Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4292-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An analytical model of rotary ultrasonic milling
Erich Bertsche & Kornel Ehmann &
Kostyantyn Malukhin
Received: 11 March 2012 / Accepted: 5 June 2012 / Published online: 4 July 2012
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012
Abstract Rotary ultrasonic machining is currently being
used as a manufacturing method for advanced ceramic
materials, but its complexity has hindered its acceptance in
industry. For this technology to gain wider acceptance, it
must first be scientifically better understood. The majority
of published rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM) papers
studied the effect of RUM process parameters on machining
performance and removal mechanisms for drilling of circu-
lar holes. In industries such as aerospace, the production of
advanced turbine components requires machining of com-
plex 3D features using milling strategies. The objective of
this paper will be to present a new physical model based on
rotary ultrasonic milling which will help provide a better
scientific understanding of the process. This will be accom-
plished by first modeling the macro kinematics between the
tool and material followed by the modeling of micro kine-
matics between the individual diamond grains and the ma-
terial. In addition, a force model for predicting machining
process forces will also be introduced and validated based
on a set of experiments. The physical models will help
determine the relationships between input parameters, cut-
ting parameters, and process output parameters for rotary
ultrasonic milling.
E. Bertsche (*)
Bertsche Engineering Corp.,
711 Dartmouth Lane,
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, USA
e-mail: erb@bertsche.com
K. Ehmann (*) : K. Malukhin (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University,
2145 Sheridan Road,
Evanston, IL 60208, USA
e-mail: k-ehmann@northwestern.edu
e-mail: k-malukhin@northwestern.edu
Keywords Rotary ultrasonic milling . Advanced ceramics .
Surface finish . Theoretical cutting forces . Experimental
verification
1 Introduction
Conventional grinding processes are well understood in
both academia and industry, and Brinksmeier [1] provides
an excellent overview on the state-of-the-art in modeling
and simulation of this class of processes. In grinding, the
cutting process is the sum of singular microscopic cutting
processes which lead to macroscopic material removal. In
grinding, an exact determination of the geometric engage-
ment conditions of single cutting edges is not possible due
to the stochastic distribution of the cutting abrasives. There-
fore, grinding can only be described on the basis of the
cutting behavior of individual abrasive grains. By knowing
the overall relationship between the machining input values,
cutting values, as well as process output values, the behavior
of the process can be cohesively described and used to
improve the set up of the machine [2].
Rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM) is a hybrid process
which adds a high-frequency vibration to the conventional
grinding process. The addition of a high-frequency vibration
to a diamond tool poses a complex problem in determining
the effect of process parameters on the machining process as
well as understanding how to best optimize the material
removal rate.
The first studies on ultrasonic machining dealt with ul-
trasonic impact grinding. In ultrasonic impact grinding, a
simultaneous static load and vibration is applied to the tool
while abrasive slurry is pumped into the cutting zone. The
tool vibration causes the abrasive slurry to be impacted into
the workpiece causing material to be removed. Thoe [3]
1706
published an overview of ultrasonic machining and its appli-
cations. Nonsymmetrical geometries can be machined using
ultrasonic impact grinding. In addition, multiple geometries
can be machined simultaneously. One such application is
called gang hole drilling for the production of holes in
silicon wafers for the semiconductor industry. A special
ultrasonic tool can be manufactured which has multiple
small diameter pins, and using the ultrasonic impact grind-
ing process, hundreds of holes can be machined at once [4].
More recent papers have also been published using ultra-
sonic impact grinding to drill high-quality holes in titanium
alloys [5, 6]. The disadvantage of using ultrasonic impact
grinding is that the material removal rates are significantly
reduced in comparison to RUM [7]. In addition, the rotation
of the tool in RUM will lead to a greater dimensional
accuracy, uniform tool wear, and longer tool life [8].
Vibration-assisted grinding has also been implemented
using large diameter grinding wheels and adding a radial
vibration component [9–12]. Vibration-assisted grinding
leads to an interruption between the workpiece and the
diamond wheel, and this variation in process kinematics
results in higher single chip thicknesses and reduced chip
lengths [9]. In conventional grinding, the motion of each
abrasive grain follows approximately a circular path. The
addition of an ultrasonic motion results in varying engage-
ment angles between the diamond grains and the workpiece
which will lead to a change in surface formation and wear
mechanisms [10]. The process forces for vibration-assisted
grinding are also found to be reduced while wheel wear and
surface finish are found to be slightly increased [9, 10, 12].
The majority of published RUM papers studied the effect
of RUM process parameters on machining performance and
removal mechanisms for drilling of circular holes [3, 5–8,
13–24]. Rotary ultrasonic face milling has been introduced
using a specially designed conical tool in order to try and
maintain the hammering removal mechanisms of drilling.
The material removal mechanisms are studied by analyzing
the machined surfaces. Process optimization as well as
cutting tool design is not carried out [25, 26]. The disad-
vantage of using a conical tool as opposed to a hollow drill
for slot machining is that internal slots, which do not span
the entire surface of the part, cannot be produced. Also, a
conical tool is more complicated to produce and will, there-
fore, not be economical for implementation in industry in
comparison to standard ultrasonic hollow drills. A second
milling method has been introduced to produce a slot using
ultrasonic-assisted face grinding in combination with a dia-
mond hollow drill. Reduction in process forces and an
increase in material removal rates are observed in compar-
ison to conventional grinding [27].
Ideally, the generation of ultrasonic vibrations should
take place as close to the contact zone as possible in order
to reduce the loss of ultrasonic energy due to damping,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
feedback, and power loses. The amplitude of vibration at
the ultrasonic transducer should be a maximum in order to
reach sufficient amplitude at the machining zone. In addi-
tion, the system should be designed to operate in resonance
which means the system is driven by a frequency
corresponding to the eigenfrequency of the system. This
requires that the individual system components be designed
to have lengths equal to half the wavelength of vibration [2].
One method used to produce ultrasonic energy for RUM is
to excite the entire spindle. A negative effect of this method
is that the spindle must be dimensioned to the bearing
support which needs to be directly coupled to the spindle
which reduces spindle rigidity [21]. A new method for
ultrasonic vibration actuation is where the ultrasonic con-
verter is mounted inside the tool holder. One major advan-
tage of this method is that the ultrasonic vibrations are
decoupled from the spindle. In addition, while the ultrasonic
converter is located inside the tool holder, ultrasonic vibra-
tion generation takes place closer to the contact zone pro-
viding an improved rigid base to perform both drilling and
slot machining operations [28].
There are a number of companies who currently imple-
ment rotary ultrasonic slot milling (RUSM) of brittle mate-
rials for the production of semiconductor parts using
diamond hollow drills. They have confirmed a productivity
increase using RUM in comparison to conventional dia-
mond grinding [29]. Although RUM technology is imple-
mented within industry, there is little information available
on predicting the effect of the process parameters, and
therefore, a heuristic approach is used in defining the opti-
mal cutting parameters.
Several papers have been published which analyze the
effects of RUM drilling operations on composite materials
[15–18]. For a C/SiC composite, the material removal rate
(MRR) is found to increase as static load and grain hardness
are increased [15]. Drilling tests have been carried out on a
ceramic matrix composite [16] and on a graphite epoxy
composite [18], and the cutting forces are found to decrease
as MRR increased for RUM in comparison to conventional
grinding. A variety of alumina-based ceramic composites
have been tested using RUM, and as the fracture toughness
increased, the MRR and surface finish both decreased as
well [17].
RUM drilling tests have also been carried out in titanium
using a metal-bonded diamond abrasive tool. Cutting forces
and surface roughness are both reduced for RUM in com-
parison to conventional machining [20]. A second method
involved applying an ultrasonic vibration to a carbide twist
drill for deep hole drilling of aluminum. Reductions in
drilling force and moment are observed. In addition, due
to the interrupted cut, the chip length of aluminum chips
formed during ultrasonic machining is smaller than those
formed during conventional deep hole drilling [21].
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
Both ductile and brittle material removal modes have
been shown to exist for RUM in ceramic materials. Chang-
ing process input parameters such as vibration amplitude,
revolutions per minute (RPM), and diamond grain size will
result in either brittle, ductile, or a combination of both
removal modes [12]. A physical model has been developed
based on fracture theory which predicted the MRR from the
process input parameters. An analytic expression for the
intersecting volume of the abrasive grains and the workpiece
has also been derived [8]. An improvement to the previous
model [8] has been developed for the brittle removal mode
by using a mechanistic approach to predict the MRR based
on a constant determined experimentally [13, 22]. A similar
model has been developed to predict MRR for the ductile
removal mode by calculating the volume of material re-
moved by one abrasive grain for each ultrasonic cycle
through numerical integration [24]. The most recent physi-
cal model uses a kinematic simulation method to determine
the main cutting parameters, specifically, chip length, chip
thickness, engagement angle, and number of active cutting
grains for ultrasonic drilling [14]. The active cutting grains
include only the abrasive grains which are in contact with
the cutting area. Fritsch [30] derived a formula for the active
number of cutting grains by counting the number of abrasive
grains in the cutting area after conventional grinding using a
stereomicroscope. The active cutting grains are found to be
linearly dependent on the depth of the cutting area. In
addition, the active cutting grain concentration is found to
be 50–60 % less than the diamond grain concentration. The
diamond grain concentration is defined as the amount of
abrasives contained in a diamond tool per unit area. Previ-
ous models [8, 12, 13, 22, 24] did not account for the active
cutting grains, but instead assumed that all abrasive grains
on the surface of the tool are in contact with the cutting area.
While very little research has been published in the area
of face milling [25–27] and only one paper has been
previously published with regard to the kinematic condi-
tions in cross-peripheral grinding of ceramics [27], this
paper will present, for the first time, a physical model
based on RUSM in Section 2. In addition, a new model
for predicting the machining forces will also be presented.
Section 3 will compare the predicted values of the force
model to the experimental results in order to verify the
validity of this model. Finally, in Section 4, the conclu-
sions will be summarized.
2 Modeling of RUSM
Major kinematic differences exist between rotary ultrasonic
drilling and slot machining. Kinematic relationships for
drilling have been previously published [8, 13, 14, 22, 24],
but a comprehensive model for slot machining does not
1707
exist. The current study will propose a new physical model
for determining the relationship between input parameters,
cutting parameters, and process output parameters for
RUSM. In addition, this study will incorporate many of
the ideas which Daus [14] proposed for ultrasonic drilling
and adapt them to account for the kinematics in slot
machining.
The first subsection will introduce the macro process
kinematics for slot machining. The diamond tool's path
will be defined in relation to the workpiece and the trajec-
tories of single abrasive grains will be reproduced by
describing the kinematics of the effective position, veloc-
ity, and acceleration vectors of a single abrasive grain. In
addition, the penetration angle of a single abrasive grain
will be defined and its magnitude will provide an insight
into the influence of the ultrasonic vibration on the cutting
process.
The second subsection will define the micro process
kinematics which can be described by the cutting behavior
of the individual abrasive grains. Relations for the cutting
parameters such as chip thickness, cutting path, and active
abrasive cutting grains will be specified. The sum of indi-
vidual singular microscopic cutting processes will lead to a
macroscopic material removal model. Finally, the overall
relations between the input and cutting parameters will be
presented in order to propose a new model for predicting
process forces during machining.
2.1 Macro kinematic relationships
Macro kinematic relationships for RUSM can be viewed as
the relative position between the tool and material during
machining and will be defined using an absolute Cartesian
coordinate system. The rotational axis of the tool coincides
with the z-axis. The radial feedrate defines the radial motion
of the tool in the y-axis direction. The cutting speed is the
peripheral speed of the tool in the x–y plane.
The kinematic velocity components are described in
Fig. 1 for RUSM. The effective cutting velocity, ve,us, results
from the addition of the radial feedrate vfr,com, the cutting
speed vc, and the axial ultrasonic velocity vfa,us. The axial
ultrasonic velocity is the axial ultrasonic vibration of the
tool having amplitude Aus and a frequency fus. In conven-
tional slot machining, on the other hand, the effective cut-
ting velocity does not contain the ultrasonic velocity
component.
In RUSM, the feedrate is in the radial direction; there-
fore, the abrasive grains located on the periphery of the
tool are responsible for the primary material removal
mechanism. The abrasive grains located on the face of
the tool are responsible for the secondary material removal
mechanism affecting the surface structure on the bottom
of the slot.
1708 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720

