Observation of abrasives under morphable polishing tools with a high-speed camera

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3234611/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Observation of abrasives under morphable polishing tools with a high-speed camera

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3234611/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 25 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Polishing abrasives play a crucial role in polishing and significantly influence the polishing rate and quality. Current research on direct observation of abrasives under polishing tools with complicated surface textures is limited. In this work, high speed camera is applied to observe the abrasives under morphable polishing tools with smooth, labyrinth and dimple textures at the tool rotational speed (300, 600 and 900 rpm) and tool offset (0.2, 0.5 and 1 mm). The results shows that the number of abrasives in the contact area is increased with the tool rotational speed and decreased with the tool offset. Among the three tools, dimple tools retain more abrasives than labyrinth and smooth tools. Abrasive trajectories are nearly horizontal, in accordance with the polishing velocity direction. The velocity magnitude is mainly influenced by the horizontal velocity u, as the vertical velocity v is relatively small. The velocity magnitude increases with the tool rotational speed and the tool offset. Among the three tools, the velocity is higher under labyrinth and dimple tools than under smooth tools. The pressure and abrasive velocity were increased by ~ 25% and 70%, while the resultant removal volume was increased by 54.2% with a dimple tool than a labyrinth tool.

Polishing

Abrasives

Observation

Tool texture

With the development of science and technology, precise components such as metal moulds [1], astronomy mirrors [2], and engine blades [3] often require their surface roughness to be in the order of nanometre to enhance wear, corrosion and optical performance [4–6]. As it is well known, polishing technique is always applied to finish workpiece, remove irregularities and defects and obtain smooth surfaces [7, 8]. Abrasive plays a direct role in removing the workpiece material. Hence, the abrasive velocity and path are important factors for the polishing rate and quality.

Considerable work has been undertaken to study the abrasive motion [9, 10], trajectory [11, 12] and their effects on polishing quality [13, 14]. During polishing, abrasive motion is influenced by the polishing parameters. Stevenson and Hutchings [15] experimentally measured the abrasive velocity under different conditions in a gas-blast process and reported empirical scaling laws for the abrasive velocity. Li et al. [16] developed abrasive particle velocity models for abrasive jet machining and showed that abrasive velocity was related to the polishing parameters including the flow velocity, abrasive diameter, abrasive density and nozzle tool size. Ihara et al. [17] observed the motion of polishing abrasives with an optical microscope and high-speed camera, and found trajectories of abrasives were concentric around the tool rotational centre and did not cross the tool centre. They also calculated abrasives velocity distribution from the trajectory and found that abrasives velocity agreed with that of the polishing pad.

Abrasive motion will influence the polishing quality. Cheng, Z., et al. [18] simulated the droplets trajectory on KDP crystals under different motion modes in water dissolution polishing process. They pointed out that uniformity of droplets trajectory greatly affected the surface flatness and roughness. Qi et al. [19] performed kinematic analysis of the carriers on a double sided polisher and found that the abrasive motions can be more uniformly distributed by changing the setup of the carrier. The optimized abrasive velocity and trajectories lead to smaller roughness and waviness of workpiece. For vibration-assisted polishing, it is found that abrasive motion and behaviour were changed by different vibration modes (horizontal, vertical and combined vibration) and vibration frequency and amplitude, which led to higher polishing efficiency and smoother surfaces, compared with conventional polishing [20–22]. In elastic abrasives finishing, it is found that the abrasive longitudinal velocity significantly affects the polished surface quality. Relatively lower roughness values (~ 0.03 µm) was achieved at a high axial velocity. This is due to that a high abrasive velocity increases the contact length of abrasives per unit time, making the workpiece surface peaks removed [25].

In addition, the effect of abrasive motion on polishing has been studied in modelling. Zhang et al. [23] developed physical model to predict the surface morphology and roughness after fluid jet polishing based on computational fluid dynamics simulation and abrasives kinetic analysis. Their experimental and simulation results show that jet pressure, jet angle and abrasive size changed the abrasive velocity and distribution. For example, high jet pressure and large abrasive size resulted in high abrasive impact velocity, which caused abrasive indentation and rough surfaces. Under a small jet angle, flow field and abrasive velocity were not stable. Wang et al. [24] analyzed the abrasive air jet polishing process and discussed the effect of abrasive velocity on removal footprints in detail. During the polishing process, abrasive velocity gradually reduces as the abrasive impacts the workpiece, slides across the workpiece and bounces back. Hence the single abrasive removal footprint is asymmetric along the cutting direction. Besides, abrasive velocity also influences the overlapping of multiple footprints.

Particle image velocimetry [26, 27] is widely applied to measure particles velocity, velocity distribution of flow in spacers [28], packed bed [29] and pleated filters [30]. Liu et al. [31] used particle image velocimetry to analyze the flow field in a fluidized bed. The particles velocity distribution around a single bubble was observed. Wang et al. [26] proposed a novel particle pairing method based on the particles characteristics, and accurately measured particle velocities under different experimental conditions. Atxutegi, et al. [32] developed a borescopic technique and used a high speed camera to track particles in a conical spouted bed. A novel algorithm was proposed to take the differences of particles shape into account when registering data. Their results show that the velocity distribution for millimetre-size and micrometre-size particles can be measured. Slouka et al. [33] used particle image velocimetry to observe the electroconvection and gravitational convection velocity fields at the membrane-electrolyte interface within seconds to hundreds of milliseconds time period. Therefore, high speed camera combined with particle image velocimetry analysis are useful for obtaining the particles motion.

In spite of the research conducted on experimental and theoretical polishing technology, there is a lack of analysis for abrasives velocity under morphable polishing tools with complicated textures, which are fundamental for understanding the polishing process. To fill this gap, in this study, high speed camera tests were carried out to observe the abraisve trajectory and velocity distribution under morphable tools with smooth, labyrinth and dimple textures at different tool rotational speeds and tool offsets. Kinematic analysis based polishing velocity and the effect of abrasive velocity on removal footprint are discussed.

2.1 Polishing velocity analysis

Polishing velocity is an important factor for the polishing rate and generally calculated by equations based on tool kinematics analysis. The tool is always assumed to be an ideal sphere with smooth surfaces. Figure 1 shows the geometric relationship in the polishing area. S is the rotational velocity in rpm and $\omega$ is the tool angular velocity in rad/min, $\overrightarrow{\omega }=\frac{\pi S}{30}\left\{0,-\text{sin}\left(\phi \right), -\text{cos}\left(\phi \right)\right\}$. $\phi$ is the tool inclination angle, which is the angle between the tool rotational axis and the normal vector of the workpiece surface. O_b is the centre of the tool and L is the rotational axis of the tool. O_w is the centre of the polishing spot. d is the tool offset in mm. R_b is the tool radius in mm. P is a point in the polishing area with the coordination$\left(\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{sin}\theta , \left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta ,-\left({R}_{b}-d\right) \right)$, 0$\le \alpha \le {\text{cos}}^{-1}\left(\frac{{R}_{b}-d}{{R}_{b}}\right), 0\le \theta \le 2\pi$. O_r is the swing centre of point P and can be given by $\left(0, {y}_{0},-{y}_{0}\text{cot}\phi \right)$. The vector $\overrightarrow{{O}_{b}{O}_{r}}$ and $\overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p}$ are obtained as Equations (1) and (2):

$$\overrightarrow{{O}_{b}{O}_{r}} =\left\{0,{y}_{0}, -{y}_{0}\text{cot}\phi \right\}$$

$$\overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p} =\left\{\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{sin}\theta , \left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta -{y}_{0},-\left({R}_{b}-d\right)+{y}_{0}\text{cot}\phi \right\}$$

As $\overrightarrow{{O}_{b}{O}_{r}}\perp \overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p}$, so ${y}_{0}$ can be solved as Eq. (3):

$${y}_{0}= \frac{\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\left(\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta +\text{cot}\phi \right)}{1+{\text{cot}\phi }^{2}}$$

Input ${y}_{0}$ into Eq. (2), the vector $\overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p}$ can be rewritten as Eq. (4):

$$\overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p} =\left\{U, V, W\right\}$$

Where$U=\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{sin}\theta$

$$V=\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta -\frac{\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\left(\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta +\text{cot}\phi \right)}{1+{\text{cot}\phi }^{2}}$$

$$W=-\left({R}_{b}-d\right)+\frac{\left({R}_{b}-d\right)\left(\text{tan}\alpha \text{cos}\theta +\text{cot}\phi \right)}{1+{\text{cot}\phi }^{2}}\text{cot}\phi$$

The velocity vector $\overrightarrow{{v}_{p}}$ at point P can be obtained as Eq. (5):

$$\overrightarrow{{v}_{p}}=\overrightarrow{\omega }\times \overrightarrow{{O}_{r}p}=\frac{\pi S}{30}\left[-\left(V\text{cos}\phi +W\text{sin}\phi \right)\overrightarrow{i}+U\text{cos}\phi \overrightarrow{j}+U\text{sin}\phi \overrightarrow{k}\right]$$

During the process, the relative velocity ${v}_{r}$ at point P is expressed as Eq. (6):

$${v}_{r}=\frac{\pi S}{30}\sqrt{{\left(V\text{cos}\phi +W\text{sin}\phi \right)}^{2}+{\left(U\text{cos}\phi \right)}^{2}}$$

Figure 2 plots the polishing velocity under different polishing conditions. If the tool offset increases from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm and the tilt angle increases from 8° to 16°, the maximum velocity is increased from ~ 300 to ~ 500 mm/s. The effect of rotational speed on polishing velocity is more obvious. The maximum velocity is 200 mm/s at 300 rpm and risen to 600 mm/s at 900 rpm. Hence, the polishing velocity is greatly influenced by the polishing parameters and increased with the tool offset, rotational speed and title angle.

2.2 Removal footprints analysis

The polishing experimental setup and schematic illustration are shown in Fig. 3. There is a tilt angle between the tool rotation axis and the normal vector of the workpiece surface to avoid zero velocity polishing at the tool center. The polishing tool rotates with the machine spindle at a rotational speed ω. When the tool is pressed onto the workpiece to a certain offset, the tool will exert force on abrasive grains. Then abrasives remove the workpiece material. As abrasives are carried by the rotating tool, the abrasive velocity and trajectory are influenced by tool parameters. If the abrasive velocity is high, the removal footprint is ellipsoid with large sizes. However, if the abrasive velocity is low, the removal footprint is ellipsoid with small diameters. The removal footprints are accumulated to form the final surface topography.

2.3 Characteristics of the morphable polishing tools

Morphable polishing tools can be fabricated to present smooth, labyrinth and dimple textures, as shown in Fig. 4. Smooth, labyrinth and dimple tools display different texture patterns and sizes (Fig. 4(a)). Compared with smooth tools, labyrinth tools feature line teuxtures (~ 1 mm width and ~ 0.2 mm depth), and dimple tools exhibit pit patterns (~ 2mm width and ~ 0.6 mm depth (Fig. 4(b-c)). Tool textures significantly change the polishing pressure distribution (Fig. 4(d)). The polishing pressure for a smooth tool is calculated by equation [34]. It shows that in the polishing area, the pressure is highest in the center and decreased from the middle to the circumference. The measured pressure for a labyrinth tool and a dimple tool exhibit distributions related to the tool texture. In the texture protrusion area, the pressure is high. In the cavity area, the pressure is low. Compared with a dimple tool, pressure gradient for a labyrinth tool is higher as a result of the smaller textures. The changed polishing pressure can lead to diverse abrasive behaviours during morphable tool polishing. Therefore, it is vital to directly observe the abrasive behaviour to improve the understanding of the morphable tool polishing mechanism.

