2022
DOI: 10.1007/s40516-022-00163-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machinability Analysis During Laser Assisted Turning of Aluminium 3003 Alloy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…30 Moreover, alteration in cutting tool geometry also had a negative influence on the cutting forces during the machining of aluminum alloy. 31 This might be the likely reason for higher machining forces during LAT ( P = 100 and 300 W) than CT. Simultaneous application of laser and ultrasonic vibration energies (UVLAT) resulted in the reduction of machining forces by approximately 65%, 29%, and 63% in comparison to the CT, UVAT, and LAT processes, respectively for all three directions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…30 Moreover, alteration in cutting tool geometry also had a negative influence on the cutting forces during the machining of aluminum alloy. 31 This might be the likely reason for higher machining forces during LAT ( P = 100 and 300 W) than CT. Simultaneous application of laser and ultrasonic vibration energies (UVLAT) resulted in the reduction of machining forces by approximately 65%, 29%, and 63% in comparison to the CT, UVAT, and LAT processes, respectively for all three directions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, higher surface roughness was also observed during LAT than CT, possibly due to the creation of higher cutting forces. Deswal and Kant 31 revealed that chip particles adhered on the cutting tool and these particles were ploughed on the freshly generated surface, resulting in scratches on the finished surface. A significant reduction in surface roughness was obtained in the UVLAT process, with reductions up to 35%, 17%, and 37% observed for the CT, UVAT, and LAT processes, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher machining temperature and sticking of the aluminium particles led to the generation of higher damage on the workpiece surface and higher surface roughness. Deswal and Kant reported higher surface roughness during the machining of aluminium alloy for the LAT process than the CT process [17]. They revealed that the adhesion of aluminium alloy on the tool rake face and built-up edge could have occurred because aluminium alloys possess a higher chemical affinity towards the carbide cutting tool materials to form an adhesive layer.…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the sticking of the particles, these could have ploughed on the machined surface which led to the generation of some scratches and particle adhesion. Scratches and particle adhesion were observed on the machined surface during the LAT process in the work of Deswal and Kant [17]. They explained that the material adhered on the cutting tool could have ploughed on the machined surface due to the ductile nature of the aluminium alloy, resulting in scratches and particle adhesion on the machined surface during the LAT process.…”
Section: Surface Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation