4.6 Article

Areal Surface Roughness of AZ31B Magnesium Alloy Processed by Dry Face Turning: An Experimental Framework Combined with Regression Analysis

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma13102303

关键词

surface roughness; magnesium alloys; machining; ANOVA; regression analysis

资金

  1. Key Laboratory Program of Education Department of Shaanxi Province [19JS035]
  2. Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province [2018GY-120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface roughness is used to quantitatively evaluate the surface topography of the workpiece subjected to mechanical processing. The optimal machining parameters are critical to getting designed surface roughness. The effects of cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of cut on the areal surface roughness of AZ31B Mg alloys were investigated via experiments combined with regression analysis. An orthogonal design was adopted to process the dry turning experiment of the front end face of the AZ31B bar. The areal surface roughness Sa and Sz of the end face were measured with an interferometer and analyzed through direct analysis and variance analysis (ANOVA). Then, an empirical model was established to predict the value of Sa through multiple regression analysis. Finally, a verification experiment was carried out to confirm the optimal combination of parameters for the minimum Sa and Sz, as well as the availability of the regression model for predicting Sa. The results show that both Sa and Sz of the machined end face reduce with the decrease in feed rate. The minimum of Sa and Sz reaches to 0.577 and 5.480 mu m, respectively, with the cutting speed of 85 m/min, the feed rate of 0.05 mm/rev, and a depth of cut of 0.3 mm. The feed rate, depth of cut, and cutting speed contribute the greatest, the second and the smallest to Sa, respectively. The linear regression model can predict Sa of AZ31B machined with dry face turning, since the cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut can explain 97.5% of the variation of Sa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据