Surface Defects Incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS
Surface Defects incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

To cite this article before publication: Neha Khatri et al 2020 Int. J. Extrem. Manuf. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-7990/abab4a
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 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the IMMT.
As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY 3.0 licence, this Accepted
Manuscript is available for reuse under a CC BY 3.0 licence immediately.
Everyone is permitted to use all or part of the original content in this article, provided that they adhere to all the terms of the licence
https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/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 may be required.
All third party content is fully copyright protected and is not published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY licence, unless that is
specifically stated in the figure caption in the Version of Record.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 106.197.45.56 on 11/08/2020 at 15:03

International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing
pt
Surface Defects incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon
Journal: International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing
cri
Manuscript ID IJEM-110090.R1
Manuscript Type: Paper
Date Submitted by the

09-Jun-2020
Author:
us
Complete List of Authors: Khatri, Neha; CSIR Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Optical
Devices & Systems
Barkachary, Borad; Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology
Muneeswaran , B; Fenner Conveyor Belting Pvt. Ltd
Fo
Al-Sayegh , Rajab ; Northern Border University
luo, Xichun; University of Strathclyde,
Goel, Saurav; London South Bank University,
an
rR
silicon, single point diamond turning, finite element analysis, surface

Keywords:
defect machining
dM ev
iew
On
ly
pte
ce
Ac
https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/ijem-caep
Page 1 of 22 International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing
IOP Publishing Journal Title

1
Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX https://doi.org/XXXX/XXXX
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Surface Defects incorporated
pt
9
10 Diamond Machining of Silicon
11
12 Neha Khatri *1, Borad M Barkachary2, B Muneeswaran3, Rajab Al-Sayegh4, Xichun
13 Luo 5and Saurav Goel +6,7,8,9
cri
14
15 1 OpticalDevices & System Division, CSIR-CSIO, Sector 30-Chandigarh, India 160030
16 Email: nehakhatri@csio.res.in
17
18
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jorhat Institute of Science & Technology, Jorhat- 785010, Assam, India
19 Email: borad.barkachary@gmail.com
20 3 FennerConveyor Belting Pvt. Ltd., Dindigul Road Nagri, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai – 625 221, India
us
21
Fo
Email: munees75@gmail.com
22
23 4 College of Engineering, Northern Border University, Arar, 91431, Saudi Arabia
24 Email: rajab.alsayegh@nbu.edu.sa
rR
25 5 Centre
26 for Precision Manufacturing, DMEM, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, UK
27
28
Email: xichun.luo@strath.ac.uk
an
ev
6 School of Engineering, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK
29 7
EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Ultra-Precision Engineering, University of Cambridge and Cranfield University, UK
30 8 School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK
31 9 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shiv Nadar University, Gautam Budh Nagar, 201314, India
iew
32 Email: GoeLS@LSBU.aC.UK
dM
33
Corresponding author(s) Email address: *nehakhatri@csio.res.in and +GoeLs@LSBU.ac.UK
34
35
Abstract
36
On
37
This paper reports the performance enhancement benefits in diamond turning of the silicon wafer by incorporation of the
38
Surface Defect Machining (SDM) method. The hybrid micromachining methods usually require additional hardware to
39
40 leverage the added advantage of hybrid technologies such as laser heating, cryogenic cooling, electric pulse or ultrasonic
elliptical vibration. The SDM method tested in this paper does not require any such additional baggage and is easy to implement
ly
41
42 in a sequential micro-machining mode. This paper made use of Raman spectroscopy data, average surface roughness data and
43 imaging data of the cutting chips of silicon for drawing a comparison between conventional Single Point Diamond Turning
pte
44 (SPDT) and SDM while incorporating surface defects in the (i) circumferential and (ii) radial directions. Complimentary 3D
45 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed to analyse the cutting forces and the evolution of residual stress on the machined
46 wafer. It was found that the surface defects generated in the circumferential direction with an interspacing of 1 mm revealed
47 the lowest average surface roughness (Ra) of 3.2 nm as opposed to 8 nm Ra obtained through conventional SPDT using the
48 same cutting parameters. The observation of the Raman spectroscopy performed on the cutting chips showed remnants of phase
49 transformation during the micromachining process in all cases. FEA was used to extract quantifiable information about the
50 residual stress as well as the sub-surface integrity and it was discovered that the grooves made in the circumferential direction
51
ce
gave the best machining performance. The information being reported here is expected to provide an avalanche of opportunities
52 in the SPDT area for low-cost machining solution for a range of other nominal hard, brittle materials such as SiC, ZnSe and
53 GaAs as well as hard steels.
54
55 Keywords: Surface Defect Machining (SDM), Silicon, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Surface Roughness.
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
xxxx-xxxx/xx/xxxxxx 1 © xxxx IOP Publishing Ltd
International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing Page 2 of 22
Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

1
2
3 1. Introduction transformations [11]. Hard, brittle materials usually possess
4 low fracture toughness and silicon is by far the most classic
5 Silicon has been the prime material of modern example. Built on previous learnings about SDM, this
6 optics/photonics due to its unique engineering characteristics. feasibility study was performed to evaluate the quality of
7 The utilisation of silicon is ubiquitous in the field of machining in SPDT of the silicon wafer. The aim was to
8 optoelectronics, MEMS, space and defence industries. The quantify the performance improvement in the extent of
pt
9 drive for miniaturisation in the production of gadgets making residual stresses, improved tool life and ultimately to achieve
10 use of silicon is now requiring reduced energy consumption an improved machined surface finish through the SPDT
11 and faster productivity to produce silicon optics. Considerable method with the view of eliminating the need for post-
12 research work on silicon has been done that has advanced our machining polishing.
13
understanding of this topic since the 1990s. For example,
cri
14 In particular, this paper expands the idea of the SDM
Blackley et al. [1]gave a fundamental understanding of ductile
15 method in the SPDT context, which in essence is an expansion
mode machining of germanium using the single-point
16 of the Pulse laser pre-treated machining method [12]. Recently,
diamond turning (SPDT) process.
17 a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) study on SDM on
18 Shibata et al.[2] examined the critical influence of the silicon reported reduced cutting pressure [13]. However,
19
crystallographic orientation on the finished machined surface experimental evidence is lacking as this is the first paper
20
us
and concluded that the (111) surface of silicon offers the best experimentally demonstrating the surface defect
21
Fo
machinability. It was proposed that the ductility observed micromachining of silicon.

22
during micromachining of silicon is broadly an outcome of the
23 Another motive behind this work was to select the shape
high-pressure phase transformation (HPPT) [3]. Using Raman
24
of surface patterns in such a way that the time to produce the
rR
25 spectroscopy, it was demonstrated that the stress state in

26 silicon during cutting causes it’s diamond cubic (α-silicon) surface defects can be reduced and to make it convenient and
27
28
structure to undergo a metastable body centred tetragonal (β-
silicon) structural transformation and then depending on the
an cost-efficient. It may be recalled from the aforementioned
papers that the surface defects can be generated either by
ev
release of strain rate (or cutting speed), the ductile phase back- conventional mechanical methods or by using a laser. This
29
30 transforms and amorphous room temperature phase of silicon. work produced these defects using the same SPDT machine
31 More recently, a direct amorphization without any prior Si-II with the diamond tool itself just prior to machining. Thus, it
iew
32 transition observed from the MD simulation was also saved using any additional machine tool or instrumentation.
dM
33 proposed to be another ductility mechanism [4]. However, a The experimental results thus obtained were complimented by
34 key problem during SPDT is the in-process degradation and numerical FEA analysis to demonstrate the salient aspects
35 wear of the diamond tool causing worsening of the quality of concerning the effectiveness of the proposed surface defect
36 the machined surface. It is widely known that the wear volume micromachining of silicon.
On
37 of the diamond tool scales with the cutting distance and that
38 the tool’s flank face undergoes relatively more wear than its 2. Experimental materials and methods
39 rake face [5, 6].
40 2.1 Machine setup
ly
41 In an attempt to improve the machinability of difficult-to-

SPDT experiments were performed on a 3-axis Nanoform-
42 cut, hard and brittle materials like silicon, a range of
200 (Precitech) machine tool that is aesthetically engineered
43
pte
performance enhancement methods have been proposed and

to fabricate planar, spherical, aspherical and freeform surfaces.
44 augmented in recent times including the incorporation of laser,
The SPDT experimental setup of the machine is shown in
45 cryogenic and electroplasticity concepts [7], all these hybrid
Figure 1. The way it works is that a silicon wafer is held on an
46 and sequential micromachining approaches possess their
47 air bearing spindle through a vacuum chuck by a air pressure
distinct advantages.
48 of 8-10 bar such that it self-balances and achieves thermal
49 Surface Defect Machining (SDM) is a recent advancement stability over a period of time. A diamond tool is levelled
50 that was explicitly reported for improving the quality of hard vertically and laterally using an optical tool setter and this
51 process is referred to as the centering process. After the
ce
turning during cutting of hard steels of up to 69 HRC [8-10].

52 Lately, the insights obtained from molecular dynamics centering process, the tool is fed into the workpiece at a certain
53 simulation study on processing silicon carbide (SiC) hinted at depth of cut at a prescribed feed rate while coolant is sprayed
54 exploiting this route even for the machining of hard, brittle into the cutting zone. In this case, the coolant used was
55 materials [11]. The MD simulation results showed that the Clairsol 330. Experiments were carried out using a spindle
56 surface defects bring a reduction in shear plane angle, shear speed of 1000 rpm, feed rate of 3 mm/min and 10 micron
Ac
57 plane area and side flow with less metallurgical depth of cut.
58
59
60

1
2
3 2.2 Workpiece and tool materials Vacuum chuck Silicon workpiece Diamond tool
4
5 A (111) oriented single crystal silicon workpiece having Ø
6 45 mm and thickness 6.5 mm was used for the
7 micromachining experiments. The diamond cutting tool with
8 a negative rake of 10ºand 1.5 mm of nose radius procured
pt
9 from Contour Fine Tooling Ltd was used for cutting. The
10 details of the experimental parameters used in this study are
11 shown below in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 corresponding
12 to groove making, plan of experiments for making groove and
13
SPDT turning respectively.
cri
14
15 2.3 Surface Defect Patterns
16
17 In the past, a variety of surface defect patterns were
Chip extractor Spray coolant
18 explored through FEA simulations during conventional turret
19 Figure 1: Experimental Setup for Single Point Diamond
lathe machining[9]. Two particular grooves came to light from
20 Turning of Silicon
us
those preliminary investigations which are being tested here.
21
Fo
Grooves or defects made in the circumferential direction and

22
the radial direction were generated (see figure 2) using the
23
same SPDT experimental setup just before carrying the SPDT.
24
rR
25 These two defects, as well as the machined surface generated

26 after the experiments, were characterised using a contact type
27
28
surface profilometer (Form Talysurf PGI-120 Model from
Taylor Hobson) and non-contact Coherence Correlation
an
ev
29 Interferometer (CCI) together with a Scanning Electron

30 Microscope. Further details and drawings of these patterns are
31 discussed in the next sections.
iew
32
dM
33 Table 1: Machining parameters & tool geometry used for groove making
34
Cutting parameters Values
35
36 Tool rake angle -25°
On
37
38 Feed rate (mm/min) 2
39
40 Depth of cut (µm) 5
ly
41 Spindle Speed (RPM) 2000

42
43
pte
Tool Nose Radius (mm) 0.2

44
45 Machining Condition Dry machining
46
47
48 Table 2: Experimental plan for testing the hypothesis of surface defect machining
49
Groove type Variable parameters Fixed machining conditions
50
Circumferential grooves Circumferential spacing: 0.5 mm Cutting tool, feed rate (2 mm/min), total depth of
51
ce
Circumferential spacing: 1 mm groove (~5 µm), dry machining. The workpiece here
52 was rotated like turning
53 Radial grooves Feed rate: 12,000 mm/min Cutting tool, angular spacing of 10°, Total depth of
54 Depth of cut: 0.3 µm groove (~5 µm), dry machining. The spindle here
55 Feed rate: 1000 mm/min was kept stationary
56 Depth of cut: 0.5 µm
Ac
57
58
59
60

1
2
3 Table 3: Machining parameters & tool geometry used for SPDT of silicon wafer
4
5 Cutting parameters Values
6 Tool rake angle −10°
7
8 Feed rate (mm/min) 3
pt
9
10 Depth of cut (µm) 10
11
Spindle Speed (RPM) 1000
12
13 Tool Nose Radius (mm) 1.5
cri
14
15 Machining condition Clairsol 330 coolant was used
16
17
18 2.3.1. Circumferential direction patterns
19
Figure 3 shows the dimensions of grooves made in silicon with (a) 0.5 mm interspacing and (b) 1 mm interspacing. The
20
us
21 depth of grooves was maintained as 5 microns with an opening width on the surface of about 0.1 mm. They were obtained by
Fo
22 precise manoeuvring in the Z traverse direction. No coolant was used for better visualisation of the grooves while fabricating
23 them. The tool movement was constrained to allow movement only in the X direction and the feed rate of 2 mm/min played a
24 vital role in generating the fine groove profiles without any side flow as measured and characterized using the metrology tools
rR
25 as shown in figure 4 and figure 5.

