International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

On the machining of alumina and glass

V.K. Jain , S.K. Choudhury, K.M. Ramesh
Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur-208016, India Received 12 September 2001; received in revised form 15 March 2002; accepted 20 March 2002

Abstract Machining of electrically non-conducting materials like alumina and glass is still a major problem. Electrochemical spark machining (ECSM) process is a potential process for machining these materials. However, ECSM has its own inherent limitations. So far, only ordinary cutting tools have been used during ECSM by previous researchers, but the results obtained are not as good as anticipated. In the present work, electrochemical spark abrasive drilling (ECSAD) experiments have been conducted using abrasive cutting tools, with a view to enhance the capabilities of the process. Use of an abrasive cutting tool, when compared to a conventional cutting tool, has been found to improve the process performance, viz. enhanced material removal and increased machined depth. The workpiece materials used are alumina and borosilicate glass. 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: ECSAD; Alumina; Glass; Abrasive tool; ECSM

1. Introduction Electrically non-conducting materials like ceramics are becoming increasingly popular in electronics as well as in metal cutting industries because of their inert nature, high hardness, and refractoriness. Advanced machining methods like electrochemical machining (ECM) and electric discharge machining (EDM) cant be used for machining these materials because of their electrically non-conductive nature. On the other hand, for the production of a small number of parts for diversied applications of these materials, it is not economically viable to use mass production techniques. It is therefore believed that the eld of utilization of these materials has remained comparatively narrow. Diamond grinding, ultrasonic machining (USM), abrasive jet machining (AJM), abrasive water jet machining (AWJM), laser beam machining (LBM), and ion beam machining (IBM) are the processes which can be used for precision machining of hard, brittle and electrically non-conducting materials. However, these processes have limitations too. Lately, the electrochemical spark drilling (ECSD) process has been employed [1]

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-512-597916; fax: +91-512590260. E-mail address: vkjain@iitk.ac.in (V.K. Jain).

for machining electrically non-conducting materials like alumina and borosilicate glass. ECSD is a process in which tool (ie, cathode made of electrically conducting material) and work piece (electrically non-conducting material like ceramics) are immersed in electrolyte. The anode is made of non-dissolving material say, graphite. Both the electrodes are connected to a high voltage d.c. power supply. In this process, hydrogen bubbles are evolved at the cathode, and material removal is accomplished by establishing sparks across these bubbles in the vicinity of the work piece immersed in the electrolyte. The major limitation of the ECSD process is a very low penetration depth which limits its use for drilling purposes. This has been partially overcome by the use of an orbital rotational tool [1], and by employing higher voltage across the electrodes as well as a higher temperature of the electrolyte [2]. Kurafugi and Suda [3] drilled holes in glass using such electric discharges. In the present work, a hybrid process has been proposed, to explore the possibility of further improving material removal and machined depth during electrochemical spark drilling (ECSD). This hybrid process combines electrochemical spark drilling with abrasive machining using a rotating tool impregnated with abrasive particles. This is done to take advantage of both the processes, ie material removal by thermal erosion and abrasive machining. Suchiya et al. [4] used wire electrochemical dis-

0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0 0 3 2 - 3 8 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 4 1 - 0

