See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237523187

Polishing of ceramic tiles

Article  in  Materials and Manufacturing Processes · June 2002

DOI: 10.1081/AMP-120005385

CITATIONS READS
23 6,751

3 authors, including:

Wang Chengyong Xinlai Wei

GuangDong University of Technology Hefei Union University
282 PUBLICATIONS   3,151 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

abrasive jet View project

high-speed machining of difficult-to-cut materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xinlai Wei on 14 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, 17(3), 401–413 (2002)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES
9
10
11
C. Y. Wang,* X. Wei, and H. Yuan
12
Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Guangdong University of
13
Technology, Guangzhou 510090, P.R. China
14
15
16
17 ABSTRACT
18
19 Grinding and polishing are important steps in the production of decorative
20
vitreous ceramic tiles. Different combinations of finishing wheels and
polishing wheels are tested to optimize their selection. The results show that
21
the surface glossiness depends not only on the surface quality before
22
machining, but also on the characteristics of the ceramic tiles as well as the
23
performance of grinding and polishing wheels. The performance of the
24 polishing wheel is the key for a good final surface quality. The surface
25 glossiness after finishing must be above 208 in order to get higher polishing
26 quality because finishing will limit the maximum surface glossiness by
27 polishing. The optimized combination of grinding and polishing wheels for all
28 the steps will achieve shorter machining times and better surface quality. No
29 obvious relationships are found between the hardness of ceramic tiles and
30 surface quality or the wear of grinding wheels; therefore, the hardness of the
31 ceramic tile cannot be used for evaluating its machinability.
32
Key Words: Ceramic tiles; Grinding wheel; Polishing wheel
33
34
35
36
INTRODUCTION
37
38
Ceramic tiles are the common decoration material for floors and walls of
39
hotel, office, and family buildings. Nowadays, polished vitreous ceramic tiles are
40
more popular as decoration material than general vitreous ceramic tiles as they can
41
42
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cywang@gdut.edu.cn
43
44
401

Copyright q 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

402 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

45 have a beautiful gloss on different colors. Grinding and polishing of ceramic tiles
46 play an important role in the surface quality, cost, and productivity of ceramic tiles
47 manufactured for decoration. The grinding and polishing of ceramic tiles are
48 carried out in one pass through polishing production line with many different
49 grinding wheels or by multi passes on a polishing machine, where different
50 grinding wheels are used.
51 Most factories utilize the grinding methods similar to those used for stone
52 machining although the machining of stone is different from that of ceramic tiles.
53 Vitreous ceramic tiles are thin, usually 5–8 mm in thickness, and are a sintered
54 material, which possess high hardness, wear resistance, and brittleness. In general, the
55 sintering process causes surface deformation in the tiles. In the machining process, the
56 ceramic tiles are unfixed and put on tables. These characteristics will cause easy
57 breakage and lower surface quality if grinding wheel or grinding parameters are
58 unsuitable. To meet the needs of ceramic tiles machining, the machinery, grinding
59 parameters (pressure, feed speed, etc.), and grinding wheels (type and mesh size of
60 abrasive, bond, structure of grinding wheel, etc.) must be optimized.
61 Previous works have been reported in the field of grinding ceramic and
62 stone[1 – 4]. Only a few reports have mentioned ceramic tile machining[5 – 8], where
63 the grinding mechanism of ceramic tiles by scratching and grinding was studied. It
64 was pointed out that the grinding mechanism of ceramic tiles is similar to that of
65 other brittle materials. For vitreous ceramic tiles, removing the plastic deformation
66 grooves, craters (pores), and cracks are of major concern, which depends on the
67 micro-structure of the ceramic tile, the choice of grinding wheel and processing
68 parameters, etc. The residual cracks generated during sintering and rough grinding
69 processes, as well as thermal impact cracks caused by the transformation of quartz
70 crystalline phases are the main reasons of tile breakage during processing. Surface
71 roughness Ra and glossiness are different measurements of the surface quality. It is
72 suggested that the surface roughness can be used to control the surface quality of
73 rough grinding and semi-finish grinding processes, and the surface glossiness to
74 assess the quality of finishing and polishing processes. The characteristics of the
75 grinding wheels, abrasive mesh size for the different machining steps, machining
76 time, pressure, feed, and removing traces of grinding wheels will affect the
77 processing of ceramic tiles[9].
78 In this paper, based on the study of grinding mechanisms of ceramic tiles, the
79 manufacturing of grinding wheels is discussed. The actions and optimization of
80 grinding and polishing wheels for each step are studied in particular for manual-
81 polishing machines.
82
83
84
GRINDING AND POLISHING WHEELS FOR CERAMIC TILE
85
MACHINING
86
87
The machining of ceramic tiles is a volume-production process that uses
88
significant numbers of grinding wheels. The grinding and polishing wheels for
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 403

89 ceramic tile machining are different from those for metals or structural ceramics.
90 In this part, some results about grinding and polishing wheels are introduced for
91 better understanding of the processing of ceramic tiles.
92
93
94 Grinding and Polishing Wheels
95
96 Ceramic tiles machining in a manual-polishing machine can be divided into
97 four steps—each using different grinding wheels. Grinding wheels are marked as
98 2#, 3#, and 4# grinding wheels, and 0# polishing wheel; in practice, 2# and 3#
99 grinding wheels are used for flattening uneven surfaces. Basic requirements of
100 rough grinding wheels are long life, high removal rate, and lower price. For 2# and
101 3# grinding wheels, SiC abrasives with mesh #180 (#320) are bonded by
102 magnesium oxychloride cement (MOC) together with some porous fills,
103 waterproof additive, etc. The MOC is used as a bond because of its low price,
104 simple manufacturing process, and proper performance.
105 The 4# grinding wheel will refine the surface to show the brightness of ceramic
106 tile. The GC#600 abrasives and some special polishing materials, etc., are bonded by
107 MOC. In order to increase the performance such as elasticity, etc., of the grinding
108 wheel, the bakelite is always added. The 4# grinding wheels must be able to rapidly
109 eliminate all cutting grooves and increase the surface glossiness of the ceramic tiles.
110 The 0# polishing wheel is used for obtaining final surface glossiness, which
111 is made of fine Al2O3 abrasives and fill. It is bonded by unsaturated resin. The
112 polishing wheels must be able to increase surface glossiness quickly and make the
113 glossy ceramic tile surface permanent.
114
115
116
Manufacturing of Magnesium Oxychloride Cement Grinding Wheels
117
After the abrasives, the fills and the bond MOC are mixed and poured into the
118
models for grinding wheels, where the chemical reaction of MOC will solidify the
119
shape of the grinding wheels. The reaction will stop after 30 days but the hardness of
120
grinding wheel is essentially constant after 15 days. During the initial 15-day period,
121
the grinding wheels must be maintained at a suitable humidity and temperature.
122
For MOC grinding wheels, the structure of grinding wheel, the quality of
123
abrasives, and the composition of fill will affect their grinding ability. All the
124
factors related to the chemical reaction of MOC, such as the mole ratio of
125
MgO/MgCl2, the specific gravity of MgCl2, the temperature and humidity to care
126
the cement will also affect the performance of the MOC grinding wheels.
127
128
129
Mole Ratio of MgO/MgCl2
130
131
When MOC is used as the bond for the grinding wheels, hydration reaction
132
takes place between active MgO and MgCl2, which generates a hard
 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

404 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

133 XMgðOHÞ2 ·YðMgCl2 Þ·ZH2 O phase. Through proper control of the mole ratio of
134 MgO/MgCl2, a reaction product with stable performance is formed. The bond is
135 composed of 5MgðOHÞ2 ·ðMgCl2 Þ·8H2 O and 3MgðOHÞ2 ·ðMgCl2 Þ·8H2 O: As the
136 former is more stable, optimization of the mole ratio of MgO/MgCl2 to produce
137 more 5MgðOHÞ2 ·ðMgCl2 Þ·8H2 O is required. In general, the ideal range for the
138 mole ratio of MgO/MgCl2 is 4 – 6. When the contents of the active MgO and
139 MgCl2 are known, the quantified MgO and MgCl2 can be calculated.
140
141
142 Q1
143 Active MgO
144
145 The content of active MgO must be controlled carefully so that hydration
146 reaction can be successfully completed with more 5MgðOHÞ2 ·ðMgCl2 Þ8H2 O: If
147 the content of active MgO is too high, the hydration reaction time will be too short
148 with a large reaction heat, which increases too quickly. The concentrations of the
149 thermal stress can cause generation of cracks in the grinding wheel. On the
150 contrary, if the content of active MgO is too low, the reaction does not go to
151 completion and the strength of the grinding wheel is decreased.
152
153
154
155
Fills and Additives
156
The fills and additives play an important role in grinding wheels. Some
157
porous fills must be added to 2# and 3# grinding wheels in order to improve the
158
capacity to contain the grinding chips, and hold sufficient cutting grit. Waterproof
159
additives such as sulfates can ensure the strength of grinding wheels in processing
160
under water condition. Some fills are very effective in increasing the surface
161
quality of ceramic tile, but the principle is not clear.
162
163
164
165
Manufacturing of Polishing Wheels
166
167
Fine Al2O3 and some soft polishing materials, such as Fe2O3, Cr2O3, etc., are
168
mixed together with fills. Unsaturated resin is used to bond these powders, where a
169
chemical reaction takes place between the resin and the hardener by means of an
170
activator. The performance of polishing wheels depends on the properties of resin
171
and the composition of the polishing wheel. In order to contain the fine chips,
172
which are generated by micro-cutting, some cheap soluble salt can be fed into the
173
coolant. On the surface of the polishing wheel, the salt will leave uniform pores,
174
which not only increase the capacity to contain chips and self-sharpening of the
175
polishing wheel, but also improves the contact situation between polishing wheel
176
and ceramic tiles.
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 405

177 Experimental Procedure

178
179 Tests were carried out in a special manual grinding machine for ceramic
180 tiles. Two grinding wheels were fixed in the grinding disc that was equipped to the
181 grinding machine. The diameter of grinding disc was 255 mm. The rotating speed
182 of the grinding disc was 580 rpm. The grinding and polishing wheels are isosceles
183 trapezoid with surface area 31.5 cm2 (the upper edge: 2 cm, base edge: 5 cm,
184 height: 9 cm). The pressure was adjusted by means of the load on the handle for
185 different grinding procedures. A zigzag path was used as the moving trace for the
186 grinding disc. To maintain flatness and edge of the ceramic tiles, at least one third
187 of the tile must be under the grinding disc. During the grinding process, sufficient
188 water was poured to both cool and wash the grinding wheels and the tiles.
189 T1 Four kinds of vitreous ceramic tiles were examined, as shown in Table 1.
190 Two different sizes of ceramic A, A400 (size: 400 £ 400 £ 5 mm3 Þ and A500
191 (size: 500 £ 500 £ 5 mm3 Þ were tested to understand the effect of the tile size. For
192 ceramic tile B or C, the size was 500 £ 500 £ 5 mm3 : The phase composition of the
193 tiles was determined by x-ray diffraction technique. Surface reflection glossiness
194 and surface roughness of the ceramic tiles and the wear of grinding wheels were
195 measured.
196 The grinding and polishing wheels were made in-house. The 2# grinding
197 wheels with abrasives of mesh #150 and 3# grinding wheels with mesh #320 were
198 used during rough grinding. Using the ceramic tiles with different surface
199 toughness ground by the 2# grinding wheel for 180 sec, the action of the 3#
200 grinding wheels were tested. The ceramic tile was marked as A500-1 (or B500-1,
201 C500-1, A400-1) with higher initial surface toughness or A500-2 (or B500-2,
202 C500-2, A400-2) with lower initial surface toughness.
203 Two kinds of finishing wheels, 4#A and 4#B were made with the same
204 structure, abrasivity, and process, but different composition of fills and additives.
205 Only in 4#B, a few Al2O3, barium sulfate, and magnesium stearate were added for
206 higher surface glossiness. The composition of the polishing wheels 0#A and 0#B
207 were different as well. In 0#B, a few white alundum (average diameter 1 mm),
208 barium sulfate, and chrome oxide were used as polishing additives, specially.
209 After ground by 4#A (or 4#B) grinding wheel, the ceramic tiles were polished with
210 0#A (or 0#B). The processing combinations with 4# grinding wheels and 0#
211
212
213
Table 1. Properties of Ceramic Tiles
214
215 Crystalline Vitreous
Grain Size Mullite Quartz Mass Porosity Pore Size
216
Ceramic Tiles HV0.1 (mm) (vol.%) (vol.%) (vol.%) (vol.%) (mm)
217
218 A400, A500 661.0 10 – 30 32 – 40 15 – 18 35 – 40 3 –5 5 – 20
219 B500 710.6 10 – 30 32 – 40 10 – 13 35 – 40 5 –7 3 – 50
220 C500 614.2 10 – 30 12 – 15 10 – 13 35 – 40 3 –5 5 – 30
 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

406 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

221 polishing wheels were marked as 4#A– 0#A, 4#A– 0#B, 4#B– 0#A, 4#B– 0#B for
222 each ceramic tile.
223
224
225 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
226
227
Effects of 2# and 3# Grinding Wheels
228 Surface Quality
229
230 In rough grinding with a 2# grinding wheel, the surface roughness for all the
231 F1 tiles asymptotically decreases as the grinding time increases, see Fig. 1. The initial
232 asymptote point of this curve represents the optimized rough grinding time, as
233 continued grinding essentially has no effect on the surface roughness. In these
234 tests, the surface roughness curves decrease with grinding time and become
235 smooth at ,120 sec. The final surface quality for different kinds of ceramic tiles is
236 slightly different. In terms of the initial size of the tile, the surface roughness of
237 ceramic tile A400 ð400 £ 400 £ 5 mm3 Þ is lower than that of A500 ð500 £ 500 £
238 5 mm3 Þ: The surface roughness of ceramic tile B500 rapidly drops as the grinding
239 time increases. Thus, it is easier to remove surface material from the hardest of the
240 three kinds of the ceramic tiles (Table 1). However, as the final surface roughness
241 of ceramic tile A500 is the same as that of ceramic tile C500, the hardness of the
242 ceramic tile does not have a direct relationship with the final surface quality.
243 In the 3# grinding wheel step, all craters and cracks on the surface of ceramic
244 tiles caused by the 2# grinding wheel must be removed. If residual cracks and
245 craters exist, it will be impossible to get a high surface quality in the next step. The
246 surface roughness obtained by the 2# grinding wheel will also affect the surface
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
F2
263
Figure 1. Surface roughness of several ceramic tiles as a function of grinding time for 2# grinding
264 wheel.
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 407

265 F2 quality of next grinding step by the 3# grinding wheel. In Fig. 2, the actions of the
266 3# grinding wheels are given using the ceramic tiles with different initial Ra, which
267 were ground by the 2# grinding wheel for 180 sec. The curves of surface vs.
268 grinding time rapidly decrease in 60 sec. Asymptotic behavior essentially becomes
269 constant after 60 sec. In general, the larger the initial surface roughness, the worse
270 the final surface roughness. For example, for ceramic tile B500-1, the initial Ra
271 was 1.53 mm, the finial Ra was 0.59 mm after being ground by the 3# grinding
272 wheel. When the initial Ra was 2.06 mm for ceramic tile B500-2, the finial Ra was
273 0.67 mm.
274 In Ref. [8], we studied the relations between abrasive mesh size and
275 evaluation indices of surface quality, such as surface roughness and surface
276 glossiness. In rough grinding, the ground surface of ceramic tile shows fracture
277 craters. These craters scatter the light, so that the surface glossiness values are
278 almost constant at a low level. It is difficult to improve the surface glossiness after
279 F3 these steps. Figure 3 shows the slow increase in surface glossiness with time by
280 means of the 3# grinding wheel. It can be seen that the glossiness of ceramic tile
281 B500-1 is the highest. The surface glossiness of ceramic tile A400-1 is better than
282 that of A500-1 because the effective grinding times per unit area for former is
283 longer than for latter. These trends are similar to those for surface roughness in
284 Fig. 2.
285
286
287 Wear of Grinding Wheels
288
289 The wear of grinding wheels is one of the factors controlling the machining
290 cost. As shown in Fig. 4, the wear of grinding wheels is proportional to grinding
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
F4
307
Figure 2. Surface roughness of several ceramic tiles as a function of grinding time for 3# grinding
308 wheel.
 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

