Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:04:58.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power spectra of roughness caused by grinding of metals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

K. Venkatesh ,
M. S. Bobji  and
S. K. Biswas
K. Venkatesh
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
M. S. Bobji
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
S. K. Biswas
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
Get access

Abstract

The roughness of metallic surfaces generated by machining depends on the intended intervention by the tool and the inadvertent consequences determined by the response of metals. The roughness generated in four different metals by grinding is studied using the power spectrum method. It was found that the level of power is determined by the intended intervention such as the depth of cut and, to some extent, by hardness because of its possible influence on micropileup geometry. The power gradient is, however, influenced by inadvertent damage which may be related to material properties such as thermal conductivity and adhesion.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , February 1999 , pp. 319 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Sayles, R. S. and Thomas, T. R., Nature (London) 271, 431 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Dauskardt, R. H., Haubensak, F., and Ritchie, R. O., Acta Metall Materialia 38 (2), 143 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Meakin, P., Crit. Rev. Solid State 13, 143 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Srinivasan, S., Russ, J. C., and Scattergood, R. O., J. Mater. Res. 5, 2616 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.He, L. and Zhu, J., Wear 208, 17 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Majumdar, A. and Bhushan, B., Trans. ASME. J. Tribol. 112, 205 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Hasegawa, M., Liu, J., Okuda, K., and Nunobiki, M., Wear 192, 40 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Zhou, G. Y., Leu, M. C., and Blackmore, D., Wear 170, 1 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Mandelbrot, B. B., Passoja, D. E., and Paullay, A. J., Nature (London) 308, 721 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Lawn, B. R. and Howes, V.R., J. Mater. Sci. 16, 2745 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Stillwell, N. A. and Tabor, D., Proc. Phys. Soc. 78, 169 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kailas, S. V. and Biswas, S. K., J. Tribol. 119, 31 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar