Citation
The Effects of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing on the Surfaces of Tungsten Carbide Cutting Tools for Titanium Alloy Machining

Material Information

Title:
The Effects of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing on the Surfaces of Tungsten Carbide Cutting Tools for Titanium Alloy Machining
Creator:
Barrington, Carl R, III
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (196 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Committee Chair:
GREENSLET,HITOMI
Committee Co-Chair:
SCHUELLER,JOHN KENNETH

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
friction -- maf -- titanium
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Mechanical Engineering thesis, M.S.

Notes

Abstract:
Tools used in the cutting of titanium alloys experience short tools lives. It has been shown that magnetic abrasive finishing (MAF) of the surfaces of uncoated tungsten carbide cutting tools increases the tool life when used for cutting Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy. The objective of this project is to explore different quantifiable observation methods to better understand the effects of MAF on a tool surface. It is shown that measuring rake wear width is a valid method for comparing an MAF surface to unfinished surfaces after cutting titanium alloys. Observing chip geometries is not effective at characterizing MAF surfaces during real world cutting conditions. It has also been shown that using fluids to characterize MAF surfaces is inconclusive when compared to unfinished surfaces. The benefits of MAF may lie in other unexplored surface characterization methods. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2017.
Local:
Adviser: GREENSLET,HITOMI.
Local:
Co-adviser: SCHUELLER,JOHN KENNETH.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2018-06-30
Statement of Responsibility:
by Carl R Barrington.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
6/30/2018
Classification:
LD1780 2017 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF MAGNETIC ABRASIVE FINISHING ON THE SURFACES OF TUNGSTEN CARBIDE CUTTING TOOLS FOR TITANIUM ALLOY MACHINING By CARL RICHARD BARRINGTON III A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017

PAGE 2

2017 Carl Richard Barrington III

PAGE 3

To my family and friends

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like t o thank my parents for their unwavering dedication to pushing me to be the best I can be. I would like to thank my wife for believing in me every step of the way I would like to thank my friends whom support and their help in pushing me towards higher education. I would also like thank Dr. Hitomi Yamaguchi Greenslet for the opportunity to explore research into the field of mechanical engineering and the skills I have learned through the process. I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. John Schueller. I would further like to thank Dr. Radu Pavel. I would also like to thank Patrick Hendershot for helping me through my introduction to the research side of manufacturing and Michael Tan for his guidance duri ng my work. This work was supported by TechSolve Inc.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 Cutting of Titanium Alloys ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Current Methods for Extending Tool Life ................................ ................................ 19 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 2 MAGNETIC ABRASIVE FI NISHING OF CUTTING T OOL ................................ ..... 21 Process Fundamentals ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Magnetic Abras ive Finishing Equipment ................................ ................................ 21 Carbide Cutting Tool Insert Finishing Method ................................ ......................... 21 3 RAKE WEAR AND CHIP M ORPHOLOGY ................................ ............................. 25 Friction and Tool Wear ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 Finishing Conditions of Cutting Tool Surfaces ................................ .................. 25 Cutting Conditions ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 Method for Measuring Rake Wear ................................ ................................ .......... 26 Rake Wear ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26 Me thod for Measuring Chip Thickness and Shear Angle ................................ 27 Chip Thickness ................................ ................................ ................................ 27 Chip Angle ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 4 EFFECTS OF SURFACE G EOMETRY ON TOOL WEAR ................................ ..... 36 Change in Tool Wear with Cutting Time ................................ ................................ 36 Surface Roughness Pa rameters ................................ ................................ ...... 36 Tool Organization and Labeling ................................ ................................ ........ 38 Measuring Tool Surface ................................ ................................ ................... 38 Surface Finishing of Rake ................................ ................................ ................ 38 Cutting Conditions ................................ ................................ ............................ 39 Tool Wear Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 40

PAGE 6

6 Initial Wear Development Study ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Finishing Conditions and Results ................................ ................................ ..... 41 Cutting Conditions ................................ ................................ ............................ 41 Tool Wear Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 42 5 FLUID INTERACTION WI TH RAKE ................................ ................................ ....... 55 Fluid Interact ion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Surface Finishing of Rake ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 Contact Angle of Deionized Water on Rake ................................ ............................ 56 Method for Measuring Contact Angle ................................ ............................... 56 Effects of Surface Geometry on Contact Angle ................................ ................ 57 Ease of Fluid Flow Across Rake Surface ................................ ................................ 57 Method for Measuring Fluid Flow Time Across Rake Surface .......................... 58 Fluid Flow Time ................................ ................................ ................................ 58 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 Future Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 68 APPENDI X A SURFACE IMAGES OF RE PEATABILTY STUDY ................................ ................. 69 B SURFACE PARAMETERS O F REPEATABILTY STUDY ................................ ...... 85 C SUR FACE IMAGES OF INITI AL WEAR STUDY ................................ .................. 124 D SURFACE PARAMETERS O F INITIAL WEAR STUDY ................................ ....... 137 E SURFACE IMAGES OF IN ITIAL FLUID INTERACT I ON STUDIES ...................... 163 F SURFACE PARAMETERS O F FLUID INTERACTION STUDIES ........................ 168 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 194 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 196

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Finishing conditions for the chip and rake wear study ................................ ........ 29 3 2 Machining parameters for cutting with tungsten carbide tools ............................ 32 4 1 Finishing conditions for testing repeatability ................................ ....................... 45 4 2 Average of all measurements taken for each surface parameter for the short term cutting test ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 45 4 3 Standard deviation of the averages of all measurements taken for each surface parameter for the short term cutting test ................................ ................ 46 4 4 Machining parameters for cutting with tungsten carbide tools ............................ 46 4 5 Finishing conditions for testing initial wear ................................ ......................... 52 5 1 Finishing conditions for testing initial tool wear ................................ ................... 59 5 2 Contact angle before and after finishing ................................ ............................. 63 5 3 Flow time and standard deviation (Stdev) before and after finishing .................. 66

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure pa ge 2 1 Experimental setup using CNC milling machine used for MAF of tool corners ... 22 2 2 Experimental setup for finishi ng tool corners ................................ ...................... 23 2 3 Edge protection setup ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 2 4 MAF diagram for polishing the rake of a cutting tool corner ............................... 24 2 5 Close view of the iron and steel mixed brush interacting with the diamond abrasive to finish a cutting tool corner ................................ ................................ 24 3 1 Cutting force g eometry and relationships ................................ ........................... 29 3 2 Surface roughness Sa of all tool corners before and after finishing .................... 30 3 3 Surface roughness Ss k of all tool corners before and after finishing .................. 31 3 4 Measuring the distance from V B max to the nose of the tool ............................... 32 3 5 Findin g the max rake wear distance from the nose of the tool using three set positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 33 3 6 Rake wear and flank wear V B max over time for two tool corners ...................... 33 3 7 Chip thickness measurement equipment using a needle tipped micrometer ...... 34 3 8 Chip angle measurement setup suing a digital microscope and an image processing softw are ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 3 9 Chip thickness measured over time ................................ ................................ .... 35 3 10 Chip angle measured over time ................................ ................................ .......... 35 4 1 Tool 1A after 18 cutting passes. ................................ ................................ ......... 43 4 2 Tool corner labeling method. ................................ ................................ .............. 43 4 3 Optical profiler with the dedicated computer. ................................ ...................... 44 4 4 Two measured areas of each tool corner. ................................ .......................... 44 4 5 An example of lay directionality ................................ ................................ .......... 46 4 6 Maximum flank wear values over time where the cutoff wear values were at 0.254 mm ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 47

PAGE 9

9 4 7 Maximum flank wear values over time where the cutoff wear values were around 0.375 mm (Tested in 2015) ................................ ................................ .... 48 4 8 Maximum flank wear values over time only up to the cutoff value where the cutoff wear values were at 0.254 mm ................................ ................................ 49 4 9 Maximum flank wear values over time only up to the threshold value and the breaking point values vary between tools ................................ ........................... 50 4 10 Maximum cut time in re lation to the surface value Sa for the max time at cutoff ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 51 4 11 Wear after one cutting pass of a random tool. ................................ .................... 52 4 12 Three ad ditional measured areas of each tool corner for initial wear study ........ 52 4 13 Maximum flank wear over time ................................ ................................ ........... 53 4 14 Uniform flank we ar with relation to pass cut time ................................ ................ 53 4 15 Maximum flank wear with relation to the surface value Sa ................................ 54 5 1 Showing the bottom sid e of a cutting tool insert. ................................ ................ 59 5 2 Corner labeling system for the opposing face. ................................ ................... 59 5 3 Three measuring areas of each tool corne r for fluid interaction study ................ 60 5 4 Contact angle as seen with DI water on a tool surface ................................ ....... 60 5 5 Experimental setup for measuri ng surface contact angles with DI water ............ 61 5 6 Close view of the experimental setup for measuring contact angles .................. 61 5 7 Tools we re angled in a way that lay was parallel to camera direction ................ 62 5 8 Contact angle measurement process ................................ ................................ 62 5 9 Contact angle for f luid interaction study. Note that final values are not all finished ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 63 5 10 Changes in contact angle with surface roughness ................................ ............. 64 5 11 Experimental setup for measuring fluid flow time with water soluble barreling compound ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 64 5 12 S ide view of experimental setup for measuring fluid flow time ............................ 65 5 13 Flow study example ................................ ................................ ............................ 65

PAGE 10

10 5 14 Fluid flow t ime before and after finishing ................................ ............................ 66 A 1 Tool 1 cor ner B before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 69 A 2 Tool 1 corner C before an d after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 70 A 3 Tool 2 cor ner B before a nd after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 70 A 4 Tool 2 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 71 A 5 Tool 3 cor ner B before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 71 A 6 Tool 3 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 72 A 7 Tool 4 cor ner B before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 72 A 8 Tool 4 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 73 A 9 Tool 5 cor ner B before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 73 A 10 Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 74 A 11 Tool 6 c orner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 74 A 12 Tool 6 corner C before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 75 A 13 Tool 7 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 75 A 14 Tool 7 corner C before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 76 A 15 Tool 8 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 76 A 16 Tool 8 corner C before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 77 A 17 To ol 9 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .... 77 A 18 T ool 9 corner C before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .... 78 A 19 Tool 10 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 78 A 20 Tool 10 corner C before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 79 A 21 Tool 11 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 79 A 22 Tool 11 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 80 A 23 Tool 12 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 80 A 24 Tool 12 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 81

PAGE 11

11 A 25 Tool 13 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 81 A 26 Tool 13 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 82 A 27 Tool 14 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 82 A 28 Tool 14 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 83 A 29 Tool 15 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes ................................ .. 83 A 30 Tool 15 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 84 B 1 Repeatability study initial and final Sa values after polishing for 10 passes ....... 85 B 2 Repeatability study initial and final Sa values after polishing for 40 passes ....... 86 B 3 Repeatability study final surface Sa values for all tool measurement positions .. 87 B 4 Repeatability study initial and final Sz values after polishing for 10 passes ....... 88 B 5 Repeatability study initial and final Sz values after polishing for 40 passes ....... 89 B 6 R epeatability study final surface Sz values for all tool measurement positions .. 90 B 7 Repeatability study initial and final St values after polishing for 10 passes ........ 91 B 8 R epeatability study initial and final St values after polishing for 40 passes ........ 92 B 9 Repeatability study final surface St values for all tool measur ement positions ... 93 B 10 Repeatability study initial and final Stp values after polishing for 10 passes ...... 94 B 11 Repeatability stu dy initial and final Stp values after polishing for 40 passes ...... 95 B 12 Repeatability study final surface Stp values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 96 B 13 Repeatability study initial and final Smr values after polishing for 10 passes ..... 97 B 14 Repeatability study initial and final Smr values after polishing for 40 pas ses ..... 98 B 15 Repeatability study final surface Smr values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 99 B 16 Repeatability study initial and final Ssk values after polishing for 10 passes .... 100 B 17 Repeatability study initial and final Ssk values after polishing for 40 passes .... 101

PAGE 12

12 B 18 Repeatability study final surface Ssk values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 102 B 19 Repeatability study initial and final Sku values after polishing for 10 passes ... 103 B 20 Repeatability study initial and final Sku values after polishing for 40 passes ... 104 B 21 Repeatability study final surface S ku values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 105 B 22 Repeatability study initial and final Spk values after polishing for 10 passes ... 106 B 23 Repeatability study initial and final Spk values after polishing for 40 passes ... 107 B 24 Repeatability study final surface Spk values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 108 B 25 Repeatability study initial and final Sk values after polishing for 10 passes ..... 109 B 26 Repeatability study initial and final Sk v alues after polishing for 40 passes ..... 110 B 27 Repeatability study final surface Sk values for all tool measurement positions 111 B 28 Repeatability study initial and final Svk values after polishing for 10 passes .... 112 B 29 Repeatability study initial and final Svk values after polishing for 40 passes .... 113 B 30 Repeatability study final Svk values for all tool measurement positions ........... 114 B 31 Repeatability study initial and final SMr1 values after po lishing for 10 passes 115 B 32 Repeatability study initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for 40 passes 116 B 33 Repeatab ility study final surface SMr1 values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 117 B 34 Repeatability study initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 10 passes 118 B 35 Repeatability study initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 40 passes 119 B 36 Repeatability study final surface SMr2 values for all tool m easurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 120 B 37 Repeatability study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 10 passes ... 121 B 38 Repeatabil ity study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 40 passes ... 122 B 39 Repeatability study final surface Sv0 values for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 123

PAGE 13

13 C 1 Tool 1 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 124 C 2 T ool 1 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 125 C 3 Tool 2 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 127 C 4 Tool 2 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 128 C 5 Tool 3 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 129 C 6 Tool 3 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 130 C 7 Tool 4 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 132 C 8 Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 133 C 9 Tool 6 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 134 C 10 Tool 7 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 135 D 1 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sa values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 137 D 2 Initial wear study cutting test final Sa valu es after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 138 D 3 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sz values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 139 D 4 Initial wear study cutting test final Sz values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 140 D 5 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final St values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 141 D 6 Initial wear study cutting test final St values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 142 D 7 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Stp values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 143 D 8 Initial wear study cutting test final Stp values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 144 D 9 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Smr values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 145 D 10 Initial wear study cutting test final Smr values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 146

PAGE 14

14 D 11 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Ssk values after polis hing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 147 D 12 Initial wear study cutting test final Ssk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 148 D 13 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sku values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 149 D 14 Initial wear study cutting test final Sku values after polishing for all tool measu rement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 150 D 15 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Spk values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 151 D 16 In itial wear study cutting test final Spk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 152 D 17 I nitial wear study cutting test initial and final Sk values after polishing for 40 pa sses ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 153 D 18 Initial wear study cutting test final Sk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 154 D 19 Initia l wear study cutting test initial and final Svk values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 155 D 20 Initial wear study cutting test final Svk values after polishing for all tool measurement position s ................................ ................................ .................... 156 D 21 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 157 D 22 I nitial wear stu dy cutting test final SMr1 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 158 D 23 Initial wear study cutting test initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 159 D 24 Initial wear study cutting test final SMr2 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 160 D 25 Initial wear st udy cutting test initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 161 D 26 Initial wear study cutting test final Sv0 values after polishing for all tool measurement position ................................ ................................ ...................... 162 E 1 Tool 1 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 163

PAGE 15

15 E 2 Tool 2 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 164 E 3 Tool 3 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 165 E 4 Tool 4 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 166 E 5 Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes ................................ .. 167 F 1 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sa values after p olishing for 40 passes 168 F 2 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sa values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 169 F 3 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sz values after polishing for 40 passes 170 F 4 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sz values after polishing for all tool measure ment positions ................................ ................................ .................... 171 F 5 Fluid interaction study initial and final St values after polishing for 40 passes .. 172 F 6 Fluid interacti on study initial and final St values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 173 F 7 Fluid interaction study initial and final Stp values after polishing for 40 passes 174 F 8 Fluid interaction study initial and final Stp values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 175 F 9 Fluid interaction stu dy initial and final Smr values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 76 F 10 Fluid interaction study initial and final Smr values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 177 F 11 Fluid interaction study initial and final Ssk values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 178 F 12 Fluid interaction study initial and final Ss k values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 179 F 13 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sku values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 180 F 14 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sku values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 181 F 15 Fluid interaction study initial and final Spk values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 182

PAGE 16

16 F 16 Fluid interaction study initial and final Spk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 183 F 17 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sk values after polishing for 40 passes 184 F 18 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sk values after polishing fo r all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 185 F 19 Fluid interaction study initial and final Svk values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 186 F 20 Fluid interaction study initial and final Svk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 187 F 21 Fluid interaction study initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 188 F 22 Fluid interaction study initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 189 F 23 Fluid interaction study initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 190 F 24 Fluid interaction study initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for all tool measuremen t positions ................................ ................................ .................... 191 F 25 Fluid interaction study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 40 passes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 192 F 26 Fluid interacti on study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions ................................ ................................ .................... 193

PAGE 17

17 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AlCrN Aluminum Chromium Nickel CNC Computer Numerically Controlled DI Water De Ionized Water EDM Electro discharge Machining MAF Magnetic Abrasive Finishing PVD Physical Vapor Deposition SWLI Scanning White Light Interferometer UHMWPE Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene WC/Co Tungsten Carbide with Cobalt

PAGE 18

18 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Gradua te School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THE EFFECTS OF MAGNETIC ABRASIVE FINISHING ON THE SURFACES OF TUNGSTEN CARBIDE CUTTING TOOLS FOR TITANIUM ALLOY MACHINING By Carl Richard Barrington III December 2017 Chair: Hitomi Yamaguchi Greenslet Major: Mechanical Engineering Tools used in the cutting of titanium alloys experience short tools lives. It has been shown that magnetic abrasive finishing (MA F) of the sur faces of uncoated tungsten carbide cutti ng tools increases the tool lif e when used for cutting T i 6Al 4V titanium alloy. The objective of this project is to explore different quantifiable observation methods t o better understand the effects of MAF on a too l surface. It is shown that m easuring rake wear width is a valid method for comparing an MAF surface to unfinished surfaces after cutting titanium alloys. Observing chip geometries is not effective at characterizing MAF surfaces during real world cutting c onditions. It has also been shown that using fluids to characterize MAF surfac es is inconclusive when compared to unfinished surfaces. The benefits of MAF may lie in other unexplored surface characterization methods.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Cutting of Tita nium Alloys Titanium alloys are common material s for their high strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance and i nvariability in high heat applications. It is a material that is extensively used in the aerospace industry. Since titanium alloys have a l ow thermal conductivity and are harder than common metals like steel, the cutting process can be very damaging to the tools used [1,2] The tools tend to wear rapidly usually by abrasion and diffusion which cause crater wear on the rake at cutting speeds around 100 m/min [3 ]. This is primarily caused by the tool chip interface temperatures which can exceed 2000F (1100C) [4]. These high temperatures facilitate chemical diffusion as the cobalt binder weakens and lowers the material hardness [5]. The typica l tool s used in the turning operation of the titanium rods are carbide tools. Specifically, tungsten carbide tools with a low cobalt binder (WC/Co) [6 ]. These low binder content tools typically have binder content between 3 6%. Current Methods for Extendin g Tool Life Currently, surface modification techniques such as coatings and texturing of the surface of the too l s are u sed to increase tool life [7 10 ]. C ommon coating s used are t itanium nitride and titanium carbide which are unsuitable for titanium alloy machining due to their chemical affinity which means most titanium alloy machining is done with uncoated carbides [7,8]. Tools that do use a coating must use materials that do not contain titanium such as AlCrN [9]. Other recent studies have shown a decr ease in tool wear by finishing a tool surface and reducing surface roughness [10]. Also,

PAGE 20

20 electrodischarge machining (EDM) of the tungsten carbide tools has shown a decrease in the wear [11]. Previous studies have shown an increase in tool life when c uttin g Ti 6Al 4V using a magnetic abrasive finishing (MAF) to finish the tool surfaces [12 13 ] This process was optimized to a shorter production time by only finishing the rake [14 ] Objectives Cutting l ife of WC/Co tools has been shown to improve during the machining of Ti 6Al 4V by the finishing of the rake surface using MAF However, the mechanism behind the increase is still unknown. The objective is to better understand the effects of MAF on the surface topography of the rakes of t he tungsten carbide tool s Using an earlier test, a study o f the chip geometries is conducted to relate the serrated shapes to the friction at the tool chip interface over time. Also during these studies, the rake wear was quantified to better understand the wear experienced o n the finished surface A process repeatability study is conducted to understand which of a multitude of surface parameters can be quantifiably related to the tool life. A study of the same parameters during extremely short cutting tests is performed to understand the effects of MAF on the initial wear development To understand the effects of MAF on the tool angle study and a dynamic fluid flow study are pe rformed. The contact angle shows how fluid i s attracted to the surface and the flow study will help reveal the fluid flow propagation of the surface when between another surface such as a chip during cutting.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 MAGNETIC ABRASIVE FI NISHING OF CUTTING TOOL Process Fundamentals MAF is a mater ial finishing process with a wide variety of applications. The core concept of MAF uses a magnetic field to manipulate ferrous particles mixed with abrasives or magnetic abrasive to create a free form brush. A free form brush provides the force against the abrasive but is not solid and individual brush particles can move and shift. The magnetic field creates a force between the particles and the surface. The magnetic field can be controlled through electric field s or permanent magnets. The free form brush a llows for the removal and rounding of the high peaks on a surface which re moves high frequency roughness [15 ] Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Equipment Figure 2 1 shows the experimental setup using computer numerically controlled (CNC) milling machine Figure 2 2 shows a closer view of the cutting tool fixed in place with the magnetic pole tip in position. Carbide Cutting Tool Insert Finishing Method The rake of a triangular uncoated tungsten carbide cutting tool is a relatively flat surface. The nose is not a sharp point but is instead rounded one with a radius of 800 m. The tool edge is important for the cutting process and therefore needs to be protected during the finishing process. To do so, an edge protection method using epoxy and ultra high molecula r w eight polyethylene (UHMWPE) tape. Figure 2 3 shows a diagram of this edge protection method. The tool is fixed in a vise in a CNC mill ing machine to polish using a special tool that uses three cylindrical neodymium permanent magnets and a specially designe d pole tip to focus the magnetic field These magnets

PAGE 22

22 are 12.7 mm thick and 25.4 mm in diameter The steel pole tip is attached to the end of the magnet stack and tapers down to a final diameter of 6 mm. This pole tip is separated from the workpiece by 2 m m which is called the working gap The p ole tip is centered over the edge of the nose. The pole tip and magnet tool then translates back and forth while rotating. Figure 2 4 and Figure 2 5 show how the brush and pole tip interact with the tool corners. The ferrous particle brush consists of a 40 wt% of 25 mesh steel grit (707 m mean diameter) and 60 wt% of 100 325 mesh iron powder (44 149 m diame ter). This brush was found to have the optimal amount of finishing force for t he tungsten carbide tools [ 14]. T he abrasive used was a 0 1 m diamond paste. Figure 2 1. Experimental setup using CNC milling machine used for MAF of tool corners Photo courtesy of author

PAGE 23

23 Figure 2 2. Experimental setup for finishing tool corners Photo courtesy of author Figure 2 3. Edge protection setup

PAGE 24

24 Figure 2 4. MAF diagram for polishing the rake of a cutting tool corner Figure 2 5 Close view of the iron and steel mixed brush interacting with the diamond abrasive to finish a cutting tool corner

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 RAKE WEAR AND CHIP M ORPHOLOGY Friction and Tool Wear Chip morphology can help explain forces during the cutting process. Figure 3 1 shows a model orthogonal cutting operation and the geometric relationships between certain variable s The important variables to note are: the rake angle the shear angle an angle relationship between shear and friction F the normal force to the shear plane F f the friction force The tool wear can be measured b y the maximum flank wear ( V B max) Measuring the width of the rake wear may be a more accurate representation of the effects of MAF on the tool rake surface during the cutting of titanium alloys. Finishing Conditions of Cutting Tool Surfaces Table 3 1 details the finishing conditions for the following experiments. These exper iments focus on observing the tool and tool chips at different stages throughout the cutting process. Note that the labeling for passes may include an s such as 20s. This s designates a simultaneous finish where two inserts were finished during the same pr ocess. This was found to not have an effect on the cutting tests [14] Figure s 3 2 and 3 3 show the effects of finishing on the surface parameter Sa and Ssk respectively Cutting Conditions Table 3 2 shows the cutting conditions for the tools used in the rake and chip study. Each cutting operation was halted when the maximum flank wear ( V B max)

PAGE 26

26 exceeded 0.015 in (0.381 mm). The time, V B max, and surface roughness of the workpiece were recorded at different intervals. Method for Measuring Rake Wear The surf ace finishing was only performed on the rake. Rake wear observations may play a more significant role in determining the effects of MAF on the tool life. To measure the rake wear, pictures of the rake were taken at the same time as the flank wear pictures. The pictures were taken at different intervals throughout the cutting process and labeled by the number of passes that were performed before the picture was taken. The pic tures seen in Figure s 3 4 and 3 5 were loaded to a 3D modeling program to geometrica lly determine the size of the rake wear. The cutting edge was selected with one line and the nose was selected with another line perpendicular to the cutting edge. A measurement point was selec ted to be the point of V B max from the nose from the final pict ure Figure 3 5 shows how a parallel line to the cutting edge was brought into contact with the p oint where the rake wear meets the untouched surface. The original edge picture was superimposed over the worn image so the d istance could be subtracted from t he original edge distance to obtain a value for rake wear. Rake Wear Rake wear was found to be very similar to the V B max measurements. Only two tool corners were me asured with the rake wear method Figure 3 6 shows the results of rake wear compared to the V B max values over time. The labeling was changed such that 1A 0 R means Tool 1, C orner A, 0 finishing passes (unfinished), and rake wear (labeled as R) or flank wear (labeled as F).

PAGE 27

27 Method for Me asuring Chip Thickness and Shear Angle Figure 3 7 shows t he chip thickness measure ment setup. The micrometer was fixed into position and the random chip samples was held in position. The micrometer was clamped carefully on the chip usi ng a needle tipped micrometer Each set of chips was measured rando mly five time s once per randomly selected chip Figure 3 8 shows the setup that was used t o measure the chip a ngle ( c ) This setup in cluded a digital microscope to capture the chip profile and a vice grip to hold the chip flat and in place. The chips were randomly selected from the bag for each pass that was observed. Five different chips were measured once for each pa ss for a total of five measurements. Chip Thickness Chip thickness can give insight into friction at that moment of cutting The relationship in Equation 3 1 between the cutting depth ( h 1 ) and the chip thickness ( h 2 ) is called the chip ratio ( r ). Assuming a constant cutting velocity ( v ) from Equation 3 2 the thicker the chip, the slower the chip velocity ( v c ). Finally, from Equation 3 3, the slower the v c t he higher the friction force ( F f ) a ssuming a constant friction power dissipation ( P f ). r = h 1 / h 2 (3 1) v c = r v (3 2) P f = F f v c (3 3 ) Figure 3 9 show the chip thickness values over time. The main conclusion is that thickness varies too wildly during the cutting process to accurately observe a trend over time.

PAGE 28

28 C hip Angle To start, Equation 3 4 shows that f rom Figure 3 1 the geometry is such that the shear angle can be calculated using the measured chip angle ( c ) and the rake angle ( ) c 90 (3 4 ) Knowing the rake angle is set to 5 for all cutting tests, the shear angle was found by Equation 3 7 c (3 5 ) This means and c share and inverse relationship. It is known that a lower shear angle implies a large shear strain [16]. This means the lower c then the lower the shear strain. F igure 3 10 shows c over time for the same chip thickness va l ues in Figure 3 9. These angles also vary too much dur ing the cutting process to accurately conclude that there is a trend over time. The values do get more sporadic the more worn the tools get. There are more factors during cutting that affect the measured chip angle of the serrated chips than just the surface roughness par ameters.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 3 1. Cutting force geometry and relationships Table 3 1. Finishing conditions for the chip and rake wear study Tool Corner 1A, 1B 2B, 3C 2C, 3B 3A, 4C 4B, 5A 4A, 5B Passes 60 10 20 40 20s 60s Finishing Time [sec] 200 33 66 133 168 498 Brush Composition Steel Grit (700 m mean diameter) 40 wt% Iron Particles (44 105 m diameter) 60 wt% Surface Rake Feed Rate [mm/min] 180 Fishing Length [mm] 10 Gap [mm] 2 Spindle Speed [rpm] 600 Abrasive [mg] 4 (0 1 m diameter) Brush Mass [mg ] 300 Lubricant [mL] 0.1 every 4 min

PAGE 30

30 Figure 3 2. Surface roughness Sa of all tool corners before and after finishing 0 20 40 60 80 100 2A-1 2A-2 2B-1 2B-2 2C-1 2C-2 3A-1 3A-2 3B-1 3B-2 3C-1 3C-2 4A-1 4A-2 4B-1 4B-2 4C-1 4C-2 5A-1 5A-2 5B-1 5B-2 5C-1 5C-2 Sa Tool Corner Initial Final

PAGE 31

31 Figure 3 3. Surface roughness Ssk of all tool corners before and after finishing -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 2A-1 2A-2 2B-1 2B-2 2C-1 2C-2 3A-1 3A-2 3B-1 3B-2 3C-1 3C-2 4A-1 4A-2 4B-1 4B-2 4C-1 4C-2 5A-1 5A-2 5B-1 5B-2 5C-1 5C-2 Ssk Tool Corner Initial Final

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 2. Machining parameters for cutting wit h tungsten carbide tools Workpiece Ti 6Al 4V Titanium Rod Cutting Speed 328 ft/min ( 100 m/ min ) Feed Rate 0.003 in/rev (0.0762 mm/rev) Depth of Cut 0.040 in (1.02 mm) Tool F eed Per Pass 8.00 in [0.020 in less per pass] (203.2 mm [0.5 mm less per pass ]) Cutting Fluid Trim Sol E206 (10% concentration) Note: Chip breaker was used for all tests Figure 3 4. Measuring the distance from V B max to the nose of the tool Photo courtesy of Techs olve

PAGE 33

33 Figure 3 5. Finding the max rake wear distance from the nose of the tool using thr ee set positions Photo courtesy of Techsolve Figure 3 6. Rake wear and flank wear V B max over time for two tool corners 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Maxiumum Flank Wear V B max m Time min 1A-0-R 1A-0-F 3C-10-R 3C-10-F

PAGE 34

34 Figure 3 7. Chip thickness measurement equipment using a needle tipped micrometer Photo courtesy of author Figure 3 8. Chip angle measurement setup suing a digital microscope and an image processing software Photo courtesy of author

PAGE 35

35 Figure 3 9. Chip thickness measured over time. Standard deviation error bars not included Figure 3 10. Chip angle measured over time. Standard deviation error bars not included 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Chip Thickness Average m Time min 1A-0 1B-0 1C-0 2A-0 5C-0 2B-10 3C-10 2C-20 3B-20 4B-20s 5A-20s 3A-40 4C-40 4A-60s 5B-60s 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 c Angle Average deg Time min 1A-0 1B-0 1C-0 2A-0 5C-0 2B-10 3C-10 2C-20 3B-20 4B-20s 5A-20s 3A-40 4C-40 4A-60s 5B-60s

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 EF FECTS OF SURFACE GEO METRY ON TOOL WEAR Change in Tool Wear with Cutting Time The flank wear V B max and V B avg. are the common ways to measure tool life Figure 4 1 displays an example of this method where measurement point 1 is the V B max The flank wear o ver time follows a typical trend defined by shallow slope up until the breaking point After th e breaking point, the wear follows a very steep slope until failure. Typically, the wear is measured until a threshold instead of failure. This threshold point o f wear will be called the cutoff point Surface Roughness Parameters The parameters Sa, Sz, St, Stp, Smr, Ssk, Sku, Spk, Sk, Svk, SMr1, SMr2 and Sv0 are all potential factors in the life of a to ol [1 7,18 ] The parameters and their names are listed below. Sa : Arithmetic Average Height Sz : Ten Point Height St : Maximum Height of The Profile Stp : Bearing Area Length Ssk : Skewness Sku : Kurtosis Spk : Reduced Peak Height Sk : Core Roughness Depth Svk : Reduced Valley Depth SMr1 : First Material Ratio SMr2 : Second M aterial Ratio Sv0 : Retention Volume Sa is the discrete average of the height measured from the mean line. This determines the overall smoothness of the surface. It is less weighted on the sharp peaks and valleys. Sz is a parameter that considers large spo radic deviations better than Sa It is measured by finding the difference between the five largest peak s and five

PAGE 37

37 lowest val ley values then averaging them. This could better reflect the changes in large peak removal seen with MAF. St is a highly susceptibl e to large deviations in height. Can show if there is some large deviation outlier affecting the other results, but does not accurately identify the entire surface. Stp is the amount of surface of the material that is exposed at a specified height. This i s useful to see how much material will be in contact with the chip as the larger surface features wear down Smr is a percentage of the evaluation length that is above or below a specified evaluation height. This is useful as a percentage of the Stp Ssk i s non dimensional value of where the bulk of the material of the surface lies. A negative skewness relates to the bulk lies above the mean height and a positive skewness means it lies below. This is useful to determine if the surface area will drastically change with wear. Sku is t he number of peaks and valleys in the specified area which c an be used to determine the sharpness of the surface. Spk is t he average height of the peaks above the core surface. The core surface is the height values between a speci fied set of values such that the largest peaks and lowest valleys are not included. This is useful to determi ne the height of the initial extreme peaks are. Sk is t he max peak to values of the core surface. The core surface can be determined by finding the least steep secant of two points on the real material ratio curve. Using an equivalent line collinear with the secant, the intersection on the y axis with the 0% and 100% values are the max peak and valley values of the core surface. Svk is the opposite o f the Spk meaning it is the same but for the valleys. SMr1 is the percentage value of the material associated with the reduced peaks Spk whereas SMr2 is the percentage value of the material associated with the reduced

PAGE 38

38 valleys Svk The final value is Sv0 wh ich is the value that is some set percentage of the average reduced valley depth. This value reflects the amount of fluid that can be held in the valleys of a surface. Tool Organization and Labeling Figure 4 2 shows the labeling method used in each test S ince the lay directionality varied between tools and tool sets, the grade label K313 was used as a reference point. Grade K313 is a company grade described as a hard, low binder content, unalloyed WC/Co fine grain and uncoated. Every tool had three corners labeled A, B or C. Each tool was labeled with a number starting with 1 at the front of the label. Any measurements were labeled with a number at the end after a hyphen For example, surface roughness measurement number 4 of corner B of t ool 3 would be l abeled as 3B 4. Measuring Tool Surface Measurin g the tool surfaces utilized a scanning white light interferometer (SWLI). The resolution of the SWLI is <0.1 nm vertically and <0.36 nm laterally The e quipment can be seen in Figure 4 3 with a built in vibra tion isolation platform. Each tool was measured at least twice. The area was maske d to be a 100 m by 100 m. Figure 4 4 shows t he two measurement positions. Surface Finishing of Rake T he parameters Sa, Sz, St, Stp, Smr, Ssk, Sku, Spk, Sk, Svk, SMr1, SMr2 and Sv0 are rec orded in spreadsheets and computer software to analyze the 3D surface and not just a 2D profile Table 4 1 shows the finishing conditions for each cutting tool corner T he tool corner s measurement positions were average d to create an overall surface roughness value for that corner for each surface parameter.

PAGE 39

39 The first point to note abou t the finishing of these tools was that the tool corners finished for 40 passes sho wed more change in surface parameters than the tool c orners finished for 10 passes This result was expected, b ut more importantly, the tool corners finished for 10 passes, showed an insignificant change in surface conditions. Table 4 2 and Table 4 3 shows t his change and decrease in standard deviation of th e values The second point to note is that these tools displayed a random lay directionality This is uncommon for any tests done prior to or post to this test. Figure 4 5 shows a visual ization of the random lay It was found previously that the lay direct ionality did not have a noticeable effect on the tool life [ 1 3 ]. T he lay directionality of the previous tests was uniform unlike the random lay tools used in these tests. The initial surfaces and the finished surfaces can be compared in Figure A 1 to Figu re A 30 visually To compare the initial and final surfaces graphically, these can be found in Figure B 1 to Figure B 39. I t can be noted graphically, that the polishing of the inserts reduced the deviation between inserts. Cutting Conditions Figure 4 4 sh ows the cutting conditions for the following tests. Each cutting test was stopped when the V B max exceeded 0.01 in (0.254 mm). The point at which the test stopped, will be called the final point Figure 4 6 shows the final point flank wear is plotted again st cut ting time If compared to a previous study seen in Figure 4 7, the majority of the tools in the re peatability study fall below 40 min while all but one of the tools in the previo us study exceeded 40 min This implies that there is some factor in the random lay inserts that was inverse ly affecting the flank wear Figure 4 8 shows the approximate point at which the tools would have passed the cutoff V B max In some cases, the test was stopped prior to the

PAGE 40

40 cutoff V B max and in some ca ses the flank wear greatly exceeded the cutoff before the test was stopped. Figure 4 9 shows the breaking position which was determined by a qualitative anal ysis of the V B max wear plot. Tools 2B, 5C, and 7A were removed since they were outliers Tool Wear Characteristics This test produced two distinct groups of tools. The majority had a breaking point b etween the 20 min and 30 min and eight corners had a breaking point between 50 min and 70 min Note that the two longest lastin g tools were unfinished. W he n the breaking p oint values are observed, non MAF tools 6B and 3A, have stopping times closer to the other tools. Tool corners 1C and 2C were observed the most over their life and give insight into the breaking point values. Of the two distinguished groups of tool s shown in Figure 4 6 t he latter group corresponds more t o an older test shown in Figure 4 7 The shorter group is abnormal and began to wear very early in comparison to all the other tool s in th is test and the previous tests. Between these tool c orners, there is too much diversity in tool wear to conclude that the longer pass times of MAF experience less wear. Based on previous tests as well as the results seen in Fig ure 4 6 the wear will steadily increase at a slow rate in the early portions of the cutting. The average flank wear at the first pass is 0.04 in with a standard deviation of 0.006 in. Figure 4 10 shows t he wear plotted against the surface parameter Sa This figure relate s a surface parameter to the tool life directly This method does not produce any noticeable trend for any of the thirteen observed surface parameter s.

PAGE 41

41 Initial Wear Development Study All previous tests start taking measurements after one cutting pass which is about 4.62 min. If the surface of a tool is worn and damage d, any positive effects of MAF on those secti ons may no longer be affecting the life of the tool. The finishing of the tools using MAF may influence the initial wear prior to 4.62 min. Finishing Conditions and Results The tool corners were either finished for 40 passes with MAF or remained unfinished. Table 4 5 shows the exact finishing conditions. Five measureme nt positions were taken for this test compared to the two measurement positions from previous tests The first two of those five positions are the same two positions taken during the previous tests Figure 4 12 shows t hese extra three p ositions Th e se three new points were added to better understand the surface at the highest point of rake wear. As before, all measurement positions were averaged to c reate an overall value for the surface for each roughness parameter. This is done for each of surface parameters. A visualization of the finished surfaces compared to their initia l conditions can be seen in appendix C from Figure C 1 to Figure C 10. Graphi cally, these changes can be seen in appendix D from Figur e D 1 to Figure D 26 Cutting Conditions Table 4 6 shows the cutting conditions for the following test. Figure 4 13 shows the V B max over time. The figure does not show lines between data points sinc e each corner of a tool was only measured once at a specified cut ti me. This can be seen in Figure 4 14 which shows V B avg. plotted against cut ting time for the tools that had the data available. Figure 4 15 shows the V B max was compared to the arithmetic mean

PAGE 42

42 roughness Sa It should be noted that the colors represent tools, the shapes represent tool co rner, and the fill represent an MAF surface Tool Wear Characteristics Over the short period of cutting, less than 4.62 min, the values of wear remain mostl y within one standard deviation. The wear for a tool from 10 s to 4.62 min does not change significantly, therefore the initial wear is created before 10 s of cutting. Based on Figure 4 15 th e wear of the MAF tool corners undergo less wear than the non MA F corners of the same tool exempting tool s 5 and 7.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 4 1. Tool 1A after 18 cutting passes. Point 1 is the maximum flank wear. Point 2 is a notable high point of flank wear. Photo courtesy of Techsolv e Figure 4 2. Tool corner labeling method.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 4 3. Optical profiler with the dedicated computer Photo courtesy of author Figure 4 4. Two measured areas of each tool corner.

