Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKhanna, Navneet
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Ezquerro, Adrián
dc.contributor.authorShah, Prassan
dc.contributor.authorPereira Neto, Octavio Manuel
dc.contributor.authorRubio Mateos, Antonio
dc.contributor.authorLópez de Lacalle Marcaide, Luis Norberto
dc.contributor.authorOstra Beldarrain, Txomin
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-10T17:11:18Z
dc.date.available2022-11-10T17:11:18Z
dc.date.issued2022-08
dc.identifier.citationThe International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 122 : 821-833 (2022)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0268-3768
dc.identifier.issn1433-3015
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/58309
dc.description.abstractIn 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.sponsorshipOpen 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.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringeres_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectGFRPes_ES
dc.subjectend millinges_ES
dc.subjectliquid carbon dioxidees_ES
dc.subjectlife cycle assessmentes_ES
dc.subjectmachinability indicatorses_ES
dc.titleComparison of dry and liquid carbon dioxide cutting conditions based on machining performance and life cycle assessment for end milling GFRPes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_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.holderAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-022-09843-4es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00170-022-09843-4
dc.departamentoesIngeniería mecánicaes_ES
dc.departamentoeuIngeniaritza mekanikoaes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 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/.
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/.