International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD) ISSN 2249-6890 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 33-40 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

CAVITATION MACHINING; A STUDY ON MATERIAL REMOVAL MECHANISM

MEHDI HADI Department of Manufacturing Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz 51664, Iran

ABSTRACT
In hydrodynamic machinery, cavitation is known as a harmful process which is always tried to be eliminated. But very high released energy, temperature, pressure, shock waves, impulsive luminance, and even acoustic emission (noises) of the collapsing bubbles in this process invite scientists and researchers to expand its usage in different fields. On the basis of very high released energy at this process, Cavitation Machining (CM) was proposed as a Micro and/or Nano machining process suitable for time controlling mechanisms for chip removal. The way by which material is removed from a workpiece is a key figure in defining a machining process as well as a basement for investigating the fundamentals and parameters. Knowing the fact that in CM bubbles are the sources of the required energy for material removal, it is concluded that definition of Material Removal Mechanism (MRM) is contingent upon a deep study on bubble behavior. Given this, this paper is devoted to investigate MRM in CM on the basis of bubble collapsing in cavitation phenomenon. At this aim, the behavior of a cavity bubble while collapsing will be presented and effects of its energy on the abrasives will be discussed.

KEYWORDS: Cavitation Machining (CM), Material Removal Mechanism (MRM), Abrasive Particle, Reentrant Jet,
Cloud Collapsing

INTRODUCTION
Machining is a term covering a large collection of manufacturing processes designed to remove material from a workpiece. The Conventional machining processes are: turning, shaping, milling, drilling, sawing, abrasive machining, and broaching (Mackerle,1999). However, the last decades have seen an enormous surge in difficulties in application of seven main types of machine tools. Requirements for higher production rate and economy, requirements for higher dimensional accuracy (Sadhu and Chakraborty,2011), machining of new intractable materials and alloys like high-strength heatresistance alloys, fiber-reinforced composites, stellites, ceramics and carbides (Mcgeough,1988), and the very fine finishes (Nano-finish) and surface integrity requirements of new products are the main problems that cannot be tackled by conventional processes. (Jain et al., 2007). Following the limitations, Taguchi spread out his theory, says, high precision and accuracy cannot be achieved using the conventional machining processes where material is removed in the form of chips, and not atoms or molecules. This led to a revolution in machining sphere known as Non Traditional Machining (NTM) processes, in which material is removed in form of atoms or molecules, individually or in groups (Chakraborty and Dey, 2007). Invented by the author, CM is a new born NTM that benefits from the high released energy of collapsing cavity bubbles. This paper presents the MRM of this process on the basis of bubble behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW: CAVITATION AND CAVITATION MACHINING PROCESS

Cavitation phenomenon is known as a repeated formation, growth, and violent collapse of bubbles in a liquid, caused by the fluctuations of local pressure, which generates very large hydrodynamic stresses. The required pressure fluctuation can be created either by an imposed acoustic field produced by a piezoelectric or magnetostrictive transducer or can be formed due to the flow of a liquid through a constricted passage as in a venturi throat. Depending upon its origin,