A high speed camera (Photron FASTCAM Mini AX200) was applied to observe abrasives in the polishing area (Fig. 5(a-b)). The polishing parameters were given in Table 1. High frame rate (10000 fps) and shutter speed (1/20000 second) were adopted in the observation tests. A high power fiber light source (SLG-150V, HI-TECH ELECTRONICS PTE LTD) with adjustable light intensity was used to illuminate the observation area. Transparent resin and grit 120 silicon carbide abrasives were used for ease of observation. A typical captured image under 600 rpm with a labyrinth tool was shown in Fig. 5(c). It can be seen that in the frame, plenty of abrasives were in the polishing area. By comparing the coordinates of abrasive particles in consecutive frames with PIVlab [35], the velocity vectors for particles can be obtained (Fig. 5(d)). The operation procedures include selection of the camera field of view as the region of interest, pixel size calibration based on the labyrinth tool texture and velocity vector calculation.

Table 1

Polishing parameters for high speed camera observation.
Parameters	Value
Tool rotational speed (rpm)	300, 600, 900
Tool offset (mm)	0.2, 0.5, 1
Tool surface texture	Smooth, labyrinth, dimple

4.1 Abrasive trajectory

In the observation area, four abrasives distributed from top to bottom were selected to analyze the trajectories under smooth, labyrinth and dimple tools at 300 rpm and 600 rpm. For each abrasive, ten points with the time interval 0.5 ms for the 300 rpm condition and 0.25 ms for the 600 rpm were plotted. Figure 6(a) indicates that under all conditions, the particle trajectories are almost horizontal, which are consistent with the clockwise rotation of the polishing tool. The particles pitches are nearly uniform along each trajectory, while the pitches are larger for abrasive 1 trajectory and smaller for abrasive 4 trajectory. The pitch is similar for the 300 rpm, 0.5 ms time interval condition and the 600 rpm, 0.25 ms time interval condition. Among the three tools, the pitch variance at 300 rpm for a dimple tool is wider, which may be related to the larger texture.

The velocity vectors in three consecutive frames with a labyrinth tool under the tool rotational speed 600 rpm are shown in Fig. 6(b). Arrows indicate the velocity direction. It shows that the velocity vectors are concentrated in the particle area, and their values are consistent in these frames, which demonstrate the effectiveness of the method in capturing the abrasive motion.

4.2 Abrasives under different tool rotational speeds

Abrasives under different tool rotational speeds (300 rpm, 600 rpm and 900 rpm) and tool offset 0.2 mm were observed (Fig. 7). It shows an obvious trend that the number of abrasives in the contact area is increased with the tool rotational speed. When the tool rotational speed is 300 rpm, there are a few of abrasives in the area, while there are plenty of particles distributed overall at 900 rpm. This phenomenon shows that a low rotational speed is difficult to carry the large abrasives into the polishing area.

At the same rotational speed 300 rpm, the abrasive numbers and densities are all few for the three tools. When the rotational speed is raised to 600 and 900 rpm, the abrasive numbers and densities are higher under the labyrinth and dimple tools than smooth tools, demonstrating tool textures enhance the abrasive retention ability.

Figure 8 shows the velocity vectors for smooth, labyrinth and dimple tools when the tool rotational speed was 300 rpm. The direction of u is horizontal and aligns with the polishing tool velocity and the direction of v is vertical. Velocity magnitude is the resultant velocity value of u and v. As v is much lower than u, the distribution of velocity magnitude is mainly influenced by u. Comparing u, v and velocity magnitude of the three tools, abrasives under dimple tools present highest velocity values and largest high-velocity area (blue color for u and yellow color for velocity magnitude), while abrasives under smooth tools present lowest velocity values. This can be due to that tools with dimple and labyrinth textures are more effective to carry and retain abrasives than smooth tools.

Figure 9 plots the statistics of u, v and velocity magnitude corresponding to the velocity vectors when the tool rotational speed is 300 rpm. The x-axis displays the velocity and the y-axis shows the frequency of each velocity. Velocity u plots are negatively skewed distribution as the abrasive velocity is mostly influenced by the tool speed. Abrasives under dimple tools present higher u velocity (~ 0.4 m/s) than those under labyrinth and smooth tools (~ 0.3 m/s). Velocity v plots are approximately normal distribution with peaks centred at ~ 0 and values less than 0.1 m/s. The range is narrowest for the labyrinth tool condition. Magnitude plots demonstrate the abrasive velocity under dimple tools is highest.

Figure 10 shows the velocity vector for smooth, labyrinth and dimple tools when the tool rotational speed was 600 rpm. Compared with the velocity vector in Fig. 8, the measured velocity is higher due to the increased tool rotational speed. Dimple and labyrinth tools increase the u, v, magnitude, and high-velocity area compared with smooth tools.

Figure 11 shows the frequency statistics of u, v and velocity magnitude corresponding to the velocity vector when the tool rotational speed was 600 rpm. The u, v and magnitude distribution are increasingly more offset to the highest velocity from smooth tools to labyrinth tools and dimple tools.

Figure 12 shows the velocity for smooth, labyrinth and dimple tools when the tool rotational speed was 900 rpm. Compared with Fig. 8 and Fig. 10, the high-velocity areas are almost expanded to the whole images. Velocity is obviously higher under labyrinth and dimple tools as shown in the u and magnitude plots. The difference in v for three tools is little.

Figure 13 shows the frequency statistics of u, v and velocity magnitude corresponding to the velocity vector in Fig. 12 when the tool rotational speed was 900 rpm. The distribution of u and magnitude are increasingly more concentrated to the highest velocity from smooth to labyrinth and dimple tools. The v plots for smooth and labyrinth tools are normal distribution centered at ~ 0, while is negatively skewed distribution for dimple tools. This phenomenon can be due to that dimple textures change the abrasive velocity in fluid.

4.3 Abrasives under different tool offsets

Abrasives under different tool offsets (0.2 mm, 0.5 mm and 1 mm) were also investigated (Fig. 14). It shows that when the tool rotational speed is 300 rpm, abrasives under labyrinth and dimple tools are a few if the tool offset was changed from 0.2, 0.5 to 1 mm. When the tool rotational speed was 600 rpm, the number of abrasives under labyrinth and dimple tools are decreased with the increasing tool offsets. Dimple tools tend to retain more abrasives than labyrinth tools.

The velocity vector results show that when the tool rotational speed was 300 rpm, the velocity u, v and magnitude for labyrinth and dimple tools are increased with the tool offset (Fig. 15), which can be due to abrasives are more effectively carried under the large tool offset and force. Besides, abrasive velocity under labyrinth tools (Fig. 15(a)) is slightly higher than under dimple tools (Fig. 15(b)).

When the tool rotational speed was 600 rpm, the velocity u, v, magnitude, and high-velocity area for labyrinth tools are increased with the tool offset (Fig. 16(a)). However, for dimple tools (Fig. 16(b)), the high-velocity area for u, v and magnitude is largest under the tool offset 0.2 mm, which can be due to the relatively more effective abrasives under this tool offset.

4.4 Application of the observed abrasive velocity

Polishing rate is proportional to the polishing pressure and abrasive velocity. The pressure and abrasive velocity were measured under the tool offset 1 mm and rotational speed 600 rpm. The average polishing pressure under a labyrinth tool and a dimple tool were ~ 8 kPa and 10 kPa (Fig. 17(a)). If only consider the pressure and neglect the abrasive velocity effect on the polishing rate, the removal volume would be increased by 25%. However, the abrasive velocity under a dimple tool was obviously higher than under a labyrinth tool. The average abrasive velocity under a labyrinth tool and a dimple tool were ~ 0.22 and 0.3 m/s, respectively (Fig. 17(b)). Hence, the polishing rate would ideally be ~ 70% higher under a dimple tool than under a labyrinth tool given independent enhancement by the polishing pressure and abrasive velocity.

