ABRASIVES

About SG grains:
SG Grains

AlO Grains

SG is a premium ceramic abrasive made up of billions of micro crystals. The grain

fracture occurs at micro level, resulting in extremely low wheel wear and self-sharpening
of the grains. The above photograph is a magnified snap of the grains. Schematically it
can be shown as follows:

AlO Grain

SG Grain

Due to this microcrystalline structure, the grain dulling/glazing some time after dressing
occurs as follows:

AlO (Before)

AlO (After)

Some features/Benefits of SG are as follows:

SG (Before)

SG (After)

ABRASIVES
Higher Material Removal Rates: This implies faster production, lower labour costs
and better machine utilization.

Cool cutting: SG grains produce lesser heat during grinding than conventional
grains. This results into better finish, reduced rejects and no metallurgical damages.

Reduced dressing: Lesser down time, better dresser life.

Longer Life: This yields into reduction in down time (for wheel changes) and hence
reduction in cost/component.

Hold form better

>
>
>
>
>

Can handle complex shapes and forms with ease

Cuts down cost per part
Consistent form holding.
No special Equipment
Keeps total grinding cost low

Improve operating Efficiency

> Reduce grinding cycle time
> Increase productivity and machine utilization
> Reduce metal damage
> Better process reliability
> Make grinding easy on difficult to grind material
Improve cost efficiency
> Reduce over all cost per part.

ABRASIVES
Plunge cylindrical grinding using premium abrasive option SG

Case 1

Trial of the SG wheels was conducted at XYZ co, in the shafts division for the plunge
grinding operation.
definite need for finish improvement.
Process Conditions:

Machine

Component

HMT Cylindrical grinder

7.5 HP at 33 m/s

Steel shaft (SM76)

12.3 mm dia and 71 mm
long
Material: Alloy Steel
50 to 55 HRC

Output

Process parameters

Stock 300 microns

Cycle time 55 to 60
sec
Dressing frequency 40 with existing (to
reduce taper)
Dresser Multipoint
diamond Star DG11)
Coolant Emulsion
(5%)

High productivity
Consistent size and
finish (0.4 mic Ra)
Low dressing
frequency
Low or nil
metallurgical
damages

Finish of 0.6 to
0.7 mic Ra

Tool : 500x100x254
Old : Cumi A60L5V10

Tool : 500x100x254
New : SG120-20

First trial specification: SG80-20M8VH.

Parameters
Dressing after
Finish
MRR

Cumi
X Components
0.6 to 0.7 mic Ra
Acceptable

SG80-20M8VH
3X Components
0.4 to 0.5 mic Ra
More than twice

The result was very encouraging. XYZ co required better finish (below 0.4 mic Ra).
Hence #120 was tried out to further optimise the performance.

ABRASIVES
Second trial specification

: SG120-20M8VH

The finish was measured at regular intervals to evaluate the effect of dressing frequency
changes.

Surface Finish at 35 sec Cycle Time (SG120)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

120

105

90

75

60

45

30

15

Taper higher than 5 microns

1

Surface Finish

Surface Finish trend below 0.4 for 15 jobs after actual dressing.

Job No

1
Graph 1
The above trend indicates that the SG120 wheel is capable of grinding consistently at 35
sec cycle time at a dressing frequency of 120 with consistent finish below 0.4 mic Ra.
Parameters
Specification
Cycle Time (sec)
Volume Ground
MRR (c.mm/sec)
No of jobs/dressing
Finish (mic Ra)

CUMI
A60L5V10
60
406.4
6.773
40
0.57-0.75

SG80-20M8VH

GNL
SG120-20M8VH

SG120-20M8VH

32
60
406.4
406.4
12.700
6.773
120
150
0.467-0.66
0.3
Table 1
1. The above table indicates the performance superiority of SG 120 wheel
conventional A abrasive of competition.
2. Along with improved finish, we were able to demonstrate reduction in cycle
improved life and consistent average Cp value of 1.4.

35
406.4
11.611
120
0.35
over the
time and

Based on the results obtained from the tests carried out at xyz, the following inferences
can be derived:

ABRASIVES
With CUMI Wheel increase in MRR
detoriates the finish

Finish (u Ra)

Surface Finish x MRR

CUMI A60 CYCLE TIME =60

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

SG80 CYCLE TIME =32

With SG80 ,increase in MRR doesn't

worsen the finish as grain remains
sharper for longer time and cuts freely

SG120 CYCLE TIME = 35

SG120 gives finish well within required limits with marginal increase
in cycle time as compared to SG80 but nearly 71% improvement over
existing CUMi wheels

11

13
MRR

Graph 2

Conclusion :
SG120

A120

15080.9
120
100000
0.150809
35 sec
0.012
1.45
0.45
2.1

4689.38
40
36000
0.130261
60 sec
0.033
2.5
0.75
3.4

Cp

1.44

0.9 - 1

Capacity increase

79 %

Cost reduction by

39 %

Price (Rs)
Dress frequency
Life (shafts)
Tool cost (Rs/shaft)
Cycle time
Down time cost
Machine cost
Labour cost
Total cost per shaft

15

ABRASIVES
Case Study 2
Trial of the SG wheels was conducted at ABC Ltd, in the shafts division for the race
plunge grinding operation.
The customer currently uses 510 x 8 x 304.8 DA120L5V10 or 19A120L8VH9 for the inner
track outer race grinding application for the shaft. This was always a constraint for
production due to 8 mm thickness.
Process Conditions :

Machine

Process
RPM: 1500.
Feedrate: Rough=5 mm/min and
mm/min
Spark out time: 2 sec.
Stock: 0.5 mm.
Dress frequency: 5 shafts.
Dress depth: 0.02 mm.
Coolant: Koolcut 70(conc.=1:70).
Material: En53100.
Hardness: 58-60 HRc.

Mode: Centerless OD Plunge.

Make and model: Izumi, KN311B.
Condition: Good.
Power: 5.5 hp.

Wheel
510 x 8 x 304.8
19A120LVH9/19A120L5V10
Trial - SG120-20M8VH and SG12020N8VH.

Output

Size: +_ 0.006 mm
Taper: +_ 0.006
mm
Surface finish: 4.0
Rmax
Roundness:
0.004
mm
Radius: +_ 0.012
mm

Finish=5

ABRASIVES
Trial Results:

DRESSING
FREQUENCY
OUTPUT
(Shafts/hour)

DA120L5V10/
19A120L8VH9
(DA120)
5.

SG120-20M8VH
(M)

SG120-20N8VH
(N)

20.

30.

214.

244.

248.

PROCESS CAPABILITY COMPARISON

Parameter
Size
Average
Min
Max
Range
Tol
6(sigma)
Cp

M grade
16.665
16.662
16.65
16.675
0.025
0.012
0.00259
0.8

N grade
14.215
14.204
14.205
14.215
0.01
0.012
0.00266
1.2

The data given along

with shows that the
process capability of
SG wheels in N grade
is the best over the
conventional
abrasive.

DA120
16.665
16.661
16.658
16.665
0.007
0.012
0.0083
0.75

The variation in size within the pair, finish and out of roundness values were checked
and found to improve with SG wheels.
QUALITY PARAMETERS COMPARISON
Variation in size between the two tracks

MICRONS

6
4
Series1
2
0
19A

The diameter difference between two tracks. In a normal monitoring over the specific
skip the variation is from 0 to values mentioned in the graph. For all graphs the skip for
19A is 5 for M grade is 20 and N grade is 30.

ABRASIVES
Rmax after grinding
Limit 4 mic
Rz

6
4

Series1

Series2

0
19A

ROUNDNESS

Limit 4 mic

4
3
Series1

Series2

1
0
M

The above graph shows maximum and minimum values of Rmax & roundness achieved
on the track. (Sample size 5)
Cost comparison analysis
COST COMPONENT

EXISTING

SG120-20M8VH

SG120-20N8VH

ABRASIVE COST

0.283

0.180

0.138

MACHINE COST

0.70

0.61

0.60

LABOUR COST

0.21

0.18

0.18

DRESSING COST

0.06

0.018

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.991

0.932

COST
TIME

OF

DOWN 0.013

TOTAL
COST/COMPONENT

1.266

ABRASIVES
NOTES
1) ABRASIVE COST = WHEEL PRICE/SHAFTS PER WHEEL.
2) MACHINE COST = HOURLY MACHINE RATE / SHAFTS PER HOUR.
3) LABOUR COST = HOURLY LABOUR COST h/ SHAFTS PER HOUR.
4) DRESSING COST = DRESSER PRICE / (EXPECTED DRESSING CYCLES) x (RINGS PER
DRESS).
5) COST OF DOWNTIME = (TIME FOR WHEEL CHANGE) x (HOURLY LABOUR +
HOURLY MACHINE COST)/SHAFTS PER WHEEL.
ASSUMPTIONS
1) HOURLY MACHINE COST= Rs.150/2) HOURLY LABOUR COST= Rs.45/3) SHAFTS PER WHEEL CALCULATED ON DRESSING FREQUENCY, DRESSING
COMPENSATION AND DISCARD DIAMETER.
4) DRESSER COST= Rs.300/Based on the number of shafts produced, the actual savings can be calculated.
For production of 1.5 Lac shafts per month and 100% SG usage, the cost saving for
customer (consumption - 12 Lacs per year.
A bulk evaluation order of 6 wheels in SG120-20M8VH has been executed and
customer is in the process of conversion to SG.

