DOCSLIB.ORG

Surface Metrology and the National Science Foundation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Surface Metrology and the National Science Foundation Surface Metrology and the National Science Foundation An Interactive Qualifying Project Submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science by Maereg Tafesse Date: May 30, 2015 Report Submitted to: Professor Christopher Brown This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects. Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Rationale ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. State-of-the-art ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.4. Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. National Science Foundation ........................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Stylus Profilometry ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Atomic Force Microscopy ....................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Optical Profilometry .................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Confocal Microscopy ........................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2. Scale-Based Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15 2.4. Computer Simulation .................................................................................................................. 19 3. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1. Research Phase ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Analysis Phase ............................................................................................................................. 22 4. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1. NSF Project 1 ............................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1. Research Summary ............................................................................................................. 24 4.1.2. Use of Surface Metrology ................................................................................................... 25 4.2. NSF Project 2 ............................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.1. Research Summary ............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.2. Use of Surface Metrology ................................................................................................... 28 4.3. NSF Project 3 ............................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1. Research Summary ............................................................................................................. 29 4.3.2. Use of Surface Metrology ................................................................................................... 31 4.4. NSF Project 4 ............................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1. Research Summary ............................................................................................................. 34 4.4.2. Use of Surface Metrology ................................................................................................... 35 4.5. NSF Project 5 ............................................................................................................................... 36 4.5.1. Research Summary ............................................................................................................. 36 1 4.5.2. Use of Surface Metrology ................................................................................................... 37 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 39 6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 41 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 43 2D Stylus Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 43 3D (S-Parameters) ................................................................................................................................... 46 2 List of Figures Figure 1: Sources of Science and Engineering funding for public and private academic institutions (NSF, 2013) ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Average Roughness (Ra) .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3: Simplified Schematic of AFM ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Surface Texture (with 3D ISO parameters) .................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Peruvian Currency 3D surface Profile .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Magnification on security thread on banknote ........................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Relative Area illustration (Brown et al., 2003) ............................................................................. 16 Figure 9: Relative-Area vs Scale graph (Metal foil sample 1 vs 2) .............................................................. 18 Figure 10: F-test Illustration ........................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 11: Project Methods flow-chart ....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: Roughness Values of tribofilms: Red depicts the ranges of error (Kar et al., 2008) .................. 25 Figure 13: SEM images of Tribofil with mineral oil (left) and castor oil (right) (Kar et al., 2008) ............... 26 Figure 14: Missing data points in stylus profilometry ................................................................................. 27 Figure 15: Ra value limitation in distinguishing two surfaces ..................................................................... 29 Figure 16: Arc Discharge a) Surface before treatment b) surface after treatment (Asgharifar et al., 2012) .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 17: Correlation of Relative Area with Adhesive Strength (Brown et al., 2001) ............................... 32 Figure 18: OLS4000 microscope: Field of View vs Objective Lens .............................................................. 33 Figure 19: Surface roughness obtained with the aid of four different acids (Li et al., 2015) ..................... 35 Figure 20: Surface roughness (Sa), Material Removal Rate and PH value (Li et al., 2015) ......................... 36 Figure 21: Surface frame showing individual grains (left) and full surface with a combination of certain orientations (right) (Zamiri et al., 2008) ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to Stainless Steel Finishes
    Guide to Stainless Steel Finishes Building Series, Volume 1 GUIDE TO STAINLESS STEEL FINISHES Euro Inox Euro Inox is the European market development associa- Full Members tion for stainless steel. The members of Euro Inox include: Acerinox, •European stainless steel producers www.acerinox.es • National stainless steel development associations Outokumpu, •Development associations of the alloying element www.outokumpu.com industries. ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni, A prime objective of Euro Inox is to create awareness of www.acciaiterni.com the unique properties of stainless steels and to further their use in existing applications and in new markets. ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, To assist this purpose, Euro Inox organises conferences www.nirosta.de and seminars, and issues guidance in printed form Ugine & ALZ Belgium and electronic format, to enable architects, designers, Ugine & ALZ France specifiers, fabricators, and end users, to become more Groupe Arcelor, www.ugine-alz.com familiar with the material. Euro Inox also supports technical and market research. Associate Members British Stainless Steel Association (BSSA), www.bssa.org.uk Cedinox, www.cedinox.es Centro Inox, www.centroinox.it Informationsstelle Edelstahl Rostfrei, www.edelstahl-rostfrei.de Informationsstelle für nichtrostende Stähle SWISS INOX, www.swissinox.ch Institut de Développement de l’Inox (I.D.-Inox), www.idinox.com International Chromium Development Association (ICDA), www.chromium-asoc.com International Molybdenum Association (IMOA), www.imoa.info Nickel Institute, www.nickelinstitute.org
    [Show full text]
  • Static Friction at Fractal Interfaces
    Dorian Hanaor, Yixiang Gan and Itai Einav (2016). Static friction at fractal interfaces. Tribology International, 93, 229-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2015.09.016 Static friction at fractal interfaces Dorian A. H. Hanaor, Yixiang Gan, Itai Einav School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2015.09.016 Abstract: Tribological phenomena are governed by combined effects of material properties, topology and surface- chemistry. We study the interplay of multiscale-surface-structures with molecular-scale interactions towards interpreting static frictional interactions at fractal interfaces. By spline-assisted-discretization we analyse asperity interactions in pairs of contacting fractal surface profiles. For elastically deforming asperities, force analysis reveals greater friction at surfaces exhibiting higher fractality, with increasing molecular-scale friction amplifying this trend. Increasing adhesive strength yields higher overall friction at surfaces of lower fractality owing to greater true-contact-area. In systems where adhesive-type interactions play an important role, such as those where cold-welded junctions form, friction is minimised at an intermediate value of surface profile fractality found here to be in the regime 1.3-1.5. Our results have implications for systems exhibiting evolving surface structures. Keywords: Contact mechanics, friction, fractal, surface structures 1 Dorian Hanaor, Yixiang Gan and Itai Einav (2016). Static friction at fractal interfaces. Tribology
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 GRINDING Definitions
    UNIT-V GRINDING AND BROACHING 5.1 Grinding Definitions Cutting conditions in grinding Wheel wear Surface finish and effects of cutting temperature Grinding wheel Grinding operations Finishing Processes Introduction Finishing processes 5.1 GRINDING Definitions Abrasive machining is a material removal process that involves the use of abrasive cutting tools. There are three principle types of abrasive cutting tools according to the degree to which abrasive grains are constrained, bonded abrasive tools: abrasive grains are closely packed into different shapes, the most common is the abrasive wheel. Grains are held together by bonding material. Abrasive machining process that use bonded abrasives include grinding, honing, superfinishing; coated abrasive tools: abrasive grains are glued onto a flexible cloth, paper or resin backing. Coated abrasives are available in sheets, rolls, endless belts. Processes include abrasive belt grinding, abrasive wire cutting; free abrasives: abrasive grains are not bonded or glued. Instead, they are introduced either in oil-based fluids (lapping, ultrasonic machining), or in water (abrasive water jet cutting) or air (abrasive jet machining), or contained in a semisoft binder (buffing). Regardless the form of the abrasive tool and machining operation considered, all abrasive operations can be considered as material removal processes with geometrically undefined cutting edges, a concept illustrated in the figure: The concept of undefined cutting edge in abrasive machining. Grinding Abrasive machining can be likened to the other machining operations with multipoint cutting tools. Each abrasive grain acts like a small single cutting tool with undefined geometry but usually with high negative rake angle. Abrasive machining involves a number of operations, used to achieve ultimate dimensional precision and surface finish.
    [Show full text]
  • TUFFAK® Polycarbonate Sheet Fabrication Guide (At Curbell Plastics)
    TUFFAK® polycarbonate sheet Fabrication guide / Technical manual Table of Contents Page Introduction ..................................... 3 Typical Properties ................................ 4 TUFFAK Product Selection Guide................ 5-6 Chemical / Environmental Resistance ............7-13 Cleaning Recommendations ...................14-15 Fabrication / Machining........................16-21 Fabrication / Laminate & Heavy Gauge Sheet .. 22-25 Thermoforming ...............................26-31 Troubleshooting Guide .......................32-40 Brake Bending, Cold Forming, Annealing .......41-42 Bonding Applications.........................43-45 Mechanical Fastening.........................46-49 Finishing.....................................50-52 Glazing Guidelines ...........................53-58 2 Contact Technical Service Group with additional questions: 800.628.5084 [email protected] 3 TUFFAK Sheet Typical Properties* Property Test Method Units Values PHYSICAL Specific Gravity ASTM D 792 – 1.2 Refractive Index ASTM D 542 – 1.586 Light Transmission, Clear @ 0.118˝ ASTM D 1003 % 86 Light Transmission, I30 Gray @ 0.118˝ ASTM D 1003 % 50 Light Transmission, K09 Bronze @ 0.118˝ ASTM D 1003 % 50 Light Transmission, I35 Dark Gray @ 0.118˝ ASTM D 1003 % 18 Water Absorption, 24 hours ASTM D 570 % 0.15 Poisson’s Ratio ASTM E 132 – 0.38 MECHANICAL Tensile Strength, Ultimate ASTM D 638 psi 9,500 Tensile Strength, Yield ASTM D 638 psi 9,000 Tensile Modulus ASTM D 638 psi 340,000 Elongation ASTM D 638 % 110 Flexural Strength ASTM D
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue Dealing with Surface Defects a New Standard for Calibration Specimens Surface Metrology
    Spring 2017 Surface imaging, analysis & metrology news from Digital Surf In this issue Dealing with surface defects A new standard for calibration specimens Surface metrology Resolving the problem of surface defects p. 2 How to 7 tips for producing SEM stereo pairs p. 4 Customer story My first project with MountainsMap® p. 6 Surface metrology Q&A What is form removal and Paul Rubert, reference standards expert, explains how a new international why is it important? standard, currently in preparation, will help metrologists deal with the problem p. 8 of surface defects Read article overleaf News in brief Events & product highlights p. 10 Social What's hot online p. 11 Scanning electron microscopy: Surface metrology: obtaining stereo pairs for 3D carrying out form removal reconstruction p. 4 p. 8 PLUS We look forward to seeing you at Stuttgart, Germany 16th Conference on Göteborg, Sweden May 9 - 12, 2017 Metrology & Properties of June 27-29, 2017 Engineering Surfaces STAND #3412 SPONSOR & EXHIBITOR 2 SURFACE METROLOGY IDENTIFYING AND RESOLVING THE PROBLEM OF SURFACE DEFECTS The appearance of defects on the surface of a part or Can international standards deal with this issue? workpiece presents difficulties for surface metrology at many different levels. Paul Rubert, reference Because of this, there is a demand for international standards expert, outlines the problem for Surface standards to deal with defect-definition for engineered Newsletter. surfaces that have to perform a certain function or job. As a result, metrologists are often under pressure to provide When dealing with surface defects, the following questions these standards. must be answered: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Surface Quality: Beyond Average Roughness (Ra)
    Paper ID #23551 Understanding Surface Quality: Beyond Average Roughness (Ra) Dr. Chittaranjan Sahay P.E., University of Hartford Dr. Sahay has been an active researcher and educator in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering for the past four decades in the areas of Design, Solid Mechanics, Manufacturing Processes, and Metrology. He is a member of ASME, SME,and CASE. Dr. Suhash Ghosh, University of Hartford Dr. Ghosh has been actively working in the areas of advanced laser manufacturing processes modeling and simulations for the past 12 years. His particular areas of interests are thermal, structural and materials modeling/simulation using Finite Element Analysis tools. His areas of interests also include Mechanical Design and Metrology. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Understanding Surface Quality: Beyond Average Roughness (Ra) Abstract Design of machine parts routinely focus on the dimensional and form tolerances. In applications where surface quality is critical and requires a characterizing indicator, surface roughness parameters, Ra (roughness average) is predominantly used. Traditionally, surface texture has been used more as an index of the variation in the process due to tool wear, machine tool vibration, damaged machine elements, etc., than as a measure of the performance of the component. There are many reasons that contribute to this tendency: average roughness remains so easy to calculate, it is well understood, and vast amount of published literature explains it, and historical part data is based upon it. It has been seen that Ra, typically, proves too general to describe surface’s true functional nature. Additionally, the push for complex geometry, coupled with the emerging technological advances in establishing new limits in manufacturing tolerances and better understanding of the tribological phenomena, implies the need for surface characterization to correlate surface quality with desirable function of the surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Finish Measurement Objectives
    Surface Finish Measurement Objectives • Interpret the surface finish symbols that appear on a drawing • Use a surface finish indicator to measure the surface finish of a part Surface Finish Measurement • Modern technology demanding improved surface finishes • Often require additional operations: lapping or honing • System of symbols devised by ASA • Provide standard system of determining and indicating surface finish • Inch unit is microinch (µin) • Metric unit is micrometer (µm) Surface Indicator • Tracer head and amplifier • Tracer head has diamond stylus, point radius .0005 µin that bears against work surface • Movement caused by surface irregularities converted into electrical fluctuations • Signals magnified by amplifier and registered on meter • Reading indicates average height of surface Readings Either arithmetic average roughness height (Ra) or root mean square (Rq) Symbols Used to Identify Surface Finishes and Characteristics 18-6 Surface Finish Definitions • Surface deviations: departures from nominal surface in form of waviness, roughness, flaws, lay, and profile • Waviness: surface irregularities that deviate from mean surface in form of waves • Waviness height: peak-to-valley distance in inches or millimeters • Waviness width: distance between successive waviness peaks or valleys in inches or millimeters Surface Finish Definitions • Roughness: relatively finely spaced irregularities superimposed on waviness pattern • Caused by cutting tool or abrasive grain action • Irregularities narrower than waviness pattern • Roughness
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Micro- and Surface Structures of Additive Manufactured Selective Laser Melted Nickel Based Superalloys
    DEGREE PROJECT IN TECHNOLOGY, FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2016 A study of micro- and surface structures of additive manufactured selective laser melted nickel based superalloys EMIL STRAND, ALEXANDER WÄRNHEIM KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT Abstract This study examined the micro- and surface structures of objects manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM). The results show that the surface roughness in additively manufactured objects is strongly dependent on the geometry of the built part whereas the microstructure is largely unaffected. As additive manufacturing techniques improve, the application range increases and new parameters become the limiting factor in high performance applications. Among the most demanding applications are turbine components in the aerospace and energy industries. These components are subjected to high mechanical, thermal and chemical stresses and alloys customized to endure these environments are required, these are often called superalloys. Even though the alloys themselves meet the requirements, imperfections can arise during manufacturing that weaken the component. Pores and rough surfaces serve as initiation points to cracks and other defects and are therefore important to consider. This study used scanning electron-, optical- and focus variation microscopes to evaluate the microstructures as well as parameters of surface roughness in SLM manufactured nickel based superalloys, Inconel 939 and Hastelloy X. How the orientation of the built part affected the surface and microstructure was also examined. The results show that pores, melt pools and grains where not dependent on build geometry whereas the surface roughness was greatly affected. Both the Rz and Ra values of individual measurements were almost doubled between different sides of the built samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Abrasive Cutting Abrasive Cutting
    ABRASIVEABRASIVE CUTTINGCUTTING I. INTRODUCTION II. ABRASIVE MATERIALS Abrasive have been used as cutting tools since In the early stages of abrasive cutting, the the dawn of civilisation. In the early stages of products were made with natural materials like industrialisation, there was a tendency to move sand, emery, corundum etc. A great impetus to development was the manufacture of synthetic towards other cutting materials, but this process abrasive aluminium oxide and silicon carbide. has recently stopped and, in fact, there is now These two abrasive materials were gradually a trend to replace many conventional cutting refined to achieve the optimum characteristics operations with abrasive methods. In advanced in terms of hardness, friability, sharpness, industrial countries, almost 25% of all machining thermal resistance etc. The increasing use of operations are done with abrasives and this high alloy steels, aero-space alloys, carbide percentage is expected to rise to 50% in the next tools and ceramics led to the development of decade. This fantastic growth is due to the on- new abrasives like synthetic diamond, boron going research in the abrasives industry which carbide and boron nitride. The growth of the has resulted in the development of sophisticated metallurgical industry and increasing popularity abrasive products and processes catering to of grinding for metal conditioning led to the enhanced requirements in terms of productivity, development of Zirconium Oxide as an abrasive accuracy and quality. The chart shown in table material suitable for extremely heavy duty below gives an idea of the vast scope of operations. abrasive grinding processes. These range from III. ABRASIVE PRODUCTS traditional precision finishing operations through The numerous abrasive cutting operations fettling and cutting off, to the latest primary stock require a wide variety of abrasive products removal processes used in steel plants.