vfr,con
vibration is negligible, both axial and radial vibration meas-
vfa,us vc urements on a 10-mm diamond tool were taken by the com-
pany SAUER GmbH, located in Stipshausen, Germany
(http://www.gildemeister.com). A PSV-400 Scanning Vibr-
ometer from the company Polytec was used which provides
an analysis and visualization of structural vibrations. Figure 2
represents the axial vibration on the face of the tool. The
Workpiece Diamond magnitude of vibration is depicted in red and green colors
Core Drill
corresponding to Aus 05 μm and Aus 00 μm, respectively. The
Fig. 1 RUSM kinematics and velocity components magnitude of vibration on the face of the tool is taken to be a
maximum and can be verified by the red color in Fig. 2.
Figure 3 represents the radial vibration on the radius of
2.1.1 Effective cutting position the tool. The magnitude of vibration is depicted in red and
green colors corresponding to Aus 00.3 μm and Aus 00 μm,
The addition of an ultrasonic vibration to the tool will lead respectively. The magnitude of vibration at the end of the
to a change in the trajectory of an abrasive grain located on tool is approximately zero and can be verified by the green
the periphery of the tool in comparison to conventional slot color seen in Fig. 3.
machining. First, by describing the effective cutting position The cutting position of an abrasive grain with respect to
of the tool path with respect to time, both the velocity and time located on the periphery of the diamond tool in the x-
acceleration of the tool path can also be derived. and y-plane can be written as:
As described in Section 2.1 and with reference to Fig. 1, 0 1 0 1
lcx ðtÞ r  sinð2  p  n  t Þ
the radial feedrate is constant. Consequently, the position of !
lc ðtÞ ¼ @ lcy ðtÞ A ¼ @ r  cosð2  p  n  t Þ A: ð3Þ
an abrasive grain as a function of time due to the feedrate
lcz ðtÞ 0
can be written as:
0 1 0 1 Therefore, the effective cutting position with respect to
fx ðtÞ 0
!
f ðtÞ ¼ @ fy ðtÞ A ¼ @ t  vfr;con A; ð1Þ time of an arbitrary abrasive grain located on the periphery
fz ðtÞ 0 of the tool having a radius, r, is given as the sum of motion
components expressed by Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) as:
while the ultrasonic axial motion of the tool in the z direc-
tion defines a position component given by: 0 1 0 1
lex ðtÞ r  sinð2  p  n  t Þ
0 1 0 1 !
ux ðtÞ 0 le ðtÞ ¼ @ ley ðtÞ A ¼ @ vfr;con t þ r  cosð2  p  n  t Þ A:
!u ðtÞ ¼ @ uy ðtÞ A ¼ @ 0 A: ð2Þ lez ðtÞ AUS sinð2  p  fus  tÞ
uz ðtÞ AUS sinð2  p  fus  t Þ ð4Þ
The radial direction ultrasonic vibration is assumed to be Consequently, the magnitude of the effective cutting po-
zero. In order to verify that this component of the radial sition in RUSM is given by:

