The influence of honing process parameters on ...

Industrial Lubrication and Tribology The influence of honing process parameters on surface quality, productivity, cutting angle and coefficients of friction Damir S. Vrac, and Leposava P. Sidjanin Pavel P. Kovac Sebastian S. Balos

Article information:

Downloaded by NARODNA BIBLIOTEKA SRBIJE At 01:40 30 September 2014 (PT)

To cite this document: Damir S. Vrac, and Leposava P. Sidjanin Pavel P. Kovac Sebastian S. Balos, (2012),"The influence of honing process parameters on surface quality, productivity, cutting angle and coefficients of friction", Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 64 Iss 2 pp. 77 - 83 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00368791211208679 Downloaded on: 30 September 2014, At: 01:40 (PT) References: this document contains references to 24 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 231 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Damir S. Vrac, Leposava P. Sidjanin, Sebastian S. Balos, (2011),"Mechanical finishing honing: cutting regimes and surface texture", Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 63 Iss 6 pp. 427-432 Damir Vrac, Leposava Sidjanin, Sebastian Balos, Pavel Kovac, (2014),"The influence of tool kinematics on surface texture, productivity, power and torque of normal honing", Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 66 Iss 2 pp. 215-222 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/ILT-05-2011-0037 Richard P. Daisley, Boppana V. Chowdary, (2012),"Investigations into the improvement of the metal grinding process: application of a sub#zero temperature cutting fluid", Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 64 Iss 5 pp. 271-287

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 459863 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The influence of honing process parameters on surface quality, productivity, cutting angle and coefficients of friction Damir S. Vrac IMR Rakovica Company, Belgrade, Serbia, and

Leposava P. Sidjanin, Pavel P. Kovac and Sebastian S. Balos


Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of tool kinematics parameters on surface roughness, productivity and cutting angle for grey cast iron cylinder liners machined by normal honing. Design/methodology/approach – For experimental investigation, a long stroke honing system was used. Diamond and SiC tools were used, for preand finishing, respectively. The values of cutting parameters were varied within the following limits: cutting speed vs ¼ 0.931-1.11 m/s; specific pressure of pre-honing process pd ¼ 1.0-1.4 N/mm2 and specific pressure of finishing honing process pz ¼ 0.2-0.5 N/mm2. The analysis of dispersion was conducted for determining the mathematical model for cutting parameter influence on surface roughness and productivity. Findings – Dispersion analysis proved that the most influential parameters on maximum roughness depth are cutting speed for D181 tool and specific pressure of finishing honing for D151 tool. The most influential parameter on productivity in the honing process with D181 and D151 tool is cutting speed. Originality/value – The paper gives new information related to the normal honing optimization process. Normal honing offers the highest surface quality which is achieved by a low speed machining. However, that means also a relatively low productivity, demanding a thorough process optimization. Furthermore, normal honing is usually done by ECH pre-honing and mechanical finishing honing, but in this paper, all-mechanical honing was used for the same result, at a lower lost. Keywords Machine tools, Kinematics, Friction, Surface-roughness measurement, Honing, Diesel engine, Productivity, Microgeometry, Microstructure Paper type Research paper

honing, and normal smooth (fine unstructured) honing (Robota and Zwein, 1999; Vrac et al., 2011). Normal honing offers a considerably higher texture quality than plateau honing – no marbling, sheet metal cover and deformation at the surface are allowed. The creases obtained by normal honing compared to the ones obtained by plateau honing are narrower, with geometrically appropriate crosshatch pattern and without standing-out material. As a result, the volume of lubricant in the cylinder inner surface obtained by normal honing is smaller. Furthermore, by aplying normal honing to cylinder liners, high areas are removed in a controlled manner, to reduce running-in times of engines in a higher extent than with plateau honing. This is enabled by generation of surface that has the benefits of a smooth surface (reduced wear and increased sealing) and the benefits of a rough surface (lubricant retention) (Sech and Strobel, 2001; Tyagi and Krishnamurthy, 1984; Corral et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2002; Dimkovski et al., 2010). Therefore, according to DIN 8589, normal honing is classified as having a higher surface quality compared to plateau honing (DIN 8589, 2003). In case of plateau honing, both pre- and finishing honing operations are performed by conventional methods, while normal honing is done by unconvencional pre-honing, such as electrochemical – ECH honing, while the finishing operation is conducted by mechanical honing (Degner, 1984). In this paper, the influence of process parameters on surface roughness, productivity and cutting angle for conventionally honed grey cast iron cylinder liners is shown. The hypothesis is that both pre- and finishing honing can be done

Introduction The process of metalworking by honing of cylinder hole surfaces is closely associated with the motor industry progress. Modern engine parts demand a high surface quality; therefore, honing is used for cylinder blocks, camshafts, crankshafts, cylinder head, piston, connecting rods and others. Unlike other metal cutting processes, honing is done in a specifically kinematics between the tool and workpiece. The tool performs linear and rotational movement at the same time, while the workpiece is fixed. Honing can be with long and short stroke, while honing surfaces can be the outside and inside (Spur and Sto¨ferle, 1980; Vrac, 2007; Sech and Strobel, 2001; Vrac, 2003; Vrac, 2006; Vrac et al., 2008). The honing method was first patented in Detriot, USA in 1921. The development of honing took place at the same time of engines developement, which involved fitting in, dry and wet type cylinder liners. The honing process is not applied only in cylinder blocks machining, but also in machining of other engine parts (Spur and Sto¨ferle, 1980). Various types of honing are developed, such as: plateau honing, normal honing, laser structuring honing, spiral sliding The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0036-8792.htm

Industrial Lubrication and Tribology 64/2 (2012) 77– 83 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0036-8792] [DOI 10.1108/00368791211208679]

77

The influence of honing process parameters

Industrial Lubrication and Tribology

Damir S. Vrac et al.

Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83

by conventional, mechanical honing, in order to achieve sufficient surface quality.

Two-component auto polymerizing poly (methylmethacrylate) Simgal was used for obtaining stamps, the honed surface copies, showing the surface structure. Honed surface texture was determined from replicas, by using Rank Taylor Hobson Talysurf 6 profilometer.


Experiment Sample honing was conducted on a Nagel VS 8-50 LA long – stroke honing system, using a tool with head diameter of Ø 91.475þ 0.025 mm. Pre-honing inserts had abrasive grain size of 80/100 mm according to ASTM-E11-70 (Borcal, 1989) (or 180/150 mm according to ISO R 565/1972 (ASTM E-112009 Standard, 2009), and 100/120 mm according to ASTM E11-70 (Borcal, 1989) (or 150/125 mm according to ISO R565/1972 (ASTM E-11-2009 Standard, 2009). Finishing honing has been conducted by using 325/400 mm according to ASTM-E 11-70 (Borcal, 1989) (or 45/38 mm according to ISO R 565/1972 (ASTM E-11-2009 Standard, 2009). The tool having 80/100 mm abrasive grain size is designated as D181, while the tool having 100/120 mm abrasive grain size is designated as D151. Grain shape for pre-honing and finishing honing was of irregular shape. Abrasive material for prehoning was diamond (D) bonded with bakelite; while for finishing honing was silicon-carbide (SiC) bonded with rubber. During honing, a “HONOL” lubricating and flushing agent was used, with a flow of r ¼ 0.203 l/s. Hydraulic double feed with pressure decreasing was applied for radial motion of honing arms. The values of cutting conditions according to the experiment plan were varied within the following limits: cutting speed vs ¼ 0.931-1.11 m/s; specific pressure of prehoning process pd ¼ 1.0-1.4 N/mm2 and specific pressure of finishing honing process pz ¼ 0.2-0.5 N/mm2. Three-factorial experimental design was applied in planning and conducting the experiment. Reaction surface was thus defined at the examined interval in each plane by three points. Functional dependence between factors input and output values were found in the form of a power function of the firstorder mathematical model, such as: R ¼ cf b1 1 f b2 2 f b3 3

