4.6 Article

Formation mechanism and morphology prediction of CFRP chips

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-021-07079-2

Keywords

CFRP; Chip morphology prediction; Chip formation mechanism; Mechanical model

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51475127]
  2. Natural Science Foundation for Youths of Heilongjiang Province of China [QC2018064]
  3. Training Plan of Young Innovative Talents in Colleges and Universities of Heilongjiang Province of China [UNPYSCT-2018196]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that during CFRP drilling, chip morphology mainly consists of tower-shaped and rice-shaped chips, with some micro-circular and rectangular chips. Experimental results indicate that chip size decreases with an increase in rotation speed, but increases as cutting depth increases.
In order to solve the issue that it is difficult to removing the powder chips of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), the chip morphology prediction model for single-layer composite materials and the 3D drilling model and the chip formation process for laminated composites are developed to study the chip formation mechanism. It is concluded that drilling chips are mainly tower-shaped chips and rice chips, with a small number of micro-circular chips and rectangular chips. If the temperature is too high, fiber pull-out starts to occur and C-shaped chips appear. A CFRP drilling test platform was built, and it was found that, if other conditions remain unchanged, the chip size decreases with an increase in the rotation speed, but increases with an increase in the cutting depth. As the cutting depth increases, the chip failure section also tends to be flat. Overall, the experimental tests confirmed the accuracy of the prediction model. This paper provides a reference for improving the quality of chip removal and the efficiency of CFRP suction-type internal chip removal systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available