!  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
 le ðtÞ ¼ r2 þ v2fr;con  t 2 þ 2  vfr;con rt cosð2  p  n  t Þ þ A2us  sin2 ð2  p  fus  t Þ: ð5Þ

The magnitude of the effective cutting position repre-
sents the position of an abrasive grain as the tool moves
with vfr,con·t at any point in time in its absolute Cartesian
coordinate system. Figure 4 displays the trajectory of an
abrasive grain for RUSM. The abrasive grain located on
the periphery of the tool will advance with a feedrate in
the radial direction while simultaneously oscillating in
the axial direction in a sinusoidal motion caused by the
ultrasonic vibrations and by the rotation of the tool. In
this case, the direction of feedrate and ultrasonic vibra-
tion are transverse to each other.
Figure 5 displays the trajectory of an abrasive grain for
rotary ultrasonic drilling. The abrasive grain located on the
periphery of the tool will advance with both a feedrate and
ultrasonic vibration in the axial direction. In this case, the
direction of feedrate and ultrasonic motion are in the same
direction.
2.1.2 Effective cutting velocity
The effective cutting velocity with respect to time of an
arbitrary abrasive grain located on the periphery of the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720 1709

Fig. 2 Ultrasonic vibration in

the axial direction at the tip of
the tool is shown in red which
corresponds to a maximum
displacement greater
than 5 μm

0 1 0 1 0 1
tool with radius r can be written by differentiating Eq. vex ðtÞ 2  p  n  r  cosð2  p  n  t Þ 0
! B C B C B C
(4) as: ve ðtÞ ¼ @ vey ðtÞ A ¼ @ r  2  p  n  sinð2  p  n  t Þ A þ @ vfr;con A
0 1 0 1
vex ðtÞ 2  p  n  r  cosð2  p  n  t Þ vez ðtÞ AUS  2  p  fus cosð2  p  fus  t Þ 0
! B C B C
ve ðtÞ ¼ @ vey ðtÞ A ¼ @ vfr;con  r  2  p  n  sinð2  p  n  t Þ A: ð7Þ
vez ðtÞ AUS  2  p  fus cosð2  p  fus  t Þ
ð6Þ where the left hand side term can be considered as the time-
Equation (6) can be further separated into a sum of a dependent dynamic component of the effective cutting ve-
time-dependent and time-independent components of the locity while the right hand side term its static component.
effective cutting velocity: Since the interest in the forthcoming analyses rests in the

Fig. 3 Ultrasonic vibration

displacement in the radial
direction at the tip of the tool is
shown in green which
corresponds to zero
displacement
1710
RUSM
Fig. 4 Simulation of a point on the diamond tool for RUSM
points in time where a maximum or minimum occurs which
will depend on the dynamic component of the effective
cutting velocity, the static component can be eliminated
from Eq. (7) and the resulting magnitude of the dynamic
effective cutting velocity is expressed as:
!  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
 ve ðtÞ ¼ 4  p 2 n2  r2 þ A2us  fus2 cos2 ð2p  fus  tÞ :
dynamic
ð8Þ
The magnitude of the dynamic effective cutting velocity
will continuously change due to the ultrasonic time-
dependent velocity term and a minimum value will occur
when cos (2·π·fus·t)00. This case is valid when the ultrason-
ic vibration is at its vertex corresponding to a value equal to
Fig. 5 Simulation of a point on the diamond tool for RUSM drilling
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
the amplitude of vibration. In addition, when the tool is at
either of the vertex points, the effective cutting velocity
values would be identical to conventional slot machining.
The magnitude of the dynamic effective cutting velocity on
the other hand will be a maximum when cos (2·π·fus·t)01.
This case is valid when the tool is at its point of inflection.
Therefore, in ultrasonic slot milling, the ultrasonic motion of
the tool will lead to an effective cutting velocity which is
constantly changing with respect to time. In conventional
slot machining, on the other hand, the effective cutting
velocity will also be changing with respect to time but at a
reduced value while the ultrasonic motion component is
absent.
2.1.3 Effective cutting acceleration
The effective cutting acceleration in RUSM with respect to
time of an arbitrary abrasive grain located on the periphery
of the tool having a radius, r, can be written by differentiat-
ing Eq. (6) as:
0 1 0 1
aex ðtÞ 4  p 2  n2  r  sinð2  p  n  tÞ
!
ae ðtÞ ¼ @ aey ðtÞ A ¼ @ 4  p 2  n2  r  cosð2  p  n  tÞ A;
aez ðtÞ 4  p 2  AUS  fus2 sinð2  p  fus  tÞ
ð9Þ
while its magnitude is given by:
!  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
 ae ðtÞ ¼ 4  p 2  n4  r2 þ A2us  fus4  sin2 ð2  p  fus  t Þ :
ð10Þ
In RUSM, the magnitude of the effective cutting accel-
eration, as the velocity, also contains a time-independent
term. The ultrasonic acceleration is time-dependent and it
follows that the magnitude of the effective cutting acceler-
ation will have a minimum when sin (2·π·fus·t)00 which will
occur when the ultrasonic vibration is at its point of inflec-
tion. The magnitude of the effective cutting acceleration will
have a maximum value when sin (2·π·fus·t)01 which will
occur when the ultrasonic vibration is at its vertex
corresponding to a value equal to the amplitude of vibration.
The above expressions for acceleration are identical for
rotary ultrasonic drilling. For conventional slot machining
on the other hand, the ultrasonic motion component is
missing, and therefore, the effective cutting acceleration will
only be a function of the effective cutting acceleration in the
x–y plane. In addition, the magnitude of the effective cutting
acceleration will be a constant.
2.1.4 Penetration angle
The penetration angle is introduced to provide an insight
into the influence of the ultrasonic vibration on the cutting
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
process. The penetration angle is the angle formed by the
relative motion between the diamond grains on the periph-
ery of the tool and the material surface. In Section 2.1.2, it
was determined that an individual abrasive grain will travel
on the periphery of the tool with a constantly changing
velocity which is transverse to the cutting speed. The ultra-
sonic vibration will follow a sinusoidal function and the
ultrasonic velocity will alternate between zero and some
maximum value which is defined by a set parameters con-
sisting of the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations. The
penetration angle will change with respect to time due to the
ultrasonic motion of the tool and the maximum penetration
angle can be defined as the angle formed by an individual
abrasive grain on the periphery of the tool at the vertex of
the ultrasonic motion as shown in Fig. 6.
The penetration angle at the vertex of the ultrasonic
motion can be written as:
" #
vfa;us
Penetration Angle ¼ θ ¼ arctan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð11Þ
vc 2 þ vfr;con 2
where vfa,us is the ultrasonic axial velocity, vc is the cutting
speed, and vfr,con is the radial feedrate. The radial feedrate in
Eq. (11) can be neglected since vfr,con << vc for RUSM, and
using the relations from Eq. (6), it follows that the penetra-
tion angle will reach a maximal value of:
 
AUS  fUS
θmax ¼ arctan : ð12Þ
nr
Therefore, the penetration angle will increase for increas-
ing ultrasonic axial velocity and/or a decrease in cutting
speed. In rotary ultrasonic drilling on the other hand, the
feedrate and ultrasonic motion are both in the axial direc-
tion, i.e., collinear, and therefore, the feedrate vfr,con will
move from the denominator to the numerator of Eq. (11).
Since vfa,us >> vfr,con, the maximal penetration angle for
RUSM will be approximately equal to that of ultrasonic
drilling. On the contrary, in conventional slot milling, the
penetration angle will remain constant. Figure 7 shows how
the penetration angle changes with respect to cutting speed
as the ultrasonic amplitude is increased. In conventional slot
machining, AUS 00, while a diamond grain on the periphery
of the tool follows approximately a circular path. As the
2 2
vc v fr ,con
v fa ,us
Fig. 6 Penetration angle of a single grain during RUSM
1711
Fig. 7 Penetration angle for RUSM as a function of cutting speed for
different ultrasonic amplitudes and fus 020 kHz
ultrasonic amplitude or frequency is increased, the penetra-
tion angle will also increase.
A varying penetration angle due to the ultrasonic motion
of the tool will change the material surface formation pro-
cess and tool wear characteristics. An individual cutting
grain will maintain a continuous contact with the material
but in a sinusoidal motion resulting in an increased contact
length in comparison to conventional grinding. In addition,
the location of contact on a cutting grain will constantly
change, possibly leading to a reduction in tool wear because
cutting grains are subject to different loads and engagement
conditions. Conversely, in conventional grinding the cutting
grain contact location is constant which could lead to dull-
ing of the cutting grains.
2.2 Micro kinematic relationships
Knowledge of the contact conditions between the individual
abrasive grains and the material can lead to a better under-
standing of the machining process. The sum of individual
singular microscopic cutting processes will lead to a mac-
roscopic material removal which forms the basis for deter-
mining relationships between machining input values,
cutting values, as well as process output values. The main
independent process parameters are the depth of cut (DOC),
feedrate, spindle rotation, ultrasonic frequency, and radial
depth of cut. The main output parameters are the MRR and
process forces. From the standpoint of the mechanics of the
material removal process, the cutting parameters are the
undeformed chip thickness, cutting path length, and the
active cutting grain concentration.
The first subsection will develop equations for the cutting
parameters from the basic micro kinematic relationships of
single abrasive grains. The second subsection will present a
model for the effective cutting area for RUSM in terms of
the active cutting grains. Finally, in the last subsection, the
overall relations between the input and cutting parameters
will be presented in order to propose a new model for
predicting the machining forces for RUSM.
1712
2.2.1 Micro cutting parameters
Expressions for the cutting parameters can be developed
from the knowledge of the macro cutting conditions of the
diamond tool. When machining, a slot the area of the tool in
contact with the material is determined from the machining
input parameters and can be written as:
Ac ¼ lc  DOC
where lc is the contact length and DOC is the depth of cut. In
drilling on the other hand, the contact area is equal to the
area of the diamond tool wall thickness on the face of the
tool and is independent on the depth of cut. Figure 8 shows
how the radial depth of cut, ae, affects the contact length, lc,
for slot machining. As the radial depth of cut increases, the
contact length will also increase until the tool is fully en-
gaged in the workpiece.
The contact length is determined through a set of basic
geometrical relations and can be written as:

d 2  ae
lc ¼  arccos 1 
2 d
where d is the tool diameter and ae is the radial depth of cut.
One possible approach which can be used to evaluate
the undeformed chip thickness is based upon making a
material balance between the rate of micro material re-
moval at the cutting grains and the overall macro material
removal rate [31].
The macro material removal rate can be defined as:
MRRma ¼ ae  DOC  vfr;con :
Since the radial depth of cut is much greater than the
contact area of a single grain and it can also be assumed that
identical chip formation takes place along the contact length
Workpiece
lc
θ
2 vfr
Diamond Tool
ae
Fig. 8 Contact length, lc, determined as a function of radial depth of
cut, ae, and contact angle, θ
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
of the tool [32], it follows that the specific macro material
removal can be written as:
ae  DOC  vfr;con
MRR0 ma ¼ : ð16Þ
ae
The last expression can also be described as the material
removal rate per unit wheel width. Daus [14] described the
specific micro material removal, defined as the individual
ð13Þ
removal of material by a single cutting grain, as:
DOCf A
MRR0 mi ¼ lk
us g
lk ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
ð17Þ
NCA;US
fus ¼ vc
l
where l is the ultrasonic wavelength, lk is the distance be-
tween successive abrasive grains, and NCA,US is the active
cutting grain concentration during ultrasonic machining. The
undeformed chip area of a single cutting grain can be modeled
as having a rectangular cross section and can be written as:
Ag ¼ hch;US  lch;US ð18Þ
ð14Þ
where hch,US is the undeformed chip thickness for ultrasonic
machining and is defined as the cutting depth taken by a single
cutting grain. In ultrasonic machining, the cutting path length
lch,us is defined as the kinematic contact length of a cutting
grain.
The macro and micro MRR can be set equal to each other
while the rate of volume of material removed on both levels
should be identical [32]. Therefore, setting Eq. (16) equal to
Eq. (17) and solving for the undeformed chip thickness for
ultrasonic machining leads to:
ð15Þ
vfr l
hch;US ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð19Þ
vc lch;US  NCA;US
It can be seen from the last expression that the unde-
formed chip thickness in RUSM is dependent on geometri-
cal and kinematic process parameters as well as the cutting
tool topography.
For conventional machining, the wavelength λ can be
viewed as being equal to the cutting path length lch while the
chip travels in a continuous path along the contact length lc
of the tool. Therefore, for conventional grinding, the unde-
formed chip thickness can be written as:
hch ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð20Þ
vc  NCA
where NCA is the active cutting abrasive concentration for
conventional grinding. In conventional slot machining, a
diamond grain travels in a continuous motion following an
approximately circular path of contact length lc as described
by Eq. (14). In RUSM, a diamond grain also travels in a
continuous motion but along the ultrasonic cutting path of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720 1713

