×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
Help needed, one of our main steel suppliers for raw bar (rods) wants to change from Centerless ground surface to turn and polish surface.

We are worried about fatigue issues.  Potential sub surface voids and lapping caused during the turn and polish process, and any other pitfalls of Turn vs. ground surface.

ASTM A108-03 lists the max Ra (micro inches) for level 1,2,3.

1. T&P N/A, CG 40Ra
2. T&P 60Ra, CG 30Ra
3. T&P 40Ra, CG 20Ra.

I believe we are not specifying the grade yet.

Q, are the lapping and void issues in T&P surface real?  Some aircraft people here are afraid of T&P for those reasons.  The commercial aspect is important too - i.e. steel suppliers want to consolidate this in house (T&P) and eliminate CG surface.

Thanks, Twistedneck.



RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Is the T&P or CG the final form of the product, or is there supplemental processing, such as heat treating or plating?

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
swall, T&P or CG, both are raw bar (spring) processing methods. We will then hot or cold form it into shape, then shot peen later, finally coat.

I'm worried that shot peen will not remove voids created by T&P.

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that, if you shot peen as you should for spring applications, you are not really concerned with the surface finish.
If this is the case, would fine turning only (to eliminate any possible decarburized layer) without polish, be acceptable for your final product?

http://www.welding-advisers.com/

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
Goahead, turning only is a good idea that we will explore. Your right, peening puts about a 200Ra (in) finish on the metal - negating any benefit of a polish.

Now, peening still moves metal around, creates laps and could make the likelyhood of a surface lap even worse if we had turned material vs. ground.   

turning creates the sawtooth type profile right?  the taller the tooth, more likely it will fold over upon peening and create a fatigue killing sub surface void.



RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Just as an aside to the peening vs surface finish note.

It has been seen in internal studies that the benefits of high residual compressive stresses can be negated by excessively rough surface finish.

I dont have the details infront of me, but I have seen the study and believe the results.

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

The function of pealing or turning bar is to remove any surface laps or decarb.
I am more concerned about the polishing operation hiding surface defect.  The turned bar should be fine.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rust never sleeps
Neither should your protection
http://www.trent-tube.com/contact/Tech_Assist.cfm

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
NickE - shot peen alone results in a 200Ra surface finish. not to mention, most of the residual compresive stress goes away after the first cycle of fatigue.  

Combine that with all the banging and dinging.. and the residual layer is quite uneven - not sure what that does to fatigue.

Ed stainless, your point about avoiding the polishing step is crucial. i'll research that asap.

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Here are two sites with a lot of information on shotpeening. Metal improvement is straight forward while you have to look hard at the other site, click on the proceeding papers.
You might be interested in looking at the Laser Peening process at the Metal Improvement site.


http://www.metalimprovement.com/laser_peening.php  

http://www.shotpeening.org/ICSP/confrns.htm#ICSP7

Is it possible to tighten up your specifications for the bar.  Where we were we concerned with fatigue we went to great pains to procure bar stock that was specifically manufactured for shafting.
 

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

twistedneck -- a variety of surfaces finishes can be produced depending on the peening process used, while You may think that the first flex cycle removes the residual compressive stresses (RCS), experimental data does not support this.

 I have tested materials in simple beam bending, an increase in residual compressive stresses is accompanied by a significant increase in cycle life, when the peak-peak stress level was increased by the difference in RCS the difference in cycle life disappeared. (surface roughness was the same at ~0.14um Ra)

I have seen results of coil springs tested to failure. Generally an increase in RCS is accompanied by an increase in cycle life. However at some roughness the stress concentrators on the surface begin to initiate failure, even though the RCS are much higher.

Nick
I love materials science!

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
More data, the polishing process may be required and i'll look into 'light' turn and polish vs. heavy burnishing.. some people mentioned this would create a harder surface (no RCS) i'm confused here.

Nick, your right.. no question RCS in the right spot helps fatigue.  Weather by shot peen or heat treat.  In fatiuge, a lot of good surface RCS reamains, just most of it (supported by papers, not experience) gets removed during the first fatigue cycle depending upon the fatgiue regime.  

Experimental data showed me that only a small % (up to 30%) gets removed..  

Of course w/o that remaining RCS we'd never meet fatigue life.  

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

unclesyd, thanks for the excellent paper.  
Depth profiling was done via incremental electropolishing. twistedneck, you can do this to compare your different finishing techniques. Electropolish away 0.0001" layers at a time and examine.  See which method produces best structure (fewest laps, etc.)  Also, I've noticed lots of trapped machining oils freed when the smeared surface layer is removed (although mostly with the relatively gummy 316L).

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
thanks unclesyd..

kenvlach, that electro polishing thin layer method is how we prep layers for xray to find out what the RCS profile is over a depth.. so we had the perfect surface defect tool sitting there the whole time!

I have a meeting at the mill tomorrow (friday) i'll let you guys know what they propose.. btw, now i'm more ready then ever - oil? who'd a thought?

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

Adding some thoughts to kenvlach's post you might want to consider using a UV light source for detection of the oils, if the fluorescent.

You can enhance the bleeding out of the oil by using  the Developer used for Dye Penetrant testing. This works for for a fluorescent and nonfluorescent oil.  


  

 

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

(OP)
unclesyd, that would be an awesome first step.. we could clean w/ a caustic cleaner, then apply the UV light source and the dye developer..  THEN go on to the surface electo polish check.. question, when we remove 0.0005 and look at at, what exactly will we be looking for?  I assume it will be done on our normal optical system.

Met with the steel house and the processor

They were very helpful.. some notes

1. with our harder grade (vs. low carbon steel or stainless) chips come of much cleaner and avoid the dreaded tearing and stretching that creates the huge valley's during the turn process.

2. polishing lightly with small amounts of force and low burnish / bending - the surface will not create the voids as bad.

3. Fatigue testing turned only!

RE: Turn and Polish surface vs. Centerless Ground

What I've done is to remove the oils on the surface with a  suitable solvent and then lightly apply the PT developer to the clean and dry surface. I have used just a visual exam for lightly wetted spots in the developer or if the oil is fluorescent use a UV light. It takes a effort to see the wet spots at times and it may or may not be viable in your case. I have found this extemely useful in the machine shop, especially when a machinest reports something not right in the a process.

I have seen both laps and seams with this process. This can work as some of the cutting oils will inhibit the penetration of the dye normally used in PT testing but will wick out into the developer.

I use this method at other times for looking at parts that have been subject to oil and grease exposure prior to using normal PT or MT after a rigorous cleaning.

This is just a variant on the original PT testing accomplished by using kerosene and whiting or chalk dust.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources