Transcript Bel Air Mass Finishing MQP

BEL AIR MASS
FINISHING MQP
Nic Allen
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 ef fects 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
Parameter
Mean Value
Standard Deviation
Scratch Depth
0.399 µm
0.180 µm
Scratch Width
5.396 µm
1.337 µm
Scratch CrossSectional Area
2.204 µm2
0.790 µm2
Vickers Hardness
124.0 HV10g
6.555 HV10g
Normal Force
19.09 mN
-
Normal Force = 0.07 ounces
OLYMPUS USPM-RU III
MICRO SPECTROPHOTOMETER
EXPERIMENT, REFLECTIVIT Y
 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 of LIght Returned vs. Wavelength
60
50
Reflectivity, %
40
30
Series1
20
10
0
350
400
450
500
550
600
Wavelength, nm
650
700
750
800
SPECTROPHOTOMETER RESULTS (1 HR)
Percentage of Light Returned vs. Wavelength
25
Percentage of Lgith Returned
20
15
Series1
10
5
0
350
400
450
500
550
600
Wavelength, nm
650
700
750
800
ROUGHNESS VS. TIME
Roughness vs. Time in Finisher
0.6
0.5
Ra, µm2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time, min
50
60
70
RELATIVE AREA VS. SCALE FOR ALL TIMES
100X OBJECTIVE
REFLECTIVIT Y VS. TIME
Reflectivity (405 nm) vs. Time
40
Reflectivity, %
35
30
25
20
15
0
10
20
30
Time, min
40
50
60
RELATIVE AREA VS. REFLECTIVIT Y
Relative Area (2 µm2) vs. Reflectivity (405 nm)
40
35
Reflectivity, %
30
25
20
y = -384.51x + 418.83
R² = 0.8701
15
10
5
0
0.995
1
1.005
1.01
1.015
1.02
Relative Area, µm2
1.025
1.03
1.035
1.04
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVIT Y AND
AREA SCALE (380NM)
Reflectivity - 380 nm vs. Relative Area
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
R2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Scale,
µm2
100
1000
10000
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVIT Y AND
AREA SCALE (405 NM)
Reflectivity - 405 nm vs. Relative Area
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
R2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Scale, µm2
100
1000
10000
CORRELATION OF REFLECTIVIT Y AND
AREA SCALE (515 NM)
R2
Reflectivity - 515 nm vs. Relative Area
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.001
0.1
10
Scale, µm2
1000
3D GRAPH OF AREA SCALE,
WAVELENGTH, AND CORRELATION
RESULTS
 Best correlations found at 405 nm and a scale of ~2 μm 2
 This Wavelength of light is the same used in the confocal
microscope’s laser
 Unsure of significance of this finding
 Correlations drop of f significantly after ~450 nm and again at
~600 nm