length lch,US in a sinusoidal fashion due to the ultrasonic f US

vibration having an ultrasonic amplitude AUS and frequency
fus as shown in Fig. 9. Aus c
The additional sinusoidal motion in RUSM will lead to a b
the diamond grain traveling further per unit time then in
conventional grinding. The additional distance traveled by a
single abrasive grain can be computed by the line integral B-B B-B
evaluated over the contact length: Fig. 10 Cutting path length lch,US for RUSM approximated as a
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  2ffi
triangle wave
Zlc
2  p  AUS 2p
lch;US ðxÞ ¼ 1þ  cos x dx:
l l
0
ð21Þ total additional distance of llc  4  c in comparison to con-
ventional slot machining as long as AUS >0.
Although numerical methods can be used to evaluate the
In RUSM, lch,US is a known quantity and can be approx-
line integral above, an approximation can also be made to
imated by Eq. (23). The abrasive grains are in continuous
solve for the ultrasonic contact length where we assume that
contact with the material with λ << lch,us and the radial
the grain travels along a triangular wave. The distance this
ultrasonic vibration is negligible as shown in Fig. 3. There-
grain travels can be calculated by first looking at one wave-
fore, an assumption can be made that the ultrasonic vibra-
length. Figure 10 displays a triangular wave which will be
tion does not affect the undeformed chip thickness in the
used for the approximation of the ultrasonic contact length.
radial direction during RUSM, and hch,us 0hch. From Eqs.
The total distance an abrasive grain will travel in one
(18) and (23) and the previous relation, the cross-sectional
wavelength will be determined from section view B-B in
area engaged within the workpiece for RUSM can now be
Fig. 10. In a quarter wavelength, an abrasive grain will travel:
written as:
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l 2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
c¼ þ ðAUS Þ2 : ð22Þ 4  lc l
4 Ag;US ¼ hch;us  lch;US ¼ hch   þ ðAUS Þ2 : ð24Þ
l 4
Therefore, the total distance a diamond grain will travel
The cross-sectional area engaged within the workpiece
over one wavelength is equal to 4c. The total distance an
for RUSM is therefore increased by a factor of 4c l in
abrasive grain travels per tool rotation can then be approx-
imated as: comparison to conventional slot machining. The additional
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi factor is a function of cutting speed, ultrasonic frequency,
 2 and amplitude.
lc l
lch;US ¼  4  þ ðAUS Þ2 : ð23Þ
l 4
2.2.2 Active cutting grains
When a diamond grain is excited by the ultrasonic vibra-
tion with amplitude AUS, the diamond grain will travel a In kinematic simulation methods, not only the process
kinematics are taken into account for the specification
of the effective cutting area, but also the number of
vc active cutting grains as well. The active cutting grains
n
f US
are defined as the grains that contribute to the cutting
Diamond Tool action within the effective cutting area. Daus [14] took
the active cutting grains into account when defining the
2 AUS effective cutting area for rotary ultrasonic drilling. In
A-A this section, a model for the effective cutting area for
RUSM in terms of the active cutting grains will be
A-A
developed.
l ch
The concentration of grains for a diamond tool can be
defined by the volume percentage of diamonds which are
found within a tool. For a designation of C100, for example,
l ch ,US 25 % of the tool will contain diamond abrasives and
Fig. 9 Cutting path length, lch, for conventional machining compared the density of the diamond abrasives is: ρg ¼ 3:52 cmg 3 [33].
to cutting path length lch,US for RUSM If the diamond abrasives are assumed to be spheres, the
1714 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720

following equation describes the diamond concentration per concentration in Eq. (19) is solved for and set equal to Eq.
unit volume: (30), the undeformed chip thickness can be written as:
! 13
4 ρ  p  dg3
2
ðvfr  lÞ 3
6C hch;US ¼   23   : ð31Þ
Nv ¼ ð25Þ vc  lch;US 27 C
ρg  p  dg3
In reference to the assumption developed in Section 2.2.1,
where C is the diamond tool concentration and dg is the the ultrasonic vibration does not affect the undeformed chip
diamond grain diameter. The diamond grain concentration thickness in the radial direction during RUSM, and hch,us 0
per unit area can be written as: hch, hence, the undeformed chip thickness can now be
written as:
6C ! 13
NA ¼ : ð26Þ
2
ðvfr Þ 3 4 ρ  p  dg3
ρg  p  dg2 hch;US ¼ 2   : ð32Þ
ðvc Þ 3 27 C

The above equations do not account for the active dia-
mond grains within the cutting area during machining but
instead the percentage of diamonds which are found within
the tool. The concentration of active diamond grains is
difficult to predict, and Fritsch [30] derived a formula for
the active number of cutting grains by counting the number
of abrasive grains in the cutting area after conventional
grinding using a stereomicroscope. The concentration of
active cutting grains is found to be linearly dependent on
the depth of the cutting area. In addition, the active cutting
grain concentration is found to be 50–60 % less than the
diamond grain concentration which led Fritsch to the fol-
lowing approximation for the actual concentration per unit
area:
NAREAL ¼ 0:45  NA : ð27Þ
In addition, a profilometer was used to determine the
maximal distance between the protruded tip of the diamond
grains and the tool binder and the measurements corre-
sponded to approximately [30]:
zmax ¼ 0:4  dg : ð28Þ
According to Toenschoff [32], the active cutting grain
concentration can be written as:
NAREAL
NCA ðzÞ ¼ z ð29Þ
zmax
where z is the actual cutting depth in the effective cutting
area. Using the above relations, the active ultrasonic cutting
grain concentration can be rewritten as [30]:
A physical relationship now exists for the undeformed
chip thickness and the active ultrasonic cutting grain con-
centration in terms of the process input parameters for
RUSM.
2.2.3 Force model
In this subsection, the overall relations between the input
and cutting parameters will be presented in order to propose
a new model for predicting the magnitude of the machining
forces. During ultrasonic machining, the radial forces, Fr,
are defined as the forces exerted on the material from the
diamond tool and can be measured by a dynamometer. The
specific radial force can be written as:
0 Fr
Fr ¼ ð33Þ
Ac
where Fr is the measured radial force during machining and
Ac is the cutting area. The radial grain force can be written
as:
Fr
Frg ¼ ð34Þ
Ac  NCA;US
where NCA,US is the active ultrasonic cutting grain concentra-
tion. Each active abrasive grain is assumed to indent the work-
piece over the cutting chip area and the workpiece material is
assumed to be brittle. A second expression for the radial
component of the radial grain force can be written as [34]:
Frg ¼ σf  Ag ð35Þ

27 C where σf is the fracture stress of the material to be machined

NCA;US ðzÞ ¼  z ð30Þ
4 ρg  p  dg3
Substituting the undeformed chip thickness from Eq. (19)
for z in Eq. (30) leads to a relationship between the active
ultrasonic cutting grain concentration and the undeformed
chip thickness. If the active ultrasonic cutting grain
and Ag is the chip cross-sectional area. A physical force model
for the radial process forces can now be defined as:
Fr ¼ σf  Ac  Ag  NCA;US ð36Þ
which is now written in terms of the input and cutting param-
eters which are determined in the previous sections. The
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720 1715

Z
prediction of process forces can be valuable for the determina- Spindle
tion of an optimized tool and its accompanying process param- C

eters in order to maintain the working process forces below Coil 1 Transmitter
X
Coil 2 Receiver Y
some critical value which can be determined experimentally. B
Equation (36) evaluates a cutting force Fr through an
HSK 63-S
expression that does not take into consideration friction Tool Holder Booster
AMP
between the cutting tool and the material, as well as it does Tool Interface
Hollow Drill Vibration
not reflect such phenomena as fracture or crack initiation in Eddy Current PC/DAQ
Work- Sensor
the material. The situation in the current case is not unlike Piece
the situation in customary metal cutting techniques in which Dynomometer (Fy)
AMP
a constant cutting force, F0, the so-called plowing force, is Machine Table (B/C Axis)
introduced when the depth of cut is equal to zero. The force
expressed by Eq. (36) essentially corresponds to the shear-
ing force in metal removal operations. Hence, to account for
the existence of the plowing and friction effects, an addi-
tional force component, F0, should be introduced into Eq. Fig. 11 Experimental setup
(36) as a constant term. Therefore, the expression for the
0
modified cutting force Fr can be written as follows:
dynamometer was set up to measure the force component in
0
Fr ¼ F0 þ Fr ¼ F0 þ σf  Ac  Ag  NCA;US : ð37Þ the Fy direction only. The eddy current sensor and the
dynamometer were connected to a National Instruments
Conventionally, as it is customary in the material removal PXI-4496 and PXI-6123 data acquisition card, respectively,
literature, the constant cutting force component, F0, in Eq. and data were acquired with a sampling rate of 100 kHz.
(37) can be determined from experimental data. LabView 8.5 from NI was used to collect and measure the
amplitude of the ultrasonic vibration and force data.
The ceramic matrix composite (CMC) material used in
3 Verification of the force model the experiments was produced by a silicon melt infiltration
process. This process refers to continuous fiber composites
The force model to predict the radial process forces for whose matrices are formed by molten silicon infiltration into
RUSM is given by Eq. (36) and will be experimentally porous SiC- and/or C-containing perform. The fibers in this
verified in this section by comparing the calculated forces material all utilize Hi-NicalonTM SiC fiber from the Nippon
to those obtained experimentally. Carbon Company. The fibers are approximately 16 μm in
diameter. A coating is also applied to the fibers which serve
3.1 Experimental setup and conditions as a fiber–matrix interphase. The interphase coating consists
of boron nitride which is applied by chemical vapor deposi-
A five-axis ultrasonic machining center, model number Ul- tion. The matrix of the composite consists primarily of SiC
trasonic 70-5 produced by SAUER GmbH, was used for the and Si. The resulting composite consists of 20–25 vol% fiber,
experiments. An ultrasonic generator located in the machine 8–10 vol% fiber coatings, 70–63 vol% matrix, and <2 vol%
control cabinet produces an excitation signal with a frequen- porosity. The laminate is made up of balanced [0–90–90–0]s
cy in the range of 17–32 kHz. The electrical signal is stacking of uniaxial plies [35].
transferred inductively between a stationary inductive ring
located on the spindle housing and an inductive ring at-
Z
tached to a HSK-63S tool holder. The tool holder contains Y D.O.C.
the transducer which converts the high-frequency signal into Outside of
Material
a mechanical vibration through piezoceramic rings. The X
ultrasonic vibration is amplified by a booster which is
connected to the tool interface by an ER20 collet. The
experimental setup is shown in Fig. 11. Before each ma-
chining trial, the amplitudes of the ultrasonic vibrations at
the tool tip were measured using an eddy current displace-
ment sensor from Micro-Epsilon, model number DT110M-
U05-c3-F50. The workpiece was clamped to a mechanical
fixture which was mounted on a Kistler dynamometer. The Fig. 12 Slot milling strategy
1716
Table 1 DOE overview for RUSM
Trial Variable Total number of runs Measured output values
1 DOC 42 Force (Fy)
2 Feedrate 36 Force (Fy)
3 RPM 24 Force (Fy)
The CMC is prefabricated into sheets which are then cut
into coupons of approximately 80 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and 5 mm in height by a diamond saw. The orienta-
tion of the fibers for the experiments was not taken into
consideration.
In each experiment, a slot was machined with a width
equal to the tool diameter, 10 mm and a length of 50 mm.
The final depth of each slot was achieved through multiple
passes of the tool. Each pass was equal to the depth of cut.
This process is detailed in Fig. 12. Six slots were machined
in the coupon per side. The coupon was held mechanically
on each end by a spring-loaded clamping fixture mounted
on top of the dynamometer.
The machine variables consisted of programmable values
which could be changed on the machine control directly
during the experiments. The machine variables consisted
of three parameters; DOC, feedrate, and spindle rotation
speed (RPM). The DOC is the amount of material removed
in each pass of the diamond tool. The feedrate is the speed
of the tool across the part for each pass. The ultrasonic
oscillation is set to vibrate in resonance for all experiments
and the corresponding resonance amplitude in the experi-
ments was measured to be ∼5 μm. The DOE is listed in
Table 1. Multiple runs were carried out for each machine
parameter value for consistency and the force in the y
direction was measured. The diamond tool was held con-
stant in the experiments and had the following character-
istics: diameter—10 mm, wall thickness—1 mm, diamond
Fig. 13 Typical machining
forces in the Fy direction
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
grain size and hardness—181 H, binder—GVD, and con-
centration—high.
The actual experimental values shown on the graphs
presented in this paper are based on average force values
which were calculated for each run. In Fig. 13, a graphical
representation is provided for a typical force (Fy) measure-
ment for an entire experimental run which was captured in
LabView from the dynamometer for RUSM. Figure 13 also
shows graphically a machining pass which is defined as one
tool path and a machining run which is defined as the total
number of passes it takes before the tool reaches its final
machining depth. While the tool was fed in both the positive
and negative directions in relation to the dynamometer, both
negative and positive values can be observed. All actual
force values depicted in this paper are calculated by deter-
mining the average absolute force values for each machining
pass and further averaging these values over the entire
machining run using functions available in LabView.
3.2 Analysis of experimental and simulated results
A force model to predict the radial process forces, Fr, for
RUSM was given in Section 2.2.3 by Eq. (36). The fracture
strength for the CMC material used in the experiments was
σf 01 GPa [35]. The calculated forces are shown in Figs. 14,
15, and 16 and were obtained by substituting Eqs. (13), (18),
and (30) into Eq. (36) for each set of experiments in an
Excel spreadsheet and plotting the results. In the next sub-
sections, a comparison between the calculated values and
the experimental data will be given in order to verify the
validity of the proposed force model.
3.2.1 Force vs. DOC
Both the calculated forces Fr and actual (measured) forces
are shown as a function of DOC in Fig. 14. As the DOC
=1 Machining Pass
=1 Machining Run
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720 1717