    [Show full text]
  • New 3D Parameters and Filtration Techniques for Surface Metrology, François Blateyron, Quality Magazine White Paper
    New 3D Parameters and Filtration Techniques for Surface Metrology François Blateyron, Director of R&D, Digital Surf, France For a long time surface metrology has been based upon contact measurement using 2D profilometers. Over the past twenty years the appearance of 3D profilometers and non-contact gauges has created a need for the standardization and formalization of the analysis of 3D surface texture. This paper presents the current status of the standardization process and includes a short description of the tools and parameters that will become available to users when work on the definition of the new standards, which is being carried out by working groups WG15 and WG16 of ISO technical committee TC213, has been completed. 1. Introduction meeting, and officially transferred to the TC213, in order to Since the first roughness meters appeared at the beginning start the standardization process. of the 1930s, the measurement of surface texture has always been based on 2D profilometry and contact gauges. 3. Towards a complete rework of all We had to wait until the beginning of the 1980s to see the surface texture standards appearance of instruments for measuring 3D surfaces, such In June 2002, the TC213 voted the creation of a new as white light interferometers and 3D profilometers working group [N499] and assigned it the task of [WHI94]. The first tools for analysing measurements developing future international standards for 3D surface generated by these instruments were developed by each texture. This group met for the first time in January 2003, in manufacturer, often extrapolating from existing tools for Cancun.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nano-Scale Multi-Asperity Contact and Friction Model
    A Nano-Scale Multi-Asperity Contact and Friction Model George G. Adams, Sinan Müftü and Nazif Mohd Azhar Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 334 SN Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115, USA Submitted to Journal of Tribology, ASME Transactions, for review September 2002 Abstract As surfaces become smoother and loading forces decrease in applications such as MEMS and NEMS devices, the asperity contacts which comprise the real contact area will continue to decrease into the nano scale regime. Thus it becomes important to understand how the material and topographical properties of surfaces contribute to measured friction forces at this nano scale. In this investigation, the single asperity nano contact model of Hurtado and Kim is incorporated into a multi-asperity model for contact and friction which includes the effect of asperity adhesion forces using the Maugis-Dugdale model. The model spans the range from nano-scale to micro-scale to macro-scale contacts. Three key dimensionless parameters have been identified which represent combinations of surface roughness measures, Burgers vector length, surface energy, and elastic properties. Results are given for the friction coefficient vs. normal force, the normal and friction forces vs. separation, and the pull-off force for various values of these key parameters. Keywords: friction coefficient; contact; nanocontacts; multi-asperity models. 1 Nomenclature A = real contact area AM = Maugis model contact radius Aˆ = contact radius correction factor B = y-intercept
    [Show full text]
  • On the Debris-Level Origins of Adhesive Wear
    On the debris-level origins of adhesive wear Ramin Aghababaeia,b, Derek H. Warnerc, and Jean-Franc¸ois Molinaria,b,1 aInstitute of Civil Engineering, Ecole´ Polytechnique Fed´ erale´ de Lausanne, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; bInstitute of Materials Science and Engineering, Ecole´ Polytechnique Fed´ erale´ de Lausanne, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; and cSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Edited by David A. Weitz, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved June 1, 2017 (received for review January 17, 2017) Every contacting surface inevitably experiences wear. Predicting contact junctions with sizes above a critical junction size, which is the exact amount of material loss due to wear relies on empiri- a function of bulk and interfacial properties. This finding opens cal data and cannot be obtained from any physical model. Here, the possibility of quantifying the amount of detached materials we analyze and quantify wear at the most fundamental level, i.e., in the form of debris particles and studying the origins of macro- wear debris particles. Our simulations show that the asperity junc- scopically observed wear relations. tion size dictates the debris volume, revealing the origins of the Inspired by this finding (19), this report aims to address how long-standing hypothesized correlation between the wear vol- much material is detached during sliding contact, by focusing on ume and the real contact area. No correlation, however, is found the quantification of wear and the above-mentioned wear rela- between the debris volume and the normal applied force at the tions at the most fundamental level, i.e., wear debris particles.
    [Show full text]