DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS BASED FORCE MODELING OF THE FACE GRINDING PROCESS

Eric C. Johnson, Rui Li, and Albert J. Shih Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan

Hap Hanna Powertrain Division General Motors Corporation Pontiac, Michigan

KEYWORDS Bimetallic Grinding, Grinding Force Model, Electroplated CBN (ECBN), Response Surface ABSTRACT A grinding force model is developed to predict the forces during the face grinding of cast iron and aluminum alloy 319. Design of experiments methods are used to create a response surface of four process parameters: feed rate, inclination angle of the grinding wheel profile, offset angle between the grinding wheel and the workpiece, and the peripheral speed of the wheel. For each material, three polynomial equations are determined by regression analysis to represent the forces in three directions. The model shows better accuracy for cast iron than aluminum alloy. The feed rate and inclination angle have the most significant effect on the grinding forces. The model is simple and can be implemented in industry quickly after a few test runs. However, it has limited accuracy, generally within 10-20% on the prediction of grinding forces. INTRODUCTION Grinding is an important surface finishing process and has broad industrial applications.

One such case is the combustion deck surface of engine blocks and heads, as shown in Fig. 1. This deck surface seals against the head gasket to prevent the hot, high pressure gas from escaping the combustion chamber. The function of this seal is related to the roughness, flatness, and finish of the deck surface, and a high quality finishing process is essential. The task of achieving this precision falls to either grinding or milling processes. Although more expensive, grinding offers a better finish and is widely applied in such operation in automotive powertrain manufacturing. This research studies the force modeling in face grinding of the engine combustion deck surfaces.

FIGURE 1. FACE GRINDING PROCESS, USING AN ENGINE BLOCK DECK SURFACE AS AN EXAMPLE.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

241

Volume 36, 2008

The grinding process can be characterized by combining physical properties of the workpiece material, grinding wheel, and machine, with the controllable parameters of the process. The distribution and shape of the grain cutting edges strongly influence the force and surface finish [Tonshoff et al. 1992]. The process parameters and wheel and workpiece geometry control the material removal rate and chip thickness. The friction force present at the cutting interface is predominately determined by the material properties of the workpiece, as is the deflection of the grinding wheel. As Brinksmeier et al. [2006] pointed out, the grinding process is the sum of the interactions among the wheel topology, process kinematics, and the workpiece properties. Most analytical force models are related to the topography of wheel, workpiece properties, and chip thickness [Brinksmeier et al. 2006; Malkin 1989; Tonshoff et al. 1992]. In addition to these physical/empirical models, many newly developed modeling techniques like artificial neural network have been utilized to model the grinding process [Brinksmeier et al. 2006; Lee and Shin 2004]. Most of these models are derived from the basic grinding operations: horizontal surface grinding and cylindrical grinding, which are different from the configuration of vertical grinding the combustion deck face. Research on vertical surface grinding is limited. Lal and Srihari [1994] studied the mechanics of chip formation in face grinding. Lal [1968] also investigated the effects that varying table speed, depth of cut, and workpiece material had on face grinding force, but no model was developed with these parameters. However, experiments involving more modern, electroplated superabrasive wheels, are absent from the current annals of face grinding knowledge. ECBN grinding wheels do not require periodic dressing and truing [Shi and Malkin 2003], unlike a vitrified bond wheel. One aim of the present research, which utilized an electroplated cubic boron nitrite (ECBN) grinding wheel, is to fill this gap. The other aim of this paper is to develop an effective face grinding force model. In the absence of established analytical models, a practical solution is to empirically correlate the response to the input variables with a polynomial approximation. This is known as response surface methodology [Cochran 1957]. For a given polynomial degree, the number of

experiments required to fit the model grows exponentially with the number of factors. However, the number of experiments can often be reduced by using design of experiments (DOE) techniques. DOE is a systematic approach to experimental design in which multiple factors are varied simultaneously, while controlling for variance. Properly implemented, DOE increases the efficiency of the information gathering. When DOE methods are combined with regression modeling, a polynomial approximation of the response is obtained [Box 1951]. This technique is called response surface methodology (RSM). Alauddin et al. [2007] recently combined RSM with dimensional analysis to develop a grinding force model using conventional abrasives. This study further expands the RSM method for modeling ECBN face grinding forces. In this research, the forces arising in face grinding using an ECBN wheel are investigated. Cast iron and aluminum alloy 319 (AL319) are studied. DOE methods were used to develop an empirical model to predict face grinding forces. First and second order regression models were derived to predict the normal, tangential, and lateral specific grinding forces. The model is validated by comparing forces at intermediate grinding conditions.