Fig. 14 Comparison of
calculated and actual forces
(Fy) as function of DOC

increases, the force model (Eq. 36) predicts that Fr will 3.2.2 Force vs. Feedrate
increase as well. Furthermore, the linear approximation,
i.e., the linearized experimental data obtained through re- As the feedrate increases, the force model predicts that Fy
gression of the actual forces, is shown in Fig. 14 as well. will increase as well (Fig. 15). For feedrates above
The actual forces measured in the experiments across the 1,000 mm/min, machining marks could be observed approx-
entire range of DOC follow the same trend and are on the imately equal to the distance the tool travels per rotation and
same order of magnitude as the predicted values for Fy could be related to chatter. In addition, as the feedrate was
based on Eq. (36). For a DOC below 0.1 mm, the predicted increased above 1,000 mm/min, the tool wear also increased
forces Fr are much lower than the actual values. A plausible and consequently the tool length was also reduced. If the
explanation for such behavior, as previously stated, is that tool length is reduced, then the contact area, Ac, will also be
friction is not considered in Eq. (36) which, therefore, reduced. While the process force model is proportional to
underestimates the results. For large DOC such as 0.2 mm, the contact area and does not take tool wear into account,
the machining process is unstable and the tool is close to then an overestimation of forces in Fy could be expected. On
catastrophic failure. Therefore, the measured forces are par- the other hand, for feedrates below 1,000 mm/min, tool wear
ticularly high and the force model from Eq. (36) significant- was approximately equal to zero (Ac constant) and the force
ly underestimates the forces at this point. model underestimated the process forces. In these instances,
In order to account for the friction, the modified cutting forces due to friction are more likely to have caused
0
force,Fr , should be determined instead, using Eq. (37). For increases in the actual process forces. While the force model
this purpose, it is necessary to identify the constant force F0. did not take this into consideration, underestimations in
The accepted practice in metal cutting theory allows the process forces can be expected.
determination of this constant force from the linear regres-
3.2.3 Force vs. RPM
sion of the experimentally measured force, which is shown
in Fig. 14. According to the linearized data, the constant
As the RPM increases, the force model predicts that Fy will
force F0 039.272 N obtained as the intercept of the linear-
decrease (Fig. 16) while the force model is proportional to the
ized data with the vertical axis for zero DOC. Afterwards, it
0 active ultrasonic cutting grain concentration which will
is possible to determine the modified cutting force, Fr using
0
Eq. (37). Figure 14 shows that force Fr agrees well with the
experimentally measured force.
It can be seen from Fig. 14 that there is still a slight
0
discrepancy between the modified cutting force Fr and the
experimentally measured data. This can be explained by the
fact that the fracture stress σf in Eq. (37) is represented by
the “in-plane compressive strength” only, obtained from
reference [35]. It is obvious that the stress state in the
composite material machined by the suggested cutting
method is more complex and should be estimated taking
into account all the stress components. Therefore, for the
better prediction of the cutting forces, it is advisable to Fig. 15 Comparison of calculated and actual forces (Fy) as function of
measure the fracture strength σf for the particular material. feedrate
1718
Fig. 16 Comparison of calculated and actual forces (Fy) as function of
RPM
decrease for increasing RPM. The average experimental val-
ues Fy remained approximately constant even as the RPM was
increased. For an RPM of 3,500 min−1, large machining
noises could be heard during the experiments, and therefore,
in order to reduce the risk of breaking the tool, the experiments
were aborted. In addition, the actual machining center does
not allow spindle speeds higher than 6,000 min−1 to be
programmed. Therefore, additional experiments and research
would be required with an increased number of spindle speed
Table 2 Qualitative effect of tool and machine parameters on the cutting parameters
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
data points over a larger range of data in order to verify the
force model as a function of RPM.
3.3 Discussion of results
As the DOC and feedrate was varied, Figs. 14 and 15
respectively verify that the force model is on the same
order of magnitude and follows the same trends as in
the experimental results. The model could be improved
by taking into consideration the forces due to friction as
well as tool wear. As the spindle speed was varied
(Fig. 16), the force model predictions were on the same
order of magnitude but did not follow the same trend as
the experimental results but this was most likely due to
the small sample range over which the data were taken.
Therefore, the physical force model for RUSM can be
used to aid in parameter selection especially for values
of DOC and feedrates. If the strength of a new material
is known, a force simulation can be carried out prior to
machining in order to help choose a set of machining
process parameters. A qualitative overview of the results
is presented in Table 2 which shows the effect each
individual input parameter has on the resulting cutting
parameters.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720 1719