The material removal volume under the tool rotational speed 600 rpm and tool offset 1 mm were experimentally measured. The polishing spot was elliptical (Fig. 17(c)), and the removed volumes of the copper workpiece under the labyrinth and the dimple tool were 2.62$\times {10}^{6} {{\mu }\text{m}}^{3}$ and 4.04$\times {10}^{6} {{\mu }\text{m}}^{3}$, respectively (Fig. 17(d)). Therefore, the removal volume was ~ 54.2% higher with a dimple tool. The result indicated that the abrasive velocity has a great effect on the polishing rate. Measurement of the actual abrasive velocity is useful to get a better understanding of the polishing process and establishing theoretical models.

In this study, polishing abrasives movement path and velocity under morphable polishing tools were observed with a high-speed camera. The major findings are drawn as follows:

Polishing abrasive trajectories are nearly horizontal, which are in accordance with the polishing tool velocity. At 300 rpm, the pitch variance for a dimple tool is larger;

Velocity vectors are concentrated in the particle area, and their values are consistent in consecutive frames;

The number of abrasives in the contact area is increased with the tool rotational speed and decreased with the tool offset. When the tool rotational speed was 600 rpm, dimple tools retain more abrasives than labyrinth and smooth tools;

The distribution of velocity magnitude is mainly influenced by u. Frequency plots are negatively skewed distribution, normal distribution and positively skewed distribution for u, v and magnitude. Velocity magnitude increases with the tool rotational speed and offset. Velocity is higher under labyrinth and dimple tools than under smooth tools;

Compared with a labyrinth tool, a dimple tool increased the pressure, abrasive velocity and removal volume by ~ 25%, 70% and 54.2%. The higher abrasive velocity and polishing pressure under a dimple tool both contributed to the increased polishing rate.

