IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 531
SURFACE QUALITY ENRICHMENT USING FINE PARTICLE IMPACT
DAMPER IN BORING OPERATIONS

S. Devaraj
1
, D. Shivalingappa
2
, Channankaiah
3
, Rajesh S Jangaler
4
1
PG Scholar,
2, 3
Professor,
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Adhiyamaan College of Engineering, Hosur, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract
Boring operations are challenging owing to limited process performance due to inherent tool overhang and resulting vibrations. The
tool vibrations can be suppressed with insertion of suitable damping methodology. The fine particle impact damping offers a better
damping method. Due to its conceptual simplicity, potential effectiveness over a wide frequency range, temperature and degradation
insensitivity and cost-effectiveness, particle damping is an attractive passive damping. The fine particles embedded within small hole
in a vibrating structure to dissipate the exciting energy thereby damping the vibrations. The present work, investigates the
improvement of surface quality of boring operation using fine particle impact damper. Substantial improvement of surface quality of
the internally machined surfaces has been noticed in the experiments.

Keywords: Boring tool, Impact damping, Surface quality, Tool overhang, vibration control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Particle impact damping (PID) is a technique to increase
structural damping by insertion of particles in an enclosure
attached to a vibrating structure. The mechanism of PID is
absorbing kinetic energy of the structure and converts it into
heat through inelastic collisions between the particles and the
enclosure. In the traditional techniques the damping is
achieved by elastic strain energy stored in the structure is
converted to heat. In very low and high temperature
environments the particle damping is effective compared to
traditional techniques. The particle damping can be added to a
structure in two ways- by attaching a particle filled enclosure
to a vibrating structure exterior surface and by manufactured
or pre-existing hole inside the structure with particles. The
PID technique is used for vibration control, absorption of
impact energies and noise control. The features of PID
techniques include mechanical simplicity, temperature and
degradation insensitivity, no power requirement and lower
cost. The PID provides effective damping over a range of
accelerations and frequencies in rugged environments where
traditional approaches fail. The impact damping technique has
been widely used for decades to reduce the more vibration of
boring tools [1,2]. Ema S and Marui E [3] investigated
fundamentally the performances of impact dampers with a free
mass and the damping mechanism. Saeki M [4] proposed
experimentally and analytically a concept of a multi-unit
particle damper to decrease the velocity discontinuity of the
horizontally vibrating system. Kachare P S and Bimleshkumar
[5] observed the effect of particle size and packing ratio of
particle impact damper both the transient and forced vibration.
The few researchers to investigate the physics of the particle
impact damper, Steven E Olson [6] presented an analytical
particle damping model to understand the physics of the
particle impact damper. Yanchen Du et al. [7] set a numerical
model to understand complex physics involved in the fine
particle impact damper, also Kun S Marhadi and Kinra V K
[8] measured the physics of particle impact damping by using
cantilever beam with particle filled enclosure attached to its
free end arrangement. Other than experimental few
researchers studied the application of particle damping for
vibration control. Zhiwei Xu et al. [9] used particle damper for
vibration and noise reduction in a bank note processing
machine and Michael Heckel et al. [10] investigated the
attenuation of the vibrations of an oscillatory saws handle by
two different passive damping mechanisms. The few
researchers suggest passive damping is also used in
improvement of surface quality; Pranali Khatake et al. [11]
improved the damping capability of a boring bar through
implementation of passive damper. G.M. Sayeed Ahmed et al.
[12] investigated surface quality of the work piece and tool
wear by changing the tool overhang. Based on these findings,
this paper investigates the improvement of surface quality of
boring operation using fine particle impact damping (FPID) in
a boring tool. The longitudinal hole in the boring bar is filled
by Copper, Aluminium, Zinc and Silicon particles have been
selected for the present study.

2. PARTICLE CHARACTERISTICS
In this Work, Copper, Aluminium, Zinc and Silicon particles
of different densities and same sizes have been used (figure 1).
Here, spherical shape particles are considered for damping
purpose.

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 532


Fig -1: Particle Samples

The particles and their densities considered for
implementation in the boring bar are given in Table 1.

