1 / 28

faster better finish the right pad and polish for the job justin mahanna, richard nastasi, chris russell

Fused Silica GlassGlass size - 2 inches in diameter5 parts per carrier25 parts per run10 runs used on specification average . APOMA Workshop, 11/2008. 2. Experimentation. Universal Photonics, Inc.1-800-645-7173. LappingLapped with 12 micron aluminum oxide with Uni Lap C60 addedMachine usedSomos Double Sided MDF-400 lapping machineMachine parameters, top and bottom plate set at 175 RPM, center gear at 25 RPM with a slightly negative down pressure on top plate.

Leo
Download Presentation

faster better finish the right pad and polish for the job justin mahanna, richard nastasi, chris russell

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Faster Better Finish The Right Pad and Polish for the Job Justin Mahanna, Richard Nastasi, Chris Russell   Abstract This presentation will discuss the impact that selection of the correct polyurethane pad and polish can have on not only polish times and stock removal rates, but also show the impact on final surface finish. Highlighted will be a matrix of polyurethane pad types paired with different polishes accompanied by an analysis of the impact on the finished glass product. Topics discussed will also include the impact of selected additives into the polishing slurry, pad grooving, and a brief analysis associated with the pre-polish (fine grinding) step and its impact on the final finish. It will be shown that it is critical to have the proper combination of pad and polish in order to obtain user specified finish requirements for a given substrate in the minimum time. The “any pad, any polish” adage may work, but we will illustrate the cost in time and effort associated with an incorrect selection. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 Universal Photonics, Inc. 1-800-645-7173 1

    2. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 2

    3. Lapping Lapped with 12 micron aluminum oxide with Uni Lap C60 added Machine used Somos Double Sided MDF-400 lapping machine Machine parameters, top and bottom plate set at 175 RPM, center gear at 25 RPM with a slightly negative down pressure on top plate APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 3 Experimentation

    4. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 4 SOMOS Double Sided MDF-400

    5. Polishes Tested Hastilite PO, .5 micron white, high purity cerium liquid Uni Cer 166, 1 micron white, high purity cerium powder Baume =3 Everflo Blue at a 4% per volume of water used with all slurries APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 5 Experimentation

    6. Increased Surface Removal Decreased Random (Rogue) Scratching Increased Cleanliness of Slurry Improves Life of Re-circulating Slurry De-agglomerated surfaces tend to cause less staining - easier part clean up APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 6 Benefits of Everflo Blue and Uni Lap C 60

    7. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 7 Uni Lap C 60 with Lapping

    8. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 8 Everflo Blue with Polishing

    9. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 9 Example of Scratch Reduction Without Everflo Blue

    10. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 10 Example of Scratch Reduction With Everflo Blue

    11. Pad selection Type of pad Grooving/no grooving Polish selection % cerium Purity Particle size Chemical/pH effect Potential impact of pad/polish selection Polish times Stock removal rates Final surface finish APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 11 Pad and Polish Selection

    12. LP pads available LP-13, 26, 46, 57, 66, 77, 87, 88, 99 GR pads GR-25, 35, 38 Type of fillers Cerium Zirconium Silica None Hardness and Density APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 12 Pad Selcetion - Type of Pad

    13. What happens when a pad is grooved Grooving Expectations? Faster removal rates Rougher surface finish Non Grooving Expectations? Slower removal rates Better surface finish Any change at all? APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 13 Grooving a Pad

    14. Initially surface removal with Hastilite PO faster with grooved pads except for LP-57 Initial Surface finish quality better with non-grooved pads except for LP-46 APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 14 Effect of Grooving Hastilite PO Initial Polish - 10 Minute Polish Time

    15. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 15 Effect of Grooving Unicer 166 Initial Polish - 10 Minute Polish Time Initial Surface Removal speed with Unicer 166 could be faster, slower, or the same depending on pad Initial Surface finish quality nearly identical for all but the LP-66 pad where finish significantly better with non-grooved pads

    16. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 16 Effect of Grooving Hastilite PO Steady State Polish - 40 Minute Polish Time Amount of surface removed with Hastilite PO greater with non-grooved pads except for all but LP-66 pad Surface quality after 40 minutes polishing could be better, worse, or the same depending on pad type chosen

    17. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 17 Effect of Grooving Unicer 166 Steady State Polish - 40 Minute Polish Time Surface removal with Unicer 166 after 40 minutes generally greater with grooved pad Surface finish is dependent on pad chosen

    18. What happens when a pad is grooved Grooving Expectations? Faster Yes sometimes Rougher surface finish Yes sometimes Non Grooving Expectations? Slower Yes sometimes Better surface finish Yes sometimes Any change at all? Not always APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 18 Grooving a Pad

    19. Determining pad to use Removal rate desired Finish requirement Polish selection Throughput required Machine type/capabilities (rpm, directionality, etc.) Effect of heat buildup on parts Pad choice based on substrate to be polished Lapping performed before polish Determining to groove or not to groove Removal rate desired Finish requirement Pad selection Polish selection Substrate to be polished Groove island size Edge Roll Required APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 19 The Fix

    20. In the evaluation we used Hastilite PO and Uni Cer 166 cerium slurries Hastilite PO, .5 micron Uni Cer 166, 1 micron Expect? Smaller particle size, slower but better finish? Larger particle size, faster but not as good a surface finish? APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 20 Polish

    21. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 21 Effect of Polish – Grooved Pads Initial Polish - 10 Minute Polish Time For grooved pads, initial surface removal for two polish types dependent on pad chosen Initial surface finish quality better for all pad types with Hastilite PO

    22. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 22 Effect of Polish – Non-Grooved Pads Initial Polish - 10 Minute Polish Time For non-grooved pads, initial surface removal better with Hastilite PO except when used with GR-35 pad Initial surface finish quality better with Hastilite PO independent of pad type

    23. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 23 Effect of Polish – Grooved Pads Steady State Polish - 40 Minute Polish Time After 40 minutes of polishing with grooved pads, Unicer 166 removes slightly more material for all pads except LP-57 Final surface finish quality better with all pads using Hastilite PO

    24. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 24 Effect of Polish – Non-Grooved Pads Steady State Polish - 40 Minute Polish Time After 40 minutes of polishing with non-grooved pads, removal amounts dependent on pad selection Final surface finish quality always better with Hastilite PO

    25. Initial surface removal dependent on pad/polish combination chosen Initial surface finish better with Hastilite PO for all pads tested After 40 minutes of polishing total surface removal dependent on pad/polish combination After 40 minutes of polishing final surface finish always better with Hastilite PO APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 25 Polish Conclusions

    26. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 26 Effect of Down Pressure Grooved Pads Significantly increased surface removal with addition of down pressure Down pressure negatively affects surface quality resulting in higher Ra

    27. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 27 Effect of Lapping Particle Size Non-Grooved Pads Polishing surface removal is improved when smaller lapping particles are employed Final surface quality is improved when larger lapping particles are employed

    28. APOMA Workshop, 11/2008 28 Conclusion

More Related