Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ULTRASONIC MACHINING—A
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
a
Jatinder Kumar
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering , National Institute of
Technology , Kurukshetra , India
Published online: 22 Jul 2013.
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Machining Science and Technology, 17:325–379
Copyright # 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-0344 print=1532-2483 online
DOI: 10.1080/10910344.2013.806093
Jatinder Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Kurukshetra, India
& Ultrasonic machining (USM) is a mechanical material removal process used to erode holes and
cavities in hard or brittle workpieces by using shaped tools, high-frequency mechanical motion, and
an abrasive slurry. The fundamental principles of stationary ultrasonic machining, the material
removal mechanisms involved, proposed models for estimation of machining rate, the effect of
operating parameters on material removal rate, tool wear rate, and workpiece surface finish,
research work reported on rotary mode USM, hybrid USM, process capabilities of USM have been
extensively reviewed in this article. The limitations of USM, gaps observed from the literature
review, and the directions for future research have also been presented. Overall, this article presents
a comprehensive review of USM process for advancement of the process through fundamental
insights into the process.
Keywords future research directions, material removal rate, review, surface quality,
tool wear rate, ultrasonic machining
INTRODUCTION
Ultrasonic machining (USM) is a non-conventional mechanical
material removal process used for machining both electrically conductive
and non-metallic materials; preferably those with low ductility and a
hardness above 40 HRC (Rozenberg, 1973; Saha et al., 1988; Snoyes,
1986; Weller, 1984) such as inorganic glasses, ceramics, quartz, etc. The
process came into existence in 1945 when L. Balamuth was granted the first
patent for the process. USM has been variously termed ultrasonic drilling;
ultrasonic cutting; ultrasonic abrasive machining and slurry drilling.
In USM, high frequency electrical energy is converted into mechanical
vibrations via a transducer=booster combination, which are then trans-
mitted to an energy focusing as well as amplifying device known as horn
or sonotrode. This causes the tool to vibrate along its longitudinal axis at
FIGURE 2 The USM setup with integrated Z-stage (Nath et al., 2012). (Figure available in color
online.)
USM is generally associated with low material removal rates; however its
application is not limited by the electrical or thermal characteristics of the work
material. Because the process is non-thermal and non-chemical, the materials
processed are not altered either chemically or metallurgically (Weller, 1984;
Kumar and Khamba, 2008; Kumar et al., 2012, Kumar et al., 2013a, Kumar
et al., 2013b). For efficient machining to take place, the tool and horn must
be designed with consideration given to mass and shape so that resonance
can be achieved within frequency range capability of the ultrasonic machine.
The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive review of the
USM process including the construction of ultrasonic machining setup,
328 J. Kumar
Depending upon the abrasive used, the work=tool wear ratio can range
from 1:1 to 1:100 (Mishra, 2005). Tool is usually held against the workpiece
by a static load exerted via a counterweight, spring, pneumatic=hydraulic or
solenoid feed system (Kremer, 1981; Pandey and Shan, 1980; Snoyes, 1986).
For optimum results, the system must maintain a uniform working force
while machining and be sufficiently sensitive to overcome the resistance
due to cutting action (Rozenberg, 1973; Rozenberg et al., 1964). Static load
values of about 0.1–30 N are commonly used. This force is particularly criti-
cal when drilling small holes less than 0.5 mm diameter as bending of the
tool can occur under a load that is too high.
Abrasives
In ultrasonic machining, an abrasive slurry (mixture of abrasive and
fluid such as water) is used to achieve the cutting action. Different types
of abrasive materials can be used for making the slurry. Aluminium oxide,
silicon carbide and boron carbide are the most commonly used abrasive
materials. For precision machining and very hard workpiece materials,
cubic boron nitride or diamond powder is also used as the abrasive.
Table 1 details some commonly used abrasive materials and their relative
hardness and cutting abilities.
The transport medium for the abrasive should possess low viscosity with
a density approaching that of the abrasive, good wetting properties and
preferably, high thermal conductivity and specific heat for efficient cooling
(Barash and Watanapongse, 1970; Koops, 1964; Thoe et al., 1998). The most
commonly used concentration is 50% by weight (Kazantsev, 1966). Thinner
mixtures are used to promote efficient flow when drilling deep holes or
forming complex cavities. Once the abrasive is selected and mixed with
water, it is stored in a reservoir at the USM machine and is pumped to the
tool-work interface by the re-circulating pumps at rates up to 36.5 L=min.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 4 Die sinking in silicon nitride turbine blade (Rozenberg and Kazantsev, 1964).
332 J. Kumar
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 5 USM gang drilling tool for drilling multiple holes (Rutan, 1984).
FIGURE 6 Silicon nitride machined by hypodermic needle (Robare and Richerson, 1977).
Ultrasonic Machining 333
M.C. Shaw Direct hammering of All abrasive particles are Analysis does not agree
(1956) abrasive particle identical, rigid, spherical in with experimental
(Primary) shape. results qualitatively.
Impacting by free moving All impacts are identical. Does not predict the effect
particles (secondary) Material removal is proportional of variation in
to volume of material amplitude, feed force or
removed per impact, number frequency correctly.
of particles impacting per Predicts infinite increase
cycle and frequency of in machining rate with
impacting. static force while an
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
(Continued )
Ultrasonic Machining 335
TABLE 2 Continued
(Continued )
336 J. Kumar
TABLE 2 Continued
Lee and Brittle fracture Pre-existing flaws are assumed in Applicable to brittle
Chang the material for the initiation materials only.
(1997) of median or lateral cracks.
Size of median or lateral crack is
related to pseudo pressure
between tool and work-piece.
Cutting tool is assumed to be a
slender column
Wiercigroch Micro-cracking due to MRR is a function of the Applicable to hard and
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
1973).
Riddie (1973), Bulat (1974) and Willard (1953) reported that the cavi-
tational bubbles formed during the ultrasonic oscillations produce a press-
ure more than 1000 kgf=cm2 on the work surface when they collapse. This
pressure rise also causes material removal. It has been reported that as long
as the working gap between the tool and workpiece surface is more than
the mean size of the abrasive grains used, no significant machining can take
place (Soundrajan and Radhakrishnan, 1986; Wang and Rajurkar, 1995).
The free impact mechanism has been found to be more effective and sig-
nificant with larger grain sizes of abrasive used. With fine grit sizes of abras-
ive grains, the direct hammering mode has been found to be predominant
for material removal.
The initiation and propagation of median as well as lateral cracks has
been considered to contribute greatly to the material removal process in
ultrasonic machining (Ghahramani and Wang, 2001; Deng and Lee,
2002; Halm and Schulz, 1993;) of ceramic composites. The sharp point
of indenter (abrasive grain) produces an inelastic deformation zone and
at some threshold, a deformation-induced flow suddenly develops into a
small crack, termed as a median crack.
An increase in the load causes further growth of the median crack.
Figure 8 shows the mechanism of generation and propagation of cracks
while machining ceramics in USM. During unloading, the median crack
begins to close; inducing the formation of lateral vents (Lee and Chan,
1997; Pei et al., 1995a; Pei et al., 1995c). Upon complete unloading, the lat-
eral vents continue their extension towards the work surface and lead to
chipping.
Zarepour and Yeo (2012) developed a model to predict ductile and
brittle material removal modes while a brittle material is impacted by a
single sharp abrasive particle in micro-ultrasonic machining process. The
model was developed on the basis of indentation fracture theory. The quan-
titative criterion for brittle-ductile transition in material removal were
evolved using threshold kinetic energy consideration; in promoting radial
338 J. Kumar
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 8 Crack propagation and work surface indentation in USM (Lawn et al., 1980; Marshall,
Lawn, and Evans, 1982).
PROCESS CAPABILITIES
USM is valuable process for precision machining of hard, brittle materi-
als. Although USM is not limited by high-hardness materials, best machining
rates are obtained for materials having hardness more than HRC 60
Ultrasonic Machining 339
(Rozenberg, 1973; Saha et al., 1988; Snoyes, 1986; Tsutsumi, 1993; Weller,
1984). Materials such as carbides, ferrites, germanium, ceramics, glass and
tungsten are representative of those that are difficult to process convention-
ally and can benefit the most from the USM process (Balamuth, 1964;
Graff, 1975; Halm and Schulz, 1993; Haun and Schulz, 1994; Hocheng
et al., 1999; Kennedy and Sakaar, 1989; Kremer and Mackie, 1988; Markov,
1977; Spur et al., 1997). When performing drilling operation, USM can pro-
duce holes as small as 76 mm in diameter (Thoe et al., 1998). The best tol-
erance that can be obtained practically in ultrasonic drilling is of the order
of 25 mm; however with special considerations given to slurry circulation
and abrasive selection, tolerances of the order of 10 mm can be achieved
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
USM ___ ___ Good Poor Good Good Poor Poor ___
AJM ___ ___ Fair Poor Poor Fair ____ Good ___
ECM ___ ___ Good Good Fair Good Good Good Good
CHM Fair Fair ____ ____ Poor Fair ____ Good ___
EDM ___ ___ Good Fair Good Good Fair Poor ___
LBM Good Good Fair Poor Poor Poor ____ Good Fair
PAM ___ ___ Good ___ Poor Poor ____ Good Good
Abbreviations: USM – ultrasonic machining; AJM – abrasive jet machining; ECM – electro-chemical
machining; CHM – chemical machining; EDM – electric discharge machining; LBM – laser beam
machining; PAM – plasma arc machining.
Ultrasonic Machining 341
TABLE 5 Typical Values of the Machining Characteristics of Various Processes (Singh, 2007)
MRR Depth of Surface
Process (mm3=min) Tolerance (mm) Surface (mm) CLA damage (mm) Power (watts)
Abbreviations: USM – ultrasonic machining; AJM – abrasive jet machining; ECM – electro-chemical
machining; EDM – electric discharge machining; EBM – electron beam machining; LBM – laser beam
machining; PAM – plasma arc machining; CHM – chemical machining; CM – conventional machining.
OPERATING CHARACTERSITICS
Material Removal Rate
To identify the potential factors affecting material removal rate in USM,
a cause and effect diagram was constructed (Figure 9). As the diagram
indicates, the material removal rate in USM is dependant on four primary
factors workpiece; tool; slurry and machine related factors. The literature
corresponding to these factors has been extensively reviewed and presented.
Workpiece Properties
Komaraiah and Reddy (1993a) investigated the influence of work material
properties such as fracture toughness and hardness on material removal rate in
ultrasonic machining of hard and brittle materials. MRR was reported to
decrease with an increase in work material hardness and fracture toughness
in almost linear fashion under controlled experimental conditions. In another
investigation by Komaraiah et al. (1988), the MRR was reported to depend upon
the brittleness ratio (ratio of work hardness to elastic modulus) of the work
material. Deng and Lee (2002) reported the MRR to be low while machining
composites of higher fracture toughness such as whisker-reinforced compo-
sites. The particle reinforced composites yielded higher values of MRR on
account of their low fracture toughness. The composites of higher flexural
strength demonstrated better surface integrity while machining with USM.
Guzzo et al. (2003) outlined the ultrasonic abrasion of different hard
and brittle materials using stationary USM. Results show that machining
rate decreased with increase in hardness of the work material. Majeed
et al. (2008) outlined the machining of Al2O3=LaPO4 composites using sta-
tic USM. Results show that an increase in the hardness of the composite
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
342
Characteristics
Investigator Work materials Process Conditions investigated Results
Dam et al. (1995) Glass, SiC Fixed: MRR MRR=TWR Dev SR (mm)
Al2O3, TiB2 Tool: Steel TWR (mm).
Hot pressed Slurry: B4C Deviation in Glass: 108 10 13.5
silicon nitride Grit: 280 hole size Al2O3: 30.8 25 9.0
(HPSN) Variables: (Dev.) TiB2 : 23.5 100 3.2
Zirconium Oxide work material Surface SiC: 4.5 75 6.0
(TZ3YB) roughness HPSN: 1.2 75 4.0
(SR) TZ3YB 0.75 150 2.0
Adithan and Glass Fixed: Surface Load (kg) SR (mm) Conicity Roundness
Krishnamurthy Tool: MS roughness (mm) (mm)
(1978) Slurry: B4C (SR) 0.15 10.5 75 55,55
Grit: 280 Conicity, 0.35 12.5 65 53, 68
Variable: Out-of- 0.50 17.0 85 40,43
Static load Roundness 0.85 18.2 70 45,75
(at entry, exit) 1.00 18.6 40 43,117
Hocheng and Hsu Fiber reinforced Fixed: Surface Surface roughness: 1.2–2.0 mm
(1995) Plastics Tool: MS Roughness Hole clearance: 0.12–0.27 mm
Slurry: SiC Deviation in
Variable: hole size
Grit: 150–600 (Dev.)
Conc: 13–26%
Majeed et al. Al2O3=LaP04 Fixed: MRR Hardness MRR (mm3=s)
(2008) Composites Slurry: B4C (kg=mm2)
Grit: 280 Tool 1 Tool 2
Tool: L.C.S. 400 0.65 0.25
Variable: 800 0.60 0.20
Work Hardness 1200 0.45 0.12
Tool geometry 1600 0.10 0.05
(tool 1: hollow, 2: solid)
Guzzo et al. (2003) Quartz crystal Fixed: TWR TWR: 3.4–16.5 mm=s
Slurry: SiC Surface SR: 1.0–1.9 mm
Tool: S.S. roughness
Variable: (SR)
Grain size
6–50 mm
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
(Continued )
343
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
344
TABLE 6 Continued
Characteristics
Investigator Work materials Process Conditions investigated Results
Tool Characteristics
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
guidelines for tool design for optimum MRR have been described by
Rozenberg et al. (1964). Traditional methods of acoustic horn design are
based upon differential equation which considers the equilibrium of an
infinitesimal element under the action of elastic and inertia factors, which
is then integrated over the horn length to achieve resonance (Pandey and
Shan, 1980). Typical design includes cylindrical, stepped, conical and expo-
nential types. Recently, finite element modeling (FEM) has been used
(Benedict, 1987; Seah et al., 1993) to design symmetric horn shapes. The
analysis can take into the consideration the weight of the tool (Benedict,
1987). Dam and Jensen (1993) has claimed that a horn can be designed
that converts the longitudinal ultrasonic action into a mixed lateral and
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Slurry Properties
Various investigators (Anantha Ramu and Krishnamurthy, 1989; Barash
and Watanapongse, 1970; Khairy, 1990; Koops, 1964; Koval Chenko, 1986;
Pentland and Ektermanis, 1965; Scab, 1990; Willard, 1953) have reported
results indicating that the rate of material removal for a certain abrasive
is a function of its concentration, grain size and hardness besides the feed
system.
On increasing the abrasive grit size or slurry concentration, an opti-
mum value of MRR is reached. Any further increase in either aspect results
in difficulty in the larger grains reaching the cutting zone (Goetze, 1956;
Koops, 1964) or a subsequent fall in MRR. Guzzo et al. (2003) reported
a substantial increase in MRR obtained while using abrasive of larger grain
size on account of the increase in the stress caused by the impact of abrasive
particle over the workpiece surface. Neppiras (1964) and Markov (1977)
reported that when grain size is comparable to the amplitude of vibration,
the optimum level of MRR can be reached. Experimentally the ratio of the
double amplitude to the mean size of the principal fraction of abrasive is
0.6 to 0.8. Goetze (1956) has reported the optimum value of slurry concen-
tration to be close to 12% for all the abrasive grit sizes used in the investi-
gation. The optimum concentration is thought to be one providing a single
layer of abrasive over the entire work surface (Kremer, 1981). The values
given for the optimum concentration are inconsistent, with a range of
30% to 60% (Markov, 1959), 25% to 40% (Neppiras, 1972) and 15% to
40% (Nishimura, 1954).
The disagreement in the quoted values for the optimum range of con-
centration can be attributed to the variation of concentration within the
working zone under the tool. Obviously such effective local concentration
348 J. Kumar
under the tool can not be the same as that of the feed suspension especially
when the static load is too high for the particular acoustic setting (Kremer,
1991). Kennedy and Sakaar (1989) pointed out the difficulty of machining
a flat at the bottom of a hole because of uneven slurry distribution across
the machining face, resulting in fewer active grits at the tool centre. Kazant-
sev (1963, 1966) claimed that the forced delivery of the slurry increased the
output of USM five fold without the need to increase grit size or machine
power. When compared with suction pumping system, it yielded a 2–3 times
higher MRR. Pentland and Ektermanis (1965) and others (Koops, 1964,
Koval Chenko et al., 1986; Scab, 1990) found that by improving slurry cir-
culation, the adverse effects such as contamination and blockage can be
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Operating Parameters
Power primarily determines the mass of the tool-horn assembly that can
be utilized for an application and the frontal cutting area of the tool. The
more is power available in an ultrasonic machine, the larger the frontal cut-
ting area of the tool can be supported (Benedict, 1987). The amplitude of
vibration (n) has been found to affect the machining performance of USM
by a number of investigators (Anantha Ramu and Krishnamurthy, 1989;
Goetze, 1956; Kainth, 1979; Kazantsev, 1963; Miller, 1957; Neppiras, 1957;
Ultrasonic Machining 349
as frequency of vibration and abrasive grit size are kept constant. The linear
trend of MRR while increasing the amplitude has been found to be more
prevalent when high impact strength materials are machined or fine abras-
ive powders are used for machining. Lee and Chan (1997) reported an
optimum value of amplitude beyond which the MRR obtained tends to
stabilize. When a larger grit size of the abrasive is coupled with a low value
of amplitude, the MRR obtained is reported to be substantially poor due to
ineffective circulation of slurry under the tool.
Experiments conducted by Neppiras (1972) have shown that in the
range of 20 to 50 kHz, the removal rate is proportional to square root of
the vibration frequency. However, Kazantsev (1966) stated that the abrasion
rate is proportional to the frequency while the non linear frequency depen-
dence of machining rate is due to the variation in abrasive concentration in
the working zone. Some other researchers have also reported the linear
dependence of machining rate on frequency of vibration (Gilmore, 1989;
Goetze, 1956; Zhang et al., 1999). Above an upper threshold value, the
MRR falls off rapidly where MRR is proportional to square root of fre-
quency (Kazantsev, 1963, Nishimura, 1954).
Kainth (1979) carried out an analysis considering the non-uniformity
of abrasive grains to assess the relation between the removal rate and sta-
tic load=amplitude. Their calculations yielded approximately a linear
relation between material removal rate and static load. Rozenberg
(1964) has also reported similar results while all other factors are kept
unchanged. Koops (1964) indicated that use of a smaller than optimum
value for static load is better for reducing the abrasive wear and increas-
ing the tool life. Above the optimum value, the MRR decreases owing to a
reduction in the size of abrasive grains reaching the cutting interface
(due to crushing effect) and inefficient slurry circulation (Graff, 1975;
Kennedy and Grieve, 1975; Neppiras, 1972; Rozenberg, 1973; Snoyes,
1986; Zhang et al., 1999).
The optimum static load for the maximum machining rate has been
found to be dependant on the tool configuration, amplitude of vibration
350 J. Kumar
and mean grit size (Gilmore, 1991; Kremer, 1991; Neppiras, 1964). A
previous analysis carried out by Markov (1959) on the experimental results
of ENIMS yielded a wide range for the power exponent relating MRR with
amplitude for different static loads. The values ranged from 0.5 to 1.7
depending upon the value of static load used.
Lalchnuanvela et al. (2012) reported an experimental investigation on
high alumina ceramics based on central composite second-order rotatable
design. In this study, abrasive grit size, slurry concentration, power rating,
tool feed rate, slurry flow rate are considered as input variables. The opti-
mal parametric combinations of input variables for maximum MRR and
minimum value of roughness have been obtained through multi-objective
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
optimization.
Kumar and Khamba (2010a) investigated the material removal rate in
ultrasonic machining of pure titanium using Taguchi’s method (L-18
OA) for experimental design. Effects of input parameters such as tool
material, abrasive, grain size and power rating of USM were assessed on
MRR using ANOVA test. All the factors considered were found to be signifi-
cant at 95% level. The modeling of MRR using dimensional analysis
method was also performed.
Gauri et al. (2011) analyzed two sets of past experimental data on
USM process using three different methods dealing with multiple corre-
lated responses (MRR, tool wear and Surface roughness) and the optimi-
zation performances of the three methods were subsequently compared.
It was reported that both the weighted principle component (WPC)
and principal component analysis (PCA)-based TOPSIS methods result
in a better performance than PCA-based grey relational analysis.
The WPC method was found to be best because of simpler computational
procedure.
Rao et al. (2010) performed optimization of MRR as response subjected
to constraint of surface roughness. The process variables considered for
optimization were—amplitude of vibration, frequency, and mean diameter
of particles, static feed force and slurry concentration. The optimization
was performed using three optimization algorithms namely artificial bee
colony, harmony search and particle swam optimization. The results
showed that three methods outperformed the genetic algorithm with a
considerable improvement.
Singh and Gill (2009) presented the design of fuzzy logic based model
to simulate MRR in ultrasonic drilling of porcelain ceramic. The model can
be referred by machine operator from time to time and can also be used in
process planning by practicing engineers. The model was based on two
input signals—namely the depth of cut and time of cut. The application
of Chi-square test indicated that the values of MRR predicted by model
Ultrasonic Machining 351
tation or suction wear (Riddie, 1973; Seah et al., 1993; Willard, 1953).
Tool wear in USM is a complex phenomenon and is affected by a number
of factors such as static load; work material; tool material; tool size; type
of abrasive and its grain size; machining time; depth of hole drilled, etc.
As a result of the tool wear, both tool length and weight decrease, which
affects the resonance frequency of the machine and reduces the ampli-
tude of vibration (Adithan, 1981; Adithan and Venkatesh, 1978; Adithan
and Krishnamurthy, 1978; Adithan and Venkatesh, 1976), thus, lowering
the MRR.
Adithan and Venkatesh (1974) reported that the tool wear is
maximum at a particular static load, which may be considered optimum
for the point of view of MRR. The tool wear increases linearly with the
total depth of holes drilled. As the depth of hole drilled increases, there
is a reduction in the MRR and an increase in the associated tool wear
(Adithan and Venkatesh, 1976). The tool wear is proportional to the cut-
ting time and the rate of tool wear has been found to increase with time
(Komaraiah and Reddy, 1993b; Soundrajan and Radhakrishnan, 1986).
Adithan (1981) found that for all tool and work combinations, the tool
wear rate is proportional to the wear that has already taken place. The tool
wear tends to increase when harder and coarser abrasives are used. As a
consequence, harder abrasives like boron carbide cause higher tool wear
compared to softer abrasives like silicon carbide for a tool of the same
cross-sectional area (Adithan and Venkatesh, 1974; Venkatesh, 1983).
Anantha Ramu and Krishnamurthy (1989) reported an optimum slurry
concentration range (1: 5.7) from tool wear aspect in USM of transform-
ation toughened ceramics.
Dam et al. (1995) has reported that work material properties such as
hardness and toughness affect the tool wear in ultrasonic machining. Their
results showed that work materials with higher fracture toughness and
hardness cause more tool wear. Anantha Ramu and Krishnamurthy
(1989) have reported that transformation toughened ceramics show poorer
USM behavior giving relatively high tool wear. This has been attributed to
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
their higher fracture toughness which is unfavorable from the point of view
of tool wear in USM. Adithan (1981) reported absence of lateral wear in
machining of softer materials such as porcelain, while it was found to be
more prevalent in case of hard work materials such as tungsten carbide.
Adithan (1981) has reported that stainless steel tools exhibit low tool
wear as compared to tungsten carbide or mild steel tools. This is due to
high resistance to cavitation erosion of stainless steel. In USM, hardness
of the tool increases by work hardening, therefore the penetration of the
abrasive grains into the tool decreases resulting in higher MRR (Komaraiah
and Reddy, 1993b). In addition, material removal from the periphery of the
work zone becomes greater so that a convex surface is formed in the work-
piece. This causes plastic deformation of the centre of the tool face, form-
ing a dish. It has also been found that the degree of hardening is higher at
the periphery and lowest at the centre for all tool materials (Komaraiah
and Reddy, 1993a, 1993b). As a result, soft materials such as copper and
brass are unsuitable as tools as they develop burrs at large oscillatory ampli-
tudes (Neppiras, 1964). They are also acoustically poor and attenuate the
stress wave in large tools. The use of hard metals such as tungsten carbide
reduces plastic deformation of the tool surfaces (Halm and Schulz, 1993).
To decrease longitudinal wear (WL), use of a tool material with a high
value of product of hardness and impact strength (e.g., Niamonic-80 A) has
been recommended by Komaraiah and Reddy (1993b). However, the
lateral wear (WD) has been found to be independent of the impact strength
(Adithan, 1981; Komaraiah and Reddy, 1993b). Komaraiah and Reddy
(1993a) ranked the various tool materials in the order of superiority
(decreasing tool wear) as mild steel > titanium > stainless steel > silver
steel > thoriated tungsten > niamonic-80 A.
Kumar et al. (2008) compared the machining performance of high car-
bon steel and titanium alloy tools in USM of titanium. High carbon steel
tool was found to experience more tool wear as compared to titanium alloy
tool because of its higher hardness and poor toughness and impact
strength as compared to titanium alloy tool. Kumar et al. (2009) reported
Ultrasonic Machining 353
FIGURE 11 Effect of Hardness (H) to Elastic Modulus (E) ratio on surface roughness in USM and
RUM (Komaraiah et al., 1988).
Ultrasonic Machining 355
Dam et al. (1995) concluded that the work materials can be graduated
according to their respective machining rates, so that the most productive
materials give the greatest surface roughness and vice-versa. Therefore,
higher productivity is not obtained without cost as the surface roughness
increases. Also, the deviation of the diameter of drilled holes from the
nominal diameter (10 mm) has been found to be related with the material
properties such as toughness and hardness. The materials with high hard-
ness have exhibited less deviation in the hole size, whereas the materials
with more toughness have exhibited larger deviation (Figure 12).
Kremer and Mackie (1988) reported that USM of graphite resulted in
poor surface finish due to cavitation, contamination and debris blockage.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Adithan and Venkatesh (1976) found that for the same abrasive size and
static load, the surface roughness for glass workpiece was almost double
that for graphite. Anantha Ramu and Krishnamurthy (1989) compared
the surface quality obtained while machining alumina-based and zirconia-
based ceramics with USM. Results show that better surface finish was obtained
for alumina-based ceramics and the oversize for the drilled hole was also lesser.
Singh and Khamba (2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008) investi-
gated the machining characteristics of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) using
stationary USM. Results show that optimum MRR and TWR was achieved
with boron carbide as abrasive material with grit size 220 and stainless steel
as tool material. Optimum surface quality was generated while using a stain-
less steel tool; slurry concentration of 25% and slurry temperature equal to
27 C. The surface finish has been reported to be better (50 microns) than
that obtained while machining brittle materials such as ceramics. Dvivedi
and Kumar (2007) investigated surface quality in USM of titanium alloy
FIGURE 12 Deviation of drilled holes from nominal diameter (10 mm) in USM (Dam et al., 1995).
356 J. Kumar
(Ti-6Al-4 V). Results show that the best results for surface quality were
obtained with H.C.S. tool; medium grit size (320) and low power rating
of USM machine (40%). The other factors such as slurry concentration
were found to be relatively insignificant from the point of view of surface
quality. Figure 13 shows the modes of material removal while a ductile
and tough material such as titanium is machined using USM. It could be
well observed that the ductile failure of machined surface has taken place
(Figure 13a) under low energy input condition. Whereas under high
energy input conditions, a mixed mode of material removal (dominated
by brittle fracture) could be seen (Figure 13b).
Nath et al. (2012) investigated the effect of micro-chipping on the hole
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 13 Material removal modes while machining pure titanium with USM (Kumar and Khamba,
2010a).
Ultrasonic Machining 357
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 14 Schematic diagram of edge chipping of a resultant hole in USM (Nath et al., 2012). (Figure
available in color online.)
observed that the diamond grains were dislodged from the tool due to
bond fracture. Figure 15 shows a schematic diagram of RUM process.
The tool wear was found to occur in two stages- first the attritious wear
and then the bond fracture.
Li et al. (2005a) utilized a three variable, two level full factorial design
for investigating the effect of spindle speed, ultrasonic power and feed rate
vibration. The cutting force was found to decrease significantly when ultra-
sonic vibration was introduced. The spindle speed did not affect the aver-
age cutting force and hole entrance=exit edge quality.
Shen et al. (2008) applied support vector Fuzzy adaptive network for
modeling MRR in rotary ultrasonic machining. The fuzzy rules in the
model were generated from the support vectors, which are extracted from
the learning data using SVM algorithm. The combined mechanism connec-
ted SVM and FAN theoretically, improving the performance of newly pro-
posed technique over FAN III in terms of convergent rate, prediction
accuracy. Pei et al. (1995) developed a mechanistic model for prediction
of MRR. A model parameter (which models the ratio of fractured volume
to indented volume of single diamond particle) was shown to be invariant
for most machining conditions. The accuracy of the model was demon-
strated for magnesia stabilized zirconia.
Cong et al. (2011) proposed a novel method for measurement of
vibration amplitude in RUM. It was concluded that excluding cutting tool,
ultrasonic power was the only input variable that significantly affected the
vibration amplitude. Vibration amplitude showed no significant variations
with changes in work material, tool rotational speed and feed rate. Cong
et al. (2012c) presented a study on comparing the machining performance
of RUM, while machining CFRP composites under two different
coolants-cutting fluid and cold air. Cutting force, torque, surface rough-
ness, burning of machined surface, and tool wear were observed under
the conditions of both coolants. The machining conditions under which
cold air would be preferable (for hole quality) to cutting fluid were
recognized.
ULTRASONIC POLISHING
Ultrasonic polishing is a very similar process to ultrasonic machining.
Here, a moving table is employed in addition to a PC-based controller
362 J. Kumar
the vibrating tool. The combination of flow and vibration results in the mix
abrading the workpiece surface. Combination with multi-axis CNC tool
manipulation allows the polishing of complex three-dimensional cavities.
FIGURE 17 Wavy chip produced in ultrasonic assisted drilling at low frequency (Chang and Bone,
2005).
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
FIGURE 18 Average burr height vs. spindle speed in ultrasonic assisted drilling (Chang and Bone,
2005).
Ultrasonic Machining 365
that the machining efficiency obtained was 2–3 times higher than conven-
tional EDM process. The surface integrity of the machined samples was also
found to be better when compared to conventional EDM.
Chen and Lin (2009) investigated the surface modification of Al-Mg-Zn
alloy using combined EDM-USM process while adding TiC particles in the
dielectric. The elemental distributions of titanium and carbon on the
cross-section were quantitatively determined using an electron probe
micro-analyzer (EPMA). Micro-hardness and wear resistance tests were con-
ducted to evaluate the modifications on the machined surface caused by
the combined process. The experimental results showed that the combined
process was associated with improved machining performance. The combi-
nation of EDM with USM yielded an alloyed layer that improved the hard-
ness and wear resistance of the machined surface.
Kang et al. (2012) studied the effect of ultrasonic vibration in nanose-
cond laser machining. The morphological change of particles re-deposited
on the machined area was observed under varied process conditions. The
results showed that the surface finish was improved by the near-field surface
cooling enhancement induced by ultrasonic vibration. From the chemical
composition analysis of the machined surface, it was verified that the
vibration could prevent the surface oxidation and the formation of recast
layer. As a result, the ultrasonic vibration in ns-laser machining process
could be effective for improving both the physical and chemical character-
istics of the machined surface.
Abdullah et al. (2012) investigated the enhancement of strength for
welded structures by applying ultrasonic peening method.
For investigating the effect of ultrasonic peening on stainless steel-304
welded parts, a series of experiments were designed and implemented. This
research comprised the results of experimental fatigue strength tests
along with metallography, micro-hardness and corrosion resistance tests
of welded pieces with and without processing by ultrasonic peening.
Experiments proved that under post treatment by ultrasonic peening, a
better mechanical and corrosion resistance is achieved.
368 J. Kumar
for which the hole integrity is affected to a larger extent than brittle
materials.
2. The phenomenon responsible for variation of the roughness of drilled
hole along the depth of cut has not been clearly recognized. An in
depth investigation is needed to understand the mechanics of the dif-
ference in roughness at entry and exit parts of the drilled hole, parti-
cularly in rotary mode of USM.
3. There is a critical need for dynamic process modeling of output vari-
ables (MRR, cutting force, etc.) for machining newly developed materi-
als such as advanced composites, MMC’s and high strength to weight
ratio (aerospace) materials with USM. The available literature mainly
focuses on static parametric relationships. Materials such as titanium,
nickel alloys and stellite may be used as work material in this type of
research activity.
4. Non-traditional optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithm,
artificial bee colony (ABC), harmony search (HS) and particle swam
optimization (PSO) can be employed for performing multi-objective
optimization of correlated output variables. The optimized results from
these methods can be compared with other traditional optimization
methods such as desirability function, utility concept, Principal compo-
nent analysis, grey relational analysis.
5. Application of simulation tools and fuzzy logic modeling might be
applied for checking the validity of proposed models as well as for con-
structing the models for reference purpose. The machine operators
and process planners may refer the results obtained by applying these
tools from time to time and hence the time and other resources could
be saved.
6. Further research is needed on obtaining a robust process performance
while machining advanced materials by applying robust design con-
cepts such as Taguchi’s loss function. Most of the studies reported on
parametric optimization of USM have made use of Taguchi’s design
of experiments approach; with a focus on improving the mean value
Ultrasonic Machining 369
FIGURE 19 Potential research areas for USM. (Figure available in color online.)
Ultrasonic Machining 371
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasonic machining is one of the most widely used non-traditional
processes; especially for commercial machining of hard, brittle and
fragile materials. There is tremendous scope for application of USM
for establishing cost effective machining solutions for relatively tough
and ductile metals such as titanium, nickel-alloys. Productivity and qual-
ity of USM process is dependant on the work material properties (such
as hardness and fracture toughness), tool properties (hardness, impact
strength and finish), abrasive properties (hardness, coarseness and
viscosity) and process settings (power input, static load, amplitude
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
REFERENCES
Abdullah, A.; Massoud, M.; Ahmad, E. (2012) Strength enhancement of welded structures by ultrasonic
peening. Materials and Design, 38: 7–18.
Adithan, M. (1981) Tool wear characteristics in ultrasonic drilling. Tribology International, 14(6):
351–356.
Adithan, M.; Krishnamurthy, R. (1978) Structural alterations in the workpiece by ultrasonic drilling.
Wear, 46: 327–334.
———. (1976) Production accuracy of holes in ultrasonic drilling. Wear, 40(3): 309–318.
———. (1978) An appraisal of wear mechanisms in ultrasonic drilling. Annals of the CIRP, 27: 119–124.
Adithan, M.; Venkatesh, V.C. (1974) Parametric influence on tool wear in ultrasonic drilling. Tribology
International, 7(6): 260–264.
Allen, B.J.; Williams, R.E.; Gilmore, R. (1995) Surface integrity improvement of EDM components by
ultrasonic polishing. Technical Papers of NAMRI=SME: 61–66.
Amin, A.K.M.; Ismail, F.A.; Khairushima, M.K. (2007) Effectiveness of uncoated WC-Co and PCD inserts
in end milling of titanium alloy-Ti-6Al-4V. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 192–193: 147–
158.
Amin, S.G.; Ahmed, M.H.; Youssef, H.A. (1993) Optimum design charts of acoustic horns for ultrasonic
machining. Proc. Inter. Conference on Advances in Materials Processing Technologies, 24–27 August,
Dublin City University, Dublin, 139–147.
Anantha Ramu, B.L.; Krishnamurthy, R. (1989) Machining performance of toughened zirconia ceramic
and cold compact alumina ceramic in ultrasonic drilling. Journal of Mechanical Working Technology,
120: 365–375.
Ultrasonic Machining 373
Aspinwall, D.K.; Kasuga, V. (2001) The use of ultrasonic machining for the production of holes in Y-TIAL.
Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium for Electro Machining ISEM XIII, Spain, 2: 925–937.
Azarhoushang, B.; Akbari, J. (2007) Ultrasonic assisted drilling of Inconel 738-LC. International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, 47: 1027–1033.
Babitsky, V.I.; Mitrofanov, A.V.; Silverschmidt, V.V. (2004) Ultrasonically assisted turning of aviation
materials: simulations and experimental study. Ultrasonics, 42: 81–86.
Baek, D.K.; Ko, J.T.; Seung, H.Y. (2013) Enhancement of surface quality in ultrasonic machining of glass
using a sacrificing coating. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 213: 553–569.
Balamuth, L. (1964) Ultrasonic vibrations assisted cutting tools. Metalworking Production, 108(24): 75–77.
Balamuth, L.A. (1966) Ultrasonic assistance to conventional metal removal. Ultrasonics, 4: 125–130.
Barash, M.M.; Watanapongse, D. (1970) On the effect of ambient pressure on the rate of material
removal in ultrasonic machining. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 12: 775–779.
Benedict, G.F. (1987) Non-Traditional Manufacturing Processes, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp. 67–86.
Bhattacharya, A. (1973) New Technology, The Institution of Engineers (I), Calcutta, pp. 12–17.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Bulat, T.J. (1974) Micro-Sonics in Industry: Ultrasonic Cleaning, Bendix and Life Supports Division
Publication, USA, 120.10.153: 13.
Chang, S.; Bone, G.M. (2005) Burr size reduction in drilling by ultrasonic assistance. Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 120: 442–450.
Chen, Y.-F.; Lin, Y.-C. (2009) Surface modifications of Al-Zn-Mg alloy using combined EDM with ultra-
sonic machining and addition of TiC particles into the dielectric. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 209: 4343–4350.
Choi, J.P.; Jeon, B.H.; Kim, B.H. (2007) Chemical-assisted ultrasonic machining of glass. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 191: 153–156.
Churi, N.J.; Pei, Z.J.; Treadwell, C. (2009) Rotary ultrasonic machining of titanium alloy. Machining
Science and Technology, 10(3): 301–321.
Cong, W.L.; Pei, A.J.; Deines, T.W.; Srivastava, A.; Riley, L.; Treadwell, C. (2012a) Rotary ultra-
sonic machining of CFRP composites: A study on power consumption. Ultrasonics, 52(8):
1030–1037.
Cong, W.L.; Pei, Z.J.; Feng, Q.; Deines, T.W.; Treadwell, C. (2012b) Edge chipping in rotary ultrasonic
machining of silicon. International Journal of Manufacturing Research, 7(3): 311–329.
———. (2012c) Rotary ultrasonic machining of carbon reinforced fiber plastic composites: using cut-
ting fluid versus cold air as coolant. Journal of Composite Materials, 46(14): 1745–1753.
Cong, W.L.; Pei, Z.J.; Mohanty, N.; Van Vleet, E.; Treadwell, C. (2011) Vibration Amplitude in Rotary
Ultrasonic Machining: A Novel measurement method and effects of process variables. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 133: 034501–1–034501–6.
Cook, N.H. (1966) Manufacturing Analysis, Addison-Wesley, New York, pp. 133–148.
Dam, H.; Jensen, J. (1993) Surface characterization of ultrasonic machined ceramics with diamond
impregnated sonotrode. Machining of Advanced Materials, 34: 125–133.
Dam, H.; Quist, P.; Schreiber, M. (1995) Productivity, surface quality and tolerances in ultrasonic
machining of ceramics. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 51(1–4): 358–368.
Deng, J.; Lee, T. (2000) Surface integrity in electro-discharge machining, ultrasonic machining and
diamond saw cutting of ceramic composites. Ceramic International, 26(8): 825–830.
Deng, J.; Lee, T. (2002) Ultrasonic machining of alumina based ceramic composites. Journal of the
European Ceramic Society, 22(8): 1235–1241.
Dvivedi, A.; Kumar, P. (2007) Surface quality evaluation in ultrasonic drilling through the Taguchi
technique. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 34(1–2): 131–140.
Farago, F.T. (1980) Abrasives methods engineering. Industrial Press, 2: 480–481.
Farzin-Nia, F.; Sterrett, T. (1990) Effect of machining on fracture toughness of corundum. Journal of
Materials Science, 25(5): 2527–2531.
Feng, Q.; Cong, W.L.; Pei, Z.J.; Ren, C.Z. (2012) Rotary ultrasonic machining of carbon fiber reinforced
polymer: feasibility study. Machining Science and Technology, 16(3): 380–398.
Frederick, J.R. (1965) Ultrasonic Engineering, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, pp. 32–45.
Gauri, S.K.; Chakravorty, R.; Chakraborty, S. (2011) Optimization of correlated multiple responses of
ultrasonic machining (USM) process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
53: 1115–1127.
374 J. Kumar
Ghabrial, S.R. (1986) Trends towards improving the surfaces produced by modern processes. Wear,
109(1–4): 113–118.
Ghabrial, S.R.; Saleh, S.M.; Kohail, A.; Moison, A. (1982) Problems associated with electro-discharge
machined, electro-chemically machined and ultrasonically machined surfaces. Wear, 83: 275–283.
Ghahramani, B.; Wang, Z.Y. (2001) Precision ultrasonic machining process: A case study of stress analy-
sis of ceramic (Al2O3). International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 41(8): 1189–1208.
Gilmore, R. (1991) Ultrasonic machining—a case study. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 28(1–2):
139–148.
Gilmore, R. (1989) Ultrasonic machining and orbital abrasion techniques. SME Technical Paper (series)
AIR, NM89–419: 1–20.
Goetze, D. (1956) Effect of vibration amplitude, frequency, and composition of the abrasive slurry on
the rate of ultrasonic machining in Ketos Tool Steel. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 28(6):
1033–1045.
Gong, H.; Feng, F.Z., Hu, X.T. (2010) Kinematic view of tool life in rotary ultrasonic side milling of hard
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
and brittle materials. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 50(3): 303–307.
Graff, K.F. (1975) Macrosonics in industry: Ultrasonic machining. Ultrasonics, 13: 103–109.
Guzzo, P.L.; Raslan, A.A.; De Mello, J.D.B. (2003) Ultrasonic abrasion of quartz crystals. Wear, 255:
67–77.
Halm, R.; Schulz, P. (1993) Ultrasonic machining of complex ceramic components. Erosion AC Report,
DKG 70(7): 6.
Haun, R.; Schulz, P. (1994) New ultrasonic machining route to create complex ceramic components.
Proc. IEEE Ultrasonic Symposium, 31 Oct.–3 Nov., Cannes, France, 3: 1389–1392.
Hocheng, H.; Kuo, K.L. (2002a) On-line tool wear monitoring during ultrasonic machining using tool
resonance frequency. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 123(1): 80–84.
Hocheng, H.; Kuo, K.L. (2002b) Fundamental study of ultrasonic machining of mold steel. International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 42: 7–13.
Hocheng, H.; Kuo, K.L.; Lin, J.T. (1999) Machinability of zirconia ceramics in ultrasonic drilling.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 14(5): 713–724.
Hocheng, H.; Hsu, C.C. (1995) Preliminary study of ultrasonic drilling of Fiber-Reinforced Plastics. Jour-
nal of Materials Processing Technology, 48: 255–266.
Hu, P., Zhang, J.M., Pei, Z.J., Treadwell, C. (2002) Modeling of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic
machining: designed experiments. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 129: 339–344.
Ishikawa, K.; Suwabe, H.; Nishide, T.; Uneda.M. (1998) A study on combined vibration drilling by ultra-
sonic and low-frequency vibrations for hard and brittle materials. Precision Engineering, 22: 197–206.
Jadoun, R.S.; Kumar, P.; Mishra, B.K.; Mehta, R.C.S. (2006) Manufacturing process optimization for tool
wear rate in ultrasonic drilling of engineering ceramics using the Taguchi method. International
Journal of Machining and Machinability of Materials, 1(3–4): 94–114.
Jain, N.K.; Jain, V.K. (2001) Modeling of material removal in mechanical type of advanced machining
processes—a state of the art review. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 41:
1573–1635.
Jones, A.R.; Hull, J.B. (1998) Ultrasonic flow polishing. Ultrasonics, 36: 97–101.
Kaczmarek, I. (1976) Principles of Machining by Cutting, Abrasion and Erosion, Peter Peregrinus Ltd.,
Stevenage, pp. 448–462.
Kai, E.; Takahira, M. (1999) Micro ultrasonic machining by application of work-piece vibration. CIRP
Annals, 48(1): 131–134.
Kainth, G.S.; Nandy, A.; Singh, K. (1979) On the mechanisms of material removal in ultrasonic machin-
ing. International Journal of Machine Tool Design, 19: 33–41.
Kang, B.; Kim, W.G.; Yang, M.; Cho, S.-H.; Park, J.-K. (2012) A Study of the effect of ultrasonic vibration
in nanosecond laser machining. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 50: 1817–1822.
Kazantsev, V.F. (1966) Improving the output and accuracy of ultrasonic machining. Machines and Tooling,
37(4): 33–39.
Kazantsev, V.F. (1963) The relationship between output and machining conditions in ultrasonic machin-
ing. Machines and Tooling, 34: 14–17.
Kennedy, D.C.; Grieve R.J. (1975) Ultrasonic machining—A review. The Production Engineer, 54(9):
481–486.
Ultrasonic Machining 375
Kennedy, W.J.; Sakaar, C. (1989) Improving the machining of ceramics. SME Technical Paper, Orlando,
FL, USA, 6–9..
Khairy, A.B.E. (1990) Assessment of some dynamic parameters for the ultrasonic machining process.
Wear, 137(2): 187–198.
Khoo, C.Y.; Hamzah, E.; Sudin, I. (2008) A review on the rotary ultrasonic machining of advanced
ceramics. Journal Mekenikal, 25: 9–23.
Kohals J.B. (1984) Ultrasonic manufacturing process-ultrasonic machining and ultrasonic impact grind-
ing (USIG). The Carbide and Tool Journal, 16(5): 12–15.
Komaraiah, M.; Reddy, P.N. (1993a) A study on the influence of workpiece properties in ultrasonic
machining. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 33: 495–505.
Komariah, M.; Reddy, P.N. (1993b) Relative performance of tool materials in ultrasonic machining.
Wear, 161(1–2): 1–10.
Komaraiah, M.; Manan, M.A.; Reddy, P.N.; Victor, S. (1988) Investigation of surface roughness and accu-
racy in ultrasonic machining. Precision Engineering, 10(2): 59–68.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Koops, L. (1964) Investigation into the influence of the wear of abrasive powder on the technological
indices of ultrasonic machining. Annals of the CIRP, 13(3): 151–157.
Koval Chenko, M.S.; Paustovskii, A.V.; Perevyazko, V.A. (1986) Influence of properties of abrasive mate-
rials on the effectiveness of ultrasonic machining of ceramics. Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics,
25: 560–562.
Kremer, D. (1981) The state of the art of ultrasonic machining. Annals of the CIRP, 30: 107–115.
Kremer, D.; Bazine, G.; Moison, A. (1983) Ultrasonic machining improves EDM technology, Electro
machining. Proc. 7th Int. Symp., Birmingham, UK, 67–76.
Kremer, D.; Mackie, J. (1988) Ultrasonic machining applied to ceramic materials. Industrial Ceramics,
8(3): 632–637.
Kremer, D. (1991) New developments in ultrasonic machining. SME Technical Paper, MR91–522: 13.
Kubota, M.; Tamura, Y.; Shimamura, N. (1977) Ultrasonic machining with a diamond impregnated tool.
Bulletin of Japanese Society of Precision Engineering, 11(3): 127–132.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S. (2008) An experimental study on ultrasonic machining of pure titanium using
designed experiments. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 30(3):
231–238.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S.; Mohapatra, S.K. (2008) An investigation into the machining characteristics of
titanium using ultrasonic machining. International Journal of Machining and Machinabaility of
Materials, 3(1–2): 143–161.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S.; Mohapatra, S.K. (2009) Investigating and modeling tool-wear rate in the ultra-
sonic machining of titanium. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41(11):
1101–1111.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S. (2009) An Investigation into the effect of work material properties, tool
geometry and abrasive properties on performance indices of ultrasonic machining. International
Journal of Machining and Machinability of Materials, 5(2–3): 347–365.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S. (2010a) Modeling the material removal rate in ultrasonic machining of titanium
using dimensional analysis. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 48(1–4): 103–119.
Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S. (2010b) Multi-Response optimization in ultrasonic machining of titanium
using Taguchi’s approach and utility concept. International Journal of Manufacturing Research,
5(2): 1013–1022.
Kumar, A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, J. (2012) Prediction of surface roughness in wire electric discharge
machining (WEDM) process based on response surface methodology. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 2(4): 708–712.
Kumar, A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, J. (2013a) Investigation of machining parameters and surface integrity in
wire electric discharge machining (WEDM) of pure titanium. InProceedings of the Institution of Mech-
anical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, DOI:10.1177/0954405413479791.
——— (2013b) Multi-Response optimization of process parameters based on response surface method-
ology for pure titanium using WEDM process. InInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, DOI:10.1007/s00170-013-4861-9.
Kumehara, H. (1984) Characteristics of threaded joints in ultrasonic vibrating system. Bulletin of JSME,
27(223): 117–123.
376 J. Kumar
Lalchnuanvela, H.; Doloi, B.; Bhattacharya, B. (2012) Enabling and understanding ultrasonic machin-
ing of engineering ceramics using parametric analysis. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 27(4):
443–448.
Laroiya, S.C.; Adithan, M. (1993) Tool wear in machining of advanced ceramics. Xth National Conference
on Industrial Tribology, March 1993, conducted at Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, India,
164–169.
Lau, W.S.; Yue, T.M.; Wang, M. (1994) Ultrasonic-aided laser drilling of aluminium based metal matrix
composites. Annals of the CIRP, 43: 177–182.
Lawn, B.R.; Evans, A.G.; Marshall, D.B. (1980) Elastic=plastic indentation damage in ceramics: the med-
ian=radial crack system. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 63(9–10): 574–581.
Lee, T.C.; Chan, C.W. (1997) Mechanism of the ultrasonic machining of ceramic composites. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 71: 195–201.
Li, Z.C.; Jiaoa, Y.; Deinesa, T.W.; Pei, Z.J. (2005a) Rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramics matrix com-
posites: feasibility study and designed experiments. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manu-
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Nath, C.; Lim, G.C.; Zheng, H.Y. (2012) Influence of the material removal mechanisms on hole integrity
in ultrasonic machining of structural ceramics. Ultrasonics, 52: 605–613.
———. (1964) Ultrasonic machining and forming. Ultrasonics, 2: 167–173.
———. (1972) Macrosonics in industry. Ultrasonics, 10: 9–13.
Neppiras, E.A. (1957) Ultrasonic Machining-II. Operating conditions and performance of ultrasonic
drills. Philips Technology Review, 18(12): 368–379.
Nishimura, G. (1954) Ultrasonic machining—Part I. Journal of Fracture Engineering, Tokyo University,
24(3): 65–100.
Pandey, P.C.; Shan, H.S. (1980) Modern Machining Processes, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, pp. 7–38.
Pei, Z.J., Ferreira, P.M., Haselkorn, M. (1995a) Plastic flow in ultrasonic machining of ceramics. J. Mate-
rials Processing Technology, 48(1–4): 771–777.
Pei, Z.J.; Khanna, N.; Ferreira, P.M. (1995b) Rotary ultrasonic machining of structural ceramics—A
review. Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, 16(1): 259–278.
Pei, Z.J.; Prabhakar, D.; Ferreira, P.M.; Haselkorn, M. (1995c) A mechanistic approach to the prediction
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
of material removal rates in rotary ultrasonic machining. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 117:
142–151.
Pei, Z.J.; Ferreira, P.M. (1998) Modeling of ductile-mode material removal in rotary ultrasonic machin-
ing. International Journal of Machine tools and Manufacture, 38(10=11): 1399–1418.
Pentland, E.W.; Ektermanis, J.A. (1965) Improving ultrasonic machining rates—Some feasibility studies.
Journal of Engineering For Industry, Trans. of the ASME, 87: 39–46.
Perkins, J. (1972) An outline of power electronics. Ultrasonics, 1(5): 42–47.
Prabhakar, D.; Haselkorn, M. (1992) An experimental investigation of material removal rates in rotary
ultrasonic machining. Transactions of NAMRI=SME, 20: 211–218.
Rajurkar, K.P.; Wang, Z.Y. (1999) Micro removal of ceramic material in the precision ultrasonic machin-
ing. Precision Engineering, 23(2): 73–78.
Ramulu, M. (2005) Ultrasonic machining effects on the surface finish and strength of silicon carbide
ceramics. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 7(2=3=4): 107–125.
Rao, R.V.; Pawar, P.J.; Davim, J.P. (2010) Parameter optimization of ultrasonic machining process
using nontraditional optimization algorithms. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 25(10):
1120–1130.
Richardson, D.W.; Robare, M.W. (1978) Turbine component machining development, Proc. Conference
on Ceramic Machining and Surface Finishing, Naval Research Lab, Gaithersburg, Md., 278–289.
Riddie, V. (1973) Cavitation erosion—A survey of the literature 1940–1970. Wear, 23: 133–137.
Robare, M.W.; Richerson, D.W. (1977) Proceedings of the ARPA=NAVSEA-Garrett=Ai Research Ceramic Gas
Turbine Engine Demonstration Program Review at Rotor Blade Machining Development, Marine Maritime
Academy, Castine, ME.
Ross, P.J. (1988) Taguchi Technique for Quality Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 45–48.
Rozenberg, L.D. (1973) Physical Principles of Ultrasonic Technology, Plenum Press, New York, (1–2): 20–53.
Rozenberg, L.D.; Kazantsev, V.F.; Makarov, L.O. (1964) Ultrasonic Cutting, Consultant Bureau, New York,
97–102.
Rutan, H.L. (1984) Ultrasonic machining (impact grinding), InProceedings of Topical Meetings on
Optical Fabrication and Test, U.S. Department of Energy.
Saha, J.; Bhattacharya, A.; Mishra, P.K. (1988) Estimation of material removal rates in USM process—A
theoretical and experimental study. Proc. 27th Int. Matador Conf., Manchester, England, 31–46.
Sahay, C.; Ghosh, S.; Kammila, H.K. (2011) Analysis of ultrasonic machining using Monte Carlo simula-
tion. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress &
Exposition, November 11–17, 2011, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Satyanaryana, A.; Krishan Reddy, B.G. (1984) Design of velocity transformers for ultrasonic machining.
Electrical India, 24(14): 11–20.
Scab, K.H.W. (1990) Parametric studies of ultrasonic machining. SME Tech. Paper, MR90–294: 11.
Seah, K.H.W.; Wong, Y.S.; Lee, T.C. (1993) Design of tool holders for ultrasonic machining using FEM.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 37(1–4): 801–806.
Shaw, M.C. (1956) Ultrasonic grinding. Annals of CIRP, 5: 25–53.
Sharma, A.; Mishiro, S.; Suzuki, K.; Imai, T. (2003) A new longitudinal mode ultrasonic transducer with
an eccentric horn for micro machining. Key Engineering Materials, 238–239: 147–152.
378 J. Kumar
Sharman, R.C.; Bowen, P.; Aspinwall, D.K. (2001) Ultrasonic assisted turning of gamma titanium alumi-
nide, Proceedings of 13th International Symposium for Electromachining, Spain, Part I, 939–951.
Shen, J.; Pei, Z.J.; Lee, E.S. (2008) Support vector fuzzy adaptive network in the modeling of material
removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machining. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 130:
1–8.
Singh, R.; Khamba, J.S. (2003a) Comparing the machining characteristics of titanium with cylindrical
and conical horn in ultrasonic drilling. Proceedings of the National Conference on Recent Developments
in Mechanical Engineering (NCME 2003), TIET Patiala, India.
———. (2003b) Investigating the machining characteristics of titanium alloy (Titan-31) using ultrasonic
drilling. Proceedings of the 13th National Conference of ISME 2003, IIT, Rorkee, India.
Singh, M.K. (2007) Unconventional Manufacturing Processes. New Age International Publishers, New
Delhi, pp. 4–8.
Singh, J.; Gill, S.S. (2009) Fuzzy modeling and simulation of ultrasonic drilling of Porcelain Ceramic with
Hollow Stainless Steel Tools. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24(4): 468–475.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
———. (2006) Ultrasonic Machining of titanium and its alloys-a review. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 173: 127–131.
———. (2007a) Taguchi technique for modeling material removal rate in ultrasonic machining of
titanium. Materials Science and Engineering, 460–461: 365–369.
———. (2007b) Macro-model for ultrasonic machining of titanium and its alloys: designed experi-
ments. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221: 221–235.
———. (2008) Comparison of slurry effect on machining characteristics of titanium in ultrasonic drill-
ing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 197(1–3): 200–205.
Snoyes, R. (1986) Non-conventional machining techniques: The state of art. Advances in Non-Traditional
Machining, ASME, 1–20.
Spur, G.; Brucker, Th.; Holl, S.E. (1997) Ultrasonic machining of ceramics. Industrial Ceramics, 17(1):
29–34.
SONIC-MILL 500 W model (2002) Instruction Manual for Stationary Ultrasonic Machining, Albuquerque,
NM, USA.
Soundrajan, V.; Radhakrishnan, V. (1986) An experimental investigation on the basic mechanisms
involved in the ultrasonic machining. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research,
26(3): 307–321.
Sreejith, P.S.; Ngoi, B.K.A. (2001) Material removal mechanisms in precision machining of new materi-
als. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 41: 1831–1843.
Tabatabaei, S.M.K.; Behbahani, S.; Mirian, S.M. (2013) Analysis of ultrasonic assisted machining
(UAM) on regenerative chatter in turning. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 213:
418–425.
Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K.; Wise, M.L.H. (1995) The effect of operating parameters on ultrasonic con-
tour machining. Proc. 12th Annual Conference of the Irish Manufacturing Committee, Cork, Ireland,
Sep., 1995, 305–312.
Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K. (1999) Combined ultrasonic and electric discharge machining of ceramic
coated nickel alloy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 92–93: 323–328.
———. (1998) Review on ultrasonic machining. International Journal of Machine Tools Manufacture, 38(4):
239–255.
Treadwell, C.; Hu, P.; Zhang, J.M. (2002) Modeling of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machin-
ing: Designed experiments. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 129(1–3): 339–344.
Tsutsumi, C.; Okano, K.; Suto, T. (1993) High quality machining of ceramics. Journal of of Materials Processing
Technology, 37: 639–650.
US 400 (1994) Ultrasonic machining system. Brochure from Erosonic AG.
Venkatesh, V.C. (1983) Machining of glass by impact processes. Journal of Mechanical Working Technology,
8: 247–260.
Wang, H.; Plebni, L.J.; Sathyanaryanan, G. (1998) Modeling considerations for ultrasonic machining.
Abrasives, Oct–Nov 1998, 8.
Wang, Q.; Cong, W.; Pei, Z.J.; Gao, H.; Kang, R. (2009) Rotary ultrasonic machining of dihydrogen phos-
phate (KDP) crystal: An experimental investigation on surface roughness. Journal of Manufacturing
Processes, 11: 66–73.
Ultrasonic Machining 379
Wang, Z.Y.; Rajurkar, K.P. (1995) Dynamic analysis of ultrasonic machining process. Proceedings of the
1995 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Part I: 87–97.
Wansheng, Z.; Wang, Z.; Shichun, D.; Guanxin, C. (2002) Ultrasonic and electric discharge machining
to deep and small hole on titanium alloy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 120: 101–106.
Weller, E.J. (1984) Non-traditional machining processes. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 15–71.
Wiercigroch, M.; Neilson, R.D.; Player, M.A. (1999) Material removal rate prediction for ultrasonic drill-
ing of hard materials using an impact oscillator approach. Physics Letters, 259: 91–96.
Willard, G.W. (1953) Ultrasonically induced cavitation. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 25: 669.
Wu, J.; Cong, W.; Williams, R.E.; Pei, Z.J. (2011) Dynamic process modelling for rotary ultrasonic
machining of alumina. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 133.
Xu, W.L.; Han, L. (1999) Piezoelectric actuator based active error compensation of precision machin-
ing. Measurement Science and Technology, 10(2): 106–111.
Ya, G.; Quin, H.W.; Yang, S.C. (2002) Analysis of rotary ultrasonic machining mechanism. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 129(1–3): 182–185.
Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 05:10 14 September 2013
Yan, C.; Biing, H. (2001) Surface modification of Al-Zn-Mg alloy using the combined process of EDM
and USM. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 115(3): 359–366.
Zarepour, H.; Yeo, S.H. (2012) Single abrasive particle impingements as a benchmark to determine
material removal modes in micro ultrasonic machining. Wear, 288: 1–8.
Zeng, W.M.; Li, Z.C.; Pei, Z.J.; Treadwell, C. (2005) Experimental observation of tool wear in rotary ultra-
sonic machining of advanced ceramics. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 45:
1468–1473.
———. (1997) Study of a new kind of combined machining technology of ultrasonic machining and elec-
trical discharge machining. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 37(2): 193–199.
———. (1999) Material removal rate Analysis in the ultrasonic machining of engineering ceramics.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 88(1): 180–184.
Zhinxin, J.; Zhang, J.H.; Xing, A. (1995) Combined machining of USM and EDM for advanced
ceramics. Journal of Advanced Materials, 26(3): 1620.