BEL AIR MASS Nic Allen FINISHING MQP Jeff Laun
OBJECTIVE Study surfaces produced by mass finishing Understand the basic mechanisms we have determined the normal forces between a surface and a sample mass finishing media Study how the surface produced by mass finishing effects the shininess of the surface.
BEL AIR FMSL 22 CENTRIFUGAL DISC FINISHER
EXPERIMENT, SCRATCH DEBTHS Al 6061-T6 Polished Al Surfaces to a mirror. Obtained a Vickers Hardness value of the surface Mass Finished with abrasive media for 30 s. Measured the depths of the scratches Calculated the normal force
POLISHED SURFACE (100X)
EXAMPLE SCRATCH (50X)
EQUATION USED FOR FORCE CALC HV= Vickers Hardness F= Force (Newtons) A= Area
RESULTS Standard dard Deviation on Pa Parameter Mean Value 0.180 µm Scratch Depth 0.399 µm 1.337 µm Scratch Width 5.396 µm 0.790 µm 2 Scratch Cross- 2.204 µm 2 Sectional Area 6.555 HV 10g Vickers Hardness 124.0 HV 10g - Normal Force 19.09 mN Normal Force = 0.07 ounces
OLYMPUS USPM-RU III MICRO SPECTROPHOTOMETER
EXPERIMENT, REFLECTIVITY Turned Al 6061-T6 @ 0.05mm/rev @ 2000 rpm (~3.94 in/min) Took measurements of surface on confocal microscope Mass Finished for 30s, 1 min, 4min, 10 min, 30 min, & 60 min taking measurements of the surface at each time interval Also, measurements were taken with the spectrophotometer
IMAGES OF SURFACES (20X) Initial 30s 1 min 4 min 10 min 1 hr.
SPECTROPHOTOMETER RESULTS (INITIAL) Percentage rcentage of LIg Ight t Ret eturned rned vs. Wave velengt ength 60 50 40 , % vity, Reflectivity 30 Series1 20 10 0 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Wavelengt ngth, h, nm
SPECTROPHOTOMETER RESULTS (1 HR) Percentage rcentage of Lig ight t Ret eturned urned vs. Wave vele length ngth 25 20 ned urne age of Lgith Retur 15 Series1 ntage 10 Percent 5 0 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Wavelengt ngth, h, nm
ROUGHNESS VS. TIME Roughn hness ess vs. Tim ime e in in Fin inis isher her 0.6 0.5 0.4 Ra, µm 2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time, , min
RELATIVE AREA VS. SCALE FOR ALL TIMES 100X OBJECTIVE
REFLECTIVITY VS. TIME Reflect flectivi vity ty (405 nm) vs. Tim ime 40 35 , % 30 vity, Reflectivity 25 20 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time, , min
RELATIVE AREA VS. REFLECTIVITY Rela lative e Area a (2 µm 2 ) vs. Reflectivity ( 405 nm) 40 35 30 25 , % vity, Reflectivity 20 y = -384.51x + 418.83 R² = 0.8701 15 10 5 0 0.995 1 1.005 1.01 1.015 1.02 1.025 1.03 1.035 1.04 Relative ve Area, a, µm 2
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVITY AND AREA SCALE (380NM) Reflectivity - 380 nm vs. Relative Area 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 R 2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Scale, , µm 2
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVITY AND AREA SCALE (405 NM) Reflectivity - 405 nm vs. Relative Area 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 R 2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Scale, µm 2
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVITY AND AREA SCALE (515 NM) Reflect flectivity ivity - 515 5 nm nm vs. Relativ tive e Area 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 R2 R2 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.001 0.1 10 1000 Scale, e, µm2
3D GRAPH OF AREA SCALE, WAVELENGTH, AND CORRELATION
RESULTS Best correlations found at 405 nm and a scale of ~2 μ m 2 This Wavelength of light is the same used in the confocal microscope’s laser ▪ Unsure of significance of this finding Correlations drop off significantly after ~450 nm and again at ~600 nm
Recommend
More recommend
