Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123

DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-5428-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Grain trajectory and grain workpiece contact analyses

for modeling of grinding force and energy partition
Dexiang Wang & Peiqi Ge & Wenbo Bi & Jingliang Jiang

Received: 9 May 2013 / Accepted: 15 October 2013 / Published online: 13 November 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013

Abstract To achieve controlled stress grinding and controlled Ax Real contact area (square millimeters)
grinding of the depth of modificative layer, coupled analysis A(x) Chip cross-section area
of grinding force and grinding heat is required. Therefore, this (square millimeters)
paper investigated grinding force and energy partition to lay a AΔ Contact area between wheel and
foundation for the coupled analysis. Firstly, a new grinding workpiece per divided segment
force model based on the analyses of grain trajectory and grain (square millimeters per segment)
workpiece contact. In the modeling of grinding force, critical a Range of distribution of grain diameters
grain indention depths for plowing and cutting were (millimeters; a =d max −d mean)
calculated and the grinding force models of a single grain ae Grinding depth (millimeters)
were established. This model can analyze the contributions b Grinding width (millimeters)
of sliding, plowing, and cutting to total grinding forces. d gx Grain diameter (millimeters)
Secondly, an energy partition model was established based d max Maximum grain diameter (millimeters)
on the analyses of grain trajectory and grain workpiece d mean Mean grain diameter (millimeters)
contact. In the modeling of energy partition, the real contact d min Minimum grain diameter (millimeters)
area ratio and the grain contact radius were calculated. Finally, ds Wheel diameter (millimeters)
experiments were pursued to validate the grinding force model E1 Elastic modulus of grain (megapascals)
by comparing the experimental measurements to the E2 Elastic modulus of workpiece
theoretical results. Comparisons showed reasonable (megapascals)
agreement quantitatively. E* equivalent elastic modulus
(megapascals)
Keywords Grinding . Grinding force . Grain trajectory F Total grinding force (newtons)
analysis . Energy partition F brinell Brinell indention force (newtons)
F cn,x , F ct,x Cutting force per grain (newtons)
Abbreviation F i , F ni , F ti Grinding force at l (newtons)
Al Real contact area at l (square F pn,x , F pt,x Plowing force per grain (newtons)
millimeters) F rn,x , F rt,x Sliding force per grain (newtons)
A ratiol Real contact area ratio at position l f(x) Probability density function of grain
diameter
H Hardness of the workpiece material
D. Wang : P. Ge (*) : W. Bi : J. Jiang
(Newtons per square millimeters)
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shandong University,
Jinan 250061, China h Grain protrusion height (millimeters)
e-mail: pqge@sdu.edu.cn h0 Minimum protrusion height of the grain
just contact with workpiece at l
P. Ge
(millimeters)
Key Laboratory of High-Efficiency and Clean Mechanical
Manufacture, Shandong University, Ministry of Education, h cu, max Maximum grain indention depth
Jinan 250061, China (millimeters)
2112
h cu, min, h plow, min Critical indention depths (millimeters)
h cul, max Maximum indention depth of the grain
just contact with workpiece at l
(millimeters)
h cutl Grain indention depth at position l
(millimeters)
h cutl, max Maximum grain indention depth at
position l (millimeters)
h cut, min Minimum protrusion height among all
the cutting grains (millimeters)
h cut, max Maximum indention depth of a grain
(millimeters)
h cutx Grain indention depth (millimeters),
given by h cutx =h −h min
h fl Convection heat transfer coefficient of
the fluid at position l
h max Maximum grain protrusion height
(millimeters)
h min Minimum grain protrusion height
(millimeters),
calculated from h min =h max −h cu, max
kg Thermal conductivity of grain
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (watts per millikelvin)
ðkρcÞw Thermal properties of workpiece
(joules per square meter second kelvin)
l An arbitrary location of
the grinding zone
lc Grinding zone length (millimeters)
l con Real contact length of a grain
(millimeters)
Δl Length of each divided segment
(millimeters)
Ns Number of grains per unit area
(grains per square millimeter)
N total Total number of grains passing through
grinding zone per unit time
(grains per second)
NΔ Number of grains in each divided
segment (grains per segment)
P(x) Probability density function of grain
protrusion height
p Mean contact pressure between grain
and workpiece (newtons per square
millimeter)
pt Critical contact pressure between grain
and workpiece (newtons per square
millimeter)
q chl Heat flux conducted into chips at
position l (watts per square meter)
q fl Heat flux transferred into the fluid by
convection at position l
(watts per square meter)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
q gl Heat flux conducted into grains at
position l (watts per square meter)
ql Heat flux generated at position l
(watts per square meter)
q wl Heat flux conducted into workpiece at
position l (watts per square meter)
q wbl Heat flux that remains in the workpiece
at position l (watts per square)
R wg Energy partition to the workpiece
between grain and workpiece
r gx Grain radius (millimeters)
ro Mean contact radius (millimeters)
r ol Contact radius at position l
(millimeters)
r ox Contact radius between a contacting
grain and the workpiece (millimeters)
T 0l Temperature rise of the workpiece at
position l (degrees Celsius)
T initial Initial temperature of the fluid
(degrees Celsius)
T∞ Ambient temperature
(degrees Celsius)
V Grinding removal rate
(cubic millimeters per second)
V cut Volume of chips removed by all
the cutting grains per unit time
(cubic millimeters per second)
Vg Grain volume percentage
vs Wheel speed (meters per second)
vw Workpiece speed
(millimeters per minute)
x A variable (millimeters), defined by
d gx =d mean +x
α Effective attack angle (radians), given
by α =arcos(1–2h cutx/d gx )
β, γ, φ Friction, rake, and shear angles (radians)
Δ Interval between two adjacent grains
(millimeters)
δ The interference between grain profile
and workpiece profile (millimeters)
ε chl Energy partition at position l to chips
ε fl Energy partition at position l to fluid
ε gl Energy partition at position l to grains
ε wbl Energy partition at position l to
workpiece background
ξ cut, ξ plow Coefficients linking critical indention
depths with grain diameter
μ Friction coefficient
τs Shear strength of the workpiece
(megapascals)
υ1 Poisson’s ratio of grain
υ2 Poisson’s ratio of workpiece
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
1 Introduction
Grinding is one of the main methods of precision
manufacturing and extensively used to manufacture various
precision parts. High energy is consumed to remove per unit
volume material in the grinding process. Virtually, all of this
energy is dissipated as heat at the grinding zone [1]. This heat is
then transferred away from the grinding zone by the workpiece,
grinding wheel, grinding fluid, and chips. The grinding heat
conducted into the workpiece leads to high temperatures and
steep temperature gradients in the workpiece surface layer. This
can cause various types of thermal damage to the workpiece,
such as burning, white layer, cracks, and residual tensile
stresses. These damages can be detrimental to the service life
of parts [2, 3]. Therefore, to avoid burning and to improve
workpiece grinding quality, it is necessary to control the
amount of grinding heat conducted into the workpiece.
For this purpose, lessening the heat generation and
reducing the heat conducted into the workpiece are the two
main methods. It is widely held that the higher heat generation
in the grinding process compared with other metal-removed
process like turning and milling is primarily attributed to
sliding and plowing occurring at the grain workpiece interface
[4]. The portions of heat generated by sliding and plowing
needs to be obtained to determine the latent amount of the heat
generation that can be reduced. The energy partition in the
grinding zone requires a deep understanding to reduce the
amount of heat conducted into the workpiece.
Grinding force is an important indicator to evaluate
grinding performance. Size and form accuracy, surface, and
subsurface integrity are strongly influenced by grinding force.
Therefore, it is of great importance to improve grinding
quality through accurate grinding force prediction and further
proposing grinding force controlling strategy. Grinding force
is related to almost all grinding parameters. Thereby many
empirical models were established, which expressed the
mathematical relationship between the grinding force and
principal grinding parameters using regression analysis [5,
6]. However, empirical models depend heavily on the
particular circumstances, and their universality is limited.
Werner [7] derived the formula of normal grinding force per
unit width taking the combined effects of sliding and cutting
into consideration through the analyses of grain distribution
on wheel surface and grinding process kinematics. However,
sliding and cutting were not distinguished from the physical
relationships in grinding. Malkin [8] pointed out that grinding
force was caused by sliding and cutting, and experimental
results showed that sliding force was proportional to grain
wear area. Li and Fu [9] developed a grinding force model
based on Werner’s model, and the effects of sliding and
cutting were separated according to Malkin’s conclusions.
However, there are some parameters difficult to be obtained
2113
in their model. Durgumahanti et al. [10] proposed a model
composed of sliding force components, plowing force
components, and cutting force components, based on the
division of cutting force into cutting force and plowing force.
Badger and Torrance [11] put forward two methods for
calculating the grinding force, the first model based on
Challen and Oxley’s 2-D slip-line field theory, the second
model based on Williams and Xie’s 3-D pyramid-shaped
asperity model. Hecker et al. [12], developed a model based
on the assumption that the undeformed chip thickness
distribution obeyed Rayleigh probability density distribution.
In this study, a grinding force model and an energy partition
model were established based on grain trajectory analysis and
grain workpiece contact analysis. In the modeling of grinding
force, the grain trajectory analysis was performed to deal with
the changes of the contact types of a single grain passing
through the grinding zone. The grain workpiece contact
analysis was performed to establish the grinding force models
of a single grain corresponding to the contact types. In the
modeling of energy partition, the grain trajectory analysis was
performed to deal with the real contact area ratio and the grain
contact radius varying along the grinding zone. The grain
workpiece contact analysis was performed to investigate the
energy partitions at any position along the grinding zone. The
main purpose of this study is to lay a solid foundation to
achieve controlled stress grinding and controlled grinding of
the depth of modificative layer in industry.
2 Description of wheel surface
2.1 Probability density function of grain dimension
As the geometry of grains is random, the grain shape has to be
approximated by a specific geometry. As the ratio of grinding
depth to grain radius is smaller than 1 in this study, the grain
shape is assumed to be a spherical shape. For the given
grinding wheel, the maximum (d max) and minimum (d min)
diameters of the grains can be determined. From this, the
mean diameter (d mean) of the grains can be determined by
d mean =(d max +d min)/2.
The distribution of the grain dimensions for any given wheel
usually takes the form of normal distribution. d gx is used to
describe the diameter of a grain and a variable x is defined here,
given by d gx =d mean +x, where x∈[−a, a], a =d max −d mean. The
standard deviation σ is set as σ =(d max −d min)/4.4, and hence
the probability density function of grain diameter can be
express as
  !
4:4 1 4:4 2
f ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp − x ð1Þ
a 2π 2 a
2114 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123

2.2 Probability density function of grain protrusion height grains is Δ. Taking out the minimum volume Δ3, and the
equivalent number of grains in the volume is 1 (1/8×8=1).
Figure 1 shows the protrusion height of the grains on the According to the definition of volumetric concentration of
wheel surface. Where, grain in the wheel, the volume percentage V g of grain in Δ3 is
  !
ds Is the wheel diameter 4 d mean 3 1
vs Is the wheel speed Vg ¼ π   8 =Δ3 ð3Þ
3 2 8
ae Is the grinding depth
h Is the protrusion height of a grain Thereby the average number of the grains on the wheel
h max Is the maximum grain protrusion height surface per unit area, N s , can be obtained from
h cu, max Is the maximum grain indention depth  2 ! 23
h min Is the minimum protrusion height, below which 1 6V g
Ns ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
a grain will not contact with the workpiece, and Δ πd 3mean
it can be calculated from h min =h max −h cu, max Furthermore, the number of the grains passing through the
h cutx Is the indention depth of a grain, given by grinding zone per unit time is given by
h cutx =h −h min.
N total ¼ vs b N s ð5Þ
It should be noted that the relative dimensions between the where v s is the wheel speed and b is the grinding width.
grain sizes and the wheel diameter are exaggerated compared
with the actual relative dimensions in Fig. 1. The reason for
the exaggeration is to legibly express the grain protrusion 3 Calculation of critical grain indention depth
height and the grain indention depth.
Wheel surface topography measurements in Ref. [13] show 3.1 The critical indention depth for plowing
that d max and d mean are very close to the maximum grain
protrusion height h max and the mean grain protrusion height The workpiece surface will deform elastically if a grain slides
h mean, respectively. The grain protrusion height is found in on the workpiece surface. The contact between the sliding
normal distribution with mean value h mean and standard grain and the workpiece can be likened to that between a
deviation σ, given by σ =(h max −h mean)/3, so the probability sphere and a surface. Equation (6) was deviated from Hertzian
density function of grain protrusion height can be written as contact theory with an assumption that the grain was rigid in
   Ref. [14],
3 1 3ðx−hmean Þ 2
P ð xÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp − ð2Þ  2    
ðhmax −hmean Þ 2π 2 hmax −hmean 3π p 2 d gx
δ ¼ hcutx ¼ ð6Þ
4 E 2

2.3 The average number of grains per unit area
The spatial distribution of the grains within the wheel is
assumed to be uniform, and the interval between two adjacent
where E * is the equivalent elastic modulus, given by 1/E * =
(1−υ 12 )/E 1 +(1−υ 22 )/E 2,
E Is Young’s modulus
υ Poisson’s ratio
subscripts 1 and 2 represent the grain and workpiece,
respectively
δ Is the interference between the two profiles, i.e., the
indention depth of the grain (the grain is rigid)
p Is the mean contact pressure.

The workpiece surface will deform plastically, i.e. plowing

will happen if the contact pressure is above the critical
pressure p t . The critical pressure was related to the surface
hardness H of the workpiece material in Ref. [14] by
pt ¼ H=2 ð7Þ

The critical indention depth for plowing h plow, min and the
Fig. 1 Description of grain protrusion height grain diameter d gx are linked with each other via a defined
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123 2115

coefficient ξ plow. An expression for h plow, min can be obtained
by substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6)
 2  2
1 3π H
hplow;min ¼ ξplow d gx ¼
2 4 2E 
3.2 The critical indention depth for cutting
Results of single grain diamond cutting tests in Ref. [15] show
that there appears to be a minimum indention depth of a grain
below which cutting may not occur. This critical indention
depth was reported to be 0.025d gx . A coefficient ξ cut is
defined in the same way as ξ plow. Then the critical indention
depth for cutting h cu,min is given by
hcu;min ¼ ξcut d gx ¼ 0:025d gx
3.3 Calculation of the maximum grain indention depth
To divide the grinding zone described in Section 4 and to
model the grinding force described in Section 5, it is necessary
d gx ð8Þ to calculate the maximum grain indention depth h cu, max. With
the purpose of calculating h cu, max, the volume of chips
removed by all the cutting grains per unit time V cut is made
equal to the grinding removal rate V. The derivation of h cu, max
is described as below.
Firstly, V cut can be calculated analytically by integrating
the volume of the chips removed by all the individual cutting
grains. For this purpose, the relationship between the
geometrical parameters of the chip and the cutting grains has
to be developed. The chip cross-section A(x) is indicated by
the shadow areas, as shown in Fig. 2, can be determined as
1 2
AðxÞ ¼ d ð2θ−sin2θÞ ð10Þ
8 gx
ð9Þ

A variable h cut, min is defined to represent the minimum

It can be concluded that the contact type is sliding when
h cutx belongs to the range between zero and ξ plowd gx ; the
contact type is plowing when h cutx belongs to the range
between ξ plowd gx and ξ cutd gx ; the contact type is cutting when
h cutx belongs to the range between ξ cutd gx and h cu, max.
protrusion height among all the cutting grains in the derivation
of V cut, below which cutting will not occur, given by
h cut, min =h min +ξ cutd min.
Volume of the chips removed by all the cutting grains per
unit time is given by

"Z #
hmin þξcut d max Z Z Z
hcutx
ξcut −d mean hmax xmax
V cut ¼ N total l c AðxÞPðhÞ f ðxÞdxdh þ AðxÞPðhÞf ðxÞdxdh ð11Þ
hcut;min xmin hmin þξcut d max xmin

where l c is the grinding zone length, given by Is the real contact length of a grain contact with
l c =(a e d s )1/2. the workpiece
Secondly, the grinding removal rate is defined as l Is a defined variable to represent an arbitrary
location of the grinding zone
V ¼ ae  b  v w ð12Þ h cutl Is the indention depth of a grain at position l
h cutl, max Is the maximum grain indention depth at
position l
where v w is the workpiece speed.
h cut, max Is the maximum indention depth of a grain during
Finally, the maximum grain indention depth hcu, max can be
its passing through the grinding zone.
determined by making Eq. (11) equal to Eq. (12).

4 Grain trajectory analysis

4.1 Division of grinding zone

A single grain will experience four stages during its passing

through the grinding zone: noncontact, sliding, plowing, and
cutting, as shown in Fig. 3. Where,
l con Fig. 2 Schematic drawing of a cutting grain
2116 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123

The real contact length of a grain l con is assumed to be

proportional to the maximum indention depth of the grain
h cut, max, then Fig. 3 can be transformed to Fig. 4. Where
h cul, max is the maximum indention depth of the grain that is
just contact with the workpiece at position l.
From the proportional relationships as shown in Fig. 4, it
can be obtained that

l Fig. 4 Transformed grain motion path

hcutl;max ¼ hcu;max ð13Þ
lc
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
2ffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ffi
rox ¼ d gx =2 − d gx =2‐hcutx ¼ hcutx d gx −hcutx ð16Þ
 
l
hcul;max ¼ 1− hcu;max ð14Þ
lc The grinding zone is evenly divided into n equal segments,
thereby the length of each segment Δl is equal to l c /n. The
contact radius at position l, r ol , is represented by the mean
hcut;max ¼ hcul;max þ hcutl ð15Þ contact radius per segment at position l. The number of grains
in each segment can be calculated from N Δ =N s ·b ·Δl. h 0 is
defined as the minimum protrusion height of the grain, which is
Then the grinding zone can be divided into three areas just contact with workpiece at position l, given by h 0 =h min +
according to the maximum grain indention depth at position h cul,max . The contact radius at position l, r ol , can be expressed as
l, h cutl, max. Z hmax Z xmax
NΔ f ðxÞPðhÞrox dxdh
Area I l∈(0, ξ plowd minl c /h cu, max). Where only sliding is h x
the contact type, and h cutl, max belongs to the range rol ¼ Z 0hmax Z minxmax ð17Þ
between zero and ξ plowd min. NΔ f ðxÞPðhÞdxdh
h0 xmin
Area II l∈(ξ plowd minl c /h cu, max, ξ cutd minl c /h cu, max). Where
the contact types are sliding and plowing, and
h cutl, max belongs to the range between ξ plowd min The real contact area A x between a contacting grain and the
and ξ cutd min. workpiece can be obtained as
Area III l∈(ξ cutd minl c /h cu, max, l c ). Where the contact types

are sliding, plowing and cutting, and h cutl , max Ax ¼ πr2ox ¼ πhcutx d gx −hcutx ð18Þ
belongs to the range between ξ cutd min and h cu, max.
The real contact area between the contacting grains and the
4.2 Grain contact radius and real contact area ratio workpiece at position l, A l , can be expressed as
Z hmax Z xmax
The contact radius r ox between a contacting grain and the Al ¼ N Δ f ðxÞPðhÞAx dxdh ð19Þ
workpiece, as shown in Fig. 2, can be obtained as h0 xmin

The real contact area ratio at position l , A ratiol , can be

expressed as

Fig. 3 Four stages of a grain during its passing through the grinding zone Fig. 5 Force analyses of a sliding grain and a plowing grain
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123 2117

Al Al
Aratiol ¼ ¼ ð20Þ
AΔ Δl  b

where A Δ is the contact area between the grinding wheel and

the workpiece per segment.

5 Establishment of grinding force model

Fig. 6 Force analysis of a cutting grain
5.1 Establishment of the grinding force model per grain
8 Z γs Z γs
Figure 5 shows the force conditions of a sliding grain. Normal >
> τ s sinðβ−γ Þ
> F
< cn;x ¼ d F cn;x ¼ 2r2gx cos2 γdγ
force F n of the grain can be calculated using Hertzian contact π π sinϕcosðφ þ β−γ Þ
Z 2
γs Z γ2s
for a given indention depth h cutx . Furthermore, the tangential >
> τ s cosðβ−αÞ
>
: F ct;x ¼ d F ct;x ¼ 2r2gx cos2 γdγ
force can be obtained by multiplying F n by the friction π π sinϕcosðφ þ β−αÞ
2 2
coefficient μ . Then the sliding force model of a single grain ð23Þ
can be expressed as
where

8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi γ Is rake angle

>
> 8h3cutx d gx E2 τs Is the shear strength of the workpiece
>
>
< F rn;x ¼ F n ¼ β Is friction angle
9
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð21Þ φ Is shear angle simulation in Ref. [17] provided a liner
>
>
>
> 8h3cutx d gx E 2 relationship between φ and β–γ, given by φ =29.021–
: F rt;x ¼ μ F n ¼ μ
9 0.2281(β–γ) for AISI 52100 (GCr15)
r gx Is the radius of the grain.

The normal and tangential force per plowing grain was 5.2 Establishment of grinding force model
modeled in Ref. [12] based on the similarity between the grain
indention and Brinell hardness test, shown in Fig. 5. The Firstly, the grinding zone is evenly divided into n equal
normal and tangential force per plowing grain can be segments. The grinding force at position l is represented
expressed as by the grinding force per segment at position l . The
contact types between the grains and the workpiece are
determined according to h cutl and d gx . Secondly, the

F pn;x ¼ F brinell ðcosα−μsinαÞ grinding force F i with normal component F ni and
ð22Þ
F pt;x ¼ F brinell ðsinα þ μcosαÞ tangential component F ti at position l is derived as
below, where i ∈[1, n ].
If h cutl belongs to the range between zero and ξ plowd min,
the contact type is sliding. Then the grinding force at position l
where F brinell is Brinell indention force; α is the effective can be expressed as
attack angle, given by α =arcos(1−2h cutx /d gx ).
8 Z
In the grinding force model of a cutting grain proposed in h0 þξplow d min Z xmax
>
>
Ref. [16], it was considered that there existed a minimum >
< ti
F ¼ N Δ f ðxÞPðhÞF rt;x dxdh
undeformed chip thickness, above which the workpiece A¼ Z h0 þξplow d min Z xmax
h0 xmin
ð24Þ
>
>
material was turned into chips, below which the workpiece >
: F ni ¼ N Δ f ðxÞPðhÞF rn;x dxdh
material underwent plastic deformation. In this study, it is h0 xmin
considered that all the workpiece material will be turned into
chips above the indention depth of a cutting grain, as shown in If h cutl belongs to the range between ξ plowd min and
Fig. 6. ξ plow d max , the contact type is sliding when d gx is
The cutting force model of a single grain can be expressed greater than h cutl /ξ plow and smaller than d max ; the
as contact type is plowing when d gx is greater than d min
2118 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123

and smaller than h cutl /ξ plow. Then the grinding force at

position l can be expressed as

8 2 3
> Z h0 þξplow d max Z xmax Z h0 þξplow d max Z
hcutl
> ξplow −d mean
>
> F ti ¼ N Δ 4 f ðxÞPðhÞF rt;x dxdh þ f ðxÞPðhÞ F pt;x dxdh5
>
>
< h0 þξplow d min
hcutl
ξplow −d mean h0 þξplow d min xmin
B¼ 2 3 ð25Þ
>
> Z h0 þξplow d max Z xmax Z h0 þξplow d max Z
hcutl
ξplow −d mean
>
> 4
>
> F ¼ NΔ f ðxÞPðhÞ F rn;x dxdh þ f ðxÞPðhÞ F pn;x dxdh5
: ni h0 þξplow d min
hcutl
ξplow −d mean h0 þξplow d min xmin

If h cutl belongs to the range between ξ plowd max and If h cut / belongs to the range between ξ cut d min and
ξ cutd min, the contact type is plowing. Then the grinding force ξ cutd max, the contact type is plowing when d gx is greater
at position l can be expressed as than h cutl /ξ cut and smaller than d max; the contact type is
cutting when d gx is greater than d min and smaller than
8 Z h0 þξcut d min Z
>
xmax h cutl /ξ cut. Then the grinding force at position l can be
>
> F ¼ N f ðxÞPðhÞ F pt;x dxdh
< ti Δ expressed as
h0 þξplow d max xmin
C¼ Z h0 þξcut d min Z ð26Þ
>
>
xmax
>
: ni
F ¼ N Δ f ðxÞPðhÞF pn;x dxdh
h0 þξplow d max xmin

8 "Z #
h0 þξcut d max Z xmax Z h0 þξcut d max Z
hcutl
> ξcut −d mean
>
>
< F ti ¼ N Δ
>
h0 þξcut d min
hcutl
f ðxÞPðhÞF pt;x dxdh þ f ðxÞPðhÞ F ct;x dxdh
ξcut −d mean h0 þξcut d min xmin
D¼ "Z # ð27Þ
> h0 þξcut d max Z xmax Z h0 þξcut d max Z
hcutl
> ξcut −d mean
>
>
: F ni ¼ N Δ hcutl
f ðxÞPðhÞF pn;x dxdh þ f ðxÞPðhÞ F cn;x dxdh
h0 þξcut d min ξcut −d mean h0 þξcut d min xmin

If h cutl belongs to the range between ξ cutd max and h cu, max, expressed as F i =(A +B +C +D +E ), when h cutl , max
the contact type is cutting. Then the grinding force at position belongs to the range between ξ cutd max and h cu, max.
l can be expressed as
Finally, the total grinding force can be obtained by
8 Z hmax Z xmax
>
>
>
< tiF ¼ N Δ f ðxÞPðhÞF ct;x dxdh
h0 þξcut d max xmin Xn
E¼ Z hmax Z xmax ð28Þ F ¼ df Fi ð29Þ
>
>
>
: niF ¼ N Δ f ð x ÞP ð h ÞF cn;x dxdh 1
h0 þξcut d max xmin

Thirdly, the grinding force at position l in the three divided

areas described in Section 4.1 can be obtained.
Area I, the grinding force can be obtained as F i =A.
Area II, the grinding force can be expressed as F i =(A +
B ), when h cutl , max belongs to the range between
ξ plowd min and ξ plowd max; the grinding force can be
expressed as F i =(A +B +C), when h cutl, max belongs to
the range between ξ plowd max and ξ cutd min.
Area III, the grinding force can be expressed as F i =(A +
B +C +D ), when h cutl, max belongs to the range between
ξ cut d min and ξ cut d max ; the grinding force can be
where d f is an empirical constant and it is defined to represent
the integration of the effects neglected in the grinding force
model, such as thermal expansion of the workpiece, elastic
deformation of the grinding system, imperfect spherical grain
geometry.
6 Energy partition modeling
The tangential grinding force at position l, F ti , in the grinding
zone can be obtained using the new grinding force model. The
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
heat flux generated at position l, q l can be approximated as
ql ¼ ð F ti vs Þ=ðbΔl Þ ð30Þ
After calculating q l , the heat flux profile across the
grinding contact length can be established. Further analysis
need to be performed to model the workpiece energy partition,
which is the fraction of total grinding energy going to heat the
workpiece. With regard to the energy partition at position l, it
need to be analyzed according to h cutl, max. In the Areas I and
II of the divided grinding zone where h cutl, max is less than
ξ cut ×d min and no cutting occurs, the generated heat will be
instantaneously conducted into the workpiece and grains. In
the Area III of the divided grinding zone where h cutl, max is
larger than ξ cut ×d min and cutting occurs, the generated heat
will be instantaneously conducted into the workpiece, grains
and chips. Thus
ql ¼ qgl þ qwl þ qchl ð31Þ
where q gl , q wl , and q chl is heat flux conducted into the grains,
workiece and chips, respectively. In the Area I and II, q chl =0.
In the Area III, the heat conducted into the chips is assumed to
be proportional to h cutl, max, and the heat flux conducted into
the chips can be express as
varies in the grinding zone and is difficult to determine, which
2ech ae vw hcu;max lhcu;max −l c ξcut d min
2119
will remain in the workpiece and some is removed by
convection to the fluid. This can be expressed as
qwl ¼ qwbl þ qfl ð35Þ
where q wbl is the heat flux that remains in the workpiece at
position l, and q fl is the heat flux transferred into the fluid by
convection at position l.
The heat flux removed from the workpiece by the fluid at
position l is
qfl ¼ hfl ðT 0l þ T ∞ −T initial Þ ð36Þ
where T 0l is the temperature rise of the workpiece at position
l,
T∞ Is ambient temperature
T initial Is the initial temperature of the fluid
h fl Is the convection heat transfer coefficient of the fluid
at position l.
The energy partitions at position l to the workpiece
background, grains, chips, and fluid are respectively as:
ε wbl =q wbl /q l , ε gl =q gl /q l , ε chl =q chl /q l , and ε fl =q fl /q l . It is
noted that the convection heat transfer coefficient of the fluid
needs to be thoroughly studied in the future.
qchl ¼ 
2 ð32Þ
l c hcu;max −ξcut d min
where e ch is the limiting chip energy and this value is
approximately 6.21 J/mm3 for ferrous materials [18].
In Ref. [19], the energy partition to the workpiece between
the wheel and the workpiece was modeled and expressed as
" #−1
0:97k g
Rwg ¼ 1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð33Þ
ro vs ðkρcÞw
where k is thermal conductivity, ρ is density, c is specific heat,
subscripts g and w represent the grain and workpiece,
respectively, r o is the mean contact radius between the
contacting grains and the workpiece.
Based on Eq. (33) with a varying r ol , the energy partition to
the workpiece between the grains and the workpiece at
position l can be determined as
" #−1
0:97k g
qwl ¼ ðql −qchl Þ 1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð34Þ
rol vs ðkρcÞw
The energy partition analysis aforementioned is enough for
dry grinding. However, further analysis need to be performed
to find out the amount of heat removed from the workpiece by
convection to fluid in wet grinding. Some of the heat flux q wl ,
7 Experimental set up
Surface grinding experiments were conducted on MKL7120×
6 CNC surface grinder using a vitrified white alumina wheel
(WA60L6V). The wheel was dressed before every grinding
pass. The workpiece was hardened GCr15 bearing steel (HRC
62) with 60 mm length in grinding direction and 10 mm in
width. The grinding experiments were performed in the up
mode with parameters shown in Table 1. The properties of
hardened GCr15 bearing steel and white alumina were listed
in Table 2. During grinding, the grinding forces were
measured using a piezoelectric transducer based dynamometer
(YDXM-III97) located under the workpiece clamping device,
which is connected to a charge amplifier (type JY5002).
Grinding force signals were sampled at 1,000 Hz using NI-
PXI-1042Q-National Instruments and Labview software.
8 Results and analysis
8.1 Validation of grinding force model
Two constants that are not determined independently in the
model are the friction factor μ and the empirical constant d f .
The friction factor was obtained as μ =0.25 via the model
2120 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123

