A comparative appraisal of sustainable strategy in Ultrasonic Assisted Grinding of Nimonic 80A using novel green atomized cutting fluid
Sustainable Materials and Technologies, ISSN: 2214-9937, Vol: 32, Page: e00423
2022
- 31Citations
- 38Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The grinding of nickel-based super-alloys creates enormous challenges during machining in the form of low thermal conductivity, high strength, and toughness at elevated temperatures. Besides this, the emissions from cutting fluids and their disposal are also a concern for the environment. In order to overcome these problems associated with Conventional Grinding (CG), the present research attempt focuses on modifying the mechanism of the grinding process by harnessing the dual advantages of Ultrasonic Assisted Grinding (UAG) and ultrasonically atomized novel green cutting fluid to achieve better performance and enhanced sustainability. The investigations of cutting forces, Coefficient of Friction (CoF), surface integrity, and chip morphology have been done for different grinding approaches. Then, based on the acquired data, a comparative study has been carried out to investigate the effect of ultrasonic vibration and atomized cutting fluid on the CG operation. A significant reduction in grinding forces by 66.22% and 52.66% for normal and tangential cutting force, respectively, and surface roughness by 46.48% has been observed during Ultrasonic Assisted Grinding with Ultrasonically Atomized Fluid (UaFUAG) as compared to the CG. Moreover, minimum CoF has been seen in the UaFUAG process with a reduction of 30.42% as compared to CG. Further, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of different grinding processes has been performed by taking three indicators, viz. human health, ecology, and ecosystem. Subsequently, the Product Sustainability Index (PSI) study was evaluated, and the UaFUAG strategy was found 46.06% more sustainable than the CG process. This result can be a contributing step towards the realization of sustainable grinding processes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993722000379; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00423; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85126970687&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214993722000379; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00423
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know