Advertisement

Grinding of Metal Matrix Composites

  • B. Anand Ronald
  • L. Vijayaraghavan
  • R. Krishnamurthy
Chapter

Abstract

The metal-matrix composites are difficult-to-machine materials, since the matrix and reinforcement possess widely-different properties. The manufacturing methodology adopted has significant effect on material and product performance. This chapter presents details on the influence of reinforcement size, grinding abrasive material and grit size on the grindability of Al/SiCp metal-matrix composites. Different performance indicators namely grinding force, temperature and acoustic emission, along with surface texture of the ground surface and chip morphology are discussed.

Keywords

Acoustic Emission Work Material Wheel Speed Grit Size Diamond Wheel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhong Z, Hung NP (2002) Grinding of alumina/aluminium composites. J Mater Process Technol 123(1):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu C, Barnard L, Mridha S, Baker TN (1996) The role of SiC particulate and Al2O3 (saffil), fibers in several alloys during the formation of in situ MMCs developed by laser processing. J Mater Process Technol 58:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L Shy-Wen, Chung DDL (1996) Shaping metal-matrix composites by thixotropic machining. J Mater Process Technol 58:67–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anand Ronald B, Vijayaraghavan L, Krishnamurthy R (2009) Studies on the influence of grinding wheel bond material on the grindability of metal matrix composites. Mater Des 30(3):679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaccari JA, Lane CT (1993) Machining a new breed of aluminium. Am Mach Nov 37(11):56–60Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beffort O, Vaucher S, Khalid FA (2004) On the thermal and chemical stability of diamond during processing of Al/diamond composites by liquid metal infiltration (squeeze casting). Diam Relat Mater 13:1834–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anand Ronald B, Vijayaraghavan L, Krishnamurthy R (2009) Grinding of Al/SiCp metal matrix composites, with diamond wheels of varying grit. J Mach Form Technol 1(3/4):221–236Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teti R (2002) Machining of composite materials. Ann CIRP 51(2):611–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komanduri R (1971) Some aspects of machining with negative rake tools simulating grinding. Int J Mach Tool Des Res. 11:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anand Ronald B, Vijayaraghavan L, Krishnamurthy R (2010) Chip morphology—an indicator of response of composite material to grinding. Int J Mater Prod Technol 37(1/2):71–82 (special issue on “Experimental and Numerical Studies on Machinability of Materials”)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ASTM (1982) E 610-Standard definition of terms relating to acoustic emission. Am Soc Test Mater, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inasaki I (1998) Application of acoustic emission sensor for monitoring machining processes. Ultrasonics 36:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sreejith PS, Krishnamurthy R, Malhotra SK (2007) Effect of specific cutting pressure and temperature during machining of carbon/phenolic ablative composite using PCBN tools. J Mater Process Technol 183:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Anand Ronald
    • 1
  • L. Vijayaraghavan
    • 2
  • R. Krishnamurthy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSSN College of EngineeringKalavakkamIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations