Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.1 SIGNIFICANCE
3.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of the basic principles of a process is a prerequisite for its effective improvement and
optimization. During grinding, surface formation is one of the basic mechanisms. In the case of
cutting with geometrically defined cutting edges, a singular engagement of the cutting edge defines
the removal mechanism. The consequent removal mechanisms can be directly observed by means
of modern investigation methods.
In the case of grinding, the investigation of removal mechanisms is complicated due to many
different factors. The first problem is posed by the specification of the tool. The abrasive grains
are three-dimensional and statistically distributed in the volume of the grinding wheel. The geometry
of the single cutting edges is complex. Moreover, there is a partially simultaneous engagement of
the cutting edges involved in the process. The surface formation is the sum of these interdependent
cutting edge engagements, which are distributed stochastically. Furthermore, the chip formation
during grinding takes place within a range of a few microns. The small chip sizes make the
observation even more difficult.
Indentation testsIn analogy tests, the engagement of the cutting edge in the material
surface is investigated first. The advantage of this method is that single cutting edges
can be investigated before and after the process, and their geometry is known. With the
help of so-called indentation tests with singular cutting edges, the material behavior to
a static stress can be observed without the influence of the movement components typical
for grinding. On the basis of these indentation tests, elastic and plastic behavior as well
as crack formation can be observed in the case of brittle-hard materials at the moment
the cutting edge penetrates the material.
Scratch testsA further method is the investigation of the removal mechanisms during
scratching with single cutting edges, which allows the accurate examination of the
geometry and the wear of the cutting edges. Contrary to the indentation tests, there is
chip formation during this test method. Furthermore, the influence of different cooling
lubricants can be investigated.
Cutting edge geometryA further prerequisite of a comprehensive understanding of the
material removal during grinding is the geometrical specification of the single cutting
edges. This mainly takes place in analogy to the geometrical relations at geometrically
defined cutting edges.
23
2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
24
This shows the complexity of the mechanisms of surface formation during grinding. The better
the surface formation is known, the more specifically and accurately the process parameters, the
tool specification, and the choice of an eligible cooling lubricant can be optimized.
3.2.2 SPECIFICATION
OF
The geometry of single cutting edges may be described statistically by measurement of cutting
edge profiles. The depiction of the form of a cutting edge of an abrasive grain represents the average
of all measured geometries. The main characteristic of the cutting edges acting during grinding is
the clearly negative rake angle (Figure 3.1).
25
Direction of cut
Abrasive grain
Cutting edge
radius rs
FIGURE 3.1 Average shape and analytic description of a cutting edge. (From Koenig and Klocke 1996. With
permission.)
Static methodsAll abrasive grains on the surface of the grinding tool are considered.
The kinematics of the grinding process is not taken into account.
Dynamic methodsIn this process, the number of actual abrasive grain engagements
are measured. The active cutting edge number is the totality of cutting edges involved
in the cutting process.
Kinematic methodsKinematic methods combine the effects of the kinematics of the
process with the statically determined grain distribution for the specification of microkinematics at the single grain, that is, for the determination of cutting parameters.
26
Bond
Grinding wheel
S3
S1
Lst
S2
S4
S5 S6
Static cutting
edge spacing
S8
S7
S9
Abrasive grain
FIGURE 3.2 Static cutting edges. (From Koenig and Klocke 1996. With permission.)
Grinding wheel
periphral speed Vs
Bond
Abrasive
grain
S1
S2
S3
Kinematical
edge distance
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
Workpiece
FIGURE 3.3 Kinematic cutting edges. (From Koenig and Klocke 1996. With permission.)
27
Dynamic method
Post-process
Carbon paper method
-static cutting edge
nr. NS
Microscop. method
a. grinding wheel
b. print
-qual. impression
-statistical counting
-stat. cutting edge nr. NS
cutting edge density CS
In-process
Post-process
Piezoelectr. method
-act. cutting edge nr.
NSact
Photoelectr. method
-act. cutting edge nr.
NSact
Thermoelectr. method
-act. cutting edge nr.
NSact
Scratching-method
-act. cutting edge nr.
NSact
Transition resistance
-act. bond ridge
Prole method
-surface parameters
(RZ, Rp, RK, RVK, RPK)
-stat. cutting edge nr. NS
cutting edge density CS
Kinematical method
Post-process
Prole method,
kinematical simulation
of the process
-kin. cutting edge
number NSkin
Reproduction method
-spec. s. roughness (Rtb)
-end s. rough. (Rtaus)
-eective s. rough. (Rtw)
FIGURE 3.4 Methods for characterizing topography of grinding wheels. (From Bruecher 1996. With permission.)
process, the setting parameters, and the geometrical engagement conditions [Lortz 1975, Gaertner
1982, Steffens 1983, Bouzakis and Karachaliou 1988, Stuckenholz 1988, Treffert 1995].
3.3.5 MEASUREMENT
OF
Figure 3.4 summarizes different methods for measuring the topography of grinding wheels. In the
case of the carbon paper method, white paper and carbon paper are put between the grinding wheel
and a slightly conical, polished plastic ring. The grinding wheel topography is reproduced on the
white paper by rolling the grinding wheel on the plastic ring. Due to the conical shape of the ring,
the measurement of the cutting edge distribution is expected to be dependent on the cutting area
depth [Nakayama 1973].
28
3.3.9 PIEZO
AND
THERMOELECTRIC MEASUREMENTS
Piezoelectric and thermoelectric processes for the determination of the active cutting edge number
are based on the measurement of force signals or temperature peaks of single active cutting edges
[Daude 1966, Kaiser 1977, Shaw and Komanduri 1977, Verkerk 1977, Damlos 1985]. The piezoelectric process is only applicable for small contact surfaces, since it has to be ensured that no
more than one cutting edge is engaged in the contact zone at any time. Small samples of a width
of circa 0.3 mm [Kaiser 1977] are ground with relatively small feed. In the thermoelectric process,
a thermocouple wire of a small diameter is divided by a thin insulating layer from the surrounding
material within the workpiece. Every active cutting edge or bond ridge destroys the insulating layer
and creates a thermocouple junction through plastic deformation. This leads to the emission of a
measurable thermoelectric voltage signal from which a corresponding temperature can be established. Therefore, the material has to be electrically conductive and sufficiently ductile. Hence, this
process cannot be applied to ceramics [Shaw and Komanduri 1977]. A contact resistance measurement can be applied for diamond and cubic boron nitride (CBN) grinding wheels with an electrically
conducting bond for the purpose of distinguishing between active cutting edges and active bond
ridges [Kaiser 1977].
29
Gaertner 1982, Rohde 1985, Stukenholz 1988]. These processes are suitable for a comparative
assessment of the cutting edge topographies. It is, however, not possible to make any statements
on the shape and number of cutting edges [Lortz 1975, Werner 1994].
(3.1)
For the same depth of cut values, different contact lengths result in the case of cylindrical and
surface grinding. The equivalent wheel diameter deq is a calculation method of representing geometric contact length independent of the grinding process, where
deq =
d w ds
d w + ds
(3.2)
applies to the equivalent grinding wheel diameter in external cylindrical grinding. In the case of
internal cylindrical grinding, the equivalent grinding wheel diameter is:
deq =
d w ds
d w ds
(3.3)
c
c
e
d
e
b
(a) Grinding wheel, (b) Workpiece, (c) Cutting speed, (d) Feed speed, (e) Resulting eective speed
30
s t
S2
an
S1
A
vwt
Workpiece
The equivalent grinding wheel diameter deq indicates the diameter of the grinding wheel, which
has the same contact length in surface grinding. Thus, the equivalent grinding wheel diameter
corresponds to the actual grinding wheel diameter in surface grinding.
The movement of the wheel relative to the workpiece is put in related to the speed quotient q.
In up-grinding, it is negative:
q=
vs
vf
(3.4)
In peripheral grinding with rotating grinding tools, the cutting edges move on orthocycloidal paths
due to the interference of the speed components.
Figure 3.6 demonstrates the paths of two successive cutting edges. Both points have the same
radial distance from the wheel center. The path the center travels between the two engagements of
the wheel results from the feed movement and the time required.
The cutting edge engagement and the resulting uncut chip parameters depend on the statistical
average of the cutting edges distributed on the grinding tool. The equation
l
hcu = k
C1
v
f
vc
a
e
deq
(3.5)
relates the maximum uncut chip thickness hcu to the cutting edge distribution, the grinding parameters, and the geometric values [Kassen 1969]. The mean maximum uncut chip cross-sectional
area Qmax is a further characteristic parameter of the grinding process. Like the maximum uncut
chip thickness hcu, it depends on the parameters, the cutting edge distribution, and the geometry of
the active partners of the grinding process. The mean maximum uncut chip cross-sectional area Qmax
is calculated from
Qmax
v
2
=
(C1 ) f
AN
vc
a
e
d
eq
(3.6)
31
On the basis of these values, a theoretical assessment can be made of the grinding process.
There is a direct relation between the cutting parameters and the resulting surface quality. Equations
(3.5) and (3.6) lead to the conclusion that the surface quality improves with increasing cutting
velocity and grinding wheel diameter. With increasing feed speed and higher depth of cut, however,
the surface quality decreases.
The value of the uncut chip parameters, however, are only applicable to a real grinding process
to a limited extent, since the kinematic relations were only derived for idealized engagement
conditions [Marinescu et al. 2004]. The cutting process is not a simple geometric process; there
are also plastic and elastoplastic processes in real grinding so that chip formation is different from
the geometric theory. It is for this reason that experiments are indispensable to gain knowledge and
understanding about the material removal mechanisms.
AND
BREAKING
The removal process during the engagement of an abrasive cutting edge on the surface of a
workpiece mainly depends on the physical properties between the active partners. A basic distinction
can be made between three different mechanisms: microplowing, microchipping, and microbreaking
(Figure 3.7).
In microplowing, there is a continual plastic, or elastoplastic, material deformation toward the
trace border with negligible material loss. In real processes, the simultaneous impact of several
abrasive particles or the repeated impact of one abrasive particle leads to material failure at the
border of the traces. Ideal microchipping provokes chip formation. The chip volume equals the
volume of the evolving trace. Microplowing and microchipping mainly occur during the machining
of ductile materials. The relation between microplowing and microcutting basically depends on the
prevailing conditions such as the matching of the active partners of the grinding process, grinding
parameters, and cutting edge geometry.
Microbreaking occurs in case of crack formation and spreading. The volume of a chip removed
can be several times higher than the volume of the trace. Microbreaking mostly occurs during the
machining of brittle-hard materials such as glass, ceramics, and silicon.
Hence, the mechanisms of surface formation during grinding consist of these three basic
processes. Which of them predominates strongly depends on the workpiece material. Therefore,
material removal mechanisms will be presented in Section 3.6 for ductile materials on one hand,
and for brittle-hard materials on the other.
Microplowing
Microchipping
Microbreaking
FIGURE 3.7 Physical interaction between abrasive particles and the workpiece surface. (From Zum 1987.
With permission.)
32
FtS
ve
FnS
Chip
Material
outbursts
hcu e
T
I
Elastic
deformation,
friction grain/
material
II
III
hcu
FIGURE 3.8 Removal process during the machining of ductile materials. (From Koenig and Klocke 1996.
With permission.)
33
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
FIGURE 3.9 Removal process during the machining with high cutting speeds. (From Grof 1977. With
permission.)
If the cutting edge engagement is terminated in this phase, tadpole-shaped chips are formed
(phase 4). If the engagement takes place along the entire contact length, the whole material is
liquefied in the pore space after the thread-shaped chip falls off (phase 5).
Due to the surface tension, the molten chip becomes spherical after leaving the contact surface.
This takes place in a zone where there is none or only a small amount of cooling lubricant (phase 6).
The fact of sphere formation has been observed by other researchers as well [Hughes 1974,
Marinescu et al. 2004].
A further model of cutting edge engagement has been presented by Stephens [1983]. The cutting
edge engagement can be ideally considered as an even-yielding process. In this model, the contact
zone is divided into layers that are arranged parallel to the movement axis. The material starts
2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
34
s3
Cutting edge s1
2 1
Material displacement
to layers 2 and 3
Time t3, after cutting edge
engagement s3
1
Material displacement
to layers 4 and 2
5 4
3 2 1
Material displacement
to layers 3 and 2
vc
FIGURE 3.10 Idealization of the cutting edge engagement through plain yielding. (From Steffens 1983. With
permission.)
to yield in different directions at the cutting edge engagement. Thus, the individual layers are thrust
aside at the point of engagement of the first cutting edge. When successive cutting edges engage,
these areas are removed or thrust aside anew. Through these processes, the number of kinematic
cutting edges increases partially in a subarea. Since these changes are statistically distributed to
the whole surface, there is overall no material accumulation.
The description shown in Figure 3.10 can serve as a model for the alternative description of a
layer as an interaction of all displacement processes. A further prerequisite for the application of
slip line theory is the knowledge of the rheological properties of the material, which is supposed
to be inelastic ideal plastic.
On the basis of these theoretical considerations and experimental investigations, statements can
be made on the friction conditions, which are decisively influenced by the lubrication [Koenig,
Steffens, and Yegenoglu 1981, Steffens 1983, Vits 1985]. If the friction is increased, the critical
cutting depth decreases, which is additionally influenced by the radius of the cutting edge of the
35
grain [Koenig et al. 1981, Steffens 1983]. Improved lubrication increases the plastic deformation
toward a higher critical cutting depth. Thus, there is a reduction of friction between the active
partners. With constant uncut chip thickness, hcu, the effective chip thickness, hcueff (thickness of
the formed chip), decreases simultaneously with a reduction of friction [Steffens 1983, Vits 1985].
3.7.2 SCRATCH
AND
GRINDING BEHAVIOR
OF
BRITTLE-HARD MATERIALS
Despite the low ductility, elastoplastic deformations occur as removal mechanisms alongside brittle
fracture during the grinding of brittle-hard materials (Figure 3.12). Thereby, material removal through
brittle fracture is based on the induction of microcracks. Ductile behavior of brittle-hard materials during
grinding can be derived from the presumption that, below a threshold of boundary chip thickness defined
by a critical stress, the converted energy is insufficient for crack formation and the material is plastically
deformed [Bifano et al. 1987, Komanduri and Ramamohan 1994]. It is supposed, however, that cracks
that do not reach the surface are also formed under these conditions.
(a)
(d)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(f )
FIGURE 3.11 Mechanisms of crack spread in case of punctual stress. (From Lawn and Wilshaw 1975. With
permission.)
36
Abrasive grain
FtS
FnS
Chip
fragments
II
III
Elastic
deformations
Pressure
softening
Scratching
FIGURE 3.12 Material removal process in machining of brittle-hard materials. (From Salj and Moehlen
1987. With permission.)
Thus, not only the amount of stress, defined by the uncut chip thickness, is responsible for the
occurrence of plastic deformations, but also the above-mentioned hydrostatic compression stress
below the cutting edge [Komanduri and Ramamohan 1994, Shaw 1995]. The transition from mainly
ductile material removal to brittle friction is decisively determined by uncut chip thickness at the
single grain by grain shape and by material properties. Large cutting edge radii promote plastic
material behavior and shift the boundary of the commencing brittle friction to larger engagement
depths. As a consequence, Hertzian contact stresses occur below the cutting edge, which cause
hydrostatic stress countering the formation of cracks [Uhlmann 1994].
Roth [1995] investigated removal mechanisms during the grinding of aluminum oxide ceramics.
He observed the influence of different grain sizes of the material as well as different diamond
geometries on the material removal processes.
3.7.2.1 Fine-Grained Materials
When a scratching tool enters a fine-grained material, an entry section is formed by pure plastic
deformation. The length of the entry section strongly depends on the corner radius of the diamond. If
the material-specific shear stress is exceeded due to increasing scratching depth, a permanent deformation
occurs thrusting aside the material and causing bulgings along the scratched groove. The base of the
scratch and the flanks are even and cover a thin layer of plastically deformed material (Figure 3.13a).
Different scratches occur in the material from a critical scratch depth on with the boundary
condition linked to it. Along with lateral crack systems observed during penetration tests, a median
crack occurs through a succession of semi-elliptical radial cracks at the base that runs vertically
to the surface in the direction of the scratch. Similar scratch structures were observed during Vickers
indentation tests. Also, V-shaped cracks are formed vertically to the surface and spread. The aperture
angle is between 40 and 60 and grows with the increasing distance from the scratch. Obviously,
they are crack structures that develop due to the shear stress of the tangential scratching force
(shear scratches). If lateral cracks grow until the V-shaped cracks extend vertically to the surface,
whole material particles break off on both sides of the scratch.
3.7.2.2 Coarse-Grained Materials
In the case of coarse-grained materials, the removal processes take place in a different way. A sharp
diamond plastically divides the grains in the structure under high energy input. With increasing
infeed cracks develop mainly along the grain boundary. This is accompanied by intercrystalline
failure, which leads to a break-off of grains near to the surface (Figure 3.13b).
37
Lateral crack
Bulging
Friction crack
Outburst
Scratching direction
Lateral crack
Median crack
Micro crack
Heavily plastically
deformed scales
Tabular
grain break-o
Micro cracks
Lateral crack
Median crack
FIGURE 3.13 Material removal mechanisms during the scratching of aluminum oxide. (From Roth 1995.
With permission.)
In the case of blunt scratching grains, however, strong plastic deformations occur deeper, since
the maxima of the shear stresses grow. Thin, strongly deformed flakes occur on the workpiece
surface. Through the extremely negative rake angle, the material is pushed forward and extruded,
not provoking ductile material removal. The stress increases with further growing infeed until the
stability is exceeded at the grain boundaries and the top grain layer breaks off in the form of whole
plates (Figure 3.13b).
On the basis of scratch tests and transmission electron microscopic (TEM) structure analyses,
Uhlmann assembles the mechanisms of surface formation during ceramic grinding [Uhlmann 1994].
Surface formation can be divided into three types of mechanisms:
Primary mechanisms, which act during the penetration of the cutting edges into the
material
Secondary mechanisms, which occur through the discharge by the first cutting edge and
the multiple stress by successive cutting edges
Tertiary mechanisms, which prevent the spread of cracks in the case of materials with a
high glass phase ratio.
38
TABLE 3.1
Mechanisms of Surface Formation [Uhlmann 1994]
Surface Formation
Primary Mechanisms
Mechanical Stress
Thermal Stress
Material condensation
Plastification or melting of the material or material
Formation of obstructions
phases
Crack induction
Ductile removal of material in front of the cutting edge
Brittle break-off of particles in front of and alongside
(chip formation)
the cutting edge (particle formation)
Secondary Mechanisms
Mechanical Stress
Thermal Stress
Break-off of particles behind and alongside the
Crack spread through thermal stresses due to
cutting edge
temperature gradients
Induction of deep-lying cracks
Induction of deep-lying cracks
Spread of deep-lying cracks through multiple stress
Blistering of ceramic particles after crack spread
of successive cutting edges
toward the workpiece surface
Break-off of particles after crack spread toward the
workpiece surface
Tertiary Mechanisms
Thermal Stress
Crack stopping effects at thermally plastified grain boundary phases
Crack diversion at partially plastified grain boundary conditions in surface-near areas
Monocrystal silicon is the most frequently applied substrate material in microsystems technology. The full range of physical properties of the material can only be exploited by a high degree
of purity, homogeneity, and crystal perfection. However, machining wafers induce damage in the
subsurface and its monocrystal structure. Therefore, the subsurface damage has to be removed by
polishing and etching prior to the processing of the electronic structures on the wafer front side.
A concerted implementation of ductile material removal for the grinding process represents a
possibility to improve the surface and subsurface quality as well as the economic efficiency of the
entire process chain for wafer production [Holz 1994, Menz 1997, Kerstan et al. 1998, Tricard
et al. 1998, Lehnicke 1999, Tnshoff and Lehnicke 1999, Klocke, Gerent, and Phler 2000].
In grinding, surface formation mechanisms can be classified as ductile and brittle mechanisms.
In brittle surface formation, microcracks and microcrack spread are generated in the subsurface by
tensile stresses caused by the engagement of the abrasive grains of the grinding wheel into the
surface of the wafer [Cook and Pharr 1990, Lawn 1993, Holz 1994, Menz 1997, Brinksmeier et al.
1998, Lehnicke 1999, Tnshoff and Lehnicke 1999]. In ductile surface formation, the induced
tensile stresses are insufficient to cause microcracks or crack propagation. The induced shear stress
strength causes deformation and movement of dislocations that promote ductile material behavior
(Figure 3.14). This leads to better surface qualities and smaller depths of subsurface damage [Lawn
1993, Menz 1997, Brinksmeier et al. 1998, Kerstan et al. 1998, Tnshoff and Lehnicke 1999].
However, the basic mechanisms of ductile material removal are not known. It is further controversial
whether chip formation is actually taking place or whether brittle-effective mechanisms continue
to cause chips, through which the grooves on the surface are covered by plastified material. In this
case, the surface seems to be formed in a ductile mode. The subsurface below would nevertheless
be severely damaged by microcracks.
Diamond grain
39
Bond
Grain bond
protrusion
Critical chipping
depth
Shell crack
Workpiece
Diamond grain
Depth crack
Bond
Grain bond
protrusion
Critical chipping
depth
Shell crack
Workpiece
Diamond grain
Cutting
space
Displaced
material
Depth crack
Bond
Grain bond
protrusion
Cutting depth
Critical
chipping depth
Workpiece
FIGURE 3.14 Theoretical prerequisites for ductile grinding of optical glass. (From Koch 1991. With permission.)
The mode, size, and shape of the subsurface microcrack system depend on the induced contact
stresses during the engagement of the abrasive grain. The contact stress field is basically determined
by the geometry of the indenter and the modulus of elasticity, hardness, and fracture toughness of
the indenter and the workpiece material [Lawn 1993]. In the case of monocrystal silicon as
workpiece material, the anisotropy of these properties, as well as the position of the slip system,
is also decisive. The formation of such microcrack systems was frequently investigated in analogy
tests with several brittle-hard materials such as silicon [Cook and Pharr 1990, Holz 1994].
The transition of elastoductile to mainly brittle surface formation can be classified into four
different scratching morphologies (Figure 3.15). The individual areas of the scratches were identified and marked under the microscope. To provide a three-dimensional image, the transition areas
between the areas of different scratch morphologies were measured at a length of 1 mm. Then the
scratch depths were determined on the individual profiles.
Knowing the material removal mechanisms during the machining of silicon, it is possible to realize
a damage-poor process with the adequate settings and tools during the grinding of semiconductors.
40
Z (m)
Z (m)
Z (m)
2.50
2.50
5.00
1.25
1.25
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.25
2.50
2.50
0 .88
0.64
0.69
0.57
0.50
X(nm)
2.50
0 .81
0.61
0.62
0.50
0.31
0.44
0.12
0.37
0.43
Y(mm)
X(nm)
0 Grad
0.49
0.25
0.43
0.06
0.59
0.37
Zone 3:
Increasingly brittle
material removal, rst
cracks on scratch borders
that extend into the
surrounding material
X(nm)
0.52
0.27
0.46
0.08
Y(mm)
0.39
Transition area 3
Zone 4:
Mainly brittle material
removal, induced cracks
interlink and cause shelllike chippings
FIGURE 3.15 Classification of scratch marks in four morphological zones and three transition areas characterizing the change from purely ductile to mainly brittle
surface formation.