1270

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

charges for machining glass and ceramics. The method used a combination of EDM and ECM with travelling wire as a tool. They used 25 Hz rectangular pulse with 80% duty factor, NaOH and KOH as electrolyte, glass specimen of 1.2 mm thickness as work piece, and a wire of 0.2 mm diameter as electrode driven at a speed of 60 cm/min during the experiments. They concluded that glass and ceramic plates can be slotted successfully using this method. Jain et al. [5] investigated Travelling Wire Electrochemical Spark Machining (TWECSM) of composite materials. Increase in NaOH concentration up to approximately 20%, increases material removal rate (MRR), tool wear rate (TWR) and overcut. Beyond this concentration, the values of these responses decrease, primarily due to a decrease in the value of specic conductance. The effect of bubbles on the ECSD process was also studied by introducing articially produced bubbles in the electrolyte. The addition of the articially produced bubbles resulted in lower MRR because the size of the majority of the bubbles increased, which led to the rupture of the bubbles without sparking. However, accuracy of the machined component with the introduction of articial bubbles was found to be better. Singh et al. [6] designed and fabricated a TWECSM set-up and conducted experiments with partially electrically conducting materials like piezoelectric ceramics (PZT) and carbon ber reinforced epoxy composites. They studied the effect of variation in voltage and electrolyte concentration on MRR and overcut. Nesarikar et al. [7] carried out TW-ECSM for slicing of kevlar-epoxy composites. Electrolyte conductivity, voltage and specimen thickness were taken as independent parameters while material removal rate, diametral overcut, and work piece damage were taken as responses. During their work, electrolyte ushing was also tried, successfully, to limit the variation in electrolyte temperature and to remove the debris from the machining area. Gautam and Jain [1] did some experiments with different tool kinematics, including stationary tool, rotating solid tool, or rotating tool with electrolyte ow through central hole in it, and tool with orbital rotation. They observed that rotation of the tool and ow of the electrolyte through the tool improves the process performance up to a certain level. They conducted experiments mainly on borosilicate glass, but some experiments on quartz as well. Through holes were drilled successfully both in quartz and glass plates using an ECSD conguration. Recently, Jain and Chak [2] have conducted experiments on machining of alumina and quartz by electrochemical spark machining operation. They also studied the effect of supply voltage and electrolyte temperature on material removal. They have shown that material removal increases with an increase in supply voltage and electrolyte temperature. They used copper as a cathode material. In the above research work, only ordinary cathodes

(cutting tools) with or without through hole for electrolyte supply, were used. In the majority of cases, gravity feed to the tool was given. It resulted in physical contact between the bottom face of the tool and the machined workpiece surface. This physical contact diminished the number of bubbles evolved at the cathode and hence signicantly reduced the total number of sparks produced in this region. This therefore results in a very small penetration depth during ECSD. This problem can be overcome if a constant, but very small, gap can be maintained during experimentation. This can be achieved with the use of an abrasive impregnated tool, even with the gravity feed. The objective of the present work, therefore, is to nd out whether the use of abrasive cutting tools can enhance the capabilities of the ECSD process.

2. Experimentation The experimental set-up designed and fabricated by Gautam and Jain [1] was used for the experiments. The minimum feed which could be achieved with reduction gear arrangement was 2 m/min, and the maximum feed was 1.2 mm/min. Smooth d.c. power supply was used, and the output voltage was regulated as per requirements. Continuous power supply, by a carbon brush slip ring arrangement, was provided to the tool during rotation. During experimentation, borosilicate glass (BSG) and alumina were taken as work materials. Properties of the materials are given in Table 1. The experiments were conducted using an aqueous solution of NaOH as an electrolyte. Two types of tools were used, ie, conventional cutting tool-CCT (made of mild steel) and abrasive cutting tool-ACT having impregnated abrasive particles. The size and shape of the conventional cutting tool were the same as that of the abrasive cutting tool (Fig. 1). The conductivity of the electrolyte solution was checked using a digital conductivity meter. Two parameters, electrolyte temperature and supply voltage were varied during experiments. Throughout each experiment, temperature of the electrolyte was kept constant by employing a device consisting of an electric heater and thermostat control. The required voltage was obtained by adjusting the variac in the rectier unit. In the present work, two
Table 1 Properties of work materials Properties Softening /melting temperature Coefcient of thermal expansion Thermal conductivity Borosilicate Glass 820 C 32.5 106/K 1.1304 W/mK Alumina 2050+5 C 2 103/K 30.27 W/mK

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

1271

Fig. 1. Abrasive cutting tools used for machining (a) Conical abrasive cutting tool for borosilicate glass (b) Cylindrical abrasive cutting tool for alumina.

Table 2 Machining conditions Parameters Workpiece Borosilicate glass

of the variables. Table 4 depicts the conditions in terms of coded values, under which experiments were performed using BSG and alumina as work materials. The values of the machining conditions which were kept constant during a test were decided by the maximum material removal requirement [1]. To nd out an appropriate feed rate for a given combination of tool, workpiece and electrolyte, was a major problem. Earlier work [1] had been done with a constant gap between the ordinary tool and workpiece. In the present work, abrasive cutting tools were used. Therefore, for the material removal action to take place by abrasive, in addition to sparking action, the abrasive particles should always be in contact with the workpiece. This was accomplished by a switching arrangement. By trial and error, and by using results of earlier experiments, a feed rate was evolved which would always keep the abrasive particles in contact with the workpiece. When the rotating tool touched the workpiece, the adjustable slide along with the disc lifted up (because the feed force works upward) pushing the plunger upward and closing the electrical circuit. This was indicated by the glowing of a bulb. To keep the cutting tool always in contact with the work-

Alumina Table 4 Plan of experiments [8] for borosilicate glass and alumina. (x1 and x2 are given in terms of coded values) Experiment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Voltage (x1) (volts) Temperature(x2) (C)

(a) Constant Tool speed (RPM) Tool eccentricity Machining time Electrolyte concentration (b) Variable Voltage (volts) Electrolyte temperature (C)

20 2 mm 15 mm 22% by wt 4070 4070

20 1 mm 30 mm 22% by wt 5070 4070

different types of cutting tools were used, conical for borosilicate glass and cylindrical for alumina (Fig. 1). Experiments performed in the present study on alumina and BSG were planned according to the design of experiments technique [8], particularly the central composite rotatable design. Machining conditions are given in Table 2. Table 3 shows coded values and the corresponding actual values
Table 3 Conversion table for coded values of variables Actual Value Coded Value 1.414 1 0 1 1.414 Borosilicate glass x1 V (volts) 41 45 55 65 69

1 1 1 1 1.414 1.414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 1.414 1.414 0 0 0 0 0

x2 T (C) 41 45 55 65 69

Alumina x1 V (volts) 50 53 60 67 70

x2 T (C) 41 45 55 65 69

1272

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

piece, feed given to the workpiece was slightly higher than this evolved feed rate. The effects of supply voltage and electrolyte temperature on material removal and machined depth were investigated. Material removal was estimated as the difference between initial weight and nal weight, using a digital micro balance. The machined depth was measured with the help of an in-house built workpiece setup, using a dial gauge. The machined surface was examined using scanning electron microscope.

and machined depth (Yd) with conventional cutting tool (CCT) and abrasive cutting tool (ACT) while machining borosilicate glass and alumina. During the derivation of these Eqs., x1 and x2 have been taken as coded level values (Table 3). Further, using the responses computed by employing Eqs. (1)(8), parametric analysis is presented in the following section. 3.1. Material removal Response surface Eqs. (1) and (2) were obtained for evaluating material removal (in mg) with conventional cutting tool (Yrc) and abrasive cutting tool (Yra) respectively, by varying supply voltage (x1) and electrolyte temperature (x2) while machining borosilicate glass. Yrc 56.214 27.532x1 5.556x2 2.450x2 1 2.048x2 2 3.250x1x2 Yra 60.816 32.119x1 5.004x2 8.084x2 1 2.911x 5.500x1x2
2 2

3. Results and discussion Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of machining with an abrasive cutting tool. The same set-up was used with the conventional cutting tool in place of ACT. This gure also shows active grains, inactive grains, bubbles formed at the interface, sparks, molten material, and the chip being formed during machining. Active grains are those which take part in removing material by deformation from the workpiece. During the machining process, sparks emanate from bonding material (which is electrically conducting) across the bubbles in the gap. If the gap height is large enough, then the sparking will not be very effective in removing material from the workpiece as well as in softening the workpiece material, because most of the heat will be convected away in the electrolyte. Sparks remove material from the workpiece by melting, or both by melting and evaporation. Because the sparks soften/melt the work material, they assist abrasive particles in throwing out molten material from the cavity in addition to removing softened material by a deformation process. In the case of a conventional cutting tool, material removal takes place only due to melting, or due to both melting and evaporation. Using experimental results, response surface Eqs. (1) (8) have been derived to compute material removal (Yr)

(1)

(2)

From the experimental results, following response surface Eqs. (3) and (4) were obtained for evaluating material removal Yr (in mg) with conventional cutting tool (Yrc) and abrasive cutting tool (Yra), by varying supply voltage (x1) and electrolyte temperature (x2), respectively while machining alumina. Yrc 7.500 3.423x1 0.802x2 1.063x2 1 0.938x2 2 0.750x1x2
2 Yra 14.5 3.6x1 1.155x20.625x2 11.875x2

(3)

(4)

0.25x1x2 3.1.1. Effect of supply voltage 3.1.1.1. Borosilicate glass (BSG) Fig. 3 shows a comparison of material removal obtained by the conventional

Fig. 2.

Machining piece with abrasive cutting tool.

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

1273

the bottom face of the CCT touches the workpiece, reducing the number of bubbles formed, compared with the ACT. 3.1.1.2. Alumina Fig. 3 shows the effect of supply voltage on material removal at 55 C electrolyte temperature. Curves show that the material removal increases with increase in voltage. This gure further shows that the material removal is higher for ACT as compared to CCT. This is due to the combined effect of sparking and abrasive action as in case of borosilicate glass. 3.1.2. Effect of electrolyte temperature 3.1.2.1. Borosilicate glass A graph relating the electrolyte temperature and material removal at 55 V while machining borosilicate glass (BSG) is shown in Fig. 4. It is evident from the graph, that as the electrolyte temperature increases the material removal also increases. An increase in electrolyte temperature increases electrolyte conductivity, thus increasing the amount of current, which accelerates the electrolysis process, resulting in a greater rate of evolution of hydrogen gas bubbles at the cathode. The increased rate of formation of gas bubbles at the cathode leads to an enhanced rate of sparking, hence higher material removal. So it can be said that
Fig. 3. Effect of supply voltage on material removal from alumina and borosilicate glass workpiece with different cutting tools at 55 C electrolyte temperature.

cutting tool and the abrasive cutting tool at 55 C electrolyte temperature for different voltages. It is evident from the curves that, with an increase in supply voltage, material removal increases. The reason being that increase in supply voltage implies increase in discharge energy, hence higher temperature resulting in higher removal of material from the workpiece. Beyond a certain voltage, the workpiece showed a tendency towards cracking. It is also seen that material removal is higher with the abrasive cutting tool as compared to the conventional cutting tool, while machining under the same conditions. This difference seems partly due to the additional material removal taking place by abrasive action, which is absent while using conventional cutting tool. Secondly, for the abrasive cutting tool, a gap is maintained by the projecting abrasive particles between the workpiece and the bottom face of the ACT. This gap (of the order of microns) is approximately equal to the projected length of the active abrasive particle(s) (Fig. 2). This gap enables the evolution of sufcient H2 bubbles at the bottom face of the ACT, which nally leads to sparking. Such a situation is absent in the case of CCT when gravity feed is used, because there is no abrasive particle at the bottom face of the tool, hence

Fig. 4. Effect of electrolyte temperature on material removal during machining of borosilicate glass with different cutting tools at 55 V, and alumina while using both types of cutting tools at supply voltage=60 V.

1274

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

material removal increases with the increased conductivity. It is also found [9] that there is a decreasing trend in material removal beyond a certain value of temperature. Due to high temperature, water evaporation increases leading to the electrolyte concentration beyond 22.5 wt%. The conductivity of NaOH electrolyte beyond 22.5 wt% starts decreasing, hence material removal also starts decreasing. On the other hand, the addition of electrically non-conducting debris contributes to a decrease in the electrolytes electrical conductivity. The overall effect is that material removal decreases beyond a certain temperature of electrolyte. In the case of ACT, a similar trend as that of the conventional cutting tool is observed (Fig. 4). However, after reaching the maximum point, the decrease in material removal in the case of ACT is slightly more than for the CCT [9]. The change in electrolyte conductivity, due to a change in temperature and the addition of debris to the electrolyte, seem to be responsible for this behavior too, as explained in the preceding paragraph. Further, after machining for a certain period of time, the sparking may not take place at some inter spaces in case of ACT, where clogging of the tool by the nonconducting debris has taken place. Thus, the tool clogging would result in a reduced number of sparks. Hence, there is a further decrease in material removal in the case of ACT as compared to CCT. 3.1.2.2. Alumina The relationship between electrolyte temperature and material removal at 60V is also shown in Fig. 4 while machining alumina. It is evident from the graph, that as the electrolyte temperature increases, the material removal initially increases with both types of cutting tools. The decrease in material removal after attaining the maxima is attributed to the same reasons as discussed earlier in case of borosilicate glass. 3.2. Machined depth For the machined depth (Yd), the parametric analysis has been carried out using the following response surface equations for the case of borosilicate glass. Ydc 1.812 0.732x1 0.176x20.144x2 1 0.068x2 20.055x1x2 Yda 2.041 0.699x1 0.203x20.190x2 1 0.054x2 20.097x1x2 For the machined depth Yd achieved during machining alumina, analysis has been carried out using following response surface Eqs. (7) and (8) obtained for the conventional cutting tool and an abrasive cutting tool, respectively. (6) (5)

Ydc 0.065 0.068x1 0.007x2 0.042x2 1 0.003x 0.0025x1x2

2 2

(7)

Yda 0.255 0.127x1 0.024x2 0.023x2 1 0.010x 0.013x1x2

2 2

(8)

3.2.1. Effect of supply voltage - Borosilicate glass and alumina Fig. 5 shows the effect of voltage on the machined depth achieved for both types of the tools. It is clearly visible that voltage has a signicant effect on the machined depth, and the machined depth is higher for ACT as compared to CCT. Fig. 5 shows that the machined depth is higher for ACT as compared to CCT in case of alumina as well. 3.2.2. Effect of electrolyte temperature - Borosilicate glass and alumina Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the machined depth obtained by CCT and ACT at 55 V for different electrolyte temperatures, while machining borosilicate glass. Fig. 6 also shows a comparison of the performance of the conventional cutting tool and abrasive cutting tool

Fig. 5. Effect of supply voltage on machined depth in alumina and borosilicate glass, with different cutting tools at 55 C electrolyte temperature.

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

1275

Fig. 7. Scanning electron micrographs of machined holes. (a) Through hole by trepanning in BSG at 60 V with ACT. (b) Enlarged view of (a) showing side surface of the hole. (c) Blind hole machined in alumina at 55 V with ACT. (d) Blind hole machined in alumina at 70 V with CCT.

Fig. 6. Effect of electrolyte temperature on machined depth during machining of borosilicate glass at 55 V and alumina at 60V with different cutting tools.

at 60V, but at different electrolyte temperatures while machining alumina. 3.3. Comparison of process performance A comparison of material removal and machined depth while machining glass and alumina workpieces using different types of cutting tools has been made (Figs. 36). It is clearly visible from the results that both material removal and machined depth are greater in the case of BSG compared to alumina. This can be explained on the basis of properties of these two materials. The hardness of the alumina is greater than the borosilicate glass, therefore, material removal during machining of alumina is observed to be lower than that in the case of borosilicate glass. Further, performance (in terms of material removal and machined depth) of ACT is better than CCT for both the work materials used in the present study. 3.4. Analysis of machined surface Fig. 7 shows magnied views of the machined surfaces of different samples, obtained using scanning electron microscope (SEM). In these gures, MD stands for machined surface, and UMD (or UM) for unmachined

surface. Fig. 7(a) shows a clear view of the through conical hole drilled in BSG while using ACT. This gure shows that the material is removed by thermal as well as mechanical erosion. Fig. 7(b) shows an enlarged view of the side wall of the hole. Some micro cracks can also be seen. Fig. 7(c) shows the grinding marks on the machined surface of alumina. Fig. 7(d) shows the machined region of alumina, obtained while using CCT. In the latter case, it is to be noted that there are no grinding marks on the machined surface because it is machined by CCT having no abrasives. These gures also show that the morphology of the machined surface obtained by the hybrid process (spark erosion+grinding) is quite different from that obtained by sparking alone. Fig. 8 shows the used abrasive cutting tool. The whitish region on the left end of the tool seems to be a deposited thin layer of alumina being machined. This layer of alumina being electrically non-conductive,

Fig. 8. Scanning electron photograph of the cutting tool used during ECSM. Used ACT on alumina at 70 V.

1276

V.K. Jain et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 12691276

reduces the number of sparks produced in this region per unit time. Further, no abrasive particles are visible at the bottom face of the tool (Fig. 8). Both these factors together may be responsible for limited machined depth. To overcome this problem, some process similar to the one used for dressing of a grinding wheel may be followed, to expose fresh abrasive particles to participate in grinding mode at the bottom face of the ACT. This will also reinitiate sparking at the bottom face of the tool.

Materials (project # 22(0305)/99/EMR-II). The authors also acknowledge WIDIA India (Ltd), Bangalore for providing the required alumina specimens to carry out this experimental work. References
[1] N. Gautam, V.K. Jain, Experimental investigations into ECSD process using various tool kinematics, International J. of Machine Tools Manufacturing 38 (1) (1998) 1527. [2] V.K. Jain, S.K. Chak, Electrochemical spark machining of Alumina and Quartz, International J. of Machining Science and Technology 4 (2) (2000) 277290. [3] H. Kurafugi, H. Suda, Electrical discharge drilling of glass, Annals of the CIRP 16 (I) (1968) 415. [4] T. Suchiya, T. Inoue, M. Miyazki, Wire electrochemical discharge machining of glasses and ceramics, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Production Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1984, pp. 413417. [5] V.K. Jain, P. Srinivasa Rao, S.K. Choudhary, K.P. Rajurkar, Experimental investigation into travelling wire ECSM of composites, Trans. of ASME, J. of Engineering for Industry 113 (1991) 7584. [6] Y.P. Singh, V.K. Jain, Prashant Kumar, D.C. Agrawal, Machining piezoelectric (PZT) ceramics using electrochemical spark machining process, J. of Materials Processing Technology 58 (1996) 2431. [7] V.V. Nesarikar, V.K. Jain, S.K. Chaudhury, Travelling wire electrochemical spark machining of thick sheets of KaevlarEpoxy composites, in: Proceedings of the Sixteenth AIMTDR Conference, 1994, pp. 672677. [8] W.G. Cochran, G.M. Cox. Experimental Designs, in: Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1977, pp. 334353. [9] K. Ramesh, Electrochemical spark machining using abrasive cutting tools, M.Tech. Dissertation, I.I.T. Kanpur (India), 1998.

4. Conclusions Electrochemical spark machining with abrasive cutting tools has shown the improved performance (both in terms of material removal and machined depth) related to machining of electrically non-conducting materials, alumina and borosilicate glass. Machining performance of the ECSD process using abrasive cutting tools keeps improving with an increase in supply voltage, however, it exhibits maximum with the increase in temperature of the electrolyte.

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the nancial support provided by the Council of Scientic and Industrial Research, New Delhi, for the project entitled Abrasive Electrodischarge Grinding of Advanced Engineering