PCD刀具超声振动辅助铣削TC4钛合金仿真与试验

Simulation and experiment of ultrasonic vibration assisted milling of TC4 titanium alloy with PCD tool

  • 摘要: TC4钛合金是典型的难加工材料,为解决其导热性差对铣削加工性能的影响,文章提出超声振动辅助铣削加工工艺,以提高其铣削质量。通过Abaqus建立PCD铣刀及TC4钛合金工件的仿真模型,分析超声振动对PCD铣刀切削刃温度的影响;采用单因素法设计超声振动铣削试验,研究不同超声振幅与刀具前角对PCD铣刀切削刃温度、铣削力及工件表面粗糙度的影响;并将试验结果与仿真结果进行对比,验证仿真模型的可靠性。结果表明,超声辅助铣削可大幅降低切削刃温度和铣削力,还可有效降低工件表面的粗糙度。相较普通铣削,超声铣削的切削刃平均温度由421.5 ℃下降到241.9 ℃,降幅为42.6%;铣削力由104.65 N下降到87.05 N,降幅为16.8%;工件表面粗糙度均值由0.316 μm下降到0.228 μm,降幅为27.8%。超声振幅较铣刀前角对表面粗糙度的影响更明显,且仿真结果和试验结果基本一致,其平均误差为4.6%。

     

    Abstract: TC4 titanium alloy is a typical difficult to machine material. To resolve the impact of poor thermal conductivity on milling performance, an ultrasonic vibration assisted milling process is proposed to improve the milling quality of titanium alloy materials. The simulation model of PCD milling cutter and TC4 titanium alloy workpiece was established using finite element software Abaqus, and the influence of ultrasonic vibration on cutting edge temperature of PCD milling cutters was analyzed; A single factor method was used to design ultrasonic vibration milling tests, and the effects of different ultrasonic amplitudes and tool rake angles on cutting edge temperature, milling force, and surface roughness of PCD milling cutters were studied; Compare the test and simulation results to verify the reliability of the simulation model. The results show that ultrasonic assisted milling can significantly reduce the cutting-edge temperature and milling force, and effectively improve the machining quality of the workpiece surface. Compared with ordinary milling, the average cutting-edge temperature of ultrasonic milling has decreased from 421.5 ℃ to 241.9 ℃, with a decrease of 42.6%. The milling force decreased from 104.65 N to 87.05 N, with a decrease of 16.8%. The average surface roughness is 0.316 μm dropped to 0.228 μm, decrease is 27.8%. The effect of ultrasonic amplitude on surface roughness is more significant than that of milling cutter rake angle, and the simulation and test results are basically consistent, with an average error of 4.6%.

     

/

返回文章
返回