408 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324 Figure 3. Surface glossiness of several ceramic tiles as a function of grinding time by 3# grinding
wheel.
325
326
327
time for both the grinding wheels and the three types of ceramic tiles. The wear
328
rate of the 3# grinding wheel is larger than the 2# grinding wheel. It implies that
329
the wear resistance of the 3# grinding wheel is not as good as 2# for constant
330
grinding time of 180 sec. When the slope of the curve is smaller, life of the
331
grinding wheels will be longer.
332
Comparison of the ceramic tiles hardness (Table 1) with the wear resistance
333
behavior in Fig. 4 does not reveal a strong dependency. Therefore, the hardness of
334
the ceramic tile cannot be used to distinguish the machinability. The difference of
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
Figure 4. Wear of grinding wheels of several ceramic tiles as a function of grinding time for 2# and
352
3# grinding wheels.
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 409

353 initial surface roughness of ceramic tile will affect the wear of grinding wheel. In
354 Fig. 4, the wear of the 3# grinding wheel for ceramic tile B500-1 is smaller than
355 that for ceramic tile B500-2. The initial surface roughness of the latter is higher
356 than that of the former so that additional grinding time is required to remove the
357 deeper residual craters on the surface. Improvement of the initial surface
358 roughness can be the principal method for obtaining better grinding quality and
359 grinding wheel life during rough grinding.
360
361
362
363 Effects of 4# Grinding Wheels and 0# Polishing Wheels
364
Surface Quality
365
366
The combination and the performance of 4# grinding and 0# polishing
367
wheels show different results for each ceramic tile. The grinding quality vs.
368
F5 grinding (polishing) time curves are presented in Fig. 5, where all the ceramic tiles
369
were previously ground by 2# and 3# grinding wheels to the same surface quality.
370
The surface glossiness is used to assess surface quality because the surface
371
roughness is nearly constant as finishing or polishing time increases[8]. In this test,
372
the ceramic tile A400 were fast ground by 4#A and 4#B grinding wheels
373
[Fig. 5(a)]. The surface glossiness increased rapidly during the initial 90 sec and
374
then slowly increased. The surface glossiness by grinding wheel 4#B is higher than
375
by 4#A. Afterwards, polishing was done by four different combinations of
376
finishing wheel and polishing wheel. By means of polishing wheels 0#A and 0#B,
377
we processed the surface finished by 4#A grinding wheel (described as 4#A– 0#A
378
and 4#A– 0#B in Fig. 5), and the surface finished by 4#B grinding wheel
379
(described as 4#B– 0#A and 4#B– 0#B in Fig. 5). The curves of surface glossiness
380
vs. polishing time show parabolic behavior. After 60 sec of polishing, the surface
381
glossiness reaches to ,508, then slowly increases. The polishing wheel 0#B gives
382
a better surface quality than 0#A.
383
In Fig. 5(a), the maximum surface glossiness of ceramic tile A400 is about
384
,75 by 4#B– 0#B. The relation between initial surface glossiness and the final
385
surface quality is not strong. The effect of pre-polishing surface glossiness can be
386
observed by 0#B polishing wheel as polishing ceramic tile A500 [Fig. 5(b)]. The
387
maximum surface glossiness that can be achieved is 748 in 240 sec by 4#A– 0#B or
388
4#B– 0#B. This value is lower than that of ceramic tile A400 [Fig. 5(a)].
389
The final surface glossiness by 4#A grinding wheel is highly different from
390
that by 4#B grinding wheel for ceramic tile B500, as shown in Fig. 5(c), but the
391
final polishing roughness is the same when 0#A polishing wheel is used. The better
392
performance of 0#B polishing wheel is shown because the surface glossiness can
393
increase from 17 to 228 in 30 sec. The maximum surface glossiness is 658 by 4#B–
394
0#B.
395
The curves of polishing time vs. surface glossiness in Fig. 5(d) present the
396
same results as polishing of ceramic tile B500 [Fig. 5(c)]. With 0#A polishing
 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

410 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
Figure 5. Surface glossiness for ceramic tiles (a) A400, (b) A500, (c) B500, and (d) C500 as a
function of grinding (polishing) time for 4# grinding wheels and 0# polishing wheels.
431
432
433 wheel, the action of pre-polishing surface glossiness is significant. The best value
434 of surface glossiness in 240 sec is 708 by 4#B –0#B as polishing ceramic tile C500.
435 The results discussed earlier describe that the surface glossiness by 0#
436 polishing wheel will depend not only on the pre-polishing surface glossiness
437 formed by 4# grinding wheel, but also on the characteristics of the ceramic tiles
438 and the performance of 0# polishing wheel. The differences of initial surface
439 glossiness and final surface glossiness are larger for 4#A and 4#B. If the pre-
440 polishing surface roughness is lower, the final surface glossiness will be higher.
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 411