Zone 2:
Mainly ductile material
removal, rst cracks
emerge in the bottom of
the scratch
0.66
0.65
0.46
Y(mm)
Transition area 2
Transition area 1
Zone 1:
Purely ductile material
removal
0.55
5.00
0 .84
41
This damage-poor grinding process is necessary to shorten the whole process chain and to decrease
machining costs.
Energy from retained dislocations (plastic surface areas) after particle removal
Deformation energy at the workpiece surface (plastic scratch marks with a bulging at
the edge)
Elastic excess energy from the extension of existing microcracks during particle removal
Elastic energy from microscopic surface areas returning in the initial position
Friction work between diamond cutting edge and workpiece surface
Grinding wheel
Bond
Chip
ve
Environment
(cooling lubricant, air)
Chip surface
friction
Cutting edge
Shear energy
Flank friction
Extrusion energy
Tool
FIGURE 3.16 Heat flow during the grinding of metallic materials. (From Koenig and Klocke 1996. With permission.)
42
vc
Diamond grain
Bond
Grain friction
(external friction)
Plastic deformation
(internal friction)
Bond
friction
Ceramics
Heat ow towards
Diamond grain
Ceramic workpiece
Bond
Environment
FIGURE 3.17 Heat flow during the grinding of ceramics. (From Uhlmann 1994. With permission.)
Friction work between ceramic particles (workpiece surface as well as ceramic particles)
and diamond cutting edge
Friction work between bond and workpiece surface
The use of cooling lubricant influences the heat development and the heat flow. The lubricant
reduces the friction between the active partners entailing smaller heat development. The cooling
mainly takes place through the water ratio in the cooling lubricant. Through the cooling effect, the
percentage of conducted heat increases.
REFERENCES
Bifano, T. et al. 1987. Precision Machining of Ceramic Materials, Vortrag anll. Intersociety Symposium
on Machining of Advanced Ceramic Materials and Components, Westerville, OH.
Bohlheim, W. 1995. Verfahren zur Charakterisierung der Topografie von Diamantschleifscheiben. IDR 29, 2.
Bouzakis, K.-D. and Karachaliou, C. 1988. Erfassung der Spanungsgeometrie und der Zerspankraftkomponenten beim Flachschleifen aufgrund einer Dreidimensionalen Beschreibung der Schleifscheibentopomorphie. Fortschr.-Ber. VDI Reihe 2 Nr. 165, VDI, Dsseldorf.
Brinksmeier, E., Preu, W., Riemer, O., and Malz, R. 1988. Ductile to Brittle Transition Investigated by
Plunge-Cut Experiments in Monocrystalline Silicon. Proceedings of the ASPE Spring Topical Meeting on Silicon Machining.
Bruecher, T. 1996. Khlschmierung beim Schleifen keramischer Werkstoffe. Ph.D. dissertation, Technische
Universitt, Berlin.
Buettner, A. 1968. Das Schleifen sprdharter Werkstoffe mit Diamant-Topfscheiben unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Tiefschleifens. Dr. Ing. dissertation, Technische Universitt, Hannover.
Cook, R. F. and Pharr, G. M. 1990. Direct Observation and Analysis of Indentation Cracking in Glasses and
Ceramics. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 73, 4.
Damlos, H.-H. 1985. Prozessablauf und Schleifergebnisse beim Tief- und Pendelschleifen von Profilen.
Fortschr.-Ber. VDI, Reihe 2, Nr. 88, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Daude, O. 1966. Untersuchung des Schleifprozesses. Dr. Ing. dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
43
Dennis, P. and van Schmieden, W. 1989. Abdruckverfahren zur Dokumentation von Verschleivorgngen.
VDI-Z 131, 1, S, 7275.
Fruehling, R. 1976. Topographische Gestalt des Schleifscheiben-Schneidenraumes und Werkstckrauhtiefe
beim Auenrund-Einstechschleifen. Dr. Ing. dissertation, TU Braunschweig.
Gaertner, W. 1982. Untersuchungen zum Abrichten von Diamant- und Bornitridschleifscheiben. Dr. Ing.
dissertation, Technische Universitt Hannover.
Grof, H. E. 1977. Beitrag zur Klrung des Trennvorgangs beim Schleifen von Metallen. Dr. Ing. dissertation,
TU Mnchen.
Holz, B. 1994. Oberflchenqualitt und Randzonenbeeinflussung beim Planschleifen einkristalliner Siliciumscheiben. Produktionstechnik Berlin, Forschungsberichte fr die Praxis, Bd. 143, Hrsg.: Prof.
