Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 85

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School


College of Engineering



INSTRUMENTATION FOR TOOL WEAR EVALUATION



A Thesis in
Mechanical Engineering
by
Steven W. Henry

2002 Steven W. Henry

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Master of Science

August 2002



















I grant The Pennsylvania State University the non-exclusive right to use this work for the
Universitys own purposes and to make single copies of the work available to the public on a
not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.



______________________________
Steven W. Henry


We approve the thesis of Steven W. Henry.









_________________________________________
Eric R. Marsh
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Thesis Advisor





_________________________________________
John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering






_________________________________________
Richard C. Benson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Head of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering








Date of Signature





__________________








__________________








__________________


iii
ABSTRACT


This work details the design, construction, and testing of two instruments for
measuring the wear of round-nosed diamond tools. These two different approaches and
experimental setups are used to quantify wear with comparative, contacting metrology. In
both cases, a diamond stylus that travels on a linear air bearing slide is used in conjunction
with a capacitance probe to scan the cutting edge of the tool, creating a profile of the edge.
By measuring the tool before and after machining, the amount of wear can be determined
from the difference in the profiles.
In one of the setups, the stylus is swept linearly across the circular edge of the tool.
This method quantifies the amount of wear quite well. The other method involves rotating
the tool on an air bearing spindle and scanning the circular edge with a fixed probe. This
method establishes a fixed contact point on the probe and is also successful in measuring the
circular edge profile. However, errors in positioning the radius of curvature of the tool on
the axis of rotation of the rotating spindle create errors in the tool profile.
The results from the instrumentation show that both methods are equally successful
in evaluating tool wear. However, experimental results indicate that the rotational method
makes it easy to quantify the exact amount of wear despite the difficulties in positioning the
tool.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................ix
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Objective.............................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................. 6
Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Properties of Diamond........................................................................................ 6
2.2 Synthetic Diamond.............................................................................................. 9
2.3 Diamond Tools ................................................................................................. 11
2.4 Wear of Diamond Tools.................................................................................... 12
2.5 Measuring Wear................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 18
Experimental Design ...................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Contact Measurement........................................................................................ 18
3.2 Tool Sweep Method .......................................................................................... 19
3.3 Tool Rotation Method....................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Flexure Design............................................................................................ 26
3.4 Sensitivit y Analysis ............................................................................................ 32
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 41
Experimental Procedure.................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Tool Sweep Method .......................................................................................... 41
4.2 Tool Rotation Method....................................................................................... 42
Chapter 5 ........................................................................................................................... 45
Test Results .................................................................................................................... 45
5.1 Tool Sweep Method .......................................................................................... 45
5.2 Tool Rotation Method....................................................................................... 51
5.3 Method Comparison ......................................................................................... 54
Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................................... 60
Conclusions and Future Work ........................................................................................ 60
Appendix A........................................................................................................................ 62
Chemical Reaction Mechanisms...................................................................................... 62
v
Appendix B........................................................................................................................ 66
Matlab Data Processing Code ......................................................................................... 66
B.1 Tool Sweep Method .......................................................................................... 66
B.2 Tool Rotation Method....................................................................................... 68
References.......................................................................................................................... 73
vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The face-centered cubic crystalline structure of diamond...................................7
Figure 2.2: The Berman-Simon diamond-graphite equilibrium curve. .................................7
Figure 2.3: The region where synthetic diamonds can be created depends on
the position of the melting line of the catalyst metal with respect to the Berman-
Simon equilibrium curve......................................................................................................10
Figure 2.4: Diagram of a typical tool illustrating some of the important features...............12
Figure 2.5: A typical single crystal diamond tool made by Edge Technologies...................12
Figure 2.6: Surface roughness creates a smaller contact area..............................................13
Figure 2.7: Photograph of the contact measurement instrument from LLNL
after Klingmann..................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.1: A simple way of measuring the tool profile is sweeping the tool edge
across the stationary probe..................................................................................................20
Figure 3.2: A photograph of the experimental setup showing the Moore base,
tool, and CAP......................................................................................................................21
Figure 3.3: Vertical adjustment of the CAP is performed to align the center of
the probe with the edge of the tool .....................................................................................21
Figure 3.4: Calibration curve of the motor controlling the linear motion of the
slide shows the slide velocity as a function of motor voltage for motion in both
directions.............................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.5: Close-up of the experimental setup showing the capacitance probe
that tracks the sweep...........................................................................................................23
Figure 3.6: The profile of the tool can be measured by rotating the probe and
tool relative to each other about the center of curvature of the tool. ...................................24
Figure 3.7: A solid model of the instrument that uses an air bearing spindle to
rotate the tool. The CAP profiles the edge of the tool. .......................................................25
Figure 3.8: An ultra-fine adjustment screw with 100 threads per inch is used to
actuate each positioning flexure...........................................................................................25
Figure 3.9: A photograph of the measurement instrument incorporating tool
rotation ...............................................................................................................................26
vii
Figure 3.10: A simple notch hinge flexure .........................................................................27
Figure 3.11: The double notch hinge flexure with slotted notches.....................................30
Figure 3.12: Finite element stress results from the maximum design deflection
in the circular notch flexure. The scale is in psi...................................................................31
Figure 3.13: Finite element stress results from the maximum design deflection
in the slotted notch flexure. The scale is in psi....................................................................32
Figure 3.14: The CAP probe (spherical diamond stylus) and tool tip (circular
edge) are shown in the ideal setup. The center of curvature of the tool is
positioned on the axis of rotation of the spindle..................................................................34
Figure 3.15: The tool tip is offset from the ideal setup with three linear
misalignment offsets, x, y, and z. The dashed lines show the ideal setup......................35
Figure 3.16: The spindle is rotated about its axis. The change of direction of
the total offset with respect to the probe axis is shown. The dashed lines show
the ideal setup and the position of the probe and tool tip with linear offsets. ......................36
Figure 3.17: The geometry shows that the offsets produce an error that is a
function of the three offsets, as well as the angle of spindle rotation. ..................................37
Figure 3.18: The relative error of the Taylor series simplification of the total
error function with only first order terms, with the offsets all the same
magnitude. ..........................................................................................................................39
Figure 3.19: The relative error of the Taylor series simplification of the total
error function with first and second order terms of the offsets, with the offsets
all the same magnitude. .......................................................................................................39
Figure 4.1: Ideal collinear alignment of the probe and tool axes........................................41
Figure 4.2: Plot of the encoder output and the points selected from this data set
to be used............................................................................................................................44
Figure 5.1: The unadjusted profile of a tool A...................................................................46
Figure 5.2: The unadjusted profile of tool B.....................................................................46
Figure 5.3: The unadjusted profile of tool C.....................................................................47
Figure 5.4: The unadjusted profile of tool D.....................................................................47
Figure 5.5: The radius of the probe creates a difference between the sweep
distance of the probe and the actual portion of the tool that is measured............................48
viii
Figure 5.6: The profile of tool C after the data are adjusted for the probe
contact location...................................................................................................................49
Figure 5.7: The profile of tool C after the data are adjusted for the probe
contact location and plotted against tool angle ....................................................................50
Figure 5.8: The absolute difference error across the three measurements taken
for tool A............................................................................................................................51
Figure 5.9: Direct measurement of tool B using tool rotation ...........................................52
Figure 5.10: Profile of tool B adjusted for positioning error ..............................................52
Figure 5.11: Profile of tool C adjusted for positioning error ..............................................53
Figure 5.12: Profile of tool D adjusted for positioning error .............................................53
Figure 5.13: The absolute difference error across the three measurements taken
for tool B ............................................................................................................................54
Figure 5.15: This plot displays the profiles of tool C using the tool sweep
method and the tool rotation method..................................................................................56
Figure 5.16: This plot displays the profiles of tool D using the tool sweep
method and the tool rotation method..................................................................................56
Figure 5.17: Micrographs of the edge wear for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool
D.........................................................................................................................................57
Figure 5.18: Repeatability over three measurements is determined by the
maximum absolute deviation in the profiles generated by the tool sweep method.
This plot shows this deviation for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool D. ..............................58
Figure 5.19: Repeatability over three measurements is determined by the
maximum absolute deviation in the profiles generated by the tool rotation
method. This plot shows this deviation for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool D. ...............59
Figure A.1: Reaction coordinate diagram...........................................................................64

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Data for elements with known diamond turning properties after Paul,
et al. [9].................................................................................................................................4
Table 2.1: Estimated strength of perfect diamond after Wilks and Wilks [11]......................8
Table 2.2: Elastic moduli of diamond (Gpa) after Nazar and Neves [10]...........................9
Table 5.1: List of tools measured.......................................................................................45
Table 5.2: The repeatability of the measurements determined by the maximum
absolute deviation in the profile over three tests..................................................................59


x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Eric Marsh, for taking me under his wing
and giving me the opportunity to learn as much as I could in a short period of time. It has
been a pleasure to work for him. He is a wonderful teacher, and I have learned much from
him in the past year.
Worthy of great appreciation are Professional Instruments, Lion Precision, and Edge
Technologies for their support and funding of this project. I am also indebted to my fellow
students in the MDRL: Jeremiah Couey, Mark Glauner, Bob Grejda, Byron Knapp, Brian
OConnor, and Dave Schalcosky. They have been a tremendous help to me in all my
endeavors at the MDRL with their assistance, guidance, and patience, as well as their
friendship. I would like to thank Dave McCloskey and Larry Horner of the Mechanical
Engineering machine shop for allowing me to spend countless hours in the shop with them.
I would also like to thank by girlfriend, Jaimee, for all her support during all the
stressful and trying moments. And last, but not least, my parents are deserving of much
appreciation for all their support and confidence in my abilities, even when I doubted
myself.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW

This chapter briefly summarizes the history of ultraprecision machining and outlines the role
that diamond tools play in ultraprecision machining today. The purpose and motivation for
this research is also delineated.
1.1 INTRODUCTION

The demand for improved surface finishes and higher productivity has made the use of
diamond tools common for many machining operations. One particular machining process
that has revolutionized ultraprecision machining is single point diamond turning (SPDT).
Surface roughness (R
a
) as small as 1 nanometer (0.04 microinches) can be obtained with
SPDT using a single crystal diamond tool [1,2].
Taniguchi defines ultraprecision machining as processes/ machines by which the
highest possible dimensional accuracy is, or has been achieved, at a given point in time [3].
Taniguchi presents a model showing the trend of normal machining, precision machining,
and ultraprecision machining over a period of time. This model can be used to predict the
achievable machining accuracy for each class of machining for the future. For example,
ultraprecision machining accuracy has improved from about 1 micrometer (40 in) in 1930
to 5 nm (0.2 in) in 1980. The trend predicted that the achievable machining accuracy in
2000 would be 1 nm (0.04 in), which is currently achieved with SPDT using a single crystal
diamond tool.
The diamond turning process has its origins in the jewelry industry when watch dial
components were diamond turned to high finishes in the 1930s [4]. In the 1940s and 1950s,
2
Dr. Humberto Fernandez-Moran developed a technique to lap an extremely sharp edge in a
diamond for use in surgical and metal cutting tools.
Industrial diamond turning began after World War II with the purpose of finding
alternatives to grinding for the manufacture of aspheric optical components. Initial work in
SPDT was performed on high-precision mechanical components in the 1960s with the
accelerated advancement of science and technology for energy, computer, electronics, and
defense applications [5].
Optics became a major focus of research in the mid-1970s. Pioneering work led by
Bryan at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was carried out in the 1970s in
the development of complex optical components. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
researchers at LLNL began building diamond turning machines capable of machining to
extremely high dimensional accuracies. Donaldson and Patterson constructed the Large
Optics Diamond Turning Machine (LODTM) in 1983 [6]. This precision, vertical-axis lathe
is capable of machining a part 1.6 meters (64 inches) in diameter and weighing up to 13500
Newtons (3000 pounds). Accuracy is maintained through dimensional stability. Materials
with a low coefficient of thermal expansion were used, along with temperature controlled
heat sinks, a metrology frame, and error feedback. All large travel measurements are made
with Michelson laser interferometers with accuracies up to 0.6 nm (0.025 in).
Recently, ultraprecision diamond turning has been developing very rapidly, especially
in the production of certain types of optical, opto-electronic, and mechanical elements [7].
Historically, only some materials were deemed diamond-turnable, meaning that the tool
wear is low enough that reasonable areas of specular surface can be economically
produced [8]. Such materials include copper alloys, aluminum alloys, silver, gold, electroless
3
nickel, certain plastics, and some of the infrared materials [5]. These materials are
generally ductile by nature.
Recently, much work has been performed on the feasibility of diamond turning
brittle materials. While the cutting of brittle materials is generally performed by brittle
fracture, material can be removed plastically at an extremely small depth of cut [7]. Materials
such as silicon, germanium, and lithium niobate (LiNbO
3
) can be successfully machined in
this manner. However, tool wear becomes a concern when machining harder materials.
Paul et al. lists data for elements that have known diamond turning properties [9]. Table 1.1
shows that the ability to diamond turn a material is highly correlated with the number of
unpaired d-shell electrons.

4
Table 1.1: Data for elements with known diamond turning properties after Paul, et al. [9]
Melting No. of unpaired Diamond
point (C) d-shell electrons t urnable
In Indium 157 t 10 0 Y
Sn Tin 232 f 9 0 Y
Pb Lead 373 f 0.022 5 0 Y
Zn Zinc 420 h 51 0 Y
Pu Plut onium 640 m 0 Y
Mg Magnesium 649 h 30 48 0 Y
Al Aluminum 660 f 25 0 Y
Ge Germanium 937 d 721 0 Y
Ag Silver 962 f 96 0 Y
Au Gold 1064 f 96 0 Y
Cu Copper 1083 f 76 0 Y
U Uranium 1132 o 245 1 N
Mn Manganese 1244 b 384 5 N
Be Beryllium 1277 h 60 0 Y
Si Silicon 1410 d 1211 0 Y
Ni Nickel 1453 f 189 2 N
Co Cobalt 1495 h 100 247 3 N
Fe Iron 1535 b 50 4 N
Ti Tit anium 1660 h 75 142 2 N
Cr Chromium 1857 b 63 250 5 N
V Vanadium 1890 b 248 3 N
Rh Rhodium 1966 f 2 N
Ru Rut henium 2310 h 3 N
N b Niobium 2468 b 75 128 4 N
Mo Molybdenum 2617 b 162 192 5 N
Ta Tant alum 2996 b 70 3 N
Re Rhenium 3180 h 250 319 5 N
W Tungsten 3410 b 348 4 N
* f = fcc, b = bcc, h = hcp, d = diamond, m = monoclinic, o = ort hohombic, t = t et ragonal
Element structure *
Cryst al Microhardness
Brinell (kg/ mm
2
)


1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Although tool wear is generally slow in diamond turning, typical surface finish requirements
are so demanding that any wear must be accounted for. The purpose of this research is to
develop methods and instrumentation to measure wear in diamond tools easily and
accurately. Many methods currently used to measure tool wear, which are discussed further
5
in Section 2.5, are complex and time consuming. Diamond turning has become such a
significant part of precision manufacturing that optimizing the use of the tools is an
important step in making these manufacturing processes more cost effective.
This research investigates using contact metrology to determine the profile of the
nominally round diamond tool edge. The contact probe is an air bearing st ylus with a
spherical diamond probe tip. The probe will scan the edge of the tool, mapping the edge
profile. The profile of a worn tool can then be compared to that of a new tool, yielding the
size and shape of the wear scar.
Two distinct techniques are examined. One of the methods involves linearly
scanning the probe across the edge of the tool. This is a simple way of generating a profile
of the tool. The other method measures the tool edge profile by rotating the tool about its
center of curvature with respect to a fixed probe.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review covered in this chapter examines the properties of diamond and their
role in wear of diamond tools. It also outlines work done previously by other researchers in
the area of tool wear measurement. Explanations of many common methods for
determining tool wear are presented along with the advantages and disadvantages of these
techniques.
2.1 PROPERTIES OF DIAMOND

Diamond is a crystalline material made naturally under extreme pressures and temperatures.
It is composed of carbon atoms arranged in a face-centered cubic lattice shown in Figure 2.1
[10]. Another allotrope of crystalline carbon is graphite. Figure 2.2 shows the Berman-
Simon curve, which illustrates the diamond-graphite equilibrium. The lower side of the
curve represents the stable region of graphite, while the upper portion represents diamond
stability. This may suggest that diamonds are not thermodynamically stable at room
temperature. However, the carbon-carbon bonds that hold together diamond and graphite
are very strong, and can only be broken at elevated temperatures. Diamond only begins to
convert to graphite at about 1800 Kelvin.
7

Figure 2.1: The face-centered cubic crystalline structure of diamond


Figure 2.2: The Berman-Simon diamond-graphite equilibrium curve.

carbon atom
covalent bond
8
Diamond has tremendous strength properties, particularly in compression.
However, imperfections in diamond such as impurities, inclusions, dislocations, and cracks
can greatly reduce the strength. In addition, the strength of diamond is governed by
crystallographic orientation, as illustrated in Table 2.1 [11]. These values, however, are a
theoretical estimate of the strengths of a perfect diamond.

Table 2.1: Estimated strength of perfect diamond after Wilks and Wilks [11]
D i rect i on of st ress C ompressi ve st rengt h ( G pa) T ensi le S t rengt h (G Pa)
< 100> 220 98
< 110> 560 54
< 111> 280 53


The relationship between stress and strain in diamond is quite complicated. The
modulus of elasticity, in its most general form, must be expressed in terms of a fourth order
tensor, as shown in equation 2.1.
1
1
1
1
]
1

44 43 42 41
34 33 32 31
24 23 22 21
14 13 12 11
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
E (2.1)
Because of the symmetry inherent in the crystalline structure, this relationship simplifies
greatly. The elastic behavior of a cubic crystal may be specified by only three moduli, or
stiffness constants: c
11
, c
12
, and c
44
[11]. Table 2.2, which was compiled by Nazar and
Neves, lists these stiffness constants derived experimentally through various methods [10].
Generally, ultrasonic and X-ray techniques are traditionally used in the determination of
elastic constants. In two instances catalogued here, a technique known as Brillouin
9
scattering is used. Brillouin scattering involves the inelastic scattering of light from acoustic
photons.

Table 2.2: Elastic moduli of diamond (Gpa) after Nazar and Neves [10]
c
11
c
12
c
44 Method Researcher
950 390 430 Ult rasonics Bhagavabtam and Bhimasenachar
1100 110 330 30 440 40 X-r ays Prince and Wooster
949 151 521 Brillouin Krishnan et al.
1079 5 124 5 578 2 Ult rasonics McSkimin et al.
1080.4 0.5 127.0 0.7 576.6 0.7 Brillouin Grimsditch et al.


The Youngs modulus of diamond measured along a cube axis (< 110> ), E
11
, and the
bulk modulus, K, are given by
( )( )
12 11
12 11 12 11
11
2
c c
c c c c
E
+
+
(2.2)
( )
3
2
12 11
c c
K
+
(2.3)

2.2 SYNTHETIC DIAMOND

Diamond can also be produced under high pressures and temperatures in a laboratory
environment. Many techniques have been explored to create diamond, but the only highly
successful results were obtained by dissolving carbonaceous material in a molten catalyst
metal, such as iron or nickel. Even then, only some of the carbon crystallizes into diamond
[11]. Figure 2.3 shows the melting curve of the eutectic mixture of nickel and carbon
10
superimposed on the Berman-Simon equilibrium curve. The shaded region shows where
diamond growth can be obtained, which begins at about 1800 K and 6 megapascals.

Figure 2.3: The region where synthetic diamonds can be created depends on the position
of the melting line of the catalyst metal with respect to the Berman-Simon equilibrium curve.

High quality synthetic diamonds can have strengths similar to natural diamonds.
Abrasion tests show no significant difference between good quality synthetic and natural
diamonds [11]. However, the behavior of synthetic crystals of lesser quality is more complex
to understand. Inclusions dramatically decrease strength in synthetic diamond, as they do in
natural diamonds. However, many times these inclusions in synthetic diamond are
composed of the catalyst metal, which has different properties from typical inclusions in
natural diamonds, such as a high coefficient of thermal expansion, which can add internal
stresses and make the diamond weaker.
Diamond-growing
region
Melting line of
nickel and carbon
11
Polycrystalline diamond (PCD) is another form of man-made diamond. PCD is
formed by sintering together a mass of small diamond crystallites. This material has slightly
less strength and hardness than single crystal diamond, but PCD has two distinct advantages
[11]. First, because it is composed of small single crystals oriented in random directions,
PCD resists crack propagation to a much greater degree than a single crystal. Second, PCD
can be produced in blocks much larger than a single crystal.
2.3 DIAMOND TOOLS

Tools used in diamond turning are made in a variety of configurations using a variety of
diamond types. Single crystal or polycrystalline, natural or synthetic, diamond tools are
preferred in many applications because of their strength and abrasion resistance.
The diamond tools hardness results in tool life about 20 times longer than carbide
tools given that diamond is about four times harder than carbides. Moreover, the hardness
permits an extremely sharp edge to be generated, especially in a single crystal, down to the
level of the diamonds atomic spacing, or about 0.3 to 0.5 nm (0.012 to 0.020 in) [4].
Single crystal tools can be polished to an extremely fine edge that can generate high
precision finishes when removing small amounts of material [11]. The surface finish
obtained by the use of a PCD tool suffers because the grain size sets a relatively coarse limit
on the precision of the edge. Most tools used today are made from synthetic diamond.
The diamonds themselves typically are brazed to a steel shank. The edge is then
formed through grinding and polishing. Figure 2.4 shows a sketch of a tool showing some
of the important features such as the clearance angle and the rake angle. Figure 2.5 shows a
typical single crystal diamond tool made by Edge Technologies of Indianapolis, Indiana.
12

Rake Angle
Clearance Angle
Diamond
Shank
Nose Edge

Figure 2.4: Diagram of a typical tool illustrating some of the important features


Figure 2.5: A typical single crystal diamond tool made by Edge Technologies.

2.4 WEAR OF DIAMOND TOOLS

Any relative motion between two surfaces in contact results in wear. There are four main
types of wear: fracture, mechanical attrition, thermal degradation, and chemical wear [11].
diamond
shank
13
Wear in diamond tools can lead to any number of outcomes, from poor surface finish to loss
of the tool.
Cracking and chipping are forms of fracture. Cracks can start at the microscopic
level and can propagate to destroy a single crystal tool. Chipping occurs frequently in
machining, especially in harder materials.
Mechanical attrition results from the prolonged rubbing of two surfaces. Even
though diamond is much harder than the materials it is used to machine, measurable
amounts of material can be removed from the tool by this process. Because no surface is
perfectly smooth, the roughness causes the actual area of contact to be much smaller than
initially anticipated, as shown in Figure 2.6. Because the area of real contact is very small,
the pressure is high, which causes the two materials to adhere. Debris trapped between the
tool and the part can promote further wear through mechanical attrition.


Figure 2.6: Surface roughness creates a smaller contact area.

Machining processes generally include large amounts of friction, which results in a
temperature rise of the material and chip. This temperature rise can be sufficient to change
the strength properties of the material. In some cases, localized temperatures can get high
enough to change the chemical structure of the material. In diamond, graphitization occurs
this way. For certain materials, elevated temperatures can induce the possibility of atoms
diffusing from one surface to the other, which can be categorized as chemical wear.
14
Chemically induced wear is observed in processes where the tool material and the
workpiece material have a chemical affinity for each other. Such is the case when diamond
is used to machine ferrous materials [12]. As previously stated, the unpaired electrons in the
d-shell of the element prevent a material from being diamond-turnable due to the excessive
amount of wear. The unpaired d-shell electrons in the workpiece allow carbon-carbon bond
breaking in diamond, and metal-carbon bond formation leads to chemical wear of diamond
tools [9]. These chemical reaction mechanisms are further discussed in Appendix A.


2.5 MEASURING WEAR

Understanding tool wear is a critical aspect of ultraprecision machining. When surface finish
or form accuracy is the goal of the machining operation, any wear in the tool directly impacts
the resultant part. Knowing when to change or sharpen the tool can save time and money
by avoiding out-of-tolerance parts.
There are a variety of methods used in industry and academia to measure tool wear
and determine the tool life in a particular machining operation. Some methods can be
described as direct tool wear measurements. These methods quantify the size and shape of
the wear scar on the tool. Direct tool wear measurements are generally performed off-line,
but some direct methods such as radioactive, pneumatic, electrical resistance, and optical
sensing techniques, can be performed on-line as well [13]. Some of the most widely used
and effective methods for measuring tool wear are optical methods. High power
microscopes and scanning electron microscopes (SEMs) are used to closely examine the
15
wear on the cutting edge [14]. Wear can be quantified by comparing the image of a worn
tool with the image of a new tool.
Contact measurement is another type of direct tool wear measurement. A profile of
the face or edge of the tool can be made by scanning the face or edge with a probe. In work
performed by Born and Goodman on tool wear, an air bearing LVDT was used to map the
edge of the tool [15]. Figure 2.7 shows a photograph of this instrument courtesy of Jeff
Klingmann of LLNL. Contact measurements are simple and quickly performed. However,
care must be taken to assure that the contact of the displacement indicator to the diamond
tool edge is nondestructive so as to not induce any tool wear in the measurement.

Figure 2.7: Photograph of the contact measurement instrument from LLNL after
Klingmann

16
Indirect tool wear sensing attempts to characterize the wear by monitoring other
machining parameters. These parameters correlate fairly well to tool wear and are generally
much easier to measure. Methods for indirect tool wear monitoring include measuring
changes in cutting forces, workpiece dimensions, surface finish, cutting temperature,
vibration, and acoustic emission.
A simple and highly popular method for monitoring tool wear in a machining
operation is vibration testing. Sensors such as accelerometers and strain gages can be used
quite effectively to determine changes in the machine or tool vibration. Scheffer and Hayns
performed experiments in monitoring tool wear using vibration measurements [16]. The
vibrations caused by tool wear are small relative to the vibrations of the machine, but can be
separated with sophisticated data acquisition techniques. Scheffer and Hayns were able to
use tool vibrations as feedback for automatic selection of the best machining features (feeds,
speeds, tools, etc.) for a specific machining operation.
Similar to vibration measurements, acoustic sensors can be used to detect tool wear.
Advantages of this type of measurement are that it is non-contacting and nondestructive.
Acoustic emissions are stress waves generated by the sudden release of energy in deforming
materials [17]. Liang and Dornfeld pointed out the following possible sources of acoustic
emissions during a metalcutting process: (a) plastic deformation during the cutting process in
the workpiece; (b) plastic deformation in the chip; (c) frictional contact between the tool
flank face and the workpiece resulting in flank wear; (d) frictional contact between the tool
rake face and the chip resulting in crater wear; (e) collisions between chip and tool; (f) chip
breakage; (g) tool fracture [18]. Some of these signals are transient or random, while others,
such as friction contact, can be generally continuous. These continuous signals are
monitored to determine wear in the tool.
17
Interpretation of data acquired during vibration monitoring, acoustic emission
monitoring, force monitoring, and other forms of on-line tool wear measurement is many
times performed through the use of fuzzy logic and fuzzy pattern recognition [2,19]. Fuzzy
logic is a method of making definite conclusions about vague or imprecise data. Neural
networks are designed to make decisions in a manner similar to humans by placing
uncertainties on pieces of information. Based on the models certainty of the validity and
correlation of the data, conclusions are made. Many machining parameters and monitoring
methods are gathered as input, and the neural network makes conclusions about tool wear
based on all the parameters.
Other methods for determining tool life include the use of computer models.
Computer simulations of machining processes using finite element models can estimate the
amount of wear and wear patterns on the tool [20]. This method is heavily dependent on
assumptions, so it is generally used only as a first step in determining economic feasibility of
a machining operation.

18
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A detailed description of the measurement concepts and the design of the two instruments
are presented in this chapter. The explanation of the methods is discussed here, along with a
brief overview on contact metrology. Because the success of the tool rotation method is
heavily dependent on the positioning of the tool, a sensitivity analysis on the positioning is
introduced.
3.1 CONTACT MEASUREMENT

Metrology, in its strictest definition, is the measurement of the seven primary quantities:
mass, length, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance, and
luminous intensity. From these quantities all other quantities used in mechanics, electronics,
hydraulics, and chemistry are derived [21]. In dimensional metrology, and in particular,
linear measurement, there are two methods used to make a measurement: comparative and
absolute. The comparative, or interchange, method relates the dimension to be measured to
a standard or a known measurement. The absolute displacement method involves the
individual examination of a feature using the realized unit. In the work presented here, both
comparative and absolute displacement methods are used.
Mechanical sensing measurement methods are the most basic forms of
measurement. Some of the most widely used displacement measurement devices are
contacting in nature: calipers, micrometers, and mechanical indicators. Contact
measurement techniques rank among the worlds first forms of measurement because the
19
physicality of this style of measurement appeals to one of the five basic human senses,
namely touch, which facilitates understanding.
Non-contacting techniques such as optical, capacitance, and pneumatic techniques
are widely used in dimensional metrology. Much of the equipment needed to perform these
measurements can be more expensive because of the higher precision involved in
manufacturing of the instruments. These devices tend to be more accurate than contact
instruments. However, contact measurement is still important as a simple and easy way of
performing measurements or as a verification of non-contacting methods, which can be
difficult to understand in many instances.
A probe produced by Lion Precision in St. Paul, Minnesota offers the best of both
contact and non-contact styles. The Capacitance Adaptor Probe (CAP) is an air bearing
slide with a contacting diamond stylus. The motion of the stylus is measured by a non-
contacting Lion Precision capacitance probe. This work uses this CAP to map the profile of
the edge of diamond tools. Two different methods are examined here: the tool sweep
method and the tool rotation method.
3.2 TOOL SWEEP METHOD

Probably the simplest way to generate a profile of the edge of the tool is by sweeping a
probe across the edge of the tool. The probe is oriented with its axis parallel to the tool axis,
which is the axis in the plane of the tool edge about which the tool is symmetric. Relative
linear motion between the tool and probe in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the
tool results in a measurement of the profile of the tool edge. A sketch illustrating this is
shown in Figure 3.1.

20

Air bearing
slide
Tool
Tool Axis

Figure 3.1: A simple way of measuring the tool profile is sweeping the tool edge across the
stationary probe.

For this experimental setup, the contact measurement probe is a Lion Precision Air-
Bearing Contact Adaptor Probe (CAP) fitted with a Lion Precision C1-C capacitance probe.
The CAP has a spherical diamond tip with a radius of 3.175 mm (0.125 in). The capacitance
probe has a resolution of 3.5 nm (0.14 in). The linear travel is provided by a Moore Tool
No. 3 Universal Measuring Machine (UMM) base. This cross-slide base has a maximum
straightness error of 38 nm over 25 mm (15 in over 1 in) of travel.
The diamond tool is mounted to the horizontal slide of the Moore base, and the
probe is mounted to the fixed part of the machine base on a Micro-Controle ball bearing
vertical positioning stage with a sensitivity of 1 m (40 in). The setup is shown in
Figure 3.2. The stage is used to adjust the height of the probe in order to vertically position
the center of the probe with the edge of the tool as shown in Figure 3.3. This is important
21
because the spherical shape of the probe tip can create errors in the measurements if its
center is not aligned with the edge of the tool.

Figure 3.2: A photograph of the experimental setup showing the Moore base, tool, and
CAP.


Figure 3.3: Vertical adjustment of the CAP is performed to align the center of the probe
with the edge of the tool

CAP
edge
tool
Vertical
adjustment
spherical
diamond stylus
22
Both the axis of the probe and the axis of the tool are aligned perpendicular to the
direction of motion of the slide. A slow-speed motor is used to drive the leadscrew of the
slide to generate the linear motion. A motor calibration was performed and is shown in
Figure 3.4. The motor speed, and consequently the slide speed, must be known in order to
determine the number of discrete data points sampled over the desired portion of tool edge.
y = 29.989x - 8.5965
R
2
= 0.9988
y = 28.019x - 7.9097
R
2
= 0.9987
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
Motor Voltage (V)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(

m
/
s
)
Left Right Linear Least Squares Fit (Right) Linear Least Squares Fit (Left)

Figure 3.4: Calibration curve of the motor controlling the linear motion of the slide shows
the slide velocity as a function of motor voltage for motion in both directions.

The sweep travel is measured with a Lion Precision capacitance probe. The
capacitance probe is mounted on the horizontal slide along with the tool, targeting the
ground surface of the CAP holder. Figure 3.5 shows a close-up view of this. This
capacitance probe has a range of 508 m (0.020 in). To avoid crashing the capacitance
23
probe into the target, only about 75% of the range (about 380 m) is used during
measurement. Data were taken using Siglab A/ D converter unit along with Siglab data
acquisition software for this method, as well as in the tool rotation method discussed in the
following section.

Figure 3.5: Close-up of the experimental setup showing the capacitance probe that tracks
the sweep

3.3 TOOL ROTATION METHOD

The second method for measuring the profile of the tool edge is to rotate of the tool about
its center of curvature of the nominally round edge and mapping the edge with a fixed probe
as illustrated in Figure 3.6. The LLNL instrument discussed in Section 2.5 uses this method.
CAP Holder
Capacitance
Probe
CAP
Tool
24
The probe makes contact with the tool nose edge at the very tip of the probe along the
probe axis, which creates a fixed contact point.

Probe
Tool

Figure 3.6: The profile of the tool can be measured by rotating the probe and tool relative
to each other about the center of curvature of the tool.

The experimental setup for this method is designed around the use of a Professional
Instruments BLOCK-HEAD

4R air bearing spindle as the axis of rotation. This spindle is


very accurate, with nanometer-level axial and radial error motions. The rotation of the
spindle is tracked by a Hewlett-Packard 512-count rotary encoder with a square wave output.
The tool is mounted on the spindle. Two linear-motion flexures are used as a two-
axis horizontal positioning system used to align the center of curvature of the tool with the
axis of rotation of the spindle. A Micro-Controle ball bearing vertical slide is used to adjust
the probe height. A solid model of the instrument depicting these positioning mechanisms
is shown in Figure 3.7. The flexures have a total range of 500 m (0.020 in). Each is
actuated by an ultra-fine 100 thread per inch thumbscrew shown in Figure 3.8.
25

Figure 3.7: A solid model of the instrument that uses an air bearing spindle to rotate the
tool. The CAP profiles the edge of the tool.


Figure 3.8: An ultra-fine adjustment screw with 100 threads per inch is used to actuate each
positioning flexure.

tool
CAP
flexures
Air
bearing
spindle
vertical
stage
26
The CAP is mounted on the height adjustment axis and aligned with its axis
perpendicular and coincident with the axis of rotation. A photograph of the instrument is
shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9: A photograph of the measurement instrument incorporating tool rotation

3.3.1 FLEXURE DESIGN

The most crucial component of the rotary design is the positioning mechanisms, in
particular, the horizontal positioning of the tool. The accuracy of the instrument depends
on the alignment of the center of curvature of the tool with the axis of rotation of the
spindle. Because only very small displacements are needed, a flexure is a favorable
positioning device.
27
Figure 3.10 shows a simple notch hinge flexure. For perfect hinges, assuming small
displacements, the upper platform will exhibit nearly rectilinear motion with no rotation for
an applied load, F. The rectangular mechanism essentially becomes a parallelogram when a
load is applied, which allows some second-order motion in the direction perpendicular to the
desired motion, x, which may be undesirable. In order to alleviate this problem, a double
notch hinge is used. This mirrors the flexure about A .

F
L
*

R
L
t
A
B
x

Figure 3.10: A simple notch hinge flexure

Smith presents the design of the flexure using a dynamic analysis with the application
of Lagranges equation [22]. The flexure is modeled as a single degree of freedom system
and Lagranges equation can be written as
x
F
x
V
x
T
x
T
dt
d


,
_

&
(3.1)
where
2
2 *
2
2
x
L
I M
T
C A
&

,
_

+ (3.2)
28
2 *
2
4
L
x K
V
Z Z
M
(3.3)
( )
2
2
4
3
R LR M
L M
I
C
C
C
+ + (3.4)
2 1
2 5
9
2
R
Edt
K
Z Z
M

(3.5)
The kinetic energy, T , is the spring energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energy from the
velocity of the platform in the x -direction and the kinetic energy from the rotational velocity
of the support legs with moment of inertia, I
C
. The strain energy, V , is calculated from the
angular stiffness,
Z Z
M
K

.
The static stiffness,
x
K , is found by substituting equations (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), and (3.5)
into equation (3.1) and setting the dynamic terms equal to zero ( 0 x x & & & ). Rearranging,
the stiffness can be calculated from
2 * 2 1
2 5
9
16
L R
Edt
x
F
K
x
x

(3.6)
It is generally desired to have a high stiffness for the flexure, but limiting factors such
as space constraints prevent extremely high stiffness from being achieved. The crucial
design parameter for this application is the maximum deflection. The flexure is to be
designed to move the tool 250 m (0.01 in) in each direction. Therefore, the thickness of
the hinge, t, the radius of the notch, R , and the length of the hinge, L , need to be engineered
to meet the range specifications. Aluminum was chosen for the material because of its high
elasticity and easy manufacturability. The design stress, which is based on the yield stress, is
another limiting factor in the design. A factor of safety of two is used to avoid yielding in
the flexure. Rearranging equation (3.6) yields
29
5 2
2 * 2 1
16
9

,
_

Edx
L R F
t
x

(3.7)
Smith also formulates an equation for calculating stress in a hinge flexure
( )
R
t
L
Ex
d
20 19
2 *
1
3
4

+
(3.8)
where
R
t
2
(3.9)
2
Y Y
d
FS

(3.10)
A double notch hinge could not be designed to fit into the space allowed with the
desired maximum deflection, therefore, a double slotted notch had to be used. Shown in
Figure 3.11, the slotted notch creates an increase in the area of the hinge at the hinge
thickness, which reduces the stresses in the notch. The final design includes a hinge
thickness of 0.75 mm (0.030 in) and a notch radius of 6.3 mm (0.25 in).

30

F
R
L
t
A
B
x

Figure 3.11: The double notch hinge flexure with slotted notches.

Finite element models were used to verify this design. Analysis using thin shell
elements was performed with I-deas finite element software. Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show the
finite element results. The figures show the Von Mises stress distribution when the flexure
is allowed to displace to its design limit of 250 m (0.010 in). Figure 3.12 shows the stress
for the circular notch flexure. The maximum stress is 6980 psi (48.1 MPa). In comparison
to the slotted notch flexure, which has a slot length of 0.63 mm (0.25 in), this stress is much
higher. Figure 3.13 illustrates that the maximum stress in the slotted notch flexure is 4090
psi (28.2 MPa), which is a 40% reduction in stress. The force required to actuate the flexure
to its maximum deflection is 30 N (7 lbs).
31

Figure 3.12: Finite element stress results from the maximum design deflection in the
circular notch flexure. The scale is in psi.

32

Figure 3.13: Finite element stress results from the maximum design deflection in the slotted
notch flexure. The scale is in psi.

3.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A major obstacle in performing a measurement is the error involved in positioning the part
to be measured, particularly in measuring tool wear by the rotational method. The difficulty
exists in positioning the center of curvature of the diamond tool coincident with the axis of
rotation of the spindle. An axis of rotation is defined as a line about which rotation occurs
[23]. Alignment in five of the six basic degrees of freedom (x, y, z, pitch, and roll) needs to
be considered. The yaw is unimportant to the position of the tool because the tool will be
rotated on the spindle in that same direction and measured with the rotary encoder.
33
The sensitivity analysis takes into account several assumptions to simplify the
calculations. First, the edge of the tool is assumed to be an arc of a circle. If the clearance
angle of the tool is sufficiently large, the probe is always in contact with the edge of the tool
and not the clearance face of the tool. A second assumption is that the axis of the
measurement probe is perpendicular and coincident with the axis of rotation of the spindle.
Alignment of the probe is resolved during the construction of the instrument.
A simplified sensitivity analysis is performed taking into account only linear
positioning errors of the tool. The analysis describes the difference between the
displacement measurement made in an ideal setup and the measurement made in a setup
where the center of curvature of the tool is not coincident with the axis of rotation.
Figure 3.14 shows the ideal setup with a spherical probe tip and the circular tool tip with its
center of curvature aligned with the axis of rotation of the spindle. The tool and probe are
shown as circles for simplicity. The linear misalignments of the tool (x, y, z) with
respect to the axis of rotation of the spindle are illustrated in Figure 3.15.
As the spindle rotates, the orientation of the tool misalignment changes with respect
to the probe tip. When the spindle rotates some angle , the distance that the tool center of
radius is offset from the axis of rotation, x y, does not change. However, the direction of
this offset in the plane of the tool edge does change. Figure 3.16 shows, that for some
rotation of the spindle, the effective direction of the offset from the probe axis,
eff
, is a
function of , x , and y.
34

Spherical
Probe
Round
Tool Tip
RP
RT
Axis of
Rotation
x
y
x
z
Probe Axis
Top View
Side View

Figure 3.14: The CAP probe (spherical diamond stylus) and tool tip (circular edge) are
shown in the ideal setup. The center of curvature of the tool is positioned on the axis of
rotation of the spindle.

35

x
y
x
z
x
y
z
Probe Tool Tip

Figure 3.15: The tool tip is offset from the ideal setup with three linear misalignment
offsets, x, y, and z. The dashed lines show the ideal setup.

36

x
y
x
z
ef f

Probe Tool Tip



Figure 3.16: The spindle is rotated about its axis. The change of direction of the total
offset with respect to the probe axis is shown. The dashed lines show the ideal setup and
the position of the probe and tool tip with linear offsets.

The total error of the probe reading resulting from the offsets can be determined
from the geometric relationships shown in Figure 3.17. The error, , is the difference
between the reading measured with the offsets and the reading measured without any
offsets, is expressed as
( )
2 2
,
) sin ( cos
eff eff P T eff T P
xy R R xy R R + + + (3.11)
where
( ) ( )
2 2
y x xy + (3.12)
x
y
eff

+
1
tan (3.13)
( )
2 2
,
z R R
P eff P
(3.14)
37


x
y
x
z
T P
R R +
eff
xy cos
( )
2 2
,
z R R
P eff P

( ) ( )
2 2
,
sin
eff eff P T
xy R R +
eff

Probe Tool Tip



Figure 3.17: The geometry shows that the offsets produce an error that is a function of the
three offsets, as well as the angle of spindle rotation.

The sensitivities of the error with respect to the individual offsets can be calculated
by taking the partial derivative of the error equation with respect to the offsets. For
example, the sensitivity of the error with respect to an offset in the x -direction would be
x

. The sensitivity can then be used to determine the uncertainty in the measurement.
Direct differentiation of the total error equation is quite cumbersome and results in a
complex expression for the sensitivity. In order to simplify this differentiation, the total
error equation is first expressed in terms of a Taylor series. Through expansion in a series
form, the higher order terms of the equation can be easily identified. Since the linear offsets
38
described in this analysis are very small when compared with the probe and tool tip radii,
higher order terms of those offsets are negligible. The resultant equation after the expansion
of the total error equation and the removal of higher order terms is:
sin cos y x (3.15)
This simplification only includes the first order terms of x and y. The offset in
the z -direction drops out of the equation because it is orthogonal to the plane of rotation
and measurement. Figure 3.18 illustrates the relative difference between the exact equation
for the total error, equation (3.11), and this simplified equation, equation (3.15). This graph
shows that there can be more than a 4% difference in the total error, which is a fairly large
difference. Therefore, second order terms should be included in the simplification of the
total error equation:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
P T P T P T P
R
z
R R
y x
R R
y
y
R R
x
x
2
sin cos
2
cos
sin
2
sin
cos
2 2 2 2 2

+
+

+
+

+
+

(3.16)
The graph is Figure 3.19 shows that the second order terms of the Taylor series brings the
simplified equation closer to the complete equation by reducing the difference in total error
to less than 0.00015%.
39
-40
-20
0
20
40
q Hdeg L
510
- 6
0.00001
0.000015
0.00002
0.000025
Offset HmL
0
1
2
3
4
Relative Error H%L
-40
-20
0
20
40
q Hdeg L

Figure 3.18: The relative error of the Taylor series simplification of the total error function
with only first order terms, with the offsets all the same magnitude.
-40
-20
0
20
40
q Hdeg L
510
-6
0.00001
0.000015
0.00002
0.000025
Offset HmL
0
0.00005
0.0001
Relative Error H%L
-40
-20
0
20
40
q Hdeg L

Figure 3.19: The relative error of the Taylor series simplification of the total error function
with first and second order terms of the offsets, with the offsets all the same magnitude.

40
The sensitivities (equations 3.17, 3.18, 3.19) can now be derived from this simplified
expression by differentiating equation (3.16) with respect to the offset in question.
( )
T P
x
R R
y x
x
S
+
+
+

cos sin sin


cos (3.17)
( )
T P
y
R R
y x
y
S
+
+
+

cos sin cos


sin (3.18)
P
z
R
z
z
S


(3.19)
These sensitivities are the change in total error with respect to a change in one of the offsets.
Each of these sensitivity equations is a function of the offsets and/ or the angle of rotation,
making it difficult to determine the effect of one offset on the error since the other offsets
are not necessarily known. Assuming that the offset will be less than 1.25 m (50 in),
different scenarios can be explored in order to characterize trends in the total error for
different tools.
The sensitivities can be used in calculating the uncertainty of the measurement. The
expected uncertainty can be written as
2
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

n
i i
i a
a
w w

(3.20)
where

w is the uncertainty in the total error and


i
a represents each offset: x , y, and z.
For example, if 38
x
w m, 25
y
w m, and 13
z
w m, then the uncertainty at
o
15 is 36 m (0.0014 in).
41
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

This chapter outlines the procedures for measuring tools using both of the instruments
discussed in the previous chapter. Data acquisition and analysis procedures are also
presented.
4.1 TOOL SWEEP METHOD

The shank of the tool is mounted in the tool holder and aligned perpendicular to the
direction of travel of the horizontal slide. Then, using the reading from the capacitance
probe amplifier, the approximate center of the tool can be found, both vertically and
horizontally. Ideally, the axis of the tool is collinear with the axis of the measurement probe,
as show in Figure 4.1.


Probe
Tool
y
x

Figure 4.1: Ideal collinear alignment of the probe and tool axes

42
The range of the capacitance probe used to measure the y-travel sweep of the tool is
centered at this point to allow for equal amount data capture on either side of the tool axis.
The horizontal slide is then moved about 230 m (0.009 in) in the y-direction to a position
slightly past the starting point of the data acquisition.
The number of data points to be taken is determined by the desired spacing of the
points. For a discrete reading from the capacitance probe at about every 50 nm (2 in) over
the 380-m (0.015-in) range, a sample size of 8192 is used. This generates a spatial
resolution of approximately 50 nm (2 in). The motor speed and sample rate are chosen
together in order to take the data in the designed region. A sample rate of 128 Hz allows the
data to be taken over 64 seconds. The motor speed is set at 5.6 m per second, which
corresponds to a DC motor control voltage of 0.483 volts. The data acquisition is set begin
sampling at 190 m (0.0075 in) from the axis of the probe. To make the measurement, the
motor is started, moving the slide in the y-direction.
4.2 TOOL ROTATION METHOD

For the tool rotation method, the tool is placed in the tool holder located on the spindle
assembly. The center of curvature of the tool has to be positioned approximately coincident
with the axis of rotation of the spindle. The tool is then fixed in place with setscrews.
The height of the CAP first must be adjusted so that the center of the probe tip
contacts the edge of the tool. The ultra -fine thumbscrews that actuate the flexures are used
to position the tool in the horizontal plane so as to situate the center of curvature of the tool
more accurately on the axis of rotation of the spindle. The positioning can be performed
through the reading from the capacitance probe. In an ideal situation, a perfectly round tool
edge centered on the axis of rotation will yield a constant output as the tool is rotated. The
43
positioning mechanisms are adjusted until the total indicator runout (TIR) of the capacitance
probe output is minimized. Parabolic deviations from this ideal describe error in the in/ out
positioning, which is the x -direction. Linear deviations from the ideal describe error in the
direction perpendicular to the probe axis.
The selection of the data acquisition parameters is dependent on the radius of the
tool. If the radius of curvature of the tool is large, then the angle of rotation will be small. A
small radius tool will require a larger angle of rotation. The sampling frequency can be
relatively low because only two points for each encoder count will be considered in the
processing the data. The increased benefits of high sample rates are higher spindle speeds
and increased resolution at the zero crossing of the square wave. The number of discrete
data points used in the analysis is dependent on the sampling frequency and the desired
speed of spindle rotation over the scan.
The spindle is rotated by hand. The data acquisition is triggered by the onset of
spindle rotation. Once the data are taken, they are processed in Matlab. The computer code
reduces the data set by selecting two points on each square wave of the encoder output at a
voltage level between the peaks of the wave. This essentially doubles the encoder resolution
from 512 counts per revolution to 1024 counts per revolution. The code selects the
corresponding points from the capacitance probe output. Figure 4.2 shows an example of
the encoder output and the points taken off the square wave, along with the corresponding
points from the capacitance probe output.
44

Figure 4.2: Plot of the encoder output and the points selected from this data set to be used


45
CHAPTER 5
TEST RESULTS

The chapter presents the measurement results from both test methods. The repeatability of
these measurements is discussed as well. A comparison of the two methods is also made.
5.1 TOOL SWEEP METHOD

Table 5.1 lists the four tools used in the experiments. Both single crystal and polycrystalline
tools are among those used. All four tools have various amounts of wear. Tool A was
initially measured three times. Figure 5.1 shows a plot of the first measurement taken. The
three measurements of tools B, C, and D are shown in Figures 5.2 through 5.4. In each case,
the shape of the profile is noticeably not an arc. This effect comes from the contact of a
spherical probe tip with the nominally round edge of the tool. Because of the large radius of
the probe tip, the sweep of the tool shown in the figure does not correlate directly to the
actual amount of tool measured. Figure 5.5 shows how the difference between the actual
sweep and the measured sweep is dependent on the tool nose radius and the probe radius.

Table 5.1: List of tools measured
Tool Edge Radius Description
A 0.75 mm (0.030 in) New Low Qualit y Polycryst alline
B 0.28 mm (0.011 in) Slight ly Used High Qualit y Single Cryst al
C 1.5 mm (0.060 in) Moderat ely Used High Qualit y Single Cryst al
D 5 mm (0.200 in) Heavily Used High Qualit y Single Cryst al


46

Figure 5.1: The unadjusted profile of a tool A


Figure 5.2: The unadjusted profile of tool B
47


Figure 5.3: The unadjusted profile of tool C


Figure 5.4: The unadjusted profile of tool D

48


Probe
Tool
Actual Sweep Distance, x
Measured Sweep Distance, x
?
RP
RT

Figure 5.5: The radius of the probe creates a difference between the sweep distance of the
probe and the actual portion of the tool that is measured.

The profile of the tool measured can be calculated by knowing the nominal tool nose
radius and the probe tip radius. Several assumptions have to be made. First, there is no
wear of the tool at the point of contact at the beginning (or at the end) of the sweep. This
gives a point on the ideal tool edge to reference the rest of the measurements. This
assumption is only good if there is a small amount of wear. The angular position of the
contact point can be defined as

,
_


T P
R R
x
1
sin (5.1)
where x is the measured sweep distance. Second, the probe tip is assumed to be a perfect
arc in the contact plane. Third, the deviation of the tool profile from the ideal is assumed to
49
be small relative to the radius of the tool and probe tip for equation 5.1 to be valid of the
entire sweep. The adjusted sweep is defined as
sin
P
R x x (5.2)
and the adjusted profile is defined through linear proportionality as
x
x y
y

(5.3)
The conversion results in the profile shown in Figure 5.6. The profile shape does not
change, but the amount of tool profiled is now much less than the distance of the sweep.
When converted to an angular measurement, the small amount of the tool edge actually
measured is apparent. The larger the tool radius, the smaller the angle of measurement is,
which is illustrated in Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.6: The profile of tool C after the data are adjusted for the probe contact location

50

Figure 5.7: The profile of tool C after the data are adjusted for the probe contact location
and plotted against tool angle

Repeatability is investigated by performing the measurement multiple times and
comparing the results. Figure 5.8 shows the difference error for three measurements taken
of tool A. This error is the difference between the minimum and maximum values recorded
along the sweep. The maximum error is less than 30 nm (1.2 in). Worn tools also show
similar results in repeatability. Three other tools of varied amounts of wear exhibited
repeatability of less than 55 nm (2.2 in). More repeatability results can be seen in Section
5.3 along with other measurement results.
51

Figure 5.8: The absolute difference error across the three measurements taken for tool A

5.2 TOOL ROTATION METHOD

Tools A, B, and C are measured using the tool rotation method. Figure 5.9 shows the results
from measurement of tool B using the tool rotation method. As discussed previously, the
accuracy of the measurement depends on the positioning of the center of curvature of the
tool on the axis of rotation of the spindle. Also, thermal drift in the aluminum flexures
generates a small DC shift in subsequent measurements over the course of a few minutes.
Because of the difficulty in positioning the tool with a high degree of precision, the data
processing code adjusts the data with a third order polynomial fit, which removes any
remaining horizontal offset due to the tool positioning error. Figure 5.10 through 5.12
display the three measurements of each of the three tools.
52

Figure 5.9: Direct measurement of tool B using tool rotation


Figure 5.10: Profile of tool B adjusted for positioning error

53

Figure 5.11: Profile of tool C adjusted for positioning error


Figure 5.12: Profile of tool D adjusted for positioning error

54
The tool rotation measurement technique was used to measure tool B three times.
This characterizes the repeatability of the experiment. Figure 5.13 shows the maximum
difference between the three measurements. The measurement repeats to less than 80 nm
(3.2 in). Tools that have more wear exhibit larger variations across the measurements. Of
the three tools measured, the difference between the measurements was as large as 450 nm
(17.7 in).

Figure 5.13: The absolute difference error across the three measurements taken for tool B

5.3 METHOD COMPARISON

Tools B, C, and D are measured with both the tool sweep method and the tool rotation
method, and the results are shown in Figures 5.14 through 5.16. The profiles generated by
the tool sweep method are adjusted for the radius of the measurement probe. Only a small
angle of the tool profile is measured in the sweep measurements. The two tests yield very
55
different profiles. This is due to the inaccurate assumptions made about the probe tip and
the tool edge. The accuracy of the radius and roundness of the probe tip and the tool edge
severely affect the conversion of the sweep measurement into an angular measurement.
Additionally, errors in locating the tool axis can cause errors in this conversion. Because of
these factors, it is inappropriate to use these tests interchangeably.

Figure 5.14: This plot displays the profiles of tool B using the tool sweep method and the
tool rotation method.

56

Figure 5.15: This plot displays the profiles of tool C using the tool sweep method and the
tool rotation method.


Figure 5.16: This plot displays the profiles of tool D using the tool sweep method and the
tool rotation method.

57
As discussed in Section 2.5, microscopy can be used to measure tool wear. Figure
5.17 shows photographs taken with the microscope. The photos clearly show the amount of
wear and the wear pattern of tools A, B, and C.

(a) (b) (c)
100 m

Figure 5.17: Micrographs of the edge wear for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool D

The repeatability of the tests is important when using comparative measurement
techniques. For each experiment, three measurements are taken and the repeatability is
characterized as the absolute maximum deviation between the three measurements at each
point along the profile. Figure 5.18 shows the repeatability of the tool sweep method over
the three measurements for each tool. The maximum deviation along the profile occurred
when measuring tool C. Figure 5.19 shows similar plots for the tool rotation method, where
the maximum deviation occurred when measuring tool D. Table 5.2 summarizes the
repeatability data.
58

Figure 5.18: Repeatability over three measurements is determined by the maximum
absolute deviation in the profiles generated by the tool sweep method. This plot shows this
deviation for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool D.

(b)
59

Figure 5.19: Repeat ability over three measurements is determined by the maximum
absolute deviation in the profiles generated by the tool rotation method. This plot shows
this deviation for (a) tool B, (b) tool C, and (c) tool D.

Table 5.2: The repeatability of the measurements determined by the maximum absolute
deviation in the profile over three tests

Tool Tool Sweep Method (nm) Tool Rotation Method (nm)
A 30 -
B 11 78
C 53 305
D 11 430


60
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Both the tool sweep method and the tool rotation method are effective in mapping the
profile of the tool edge. Comparison of the two methods shows that they are not
completely interchangeable. Both methods measure tools by comparison and must be used
independently of each other.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. The tool sweep method is a
highly repeatable technique. The error is more than an order of magnitude less than that of
the tool rotation method. The tool sweep method also has a finer spatial resolution than the
tool rotation method. The tool rotation method is superior in the fact that it directly
measures the angular profile of the tool because it is not dependent on the radius of the
probe, unlike the tool sweep method. Another advantage of the tool rotation method is that
it is capable of measuring the entire arc of the tool edge, while the tool sweep method can
only measure a small angle of the tool. A distinct disadvantage of the tool rotation method
is the difficulty in positioning the tool center of curvature on the axis of rotation. The only
positioning of significant consequence in the tool sweep method is the alignment of the tool
and the probe perpendicular to the motion of the horizontal slide.
Additional work can be undertaken to improve both measurement techniques. The
tool sweep method can be improved by adding a linear encoder or LVDT to the horizontal
slide of the Moore base, which would replace the capacitance probe in tracking the sweep
position. It would greatly enlarge the amount of the tool measured. Using a probe tip with
a smaller radius can also increase the portion of the tool edge arc measured in the tool sweep
method. With respect to the tool rotation instrument, an encoder with a higher count can
61
be used to increase the spatial resolution of the measurements. Also, higher accuracy
positioning mechanisms that are more thermally stable should be incorporated. Ultimately,
the creation of a data acquisition software interface that processes the data and displays the
results would make both instruments easier to operate.

62
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL REACTION MECHANISMS

Paul et al. present a description of chemical wear through catalytic mechanisms with and
without oxygen involvement [9]. The following discussion is taken directly from the
referenced document.

The first mechanism, without oxygen, occurs through three principal steps: (A.1)
reversible formation of a transition complex between carbon atoms from the diamond lattice
and metal atoms; (A.2) reversible decay of the transition complex to give carbon in a
graphite conformation and metal atoms; and (A.3) decay of the transition complex by
diffusion of carbon atoms into vacant sites in the metal. In addition, two possible
subsequent reactions may occur: (A.4) interaction of the complex with other molecules in
the environment to form alternate products; and (A.5) diffusion of carbon atoms from
surface graphite into the metal.
MC C M
f
r
k
k
D
1
1
*
+ (A.1)
MC C M
f
r
k
k
G
2
2
*
+ (A.2)
F M V MC
k
+ +
*
3
(A.3)
P M R MC
k
+ +
*
4
(A.4)
F V C
D
k
G
+ (A.5)
63
Steps 1 and 2 represent the formation of the metal-carbon complex from active
metal sites M
*
and carbon atoms from the diamond and graphite lattices, respectively. These
are written as reversible reactions, with forward and reverse rate constants.
Figure A.1 is the reaction coordinate diagram for
G D
C C . It shows that the
reaction between C
D
and C
G
must pass through C
*
in the absence of a catalyst or through the
complex MC in the presence of a catalyst. The respective activation energies E
a
and E
acat
for
the
G D
C C reaction are both large compared to the difference in energy ?E between
these two forms. Both transition complexes require substantial energy to form and little
energy to break. However, because
acat a
E E >> , the MC complex is far more accessible
than the C* one, and the uncatalyzed reaction is not a significant pathway. Furthermore,
because
acat
E E << , the formation energy of the MC complex from either C
D
or C
G
is
approximately the same, and the forward and reverse reaction rates k
1f
and k
2f
are
approximately equal. Similarly, the reverse rate constants for these two reactions are about
the same and are larger than the forward ones. Thus, the rate constants in (A.1) and (A.2)
become the following:
r r r f f f
k k k k k k
1 2 2 1
<< (A.6)
64

ENERGY
a
E
mc
acat
E
Diamond
Graphite
E
Transition state complex (C
*
)
(no catalyst )
Metal-carbon complex (MC)
omc
acat
E
Metal-carbon-oxygen
complex (OMC)

Figure A.1: Reaction coordinate diagram

Carbon atoms in the metal-carbon complexes can also diffuse into a vacant site in
the metal lattice. Alternatively, they may react with other components in the environment
(oxygen, hydrogen, hydrocarbons, etc.) to form various hydrocarbons, CO, or CO
2
. These
reactions are represented by steps (A.3) and (A.4), where R and P represent reactants and
products formed with carbon atoms in other reactions, and where V and F represent vacant
and filled diffusion sites in the metal lattice. These steps provide alternative modes of
regeneration M
*
from the MC complex.
In step (A.5), graphitic carbon atoms can diffuse into vacant metal lattice sites, with
experimentally available diffusion constants k
D
for carbon into metal. Thus, diffusion can be
seen to occur through two mechanisms, depending upon the starting condition. In both
cases, the rate of diffusion will be proportional to V , the number of vacant sites, which is
65
itself proportional to the difference between the saturation concentration and the actual
concentration of carbon in the metal. In step (A.3), the complex is already in a high energy
state, compared to the intermediate for diffusion. Thus, k
3
should be proportional to k
r
, the
rate of decay for the complex. This provides for direct diffusion from the metal-carbon
complex, without the preliminary formation of graphite.
In the presence of oxygen, a mechanism analogous to the one above can occur with
a preliminary step:
OM M O
Of
Or
k
k
+
*
(A.7)
66
APPENDIX B
MATLAB DATA PROCESSING CODE

B.1 TOOL SWEEP METHOD

% Program sweep_process.m
% Written by: Steven Henry
% June 28, 2001
% Purpose: This program processes a set of data taken from Siglab for
% the evaluation of tool wear using the tool sweep method. It
% takes the raw data and outputs an adjusted profile and angular
% reference for the measurement. The program sweep_diff.m can be
% used to compare several consecutive measurements of one tool to
% evaluate repeatability.

% Input the number of data points in the arrays, the probe radius,
% and the tool radius
n=8192;
rp=0.125;
rt=0.060;

% Input the capacitance probe sensitivities in V/mil
xsen=1;
dsen=10;

% Input the raw data
x1=VCAP_DATA(:,1)*0.001/xsen;
d1=VCAP_DATA(:,2)*0.001/dsen;

% Center the data
[m1,center]=max(d1);
d11=d1-m1;
x11=x1-x1(center);

% Plot the profile
figure;
plot(x11*0.0254*1E6,d11*0.0254*1E6)
xlabel('Sweep (micrometers)')
ylabel('Unadjusted Profile (micrometers)')

% Ajust the profile for probe radius
theta=asin(x11/(rp+rt));
x1p=x11-rp*sin(theta);
d1p=d11.*x1p./x11;
d1pa=d1p+rt;
figure;
plot((x1p')*0.0254*1E6,d1p*0.0254*1E6)
xlabel('Sweep (micrometers)')
ylabel('Adjusted Profile (micrometers)')
67

% Plot with respect to the calculated angle
r=sqrt(x1p.^2+d1pa.^2);
figure;
plot(theta*180/pi,r*0.0254*1E6)
xlabel('Calculated Angle (deg)')
ylabel('Profile Adjusted for Probe Radius (micrometers)')


% Program sweep_diff.m
% Written by: Steven Henry
% June 28, 2001
% Purpose: This program takes the outputs (x1,d1) from sweep_process.m
% and compares the data by evaluating repeatability of the
% measurement process. Three data sets are compared in this
% program. The names of the outputs from sweep_process.m need to
% be changed to x1, d1, x2, d2, x3, d3.

% Clear variables
clear d2p d3p diff diff2 dmax x2min x3min x2p x3p
clear alldiff alldiffm

% Input the size of the data arrays
n=8192;

% Create a loop to align the data sets using a linear interpolation to
% find the maximum difference between the three readings
for i=1:n-1
x=x1(i);
x2p=abs(x2-x*ones(length(x1),1));
x3p=abs(x3-x*ones(length(x1),1));
[x2min,v2]=min(x2p);
[x3min,v3]=min(x3p);
if v2<n
if v3<n
[p2,s2]=polyfit(x2(v2:v2+1),d2(v2:v2+1),1);
d2p(i,1)=p2(1)*x+p2(2);
[p3,s3]=polyfit(x3(v3:v3+1),d3(v3:v3+1),1);
d3p(i,1)=p3(1)*x+p3(2);
else
v3
break;
end
else
v2
break;
end
end

% Calculate the repeatability
len=length(d2p);
diff2=(d2p-d1(1:len));
diff3=(d3p-d1(1:len));
for j=1:len
68
alldiff(j,1)=(max([d1(j) d2p(j) d3p(j)])-min([d1(j) d2p(j)
d3p(j)]));
end

% Plot results in metric units
x1m=x1*.0254*1E6; % micrometers
d1m=d1*.0001*.0254*1E9; % nanometers
alldiffm=alldiff*.0254*1E9;
figure;
plot(x1m,d1m)
xlabel('Sweep (micrometers)')
ylabel('Profile (micrometers)')
figure;
plot(x1m(1:len),alldiffm)
xlabel('Sweep (micrometers)')
ylabel('Difference (nanometers)')


B.2 TOOL ROTATION METHOD

% Program rot_process.m
% Written by: Steven Henry
% June 21, 2001
% Purpose: This program processes a set of data taken from Siglab for
% the evaluation of tool wear. It takes the raw data and outputs a
% profile and angular reference for the measurement. The program
% rot_diff.m can be used to compare several consecutive
% measurements of one tool to evaluate repeatability.