Results and discussion Workpiece material Chemical composition of workpiece material is given in Table I. Workpiece material is grey cast iron containing type B lamellar graphite, with traces of graphite C. According to the OPEL 107 8/79 standard (ISO R565, 1972), the graphite B belongs to the IB4 distribution, Figure 1. The metal matrix microstructure consists largely of pearlite, a small amount of ferrite and phosphide eutectic, Figure 2. The size of phosphide eutectic eyes is uniform, tending to develop dense and closed network, Figure 3. Hardness of the examined grey cast iron expressed as a mean of five measurements amounts to 250 BHN, while Table I Chemical composition of the workpiece material (mass.%) C 2.80

Si

Mn

P

S

Cr

2.21

0.71

0.61

0.02

0.35

Fe Balance

Figure 1 Graphite of type IB4 in workpiece material

ð1Þ

where c is constant, f1, f2, f3 are different variables and b1, b2, b3 are variable exponents. Logarithm of equation (1) is equation (2): ln R ¼ ln C þ b1 ln f 1 þ b2 ln f 2 þ b3 ln f 3

0.5 mm

ð2Þ Figure 2 Metal matrix microstructure of workpiece material

If lnR ¼ y; lnf1 ¼ x1; lnf2 ¼ x2 ; lnf3 ¼ x 3 and xo ¼ 1, the equation (2) may be rewritten as: y ¼ b0 þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ b3 x3

ð3Þ

For determining the parameter bi, for i ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3, the least square method is used: !2 N N N X X X 2 Di¼1 ¼ yi 2 b 0 2 bi xi ð4Þ i¼1

i¼1

i¼1

min

Chemical composition of workpiece material was determined by using the optical emission spectrometer Beckman DU-2. Hardness was tested with Wolpert DIA Testor Z Brinell hardness testing machine, while ultimate tensile strength was determined with Amsler 40 SZBDA 699 tensile testing machine. Leitz Watzlar light microscope was used to examine the microstructure. The samples were conventionally prepared.

20 µm

Note: Pearlite + ferrite islands + phosphide eutectic 78




Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83

Figure 3 Phosphide eutectic network

Table II Calculated (ac) and experimental (ae) results of cutting angle for D181 and D151 tools Experiment no. D181 D151

ac ae ac ae

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

45 44 45 44

34 37 36 37

40 40 38 40

36 37 36 37

45 44 42 44

36 37 38 37

45 44 42 44

36 37 36 37

40 40 38 40

45 44 46 44

41 44 45 45

54 55 55 55

Figure 4 Surface texture obtained with D181 tool


0.5 mm

ultimate tensile strength, a mean of five measurements as well, and is 280 MPa. The results of investigations of material workpiece chemical composition, microstructure and mechanical properties showed that cylinder liners are made of grade GJL 200 grey cast iron according to DIN EN1561:1997 (Adam Opel 107 Standard, 1979). Surface texture Maximum roughness height (Rmax) for cylinder liners machined by D181 tool ranges from 9.05 to 18.83 mm, while for cylinder liners machined by D151 tool is from 10.22 to 12.98 mm. When medium machining factors were applied, when D151 was used, a very similar maximum roughness depths were obtained, unlike with D181, where Rmax varied in a broad range between 10.89 and 14.87 mm. The most influential machining parameter for samples honed by D181 is cutting speed, while for samples machined by D151, finishing honing specific pressure. These measured values are closely corresponding to normal honing given in DIN 8589 standard (DIN 8589, 2003). This depth of kinematics grooves enables a piston group to have a longer life in semidry friction conditions. The same grooves enable the lubricant to leave friction surface.

0.2 mm

Figure 5 Surface texture obtained with D151 tool

Cutting angle Cutting angle is the most important parameter for maintaining the proper functioning of a piston group. This parameter is close related to the volume of lubricant removed from the friction surface. Cutting angle of 508 to 608 enables higher rate of lubricant removed from the friction surface, or the higher rate of lubricant flow off. Lubricant flow off is enabled by the grooves cut during the pre-honing process, as the main flows, while they are filled through a shallower grooves machined during finishing honing. In this experimental work, no irregular grooved are found, so a good lubricant flow is expected. In Table II, experimental and calculated results of the cutting angle are shown. Experimental results show that for samples honed by D181 tool, cutting angles of 34-548 are obtained, while for samples honed by D151 tool, 36-558 angles are obtained. These results are closely corresponding to the results obtained by Robota and Zwein (1999), similar to normal honing according to standard DIN 8589 (DIN 8589, 2003). In Figures 4 and 5, representative durface textures obtained with two tools (D181 and D151) are shown. If a higher angle

would be obtained, the volume of lubricant removed from the friction surface would be larger; however, this would mean a larger friction in the piston group (DIN EN 1561 Standard, 1997; Wilhelm et al., 2003). Mathematical equation for calculating the cutting angle can be expressed as: 79




Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83

Figure 6 Coefficient of friction mt

va a ¼ 2arctan vr

ð5Þ

12,000

where a is the cutting angle [8] and va, vr axial and radial component of the cutting speed.

8,000 6,000 finishing honing µt = 0.999

4,000 2,000

ð6Þ

0

where Aa, At, An are active contact surfaces with the workpiece, va, vt, vn axial, tangential and normal cutting speed component. For samples machined by D181 and D151, productivity is between 32.27 do 38.72 mm3/s. For medium cutting parameter values, productivity is identical for both tools. The results of productivity for both tools are shown in Table III.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Fn [N]

8,000

10,000

12,000

Note: Pre-honing and finishing honing

Figure 7 Coefficient of friction mo Kinematics The kinematics between tool and workpiece of honing process is a strictly defined. The tool translates and rotates inside the workpiece. Translation is done in double tool feeds. During the first feed, the tool moves towards the workpiece and performs pre-honing with diamond/bakelite inserts radial extended, while in the opposite direction, finishing honing is done by extended SiC/rubber inserts. Coefficients of tangential and axial friction mt, ma may be expressed as:

5,000

Fa [N]

0

ð8Þ

32.95 38.72 35.20 38.72 32.27 39.71 33.67 38.72 35.20 33.67 36.02 32.27

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Figure 8 The influence of cuting force on specific honing pressure 14,000 12,000

ð9Þ

12.78 12.36 11.69 12.16 12.67 12.00 11.20 10.22 11.80 12.98 12.49 12.23

4,000

Note: Pre-honing and finishing honing

10,000

Cutting regime factors Experiment results Q (mm3/s) Plan matrix Rmax (mm) Experiment no. vs pd pz D181 D151 D181 D151 13.17 16.61 10.93 16.01 14.10 16.87 9.05 18.83 12.76 10.89 14.87 14.00

2,000

Fn [N]

Table III Plan matrix and results of experimental measurements

0.20 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31

finishing honing µo = 0.400

0

F a ¼ pp Ap

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18

2,000

ð7Þ

where Fa, Fn, Ft are axial, normal and tangential force. Figures 6 and 7 show the coefficients of friction for pre and finishing honing. Figure 8 shows the influence of specific honing pressure on cutting force Fc. These values closely correspond to the results shown in Lenof and Zwein (2002) and Musharadt (1982). Force components may be expressed as follows:

0.93 1.11 0.93 1.11 0.93 1.11 0.93 1.11 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02

3,000

1,000

Ft Fn Fa ma ¼ Fn

mt ¼

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

pre-honing µo = 0.404

4,000

Fc [N]


Ft [N]

Productivity Honing productivity may be defined as the volume of the material cut (material removal rate) in a second. It may be expressed as: Q ¼ Aa va þ At vt þ An vn

pre-honing µt = 0.999

10,000

8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

29.22 38.72 33.64 38.72 29.22 37.78 37.37 38.72 32.95 29.22 33.67 32.27

0

0.2

0.4

0.6 0.8 1 pd,z [N/mm2]

F n ¼ pp Ah Fa tan b qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Fc ¼ F 2t þ F 2a Ft ¼

1.2

1.4

1.6

ð10Þ ð11Þ ð12Þ

where Fa, Fn, Ft are axial, normal and tangential force, Fc is cutting force (N), Ap is the surface area of the honing machine piston 63/32 £ 45 and 55/25 £ 90 (mm2), pp is hydraulic oil 80




Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83

pressure in the piston (N/cm2), Ah is honing stone surface (mm2) and b is honing tool angle [8].

