carbon content, while tool life improves for steels of increasing carbon content [46]. Diamond in static contact with iron or steel will experience graphitization and volume loss when heated above
1000 K [58], showing that mechanical abrasion is not necessary to cause diamond tool wear. Evans and co-workers [46] propose that the number of unpaired electrons in the outermost orbital (typically the dorbital) of the atomic structure of the workpiece material can predict tool wear during diamond machining. The unpaired electrons facilitate breaking of carboncarbon bonds in the surface layers of the diamond. This releases carbon which can graphitize, diffuse into the workpiece, or react with environmental oxygen or the workpiece metal. Iron has four unpaired d-orbital electrons, while ductile metals like copper and aluminum, which create little tool wear, have none. Nickel and titanium, both prone to cause diamond tool wear, each have two unpaired d-orbital electrons. Shimada et al. [58] agree that the key process in diamond wear is the disruption of carboncarbon bonds in the surface layers of the tool, but point out that the action of machining causes the resulting weak graphitized material to be continuously scraped from the tool. Consequently, diffusion into the work material is
Fig. 24. Wear on polycrystalline diamond (PCD) after machining 304 stainless steel for 300 m [69]. Left: conventional machining produces signicant irregular damage to cutting edge and ank face. Right: 1D VAM produced much smaller amounts of wear after the same machining distance.
167
not necessary for tool wear to occur. In their view, iron in the workpiece facilitates dissociation of the carboncarbon bonds in the diamond tool supercial layers, with the wear rate controlled by subsequent abrasive removal of carbon from the tool surface. It is generally believed that the intermittent contact between tool and work material in VAM reduces the time available for graphitization and other wear reactions. Lower tool temperatures are expected to slow the wear rate by suppressing reaction rates. Tool temperatures are suggested to be lower than in conventional cutting because in an individual VAM cycle there is a relatively small energy input from interaction between the tool and workpiece. Also the portion of each cycle where the tool is out of contact with the work is seen as an opportunity for it to cool. However there have been no published quantitative analyses, simulations or experimental data for VAM diamond tool temperatures cutting ferrous metals to allow this hypothesis to be evaluated. 5.1.2. Tool life extension for brittle materials and non-diamond tools VAM improves diamond tool life when machining brittle materials. In an early test, Moriwaki and Shamoto found negligible ank face wear after 59 m cutting distance using a diamond tool to machine soda-lime glass with 1D VAM [42]. Typically, this material will cause damaging wear in a very short distance with conventional cutting. Klocke and Rubenach [27] reported that conventional cutting of soda-lime glass for 100 m caused a 9 m wear land to form behind the rake face of a diamond tool. Using 1D VAM for the same cutting distance, it was possible to maintain ductile cutting to a depth of 3 m due indicating that signicant tool wear had not occurred. When machining brittle materials it is necessary to use low tool entry speeds and small values for HSR and duty cycle to assure that ductile cutting takes place. These conditions reduce the peak force as well as the average cutting forces. Rubenach [47] compared two diamond tools cutting glass by 1D VAM, with duty cycles of 40% and 10%, respectively. The rst tool was evaluated after 75 m machining distance and found to have
Table 1 Improvement in surface roughness achieved through use of VAM Material Work SS Inconel Al-SiCb Fused silica CFRPc LY12 (aluminum) 304 SS PMMA (CR-39) Steel Brass Inconel Tool Carbide Carbide SCD SCD SCD PCD PCD SCD SCD SCD Carbide 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 2D 2D 1D 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.20 NR 1.00 NR NR Process Tool nose radius (mm)
