Analysing Surface Texture by Stratification using Rk Parameters

of Bearing Area Curve of Roughness Profile

Syed Abraruddin Hasan1, G Rangajanardhan2 and V S R Murti3

1. Mech. Engg. Dept., Deccan College of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, A.P.
2. Mech. Engg. Dept., Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada, A.P.
3. Mech. Engg. Dept., Sree Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology and Science, Chowdarpally,
Mahboobnagar, A.P.
e-mail: abraruddin@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Ball burnishing and shot peening processes are surface modification processes involving
plastic deformation of roughness asperities. The resultant surface stratification has been
analysed using Rk parameters derived from Abbott-Firestone bearing area curve which
divides the surface roughness profile into three clearly defined zones of peaks, kernel or
core and valleys. The associated mechanism and surface texture have been relative
analysed along with the effect of work material and medium size in burnishing and shot
peening.

INTRODUCTION

Finishing processes like honing, lapping, burnishing and shot peening result in a surface
texture which is a combination of roughness generated by the primary machining process
and the predominant extinction of peaks by the secondary finishing process. Such a hybrid
texture is considered to be tribologically superior. This study involves the analysis and
characterisation of surfaces generated by the basic manufacturing process and the
stratification by subsequent modifying processes of ball burnishing and shot peening (Fig. 1).
These two processes bear a similarity whereby the roughness peaks suffer flattening from
plastic deformation or cold working. The other similarity is the applied medium for surface
modification which is a hard ball pressing the surface in ball burnishing and impinging hard
balls in shot peening. It is their differing mechanisms which makes it interesting to study the
relative characteristics of the resultant surfaces from these surface modification processes.

Nozzle-movement
Spindle Shot media: (size)
speed Work piece
Number of shots
per sec (flow rate)

Ball size
and force
Distance
Feed rate Angle
Work surface Velocity
Burnishing tool

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Schematic of the processes (a) ball burnishing (b) shot peening along with major process parameters

1
THEORY

The roughness profile is an analog signal which has to be digitised for the computation of
ordinate distribution. When plotted, the frequency distribution of roughness heights is called
“Amplitude Distribution Function” (ADF) which has a characteristic bell shape. Its average Ra
index is commonly employed to represent the surface roughness ordinate distribution. But
functional behaviour of the surfaces are more dependant on the shape characteristics or
peakedness or otherwise of the roughness profile. The statistical parameter “Skewness”
(Rsk) is useful in analysing it. The discrete value expressions of these parameters are given
below.

1N 
Centre line average = Ra =  Zi
N  i =1 
---------------- 1

1  1 N 3
Skewness = RSkew =  Zi
 3  N i =1 
---------------- 2

Where Zi is roughness ordinates, I = ordinate number: 1,2,3,……..N

1 N

and  2 = 
N
Z
i =1
i
2


---------------- 3

However skewness is not easy to analyse since it is statistical in nature and has two
elements, a numeral and a sign either positive or negative which have to be evaluation in
tandem. Bearing area curve (BAC) is easier to analyse the peakedness or otherwise of the
roughness. Fig. 2 illustrates the typical roughness profiles, their ADF with skewness and
BAC. But BAC is not easy to comprehend. This has led to the development of R k parameters
based on the BAC.

Profile ADF BAC

Rsk<0

Low peaks
deep valleys

(a)

Rsk=0

Symmetric

(b)

Rsk>0

High peaks shallow 0 100

valleys
(c)
Fig. 2 Typical Roughness Profiles, their ADF skewness and BAC

2
BAC and associated Rk parameters

The bearing area curve (BAC) or Abbot-Firestone Curve is mathematically the integral of
ADF or the cumulative probability distribution. Ordinarily, the integral is performed from the
highest peak downward so each point on the bearing ratio curve has the physical
significance of showing what linear fraction of the roughness profile lies above a certain
height

Rk Parameters: The Rk parameters approximate the knee shaped BAC into a set of three
straight lines. Their construction is designed to divide the BAC into three sections. The small
peaks above the main plateaus, the plateaus itself and deep valleys between plateaus. The
first step is to slide a window (40 percent tp wide) across the BAC to intersect it at two points
(A and B) with minimum secant slope (Fig.3). Second step is to join these two points to
intersect zero and 100 percent at points C and D respectively. The height between C and D
is the first parameter, Rk. Draw horizontal lines from C and D to intersect BAC at H and E.
From H draw a straight line HJ such that the area of the triangle CHJ is equal to area of BAC
above CH. The height CJ is termed Rpk. Similarly draw a straight line from E to form a
triangle EDG with an area equal to the area of BAC below DE. The height DG is termed as
Rvk.

I
J
Rpk
Depth (µm)

A1 H 40%
C
Rk A
B D
E
Rvk Rvk
A2 G
F
Mr1 Mr2
Mr[c]
%%(%)
Fig. 3 The bearing area curve and the estimation of Rk parameters

Rk parameter correlates with the flat part of the BAC, which carries the load and most closely
contacts the mating surface. It is also called as “Core Roughness” or the “Kernel” (hence
K subscript). Rpk is the estimate of the small peaks above the mean plateau of the surface.
These peaks will typically be worn off during run-in period of a part. A small value of Rpk
indicates good bearing characteristics. Rvk is an estimate of the depth of valleys will retain
oil. A higher value of Rvk indicates good lubrication characteristics.

The parameters Rk, Rpk and Rvk are also indicated by corresponding material ratios.

Mr1 – is the fraction of surface containing peaks and given by tp of point E. (smaller Mr 1:
Better wear resistance)

Mr2 – is the fraction of surface, which will carry load during practical lifetime of the part.
(smaller Mr2: better lubrication)

Alternately 100 – Mr2 is the fraction of surface with deeper valleys that will retain lubricant.

3
METHODOLOGY
The following are the experimental details
Equipment : Precision Lathe with ball burnishing tool and a commercial shot peening system
Medium : Hardened steel ball and shots for burnishing and shot peening respectively
Ball and : 3.0mm and 10.0mm ball size
Shot size : And 3.0mm and 0.6mm shot size
Work Material : Aluminium and steel
All the process variables were kept uniform
Roughness profile records were obtained on profilometer with sample length of 4.8mm and
cut off length of 0.8mm. Roughness indices Ra, Rsk (skewness and Rk parameters were
directly obtained from the roughness measuring instrument. The Rk parameters selected
were Rk, Rpk and Rvk only to make the data compact.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Illustrative roughness profiles from turning burnishing and shot peening are shown in Fig. 4.

(a) Turned Surface (Al)-Ra=1.97µm (b) Burnished Surface (Al) -Ra=2.05µm

(c) Peened Surface (Al)-Ra=4.10µm (d) Turned Surface (SS) -Ra=1.89µm

(e) Burnished Surface (SS) -Ra=1.76µm (f) Peened Surface (SS) -Ra=4.61µm
Vertical scale: 1 cm=20 µm

(Profile height)

Horizontal scale: 1 cm= 0.5 mm

(Lag number)
Fig. 4 Roughness profiles of turned (a,b), burnished (c,d) and peened (e,f) surfaces of
aluminium and stainless steel respectively (ball size 3.1 mm)

4
Table 1 Lists the results on Ra roughness and Rsk for aluminium and stainless steel
specimens from burnishing and shot peening. The bold data shows reduced roughness and
skewness.

Ra Roughness in burnishing when large ball size (10mm) is employed it always improved
surface finish by reducing the surface roughness. But when low ball size (3mm) was used
sometimes the roughness has increased.

Table1 Effect of work material on the roughness indices in burnishing and shot peening.
Ball size – L: Low, H: High, T: Turned, BB: Ball Burnished, SP: Shot Peened
Bold data shows reduced roughness and skewness after burnishing and peening

