Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

A review on the challenges in machining of ceramics

V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam ⇑, S. Shreyas, Siddesh B. Shankar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, BMS College of Engineering, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ceramics are solid compounds largely consisting of inorganic and non-metallic components bound by
Available online 24 March 2021 strong ionic and/or covalent bonds. Advanced ceramics such as Zirconia, Silicon carbide, Alumina and
Silicon Nitride, find extensive applications in the field of aerospace, military and defence industry due
Keywords: to their enhanced mechanical and physical properties such as excellent refractoriness, high compressive
Advanced ceramics strength, chemical inertness and hardness. While such properties are highly desirable in extreme envi-
Refractory materials ronments, the inherent high brittleness and low shear strength poses a significant challenge to their
Rotary ultrasonic machining
machinability. Machining of ceramics is also plagued by surface damage, excessive tool wear, and edge
Laser machining
chipping when machined using conventional techniques; non-conventional techniques such as Electric
Discharge Machining (EDM) and Abrasive Water Jet machining are characterized by poor surface finish
and excessive occurrence of pits, respectively. Achieving dimensional accuracy and minimizing collateral
damage such as surface cracks are the key challenges in the machining of ceramics. In this review work,
the machining parameters significantly influencing the machining of ceramics using non-conventional
processes such as, Ultrasonic machining and Laser machining have been discussed. In contact type of
non-conventional machining, feed rate significantly affects the surface finish while in the non-contact
type laser scan speed seems to be deciding input parameter in machining ceramics. Rotary Ultrasonic
Machining and Laser Assisted Machining (LAM) seem to be the most popular techniques for machining
of ceramics, mainly due to better metal removal rate and almost defect-free surface compared to the con-
ventional machining processes.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th International Con-
ference on Processing and Fabrication of Advanced Materials. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the course of the rapid burgeoning of science and technology
in the last century, the demand for non-metallic materials to sup-
port novel experimentation has seen a dramatic rise in demand.
Ceramics are one such broad class of materials that have continu-
ally buttressed cutting edge technology, and continue to provide
new possibilities when it comes to aerospace, military, semicon-
ductor, biomedical applications among others [1].
Ceramics are a broad class of materials consisting of metallic,
non-metallic (or both), bound together strongly by ionic, covalent
(or both) type of bonding. Archaeological evidences have shown
that the first forms of ceramics were found 24,000 years ago in
Central Europe [2]. Since then, a variety of combinations of chem-
ical compounds were fused together at high temperature, and used
as tools, pottery objects and other decorative items. But with the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-8050220570.
E-mail address: shantanu.me17@bmsce.ac.in (S.S. Sangam).
modern demands for materials having properties such high speci-
fic strength, refractoriness, chemical stability and availability,
ceramics such as Silicon nitride (Si3N4), Zirconia (ZrO2) Boron
nitride (BN), Alumina (Al2O3) and Silicon carbide (SiC) among
others, have risen to fame as the forerunners with unprecedented
capabilities to satiate such needs. Thus, there is a dire need to
understand how ceramics have been made available to such tasks,
along with the challenges faced.
Though ceramics are characterized by the properties mentioned
in the previous paragraph, machining ceramics has always been
challenging due to the brittle nature, resistance to machining,
excess tool wear and edge breakage. Conventional machining pro-
cesses are unsuccessful in machining of ceramics mainly because
the cutting action of the tool works on the principle of chip forma-
tion due to shearing. However, such a mechanism of machining in
ceramics leads to breakages due to inherent brittleness. Thus non-
traditional machining (NTM) processes such as Rotary ultrasonic,
Ultrasonic, Laser assisted and Laser machining, whose material
removal mechanisms primarily take place due to abrasion, is the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.019
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th International Conference on Processing and Fabrication of Advanced Materials. All
rights reserved.
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458

alternate and the need of the hour [3,4]. Subsequent studies using
NTM methods have been carried out by researchers on various
ceramic materials such as SiC, Si3N4, ZrO2 and Al2O3 with better
results, in terms of surface finish. The current review tries to iden-
tify the effect of input parameters such as feed rate, spindle speed,
depth of cut, laser power, scan speed and laser frequency on the
surface finish of the ceramic that ultimately decides the outcome,
and also focuses on the inherent inadequacies and future scope
for addressing the challenges in each of the NTM methods.

2. Rotary ultrasonic machining

Rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM) is a NTM process that com-

bines diamond grinding with Ultrasonic machining. This technique
is particularly useful in machining highly accurate bores. It utilizes
studded-circular abrasive tool made of diamond, through the cen-
ter of which, coolant is allowed to carry the abraded particles away
from the machining zone as shown in Fig. 1 [5]. Parameters affect-
ing the process include Ultrasonic vibration frequency, amplitude,
Diamond grit size, feed rate and spindle speed. The mechanism of
removal of material is a combination of hammering, extraction and
abrasion action [5,6], and is highlighted Fig. 1 with an inset. Since
ceramics are resistant to applied impact forces in the form of
pulses, this method can be applied for better results (in terms of
normal force, surface finish etc.) compared to conventional
methods.
Churi et al. [7] investigated the effect of feed rate, spindle speed
and grit size (size of the abrasive particles on the cutting tool) on
force and surface finish (Ra) on SiC using RUM. Using a 24 full fac-
torial study, combined effects of the said parameters were also
studied. It was seen that a significant effect on cutting force was
due to variation in feed rate, followed by spindle speed. Surface
roughness reduced with increasing grit size and spindle speed,
and decreasing feed rate. Two-factor combinations tend to have
some effect on force and surface finish, but are significantly
affected by feed rate and spindle speed.
Pei et al. [8,9] conducted experiments using zirconia to prove
that plastic flow of ceramic grains was a predominant phe-
nomenon (alongside brittle fracture) in the fracture process at
lower DOC values, supported by SEM results. Subsequently, to
depict the material removal rate a model was formulated which
was governed by spindle speed, vibration frequency and ampli-
tude. Comparative graph (Fig. 2) [10] was plotted to demonstrate
the predicted and experimental values: it is clear that the model
is fairly accurate at low cutting forces, but the error increases man-
Fig. 2. Cutting force v/s cutting step for Zirconia.
ifold above F = 200 N. It was observed that the MRR increased with
the increase in applied force. This appears to be a common phe-
nomenon in all the NTM of ceramics, observed from literature.
Experiments with conic-shaped tool showed that forces decreased
continually throughout the process. This indicates that, through a
variable feed rate system the feed can be increased till the critical
force value, thereby reducing machining time [9]. Multi-factor
studies [11,10] by the same author has shown that vibration
amplitude, static force, and grit size have major effect on material
removal rate, and two-factor combinations of the said parameters
are significant. For a combination of such parameters, best results
(force and surface finish) were obtained for 1000 rpm at
DOC = 1.10 mm, where MRR = 0.0563 mm3/s and force = 20 N
[11]. These results fall in the range of the predictions made by
[10] and shown in Fig. 2.
Li et al. [12] conducted experiments using alumina and found
that cutting forces were 60% lesser and MRR was 10% higher than
conventional drilling process. Considering a 23 full factorial study,
it was also seen that MRR and force was directly proportional to
feed rate, similar to the observations made by Pei et al. [10]. Liu
et al. [13] conducted experiments on the lines of [12], and found
similar results. The model developed by Liu et al. agreed fairly with
actual values, with an error of ±18%. However, an inversely propor-
tional relation between force and spindle speed was seen for con-
stant feed rate. Li et al. [14] investigated the impact of horizontal
support length (Fig. 3(b))on the edge chip thickness (when the
rotary tool drills through the workpiece, the workpiece edge tends

Fig. 1. RUM material removal mechanism (Image courtesy-[4]). Fig. 3a. Variation of chip thickness with support length.

1452
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al.
Fig. 3b. Support length illustration [15]
to break off. The thickness of this chip is referred to here as edge
chip thickness) during ceramic milling. Edge chip thickness is an
important parameter in rotary milling/drilling as edge chipping
can cause inaccuracies in dimensions and possible part failure.
FEA analysis was made, and it was observed that an increase in
support length reduced the edge chip thickness, mainly due to
reduction in Von Mises stress [14]. Experimental results confirm
the same (Fig. 3(a)). Popli et al. [15] also observed similar results.
As chip thickness bears relationship with feed-rate, reduction in
chip thickness could be related to improvement in surface finish
as seen [7].
Wei et al. interpreted the surface roughness as a 3D parameter,
using the fractal theory [16]. Roughness measurements were car-
ried out in three dimensions, to establish a relation between Ra
with spindle speed, feed rate and DOC. It was noted that surface
fractal dimension (SFD) was directly proportional to conventional
surface roughness measurements. For smooth surfaces, the SFD
value is near 2.0, and as the roughness value increases, the SFD
value moves closer to 3.0.
From the above results of various authors, it is clear that the
feedrate affects the cutting force and surface roughness directly
while the spindle speed affects roughness inversely. Furthermore,
we can conclude that feedrate bears a more significant effect (P-
value = 0.069) compared to spindle speed (P-value = 0.132) [7] in
terms of both surface finish and cutting force (and consequently
MRR). Lower the value of ‘P’, greater is the statistical significance
of the observed correlation. Furthermore feedrate bears a more sig-
nificant effect on surface finish and force. Although the role of fee-
drate in deciding the surface finish is evident in RUM, quantifying
the relation is yet to be achieved which will be a major challenge in
machining of various ceramics.
3. Ultrasonic machining
Ultrasonic machining (USM) is a non-traditional technique of
machining that uses ultrasonic vibrations of a tool to impact abra-
sive particles onto the workpiece, resulting in material removal
mainly through the process of micro-chipping, direct hammering
of abrasives and cavitation effect [4,17]. AC pulses are transformed
into mechanical vibrations and amplified via a sonotrode to the
tool that is shaped according to the required cavity. The parame-
ters affecting the process are vibration frequency, amplitude, abra-
sive and tool materials. USM has emerged as an attractive process
1453
Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458
for machining standard holes and through-cavities in ceramics on
account of the impact based mechanism of material removal [17].
Bo et al. [18] studied the effect of ultrasonic ductile honing
using Zirconia, in comparison with conventional honing. With
#140 coarse grits, SEM imaging revealed that grooves and pits
cut by ultrasonic honing were shallower compared to conven-
tional, indicating lower normal force and ductile cutting regime.
Similarly, Gao et al. [19] compared the ultrasonic grinding with
common grinding, and observed that ultrasonic grinding yielded
up to 40% better results than conventional grinding, with increased
depth of cut, as shown in Fig. 4. It can be proposed that ultrasonic
vibration energy supplied is converted to heat energy, and the
localization of this heat energy causes an improvement in plastic-
ity. This aids in uniform material removal, thus giving a better sur-
face finish. Zhao et al. [20] improved upon the work of Gao et al.
[19] by using ultrasonic assisted elliptical vibration grinding and
observed 40% better surface finish than conventional grinding, as
it uses an elliptical path, resulting in a polishing-like effect. This
technique also yields 20% better surface finish than that supported
by [19].
Xiao et al. [21] formulated a model to determine results for
ultrasonic grinding, and the theoretical results were compared to
experimental values as shown in Fig. 5. It was observed that the
model was fairly accurate, with a relative mean error of ~14%. Li
et al. [12] made observations that correlated the trend between
feed rate and force.
Li et al. [22] and Cao et al. [23] conducted tests to establish vari-
ation of force with respect to spindle speed and feedrate. The inter-
preted results are shown in Figs. 6 and Figs. 7, which are similar to
those observed in [12] and [20]. Spindle speed appears to be not so
significantly affecting the force (Fig. 6) while the increased feed
rate resulted in increased force (Fig. 7). Force is necessary to under-
stand the collateral damage that could be induced in the process of
machining and hence proved as an important parameter to control
the nature of material removal thereby indirectly determining the
quality of surface finish.
Kumabe et al. [24] used alumina to record the consequences of
superimposing ultrasonic vibration on the tool, workpiece and
both. It was seen that best surface finish was obtained when both
the work-piece and the tool are subjected to ultrasonic vibration.
In this technique, it is observed that vibration amplitude influences
the cutting depth more than the surface finish. Dam et al. [25]
established a relationship between MRR, surface finish and tool
wear, considering the hardness of the material by conducting num-
ber of experiments. It was observed that as hardness of a material
increased, MRR decreased resulting in increased tool wear. The
surface finish also shows an inverse relation with hardness, which
has been attributed to the transition in material removal mecha-
nism from ductile to brittle. Similar results were seen in the work
Fig. 4. Comparison of ultrasonic and conventional grinding for ZrO2.
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of theoretical and experimental values for ZrO2.
Fig. 6. Variation of force with spindle speed.
Fig. 7. Variation of force with feed rate.
of Wang et al. [26], where high MRR and surface finish were seen in
low hardness materials (glass), and conversely for high hardness
materials (alumina and SiC).
Spur et al. [27] analysed creep feed (employing a high depth of
cut) and face (axial) grinding with and without ultrasonic assist. It
was observed that, for creep feed grinding, ultrasonic assist
decreased force by 50% due to low contact time and length, affect-
Fig. 8. Variation of force with MRR.
1454
Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458
ing the surface finish marginally. For face grinding, it was observed
that MRR was proportional to spindle speed and contact pressure.
Variation of force with respect to MRR is shown in Fig. 8 [27] and
similar observations on the relation between the two can be seen
in [10,11,21]. Higher MRR induces higher force indirectly affecting
the surface finish. Chen et al. [28] performed similar comparative
tests between conventional and non-conventional Electrolytic In-
Process Dressing (ELID) grinding and observed that ultrasonic
assisted ELID grinding yielded up to 33% reduction in normal force,
in comparison to conventional ELID Grinding.
From Fig. 6, it is clear that spindle speed has marginal effect on
the cutting force during USM. A 100% increase in feedrate resulted
in ~ 53% improvement in cutting force (Figs. 8 and 9). Both these
trends were also observed in RUM, from which we can conclude
that the feedrate is the most significant factor affecting the process.
However, there is seldom work available in the literature to the
best of our knowledge on the effect of surface finish due to feedrate
and spindle speed which is a major challenge in applying USM for
different ceramics.
4. Laser machining
Laser Machining (LM) is a non-contact type of NTM that utilizes
a highly collimated LASER beam which strikes the workpiece with
high energy such that the temperature of the workpiece exceeds its
boiling point, resulting in vaporization and ablation of work mate-
rial as shown schematically in Fig. 9. The major mechanisms
involved in the material removal processes are surface melting,
vaporization, chemical dissociation, plasma formation and ablation
[29]. Parameters affecting the process are (i) type of laser used
(CO2, Nd:YAG and Excimer lasers), (ii) laser operation (continuous
or pulsed), (iii) power density and (iv) time period of laser pulse.
Usage of pulsed laser in laser machining of ceramics has led to
the observation that it provides better surface finish [30].
Atanasov et al. [30] modelled the laser drilling process on Si3N4
using the one-dimensional (1D) heat equation to predict the ero-
sion depth for varying energy densities. Considering the plasma
absorption in the model, it was seen that for both Si3N4 and alu-
mina (Fig. 10), the theoretical and practical values were concor-
dant, except at low laser fluence (energy delivered per area)
values, due to a single absorptance (energy absorbed/incident
energy) value assumed throughout whole range of fluences. It
can also be seen that the erosion depth is more or less proportional
to the energy density, which can be considered as an analogue of
the relation between MRR and feed rate as seen in [11].
Cheng et al. [31] developed a mathematical model to determine
the laser carving/erosion depth in terms of total laser energy sup-
Fig. 9. Laser machining illustration.
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458

Fig. 10. Erosion depth v/s energy density for Si3N4 & Alumina. Fig. 12. Machining depth v/s laser power.

plied, for alumina. A proportional rise in carving depth was

observed up to a threshold scan speed (Fig. 11) and this has been
attributed to overlapping rates of laser pulses. Subsequent higher
scan speed does not show any effect on depth of carving and
maybe to attributed to insufficient energy for erosion.
Yang et al. [32] combined gel-casting technique for alumina
along with laser machining, and studied the variation of cutting
depth with laser power. It was seen that machining depth was
directly proportional to laser power (Fig. 12), which is similar the
trend seen in [30].
Mura et al. [33] studied the variation of groove characteristics in
Zirconia workpiece with respect to energy density of laser (CO2,
30 W) for dental applications. It was seen that increasing energy
density improved groove width as well as groove depth (Fig. 13) Fig. 13. Groove depth and width v/s Energy density for Zirconia.
similar to [30] and [32]. Similar results were observed by Abdo
et al. [34]. They observed that surface roughness values increased
with the increase in scanning speed, caused by insufficient energy establish the machining parameters vis-à-vis the dimensional
incident on the workpiece. Surface roughness varies inversely with accuracy.
the laser intensity and the pulse frequency. As these parameters
reflect an increase in the incident laser energy, material dissocia-
5. Laser assisted machining
tion and ablation occur uniformly thus producing a better surface
finish.
Laser assisted machining (LAM) utilizes a high power laser for
From Fig. 10, for constant energy supply, there is a marginal rise
localized heating of the specimen (generally below recrystalliza-
in material removal up to a threshold scan speed after which the
tion temperature) in the traditional machining process so that
material removal value decreases. However, from Figs. 10–13, a
material removal takes place through a quasi-ductile mechanism
100% increase in energy supplied results in up to ~ 65% improve-
instead of brittle regime as shown in Fig. 14a [35,36]. Generally,
ment in material removal. This can be attributed to the localized
CO2 or Nd:YAG (Neodynium doped Yttrium-Aluminum Garnet)
increase in interface temperature which improves plasticity of
laser is used. Parameters affecting the process are the specimen
the material, resulting in improved material removal. Though both
scan speed and energy supplied affect the material removal, energy
supplied has a higher contribution. This relationship between
energy supplied and material removed is analogous to the relation
between MRR/surface roughness and feedrate, as seen in RUM and
USM. Challenge with Laser Machining would be to maintain the
dimensional accuracy since with increase in Energy density; the
dimensional parameters (depth and width) have shown an increas-
ing trend which might collaterally distort the dimensions. Litera-
ture work in this area is seldom available and is necessary to