Specific honing pressure can be expressed as: pd;z ¼

Defining the mathematical model Orthogonal plan matrix £ experiment is presented in Table III. The obtained limits of 97.75 per cent mathematical model reliability, as well as computed values of maximum roughness high for each experimental point are given in Tables IV and V. Cutting regime values can be expressed mathematically as follows: qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ v2r þ v2a vs ¼


Table IV Obtained limits with 97.75 per cent reliability and calculated values (Rmax) Rmax Rmax Rmax Rmax minimum maximum experimental calculated value value (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Experiment no. D181 D151 D181 D151 D181 D151 D181 D151 13.17 16.61 10.93 16.01 14.10 16.87 9.05 18.83 12.76 10.89 14.87 14.00

12.78 12.36 11.69 12.16 12.67 12.00 11.20 10.22 11.80 12.98 12.49 12.23

12.08 17.69 10.51 15.39 12.25 17.94 10.66 15.61 13.89 13.89 13.89 13.89

13.26 12.81 12.03 11.62 12.44 12.02 11.29 10.90 12.05 12.05 12.05 12.05

9.65 14.12 8.39 12.29 9.78 14.33 8.51 12.47 12.48 12.48 12.48 12.48

12.32 11.89 11.17 10.79 11.56 11.16 10.48 10.12 11.65 11.65 11.65 11.65

15.12 22.14 13.16 19.27 15.34 22.46 13.35 19.54 15.11 15.11 15.11 15.11

RmaxD181 ¼ 11:059v2:155 p20:151 p0:042 s d z

14.28 13.79 12.96 12.51 13.40 12.94 12.16 11.74 12.41 12.41 12.41 12.41

RmaxD151 ¼

Qmax Qmax Qmax Qmax minimum maximum value value experimental calculated (mm3/s) (mm3/s) (mm3/s) (mm3/s) Experiment no. D181 D151 D181 D151 D181 D151 D181 D151 32.95 38.72 35.20 38.72 32.27 39.71 33.67 38.72 35.20 33.67 36.02 32.27

29.22 38.72 33.64 38.72 29.22 37.78 37.37 38.72 32.95 29.22 33.67 32.27

32.74 38.07 33.43 38.87 32.41 37.69 33.09 38.49 35.60 35.60 35.60 35.60

29.32 35.05 32.49 38.85 29.91 35.76 33.15 39.64 34.14 34.14 34.14 34.14

30.39 35.34 31.03 36.08 30.08 34.99 30.72 35.72 34.39 34.39 34.39 34.39

25.68 30.70 28.46 34.03 26.20 31.32 29.04 34.72 32.22 32.22 32.22 32.22

35.27 41.02 36.01 41.88 34.92 40.61 35.66 41.47 36.64 36.64 36.64 36.64

11:019v20:195 p20106 p20:182 s d z

ð15Þ ð16Þ

In equations (15) and (16), the most influential parameter has the highest absolute exponent. It might be seen that on surface roughness height, the most influential parameter when D181 tool is used is cutting speed vs, while when D151 tool is used, the most influential parameter is specific pressure of finishing honing pd, for achieving normal honing. Furthermore, as shown in Table VI, the values of dispersion relations b1 (related to vs) for RmaxD181 and b2 (related to pd) for RmaxD151 are the only significant parameters, confirming that when D181 tool is used, cutting speed vs, while when D151 tool is used, the most influential parameter is specific pressure of finishing honing pd. Mathematical processing of experimental results for investigating the dependence of productivity in honing process on metalworking conditions gives the following mathematical expressions:

Table V Obtained limits with 97.75 per cent reliability and calculated values (Q)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ð14Þ

where pd and pz are specific cutting pressures during prehoning and finishing honing (N/mm2), Ap is the surface area of the honing machine piston (mm2), pp is hydraulic oil pressure in the piston (N/cm2), Ah honing stone surface (mm2) and b is honing tool angle [8]. Dispersion analysis was used to determine the significance and the degree of interaction between process variables xi and results yi. Box-Wilson multifactor experiment design was used, while the mathematical significance was determined by using the Fisher F-test (Vrac, 2007; Vrac, 2003; Vrac, 2006; Musharadt, 1985), by using Fri . Ft, Ft(a, fi, fe) ¼ 10.13. Mathematical proof of adequacy of mathematical model was determined by Fisher criterion, keeping the Fra , Ft, Ft(a, fe, fa) ¼ 9.01 (Musharadt, 1985). Dispersion analysis values are presented in Table VI. Regression analysis values according to equation (4) are given in Table VII. Mathematical processing of experimental results for investigating the dependence of maximum roughness height in honing process on metalworking conditions gives the following mathematical expressions:

where vs is cutting speed, vr is radial component and va is axial component (m/s).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ap pp Ah tan b

QD181 ¼ 36:127v0:835 p0:021 p20:029 s d z

ð17Þ

37:792v1:009 p0:121 p0:059 s d z

ð18Þ

QD151 ¼

The most influential parameter on productivity in honing process with D181 and D151 tool is cutting speed vs (exponent 0.853 and 1.009), while specific pressures of pre-honing and finishing honing are less relevant, equations (17) and (18). Furthermore, as shown in Table VI, the values of dispersion relations b1 (related to vs) for QD181 and b2 (related to vs as well) for QD151 are the only significant parameters, confirming that for both tools, the most influential parameter is cutting speed vs.

33.47 40.02 37.10 44.35 34.15 40.83 37.85 45.26 36.07 36.07 36.07 36.07

Conclusions According to the obtained results on GJL 200 grey cast iron some conclusions can be drawn: . Dispersion analysis proved that the most influential parameters on maximum roughness depth are 81

82

Note: aNon-significant parameter

b0 b1 b2 b3 Residual sum Experimental error Adequacy of mathematical model

Variation

Table VI Dispersion analysis values

1 1 1 1 8 3 5

Degree of freedom f

Rmax D181 D151 D181

Dispersion S2 Q D151

D181

Rmax D151

D181

Dispersion relations Q D151

82.347 74.220 152.890 149.400 82.347 74.220 152.890 149.400 4,473.2 4,6728.5 6,4376.2 3,8082.7 0.2910 0.0024 0.0455 0.063 0.29101 0.0024 0.0455 0.0630 15.808 1.5401a 19.1940 16.2642 0.0387 0.0189 0.00087 0.021 0.03874 0.0189 0.00087 0.0210 2.104a 11.9296 0.3650a 5.3926a 0.0004 0.0081 0.00020 0.0008 0.00041 0.0081 0.00020 0.0008 0.022a 5.110a 0.084a 0.207a 0.1659 0.0180 0.01824 0.0576 0.02074 0.0022 0.00228 0.0072 – – – – 0.0552 0.0047 0.00712 0.0117 0.01841 0.0015 0.00237 0.0039 – – – – 0.1107 0.0132 0.0111 0.0458 0.02213 0.0026 0.00222 0.0091 1.202 1.6708 0.9357 2.3379

