Multiple nonlinear regression model of cutting force for C/SiC composites by laser‐assisted micromachining
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Based on the response surface methodology (RSM), laser‐assisted micromachining (LAMM) experiments of carbon fiber reinforced silicon carbide matrix(C/SiC) composites have been carried out to obtain the data of three‐direction cutting forces Fx , Fy , Fz , and result‐force F in the cutting process. A stepwise regression method is used to screen out the factors that significantly affected the cutting force, and hence a multivariate nonlinear mathematical regression model has been established. Through the analysis of variance and regression analysis, the R2 of the regression model is the cutting force Fx : 0.975, the cutting force Fy : 0.970, the cutting force Fz : 0.972, the resultant force F : 0.987, and the probability p > F ‐values are all less than 0.001. The model analysis results show that the main effects and interactions of the three factors of laser power, cutting speed, and cutting depth significantly influence the cutting force. The main effect of the most considerable influence on the resultant F is cutting depth, followed by cutting speed and laser power, and the interactive effect is cutting speed and cutting depth. The experimental results show that the model prediction results are in good agreement with the experimental results.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced machining processes and optimization · Advanced Machining and Optimization Techniques · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Cross‐Scale Micro and Nano Manufacturing Changchun University of Science and Technology Changchun China
Funding
National Key Research and Development Program of China
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.01.00310.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.01.003 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2004.09.10610.1016/j.apsusc.2004.09.106 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2004.05.05210.1016/j.actaastro.2004.05.052 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.msea.2005.08.20410.1016/j.msea.2005.08.204 ↗
5. Effect of machining parameters on the milling process of 2.5D C/SiC ceramic matrix composites
6. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.05.14110.1016/j.ceramint.2014.05.141 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.07.08110.1016/j.compositesb.2017.07.081 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.04.00210.1016/j.compositesb.2017.04.002 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.10410.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.104 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.11.02910.1016/j.compositesb.2014.11.029 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.04.00810.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.04.008 ↗
12. 10.1007/s12541-014-0335-810.1007/s12541-014-0335-8 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2013.06.00910.1016/j.ijmachtools.2013.06.009 ↗
14. A study on the energy efficiency of specific cutting energy in laser‐assisted machining
15. 10.1016/j.jare.2017.05.00410.1016/j.jare.2017.05.004 ↗
16. 10.1007/s00170-016-9115-110.1007/s00170-016-9115-1 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.07.00610.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.07.006 ↗
18. 10.1007/s00170-017-9987-810.1007/s00170-017-9987-8 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.09.00410.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.09.004 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.09.05110.1016/j.ceramint.2019.09.051 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.10.02610.1016/j.compositesa.2016.10.026 ↗
22. 10.1080/15599612.2020.178925110.1080/15599612.2020.1789251 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.06.01010.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.06.010 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.mfglet.2019.10.00110.1016/j.mfglet.2019.10.001 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.06.02310.1016/j.jmapro.2018.06.023 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.07010.1016/j.cirp.2018.04.070 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2019.11.00210.1016/j.jmapro.2019.11.002 ↗
28. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00067.x ↗