Machining behavior of multiple layer polymer composite bearing with using different drill bits

Journal Pre-proof Machining behavior of multiple layer polymer composite bearing with using different drill bits Alpay Tamer Erturk, Fahri Vatansever, Eser Yarar, Sedat Karabay PII:

S1359-8368(19)31613-0

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107318

Reference:

JCOMB 107318

To appear in:

Composites Part B

Received Date: 12 April 2019 Revised Date:

12 July 2019

Accepted Date: 11 August 2019

Please cite this article as: Erturk AT, Vatansever F, Yarar E, Karabay S, Machining behavior of multiple layer polymer composite bearing with using different drill bits, Composites Part B (2019), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107318. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Machining Behavior of Multiple Layer Polymer Composite Bearing with Using Different Drill Bits Alpay Tamer ERTURK*, Fahri VATANSEVER, Eser YARAR, Sedat KARABAY Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Kocaeli University, IzmitKocaeli, Turkey *Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The aim of this work is to investigate the drilling behavior of multiple layer orthotropic polyester composite reinforced with woven polyester fiber and PTFE particle. Drilling ability of the synthetic polymer composite bearing material was examined using a drilling system with different drill bits, feed rate, and spindle speed parameters. The investigation was performed by changing the tool and composite interface. Drilling experiments were carried out on two orientations of the composite structure using three types of drill bits. Results show that the tribomechanical behavior of the drilling operation is affected at different levels by tool geometry and coating. This multiscale behavior is related to the intrinsic friction properties of tool design and coating nature that influence the tribologic contact at the interface between the cutting tool edge and composite surface. The ANOVA was used in the evaluation of experiment results. The best results of thrust force, torque, and surface roughness were obtained with HSS Co bit. Drilling of perpendicular direction requires lower thrust force and torque values than the parallel direction to fiber lamination. Keywords:

Polymer-matrix

composites

properties/methods, Machining

1

(PMCs),

Delamination,

Statistical

1. Introduction Composites are defined as microscopic, mesoscopic or macroscopic compositions of two or more components having different physical or chemical properties [1]. Superior properties such as high strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios make composites serious competitor to metals in wide range industrial application such as aerospace, aircraft, and defense [2]. Structural superiority of composites arises from their load sharing mechanism [3]. While fiber reinforcement phase builds up higher strength structure, matrix phase distributes load homogenously between the fibers [4]. Composite bearings are preferable to sliding bearings because they don’t consist of moving parts, don’t require lubrication and can be easily changed. This study is about woven polyester fiber/PTFE particle reinforced composite used as bearing material in naval industry in service conditions such as low temperatures, high loads and corrosive environments. Highly hard abrasive fiber reinforcement and anisotropic feature make it difficult to machine [5, 6]. Hence, these drawbacks derive fiber pull out and delamination failures during drilling [2, 7, 8]. Drilling parameters and thrust force relation of different type composite materials and machining behavior have been investigated in previous researches but there is not an extensive study for this type of composite material in the literature. Surface quality depends on cutting force, tool geometry and cutting parameters for fiber reinforced plastics (FRPs) [9]. It’s reported that lower Ra surface roughness values are acquired by usage of carbide tools than HSS and HSS TiN bits in drilling operations for GFRP’s [10]. Surface roughness value was decreased for increase in drilling speed and increased with decreasing cutting feed value for particle board composites [11]. Cutting direction effects, the surface roughness of unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced

2

composite and superior quality obtains with a combination of higher cutting speed and lower feed rate [12]. On drilling process of wood-based composite panel [13], glass fiber reinforced polymer composite [14], unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced plastic (UD-CFRP) composite [12, 15], and epoxy granite [16], increasing spindle speed decreases thrust force, whereas increasing feed rate increases thrust force. Increasing of feed rate reportedly causes more delamination and surface roughness [9, 13, 14, 16]. Heidary et al. [17] indicated that the feed rate is the factor which has the greatest influence on the thrust force and delamination factor, for carbon nanotube/polymer composites. Rahme et al. [18] used step gundrill bit for machining of thick composite plates and showed that delamination depens strongly to feed rate per tooth of the step gundrill. Thickness of fiberglass laminates and tool type are two major factors that affect damaging characteristic of the material [19]. Patel et al. [20] and Sugita et al. [21] stated that drill geometry is the major factor of the thrust force for hemp/glass hybrid composites and the proposed drill tool can shorten the process time and improve hole accuracy during drilling of CFRP’s respectively. Using brad and spur drill, and brad center drill, cutting forces are reduced by 8% and 13% on average, respectively as compared to the conventional twist drill for GFRP composite pipes [22]. Alvarez et al. [23, 24] found out that lower values of delamination at the entry and exit side were found for the Brad & Spur drill bits than twist drill bits for aramid composites and also showed that the increase of the drill point angle resulted in higher thrust forces and increased damage extension for drilling of biocomposites. Similarly, another study revealed that usage of appropriate candle stick drill tip geometry could reduce thrust force and delamination for GFRP’s [25]. Drilling of epoxy granite, tool wear of uncoated drill bits takes place almost two times faster than spiral solid carbide drill bits

3

coated with (TiAl)N, and up to four times faster than the solid carbide spiral drill bits with (TiAl)N + NbHfTi coating [16]. Additionally, Xu et al. [26] stated that the design of efficient geometries of tools should be conducted allowing the easy chip evacuation. This study presents the machinability of the composite material with selected drilling parameters including tool type, spindle speed, feed rate, and drilling direction. In this investigation, HSS TiN and HSS Co drill bits, as well as a brad point wood drill bit (CrV), have been used. HSS type drill bits are used for machining of composite materials generally. The cost of a brad point drill bit used of machining of wood is much lower than the others, and the test material has a similar fibrous structure to wood. In the case of cutting performance of CrV drill bit can compete with HSS, it will reduce the cost of drilling operations.

2. Experimental Procedure 2.1. Specimen preparation and mechanical properties A layered composite radial bearing material composed of polyester woven and PTFE particle reinforced polyester matrix commercially available as the name of Orkot was used. Test material contains PTFE reinforcement with an average particle size of 200 µm and polyester fiber with a width of approximately 300 µm. Mechanical properties of composite samples can be seen in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows the weaving pattern of polyester fiber fabric. Test specimens were cut with Proxxon 27006 KS 230 model circular saw from a radial shaft bearing with 300 mm inner, 380 mm outer diameter and 100 mm height. The thickness of each sample is 10 mm. Table 1. Mechanical properties of the test material Compression strength (MPa)

Tensile strength (MPa)

Flexural strength (MPa)

Shear strength (MPa)

Impact Hardness Coefficient Swelling Density strength (Rockwell of static in water 3 (g/cm ) (KJ/m2) (%) M) friction

4

300

60

65

80

120

90

1.3

0.13

0.1

Figure 1. Composite radial shaft bearing; perpendicular (A) and parallel (B) direction to the weaving lamination

2.2. Experimental set up, optimization and validation procedure The test set up and drilling machine properties are given in Fig. 2. Thrust force and torque measurement were performed with Kistler piezoelectric drill dynamometer, an amplifier, and a computer. The dynamometer was fixed rigidly using bolts to the drilling table for achieving stability. During machining, the data signal produced by the dynamometer related to the thrust force and torque is transferred to the computer. The data acquisition process is performed using a program called as DynoWare by Kistler Co.

5

Figure 2. Test set up and drilling machine properties

Table 2. Tool properties Drilling bit HSS TiN d1 8 l1 117 75 l2 Point angle 118 Coating thickness 6 µm Friction coef. 0.050 – 0.065 Recommended Steel, copper, hard material plastic

HSS Co 8 117 75 118 0.030 – 0.045 Alloyed steels, titanium

CrV 8 117 75 0.070 – 0.080 Wood

Properties of HSS TiN, HSS Co and CrV drill bits can be seen in Table 2. Drilling of the samples was performed under dry machining condition without using any coolant. Variable parameters in machining operation were drill bit type, spindle speed, feed rate, and reinforcement direction as seen in Table 3. In order to verify the results of the experiment and to ensure its reliability, the experiments were repeated three times and the mean values were taken for the analysis of the results. The full factorial design (FFD) was used in the modelling and evaluation of experimental data. Selected factors and levels in the FFD are also given in Table 3. Correctness of the model based on ANOVA chart was revealed and regression equations were obtained. Three models were established for cutting force, torque and surface roughness assessment. Test results in the 95% confidence interval for the P values were considered at all variance analysis [27-29].

