The science of ceramic machining and surface finishing II

Schneider, Samuel J; Rice, R. W.

doi:10.6028/nbs.sp.562

Cited by 34 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1 (adapted from Evans [1]) shows schematically the sorts of changes we may expect. A groove is left behind the particle, producing a rough surface; beneath the groove is a region of intense plastic deformation, which leaves the surface in a state of residual stress; finally, there may be a (complex) system of micro-cracks associated with the machining.…”

Section: Surface Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

Warren¹,

Pecorari²,

Kolosov³

et al. 1996

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The damage introduced by polishing and machining of brittle materials has been evaluated by two techniques: quantitative acoustic microscopy (QAM) and surface Brillouin scattering (SBS). Both methods rely on the generation and detection of surface acoustic waves (SAW), also known as Rayleigh waves. The difference between the two techniques lies in the frequency of the wave generated and hence in the depth of the near-surface region sampled. Results are presented for (i) GaAs samples, polished using a variety of chemical and chemo-mechanical treatments, (ii) float-glass specimens with different levels of tin-contamination in either side, and (iii) alumina samples that have been variously ground and polished. It is shown that both BS and QAM can be used to evaluate the state of damage in a surface and that the varying contributions to the differences in SAW velocity between damaged and undamaged surfaces (viz surface roughness, surface microcracking and residual stresses) can be quantitatively modelled.

show abstract

Section: Surface Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

Warren¹,

Pecorari²,

Kolosov³

et al. 1996

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the surface of a brittle material (a glass, a semiconductor or a ceramic) is machined (via a hard diamond grit, for example) then a variety of structural changes in the near-surface region occur. Figure 1 (adapted from Evans [1]) shows schematically the sorts of changes we may expect. A groove is left behind the particle, producing a rough surface; beneath the groove is a region of intense plastic deformation, which leaves the surface in a state of residual stress; finally, there may be a (complex) system of micro-cracks associated with the machining.…”

Section: Surface Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of surface damage via contact probes

Warren¹,

Kolosov²,

Roberts³

et al. 1996

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanical performance of brittle structural materials, such as engineering ceramics, decreases drastically in the presence of cracks which are inevitably introduced during material preparation via machining and polishing. For functional brittle materials (glasses and semiconductors) their optical and electronic properties may also be affected by the presence of such cracks; furthermore, 'chemical damage' in the form of surface contamination may arise after polishing. We present here two contrasting methods, both utilizing the mechanical probing of a surface, to evaluate such damage.

show abstract

“…In spite of the establishment of such a qualitative definition, the quantification of the machinability has never been a simple task. The factors developed thus far to assess ceramic machinability have been based on material removal [2][3][4][5] and the associated mechanism [6], surface damage [7][8], single point abrasion [9], and combined material properties as functions of the elastic modulus, Vickers hardness, and model I fracture toughness (K IC ) [10][11]. Yet, regardless of the existing factors for assessing the machinability of ceramics, no particular factor has been regarded as dominant [14], possibly because of the differences in the fabrication process in achieving the desired final shape and the associated material response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Performance of Micro-Drills in Drilling a Machinable Ceramic Material

Shin

Hwang

Lim³

et al. 2014

AMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of three different micro-drills in drilling a machinable ceramic material has been evaluated in terms of the critical feed speed (mm/min) at a given rotation rate (rpm). The critical speed is the feed speed from and above which the chipping on the rear side of the machinable ceramic material takes place. The determined critical speed turns out to increase with rotation rate in the tested range of 2k-8k rpm, forming the critical boundary line. The drilling performance of the micro-drills can be evaluated quantitatively by using the position of the critical boundary lines in the space of feed speed vs. rotation rate: the upper the critical boundary line, the higher the drilling performance of the micro-drill.

show abstract

The science of ceramic machining and surface finishing II

Cited by 34 publications

References 43 publications

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

Characterization of surface damage via surface acoustic waves

Characterization of surface damage via contact probes

Evaluation of the Performance of Micro-Drills in Drilling a Machinable Ceramic Material

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About