Table -1: Particles and Respective Densities

S.No Particles Density (kg/m
3
)
1 Copper 8960
2 Aluminium 2700
3 Zinc 7140
4 Silicon 2329

2.1 Volumetric Packing Ratio
The particles can be filled either fully or partially in the
containing holes. Packing ratio is the ratio of filled space to
the unfilled volume in the containing holes. In this study the
particles can be filled fully in the hole.

3. BORING TOOLS AND WORKPIECES
3.1 Boring Tools
The boring tools used in this experiment have a section of
20mm 20mm and an overall length of 250mm. In this study
two boring tools of Rennie make is used. These boring tools of
geometry with the ISO9 code DIN4974 shown in figure 2.



Fig -2: Boring Tools

3.2 Work Pieces
The work piece used for the boring operation is a low carbon
steel hollow cylinder with an outer diameter of 50mm, an
inner diameter of 35mm and a length of 30mm. The work
pieces were pre-machined for required specifications before
the boring operations.

4. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The work piece was mounted using a chuck in conventional
lathe machine (figure 3) and clamped. The machining
parameters like feed, depth of cut and speed were selected
based on the machine specifications and kept constant for all
samples. However, the overhang length and damping particles
was changed. The recommended cutting speed, feed, depth of
cut and overhang length are given in Table 2.



Fig -3: Conventional Lathe Machine

Table -2: Machining Parameters


4.1 Surface Roughness Test
The figure 4 shows the experimental arrangement used to
measure the surface roughness of bored parts. By using
Mitutoyo SJ-301 surf test apparatus, for each specimen, three
readings were taken approximately at 120
0
angles and values
are tabulated.
Overhang length (mm) 120 160 200
Spindle rotation (rpm) 460
Feed rate (mm/min) 0.08
Depth of cut (mm) 1
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2014, Available @


Fig -4: Surface Roughness Tester


Table -3: Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool w
Speed: 460 rpm, Depth of Cut: 1 mm and Feed: 0.08


S.No

Test No
Overhang
Length (mm)
1 1 120
2 6 160
3 11 200

Table -4: Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool with Copper p
Speed: 460 rpm, Depth of Cut: 1 mm and Feed: 0.08


S.No

Test No
Overhang
Length (mm)
1 2 120
2 7 160
3 12 200

Table -5: Surface Roughness or Ra Values of
Speed: 460 rpm, Depth of Cut: 1 mm and Feed: 0.08


S.No

Test No
Overhang
Length (mm)
1 3 120
2 8 160
3 13 200
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org

ester
Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool without damping
mm and Feed: 0.08 mm/min
Length (mm)
Response (Surface Roughness in m)
1 2 3
4.32 5.49 4.56
4.49 5.09 5.29
4.29 6.57 4.01
Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool with Copper particle
mm and Feed: 0.08 mm/min
Length (mm)
Response (Surface Roughness in m)
1 2 3
3.90 3.75 4.14
3.41 2.79 3.97
3.60 4.20 4.53
Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool with Aluminium particle
mm and Feed: 0.08 mm/min
Length (mm)
Response (Surface Roughness in m)
1 2 3
4.83 5.18 4.98
5.05 3.93 4.65
4.56 4.73 5.03
eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
_______________________________________________________________________________________
533
amping
Average
4.79
4.95
4.95
article damping
Average
3.93
3.39
4.11
article damping
Average
4.99
4.54
4.77
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 534
Table -6: Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool with Zinc particle damping

Speed: 460 rpm, Depth of Cut: 1 mm and Feed: 0.08 mm/min


S.No

Test No
Overhang
Length (mm)
Response (Surface Roughness in m)
1 2 3 Average
1 4 120 6.38 4.36 5.94 5.56
2 9 160 5.87 5.53 5.56 5.65
3 14 200 6.08 7.26 6.09 6.47

Table -7: Surface Roughness or Ra Values of Tool with Silicon particle damping

Speed: 460 rpm, Depth of Cut: 1 mm and Feed: 0.08 mm/min


S.No

Test No
Overhang
Length (mm)
Response (Surface Roughness in m)
1 2 3 Average
1 5 120 4.24 4.78 5.32 4.78
2 10 160 5.29 6.07 5.33 5.56
3 15 200 6.67 6.50 7.07 6.74



5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study was undertaken to investigate the performance of a
damping particles on control of vibration through the surface
roughness by boring cylindrical shaped low carbon steel
specimen. In order to evaluate the surface quality of the
specimens, surface roughness test were conducted and the
values are tabulated in Tables 3-7. Comparison of specimens
surface roughness plots without and with particles, are shown
in figure 5-8.



Fig -5: Surface roughness of a specimen without damping &
with Copper particle damping


Fig -6: Surface roughness of a specimen without damping &
with Aluminium particle damping

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)
Boring Bar overhang (mm)
i!hou!
"ar!ic#e
$o%%er
"ar!ic#e
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)
Boring Bar overhang (mm)
&i!hou!
"ar!ic#e
'#uminium
"ar!ic#e
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 535


Fig -7: Surface roughness of a specimen without damping &
with Zinc particle damping



Fig -8: Surface roughness of a specimen without damping &
with Silicon particle damping

It can be observed from figures 5-8, the usage of Zinc and
Silicon particles shows poor damping, whereas the Copper and
Aluminium particles progresses the damping, however Fine
Particle Impact Damping (FPID) improves the surface quality
of the machined components.

6. CONCLUSIONS
An innovative method is proposed to reduce tool chatter and
improve surface finish in boring operation. The results proved
that the particle damping technique has vast potential in the
reduction of tool chatter. Also, the surface quality of the
specimens can be improved using fine particle impact
damping. Boring tool with Fine Particle Impact Damper is
relatively cheaper than other dampers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Halesh Koti and
Prof. K. Srinivasan, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
for their valuable suggestions and also for sharing inputs and
important data for this research paper.

REFERENCES
[1] Ema S, Marui E. Suppression of chatter vibration of
boring tools using impact dampers. Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manufact. Vol. 40, pp. 1141-1156, 2000.
[2] Ema S, Marui E. Theoretical analysis on chatter
vibration in drilling and its suppression. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology vol. 138, pp. 572-
578, 2003.
[3] S.EMA, E.MAURI. A fundamental study on impact
dampers. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact vol. 34 (3), pp.
407-421, 1994.
[4] Saeki M. Analytical study of multi-particle damping.
Journal of Sound and Vibration vol. 281, pp. 1133-
1144, 2005.
[5] P.S. Kachare and Bimleshkumar. Effect of particle size
and packing ratio of PID on vibration amplitude of
beam. Journal of Mechanical and Sciences vol. 4, pp.
504-517, 2013.
[6] Steven E.Olson. An analytical particle damping model.
Journal of Sound and Vibration vol. 264, pp. 1155-
1166, 2003.
[7] Yanchen Du, Shulin Wang. Modeling the fine particle
impact damper. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences vol. 52, pp. 1015-1022, 2010.
[8] Kun S.Marhadi, Vikram K.kinra. Particle impact
damping: effect of mass ratio, material, and shape.
Journal of Sound and Vibration vol. 283, pp. 433-448,
2005.
[9] Zhiwei Xu, Michael Yu Wang, Tianning Chen. A
particle damper of vibration and noise reduction.
Journal of Sound and Vibration vol. 270, pp. 1033-
1040, 2004.
[10] Michael Heckle, Achim Sack, Jonathan E. Kollmer,
Thorsten Poschel. Granular dampers for the reduction
of vibrations of an oscillatory saw. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications vol. 391, pp.
4442-4447, 2012.
[11] Pranali Khatake, P.T.Nitnaware. Vibration mitigation
using passive damper in machining. International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research vol. 3 (6), pp.
3649-3652, 2013.
[12] G.M.Sayeed Ahmed, Hakeemuddin Ahmed, Syed
Safiuddin Samad. Experimental investigation of effect
of tool length on surface roughness during turning
operation and its optimization. IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering vol. 7 (2), pp. 73-80,
2013.
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)
Boring Bar overhang (mm)
&i!hou!
"ar!ic#e
(inc
"ar!ic#e
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)
Boring Bar overhang (mm)
&i!hou!
"ar!ic#e
Si#icon
"ar!ic#e