Dr. H. C. Mult. Dr. Ing, G. Spur. Mnchen, Wien, Hanser.
Hughes, F. H. 1974. Wrme im Schleifprozess ein Vergleich zwischen Diamant- und konventionellen
Schleifmitteln. IDR 8, 2.
Inasaki, C., Chen, C., and Jung, Y. 1989. Surface, Cylindrical and Internal Grinding of Advanced Ceramics.
Grinding Fundamentals and Applications. Trans. ASME 39, S, 201211.
Jacobs, U. 1980. Beitrag zum Einsatz von Schleifscheiben mit kubisch-kristallinem Bornitrid als Schneidstoff. Dr. Ing. dissertation, TU Braunschweig.
Kaiser, M. 1977. Tiefschleifen von Hartmetall. Fertigungstechnische Berichte, Bd. 9, Hrsg.: H. K. Tnshoff,
Grfelfing, Resch.
Karatzoglou, K. 1973. Auswirkungen der Schneidflchenbeschaffenheit und der Einstellbedingungen auf das
Schleifergebnis beim Flach-Einstechschleifen. Dr. Ing. dissertation, TU Braunschweig.
Kassen, G. 1969. Beschreibung der elementaren Kinematik des Schleifvorganges. Dissertation, RWTH,
Aachen.
Kerstan, M., Ehlert, A., Huber, A., Helmreich, D., Beinert, J., and Doell, W. 1998. Ultraprecision Grinding
and Single Point Diamond Turning of Silicon Wafers and Their Characterisation. Proceedings of the
ASPE Spring Topical Meeting on Silicon Machining, Camel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Klocke, F., Gerent, O., and Phler, D. 2000. Effiziente Prozesskette zur Waferfertigung. ZwF 95, 3.
Koch, E. N. 1991. Technologie zum Schleifen asphrischer optischer Linsen. Dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Koenig, W., Steffens, K., and Yegenoglu, K. 1981. Modellversuche zur Erfassung der Wechselwirkung
zwischen Reibbedingungen und Stofffluss. Industrie Anzeiger. 103, 35.
Koenig, W. and Klocke, F. 1996. Fertigungsverfahren Band 2. Schleifen, Honen, Lppen. 3. Auflage, VDIVerlag GmbH, Dsseldorf.
Komanduri, R. and Ramamohan, T. R. 1994. On the Mechanisms of Material Removal in Fine Grinding and
Polishing of Advanced Ceramics and Glasses, in Advancement of Intelligence Production. The Japan
Society for Precision Engineering, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Kurrein, M. 1927. Die Bearbeitbarkeit der Metalle im Zusammenhang mit der Festigkeitsprfung. Werkstattstechnik. 21, S, 612621.
Lawn, B. and Wilshaw, R. 1975. Review Indentation Fracture: Principles and Applications. J. Mat. Sci. 10.
Lawn, B. 1993. Fracture of Brittle Solids, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lehnicke, S. 1999. Rotationsschleifen von Silizium-Wafern. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 2, Nr. 534, VDIVerlag, Dsseldorf.
Lierath, F., Jankowski, R., Schnekel, S., and Bage, T. 1990. Prozessmodelle zur Qualittssteigerung von Arbeitsablufen in der Feinbearbeitung. Tagungsband zum 6, Intern. Braunschweiger Feinbearbeitungskolloquium.
Lortz, W. 1975. Schleifscheibentopographie und Spanbildungsmechanismus beim Schleifen. Dr. Ing. dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Lowin, R. 1980. Schleiftemperaturen und ihre Auswirkungen im Werkstck. Dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Malyshev, V., Levin, B., and Kovalev, A. 1990. Grinding with Ultrasonic Cleaning and Dressing of Abrasive
Wheels. 61, 9, Stanki I Instrument, Moscow 2226.
Marinescu, I. D., Rowe, W. B., Dimitrov, B., and Inasaki, I. 2004. Tribology of Abrasive Machining Processes.
William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, NY.
Menz, C. 1997. Randzonenanalyse bearbeiteter Siliziumoberflchen. Randzonenanalyse bearbeiteter SiliziumOberflchen. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 2, Nr. 431, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Nakayama, K. 1973. Taper Print Method for the Measurement of Grinding Wheel Surface. Bull. Japan Soc.
Prec. Eng. 7, 2.
Pahlitzsch, G. and Helmerdig, H. 1943. Bestimmung und Bedeutung der Spandicke beim Schleifen.
Werkstattstechnik. 11/12, S, 397399.
2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
44
Paulmann, R. 1990. Grundlagen zu einem Verfahrensvergleich. Jahrbuch Schleifen, Honen, Lppen und
Polieren. 56, Ausgabe, Vulkann-Verlag, Essen.
Reichenbach, G. S., Mayer, I. E., Kalpakcioglu, S., and Shaw, M. C. 1956. The Role of Chip Thickness in
Grinding. Trans. ASME 18, S, 847850.
Rohde, G. 1985. Beitrag zum Verhalten von keramisch-gebundenen Schleifscheiben im Abricht- und Schleifprozess.
Dr. Ing. dissertation, TU Braunschweig.
Roth, P. 1995. Abtrennmechanismen beim Schleifen von Aluminiumoxidkeramik. Fortschr.-Ber. VDI, Reihe 2,
Nr. 335, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Salj, E. 1975. Die Wirkrauhtiefe als Kenngre des Schleifprozesses. Jahrbuch der Schleif-, Hon-, Lpp- und
Poliertechnik und der Oberflchenbearbeitung, 47, Ausgabe, Vulkan, Essen, S, 2335.
Salj, E. and Moehlen, H. 1987. Prozessoptimierung beim Schleifen keramischer Werkstoffe, Industrie
Diamanten Rundschau. IDR 21, 4.
Sawluk, W. 1964. Flachschleifen von oxydkeramischen Werkstoffen mit Diamant-Topfscheiben. Dissertation, Technische Hochschule Braunschweig.
Schleich, H. 1982. Schrfen von Bornitridschleifscheiben. Dr. Ing. dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Shaw, M. C. and Komanduri, R. 1977. The Role of Stylus Curvature in Grinding Wheel Surface Characterization. Ann. CIRP 25, 1.
Shaw, M. C. 1995. Cutting and Grinding of Difficult Materials. Technical paper presented at the Abrasive
Engineering Society, Ceramic Industry Manufacturing Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.
Steffens, K. 1983. Thermomechanik des Schleifens. Fortschr.-Ber, VDI, Reihe 2, Nr. 65, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Stuckenholz, B. 1988. Das Abrichten von CBN-Schleifscheiben mit kleinen Abrichtzustellungen. Dr. Ing.
dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Toenshoff, H. K., Peters, J., Inasaki, I., and Paul, T. 1992. Modelling and Simulation of Grinding Processes.
Ann. CIRP 41, 2, 677688.
Tnshoff, H. K. and Lehnicke, S. 1999. Subsurface Damage Reduction of Ground Silicon Wafers. Proceedings of Euspen, Bremen, Germany.
Treffert, C. 1995. Hochgeschwindigkeitsschleifen mit galvanisch gebundenen CBN-Schleifscheiben. Berichte aus der Produktionstechnik, Bd. 4/95, Aachen, Shaker.
Tricard, M., Kassir, S., Herron, P., and Pei, Z. J. 1998. New Abrasive Trends in Manufacturing of Silicon
Wafers. Proceedings of the ASPE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN.
Uhlmann, E. 1994. Tiefschleifen hochfester keramischer Werkstoffe. ProduktionstechBerlin, Forschungsber.
fr die Praxis, Bd. 129, Hrsg.: Prof. Dr. H. C. Mult. Dr. Ing. G. Spur, Mnchen, Wien, Hanser.
Verkerk, J. 1977. Final Report Concerning CIRP Cooperative Work on the Characterization of Grinding
Wheel Topography. Ann. CIRP 26, 2.
Vits, R. 1985. Technologische Aspekte der Khlschmierung beim Schleifen. Dr. Ing. dissertation, RWTH, Aachen.
Warnecke, G. and Spiegel, P. 1990. Abrichten kunstharzgebundener CBN- und Diamantschleifscheiben. IDR
24, 4, S, 229235.
Weinert, K. 1976. Die zeitliche nderung des Schleifscheibenzustandes beim Auenrund-Einstechschleifen.
Dr. Ing. dissertation, TU Braunschweig.
Werner, F. 1994. Hochgeschwindigkeitstriangulation zur Verschleidiagnose an Schleifwerkzeugen. Fortschr.-Ber.
VDI, Reihe 8, Nr. 429, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.
Werner, G. 1971. Kinematik und Mechanik des Schleifprozesses. Dissertation RWTH, Aachen.
Werner, G. and Kenter, M. 1987. Work Material Removal and Wheel Wear Mechanisms in Grinding of
Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts. Vortrag anll. Intersociety Symposium on Machining of
Advanced Ceramic Materials and Components, Westerville, OH.
Wobker, H. G. 1992. Schleifen keramischer Schneidstoffe. Fortschr.-Ber. VDI, Reihe 2, Nr. 237, VDI-Verlag,
Dsseldorf.
Zum Gar, K.-H. 1987. Grundlagen des Verschleies. VDI Berichte Nr. 600.3: Metallische und Nichtmetallische
Werkstoffe und ihre Verarbeitungsverfahren im Vergleich, VDI-Verlag, Dsseldorf.