Table 1 Grinding conditions

Grinding conditions Details

Grinder MKL7120×6 surface grinder

Grinding wheel
Wheel diameter
Workpiece material
Workpiece dimensions
Wheel speed (v s)
Workpiece speed (v w)
Grinding depth (a e)
Environment
Grinding mode
Dresser
Total dressing depth (a d)
Dressing speed ( f d)
White alumina wheel (WA60L6V)
280 mm
Hardened GCr15 with HRC 62
60×10×12 mm
v s =20 m/s
v w =1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 mm/min
a e =20, 30, and 40 μm
Dry
Plunge surface grinding, up cut
Single point diamond dresser
0.2 mm
115 mm/min

calibration using least square error minimization for surface

grinding in Ref. [12]. The empirical constant is determined as
d f =2.5 by adjusting the predicted results to the experimental
results under the same grinding conditions, v s =20 m/s, v w =1,
000 mm/min, and a e =20 μm.
A total of nine experiments were performed by keeping the
Fig. 7 Variation of grinding force with workpiece speed and grinding
wheel speed v s constant and varying the workpiece speed v w depth
and the grinding depth a e for three levels respectively, as
shown in Table 1. Theoretical normal and tangential grinding
forces are calculated for the same grinding parameters. The 8.2 Contributions of sliding, plowing, and cutting to total
comparisons of the experimental and theoretical grinding grinding force
forces are shown in Fig. 7.
The maximum and minimum deviations between the The higher heat generation in the grinding process compared
measured normal forces and the predicted normal forces are with other metal removed process is primarily attributed to
9.1 and 0.6 %, respectively. The maximum and minimum sliding and plowing as mentioned in Section 1. Therefore,
deviations between the measured tangential forces and the contributions of sliding, plowing and cutting to total grinding
predicted tangential forces are 10 and 2 %, respectively. force were analyzed and are presented in Figs. 8, 9, and 10. In
Therefore, the grinding force model can be used to predict Figs. 8, 9, and 10, F rt and F rn are tangential and normal
grinding force accurately. sliding forces, respectively; F pt and F pn are tangential and
normal plowing forces respectively; F ct and F cn are tangential
and normal cutting forces, respectively; F t and F n are total
Table 2 Properties of hardened GCr15 and white alumina tangential normal grinding forces, respectively.
Figure 8 shows that the contributions of sliding and
Parameters Value
plowing to the total grinding force decrease with increasing
Young’s modulus E 200 GPa, for hardened GCr15 workpiece speed respectively, the contribution of cutting to
400 GPa, for white alumina the total grinding force increases with the increasing
Poisson’s ratio υ 0.3 for both workpiece speed. This can be attributed to an increasing
Shear strength τ s 645 MPa, for hardened GCr15 number of contacting grains, especially cutting grains, due to
Hardness H 62 HRC, for hardened GCr15 the increase of the maximum grain indention depth.
Conductivity k 34.3 W/mK, for hardened GCr15 Figure 9 shows similar patterns of the contributions of the
35 W/mK, for white alumina three grinding mechanisms with increasing grinding depth.
Density ρ 7,830 kg/m3, for hardened GCr15 This can also be explained by the interpretation of an
Specific heat c 506 J/kgK, for hardened GCr15 increasing number of contacting grains resulting from the
increase of the maximum grain indention depth. Although
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
Fig. 8 Contributions of each component with workpiece speed for v s =
20 m/s, a e =0.04 mm
the contributions of the sliding and plowing decrease with the
increasing workpiece speed and grinding depth respectively,
the two grinding force components still increase with the two
increasing grinding parameters.
Figure 10 shows contrary patterns of the contributions of
the three grinding mechanisms with increasing wheel speed,
i.e., the contributions of sliding and plowing increase with the
increasing wheel speed, respectively, the contribution of
cutting decreases with the increasing wheel speed. This can
be attributed to the decrease of contacting grains, especially
cutting grains due to the decrease of the maximum grain
indention depth. Although contributions of sliding and
plowing increase with the increasing wheel speed, the two
grinding force components still decrease with the increasing
wheel speed.
From Figs. 8, 9, and 10, it can be deduced that the
contribution of the tangential sliding force component to the
total tangential grinding force is short of 0.1 %, which can be
neglected. The contribution of the tangential plowing force
component to the total tangential grinding force is about 60–
70 % and contribution of the tangential cutting force is about
30–40 %. It can be concluded that the higher heat generation
Fig. 9 Contributions of each component with grinding depth for v s =
20 m/s, v w =2,000 mm/min
2121
Fig. 10 Contributions of each component with wheel speed for v w =
2,000 mm/min, a e =0.04 mm
in the grinding process compared with other metal removed
process is primarily attributed to plowing.
8.3 Energy partition to workpiece in dry grinding
Figure 11 shows that energy partition to the workpiece is
nearly the same in the grinding zone, whether the amount of
heat conducted into chips is considered or not. Therefore, it is
reasonable to neglect the heat conducted into the chips to
establish the energy partition to the workpiece under the given
grinding conditions. The energy partition to the workpiece
increases as l changes from 0 to l c and a similar pattern is
obtained for the contact radius.
Figure 11 also shows that the real contact area ratio
increases as l changes from 0 to l c in the grinding zone. It is
pointed out in Ref. [20] that the energy partition to the
workpiece decreases with the increase of the real contact area
ratio, which means that the energy partition to the workpiece
should decrease as l changes from 0 to l c . However, this will
not be consistent with the calculated energy partition to the
workpiece. The reason is that influence of the real contact area
Fig. 11 Variations of the energy partition to the workpiece, contact
radius, and real contact area ratio in the grinding zone for v w =
2,000 mm/min, a e =0.03 mm, v s =20 m/s
2122
ratio on the energy partition to the workpiece is not included in
the energy partition model. Further analysis needs to be done
to perfect the energy partition model in the future.
8.4 Coupled analysis of grinding force, grinding heat,
and material properties
Grinding force, grinding heat, and material properties affect each
other in a grinding process. For some metals having work
hardening effect, grinding force increases gradually during the
initial stage of grinding. Then grinding heat generation also
increases as the increasing grinding force, which will induce
high temperature in the grinding contact zone. The high
temperature can soften the workpiece material, which will in
turn affect grinding force and grinding heat. Therefore, modeling
of grinding process needs a continuous loop feedback process.
An assumption that material properties will not change in
the grinding process was made in the modeling of grinding
force. The assumption can be an initial condition of the
continuous loop feedback modeling process. With the grinding
force model and the energy partition model aforementioned, the
profile of the heat flux into the workpiece can be obtained.
Then, the grinding temperature in the grinding contact zone can
be obtained. Meanwhile, a material model linking grinding
temperature and grinding force is required to establish the
feedback process. In [21], the Johnson–Cook model was
adopted. In short, grinding is the process under the coupling
of force, heat, and material properties.
9 Conclusions
1. A new grinding force model based on the analyses of
grain trajectory and grain workpiece contact was
established. Comparisons between experimental
measurements and theoretical results show that the model
can predict grinding force accurately.
2. This model can be used to analyze the contributions of
sliding, plowing and cutting to total grinding forces.
Further analysis shows that higher heat generation in
grinding process compared with other metal removed
processes is primarily attributed to plowing.
3. Grain trajectory analysis can be performed to calculate
grain contact radius and real contact area ratio, which are
two varying parameters affecting energy partition in
grinding zone.
4. An energy partition model taking grain contact radius into
consideration was established from microscopic aspects.
Analysis shows that it is reasonable to neglect the heat
conducted into chips to model energy partition to the
workpiece for the given grinding conditions. Energy
partition to the workpiece varies in a similar way as grain
contact radius in grinding zone. Further studies are needed
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
to perfect the energy partition model considering cooling
via convection of grinding fluid and real contact area
ratio.
5. Combining the grinding force model with the energy
partition model, the profile of heat flux in grinding zone
can be obtained.
Acknowledgments The work is supported by the National Basic
Research Program of China (973 Program, grant no. 2011CB706600).
References
1. Malkin S, Guo C (2007) Thermal analysis of grinding. CIRP Ann-
Manuf Techn 56(2):760–782
2. Qin M, Ye B, Jia X, He A (2013) Experimental investigation of
residual stress distribution in pre-stress cutting. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
65(1–4):355–361
3. Umbrello D, Jawahir IS (2009) Numerical modeling of the influence
of process parameters and workpiece hardness on white layer
formation in AISI 52100 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 44(9–10):
955–968
4. Marinescu ID, Hitchiner M, Uhlmann E, Rowe WB, Inasaki I (2007)
Handbook of machining with grinding wheels. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
5. Niu W, Xu Y (2003) Experimental study on grinding force of
engineering ceramics in creep feed grinding. Diamond Abrasives
Eng 2:24–27
6. Liu Q, Chen X, Wang Y, Gindy N (2008) Empirical modelling of
grinding force based on multivariate analysis. J Mater Process Tech
203(1–3):420–430
7. Werner G (1978) Influence of work material on grinding forces.
CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 27(1):243–248
8. Malkin S, Guo C (2008) Grinding technology: theory and
applications of machining with abrasives, 2nd edn. Industrial Press,
New York
9. Li L, Fu J, Peklenik J (1980) A study of grinding force mathematical
model. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 29(1):245–249
10. Patnaik Durgumahanti US, Singh V, Venkateswara Rao P (2010) A
new model for grinding force prediction and analysis. Int J Mach
Tool Manu 50(3):231–240
11. Badger JA, Torrance AA (2000) A comparison of two models to
predict grinding forces from wheel surface topography. Int J Mach
Tool Manu 40(8):1099–1120
12. Hecker RL, Liang SY, Wu XJ, Xia P, Jin DGW (2007) Grinding force
and power modeling based on chip thickness analysis. Int J Adv
Manuf Tech 33(5–6):449–459
13. Zhou X, Xi F (2002) Modeling and predicting surface
roughness of the grinding process. Int J Mach Tool Manu
42(8):969–977
14. Xie Y, Williams JA (1996) The prediction of friction and wear
when a soft surface slides against a harder rough surface. Wear
196(1–2):21–34
15. Younis M, Alawi H (1984) Probabilistic analysis of the surface
grinding process. Trans CSME 8(4):208–213
16. Park HW, Liang SY (2008) Force modeling of micro-grinding
incorporating crystallographic effects. Int J Mach Tool Manu
48(15):1658–1667
17. Park HW, Liang SY, Chen R (2007) Microgrinding force
predictive modelling based on microscale single grain
interaction analysis. Int J Manuf Technol Manage 12(1–3):
25–38
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 70:2111–2123
18. Hadad M, Sadeghi B (2012) Thermal analysis of minimum
quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process. Int J Mach Tool
Manu 63:1–15
19. Rowe WB (2001) Thermal analysis of high efficiency deep grinding.
Int J Mach Tool Manu 41(1):1–19
2123
20. Ju Y (1997) Thermal aspects of grinding for surface integrity.
Dissertation, Purdue University
21. Park HW, Liang SY (2009) Force modeling of microscale grinding
process incorporating thermal effects. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 44(5–6):
476–486