PAGE 45

45 Table 4 1. Finishing conditions for testing repeatability Tool Corner 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6C, 7C, 8C, 9C, 10C, 11A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6A 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 11B, 12B, 13B, 14B, 15B Passes 10 40 Finishing Time [min] 0.6 2.2 Brush Composition Steel Grit (700 m mean diameter) 40 wt% Iron Particles (44 105 m diameter) 60 wt% Surface Rake Feed Rate [mm/min] 180 Fishing Length [mm] 10 Gap [mm] 2 Spindle Speed [rpm] 600 Abrasive [mg] 4 0 (0 1 m diameter) Brush Mass [mg] 300 Lubricant [mL] 0.1 / 4 minutes Table 4 2. Average of all measurements taken for each surface parameter for the short term cutting test Parameter Unfinished Tool Corner 10 Pass Initial 10 Pass Final 40 Pass Initial 40 Pass Final Sa 78.8 79.7 75.5 72.1 59.3 Sz 820.2 851.3 746.8 796.8 662.9 St 1104.2 1178.1 1065.8 1066.9 893.2 Stp 109.0 111.0 104.9 101.6 81.3 Smr 38% 38% 36% 38% 38% Ssk 1.373 1.372 1.533 1 .329 1.678 Sku 6.685 6.793 7.262 6.858 8.128 Spk 93.8 99.9 82.1 82.8 62.3 Sk 174.6 169.6 166.9 160.8 132.2 Svk 225.5 238.7 225.7 201.5 175.8 SMr1 10.4% 11.0% 9.9% 11.0% 9.8% SMr2 81.7% 81.5% 81.9% 81.5% 81.9% Sv0 0.0209 0.0220 0.0204 0.0187 0.0160

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 3. Standard deviation of the averages of all measurements taken for each surface parameter for the short term cutting test Parameter Unfinished 10 Pass Initial 10 Pass Final 40 Pass Initial 40 Pass Final Sa 20.4 21.3 20.3 23.1 11.6 Sz 16 1.6 145.8 136.1 188.5 70.5 St 294.4 367.0 293.0 289.7 150.8 Stp 26.7 29.4 28.2 33.3 16.0 Smr 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% Ssk 0.434 0.441 0.416 0.580 0.491 Sku 2.056 2.070 2.352 3.253 3.129 Spk 35.4 46.8 43.0 26.6 16.5 Sk 39.7 38.3 36.6 56.5 27.0 Svk 69.3 97.3 9 3.2 62.3 38.4 SMr1 1.6% 2.3% 2.2% 1.4% 1.4% SMr2 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.6% Sv0 0.0078 0.0086 0.0083 0.0064 0.0038 A B Figure 4 5. An example of lay directionality A) random lay directionality B) uniform lay directionality. Table 4 4. Machinin g parameters for cutting with tungsten carbide tools Workpiece Ti 6Al 4V Titanium Rod Cutting Speed 328 ft/min ( 100 m/min ) Feed Rate 0.003 in/rev (0.0762 mm/rev) Depth of Cut 0.040 in (1 mm) Tool F eed Per Pass 8.00 in [0.020 in less per pass] (203.2 mm [0.5 mm less per pass ]) Cutting Fluid Trim Sol E206 (10% concentration) Note: Chip breaker was used for all tests

PAGE 47

47 Figure 4 6. M aximum flank wear values over time where the cutoff wear values were at 0.254 mm 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 Maximum Flank Wear V B max mm Cut Time min 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 8C 9A 9B 9C 10A 10B 10C 11A 11B 11C 12A 12B 12C 13B

PAGE 48

48 Figure 4 7. M aximum flank wear valu es over time where the cutoff wear values were a r ound 0.375 mm (Tested in 2015) [ 14] 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 20 40 60 80 100 Maximum Flank Wear V B max m Time min 1C 0 2A 0 5C 0 2B 10 3C 10 2C-20 3B 20 4B 20s 5A 20s 3A 40 4C 40 4A 60s 5B 60s 1A 60x10

PAGE 49

49 Figure 4 8. M aximum flank wear values over time only up to the cutoff value where the cutoff wear values were at 0.254 mm 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 Maximum Flank Wear V B max mm Cut Time min 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 8C 9A 9B 9C 10A 10B 10C 11A 11B 11C 12A 12B 12C 13B

PAGE 50

50 Figure 4 9. M aximum flank wear values ov er time only up to the threshold value and the breaking point values vary between tools 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 20 40 60 80 100 Maximum Flank Wear V B max mm Cut Time min) 1A 1B 1C 2A 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 6C 7B 7C 8A 8B 8C 9A 9B 9C 10A 10B 10C 11A 11B 11C 12A 12B 12C 13B

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4 10. M aximum cut time in relation to the surface value Sa for the max time at cutoff 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Cut TIme min Sa nm 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 8C 9A 9B 9C 10A 10B 10C 11A 11B 11C 12A 12B 12C 13B

PAGE 52

52 A B Figure 4 11. Wear after one cutting pass of a ra ndom tool. A) Flank wear B) rake wear. Photo s courtesy of Techsolve Figure 4 12. Three additional measured areas of each tool corner for initial wear study Table 4 5. Finishing conditions for testing initial wear Tool Corner 1A, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5C, 6B, 7A Passes 40 Fi nishing Time [min] 2.2 Brush Composition Steel Grit (700 m mean diameter) 40 wt% Iron Particles (44 105 m diameter) 60 wt% Surface Rake Feed Rate [mm/min] 180 Fishing Length [mm] 10 Gap [mm] 2 Spindle Speed [rpm] 600 Abrasive [mg] 40 (0 1 m diame ter) Brush Mass [mg] 300 Lubricant [mL] 0.1 / 4 minutes

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 13. M aximum flank wear over time Figure 4 14 U niform flank wear with relation to pass cut time 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Flank Wear V B max mm Cut Time min 1C 2B 3C 6A 6B 3A 4B 5A 1A 2C 4C 5B 3B 7A 1B 2A 4A 5C 6C 7B 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Flank Wear V B max mm Cut Time min 1C 2B 3C 6A 6B 3A 4B 5A 1A 2C 4C 5B 3B 7A 1B 2A 4A 5C 6C 7B

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 15. M aximum flank wear with relation to the surface value Sa 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 50 100 150 Maximum Flank Wear VB max mm Sa m 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C

PAGE 55

55 CHAPT ER 5 FLUID INTERACTION WI TH RAKE Fluid Interaction In the cutting process, coolant is commonly used to reduce friction, wear, and help diffuse thermal energy [19 ]. Coolant in these cutting tests are diluted in water. It could be advantageous then to unders tand the effect s of MAF on the surface interaction with fluids. Surfaces finished with MAF could be promoting fluid flow to or helping hold fluid in the surface at the tool chip interface during cutting Surface Finishing of Rake Unlike previous studies, Figure 5 1 shows the cutting tool surfaces tested in the following studies u tilize the opposing face, not the rake face. This face of the tool was used due to its similar surface conditions of the rake The following tests used five tools where one corner, C orner C, was finished per tool for 40 finishing passes using MAF Tool c orners were labele d the same way as before where 1A 2 corresponds to Tool 1, Corner A, M easurement 2. Figure 5 2 shows how the cutting tool c orner labels were assigned Finishing the tools followed the parameters seen in Table 5 1. For a visual comparison between finished and unfinished tools, refer to appendix E, Figure E 1 to Figure E 5 For a graphical representation of the finished surfaces compared to the initial surfaces, refe r to appendix F, Figure F 1 to Figure F 26 Figure 5 3 shows the measurements positions These measurement positions were selected to be close to the edge of the polish zone and furthest from any edge while still being in the finished zone. Being near the ed ge was irrelevant during these studies since no cutting tests were conducted.

PAGE 56

56 Contact Angle of Deionized Water on Rake Figure 5 4 shows how the c ontact angle is the measured angle between a droplet o f a liquid and a surface The liquid used for these exper iment s was de ionized (DI) water. DI water was used for its ready availability, larger and easi ly measurable contact angles, and its lack of contaminant particles. The contact angle can give insight into the wettability of a surface. The wettability is qua litatively the adhesion of a fluid to a surface. The higher the contact angle, the lower the wettability of a surface. It is predicted that a surface with less roughness will have a higher wettability. Method for M easuring Contact A ngle Figure 5 5 and Figu re 5 6 show a picture of the experimental setup for measuring co ntact angle To capture an accurate image of the droplet on the tool surface, a small digital microscope was utilized in combination with a laptop computer. The setup used a lamp to saturate t he camera creating a silhouette of the droplet to easily distinguish the shape of the drople t. The tool sits on an adjustable table and the fluid is fed through a long plastic tube though a pipet with a small 29 gauge (nominal outer diameter 0.3366 mm / wa ll thickness 0.0762 mm) needle Th e droplet size varied between 0.01 mL and 0.02 mL. The setup ensured the camera maintained the same distance from the droplet to maintain camera focus. The droplets were measured after one drop and measured ag a in after as second drop on the same spot This process was repeated five times for each tool corner. The contact angle was no ted to vary with lay direction. Figure 5 7 shows how the inserts were all measured such that the camera direction was parallel with the lay dir ectionality

PAGE 57

57 Each picture was uploa ded to an image analysis program. Figure 5 8 shows how t his program asked the user to select 3 point s on the water droplet and two points o n the surface. The program fit a n equation for a circle to the three points and a n equation for a line to the two points. The program then calculated the tangent line s to the circle at their intersection points. The tangent fitted surface line was recorded as the cont act angle. Each measurement can vary by 0.5 dep ending on the user input. Effects of Surface Geometry on Contact Angle Table 5 2 and Figure 5 9 show the fluid contact angle can be seen before and after finishing with MAF. The data did not have a clear trend with co ntact angle and MAF surfaces The resul ts also showed a higher variance in measurements between each set of measurements rather than within each set. Figure 5 10 shows the relationship between surface roughness and contact angle directly. The trend is very linear meaning MAF surfaces did not h ave any or a small effect on the contact angle. Contact angle is typically measured on a perfectly smooth surface to measure as material property rather than a surface property. In the context of these studies to use contact angle as a representation of a tools surface changes before and after finishing with MAF is not reliable method Ease of Fluid Flow Across Rake Surface The capillary action is defined as a fluids ability to flow into small openings or spaces through purely intermolecular forces. During cutting, the chip and tool surface create a small opening after contact. The point of highest heat is in between the cutting edge and the point where the chip separates contact from the tool. By increasing the amount of coolant flow into the chip and tool gap, there should be a decrease in tool

PAGE 58

58 temperature. To understand the effects of MAF on the capillary action of a tool surface, a fluid flow study was conducted using the same tools and a glass slide. Method for Measuring Fluid Flow T ime Across Rake Surfa ce Figure 5 11 and Figure 5 12 show the experimental setup for measuring the flow time The flow time was observed using a 24 frames per second (fps) camera. The setu p was leveled using four double nut friction locks on four threaded posts. Between all mea surements, the leveling was not adjusted to minimize error. A small amount of water soluble barreling compound mixed with a colored food dye, was brought into contact with the tool and glass edge. The fluid was allowed to flow between the two surfaces un provoked. The process was recorded through a video digital microscope for later a nalysis. Each video was uploaded into a video editing software. Figure 5 13 shows how t he time from initial flow to a full c ontact was measured The initial flow was defined a s the moment when the fluid appeared between the glass and tool surface. The final flow point was defined as the moment when the contact area was filled in from the fluid. Fluid Flow Time The fluid flow time was highly variable. There are far too many fact ors in the setup and capillary effect to conclusively say that finishing the surfaces affects the flow time seen in Figure 5 14 It is noted however that on the second trial (grey and stripped data sets) showed much more consistent results compared to the first day. Within the second day results, the finished surfaces showed a slight decrease in flow time on average but it is less relevant with the standard deviation considered.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 5 1. Showing the bottom side of a cutting tool insert. Figure 5 2. Corner labeling system for the opposing face. T able 5 1. Finishing conditions for testing initial tool wear Finished Surface Rake: 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C Finishing Passes 40 Finishing Time [min] 2.2 Pole Tip Feed Rate [mm/min] 180 Finished Length [m m] 10 Gap Between Pole Tip and Cutting Tool [mm] 2 Spindle Speed [rpm] 600 Brush Mass [mg] 300 Brush Composition Steel Grit (700 m mean diameter) 40 wt% Iron Particles (44 105 m diameter) 60 wt% Diamond Paste Abrasive [mg] 4 (0 1 m diameter) Lubri cant [mL] 0.1 / 4 minutes

PAGE 60

60 Figure 5 3. Three measuring areas of each tool corner for fluid interaction study Figure 5 4. Contact angle as seen with DI water on a tool surface Photo courtesy of author

PAGE 61

61 Figure 5 5. Experimental setup for measuring surface contact angles with DI water Photo courtesy of author Figure 5 6. Close view of the experimental setup for measuring contact angles Photo courtesy of author

PAGE 62

62 Figure 5 7. Tools were angled in a way that lay was parallel to camera direction A B C D Figure 5 8 Measurement process where A) thr ee points on the droplet are selected B) a circle is fit to those points C) two points are selected on the surface D) a line is fit to those two points and tangent lines to the circle are found at the intersection Photo s courtesy of author

PAGE 63

63 Table 5 2. Contact angle before and after finishing Tool Initial Contact Angle deg Final Contact Angle deg 1A 58.4 60.7 1B 65.2 62.4 1C 60.1 60.6 2A 53.4 65.3 2B 53.9 60.8 2C 53.1 62.0 3A 57.2 67.5 3B 55.2 57.0 3C 51.6 63.3 4A 58.1 63.7 4B 50.9 58.4 4C 49.7 59.4 5A 64.4 68.4 5B 61.1 66.4 5C 64.8 75.8 Figure 5 9. Contact angle for fluid interaction study. Note that final values are not all finished 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C Contact Angle Insert Initial Final Unfinished Final Finished

PAGE 64

64 Figure 5 10 Changes in contact angle with surface roughness Figure 5 11 Experimental setup for measuring fluid flow ti me with water soluble barreling compound Photo courtesy of author 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 45 65 85 105 125 145 Contact Angle Sa nm 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C

PAGE 65

65 Figure 5 12 Side view of e xperimental setup for measuring fluid flow time Photo courtesy of author A B Figure 5 13 Flow study A) Immediately at the start of fluid flow at second 3 and frame 23 B) immediately after the fluid fil ls the triangle contact zone Photo s courtesy of author

PAGE 66

66 Table 5 3. Flow time and standard deviation (Stdev) before and after finishing Tool Initial Flow Time (s) Initial Stdev Final Flow Time (s) Final Stdev 1A 26.4 4.1 12.4 0.9 1B 23.2 4.4 12.6 1.1 1C 21.5 8.8 10.7 1.6 2A 16.9 1.3 13.3 1.5 2B 16.4 2.8 10.1 1.9 2C 22.4 5.5 10.6 0.9 3A 11.2 1.9 10.1 1.6 3B 11.4 1.7 10.3 2.5 3C 11.7 3.3 9.0 0.9 4A 10.9 1.1 10.9 4.5 4B 9.6 1.4 9.9 2.6 4C 13.6 1.4 8.9 1.3 5A 20.1 6.8 10.5 1.4 5B 20.1 2.6 10.4 1.1 5C 19.1 4.2 9.5 0. 8 Figure 5 14 Fluid flow time before and after finishing. Note that only corn er C was finished for each tool 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C Flow Time (sec) Insert Initial Final Unfinished Final Finished

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Concluding Remarks To establish a system for relating MAF surfaces to the tool wear, a set of four measurement metho ds were explored. First, t he measuring of rake wear width is a valid and alternative method for comparing the effects of MAF rake surfaces on tool life compared to non MAF rake surfaces. Also, r ake wear width has been shown to closely follow flank wear ( V B max ) during cutting Second, u nder model orthogonal cutting conditions, chips follows a clear trend of increasing in thickness with increasing friction at the tool chip interface. However, t he chip geometries, thickness and measured angle c of MAF tools are shown t o be wildly sporadic during a real world cutti ng process. Third, c ontact angle of DI water on MAF surfaces of only 40 passes did not affect the surface enough to show a conclusive change. Measuring the wettability of MAF surfaces is not a valid method for relating MAF to tool life. Finally, t he fluid flow time did not conclusively change between MAF and non MAF surfaces. Inserts finished with MAF for 10 40 finishing passes did not show similar trends of increased life compared to previous tests It should be noted that the se surfaces did not display uniform lay directionality like the previous tests did which could be a factor in their lower tool lives. The benefits of MAF may not be in strictly lower surface roughness but instead by facilitating uniform contact By removing non uniform and irregular peaks, MAF can promoted a uniform distribution of contact at the tool chip interface. Also, it was found that tools were experiencing flank wear starting at 10 seconds of cutting. This flank wear at 1 0 seconds and up to 4.62 minutes was nearly the same, meaning the initial wear is experienced even before 10 seconds of cutting. Also, between corners of

PAGE 68

68 the same tool, corners with an MAF surface show a decrease in flank wear regardless of cutting time pr ior to 4.62 min. Future Planning The future of this research s hould focus on the of MAF surfaces effect on the friction at the tool chip interface This can be done though simplified orthogonal cutting process. Currently, cutting tests are performed under very dynamic conditions. A lot of factors in cutting are difficult to measures such as cutting temperature at the tool chip interface Other factors to study are the hardness of the rake before and after finishing as well as the material binder density at the surface before and after finishing. The tools material properties could be changing at the surface during the finishing process due to the magnetic field and high localized temperatures.

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX A SURFACE IMAGES OF RE PEATABILTY STUDY A B C D Figure A 1. Tool 1 corner B before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 1 B 1 initial, B) 1B 1 finished, C) 1B 2 initial, D) 1B 2 finished

PAGE 70

70 A B C D Figure A 2. Tool 1 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 1C 1 initial, B) 1C 1 finished, C) 1 C 2 initial, D) 1C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 3. Tool 2 corner B before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 2B 1 initial, B) 2B 1 finished, C) 2B 2 initial, D) 2B 2 finished

PAGE 71

71 A B C D Figure A 4. Tool 2 cor ner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 2C 1 initial, B) 2C 1 finished, C) 2C 2 initial, D) 2C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 5. Tool 3 corner B before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 3B 1 initial, B) 3B 1 finished, C) 3B 2 init ial, D) 3B 2 finished

PAGE 72

72 A B C D Figure A 6. Tool 3 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 3C 1 initial, B) 3C 1 finished, C) 3C 2 initial, D) 3C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 7. Tool 4 corner B before and after finishi ng for 10 passes. A) 4B 1 initial, B) 4B 1 finished, C) 4B 2 initial, D) 4B 2 finished

PAGE 73

73 A B C D Figure A 8. Tool 4 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 4C 1 initial, B) 4C 1 finished, C) 4C 2 initial, D) 4C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 9. Tool 5 corner B before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 5B 1 initial, B) 5B 1 finished, C) 5B 2 initial, D) 5B 2 finished

PAGE 74

74 A B C D Figure A 10. Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 5C 1 init ial, B) 5C 1 finished, C) 5C 2 initial, D) 5C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 11. Tool 6 corner A before and after finishing for 4 0 passes. A) 6A 1 initial, B) 6A 1 finished, C) 6A 2 initial, D) 6A 2 finished

PAGE 75

75 A B C D Figure A 12. Too l 6 corner C before and aft er finishing for 1 0 passes. A) 6C 1 initial, B) 6C 1 finished, C) 6C 2 initial, D) 6C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 13. Tool 7 corner A before and after finishing for 4 0 passes. A) 7A 1 initial, B) 7A 1 finished, C) 7 A 2 initial, D) 7A 2 finished

PAGE 76

76 A B C D Figure A 14 Tool 7 corner C before and after finishing for 1 0 passes. A) 7C 1 initial, B) 7C 1 finished, C) 7C 2 initial, D) 7C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 15. Tool 8 corner A before and aft er finishing for 4 0 passes. A) 8A 1 initial, B) 8A 1 finished, C) 8A 2 initial, D) 8A 2 finished

PAGE 77

77 A B C D Figure A 16. Tool 8 corner C before and after finishing for 1 0 passes. A) 8C 1 initial, B) 8C 1 finished, C) 8C 2 initial, D) 8C 2 finishe d A B C D Figure A 17. Tool 9 corner A before and after finishing for 4 0 passes. A) 9A 1 initial, B) 9A 1 finished, C) 9A 2 initial, D) 9A 2 finished

PAGE 78

78 A B C D Figure A 18. Tool 9 corner C before and after finishing for 1 0 passes. A) 9C 1 initial, B) 9C 1 finished, C) 9C 2 initial, D) 9C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 19. Tool 10 corner A before and after finishing for 4 0 passes. A) 10 A 1 initial, B) 10 A 1 finished, C) 10 A 2 initial, D) 10 A 2 finished

PAGE 79

79 A B C D Figure A 20. Tool 10 corner C before and after finishing for 1 0 passes. A) 10C 1 initial, B) 10C 1 finished, C) 10C 2 initial, D) 10C 2 finished A B C D Figure A 21. Tool 11 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 11A 1 initial B) 11A 1 finished, C) 11A 2 initial, D) 11A 2 finished

PAGE 80

80 A B Figure A 22. Tool 11 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 11B 1 initial, B) 11B 1 finished A B C D Figure A 23. Tool 12 corner A before and after finishing f or 10 passes. A) 12A 1 initial, B) 12A 1 finished, C) 12A 2 initial, D) 12A 2 finished

PAGE 81

81 A B C D Figure A 24. Tool 12 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 12B 1 initial, B) 12B 1 finished, C) 12B 2 initial, D) 12B 2 finished A B C D Figure A 25. Tool 13 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 13A 1 initial, B) 13A 1 finished, C) 13A 2 initial, D) 13A 2 finished

PAGE 82

82 A B C D Figure A 26. Tool 13 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passe s. A) 13B 1 initial, B) 13B 1 finished, C) 13B 2 initial, D) 13B 2 finished A B C D Figure A 27. Tool 14 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 14A 1 initial, B) 14A 1 finished, C) 14A 2 initial, D) 14A 2 finished

PAGE 83

83 A B C D Figure A 28. Tool 14 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 14B 1 initial, B) 14B 1 finished, C) 14B 2 initial, D) 14B 2 finished A B C D Figure A 29. Tool 15 corner A before and after finishing for 10 passes. A) 15A 1 initial, B) 15A 1 finished, C) 15A 2 initial, D) 15A 2 finished

PAGE 84

84 A B C D Figure A 30. Tool 15 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 15B 1 initial, B) 15B 1 finished, C) 15B 2 initial, D) 15B 2 finished

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX B SURFACE PARAME TERS OF REPEATABILTY STUDY Figure B 1. Repeatability study initial and final Sa values after polishing for 10 passes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Sa (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 86

86 Figure B 2. Repeatability study initial and final Sa values after polishing for 40 passes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Sa Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 87

87 Figure B 3. Repeatability study final surface Sa values for all tool measurement positions 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Sa (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 88

88 Figure B 4. Repeatability study initial and final Sz values after polishing for 10 passes 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Sz (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 89

89 Figure B 5. Repeatability study initial and final Sz values after polishing for 40 passes 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Sz (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 90

90 Figure B 6. Repeatability study final surface Sz values for all tool measurement positions 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Sz (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 91

91 Figure B 7. Repeatability study initial and final St values after polishing for 10 passes 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 St (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 92

92 Figure B 8. Repeatability study initial and final St values after polishing fo r 40 passes 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 St (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 93

93 Figure B 9. Repeatability study final surface St values for all tool measurement positions 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 St (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 94

94 Figure B 10. Repeatability study initial and final Stp values after polishing for 10 passes 0 50 100 150 200 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Stp (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 95

95 Figure B 11. Repeatability study initial and fina l Stp values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Stp (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 96

96 Figure B 12. Repeatability study final surface Stp values for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Stp (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 97

97 Figure B 13. Repeatability study initial and final Smr values after polishing for 10 passes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Smr Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 98

98 Figure B 14. Rep eatability study initial and final Smr values after polishing for 40 passes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Smr Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 99

99 Figure B 15. Repeatability study final surface Smr values for all tool measurement positions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Smr Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 100

100 Figure B 16. Repeatability study initial and final Ssk values after polishing f or 10 passes -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Ssk Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 101

101 Figure B 17. Repeatability study initial and final Ssk values after polishing for 40 passes -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Ssk Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 102

102 Figure B 18. Repeatability study final surface Ssk values for all tool measurement positions -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Ssk Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 103

103 Figure B 19. Repeatability study initial and final Sku values after polishing for 10 passes 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Sku Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 104

104 Fi gure B 20. Repeatability study initial and final Sku values after polishing for 40 passes 0 5 10 15 20 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Sku Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 105

105 Figure B 21. Repeatability study final surface Sku values for all tool measurement positions 0 5 10 15 20 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Sku Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 106

106 Figure B 2 2. Repeatability study initial and final Spk values after polishing for 10 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Spk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 107

107 Figure B 23. Repeatability study initial and final Spk values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Spk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 108

108 Figure B 24. Repeatability study final surface Spk values for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 250 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Spk Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 109

109 Figure B 25. Repeatability study initial and final Sk values after polishing for 10 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Sk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 110

110 Figure B 26. Repeatability study initial and final Sk values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Sk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 111

111 Figure B 27. Repeatability study final surface Sk values for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Sk (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 112

112 Figure B 28. Repeatability study initial and final Svk values after polishing for 10 passes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Svk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 113

113 Figure B 29. Repeatability study initial and final Svk values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Svk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 114

114 Figur e B 30. Repeatability study final Svk values for all tool measurement positions 0 100 200 300 400 500 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Svk (nm) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 115

115 Fig ure B 31. Repeatability study initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for 10 passes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 SMr1 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 116

116 Figure B 32. Repeatability study initial and final SMr1 values after poli shing for 40 passes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 SMr1 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 117

117 Figure B 33. Repeatability study final surface SMr1 values for all tool measurement positions 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 SMr1 Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 118

118 Figure B 34. Repeatability study initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 10 passes 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 SMr2 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 119

119 Figure B 35. Repeatability study in itial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 40 passes 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 SMr2 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 120

120 Figure B 36. Repeatability study final surface SMr2 values for all tool measurement positions 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 SMr2 Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 121

121 Figure B 37. Repeatability study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 10 passes 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 1B-1 1B-2 2B-1 2B-2 3B-1 3B-2 4B-1 4B-2 5B-1 5B-2 6C-1 6C-2 7C-1 7C-2 8C-1 8C-2 9C-1 9C-2 10C-1 10C-2 11A-1 11A-2 12A-1 12A-2 13A-1 13A-2 14A-1 14A-2 15A-1 15A-2 Sv0 (m^3) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 122

122 Figure B 38. Repeatability study initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 40 passes 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 1C-1 1C-2 2C-1 2C-2 3C-1 3C-2 4C-1 4C-2 5C-1 5C-2 6A-1 6A-2 7A-1 7A-2 8A-1 8A-2 9A-1 9A-2 10A-1 10A-2 11B-1 11B-2 12B-1 12B-2 13B-1 13B-2 14B-1 14B-2 15B-1 15B-2 Sv0 (m^3) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 123

123 Figure B 39. Repeatability study final surface Sv0 values for all tool measurement positions 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 1A-1 2A-2 4A-1 5A-2 7B-1 8B-2 10B-1 11C-2 13C-1 14C-2 1B-1 2B-2 4B-1 5B-2 7C-1 8C-2 10C-1 11A-2 13A-1 14A-2 1C-1 2C-2 4C-1 5C-2 7A-1 8A-2 10A-1 11B-2 13B-1 14B-2 Sv0 (m^3) Tool # 40 10 Unfinished

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX C SURFACE IMAGES OF IN ITIAL WEAR STUDY A B C D E F Figure C 1. Tool 1 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 1A 1 initial, B) 1A 1 finished, C) 1A 2 initial, D) 1A 2 finished, E) 1A 3 initial, F) 1A 3 finished, G) 1A 4 initial, H) 1A 4 final, I) 1A 5 initial, J) 1A 5 final.

PAGE 125

125 G H I J Figure C 1. Continued A B C D Figure C 2. Tool 1 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 1C 1 initial, B) 1C 1 finished, C) 1C 2 initial, D) 1C 2 finished, E) 1C 3 initial, F) 1C 3 finished, G) 1C 4 init ial, H) 1C 4 final, I) 1C 5 initial, J) 1C 5 final.

PAGE 126

126 E F G H I J Figure C 2. Continued

PAGE 127

127 A B C D E F G H Figure C 3. Tool 2 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 2B 1 initial, B) 2B 1 finished, C ) 2B 2 initial, D) 2B 2 finished, E) 2B 3 initial, F) 2B 3 finished, G) 2B 4 initial, H) 2B 4 final, I) 2B 5 initial, J) 2B 5 final.

PAGE 128

128 I J Figure C 3. Continued A B C D E F Figure C 4. Tool 2 corner C before and after finishing f or 40 passes. A) 2C 1 initial, B) 2C 1 finished, C) 2C 2 initial, D) 2C 2 finished, E) 2C 3 initial, F) 2C 3 finished, G) 2C 4 initial, H) 2C 4 final, I) 2C 5 initial, J) 2C 5 final.

PAGE 129

129 G H I J Figure C 4. Continued A B C D Figure C 5. Tool 3 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 3A 1 initial, B) 3A 1 finished, C) 3A 2 initial, D) 3A 2 finished, E) 3A 3 initial, F) 3A 3 finished, G) 3A 4 initial, H) 3A 4 final, I) 3A 5 initial, J) 3A 5 final.

PAGE 130

130 E F G H I J Figure C 5. Continued A B Figure C 6. Tool 3 corner B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 3B 1 initial, B) 3B 1 finished, C) 3B 2 initial, D) 3B 2 finished, E) 3B 3 initial, F) 3B 3 finished, G) 3B 4 initial, H) 3B 4 final, I) 3B 5 initial, J) 3B 5 final.

PAGE 131

131 C D E F G H I J Figure C 6. Continued

PAGE 132

132 A B C D E F G H Figure C 7. Tool 4 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 4A 1 initial, B) 4A 1 finished, C) 4A 2 initial, D ) 4A 2 finished, E) 4A 3 initial, F) 4A 3 finished, G) 4A 4 initial, H) 4A 4 final, I) 4A 5 initial, J) 4A 5 final.

PAGE 133

133 I J Figure C 7. Continued A B C D E F Figure C 8. Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 5C 1 initial, B) 5C 1 finished, C) 5C 2 initial, D) 5C 2 finished, E) 5C 3 initial, F) 5C 3 finished, G) 5C 4 initial, H) 5C 4 final, I) 5C 5 initial, J) 5C 5 final.

PAGE 134

134 G H I J Figure C 8. Continued A B C D Figure C 9. Tool 6 corne r B before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 4B 1 initial, B) 4B 1 finished, C) 4B 2 initial, D) 4B 2 finished, E) 4B 3 initial, F) 4B 3 finished, G) 4B 4 initial, H) 4B 4 final, I) 4B 5 initial, J) 4B 5 final.

PAGE 135

135 E F G H I J Figure C 9. Continued A B Figure C 10. Tool 7 corner A before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 7A 1 initial, B) 7A 1 finished, C) 7A 2 initial, D) 7A 2 finished, E) 7A 3 initial, F) 7A 3 finished, G) 7A 4 initial, H) 7A 4 final, I) 7A 5 initial, J) 7A 5 final.

