Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Glistens Is … Or Is It?
Surface finish types for commercially supplied stainless steel sheet are
detailed in various standards. ASTM A480-12 and EN10088-2 are two;
BS 1449-2 (1983) is still available, although no longer active. These
standards are very similar in that they define eight grades of surface finish
for stainless steel. Grade 7 is “buff polished,” while the highest polish—
the so-called mirror polish—is designated Grade 8
ANSELM KUHN
JOHN FLETCHER, ELCOMETER
Ever since the discovery in 1912, of the family of alloys collectively known as
stainless steels, many of their applications have required that they be
provided with a polished finish. Cutlery, domestic appliances and tableware
are but a few such applications. For some architectural applications, such as
handrails, a relatively low degree of polish is required. Where aesthetics come
into play, a higher degree of polished finish is required, as with
tableware. Such finishes are usually created using electropolishing. However
the ultimate polished finish on stainless steel is the so-called mirror-finish
achieved using mechanical polishing. The types of surface finish on
commercially supplied stainless steel sheet are laid down in various Standards.
ASTM A480-12, EN10088-2 are two such standards. BS 1449-2 (1983) is still
available, though no longer active. These standards are very similar in that
they define eight grades of surface finish for stainless steel. Grade #7 is “buff
polished” while the highest polish, so-called Mirror Finish with which we are
concerned here, is designated #8 (in the case of EN10088-2, it is designated
2P). These standards describe, in qualitative terms, how such a mirror finish
is obtained, by mechanical polishing using progressively finer grades of
abrasive and finally, a polishing compound. However these standards do not
define the optical quality of surface finish in any quantitative way other than
specifying “ a non-directional finish which is reflective and has good image
clarity. The surface will be essentially free from grit lines due to the initial
grinding stages”. We show here that, while such Standards are undoubtedly
valuable, they can conceal considerable differences in nominally identical
products from different suppliers.
Characterisation of Surfaces
Experimental Results
Some general comments should be noted. A highly reflective surface may have
random defects, such as scratches or pits. These can be too small to be
observed with the naked eye. More important, however, is the question of
isotropy (or anisotropy). As a result of mechanics of the polishing
process, there are often systematic variations of property along the X- and Y-
axes, and some such effects are revealed in the data reported below.
Surface Roughness
Optical Measurements
Note the Gloss measurement is taken at a 20° angle with the unit calibrated
using a mirror tile.
The parameters in Table 3 will not be discussed here in detail, all are
referenced to Standards. Broadly speaking, DoI is a characteristic of the
surface at the 0.1mm wavelength, Haze at 0.01mm and Gloss
at 0.001mm wavelengths. Gloss is defined in ISO 2813/ASTM D523,
measured at 20⁰ and 60⁰.R(Spec) is a measurement of peak reflectance
defined in ASTM D430, Haze is specified in ASTM D430 and DoI
(Distinctness of image) is defined in ASTM D430/D5767
Figure 2. Reflectance (arbitrary units) vs. surface roughness for
electrodeposited chromium (data from ref. 9)
The highest possible degree of surface finish is usually desirable, for two quite
distinct reasons. On the short timescale, the highest possible finish is desired
both for aesthetic and functional points of view. The former speaks for itself,
while where the stainless steel is actually used as a mirror, whether in an
instrument or on a larger scale, image quality, both in terms of DoI and
absence of larger scale distortions, is vital. On the longer timescale – months
and years, there is abundant evidence (e.g 10, 12) that the smoother the
surface, the slower will be processes such as corrosion or tarnishing (both of
these being chemical reactions whose rate is related to true, as opposed to
superficial, surface area) and also to accretion of fine airborne particulates,
such as soot or dust. As with corrosion and tarnishing, such “soiling” for want
of a better term, would be expected to related to true surface area. The
smoother the surface, the more difficult it is for such micron or sub-micron
sized particles to lodge. This was demonstrated, for example, by Arnold &
Bailey (12) who used SEM and AFM to characterise the surface finish of
stainless steel samples after polishing, electropolishing etc in relation to
bacterial attachment and biofilm formation.
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Steve Pollard from Elcometer Ltd. who carried out some of
the measurements.
References
1. . www.wikipedia.com “Cloud Gate”
2. Lehnen, K, Grinding & Surface Finishing: April (2012) p. 60
3. www.wikipedia.com “Surface Roughness”
5. www.wikipedia.com “Distinctness of Image”
7. searchable at www.surfacequery.com