Sum of squares S Q Rmax D181 D151 D181 D151


The influence of honing process parameters Industrial Lubrication and Tribology

Damir S. Vrac et al. Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83




Volume 64 · Number 2 · 2012 · 77 –83

Lenof, U. and Zwein, F. (2002), “Messtechnik fu¨ r motorenzylinder”, MTZ 5/02 Jahrgang 63, Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgeselschaft, Wiesbaden, p. 186. Musharadt, H. (1982), Honen von bohrungen: Grundlagen und anwendungsbeispiele. Jahrbuch ‘Schleifen, honen, la¨ppen und polieren’, Ausgabe. Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, p. 252. Musharadt, H. (1985), Modellbetrachtungen und grundlagen beim honen. Jahrbuch “Schleifen, honen, la¨ppen und polieren”, 53. Ausgabe, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, p. 265. Robota, A. and Zwein, F. (1999), Einflussder ¨ lverbrauch und die zylinderlauffla¨chentopografie auf den O partikelemissioneneines DI-Dieselmotors, Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgeselschaft, Wiesbaden. Sech, E. and Strobel, J. (2001), “Diamant fluidstrahel ga¨tthonung”, MTZ 2, Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgeselschaft, Wiesbaden. Spur, G. and Sto¨ferle, Th. (1980), Handbuch der Fertigungstechnik. Band 3/2, Spanen, Carl Hanser Verlag, Mu¨nchen Wien. Tyagi, J.K. and Krishnamurthy, V.C. (1984), “On surface quality of honed surfaces”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Production Engineering, Tokyo. Vrac, D. (2003), “The influence of cylinder machining on techno-exploitation properties of a typical diesel engine”, MS thesis, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Production Engineering, Novi Sad. Vrac, D. (2006), “The characterization of honing surface roughness by surface reaction RSM method”, paper presented at the 9th International Scientific Conference MMA 2006 – Flexible Technologies. Faculty of Technical Sciences – Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia. Vrac, D. (2007), “Final machining process of cylinder liner of internal-combustion engine”, doctoral thesis, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Production Engineering, Novi Sad. Vrac, D., Sidjanin, L. and Balos, S. (2011), “Mechanical finishing honing: cutting regimes and surface texture”, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 427-32. Vrac, D., Sidjanin, L. and Milikic, D. (2008), “The influence of cutting regime on quality of surface finished by honing”, paper presented at the XXXII Conference on Production Engineering with Foreign Partcipants, Novi Sad, Serbia. Wilhelm, H., Seewig, J., Bodschwinna, H. and Brinkmann, S. (2003), “Kenngro¨ßen der abbott-kurve zur integralen beurteilung dreidimensional gemessener zylinderlaufbahnoberfla¨chen”, MTZ 5/03 Jahrgang 64, Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgeselschaft, Wiesbaden, p. 312.

Table VII Regression analysis values Regression coefficient

RmaxD181

RmaxD151

QD181

QD151

b0 b1 b2 b3

2.61960 0.19073 2 0.06959 0.00716

2.48700 2 0.01749 2 0.04867 2 0.03185

3.56944 0.07549 0.01041 2 000501

3.52898 0.08932 0.05143 001007


.

.

cutting speed for D181 tool and specific pressure of finishing honing for D151 tool. The obtained mathematical model has the mathematical reliability of 97.75 per cent. Kinematics cutting angles are between 34 and 548 for stamps obtained from the surface of the samples honed with D181 tool and 36-558 for the samples honed with D151 tool. These values correspond to the angles that are found on diesel engines by applying normal honing. The initial hypothesis that, both pre- and finishing honing can be done by conventional, mechanical honing, in order to achieve normal honing surface quality, proved to be true.

References Adam Opel 107 Standard (1979), Aktiengesellschaft Wekrstoff – Entwicklung, Ru¨sselsheim. ASTM E-11-2009 Standard (2009), Standard Specifications for Wire Cloth and Sieves for Testing Purposes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. ˇ eske˙ visoke˙ Borcal, J. (1989), Nekonvecˇni methody obra´ba˘ni. C ˇ ˙ uceni technicke v Praze, Fakulteta strojni, Praha. Corral, I.B., Calvet, J.V. and Salcedo, M.C. (2010), “Use of roughness probability parametersto quantify the material removed in plateau-honing”, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, Vol. 50, pp. 621-9. Degner, W. (1984), Elektrochemische Metallbearbeitung, VEB Verlag Technic, Berlin. Dimkovski, Z., Anderberg, C., Ohlsson, R. and Roseń, B.G. (2010), “Characterisation of worn cylinder liner surfaces by segmentation of honing and wear scratches”, Wear, Vol. 371 Nos 3/4, pp. 548-52. DIN 8589 (2003), Manufacturing Processes Chip removal – Part 0: General; Classification, Subdivision, Terms and Definitions, Deutsches Institut Fur Normung E.V., Berlin. DIN EN 1561 Standard (1997), Standard, Founding – Grey Cast Iron, DIN Standard, Berlin. Guo, Y.B., Zhang, Y., Zhong, J.A. and Syoji, K. (2002), “Optimization of honing wheel structure parameters in ultra-precision plane honing”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 129, pp. 96-100. ISO R565 (1972), Test Sieves; Metal Wire Cloth, Perforated Metal Plate and Electroformed Sheet; Nominal Sizes of Openings, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

Further reading Stankov, J. (1982), Osnove merne tehnike-metode planiranja eksperimenta, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad.

Corresponding author Leposava P. Sidjanin can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

83