4.7 Article

Stochastic modelling of abrasive waterjet footprints using finite element analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2015.05.001

关键词

Abrasive waterjet milling; Finite element modelling; Stochastic modelling; Monte Carlo methods

资金

  1. EU Initial Training Network STEEP [316560]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposal of erosion models to predict the jet footprint during abrasive waterjet machining is a key element for the development of this technology, but it is very challenging because of the inherent fluctuations of the process. This issue becomes critical when the size of the cutting systems is reduced, since the relative size of these deviations increases. The present paper considers for the first time a modelling framework capable of predicting the average shape of AWJM footprints and, of great novelty, the variability along the trench, combining finite element analysis and Monte Carlo methods, and verifying the model using different feed speeds and tilt angles. For that purpose, the relevance of each random parameter, such as shape (sharpness), size and relative orientation of the abrasive particles, has been investigated through parametric studies on these variables. Multiple particle simulations with randomly generated input were performed to determine the effect of operating parameters in the overall variability of the jet footprint. The process was simulated using Abaqus 6.14 as multiple garnet particles hitting a target of Ti-6Al-4V at very high velocity, eroding the target by plastic deformation and material removal. The model shows successfully the influence of single particle parameters, such as the shape, on the surface variability. The results for the footprint variability show that stochastic methods are suitable to model these fluctuations, and it is also shown that this approach yields accurate estimates of the average profile after multiple jet passes with error less than 5%. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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