Table 3. Selected factors and levels for the full factorial model

6

Factors Drill bit Spindle speed (rpm) Feed rate (mm/rev) Direction

Levels 3 2 2 2

1. Level HSS-TiN 535 0.1 A

2. Level HSS-Co 1520 0.2 B

3. Level CrV — — —

3. Results 3.1. Measurement and analysis of thrust force and torque Thrust force is the force applied to the shear plane and it is considered that high thrust force is the cause of delamination [30]. Delamination will reduce fatigue strength of composite material [7, 31, 32]. The force and torque on a drill bit during drilling of a workpiece follow a typical course in five stages as seen in Fig. 3(a); (1) approach of drill bit to workpiece, (2) contact of drill bit to surface, (3) drilling of hole, (4) gradual reduction, (5) removal of drill bit from workpiece. Drill material, drill diameter, point angle, helix angle, chisel edge, rake angle, and web thickness effect cutting force and torque while drilling FRP composites [33]. HSS TiN and HSS Co bits have the same geometrical characteristics with 118° point angle. CrV bit has a brad point and cutting spurs that provide accurate positioning. As seen in Fig. 3(b) and (c), while the increase in thrust force for HSS TiN and HSS Co bits occurs in one stage during entering drill cutting edge to the sample, two-stage increasing in the trust force graph of CrV takes place until the perforation of the hole. The reason for this situation is consecutive entrance continued with one after another of brad point and cutting spurs to the material. It appears that examining in Fig. 3(b), HSS Co has a stable thrust force from penetration to end of drilling at the A direction. The thrust force data of HSS TiN and CrV drill bits show a gradual increase and then a nearly linear decrease. When drilling along the A direction, a higher level of thrust force occurred with the CrV drill bit. HSS Co drill bit gives the lowest thrust force result in

7

both drilling directions as seen in Fig. 3(b) and (c). Besides, cutting force decreases after a gradual increase both for HSS TiN and CrV drill bits. This reduction occurs in a shorter time for the CrV bit. All bits generally exhibit with similar thrust force characteristics for both directions, but slightly higher in the B direction.

Figure 3. (a) Typical course of thrust force and torque on a drill bit, (b) and (c) thrust force diagrams obtained at 535 rpm and 0.1 mm/rev

The effect of the process parameters on trust force is presented in Fig. 4(a). Increasing feed rate caused an increase in trust force for all drill bits, similarly with previous studies [13, 14, 34]. Besides, increasing spindle speed caused a little decrease in thrust force for CrV drill bit and unlikely an increase for HSS TiN and HSS Co bits. The reason for this difference is dissimilar geometrical tip characteristics. Torque and thrust force data compatible for all bits and directions, as seen in Figs. 4(b) and (c).

8

Figure 4. (a) thrust force, (b) torque, (c) average thrust force and torque, (d) surface roughness values according to lamination direction

Full factorial model and ANOVA statistical technique previously used to evaluate drilling performance [35-40] and to detect optimum drilling parameters of varied materials such as glass laminate aluminum reinforced epoxy composites [35], CFRPs [37] and fibre metal laminates (FMLs) [38]. ANOVA was used to identify the significance degree of the parameters affecting on thrust force (see in Table 4). P values were found to be 0.0 for drill bit, feed rate, drilling direction factors and 0.013 for spindle speed. Accordingly, four parameters have significant effect on thrust force. The coefficient of determination (R2) is a percentage of variation in response described by 9

the model. High R2 values indicate a good fit with the regression model [29, 41, 42]. R2 and R2 adjusted values for the thrust force analysis are 85.47% and 84.37% respectively. The residual plots in Fig. 5 are consonant for the response of thrust force, torque and surface roughness. Also, the established model is consistent with the regression as seen in Fig. 5. The regression equation of the model for thrust force is given in Table 5. Table 4. Analysis of variance for thrust force Source Model Linear Drill bit Spindle speed Feed rate Direction Error Total

DF 5 5 2 1 1 1 66 71

Adj SS 9691.8 9691.8 4088.6 162.8 3944.6 1495.8 1647.4 11339.2

Adj MS 1938.37 1938.37 2044.30 162.81 3944.64 1495.77 24.96

F-Value 77.66 77.66 81.90 6.52 158.04 59.93

P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000

Table 5. Emprical models of thrust force, torque and surface roughness

Thrust force Torque Surface roughness *

Regression equation 40.595 + 4.794TiN – 10.640Co + 5.846CrV – 1.504S(535) + 1.504S(1520) – 7.402F(0.1) + 7.402F(0.2) – 4.558dA + 4.558dB 6.778 + 0.598TiN – 1.684Co + 1.086CrV – 0.616S(535) + 0.616S(1520) – 1.156F(0.1) + 1.156F(0.2) – 0.577dA + 0.577dB 2.946 + 0.436TiN – 1.204Co + 0.769CrV – 0.266S(535) + 0.266S(1520) + 0.365F(0.1) – 0.365F(0.2) + 0.202dA – 0.202dB

S: spindle speed, F: feed rate, d: drilling direction. Using regression equations, related variable must be 1 and others must be 0.

