Micro-cracking during grinding.

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Cheshirechappie

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2012
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
229
Location
Cheshire
Doing a bit of background research on tool steels, I came across reference to this phenomenon in a book called 'Heat Treatment, Selection and Application of Tool Steels' by William E Bryson. I've since found a similar warning in a pamphlet published by Jones and Shipman (manufacturers of precision grinding machines) in 1975, particularly with reference to the off-hand grinding of HSS lathe tools, so it's been known about for a while.

Micro-cracks can (they don't always) occur when hard materials are ground aggressively (or 'abusively' as one reference described it). Off-hand grinding is classed as 'aggressive' grinding. What happens is that the temperatures generated by the grinding operation (up to 1650 degrees centigrade according to Bryson - that's why the sparks come off white) cause localised expansion of the surface of the material. The steel can't expand sideways because cold metal restrains it, so it expands outward, and inward as far as the plasticity of the material allows. Then it cools, and the steel tries to shrink back to it's original position. Since some plastic deformation took place in the hot state, it can't fully shrink back now that it's cold, so high stresses are generated locally in the metal skin, some high enough to result in localised fracture. The localised heating also alters the metal hardness, and the fine metallurgical grain structure in the surface layers will be destroyed.

Micro-cracks cannot be detected by the naked eye, or by microscope. They can be found with magnetic particle or flourescent particle testing, and are between 0.002" and about 0.020" (0.05 to 0.5mm) deep. They are very difficult to remove once formed, since every time you grind over them, they heat up again and run deeper. (They could, I think, be removed by honing off the tool edge.)

The harder the material, the more likely the phenomenon is to occur. Bryson estimates that probabiity of occurence is about 30% if a straw colour is observed on the surface, and about 70% if a blue colour appears.

How to avoid it? Avoid the possibility of heat build-up by using a friable or semi-friable wheel, and a light touch in grinding. Wet grinding is better than dry grinding, and dunking a hot tool in water to cool it is best avoided - the sudden thermal shock can increase the chances of cracking - better to allow the tool to cool slowly if warmth is felt during grinding.

For edge tools, it probably isn't much of a problem if it happens well up the bevel, but would potentially cause early edge failure if it occurred at the cutting edge. The advice to grind most of the bevel but not right to the edge seems good advice.

It does occur to me that this MAY be a partial explaination for the edge brittleness reported with the harder steels like A2 in some circumstances. Extra care in grinding these steels might reduce problems of brittle edges, by avoiding the chances of micro-cracks forming near the edge.
 
twas always the selling point of the Tormek system. The continual bathing in water avoids all risk of over heating. Of course what Tormek marketing neglect to tell you is that it also avoids any risk of actually removing any steel too!! Perhaps a tad unfair, brilliant for sharpening in fact, rubbish for shaping.

The real no no is to quench a HSS tool when hot in water.
 
Nice find Chappie. But I don't think that is exactly what Mike was refering to in that other thread. 0.05 to 0.5 mm deep cracks aren't exactly "micro". These are quite catastrophic defects that should be avoided at all costs, and would result in very visible nicks in the edge when the tool is used.

Anyway, light pressure, coarse, friable wheels and easy on the temperature is still good advice of course. And grinding through the edge is really not neccessary. Quit grinding a hair from the edge and do the rest on the benchstones.
 
Random Orbital Bob":3n8drlwr said:
twas always the selling point of the Tormek system. The continual bathing in water avoids all risk of over heating. Of course what Tormek marketing neglect to tell you is that it also avoids any risk of actually removing any steel too!! Perhaps a tad unfair, brilliant for sharpening in fact, rubbish for shaping........
They also neglect to tell you that small diameter wheels aren't good for sharpening woodwork tools. Hollow ground makes a weak edge.
 
that's true. So the more your 10" Tormek wheel gets ground away, the worse that problem gets. True for all grinders of course, not unique to the Tormek. But not the case for the pro-edge, another point in its favour.
 
Jacob":w2i7qru2 said:
Hollow ground makes a weak edge.

Random Orbital Bob":w2i7qru2 said:
that's true. So the more your 10" Tormek wheel gets ground away, the worse that problem gets

Strange comments :roll: :roll:

If an edge is ground to a specific angle how does concave grinding make it weaker? If anything it will be stronger due to the increasing thickness resulting from the concave grind.

For interest's sake I've just measured my Tormek wheel - after about 12 years of use the wheel diameter has been reduced by 5mm. I wonder how many belts the Pro Edge will get through in that time?

Regards Mick
 
I've had a Tormek for 6 years now and more recently got a 2nd hand pro-edge because the Tormek is rubbish at shaping (lots of steel removal) but good at sharpening (little steel removal). I got sick and tired of wanting to experiment with different bowl and spindle gouge grinds but dreading the shaping operation on the Tormek as the major steel removal is so slow.

The pro-edge has completely changed that as if the lower grit ceramic belts are used it will positively chomp through the steel. It's an extremely useful tool and whats happening now is I'm using the Tormek less and less and the pro edge more and more simply because its faster, totally repeatable and infinitely superior for the large surface area tools like the skew.

Also, are you really sure you want to propose a business case of pro-edge versus Tormek costs based on consumable sanding belts Mick?? My current use of sanding belts will likely level out at about £20/year. The capital cost of the tooling plus jigs was £250 so lets say all in for £270. 5 years out that's another £100 on belts. So total sunk cost after 5 years is £350 for the pro-edge. You can't even buy the grinder from Tormek for that let alone theturners jig set which is another £200 odd. I've gone through 1 grinding wheel in my 6 years and bought the silicon Blackstone specifically for HSS. That cost over a £100.

Do the maths, there is no way on Gods green earth that a Tormek is less expensive to acquire and run than a Pro-edge. Not even a spec of a chance.

Also, I'm pretty certain Jacob's contention that a hollow ground ie concave blade is intrinsically weaker than a straight ground one. There isn't more metal behind the edge, there's less. That's self evident is it not?

Hang on....did I just agree with Jacob?? Note to self....get to the Doctor :)
 
Hi

Hope this makes sense and demonstrates my point:
 

Attachments

  • Concave Grind.png
    Concave Grind.png
    8.1 KB
Hi

I have no intention of making a pure cost case between the Tormek and the Sorby - I am merely pointing out the degree of wheel wear I have experienced.

However, since you raised the point, five years worth of belts will buy me a replacement wheel.

Regards Mick
 
I use a 6" grinder on all my blades and chisels. Sometimes even on my Jap chisels. In theory this should send me straight to hell, but in practice I am happy and don't experience early edge failure or what not. Anxiety for smaller grinder wheels is not neccessary.
 
At one time I used a 6 inch hand crank (still do, for bad nicks) with one of the modern 'cooler' wheels. That and a 8,000G waterstone and a strop was all that I used.
Gave perfectly good results.
 
Spindle":3eo358ey said:
Hi

Hope this makes sense and demonstrates my point:
What point? Your diagram is scaled up so far that the blade must be extremely thin - safety razor perhaps?
The prob with small wheels is that the heel and the edge have to lie within the desired finished angle. but without the edge itself having a bevel of less than (say) 25º.
Carry on your drawing but with realistically scaled blades and ever smaller wheels and you will see the problem.
 
Hi Jacob

The drawing is to scale and the blade is 3.17mm thick, this gives a bevel length of 7.5mm on the belt sander reducing to 6.98mm on the 200mm wheel.

Regards Mick
 
Corneel":10vl5mpt said:
Nice find Chappie. But I don't think that is exactly what Mike was refering to in that other thread. 0.05 to 0.5 mm deep cracks aren't exactly "micro". These are quite catastrophic defects that should be avoided at all costs, and would result in very visible nicks in the edge when the tool is used.

Anyway, light pressure, coarse, friable wheels and easy on the temperature is still good advice of course. And grinding through the edge is really not neccessary. Quit grinding a hair from the edge and do the rest on the benchstones.
Hello,

Very interesting info here, CC. thanks for posting. Corneel is correct in that .05 cracks and above are large, but I do think there is an indication that the occurance of the cracks of even smaller size are likely with less destructive grinding and finer abrasives. Hopefully there should be a point where these cracks are too small to be of no consequence or disappear completely, which is the situation we want. Where exactly this is in terms of finenes of abrasive is probably around the 1micron vicinity, judging by what i have read so far. Obviously a gentle hand on the grindstones is indicated.

The book I bought but haven't had time to read much, does suggest that the effects of the grinding process, whether mecanically done or by manual methods, are sufficiently similar to be considered as the same. (But polishing different enough to be dealt with seperately) I would interpret this as a suggestion that CC's findings above could have some indications in our sharpening methods.

I have been super busy of late, so I havnt had much time to read and digest stuff regarding this topic, so I'm sorry if I have not been contributing much of late. I am facsinated by this, though, even if it doesn't have a big effect on anything at all.

Mike.
 
Spindle":ov5kq0ix said:
Hi

Hope this makes sense and demonstrates my point:

That's the bit that's got me scratching my head now?? I'm not sure that does make sense. Now, I may be wrong on this but.....when you apply the blade to the grindstone, you're setting up a tangent with the bevel to be ground. As you push that bevel into the wheel then the arc described by the wheel will be centred exactly in the middle of the grind will it not ie if you drew an imaginary line from the centre of the grindstone to the centre of the hollow grind, that would be the highest point of the hollow, correct? Here's an EXAGGERATED sketch to make the point.
Hollow grind1.jpg


I appreciate the tip of the hollow grind in my sketch is not at 25 degrees but the point is to demonstrate that the arc must necessarily be centred in the middle of the grind. In your diagram the hollowing is not centred on the grind, its skewed to the back. Thus in reality with a hollow ground bevel at 25 degrees, once the angle has been satisfied as true, the metal immediately starts getting thinner because the grind is symmetrical across the bevel ie the arc of the grinding wheel. This (I think) is the theory of why a hollow ground edge is (to some degree) weaker than a straight edge. Now, don't misunderstand the pedantic nature of this. I'm not for one minute saying there is much of a practical difference. I've used grinders for years and have no problem with a hollow grind. I just was taking issue with being called wrong that's all when in fact, I don't believe, geometrically speaking, I am :)

But.....I'm always willing to listen :)
 

Attachments

  • Hollow grind1.jpg
    Hollow grind1.jpg
    106.8 KB
Hi

I think you've answered your own question - the edge is no longer ground to 25 degrees in your illustration.

Regards Mick
 
Spindle":3o3w8gw2 said:
For interest's sake I've just measured my Tormek wheel - after about 12 years of use the wheel diameter has been reduced by 5mm. I wonder how many belts the Pro Edge will get through in that time?
Mick

Spindle":3o3w8gw2 said:
I have no intention of making a pure cost case between the Tormek and the Sorby - I am merely pointing out the degree of wheel wear I have experienced.

Regards Mick

Really? No intention of cost comparison huh. OK then :)
 
Spindle":21gmwarq said:
Hi

I think you've answered your own question - the edge is no longer ground to 25 degrees in your illustration.

Regards Mick

I'm confused Mick, are you disputing that the arc of the grind produced on any grinder will not be symmetrically distributed across the grind?
 
Hi

No matter how you apply the tool to the wheel the arc ground will be in accordance with the wheel diameter.

Altering the angle at which the tool is presented will only effect the length of the arc.

Does this help?

Concave Rotated.png


It's the same drawing rotated and without the mark ups.

Regards Mick
 

Attachments

  • Concave Rotated.png
    Concave Rotated.png
    13.7 KB
Back
Top