4.5 Article

The influence of cutting parameters on the defect structure of subsurface in orthogonal cutting of titanium alloy

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 720-732

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2017.397

关键词

titanium alloy; subsurface defect structure; inner stress; dislocation dynamics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51575138]
  2. State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [51535003]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I033424/1, EP/P006930/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. EPSRC [EP/I033424/1, EP/P006930/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsurface microstructure alteration has been a major concern to implement micromachining of titanium alloy in the high-tech industry. To quantitatively promulgate the underlying mechanisms of this alteration, a discrete dislocation dynamics-based model is proposed and used to simulate the subsurface defects and their evolution under different cutting conditions. The model considers the subsurface dislocation configuration and inner stress distribution during the orthogonal cutting of titanium alloy. The results show that subsurface defect structure consists of plenty of dislocation dipoles, twining dislocation bands, and refined grains after cutting. In the primary shear zone, two different characteristics of subsurface damage layers can be found, the near-surface damage layer and deep-surface damage layer, which have different structural natures and distribution features. Moreover, it is found that high cutting speed and small depth of the cut can suppress the formation and propagation of subsurface defects. A powerful inner stress state would promote the distortion of the lattice and result in a microcrack within the subsurface matrix. The simulation results have been compared with experimental findings on the machined surface and subsurface of similar materials, and strong similarities were revealed and discussed.

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

4.5
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