**

The effects of cutting parameters on thrust force, torque and surface roughness are shown in Fig. 6 as the residual plots. Main effect plots are widely used to asses this type of works [17, 20, 36, 40, 43, 44]. According to mean thrust force changing in Fig. 6, thrust force increases with feed rate and spindle speed, it is also affected by drilling direction changing. Examining the cutting performance of drill bits, CrV and HSS TiN are close to each other while the HSS Co tool has the lowest thrust force.

10

P values were found 0.0 for drill bit, spindle speed, feed rate, direction parameters, hence they have significant effect on torque (see in Table 6). The R2 and R2 adjusted for torque analysis are 82.25% and 80.91% respectively. The normal probability plot in Fig. 5 shows the residuals which are normally distributed for responses of torque values. Type of drill bit is found to have the greatest influence on torque (see in Fig. 6). Besides, increasing feed rate and spindle speed increase torque. The regression equation of the model for torque is given in Table 5. Table 6. Analysis of variance for the torque Source Model Linear Drill bit Spindle speed Feed rate Direction Error Total

DF 5 5 2 1 1 1 66 71

Adj SS 252.51 252.51 104.95 27.29 96.29 23.98 54.48 306.99

Adj MS 50.5022 50.5022 52.4772 27.2876 96.2879 23.9813 0.8255

F-Value 61.18 61.18 63.57 33.06 116.64 29.05

P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Figure 5. Normal probability plot for the response of thrust force, torque and surface roughness results

11

Figure 6. Main effects plot for thrust force, torque and surface roughness 3.2. Evaluation of surface roughness Average surface roughness (Ra) is used to evaluate surface roughness. It is a common practice to use Ra to evaluation of composite materials [43-46]. Linear surface roughness measurements were made from 3 different points for each test sample using 2D Mitutoyo SJ-301 device and the average values were considered. Fig. 4(d) shows surface roughness measurement results with different types of drill bits and process parameters. The highest surface quality results in terms of surface roughness obtained with HSS Co drill bit, approximately 1.5 µm in both directions with independent from the process parameters. This is an expected result because the lowest thrust force was also obtained by using HSS Co drill bit. Range of surface roughness for HSS TiN is between 1.5-6 µm. Thus, it can be inferred that surface roughness was influenced from the drilling parameters when using HSS TiN. Surface roughness values are approximately 3 µm when using CrV bit. The surface roughness of drilling with CrV bit

12

is independent of the process parameters like HSS Co bit. Accordingly, all parameters have a significant effect on the average surface roughness, that’s because P values are in the 95% confidence interval (see in Table 7). The R2 and R2 adjusted for the model are 63.94% and 61.21% respectively. Although these values for surface roughness are lower than the R2 and R2 adjusted values of thrust force and torque, the model still covers a significant part of the experimental results. According to Fig. 6, the lowest quality in surface roughness was obtained with CrV bit in agreement with thrust force analysis. It is seen that as in previous findings [14, 27, 28] smoother surfaces can be obtained with lower feeding rate. Increasing feed rate let to a decrease in surface roughness as seen in Fig 6. It is thought that this decreasing trend in surface roughness is due to the positive effect of rising temperature during drilling. Because, the rising temperature causes polyester film formations. This situation is examined in section of discussion in detail. The average Ra of A and B directions are intimate as seen in Fig. 6, hence drilling direction does not has a considerable effect on surface roughness. The regression equation of the model for surface roughness is given in Table 5. Table 7. Analysis of variance for the average surface roughness Source Model Linear Drill bit Spindle speed Feed rate Direction Error Total

DF 5 5 2 1 1 1 66 71

Adj SS 71.149 71.149 53.543 5.077 9.592 2.936 40.119 111.268

Adj MS 14.2276 14.2276 26.7713 5.0774 9.5922 2.9363 0.6079

F-Value 23.41 23.41 44.04 8.35 15.78 4.83

P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.031

3.3. Assessment of Delamination Assessment of delamination in drilling is important for improving service performance of the material. Delamination of composites occurs as a result of bending stress between

13

drill bit and material contact point [16, 47]. Fatigue failure of the composite bearing progress by removal of small, discrete particles on the running surfaces [48]. Microscopic investigation employed to obtain delamination knowledge of the material. A set of selected surface micrographs of the drill bit entrance & exit zones is given in Fig. 7. Besides, Fig. 8 shows drilling affected area of peel up and push out delamination with the process parameters.

Figure 7. A set of selected surface micrographs of the drill bit entrance & exit zones

There are several methods to assess delamination in litrature [2]. In this study, affected area which is most common method in literature as an index for comparing delamination designated by dimensional measurements of difference between the radii of maximum damaged area and drilled hole [15, 17, 20, 25, 49-52]. Low thrust force provides reducing delamination [13, 14]. Minimum thrust force can be obtained using a hard tool as mentioned by Shunmugesh et al. [34]. In general, drilling

14

with HSS TiN and HSS Co bits appeared close results to each other in terms of delamination with narrow affected area. CrV tool results in the worst delamination with wide affected area. It can be seen in Fig. 8 affected area of push-out delamination is higher than peel-up delamination for all types of the drill bits, compatible with literature [33, 53-55]. It is found that the affected zone area generally decreases at low spindle speed and low feed rate for push out delamination. Therefore, it is more advantageous to use HSS Co drill bit where the lowest cutting forces.

Figure 8. Affected areas of peel-up and push-out delamination 4. Discussion Hard coating and alloying techniques in drill bit manufacturing are beneficial to obtain a long life with enhanced wear resistance characteristics [56]. Nitriding, steam tempering, TiN, TiCN, TiAlN, and CrN are the main coating types in HSS tools [16, 57]. The coating process significantly reduces the friction coefficient between the surfaces and improves the slipperiness, thereby preventing the formation of cold welds [58]. TiN coated drill bits are used for machining of materials such as cast iron, steel, copper, bronze and hard plastics [16, 56-58]. Alloying element in steels such as W, Mo, Cr, V

15

and Co are commonly used as another method for increasing tool life. Cobalt increases cutting efficiency of tool by increasing hardness, tensile and yield strength and abrasion resistance of a cutting tool [59].

Figure 9. Schematic illustration and contact surfaces; (1) contact of drill tip, (2) contact surface (118°) of the cutting edge, (3) lateral surface of the drilling hole

Schematic illustration for analyzing the drilling operation is given in Fig. 9. Measuring thrust force under different conditions is a common method in evaluation on efficiency of machining process. Because, thrust force is an important parameter in tool design and directly affects power consumption, generated heat during cutting, tool wear and quality of work surface [4, 60]. Depending parameters on thrust force are shear strength of material, chip dimensions, point angle, cutting angle and friction angle. High cutting force cause breaking fibers irregularly and matrix phase thus increases tool wear [61]. The lowest thrust force and torque values were measured in the drilling operation with using HSS Co drill bit as seen in Fig. 6. When HSS TiN and CrV drill bits are compared, it is observed that similar thrust force and torque values were obtained. It was found that the average thrust force and average torque obtained for direction A are generally lower than the direction B. This situation can be explained with the fact that

16

contacting of the drill bit with B direction of the material have more fiber contact surface during drilling, especially in contact of the cutting edge with the test material indexed by 2 in Fig. 9. Increase in thrust force increases the friction force between chip and tool. Increase in temprerature is expected due to the friction, which provokes workpiece to adhere to surface of the tool. Drilled hole surface characteristics are different by regarding drilling direction as seen in Fig. 10. Drilling along the A direction results cutting fiber surfaces with elliptical cross-sections as seen in Figs. 9 and 10. Besides, SEM examination of the hole surfaces shows some minor cratering damage and plastering matrix phase onto the cut fiber surface induced by drilling as seen in Figs. 10 (a) and (b). The elliptical form of cutting fiber surfaces causes slightly higher surface roughness than the results of drilling along the B direction as also seen in Fig. 4(d). Several polyester film formations were detected in a plastering state on the hole surface and delamination formation after drilling along the B direction as seen in Figs. 10 (c) and (d). Polyester film formations on the B direction cause a decrease in surface roughness as seen in Fig. 4(d). Also, very small fine particles as chip ruins were observed in Figs. 10 (b) and (d) resulting from drilling operations.

17

Figure 10. SEM micrographs of drilled holes; (a) and (b) for A direction, (c) and (d) for B direction CONCLUSION The results of this study can be listed as follows: 1. The thrust force and torque of perpendicular direction (A) are lower than the parallel direction (B). According to the average values, drilling in direction parallel to the lamination require 25% higher thrust force and torque than the drilling of perpendicular direction. 2. Thrust force increases when using HSS TiN and HSS Co drill bits with increasing spindle speed and feed rate. While thrust force decreases with increasing spindle speed and increases with increasing feed rate for CrV drill bit.

