See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/233351522

Force analysis for grinding with segmental wheels

Article  in  Machining Science and Technology · October 2006

DOI: 10.1080/10910340600996142

CITATIONS READS

9 137

2 authors, including:

Michele Miller
Michigan Technological University
53 PUBLICATIONS   342 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Adding meaningful context to STEM Education though hands-on robotic activities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michele Miller on 23 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FORCE ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENTAL GRINDING

Xiaorui Fan, Michele Miller

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI

Introduction This paper focuses on developing a force model for

segmental wheel grinding. Based on the modeling
Due to the large variety of chemical, electrical, analysis, optimal segmental wheel geometry will be
biological, and mechanical properties that ceramics identified.
presently exhibit, there are many social and
industrial applications with ceramics. On the other Grinding Force Modeling
hand, some of the desirable properties of ceramics
also cause difficulties in machining them to a The grinding force can be divided into normal and
precise size and shape. Grinding is an enabling tangential components (Fz and Fx respectively).
technology in the manufacture of ceramic Each of these can be further subdivided into two
components because it can produce accurate shapes parts: a cutting component and a rubbing
deterministically. component. The cutting component increases with
material removal rate (MRR) and the rubbing
Compared to other machining processes, grinding component is independent of MRR:
requires large energy per unit volume of material
removed. In other words, for the same amount of
material removed, grinding takes much more
Fz = k z ⋅ MRR mz + Fz 0
(1)
energy and force. High grinding forces mean higher Fx = k x ⋅ MRR mx + Fx 0
temperatures that lead to more coolant usage. Both
forces and temperatures influence the workpiece
kz, kx, mz, mx, Fz0 and Fx0 are constants that depend
accuracy. High grinding forces also make the
on the workpiece material and grinding wheel. Fz0
machining tools wear faster. Methods to reduce
and Fx0 are the rubbing components in the normal
grinding forces are, therefore, desirable. For
and tangential directions, respectively.
example, high speed grinding has been used to
decrease grinding forces [1,2]. The threshold is
about 80-180 m/s depending on grinding conditions MRR Analysis for Segmental Wheel
and workpiece material. Also, in-process dressing Grinding
sharpens the grinding wheel thus reducing grinding
forces. Segmental wheel grinding changes the contact
pattern between the wheel and workpiece so that
A number of researchers have demonstrated that the instantaneous material removal rate is different
segmental grinding is a promising approach to from regular grinding. Based on it, the grinding
reduce grinding forces. Using a segmental wheel is forces for segmental wheel grinding can be
a convenient way to accomplish intermittent predicted based on the instantaneous MRR change.
grinding since the spacers of the wheel do not
contact the workpiece. Lee et al. [3] explored the The cutting cycle of each segment can be divided
cutting force for ceramic face grinding using slotted into four stages: the previous segment leaving
diamond wheels and built a temperature model for grinding zone, the current segment approaching
face grinding. Brecker et al. [4] developed a grinding zone, the current segment entering
segmental cup wheel to improve grinding grinding zone, and the current segment fully
performance when work traverse speed is low. He contacting the workpiece. The geometry of these
found that the interrupted cutting surface permitted four stages was analyzed, and equations for
improved cutting fluid effectiveness resulting in instantaneous MRR were derived based on wheel
significantly lower friction forces, less power, and radius, wheel speed, table speed, depth of cut, and
better surface finish. A.V. Gordeev [5] found that segment size and spacing. Figure 1 shows
metal bonded segmental wheels wore more slowly instantaneous MRR under a set of specific
than wheels with a continuous working surface. conditions for two segments of grinding, in which
1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the four stages
respectively. In this plot the contact time between
 the wheel and workpiece is a little more than a half
cycle (56.8%), and the highest MRR happens in
stage 3 when the segment enters to the grinding Grinding wheel
V
zone grind zone when the instantaneous depth of
cut is highest too).
Workpiece
Z

X d
r=89mm; v
d=20µm;
v=60mm/s;
ω=2900rpm;
MRR (mm3/s)

Dynamometer
Width of cut=12.7mm
20 segments with
equal space
Data acquisition
Amplifier system and
computer
3

1 4
2 Figure 2: Grinding tests setup

The grinding forces change with depth of cut and

Time (s) table speed as shown in Figure 3 and 4. Every point
Figure 1: Instantaneous MRR for two segment cycles in these figures is the average of three
measurements.
Model Calibration Tests The rubbing components Fz0 and Fx0 were
measured at sparkout when no new material is
To find the k’s, m’s and F0’s in Equation 1, a series removed.
of surface grinding tests were done with a regular
wheel. The experiment setup is shown in Figure 2, Rubbing component measurements were taken for
and the grinding conditions are shown in Table 1. all the grinding conditions in Table 1. The rubbing
The wheel was trued with multiple passes to components in both directions proved to be
minimize the roundness error. Both normal force Fz independent of table speed or depth of cut of
and tangential force Fx were measured by a Kistler previous passes. In this experiment, Fz0 and Fx0
tri-axial force dynamometer. Then they were were 0.74 and 0.43 newtons respectively.
amplified and collected by a computer.
Tests were done at five depths of cut and four table
Workpiece speeds for a total of twenty material removal rates.
4140 Steel (50 x 5 x 10 mm)
Material
Aluminum oxide 32AR46- The curves in Figure 5 are power trend lines fit to
Grinding Wheel JV40 twenty points. When MRR is small, it takes more
162 mm dia. x 6.4 mm energy to grind material. From this figure, we can
Wheel Speed 29.4 m/s find kz, kx, mz, and mx in Equation (1). In this
experiment, they are 4.13, 2.51, 0.77, and 0.81
Feed Rate 45, 82, 114, 150 mm/s respectively. So under these grinding conditions,
the force model equation is:
Depth of Cut 5, 25, 50, 75, 100 µm
Fz = 4.13(MRR ) + 0.74
0.77
Coolant No
(2)
Fx = 2.51(MRR ) + 0.43
0.81
Table 1: Regular grinding test conditions
 (F-F0)/MRR Vs MRR
Fz Vs DOC

5
150
v=45 mm/s
(Fz-Fz0)/MRR
v=82 mm/s 4
120 (Fx-Fx0)/MRR

(F-F0 )/MRR (N.s/mm3)

v=114 mm/s Power (Fz-Fz0)/MRR
v=150 mm/s Power (Fx-Fx0)/MRR
90 3
Fz (N)

-0.23
(Fz-Fz0)/MRR = 4.13(MRR)
60 2

30 1
-0.19
(Fx-Fx0)/MRR = 2.51(MRR)
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80
DOC (um)
MRR (mm3/s)

Fx Vs DOC
Figure 5: Cutting components Vs MRR
100
Segmental Grinding Tests
v=45 mm/s
80 v=82 mm/s
v=114 mm/s With the instantaneous MRR (as illustrated in
60
v=150 mm/s
Figure 1), Equation 2 can be used to predict
Fx (N)

segmental grinding forces. Figure 6 depicts the

40
segmental wheels used in experiments for
20 validating the model. They were cut from regular
aluminum oxide wheels. Segmental wheel No. 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
has forty teeth and its proportion of segment length
DOC (um) to notch length is 1:1. Segmental wheels No. 2 and
3 have twenty segments while No. 4 has ten
Figure 3: Fz and Fx Vs depth of cut segments. Wheels No. 3 and 4 have segment to
Fz Vs table speed notch length of 3:1.

160 The experiments were done with these four

d=5 um segmental wheels according to Table 2.
d=25 um
120
d=50 um
d=75 um
d=100 um
Fz (N)

80

40
Segmental Wheel 1 (40_1:1) Segmental Wheel 2 (20_1:1)
0
0 40 80 120 160
Table speed (mm/s)

Fx Vs table speed
Segmental Wheel 3 (20_3:1) Segmental Wheel 4 (10_3:1)
120 Figure 6: Segmental grinding wheels

80
d=5 um Workpiece Material 4140 Steel (50 x 5 x 10 mm)
d=25 um
d=50 um
Cut from aluminum oxide
Fx (N)

d=75 um
d=100 um
Segmental Wheels 32AR46-JV40
40
162 mm dia. x 6.4 mm
Wheel Speed 29.4 m/s
0 Feed Rate 40-150 mm/s
0 40 80 120 160
Table speed (mm/s) Depth of Cut 25 µm
Figure 4: Fz and Fx Vs table speed Coolant No

Table 2: Segmental wheel grinding conditions

 Results and Discussion
[5] Gordeev, A. V., “Wear Resistance of Segmental
Figure 7 compares model prediction from Equation Diamond Wheels,” Machines & Tooling
2 (continuous lines) and average (of three) (English translation of Stanki i Instrument), v
measured forces (individual points). The error bar 48, n 2, 1977, pp. 21-22.
corresponds to the 95% confidence interval. For
Z-force Comparison (DOC=25um)
comparison, the modeled and measured forces for 40_1:1 Vs 20_1:1
regular (no segments) grinding are shown. 45
regular
40 (model)
40_1:1
The experiment results and model predictions 35 (model)

Z-force (N)
20_1:1
match very well. These plots show that grinding 30
(model)
forces reduce when using segmental wheels. Also, 25 regular
(experiment)
fewer segments lead to lower forces and larger 20 40_1:1
(experiment)
segment spacing results in less force. According to 15
20_1:1
MRR analysis, larger segment spaces and fewer 10 (experiment)
30 60 90 120 150 180
segments increase material removed in Stage 3 and Table Speed (mm/s)
decrease that in Stage 1 and 4. Since MRR in Stage
3 is higher than the rest and specific energy is lower
X-force Comparison (DOC=25um)
with larger MRR, this size effect will result in 40_1:1 Vs 20_1:1

lower average forces. 30 regular

(model)
25 40_1:1
Conclusion and Future Work (model)
X-force (N) 20 20_1:1
(model)
15 regular
Segmental wheels are an effective way to reduce (experiment)
40_1:1
grinding forces. However, there are still some 10
(experiment)
concerns. As number of segments decreases, the 5
20_1:1
(experiment)
finished surface roughness increases and the peak 30 60 90 120 150 180
forces increase. Meanwhile, the segment is Table Speed (mm/s)
weakened if the space between them is too large.

Future work will focus on the optimal design of Z-force Comparison (DOC=25um)
20_3:1 Vs 20_1:1
segment geometry that can balance following
aspects: surface finish, average forces, peak force, 45 regular
subsurface damage and wheel wear. 40 (model)
20_3:1
35
(model)
Z-force (N )

Reference 30 20_1:1
(model)
25 regular
20 (experiment)
[1] Yin, L. and Huang, H., “Ceramic response to 15
20_3:1
(experiment)
high speed grinding,” Machining Science and 10 20_1:1
Technology, v 8, n 1, 2004, pp. 21-37. 30 60 90 120 150 180 (experiment)
Table Speed (mm/s)

[2] Klocke, F. and Muckli, J., “Grinding at its limits

- high-speed grinding,” Technical Paper -
Society of Manufacturing Engineers. MR, n X-force Comparison (DOC=25um)
20_3:1 Vs 20_1:1
MR99-232, 1999, pp. 1-23. 30 regular
(model)
25 20_3:1
[3] Lee, K.W., Wong, P.K., and Zhang, J.H., “Study (model)
X-force (N)

20_1:1
on the grinding of advanced ceramics with 20
(model)
slotted diamond wheels,” Journal of Materials 15
regular
(experiment)
Processing Technology, v 100, n 1, 2000, pp. 10
20_3:1
(experiment)
230-235. 20_1:1
5 (experiment)
30 60 90 120 150 180
[4] Brecker, James N. and Shaw, Milton C., Table Speed (mm/s)

“Segmental Cup Grinding Wheel,”

Avtomaticheskaya Svarka, 1975, pp. 441-452. Figure 7: Forces Comparison with Segmental Wheels

View publication stats