a wear land three times the width of that found on the second tool, which was used for 450 m before being examined6 times as far as the rst tool. Tool life is also improved for carbide tools machining brittle materials, steels, and hard metals. Weber et al. [64] found that 1D VAM extended the life of carbide tools by a factor of 20, when machining a glass ceramic. Using carbide tools on stainless steel and Inconel, Xiao et al. [65,66] found that for a given nose radius, tools were signicantly less susceptible to wear and cutting edge damage when 1D VAM was employed when compared to conventional cutting. Abrasion-mechanical mechanisms appear to be the dominant cause of wear for non-ferrous workpieces regardless of tool type. The hardness of brittle materials and metals like hardened steel, nickel, or Inconel, causes large tool forces, which create high stresses in the tool. The reduction of tool forces achieved by VAM reduces the stresses in the tools leading to less chance of fracture. With brittle materials, wear of the tool cutting edge occurs by local chipping along the diamond cleavage planes, resulting in irregular damage along the edge. The dislodged particles then cause abrasion damage to the ank edge [47]. Edge chipping during the backfeed portion of the cycle is seen as a cause of wear specic to 1D VAM, as previously noted [20,67]. 5.2. Improved surface nish and form accuracy Improved surface nish compared to conventional machining is characteristic of VAM, regardless of the material machined or the depth of cut regime. For ultraprecision turning of optics, depth of cut is usually held to micrometers and the required level of roughness is only a few nanometers RMS. For making large parts, where VAM is used to achieve a degree of precision while limiting tool wear, depth of cut may be as large as 1 mm and an acceptable surface nish may be on the order of 10 m RMS. When used with precision diamond-turning machines, VAM can achieve surface nishes in the range 1030 nm RMS for hardened steels at economical machining distances of hundreds to several thousand meters [8,9,12,43,47,50,53].
Depth of cut ( m)
Surface roughness ( m) VAM Conventional 20.0 PV 60.0 PV 0.859 PV 0.260 Ra 4.00 Ra 0.94 Ra 0.239 Ra 0.2 Ra 0.52 PV 1.00 PV 0.510 Ra
Reference
50 50 1 2 200 150 20 2 3.5 1 800
4.3 PV 4.5 PV 0.578 PV 0.100 Ra 2.80 Ra 0.63 Ra 0.152 Ra 0.1 Ra 0.04 PV 0.04 PV 0.284 Ra
[66]a [66] [68] [15,70] [23] [19] [69] [22] [63] [1] [7]
SCD = single-crystal diamond; PCD = polycrystalline diamond; NR = not reported; PV = peak to valley roughness; Ra = average roughness. a Chatter reduction was also an issue in this research so the reduction may be overstated and was not included in the general conclusion. b Aluminum-SiC particle metal matrix composite. c Carbon-ber reinforced plastic.
168
Table 1 compares surface roughness measurements for VAM and conventional cutting using several combinations of work and tool materials, 1D or 2D VAM, depths of cut, and tool nose radii. The results are mixed but the roughness decreased by approximately 40% with 1D VAM and 95% for 2D VAM. These examples illustrate the ability of vibration-assisted machining to achieve substantial improvements in surface nish compared to conventional machining over a broad range of tool types, work materials, and depths of cut. Several factors contribute to these improvements. Lower tool forces result in more regular chip formation and smaller ranges of tool vibration in the depth of cut direction. Extended tool life for VAM means that better surface nishes are achieved at an economic cutting distance. Reduced tool wear also means that fewer particles are left in the cut to cause secondary damage by gouging the material surface. VAM was also shown to suppress chatter. The theoretical surface nish is proportional to cross-feed rate and inversely proportional to tool nose radius. However if the nose radius is increased too much to improve surface nish, self-excited chatter vibration can occur. When turning hard metals, the need to avoid chatter can establish a maximum usable nose radius, which effectively sets the smallest possible theoretical surface nish. By reducing tool forces, VAM allows use of a larger nose radius in a given machining