Comparison of dry and liquid carbon dioxide cutting conditions based on machining performance and life cycle assessment for end milling GFRP
dc.contributor.author | Khanna, Navneet | |
dc.contributor.author | Rodríguez Ezquerro, Adrián | |
dc.contributor.author | Shah, Prassan | |
dc.contributor.author | Pereira Neto, Octavio Manuel | |
dc.contributor.author | Rubio Mateos, Antonio | |
dc.contributor.author | López de Lacalle Marcaide, Luis Norberto | |
dc.contributor.author | Ostra Beldarrain, Txomin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-10T17:11:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-11-10T17:11:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 122 : 821-833 (2022) | es_ES |
dc.identifier.issn | 0268-3768 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1433-3015 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10810/58309 | |
dc.description.abstract | In the present scenario, citizens' concern about environment preservation creates a necessity to mature more ecological and energy-efficient manufacturing processes and materials. The usage of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) is one of the emerging materials to replace the traditional metallic alloys in the automotive and aircraft industries. However, it has been comprehended to arise a sustainable substitute to conventional emulsion-based coolants in machining processes for dropping the destructive effects on the ecosystem without degrading the machining performance. So, in this study, the comparison of the two sustainable cutting fluid approaches, i.e., dry and LCO2, has been presented based on machining performance indicators like temperature, modulus of cutting force, tool wear, surface roughness, power consumption, and life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis for end milling of GFRP. The cutting condition of LCO2 has been found to be superior in terms of machining performance by providing 80% of lower cutting zone temperature, tool wear, 5% lower modulus of cutting force, and reduced surface roughness with 9% lower power consumption that has been observed in the case of LCO2 in comparison with dry machining. However, to compress the CO2 for converting in liquid form, a higher amount of energy and natural resources is consumed resulting in a higher impact on the environment in comparison with dry machining. Considering the 18 impact categories of ReCiPe midpoint (H) 2016, 95% higher values of impacts have been observed in the case of LCO2 in comparison with dry machining. | es_ES |
dc.description.sponsorship | Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. The authors received financial support from Basque Government in the Excellence University Group system call, grant IT 1573-22. | es_ES |
dc.language.iso | eng | es_ES |
dc.publisher | Springer | es_ES |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | es_ES |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/ | * |
dc.subject | GFRP | es_ES |
dc.subject | end milling | es_ES |
dc.subject | liquid carbon dioxide | es_ES |
dc.subject | life cycle assessment | es_ES |
dc.subject | machinability indicators | es_ES |
dc.title | Comparison of dry and liquid carbon dioxide cutting conditions based on machining performance and life cycle assessment for end milling GFRP | es_ES |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | es_ES |
dc.rights.holder | © The Author(s) 2022. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. | es_ES |
dc.rights.holder | Atribución 3.0 España | * |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-022-09843-4 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s00170-022-09843-4 | |
dc.departamentoes | Ingeniería mecánica | es_ES |
dc.departamentoeu | Ingeniaritza mekanikoa | es_ES |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © The Author(s) 2022. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.