Aluminium Stainless Steel

S. Ball
Ra (µm) Rsk Ra (µm) Rsk
No. Size
T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP
L 1.97 2.05 3.49 -0.14 -0.07 -0.03 1.89 1.76 5.3 0.13 0.21 +0.12
1.1
H 1.97 1.08 4.10 -0.14 -0.18 -0.06 1.89 0.93 4.61 0.13 -0.06 +0.16
L 3.41 2.09 4.60 -0.34 -0.21 -0.16 2.06 1.82 4.08 0.21 -0.27 +0.18
1.2
H 3.41 1.44 2.99 -0.34 -0.62 -0.21 2.06 1.06 3.46 0.21 -0.13 +0.14
L 2.36 2.61 3.64 -0.08 -0.02 +0.16 1.65 1.86 3.62 -0.12 0.06 +0.41
2.1
H 2.36 0.98 2.83 -0.08 -0.28 +0.12 1.65 0.98 4.16 -0.12 -0.13 +0.21
L 4.12 1.63 6.75 -0.09 -0.16 +0.01 2.86 2.64 3.16 0.08 0.18 +0.32
2.2
H 4.12 1.14 3.82 -0.09 -0.21 -0.03 2.86 1.16 2.43 0.08 -0.16 +0.24

Table 2 Effect of work material on the surface roughness Rk parameters in burnishing and
shot peening (All values in µm). Ball size – L: Low ; H: High, T: Turned, BB: Ball Burnished,
SP: Shot Peened

Aluminium Stainless Steel

S. Ball
Rk Rpk Rvk Rk Rpk Rvk
No. Size
T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP T BB SP
L 7.22 8.26 8.47 2.42 3.62 6.13 2.69 3.83 4.24 7.46 7.12 9.62 3.21 2.86 6.64 5.24 4.86 8.03
1.1
H 7.22 6.72 8.28 2.42 1.89 3.42 2.69 3.16 5.72 7.46 5.81 8.82 3.21 1.78 5.03 5.24 5.13 6.24
L 8.63 8.28 10.16 4.63 1.62 6.23 5.12 5.13 3.82 6.13 5.42 8.96 4.10 1.66 6.98 5.63 4.84 5.23
1.2
H 8.63 6.13 8.64 4.63 1.24 3.86 5.12 4.46 3.76 6.13 3.86 7.42 4.10 1.43 5.02 5.63 5.08 5.21

2.1 L 6.16 5.82 10.32 3.86 4.58 5.56 4.86 5.12 5.21 4.82 5.13 7.16 3.36 2.02 8.14 2.16 2.80 7.22
H 6.16 4.15 8.46 3.86 2.16 4.42 4.86 3.98 5.82 4.82 3.12 6.63 3.36 1.98 6.93 2.16 2.02 6.25

2.2 L 11.25 7.62 13.08 5.93 1.83 5.84 6.12 5.64 7.16 6.16 4.25 7.02 4.61 2.86 8.13 5.23 5.42 6.20
H 11.25 6.83 8.02 5.93 3.16 4.73 6.12 5.26 6.54 6.16 2.84 4.83 4.61 2.12 5.10 5.23 5.14 7.16

The contact area being low, the surface stresses are high and can produce large plastic
strain and increased roughness. However burnishing employs large ball size therefore it
always produces improved surface texture. The results are similar for both aluminium and
stainless steel. Incidentally one interesting result observed is that stainless steel specimens
have significantly low roughness compared to aluminium in turning under similar cutting
conditions. This is easily attributed to higher ploughing action of cutting tool when machining
aluminium which more ductile with lower yield strength compared to stainless steel. However
the effect of burnishing is similar to aluminium when burnished with differing ball sizes i.e.,
better results from large size ball compared to small size ball.

5
In general and particularly for the same ball size and shot size shot peening predominantly
resulted in increased surface roughness compared to burnishing which reduces surface
roughness. Another interesting result is that large shot size produces lower roughness
compared to small shot size. This is similar effect and results as that of burnishing where
large size balls produces lower surface roughness than small size ball. The reason for
peening producing higher roughness is that the impinging shots produce localised
indentations from the absorption of kinetic energy of the shots whereas burnishing exerts
pressure on the roughness peaks to cause plastic deformation. The action of shots in
peening is in vertical direction whereas in burnishing the action of ball is in horizontal
direction. The burnishing force depends on the effective interference which varies depending
on the relative magnitude of peaks and valleys. But in shot peening the full kinetic energy of
shot is absorbed by the target surface.

The instantaneous stress induced by impacting shots is much higher than the burnishing
pressure. Coming to the observation that larger shot size leads to smaller roughness
compared to small shots, there can be two reasons. For the same blast force the acceleration
and the resultant velocity of small shots will be proportionate to their mass. So small shots
have higher velocity compared to large shots. Similarly the K.E. of shots is proportionate to
their mass thus large shots will have proportionately higher K.E. But the K.E. being
proportionate to square of velocity but only directly proportionate to mass, the net result is
that smaller shots will be propelled at much higher K.E. than those of higher mass by the
same blast.

The second reason is the incidence of collision of incident and rebound shots. Being of large
size these shots will have a greater opportunity of collision that those of small shots. At the
same time small shots on collision can get deflected at a lower angle than those of larger
mass thus loosing lesser K.E. The result of rougher surface from smaller shots is thus quite
explicable.

SKEWNESS

The obliteration of peaks is indicated by lower and finally in negative skew in burnishing. This
occurs with higher ball size in all the cases but low ball size occasionally produced increased
skewness. The reason for this anomaly is same as that for increased roughness with low ball
size in burnishing. On the whole burnishing reduces skewness and peening increases the
skewness, which defacto implies that burnishing flattens the roughness peaks whereas
peening increases the height of the peaks. This can be possible only if new peaks are
generated. It thus indicates that whereas burnishing modifies the existing surface roughness
by reducing the height of the roughness peaks, shot peening generates or in other words
super imposes new roughness peaks. The hybridisation of surfaces in the two cases
therefore have different mechanisms.

Burnishing thus modifies the surface by selectively flattening the roughness peaks without
affecting the valleys which bear the original features of the primary process. But the peening
process superimposes a new surface characteristic of its own by indentation from impinging
shots.

Compared to aluminium, stainless steel specimens machined under similar conditions

exhibit higher skewness. Higher plastic flow of ductile and low yield strength which causes
higher roughness is also responsible low and negative skewness in aluminium surfaces. The
digging action of cutting tool is more, producing deeper valleys and the side flow causes
spread in the ridges. The surface is thus valley biased. On the other hand stainless steel has
lower side flow and the surface has peak biased texture. The affect of burnishing and shot
peening is generally similar in both stainless steel and aluminium.

6
Rk Parameters

The BAC curve is divided into three parts which in turn dissociates the roughness into peaks,
core or kernel and valleys represented by the Rk parameters of Rpk, Rk and Rvk respectively.
Their values for the turned, burnished and peened surface are listed in Table 4.2. The major
advantage of this approach is that the peak and valley features are represented by numerals
only and can be directly analysed with better clarity. These results corroborate the results on
roughness indices of Ra and Rsk but with a clear and direct interpretation. In summary
burnishing reduces roughness particularly the peaks without a significant effect on valleys.
Shot peening on the other hand increases roughness as well as peak and valley roughness.

Burnishing always employs a large size ball. The mechanisms are different in peening
(indentations from impact of impinging shots) and burnishing (flattening of roughness peaks
by plastic flow from ball force). The final surface roughness may increase in burnishing but to
a small extent but in peening the increase is quite high. However in general burnishing
produces superior texture with low roughness and peening produces higher roughness.
Though large shots in peening and small size ball in burnishing some times may produce
similar roughness index, the mechanisms and nature of surfaces are different in these two
processes and they cannot be interchangeable.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are drawn after these studies.

➢ Both burnishing and shot peening are surface modification processes burnishing
produces smooth surface but peening results in course surface.

➢ Burnishing produces a hybrid surface texture where by the roughness peaks undergo
deformation and produce a plateaued surface texture without significantly affecting
the valleys of the roughness profile. But peening affects both peaks and valleys and
generates a fresh texture under normal conditions of coverage and shot size. Both
skewness and Rk parameters are effective in the analysis of peakedness or
otherwise of surface roughness but Rk parameters are superior indices.

➢ Ball size in burnishing and shot size in peening have similar effect on roughness
where by larger size ball or shot results in better finish.

➢ As a corollary to basic nature of these processes. Material properly is an important

factor. Low yield strength and higher ductility leads to higher roughness in all the
processes of turning, burnishing and shot peening. Similar is the effect on skewness.