situation while avoiding chatter. Xiao et al. [65,66] performed machining tests with using carbide tools to turn stainless steel and Inconel and showed that the larger tool radii made possible by 1D VAM improved surface roughness from 20 to 60 m Ry to approximately 4.5 m Ry. For a machine tool with given loop stiffness, the reduced tool forces for VAM in particular the lower thrust forces decrease the amplitude of tool vibration relative to the workpiece. In general, VAM systems operate at a frequency sufciently far from the natural frequency of the machine structure and minimize that motion. But, this might be an issue for some low-speed non-resonant VAM systems. Ma et al. [34] analyzed the improvements gained with ultrasonic 1D and 2D VAM on a turning process using a conventional lathe. The thrust force was applied in the bending direction of the spindle (that is, perpendicular to the long axis of the workpiece). The smaller forces from VAM, combined with their application at ultrasonic frequencies well above the natural frequency of the lathe structure, greatly reduced tool tip vibration in the radial (depth of cut) direction. Form accuracy of a round aluminum part was thereby improved by as much as 98%, from 28 m (conventional cutting) to 0.5 m (2D VAM). 5.3. Ductile regime machining of brittle materials When depth of cut is carefully controlled to a small value many brittle materials machine as if they were ductile, producing chips by means of plastic ow and with minimal subsurface cracking. In practice ductile-regime machining frequently remains uneconomical since the critical depth of cut is on the order of 1 m or less, resulting in small material removal rates and long machining times. VAM has been shown to increase by several times the critical depth of cut at which ductile-cutting can
be achieved, offering signicantly better economics for cutting brittle materials. For example, Moriwaki et al. [42] machined soda-lime glass with 1D VAM and maintained ductile cutting to a depth of 1.4 m, an improvement of almost seven times over the critical depth of cut in conventional cutting. More recently Klocke and Rubenach [27] ductilely cut glass at a 3 m depth of cut. Zhou et al. [15,70] machined fused silica and achieved ductile cutting with 1D VAM (surface roughness was 100 nm Ra) with depth of cut 2 m, while for conventional cutting the roughness was 260 nm Ra at a very shallow depth of cut of 400 nm. 2D VAM was used by Suzuki et al. [62] to cut grooves in tungsten carbide, zirconia ceramic, calcium ouride, and glass. These showed no signs of brittle fracture or microcracks. Tungsten carbide has been turned at a depth of cut of 15 m using cBN tools with a 1D VAM system [32]. Brittle optical plastic was cut at 10 m depth while maintaining an acceptable surface nish [22,24]. Negishi [44] performed groove cutting experiments on silicon carbide with 2D VAM and maintained ductile cutting to 3.5 m depth. In brittle materials a critical chip thickness can be dened that is indicative of the occurrence and depth of microfracture damage. If the chip is thinner than the critical thickness then brittle damage will be removed on successive cutting passes, leaving a smooth surface [27,47,48]. The smaller tool forces in VAM reduce the depth below the cut surface to which microfractures propagate or in effect increase the critical chip thickness. Gan et al. [15,70] state that brittle materials may be viewed as having a slip plane allowing plastic ow, and a cleavage plane associated with fracture. To achieve ductile cutting it is necessary to provide a stress sufcient to induce plastic yielding, without exceeding the value that causes cleavage. Because of the lower tool forces, it is possible to remove a greater depth into the material while keeping stresses within the proper range. 2D VAM provides an additional benecial effect because thin chips are automatically created as a consequence of the geometry of overlapping elliptical toolpaths. Reduction in tool forces caused by improved lubricant penetration to the rake face is of special importance in machining brittle materials with 1D VAM because the peak theoretical forces are roughly the same as for conventional machining (see Fig. 13 and Section 4.3). Rubenach [47] and Klocke and Rubenach [27] discuss in detail ductile chip formation and tool-work interactions for 1D VAM cutting of glass. Small HSR values are essential, because they result in low relative velocity when the tool rst contacts the workpiece each cycle. This limits the initial surface layer stress, strain rate, and force buildup [27,47]. Shamoto and Moriwaki [42] found signicant surface nish improvements when soda-lime glass was machined at HSR < 0.1. Gan et al. [15,70] used HSR < 0.025 when machining glass. For turning SiC, Negishi [44] used an HSR of only 0.0003. 5.4. Burr suppression Parts machined by VAM show a remarkable lack of burr [1,8,41]. Fig. 25 shows SEM images of typical results.
169
Fig. 25. SEM images of burr-free structures made using 2D VAM. Single-crystal diamond tool in hard-plated copper. (a) Microchannel, 1.5 m deep (b) 8 m tall regular trihedron made using dead-sharp tool with 70 nose angle [8].
Fig. 25(a) shows the absence of burr on the end and sides of a microchannel made in copper using 2D VAM with d/B 0.75. Fig. 25(b) is an SEM image of a trihedron feature in copper only 8 m tall which also shows virtually no burr at high magnication. Ma et al. [33] evaluated side burr formation in turning processes for conventional cutting, 1D VAM, and 2D VAM. With a carbide tool and aluminum workpiece it was found that for a wide range of HSR, burr heights in 1D VAM were approximately 6080% smaller than for conventional machining. 2D VAM suppressed burr formation by an even greater degree and resulted in virtually no burr for HSR < 0.17. Burr formation is postulated to be the result of instantaneous compressive and bending stresses caused by cutting in the deformation zone at the edges of the cut. These stresses are greatly reduced by the use of VAM, since the tool forces are reduced compared to conventional cutting with 2D VAM having smaller forces than 1D VAM at similar conditions. In 2D VAM, the geometry of the cutting operation suppresses burr formation. When the depth of cut is equal to or less than the vertical vibration amplitude (d/B 1), the tool exits the workpiece on each cycle, forming discrete chips as in Fig. 23(b). This results in sharp edges for the cut. When a round-nosed tool is used, d/B is less than 1 at the sides of the cut regardless of the d/B in the center of the groove. This can be used advantageously in processes where the feature does not have closed ends. Moriwaki [50,63] was thus able to create deep microgrooves and ridges in hardened steel with no indication of burr along the features side edges.
6. Sample applications 6.1. Microstructure fabrication Fig. 26 shows binary microstructures fabricated by the nonresonant 2D VAM system shown in Fig. 10(c). The Angstrom symbol logo in Fig. 26(a) was made in hard-plated copper at two scales, using diamond tools with nose radii of 1 mm for the large part and 50 m for the smaller version [11]. The small Angstrom symbol (inset in Fig. 26(a)) was overall size of 200 m 200 m, with a minimum individual feature width of 15 m. The thunderbird feature shown in Fig. 26(b) was made in 17-4PH stainless steel (RHC 34, carbon content 0.06%) using a 1 mm nose radius tool [8]. Surface roughness for these parts was 1525 nm RMS. Fig. 27 shows precision steel micromolds produced using the resonant 2D VAM system depicted in Fig. 9 [54]. These molds are difcult to make by conventional precision grinding processes. The Fresnel lens mold requires machining ne microgrooves, while the deep concave prole needed by the pickup lens is too deep to access by a grinding wheel. 6.2. Precision optical surfaces Shamoto and Moriwaki have used 2D VAM with diamond tools to machine optical quality mirror surfaces in hardened steel. These include ats of up to 91 mm and 121 mm size [52,63], a hemispherical surface [53], and a at with integral precision high-aspect ratio micro-ribs [58]. This last item is a
Fig. 26. White-light interferograms of binary microstructures created using single-crystal diamond tools with 2D VAM (a) Angstrom symbols in copper with 1 mm nose radius tool (main image) and 50 m nose radius tool (inset) [11]. (b) Sandia thunderbird in 17-4 PH stainless steel using 1 mm nose radius tool [8].
170
Fig. 27. Ultraprecision steel molds produced using 2D VAM [54]. (a) Mold for Fresnel lens in HRC 55 die steel, 25 m nose radius diamond tool (b) Mold for pick-up lens in HRC 48 die steel, 1 mm nose radius diamond tool.
mold for plastic LED front panels. Surface nishes of 3070 nm PV are reported for these parts. Negishi [44] diamond-turned an optical quality at in silicon carbide using 2D VAM. The annular part had an i.d. of 0.5 mm and an o.d. of 1 mm. A surface nish of 89 nm RMS was achieved. Total machining distance was approximately 0.2 m. 6.3. Specialty fabrication Lee et al. [29] tested 1D and 2D VAM to make 85 m deep microgrooves for optical ber insertion, in glass and planar light wave circuits (silicon layer deposited on glass). Multiple passes were required, with depth of cut of 5 m per pass. This depth of cut was too deep to avoid brittle cutting throughout most of the groove width but since a round-nosed tool was used, ductile cutting occurred on the groove edges and in the entry region. This provided smooth, non-chipped edges optimum for ber insertion. Gao et al. [16] used a conventional lathe tted with a 1D VAM system to machine the ultra-thin wall of a camera lens guided drawtube. The aluminum test part was 48 mm o.d. with a wall thickness of 0.81.5 mm. For proper t and functionality, this part required a surface nish of 0.8 m Ra. When conventional cutting methods were used, this was rarely attained because of vibration, high tool forces and frictional heating. VAM made it possible to consistently achieve a nish of 0.6 m Ra, superior to the functional requirement. Japitima et al. [19] integrated a 1D VAM system onto a 6axis CNC machine to make groove-with-sharp-corner (GSC) parts in aviation aluminum alloys. GSC features were cut into curved surfaces and overhanging surfaces. The principle reasons for using VAM in this application were to improve surface nish, prevent burrs, and extend tool life. 6.4. Tool life and precision surfaces in hard-to-cut materials The extensive research of Mitrofanov, Babitsky and various collaborators [7,3740] is aimed at machining structural components in hard-to-cut metals such as Inconel and titanium, using carbide tools. In this case the principal motivation for using VAM is to achieve acceptable surface nish and improved form
accuracy when working with these materials, while obtaining an economical tool life. For similar reasons, Kim and Lee [23] investigated using 1D VAM to cut carbon-ber reinforced plastic (CFRP). 7. Conclusions 1. 1D and 2D vibration-assisted machining (VAM) are described and basic kinematic relationships presented. The main types of VAM cutting systems are discussed. The concepts of duty cycle and horizontal speed ratio (HSR) are dened and their value as parameters characterizing VAM cutting cycles is emphasized. 2. VAM is shown to offer distinct advantages over conventional precision machining methods over a broad range operating conditions, depths of cut, part sizes, and tool and work materials. These advantages include: Reduced tool forces. Extended tool life, for diamond tools used to machine ferrous metals, and for all types of tools cutting ferrous and hard metals, and brittle materials. Reduced surface roughness and improved form accuracy. Greater depth of cut for ductile regime machining of brittle materials. Suppression of burr formation. 3. The reduction in average tool force measured for 1D VAM are a result of the intermittent contact between the tool and uncut material. Peak forces in 1D VAM are shown to be similar to the forces in conventional machining. Instantaneous forces in 2D VAM are shown to be smaller than conventional machining forces as a result of the changing chip geometry and reduction in friction force direction. The limited available analytical and numerical force prediction models, nite element analyses, and experimental studies on VAM cutting dynamics are summarized. 4. Diamond tool life is extended by VAM when cutting ferrous materials because the intermittent tool-work contact limits the opportunity for relevant thermochemical wear mechanisms to operate. When other materials are cut, regardless of tool material, abrasive-mechanical mechanisms dominate and tool life is extended by reduction of stresses resulting from the lower forces characteristic of VAM.
