Ultrasonic assisted dry grinding of 42CrMo4

  • Taghi Tawakoli
  • Bahman AzarhoushangEmail author
  • Mohammad Rabiey


In recent years, many cooling lubricants are classified as health hazards, while their end-of-life treatment poses numerous ecological threats. Dry machining is a solution for greener production and also is a favorable process from an economical point of view. However, compared to other machining processes, conventional grinding has a low material removal rate and involves high specific energy. A major part of the specific energy in grinding is changed to heat that makes harmful effect on surface quality. Therefore, in conventional dry grinding, as there are no cutting fluids to transfer the heat from the contact zone, the temperature of workpiece surface and grinding wheel surface will be increased resulted to thermal damage and poor surface integrity, increasing of wheel wear and inefficient grinding compared to conventional grinding. To make a step forward to pure dry grinding and to eliminate the negative environmental impact of the cutting fluids, a new technique called ultrasonic assisted dry grinding has been used. The advantages of ultrasonic assisted grinding were proved mostly for the brittle material. Our investigations show the improvement on the surface roughness, considerable reduction of the normal grinding force, and thermal damage in case of using ultrasonic assisted dry grinding compared to conventional dry grinding for a soft material, 42CrMo4. A decrease of up to 60% of normal grinding forces has been achieved.


Dry grinding Ultrasonic machining Ultrasonic assisted dry grinding Cooling lubricants Grinding forces Surface roughness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bell DD et al (1999) Modeling of the environmental effect of cutting fluid. Tribol Trans 42(1):168–173 doi: 10.1080/10402009908982204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heiler R (2005) Dry machining of internal screw threads. Werkstatt Betrieb 138(10):54–56Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tawakoli T, Rabiey M (2007) Dry grinding by special conditioning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(3–4):419–424 (June)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malshe AP, Arumugam PU, Batzer SA (2006) Dry machining of aluminumsilicon alloy using polished CVD diamond-coated cutting tools inserts. Surf Coat Tech 200(11):3399–3403 doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.08.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voll M Modelle zur thermischen Optimierung von Trockenschleifprozessen, Dissertation an der Technischen Universität Chemnitz (eingereicht 06.03.2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heinzel C Methoden zur Untersuchung und Optimierung der Kühlschmierung beim Schleifen, Dissertation Universität Bremen, 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Tawakoli and M. Rabiey, Trockenschleifen, Grenzen und Möglichkeiten, 6. Seminar ,,Moderne Schleiftechnologie und Feinstbearbeitung“in Stuttgart, Hrsg. T. Tawakoli, 17.05.2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tawakoli T, Rabiey M An Innovative Concept for Dry grinding with Resin and Vitrified Bond CBN Wheel, International Grinding Conference ISSAT 2007/ISMEGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldman R (1962) Ultrasonic technology. Reinhold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jana JK, Satyanarayana A (1973) Production of fine diameter holes on ultrasonic drilling marching. J Inst Eng Electron (India), Part MC: Mechanical Engineering Division 54(1):36–40Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang LB, Wang LJ, Liu XY, Zhao HW, Wang X, Luo HY (2001) Mechanical model for predicting thrust and torque in vibration drilling fibre-reinforced composite materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:641–657 doi: 10.1016/S0890-6955(00)00105-X zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin M, Murakawa M (2001) Development of a practical ultrasonic vibration cutting tool system. J Mater Process Technol 113:342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azarhoushang B, Akbari J (2007) Ultrasonic-assisted drilling of Inconel 738-LC. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(7–8):1027–1033 JuneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prabhakar PD, Ferreira PM, Haselkorn M (1992) An experimental investigation of material removal rate in rotary ultrasonic machining. Trans North Am Manuf Res Inst SME 20:211–218Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mult HC, Spur G, Holl SE (1996) Ultrasonic assisted grinding of ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 62:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Uhlmann E (1998) Surface formation in creep feed grinding of advanced ceramics with and without ultrasonic assistance. Annals of CIRP, Vol.47/1/1998Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tawakoli T, Westkaemper E, Rasifard A (2007) Ultrasonic assisted dressing of vitrified CBN grinding wheel. 40th CIRP International Seminar on manufacturing Systems, Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutter G, Molinari A (2005) Analysis of the cutting force components and friction in high speed machining. J Manuf Sci Eng 127:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sutter G, Ranc N (2007) Temperature fields in a chip during high-speed orthogonal cutting—an experimental investigation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:1507–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Babitsky VI, Mitrofanov AV, Silberschmidt VV (2004) Ultrasonically assisted turning of aviation materials: simulations and experimental study. Ultrasonics 42:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zeppenfeld C (2005) Schnellhunschleifen von-Titanaluminiden. Dissertation RWTH, AachenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taghi Tawakoli
    • 1
  • Bahman Azarhoushang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Rabiey
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of grinding and precision technology (KSF)Furtwangen UniversityVillingen-SchwenningenGermany

Personalised recommendations