ABRASIVES
Crankshaft pin grinding using SG abrasives
Case 3
SG for crank pin grinding at ABC Co.
Process Conditions :

Machine

Component

Make : Toyoda
Opn no : IE-30-20-1
Power : 22 KW
Rated speed : 60 m/s
(constant surface speed)

Crank pin grinding

MX crankshafts
Material : C70 at 235 to
280 BHN (Forged)

Output expected

Process parameters

Job rpm : 200 (shoulder

& rough) & 10 during
finishing
Stock 250 micron on
sides and 60 microns
on pin diameter
Feed rates
Shoulder 27 mm/min
1st Rough 12 mm/min
2nd rough 07 mm/min
1st
Fine 2.5 mm/min
2nd fine 0.8 mm/min
Micro-finish 0.14 mm/min
Dressing frequency
Once every pin
Dressing depth 30
microns on diameter
Dresser Roller (87.5
mm dia)
Dresser feed rate 0.26
mm/rev

Dress frequency - 3
Consistent size and
finish below 3.2
Rmax
Good cut rate
Low or nil
metallurgical
damages
Cycle time of 40
sec

Tool
TDV 223/60
New : SG80-20M8VH

Trial Results:
Parameters
Two pins/Dress
Dress depth 0.03 mm
Two pins/Dress
Dress depth 0.025 mm
Three pins/Dress
Dress depth 0.03 mm

Finish
Pin4
2.40

on Finish on Pin1

Finish on Pin2

2.91 **

2.56

Finish
Pin3
2.77

2.49

2.71 **

2.67

2.48

2.25

2.60

2.94 **

2.61

on

ABRASIVES
Skip dressing of 3 was achieved. The power trend is stable pointing to possibility of
further optimisation.
Cost per component
151150

160

129

Value in Rs '000

140
120
100

DA (skip 1)
73 72 73

80
60

SG (skip 2)

55
41

SG (Skip 3)
36

40

24
12 12 12

20

12 8

0
Rs.

Rs.

Abrasive cost

Machine cost

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

Labour cost

Dressing cost

Total Cost

Cost components

Conclusion : SG was found cost justifying over DA wheels by 14 % with additional

benefit of 30 % increase in productivity.

Case Study 4
Customer: XYZ LTD
Operation: OD Cylindrical plunge.
Trial size/specification: 500 x 20 x 203.2 SG100-20L8VH
Pin-1

Pin-2

As shown in the above figure, the pins are ground using cylindrical plunge operation.
The trial was carried out for grinding pin-2.

ABRASIVES
Existing wheel used is AA100K5V10.
Objective of trial:

To reduce cost/component.

To optimize the grinding process using latest technology offered by Saint-Gobain

Abrasives.

Trial description:
Initial trial was conducted on the machine when the peripheral speed was 28 m/s. At
this speed, the surface finish obtained was found to be deteriorating after 25-30 jobs
after dressing. The finish was above 12 micro inches after 25 jobs (maximum allowed
surface roughness is 12 micro inches) The wheel face was found to be glazed. At 28
m/s, the SG grains were not undergoing micro-fracture, thus causing grain dulling and
poor surface finish. After discussion with the customer personnel, it was agreed upon
that the optimum output can be obtained out of SG trial wheel if the machine RPM is
increased.
The machine pulley was changed to increase peripheral speed to 34 m/s. After increase
in speed, Field instrumentation System (F.I.S) was used to compare the performance of
CUMI wheel and SG trial wheel. Some of the terms used for analysis are as follows:
Material Removal Rate (MRR) = Volume of material ground/cycle time
Q = MRR/wheel-work contact width
Power = Peak power Idle power
The following graph depicts the data for CUMI wheel as well as GNLs SG trial wheel.
Both the wheels were tried at two MRRs. viz. regular MRR (0.3 cc/min) and higher MRR
(0.7 cc/min). The power was calculated using FIS and the same was plotted against
MRR as follows:

ABRASIVES

Power v/s MRR' Comparison

CUMI

SG

0.8

y = 0.13x + 0.37

Power consumed (KW)

0.7
0.6

y = 0.2x + 0.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Low MRR'

High MRR'

