Engineering Solutions With Coated Abrasive Technology Engineered Abrasives Business Norton Company May20, 1999 Update
TRADITIONAL METHOD OF CHOOSING AN ABRASIVE: Customer s Performance Criteria Manufacturer s Belt Availability abrasive (substrate ground, life, other factors) backing (flexibility, durability, water resistance) others (grinding aids, product flex, etc.) Past Experience Understanding the process What has worked in the past? Trial and Error generates waste time consuming optimum conditions seldom achieved
NEW APPROACH FOR CHOOSING AN ABRASIVE: Change Abrasive Pattern to fit the application 3D Contour Plot P500 vs Structured Abrasive z=1.571-2.282e-4*x+0.005*y+1.148e-8*x*x+5.677e-6*x*y-7.883e-4*y*y 30 Use Internal Data to Optimize Process 26 Map Abrasive Performance Prior to Testing PRESSURE 22 18 14 10 6 1000 Minimize Trial and Error: Choose abrasive belt which will maximize performance based on pre-determined engineering data 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SPEED Norton Performance Mapping 0.81 0.868 0.926 0.984 1.042 1.099 1.157 1.215 1.273 1.331 above
Engineering an Abrasive Belt to Customer Needs Norton Engineered Abrasive System What is an Engineered Abrasive? What are the Performance Benefits? Norton Pattern Technology Using a variety of patterns to best fit an application Norton Mapping and Performance Optimization Using existing data on belt performance to optimize operating conditions
Engineered Abrasives - Differences from Current C/A Engineered vs. Aggregate vs. Conventional CONVENTIONAL (Mono-layer) AGGREGATES -(Multi-layer but poor contact area control) (Multi-layer with contact area control which can be tailored to application)
Components of an Engineered Abrasive Formulation (Abrasive, Resin, Grinding Aid) Pattern (Variable) Backing Surface Functional Powder (Unique Blend of Grain and Grinding Aid) Surface is completely covered with abrasive and grinding aid (Pyramidal type pattern)
Engineered Abrasives - Differences from Current C/A Side View Thickness Thickness - Engineered Abrasives erode during grinding replacing dull grain tips with new ones Side View Erosion Top View Pyramids Tri-helical
Engineered Abrasives - Advantages Multi-layer Abrasive Particles - Continuous replacement of dulled abrasives with new abrasives - Prolonged life - Consistent surface finish throughout belt life Surface Functional Powder - Blend of abrasives and grinding aids at the surface of the structures - Increase initial aggressiveness - Grinding aid immediately exposed to increase efficiency and decrease grinding temperatures
Engineered Abrasives - P320 Equivalents (Cut vs. Time) AlO Cut vs. Time on Stainless Steel (4632 SFPM / 15 PSI) 3.00 2.50 Cut (grams) 2.00 Aggregate 1.50 Engineered Abrasive Structured Abrasive Conventional 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (seconds) 600 700 800 900
Engineered Abrasives - Life and Surface Finish Total Cut: Ring Test (5000 SFPM / 15 PSI) Stainless Steel 20 Minutes Grinding Time 180 30 32 29 33 34 14 14 140 39 40 100 31 13 25 Structured Abrasive 8 37 40 9 Engineered Pyramid 31 9 18 60 Conventional 20 0 Engineered Tri-helical 8 P180 P220 P320 P400/500 P1200 - Stock Removal and Life is significantly increased over conventional abrasives while generating an equivalent finish
Engineered Abrasives - Reduced Grinding Temperatures Ring Test - Avg. Grinding Temperature (5000 SFPM, 15 PSI) 165 (degrees F) Avg. Temp 160 155 Conventional 150 Structured Abrasive 145 Norton Engineered 140 135 P180 P220 P320 Grit Size P500
Engineered Abrasives - Advantages Increase in cut rate over conventional abrasives Ability to remove conventional steps (See case study) No sacrifice in surface finish Prolonged Life Several times the life of a conventional belt (generally 3-5 x) More aggressive over entire belt life compared to aggregate and conventional products
NORTON ENGINEERED ABRASIVES: ENGINEERING A PRODUCT FOR ALL CONDITONS
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern Effect In any grinding or finishing application the following may affect the efficiency and quality of the process: Grinding Equipment Contact Wheels, HP, Area of Contact Stock Removal Requirements Temperature Requirements Surface Finish Requirements Wheel speed Applied Pressure Research has shown that ABRASIVE PATTERN can be designed to optimize the results
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern Effect Grinding Data on X45 Engineered Abrasives 7475 SFPM @ 30 psi. on 304ss Cut Rate vs Time Specific Energy vs Cumulative Cut 1.50E+03 Grams/30 seconds 8 7 1.30E+03 Coarse Pattern 5 Fine Pattern 4 3 1.10E+03 Hp-min/in3 6 Coarse Pattern 9.00E+02 Fine Pattern 7.00E+02 5.00E+02 2 3.00E+02 1 1.00E+02 0 0 1 2 3 Minutes 4 5 6 0-1.00E+02 5 10 15 20 25 30 Cum. Cut(grams) Conclusions: - Pattern has a distinct effect on performance under certain conditions 35
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern Effect Pattern has a clear effect on product performance depending on grinding pressures and speeds (next slides) Mapping will help determine which patterns will work best in specific applications Tri-helical Pyramid Hexagons
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern Effect Cut & Bearing Area vs. Time (19 PSI on Carbon Steel) Bearing Area Profile 100 0.8 Individual Pyramids) 90 Pyramid Cut 0.4 0.6 Lines (Tri-helical) 60 50 40 30 0.3 Pyramid B.A. 0.4 0.2 20 10 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Thickness (Microns) 0 0 50 100 0.2 0.1 Tri-Helical Cut 0 Tri-helical BA 50 Bearing Area 70 Cut (grams) Bearing Area (%) 80 0 0 0.5 150 200 Time (seconds) - Bearing area profile affects cut profile - This type of profile can be tailored to particular applications 250
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern and Initial Cut Ring Tester (Stainless Steel) 5000 SFPM, 16 PSI, 304 SS Grams Metal Removed in 3 Minutes 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Coarse Medium Fine Pattern Increasing contact points increases the initial cut Very Fine
Engineered Abrasives - Pattern Summary Abrasive pattern has a strong effect on grinding performance dependant on grinding conditions Engineered Abrasives offer patterns to cover a wide variety of operating conditions
NORTON ENGINEERED ABRASIVES: CHOOSING THE RIGHT PATTERN AND OPTIMIZING GRINDING CONDITIONS
Engineered Abrasives - Mapping New method of mapping has been developed: can be used for both engineered and conventional abrasives models performance as a function of wheel speed and pressure specifies the region of optimal performance for a specific abrasive belt Mapping can help predict factors which may change as a function of the grinding conditions: cut rate surface finish others
Mapping of Engineered Abrasive vs. Conventional Abrasive U464 X110 vs. Conventional 150 grit SiC Distance Weighted Least Squares 30 26 PRESSURE 22 18 14 Good 10 Better 6 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 SPEED 3500 4000 4500 5000 Best
Surface Finish Changes (X65 Aluminum Oxide) 304 Stainless Steel Brass 1018 Carbon Steel Ra (mico-inch) @ 4000 SFPM 48 45 57 Ra (mico-inch) @ 7500 SFPM 41 39 47 Surface finish can be strongly affected by speed, pressure, grit size, etc. Mapping can help predict these types of changes to match the finish required by the customer
Mapping Case Study Process: Offhand polishing of Stainless Steel Irons (soles) Initial Grinding Conditions: Abrasive: Belt Speed: Contact Wheel: Force Applied: Contact Area: Competitive Aluminum Oxide Structured Abrasive 5500 SFPM Matchless - A grade 10-15 lbs 0.375 in^2 Workplace Pressure: 26 psi - 40 psi Results under initial Conditions: Competitor: 120-130 parts/belt Norton U264 (X80): 95-100 parts/belt Consult Mapping For conditions to run!!
Mapping Case Study Condition where customer was running Structured Abrasives U264 X80 vs. Structured Abrasive Stainless Steel 30 Previous Condition 26 New conditions specified for Norton Belts PRESSURE 22 18 Suggested Condition 14 Good 10 6 1000 Better 2000 3000 4000 SPEED 5000 6000 7000 8000 Best
Mapping Case Study New Conditions: Requested operator to push with half the force (~ 13-16 psi) Wheel speed and contact wheel unchanged Results: - 44% increase in product life over competitor (188 parts vs. 130 max. for competitor) - cut rate and surface finish equivalent Follow up: In this case, operators liked the feel of lower pressure In other cases, a new pattern can be generated to perform at higher pressures
Engineered Abrasive Testing and Results APPLICATION COMPETITION ENGINEERED PRODUCT RESULTS Offhand Polish/Plate Structured Abrasive Carbon Steel Pipes Aluminum Oxide U266 X30 20-30% increase in life with equal cut rate and finer finish Automated Plunge Grind on Zinc Castings U254 X80 20-25% increase in life U264 X80 200-250% more performance than conventional with lower grinding temperatures Structured Abrasive Aluminum Oxide Offhand polishing of stainless steel golf clubs (irons) Conventional P220 - J weight Offhand Polishing of Stainless Steel Cylinders Conventional P120, 240, 400 Robotic Polishing of prosthetic knee joints Structured Abrasive Aluminum Oxide (Various Grit Sizes) U264 X45 U254 X45-X30 U264 X16 Reduced process to one step with more uniform surface finish and lower temperatures -66% increase in life (X45-X30) -More than double belt life!
NORTON ENGINEERED ABRASIVES PRODUCT OFFERING
Current Product Offering ABRASIVE: ALUMINUM OXIDE (X100 - X6) SILICON CARBIDE (X110, X90, X70) FEPA Grading P150 af P180 P220 P320 X65 X100 X80 P400 P600 P800 P1200 X6 X30 X45 P2500 X16 Engineered Abrasives perform over a wider range of traditional grit sequences BACKINGS: Flexible cotton (good combination of strength and flexibility) Semi-flexible polyester (versatile backing for dry and wet applications) PATTERNS: Tri-Helical (Middle to High Pressure Grinding - Very consistent cut rate) 35 Pyramid (Low Pressure Grinding - Extremely flexible) 16 Quad (Middle to High Pressure Grinding - Long life, consistent cut rate)
Cap Code Designation Example: U266 DESIGNATION KEY: UV Grain Pattern Backing Type First Character: U - denotes UV curable product and distinguishes Engineered Abrasive products from other CAP codes. Second Character: 2 - same as conventional system, 2 = Aluminum Oxide, 4 = Silicon Carbide. Third Character: 6 - refers to pattern, 6 = Tri-Helical, 5 = Pyramid Cell; 3 = Quad Cell Fourth Character: 6 - refers to backing type, 6 = X polyester, 4 = X cotton