International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Thermal analysis of minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process

Mohammadjafar Hadad a,n, Banafsheh Sadeghi b
a
Manufacturing Engineering Division, School of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Mathematics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Generally, compared to other machining processes, grinding involves high specific energy. Major
Received 29 May 2012 fraction of this energy is changed into heat which makes harmful effect on surface quality as well as
Received in revised form tool wear. As the name implies, MQL grinding uses a very small quantity of lubricant delivered precisely
4 July 2012
to the cutting zone. Often the quantity used is so small that no lubricant is recovered from the parts. A
Accepted 9 July 2012
number of studies have shown that compared to dry grinding; MQL technique substantially enhances
Available online 20 July 2012
cutting performance in terms of increasing wheel life and improving the quality of the ground parts.
Keywords: However, there is not any investigation of thermal analysis in MQL grinding process. This paper
Grinding presents a new method to calculate grinding temperatures and the energy partition to the workpiece
Minimum quantity lubrication (MQL)
during MQL grinding. Also, this model can be used for other grinding operations such as dry and
Temperature
conventional fluid grinding operations. To verify this model, temperature distributions were measured
Thermal analysis
Homogeneous two phase fluid in the subsurface of 100Cr6 hardened steel workpieces using an embedded thermocouple during
grinding with dry, MQL and conventional fluid grinding processes. In other words, to more accurately
predict grinding zone temperatures and heat fluxes, refinements such as convection heat transfer
coefficient of MQL/fluid in the grinding zone and incorporation of MQL/fluid-workpiece convective heat
flux effects outside the grinding zone, have been made to the existing thermal model. The effects of
conventional fluid parameters and MQL technique such as air pressure, oil mist flow rate, and oil
droplet properties have been considered in Nusselt number to predict convection coefficient of fluid,
and MQL grinding process. Using this analytical analysis procedure, the surface heat flux profile in the
grinding zone as well as sub surface temperature distribution can be computed from grinding process
parameters. The estimated and measured average convection heat transfer coefficient in the grinding
contact zone was about 3.7  104–4.3  104 W/m2 K for fluid grinding and 900–1500 W/m2 K for MQL
grinding that is in the range of measured values.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction dry grinding, as therefore is no cutting fluid to transfer the heat

During grinding many of the abrasive grits are in contact with
the workpiece each second, but just a portion of these grits have
the cutting role in the real process and the others do not perform
real cutting, but instead generate heat by rubbing and ploughing
the workpiece surface in the grinding contact zone. High heat
generation and temperature in the grinding contact zone is
associated with a high negative rake angle and with a great
contact length in grinding process [1–5].
It must be noted that during grinding operation, without using
sufficient cooling and lubrication, thermal damage and dimen-
sional inaccuracy on the workpiece surface will be generated and
the methods of minimum grinding fluids or dry grinding have not
yet been fully successful in industrial applications [1–10]. So in
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 21 8288 4316; fax: þ 98 21 8288 3547.
E-mail address: m.j.hadad@gmail.com (M.J. Hadad).
from the contact zone, problems frequently occur in terms of
thermal damage on the workpiece surface, increasing the grind-
ing energy and grinding forces, wear of grinding wheel, low
material removal rate (regarding relatively low depths of cut) as
well as poor surface integrity compared to conventional flood
grinding [11].
One attractive alternative for dry grinding is MQL grinding.
This process uses a minimum quantity of lubrication and is
referred to as near dry grinding. In minimum quantity lubrication
(MQL) grinding, an air–oil mixture called an aerosol is fed onto
the machining zone. In MQL process, aerosols are oil droplets
dispersed in a jet of air, oil droplets carried by the air fly directly
to the tool working zone, providing the needed cooling and
lubricating actions [1–10]. A number of studies have shown that
compared to dry grinding; MQL technique substantially enhances
cutting performance in terms of increasing wheel life and
improving the quality of the ground parts [1–10]. Shen [9] studied
the wheel wear and tribological characteristics in wet, dry and

0890-6955/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.07.003
2 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

Nomenclature qworkb Heat flux remains in the workpiece background (W/

m 2)
ae Depth of cut (mm) qws Heat flux to the wheel/workpiece interface (W/m2)
b Width of cut (mm) qh Heat flux to the MQL/fluid outside the contact zone
c Specific heat capacity (J/kg K) (W/m2)
Cp Specific heat capacity (J/kg K) Q mqlvap The vaporized oil flow rate (ml/h)
dg The average grain diameter (m) Qtrailing Oil flow rate remains in the oil mist that reach the
D MQL nozzle diameter (m) trailing edge (ml/h)
ds Wheel diameter (m) Qleading Oil flow rate in the leading edge (ml/h)
ec Grinding specific energy (J/mm3) T0(x,z) Temperature rise in the workpiece (1C)
ech Energy to the chip (J/m3) T max Maximum surface temperature rise (1C)
Ft Tangential force (N) Tmp Melting point temperature (1C)
Fn Normal force (N) T1mql Initial temperature of MQL (1C)
hcontact Convection heat transfer coefficient in the contact Tf Initial temperature of fluid (1C)
zone (W/m2 K) TN Ambient temperature (1C)
hleading Convection heat transfer coefficient in the leading uch Chip formation energy (J/mm3)
edge (W/m2 K) uf Velocity of fluid (m/s)
htrailing Convection heat transfer coefficient in the trailing uH Velocity of homogeneous fluid (m/s)
edge (W/m2 K) uHcont Velocity of homogeneous fluid in the contact zone
hf Convection heat transfer coefficient of fluid (W/m2 K) (m/s)
hmql Convection heat transfer coefficient of MQL (W/m2 K) uHleading Velocity of homogeneous fluid in the leading
hH Convection heat transfer coefficient of homogeneous edge (m/s)
two phase fluid (W/m2 K) uHtrailing Velocity of homogeneous fluid in the trailing
hout Convection heat transfer coefficient outside the con- edge (m/s)
tact zone (W/m2 K) Vc Wheel speed (m/s)
k Thermal conductivity (W/m K) Vft Work (table) speed (mm=min)
lc Real contact length (m) V_ The volume flow rate (m3/s)
lwf Wear flat diameter (m) V_ lvap
The volume flow rate of vaporized oil (m3/s)
m_ mqlvap mass flow rate of vaporized oil (kg/s) x The average gas weight fraction
P Air pressure (P) aH The average homogeneous volume fraction occupied
Q Oil flow rate (ml/h) by the gas
qfluid Heat flux to the fluid (W/m2) a Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
qtotal Total heat flux generated in the contact zone (W/m2) r Mass density (kg/m3)
qchip Heat flux to the chip (W/m2) m Dynamics viscosity (Pa s)
qwheel Heat flux to the wheel (W/m2) Dhmql Latent heat of vaporization of MQL oil (kJ/kg)
qwork Heat flux to the work (W/m2) g Abbreviation of gas (air)
qmql Heat flux to the MQL oil mist (W/m2) H Abbreviation of homogeneous two phase fluid
qmqlmax Maximum heat flux taken by MQL out of the contact l Abbreviation of MQL oil
zone (W/m2) w Abbreviation of workpiece

minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) grinding of a cast iron. He
used Water-based alumina and diamond nanofluids in the MQL
grinding process and compared the grinding results with those of
pure water. Nanofluids demonstrated the benefits of reducing
grinding forces, improving surface roughness, and preventing
burning of the workpiece. In contrast to dry grinding, MQL
grinding could remarkably lower the grinding temperature.
A considerable research effort has devoted to both theoretical
and experimental aspects of heat transfer in grinding. The classic
thermal analysis of moving heat source and the temperature at
sliding contacts was studied by Jaeger [12]. The application of
Jaeger’s moving heat source solutions to heat transfer problems in
grinding was first proposed by Outwater and Shaw [13], whereby
the grinding zone is approximated as a band source of heat
moving along the surface of the workpiece. Outwater and Shaw
assumed that grinding heat is mainly generated at the shear
plane, and thus the grinding temperature can be calculated by
matching the average temperatures on the shear plane. Hahn [14]
considered the frictional rubbing forces on the clearance surface
and neglected the cutting forces on the rake surface in the
grinding thermal model. Malkin [15] presented a comprehensive
literature review of early research work on the prediction of
workpiece surface temperatures in dry grinding without signifi-
cant convective heat transfer. Shaw [16] considered both real and
apparent contact areas, and used an area ratio factor to correlate
grain properties with such a model [9].
Grain analysis considers the energy partitioning at the grain–
workpiece interface, rather than the wheel–workpiece interface
(the whole contact zone) [9]. It was first proposed by Hahn. Later,
many grain analysis heat transfer models have been developed.
The grain analysis models tend to give better results across a wide
range of grinding conditions [17]. Lavine [18] developed an
energy partition model, which combines both the micro- and
macro-scale thermal analysis. The wheel and grinding fluid are
considered to be a composite solid moving at the wheel speed. It
predicts the convective heat transfer coefficient on the workpiece
surface, the fraction of energy entering the workpiece, and the
workpiece surface temperature [9]. The model was further
extended to account for the variation of the heat fluxes along
the grinding zone in down grinding with large Peclet number. Ju
et al. [19] considered both the scales of the wheel–workpiece and
grain–workpiece contact length and developed a complete ther-
mal analysis that can handle both up and down surface grinding
without the assumption of large Peclet number [9].
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15 3

Literature review shows the lack of study on the effects of the grain wear flat–workpiece interface (local scale). The average
grinding and MQL parameters on temperature and energy parti- heat flux qtotal, in the contact zone can be expressed as:
tion in minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding. To contri-
FtV c
bute to help finding the appropriate grinding conditions, the qtotal ¼ ð1Þ
blc
present work has been developed. This study is concerned with
analytical modeling of temperature and energy partition in It has been found that the real contact length in grinding is
grinding with vitrified Al2O3 and resin bond CBN wheels using often much greater than the geometric contact length lg. An
MQL technique. advanced theoretical/experimental solution for real contact
length during grinding of steel workpieces is proposed by [20]:
 0:216  1=3 !!
2. Thermal modelling Vc Vc
lc ¼ lg  6 exp 0:0205 logae ð2Þ
Vft Vft
In this section, a complete thermal analysis of surface grinding pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
in which the geometrical contact zone is lg ¼ ds ae . The flux
that has its roots in [19,21,22] is developed. This model considers
which determines the maximum temperature of the workpiece
both the scale of the wheel/workpiece and grain/workpiece
depends on the grinding force and also on the size of the contact
contact lengths. Also, the heat transfer to the MQL/fluid and chips
zone. The heat flux qtotal is conducted instantaneously into the
as well as the transient process occurring between the grain and
chip, workpiece and the wheel (Figs. 2 and 3). Thus:
the workpiece are included.
The heat sources during grinding are from three locations: the qtotal ¼ qchip þ qws ð3Þ
abrasive grain/workpiece interface; the abrasive grain/chip inter-
where qchip is the heat flux into the chip and qwsis the heat flux
face; and the shear plane between the workpiece and the chip
into the workpiece and the wheel. The heat flux qws can be
(Fig. 1). The two mechanisms of heat generated are friction (at the
expressed as qws ¼qtotal  qchip, because the heat flux qws is con-
grain/workpiece and grain/chip interface) and plastic deformation
sidered as a part of the heat source at the grain/workpiece
(at the shear plane and at the grain/workpiece interface due to
interface. Therefore, the heat partition to the wheel/workpiece
planning). The heat generated in the grinding zone during MQL
interface is:
grinding is transferred into the chip, the oil mist, the wheel, and
the workpiece (Fig. 2). In the model, heat will be assumed to be qws
Rws ¼ ð4Þ
generated at the wheel–workpiece interface (global scale) and in qtotal

and the chip partition ratio can be defined as:

qchip
Rchip ¼ ð5Þ
qtotal

therefore;
1 ¼ Rchip þRws ð6Þ

The heat flux to the chip qchip, is assumed to be close to the

limiting chip energy, which for ferrous materials, this value is
approximately 6.21 J/mm3 [21,22]. The heat flux to the chips can
be expressed as:
 
ae V f t
qchip ¼ ech ð7Þ
lc

where the limiting chip energy is; ech ¼ rwcwTmp. For steel work-
pieces ech can be expressed as (Fig. 4) [21,22];

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of chip formation in grinding. ech ¼ 0:45uch ¼ 0:45  13:8  109 ¼ 6:21  109 J=m3 ð8Þ

Fig. 2. Illustration of the heat flux partitioning in the contact zone (global scale).
4 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of heat flux partitioning during grinding process.

Fig. 4. Energy partition during cutting and sliding in grinding process.

qws will be conducted into the workpiece or the wheel (Fig. 3). It where, 1¼Rs þRw. After calculation the heat flux to the chip, heat
can be expressed as: flux to the wheel/workpiece interface qws, will be known. To
determine Rw, it is necessary to analyze the contact between the
qws ¼ qwheel þ qwork ð9Þ grains and the workpiece. Fig. 5 illustrates the heat flows into a
where qwheel is the heat flux into the wheel and qwork is the heat grain and into the workpiece. In [21] the heat partition to the
flux into the workpiece at the wheel/work contact zone. The workpiece is determined using the solution for calculation into a
proportion of the wheel/work heat flux partitioned to the work- circular contact between grain and the workpiece, moving with Vc
piece is: on the work surface:
0 11
qwork 0:974 kg 1C
Rw ¼ ð10Þ B
qws Rw ¼ @1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A ð12Þ
ðkrcÞw ðlwf =2ÞV c F
and the wheel partition ratio can be defined as:
qwheel where, F is the transient function, and a close approximation
Rs ¼ ð11Þ
qws computation model given by Black [21], is F ¼ 1et=1:2 and t is
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15
Fig. 5. Heat transfer in grain/workpiece interface (local scale).
the shear stress, and shown as;
!1=2
4a l
t¼ 2 g c
lwf V c
For a given conventional abrasive type, the average grain
diameter in unit (m) can be defined as:
dg ¼ 15:2  103 M 1
where; M is the grit size, and C ¼lwf/dg is the ratio of the wear flat
diameter to the grain diameter. From [2] and [22], this parameter
can vary in the range of 0.05rC r0.5. For super abrasive grains,
the effective diameter of contact (lwf), for a reasonably sharp
wheel is in range 50–120 mm. For a given abrasive type, the ratio
C ¼lwf/dg, does not change significantly [21,22].
Some of the work heat flux qwork, will remain in the workpiece
and some is removed by convection to the MQL/fluid (Figs. 2 and
3). This can be expressed as:
qwork ¼ qworkb þ qmql
where qworkb is the heat flux that remains in the workpiece, which
is assumed to be evenly distributed over the entire workpiece
surface, and qmql is the heat flux transfers into the MQL/fluid.
The heat flux taken by the MQL/fluid out of the contact zone is:
qmql ¼ hcontact ðT 0 þ DTÞ
where; DT¼ TN  T1mql, hcontact is the convection heat transfer
coefficient of MQL/fluid, T0 is the temperature rise of the work-
piece, TN is ambient temperature and T1mql is the initial tempera-
ture of MQL/fluid.
The heat partitions to the workpiece background and MQL/
fluid are respectively as: Rwb ¼ qworkb =qwork and Rmql ¼ qmql/qwork,
where, 1¼Rwb þRmql. In other words, the heat partition to the
workpiece background from the wheel/work heat flux can be
expressed as; eb ¼ qworkb =qws , and the heat partition ratio to the oil
mist from wheel/work heat flux can be defined as; emql ¼qmql/qws.
The heat partition to the workpiece back ground from the total
heat flux can be expressed as:
qworkb
Rwb,t ¼
qtotal
The temperatures generated at the contact zone can be
calculated by considering the contact zone as a band source of
heat with the length of lc which moves along the surface of the
workpiece at the workpiece velocity Vft (Fig. 6).
For this purpose, the quasi-steady state moving heat source
model was used to calculate the temperature distribution
within the workpiece. This model assumes two dimensional heat
5
ð13Þ
Fig. 6. Moving band heat source on the surface with length of lc and outside
convection heat transfer (adapted from [25]).
transfers in the x–z plane with either a triangular or uniform
ð14Þ rectangular heat source distribution on the workpiece surface
along the contact zone (Fig. 6). While both models predict only
slight differences for the same average heat flux at the contact
zone, the temperature response with the triangular distribution
has been found to be more consistent with measured temperature
profiles. For this moving heat source model, the temperature rise
in the workpiece is given by [8,22]:
Z  i1=2 
qworkb lc =2 ðV ðxaÞ=2aÞ Vft h
T 0 ðx,zÞ ¼ e ft K0 ðxaÞ2 þ z2 f ðaÞda
pkw lc =2 2aw
ð18Þ
ð15Þ  
where f ðaÞ ¼ 1 þ ð2a=lc Þ for triangular heat source distribution,
for uniform rectangular heat source distribution f(a)¼1, and K0 is
the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order zero
[8,22].
ð16Þ 3. Convection heat transfer coefficient of MQL and fluid
As discussed above, some of the work heat flux qwork, is transferred
to the MQL/fluid in the contact zone. To determine the MQL heat flux
qmql, it is necessary to calculate convection heat transfer coefficient of
MQL oil mist. Generally, homogeneous two phase fluid flow condi-
tions are approached when the liquid and gas properties are similar,
for example, close to the critical pressure of a single-component fluid.
It is also applicable for very high velocities and pressure drops: that is,
critical flow or flow across valves and other strong mixing devices.
Finally, it has been used successfully to describe flow of liquid drops
in a gas stream. Therefore, it is possible to assume the MQL oil mist as
a homogeneous two phase fluid. It is defined that homogeneous flow
as one where the two-phase fluid properties are constant and the
ð17Þ liquid and gas velocities and temperatures are equal over the flow
cross-sectional area. In addition it is assumed that all the fluid
properties are constant across the cross section, whether they are
the gas volume or weight-area fraction or the thermal conductivity
and viscosity [23].
The homogeneous flow model provides the simplest technique for
analyzing two-phase (or multiphase) flows. In the homogeneous
model, both liquid and gas phases move at the same velocity
(ul ¼ug ¼uH). The homogeneous model considers the two-phase flow
6 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