34

Mehdi Hadi

cavitation is termed as acoustic and hydrodynamics (Chatterjee, 2003). The bubble collapsing is a source of high velocity liquid jet (from 100 to 1000 m/s) with pressure shocks of 103Mpa magnitude (Krella and Czyzniewski, 2009). The whole process of generation, growth and collapse of cavity bubbles occurs in an extremely short period of time, of the order of few microseconds (Moholkar et al., 1999). Extremely large pulses of pressure and the rapid repetition of the stress on nearby material cause detrimental erosion, known as Cavitation Erosion (CE). CE is a major concern in hydropower generation industry. Furthermore, hydraulic machinery is often affected by erosion due to solid particle impact (Escaler et al., 2003). Recently, Hadi (2011) proposed CM as a new NTM process with taking advantages of cavitation bubbles. Cavitation itself is critically dependent on the existence of nucleation sites. Nucleation is the onset of a phase transition in a small region of a medium. Based on the origin of this process, it is termed as homogenous and heterogeneous. In homogenous nucleation, the thermal motion within the liquid form temporary, microscopic voids that can constitute the nuclei necessary for rupture and growth to macroscopic bubbles. However, in practical engineering situations, it is more common to find that the major weaknesses occur at the boundary between the liquid and the solid wall of the container, or between the liquid and the small particles suspended in the liquid. It is worth mentioning that liquids normally contain a large number of solid impurities that can play the role of nucleation sources, and sometimes impurities are added to increase nucleation. When rupture occurs at such sites, it is termed heterogeneous nucleation. Cavitation starts when these nuclei enter a low pressure region when the equilibrium between the various forces acting on the nuclei surface cannot be established. As a result, bubbles appear at discrete spots in low pressure regions, grow quickly to relatively large sizes, and suddenly implode as they are swept into regions of higher pressure (Brennen, 1995; Brujan, 2011). In CM, a mixture of liquid and abrasives is used, and the abrasives are small enough to play the role of nucleation as well as the material remover. Hence, no nucleus is needed to increase cavitation rate. So, it could be said that CM respects the rules of heterogeneous nucleation. Bubble collapsing is a source of high energy. In CM, the released energy is engaged to thresh the abrasives to the workpiece surface and molecular or atomic chip removal is achievable. Certainly, Joseph et al. on 1970 published their innovation in the United States Patent institute renowned as Cavitation Machining Apparatus. In their work, the liquid is subjected to hydrostatic high pressure. However, at these higher fluid pressures, the liquid is substantially denucleated, meaning that nucleation operation cannot be repeated. Cavitation would be difficult to achieve in the absence of the nuclei. Hence, they added colloids to the liquid in order to increase nucleation process. A plurality of transducers configured to generate high frequency ultrasonic waves which converge in the vicinity of the workpiece, which causes chip removal from the part (Joseph and Rosenthal, 1970). Insufficient material removal can be mentioned as firs problem of this work, because there is no cutting edge at this process. Another problem is the applied pressure which causes limitation for both of workpiece material and condition of process. Addition of abrasives heralds cutting edges. On the other hand, it intensifies cavitation. Hence, no hydrostatic pressure is needed. CM works on the foundation of cavitation phenomenon. Given this, the same parameters contribute to control cavitation and cavitation erosion should be regulated (Hadi, 2011). These parameters could be asserted as follows: A. Density of energy flux: Density of energy flux supplied to the material by imploding cavitation bubbles can be mentioned by the following expression:

Where T is the sampling period duration, the density, c the sound celerity of liquid, M the number of pressure intervals, nk the number of pulses measured by means of a pressure sensor in a single interval, pk the value of pressure