Fig. 11. Carving depth v/s scan speed for alumina. Fig. 14a. LAM material removal mechanism.

1455
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458

material, power density, and time period of laser incidence. It has

been observed that LAM gives better surface finish and lesser cut-
ting force compared to traditional processes [35]. The difference
between LAM and LM is that: (i) the temperature used in LM dur-
ing the machining is generally above the boiling point of the cera-
mic, whereas the temperature of operation in LAM is generally
around the recrystallization temperature and (ii) LAM utilizes a
secondary in-process material removal process, whereas LM does
not.
Sciammarella et al. [36] compared various machining processes
and established that LAM gave best surface finish for Silicon
Nitride. It was seen that flexural strength was better for specimen
Fig. 15. % parametric contribution on LAM.
with better surface finish, which was seen to be the best for LAM
turned specimen (Fig. 14b). Tian et al. [37] observed a direct pro-
portion between machining length and tool wear in their study
on correlation between tool wear and machining length. It is
observed that the forces in LAM were significantly lower than con-
ventional milling. Kim et al. [38] established a relationship
between various cutting parameters and surface finish. It was seen
that surface finish was inversely proportional to the feed rate &
laser power whereas directly proportional to depth of cut on
account of material deterioration due to oxidation.
Chang et al. [39] performed ANOVA analysis to determine the
impact of process variables on the overall process outcome of
LAM using Si3N4 (Fig. 15), which was similar to the observations
of [38]. It was also seen that surface finish was at least 30% better
in case of LAM, compared to conventional methods. Follow up
experimentation by the same authors have shown similar results Fig. 16. Cutting forces v/s laser scan speed.
in [40] and it was also observed that the measured force was at
least 10% lower for LAM. This reduction in force can be attributed
to the improvement in plasticity due to application of laser which
results in easier machining by the secondary material removal pro-
cess. Kannan et al. [41] investigated the effect of laser scan speed
over the variation of cutting forces and surface finish (Fig. 16). It
was recorded that increased laser scan speed showed decreasing
trend in the specific cutting energy. As the scan speed crosses a
threshold value (~40 mm/min in Fig. 16), the heat supplied by
the laser would be hardly sufficient to increase plasticity for easy
material removal, resulting in saturation of cutting force (Fig. 16).
Song et al. [42] compared LAM and conventional machining
(CM) using fused silica by Taguchi method. It was seen that the
surface finish and forces for LAM were 68% (maximum) and 15%
(minimum) better than CM. It was also seen that the tool wear
for LAM was at least 8% better than CM (Fig. 17). Subsequent stud-
ies by the same author were carried out to depict the influence of
process parameters and to develop a predictive regression model

1400 Characterisc flexure strength (MPa)

Mean Flexure strength (Mpa)
Surface finish Ra (nm)
1200
Fig. 17. Tool wear v/s time for CM and LAM.
1000

800 for surface finish and forces. Variation of forces and surface finish
are shown in Table 1, and a good correlation was found between
600

400 Table 1
Relation between various process parameters as predicted by regression analysis (D—
directly proportional and IP—inversely proportional).
200
Surface roughness Cutting force
0 Spindle speed (RPM) IP IP
As received Diamond ground LAM turned Laser glazed
Feed rate (mm/min) D D
(#800 grit)
Depth of cut (mm) IP D
Duty ratio IP IP
Fig. 14b. Surface finish and forces for various processes.