PAGE 136

136 C D E F G H I J Figure C 10. Continued

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX D SURFACE PARAMETERS O F INITIAL WEAR STUDY Figure D 1. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sa values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Sa (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 138

138 Figure D 2. Init ial wear study cutting test final Sa values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Sa (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 139

139 Figure D 3. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sz values after polishing for 40 passes 0 500 1000 1500 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Sz (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 140

140 Figure D 4. Initial wear study cutting test final Sz values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Sz (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 141

141 Figure D 5. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final St values after polishing for 40 passes 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 St (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 142

142 Figure D 6. Initial wear study cutting test final St values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 St (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 143

143 Figure D 7. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Stp values after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Stp (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 144

144 Figure D 8. Initial wear study cutting test final Stp values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 250 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Stp (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 145

145 Fi gure D 9. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Smr values after polishing for 40 passes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Smr Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 146

146 Figure D 10. Initial wear study cutting test final Smr values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Smr Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 147

147 Figure D 11. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Ssk values after polishing for 40 passes -3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Ssk Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 148

148 Figure D 12. Initial wear study cutting test final Ssk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Ssk Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 149

149 Figure D 13. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sku values after polishing for 40 passes 0 5 10 15 20 25 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Sku Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 150

150 Figure D 14. Initial wear study cutting test final Sku values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 5 10 15 20 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Sku Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 151

151 Figure D 15. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Spk values after polishing fo r 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Spk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 152

152 Figure D 16. Initial wear study cutting test final Spk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 250 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Spk (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 153

153 Figure D 17. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sk values after polishing for 40 passes 0 100 200 300 400 500 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Sk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 154

154 Figure D 18. I nitial wear study cutting test final Sk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 100 200 300 400 500 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Sk (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 155

155 Figure D 19. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Svk values after polishing for 40 passes 0 100 200 300 400 500 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Svk (nm) Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 156

156 Figure D 20. Initial wear study cutting test final Svk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 100 200 300 400 500 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Svk (nm) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 157

157 Figure D 21. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final SMr1 values after polishing for 40 passes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 SMr1 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 158

158 Figure D 22. Initial wear study cutting test final SMr1 values after polis hing for all tool measurement positions 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 SMr1 Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 159

159 Figure D 23. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final SMr2 values after polishing for 40 passes 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 SMr2 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 160

160 Fi gure D 24. Initial wear study cutting test final SMr2 values after polishing for all tool measuremen t positions 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 SMr2 Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 161

161 Figure D 25. Initial wear study cutting test initial and final Sv0 values after polishing for 40 passes 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 1A-1 1A-3 1A-5 1C-2 1C-4 2B-1 2B-3 2B-5 2C-2 2C-4 3A-1 3A-3 3A-5 3B-2 3B-4 4A-1 4A-3 4A-5 5C-2 5C-4 6B-1 6B-3 6B-5 7A-2 7A-4 Sv0 Tool # Initial Final

PAGE 162

162 Figure D 26. Initial wear study cutting test final Sv0 values after polishing for all tool measurement position 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 1B-1 1B-4 2A-2 2A-5 3C-3 4B-1 4B-4 4C-2 4C-5 5A-3 5B-1 5B-4 6A-2 6A-5 6C-3 7B-1 7B-4 7C-2 7C-5 1A-3 1C-1 1C-4 2B-2 2B-5 2C-3 3A-1 3A-4 3B-2 3B-5 4A-3 5C-1 5C-4 6B-2 6B-5 7A-3 Sv0 ( m^3) Tool # 40 Unfinished

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX E SURFACE IMAGES OF INITIAL F LUID INTERACTION STU DIES A B C D E F Figure E 1. Tool 1 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 1C 1 initial, B) 1C 1 finished, C) 1C 2 initial, D) 1C 2 finished, E) 1C 3 initial, F) 1C 3 finished

PAGE 164

164 A B C D E F Figure E 2. Tool 2 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 2C 1 initial, B) 2C 1 finished, C) 2C 2 initial, D) 2C 2 finished, E) 2C 3 initial, F) 2C 3 finished

PAGE 165

165 A B C D E F Figure E 3. Tool 3 co rner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 3C 1 initial, B) 3C 1 finished, C) 3C 2 initial, D) 3C 2 finished, E) 3C 3 initial, F) 3C 3 finished

PAGE 166

166 A B C D E F Figure E 4. Tool 4 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes A) 4C 1 initial, B) 4C 1 finished, C) 4C 2 initial, D) 4C 2 finished, E) 4C 3 initial, F) 4C 3 finished

PAGE 167

167 A B C D E F Figure E 5. Tool 5 corner C before and after finishing for 40 passes. A) 5C 1 initial, B) 5C 1 finished, C) 5C 2 in itial, D) 5C 2 finished, E) 5C 3 initial, F) 5C 3 finished

PAGE 168

168 APPENDIX F SURFACE PARAMETERS O F FLUID INTERACTION STUDIES Figure F 1. Fluid interaction study initial and final S a values after polishing for 40 passes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Sa (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 169

169 Figure F 2. Fluid interaction study initial and final S a values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Sa (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 170

170 Figure F 3. Fluid interaction study initial and final S z values after polishing for 40 passes 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Sz (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 171

171 Figure F 4. Fluid interaction study initial and final S z values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Sz (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 172

172 Figure F 5. Fluid interaction study initial and final S t valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 St (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 173

173 Figure F 6. Fluid interaction study initial and final S t values after polishing for all tool measurement pos itions 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 St (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 174

174 Figure F 7. Fluid interaction study initial and final S tp valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Stp (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 175

175 Figure F 8. Fluid interaction study initial and final S tp values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Stp (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 176

176 Figure F 9. Fluid interact ion study initial and final S mr valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Smr Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 177

177 Figure F 10. Fluid interaction study initial and final S mr values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Smr Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 178

178 Figure F 11. Fluid interaction study initial and final S sk val u es after polishing for 40 passes -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Smr ( ) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 179

179 Figure F 12. Fluid interaction study initial and final Ssk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Smr (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 180

180 Figure F 13. Fluid interaction study initial and final S ku valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 2 4 6 8 10 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Sku ( ) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 181

181 Figure F 14. Fluid interaction study initial and final S ku values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 2 4 6 8 10 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Sku ( ) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 182

182 Figure F 15. Fluid interaction study initial and final S pk valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Spk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 183

183 Figure F 16. Fluid interaction s tudy initial and final Spk values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Spk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 184

184 Figure F 17. Fluid interaction study initial and final S k valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 100 200 300 400 500 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Sk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 185

185 Figure F 18. Fluid interaction study initial and final S k values aft er polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Sk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 186

186 Figure F 19. Fluid interaction study initial and final S vk valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Svk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 187

187 Figure F 20. Fluid interaction study initial and final S vk values after polishing for all tool measureme nt positions 0 100 200 300 400 500 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Svk (nm) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 188

188 Figure F 21 Fluid interaction study initial and final S M r1 valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0% 5% 10% 15% 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Smr1 Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 189

189 Figure F 22 Fluid interaction study initial and final S M r1 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Smr1 Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 190

190 Figure F 23 Flu id interaction study initial and final S M r2 valu es after polishing for 40 passes 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Smr2 Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 191

191 Figure F 24 Fluid interaction study initial and final S M r2 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Smr2 Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 192

192 Figure F 2 5. Fluid interaction study initial and final S v0 valu es after polishing for 40 passes 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 1C-1 1C-2 1C-3 2C-1 2C-2 2C-3 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 4C-1 4C-2 4C-3 5C-1 5C-2 5C-3 Svo ( m^3/ m^2 ) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 193

193 Figure F 2 6. Fluid interaction study initial and final S v0 values after polishing for all tool measurement positions 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 1A-1 1A-3 1B-2 2A-1 2A-3 2B-2 3A-1 3A-3 3B-2 4A-1 4A-3 4B-2 5A-1 5A-3 5B-2 1C-1 1C-3 2C-2 3C-1 3C-3 4C-2 5C-1 5C-3 Svo ( m^3/ m^2 ) Tool # Final Initial

PAGE 194

194 LIST OF REFERENCES [1] Tlusty, G. (2000). Manufacturing Process and Equipment. Prentice Hall, Inc ., 82 [2] Ezugwu, E.O. (1997). Titanium alloys and their machinability. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 68 .262 274. [3] Odelros, S, (2012). Tool wear in titanium machining. Uppsala Universitet 1 2 [4] Kalpakjian, S. Schmid, S. (2008 ). Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials. Prentice Hall, Inc ., 444 445 [5] Rashid, R. A. (2016). Tool wear mechanisms involved in crater formation on uncoated carbide tool when machining Ti6Al4V alloy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83 1457 146 5 [6] Donachie, M. (2000). Titanium: A technical guide. 2 nd ASM International 44 [7] Hong, S. (2001). New cooling approach and tool life improvement in cryogenic machining of titanium alloy Ti 6Al 4V. International journal of Machine Tool and Manufacture 41, 2246 [8] Yousfi, M. (2017). Tribological behavior of PVD hard coated cutting tools under cryogenic cooling conditions. CIRP Conference on Modelling of Machining Operations, 16. 561 562 [9] Cadena, N. (2013). Study of PVD AlCrN coating for reducing ca rbide cutting tool deterioration in the machining of titanium alloys. MDPI Open Access Materials, 2144 2145 [10] Hao, X. (2017). Tribological properties of textured cemented carbide surfaces of different wettability produced by pulse laser. MSEC 2017 [11 ] Lee, S. H. (2001). Study of the effect of machining parameters on the machining characteristics in electrical discharge machining of tungsten carbide. Journal of Mat erials Processing Technology, 115 344 358 [12 ] Yamaguchi, H., Srivastava, A. K., Tan, M. Hashimoto, F. (2014). Magnetic abrasive finishing of cutting tools for high speed machining of titanium alloys. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 7 299 304 [13 ] Tan, M. (2013). Magnetic abrasive finishing of cutting tools for titanium alloy machining. Unive rsity of Florida, [14 ] Hendershot, P. (2016). Improving tool life of tungsten carbide tools for titanium alloy machining with magnetic abrasive finishing. University of Florida,

PAGE 195

195 [15 ] Yamaguchi, H., and Shinmura, T. (1999). Study of the surface modification resulting from an internal magnetic abrasive finishing process. Wear, 225 229 246 255 [ 16 ] Tlusty, G. (2000). Manufacturing Process and Equipment. Prentice Hall, Inc ., 422 424 [17] Gadelmawla, E. S. (2002). Roughness parameters. Journal of Mat erials Proc essing Technology, 123, 133 145 [18] Keyence. (2012). Introduction to surface roughness measurement. Keyence Corporation of America [19 ] Kalpakjian, S. Schmid, S. (2008). Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials. Prentice Hall, Inc ., 150 154

PAGE 196

196 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Carl Richard Barrington who goes by Richard, was born in Destin, Florida to Chuck and Kaycee Barrington. He stayed in Destin until moving to Gainesville in 2012 chanical engineering in 2016 and began working on a master of science in mechanical engineering that same year. Richard hopes to use his experiences to eventually pursue a career in research and development of aerospace manufacturing for space travel.