Numerical simulations on machining of silicon carbide

1. Numerical simulations on machining of silicon carbide Jerry Jacob Mar 22, 2006 Advisor : Dr John Patten

2. Agenda • Introduction to Silicon Carbide (SiC) • Need for SiC / Applications • Background of HPPT Research • Background of ceramic simulations • 2-D orthogonal machining simulations • Simulations of edge turning • Simulation of plunge cutting • Simulations of fly-cutting • 3-D scratching simulations • Silicon • Silicon Carbide • Summary of results • Conclusions and future work

3. Silicon Carbide – Advanced Engineering Ceramic • Types of SiC • Properties and applications of SiC • Problems in manufacturing

4. Research background – HPPT of ceramics • Define HPPT • HPPT or amorphization of ceramics is responsible for the ductile behavior of these brittle materials. • HPPT has been identified in Si and Ge, and other materials. • Ductile material removal has been achieved in SiC under nanometer cutting conditions and phase transformation of chips has been recorded. • Some factors contributing to ductile material removal at room temperature • machining depth < tc • negative rake angle tools with small clearance • sharp edge radius

5. Developments in simulations of ceramic machining • Introduce AdvantEdge • Developments in AdvantEdge • 2-D simulations of Silicon Nitride in the nanometer regime • 2-D simulations of Silicon Nitride using DP model • Newly developed 3-D scratching simulation capability • Other developments outside AdvantEdge • FEA simulation of polycrystalline alpha-SiC • MD simulations of nanoindentation in SiC

6. 2-D orthogonal machining simulations of SiC • Three types of experiments were simulated • Edge turning of SiC • Plunge cutting of SiC • Fly-cutting of SiC Visualization of 3-D turning operation in 2-D

7. Typical setup for 2-D orthogonal simulations

8. Material model for simulations of SiC The DP yield criterion is given by κ is given by Here, σt = H/2.2 and σc = H For H=26 GPa, κ becomes 16.25 GPa. J2 is given by For a uniaxial state of stress Thus J2 is given by This gives κ of 16.25 GPa and α of -0.375 .

9. Simulations of edge turning

10. Edge turning simulations of SiC

11. Simulation with achieved depth of approx. 220 nm Note the deflection of workpiece material

12. Results from edge turning simulations, 0º rake, 5º clearance

13. Results from edge turning simulations, 0º rake, 5º clearance

14. Results from edge turning simulations, -45º rake, 5º clearance

15. Results from edge turning simulations, -45º rake, 5º clearance

16. Simulations of plunge cutting experiments

17. 2-D plunge cutting simulations of SiC • Using a flat nose tool, machining was performed across the wall thickness of a tube of polycrystalline SiC.

18. Parameters for plunge-cutting simulations of SiC

19. Simulation with achieved depth of 25 nm Note the deflection of workpiece material

20. Results from simulations of SiC

21. Flycutting experiment

22. Flycutting experiment setup

23. Force results from flycutting of SiC • 4 distinct cuts made • First cut overlapped 6 times • Significant noise generated towards end of the experiment

24. Results from flycutting of SiC

25. Results from cut 1, cut 2 & cut 3

26. Results from cut 4

27. Simulations of flycutting

28. Simulations of flycutting experiments Method A Method B

29. Results of simulations, Method A

30. Results of simulations, Method B

31. 3-D scratching simulations

32. 3-D scratching simulations

33. Setup for 3-D scratching simulation of SiC

34. Scratching simulations of SiC

35. Results from simulation of SiC

36. Summary of results • Summary of 2-D orthogonal machining simulations • Simulations agree with experiments for depths close to 100 nm and below. • Pressures at the tool-workpiece interface are greater than the hardness of the material for these depths. • Workpiece deflection leads to actual depth being smaller than the programmed depth. • Summary of 3-D scratching simulations • SiC simulations show thrust forces in good agreement with the experiment. • SiC simulations show cutting forces that are not in very good agreement with the experiment.

37. Conclusions • Two types of simulations have been presented: 2-D & 3-D • 2-D orthogonal simulations of SiC produce useful results for depths at or below the DBT depth of the material. • 2-D simulations create pressures at the tool-workpiece interface that are in agreement with what is expected from the experiments. • 3-D scratching work shows encouraging results for initial attempts at simulations of ceramic materials for depths below the DBT depth of the materials.

38. Future work • Validation of material models. • Development of analytical model to predict actual depth of cut for a programmed depth of cut for each material • Predicting behavior of ceramic materials under the brittle mode. • 2-D flycutting simulation using VAM. • 3-D turning simulations using round nose cutting tools.

39. Acknowledgements • National Science Foundation for the research grant • Andy Grevstad and Third Wave Systems for software support. • Jeremiah Couey and Dr Eric Marsh at Penn State University. • Dr Guichelaar for equipment at the Tribology lab. • Lei Dong at University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

40. Questions and suggestions

42. Results from edge turning simulations, -45º rake, 50º clearance

43. Scratching simulation of Si

44. Results from scratching simulation of Si