GRINDING KINEMATIC MODEL The grinding forces can be represented in two coordinate systems. One is a global coordinate system defined relative to the machine. As shown in Fig. 2, the three force components in the global coordinate system are: force normal to the ground surface FN; force against the feed direction, FL; and force normal to the feed direction and ground surface, FT. The grinding experiments measured forces relative to this global coordinate system. Another coordinate system is a local coordinate system, defined relative to the wheel and workpiece contact surface. As shown in Fig. 2, forces Fn and Fl are normal and coincident to the inclined contact surface, respectively, and lie in a plane at angle to the feed direction and normal to the ground surface. Force Ft is tangent to the wheel rotation axis. Angle is the offset angle between the wheel and workpiece. Angle is the inclination angle of the wheel profile with respect to the ground surface.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

242

Volume 36, 2008

intervals tested was proportional to the model order. Thus for a second order model, there are three depths and three force intervals. Four input parameters were selected: feed per revolution f (mm/rev), angles and , and peripheral cutting speed V (m/min). The responses were the local specific normal and tangential forces, kn and kt, respectively. The local specific lateral force kl was negligible and was not modeled. The local specific forces are calculated from the local forces as:
kn = Fn S kt = Ft S

[4]

FIGURE 2. FN, FT, AND FL IN GLOBAL (MACHINE) COORDINATE SYSTEM AND Fn, Ft, AND Fl IN LOCAL (WHEEL/WORKPIECE) COORDINATE SYSTEM.

For analysis, the measured forces FN, FT, and FL are transformed to the local coordinate system using the following equations:
Fn = FN cos FT sin sin + FL sin cos Ft = FT cos + FL sin Fl = FN sin + FT cos sin FL cos cos

[1] [2] [3]

where S is the contact area between the tool and workpiece, and kn, kt are the normal and tangential grinding pressures, respectively. S depends on the depth of cut and offset angle . The wheel was plunge ground into a workpiece, and the resulting imprint measured on a profilometer, to assist in the calculation of S. The measured wheel profile and profile fit are shown in Fig. 4. The local specific forces that are predicted by the model can be converted to an aggregate global force by the following procedure: 1. Discretize contact surface into square grid elements. Each element is associated with a particular , , and material. An example is given in Fig. 5, which uses a Cartesian system of uniformly sized square grid elements. 2. Calculate local specific forces kn and kt for each element using the prediction models of Eqs. [6-9]. The material type of each element will dictate which model to use. kl may be assumed to be zero.

Elevation [m]

The contact surface between the wheel and workpiece was discretized into several depth intervals along the wheel axis, as shown in Fig. 3. Each depth interval was associated with a certain inclination angle . Since the profile was divided into a finite number of discrete intervals, was approximated as the gradient of the straight line connecting the end points of each segment. It is dependent on the grinding depth. The incremental force contribution of each interval was determined by subtracting the force measured at the shallower interval that preceded it, if any existed. The number of

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 55 60 65 70 Radial pos ition [m m ] 75

Valid region Meas. Prof ile Prof ile Fit

FIGURE 3. DEPTH OF CUT INTERVALS AND ASSOCIATED INCREMENTAL CONTACT ANGLES.

FIGURE 4. PROFILE OF ELECTROPLATED CBN GRINDING WHEEL IN THIS STUDY.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

243

Volume 36, 2008

TABLE 1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 f -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 V Trial f V Trial f V 1 14 1 1 -1 1 27 0 -1 0 0 -1 15 -1 -1 1 1 28 0 1 0 0 1 16 -1 1 1 1 29 0 0 -1 0 -1 17 -1 0 -1 1 30 0 0 1 0 -1 18 1 0 -1 -1 31 0 0 0 -1 1 19 -1 0 1 -1 32 0 0 0 1 -1 20 1 0 1 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 21 -1 0 -1 -1 34 -1 0 0 0 -1 22 1 0 1 -1 35 1 0 0 0 -1 23 1 0 -1 1 36 0 0 -1 0 -1 24 -1 0 1 1 37 0 0 1 0 -1 25 -1 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 -1 1 26 1 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 1

FIGURE 5. DISCRETIZATION OF CONTACT SURFACE INTO GRID ARRAY. EACH GRID ELEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTICULAR , , AND MATERIAL.

-1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1

-1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1

3. Obtain local forces Fn and Ft for each element by multiplying that elements kn and kt by its area S. For the example in Fig. 5, S is the same for all elements. 4. Transform local forces into global coordinate system using angles and of each element. 5. Sum elemental global forces to obtain the aggregate global force.

composite designs to name a few [Cochran 1957]. This work used a central composite design to increase efficiency. A visual representation of the design is shown in Fig. 6. In a central composite design, midpoints are added to a first order model to create a second order model. It allows curvature of the main effects to be studied. The modeling process is divided into two steps: Screening Test. The screening test was an 4 exploratory 2 factorial experiment used to fit a first order response surface. This forms the corner points of the cube in Fig. 6, and corresponds to trials 1 to 16 in Table 1. Second Order Response Model. Midpoints 4 were added to the 2 factorial model to create a second order response model. All factors were found to be significant in the screening test, thus

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS Design of Experiments A factorial experiment, in which the effects of multiple factors are tested simultaneously, can be used to develop a polynomial response surface model. Given N levels of each factor, k and k factors to be studied, a total of N unique combinations of experimental conditions are k possible. In a full factorial design all N combinations are tested; this provides estimates of each factors main effect, and also allows interactions between factors to be examined in full. Testing each factor at two levels will produce a first order model. The second order model that accounts for curvature can be developed by testing factors at three levels. The number of experiments required by a full factorial design quickly becomes impractical to handle as the model order and number of factors increase. Fractional factorial designs, which consist of a systematically selected subset of the full factorial design, are effective methods of reducing the number of tests [Finney 1945]. Many fractional factorial designs have been enumerated: half-replicate, quarterreplicate, central composite, and rotatable

FIGURE 6. CENTRAL COMPOSITE DESIGN. ACTUAL COMPOSITE DESIGN INCLUDES AND IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

244

Volume 36, 2008

TABLE 2. WORKPIECE DIMENSIONS

Material Cast iron AL 319

Thickness 6 mm 12 mm

Length 60 mm 60 mm

a midpoint was added for each of the four factors. The entire second order experimental design includes the first order trials from the screening test, plus trials 17 to 39 in Table 1.

Experimental Setup The grinding experiments were conducted on a Fadal CNC vertical machining center. A 150 mm diameter, 60-grit electroplated CBN grinding wheel was used. A Kistler 9273A piezoelectric dynamometer was used to measure three force components during grinding. A 5% concentration of water based cutting fluid, Hocut TR2000-C, was used. Although CBN wheels generally perform best with oil-based coolants, industry is moving towards water-based coolants for environmental considerations [Carius 1989]. Dimensions of the workpieces used are given in Table 2. The wheels rotational velocity was converted to linear cutting speed, V, in the model. The inclination angle was calculated based on incremental depth of cut as illustrated in Fig. 3. The model was based on rather than directly on depth of cut. The angles and were normalized by taking their sine for use in the model.

FIGURE 7. WORKPIECE ORIENTATIONS. (A) CAST IRON AND (B) BIMETALLIC

Cast Iron. A cleanup pass and spark out were performed prior to each test. For each test condition, five passes were made, to approach the steady state depth of cut described by Malkin [1989]. The physical parameter ranges are given in Table 3. AL319. Grinding aluminum is complicated by the fact that the aluminum alloy tends to build up on the wheel, due to its high ductility. The buildup was managed in the experiments by grinding cast iron alongside the aluminum alloy, to scrape the aluminum build-up from wheel surface. The cast iron workpiece was positioned at the high and low offset angles listed in Table 2, = 0 and = 45. The aluminum plates were placed directly adjacent to the cast iron plates, at = 6.8 and = 36.1, as illustrated in Fig. 7B. The aluminum force was calculated by subtracting the cast iron force from the measured bimetallic force, using values found in cast iron response surface experiments. The rest of the experimental procedure was identical to that of the cast iron experiments, with the parameter values listed in Table 3. The AL319 experiments consisted of the first order conditions, trials 1 to 16 in Table 1.

TABLE 3. LEVELS OF CODED FACTORS Factor f V sin a sin

*

Model 1 Factor? (mm/rev) 0.125 Y (rpm) 12000 N (m/min) 5742 Y Units

( m) **

Coding 0
0.0875 8000 3828 0.382 N/A 65
*

-1
0.050 4000 1914 0.000 20 0.005
* **

Y N Y

0.707 0.589 150 0.035

**

-0.118

RESULTS The ratio of the normal and tangential cutting pressures, kt/kn, is considered to be a representation of the frictional behavior, f, that

N/A

0.078

0.017

0.005

Cast iron. AL319. is dependent upon depth of cut, a. Both parameters are given, however sin is used in the model. First order model. Second order model.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

245

Volume 36, 2008

300 Cast iron, k = 0.254k

t n

300 Predicted kt (cast iron), [kPa] AL319, k = 0.443k

t

250 200 kt [kPa] 150 100 50 0 0

250 200 150 100 50 0 0.02

V = 3828 m/min = 0

= 0.1 = 0.08 = 0.06 = 0.04 = 0.02 =0

0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 f [mm/rev] 0.12 0.14

200

400 k [kPa]
n

600

800

FIGURE 8. RATIO OF NORMAL AND TANGENTIAL FORCES FOR CAST IRON AND AL319.

FIGURE 10. TANGENTIAL PRESSURE RESPONSE LINES, CAST IRON MATERIAL

is material dependent. They can be related by:

k t = f k n

[5]

The friction coefficients for cast iron and AL319 are the slope of two lines plotted in Fig. 8, 0.25 and 0.44, respectively. Lal [1968] found f = 0.27 for cast iron, which is close to the value found in this study. The ratio of kt for cast iron (kt,CI) to AL319 (kt,Al) was found to follow a linear relationship, plotted in Fig. 9.

for cast iron material. Because the second order model did not include all full factorial terms, the effects of all factors and interactions could not be independently discerned using ANOVA. Rather, terms were manually selected based on previously developed analytical models, minimization of the PRESS statistic [Allen 1971], and visual inspection of the prediction surfaces vs. experimental data. For cast iron, the following models were found to characterize the normal and tangential grinding pressures (units are in kPa):
kn = 71 + 8691f 2 + 23453f sin + 40048 sin2 3476 sin sin
k t = 20 + 1988f 2 + 13300f sin 0.0351fV + 7133 sin2 876 sin sin

Response Model The dominant factors were f and , which are related to the equivalent chip thickness. Fig. 10 shows the response of kt to f at varying levels of

[6] [7]

60 50 kt, AL319 [kPa] 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 kt, cast iron [kPa] 100 ratio k

t,Al

The normal and tangential grinding pressure models for AL319 were (units are in kPa):
/ kt,CI = 0.511

kn = 48 + 236f 1916 sin 0.0041 V + 16117f sin 358f sin + 0.2727V sin
kt = 32.3 + 26.3f + 21.7 sin 4.9 sin + 21.4f sin 5.6f sin + 4.4V sin

[8]

[9]

Model Validation A set of experiments was performed using parameter combinations that were not included

FIGURE 9. RATIO BETWEEN TANGENTIAL PRESSURES OF CAST IRON AND AL319.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

246

Volume 36, 2008

TABLE 4. CAST IRON VALIDATION TESTS. Test Width (mm) f (mm/rev) A ( m) (deg) V (m/min)

TABLE 5. AL319 VALIDATION TESTS. Test Width (mm) f (mm/rev) a ( m) (deg) V (m/min)

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5

6 6 6 18 18

0.05 0.075 0.1 0.06 0.08

85 75 100 20 65

0 15 30 0 0

1914 4785 2781 2393 4307

V6 V7 V8

12 12 12

0.05 0.075 0.1

85 75 100

-6.8 8.1 22.5

1914 4785 2781

in the 39 tests defined in Table 1. The predictions of the cast iron and AL319 models were validated by comparison with these tests. The parameter values used in the validation experiments were interpolative, that is, they fell within the high and low parameter boundaries defined in Table 3. The measured global forces were used for comparison; the predicted global forces were derived from the predicted local grinding pressures using the procedure illustrated in Fig. 5. Five validation experiments, V1 to V5 in Table 4, were performed for cast iron. Results of predicted and measured FN and FT are plotted in Fig. 11.

Three validation experiments, V6, V7, and V8 in Table 5, were performed for AL319. Cast iron was ground simultaneously. The cast iron workpiece was positioned at the same offset angles listed in Table 4, so that the data from those tests could be subtracted from the measured aggregate bimetallic force. The AL319 workpieces were placed adjacent to the cast iron. The validation test parameters for AL319 are given in Table 5 and the results are plotted in Fig. 12.

Discussions For cast iron, the experimental vs. predicted FT in Fig. 11B shows the accuracy is within 13.1% 5.1%. For FN in Fig. 11A the accuracy falls to

(A)

20 15 FN [N] 10 5 0 V1 V2 V3 V4 Validation test (cast iron) V5 Measured Predicted

(A)

10 8 FN [N] 6 4 2 0 V1 V2 Validation test (AL319) V3 Measured Predicted

(B)
4 3 FT [N] 2 1 0 V1 V2 V3 V4 Validation test (cast iron) V5 Measured Predicted

(B)

3 Measured Predicted 2 FT [N] 1 0 V1 V2 Validation test (AL319) V3

FIGURE 11. PREDICTED AND MEASURED (A) FN, AND (B) FT, FOR CAST IRON VALIDATION.

FIGURE 12. PREDICTED AND MEASURED (A) FN, AND (B) FT, FOR AL319 VALIDATION.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

247

Volume 36, 2008

7.9% 16.1%. One explanation may be that FN is affected by vertical deflection of the grinding wheel. This can be caused by deflection of the workpiece, machine, and grinding wheel. The deflection will directly relate to the depth of cut a. In the model presented in this paper, the inclination angle was used, rather than a itself. Thus, a possible improvement may be to integrate a directly into the model. For AL319, Fig. 11B shows a reasonable prediction of FT, with an error of 17.9% 5.8%. The FN predictions in Fig. 11A are only within 26.1% 5.2% of the measured values. In additional to the possibility of deflection discussed above, the AL319 forces are more susceptible to experimental uncertainty because they are obtained by subtracting the cast iron forces from the bimetallic data. The uncertainty of both measurements is compounded. By using a cast iron workpiece that is longer than the aluminum workpiece, the aluminum results can be improved by directly measuring the cast iron force during each aluminum experiment.

Allen, D.M. (1971). Mean Square Error of Prediction as a Criterion for Selecting Variables. Technometrics, Vol. 13(3), pp. 469-475. Box, G.E.P. and K.B. Wilson (1951). On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Vol 13(1), pp. 1-45. Brinksmeier E., J.C. Aurich, E. Govekar, C. Heinzel, H.W. Hoffmeister, F. Klocke, J. Peters, R. Rentsch, D.J. Stephenson, E. Uhlmann, K. Weinert, and M. Wittmann (2006). Advances in Modeling and Simulation of Grinding Processes. Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 55(2), pp. 667-696. Carius, A.C. (1989). Effect of Grinding Fluid Type and Delivery on CBN Wheel Performance. presented at Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Modern Grinding Technology, Novi, Michigan. Cochran, W.G. and G.M. Cox (1957). Experimental Designs. Wiley, New York. Finney, D.J. (1945). The Fractional Replication of Factorial Arrangements. Ann. Eugen. Vol 12, pp. 291-301. Lal, G.K. (1968). Forces in Vertical Surface Grinding. International Journal of Machine Tool Design Research, Vol. 8, pp. 33-43. Lee, C.W. and Y.C. Shin (2004). Modeling of Complex Mfg. Processes by Hierarchical Fuzzy Basis Function Networks with Application to Grinding Processes. J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control, Vol. 126, pp. 880-890. Malkin, S. (1989). Grinding Technology: Theory and Application of Machining with Abrasives. Wiley, New York. Shi, Z., and Malkin, S., 2003, An Investigation of Grinding With Electroplated CBN Wheels, Annals of the CIRP, 52(1), pp. 267270. Srihari G. and G.K. Lal (1994). Mechanics of Vertical Surface Grinding. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 44, pp. 14-28. Tonshoff H.K., J. Peters, I. Inasaki, and T. Paul (1992). Modeling and Simulation of Grinding Processes. Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 41(2), pp. 677-688.

CONCLUSIONS This study predicted the specific forces in the ECBN face grinding of cast iron and AL319. On the basis of DOE, a second order polynomial response surface model was built for cast iron, and a first order model was constructed for AL319. Among four grinding parameters studied, the feed rate and inclination angle had the most significant effect on the grinding forces. The model demonstrated more accurate grinding force prediction for cast iron than AL319. The local specific forces may be integrated over an arbitrary workpiece geometry to calculate the aggregate global grinding force. These simple models are very suitable for industrial applications, however accuracy is limited to 1020%. For a given grinding wheel and workpiece material, DOE methods can be used to quickly characterize and predict grinding performance.

REFERENCES Alauddin, M., L. Zhang, and M.S.J. Hashmi (2007). Grinding Force Modelling: Combining Dimensional Analysis with Response Surface Methodology. Int. J. Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 12, pp. 299310.

Transactions of NAMRI/SME

248

Volume 36, 2008