A mechanistic model for the prediction of ductile erosion

Jennings, W.H.; Head, W.J.; Manning, C. R.

doi:10.1016/0043-1648(76)90021-1

Cited by 43 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…that the material loss by local melting was insignificant. Based on their erosion testing of several steels, aluminum, copper, and titanium alloys, Jennings et al [41], however, postulated that melting played an important role in target material removal. However, the relative contribution of thermal and mechanical mechanisms to material removal was not determined.…”

Section: The Effect Of Temperature Increase and Thermal Softening On mentioning

confidence: 98%

Numerical simulation of solid particle impacts on Al6061-T6 Part II: Materials removal mechanisms for impact of multiple angular particles

Takaffoli

Papini

2012

Wear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Effect Of Temperature Increase and Thermal Softening On mentioning

confidence: 98%

Numerical simulation of solid particle impacts on Al6061-T6 Part II: Materials removal mechanisms for impact of multiple angular particles

Takaffoli

Papini

2012

Wear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Material removal in ductile mode erosion was attributed to a mechanical process tenned as cutting wear due to microcutting [13,14], The material removal model developed based on micro cutting process [13] predicted that no erosion would occur at nor mal angle of impact which was contrary to the experimental evidence [15]. Subsequent investigations revealed that an addi tional mechanism was operative during erosion at normal or large angle impact which was termed as deformation wear due to repeated hammering action [16].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The factors which affect the ductile mode material removal include particle size, impact velocity, angle of impact, and the workpiece hardness. The studies also suggest that the macro mechanical properties of workpiece such as fracture toughness (/fCw) and elastic modulus (£ w) do not greatly influence the mate rial removal during ductile mode machining [15]. Various models…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. Literature suggests that during ductile mode machining, the material damage is strongly influenced by material hardness (7/w) [25] and that other macromechanical properties of workpiece such as fracture toughness and elastic modulus do not greatly influence the mate rial removal [15], During a ductile mode machining involving normally impact of abrasive particles on the workpiece surface, the volume of mate rial removed per single abrasive grain impact during the impact process can be expressed as [8] t = Kd * rIV^p15 H -'5 (11) where KD is the material independent constant.…”

Section: Modeling the Materials Removal In Vanila Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling of Material Removal Rate in Vibration Assisted Nano Impact-Machining by Loose Abrasives

James

Sundaram

2015

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vibration assisted nano impact-machining by loose abrasives (VANILA) is a novel nano machining process that combines the principles o f vibration-assisted abrasive machining, and dp-based nanomachining, to perform target specific nano abrasive machining o f hard and brittle materials. An atomic force microscope (AFM) is used as a platform in this pro cess wherein, nano abrasives, injected in slurry between the workpiece and the vibrating AFM probe, impact the workpiece and cause nanoscale material removal. The objective o f this study is to develop a mathematical model to determine the material removal rate (MRR) in the VANILA process. The experimental machining results reveal that the material removal happens primarily in ductile mode due to repeated deformation which happens at near normal angles o f impact. A predictive model fo r MRR during the VANILA process is analytically developed based on elastoplastic impact theory fo r normal angles o f impact. The model is validated through a series o f experiments performed on silicon and borosilicate glass subs mates and the results confirm that the model is capable o f predicting the machining results within 10% deviation.

show abstract

“…As a result of these studies, several equations (e.g. Finnie, 1960;Bitter, 1963;Rabinowicz, 1979), models (Head et al, 1973;Jennings et al, 1976;Hutchings, 1981) and suggested mechanisms (Hutchings, 1977;Christman & Shewmon, 1979;Finnie et al, 1979;Carter et al, 1980;Brainard & Salik, 1980;Brown et al, 1981) for the material removal process have been developed. In most normal impingement studies, material removal is related to the formation of small platelets (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of the effect of solid particle impact and particle shape on the erosion morphology of ductile metals

Rao¹,

Young²,

Buckley³

1984

Journal of Microscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Studies were conducted to identify the differences in the modes of erosion between impulsive and steady‐jet glass bead erodent particle impingement at normal incidence. A 6061‐T6 aluminium alloy, copper and 1045 steel were used as test materials. A small bore or calibre gas gun apparatus was used for impulse testing and a commercial sand blasting facility was used for steady‐jet impingement testing. Crushed glass was also used as an erodent in the steady‐jet apparatus and the erosion patterns from crushed glass were compared with those of glass bead impingement erosion. Morphological features and material removal mechanisms for the specimens were studied using weight, loss measurements, scanning electron microscope, energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (EDS), and surface profilometry. Impulsive conditions induced more severe damage and results in embedment and fragmentation of glass beads, likely due to more intense pressure pulses and longer loading times on impact. Patterns from steady‐jet glass bead impingement experiments exhibited overlapping of plastically formed craters with very little evidence of particle fragmentation. Recorded profiles and micrographs of the specimens subjected to steady‐jet impingement indicate that crushed glass induced deeper and wider pits than glass beads. The volume loss of 1045 steel was almost half that observed on aluminium and copper specimens with both types of erodent particles. The material removal process for glass bead impingement appears to be in the form of deformation induced fatigue failure with flake‐like debris visible at high magnification. With crushed glass, material appears to have been removed as small chips, leaving a jagged, angular, faceted surface characteristic of ‘cutting wear’. EDS analyses indicated traces of silicon (from the erodent particles) on all three materials. Silicon amounts were maximum at the pit bottom.

show abstract

A mechanistic model for the prediction of ductile erosion

Cited by 43 publications

References 9 publications

Numerical simulation of solid particle impacts on Al6061-T6 Part II: Materials removal mechanisms for impact of multiple angular particles

Numerical simulation of solid particle impacts on Al6061-T6 Part II: Materials removal mechanisms for impact of multiple angular particles

Modeling of Material Removal Rate in Vibration Assisted Nano Impact-Machining by Loose Abrasives

A study of the effect of solid particle impact and particle shape on the erosion morphology of ductile metals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About