171
5. VAM has demonstrated ductile-regime machining of brittle materials at larger depths of cut than conventional machining methods, principally due to its ability to limit tool forces and material surface stress. 6. Sample VAM applications are presented including fabrication of molds, ultraprecision optical surfaces and microstructures with complex geometries and economic machining of steel, hard non-ferrous metals like Inconel and brittle materials. Acknowledgements This paper was supported by NSF grant DMI-0423315 monitored by G. Hazelrigg. Additional support was received from Sandia National Laboratories (Albequerque, NM) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN). References
[1] Ahn JH, Lim HS, Son SM. Improvement of micromachining accuracy by 2Dimensional vibration cutting. Proc ASPE 1999;20:1503. [2] Arcona C. Tool force, chip formation and surface nish in diamond turning. PhD dissertation. North Carolina State University; 1996. [3] Astashev VK, Babitsky VI. Ultrasonic cutting as a nonlinear (vibro-impact) process. Ultrasonics 1998;36:8996. [4] Astashev VK. Effect of ultrasonic vibration of a single-point tool on the process of cutting. J Mach Manuf Reliabil 1992;3:6570. [5] Babitsky VI, Astashev VK, Kalashnikov AN. Autoresonant control of non-linear mode in ultrasonic transducer for machining applications. Ultrasonics 2004;42:2935. [6] Babitsky VI, Kalashnikov AN, Molodtsov FV. Autoresonant control of ultrasonically-assisted cutting. Mechatronics 2004;14:91114. [7] Babitsky VI, Mitrofanov AV, Silberschmidt VV. Ultrasonically-assisted turning of aviation materials: simulations and experimental Study. Ultrasonics 2004;42:816. [8] Brehl DE, Dow TA, Garrard K, Sohn A. Microstructure fabrication using elliptical vibration-assisted machining. Proc ASPE 2006;39:5114. [9] Brehl DE, Dow TA, editors. Vibration assisted machining technology. Proc ASPE 2007;40. [10] Brinksmeier E, Glabe R. Elliptical vibration cutting of steel with diamond tools. Proc ASPE 1999;20:1636. [11] Brocato BC. Micromachining using elliptical vibration-assisted machining. MS thesis. North Carolina State University; 2005. [12] Cerniway MA. Elliptical diamond milling: kinematics, force, and tool wear. MS thesis. North Carolina State University; 2001. [13] Dautzenberg J, Hijink J, Van der Wolf A. The minimum energy principal applied to the cutting process of various workpiece materials and tool rake angles. CIRP Ann 1982;31:916. [14] Dambon O, Klocke F, Heselhaus M, Bulla B, Weber A, Schug R, et al. Vibration-assisted machining research at Fraunhofer IPTdiamond turning and precision grinding. Proc ASPE 2007;40:39. [15] Gan J, Wang X, Zhou M, Ngoi B, Zhong Z. Ultraprecision diamond turning of glass with ultrasonic vibration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2003;21: 9525. [16] Gao GF, Zhao B, Jiao F, Liu CS. Research on the inuence of the cutting conditions on the surface microstructure of ultra-thin wall parts in ultrasonic vibration cutting. J Mater Process Technol 2002;129:6670. [17] Han L, Xu WL, Tso SK. Ultrasonically assisted and piezoelectric actuators integrated cutting tool. Jpn J Appl Phys 1998;37:46169. [18] Isaev A, Anokhin V. Ultrasonic vibration of a metal cutting tool. Vest Mashinos 1961;41 (in Russian). [19] Japitana F, Morishige K, Takeuchi Y. Highly efcient manufacture of groove with sharp corner on adjoining surfaces by 6-axis control ultrasonic vibration cutting. Precision Eng 2005;29:4319.
