Research Papers

An In-Process Intervention to Mitigate the Effect of Built-Up Edges in Micromilling

[+] Author and Article Information
Robert G. Altman

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and
Nuclear Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: altmar2@rpi.edu

James F. Nowak

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and
Nuclear Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: nowakj2@rpi.edu

Johnson Samuel

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and
Nuclear Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: samuej2@rpi.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MICRO- AND NANO-MANUFACTURING. Manuscript received December 28, 2016; final manuscript received August 4, 2017; published online September 28, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Martin Jun.

J. Micro Nano-Manuf 5(4), 041001 (Sep 28, 2017) (6 pages) Paper No: JMNM-16-1076; doi: 10.1115/1.4037574 History: Received December 28, 2016; Revised August 04, 2017

This paper is focused on developing an in-process intervention technique that mitigates the effect of built-up edges (BUEs) during micromilling of aluminum. The technique relies on the intermittent removal of the BUEs formed during the machining process. This is achieved using a three-stage intervention that consists first of the mechanical removal of mesoscale BUEs, followed by an abrasive slurry treatment to remove the microscale BUEs. Finally, the tool is cleaned using a nonwoven fibrous mat to remove the slurry debris. An on-machine implementation of this intervention technique is demonstrated, followed by a study of its influence on key micromachining outcomes such as tool wear, cutting forces, part geometry, and burr formation. In general, all relevant machining measures are found to improve significantly with the intervention. The key attributes of this intervention that makes it viable for micromachining processes include the following: (i) an experimental setup that can be implemented within the working volume of the microscale machine tool; (ii) no removal of the tool from the spindle, which ensures that the intervention does not change critical process parameters such as tool runout and offset values; and (iii) implementation in the form of canned G-code subroutines dispersed within the regular micromachining operation.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Overview of the three-stage in-process intervention protocol

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Tool cutting edge when stage 2 abrasive slurry treatment is applied in the absence of stage 1. (Note: The mesoscale burr similar to Fig. 1(a) remains on cutting edge and is not removed purely by stage 2).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Viscosity of SiC slurry solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Selected frames from high-speed video of stage 2 abrasive slurry treatment (tool diameter is 400 μm for scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cutting edge radius measurements (a) after 50 slots and (b) after 100 slots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Resultant cutting force trends

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Slot profile measurements (a) characteristic features of the slots; (b) axial depth variation; and (c) tilt angle variation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Average burr volume per slot




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In