1456
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al.
Table 2
Surface finish values obtained for conventional and NTM process.
Material Conventional process
Operation Ra (lm)
ZrO2 Grinding 0.16 [21]
Si3N4 #800 grit diamond grinding 0.934 [38]
Al2O3 Grinding 0.4 [45]
theoretical and experimental results [43]. Compared to LAM, LM
does not use tool which minimizes operating cost. However, power
required for machining using LM is more because of high operating
temperature. From Table 2, it is clear that NTM processes yield
much better results (~35% minimum) compared to conventional
processes in almost all cases.
The correlation observed between the process parameters such
as spindle speed and feedrate are similar to those observed in RUM
and USM—spindle speed affects the surface roughness and force
directly and feedrate affects inversely. From Fig. 15, it is clear that
the energy supplied (expressed in terms of pulse frequency) is a
parameter contributing only ~ 14% to the process, indicating that
it is a factor that marginally affects the surface roughness of the
workpiece. However, the laser energy is essential to increase the
interfacial temperature, which improves the plasticity of the mate-
rial resulting in improved surface finish (15% minimum) and
reduced cutting force (~10% lower). The challenge in LAM is to
quantify the effect of the laser energy supplied, and also the com-
bination of laser scan speed and energy supplied for the best sur-
face finish, as the data on these parameters is seldom available.
6. Conclusion
The present work reviews various popular non-traditional
machining (NTM) of ceramics. Generally, surface roughness is the
measured outcome in all NTM techniques for ceramics while mate-
rial removal rate (MRR), depth of cut, laser fluence and laser scan
speed are the variable machining parameters that govern the out-
come. From the comparative studies on various popular ceramic
materials, it may be inferred that:
 Feedrate and spindle speed appear to be contributing maximum
to the cutting forces in ultrasonic machining (USM) and rotary
ultrasonic machining (RUM) specifically.
 In laser machining, the energy density contributes significantly
to the surface finish, which seems to be analogous to feedrate
for USM, RUM and LAM. However, this observed trend needs
to be quantified through further experimentation.
 Presence of a heat source (laser) improves the machinability of
the ceramic workpiece due to improved plasticity. The mecha-
nism of material removal for oxides, carbides and nitrides is sel-
dom available, and the variation of plasticity in each class of
ceramics is not well established.
 Conclusions from this review work highlight the following chal-
lenges in machining of ceramics that could offer sufficient scope
for future work:
 Selection of appropriate NTM process for the work-piece
material.
 Optimizing parameters for high MRR and best surface rough-
ness values.
 Use of numerical models such as artificial neural network, ana-
lytical models and fuzzy logic models that can match experi-
mental results to minimize number of trials.
 Due to low thermal conductivity of the ceramics, the effect of
local heating is not well understood and needs to be modeled.
Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458
Ra (LAM) (lm) Ra (LM) (lm) Ra (USM) (lm) Ra (RUM) (lm)
1.19 [44] 2.13 [36] 0.1 [21] 0.39 [12]
0.887 [38] 3 [32] NA NA
0.24 [45] NA 0.603 [27] NA
 Costing comparison between NTM and Conventional Machining
of ceramics is seldom available in the literature.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
V. Bharathi: Methodology, Supervision. A.R. Anilchandra:
Methodology, Investigation, Supervision, Writing - review & edit-
ing. Shantanu Sanjay Sangam: Data curation, Writing - original
draft. S. Shreyas: Data curation, Writing - original draft. Siddesh
B. Shankar: Data curation, Writing - original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] P. Greil, Advanced engineering ceramics, Adv. Eng. Mate. 4 (5) (2002) 247–254.
[2] https://depts.washington.edu/matseed/mse_resources/Webpage/Ceramics/
ceramichistory
[3] R. Rohith, B.K. Shreyas, S. Kartikgeyan, B.A. Sachin, K.R. Umesha, T.S.
Nanjundeswaraswamy, Selection of non-traditional machining process, Int. J.
Eng. Res. Technol. 8 (11) (2019) 148–155.
[4] R. Snoeys, F. Staelens, W. Dekeyser, Current trends in non-conventional
material removal processes, CIRP Annals 35 (2) (1986) 467–480.
[5] R.P. Singh, S. Singhal, Rotary ultrasonic machining: a review, Mater. Manuf.
Process. 31 (2016) 1795–1824.
[6] Z.J. Pei, P.M. Ferreira, Modeling of ductile-mode material removal in rotary
ultrasonic machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 38 (10–11) (1998) 1399–1418.
[7] N.J. Churi, Z.J. Pei, D.C. Shorter, Rotary ultrasonic machining of silicon carbide:
designed experiments, Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 12 (1) (2007) 284–298.
[8] Z.J. Pei, P.M. Ferreira, M. Haselkorn, Plastic flow in rotary ultrasonic machining
of ceramics, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 48 (1–4) (1995) 771–777.
[9] Z.J. Pei, P.M. Ferreira, S.G. Kapoor, M. Haselkorn, Rotary ultrasonic machining
for face milling of ceramics, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 35 (7) (1995) 1033–
1046.
[10] P. Hu, J.M. Zhang, Z.J. Pei, C. Treadwell, Modelling of material removal rate in
rotary ultrasonic machining: designed experiments, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
129 (1–3) (2002) 339–344.
[11] Z.J. Pei, P.M. Ferreira, An experimental investigation of rotary ultrasonic face
milling, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 39 (8) (1999) 1327–1344.
[12] Z.C. Li, Y. Jiao, T.W. Deines, Z.J. Pei, C. Treadwell, Rotary ultrasonic machining of
ceramic matrix composites: feasibility study and designed experiments, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 (12–13) (2005) 1402–1411.
[13] D.F. Liu, W.L. Cong, Z.J. Pei, Y.J. Tang, A cutting force model for rotary ultrasonic
machining of brittle materials, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 52 (1) (2012) 77–84.
[14] Z.C. Li, Z.J. Liang-Wu Cai, C.T. Pei, Edge-chipping reduction in rotary ultrasonic
machining of ceramics: finite element analysis and experimental verification,
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 46 (12–13) (2006) 1469–1477.
[15] D. Popli, A. Meenu Gupta, Chipping reduction approach in rotary ultrasonic
machining of advance Ceramics, Mater. Today Proceed., 5 (2) (2018) 6329–
6338
[16] Shiliang Wei, Hong Zhao, Juntao Jing, Investigation on three-dimensional
surface roughness evaluation of engineering ceramic for rotary ultrasonic
grinding machining, Appl. Surf. Sci. 357 (2015) 139–146.
[17] J. Kumar, Ultrasonic machining—a comprehensive review, Mach. Sci. Technol.
17 (2013) 325–379.
[18] Z. Bo, L. Chuanshao, G. Guofu, J. Feng, Surface characteristics in the ultrasonic
ductile honing of ZrO2 ceramics using coarse grits, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
123 (1) (2002) 54–60.
[19] G.F. Gao, B. Zhao, D.H. Xiang, Q.H. Kong, Research on the surface characteristics
in ultrasonic grinding nano-zirconia ceramics, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209
(1) (2009) 32–37.
1457
V. Bharathi, A.R. Anilchandra, Shantanu Sanjay Sangam et al.
[20] Bo Zhao, Baoqi Chang, Xiaobo Wang, Wenbo Bie, System design and
experimental research on ultrasonic assisted elliptical vibration grinding of
Nano-ZrO2 ceramics, Ceram. Int. 45 (18) (2019) 24865–24877.
[21] X. Xiao, K. Zheng, W. Liao, H. Meng, Study on cutting force model in ultrasonic
vibration assisted side grinding of zirconia ceramics, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.
104 (2016) 58–67.
[22] C. Li, F. Zhang, B. Meng, L. Liu, X. Rao, Material removal mechanism and
grinding force modelling of ultrasonic vibration assisted grinding for SiC
ceramics, Ceram. Int. 43 (3) (2017) 2981–2993.
[23] J. Cao, Y. Wu, D. Lu, M. Fujimoto, M. Nomura, Material removal behaviour in
ultrasonic-assisted scratching of SiC ceramics with a single diamond tool, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 79 (2014) 49–61.
[24] J. Kumabe, K. Fuchizawa, T. Soutome, Y. Nishimoto, Ultrasonic superposition
