See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324036355

Finishing

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-35950-7_16717-1

CITATION READS

1 8,135

2 authors:

Peter Krajnik Fukuo Hashimoto

Chalmers University of Technology Advanced Finishing Technology Ltd.
105 PUBLICATIONS 3,041 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 2,273 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Krajnik on 11 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Finishing

Peter Krajnik1, Fukuo Hashimoto2

1
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Industrial and Materials Science,
Hörsalsvägen 7B, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
peter.krajnik@chalmers.se, +46(0)31 772 13 11
2
Advanced Finishing Technology Ltd., 3804 Heron Watch Dr., Akron, OH 44319, U.S.A.
fukuohashimoto@gmail.com, +1(330)245-1597

Synonyms

• Finish machining
• Surface finishing
• Micro-/nano-finishing
• Fine finishing
• Abrasive fine finishing
• Fine processes

Definition

Finishing is the final step in the manufacture of components which require the highest
quality in terms of form, accuracy and surface integrity. Fine-finishing is an operation that
adds functionality to the workpiece surface to enhance its quality characteristics.

Theory and Application

Finishing technology is used as a final added-value manufacturing process to obtain a

desired surface quality, geometric form and accuracy. It typically removes a very small
amount of material, on the scale of micrometer or less. Finishing processes often follow
previous material-processing (e.g. casting, forging) and conventional machining operations
(e.g. turning, milling, drilling and grinding). Numerous post-processes fall under the general
term “finishing”, and sometimes several of them are used to achieve the final component
quality. As hard-machining (e.g. hard-turning) is becoming common finishing technology in
the industry, the finishing technology also often encompasses both dimensional (accuracy)
control and control of surface integrity (including surface texture).

Finishing processes can be used on a variety of workpiece materials, from ductile metals to
hard materials such as ceramics, glasses, semiconductors, diamond (Komanduri et al. 1997)
and even additively-manufactured metals. The finishing processes are most often
mechanical in nature (i.e., removing material via chips), and typically use abrasives –
although, finishing can also refer to hard machining, special machining operations such as
single-point diamond machining (achieving surface finish at nanometric levels), and forming
processes (e.g. roll forming). The choice of whether to use hard machining or grinding is
application specific, and these two technologies are often combined, depending on the
required specification for the to-be-machined component and the associated batch size. In
this respect, hard machining and finishing can be considered complementary – not
competitive – technologies. Nowadays, hard machining is often used as the final operation in
the industry, since it can generate surfaces with roughness down to Ra=0.1 µm (Grzesik et al.
2007). Nevertheless, abrasive finishing is often needed, for example when specific functional
surfaces are required (e.g. a certain bearing-area curve).

The removal mechanism in finishing processes, however, is not always mechanical (i.e.,
related to chip-formation), and often involve non-mechanical material removal achieved by
(Taniguchi 1983, Komanduri et al. 1997):
• Chemical processes (e.g. etching, chemical polishing)
• Photo-chemical processes (e.g. photo etching)
• Electro-chemical processes (e.g. electrolytic polishing, electro-chemical grinding)
• Electric processes (e.g. electron-beam, ion-beam, plasma-beam machining)
• Optical processes (e.g. laser-beam machining)

Since industrial finishing of precision components typically involve an abrasive process, a

special emphasis is given to finishing with abrasives.

Classification and overview of abrasive finishing

The classification of abrasive finishing proposed by Hashimoto et al. (2016) is shown in

Figure 1.

Abrasive Finishing
principles
Process

Motion-copying processes Pressure-copying processes

Grinding Abrasive fine-finishing
Abrasive

Bonded abrasive Unbonded abrasive

Abrasive Coated Abrasive Free Abrasive Abrasive

stone abrasive media abrasive slurry flow media

Mass finishing
Film/tape finishing

Magnetic abrasive
Superfinishing

Abrasive flow
Jet finishing
Methods

machining
Brushing

• Vibratory finishing
Polishing

finishing
Blasting

Lapping

Buffing

• Barrel tumbling
• Centrifugal barrel
finishing
• Centrifugal disk finishing
• Spindle finishing

Figure 1: Classification of abrasive finishing "Reprinted from CIRP Annals – Manufacturing

Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter Krajnik, Konrad Wegener,
Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster, Abrasive fine-finishing
technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier."

Abrasive-finishing technologies (including grinding) can be first classified into two

processing-principle categories: motion-copying processes and pressure-copying processes:
• Motion-copying processes remove material at a given set depth of cut and feedrate.
The resulting forces may be large or small, but the material-removal rate is fixed. This
 enables the accurate control of form and dimensions, for example in grinding with
bonded-abrasive wheels.
• Pressure-copying processes remove material by means of pressing abrasive tools
against a workpiece at a set force. Therefore, the resulting material-removal rate
may be small or large. These processes are suitable for improving surface integrity
and form accuracy, but not for controlling dimensional accuracy.

Further classification of abrasive finishing is based on the following criteria: (1) abrasive
state, (2) tools, and (3) methods.

Abrasive-finishing tools can be divided into two states: bonded (fixed) and unbonded (loose)
abrasive grains.

In the bonded state, the abrasive grains are fixed within a matrix with an organic or vitrified
bond. Bonded abrasive tools include abrasive stones (for honing and superfinishing), coated
abrasives, and abrasive media for mass finishing. Abrasive stones consist of abrasive grains
surrounded by bond material and containing a degree of porosity. This is the same mixture
used in grinding wheels. Abrasive stones are used in superfinishing and honing. Coated
abrasives consist of single layer of abrasive grains bonded by adhesives onto a flexible
substrate such as paper, cloth, plastic films, or vulcanized fiber, converted into different
shapes such as belts, discs, sheets, or brushes. The performance of coated abrasives is
greatly affected by the size of the abrasive grains. Coated abrasives are mainly used for tape
finishing and brushing. Another type of abrasives to generate a final surface finish includes
non-woven abrasives, which are manufactured using nylon fibers impregnated with abrasive
grain, i.e. bonded with synthetic resins. Abrasive media consist of abrasives bonded to a
polymer core. These tools are available in a variety of shapes including spheres, cones,
triangles, ellipses, and cylinders and are used in mass-finishing processes.

In the unbonded-abrasive state, the abrasive freely participates in finishing. The abrasive
tools are divided into three groups: free abrasive, abrasive slurries, and abrasive flow media.
When using unbonded abrasives, the viscosity of the abrasive carrier increases from the
order of gases (lowest), liquids (medium), and solids (highest). Free abrasives are used in
blasting and jet finishing media. Abrasive slurries (using diamond, alumina, zirconia
abrasives) are used in lapping, polishing and buffing. The slurries are available in water-
based, alcohol-based and oil-based formulations. Abrasive flow media are used in abrasive-
flow machining (AFM) and magnetic-abrasive finishing (MAF). While the abrasive grains are
mixed with a polymer carrier in AFM (Figure 2), the abrasive grains are mixed with
ferromagnetic particles (such as iron particles) in MAF.

Cylinder
Piston
Workpiece

Abrasive media (mixture of

polymer and abrasive)
Figure 16. Principle of abrasive flow machining process (Courtesy of
Kennametal Extrude Hone).
Figure 2: Principle of abrasive-flow machining "Reprinted from CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter Krajnik, Konrad Wegener,
Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster, Abrasive fine-finishing
technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier."

Superfinishing uses an abrasive stone pressed against the external (OD) surface of the
rotating cylindrical workpiece while oscillating axially, i.e. perpendicular to the workpiece
rotation. Superfinishing is widely used in the bearing and automotive industries, after a
grinding operation, to improve surface finish (e.g. to increase the bearing area) and
roundness and to correct the geometry (size and form). The process should be carried out at
a “sweet spot” – a critical contact pressure for a specific stone/workpiece combination – in
order to obtain an optimal material removal. Carefully set process kinematics are used to
avoid workpiece lobing – i.e. the division of the workpiece cylindrical shape into lobes and
the formation of out-of-roundness (Varghese and Malkin 1998). Honing is similar to
superfinishing, but is intended to primarily finish internal (ID) surfaces, so the abrasive
stones are pressed outwards against the cylindrical internal surface. The process is used in a
wide spectrum of applications including engine cylinder liners (bores), gear bores, bearings
and hydraulic cylinders. Honing uses low-speed kinematics – consisting of three components
of motion: rotation (tangential velocity), outward motion of stones, and an oscillating
motion (reciprocating strokes with longitudinal velocity) – producing a smooth, crisscrossed
(hatched) surface and improved bore geometry. The honing process is also used for finishing
of gears – producing specific gear profiles and flank surface modifications. In gear honing,
the rotating honing ring (tool) and the gear flank (workpiece) roll off against each other at a
certain inclination (axis-crossing) angle. This process is also characterized by low-speed
kinematics, where the cutting speed during gear honing is much lower compared to gear
grinding. The honed gears have advantages over ground gears with regard to their noise and
wear properties. Another beneficial effect is the generation of compressive residual stresses
on the flank surface, leading to longer service life for honed gears.