The following conclusions can be drawn from the table 4 Conclusion

with regard to the cutting parameters:
A process model is proposed for RUSM and the effect of the
Undeformed chip thickness The chip thickness in ultrasonic individual input parameters on the cutting parameters is
and conventional slot machining is identical while the am- presented.
plitude and frequency of ultrasonic vibration have no effect
& The macro kinematics between the tool and material
on the chip thickness.
were defined for RUSM; the diamond tool's path is
defined in relation to the workpiece and the trajectories
Cutting path length The cutting path length in conventional
of single abrasive grains which were reproduced by
grinding remains constant and is independent of the input
describing the kinematics of the effective position, ve-
parameters while the diamond grain travels in a continuous
locity, and acceleration vectors of a single abrasive
path along the contact length of the diamond tool. The
grain.
cutting path length for ultrasonic machining, on the other
& An individual cutting grain will maintain a continuous
hand, travels in a sinusoidal motion as a result of the cutting
contact with the material, but in a sinusoidal motion
speed, ultrasonic amplitude, and frequency along the contact
resulting in an increased contact length in comparison
length of the tool. As the cutting speed increases, the ultra-
to conventional grinding.
sonic wavelength also increases resulting in a reduced cut-
& The penetration angle for RUSM will be approxi-
ting path length. In addition, if the amplitude or frequency is
mately equal to that of ultrasonic drilling and will
increased, the cutting path will also increase while the
increase as the ultrasonic amplitude or frequency is
diamond grain will have to travel further per unit time in
increased.
comparison to conventional grinding.
& Equations for the cutting parameters were developed
from basic micro kinematic relationships of single
Active concentration The ultrasonic vibration is found to
abrasive grains and qualitatively summarized in
have no effect on the active cutting concentration for
Table 2.
slot machining. Therefore, the conventional active cutting
& A model for predicting the radial process forces was
concentration is identical to the ultrasonic active cutting
presented and experimentally verified. The model is on
concentration.
the same order of magnitude and follows the same
trends as in the experimental results but could be im-
Penetration angle The penetration angle for conventional
proved by taking into consideration the forces due to
machining remains constant while the abrasive grains travel
friction as well as tool wear.
along a nearly circular path on the periphery of the tool. In
RUSM, the penetration angle is affected only by the ma-
chining parameters.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they do not have any
conflict of interests.
Process force model A physical expression for the force
exerted on the material by the diamond tool was presented.
The force model will aid in the determination of an opti-
mized tool and its accompanying process parameters in References
order to maintain the working process forces below some
technologically desirable value. Such a model can help 1. Brinksmeier E, Aurich JC, Govekar E, Heinzela C, Hoffmeister H-
eliminate the current heuristic approach taken to define the W, Klocke F, Peters J, Rentsch R, Stephensong DJ, Uhlmannh E,
Weinerti K, Wittmann M (2006) Advances in modeling and sim-
process parameters for ultrasonic machining. The force
ulation of grinding processes. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 55
model was compared to actual experimental results. The (2):667–696
predicted forces were on the same order of magnitude as 2. Marinescu ID, Hitchiner M, Uhlmann E, Rowe WB, Inasaki I
the experimental values. In addition, the predicted forces (2006) Handbook of machining with grinding wheels. CRC Press,
Boca Raton
followed the same trends as the experimental values for both
3. Thoe TB, Aspinwall DK, Wise MLH (1998) Review on ultrasonic
the DOC and feedrate. Specifically, as the DOC and feedrate machining. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 38(4):239–255
are increased so did the radial process forces. Since the 4. Bender BG (1966) Method of making semiconductor devices.
presented research was intended only at developing a new USA Patent 3229348, Hughes Aircraft Company, United
States
ultrasonically assisted milling process and its theoretical
5. Singh R, Khamba JS (2007) Investigation for ultrasonic machining
modeling, no comparison with conventional milling pro- of titanium and its alloys. J Mater Process Technol 183(2–3):
cesses was provided. 363–367
1720
6. Dvivedi A, Kumar P (2007) Surface quality evaluation in ultra-
sonic drilling through the Taguchi technique. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 34(1):131–140
7. Komaraiah M, Reddy PN (1991) Rotary ultrasonic machining—a
new cutting process and its performance. Int J Prod Res 29
(11):2177–2187
8. Prabhakar D (1992) Machining of advanced ceramic materials
using rotary ultrasonic machining process. University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign
9. Uhlmann E, Spur G (1998) Surface formation in creep feed grind-
ing of advanced ceramics with and without ultrasonic assistance.
CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 47(1):249–252
10. Spur G, Uhlmann E, Holl S-E, Daus NA (1999) Influences on
surface and subsurface during ultrasonic assisted grinding of ad-
vanced ceramics. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting, the
American Society for Precision Engineering. Monterey, CA, USA
11. Zhang P, Fan X, Miller MH (2004) Improving grinding wheel
performance with vibration assistance and segmented wheels. Pro-
ceedings of the 2004 NSF Design, Service and Manufacturing
Grantees and Research Conference
12. Spurr G, Holl SE (1996) Ultrasonic assisted grinding of ceramics. J
Mater Process Technol 62(4):287–293
13. Hu P, Zhang JM, Treadwell C (2002) Modeling of material remov-
al rate in rotary ultrasonic machining: designed experiments. J
Mater Process Technol 129(1–3):339–344
14. Daus N-A (2004) Ultraschallunterstütztes Quer-Seiten-Schleifen
Berichte aus dem Produktionstechnischen Zentrum. Fraunhofer
IRB Verlag, Berlin
15. Hocheng H, Tai NH, Liu CS (2000) Assessment of ultrasonic
drilling of C/SiC composite material. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf
31(2):133–142
16. Li ZC, Jiao Y, Deines TW, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2005) Rotary ultra-
sonic machining of ceramic matrix composites: feasibility study and
designed experiments. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 45(12–13):1402–1411
17. Jianxin D, Taichiu L (2002) Ultrasonic machining of alumina-
based ceramic composites. J Eur Ceram Soc 22(8):1235–1241
18. Li ZC, Pei ZJ, Sisco T, Micale AC, Treadwell C (2007) Experi-
mental study on rotary ultrasonic machining of graphite/epoxy
panel. Proceedings of ASPE Spring Topical Meeting
19. Jiao Y, Liu WJ, Pei ZJ (2005) Study on edge chipping in rotary
ultrasonic machining of ceramics: an integration of designed
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:1705–1720
experiments and finite element method analysis. J Manuf Sci
Eng 127(4):752–758
20. Churi NJ, Pei ZJ, Treadwell C (2006) Rotary ultrasonic machining
of titanium alloy: effects of machining variables. Mach Sci Tech-
nol 10:301–321
21. Neugebauer R, Stoll A (2004) Ultrasonic application in drilling. J
Mater Process Technol 149(1–3):633–639
22. Pei ZJ, Prabhakar D, Ferreira PM (1995) A mechanistic approach
to the prediction of material removal rates in rotary ultrasonic
machining. Trans ASME J Eng Ind 117(2):142–151
23. Pei ZJ, Ferreira PM, Haselkorn M (1995) Plastic flow in rotary
ultrasonic machining of ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 48(1–
4):771–777
24. Pei ZJ, Ferreira PM (1998) Modeling of ductile-mode material
removal in rotary ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tool Manuf
38(10–11):1399–1418
25. Pei ZJ, Ferreira PM, Kapoor SG, Haselkorn M (1995) Rotary
ultrasonic machining for face milling of ceramics. Int J Mach Tool
Manuf 35(7):1033–1046
26. Pei ZJ, Ferreira PM (1999) An experimental investigation of rotary
ultrasonic face milling. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 39(8):1327–1344
27. Uhlmann E, Daus N (2000) Ultrasonic assisted face grinding and
cross-periphal grinding of ceramics. Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Symposium Ceramics Materials and Components for
Engines
28. Sauer H (2004) Tool with an oscillating head, US Patent Application
20080041604
29. Meyer J (2009) Ultrasonic machining improves productivity. Man-
ufacturing Engineering
30. Fritsch A (1997) Schleifen von cermets. University of Hannover
31. Malkin S (1989) Grinding technology: theory and applications of
machining with abrasives. American Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn
32. Toenshoff HK (1995) Spanen-Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin
33. Prospect WC (2002) Diamantwerkzeuge zur Bearbeitung feinop-
tischer, brillen optischer und technischer Bauelemente
34. Collins JA (1981) Failure of materials in mechanical design.
Wiley, New York
35. Corman GS, Luthra KL (2005) Silicon melt infiltrated ceramic
composites (HiPerComp™). In: Handbook of ceramic composites.
Springer, New York, pp. 99–115