18

3. Average Ra value of 1.5 µm was achieved in the drilling process with HSS Co bit. While drilling with HSS TiN results in a wide range from 1.5 to 6 µm of Ra value, CrV drill bit results in a narrow range with an average of 3 µm. 4. Drilling with HSS TiN and HSS Co bits results with narrow affected delamination area, whereas CrV bit results with wide affected delamination area. 5. It is more advantageous to use HSS Co drill bit where the lowest cutting forces were obtained. Optimum cutting parameters are HSS Co drill bit, 535 rpm spindle speed, 0.1 mm/rev feed rate and perpendicular to lamination direction. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge for the test material support to Mehmet ÖZKAYA and Gürdesan Ship Machinery Inc. Also, we thank to the Advanced Material Laboratory in Kocaeli University Technopark for the infrastructure support for the experiments. REFERENCES

[1]

Yi X. An Introduction to Composite Materials. In: Yi X, Du S, Zhang L, editors. Composite Materials Engineering, Volume 1. Beijing: Springer, 2018. P.1-61.

[2]

Liu DF, Tang YJ, Cong WL. A review of mechanical drilling for composite laminates. Compos Struct 2012;94:1265–79. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.11.024.

[3]

ASM International Handbook Committee. The Materials Information Company. Technology 2001;2:3470. doi:10.1016/S0026-0576(03)90166-8.

[4]

Okutan E, Karabay S, Sınmazçelik T, Avcu E. A Study on the Derivation of Parametric Cutting Force Equations in Drilling of GFRP Composites 2013;59:97–105. doi:10.5545/sv-jme.2012.774.

[5]

Teti R, Machining of composite materials. CIRP Annals 2002;51:611-34. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61703-X.

[6]

Abrão AM, Faria PE, Rubio JCC, Reis P, Davim JP. Drilling of fiber reinforced plastics: A review. J Mater Process Technol 2007;186:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.11.146.

19

[7]

Mishra R, Malik J, Singh I, Davim JP. Neural network approach for estimating the residual tensile strength after drilling in uni-directional glass fiber reinforced plastic laminates. Mater Des 2010;31:2790–5. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.01.011.

[8]

Rajamurugan T V., Shanmugam K, Palanikumar K. Analysis of delamination in drilling glass fiber reinforced polyester composites. Mater Des 2013;45:80–7. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.08.047.

[9]

Davim JP, Reis P, António CC. Drilling fiber reinforced plastics (FRPs) manufactured by hand lay-up: Influence of matrix (Viapal VHP 9731 and ATLAC 382-05). J Mater Process Technol 2004;155–156:1828–33. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.173.

[10] Ficici F, Ayparcasi Z, Unal H. Influence of cutting tool and conditions on machinability aspects of polyphthalamide (PPA) matrix composite materials with 30 % glass fiber reinforced. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;90:3067–73. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9626-9. [11] Kumar AM, Jayakumar K. Drilling studies on Particle Board composite using HSS twist drill and spade drill. Mater Today Proc 2018;5:16346–51. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.05.129. [12] Eneyew ED, Ramulu M. Experimental study of surface quality and damage when drilling unidirectional CFRP composites. J Mater Res Technol 2014;3:354–62. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2014.10.003. [13] Valarmathi TN, Palanikumar K, Latha B. Measurement and analysis of thrust force in drilling of particle board (PB) composite panels. Meas J Int Meas Confed 2013;46:1220–30. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.11.024. [14] Kumar D, Singh KK. ScienceDirect Experimental analysis of Delamination , Thrust Force and Surface roughness on Drilling of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites Material Using Different Drills 2017;4:7618–27. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.095. [15] Al-wandi S, Ding S, Mo J. An approach to evaluate delamination factor when drilling carbon fiber-reinforced plastics using different drill geometries: experiment and finite element study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;93:4043–61. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0880-2. [16] Ghorbani S, Veliz A, Crisostomo A, Aleksandrovich V. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences Experimental and theoretical research on drilling epoxy granite using coated and uncoated carbide spiral drill bits 2018;135:240–52. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.11.025.

20

[17] Heidary H, Karimi NZ, Minak G. Investigation on delamination and flexural properties in drilling of carbon nanotube/polymer composites. Compos Struct 2018;201:112–20. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.041. [18] Rahme P, Landon Y, Lachaud F, Piquet R, Lagarrigue P. Drilling of thick composite materials using a step gundrill. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2017;103:304–13. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.10.016. [19] Loja MAR, Alves MSF, Bragança IMF, Rosa RSB, Barbosa ICJ, Barbosa JI. An assessment of thermally influenced and delamination-induced regions by composites drilling. Compos Struct 2018;202:413–23. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.046. [20] Patel K, Gohil PP, Chaudhary V. Investigations on drilling of hemp/glass hybrid composites. Mater Manuf Process 2018;33:1714–25. doi:10.1080/10426914.2018.1453150. [21] Sugita N, Shu L, Kimura K, Arai G, Arai K. Dedicated drill design for reduction in burr and delamination during the drilling of composite materials. CIRP Ann 2019:7–10. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2019.04.094. [22] Gemi L, Morkavuk S, Köklü U, Gemi DS. An experimental study on the effects of various drill types on drilling performance of GFRP composite pipes and damage formation. Compos Part B Eng 2019;172:186–94. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.023. [23] Díaz-Álvarez A, Rodríguez-Millán M, Díaz-Álvarez J, Miguélez MH. Experimental analysis of drilling induced damage in aramid composites. Compos Struct 2018;202:1136–44. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.068. [24] Díaz-Álvarez A, Díaz-Álvarez J, Santiuste C, Miguélez MH. Experimental and numerical analysis of the influence of drill point angle when drilling biocomposites. Compos Struct 2019;209:700–9. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.018. [25] Liu L, Qi C, Wu F, Zhang X, Zhu X. Analysis of thrust force and delamination in drilling GFRP composites with candle stick drills. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2018;95:2585–600. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-1369-8. [26] Xu J, Li C, Mansori M El, Liu G, Chen M. Study on the Frictional Heat at Toolwork Interface when Drilling CFRP Composites. Procedia Manuf 2018;26:415– 23. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.049. [27] Bhardwaj B, Kumar R, Singh PK. Surface roughness (Ra) prediction model for turning of AISI 1019 steel using response surface methodology and Box-Cox transformation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 2014;228:223–32. doi:10.1177/0954405413499564.

21

[28] Balaji M, Murthy BSN, Rao NM. Optimization of Cutting Parameters in Drilling of AISI 304 Stainless Steel Using Taguchi and ANOVA. Procedia Technol 2016;25:1106–13. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.217. [29] Balaji M, Rao KV, Rao NM, Murthy BSN. Optimization of drilling parameters for drilling of TI-6Al-4V based on surface roughness , fl ank wear and drill vibration. Measurement 2018;114:332–9. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2017.09.051. [30] Hocheng H, Tsao CC. The path towards delamination-free drilling of composite materials. J Mater Process Technol 2005;167:251–64. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.06.039. [31] Won MS, Dharan CKH. Drilling of aramid and carbon fiber polymer composites. J Manuf Sci Eng 2002;124:778-83. doi:10.1115/1.1505854 [32] Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Rubio JC, Correia E, Abrap AM, Davim JP . Analysis of parametric influence on delamination in high-speed drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites. J Mater Process Tech 2008;203:431-38. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.10.050 [33] Panchagnula KK, Palaniyandi K. Drilling on fiber reinforced polymer/nanopolymer composite laminates: A review. J Mater Res Technol 2018;7:180–9. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.06.003. [34] Shunmugesh K, Panneerselvam K. Engineering Science and Technology , an International Journal Machinability study of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer in the longitudinal and transverse direction and optimization of process parameters using PSO – GSA 2016;19:1552–63. doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2016.04.012. [35] Giasin K, Ayvar-Soberanis S, Hodzic A. An experimental study on drilling of unidirectional GLARE fibre metal laminates. Compos Struct 2015;133:794–808. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.007. [36] Zarif Karimi N, Heidary H, Fotouhi M, Minak G. Experimental analysis of GFRP laminates subjected to compression after drilling. Compos Struct 2017;169:144–52. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.01.017. [37] Xu J, Li C, Mi S, An Q, Chen M. Study of drilling-induced defects for CFRP composites using new criteria. Compos Struct 2018;201:1076–87. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.051. [38] Sinke J, Giasin K, Brousseau E, Gorey G, Byrne C. Effect of machining parameters and cutting tool coating on hole quality in dry drilling of fibre metal laminates. Compos Struct 2019;212:159–74. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.023.