26
27
28
2.3.2. Radial direction patterns
an
ev
29 The patterns in the radial direction were developed in Solid Works as per the details and dimensions shown in Figure 6. To
30 fabricate these patterns, the diamond tool was mounted in such a way that the rake face approaches along the Z plane of the
31 machine. It may be noted that the pattern generation, in this case, used the c-axis while the spindle was kept stationary. The
iew
32 tool was moved against the workpiece in the Z direction and scratches were made with a depth of cut of 0.3 µm and 0.5 µm at
dM
33 two feed rates ((a) 12,000 mm/min and (b) 1,000 mm/min). The grooves generated in a straight line at two different feed rates
34 with two different profile morphologies are shown in Figure 7. By using the C axis in SPDT, the spindle was indexed by 10°
35 increment for every groove and eighteen straight line grooves were formed to mimic a star pattern. The feed rate of 12,000
36 mm/min yielded a better groove profile than the one obtained at the feed rate of 1,000 mm/min because the dynamics of circular
On
37 grooves were matched with the radial grooves at higher feed rate. This is because while creating the circumferential pattern,
38 the workpiece was rotated while the diamond tool was kept engaged while keeping static at a prefixed depth of cut. Contrarily,
39 the workpiece for creating radial patterns was kept static (Headstock in Brake mode) while the tool was provided an axial
40 motion at the required depth of cut. Normally, an increasing rotation of the workpiece during turning gives a smoother finish
ly
41 and analogously the fast cutting operation to create radial pattern was performed by increasing the axial movement of the tool
42 to get better finish and profile accuracies. Thus, the axial tool movement feed of 12,000 mm/min offered a better profile than
43
pte
1,000 mm/min. A detailed microscopic inspection of the grooves was performed using an SEM (see figure 8) to ensure that the
44 programmable numbers were in close compliance with measured dimensions of the grooves.
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 (a) Grooves made in the circumferential direction (b) Grooves made in the radial direction
19
20 Figure 2: Schematic illustration of the two types of surface defect (grooves)
us
21
Fo
22
23
24 W
rR
25
K
26
27
28
an
ev
29 DETAIL P
30 SCALE 4:1
31 DETAIL X
iew
32 SCALE 5:1
dM 0.005
33 0.089 0.50 0.089

34 1
N
0.005
35
36
On
37
DETAIL T DETAIL H DETAIL O
38 DETAIL V
SCALE 50:1 SCALE 128:1 SCALE 512:1
39 SCALE 512:1
40 (a) 0.5 mm spacing (b) 1 mm spacing
ly
41
42 Figure 3: CAD drawing showing the details of the defects (grooves) made in circumferential direction with two different
43
pte
spacings (a) 0.5 mm spacing and (b) 1 mm spacing

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60

1
2
3 μm
4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 mm μm 6
0
0 6
0.5
5 0.25 (a) (b) 5.5
5.5 5
0.5
1
6 5
.5
2.5 mm
0.75 4.5 4.5
7
21
1 4
1.25 4
8 1.5 3.5 3.5
pt
9 1.75 3 3
3
2 2.5
10 2.25 2 6 2.5
4
11 2.5 1.5 2 2
2.75 1.5
12 3
1 00
0.5
0.5 Z 1 1.5 2 1
13 3.25
0 2.5 3
mm 0.5
cri
14 mm NM X
0
Y
15
μm
16
17 2
18
0
19
20 −2
us
21 −4
Fo
22
−6
23 (c)
24 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 mm
rR
25
26 μm
27
28
2
an
ev
29 0
30 −2
31
iew
−4
32
dM
33 −6
(d)
34 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 mm
35
36 Figure 4: Cross-sectional measurements of the circumferential patterns generated by SPDT with an interspacing of 0.5 mm (a)
On
37 2D view from the top as seen from the CCI giving an indication of the width of the groove and pattern distribution (b) bird’s
38 eye view to show the depth of the grooves (c) 2D view of the section of the grooves showing the depth of grooves corresponding
39 to the image shown in (a) and (d) a detailed view of the width and depth of individual groove verifying the actual dimension of
40 the groove
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 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 mm μm μm
5 0
6
(a) (b)
6
0.25
6 5.5 5.5
0.5
7 0.75 5 5
8 1 4.5 4.5
pt
9 1.25 4 4
6
10 1.5 3.5 4 3.5
11 1.75 3 2
0
2 0 3
5
12 2.5
0.
0 2.5
2.25 0.5
1
13 2
m .5
2.5 1 2
cri
1.5
m 1
14 2.75 1.5
2
1 mm 2 1.5
15 3
5
2.5
2.
0.5 Z X = 3.377 mm 1
16 3.25 3
3
0 Y = 3.379 mm 0.5
17 mm NM Y X Z = 6.381 μm 0
18
19 μm
20 2
us
21
Fo
0
22
23 −2
24 −4
rR
25
−6
26
27
28
(c)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
an
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 mm
ev
29 μm Length=0.3962 mm Pt=5.154 μm Scale=10.00 μm

30
31 2
iew
32
dM
0
33
−2
34
35 −4
36 −6
(d)
On
37 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 mm

38
39 Figure 5: Cross-sectional measurements of the circumferential patterns generated by SPDT with an interspacing of 1 mm (a)
40 2D view from the top as seen from the CCI giving an indication of the width of the groove and pattern distribution (b) bird’s
ly
41 eye view to show the depth of the grooves (c) 2D view of the section of the grooves showing the depth of grooves corresponding
42 to the image shown in (a) and (d) a detailed view of the width and depth of individual groove verifying the actual dimension of
43
pte
the groove
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
10
5
°
6
7 A
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17 DETAIL F
0.134
18 SCALE 8:1
19
20
us
21
Fo
22 DETAIL V
23 SCALE 256:1
24 (a) (b)
rR
25
26
27
28
an
Figure 6: (a) a 3D view of the wafer showing the radial grooves made on the wafer with an angular spacing of 10°(b)
ev
Detailed dimensional 2D drawing showing the geometric measurement of each groove

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 (a)
5
6
7
8
pt
9
25
10
20
11 15
12
μm
10
13 5
cri
14 00
0
15 0. 1
1 0.
16 0. 2
2 0.
17 0. 3
18
3 0.
0
19 m .4 0.
4
m 0 5 m
.5 0. m
20
us
0.
21 6 0.
6
Fo
22 0. 7
7 0.
23 0. 8
24
8 0.
rR
25
26
27
28
(b) μm
4
an
Length = 0.5881 mm Pt= 7.301 μm Scale = 10.00 μm
ev
29 2
30
31 0
iew
32
dM
33 −2
34
−4
35
36
On
37 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 mm
38
39 (c) μm Length = 0.4871 mm Pt= 5.148 μm Scale = 10.00 μm
40 4
ly
41
42 2
43
pte
0
44
45 −2
46
47 −4
48
49 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 mm
50
51
ce
52
53
54 Figure 7: (a) Cross-sectional measurements of the radial patterns generated by SPDT measured by a CCI using two feed rates
55 (b) 2D view of the section of the groove showing the depth of groove corresponding to the feed rate of 12000 mm/min and (c)
56 2D view of the section of the groove showing the depth of groove corresponding to the feed rate of 1000 mm/min revealing an
Ac
57 increased extent of fracture assisted material removal

58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
102.69 μm
6 394.48 μm
7
8
pt
9
10
11 150.71 μm
399.96 μm
12
13
cri
14
15 SE 16:11 000001 WD19.0 mm 4.0 kV ×100 500 μm SE 16:15 000001 WD19.0 mm 4.0 kV ×60 500 μm
16 (a) (b)
17
18 Figure 8: SEM images of radial grooves obtained at feed rate of (a) 12,000 mm/min (b) 1000 mm/min
19
20 3. Result obtained from the SPDT experiment and
us
21 discussions phenomena is shown in Figure 9 to show the importance
Fo
22 of keeping the interspacing larger than the width of the cut to

23 3.1 Comparison of surface roughness avoid jerky contact between the tool and the workpiece.
24
rR
25 3.1.1 Machining of the controlled sample using 3.1.3 Quality of machined surface having pre-machined
26
27
28
conventional SPDT method
an radial grooves
ev
Measurement of the surface roughness was one of the Figure 10 shows a comparison of the roughness parameters
29 primary drivers of the work to improve the quality of in the case of radial grooves and compares this to the previous
30 machined surface obtained by SPDT. To benchmark the two cases where a circumferential pattern was provided and
31
iew
results of SDM incorporated SPDT, a conventional cutting conventional SPDT was performed. It was found that
32
dM
trial was performed using the parameters shown in Table 3. regardless of the feed rate at which radial grooves were made,
33
The average roughness (Ra) measured on several locations the roughness results were consistently poorer (both in terms
34
from the conventional SPDT was in the range of about 8 to 10 of surface roughness and sub-surface damage) than the
35
nm. circumferential grooving patterns. This is the reason why in
36
the subsequent results discussed in the paper, only a
On
37
3.1.2 Quality of machined surface having pre-machined representative example of the radial groove is considered as
38
39 circumferential grooves one of the results was dropped after seeing no advantage of
40 providing radial grooves. The average mean value of
SDM was developed with the motivation to enhance and
ly
41 roughness (Ra) and peak to valley height (Rt) were about 8.7
42 improve the shearing of the workpiece during cutting. A nm and 664 nm during conventional SPDT and they improved
43 comparison of roughness parameters obtained from the when using a circumferential surface defect pattern with 1 mm
pte
44 machining results while providing grooves in the spacing such that their values were about 3.2 nm and 55 nm
45 circumferential direction in two different cases with two respectively.
46 interspacings of 0.5 mm and 1 mm respectively are shown in
47 Figure 9. The results for machined roughness for an 3.2 Cutting chips analysis
48 interspacing of 1 mm were observed to be better than for the
49 interspacing of 0.5 mm and there seems to be a strong Investigation and analysis of cutting chip morphology
50 correlation between this groove interspacing and the width of forms an important aspect of machinability studies as they can
51 reveal the underlying physical phenomena that govern the
ce
cut. The results hint at the fact that the interspacing should be
52 equal to or larger than the width of the cut. It may be recalled material removal process and the subsequent surface finish.
53 that the width of cut is governed by the nose radius and The chip morphology is largely influenced by the machining
54 undeformed chip thickness (cut depth in 2D) and therefore for conditions as well as the tool-work piece interaction pattern
55 the nose radius of 1.5 mm and depth of cut of 5 µm used in such as the cutting method (continuous, discontinuous or
56 this work, 1 mm spacing seems to be better than the intermittent cutting), tool geometry and the material being cut.
Ac
57 interspacing of 0.5 mm. An illustrative explanation of this The SEM image of the chips produced during the SDM of Si
58
59
60
10

1
2
3 in case of circumferential grooving patterns (interspacing of It is generally believed that loading with a hydrostatic
4 0.5 mm and 1 mm) and radial grooving patterns is shown in pressure of about 10 to 12 GPa causes the crystalline silicon
5 Figure 11. (Si-I) to transform to a metastable Beta tin phase of silicon (Si-
6 II). The Beta tin phase or the Si-II phase is no more semi-
7 As shown in Figure 11(a), nano-dust sort of chips conductive and conducts electricity which is why this high-
8 (continuous but less width) were observed while cutting Si pressure phase transformation is said to cause metallisation of
pt
9 having circumferential defects with 0.5 mm spacing (tool silicon and this metastable form is why metallic silicon can be
10 width of cut < pitch of the grooves). One can imagine that the machined and deformed plastically [14-16]. However, the rate
11 pitch of grooves is less than the width of cut led to the partition of release of load (in turn cutting speed in the context of
12 of the chip into two pieces and the material does not attain cutting) governs how this metallic form stabilises to
13 enough plastic conditions in the process and the cutting tool atmospheric and room temperature phases. For example,
cri
14 and workpiece contact is somewhat jerky. Such extremely rapid unloading can cause a direct amorphisation
15 morphological patterns in the generated chips are referred to whereas the rate of slow unloading forms other crystalline
16 as partially ductile chips and they can be attributed to uniform phases such as Si-XII, Si-III, Si-IV, Si-III before eventually
17 material removal rate during cutting, leading to a machined
18 leading to amorphisation.
surface with moderate surface integrity. On the other hand,
19
during SDM of Si wafer having circumferential defects with In the present analysis, the pristine silicon wafer prior to
20
us
1.0 mm spacing, the chip characteristics were found to be mid- machining showed a representative peak at 520 cm -1. Various
21
Fo
sized and broken into few micron lengths pieces as shown in texts on Raman spectroscopy of silicon report the Raman peak
22
Figure 11(b). This indicated healthy ductile-regime machining around the value of 521 cm-1. At times depending on the wafer
23
24 conditions as well as the periodic breaking of the chips (to condition or the sensitivity of the Raman instrument, a peak
rR
25 avoid forming long continuous ribbons) which was one of the may show a slight shift due to the presence of residual stress
26 original motives behind the development of SDM that it eases (strained crystal can shift the peak to the left or right
27
28
cutting load by the periodic breaking of chips.
an depending on the state of stress i.e. tensile or compressive).
ev
The case of SDM of Si while providing radial grooves was Figure 12 shows the analysed area and the corresponding
29
30 very different than the other two cases as the chips showed Raman spectra obtained from the selected machining zone in
31 cracking, non-uniform broken size pieces as shown in Figure different cases. The peaks identified from the Raman spectra
iew
32 11(c). Such chips were striated and exemplified debris alluded to the presence of a-Si (peaks corresponding to 160
dM
33 generation and conditions of cutting completely unfavourable cm-1 and 300 cm-1), crystalline Si-IV (peaks corresponding to
34 for achieving ductile and plastic conditions. ~507 cm-1), crystalline Si-III (peak corresponding to 170 cm-
1
35 ) and a-SiO2 (peaks corresponding to 263 cm -1). Si-III is a
36 3.3 Study of cutting chips with Raman spectroscopy BCC (bc8) form of silicon which exist between 0 to 2 GPa
On
37 pressure range while Si-IV is a hexagonal diamond cubic form

38 The cutting chips of the silicon wafer were examined using of silicon which forms as a result of the martensitic
39 Laser Raman Spectroscopy (Model - nVia Raman; Make- transformation of Si-I (crystalline silicon) such that its relative
40 Renishaw). The wavelength of laser used was 532 nm and the volume becomes 0.98 with respect to Si-I [4, 17].
ly
41 output laser power was set to 10 mW. A 20X objective lens

42 with a numerical aperture of 0.40 was used for the
43 measurement.
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
11

1
2
3
4 Diamond tool
5
6 V R1.5
7
8
pt
9 R0.2
10
11
12 H 0.35
Groove
13 H 0.09 H 0.09 Groove
cri
14 0.01
15 Groove Silicon 0.1
H 0.5
16 H 0.5
17 1.5
18 (a) 0.5 mm spacing
19
20
us
Diamond tool
21
Fo
22 V V
23 R1.5
24 R0.2
rR
25
26
27
28
an
H 0.35
H 0.09
ev
Groove
29 0.01
30 0.1
Groove H 0.5 Silicon
31 H 0.5
iew
32
dM
33 1.5
34 (b) 1 mm spacing
35 Figure 9: A schematic illustration to show the relation between interspacing of the grooves and width of cut
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 Figure 10: Comparison of the surface roughness measured using a profilometer

58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pt
9
10
11
12
13
cri
14
15
16
17
18 (a): Chip morphology of silicon while providing circumferential defects with 0.5 mm spacing (nano-dust kind of chips)
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an ~ 8µm
ev
29
30
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35 (b): Chip morphology while providing circumferential defects with 1.0 mm spacing (plastically deformed and broken)
36
On
37
38
39
40
ly
41
42
43
pte
Cracking
44
of t
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
(c): Chip morphology while providing radial defects (debris kind of chipping)
52
53
54
Figure 11: Morphology of the silicon chips (a) and (b) circumferential grooves and (c) radial grooves
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 Circumferential (1 mm spacing) ~520 (Si-I)
5 20000 Radial pattern
6 Circumferential (0.5 mm spacing)
7
8
pt
9 15000
10
11
12
13 10000
cri
14
15
16
17
5000 ~263 (a-SiO2)
18
~170 (Si-III)
19 ~160 (a-Si) ~300 (a-Si) ~507 (Si-IV)
20
us
21
Fo
22 0
23
24 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
rR
25 Raman shift (cm−1)

26
27
28
an
Figure 12: Raman spectra obtained after machining of three different defects exhibiting various phases of Si
ev
29
30
31 4.FEA of SDM of silicon • The cutting length simulated was relatively short (0.5
iew
32 mm), tool wear was therefore neglected in this study.

dM
33 To complement the reported experimental observations, an
• As the tool wear was neglected, it was modelled as a
34 FEA study was carried out. A 3D stress dynamic explicit
rigid body.
35 Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) numerical model was
36 developed using the FEA software Abaqus. In particular, the
• For simplicity, silicon workpiece material was
On
37 localised deformation at the contact of the tool and workpiece

assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous, albeit,
38 was modelled by using dynamic explicit ALE formulation. silicon is known to be highly anisotropic but as the
39 ALE helps to maintain the high-quality mesh during large simulation was an orthogonal scratch model, the
40 deformation or loss of materials that generally occurs during effect of anisotropy was neglected.
ly
41 machining. The explicit dynamic analysis procedure was

42 based on using very small timesteps. An extensive set of prior • The workpiece material was an elastic-plastic type.
43
pte
trials were carried out to adjust the FEM solver parameters.

44 The developed model was aimed at prediction of the • The workpiece material was assumed to be free from
45 machining forces, changes in shear plane angle, surface initial internal residual stresses.
46 roughness and the evolution of residual stress. The model was
47 Figure 13 represents the schematic CAD FEM models of the
built on the previous work by accounting for realistic material
48 SDM process developed to be simulated in a scratching mode
behaviour, friction consideration, damage model and by
49 considering the nose radius effects. The workpiece was
employing realistic geometry of the cutting tool[18]. Further
50 details of the model development are discussed below.
modelled as a rectangular block with dimensions 1.5 × 0.5 ×
51 0.1 mm. The single point diamond tool was modelled to have
ce
52 4.1 Description and assumptions made for the a -10 rake angle, 10clearance angle and to 1.5 mm nose
53 radius.
simulation model development
54
55
Initially, three-dimensional (3D) solid geometries of tool and The SDM process involves non-linear, discrete and complex
56 interactions between the tool and workpiece, as well as intense
workpiece were created. The following assumptions were
Ac
57
made in the present model for the simplification of the process. plastic deformation. Thus, it is essential to select the right type
58
59
60
14

1
2
3 of element type in the simulation. Here, an eight-node linear damage law and friction law were applied. Next, the theory
4 bricks element (C3D8R) was chosen to mesh the tool and the governing the numerical solution of FEA is presented.
5 workpiece. C3D8R is a general-purpose linear brick element,
6 with reduced integration (1 integration point) and provides 4.2 Theory of the FEA numerical solver
7 hourglass control and element deletion (for workpiece). The
8 The differential equation of motion governing the mechanical
mesh density in the cutting region was kept fine whereas the
pt
9 response of a system of finite elements can be written as:
region far from the cutting zone was discretized with coarser
10 mesh. As for the boundary condition, the workpiece was 𝑚𝑢̈ + 𝑐𝑢̇ + 𝑘𝑢 = 𝐹 (1)
11 constrained at the bottom to imitate the clamping action during
12
machining. The depth of cut was set to be 10 μm and cutting where m is the mass, c is the damping coefficient, k is the
13 stiffness coefficient.
velocity of 2.36 m/s was prescribed to the tool. The material
cri
14
properties of silicon and diamond considered in the FEA
15 Equation (1) in matrix form can also be written as:
analysis are listed in Table 4. As for the material constitutive
16
17
model, a Johnson and Cook model was used. The J-C [𝑀]𝑢̈ + [𝐶]𝑢̇ + [𝐾]𝑢 = [𝐹] (2)
18 constants used to simulate silicon in this work are tabulated in
19 Table 5. where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the viscous damping
20 matrix, [K] is the stiffness matrix, F is the external force vector
FEM can simulate the chip separation naturally and therefore
us
21 and 𝑢̈ , 𝑢̇ and u are the nodal acceleration, velocity and
Fo
chip separation was achieved without introducing any

22 displacement vectors, respectively.
physical, geometrical separation criteria or damage model.
23 The contact between the cutting tool and the workpiece was Nodal acceleration at the beginning of time increment i can be
24 defined by a modified Coulomb friction model. The
rR
25 obtained by rewriting Equation (2) as:

coefficient of friction between the tool and workpiece was
26
27
28
specified as 0.2. After the development of geometric models
of workpiece and tool, material properties, the material
an 𝑢̈ 𝑖 = 𝑀−1 (𝐹 − 𝐶𝑢̇ 𝑖 − 𝐾𝑢𝑖 ) (3)
ev
29 In the present work, explicit formulation was employed which 5. Results obtained from the FEA analysis and
30 uses central difference scheme to discretize the equations. The discussions
31 acceleration equation can be written as:
iew
32 5.1 Analysis of the machining forces, chip morphology,

dM
𝑢̇ 𝑖+1⁄ −𝑢̇ 𝑖−1⁄
33 𝑢̈ 𝑖 = 2 2
(4) machining stresses and shear plane angle
(∆𝑡𝑖+1 +∆𝑡𝑖 )
34 ⁄
2
35 At the end of the simulation, the cutting outputs such as forces
36 Also, the velocity change is calculated by integrating the and stresses were extracted from the simulation. Figure 14 (a)
On
37 acceleration term explicitly through time using the central and (b) shows the variations in the axial cutting force or
38 difference method. The change in velocity obtained is then friction force (Fx) and tangential cutting force or the thrust
39 added to velocity from the middle of the previous step and is force (Fy) during conventional cutting, cutting defects with a
40 used to calculate the velocities at the middle of the current step circumferential (circular) pattern and radial pattern. From
ly
41 using: Figure 14, the cutting load can be seen to be minimal when
42 ∆𝑡𝑖+1 +∆𝑡𝑖 using circumferential pattern defects.
43 𝑢̇ 𝑖+1⁄ = ( ) 𝑢̈ 𝑖 + 𝑢̇ 𝑖−1⁄ (5)
pte
2 2 2
44 Besides cutting forces, the simulation was also used to
45 Likewise, the displacement is calculated by integrating estimate the shear plane angle in each case. The shear plane
46 velocity through time, which is then used to update the angle was extracted by measuring the angle between the
47 displacements at the end of time step using: horizontal line and the line along the stress directions. From
48 this analysis, the values of shear plane angle were estimated to
𝑢𝑖+1 = 𝑢𝑖 + ∆𝑡𝑖+1 𝑢̇ 1+1⁄ (6)
49 2 be 52.53º, 48.33º, 50.94º and 56.69º for the cases of
50 conventional cutting and SDM incorporated cutting with
Further, an explicit time integration scheme was used to solve
51
ce
the transient problem. It was originally developed to solve circumferential and radial patterns respectively. All these
52 results are provided in Table 6. Clearly, the shear plane, much
high-speed dynamic problems which were difficult to simulate
53 like the cutting forces, was least while using circumferential
54 using the implicit method. After the development of the
numerical model, the results obtained from the numerical patterns. The reduced shear plane angle shows the dominance
55 of friction force over the normal force thus explaining the
56 simulations were compared with the experimental results
enhanced cutting action of the tool and leading to improved
Ac
57 under similar process conditions. These are explained in the

following sections. surface quality as observed during experiments while using
58
59
60
15

1
2
3 circumferential defect patterns. Next in figure 15, the negative (compression) to positive (tensile) occurs after the
4 distribution of von-Mises stress comparing conventional material separates into chips and machined surface. The stress
5 cutting with the SDM assisted cutting is shown. Typically, measurement on the machine surface after chip separation was
6 silicon was observed to yield at about 9 to 12 GPa which is averaged, herein referred to as steady-state residual stress and
7 consistent with the conditions of flow of silicon during being reported here in all the experiments. The residual
8 micromachining reported by various papers in the past. It may stresses while cutting silicon with circumferential defects was
pt
9 be seen that the stress gradient (distribution) in the case of lesser in magnitude in comparison to while cutting silicon in a
10 circumferential pattern seems more concentrated and is low conventional way or while providing radial defects.
11 compared to the other two cases. It indicates that only the
12 Jasinevicius et al. [19] have proposed to use 𝜛 = 𝜛0 + 0.52𝐿
cutting zone is affected by the stress and this leads to lesser
13 as a formula to estimate the extent of residual stress in
sub-surface damage which would suggest differences between
cri
14 diamond-turned silicon wafers based on their Micro-Raman
surface qualities of machining. The peak von-Mises stress in
15 spectroscopy analysis of the (100) oriented silicon wafer. Here,
the cutting zone was found to vary between 10 to 15 GPa in
16 𝜛 is the experimental peak obtained using Raman
excellent correlation with the reported experimental and
17 spectroscopy, 𝜛0 is the theoretical characteristic peak of
18 simulation values during ductile-mode cutting of silicon.
From the same FEA simulations, an important entity, namely, silicon (521.6 cm-1) and L is the residual stress measured in an
19 area in Kilobar. While cutting silicon at a depth of cut of about
20 the residual stress on the machined surface was obtained by
0.1 μm at a feed rate of 1 μm/rev, they estimated the residual
us
21 calculating the X-direction stress on the machined surface. As
Fo
such, residual stress represents the extent of distortion caused stress on the machined surface to be about 221.59 MPa. The
22
value of stress seems well compared to what’s obtained from
23 on the surface due to the manufacturing process. It results due
the FEA. It is noteworthy that Jasinevicius et al. [19] observed
24 to the partial recovery of the highly strained region that
rR
that the residual stresses keep on decreasing with an increasing

25 undergoes high compression in the wake of the tool and
depth of cut and gradually becomes 0 while using a feed rate
26 recovers only partially when the tool passes by this strained
27
28
zone. The development of high residual stress on the machined
surface sometimes requires a post-machining process such as
an of μm/rev and depth of cut of 10 μm. SDM with incorporating
circumferential defects turns out to be useful in achieved
ev
29 polishing and etching. Having a reliable simulation tool for quality of machined surface with low residual stresses.
30 estimation of the residual stress allows production engineers Furthermore, it was observed that the fluctuations in the
31 to select appropriate cutting conditions in advance to minimise
iew
residual stresses in the case of the circumferential pattern was

32 these. In this study, the residual stresses were extracted from
dM
more periodic compared to the other configurations. This
33 the workpiece by selecting two nodes (which were chosen to indicated the non-uniform distribution of stresses on the
34 be above and below the machined surface). Table 7 machined surface in the case of conventional cut and radial
35 corresponding to figure 16 shows the measurement of the defects and that the stress conditions were inhomogeneous.
36 stress vector measured in the ‘X’ direction in all configurations.
On
37 These stress values should not be confused with the von-Mises 5.2 Qualitative analysis of the simulated surface
38 stresses as von Mises stress is a scalar entity incorporating all
39
topography
stress vectors. Figure 16 data consists of two parts (i) incipient
40 flow stress whereby the relative region of the cutting zone Figure 17 shows the simulated machined surface topography
ly
41 experiences a high degree of compression upon being comparing conventional cutting with the SDM incorporated
42 SPDT. It may be seen that the surface profile obtained from
approached by the tool and (ii) the change of stress sign from
43
pte
44 the simulation in the case of circumferential pattern seems to in the cutting zone while doing SDM containing
45 have more uniformity compared to conventional cutting and circumferential defects at a spacing of 1 mm seems most
46 cutting with SDM containing radial grooves. These results can focused compared to all other cutting configurations. Overall,
47 also be reasonably compared (qualitatively) to the results it seems that the circumferential patterned defects produced
48 obtained in the experimental study. The machined surface and better surface finish with less damage and defects in the sub-
49 sub-surface during machining with SDM having radial surface.
50 grooves can be seen to have jerkiness or less-uniformity,
51
ce
which is identical to the experimental observations, where

52 cracking in the cutting chips was observed. On the other hand,
53 in the SDM with circumferential defects there is more
54
homogenous cutting chip generation and the stress distribution
55
56 Table 4: Material properties of diamond [20] and silicon [21]
Ac
57
58
59
60
16

1
2
3 Parameters Unit Diamond Silicon
4 Density (ρ) Kg/m3 3350 2328
5 Young’s modulus (E) GPa 1000 129.9
6 Poison’s ratio () 0.07 0.273
7 Thermal conductivity (k) W/m.K 700 150
8 Thermal expansion (α) K-1 4.0 ×10-6 2.6×10-6
pt
9 Specific heat (C) J/kg.K 520 700
10 Melting point (Tm) C 4373 @125kbar 1415
11
12 Table 5: Constants for J-C constitutive model [21]
13 A [MPa] B [MPa] C n m Tm [C]
cri
14
896.394 529.273 0.4242 0.3758 1.0 1141.85
15
16
17 Table 6: Tangential cutting force and thrust forces for different defect types
18
19 Machining models Conventional Circumferential Circumferential Radial
20 cutting defect (0.5 mm defect (1 mm defect
us
spacing) spacing)
21
Fo
Cutting force (N) 53.16 48.65 52.93 51.18

22
Thrust force (N) 13.38 11.43 13.56 16.75
23
Shear plane angle 52.53 48.33° 50.94° 56.69
24
rR
25
26
27
28
an
Table 7: Simulated residual stress values extracted from the FEA simulations
ev
Machining conditions Average residual stress (MPa)

29
30 Conventional Cutting 243
31
iew
32 SDM with circumferential patterns (0.5 mm spacing) 53

dM
33 SDM with circumferential patterns (1 mm spacing) 205
34
35 SDM with radial patterns 282
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
17

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
39
Figure 13: Work piece and tool geometries modelled to mimic the experiments showing (a) conventional cutting, (b) 1 mm
40
spacing grooves made in circumferential pattern, (c) 0.5 mm spacing grooves made in circumferential pattern and (d) grooved
ly
41
42 made in radial pattern
43
pte
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ce
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60
18

1
2
3 250 40
4 Conventional cutting Conventional cutting
SDM with circumferential defect (0.5 mm) SDM with circumferential defect (0.5 mm)
5 SDM with circumferential defect (1 mm)
35
SDM with circumferential defect (1 mm)
200
6 SDM with radial defect
30
SDM with radial defect
7
8 150 25
Force (N)
Force (N)
pt
9 20
10
100
11 15
12 10
13 50
cri
14 5
15 0 0
16 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
17 Distance (mm) Distance (mm)
18 (a) Axial cutting force (Fx) (b) Thrust force (Fy)
19
20 Figure 14: Simulated cutting forces obtained from conventional cutting and SDM with circumferential and radial patterns
us
21
Fo
22 S, Mises S, Mises
(Avg: 75%)
23 (Avg: 75%)
+9.154e+03 +8.887e+03
24 +8.392e+03 +8.146e+03
rR
+7.629e+03
25 +6.867e+03
+7.406e+03
+6.665e+03
26 +6.104e+03 +5.925e+03
27
28
+5.342e+03
+4.579e+03
+3.817e+03
an +5.184e+03
+4.444e+03
+3.704e+03
ev
+3.054e+03 +2.963e+03
+2.292e+03 +2.223e+03
29 +1.529e+03 +1.482e+03
+7.665e+02 +7.418e+02
30 +3.915e+00 +1.315e+00
31
iew
32
dM
33
34
35 (a) Conventional cutting (b) Circumferential pattern (0.5 mm)
36
On
37
S, Mises S, Mises
38 (Avg: 75%) (Avg: 75%)
39 +9.014e+03
+8.263e+03
+1.208e+04
+1.107e+04
40 +7.512e+03
+6.761e+03
+1.006e+04
+9.058e+03
ly
41 +6.010e+03
+5.259e+03
+8.052e+03
+7.045e+03
42 +4.507e+03
+3.756e+03
+6.039e+03
+5.033e+03
+3.005e+03 +4.027e+03
43
pte
+2.254e+03 +3.020e+03
+1.503e+03 +2.014e+03
44 +7.518e+02 +1.008e+03
+7.034e−01 +1.560e+00
45
46
47
48
49
(c) Circumferential pattern (1.0 mm) (d) Radial pattern
50
51
ce
Figure 15: von Mises stress distribution in the cutting zone of silicon observed in various machining cases
52
53
54
55
56
Ac
57
58
59
60

1
2
3 Stress vector measured in the 'X' direction
4 Incipient flow
5 5 and chip formation 5 SDM with circumferential defect (0.5 mm spacing)
6 Steady state residual stress
Incipient flow
4 4
7 (243 MPa)
and chip formation
Residual stress (GPa)

8 3 3
Steady state residual stress
pt
9 2 2 (53 MPa)
10
11 1 1
12 0 0
13
−1 −1
cri
14
15 −2 −2
16 −3 Conventional cutting −3
17
18 −4 −4
0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025
19 Time (s) Time (s)
20
us
21
Fo
5 5
22 SDM with circumferential defect (1 mm spacing)
4 4 Incipient flow SDM with radial defect
23
Steady state residual stress and chip formation
24 3 Incipient flow 3
(205 MPa)
rR
25 and chip formation Steady state residual stress

2 2
26 (282 MPa)
27
28
1
an 1
ev
0 0
29
−1 −1
30
31 −2 −2
iew
32 −3 −3
dM
33
−4 −4
34 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025
35 Time (s) Time (s)
36
On
37 Figure 16: Evolution of the stress vector measured in the ‘X’ direction of the FEA simulation showing yielding due to high
38 compression leading to the chip formation (high negative stress), thereafter become tensile stress after the chip formation
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 (a) Conventional cutting (b) Circumferential pattern 0.5 mm spacing
cri
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
us
21
Fo
22
23
24 (c) Circumferential pattern 1.0 mm spacing (d) Radial pattern
rR
25
26 Figure 17: Simulated surface profile obtained in silicon in various machining cases (colour shows machining strain)
27
28
an
ev
6. Conclusions patterned grooves resulted in striated featured

29 chips and debris arising from brittle fracture. In
30 An experimental and numerical simulation investigation was comparison to this, the circumferential pattern
31
iew
pursued to highlight the underlying benefits of using surface showed improved ductility, however, the
32
dM
defect machining (SDM) of silicon, which is classed as a importance of width of cut was shown to be
33 nominally hard, brittle material. In the past, the SDM method larger than the interspacing of the grooves was
34 was found to work successfully while machining hard steels recognised to be an essential condition to get
35
by virtue of a reduced shear plane angle but the current fully desirable benefits of the SDM incorporate
36
investigation now shows that even ductile-mode machining of
On
37 SPDT of brittle materials.

silicon can be improved by embracing the concept of SDM (iii) Laser Raman spectroscopy revealed
38
into diamond turning. Taking an example of the (111) surface amorphisation of silicon as well as the presence
39
of a silicon wafer, two types of surface defects were made of Si-IV and a-SiO2 phases confirming the
40
(circumferential and radial directional grooves) and the
ly
41 influential role of tribo-chemistry during

42 quality of machining in both cases was benchmarked to precision machining of silicon with a diamond
43 conventional SPDT. tool.
pte
44 (i) The incorporation of SDM into the diamond Overall, this novel work on surface defect incorporated
45 turning of silicon provided favourable
46 machining of silicon has opened new possibilities to apply this
advantages over conventional diamond turning technique to a wider range of other hard, brittle materials such
47
of silicon. The direction and orientation of as SiC, ZnSe and GaAs as well as hard steels. Care must be
48
surface defects to leverage this additional taken to optimise the geometry of surface defects together
49
advantage are critical, for instance, prior with the machining parameters to obtain full advantages of
50
machining defects made in the circumferential SDM.
51
ce
52 direction of the wafer, was observed to

53 contribute to improving the cutting performance
54 compared to SDM with radial patterns. The
55 radial patterns deteriorated the quality of Data Statement:
56 machining while machining silicon.
All data in the manuscript will be available through Cranfield
Ac
57 (ii) Cutting chip morphology showed distinct

University data repository (10.17862/cranfield.rd.12442886).
58 patterns for example, the SDM with radially
59
60
21

