Experimental study of the influence of swing grinding parameters on machining surface quality of large-width Cam

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1722559/v1

Large-width Cam has been widely used in high-power marine diesel engines, due to its well strength, wear-resisting, and service life. Unlike the traditional cam, the large-width Cam must be ground by swing grinding process to avoid grinding defects caused by high machining temperature. As the influence of swing grinding parameters on machining surface quality has not been clearly clarified, experimental study was discussed in the paper. The orthogonal experiment was designed and based on which the residual stress, surface roughness and hardness were analyzed. The results showed that, the grinding depth and the cam speed, have a relatively great influence on the residual stress compared with grinding wheel swing frequency and swing amplitude. The grinding wheel frequency has the greatest influence on the hardness of the cam surface and the increment of it will increase the hardness of the Cam.

swing grinding

residual stress

surface roughness

hardness

experimental research

The quenching heat treatment and grinding process on the cam could ensure the requirement of residual stress, surface roughness, hardness and other machined surface quality. The cam of large marine diesel engine is designed with a large width in the axial direction to provide greater force to the valve train. However, during the traditional grinding process, the width of the grinding wheel is usually greater than that of the cam, thus forming a large contact area between the grinding wheel and the cam in the machining process. During the process, the grinding heat is difficult to be dissipated to lead to grinding burn defects [1]. The swing grinding process could realize the machining of large-width workpiece with narrow grinding wheel by increasing the reciprocating motion of the grinding wheel along its axis. This improvement could reduce the contact area between the grinding wheel and the cam and transfer the grinding heat timely which effectively solves the problems existing in traditional grinding process. However, the application of swing grinding process is limited since the influence of the process parameters, especially the increased swing amplitude and swing frequency, on the machined surface is still not clear. Therefore, it is urgent to study the influence of swing grinding process parameters on surface quality of the large-width cam.

Although there are few works of literature about swing grinding, a lot of research has been conducted on the influence of grinding parameters on surface quality processed by the traditional grinding method. The grinding residual stress plays a major role in deciding the workpiece's surface quality, including the corrosion resistance, the fatigue property, and the reliability [2]. Denkena et al. [3] investigated the influences of grinding with Toric CBN grinding tools on the residual stress and got the conclusion that a good surface finish could be achieved with small cutting grain size, low feed rates and frontal grinding strategy. Shen et al. [4] studied the surface and subsurface residual stress distributions in ground C-250 maraging steel (3J33) after the grinding process and the results showed that the surface residual stress and peak compressive residual stress depend greatly on the grinding speed and the residual stress penetration depth increases with the increase of the grinding speed and grinding depth and decreases with the increase of the workpiece speed while the depth of peak compressive residual stress varies slightly with the grinding parameters. Zhao et al. [5] researched the effects of contact surface friction, grain's tip radius, grain's protrusion depth, and grain's rake angle on residual stress distribution after abrasive belt rail grinding (ABRG) based on ABRG test beach and 3D finite element model (FEM). Xiao et al. [6] concluded that the residual stresses in both profile and axis directions increase linearly as the feed rate and the cutting depth increase in the grinding process of gear tooth flank through the experimental and simulated methods. Hamdi et al. [7] investigated the influence of grinding parameters on the residual stress of steel by simulating the stable grinding stage and the cooling stage after grinding and they found that the residual stress was positively related to the grinding linear speed. More works about the grinding-induced residual stresses in metallic materials can be seen in the review literature [8].

As an important variable of the grinding quality, the surface roughness is a variable often used to describe the performance of the finished part as well as to evaluate the competitiveness of the overall grinding system [9]. Aiming at the roughness, an improved grinding roughness model was established for cylindrical plunge grinding through analyzing the existing roughness models where the infeed rate of the grinding table was selected as the weighting factor and the model was also used for the optimization algorithm of the grinding procedure [10]. Xu et al. [11] developed a new method for predicting the surface roughness in spherical grinding and the process parameters that affect spherical surface roughness were theoretically analyzed and experimentally studied. Lin et al. [12] measured the surface roughness during grinding processes on BK7 glass and the experimental results showed that the values of surface roughness increased with the increment of feed rate and grinding depth, and the decrement of wheel speed. To improve the bearing capacity and reliability of face gears, Wang et al. [13] studied the grinding surface roughness based on the grinding machining principle and summarized the influence of grinding parameters on the surface roughness. Lipinski et al. [14] used an artificial neural network to model the influence of parameters and conditions of the surface grinding process on the value of roughness. Guo et al. [15] applied a sequential deep learning framework, long short-term memory (LSTM) network, to predict ground surface roughness.