vibration cutting of ceramics, Preci. Eng. 11 (2) (1989) 71–77.
[25] H. Dam, P. Quist, M.P. Schreiber, Productivity, surface quality and tolerances in
ultrasonic machining of ceramics, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 51 (1–4) (1995)
358–368.
[26] J. Wang, J. Fu, J. Wang, F. Du, P.J. Liew, K. Shimada, Processing capabilities of
micro ultrasonic machining for hard and brittle materials: SPH analysis and
experimental verification, Prec. Eng., 63 (2020) 159–169.
[27] G. Spur, S.-E. Holl, Ultrasonic assisted grinding of ceramics, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 62 (4) (1996) 287–293.
[28] F. Chen, G. Li, B. Zhao, W. Bie, Thermomechanical coupling effect on
characteristics of oxide film during ultrasonic vibration assisted ELID
grinding ZTA ceramics, Chinese J. Aeronaut., (2020).
[29] A.N. Samant, N.B. Dahotre, Laser machining of structural ceramics—a review, J.
Europ. Ceram. Soc. 29 (6) (2009) 969–993.
[30] P.A. Atanasov, E.D. Eugenieva, N.N. Nedialkov, Laser drilling of silicon nitride
and alumina ceramics: a numerical and experimental study, J. Appl. Phys. 89
(4) (2001) 2013–2016.
[31] C. Wang, X. Zeng, Study of laser carving three-dimensional structures on
ceramics: quality controlling and mechanisms, Optics Laser Technol. 39 (7)
(2007) 1400–1405.
[32] J. Yang, J. Yu, Y. Cui, Y. Huang, New laser machining technology of Al2O3
ceramic with complex shape, Ceram. Int., 38 (5) (2012) 3643–3648.
1458
Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021) 1451–1458
[33] M. Dalle Mura, G. Dini, M. Lanzetta, A. Rossi, An experimental analysis of laser
machining for dental implants, Procedia CIRP, 67 (2018) 356–361.
[34] B.M.A. Abdo, N. Ahmed, A.M. El-Tamimi, S. Anwat, H. Alkhalefah, E.A. Nasr, Laser
beam machining of zirconia ceramic: an investigation of micro-machining
geometry and surface roughness, J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 33 (2019) 1817–1821.
[35] G. Chryssolouris, N. Anifantis, S. Karagiannis, Laser assisted machining: an
overview, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 119 (1997) 766–769.
[36] F. Sciammarella, M.J. Matusky, Correlation between mechanical strength and
surface conditions of laser assisted machined silicon nitride, Optic. Measure.
Model. Metrol. 5 (2011) 187–197.
[37] Y. Tian, B. Wu, M. Anderson, Y.C. Shin, Laser-assisted milling of silicon nitride
ceramics and inconel 718, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 130 (3) (2008) 31013–31021.
[38] J.D. Kim, S.J. Lee, J. Suh, Characteristics of laser assisted machining for silicon
nitride ceramic according to machining parameters, J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 25
(4) (2011) 995–1001.
[39] C.-W. Chang, C.-P. Kuo, Evaluation of surface roughness in laser-assisted
machining of aluminum oxide ceramics with Taguchi method, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manuf. 47 (1) (2007) 141–147.
[40] C.-W. Chang, C.-P. Kuo, An investigation of laser-assisted machining of Al2O3
ceramics planning, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 47 (3–4) (2007) 452–461.
[41] M. Venkatesh Kannan, P. Kuppan, A. Senthil Kumar, K. Ramesh Kumar, J. John
Rozario Jegaraj, Effect of laser scan speed on surface temperature, cutting
forces and tool wear during laser assisted machining of alumina, Procedia Eng.,
97 (2014) 1647–1656
[42] H. Song, J. Dan, X. Chen, J. Xiao, J. Xu, Experimental investigation of
machinability in laser-assisted machining of fused silica, Int. J. Advanc.
Manuf. Technol. 97 (2018) 267–278.
[43] H. Song, J. Dan, J. Du, G. Ren, J. Xiao, J. Xu, Multi response optimization for
laser-assisted machining of fused silica using response surface methodology,
Silicon 11 (2019) 3049–3063.
[44] Z. Ma, Z. Wang, X. Wang, T. Yu, Effects of laser-assisted grinding on surface
integrity of zirconia ceramic, Ceram. Int., 46 (1)
[45] C.-W. Chang, C.-P. Kuo, Evaluation of surface roughness in laser-assisted
machining of aluminium oxide ceramics with Taguchi method, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manuf. 47 (1) (2007) 141–147.