[20] Jin M, Murakawa M. Development of a practical ultrasonic vibration cutting tool system. J Mater Process Technol 2001;113:3427. [21] Kazuo N, Minoru A, Torohiro K. Machining characteristics of hard metals. CIRP Ann 1988;37:8992. [22] Kim JD, Choi IH. Micro surface phenomena of ductile cutting in the ultrasonic vibration cutting of optical plastics. J Mater Process Technol 1997;68:8998. [23] Kim JD, Lee ES. A study of the ultrasonic cutting of carbon-ber reinforced plastics. J Mater Process Technol 1994;43:25977. [24] Kim JD, Choi IH. Characteristics of chip generation by ultrasonic vibration cutting with extremely low cutting velocity. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1998;14:26. [25] Klocke F, Demmer A, Heselhaus M. Material removal mechanisms in ultrasonic-assisted diamond turning of brittle materials. Int J Mater Product Technol 2004;20:2318. [26] Klocke F, Kratz H. Advanced tool-edge geometry for high-precision hard turning. CIRP Ann 2005;54-1:4750. [27] Klocke F, Rubenach O. Ultrasonic-assisted diamond turning of glass and steel. Ind Diamond Rev 2000:22939. [28] Kumbabe J. Vibratory Cutting. Tokyo: Jikkyou Publishing Co.; 1979 (in Japanese). [29] Lee JS, Lee DW, Jung YH, Chung WS. A study on micro-grooving characteristics of planar lightwave circuit and glass using ultrasonic vibration cutting. J Mater Process Technol 2000;130131:396400. [30] Li X, Zhang D. Ultrasonic-elliptical vibration transducer driven by single actuator and its application in precision cutting. J Mater Process Technol 2006;180:915. [31] Liu CS, Zhao B, Gao GF, Jiao F. Research on the characteristics of the cutting force in the vibration cutting of a particle-reinforced metal matrix composite SiCp/Al. J Mater Process Technol 2002;129:1969. [32] Liu K, Li XP, Rahman M, Liu XD. Study of ductile mode cutting in grooving of tungsten carbide with and without ultrasonic vibration assistance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2004;24:38994. [33] Ma C, Shamoto E, Moriwaki T, Zhang Y, Wang L. Suppression of burrs in turning with ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2005;45-11:1295300. [34] Ma C, Shamato E, Moriwaki T, Wang L. Study of machining accuracy in ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2004;44:130510. [35] Ma C, Shamoto E, Moriwaki T. Study on the thrust cutting force in elliptical vibration cutting. Mater Sci Forum 2004;471472:396400. [36] Ma CX, Shamoto E, Moriwaki T. Drilling assisted by ultrasonic elliptical vibration. Key Eng Mater 2005;291292:4436. [37] Mitrofanov AN, Ahmed N, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV. Effect of lubrication and cutting parameters on ultrasonically-assisted turning of inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 2005;162163:64954. [38] Mitrofanov AV, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV. Finite element simulations of ultrasonically assisted turning. Comput Mater Sci 2003;28:646 53. [39] Mitrofanov AV, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV. Thermomechanical nite element simulations of ultrasonically assisted turning. Comput Mater Sci 2005;32:46371. [40] Mitrofanov AV, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV. Finite-element analysis of ultrasonically-assisted turning of inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 2004;153154:2339. [41] Moriwaki T, Shamoto E. Ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. CIRP Ann 1995;44:314. [42] Moriwaki T, Shamoto E, Inoue K. Ultraprecision ductile cutting of glass by applying ultrasonic vibration. CIRP Ann 1992:41. [43] Moriwaki T, Shamoto E. Ultraprecision turning of stainless steel by applying ultrasonic vibration. CIRP Ann 1991;40:55962. [44] Negishi N. Elliptical vibration-assisted machining with single crystal diamond tools. MS thesis. North Carolina State University; 2003. [45] Overcash J, Cuttino J. Development of a tunable ultrasonic vibrationassisted diamond turning instrument. Proc ASPE 2003;30:5037. [46] Paul E, Evans C, Mangamelli A, McGlauin M, Polvani R. Chemical aspects of tool wear in single-point diamond turning. Precision Eng 1996;18:419.
172
