1 / 13

指導老師 : 戴子堯 博士 學 生 : 郭怡彣 日 期 : 2011. 05. 23

指導老師 : 戴子堯 博士 學 生 : 郭怡彣 日 期 : 2011. 05. 23. Outline. 1. Introduction 2. Experimental set-up and working procedure 3. Results and discussions 4. Conclusions. 1. Introduction.

karif
Download Presentation

指導老師 : 戴子堯 博士 學 生 : 郭怡彣 日 期 : 2011. 05. 23

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 指導老師 :戴子堯 博士 學 生 : 郭怡彣 日 期 :2011.05. 23 STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  2. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Experimental set-up and working procedure • 3. Results and discussions • 4. Conclusions STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  3. 1. Introduction • The objective of this paper is to study the effect of using different chemicals on material removal rate, with varied stand off distances andchemical concentration in abrasive water jet machining. • The use of such chemicals on the taperness of drilled holes is also studied. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  4. 2. Experimental set-upand working procedure STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  5. 3. Results and discussions • A series of experiments were conducted taking abrasive particleas Silicon carbide of 180 grit size which are of irregularspherical in shape, on a glass as a specimen, of thickness 4 mm. • The working pressure used here is of 60–80 N/. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  6. The resultsare discussed to analyze the effect ofstand off distance (S-O-D) and chemicalconcentrationon material removal and taperness. • Analysis was made on: (1) S-O-D versus MRR, S-O-D versus taperness. (2) Chemical concentration versus MRR, chemical concentrationversus taperness. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  7. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  8. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  9. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  10. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  11. 4. Conclusions • Based on the experiments conducted andobservations made,following conclusions are drawn: • (1) The material removal increases with the increase in S-O-D,up to certain limit and further increase in the S-O-D beyondthe limit results in decrease of the material removal. • (2) The material removal was found to be more in presence ofchemically active liquids such as acetone and phosphoricacid rather than plain water in the slurry. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  12. (3) The material removal was identified to be the highest inthe case of a slurry mixed with polymer (polyacrylamide)rather than other two chemical environments used in theexperiments. • (4) The slurry with a polymer combination shows a continuousincrease in material removal with a variation in the chemicalconcentration. • (5) The chemical concentration was observed to be having aninfluence over the taper of the holes produced. The holetaper in case of polymer combination showed almostniltaper. STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

  13. Thank you for your attention STUT 太陽能材料與模組實驗室

More Related