!1
as a single-phase flow having average fluid properties, which depend x 1x
upon mixture quality. The void fraction (the average homogeneous CpH ¼ þ ð24Þ
Cpg Cpl
volume fraction occupied by the gas) based on the homogeneous
model (aH) can be expressed as follows [23]:
Consequently, the Reynolds number, Prandtl number and
rl x Nusselt numbers based on the homogeneous model can be
aH ¼ ð19Þ expressed as; ReH ¼ uH rH D=mH , Pr H ¼ mH CpH =kH , NuH ¼hHD/kH.
rl x þ rg ð1xÞ
By assuming equal gas and liquid velocity and temperature,
homogeneous flow does not have to deal with gas–liquid inter-
where, the mass quality (the average gas weight flowing fraction) can
face. By employing uniform properties across the flow cross
be expressed as [23]:
section, homogeneous/uniform property flow has another
rg V_ g
x¼ ð20Þ
rl V l þ rg V_ g
_
Table 1
Grinding conditions.
For the homogeneous model, the density, dynamic viscosity,
thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity of two-phase gas– Grinding mode Plunge surface grinding, down cut
liquid flow (aH) can be expressed as follows [23]: Grinding wheel (manufactured by Al2O3: 89A60I6V217 (Vitrified bond,
TYROLIT Co.) ds ¼ 350 mm)
!1 CBN: B126C50B54 (Resin bond,
x 1x ds ¼ 300 mm)
rH ¼ þ ð21Þ
rg rl Grinding machine ELB micro-cut AC8 CNC
Wheel speed (Vc) Vc ¼30 m/s
Work speed (Vft) Vft ¼ 2000 mm/min
!1 Depth of cut (ae) ae ¼30 mm
x 1x
mH ¼ þ ð22Þ Environments dry, fluid, MQL
mg ml Conventional fluid grinding Water-miscible Syntilo XPS Castrol
(based on high polymer proportion) in a
5% concentration
 
x 1x 1 MQL flow rate Q¼20, 100 ml/h
kH ¼ þ ð23Þ Air pressure P¼ 4, 7 bar
kg kl
MQL nozzle distance from contact d¼ 80 mm, a ¼ 151
zone (d) and horizontal angle to
the workpiece (a)
Workpiece material Hardened (100 Cr6) with 507 2 HRC
(60 mm  8 mm  13.8 mm)
Dresser Two point diamond dresser (for Al2O3)
Diamond form roller (for CBN)
Total depth of dressing (ad) for Al2O3: ad ¼ 20 mm
for CBN: ad ¼ 10 mm
Dressing speed (Vd) and overlap (Ud) Vd ¼350 mm/min, Ud ¼2 (for Al2O3)
Vd ¼0.5 m/s, Ud ¼ 4 (for CBN)

Table 2
Fig. 7. Spray jet impinging on a hot wall. MQL parameters and coolant–lubricants used in this study.

MQL coolant–lubricant [3,4] MQL oil flow rate

MQL test (Q) and air
number pressure (P)

MQL water-miscible 1 in a 5% concentration Q¼ 100 ml/h,

MQL (1)
(based on high polymer proportion) P¼ 4 bar
MQL oil 1 (based on mineral oil with Q¼ 100 ml/h,
MQL (2) viscosity 46 mm2/s) P¼ 7 bar
MQL oil 1 (based on mineral oil Q¼20 ml/h,
MQL (3)
with viscosity 46 mm2/s) P¼ 4 bar
MQL oil 1 (based on mineral oil Q¼100 ml/h,
MQL (4)
with viscosity 46 mm2/s) P¼ 4 bar
MQL oil 4 (based on hydrocracked Q¼100 ml/h,
MQL (5)
oil with viscosity 9.1 mm2/s) P¼ 4 bar

Table 3
Thermal properties of workpiece material used in the experiments.

Property Symbol Units Value

Mass density r kg/m3 7600

Specific heat capacity c J/kg K 450
Thermal conductivity k W/m K 60.5
Fig. 8. Assumption of convection heat transfer coefficient during grinding Thermal diffusivity a m2/s 1.7742  10  5
(adapted from [9]).
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15 7

significant advantage: the ability to apply all available single- convection heat transfer model is used (Fig. 7) as [23,24]:
phase-flow analyses and empirical correlations [23]. In that sense,
1=2 1=3
no new closure equations are needed for a homogeneous/uniform NuH ¼ 0:797 ReH PrH ð25Þ
property system analytical analysis. Therefore, considering
experimental conditions in the present study, the spray cooling In other words, for fluid grinding, the heat flux taken by the
fluid out of the contact zone is:

qf luid ¼ hf ðT 0 þ DT f Þ ð26Þ
Table 4
Thermal properties of grinding wheels used in the experiments.
where DTf ¼TN Tf, and Tf is the initial temperature of grinding
Property Symbol (Units) Al2O3 CBN fluid. Based on the theory of conduction of heat in solids [24], a
semi empirical equation can be used as:
Mass density r (kg/m3) 3970 3480
Specific heat capacity c (J/kg K) 765 506 1=2 1=3
Nuf ¼ 0:664 Ref Pr f ð27Þ
Thermal conductivity k (W/m K) 46 700
Thermal diffusivity a (m2/s) 1.52  10  5 56.8  10  5
where Ref is the Reynolds number, Prf is the Prandtl number and
Nuf is the Nusselt number and; Ref ¼ uf rf lc =mf , Nuf ¼hflc/kf and
Pr f ¼ mf Cpf =kf . Where rf is the fluid density, uf ¼Vc is the average
Table 5 fluid velocity in grinding gap, lc is the contact length, mf is the
Thermal properties of coolant–lubricants used in the experiments. dynamic viscosity, kf is the thermal conductivity of the fluid, and
Cpf is the specific heat of the fluid [24].
Thermal property Air Oil Water miscible
In the current grinding thermal models, the workpiece surface
Density (kg/m )3
1.1614 920 998.21 outside the grinding zone is considered to be thermal insulator.
Specific heat capacity (J/kg K) 1007 2000 4181 That is the surface heat flux is set identically to zero outside the
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.0263 0.15 0.606 grinding zone. In the case of dry grinding this seems to be a
Dynamics viscosity (Pa s) 0.000018 0.0423 0.000959
reasonable approximation. Therefore, in modelling terms heat
Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) y. 2300 2449
transfer outside the grinding zone is achieved by applying an

Table 6
Volume flow rate and speed of air jet in the nozzle exit for MQL grinding experiments.

Air pressure, P (bar) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Volume flow rate (m3/s) 0.00077 0.0011 0.0013 0.0016 0.0019 0.0022 0.0025 0.0028 0.0031
Jet speed (ug ¼ul ¼ uH) (m/s) 108 156 190 226 270 312 354 400 440

Table 7
Volume flow rate of oil in the nozzle exit for MQL grinding experiments.

Flow rate, Q (ml/h) 100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Volume flow rate (m3/s) 0.27  10  8 1.4  10  7 2.8  10  7 4.2  10  7 5.5  10  7 7  10  7 8.3  10  7 9.7  10  7 11  10  6

Fig. 9. experimental set up: (a) CNC grinding machine, (b) conventional cooling pump, filtering and supply system, (c) MQL equipment with two reciprocating pneumatic
pumps, (d) MQL nozzle positioning.
8 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

additional heat flux to the surface outside the grinding zone such through convection, qh[20]:
as that due to simple convective heat transfer [9,20]. q ¼ qworkb þ qh  ð1IðaÞÞ ð28Þ
In order to investigate the effects of convection between the
workpiece surface and applied coolant–lubricant outside the where I(a) is a rectangular window function whose value is
grinding zone, the first step will be consider the total heat flux 1 within the grinding zone, a¼[  lc/2,lc/2], and zero elsewhere:
along the workpiece surface as a summation of two separate heat (
1 jajo lc =2
flux distributions, one from heat generated within the grinding IðaÞ ¼ ð29Þ
0 jaj4 lc =2
zone, qworkb , and one from heat dissipated to the MQL/fluid

Fig. 10. Schematic drawing of grinding temperature measurement and calculation.

Table 8
Results of temperature measurement experiments and simulation when grinding with Al2O3 wheel.

Max. surface Max. surface

Test Ft (N) l ¼ Ft/Fn Rws lwf/dg Awf [2] Rw eb Rwb Rwb,t temperature rise, temperature rise,
Tmax (1C) (simulation) Tmax (1C) (experiment)

dry 20 0.40 0.92 0.353 0.0262 0.89 0.89 1.0 0.82 231 218
MQL (1) 17.3 0.36 0.91 0.336 0.0238 0.89 0.85 0.96 0.77 187 169
MQL (2) 16 0.33 0.90 0.337 0.0240 0.89 0.84 0.95 0.75 173 163
MQL (3) 14.8 0.31 0.89 0.334 0.0235 0.89 0.86 0.97 0.77 163 152
MQL (4) 12.5 0.28 0.87 0.310 0.0203 0.89 0.85 0.95 0.75 132 123
MQL (5) 10.5 0.25 0.84 0.288 0.0175 0.89 0.86 0.96 0.73 111 105
Fluid 12.5 0.3 0.87 0.299 0.0189 0.89 0.41 0.46 0.36 65 55
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15 9

In order to define the rate of heat transfer to the coolant–
lubricant, a simple form of Newton’s law of cooling is used [20]. In
this case;
qh ¼ hout ðT 0 þ DTÞ
where hout is the convection heat transfer coefficient outside the
contact zone, T0 ¼T0(x,z) is the temperature along the workpiece
surface and DT¼TN  T1mql, TN is ambient temperature and T1 mql
is the initial temperature of MQL/fluid. Here it is assumed that DT
retains a constant value throughout the grinding process. Sub-
stitution into Eq. (28) results in:
q ¼ qworkb hout ðT 0 þ DTÞ  ð1IðaÞÞ
the surface and subsurface of the ground workpiece can be calculated
considering cooling effect inside and outside of the contact zone. It
should be noted that if the MQL/fluid temperature is considered to be
ð30Þ at the ambient (reference) temperature, then DT¼0.
Applying the relationship in Eqs. (18) and (32), computations
have been made for temperatures and heat flux distributions both
inside and outside of a moving grinding zone. While in this case
the heat flux distribution is assumed to be simply triangular
within the grinding zone, the distribution outside is computed as
a function of the convective heat transfer coefficient and grinding
process parameters (Fig. 6).
ð31Þ

Substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) into Eq. (31), the expression
becomes;
q ¼ qwork hcontact ðT 0 þ DTÞhout ðT 0 þ DTÞ  ð1IðaÞÞ
Substituting (q) in the relationship for qworkb in Eq. 18, and
rearranging terms to solve for T0 (x,z), temperature distribution in
4. Variation of convection heat transfer coefficient
of MQL oil mist
ð32Þ
In the conventional fluid grinding thermal models, once the
average coolant temperature reaches the boiling point, the energy

Table 9
Results of temperature measurement experiments and simulation when grinding with CBN wheel.