1
2
3 Acknowledgements process. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B: J. Eng.
4 Manuf. 227, 338-342 (2013).
5 NK acknowledges financial support provided by CSIR, India 11. Goel S, Rashid W B, Luo X C, Agrawal A, Jain V K.
6 through the project grant MLP0056 and Director, CSIR-CSIO A theoretical assessment of surface defect machining
7 for his support and encouragement. NK is also grateful to Dr. and hot machining of nanocrystalline silicon carbide.
8 Vinod Karar in providing infrastructural support in carrying J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136, 021015 (2014).
pt
9 out the experiments. 12. Komanduri R, Lee M, Flom D G, Thompson R A,
10 Jones M G, Douglas R J. Pulse laser pretreated
11 SG acknowledges the financial support provided by the UKRI machining. U.S. Patent. 4356376. (1982).
12 via Grants No.: (EP/L016567/1, EP/S013652/1, 13. Mir A, Luo X C, Siddiq A. Smooth particle
13 EP/S036180/1, EP/T001100/1 and EP/T024607/1), Royal hydrodynamics study of surface defect machining for
cri
14 Academy of Engineering via Grants No. (IAPP18-19\295, diamond turning of silicon. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
15 TSP1332 and EXPP2021\1\277), EURAMET EMPIR A185 Technol. 88, 2461-2476 (2017).
14. Mylvaganam K, Zhang L C, Eyben P, Mody J,
16 (2018), H2020 EU Cost Actions (CA15102, CA18125,
Vandervorst W. Evolution of metastable phases in
17 CA18224 and CA16235) and Newton Fellowship award from
silicon during nanoindentation: mechanism analysis
18 the Royal Society (NIF\R1\191571).
and experimental verification. Nanotechnology 20,
19
The work used Isambard Bristol, UK supercomputing service 305705 (2019).
20 15. Smith G S, Tadmor E B, Kaxiras E. Multiscale
us
21 accessed by Resource Allocation Panel (RAP) grant as well as
Fo
ARCHER resources. simulation of loading and electrical resistance in

22 silicon nanoindentation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1260-
23 1263 (2000).
References
24 16. Smith G S, Tadmor E B, Bernstein N, Kaxiras E.
rR
25 1. Blackley W S, Scattergood R O. Chip topography for Multiscale simulations of silicon nanoindentation.

26 Acta Mater. 49, 4089-4101 (2001).
27
28
ductile-regime machining of germanium. J. Manuf.
Sci. Eng. 116, 263-266 (1994).
an 17. Goel S, Luo X C, Agrawal A, Reuben R L. Diamond
ev
2. Shibata T, Fujii S, Makino E, Ikeda M. Ductile- machining of silicon: a review of advances in

29 regime turning mechanism of single-crystal silicon. molecular dynamics simulation. Int. J. Mach. Tools
30 Prec. Eng. 18, 129-137 (1996). Manuf. 88, 131-164 (2015).
31 3. Randall T, Walter J J H, Scattergood R, Nemanich R. 18. Goel S, Llavori I, Zabala A, Giusca C, Veldhuis S C,
iew
32 High pressure phase transformation and ductility in Endrino J L. The possibility of performing FEA
dM
33 diamond turned single crystal silicon. North analysis of a contact loading process fed by the MD
34 Carolina State University Raleigh, NC27695Y7918 simulation data. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 134, 79-
35 (2009). 80 (2018).
36 4. Goel S, Kovalchenko A, Stukowski A, Cross G. 19. Jasinevicius R G, Duduch J G, Montanari L, Pizani P
On
37 Influence of microstructure on the cutting behaviour S. Phase transformation and residual stress probed by
38 of silicon. Acta Mater. 105, 464-478 (2016). Raman spectroscopy in diamond-turned single
5. Goel S, Luo X C, Reuben R L, Pen H M. Influence crystal silicon. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B: J. Eng.
39
of temperature and crystal orientation on tool wear Manuf. 222, 1065-1073 (2008).
40
during single point diamond turning of silicon. Wear 20. Mariayyah R. Experimental and Numerical Studies
ly
41
284-285, 65-72 (2012). of Ductile Regime Machining of Silicon Carbide and
42 Silicon Nitride (The University of North Carolina at
6. Yan J W, Syoji K, Kuriyagawa T, Suzuki H. Ductile
43
pte
regime turning at large tool feed. J. Mater. Process. Charlotte, Charlotte, 2007).
44 21. Venkatachalam S. Predictive Modeling for Ductile
Technol. 121, 363-372 (2002).
45 7. Chavoshi S Z, Goel S, Morantz P. Current trends and Machining of Brittle Materials (Georgia Institute of
46 future of sequential micro-machining processes on a Technology, Georgia, 2007).
47 single machine tool. Mater. Des. 127, 37-53 (2017).
48 8. Rashid W B, Goel S. Advances in the surface defect
49 machining (SDM) of hard steels. J. Manuf. Process.
50 23, 37-46 (2016).
51
ce
9. Rashid W B, Goel S, Luo X C, Ritchie J M. The

52 development of a surface defect machining method
53 for hard turning processes. Wear 302, 1124-1135
54 (2013).
55 10. Rashid W B, Goel S, Luo X C, Ritchie J M. An
56 experimental investigation for the improvement of
Ac
57 attainable surface roughness during hard turning

58
59
60
22

Surface Defects Incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Surface Defects Incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Surface Defects Incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS

Surface Defects incorporated Diamond Machining of Silicon

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 106.197.45.56 on 11/08/2020 at 15:03

Journal: International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing

Manuscript Type: Paper

Date Submitted by the

silicon, single point diamond turning, finite element analysis, surface

IOP Publishing Journal Title

xxxx-xxxx/xx/xxxxxx 1 © xxxx IOP Publishing Ltd

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

machinability. It was proposed that the ductility observed micromachining of silicon.

25 spectroscopy, it was demonstrated that the stress state in

41 In an attempt to improve the machinability of difficult-to-

performance enhancement methods have been proposed and

turning during cutting of hard steels of up to 69 HRC [8-10].

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

Grooves or defects made in the circumferential direction and

25 These two defects, as well as the machined surface generated

29 Interferometer (CCI) together with a Scanning Electron

41 Spindle Speed (RPM) 2000

Tool Nose Radius (mm) 0.2

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

25 as shown in figure 4 and figure 5.

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

33 0.089 0.50 0.089

spacings (a) 0.5 mm spacing and (b) 1 mm spacing

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

29 μm Length=0.3962 mm Pt=5.154 μm Scale=10.00 μm

37 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 mm

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

Detailed dimensional 2D drawing showing the geometric measurement of each groove

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

57 increased extent of fracture assisted material removal

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

22 of keeping the interspacing larger than the width of the cut to

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

37 pressure range while Si-IV is a hexagonal diamond cubic form

41 output laser power was set to 10 mW. A 20X objective lens

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

57 Figure 10: Comparison of the surface roughness measured using a profilometer

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

25 Raman shift (cm−1)

32 mm), tool wear was therefore neglected in this study.

37 localised deformation at the contact of the tool and workpiece

41 machining. The explicit dynamic analysis procedure was

trials were carried out to adjust the FEM solver parameters.

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

chip separation was achieved without introducing any

25 obtained by rewriting Equation (2) as:

32 5.1 Analysis of the machining forces, chip morphology,

57 under similar process conditions. These are explained in the

Journal XX (XXXX) XXXXXX Author et al

that the residual stresses keep on decreasing with an increasing

residual stresses in the case of the circumferential pattern was