Film/tape finishing and brushing use coated abrasives, where either the coated abrasive or
the workpiece is rotated or reciprocated. The relative motion and applied pressure between
the abrasive tool and workpiece surface induces material removal. Here it is important to
apply sufficient pressure. The required pressure depends on the grain size, and finer grains
in “elastic” contact with the workpiece might be ineffective for material removal. The
flexibility of the coated-abrasive substrate, on the other hand, enables free-form surface and
edge finishing. Tape finishing often follows superfinishing with abrasive stones, where the
two processes are integrated in a single machine. Tape finishing is supplemental since it can
further improve surface finish while maintaining the form or profile of the workpiece as, for
example, in finishing the cam lobes or the crankshaft bearing journals.

Abrasive-media finishing (mass finishing) refers to the simultaneous processing of multiple

components in a container (bowl), usually with abrasive media and a compound solution.
The container is given a cyclical motion that causes material to be removed from the
workpieces as abrasive media press and/or rub against workpiece surfaces. Mass finishing is
used for burnishing, deburring, edge-rounding, brightening, and surface texturing. It can be
further classified into five methods (processes): vibratory finishing, rotary-barrel finishing
(tumbling), centrifugal barrel finishing, centrifugal disc finishing, and spindle finishing.
In the blasting and jet-finishing methods, the abrasive is mixed with gas or liquids (slurries)
and removes material by being directed at the workpiece as a jet; the jet pressure (which
imparts kinetic energy to the particles) determines the magnitude to which abrasive grains
impact the workpiece surface in order to remove material. A wide range of pressure can be
used to achieve a desired surface; ranging from matte to mirror-like surfaces.

In lapping and polishing, an abrasive slurry is introduced between the workpiece and the
tool (e.g., lap or polisher), and the finishing pressure is applied to the workpiece. The
combination of workpiece and tool motions makes the slurry flow. The abrasive interaction
(rolling, sliding, etc.) with the workpiece determines the mechanism of material removal
(Evans et al. 2003). The finishing-system also plays an important role in material removal,
and the fluid – especially its chemical and physical properties – affect the material-removal
mechanism. In general, lapping (producing matte surfaces) is followed by polishing
(producing mirror-like surfaces). In buffing, the abrasive slurry is applied to a buff, which
rotates at high speeds and is pressed against the workpiece to finish the surface with an
accumulation of abrasive scratches.

In abrasive-flow machining (AFM), the abrasive media is forced to flow in a restricted area
and abrade the workpiece surface. The finishing pressure depends on the fluid dynamics of
the media. AFM is used for smoothing machined surfaces, removing recast layers, or
inducing compressive residual stresses to internal surfaces (Loveless et al. 1994). In
magnetic-abrasive finishing (MAF), the finishing pressure is generated by a magnetic field.
The process uses magnetic abrasives and the efficiency of material removal depends on the
size of abrasive particles (Shinmura et al. 1990). MAF is also used not only for deburring, but
also for chamfering and edge finishing. In both methods, the finished surfaces are
accumulations of scratch marks, generating mirror-like surfaces. The flexibility of the media
enables finishing of free-form and re-entrant surfaces or internal workpiece passages, which
also makes it an attractive technology for finishing of additive-manufactured components,
which are nowadays gaining momentum.

Fundamentals of abrasive finishing

Abrasive-finishing processes are mechanical in nature, meaning that material is removed by

abrasive grains in a mechanical action, typically to form chips or small particles. The
material-removal mechanisms are largely determined by the type of workpiece material.
Finishing of metallic materials is primarily accomplished by ductile cutting (chip formation),
whereas the finishing of brittle materials (e.g. glasses, ceramics) is often dominated by
brittle fracture and crack propagation. One of the fundamental parameters for
characterizing finishing processes is the specific energy, u, which is defined as the energy
expended per unit volume of material removal (Malkin and Guo 2008). Any model for
material-removal must be able to quantify the magnitude of the specific energy and its
dependence on the process conditions. In 1974 (Snoeys and Peters 1974) proposed the
equivalent chip thickness parameter, heq, which gained widespread popularity since it only
depends on the machine input parameters that can readily be changed. The equivalent chip
thickness captures a theoretical “ribbon” of removed material during finishing, but does not
take into account the contact length. Nevertheless, the process conditions (geometry and
kinematics) in finishing can be simply quantified by heq. Equivalent chip thickness has been
found to be particularly valuable for correlating finishing process parameters with specific
energy (Figure 3) for a particular abrasive-finishing process (Hashimoto et al. 2016).