22

[39] Agwa MA, Megahed AA. New nonlinear regression modeling and multiobjective optimization of cutting parameters in drilling of GFRE composites to minimize delamination. Polym Test 2019;75:192–204. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.02.011. [40] Salur E, Aslan A, Kuntoglu M, Gunes A, Sahin OS. Experimental study and analysis of machinability characteristics of metal matrix composites during drilling. Compos Part B Eng 2019;166:401–13. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.023. [41] Sakthivel M. Drilling Analysis on Basalt / Sisal Reinforced Polymer Composites Using ANOVA and Regression Model 2015;9:3285–90. doi:10.12988/ams.2015.54315. [42] Sarıkaya M, Güllü A. Taguchi design and response surface methodology based analysis of machining parameters in CNC turning under MQL Taguchi design and response surface methodology based analysis of machining parameters in CNC turning under MQL. J Clean Prod 2018;65:604–16. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.040. [43] Ahmad N, Khan SA, Raza SF. Influence of hole diameter, workpiece thickness, and tool surface condition on machinability of CFRP composites in orbital drilling: a case of workpiece rotation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2019. doi:10.1007/s00170-019-03713-2. [44] Kuo C, Li Z, Wang C. Multi-objective optimisation in vibration-assisted drilling of CFRP / Al stacks. Compos Struct 2017;173:196–209. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.04.026. [45] He Y, Qing H, Zhang S, Wang D, Zhu S. The cutting force and defect analysis in milling of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;93:1829–42. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0613-6. [46] Halim NFHA, Ascroft H, Barnes S. Analysis of Tool Wear, Cutting Force, Surface Roughness and Machining Temperature during Finishing Operation of Ultrasonic Assisted Milling (UAM) of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP). Procedia Eng 2017;184:185–91. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.084. [47] Rogov VA, Ghorbani S, Popikov AN, Polushin NI. ScienceDirect Improvement of cutting tool performance during machining process by using different shim. Arch Civ Mech Eng 2017;17:694–710. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2017.01.008. [48] Shan M, Zhao L, Hong H, Liu F, Zhang J. A progressive fatigue damage model for composite structures in hygrothermal environments. Int J Fatigue 2018;111:299–307. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.02.019.

23

[49] Geng D, Liu Y, Shao Z, Lu Z, Cai J, Li X, et al. Delamination formation, evaluation and suppression during drilling of composite laminates: A review. Compos Struct 2019;216:168–86. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.099. [50] Hrechuk A, Bushlya V, Ståhl JE. Hole-quality evaluation in drilling fiberreinforced composites. Compos Struct 2018;204:378–87. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.105. [51] Nassar MMA, Arunachalam R, Alzebdeh KI. Machinability of natural fiber reinforced composites: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;88:2985–3004. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9010-9. [52] Wang H, Zhang X, Duan Y. Effects of drilling area temperature on drilling of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites due to temperature-dependent properties. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2018;96:2943–51. doi:10.1007/s00170-0181810-7. [53] Khashaba UA. Delamination in drilling GFR-thermoset composites. Compos Struct 2004;63:313–27. doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00180-6. [54] Khashaba UA, El-Sonbaty IA, Selmy AI, Megahed AA. Machinability analysis in drilling woven GFR/epoxy composites: Part I - Effect of machining parameters. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41:391–400. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.11.006. [55] Khashaba UA, El-Sonbaty IA, Selmy AI, Megahed AA. Machinability analysis in drilling woven GFR/epoxy composites: Part II – Effect of drill wear. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41:1130–7. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.04.011. [56] Rodríguez-Barrero S, Fernández-Larrinoa J, Azkona I, López De Lacalle LN, Polvorosa R. Enhanced Performance of Nanostructured Coatings for Drilling by Droplet Elimination. Mater Manuf Process 2016;31:593–602. doi:10.1080/10426914.2014.973582. [57] Abusuilik SB. Surface & Coatings Technology Pre-intermediate and posttreatment of hard coatings to improve their performance for forming and cutting tools. Surf Coat Technol 2015;284:384–95. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.07.003. [58] Chen WC, Fuh KH. The cutting performance of a TiN-coated drill with curved primary cutting edges. J Mater Process Tech 1995;49:183–98. doi:10.1016/09240136(94)01326-V. [59] Ramesh B, Elayaperumal A, Satishkumar S, Kumar A. Drilling of pultruded and liquid composite moulded glass / epoxy thick composites : Experimental and statistical investigation. Measurement 2018;114:109–21. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2017.09.026.

24

[60] Zhu Z, Guo X, Ekevad M, Cao P, Na B, Zhu N. The effects of cutting parameters and tool geometry on cutting forces and tool wear in milling high-density fiberboard with ceramic cutting tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;91:4033– 41. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0085-8. [61] Chen L, Zhang K, Cheng H, Qi Z, Meng Q. A cutting force predicting model in orthogonal machining of unidirectional CFRP for entire range of fiber orientation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;89:833–46. doi:10.1007/s00170-0169059-5.

25

Highlights • • •

• •

The thrust force and torque values of perpendicular direction (A) are smaller than the parallel direction (B). In general, the thrust force increase with increasing feed rate and spindle speed. The surface roughness results of drilling with CrV drill are independent of the drilling parameters like HSS Co bit. But, the drilling parameters influenced on the surface roughness in the case of using the HSS TiN drill bit. The drilling with HSS TiN and HSS Co bits results with narrow affected zone, whereas CrV bit results with wide affected zone. It is more advantageous to use the HSS Co drill bit where the lowest cutting forces were obtained at the drilling of the composite material.