Cavitation Machining; A Study on Material Removal Mechanism

35

amplitude corresponding to each single interval, k the consecutive number of the interval. J is used to define cavitation intensity. Hence, all of the parameters in Eq. 1 contribute to control the cavitation and the CE (Krella, 2005). B. Temperature of liquid: It is showed that rising temperature to a certain rate can increase cavitation. However, impact of temperature on CE is comparatively complex. For example, cooper and aluminum show different behavior to the temperature changes (Kwok et al., 1997; Auret et al., 1993). C. Surface tension of liquid: Iwai and Li (2003) showed that Cavitation and CE are affected by physical properties of liquid, especially surface tension. They observed when surface tension is decreased, the number of large bubble clusters reduced. Moreover, both the number of pulse peak height and the total impact energy was reduced. D. Vapor pressure: An increase in vapor pressure (while other parameters are fixed) can increase cavitation. This can be obtained by increasing the purity of liquid. But even the purest liquid has very small impurities which are needed for cavitation. (Hattori et al., 2008). E. Gas (air) content in liquid: Cavitation grows when the gas content in liquid is increased. This is due to the higher production of bubbles. However, as long as there is some gas present collapsing to decelerate (Dular et al., 2004). F. The amount of pH in case of using water as liquid: Bregliozzi et al. (2005) showed when pH value increased, a decrease in cavitation is observable. However, other assessments showed that in low temperatures, the least amount of cavitation is at pH=9 and then it increases again (Kwok et al., 1997). G. Flow rate: In case of hydrodynamic cavitation, increase in flow rate can burgeon both of cavitation and energy of bubbles (Jazi and Rahimzadeh, 2009). However, in next stages it is mentioned that in ultrasonic cavitation machining, applying a flow rate (jet) can increase the removed material. H. Workpiece material and structure: It is worth noticing that not only the liquid type and condition is important in CE, but also the workpiece material and structure play a vital role. It is showed that CE has higher amounts for parts with bigger grain sizes (Bregliozzi and Schino, 2005). Also, it is clear that applying tensile stress causes an increase in CE (Naoe et al., 2010). It should be said that based on cavitation origin some other parameters can be influential. For example, in Ultrasonic Cavitation Machining acoustic properties intervene to control the process. Based on the origin of cavitation, CM was termed as hydrodynamic and ultrasonic. In order to meet industrial and economical demands by CM, material removal should be flourished by lucrative selection of relevant parameters. These parameters are the same mentioned before. They should be selected in the way cavitation is maximized. Moreover, another set of parameters relevant to the abrasives contribute to control CM, for example, particle size, material, particle proportion, etc. (Hadi, 2011). In last assessment, the best proportion for abrasives to reach the maximum material removal rate was examined. The abrasive particles were mixed with water with different proportion, and entered to the experimental chamber. The result showed a peak in material removal for the 15 percent of abrasives in water. Hence, it was concluded that the best proportion for abrasives in water, in order to achieve the maximum removed material, is 15 percent (Hadi, 2011). In another work, Hadi (Hadi, 2011) conducted an assessment to determine the best size for abrasives. The results showed that particles with size between 70 till 90 micrometers obtain maximum material removal. It shows that those sizes of abrasives are the best for nucleation. Likewise, those sizes are the best match with the stress applied by bubbles to remove maximum materials.

MATERIAL REMOVAL MECHANISM

Like the other machining processes, MRM in CM should be clarified. At this aim, the mechanism of a bubble, at exploding stage, should be completely discussed. The main goal of these investigations is to describe the velocity field and the pressure distribution in the liquid surrounding the bubble, because they determine the way abrasives hit the part. The

36

Mehdi Hadi

quantity of produced pressure and velocity could be calculated by following mathematical model and their field and distribution is determined by the collapsing model. Consider a spherical bubble of initial radius R0 situated in a compressible liquid. Until the reference time, t=0, the pressure is uniform at p and the liquid is at rest. At t=0, the pressure inside the bubble is decreased instantaneously to p0 and the bubble begins to collapse due to the pressure difference inside and outside of the bubble. In principle, parameters associated with the bubble collapse, i. e. pressure and velocity can be determined from solution of the equation of continuum mechanics inside and outside of the bubble, as well as the equation of momentum. For a spherical bubble, irrespective of gravity effects, continuum (2) and momentum (3) equation can be mentioned as follows:

Where vr is the radial component of the velocity field, the liquid density, p(r,t) is the pressure in the liquid, and is the extra stress tensor (Brennen, 1995; Brujan, 2011). But in Eq. 2 and 3, the bubble radius changes with respect to time. The analysis leads to the following equation for bubble radius with time changes:

Where C is the speed of sound in liquid, H is the liquid enthalpy, rr is evaluated in the region surrounding the bubble with typical dimension R, and over-dots denote differentiation with respect to time (Brujan, 2009). Considering a Newtonian fluid with:

and

Where pB is the pressure in the liquid at the bubble wall, and is the shear viscosity of liquid, the equation of bubble radius in a Newtonian fluid becomes:

And considering pv as vapor pressure inside the liquid, and Rmax as radius of the bubble at its maximum expansion, the bubble energy is determined by the equation bellow:

It should be said that the mentioned analysis in this paper neglect the thermal effect of bubble, because collapsing a bubble is so rapid that is much closer to adiabatic than isothermal. However, the thermal effect are considered in some analysis, but they are not mentioned here (Brennen, 1995; Brujan, 2011). The investigation of the dynamic of spherical cavitation bubble is of low direct interest, because bubbles will often collapse aspherically. On the other hand, it is said that, for spherical bubbles, the most stable circumstances is at the case for growing bubble to the maximum size, and

Cavitation Machining; A Study on Material Removal Mechanism

37

explosion is always aspherically. Nevertheless, studies of idealized models may provide a qualitative insight for more realistic systems, as well as the basis for interpretation of data for asymmetrical collapse, and is to date the only means of comparing experimental results with theory. When a cavitation bubble grows from a small nucleus to many times its original size, the collapse will begin at a maximum radius. A dominant feature in collapse of many vapor bubbles is the development of a reentrant jet due to an asymmetry such as the presence of a nearby solid boundary. Such an asymmetry causes one side of the bubble to accelerate inward more rapidly than the other side and results in the development of a high speed reentrant microjet which penetrates the bubble. Commonly, in the case of water, the microjet velocity found to be about 115 m/s, but more velocities can be expected. Of particular interest for bursting a bubble is the fact that a nearby solid boundary (workpiece surface) will cause the microjet directed toward that boundary. Not only the solid boundary, but also other asymmetries, even gravity, can cause the formation of these reentrant micro-jets. Another asymmetry that can cause the formation of an inward microjet is the proximity of other, neighboring bubbles in a finite cloud of bubbles. Then the bubbles on the outer edge of such a cloud will tend to develop jets directed toward the center of the cloud. If the added abrasives be considered as surfactants, they usually are adsorbed onto the bubble surface. Hence, the formed micro-jets are everlastingly in touch with abrasives and thresh them to the part (with very high velocity and pressure). Furthermore, it is demonstrated that after formation of a microjet and bubble collapsing, a bubble is divided to a finite number of smaller bubbles, each of which with the same behavior as a single bubble, that will continue to collapse collectively and help to thresh particles to the part, and heighten the chip removal. Also, collapsing a bubble, irrespective of its origin, produces pressure pulses (or shock waves) that in some cases it is said that they are two or three times larger than those due to the micro-jets. Consequently, both of microjets and pressure pulses contribute to impulsive loading of the abrasives (Brennen, 1995; Brujan, 2011). Figure 1 shows the MRM in CM on the base of cavity bubble collapsing. As showed in figure, a combination of energy of reentrant micro-jets and pressure pulses (curves and elbows, respectively) is applied to abrasives and threshes them to the surface of workpiece. By this process, each bubble plays its role in removing material. Hence, in order to control Material removal Rate (MRR) all the parameters related to bubble should be regulated and the time of the process can be controlled by the time of bubble formation, i. e. the time of applying pressure fluctuations.

Figure 1: A Bubble in the Mixture of Abrasives and Water. The Surrounding Liquid Penetrates the Bubble and Flows through it Toward the Workpiece Surface. As it is Applied on Particles with the Pressure Pulses, Material Removal Can Occur. Remained Bubbles Repeat the Process On the other side of the coin, periodic generation and collapse of a cloud of cavitation bubbles, like those produced by acoustic field with magnetostrictive cavitation equipment, can cause abrasives to remove material. This coherent collapse can be more violent than that of individual bubbles. However, it is cross to bear that bubbles on the outer

38

Mehdi Hadi

edge of such a cloud tend to develop jets directed toward the center of the cloud, not to the boundaries around. On the other hand, there is an attraction between the solid boundary (workpiece surface) and the reentrant jets. The cloud may not be symmetrical in shape. Hence, chaotic collapse (i. e. formation of micro-jets in different directions) is more possible. A schematic of cloud collapse is showed in figure 2. As showed in figure, the liquid pressure (P) on a cloud of bubbles causes them to collapse and at the same time, two sets of forces are applied on reentrant jets. The first sets includes verticals that direct jets toward workpiece and the second sets are the other force lines that tend jets to speed toward the center of the cloud. There are other forces applied to the jets from the neighboring clouds (not mentioned in figure) and jets speed toward the resultant of the forces. This will be more influential for material removal by abrasives if the number (or size) of clouds increases, because more jets clash each other and their energy is wasted.

