Research Trends and Future Perspective in Nonconventional Machining of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers A Review

Functional Composites and
Structures
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Research trends and future perspective in nonconventional machining of

fiber-reinforced polymers: A review
To cite this article before publication: Wonvin Kim et al 2021 Funct. Compos. Struct. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-6331/ac0c28
Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

Accepted Manuscript is “the version of the article accepted for publication including all changes made as a result of the peer review process,
and which may also include the addition to the article by IOP Publishing of a header, an article ID, a cover sheet and/or an ‘Accepted
Manuscript’ watermark, but excluding any other editing, typesetting or other changes made by IOP Publishing and/or its licensors”
This Accepted Manuscript is © 2021 The Korean Society for Composite Materials and IOP Publishing Limited.
During the embargo period (the 12 month period from the publication of the Version of Record of this article), the Accepted Manuscript is fully
protected by copyright and cannot be reused or reposted elsewhere.
As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a subscription basis, this Accepted Manuscript is available for reuse
under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence after the 12 month embargo period.
After the embargo period, everyone is permitted to use copy and redistribute this article for non-commercial purposes only, provided that they
adhere to all the terms of the licence https://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-nd/3.0
Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their copyrighted content
within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this
article, please refer to the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as permissions will likely be
required. All third party content is fully copyright protected, unless specifically stated otherwise in the figure caption in the Version of Record.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 14.139.110.90 on 30/06/2021 at 11:12

Functional Composites and Structures
pt
Research trends and future perspective in nonconventional
machining of fiber-reinforced polymers: A review
cri
Journal: Functional Composites and Structures
Manuscript ID FCS-100103.R1
Manuscript Type: Topical Review
Date Submitted by the

23-Apr-2021
Author:
us
Complete List of Authors: Kim, Wonvin; KAIST, Mechanical Engineering
Lim, Su Hyun; KAIST, Mechanical Engineering
Kang, Dajeong; KAIST, Space Exploration Engineering
Fo
Bae, Sangyoon; KAIST, Mechanical Engineering
On, Seung Yoon; KAIST, Mechanical Engineering
Kim, Seong Su; Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
an
rR
Nonconventional machining, Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), Laser

Keywords: beam machining, Rotary ultrasonic machining, Abrasive water jet
machining
dM ev
iew
On
ly
pte
ce
Ac
https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/fcs-kscm
Page 1 of 42 Functional Composites and Structures
1
2
3
4
5 Research trends and future perspective in nonconventional
6
7 machining of fiber-reinforced polymers: A review
8
pt
9 Wonvin Kim, Su Hyun Lim, Dajeong Kang, Sangyoon Bae, Seung Yoon On, Seong Su Kim †
10
11 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
12
13
(KAIST), 291 Daehak-ro, Youseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
†Corresponding author:
52
53 Seong Su Kim
54
55
Tel: +82 42 350 3018
56 Fax: +82 42 350 5018
Ac
57
58 E-mail address: seongsukim@kaist.ac.kr
59
60
Functional Composites and Structures Page 2 of 42
1
2
3
4
Abstract
5
6
7
This paper reports a comprehensive overview of nonconventional machining (NCM) of
8
pt
9
10 fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), which are widely used in high-tech industries owing to their
11
12 superior mechanical properties compared with conventional metallic materials. To achieve FRP
13
cri
14 applications, hole processing for bolting and milling is required to match the dimensional
15
16
17 precision. However, the large cutting force induced in conventional machining (CM), such as
18
19 drilling and milling, causes severe failures, such as delamination and thermal damage to FRPs.
20
us
21 To replace CM, various NCM technologies with efficient and powerful processing have been
Fo
22
23
24
introduced to reduce FRP damage during machining. However, the complex nature of FRPs
rR
25
26 makes it difficult to identify the material removal mechanism and predict the machining quality
27
28
an
ev
and degradation of material properties. Not only the quantification of the machining parameter
29
30
and performance but also an analysis to determine their relation is necessary. However, unlike
31
iew
32
dM
33 many previous CM reviews, there are only a few reviews on NCM for FRPs. This paper
34
35 addresses three types of representative NCMs: laser beam machining, rotary ultrasonic
36
On
37 machining, and abrasive water jet machining. Each NCM is classified and systematically
38
39
40 reviewed using a parametric study, mechanistic model, and numerical simulation. In addition,
ly
41
42 further studies on the NCM of FRPs are suggested.
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
1. Introduction
5
6
7
8 Composite materials have been widely applied in fields such as aerospace, automotive,
pt
9
10 and shipbuilding [1-3]. In contrast to conventional isotropic materials, composite materials,
11
12 which are composed of two or more materials, exhibit distinct material properties, such as light
13
cri
14
15 weight, high damping, high specific strength, and favorable tribological behavior [4-7]. Fiber-
16
17 reinforced polymers (FRPs) exhibit high strength by distributing the load into fiber
18
19 reinforcements that have high tensile strength and stiffness [8, 9]. To assemble an FRP part
20
us
21
Fo
22
with other parts, machining processes such as drilling and milling are usually conducted to
23
24 create holes or fit the exact dimension after curing. During machining, critical failures, such as
rR
25
26 material degradation, occur frequently, which limits the FRP applications. Because many
27
28
an
ev
failure modes with complex machining mechanisms exist in FRPs compared with isotropic
29
30
31 materials, a model that describes the machining phenomenon of FRPs is in high demand [10-
iew
32
dM
33 12]. For instance, delamination, which is one of the most significant failures, can be caused by
34
35 combining shear obtained from the rotation of the machining tool, cutting force in the through-
36
On
37
38 thickness direction, and thermal residual stress [13-15].
39
40
ly
41 For conventional machining (CM) methods, several studies on the relation between
42
43
pte
machining parameters and quality, such as cutting force and surface roughness, have been
44
45
46
conducted under isothermal conditions using various analytical techniques [16-18]. In addition,
47
48 the thermal effect has been considered to analyze the degradation of mechanical properties
49
50 owing to the low thermal conductivity of polymers [19, 20] . Besides parametric studies,
51
ce
52
mechanistic models that reflect the machining phenomenon have been suggested and
53
54
55 developed for three-dimensional finite-element (FE) models, including material removal [19,
56
Ac
57 21, 22]. However, the essential problems, such as delamination caused by the high cutting force
58
59 and reduction in laminate thickness, high temperature due to the large difference in thermal
60
1
2
3
4
properties of constituents, and excessive wear on the tool still exist, which lead to significant
5
6
7 material degradation [23-27].
8
pt
9
10 To overcome the essential problems of CM in FRPs, nonconventional machining (NCM)
11
12
13
methods, such as laser beam machining (LBM), rotary ultrasonic machining (RUM), and
cri
14
15 abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining, have been developed. Singh et al. reviewed the
16
17 experimental results of RUM by introducing the effects of different variables on the machining
18
19
quality [28]. Wang et al. conducted a review on the damage induced on hard and brittle
20
us
21
Fo
22 materials in RUM [29]. With the development of material removal mechanisms and cutting
23
24 force models, damage formation and suppression were analyzed to easily access the machining
rR
25
26
27
28
an
phenomenon. Vigneshwaran et al. reviewed AWJ machining with a focus on machining
ev
29 parameters, such as kerf and surface roughness [30]. The effects of these parameters on the
30
31 performance have been analyzed through numerous experimental studies. For example, Thakur
iew
32
dM
33 et al. performed a state-of-the-art review on the machining of FRPs with AWJ machining [31].
34
35
36
Starting from the mechanism of machining to optimization, an extensive literature survey has
On
37
38 been systematically conducted. Although the reviews of individual NCM methods have already
39
40 been conducted, they are not specified for FRPs or it is difficult to obtain an insight into
ly
41
42
selecting the appropriate NCM methods for FRPs.
43
pte
44
45
46 A few reviews have included both CM and NCM. For example, Caggiano reviewed the
47
48 machining of FRPs using both CM and NCM methods [32]. Several recent studies have
49
50
introduced the key parameters and their influence on the machining performance. In addition,
51
ce
52
53 various methods for analyzing the present problems are briefly explained. By significantly
54
55 lowering the cutting force compared to CM at the same removal rate, they concluded that RUM
56
Ac
57 can be applied to FRP machining. Kumar et al. reviewed the machining of CFRPs and GFRPs,
58
59
60 especially for drilling [33]. The effects of tool materials and geometry were analyzed to
1
2
3
4
improve the quality of the surface finish. For the NCM methods, each machining method was
5
6
7 briefly reviewed both experimentally and analytically. Among the NCM methods, AWJ
8
pt
9 machining was investigated in detail. Using the same materials, Karatas et al. reviewed the
10
11 machinability of both CM and NCM [34]. The effects of the machining variables on the quality
12
13
were investigated experimentally, and the relations among different parameters were analyzed
cri
14
15
16 using several analytical techniques. Owing to the increasing popularity of eco-friendly
17
18 materials, Rajmohan et al. analyzed the machining of natural fiber-reinforced composites [35].
19
20
us
21
The effects of machining parameters on the machining performance were investigated for both
Fo
22
23 CM and NCM methods. Furthermore, several optimization techniques were used to obtain high
24
rR
25 machining quality. In contrast, various NCM methods were introduced briefly, not
26
27
28
an
systematically. Antecedent reviews for the NCM methods are sufficient to notice the
ev
29
30 application of new technologies in FRP machining; however, it is difficult to systematically
31
iew
32 obtain information about each method, such as the effects of machining parameters on
dM
33
34 machining quality.
35
36
On
37
38 In this study, NCM methods, including LBM, RUM, and AWJ machining for FRPs, are
39
40 introduced systematically. Motivated by the analysis of the CM method, each method is
ly
41
42
categorized into three steps: 1) parametric studies for the process variables by introducing
43
pte
44
45 various optimization methods; 2) mechanistic models to predict significant factors derived
46
47 from the physics of the machining mechanism, such as the cutting force and temperature
48
49 gradient; and 3) a numerical simulation to describe the machining phenomenon. Finally,
50
51
ce
52 directions for further studies for each NCM are suggested.

53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
2. Laser beam machining
5
6
7
8 LBM is an effective advanced machining method for FRPs owing to its noncontact
pt
9
10 process, high speed, ease of automation, and accuracy [36-40]. The laser beam removes the
11
12 material by melting and vaporizing the workpiece with a high heat flux, as shown in Fig. 1 [40,
13
cri
14
15 41]. However, this thermal process incurs problems such as material degradation and low
16
17 dimensional accuracy near the machined surface [42-44]. To analyze the machining
18
19 performance, these problems are quantified by the heat-affected zone (HAZ), kerf width, and
20
us
21
Fo
22
taper angle, as shown in Fig. 2 [39].
23
24
rR
25 Many experimental studies have been conducted to minimize HAZ, kerf width, and taper
26
27
28
an
angle by varying the LBM process parameters on composites with different fiber types and
ev
29
stacking sequences through various optimization techniques. In addition, many analytical
30
31
iew
32 models have been proposed to describe the machining phenomenon. In this section, the LBM
dM
33
34 of FRPs is reviewed through experimental and analytical studies. In addition, a numerical
35
36 analysis is conducted to predict the mechanical damage and material removal rate on the
On
37
38
39 workpiece.
40
ly
41
42 2.1 Parametric study
43
pte
44
45 As mentioned above, the machining quality in LBM is quantified by the HAZ, kerf width,
46
47
48
and taper angle. HAZ is a portion that has suffered from the degradation of mechanical
49
50 properties because of being exposed to high temperatures and the kerf taper angle determines
51
ce
52 the dimensional accuracy of the products. Compared to dimensional accuracy, the degradation
53
54
of the mechanical properties is more critical owing to the different thermal properties of the
55
56
Ac
57 constituents; therefore, HAZ has been actively studied.

58
59
60 Depending on the type of machining, HAZ can be quantified using different methods. For
1
2
3
4
drilling, Yung et al. defined 𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒 , a parameter of HAZ, as follows:
5
6
7
8 𝐴𝐴1 + 𝐴𝐴2
𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒 = (1)
pt
9 𝐿𝐿1 + 𝐿𝐿2
10
11
12
13 where 𝐴𝐴 is the total section area of HAZ and 𝐿𝐿 is the length of the profile of the section hole,
cri
14
15 as shown in Fig. 3 [45]. Davim et al. defined the method of quantifying HAZ in cutting, as
16
17 shown in Eq. (2) [46]:
18
19
20
us
21
𝑍𝑍1 + 𝑍𝑍2 +𝑍𝑍3
Fo
22 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 =
23 3 (2)
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
where Z is the distance from the cut region to the end of HAZ at certain points [45]. Li et al.
ev
29 suggested a new approach to characterize the thermal damage in FRPs by conducting a bearing
30
31
iew
32 fracture test [47]. The length of the fractured fiber can be regarded as HAZ because the load
dM
33
34 transfer is insufficient owing to the degradation of the matrix.
35
36
On
37 Studies on the relation between the machining parameters and quality have been
38
39
40
conducted, in addition to the quantification of the machining quality. Caprino et al.
ly
41
42 experimented with the LBM of FRPs by varying the reinforcements, power, and speed, and
43
pte
44 concluded that a high speed yields better quality under an appropriate power condition [37].
45
46
Similarly, Li et al. argued that high speed is recommended because it prevents heat
47
48
49 accumulation due to the short machining time [47]. In terms of power, Yung et al. and Bluemel
50
51
ce
et al. indicated that a low laser power is necessary to prevent HAZ growth because of the
52
53 reduction in the accumulation of heat per time unit [45, 48]. Therefore, low laser power and
54
55
56 high speed are generally recommended for high machining quality. In contrast, Herzog et al.
Ac
57
58 demonstrated the applicability of ultra-high power with high speed to machining CFRPs [49].
59
60 To avoid excessive heat during machining, a multipass strategy was adopted; however, some
1
2
3
4
fissures and chipping were still observed. Nevertheless, these experiments have shown
5
6
7 potential to reduce thermal damage caused to materials even with FRP machining using a high-
8
pt
9 power CW laser system.
10
11
12 Other parameters, such as laser impulse, auxiliary gas, and cutting directions, have also
13
cri
14
15 been investigated. Riveiro et al. showed that HAZ and kerf width are mainly affected by the
16
17 duty cycle in a pulsed laser, and that the taper angle exhibits linear relations with duty cycle,
18
19 frequency, and pulse energy [39]. Raza et al. also showed that a lower duty cycle provides the
20
us
21
Fo
22
time for cooling, and thus, can prevent heat accumulation [50]. Additionally, Pan et al.
23
24 confirmed that the use of a cold nitrogen jet can effectively reduce HAZ by simultaneously
rR
25
26 cooling the machining temperature [51]. Furthermore, Riveiro et al. experimentally
27
28
an
ev
investigated the effect of auxiliary gas pressure and the shape of the auxiliary gas outlet on the
29
30
31 cuff width, taper angle, and HAZ in the pulsed mode [39]. The cutting direction is also an LBM
iew
32
dM
33 parameter. Pan et al. investigated the growth pattern of HAZ with respect to the fiber orientation
34
35 [51]. Machining along the fiber direction was recommended to minimize HAZ growth, because
36
On
37
38 of the removal of the degraded fiber. Li et al. analyzed the effect of cutting direction on the
39
40 laminates [47]. The edge of cutting was observed for two relative cutting directions, 0∘ /90∘
ly
41
42 and 45∘ /45∘ , where 45∘ /45∘ showed a better edge of cutting based on different heat
43
pte
44
45 conduction paths within the machining area.
46
47
48 Besides having established the relation between the parameters and quality, the LBM
49
50 process has been optimized using various techniques. Rao et al. performed process parameter
51
ce
52
53
optimization using the response surface methodology (RSM) and central composite design
54
55 (CCD) based on the results of numerous CFRP cutting experiments conducted using a fiber
56
Ac
57 laser [52]. Riveiro et al. performed laser parameter optimization by using a gray relation-based
58
59
genetic algorithm for the experiments performed using a pulsed Nd:YAG laser for basalt fiber
60
1
2
3
4
reinforced polymer cutting [39]. Tewari et al. optimized the power and speed to minimize the
5
6
7 kerf taper angle for kenaf/high-density polyethylene composites in laser drilling [53]. CCD was
8
pt
9 used to plan the experiments, and a regression model was developed for statistical testing to
10
11 ensure the adequacy of the prediction. Finally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was
12
13
conducted on each experimental result.
cri
14
15
16
17 2.2 Mechanistic model
18
19
20 To implement the LBM process with numerical analysis, mechanistic models that can
us
21
Fo
22
23
describe the LBM mechanism are required. Although several studies have been conducted on
24
rR
25 the mechanical and thermal aspects, there is still no mechanistic model available that can
26
27
28
an
accurately reflect the LBM process phenomenon. In mechanistic modeling, the temperature
ev
29
gradient in workpieces and the following thermal residual stresses are derived based on
30
31
iew
32 thermodynamics and solid mechanics. These mechanistic models provide the basic physics of
dM
33
34 material removal and the resultant defects in LBM.
35
36
On
37 2.2.1 Thermal analysis

38
39
40
Material removal assumes that a material is completely decomposed if the weight loss is
ly
41
42
43 higher than 96% with increasing temperature [54, 55]. The weight losses were determined
pte
44
45 experimentally using thermogravimetric analysis. The complexity of the analysis originates
46
47
48
from the high mismatch of thermal conductivity between the fibers and matrix, which affects
49
50 the temperature distribution in a workpiece depending on the LBM conditions and material
51
ce
52 stacking sequence. Moreover, the heat capacities and decomposition temperatures of the
53
54
constituents are different. Consequently, differences in the thermal properties of constituents
55
56
Ac
57 degrade the mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy.

58
59
60
1
2
3
4
Therefore, the thermal analysis aims to develop a temperature distribution of the
5
6
7 workpiece under laser irradiation. Negarestani et al. used the governing equations of the
8
pt
9 transient thermal problem to obtain the temperature gradient in workpieces [54]. Using these
10
11 heat equations, not only the HAZ dimensions but also the surface quality, such as fiber pull-
12
13
out, could be predicted, because the model was considered heterogeneous. Furthermore, the
cri
14
15
16 temperature-dependent anisotropic thermal conductivity was used to simulate a more realistic
17
18 CFRP model. This is because the thermal conductivity of CFRP decreases with less phonon–
19
20
us
21
phonon scattering path in the carbon fibers as the temperature increases. Numerous studies
Fo
22
23 have adopted this approach by considering LBM as a heat conduction problem.
24
rR
25
26 Some studies have modified the heat equation to consider the effect of laser beam shape
27
28
an
ev
on heat distribution. Caprino et al. formulated a simplified rectangular-Gaussian distribution to

29
30
31 predict the laser beam power distribution in the direction of material thickness [56]. By
iew
32
dM
33 combining the heat equation with Gaussian distribution, kerf can be predicted by calculating
34
35 the width of the laser beam’s entry and exit. Furthermore, the heat distribution can be calculated
36
On
37
38 not only in the in-plane direction but also in the thickness direction. Tamrin et al. modeled the
39
40 heat source using Gaussian temporal and spatial profiles to describe a more realistic laser beam
ly
41
42 shape to predict the kerf width and heat distribution [57].
43
pte
44
45
46
Additionally, the thermal conductivities with respect to the FRP orientation were
47
48 considered. For simplicity, Li et al. scaled down the model on a one-dimensional problem by
49
50 assuming that heat conduction is always perpendicular to the laser beam path [58]. However,
51
ce
52
simulating complex cases, such as LBM on woven fabric or composites with complicated
53
54
55 stacking sequences, is still difficult. To simulate composites with significantly anisotropic
56
Ac
57 thermal properties, the thermal conductivities in all directions should be derived in case of
58
59 machining in a non-principal direction. Pan et al. evaluated the general anisotropic thermal
60
1
2
3
4
conductivities from the principal thermal conductivities for unidirectional FRP by using the
5
6
7 eigenvalue method and isotherm method [55]. In the eigenvalue method for calculating the
8
pt
9 principal thermal conductivities, the workpiece was assumed to be symmetric in the normal
10
11 direction of the composite lamina. In the isotherm method for deriving the general anisotropic
12
13
thermal conductivities from the principal thermal conductivities, HAZ was assumed to be
cri
14
15
16 elliptic and the ratio of the ellipse radii was equal to the square root of the ratio of the thermal
17
18 conductivity in the radial direction.
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
2.2.2 Stress analysis
23
24
rR
25 During the LBM process, the degradation of mechanical properties from interlaminar
26
27
28
an
damage, such as delamination and cracking, can also occur due to thermal residual stress [59,
ev
29
60]. Liu et al. calculated the thermal stress induced by the temperature gradient to predict where
30
31
iew
32 the interlaminar damage likely occurs during laser beam irradiation [59]. Similarly, Tamrin et
dM
33
34 al. developed a model that evaluates the variation in the elastic modulus and ultimate strength
35
36 caused by thermal expansion and contraction under laser irradiation, to calculate the thermal
On
37
38
39 residual stress [57]. Moreover, a connectivity matrix to develop the stress domain from the
40
ly
41 thermal domain was constructed to reduce the calculation time and error when the numerical
42
43
pte
simulation was conducted later. In addition, temperature-dependent Hashin failure criteria were
44
45
46
formulated to obtain material removal with respect to strength loss at the ablation temperatures.
47
48
49 2.3 Numerical simulation
50
51
ce
52 In the numerical simulation, material removal and damage caused on the material were
53
54
predicted using the temperature distribution from the thermal analysis and stress distribution
55
56
Ac
57 obtained from the stress analysis, respectively. In addition, the correlations between the
58
59 machining performance and LBM conditions were explained.
60
1
2
3
4
Moghadasi et al. developed an uncoupled thermomechanical FE model to simulate LBM
5
6
7 on a carbon/Kevlar hybrid composite, as shown in Fig. 4 [61]. The numerical results for the
8
pt
9 HAZ and kerf width with respect to the fiber orientation and thermal conductivity agreed well
10
11 with the experimental results, although a discontinuity existed in the temperature owing to the
12
13
different thermal conductivities of the fibers. Tamrin et al. also conducted an uncoupled
cri
14
15
16 thermo-mechanical FE model similar to the previous model for natural FRPs [57]. This model
17
18 also showed suitable agreement with the experimental results, with an error of 9.1%. However,
19
20
us
21
none of the studies simulated the mechanical damages, such as delamination and cracking, but
Fo
22
23 only left the possibility that property degradation can accelerate the damage initiation.
24
rR
25
26 Interlaminar cracking is a major type of mechanical damage caused by rapid temperature
27
28
an
ev
changes in LBM. Liu et al. investigated the interlaminar damage of CFRP laminates under
29
30
31 continuous-wave laser irradiation [59]. The technique for controlling the degrees of freedom
iew
32
dM
33 (DOFs) was utilized to simulate cracking by decoupling the precoupled DOFs of the nodes at
34
35 the interface in the laminate when the stress states satisfied the fracture criterion. The results
36
On
37
38 showed that the maximum normal stress and shear stress occurred at the interfaces between the
39
40 plies immediately after the laser beam was removed. Therefore, large interlaminar cracks
ly
41
42 appeared on the machined surface where the laser beam was already irradiated.
43
pte
44
45
46
Negarestani et al. developed a realistic three-dimensional FE model to observe the
47
48 variation in the fiber pull-out and ablation depth with the scanning speed [54]. A heterogeneous
49
50 fiber-matrix mesh was created to analyze the fiber pull-out caused by the difference in heat
51
ce
52
conductivities and deposition temperatures, as shown in Fig. 5. The results showed that both
53
54
55 fiber pull-out and ablation depth decreased as the scanning speed increased, owing to the
56
Ac
57 reduction in the interacting time. Although the tendencies of the change in fiber pull-out and
58
59 ablation depth agreed well with the experimental results, the deviations between the two results
60
1
2
3
4
of fiber pull-out were significant at a low scanning speed. This is attributable to the fact that
5
6
7 some factors, such as beam scattering inside the cut surface and vapor formation, were assumed
8
pt
9 to be negligible.
10
11
12 Li et al. developed thermal models to determine the influence of stacking sequences on
13
cri
14
15 HAZ size [58]. There were three types of configurations: +45/-45, 0/90, and plain woven with
16
17 respect to the laser beam irradiation line. For simplicity, heat conduction was assumed to be
18
19 unidirectional and perpendicular to the cutting direction. The simulation results showed that
20
us
21
Fo
22
the HAZ of the composite with 0/90 configuration was larger than that with +45/-45
23
24 configuration. This result reflects the relation between the HAZ and cutting direction with
rR
25
26 respect to the composite stacking sequences because the heat conduction in the fiber direction
27
28
an
ev
is much larger than that in the matrix.

29
30
31
iew
32 Unlike the parametric studies, only a few studies have been conducted on the numerical
dM
33
34 simulations of other parameters such as auxiliary gas temperature, pressure, and laser pulse
35
36 mode. Moreover, the prediction of HAZ with complicated configurations, such as plain-woven
On
37
38
39 composites, remains challenging. Therefore, to understand and determine the real LBM
40
ly
41 mechanisms, more detailed parameters should be included in the numerical simulation.

42
43
pte
44 3. Rotary ultrasonic machining

45
46
47
48
Ultrasonic machining (UM) is an NCM with a low material removal rate; however, it can
49
50 machine all materials, including brittle and nonconductive materials [62-66]. The vibration
51
ce
52 with a high frequency of cutting tools causes the abrasive particles in the slurry to impact the
53
54
workpiece, inducing machining by microchipping [67]. RUM, a combination of conventional
55
56
Ac
57 rotary machining and UM, can effectively improve the material removal rate compared to the
58
59 conventional ones because of the additional material removal mode, as shown in Fig. 6 [68].
60
1
2
3
4
This mode lowers the cutting force at the same material removal rate, and thus, is highly
5
6
7 applicable to the machining of FRPs, including both brittle and ductile materials, to prevent
8
pt
9 delamination.
10
11
12 Recently, RUM has been extensively studied, from parametric studies to the application of
13
cri
14
15 new technologies such as elliptical RUM. In this section, the effects of input variables, such as
16
17 the feed rate, spindle speed, depth of cut, amplitude, frequency, coolant pressure, ultrasonic
18
19 power, and grit size, on the machining performance, including the delamination and surface
20
us
21
Fo
22
quality, are analyzed as shown in Fig. 7 [28, 69]. First, parametric studies are introduced with
23
24 various models to explain the relation between the process parameters. Then, an analytical
rR
25
26 model is used to investigate the fracture mechanics with the equivalent mechanical properties
27
28
an
ev
of the composite. Finally, a numerical analysis is conducted to explain the formation of edge
29
30
31 chipping and the phenomenon of delamination during machining.
iew
32
dM
33
34 3.1 Parametric study
35
36
On
37 In RUM, only a few parametric studies have been conducting on FRP machining. Instead,
38
39
40 many mechanistic approaches for predicting parameters such as material removal rate (MRR)
ly
41
42 and cutting force have been studied and verified experimentally. Even though the mechanistic
43
pte
44 model predicts a certain parameter exactly, it is still difficult to predict other parameters that
45
46
47
are difficult to quantify, such as surface morphologies. In this section, the parametric studies
48
49 conducted for ceramic materials and a few FRPs are introduced with various methods to
50
51
ce
motivate further studies on FRP machining.

52
53
54
Hu et al. studied the interaction between the input variables and MRR with a five-factor two-
55
56
Ac
57 level factorial design and concluded that cutting force had the most significant effect on MRR
58
59 [70]. Li et al. also used a three-variable two-level full factorial design to obtain the two-factor
60
1
2
3
4
interaction of feed rate, spindle speed, and ultrasonic vibration and showed that the cutting
5
6
7 force was reduced effectively and was significantly affected by the feed rate [71]. In addition,
8
pt
9 the hole quality was highly dependent on the spindle and feed rate. Ning et al. analyzed the
10
11 effects of process variables on the cutting force through a five-variable two-level full factorial
12
13
design by using a mechanistic model for CFRPs [72]. The feed rate was the most significant
cri
14
15
16 input variable, and the combination of vibration amplitude and abrasive concentration showed
17
18 the lowest interaction.
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
In addition, other methods have also been proposed to determine the relation between the
23
24 input parameters and machining performance. A data-dependent system that identifies the
rR
25
26 differential/difference model with or without conjecturing the corresponding form was
27
28
an
ev
proposed by Wu et al. [73]. The relation between the wavelength to feed rate and the grain size
29
30
31 of the workpiece material was evaluated by the data-dependent system wavelength
iew
32
dM
33 decomposition. Abdo et al. used the Taguchi optimization methodology to determine the
34
35 relation between the cutting force and MRR with different factors [74]. Recently, to minimize
36
On
37
38 surface roughness and edge chipping, Abdo et al. used a multiobjective genetic algorithm [75].
39
40 The model yielded low levels of feed rate, cutting speed, and depth of cut, and high levels of
ly
41
42 amplitude and frequency were recommended as the optimal conditions.
43
pte
44
45
46
3.2 Mechanistic model
47
48
49 In the mechanistic model, the MRR and cutting force were derived analytically in terms of
50
51
ce
the fracture mechanics. In particular, the cutting force is highly related to FRP delamination
52
53
[76]; therefore, a mechanistic model to predict the cutting force with high accuracy is required.
54
55
56 In this section, two types of machining, drilling and grinding, are modeled based on the
Ac
57
58 different directions of the cutting force.
59
60
1
2
3
4
3.2.1 Drilling
5
6
7
8 Pei et al. proposed a mechanistic model to predict the MRR for a brittle material [66]. By
pt
9
10 estimating the indentation depth and cutting force while tracking the path of abrasive particles,
11
12 MRR was formulated assuming that the removal volume was identical to the indented volume.
13
cri
14
15 However, the actual removal volume must be larger than the indented volume owing to the
16
17 crack formation. Liu et al. modified the removal volume by considering the crack formation
18
19 induced by the indentation of the abrasive particles, as shown in Fig. 8 [77]. The crack length
20
us
21
Fo
22
was calculated by comparing the stress intensity factor induced by the contact force with the
23
24 fracture toughness of the workpiece. Cong et al. applied the same approach to CFRPs to predict
rR
25
26 MRR [78]. In this model, the equivalent homogeneous mechanical properties were used to
27
28
an
ev
estimate the indentation depth and the equivalent fracture toughness with respect to the
29
30
31 orientation was derived to calculate the removal volume by using the rule of the mixture. As a
iew
32
dM
33 result, the MRR predicted by the model was highly comparable to the that evaluated
34
35 experimentally.
36
On
37
38
39 Although the proposed mechanistic model predicted the MRR and cutting force with high
40
ly
41 accuracy, the fracture volume factor, which is the ratio of the theoretical volume and actual
42
43
pte
fractured volume of a material, should be obtained experimentally. This is attributed to the

44
45
46
difficulties in accurately predicting the crack length and the assumption that all abrasive
47
48 particles participated in machining. The equivalent fracture toughness based on
49
50 micromechanics was used in FRP as an isotropic material, such as ceramic. In this case, both
51
ce
52
the retardation of the crack propagation by fibers (Fig. 9) and the variation in the fracture
53
54
55 toughness with respect to the interface ply orientation and delamination growth direction
56
Ac
57 cannot be considered in the present model [79, 80]. Therefore, the fractured volume formed by
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
indentation may be unmatched in a real situation. In the future, estimating the fractured zone
5
6
7 for FRPs is required.
8
pt
9
10 3.2.2 Grinding
11
12
13 Liu et al. developed a mechanistic model for the MRR and grinding force in the feeding
cri
14
15
16 direction of CFRPs on rotary ultrasonic face grinding [81]. First, the motion of the abrasive
17
18 particles was analyzed to quantify the fractured region. Then, the MRR and cutting force were
19
20 derived based on the micromechanics of the composite and fracture mechanics. Ning et al.
us
21
Fo
22
23
constructed a mechanistic model using the same procedure [82]. The difference lied in the
24
rR
25 procedure used to derive the crack length induced by the indentation. Ning et al. obtained the
26
27
28
an
lateral crack depth related to the indentation depth, whereas Liu et al. expressed the cutting
ev
29
force with the indentation depth and hardness of the workpiece. In addition, the model was
30
31
iew
32 validated experimentally, and it was determined that the model fitted well with the
dM
33
34 experimental results. However, the exact fracture volume was not evaluated analytically.
35
36
On
37 Recently, rotary ultrasonic machining with elliptical ultrasonic machining has been proven
38
39
40 effective in terms of surface quality and reduction of the cutting force [83]. Cong et al. added
ly
41
42 the horizontal ultrasonic vibration of the tool to a previous study to implement elliptical
43
pte
44 ultrasonic machining [84]. First, the effective trajectory length of abrasive particles and the
45
46
47
cutting time during the grain–workpiece interaction were modified based on the material
48
49 removal rate. Then, the effect of the amplitude of horizontal vibration on the cutting force was
50
51
ce
identified by analyzing the indentation depth and contact time. Finally, an experiment was
52
53
conducted to verify the model, which showed a suitable prediction of the cutting forces under
54
55
56 different conditions.
Ac
57
58
59 3.3 Numerical simulation
60
1
2
3
4
Although the mechanistic model predicts the cutting force and MRR with high accuracy, it
5
6
7 is difficult to determine the relation between the machining parameters and mechanical
8
pt
9 damages. This section introduces numerical models by using the FE method to identify failures
10
11 in the workpiece. Similar to the parametric studies, the numerical model for the ceramic
12
13
material was first introduced, followed by the model for FRPs, especially CFRPs.
cri
14
15
16
17 To analyze the formation of edge chipping in ceramics, Zhichao et al. modeled a ceramic
18
19 workpiece with finite elements [85]. The cutting force varied linearly in the filet zone, as shown
20
us
21
Fo
22
in Eq. (3),
23
24
rR
25
26 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙
⎧ 𝑥𝑥 − ≤ 𝑥𝑥 ≤ − + 𝑟𝑟
27
28
an
⎪14.8 �1 + 𝑟𝑟 � , 2
𝑙𝑙
2
𝑙𝑙
ev
29 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 7.4, − ≤ 𝑥𝑥 ≤ − + 𝑟𝑟 (3)

30 ⎨ 𝑥𝑥 2 2
31 ⎪14.8 �1 − � , 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙
𝑟𝑟 − 𝑟𝑟 ≤ 𝑥𝑥 ≤
iew
32 ⎩ 2 2
dM
33
34
35
36 where r is the fillet radius and l is the width of the flat portion of the cutting zone. The results
On
37
38
showed that critical stress concentration occurred in the filet zone. The shape of the edge
39
40
ly
41 chipping was predicted to well-match with the stress contour. However, the exact contour could
42
43
pte
not be obtained because the stresses were a function of the filet radius.
44
45
46 Unlike homogeneous ceramic materials, the dominant failure mode for FRPs is delamination.
47
48
49 Cong et al. conducted an FE analysis to determine the delamination in the RUM of CFRPs,
50
51
ce
especially push-out delamination [86]. The workpiece was modeled with stacks of orthotropic
52
53 lamina, and cohesive elements were used at their interface, where the delamination was
54
55
56
dominant. Under the static cutting force based on preliminary experiments, delamination
Ac
57
58 procedures were performed. The simulation results were divided into four steps with respect to
59
60 the separation between the adjacent layers of the cohesive elements, and each step agreed with
1
2
3
4
the experimental results. Moreover, the relation between the delamination thickness and cutting
5
6
7 forces was derived, and a larger cutting force was found to result in a large delamination
8
pt
9 thickness owing to an increase in bending stiffness. When comparing the numerical results
10
11 with the experimental results, a larger cutting force was obtained at a certain delamination
12
13
thickness. There are two possible reasons for this finding. First, the properties of cohesive
cri
14
15
16 elements are not accurate. Second, in reality, delamination can occur from the combination of
17
18 sliding, tearing, and opening failure modes, even though the opening mode is dominant.
19
20
us
21
Another reason can be the underestimation of the stress exerted on the cohesive element. In the
Fo
22
23 numerical analysis, the cohesive elements were located between two flat surfaces; however,
24
rR
25 the delamination occurred at the fiber–matrix interface, and thus, the stress concentration due
26
27
28
an
to the interface geometry should be reflected. Then, a lower force is sufficient to initiate
ev
29
30 delamination at the interface. Thus, it is reasonable to observe the delamination area from the
31
iew
32 experiment as shown in Fig. 10 [87]. The boundary of the delamination fluctuated because of
dM
33
34 the uneven stress field induced at the interface. Therefore, a microscale modeling that has two
35
36
phases, fibers and matrix, is recommended for further studies.
On
37
38
39
40 4. Abrasive water jet machining
ly
41
42 Waterjet (WJ) is another representative NCM method that uses pressurized water and has
43
pte
44
45
advantages such as cold cutting without contact between the tool and workpiece, eco-friendly
46
47 process, high precision, and low material loss [88, 89]. AWJ machining is a type of WJ
48
49 specialized in the cutting, drilling, and milling of brittle materials. Unlike pure WJ, which is
50
51
ce
usually applied to ductile materials, AWJ machining is appropriate for brittle materials because
52
53
54 of an additional erosion effect induced by mixing dry or wet abrasives with pressurized water
55
56 and colliding abrasive particles on the workpiece at high speed, as shown in Fig. 11 [90]. The
Ac
57
58 microcutting of a workpiece by abrasive particles is a fundamental event in the material
59
60
1
2
3
4
removal mechanism of AWJ machining. Therefore, AWJ, which can process more powerfully
5
6
7 and rapidly, is suitable for brittle materials, such as ceramics, metals, and composites [91-93].
8
pt
9 In particular, machining CFRPs using AWJ is an active research field in high-tech industries,
10
11 such as aerospace and automobiles [94]. Although AWJ has many advantages, delamination,
12
13
surface roughness, and kerf taper after FRP machining remains challenging [95-97]. The nature
cri
14
15
16 of composites, which have inhomogeneous properties and weak interfaces, increases the
17
18 complexity of the analysis [69, 92]. Therefore, researchers have focused on the reduction and
19
20
us
21
prediction of FRP damage caused by AWJ.
Fo
22
23 In this chapter, studies on AWJ machining of FRPs are classified with respect to their
24
rR
25 methodology in terms of experimental and theoretical aspects. First, various process parameters
26
27
28
an
and optimization methods are introduced in a parametric study, and then, their influence on the
ev
29
30 machining performance is examined. Next, analytical studies that have established and verified
31
iew
32 a mechanistic model focusing on the energy approach are reviewed. Finally, a numerical
dM
33
34 analysis for predicting delamination and the AWJ machining mechanism is conducted.
35
36
4.1 Parametric study
On
37
38
39 Parametric studies based on experiments have taken the mainstream of conventional research
40
ly
41 because of the various machining parameters and insufficient understanding of the AWJ
42
43
pte
44
machining mechanism of inhomogeneous FRPs. As shown in Fig. 7, the AWJ process
45
46 parameters are classified as follows: hydraulic, abrasive, mixing, and cutting parameters.
47
48 Among these, the jet pressure, transverse rate, abrasive type and size, and standoff distance are
49
50
considered as representative process parameters [98]. The machining quality varies according
51
ce
52
53 to the combination of the process parameters and can be evaluated from the surface roughness
54
55 (SR), taper geometry, and MRR [69].
56
Ac
57 Unlike cutting, AWJ drilling and milling have rarely been studied [93, 94, 99-101].
58
59
60 However, because hole creation and secondary machining for assembly and exact dimensions
1
2
3
4
primarily occur in the range of applications with FRPs, other types of machining should be
5
6
7 analyzed as much as cutting. For this purpose, the methodology of parametric study for AWJ
8
pt
9 cutting can be applied as it is and the process parameters, such as hole diameter and milling
10
11 depth, can be added or excluded according to the machining type [102]. In addition, various
12
13
methodologies have been used to optimize the process parameter levels, of which the Taguchi
cri
14
15
16 method and ANOVA are the most commonly used [102-104]. RSM is another approach for
17
18 obtaining a multiple linear regression model [105]. Recently, artificial intelligence technology
19
20
us
21
has been applied as a statistical technique [106, 107].
Fo
22
23 The effect of process parameters on the mechanical properties of the composites after
24
rR
25 machining is also of interest. Initially, SR was considered the dominant factor in the mechanical
26
27
28
an
properties of FRPs, which was adopted from the studies conducted using the AWJ of brittle
ev
29
30 materials such as ceramic [108-110]. However, Ramulu et al. and Ghidossi et al., respectively,
31
iew
32 reported that the compressive strength of graphite/epoxy composite and tensile strength of
dM
33
34 GFRPs are not relevant to SR [111, 112]. A mismatch between the SR and mechanical
35
36
properties is not a problem incurred by AWJ machining alone; other studies have also revealed
On
37
38
39 that the machining quality and mechanical performance of FRPs cannot be judged with SR
40
ly
41 [108, 113, 114].

42
43
pte
44
Recently, Hejjaji et al. claimed that the SR of AWJ-machined FRPs cannot represent the
45
46 machined quality, unlike conventional metal materials [94]. Instead, the crater in Fig. 12, which
47
48 is a representative form of damage occurring in the AWJ processing of FRPs, dominates the
49
50
mechanical properties of the workpiece. They conducted a tensile test on CFRP specimens
51
ce
52
53 processed by AWJ milling and confirmed that the smaller the total crater volume on the
54
55 machined surface, the higher are the tensile strength and stiffness. Hejjaji et al. highlighted the
56
Ac
57 importance of crater volume by studying the fatigue behavior of CFRPs milled using AWJ
58
59
60 [115]. Nguyen-Dinh et al. suggested that the crater volume and maximum depth of damage are
1
2
3
4
indicators of the mechanical properties of AWJ-trimmed CFRPs [116].
5
6
7 In summary, the parametric study of AWJ machining of composite materials focused on the
8
pt
9 correlation of machining quality according to the process parameters and the relation between
10
11 machining quality and mechanical properties of the workpiece. Owing to the diversity of the
12
13
process parameters and the complexity of composites, parametric studies are the easiest and
cri
14
15
16 most effective approach so far. However, this approach is only applicable to certain machining
17
18 conditions and materials and lacks extensibility. Therefore, big data technology, which can use
19
20
us
21
the contribution of each variable to the output parameters based on the database of dominant
Fo
22
23 process parameters and their levels for various composite materials and machining methods,
24
rR
25 holds promise for future study.

26
27
28
4.2 Mechanistic model
an
ev
29
30 Owing to the complexity of AWJ, mechanistic modeling has not been actively addressed and
31
iew
32 is limited to specific materials or processing conditions. Ho-Cheng conducted a feasibility

dM
33
34 study on WJ machining of FRPs based on fracture mechanics [117]. Subsequent studies have
35
36
also been conducted to construct a mechanistic model using an energy approach. However,
On
37
38
39 these are highly dependent on the empirical approach, and thus, there is no complete
40
ly
41 mechanistic model available yet. Nevertheless, the influence of each process parameter and
42
43
pte
44
material characteristic on the machining quality can be roughly understood using a mechanistic
45
46 model.
47
48 Ho-Cheng et al. studied the AWJ milling characteristics of CFRPs and obtained the relations
49
50
between significant process parameters and machining quality [100]. The volume removal rate,
51
ce
52
53 depth of cut, width of cut, and width-to-depth ratio were derived from a dimensional analysis
54
55 conducted using the Buckingham PI theorem. The predicted output values agreed well with the
56
Ac
57 experimental results. In addition, Wang et al. proposed a semi-empirical model for determining
58
59
60 the penetration depth required to prevent delamination that occurs when the penetration depth
1
2
3
4
is insufficient because of the low kinetic energy of the jet [118]. An energy approach was
5
6
7 applied, and an analytical model was compared with the AWJ cutting data of CFRP composites.
8
pt
9 Shanmugam et al. presented a mathematical model to measure the maximum delamination
10
11 length by using an energy approach, linear elastic fracture mechanics, and dimensional analysis
12
13
[95]. Thongkaew et al. predicted the maximum machining error of the hole diameter after AWJ
cri
14
15
16 hole drilling and hole cutting of CFRPs [119]. This study determined the programmed diameter
17
18 and selected an appropriate machining method according to the desired hole diameter. They
19
20
us
21
also dealt with the chipping mechanism on the AWJ-machined surface of CFRPs. The top
Fo
22
23 surface of the workpiece was subjected to hydraulic impact and had round corners and chips.
24
rR
25 In case of drilling, the laminate of the bottom surface was subjected to bending force; therefore,
26
27
28
an
chips were generated. Sourd et al. proposed two models of the depth of cut in AWJ milling of
ev
29
30 CFRPs by using pocket depth measurements and the algebraic sum of elementary passes [120].
31
iew
32 The results of all previously introduced studies tended to agree with the experimental data,
dM
33
34 which can significantly contribute to this research field. However, as they were semiempirical
35
36
models derived in terms of the selected process parameters, the physical properties and
On
37
38
39 reinforcement types of FRPs were not appropriately reflected. Several studies have included
40
ly
41 Young’s modulus in their formula; however, it shows a clear limitation in applying the
42
43
pte
44
mechanistic model to various composites. In the future, the dominant material characteristics
45
46 in machining need to be clarified and a database that can mathematically or empirically apply
47
48 the effect of the material characteristics to the mechanistic models should be established.
49
50
4.3 Numerical simulation
51
ce
52
53 Although the construction of the mechanistic model focuses on fitting the results of
54
55 machining and damage, the numerical model can describe the machining phenomenon as well.
56
Ac
57 Recently, computational simulations of coupled fluid-structure domains have been conducted

58
59
60 using computational fluid dynamics and the FE method.
1
2
3
4
Schwartzentruber et al. used a one-way fluid–structure interaction (FSI) model to simulate
5
6
7 AWJ cutting of CFRPs [121], where a cohesive element zone was applied in the structural
8
pt
9 domain to predict the workpiece delamination. They concluded that the delamination was
10
11 mainly attributed to the loading on the cutting front. This result was confirmed using a micro-
12
13
CT image of the crack ahead of the cutting front. This group further advanced the previous
cri
14
15
16 study to predict CFRP delamination in AWJ piercing by using a two-way FSI model, as shown
17
18 in Fig. 13 [122]. They described the delamination induced at the top surface by hydraulic shock.
19
20
us
21
Nyaboro et al. studied the AWJ drilling of CFRPs by using a two-way FSI model to investigate
Fo
22
23 the delamination mechanism and hole geometry [123]. A high jet velocity or jet power
24
rR
25 increased the debonding area caused by delamination. They also demonstrated the
26
27
28
an
simultaneous occurrence of the brittle mode fracture and ductile mode fracture.
ev
29
30 The above studies revealed that delamination in the early stage of machining is caused by
31
iew
32 the hydraulic impact of the jet. However, the accuracy of the simulation is still insufficient
dM
33
34 because of the complex anisotropic nature of composites, various machining methods and
35
36
process parameters, and insufficient understanding of the mechanism that causes the damage.
On
37
38
39 In the future, the exact fracture mode and mechanism must be investigated using both a
40
ly
41 multiscale and a macroscale approach.

42
43
pte
44
45
5. Conclusions
46
47
48 This paper provides a systematic review of the three most remarkable NCM methods for
49
50 FRPs: LBM, RUM, and AWJ machining. Each machining method was analyzed in the
51
ce
52
following order: parametric study, mechanistic model, and numerical simulation. From the
53
54
55 reviews above, the following conclusions and directions for further studies are drawn.
56
Ac
57
58 (1) Most studies have presented the relation between the input parameters and machining
59
60 quality in LBM. Based on the parametric studies, the optimal input parameters were
1
2
3
4
derived using advanced techniques. Then, a mechanistic model was developed to
5
6
7 analyze the material removal mechanism. However, only a small portion of the
8
pt
9 workpiece was modeled, owing to the limited computational time; thus, it is difficult
10
11 to represent the entire system exactly. However, the selection of appropriate size of
12
13
the modeling domain showed high compatibility with the experimental result.
cri
14
15
16 Furthermore, other factors, such as vapor formation and laser beam scattering, should
17
18 be considered to achieve higher accuracy.
19
20
us
21
(2) In RUM, parametric studies for ceramics with various optimization techniques were
Fo
22
23 conducted to motivate further studies on FRPs. Then, mechanistic models for drilling
24
rR
25 and grinding were introduced. The fractured volume was modeled with respect to the
26
27
28
an
indentation of the abrasive particles; however, it was still modified by the fractured
ev
29
30 volume factor derived from the experiments. In the FE analysis, the delamination
31
iew
32 procedures were described by modeling the interface with the cohesive elements.
dM
33
34 However, with an appropriate damage criterion, dynamic load, and presence of
35
36
abrasive particles on the tool, the fracture phenomenon on the workpiece should be
On
37
38
39 modeled to reflect the real machining process.
40
ly
41 (3) AWJ has been studied mainly for parametric studies owing to the diversity of process
42
43
pte
44
parameters and complex relations. Recently, advanced technologies, such as big data
45
46 analysis, as well as the Taguchi method and ANOVA, have been used. In addition,
47
48 mechanistic models derived by the energy approach and numerical models using the
49
50
FSI model to predict the machining performance, such as delamination and kerf
51
ce
52
53 geometry, have been proposed. However, the models are limited to specific materials
54
55 and machining conditions because of their high dependence on the experimental
56
Ac
57 results. To achieve a high machining quality, appropriate levels of machining

58
59
60 parameters should be chosen through micro- and macroscale modeling, including the
1
2
3
4
interaction between composites and abrasive particles under the exact machining
5
6
7 mechanism.
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37 Figure 1. A schematic of laser beam cutting [41].

38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55 Figure 2. A schematic diagram of machining quality parameters in LBM [39].
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31 Figure 3. A SEM image of the cross section of a drilled hole filled with epoxy resin [45].
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55 Figure 4. Algorithm for numerical analysis of the uncoupled thermo-mechanical system
56 [61].
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26 Figure 5. A comparison of (a) heterogeneous modeling with FE analysis compared and (b)
27
28
an
the experimental result [54].
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58 Figure 6. Illustration of RUM process.
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
Figure 7. Process parameters of the non-conventional machining [28, 69].
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46 Figure 8. Fractured zone regarding the crack formation induced by indentation of an
47
48
abrasive particle [77].
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21 (A)
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39 (B)
40 Figure 9. Crack propagation along the interface due to (A) flexural stresses; (B) Hertzian
ly
41 contact under impact loading [79].

42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37
38 Figure. 10 Fracture process of carbon fiber reinforced polymers under tensile loading (a)
39
40
interfacial crack propagation (b) matrix debonding and fibers pulled out (c) adhesive and
cohesive fracture (d) rough failure surface [87].
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35
36
On
37 Figure 11. A schematic diagram of AWJ machining.

38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35 Figure 12. Crater morphologies of AWJ machined surface [94].
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
Figure 13. FSI model to predict damaged characteristics of FRPs [122].
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
Reference
5
6
7 1. Al-Qureshi, H., Automobile leaf springs from composite materials. Journal of materials
8 processing technology, 2001. 118(1-3): p. 58-61.
pt
9 2. Akimov, A., et al., Development of polymer composites with improved thermophysical
10 properties for shipbuilding and ship repair. Composites: Mechanics, Computations,
11 Applications: An International Journal, 2019. 10(2).
12
13
3. Mangalgiri, P., Composite materials for aerospace applications. Bulletin of Materials
Science, 1999. 22(3): p. 657-664.
cri
14
15 4. Siwowski, T. and M. Rajchel, Structural performance of a hybrid FRP composite–
16 lightweight concrete bridge girder. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2019. 174: p.
17 107055.
18 5. On, S.Y., et al., Dynamic characteristics of composite tilting pad journal bearing for
19 turbine/generator applications. Composite Structures, 2018. 201: p. 747-759.
20
us
21
6. Gupta, M., Polymer composite. 2007: New Age International.
Fo
22 7. Kim, S.S. and D.C. Park, Characteristics of carbon fiber phenolic composite for journal
23 bearing materials. Composite structures, 2004. 66(1-4): p. 359-366.
24 8. Singha, A. and V.K. Thakur, Mechanical properties of natural fibre reinforced polymer
rR
25 composites. Bulletin of materials Science, 2008. 31(5): p. 791.

26
27
28
9.
an
Thakur, V.K. and A.S. Singha, Physico-chemical and mechanical characterization of
natural fibre reinforced polymer composites. 2010.
ev
29 10. Ganesh, V. and N. Chawla, Effect of particle orientation anisotropy on the tensile
30 behavior of metal matrix composites: experiments and microstructure-based simulation.
31 Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2005. 391(1-2): p. 342-353.
iew
32 11. Suh, N.P., Axiomatic design and fabrication of composite structures: applications in
dM
33 robots, machine tools, and automobiles. 2005: Oxford University Press.
34 12. Kundu, T., et al., Locating point of impact in anisotropic fiber reinforced composite
35
plates. Ultrasonics, 2008. 48(3): p. 193-201.
36
13. Ho-Cheng, H. and C. Dharan, Delamination during drilling in composite laminates.
On
37
38 1990.
39 14. Wiklund, U., J. Gunnars, and S. Hogmark, Influence of residual stresses on fracture
40 and delamination of thin hard coatings. Wear, 1999. 232(2): p. 262-269.
ly
41 15. Carpinteri, A. and N. Pugno, Thermal loading in multi-layered and/or functionally

42 graded materials: Residual stress field, delamination, fatigue and related size effects.
43
pte
44
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006. 43(3-4): p. 828-841.
45 16. Rahman, M., et al., Machinability study of carbon fiber reinforced composite. Journal
46 of materials processing technology, 1999. 89: p. 292-297.
47 17. Palanikumar, K., L. Karunamoorthy, and R. Karthikeyan, Assessment of factors
48 influencing surface roughness on the machining of glass fiber-reinforced polymer
49 composites. Materials & design, 2006. 27(10): p. 862-871.
50
18. Palanikumar, K., Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for
51
ce
52 surface roughness in machining glass fiber reinforced plastics by PCD tooling. The
53 International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2008. 36(1-2): p. 19-27.
54 19. Santiuste, C., et al., Modelling thermal effects in machining of carbon fiber reinforced
55 polymer composites. Journal of reinforced plastics and composites, 2014. 33(8): p. 758-
56 766.
Ac
57 20. Douglas, C.M., Design and analysis of experiments. 2001.

58
21. Rao, G.V.G., P. Mahajan, and N. Bhatnagar, Three-dimensional macro-mechanical
59
60 finite element model for machining of unidirectional-fiber reinforced polymer
1
2
3
4
composites. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2008. 498(1-2): p. 142-149.
5
6 22. Calzada, K.A., et al., Modeling and interpretation of fiber orientation-based failure
7 mechanisms in machining of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Journal of
8 Manufacturing Processes, 2012. 14(2): p. 141-149.
pt
9 23. Zemann, R., et al., New measurement processes to define the quality of machined fibre
10 reinforced polymers. Procedia Engineering, 2015. 100: p. 636-645.
11 24. Sorrentino, L., S. Turchetta, and C. Bellini, In process monitoring of cutting
12
13
temperature during the drilling of FRP laminate. Composite Structures, 2017. 168: p.
549-561.
cri
14
15 25. Ghasemi, A.R., B. Asghari, and A. Tabatabaeian, Determination of the influence of
16 thermo-mechanical factors on the residual stresses of cylindrical composite tubes:
17 Experimental and computational analyses. International Journal of Pressure Vessels
18 and Piping, 2020. 183: p. 104098.
19 26. Ma, G., et al., Effects of water, alkali solution and temperature ageing on water
20
us
21
absorption, morphology and mechanical properties of natural FRP composites: Plant-
Fo
22 based jute vs. mineral-based basalt. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2018. 153: p.
23 398-412.
24 27. Palanikumar, K. and J.P. Davim, Assessment of some factors influencing tool wear on
rR
25 the machining of glass fibre-reinforced plastics by coated cemented carbide tools.

26
27
28
28.
an
journal of materials processing technology, 2009. 209(1): p. 511-519.
Singh, R.P. and S. Singhal, Rotary ultrasonic machining: a review. Materials and
ev

30 29. Wang, J., et al., Damage formation and suppression in rotary ultrasonic machining of
31 hard and brittle materials: a critical review. Ceramics International, 2018. 44(2): p.
iew
32 1227-1239.
dM
33 30. Vigneshwaran, S., M. Uthayakumar, and V. Arumugaprabu, Abrasive water jet
34 machining of fiber-reinforced composite materials. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
35
Composites, 2018. 37(4): p. 230-237.
36
31. Thakur, R. and K. Singh, Abrasive waterjet machining of fiber-reinforced composites:
On
37
38 A state-of-the-art review. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and
39 Engineering, 2020. 42(7): p. 1-25.
40 32. Caggiano, A., Machining of fibre reinforced plastic composite materials. Materials,
ly
41 2018. 11(3): p. 442.

42 33. Kumar, D. and K. Singh, An approach towards damage free machining of CFRP and
43
pte
44
GFRP composite material: a review. Advanced composite materials, 2015. 24(sup1):
45 p. 49-63.
46 34. Karataş, M.A. and H. Gökkaya, A review on machinability of carbon fiber reinforced
47 polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite materials.
48 Defence Technology, 2018. 14(4): p. 318-326.
49 35. Rajmohan, T., R. Vinayagamoorthy, and K. Mohan, Review on effect machining
50
parameters on performance of natural fibre–reinforced composites (NFRCs). Journal
51
ce
52 of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 2019. 32(9): p. 1282-1302.

53 36. Tagliaferri, V., A. Di Ilio, and C. Visconti, Laser cutting of fibre-reinforced polyesters.
54 Composites, 1985. 16(4): p. 317-325.
55 37. Caprino, G. and V. Tagliaferri, Maximum cutting speed in laser cutting of fiber
56 reinforced plastics. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1988.
Ac
57 28(4): p. 389-398.
58
38. Goeke, A. and C. Emmelmann, Influence of laser cutting parameters on CFRP part
59
60 quality. Physics Procedia, 2010. 5: p. 253-258.
1
2
3
4
39. Riveiro, A., et al., Experimental study on the CO2 laser cutting of carbon fiber
5
6 reinforced plastic composite. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing,
7 2012. 43(8): p. 1400-1409.
8 40. Tagliaferri, V., Laser cutting of reinforced materials. Handbook of ceramics and
pt
9 composites, 1990. 1: p. 451-467.
10 41. Dubey, A.K. and V. Yadava, Laser beam machining—A review. International Journal
11 of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2008. 48(6): p. 609-628.
12
13
42. Uhlmann, E., et al., The extent of laser-induced thermal damage of UD and crossply
composite laminates. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1999.
cri
14
15 39(4): p. 639-650.
16 43. Chryssolouris, G., P. Sheng, and W.C. Choi, Investigation of laser grooving for
17 composite materials. CIRP Annals, 1988. 37(1): p. 161-164.
18 44. Cenna, A. and P. Mathew, Analysis and prediction of laser cutting parameters of fibre
19 reinforced plastics (FRP) composite materials. International Journal of Machine Tools
20
us
21
and Manufacture, 2002. 42(1): p. 105-113.
Fo
22 45. Yung, K.C., S. Mei, and T.M. Yue, A study of the heat-affected zone in the UV YAG
23 laser drilling of GFRP materials. Journal of materials processing technology, 2002.
24 122(2-3): p. 278-285.
rR
25 46. Davim, J.P., et al., Some experimental studies on CO2 laser cutting quality of polymeric
26
27
28
47.
an
materials. Journal of materials processing technology, 2008. 198(1-3): p. 99-104.
Li, Z., et al., Study on UV laser machining quality of carbon fibre reinforced composites.
ev
29 Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2010. 41(10): p. 1403-1408.

30 48. Bluemel, S., et al. Laser machining of CFRP using a high power fiber laser–
31 Investigations on the heat affected zone. in 15th European conference on composite
iew
32 materials Venice Italy. 2012.

dM
33 49. Herzog, D., et al., Laser cutting of carbon fiber reinforced plastic using a 30 kW fiber
34 laser. Journal of Laser Applications, 2015. 27(S2): p. S28001.
35
50. Raza, M.S., et al., Parametric study of laser cutting of carbon fibre reinforced polymer
36
(CFRP) and the effect of fibre orientation on cutting quality. Advances in Materials and
On
37
38 Processing Technologies, 2019. 5(2): p. 202-212.
39 51. Pan, C. and H. Hocheng, The anisotropic heat-affected zone in the laser grooving of
40 fiber-reinforced composite material. Journal of materials processing technology, 1996.
ly
41 62(1-3): p. 54-60.
42 52. Rao, S., et al., Fiber laser cutting of CFRP composites and process optimization
43
pte
44
through response surface methodology. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 2017.
45 32(14): p. 1612-1621.
46 53. Tewari, R., et al., Parametric optimization of laser drilling of microwave-processed
47 kenaf/HDPE composite. Polymers and Polymer Composites, 2020: p.
48 0967391120905705.
49 54. Negarestani, R., et al., Numerical simulation of laser machining of carbon-fibre-
50
reinforced composites. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
51
ce
52 Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 2010. 224(7): p. 1017-1027.

53 55. Pan, C. and H. Hocheng, Evaluation of anisotropic thermal conductivity for
54 unidirectional FRP in laser machining. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
55 Manufacturing, 2001. 32(11): p. 1657-1667.
56 56. Caprino, G., V. Tagliaferri, and L. Covelli, Cutting glass fibre reinforced composites
Ac
57 using CO2 laser with multimodal-Gaussian distribution. International Journal of

58
Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1995. 35(6): p. 831-840.
59
60 57. Tamrin, K., K. Moghadasi, and N. Sheikh, Experimental and numerical investigation
1
2
3
4
on multi-pass laser cutting of natural fibre composite. The International Journal of
5
6 Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2020. 107(3): p. 1483-1504.
7 58. Li, M., et al., Effect of lay-up configuration and processing parameters on surface
8 quality during fiber laser cutting of CFRP laminates. The International Journal of
pt
9 Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2019. 100(1-4): p. 623-635.
10 59. Liu, Y.-C., et al., Interlaminar damage of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite
11 laminate under continuous wave laser irradiation. Optics and Lasers in Engineering,
12
13
2017. 88: p. 91-101.
60. Jaeschke, P., O. Suttmann, and H. Haferkamp. Correlation of interlaminar and tensile
cri
14
15 properties with resulting thermal impact while CFRP laser processing. in International
16 Congress on Applications of Lasers & Electro-Optics. 2013. Laser Institute of America.
17 61. Moghadasi, K. and K. Tamrin, Multi-pass laser cutting of carbon/Kevlar hybrid
18 composite: Prediction of thermal stress, heat-affected zone, and kerf width by thermo-
19 mechanical modeling. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L:
20
us
21
Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 2020. 234(9): p. 1228-1241.
Fo
22 62. Thoe, T., D. Aspinwall, and M. Wise, Review on ultrasonic machining. International
23 journal of machine tools and manufacture, 1998. 38(4): p. 239-255.
24 63. Kuo, K.L. A study of glass milling using rotary ultrasonic machining. in Key
rR
25 Engineering Materials. 2008. Trans Tech Publ.

26
27
28
64.
an
Gong, H., F. Fang, and X. Hu, Kinematic view of tool life in rotary ultrasonic side
milling of hard and brittle materials. International Journal of Machine Tools and
ev
29 Manufacture, 2010. 50(3): p. 303-307.

30 65. Wang, Q., et al., Rotary ultrasonic machining of potassium dihydrogen phosphate
31 (KDP) crystal: An experimental investigation on surface roughness. Journal of
iew

dM
33 66. Pei, Z., et al., A mechanistic approach to the prediction of material removal rates in
34 rotary ultrasonic machining. 1995.
35
67. Moreland, M., Ultrasonic Impact Grinding: What It Is; What It Will Do. Abrasives and
36
Hi-Technology: a Two-Way Street, 1984: p. 111-117.
On
37
38 68. Prabhakar, D., P. Ferreira, and M. Haselkorn, An experimental investigation of material
39 removal rates in rotary ultrasonic machining. Transactions of the North American
40 Manufacturing Research Institution of SME., 1992. 20: p. 211-218.
ly
41 69. Ramulu, M. and D. Arola, The influence of abrasive waterjet cutting conditions on the
42 surface quality of graphite/epoxy laminates. International Journal of Machine Tools
43
pte
44
and Manufacture, 1994. 34(3): p. 295-313.
45 70. Hu, P., et al., Modeling of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machining:
46 designed experiments. Journal of materials processing technology, 2002. 129(1-3): p.
47 339-344.
48 71. Li, Z., et al., Rotary ultrasonic machining of ceramic matrix composites: feasibility
49 study and designed experiments. International Journal of Machine Tools and
50
Manufacture, 2005. 45(12-13): p. 1402-1411.
51
ce
52 72. Ning, F. and W. Cong. Rotary ultrasonic machining of CFRP: design of experiment
53 with a cutting force model. in International Manufacturing Science and Engineering
54 Conference. 2015. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
55 73. Wu, J., et al., Dynamic process modeling for rotary ultrasonic machining of alumina.
56 Journal of manufacturing science and engineering, 2011. 133(4).
Ac
57 74. Abdo, B., et al. Optimization of process parameters of rotary ultrasonic machining
58
based on Taguchis method. in Advanced Materials Research. 2013. Trans Tech Publ.
59
60 75. Abdo, B.M., A. El-Tamimi, and H. Alkhalefah. Parametric Analysis and Optimization
1
2
3
4
of Rotary Ultrasonic Machining of Zirconia (ZrO2) Ceramics. in IOP Conference
5
6 Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020. IOP Publishing.
7 76. Liu, D., Y. Tang, and W. Cong, A review of mechanical drilling for composite laminates.
8 Composite structures, 2012. 94(4): p. 1265-1279.
pt
9 77. Liu, D., et al., A cutting force model for rotary ultrasonic machining of brittle materials.
10 International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2012. 52(1): p. 77-84.
11 78. Cong, W., et al., Rotary ultrasonic machining of CFRP: a mechanistic predictive model
12
13
for cutting force. Ultrasonics, 2014. 54(2): p. 663-675.
79. Cantwell, W. and J. Morton, Detection of impact damage in CFRP laminates.
cri
14
15 Composite Structures, 1985. 3(3-4): p. 241-257.
16 80. Andersons, J. and M. König, Dependence of fracture toughness of composite laminates
17 on interface ply orientations and delamination growth direction. Composites Science
18 and Technology, 2004. 64(13-14): p. 2139-2152.
19 81. Liu, S., T. Chen, and C. Wu, Rotary ultrasonic face grinding of carbon fiber reinforced
20
us
21
plastic (CFRP): a study on cutting force model. The International Journal of Advanced
Fo
22 Manufacturing Technology, 2017. 89(1-4): p. 847-856.

23 82. Ning, F., et al., Surface grinding of CFRP composites with rotary ultrasonic machining:
24 a mechanistic model on cutting force in the feed direction. The International Journal of
rR

26
27
28
83.
an
Liu, J., et al., Feasibility study of the rotary ultrasonic elliptical machining of carbon
fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP). International Journal of Machine Tools and
ev
29 Manufacture, 2012. 53(1): p. 141-150.

30 84. Wang, H., et al., A mechanistic model on feeding-directional cutting force in surface
31 grinding of CFRP composites using rotary ultrasonic machining with horizontal
iew
32 ultrasonic vibration. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2019. 155: p. 450-

dM
33 460.
34 85. Li, Z., et al. Finite element simulation of rotary ultrasonic machining for advanced
35
ceramics. in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
36
2004.
On
37
38 86. Zhang, D., et al., Delamination in rotary ultrasonic machining of CFRP composites:
39 finite element analysis and experimental implementation. The International Journal of
ly
41 87. Hernandez, D.A., C.A. Soufen, and M.O. Orlandi, Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
42 and epoxy adhesive tensile test failure analysis using scanning electron microscopy.
43
pte
44
Materials Research, 2017. 20(4): p. 951-961.
45 88. Kulekci, M.K., Processes and apparatus developments in industrial waterjet
46 applications. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2002. 42(12):
47 p. 1297-1306.
48 89. Bhowmik, S. and A. Ray, Prediction of surface roughness quality of green abrasive
49 water jet machining: a soft computing approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
50
2019. 30(8): p. 2965-2979.
51
ce
52 90. Ramulu, M. and D. Arola, Water jet and abrasive water jet cutting of unidirectional
53 graphite/epoxy composite. Composites, 1993. 24(4): p. 299-308.
54 91. Wang, J., A machinability study of polymer matrix composites using abrasive waterjet
55 cutting technology. Journal of materials processing technology, 1999. 94(1): p. 30-35.
56 92. Lemma, E., et al., Study of cutting fiber-reinforced composites by using abrasive water-
Ac
57 jet with cutting head oscillation. Composite structures, 2002. 57(1-4): p. 297-303.
58
93. Montesano, J., H. Bougherara, and Z. Fawaz, Influence of drilling and abrasive water
59
60 jet induced damage on the performance of carbon fabric/epoxy plates with holes.
1
2
3
4
Composite Structures, 2017. 163: p. 257-266.
5
6 94. Hejjaji, A., et al., Surface and machining induced damage characterization of abrasive
7 water jet milled carbon/epoxy composite specimens and their impact on tensile
8 behavior. Wear, 2017. 376: p. 1356-1364.
pt
9 95. Shanmugam, D., T. Nguyen, and J. Wang, A study of delamination on graphite/epoxy
10 composites in abrasive waterjet machining. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
11 Manufacturing, 2008. 39(6): p. 923-929.
12
13
96. Dhanawade, A. and S. Kumar, Experimental study of delamination and kerf geometry
of carbon epoxy composite machined by abrasive water jet. Journal of Composite
cri
14
15 Materials, 2017. 51(24): p. 3373-3390.
16 97. Selvam, R., L. Karunamoorthy, and N. Arunkumar, Investigation on performance of
17 abrasive water jet in machining hybrid composites. Materials and Manufacturing
18 Processes, 2017. 32(6): p. 700-706.
19 98. Hashish, M., A modeling study of metal cutting with abrasive waterjets. 1984.
20
us
21
99. Ibraheem, H.M.A., A. Iqbal, and M. Hashemipour, Numerical optimization of hole
Fo
22 making in GFRP composite using abrasive water jet machining process. Journal of the
23 Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2015. 38(1): p. 66-76.
24 100. Hocheng, H., et al., Feasibility study of abrasive-waterjet milling of fiber-reinforced
rR
25 plastics. 1997.
26
27
28
101.
an
Srinivasu, D. and D. Axinte, Mask-less pocket milling of composites by abrasive
waterjets: an experimental investigation. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
ev
29 Engineering, 2014. 136(4).

30 102. Karatas, M.A., H. Gokkaya, and M. Nalbant, Optimization of machining parameters
31 for abrasive water jet drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composite material
iew
32 using Taguchi method. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2019.

dM
33 103. Azmir, M., A. Ahsan, and A. Rahmah, Effect of abrasive water jet machining
34 parameters on aramid fibre reinforced plastics composite. International Journal of
35
Material Forming, 2009. 2(1): p. 37-44.
36
104. Azmir, M. and A. Ahsan, A study of abrasive water jet machining process on
On
37
38 glass/epoxy composite laminate. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2009.
39 209(20): p. 6168-6173.
40 105. Ming, I.W.M., et al., Experimental study and empirical analyses of abrasive waterjet
ly
41 machining for hybrid carbon/glass fiber-reinforced composites for improved surface

42 quality. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2018. 95(9-
43
pte
44
12): p. 3809-3822.
45 106. Kumaran, S.T., et al., ANFIS modeling of surface roughness in abrasive waterjet
46 machining of carbon fiber reinforced plastics. Journal of Mechanical Science and
47 Technology, 2017. 31(8): p. 3949-3954.
48 107. Kumar, V., P.P. Das, and S. Chakraborty, Grey-fuzzy method-based parametric
49 analysis of abrasive water jet machining on GFRP composites. Sadhana, 2020. 45(1).
50
108. Squires, C.A., K.H. Netting, and A.R. Chambers, Understanding the factors affecting
51
ce
52 the compressive testing of unidirectional carbon fibre composites. Composites Part B:

53 Engineering, 2007. 38(4): p. 481-487.
54 109. Annoni, M., et al. Fine abrasive water jet machining of piezoelectric ceramics: cutting
55 parameters optimization. in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Water
56 Jetting, Ottawa, Canada. 2012.
Ac
57 110. Sheikh-Ahmad, J. and A. Shahid, Effect of edge trimming on failure stress of carbon
58
fibre polymer composites. International Journal of Machining and Machinability of
59
60 Materials, 2013. 13(2-3): p. 331-347.
1
2
3
4
111. Ramulu, M. and K. Colligan. Edge finishing and delamination effects induced during
5
6 abrasive waterjet machining on the compression strength of a graphite/epoxy
7 composite. in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
8 2005.
pt
9 112. Ghidossi, P., M. El Mansori, and F. Pierron, Influence of specimen preparation by
10 machining on the failure of polymer matrix off-axis tensile coupons. Composites
11 science and technology, 2006. 66(11-12): p. 1857-1872.
12
13
113. Ghidossi, P., M. El Mansori, and F. Pierron, Edge machining effects on the failure of
polymer matrix composite coupons. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
cri
14
15 Manufacturing, 2004. 35(7-8): p. 989-999.
16 114. Haddad, M., et al., Study of trimming damages of CFRP structures in function of the
17 machining processes and their impact on the mechanical behavior. Composites Part B:
18 Engineering, 2014. 57: p. 136-143.
19 115. Hejjaji, A., et al., Influence of controlled depth abrasive water jet milling on the fatigue
20
us
21
behavior of carbon/epoxy composites. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Fo
22 Manufacturing, 2019. 121: p. 397-410.

23 116. Nguyen-Dinh, N., C. Bouvet, and R. Zitoune, Influence of machining damage
24 generated during trimming of CFRP composite on the compressive strength. Journal of
rR
25 Composite Materials, 2020. 54(11): p. 1413-1430.

26
27
28
117.
an
Ho-Cheng, H., A failure analysis of water jet drilling in composite laminates.
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1990. 30(3): p. 423-429.
ev
29 118. Wang, J. and D. Guo, A predictive depth of penetration model for abrasive waterjet
30 cutting of polymer matrix composites. Journal of materials processing technology, 2002.
31 121(2-3): p. 390-394.
iew
32 119. Thongkaew, K., J. Wang, and W. Li, An investigation of the hole machining processes
dM
33 on woven carbon-fiber reinforced polymers (CFRPs) using abrasive waterjets.
34 Machining Science and Technology, 2019. 23(1): p. 19-38.
35
120. Sourd, X., et al., New model for the prediction of the machining depth during milling
36
of 3D woven composite using abrasive waterjet process. Composite Structures, 2020.
On
37
38 234: p. 111760.
39 121. Schwartzentruber, J., M. Papini, and J. Spelt, Characterizing and modelling
40 delamination of carbon-fiber epoxy laminates during abrasive waterjet cutting.
ly
41 Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2018. 112: p. 299-314.

42 122. Schwartzentruber, J., J. Spelt, and M. Papini, Modelling of delamination due to
43
pte
44
hydraulic shock when piercing anisotropic carbon-fiber laminates using an abrasive
45 waterjet. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2018. 132: p. 81-95.
46 123. Nyaboro, J.N., et al., Fluid-structure interaction modeling of the abrasive waterjet
47 drilling of carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2020.
48 58: p. 551-562.
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60

Research Trends and Future Perspective in Nonconventional Machining of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Research Trends and Future Perspective in Nonconventional Machining of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Trends and Future Perspective in Nonconventional Machining of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Functional Composites and

Research trends and future perspective in nonconventional machining of

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 14.139.110.90 on 30/06/2021 at 11:12

Manuscript Type: Topical Review

Date Submitted by the

Nonconventional machining, Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), Laser

52 directions for further studies for each NCM are suggested.

57 constituents; therefore, HAZ has been actively studied.

37 2.2.1 Thermal analysis

57 degrade the mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy.

on heat distribution. Caprino et al. formulated a simplified rectangular-Gaussian distribution to

is much larger than that in the matrix.

41 mechanisms, more detailed parameters should be included in the numerical simulation.

44 3. Rotary ultrasonic machining

motivate further studies on FRP machining.

fractured volume of a material, should be obtained experimentally. This is attributed to the

29 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 7.4, − ≤ 𝑥𝑥 ≤ − + 𝑟𝑟 (3)

41 [108, 113, 114].

25 holds promise for future study.

32 is limited to specific materials or processing conditions. Ho-Cheng conducted a feasibility

57 Recently, computational simulations of coupled fluid-structure domains have been conducted

41 multiscale and a macroscale approach.

57 results. To achieve a high machining quality, appropriate levels of machining

37 Figure 1. A schematic of laser beam cutting [41].

41 contact under impact loading [79].

37 Figure 11. A schematic diagram of AWJ machining.

25 composites. Bulletin of materials Science, 2008. 31(5): p. 791.

41 15. Carpinteri, A. and N. Pugno, Thermal loading in multi-layered and/or functionally

57 20. Douglas, C.M., Design and analysis of experiments. 2001.

25 the machining of glass fibre-reinforced plastics by coated cemented carbide tools.

29 Manufacturing Processes, 2016. 31(14): p. 1795-1824.

41 2018. 11(3): p. 442.

52 of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 2019. 32(9): p. 1282-1302.

29 Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2010. 41(10): p. 1403-1408.

32 materials Venice Italy. 2012.

52 Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 2010. 224(7): p. 1017-1027.

57 using CO2 laser with multimodal-Gaussian distribution. International Journal of

25 Engineering Materials. 2008. Trans Tech Publ.

29 Manufacture, 2010. 50(3): p. 303-307.

32 Manufacturing Processes, 2009. 11(2): p. 66-73.

22 Manufacturing Technology, 2017. 89(1-4): p. 847-856.

25 Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2017. 92(1): p. 1217-1229.

29 Manufacture, 2012. 53(1): p. 141-150.

32 ultrasonic vibration. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2019. 155: p. 450-

29 Engineering, 2014. 136(4).

32 using Taguchi method. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2019.

41 machining for hybrid carbon/glass fiber-reinforced composites for improved surface

52 the compressive testing of unidirectional carbon fibre composites. Composites Part B:

22 Manufacturing, 2019. 121: p. 397-410.

25 Composite Materials, 2020. 54(11): p. 1413-1430.

41 Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2018. 112: p. 299-314.

You might also like