Besides the residual stress and the roughness, the hardness also plays an important role to measure the surface integrity and has a significant effect on the fatigue strength and wear resistance of workpieces [16]. Sun et al. [17] presented a new hybrid model to investigate the dynamic hardness distribution with the grinding force and the model was validated by the measurement of the ground workpiece's hardness via grinding experiments under different grinding depths. Zhou et al. [18] established the one-dimensional analytic model for surface micro-hardness in terms of grinding speed, grinder work-table feed speed, grinding depth, incline angle, and deflection angle as process parameters in quick-point grinding ceramics through immune algorithms and orthogonal experiment data. Shi et al. [19] proposed an approximate hardness model of structural steel after grinding and studied the variation and influencing mechanism of hardness along with grinding parameters. Guo et al. [20] integrated the finite element (FE) and cellular automata (CA) approach to explore the distribution and variation of the grinding temperature of the workpiece surface in a grind-hardening process and predicted the hardness of the hardened layer with different grinding parameters.

It can be seen that the research on the swing grinding processing parameters on the surface quality of the cam has not been sufficient so far. In this paper, the effects of the swing grinding process parameters on the residual stress, the roughness and the hardness of the cam surface are analyzed through the swing grinding test of the large-width cam.

Swing grinding is a processing method that applies low-frequency and high-amplitude reciprocating simple harmonic swings to the grinding wheel along the axis of the grinding wheel compared with conventional grinding. The relative movement of the camshaft and the grinding wheel is shown in Fig. 1. The grinding wheel is programmed to perform a linear reciprocating movement along the Z-axis in addition to the linear movement along the X-axis in conjunction with the rotation of the camshaft. The path of the grinding wheel can be described by the g(t) = Asin(2πft) in which A and f are the swing amplitude and swing frequency applied to the axis of the grinding wheel, respectively. During the grinding process of the camshaft, the grinding wheel is always externally tangency with the cam contour and the grinding depth is denoted as a_p. The grinding wheel is rotated around the coordinate Y-axis with speed V_s and the speed of the cam is Vw.

3.1 Camshaft for experiment

Three camshafts, whose number of the cams were 6, 6, 7, respectively, were chosen for the experiment. All of them had the same material status before swing grinding processing. Each cam was marked uniformly as i#-j, which means the jth cam in the ith camshaft. The first camshaft was exhibited in Fig. 2(a) with numbered cams. In order to study more details of the cam profile and measurement convenience, cam pieces were cut from the four key positions which are the top circle (D), the base circle (J), the lifting section (G1) and the returning section (G2) as Fig. 2(b).

3.2 Experimental scheme design

To study the influence of various factors in the grinding process, a group of the orthogonal experiment was designed. The experiments of Group No.1-No.9 constitute a four-factor and three-level orthogonal test with grinding depth a_p, cam speed V_w, grinding wheel swing frequency f and grinding wheel swing amplitude A as variables (i.e. L₉(3⁴)). In addition to the test parameters given in Table 1, grinding fluid was used for cooling and heat dissipation in the grinding process with a pressure 0.3MPa.

Table 1

Experimental design
Level No.	Number of the cam	D (mm)	V_s (m/s)	a_p (mm)	V_w (mm/min)	f (times/min)	A(mm)
1	1#-1	Φ280	85	0.001	1800	60	1
2	1#-2	Φ280	85	0.001	2200	90	1.5
3	1#-3	Φ280	85	0.001	2600	120	2
4	1#-4	Φ280	85	0.003	1800	90	2
5	1#-5	Φ280	85	0.003	2200	120	1
6	1#-6	Φ280	85	0.003	2600	60	1.5
7	2#-1	Φ280	85	0.005	1800	120	1.5
8	2#-2	Φ280	85	0.005	2200	60	2
9	2#-3	Φ280	85	0.005	2600	90	1

In the experiment, the swing grinding CNC machine tool was used to grind the camshaft and the physical drawing of the equipment is shown in Fig. 3. The longitudinal micro swing of the Z-axis of the grinding wheel frame is added to grind the camshaft based on the X-C axis coupling linkage of the swing grinding CNC machine tool.

3.3 Detecting method of residual stress

The residual stresses of the cam pieces after swing grinding were detected by PROTOIXRD combined residual stress analyzer from Proto Company of Canada based on the X-ray diffraction method as shown in Fig. 4. The instrument has high sensitivity and fast detection speed, and thus is suitable for the measurement of various materials which can accurately measure the residual stresses of the cam pieces. The residual stresses were measured by the side-incline method and the incident angle of X-ray tube ψ was set in the range of -20^o ~ 20^o which was divided into 7 scanning angles. Two receiving probes A and B were symmetrically placed on both sides of the ray beam, and the swing angle was set as 3^o. More specific parameter settings can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2

Parameter settings of the residual stress analyzer
Parameters	Exposure time	Swing angle	Tube voltage	Incident angle range	Tube current	Spot diameter
Values	2s	3^o	20kV	-20^o ~ 20^o	4mA	2mm

To obtain the residual stresses distribution on the cam surface along the profile, four points were detected for each cam. These points are located on the middle point of the cam surface which is parallel to the cam axis of the top circle, the base circle, the lifting section and the returning section, respectively.

Correspondingly, two measuring points in the axial direction were added at each measuring point of the cam plate for the No.5 experiment and were marked as point P1 and point P3 to obtain the residual stresses distribution on the cam surface along the axial direction and profile. The distribution of each measuring point is shown in Fig. 5 where the three measuring points in the axial direction divide the cam into four equal parts in the axial direction. A total of 12 points were detected for the cam in the No. 5 experiment and 4 points for other cams. Residual stresses in the axis direction (X direction) and the direction perpendicular to the axis direction (Y direction) were measured at each test point, and 88 residual stress values (1 cam * 12 points * 2 directions + 8 cams * 4 points * 2 directions) are obtained.

3.4 Measuring method of roughness and hardness

The surface morphology of the cam was observed by OLYMPUS-DSX1000 three-dimensional large DOF(depth of field) digital microscope with a magnification range of 20–7000X and the measuring accuracy can reach to the micron level. Three evaluation indexes, the arithmetic average deviation value of the profile Ra, the maximum height of the profile Rz and the average width of the profile element Rsm, were measured along the axixal direction of the Cam, as shown in Fig. 6.

The surface hardness of the Cam was measured by INNOVATEST FALCON 400 as shown in Fig. 7. The measurement pressure was set as 500N with a hold time of 12s.

4.1 Influence of swing grinding parameters on residual stress

4.1.1 Residual stress distribution on the cam surface

The residual stresses of each measuring point in the X and Y directions are shown in Fig. 8. It can be observed that the residual stresses in both X and Y directions are compressive stress. Moreover, the residual stresses in the X direction are larger than that of the Y direction which indicates that the resultant direction of residual stresses is biased towards the axis direction. This phenomenon is consistent with that of the non-swing grinding process [21].

The mean value of residual stresses at points P1, P2 and P3 on the four positions of the cam profile of the No.5 experiment were presented in Fig. 9, where R is the resultant force. The upper and lower boundaries are the maximum and minimum values of residual stress at each position. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the residual stresses of swing grinding change little along the cam axis. However, the residual stress near the cam midline has the largest value in the non-swing grinding process according to Fig. 10 in reference [21]. The difference may be due to the better heat dissipation ability of swing grinding compared with the non-swing grinding process which verifies the superiority of swing grinding process.

The mean residual stresses in the X and Y directions and resultant force (R) of the cam at the base circle, the top circle, the rising section, and the returning section are shown in Fig. 10. It can be found that the residual stress at the top circle has the largest mean value and the mean residual stresses in the transition sections (rising section and returning section) are close to each other in all directions.

4.1.2 The result analysis of residual stresses in orthogonal test

The mean residual stresses in the orthogonal test for each factor is expressed by K_i at the ith (i = 1, 2, 3) level. The range value, which is the difference between the maximum and minimum of the average values for each parameter, is calculated and the calculation results are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

Results of residual stresses in orthogonal test
Base circle (J)
	X direction				Y direction				Resultant force R
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	-297	-287	-274	-232	-124	-150	-134	-171	-325	-325	-305	-294
K₂	-241	-288	-301	-266	-158	-133	-179	-133	-289	-322	-360	-313
K₃	-281	-244	-244	-292	-190	-188	-159	-172	-344	-311	-292	-340
Range	55	44	57	60	66	55	44	39	55	15	68	46
Order	3	4	2	1	1	2	3	4	2	4	1	3
Top circle (D)
	X direction				Y direction				Resultant force R
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	-283	-321	-311	-298	-221	-195	-200	-216	-359	-375	-372	-368
K₂	-307	-368	-333	-351	-179	-278	-225	-249	-358	-462	-402	-431
K₃	-391	-273	-338	-357	-272	-199	-247	-254	-476	-356	-419	-440
Range	107	96	27	59	93	83	47	38	119	105	47	72
Order	1	2	4	3	1	2	3	4	1	2	4	3
Rising section (G1)
	X direction				Y direction				Resultant force R
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	-283	-289	-325	-303	-214	-145	-162	-164	-355	-325	-366	-346
K₂	-254	-324	-326	-273	-143	-182	-168	-189	-294	-377	-371	-333
K₃	-378	-302	-264	-334	-158	-187	-185	-157	-411	-358	-323	-375
Range	125	35	62	61	71	42	23	32	118	52	48	42
Order	1	4	2	3	1	2	4	3	1	2	3	4
Returning section (G2)
	X direction				Y direction				Resultant force R
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	-295	-326	-295	-245	-200	-125	-121	-126	-357	-354	-322	-276
K₂	-250	-387	-226	-396	-129	-179	-151	-175	-282	-433	-273	-441
K₃	-363	-195	-388	-333	-96	-120	-153	-145	-377	-229	-421	-367
Range	113	191	162	151	104	60	32	49	95	204	149	165
order	4	1	2	3	1	2	4	3	4	1	3	2

The following conclusions can be drawn from Table 3.

(1) Overall, the degree of influence caused by each factor on the residual stress from high to low is grinding depth a_p, cam speed V_w, grinding wheel swing frequency f and swing amplitude A, that is to say, the main factors of swing grinding on the residual stress are grinding depth a_p and cam speed V_w, while the parameters such as grinding wheel swing frequency f and swing amplitude A have relatively little influence on the residual stress.

(2) The grinding depth a_p has the greatest influence on the residual stress at the base circle, the top circle and the rising section while the cam speed V_w at the returning section.

(3) The degree of each influencing factor on the Y direction residual stress of each part of the cam contour surface shows a good consistency where the grinding depth a_p and cam speed V_w have a greater influence on the residual stress.

(4) In the X direction, the grinding depth a_p has the greatest influence on the residual stress at the top circle and the rising section. However, the grinding wheel swing amplitude A and the cam speed V_w have the greatest influence at the base circle and the returning section, separately.

(5) Under the joint action of residual stress in the X direction and Y direction, the degree of influence caused by each factor on the resultant force R from high to low is: the grinding depth a_p, the cam speed V_w, the grinding wheel swing frequency f, the grinding wheel swing amplitude A since the amplitude of the residual stress in the X direction is much bigger than its in the Y direction.

4.2 Influence of swing grinding parameters on surface roughness

4.2.1 Surface roughness at different positions

The three evaluation indexes, Ra, Rz and Rsm, were normalized and drawn them in Fig. 11 following the number of the experiments. It can be observed that they have a certain correlation to some extent.

To further analyze their correlations quantitatively, the correlation coefficients between Ra and Rz, Ra and Rsm, Rz and Rsm are calculated as 0.8128, 0.5905 and 0.3619, respectively. Check the correlation coefficient test table to get the critical value \({r}_{0.01}\left(54\right)=0.3415\) under the significance level of 0.01 and the degree of freedom as 54. The results indicate that the three evaluation indexes have a significant linear correlation.

The correlation coefficients between Ra and Rz, Ra and Rsm, Rz and Rsm at different positions of the cam contour are listed in Table 4. The critical value \({r}_{0.01}\left(12\right)\) is 0.6614 under the significance level of 0.01 and the degree of freedom is 12. It can be found from Table 4 that there is a significant linear correlation between Ra and Rz at the top circle, the rising section and the returning section. A significant linear correlation between Ra and Rsm has existed at the base circle and the rising section. However, Rz and Rsm have a significant linear correlation only at the rising section. Therefore, the three evaluation indexes have a significant linear correlation only at the rising section.

Table 4

The correlation coefficients at different positions
Base circle (J)				Top circle (D)
	Ra	Rz	Rsm		Ra	Rz	Rsm
Ra	1	0.5476	0.7991	Ra	1	0.8605	0.5921
Rz	0.5476	1	0.1224	Rz	0.8605	1	0.3081
Rsm	0.7991	0.1224	1	Rsm	0.5921	0.3081	1
Rising section (G1)				Returning section (G2)
	Ra	Rz	Rsm		Ra	Rz	Rsm
Ra	1	0.9574	0.8771	Ra	1	0.7303	0.1316
Rz	0.9574	1	0.8184	Rz	0.7303	1	0.1117
Rsm	0.8771	0.8184	1	Rsm	0.1316	0.1117	1

4.2.2 The results analysis of surface roughness in orthogonal test

The analysis results of the orthogonal test on surface roughness are shown in Table 5. Conclusions can be drawn from Table 5 as follows.

Table 5

Results of surface roughness in orthogonal test
Base circle (J)
	Ra				Rz				Rsm
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	0.48	0.55	0.70	0.53	4.01	4.35	4.82	4.81	94.08	71.71	122.49	77.33
K₂	0.58	0.45	0.44	0.59	4.01	4.06	4.15	4.00	112.02	65.07	58.13	111.78
K₃	0.59	0.65	0.51	0.54	5.20	4.81	4.25	4.42	50.51	119.83	76.00	67.51
Range	0.11	0.21	0.26	0.06	1.19	0.74	0.67	0.82	61.52	54.76	64.36	44.27
order	3	2	1	4	1	3	4	2	2	3	1	4
Optimal plan	A1B2C2D1				A1B2C2D2				A3B2C2D3
Top circle (D)
	Ra				Rz				Rsm
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	0.53	0.45	0.48	0.46	4.58	3.56	4.26	3.91	63.73	53.57	53.36	62.98
K₂	0.34	0.50	0.41	0.43	2.84	4.45	3.40	3.57	51.30	63.67	63.58	61.33
K₃	0.49	0.42	0.48	0.47	4.40	3.81	4.16	4.35	59.10	56.90	57.20	49.83
Range	0.19	0.08	0.08	0.04	1.74	0.88	0.85	0.78	12.43	10.11	10.22	13.15
order	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	2	4	3	1
Optimal plan	A2B3C2D2				A2B1C2D2				A2B1C1D3
Rising section (G1)
	Ra				Rz				Rsm
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	0.48	0.53	0.43	0.47	3.88	3.91	3.33	3.53	56.47	57.24	58.23	58.22
K₂	0.39	0.44	0.49	0.42	3.21	3.67	3.86	3.24	56.18	59.72	58.57	46.11
K₃	0.52	0.41	0.47	0.50	3.95	3.46	3.85	4.27	55.44	51.13	51.28	63.75
Range	0.13	0.12	0.06	0.08	0.74	0.46	0.53	1.03	1.03	8.59	7.29	17.64
order	1	2	4	3	2	4	3	1	4	2	3	1
Optimal plan	A2B3C1D2				A2B3C1D2				A3B3C3D2
Returning section (G2)
	Ra				Rz				Rsm
	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	0.38	0.46	0.40	0.51	3.47	3.79	3.57	4.27	49.67	60.11	44.09	126.70
K₂	0.41	0.42	0.48	0.42	3.48	3.68	4.18	3.67	134.80	120.91	64.35	46.82
K₃	0.52	0.43	0.43	0.38	4.12	3.59	3.32	3.13	46.53	49.98	122.56	57.48
Range	0.15	0.05	0.07	0.13	0.65	0.20	0.85	1.14	88.26	70.93	78.47	79.88
order	1	4	3	2	3	4	2	1	1	4	3	2
Optimal plan	A1B2C1D3				A1B3C3D3				A3B3C1D2

(1) In general, the influence degree of each factor on the surface roughness from high to low is the grinding depth a_p, the grinding wheel swing amplitude A, the grinding wheel swing frequency f and the cam speed V_w. The main factors affecting the surface roughness of the swing grinding process are the grinding depth a_p and the grinding wheel swing amplitude A.