MRR' (cc/min/cm)

From the above graph, it can be seen that the gradient of CUMI line is higher than SG
wheel. This indicates that due to micro-fracture of SG grains, the cutting edge of the
grains remains sharp and ensures smooth cutting. This can be seen in the number of
components ground between two dressings. For CUMI wheel, the dressing frequency is
90-100 components, whereas for SG wheel it is about 200 components.
The surface roughness values for all the components between dressing was checked. It
was found to deteriorate beyond 14 micro inches after 195-200 components. It was
decided to perform repeated tests for a dressing cycle of 200 components on the SG
wheel.
The detailed process parameters are tabulated below:
Parameter

Existing

Trial

Machine

Tschudin

Tschudin

M/C No.

3170425

3170425

5.5

5.5

Plunge

Plunge

500 x 20 x 203.2

500 x 20 x 203.2

Wheel head motor power

Unit

KW

Mode of Grinding
Wheel Size

mm

ABRASIVES
Job
Job OD

mm

Job Material

A/W-Crankshaft

A/W-Crankshaft

32

32

Steel

Steel

Job Hardness

HRc

40

40

Grnd allowance on OD

micron

375

375

Wheel used

AA100K5V10

SG100-20L8VH

Pre-grinding operation

Heat Treatment

Heat Treatment

Job Velocity

M/s

0.6

0.6

Avg. Cycle time

Sec

41

37

Feed rate

Mm/sec

0.0095

0.012

375

375

Single point

Single point

Number of passes
Depth of cut per pass

Microns

Type of dresser
Dresser traverse rate

Mm/sec

0.45

0.45

Total dressing depth

Microns

120

120

Reason for dressing

Poor Finish

Poor Finish

Parts per dressing

90

175-180

Water Based

Water Based

Coolant type

vCoolant ratio
Surf. Rghness achieved

Micro

7-12

8-13

Ovality

Microns

31818

40000

Parts per wheel

Parts per wheel is highly dependent on the dressing depth, which is dependent on the
operator, as dressing is done manually with a dressing attachment. The above figures
are calculated assuming the following:
Discard diameter = 290 mm
Dressing depth/dressing = 120 microns radially.
Wheel wear per component = 2 microns.

ABRASIVES
Cost Analysis
Total grinding cost can be split as follows:

Abrasive cost = Wheel price / components per wheel

Machine cost = Hourly machine rate / components per hour

Labour cost = Hourly labour cost / components per hour

Dressing cost = Dresser price / (Expected dressing cycles x components per

dressing)

Cost of down time =

(time for wheel change in hrs.) x (hourly labour cost + Machine cost)
components per wheel

Assumptions made while doing the cost analysis are as follows:

Machine hour rate = Rs. 150 per Hour.

Hourly labour rate = Rs. 45 per Hour.

Operators work with the same efficiency for both the wheels.

Cost per ring in Rs. for GNL trial wheel:

Abrasive cost = (5272/40000) = 0.13

Machine Cost = (175/97) = 1.8

Labour cost = (75/97) = 0.77

Dressing cost = [175/(228*175)] = 0.0043

Down time cost = [1*(75+175)]/40000 = 0.00625

Total cost/ring = 2.71

Cost per ring in Rs. for CUMI wheel:

Abrasive cost = (1700/31818) = 0.053

Machine Cost = (175/87) = 2.01

Labour cost = (75/87) = 0.87

Dressing cost = [175/(353*90)] = 0.0055

Down time cost = [1*(75+175)]/31818 = 0.00785

Total cost/ring = 2.94

ABRASIVES
Total Saving per component = Rs. 0.23/-

Cost Comparison Per Component

CUMI

GNL
3.5

Value (Rs.)

2.5

1.5

0.5

Abrasive Cost

Machine Cost

Labour Cost

Dressing Cost

Down Time Cost

GNL

0.13

1.8

0.77

0.0043

0.00625

2.71055

CUMI

0.053

2.01

0.87

0.0055

0.00785

2.94635

Costs

Conclusion of the trial:

The SG trial wheel was the second wheel tried in the same specification, after
successful trial of the first wheel. It was reported by the operator (For first trial
wheel) that when the wheel nears the discard diameter, the dressing frequency
drops down to as low as 140-150. Hence, during cost calculations, an average of
175 components was taken, although the trial was successful at dressing frequency
of 200 components. The same phenomenon is observed for CUMI wheel. This is
mainly due to the drop in peripheral speed with reducing diameter of the wheel (As
the RPM remains constant)
SG trial wheel of GNL was found to perform better than existing CUMI wheel.

Total Cost