0
Research Papers

Obtaining a Relationship Between Process Parameters and Fracture Characteristics for Hybrid CO2 Laser∕Waterjet Machining of Ceramics

[+] Author and Article Information
Dinesh Kalyanasundaram1

Laboratory for Lasers, MEMS and Nanotechnology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50014kdinesh@iastate.edu

Pranav Shrotriya, Pal Molian

Laboratory for Lasers, MEMS and Nanotechnology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50014

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 131(1), 011005 (Dec 17, 2008) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3026547 History: Received March 21, 2008; Revised August 09, 2008; Published December 17, 2008

A combined experimental and analytical approach is undertaken to identify the relationship between process parameters and fracture behavior in the cutting of a 1mm thick alumina samples by a hybrid CO2 laser∕waterjet (LWJ) manufacturing process. In LWJ machining, a 200W power laser was used for local heating followed by waterjet quenching of the sample surface leading to thermal shock fracture in the heated zone. Experimental results indicate three characteristic fracture responses: scribing, controlled separation, and uncontrolled fracture. A Green’s function based approach is used to develop an analytical solution for temperatures and stress fields generated in the workpiece during laser heating and subsequent waterjet quenching along the machining path. Temperature distribution was experimentally measured using thermocouples and compared with analytical predictions in order to validate the model assumptions. Computed thermal stress fields are utilized to determine the stress intensity factor and energy release rate for different configurations of cracks that caused scribing or separation of the workpiece. Calculated crack driving forces are compared with fracture toughness and critical energy release rates to predict the equilibrium crack length for scribed samples and the process parameters associated with transition from scribing to separation. Both of these predictions are in good agreement with experimental observations. An empirical parameter is developed to identify the transition from controlled separation to uncontrolled cracking because the equilibrium crack length based analysis is unable to predict this transition. Finally, the analytical model and empirical parameter are utilized to create a map that relates the process parameters to the fracture behavior of alumina samples.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic representation of the laser∕waterjet system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic representation of the fixture with the workpiece in position during machining. Inset shows the thermocouple measurement points for recording the temperature history.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Orientation of the axes with respect to the workpiece. The y-axis represents the cutting direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Plane strain cracking and (b) crack channeling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Photographs of scribing, (b) controlled, and (c) uncontrolled fracture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) LWJ cutting of alumina for different spot sizes at 2.07MPa of water pressure and (b) LWJ cutting results at 2.07MPa of water pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

SEM image of dye penetration in broken scribed specimens: (a) low line energy scribing and (b) high line energy scribing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of experimental measurements and numerical prediction of temperature during LWJ machining: (a) temperature measured at 1mm from the cutting path (◇ and ◻ markers) and numerical predictions for three different conditions (curves A, B, and C); and (b) measured temperature (◇ and ◻ markers) and numerical predictions (curve A) at a 2mm offset from the cutting path

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(a) Temperature plot at x=0m, and y=0.004m at various line energies and (b) stress plot at x=0m, and y=0.004m at various z with the inset showing the stress across the thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

KI at various a∕w (a≡crack length and w≡thickness) ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

G curve at various a∕w (a≡crack length and w≡thickness) ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Minimum energy release rates plotted as a function of line energy for a spot size of 0.6mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Graph relating process parameters and fracture characteristics (27)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In