Figure 2: Cloud Collapsing of Bubbles in the Mixture of Abrasives and Water. Micro-Jets Tend to Speed Toward the Resultant of Forces from the Center of the Clouds, Workpiece, and the Other Clouds Given this, Semi-Linear clouds should be produced in parallel with the surface of the part to reduce the wasted energy and increase the MRR. The other point to bear in mind is considering the cavitation as inertial (transient) and noninertial (Stable) while collapsing a bubble. In cavitation machining when the pressure fluctuations increases, cavitation moves toward stable conditions, meaning that the bubbles are less inspired to collapse. So they become dormant at their formation place (Patil and Pandit, 2007). On the other hand, Eq. 9 shows pressure fluctuations should be increased in order to achieve the higher energy of bubbles and material removal. Hence, to get this higher energy in action, the bubbles should not be permitted to sleep, but they should be inspired to collapse before inactivation. Accordingly, the formation of bubbles should be in a flow (jet) toward the workpiece. It causes the clouds to be formed at a moving liquid and at the same time does not let the bubbles to sleep. At such a case, there is a prime force toward workpiece that puts anything (clouds, jets, abrasives, shock waves) under an obligation to move toward the part.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a study on Cavitation Machining and Material Removal Mechanism (MRM) at this process. As far as mechanism of material removal is concern, the study indicates the behavior of cavity bubbles while collapsing on the base of former scientific researches in this regard. At first, it was showed that collapsing a bubble produces reentrant micro-jets and pressure pulses which are applied to the abrasives and MRR is achievable. But in experimental situation, commonly, a bubble bursts in a cloud where it is affected by the other neighboring bubbles. The more the influence by the other bubbles, the more the chaotic collapse. At such a case, the process could not be controlled. In order to solve this problem, the mixture of abrasives and liquid should be jetted toward the machining territory to achieve the highest MRR.

Cavitation Machining; A Study on Material Removal Mechanism

39

About the CM process, it is worth noticing that cavitation itself is one of the oldest processes in hydrodynamic machinery with the oldest published researches, and lots of parameters at CM process are controlled by regulating the cavitation process. So, in order to direct a parameter in CM, a deep study on the relevant parameter in cavitation process is needed and then it should be combined by the abrasives role. It is hoped that this paper will aid both those who are considering applying the cavitation machining techniques as a production process in industry and those who wish to investigate further the fundamentals of the process.