Figure 22. Mapping of regions for various machining methods on (h -u) diagram (Material: alloy steel).
Figure 3: Mapping of abrasive-finishing technologies "Reprinted from CIRP Annals –
eq

Manufacturing Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter Krajnik,

Konrad Wegener, Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster, Abrasive fine-
finishing technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier."

The mapping of abrasive-finishing methods (Figure 3) is based on the specific energy versus
equivalent chip thickness plot. In general, the specific energy increases as the values of
equivalent chip thickness get smaller, i.e. when using a “finer” finishing method. This is
associated with the size-effect in abrasive processes, where a smaller equivalent chip
thickness, heq, is accompanied with more sliding and plowing compared to chip formation
(where material is actually removed) (Malkin et al. 1973). Here we can observe that the
specific energy in honing are similar to grinding and that heq is smallest in vibratory finishing.

Further mapping of abrasive finishing methods is done by plotting achievable surface

roughness (Figure 4) and residual stresses (Figure 5) versus the specific energy. The plots
reveal that lapping/polishing and magnetic abrasive finishing provide very smooth surfaces
and a high compressive residual stress, although the material removal rate is small. Also, it is
indicated that tape finishing reduces surface roughness compared to superfinishing using
abrasive stones. Hard turning is comparable to normal grinding in terms of achievable
surface roughness and compressive residual stresses, but can achieve these similar results
with a lower specific energy due to more effective chip formation. This more effective chip
formation is achieved because the rake angle in turning is positive – giving more efficient
chip formation – whereas the rake angles in grinding are negative, leading to less efficient
chip formation and more sliding and plowing.
 10
Hard Workpiece: hardened steel
Grinding
turning
Surface roughness µmRa

Peel
1

Superfinishing
Honing Vibratory
0.1 Finishing
Tape
Lapping/
Polishing

0.01
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Specific energy u J/mm³
Figure 4: Figure 19. Specific energy vs. surface roughness.
Achievable surface roughness vs. specific energy "Reprinted from CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter Krajnik,
Konrad Wegener, Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster, Abrasive fine-
finishing technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier."
Tensile

400
Workpiece: hardened steel
Residual stress on finished surface MPa

Peel
0 Grinding
turning
Hard

-400 Superfinishing
Lapping/
Compressive

Honing Polishing
-800 Tape
Vibratory
Finishing
-1200
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Specific energy u J/mm³

Figure
Figure5:
21.Generated residual
Specific energy vs. stresses
residual stress vs. specific
on workpiece surface. energy "Reprinted from CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter Krajnik,
Konrad Wegener, Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster, Abrasive fine-
finishing technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier."

Characterization of finished surfaces

The characterization of finished surfaces requires the use of distinctive surface-texture

parameters (ISO 4287:1997), beyond the commonly used arithmetic average roughness, Ra.
The surface-texture parameters used are often product specific, and differs from industry to
industry. For example, the gemstone and semi-conductor industries use different sets of
parameters from the automotive or bearing industry. Characterization of surfaces generated
by abrasive fine-finishing (Figure 6), necessitates the extension from 2D (line) parameters to
3D (areal) roughness parameters. For example, the Sa parameter (arithmetical mean height)
extends Ra (arithmetical mean height of a line) to a surface. It expresses the difference in
height of each point compared to the arithmetical mean of the surface and is often needed
for characterization of fine-finished surfaces. A more detailed review of 2D and 3D surface-
texture parameters and characterization methods is given in (De Chiffre et al. 2000).
 (a) Stone superfinishing (b) Honing (c) Vibratory finishing

(d) Lapping (e) Polishing (f) Buffing

(h) Abrasive flow (i) Magnetic abrasive

(g) Blasting
machining finishing

Figure25.6:Surface
Figure Surfaces
texturesgenerated by different abrasive
finishing methods "Reprinted from CIRP
generated by abrasive fine-finishing methods.

Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 65/2, Fukuo Hashimoto, Hitomi Yamaguchi, Peter

Krajnik, Konrad Wegener, Rahul Chaudhari, Hans-Werner Hoffmeister, Friedrich Kuster,
Abrasive fine-finishing technology, 597-620, Copyright (2016), with permission from
Elsevier."