D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172 [60] Sugawara K. Study on elliptical vibration cutting and its applications. MS thesis. Kobe University; 1999. [61] Suzuki N, Hino R, Shamoto E. Development of 3-DOF ultrasonic elliptical vibration system for elliptical vibration cutting. Proc ASPE 2007;40:15 20. [62] Suzuki N, Masuda S, Haritani M, Shamato E. Ultraprecision micromachining of brittle materials by applying ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. In: Proceedings: Int. Symposium on Micro-NanoMechatronics and Human Science. 2004. p. 1338. [63] Suzuki N, Nakamura A, Shamoto E, Harada K, Matsuo M, Osada M. Ultraprecision micromachining of hardened steel by applying ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting. IEEE Int Sym Micromechatronics Human Sci 2003:2216. [64] Weber H, Herberger J, Pilz R. Turning of machinable glass ceramics with an ultrasonically vibrated tool. CIRP Ann 1984;33:857. [65] Xiao M, Karube S, Soutome T, Sato L. Analysis of Chatter Suppression in Vibration Cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2002;42:167785. [66] Xiao M, Sato K, Karube S, Soutome T. The effect of tool nose radius in ultrasonic vibration cutting of hard metal. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2003;43:137582. [67] Xu WL, Han L. Piezoelectric actuator-based active error compensation of precision machining. Meas Sci Technol 1999;10:10611. [68] Zhong ZW, Lin G. Diamond turning of a metal matrix composite with ultrasonic vibrations. Mater Manuf Process 2005;20:72735. [69] Zhou M, Eow Y, Ngoi B, Lim E. Vibration-assisted precision machining of steel with PCD tools. Mater Manuf Process 2003;18:825 34. [70] Zhou M, Wang XJ, Ngoi B, Gan J. Brittle-ductile transition in the diamond cutting of glasses with the aid of ultrasonic vibration. J Mater Process Technol 2002;121:24351.
[47] Rubenach O. From process innovation to product innovationultrasonicassisted diamond turning of optical glass. Ind Diamond Rev 2003:417. [48] Scattergood RO, Blackley WS. Ductile-regime machining model for diamond turning of brittle materials. Precision Eng 1991;13:95103. [49] Shamoto E, Moriwaki T. Study on elliptical vibration cutting. CIRP Ann 1994;43:358. [50] Shamoto E, Moriwaki T. Ultraprecision diamond cutting of hardened steel by applying elliptical vibration cutting. CIRP Ann 1999;48:4414. [51] Shamoto E, Suzuki N, Hino R. Simulation of elliptical vibration cutting process with thin shear plane model. Proc ASPE 2007;40:649. [52] Shamoto E, Suzuki N, Naoi Y. Development of ultrasonic elliptical vibration controller for elliptical vibration cutting. CIRP Ann 2002;51: 32730. [53] Shamoto E, Suzuki N, Tsuchiya E, Hori Y, Inagaki H, Yoshino K. Development of 3-DOF ultrasonic vibration tool for elliptical vibration cutting of sculptured surfaces. CIRP Ann 2005;54:3214. [54] Shamato E. Ultraprecision micromachining of hardened die steel by applying elliptical vibration cutting. JSME News 2005;16:14. [55] Shamoto E, Ma CX, Moriwaki T. Elliptical vibration cutting -3rd report, application to three dimensional cutting and investigation of practical effects. J JSPE 1999;65:58691. [56] Shamoto E, Morimoto Y, Moriwaki T. Elliptical vibration cutting -1st report, cutting principle and basic performance. J JSPE 1996;62:112731. [57] Shamoto E, Morimoto Y, Moriwaki T. Elliptical vibration cutting -2nd report, study on effects of vibration conditions. J JSPE 1999;65:4117. [58] Shimada S, Tanaka H, Higuchi M, Yamaguchi T, Honda S, Obata K. Thermochemical wear mechanisms in machining of ferrous metals. CIRP Ann 2004;53:5760. [59] Skelton RC. Turning with an oscillating tool. Int J Mach Tool Des Res 1968;8:23959.

1 s2.0 S0141635907001079 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0141635907001079 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Review of vibration-assisted machining

Corresponding author. E-mail address: debrehl@unity.ncsu.edu (D.E. Brehl).

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Fig. 1. Coordinate system.

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Fig. 2. 1D vibration-assisted machining.

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Fig. 3. 1D VAM duty cycle chart [12].

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Fig. 7. Typical 1D VAM system utilizing an ultrasonic generator.

Fig. 6. Operating ranges (f vs. A) for VAM systems.

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

Fig. 9. Non-resonant 2D VAM system developed at Pusan University [1].

Fig. 8. Resonant 2D VAM system by Shamoto and Moriwaki [52].

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

50 50 1 2 200 150 20 2 3.5 1 800

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

D.E. Brehl, T.A. Dow / Precision Engineering 32 (2008) 153172

You might also like