REFERENCES
1. Auret, J. G., Damm, O. F. R. A., Wright, G. J., &Robinson, F. P. A. (1993). Cavitation erosion of copper and aluminum in water at elevated temperature. Tribology International 26 (6): 421-429. 2. Bregliozzi, G., Schino, A. D., Ahmed, S. I. U., Kenny, J. M., &Haefke, H. (2005). Cavitation wear behavior of austenitic stainless steels with different grain sizes. Wear 258: 503-510. 3. 4. 5. 6. Brennen, C. E. (1995). Cavitation and bubble dynamics.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. pp. 15-43. Brennen, C. E. (1995). Cavitation and bubble dynamics.Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 47-75. Brennen, C. E. (1995). Cavitation and bubble dynamics.Oxford:Oxford University Press. pp. 79-133. Brujan, E. A. (2009). Cavitation bubble dynamics in non-Newtonian fluids. Polymer Engineering and Science 49(3): 419-431. 7. Brujan, E. A. (2011). Cavitation in non-Newtonian fluids; with biomedical and bioengineering applications. London: Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London. pp. 49-59. 8. Brujan, E. A. (2011). Cavitation in non-newtonian fluids; with biomedical and bioengineering applications. London: Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London. pp. 63-112. 9. Chakraborty, S., &Dey, S. (2007). QFD-based expert system for non-traditional machining processes selection. Expert Systems with Applications 32: 1208-1217. 10. Chatterjee, D. (2003). Use of Ultrasonics in shear layer cavitation control. Ultrasonics 41: 465-475. 11. Dular, M., Bachert, B.,Stoffel, B., &Sirok, B. (2004). Relationship between cavitation structure and cavitation damage. Wear 257: 1176-1184. 12. Escaler, X., Farhat, M., &Avellan, F. (2003). Cavitation erosion test on a 2D hydrofoil using surface mounted obstacles. Wear 254: 441-449. 13. Hadi, M. (2011). A new non-traditional machining method using cavitation process. Proceedings of WCE, Vol III, July 6-8, London, Uk. pp. 2154-2158. 14. Hadi, M. (2011). Influence of proportion of abrasive particles in conveyor liquid on ultrasonic cavitation machining process. Proceedings of WCE, Vol III, July 6-8, London, Uk. pp. 2594-2598. 15. Hadi, M. (2011). Influence of size of abrasive particles in conveyor liquid on ultrasonic cavitation machining process. Applied Mechanics and Materials 87: 155-158. 16. Hattori, S., Inoue, F., Watashi, K., &Hashimoto, T. (2008). Effect of liquid properties on cavitation erosion in liquid metals. Wear 265:1649-1654. 17. Iwai, Y., &Li, S. (2003). Cavitation erosion in waters having different surface tensions. Wear 254: 1-9. 18. Jain, N. K., Jain, V. K., &Deb, K. (2007). Optimization of process parameters of mechanical type advanced machining processes using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 47: 900-919.

40

Mehdi Hadi

19. Jazi, A. M., &Rahimzadeh, H. (2009).Waveform analysis of cavitation in a globe valve.Ultrasonics 49: 577582. 20. Joseph, P. J., &Rosenthal, P. (1970). Cavitation machining apparatus. US patent, application number 813021. 21. Krella, A. (2005). Influence of cavitation intensity on X6CrNiTi18-10 stainless steel performance in the incubation period. Wear 258: 1723-1731. 22. Krella, A., &Czyzniewski, A. (2009). Cavitation resistance of Cr-N coating deposited on austenite stainless steel at various temperatures. Wear 266: 800-809. 23. Kwok, C. T., Man, H. C., &Leung, L. K. (1997). Effect of temperature, pH, and sulphide on the cavitation erosion behavior of super duplex stainless steel. Wear 211: 84-93. 24. Mackerle, J. (1999). Finite-Element Analysis and Simulation of Machining: a Biography (1976-1996). Journal of Materials Processing Technology 86: 17-44. 25. McGeough, J. A. (1988). Advanced Methods of Machining. USA: Chapman and Hall. 26. Moholkar, V. S., Kumar, P. S., &Pandit, A. B. (1999). Hydrodynamic cavitation for sonochemical effects. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 6: 53-65. 27. Naoe, T., Kogawa, H., Yamaguchi, Y., &Futakawa, M. (2010). Effect of tensile stress on cavitation damage formation in mercury. Journal of Nuclear Materials 398: 199-206. 28. Sadhu, A., &Chakraborty, S. (2011). Non-Traditional Machining Process Selection Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Expert Systems with Applications 38 (7): 8770-8781. 29. Patil, M. N., &Pandit, A. B. (2007). Cavitation, A Novel Technique for Making Stable Nano-Suspension. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 14 (5): 519-530.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Being born at a city (Isfahan) known as Rhythmic City among people of the country and introducing to music since childhood and becoming a member of the theory of Holographic Universe, directed my mind to search for a connection between anything and find the answers of my problems through seemingly incoherent subjects. It led my mind to find a way in Micro and/or Nano Machining known as Cavitation Machining Process. While taking the B.Sc. at Tabriz University I worked on the fundamentals of this process and I published some papers in this regard. I am willing to have cooperation with those who are interested, in order to develop this subject.