% Clear all variables used in this program
clear above below rt rlog rot rot1 cap cap1 cap1p u v p q center cenlog
clog profile delta angle;
clear profile g h i k s t off n level location scale sense;

% Input the number of data points in the set, the tool nose radius in
% inches, the capacitance probe sensitivity in inches/volt, and the
% desired range of "good" data
n=length(VCAP_DATA);
rt=0.011;
sense=0.001;
scale=0.0002;
off=20;

% Set variables for the raw data from Siglab
rot=VCAP_DATA(:,2);
cap=VCAP_DATA(:,3)*sense+.0001;
center=VCAP_DATA(:,1);

% Use interpolation to pick two points from each square wave of the
% encoder signal, yielding 1024 points over an entire rotation of the
% spindle. Reset an index and select a level where the interpolated
69
% point should be taken.
s=1;
level=1.00;

for i=1:n-1
if rot(i)<level
if rot(i+1)>level
above=rot(i+1)-level;
below=level-rot(i);
if above<below
rlog(s)=i+1;
rot1(s)=rot(i+1);
cap1(s)=cap(i+1);
s=s+1;
else
rlog(s)=i;
rot1(s)=rot(i);
cap1(s)=cap(i+1);
s=s+1;
end
end
elseif rot(i)>level
if rot(i+1)<level
above=rot(i)-level;
below=level-rot(i+1);
if above<below
rlog(s)=i;
rot1(s)=rot(i);
cap1(s)=cap(i);
s=s+1;
else
rlog(s)=i+1;
rot1(s)=rot(i+1);
cap1(s)=cap(i+1);
s=s+1;
end
end
end
end

% Use the encoder "zero" point to set a reference for all data
for i=1:length(rlog)
if center(rlog(i))>level
cenlog=rlog(i);
location=i;
end
end

% Plot the new profile signal
figure;
plot(rlog,cap1)

% Select the "good" data by eliminating bad data from the sides of the
% tool edge
t=1;
for i=1:length(cap1)-1
if abs(cap1(i))<scale/2
70
clog(t)=i;
t=t+1;
end
end

% Reorient the profile by adding the tool nose radius
profile=cap1(clog(1):clog(length(clog)))-max(cap1)+rt;

% Generate a angle vector from the encoder data
delta=360/1024;
k=length(profile);
for i=1:k
angle(i)=(i-1-(location-clog(1)-off))*delta*pi/180;
end

% Plot the results in polar and rectangular coordinates
figure;
polar(angle,profile)
figure;
plot(angle*180/pi,profile)

% Change the plot scale in polar coordinates to visualize wear
g=profile-0.95*rt;
h=angle+pi/2;
figure;
polar(h,g)



% Program rot_diff.m
% Written by: Steven Henry
% June 21, 2001
% Purpose: This program takes the outputs (profile,angle) from
% process.m and compares the data by evaluating repeatability of
% the measurement process. Three data sets are compared in this
% program. The names of the outputs from rot_process.m need to be
% changed to profile1, angle1, profile2, angle2, profile3, angle3.

% Clear variables
clear adj1 adj2 adj3 ang degree delta diff diff2 err fit1 fit2 fit3 g i
j k m1 m2 m3;
clear p pro1 pro2 pro3 prof1 prof2 prof3 rt;

% Set the tool nose radius in inches
rt=0.200;

% Select the angular increment and a small number by which each angle
% vector may differ from this increment
delta=2*pi/1024;
err=delta*.1;

% Narrow the three sets of data by selecting on the angular points
% shared by all sets
g=1;
71
for i=1:513
degree=-pi/4+(i-1)*delta;
for j=1:length(angle1)
if angle1(j)<degree+err & angle1(j)>degree-err
for k=1:length(angle2)
if angle2(k)<degree+err & angle2(k)>degree-err
for p=1:length(angle3)
if angle3(p)<degree+err & angle3(p)>degree-err
pro1(g)=profile1(j);
pro2(g)=profile2(k);
pro3(g)=profile3(p);
ang(g)=angle3(p);
g=g+1;
end
end
end
end
end
end
end

% Remove the offset from each of these data sets caused by any drift in
% the measurement procedure (thermal or otherwise) over the course of
% the tests
prof1=pro1;
prof2=pro2-(pro2(round(length(ang)/2))-pro1(round(length(ang)/2)));
prof3=pro3-(pro3(round(length(ang)/2))-pro1(round(length(ang)/2)));

% Find the maximum difference in the measurements
for i=1:length(ang)
diff(i)=max([prof1(i) prof2(i) prof3(i)])-min([prof1(i) prof2(i)
prof3(i)]);
end
figure;
plot(ang*180/pi,diff*0.0254*1E9)
xlabel('Angle of Rotation (deg)')
ylabel('Unadjusted Repeatability (nanometers)')


% Plot the profile
figure;
plot(ang*180/pi,prof1*0.0254*1E3)
xlabel('Angle of Rotation (deg)')
ylabel('Unadjusted Profile (millimeters)')

% Use a third order polynomial curve fit to remove horizontal
% positioning offsets
m1=polyfit(ang,prof1,3);
m2=polyfit(ang,prof2,3);
m3=polyfit(ang,prof3,3);
fit1=m1(1)*ang.^3+m1(2)*ang.^2+m1(3)*ang+m1(4);
fit2=m2(1)*ang.^3+m2(2)*ang.^2+m2(3)*ang+m2(4);
fit3=m3(1)*ang.^3+m3(2)*ang.^2+m3(3)*ang+m3(4);
adj1=prof1-fit1;
adj2=prof2-fit2;
adj3=prof3-fit3;

72
% Plot the adjusted profiles
figure;
plot(ang*180/pi,(adj1+(rt-max(adj1)))*0.0254*1E3)
xlabel('Angle of Rotation (deg)')
ylabel('Adjusted Profile (millimeters)')

% Find the maximum difference in the adjusted measurements
for i=1:length(ang)
diff2(i)=max([adj2(i) adj2(i) adj3(i)])-min([adj1(i) adj2(i)
adj3(i)]);
end
figure;
plot(ang*180/pi,diff2*0.0254*1E9)
xlabel('Angle of Rotation (deg)')
ylabel('Repeatability (nanometers)')


73
REFERENCES


1 Choi, I., and Kim, J. Development of monitoring system on the diamond tool
wear. International Journal of Machine T ools & Manufacture. v 39, n 3, 1999, pp. 505-515.

2 Ko, J., and Cho, D. Tool Wear Monitoring in Diamond Turning by Fuzzy Pattern
Recongnition. Journal of E ngineering for Industry. v 116, n 2, 1994, pp. 225-232.

3 Taniguchi, N. Current Status in, and Future Trends of, Ultraprecision Machining
and Ultrafine Materials Processing. A nnals of the CIR P. v 32, n 2, 1983, pp. 573-582.

4 Krauskopf, B. Diamond Turning: Reflecting the Demands for Precision.
Manufacturing E ngineering. v 92, 1984, pp. 90-100.

5 Ikawa, N., Donaldson, R., Komanduri, R., Knig, W., Aachen, T., McKeown, P.,
Moriwaki, T., and Stowers, I. Ultraprecision Metal Cutting The Past, Present and Future.
A nnals of the CIR P. v 40, n 2, 1991, pp.587-594.

6 Donaldson, R. and Patterson, S. Design and Construction of a Large Vertical Axis
Diamond Turning Machine. L L N L U CR L -89738. 1983.

7 Nakasuji, T, Kodera, S., Hara, S., Matsunaga, H, Ikawa, N., and Shimada, S.
Diamond Turning of Brittle Materials for Optical Components. A nnals of the CIR P. v 39, n
1, 1990, pp. 89-92.

8 Evans, C., Lundin, R., Polvani, R., and Stewart, D. Some Observations on Tool
Wear in Single Point Diamond Turning of Stainless Steel. Progress in Precision E ngineering:
Proceedings of the 6
th
International Precision E ngineering S eminar. 1991, pp.381-383.

9 Paul, E., Evans, C., Mangamelli, A., McGlauflin, M., and Polvani, R. Chemical
aspects of tool wear in diamond turning. Precision E ngineering. v 18, n 1, 1996, pp. 4-19.

10 Nazar, M., and Neves, A. Properties, Growth and A pplications of D iamond. London:
Institution of Electrical Engineers, 2001.

11 Wilks, J., and Wilks, E. Properties and A pplications of D iamond. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1991.

12 Evans, C. Cryogenic Diamond Turning of Stainless Steel. A nnals of the CIR P. v 40,
n 1, 1991, pp. 571-575.

13 El Gomayel, J., and Bregger, K. On-Line Tool Wear Sensing for Turning
Operations. Journal of E ngineering for Industry. v 108, n 1, 1986, pp. 44-47.

74


14 Zhou, M., and Ngoi, B. Effect of Tool Wear and Tool Setting on Profile Accuracy
of Diamond-turned Nonferrous Components. Materials and Manufacturing Processes. v 16, n 1,
2001, pp. 79-89.

15 Born, D. K., and Goodman, W. A. An empirical survey on the influence of
machining parameters on tool wear in diamond turning of large single-crystal silicon optics.
Precision E ngineering. v 25, n 4, 2001, pp. 247-257.

16 Scheffer, C., and Heyns, P. Synthetic Diamond Tool Wear Monitoring Using
Vibration Measurements. Proceedings of the International Modal A nalysis Conference. v 1, 2000, pp.
245-251.

17 Li, X. A brief review: acoustic emission method for tool wear monitoring during
testing. International Journal of Machine T ools & Manufacturing. v 42, n 2, 2002, pp. 157-165.

18 Liang, S., and Dornfeld, D. Tool wear detection using time series analysis of
acoustic emissions. Journal of E ngineering for Industry. v 111, n 3, 1989, pp. 199-205.

19 Chungchoo, C., and Saini, D. On-line tool wear estimation in CNC turning
operations using fuzzy neural network model. International Journal of Machine T ools &
Manufacture. v 42, n 1, 2002, pp. 29-40.

20 Isobata, Y., Tsutsumi, M., Lee, S., Yamazaki, K., and Liu, J. Tool wear analysis.
A erospace E ngineering. v , n 1, 1998, pp. 21-23.

21 Busch, T. Fundamentals of D imensional Metrology. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, 1989.

22 Smith, S. Flex ures: E lements of E lastic Mechanisms. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, 2000.

23 ANSI/ ASME B89.3.4M, A x es of R otation: Methods for Specifying and T esting. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1985 (1992).