The authors declare that no funds or grants were received during the preparation of this manuscript. They have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Each author has made a substantial contribution to the manuscript. Material preparation, data collection and analysis, draft preparation and revision were performed by Qianqian Nie. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fang, F.Z., et al., Manufacturing and measurement of freeform optics. CIRP Annals, 2013. 62(2): p. 823-846.
Martin, H., et al. Fabrication and testing of the first 8.4-m off-axis segment for the Giant Magellan Telescope. in Modern Technologies in Space-and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation. 2010. SPIE.
Axinte, D.A., et al., Investigations on belt polishing of heat-resistant titanium alloys. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2005. 166(3): p. 398-404.
Zhang, S.J., et al., A review of surface roughness generation in ultra-precision machining. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2015. 91: p. 76-95.
Kadirgama, K., et al., Surface roughness prediction model of 6061-T6 aluminium alloy machining using statistical method. European Journal of Scientific Research, 2009. 25(2): p. 250-256.
Marinescu, I.D., E. Uhlmann, and T. Doi, Handbook of lapping and polishing. 2006: CrC Press.
Deaconescu, T. and A. Deaconescu, Developing an analytical model and computing tool for optimizing lapping operations of flat objects made of alloyed steels. Materials, 2020. 13(6): p. 1343.
Cho, S.-S., Y.-K. Ryu, and S.-Y. Lee, Curved surface finishing with flexible abrasive tool. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2002. 42(2): p. 229-236.
Momber, A., Blast cleaning technology. 2007: Springer Science & Business Media.
Humphrey, J., Fundamentals of fluid motion in erosion by solid particle impact. International journal of heat and fluid flow, 1990. 11(3): p. 170-195.
Karpuschewski, B., A. Hoogstrate, and M. Achtsnick, Simulation and improvement of the micro abrasive blasting process. CIRP Annals, 2004. 53(1): p. 251-254.
Turenne, S. and M. Fiset, Modeling of abrasive particle trajectories during erosion by a slurry jet. Wear, 1993. 162: p. 679-687.
Zhu, W.-L., et al., Theoretical and experimental investigation of material removal mechanism in compliant shape adaptive grinding process. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2019. 142: p. 76-97.
Li, J., et al., Formation mechanism and quality control technology for abrasive flow precision polishing vortex: large eddy simulation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2019. 105(5): p. 2135-2150.
Stevenson, A. and I. Hutchings, Scaling laws for particle velocity in the gas-blast erosion test. Wear, 1995. 181: p. 56-62.
Li, H., J. Wang, and J. Fan, Analysis and modelling of particle velocities in micro-abrasive air jet. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2009. 49(11): p. 850-858.
Ihara, M., A. Matsubara, and A. Beaucamp, Study on removal mechanism at the tool rotational center in bonnet polishing of glass. Wear, 2020. 454: p. 203321.
Cheng, Z., et al., Investigation of the trajectory uniformity in water dissolution ultraprecision continuous polishing of large-sized KDP crystal. International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing, 2020. 2(4): p. 045101.
Qi, Z., W. Lu, and W. Lee, A hydrodynamic and kinematic analysis of chemical–mechanical planarization mechanism in double sided polisher. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2014. 82: p. 59-67.
Yin, S. and T. Shinmura, A comparative study: polishing characteristics and its mechanisms of three vibration modes in vibration-assisted magnetic abrasive polishing. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2004. 44(4): p. 383-390.
Zhao, J., et al., An oblique ultrasonic polishing method by robot for free-form surfaces. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2000. 40(6): p. 795-808.
Zhao, Q., Z. Sun, and B. Guo, Material removal mechanism in ultrasonic vibration assisted polishing of micro cylindrical surface on SiC. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2016. 103: p. 28-39.
Zhang, Z., et al., Modelling of surface morphology and roughness in fluid jet polishing. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2023. 242: p. 107976.
Wang, Z., et al., Analytical model of dynamic and overlapped footprints in abrasive air jet polishing of optical glass. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2019. 141: p. 59-77.
Sooraj, V. and V. Radhakrishnan, Fine finishing of internal surfaces using elastic abrasives. International Journal of machine tools and manufacture, 2014. 78: p. 30-40.
Wang, C., et al., Design and application of an algorithm for measuring particle velocity based on multiple characteristics of a particle. Fuel, 2020. 271: p. 117605.
El-Adawy, M., et al., Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry for engine flow measurements: Principles and applications. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2021. 60(3): p. 3327-3344.
Haidari, A., S. Heijman, and W. Van der Meer, Effect of spacer configuration on hydraulic conditions using PIV. Separation and purification technology, 2018. 199: p. 9-19.
Thaker, A.H., G. Karthik, and V.V. Buwa, PIV measurements and CFD simulations of the particle-scale flow distribution in a packed bed. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2019. 374: p. 189-200.
Kang, S., et al., Characterization of pleated filter media using particle image velocimetry. Separation and Purification Technology, 2020. 237: p. 116333.
Liu, R., et al., Particle velocity distribution function around a single bubble in gas-solid fluidized beds. Powder Technology, 2020. 361: p. 33-44.
Atxutegi, A., et al., Implementation of a borescopic technique in a conical spouted bed for tracking spherical and irregular particles. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2019. 374: p. 39-48.
Slouka, Z., Overlimiting convection at a heterogeneous cation-exchange membrane studied by particle image velocimetry. 2022.
Cao, Z.-C. and C.F. Cheung, Multi-scale modeling and simulation of material removal characteristics in computer-controlled bonnet polishing. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2016. 106: p. 147-156.
Thielicke, W. and R. Sonntag, Particle Image Velocimetry for MATLAB: Accuracy and enhanced algorithms in PIVlab. Journal of Open Research Software, 2021. 9(1).

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 25 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Observation of abrasives under morphable polishing tools with a high-speed camera

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Polishing mechanism

2.1 Polishing velocity analysis

2.2 Removal footprints analysis

2.3 Characteristics of the morphable polishing tools

3 High-speed camera observation tests

4 Results and Discussion

5 Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1