441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
Figure 5. Continued.
474
475
476
477 The polishing time taken to achieve the maximum surface glossiness will be also
478 shorter. The initial surface quality will limit the maximum value of polishing
479 surface glossiness that can be obtained. To reach a final surface glossiness of
480 above 608, the minimum pre-polishing surface glossiness must be above 208.
481 The performance of the polishing wheel is the key to good surface quality.
482 The polishing ability of the polishing wheels depends on the properties of the
483 ceramic tiles as well. Even if the same grinding and polishing wheels are used, on
484 all four ceramic tiles, the maximum surface glossiness values of ceramic tiles are
 120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

412 WANG, WEI, AND YUAN

485 different. The ceramic tile A500 shows the best surface glossiness, and ceramic
486 tile B500 shows the worst, although it is easier to roughly grind ceramic tile B500.
487 The peak value of the surface glossiness is also limited by the properties of
488 ceramic tiles.
489
490
491 Wear of Grinding and Polishing Wheels
492
493 F6 The life of 4# grinding wheels and 0# polishing wheels (Fig. 6) are longer
494 than those of the rough grinding wheels (Fig. 4). For finer grinding (Fig. 6), it is
495 impossible to distinguish the relation between grinding wheels and ceramic tiles.
496 Polishing wheels have longer life because they produce more plastic deformation
497 than removal.
498
499
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
500
501
502 (1) The performance of grinding and polishing wheels will affect its life
503 and the surface quality of ceramic tiles.
504 (2) In ceramic tile machining, the surface quality gained in the previous
505 step will limit the final surface quality in the next step. The surface
506 glossiness of pre-polishing must be higher than 208 in order to get the
507 highest polishing quality. The optimization of the combination of
508 grinding wheels and polishing wheels for all the steps will shorten
509 machining time and improve surface quality. Optimization must be
510 determined for each ceramics tiles.
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
Figure 6. Wear of grinding wheels 4# and polishing wheels 0# for several ceramic tiles as a
528 function of grinding time.
120005385_AMP_017_003_R1_X0.ald 23/4/2002—CFOLEY—46541

POLISHING OF CERAMIC TILES 413

529 (3) The effect of hardness of ceramic tiles is not direct, thus the hardness
530 of ceramic tiles cannot be used for evaluating the machinability of
531 ceramic tiles.
532
533
534
535 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
536
537
The authors thank Nature Science Foundation of Guangdong Province and Science
Foundation of Guangdong High Education for their financial support.
538
539
540
REFERENCES
541
542 1. Wang, C.Y.; Liu, P.D.; Chen, P.Y. Grinding Mechanism of Marble. Abrasives
543 Grinding 1987, 2 (38), 6 –10, (in Chinese).
544 Q2 2. Inasaki, I. Grinding of Hard and Brittle Materials. Ann. CIRP 1987, 36 (2), 436B.
545 3. Zhang, B.; Howes, D. Material Removal Mechanisms in Grinding Ceramics. Ann.
546 CIRP 1994, 45 (1), 263– 266.
547 4. Malkin, S.; Hwang, T.W. Grinding Mechanism for Ceramics. Ann. CIRP 1996, 46 (2),
548 Q2 569.
549 5. Black, I. Laser Cutting Decorative Glass, Ceramic Tile. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 1998,
550
77 (9), 53 –57.
6. Black, I.; Livingstone, S.A.J.; Chua, K.L. A Laser Beam Machining (LBM) Database
551
for the Cutting of Ceramic Tile. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 1998, 84 (1 – 3), 47 –55.
552
7. Jiang, D.F. Mirror Surface Polishing of Ceramic Tile. New Building Mater. 1994, 20
553
(11), 27 – 30, (in Chinese).
554 8. Ma, J.F. Analysis on Man-Made Floor Brick and Manufacture of Grinding Segment
555 Used for Floor Brick. Diamond Abrasive Eng. 1996, 6 (95), 35 –46, (in Chinese).
556 9. Wang, C.Y.; Wei, X.; Yuan, H. Grinding Mechanism of Vitreous Ceramic Tile. Chin.
557 J. Mech. Eng. 1998, 9 (8), 9 –11, 46 (in Chinese).
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572

View publication stats