(2) For Ra, the influence degree of each factor from high to low is the grinding depth a_p, the cam speed V_w, the grinding wheel swing frequency f and the grinding wheel swing amplitude A. But the influence on each position of the cam contour surface is different. The main influencing factor is the grinding depth a_p at the top circle, the rising section and the returning section, which is the grinding wheel swing frequency f in the base circle.

(3) For Rz, the influence degree of each factor from high to low is the grinding depth a_p, the grinding wheel swing amplitude A, the grinding wheel swing frequency f and the cam speed V_w. The main influencing factor is the grinding depth a_p at the base circle and the top circle, which is the grinding wheel swing amplitude A in the rising section and the returning section.

(4) For Rsm, the influence degree of each factor from high to low is the grinding wheel swing amplitude A, the grinding depth a_p, the grinding wheel swing frequency f and the cam speed V_w. The main influencing factor is the grinding wheel swing amplitude A at the top circle and the rising section, which is the grinding wheel swing frequency f and the grinding depth a_p in the base circle and the returning section, separately.

According to the above analysis, it is found that the conclusions based on the three evaluation indexes are different. Therefore, the traditional surface roughness evaluation parameters are not suitable for the swing grinding process.

4.3 Influence of swing grinding parameters on hardness

The analysis results of the orthogonal test on hardness are shown in Table 6. It can be concluded from Table 6 that the grinding wheel frequency f and the grinding depth a_p have a great influence on the hardness of the cam surface. The optimal plan for the swing grinding process is A1B1C3D1 when higher hardness is required for the cam surface.

Table 6

Results of surface roughness in orthogonal test
	a_p	V_w	f	A
K₁	850.58	843.44	787.33	828.75
K₂	798.45	806.88	804.29	824.60
K₃	793.80	792.51	851.21	789.47
Range	56.78	50.93	63.88	39.28
order	2	3	1	4
Optimal plan	A1B1C3D1

The influences of the swing grinding process parameters on residual stress, surface roughness and hardness of camshaft are researched experimentally. The main conclusions are as follows.

(1) The residual stresses of swing grinding change little along the cam axis which may be due to the better heat dissipation ability of swing grinding compared with the non-swing grinding process. In general, the grinding depth a_p and cam speed V_w, have a relatively great influence on the residual stress compared with grinding wheel swing frequency f and swing amplitude A.

(2) The main influencing factors at different positions of cam contour on surface roughness based on the three evaluation indexes, Ra, Rz and Rsm, are variable. Therefore, the traditional surface roughness evaluation parameters are not suitable for the swing grinding process and new evaluation parameters should be proposed to characterize its surface roughness.

(3) The grinding wheel frequency f has the greatest influence on the hardness of the cam surface and the increment of it will increase the hardness of the camshaft.

Funding: This work was supported by the General Project of Natural Science Research of Institutions of Higher Education of Jiangsu Province of China (No. 21KJB510016), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51605207) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (No. BK20160563).
Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study were available by email to the author. ([email protected]).
Code availability: No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
Ethics approval: The work contains no libelous or unlawful statements does not infringe on the rights of others or contains material or instructions that might cause harm or injury.
Consent to participate: The authors' consent to participate.
Consent for publication: consent for publication Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
Authors' contributions: Li Sun put forward the main analysis ideas for the article, revised the article, and supervised the project. Baojiang Dong was responsible for the collation and analysis of the experimental data. Jie Lu completed the modeling, data analysis and processing, and the writing of the thesis. Honggen Zhou provided labor and financial support. Jianzhi Chen and Guochao Li were responsible for the construction of the experimental equipment.

Curtis D, Krain H, Winder A, Novovic D (2020) Impact of grinding wheel specification on surface integrity and residual stress when grinding inconel 718. P I Mech Eng. B-J Eng 235(10):1668–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405420961209
Sun C, Hong Y, Xiu SC, Zhang P (2021) Investigation on the influence of dynamic characteristic on grinding residual stress. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 115(5–6):1853–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07217-w
Denkena B, Grove T, Lucas H (2016) Influences of grinding with Toric CBN grinding tools on surface and subsurface of 1.3344PM steel. J Mater Process Tech 229:541–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.09.039
Shen SG, Li BZ, Guo WC (2020) Experimental study on grinding-induced residual stress in C-250 maraging steel. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 106(3–4):953–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04655-5
Zhao CY, Li JY, Fan WG, Liu YM, Wang WX (2020) Experimental and simulation research on residual stress for abrasive belt rail grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 109(1–2):129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05664-5
Xiao YL, Wang SL, Ma C, Wang SB, Yi LL, Xia CJ, Dong JP (2021) Measurement and modeling methods of grinding-induced residual stress distribution of gear tooth flank. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 115(11–12):3933–3944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07392-w
Hamdi H, Zahouani H, Bergheau JM (2004) Residual stresses computation in a grinding process. J Mater Process Tech 147(3):277–285
Ding W, Zhang LC, Li Z, Zhu YJ, Su HH, Xu JH (2017) Review on grinding-induced residual stresses in metallic materials. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:2939–2968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8998-1
Chi YL, Ge AL, Li HL (2019) Estimation of the surface roughness in cylindrical plunge grinding based on material removal model. J Chin Soc Mech Eng 40(6):571–581
Choi J, Lee CW, Park JH (2011) Development of the process model for plunge grinding and optimization of grinding process. P I Mech Eng C-J Mec 225(11):2628–2637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406211406201
Xu LM, Luo R, Yang ZQ, Zha TJ, Hu DJ (2013) Modelling and experimental analysis of surface roughness in spherical grinding. P I Mech Eng B-J Eng 228(6):856–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405413508944
Lin XH, Ke XL, Ye H, Hu CL, Guo YB (2017) Investigation of surface/subsurface integrity and grinding force in grinding of BK7 glass. P I Mech Eng. C-J Mec 231(12):2349–2356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406216631575
Wang YZ, Liu Y, Chu XM, He YM, Zhang W (2017) Calculation model for surface roughness of face gears by disc wheel grinding. Int J Mach Tool Manu 123:76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.08.002
Lipiński D, Baasz B, Rypina B, Rypina L (2018) Modelling of surface roughness and grinding forces using artificial neural networks with assessment of the ability to data generalisation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94(1–4):1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0949-y
Guo WC, Wu CJ, Ding ZS, Zhou QZ (2021) Prediction of surface roughness based on a hybrid feature selection method and long short-term memory network in grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 112(9):2853–2871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06523-z
Xiu SC, Liu MH, Wei JH, Zhang XM (2015) Study on grinding strengthening and hardening mechanism under small depth of cut conditions. Int J Surf Sci Eng 9(6):479–492. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSURFSE.2015.072830
Sun C, Wang JY, Kong XN, Lu Y, Xiu SC (2019) Research on dynamic hardening effect on workpiece's hardness distribution with depth of cut. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103(9–12):4013–4028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03741-y
Zhou YG, Ma LJ, Tan YQ, Liu T, Li HY (2020) Process parameters optima in quick-point grinding ceramics based on the intelligent algorithm. Adv Mech Eng 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814019900102
Shi XL, Xiu SC (2020) Study on the hardness model of grinding for structural steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 106(7–8):3563–3573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04787-8
Guo Y, Liu MH, Yan YT (2021) Hardness prediction of grind-hardening layer based on integrated approach of finite element and cellular automata. Materials 14(19):5651. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14195651
Li GC, Xu HZ, Zhou HG, Jing XW, Sun YJ (2019) Experimental study of residual stresses of cam produced by heat treatment and grinding processes. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 100:1355–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2756-5

Experimental study of the influence of swing grinding parameters on machining surface quality of large-width Cam

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 The Processing Principle Of Swing Grinding For Cam Shaft

3 Experimental Designs