Surfaces intended for sliding contacts, such as in cam-lobes, are finished by combining
superfinishing and tape finishing, where superfinishing significantly improves the high-
frequency waviness on components. The characteristics of these superimposed surfaces
include negative skewness of the profile, which can be measured using the height
distribution parameter Rsk (i.e. skewness of the roughness profile). In the case of honing,
finishing is usually implemented by two subsequent processes – (a) base-honing and (b)
plateau-honing – where the obtained topography is a result of the two processes. Such
super-positioning of the two finishing processes results in a complex, multi-process surface
topography – necessitating the use of different 2D and 3D roughness parameters. Common
characterization of honed surfaces (having stratified functional properties) employs the Rk
group of parameters – to describe the shape of the bearing (material ratio or Abbott) curves
(ISO 13565-2:1996). The roughness profile height characterization using the linear material
ratio curve classifies the profile into peak zone, core zone and valley zone. The surface
texture parameters derived from the three zones include:
• Rk – core (kernel) roughness depth
• Rpk – reduced peak height
• Rvk – reduced valley depth
• Mr1 – upper (smallest) material ratio of roughness core profile
• Mr2 – lower (largest) material ratio of roughness core profile
Abrasive-finishing methods such as vibratory finishing, lapping, and buffing produce not
only very low surface roughness values, but also low values of the hybrid RDq parameter (i.e.
root mean square slope), indicating more reflective surfaces. In addition, the spatial area-
roughness parameters, such as Str (i.e. texture aspect ratio – measuring uniformity of the
surface texture), can be used for evaluating such surface texture anisotropy (Hashimoto et
al. 2016).

Cross References
• Accuracy
• Abrasive Material
• Additive Manufacturing Technologies
• Anisotropy
• Bearing
• Chip Formation (Abrasive Process)
• Cutting Edge Geometry
• Diamond Machining
• Etching
• Grinding
• Honing
• Inspection (Precision Engineering and Metrology)
• Lapping
• Ploughing
• Polishing
• Roughness
• Roundness
• Specific Energy
• Superfinishing
• Surface Integrity
• Surface Parameter
• Ultraprecision

References
[Taniguchi 1983] Taniguchi N (1983) Current status in, and future trends of, ultraprecision
machining and ultrafine materials processing. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 32(2):573–582
[Malkin and Guo 2008] Malkin S, Guo C (2008) Grinding technology: theory and applications
of machining with abrasives. Industrial Press Inc., New York
[Varghese and Malkin 1998] Varghese B, Malkin S (1998) Experimental investigation of
methods to enhance stock removal for superfinishing. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 47(1):231–
234
[Snoeys and Peters 1974] Snoeys R, Peters J (1974) The significance of chip thickness in
grinding. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 23(2):227–236
[Malkin et al. 1973] Malkin S, Wiggins KL, Osman M, Smalling RW (1973) Size effects in
abrasive processes. In: Tobias SA, Koenigsberger F (eds) Proceedings of the thirteenth
international machine tool design and research conference. Palgrave, London. Macmillan
Education, United Kingdom, p 291-296
[Shinmura et al. 1990] Shinmura T, Takazawa K, Hatano E et al (1990) Study on magnetic
abrasive finishing. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 39(1):325–328
 [Loveless et al. 1994] Loveless TR, Williams RE, Rajurkar KP (1994) A study of the effects of
abrasive-flow finishing on various machined surfaces. J Mater Process Tech 47(1-2):133–151
[Komanduri et al. 1997] Komanduri R, Lucca DA, Tani Y (1997) Technological advances in fine
abrasive processes. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 46(2):545–596
[De Chifre et al. 2000] De Chiffre L, Lonardo P, Trumpold H et al (2000) Quantitative
characterisation of surface texture. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 49(2):635–652.
[Evans et al. 2003] Evans CJ, Paul E, Dornfeld D et al (2003) Material removal mechanisms in
lapping and polishing. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 52(2):611–633
[Grzesik et al. 2007] Grzesik W, Rech J, Wanat T (2007) Surface finish on hardened bearing
steel parts produced by superhard and abrasive tools. Int J Mach Tool Manu 47(2): 255–262
[Hashimoto et al. 2016] Hashimoto F, Yamaguchi H, Krajnik P et al (2016) Abrasive fine-
finishing technology. CIRP Ann–Manuf Techn 65(2):597–620

View publication stats