Test Ft (N) qwork,b (w/m2) Rw eb Rwb,t Max. surface temperature Max. surface temperature rise,
rise, Tmax (1C) (simulation) Tmax (1C) (experiment)

Dry 18 3.2188  106 0.55 0.55 0.52 136 131

MQL (1) 16 2.7765  106 0.55 0.53 0.48 115 113
MQL (4) 15 2.6533  106 0.55 0.54 0.46 109 108
Fluid 15 7.8627  105 0.55 0.16 0.14 48 32

Table 10
Calculated convection heat transfer coefficients inside and outside the contact zone for experimental set-up used in this study.

Test hcontact (W/m2 K) (calculated) htrailing (W/m2 K) Q mqlvap (ml/h) hcontact (W/m2 K)
(calculated) (experimented)

Dry – – – –
MQL (1) 917 477 20 1,460
MQL (2) 1,130 472 27 1,630
MQL (3) 900 467 20 1,400
MQL (4) 913 475 16.3 1,410
MQL (5) 911 475 15.4 1,450
Fluid 37,000 37,000 – 43,400

Fig. 11. Effect of cooling in the leading edge on surface temperature with Ft ¼ 20 N and DT¼ 0.
10 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

partition for the coolant is set to zero throughout the grinding partition function for the coolant is set to zero, forcing the
zone, representing the relative ineffectiveness of the gaseous state workpiece to suddenly absorb a greater fraction of the nominal
in absorbing heat from the process. The coolant boiling tempera- heat flux. This results in a large jump in workpiece temperature at
ture thus marks a threshold of sorts in the model, then the energy this point in the plot [20].

Fig. 12. Temperature matching results: (a) dry grinding, (b) fluid grinding, (c) MQL grinding under MQL (5) conditions.
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15 11

One of the underlying assumptions used in developing the
model for fluid grinding in this way is that the latent heat of
vaporization of the coolant plays an insignificant role in the heat
transfer between the coolant and workpiece. However, some
simple calculations have been performed in MQL grinding which
indicate that the role of the oil latent heat may be quite significant
after all.
The basic question is whether the potential energy consumed
by the latent heat effect makes up a significant fraction of the
total heat generated in the grinding process. Here the maximum
heat flux taken by MQL out of the contact zone is;
qmqlmax ¼ hcontact T max
While the amount of heat potentially consumed by the latent
heat effect of MQL oil can be expressed as;
_ mqlvap Dhmql
qmqlvap ¼ m
where the mass flow rate of MQL oil is:
_ mqlvap ¼ V_ lvap rl
m ð35Þ
In the literature, it seems common to assume that the coolant
velocity through the grinding zone is equal to the peripheral
wheel speed, Vc. For high velocity air in oil mist it is acceptable to
make more conservative assumption that the average homoge-
neous two phase fluid velocity can be approximated by taking the
average of oil mist velocity in the MQL nozzle exit uH, and the
wheel speed Vc;
uH þ V c
uHcont ¼ ð36Þ
2
ð33Þ
Thus for trailing edge, it can be assumed that; uHtrailing ¼ V c and
in leading edge uHleading ¼ uH (Fig. 2). Accordingly, the homoge-
neous two phase fluid (MQL) would likely enter the grinding zone
at some low (usually ambient) temperature and begin to be
heated at it process through the wheel/work interface. Therefore,
ð34Þ the maximum heat flux taken to MQL oil mist out of the contact

Fig. 13. Effect of cooling in the trailing edge on surface temperature with Ft ¼20 N and DT ¼0.

Fig. 14. Effect of cooling in the contact zone on surface temperature with Ft ¼ 10.5 N and DT ¼0.
12 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

zone is used to vaporise MQL oil; Fig. 8, in this study the convection heat transfer coefficient in the
_ mqlvap Dhmql
Acont hcontact T max ¼ m ð37Þ grinding zone, hcontact, is assumed as a linear function [9];
 
where the total contact zone area is Acont ¼blc. If the heating is h2 h1 lc
hcontact ðxÞ ¼ h1 þ xþ ð40Þ
sufficient to raise the temperature to thermal saturation, the oil lc 2
flow rate vaporised can be calculated as;
where h2 ¼ maxðhcontact ðxÞÞ, h1 ¼ minðhcontact ðxÞÞ, and x is the local
_ mqlvap
m coordinate with original point at the center of the grinding zone. The
Q mqlvap ¼ ð38Þ
rl average convection heat transfer coefficient in the grinding zone,
hcontact is defined as [9]:
Consequently, the oil flow rate remains in the oil mist that
reach the trailing edge can be expressed as; h1 þ h2
hcontact ¼ ð41Þ
Q trailing ¼ Q Q mqlvap ð39Þ 2

and Qleading ¼Qcontact ¼Q. Note that, when the entire oil droplet
vaporizes in the contact zone (Qtrailing ¼0), it is assumed that
x ¼ aH ¼ 1 across the entire contact length (Qcontact ¼0).
The actual depth of cut in the grinding zone decreases from the
leading edge side to the trailing edge side for down grinding. This
phenomenon and oil vaporization as well as the variation of oil mist
velocities create the nonuniform convective cooling. As shown in
The convection heat transfer coefficient in the trailing edge,
htrailing, is assumed to be uniform. Due to the continuity con-
straint, the convection heat transfer coefficient should not change
rapidly between the trailing edge and the end of the contact zone
at x ¼ lc/2, where the actual depth of cut is close to zero;
therefore, htrailing ¼h1 and hleading ¼h2 [9].

Fig. 15. Cooling effect of coolant with different initial temperatures in the trailing edge; (a) low convection coefficient, (b) high convection coefficient (Ft ¼ 20 N).
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15
5. Experimental procedure and results
In the previous study [8] an investigation was reported of the
temperature and energy partition in grinding with minimum
quantity lubrication (MQL) technique. Tests were performed in
the down mode with parameters shown in Tables 1–7. The
equipment used to control the minimum quantity of lubricant
(MQL) was Accu-Lube system (Fig. 9) in with special nozzle (with
nominal diameter of 3 mm). Temperature distributions were
determined in the subsurface of a hardened 100Cr6 steel work-
pieces through measuring by means of an embedded thermo-
couple during grinding in dry, MQL and fluid environments. The
subsurface workpiece temperature was measured during each
pass using an embedded thermocouple with 0.5 mm diameter
(Mantel-Thermo element type 12, K (NiCr/NiAl); DIN EN 60 584-1
and tolerance class 2; DIN EN 60 584-2-manufactured by TC
Mess-und Regeltechnik GmbH-Germany). The hot junction of the
thermocouple was welded by the cold welding epoxy, Industro
Cold Weld J–B, at the bottom of a 0.6 mm diameter blind hole
made by EDM. The hole was made from underside to 1.3 mm
under the upper surface (Fig. 10). Temperature signals were
Fig. 16. Cooling effect of coolant with different initial temperatures in the contact zone; (a) low convection coefficient, (b) high convection coefficient (Ft ¼20 N).
13
sampled at 3000 Hz using DAQCard-6024E-National Instrument
and Labview software. For each workpiece, about 40–45 grinding
passes were required to grind the thermocouple tip depending on
the position of the thermocouple tip in the hole. The depth
beneath the surface was estimated for each pass as the product
of the number of passes before the final one and the wheel depth
of cut. The experiments were carried out with Al2O3 and CBN
wheels. The energy partition to the workpiece was estimated
using temperature matching. Tables 8 and 9 show the experi-
mental and calculated maximum surface temperature rise and
energy partition ratio using temperature matching method to
analyse the experimental results [8]. Tables 8–10 indicate that the
proposed analytical method in this study is capable to estimate
the energy partition, surface temperature and convection heat
transfer coefficient. For MQL grinding with Al2O3 abrasive wheels,
the energy partition varies in the range of 73%–77%. However, the
energy partition is about of 82% for dry grinding. In fluid grinding
with Al2O3 wheels, cooling by the fluid at the contact zone
reduces the energy partition to less than 36%. For dry and MQL
grinding with CBN super abrasive wheels, the energy partition is
respectively about 52% and 46% due to the high thermal
14 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15

conductivity of the CBN abrasive. However, this can be reduced to
14% for grinding with CBN wheel and cooling by the fluid.
According to Fig. 11 and [9], cooling effect in the leading edge
is negligible. By matching the measured temperature profile to
the calculated temperature from the analytical heat transfer
model, the convection heat transfer coefficient within the grind-
ing zone (hcontact) and the trailing edge (htrailing) can be found
(Fig. 12 and Table 10) [8]. The convection heat transfer coefficient
in the contact zone is much higher than that in the trailing edge
for all cases. This is expected because of the much higher fluid
velocity in the contact zone. Fluid grinding has much higher
convection heat transfer coefficient than MQL grinding both in the
contact zone and the trailing edge.
As shown in Fig. 12 for fluid grinding, the uniform convection
heat transfer coefficient in the trailing edge gives acceptable
matching. However, for MQL grinding, as seen in Fig. 12, the
convection heat transfer coefficient in the trailing edge may not
be uniform [9]. The calculated temperature profile with a calcu-
lated htrailing, approximately matches with the experimental
measurement in the trailing edge near the contact zone, but not
in the trailing edge far away from the contact zone, while the
calculated temperature profile with a zero htrailing has the opposite
result. It indicated that MQL only provided some cooling in the
trailing edge near the contact zone [9]. This is probably due to the
low flow rate in MQL grinding which only allows a small portion
of the fluid to pass through the grinding zone and cool the nearby

Fig. 17. Effects of MQL and homogeneous two phase fluid parameters on convection heat transfer coefficient.
 M.J. Hadad, B. Sadeghi / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 63 (2012) 1–15
trailing edge of the ground surface; however, in the trailing edge
far away from the contact zone, MQL provides no cooling [9].
By imposing different values of convection heat transfer
coefficients in the trailing edge and adiabatic in the leading edge
and contact zone, the steady-state workpiece surface temperature
profiles is shown in Fig. 13. Cooling in the trailing edge has a
significant impact on the temperature profile. But it only influ-
ences the trailing edge, not the contact zone or the leading edge.
The peak temperature remains about the same as that with high
convection heat transfer values in trailing edge cooling [9].
For different values of convection coefficients in the grinding
contact zone and adiabatic in the leading and trailing edges, the
corresponding steady-state workpiece surface temperature pro-
files are shown in Fig. 14. Efficient cooling in the grinding contact
zone has a significant impact on the peak temperature and
trailing edge temperature. This observation confirms that the
contact zone cooling is the most dominant factor in grinding [9].
Figs. 15 and 16 show the surface temperature profiles under
the low and high values of htrailing and hcontact with different initial
temperatures of MQL/fluid, respectively. The results indicate that
the initial temperature of MQL/fluid has strong effects on the heat
transfer phenomenon in the grinding process when the convec-
tion heat transfer coefficient of MQL/fluid is high.
The effects of MQL parameters on the convection heat transfer
coefficient of the homogeneous two phase fluid are illustrated in
Fig. 17. It can be seen that thermal conductivity of homogeneous
two phase fluid is the effective factor to increase convection heat
transfer coefficient. Consequently, the research of application of
MQL grinding should focus on the advanced cooling/lubricating
properties and thermal conductivity of new coolant–lubricants.
6. Conclusions
The MQL grinding performance was investigated and compared to
dry and fluid grinding processes in terms of temperature distribution
on the surface and subsurface surface of the workpiece. Based on the
results of the experimental and theoretical investigations, the follow-
ing conclusions for MQL grinding can be drawn:
1. An analytical thermal model was developed and validated by
comparing with the experimental results applying conven-
tional Al2o3 and super abrasive CBN wheels. This model was
used to study the effects of cooling in the leading edge, trailing
edge and grinding zone using MQL/fluid environments.
2. As for cooling effects, the convection heat transfer in the
trailing edge could not reduce the peak temperature; and the
most efficient cooling was in the grinding contact zone.
3. The investigations on MQL indicate that despite the good
lubrication of this technique in grinding process, it cannot
meet the grinding cooling requirements comparing with fluid
grinding with regard to the temperature response curves
obtained in the analytical modelling and the experiments
carried out with MQL. This is the main reason limiting the
widespread application of MQL in grinding.
4. The model was further applied in the grinding experiment to
estimate the energy partition and convection heat transfer
coefficient. The estimated average convection heat transfer
coefficient in the grinding zone was about 3.7  104 W/m2 K
for fluid grinding and 900  1200 W/m2 K for MQL grinding. In
addition, MQL only provides some cooling in the trailing edge
near the contact zone.
15
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Institute of Grinding and Precision
Technology (KSF-Germany) and Tarbiat Modares University, for
their support of this research and providing testing facilities, to
TYROLIT Company for supply grinding wheels used in this
research, and to Chemische Werke Kluthe GmbH (Germany) for
its donation of the MQL oil used in all experiments.
References
[1] T. Tawakoli, M.J. Hadad, M.H. Sadeghi, A. Daneshi, S. Stöckert, A. Rasifard, An
experimental investigation of the effects of workpiece and grinding para-
meters on minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding, International Jour-
nal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 49 (2009) 924–932.
[2] T. Tawakoli, M.J. Hadad, M.H. Sadeghi, Influence of oil mist parameters on
minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process, International Journal
of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 521–531.
[3] T. Tawakoli, M.J. Hadad, M.H. Sadeghi, Investigation on minimum quantity
lubricant-MQL grinding of 100 Cr6 hardened steel using different abrasive
and coolant–lubricant types, International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture 50 (2010) 698–708.
[4] T. Tawakoli, M.J. Hadad, M.H. Sadeghi, A. Daneshi, B. Sadeghi, Minimum
quantity lubrication in grinding: effects of abrasive and coolant–lubricant
types, Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 2088–2099.
[5] M.H. Sadeghi, M.J. Haddad, T. Tawakoli, M. Emami, Minimal quantity
lubrication-MQL in grinding of Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 44 (2009) 487–500.
[6] M.H. Sadeghi, M.J. Hadad, T. Tawakoli, A. Vesali, M. Emami, An investigation on
surface grinding of AISI 4140 hardened steel using minimum quantity lubrication-
MQL technique, International Journal of Material Forming 3 (2010) 241–251.
[7] T. Tawakoli, M.J. Hadad, A. Daneshi, M.H. Sadeghi, B. Sadeghi, Study on the
effects of abrasive and coolant–lubricant types on minimum quantity
lubrication-MQL grinding, Advanced Materials Research 325 (2011) 231–237.
[8] M.J. Hadad, T. Tawakoli, M.H. Sadeghi, B. Sadeghi, Temperature and energy
partition in minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process, Interna-
tional Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 54-55 (2012) 10–17.
[9] B. Shen, Minimum Quantity Lubrication Grinding Using Nanofluids, Ph.D.
Thesis, The University of Michigan, Michigan, USA, 2008.
[10] M.J. Hadad, Minimum Quantity Lubrication-MQL Grinding Process & Inves-
tigation of Surface Quality, Ph.D. Thesis, Manufacturing Engineering Division,
School of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, 2010.
[11] M. Rabiey, Dry Grinding with CBN Wheels: The Effect of Structuring, Ph.D.
Thesis, The University of Stuttgart, Germany, 2011.
[12] J.C. Jaeger, Moving sources of heat and the temperature at sliding contacts,
Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales 76 (1942) 203–224.
[13] J.O. Outwater, M.C. Shaw, Surface temperatures in grinding, Transactions of
the ASME, 74, , 1952 73-86.
[14] R.S. Hahn, The relation between grinding conditions and thermal damage in
the workpiece, Transactions of the ASME 78 (1956) 807–812.
[15] S. Malkin, Grinding of metals: theory and application, Journal of Applied
Metalworking, America Society for Metals 3 (2) (1984) 95–109.
[16] M.C. Shaw, A simplified approach to workpiece temperature in fine grinding,
CIRP Annals 39 (1990) 345–347.
[17] R.S. Hahn., On the nature of the grinding process, Proceedings of the 3rd
Machine Tool Design and Research Conference, (1962) 129–154.
[18] A.S. Lavine, S. Malkin, T. Jen, Thermal aspects of grinding with CBN, CIRP
Annals 38 (1989) 557–560.
[19] Y. Ju, T.N. Farris, S. Chandrasekar, Theoretical analysis of heat partition and
temperatures in grinding, Journal of Tribology 120 (4) (1998) 789–794.
[20] I.M. Hanna, Thermal modeling of grinding for process optimization and
durability improvements, Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University (2006).
[21] I.D. Marinescu, W.B. Rowe, B. Dimitrov, I. Inasaki, Tribology of Abrasive
Machining Processes, William Andrew, USA, 2004.
[22] S. Malkin, C. Guo, Grinding Technology: Theory and Applications of Machin-
ing with Abrasives, 2nd ed., Industrial Press Inc, New York, USA, 2008.
[23] S. Levy, Two-phase Flow in Complex Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Canada, 1999.
[24] F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th ed.,
Wiley, 2001.
[25] T. Nguyen, L.C. Zhang, Grinding-hardening using dry air and liquid nitrogen:
prediction and verification of temperature fields and hardened layer thick-
ness, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010)
901–910.