Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties

Vibratory finishing belongs to the wider group of near ubiquitous mass finishing processes. Components are typically bulk finished in a fluidised media bed and applications vary from performance critical polishing, to cosmetic surface preparation. The established model of surface topography development has been one of initial rapid change during a ‘transient’ process phase, with subsequent slowing and a final ‘steady state’ phase in which surface character is uniform with no dependence on process duration or initial surface finish. Recent reassessment of the steady state phase has suggested that its surface roughness oscillates with process duration about a mean value and redefines it as the ‘equilibrium’ phase. Though this new model is considered to incorporate the existing model as a special case, it is argued that it represents a fundamental shift in the process mechanics. In addition, it is argued that the new findings have potential relevance to a much wider group of stochastic processes. Thus, the current paper seeks to clarify the underlying development process by investigating the nature of the end phase surface and testing these models by examining new and existing data. Results show no statistical evidence to support any periodic oscillations in the end phase surface and a number of issues with the oscillating model are noted. In addition, it is suggested that there is no clear physical mechanism to underpin the oscillating model and that the saturating model is sufficient to describe all the presented data. In conclusion a qualitative description of the end phase topography and its dynamic but temporally uniform character is given. The idea of ‘process bandwidth’ relating to the range of surface-media interactions is introduced to help describe some of the behavioural and control aspects of this stochastic process and the surface topography it produces. PAPER 2018 Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. RECEIVED 14 May 2018 REVISED 7 September 2018 ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 18 September 2018 PUBLISHED 12 October 2018 OPEN ACCESS https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/aae218 Surf. Topogr.: Metrol. Prop. 6 (2018) 045002

[1]  S. Castagne,et al.  State-of-the-art in experimental and numerical modeling of surface characterization of components in mass finishing process , 2017 .

[2]  Kengo Yamamoto,et al.  Size and thickness effect on creep behavior in conventional and vitamin E-diffused highly crosslinked polyethylene for total hip arthroplasty. , 2016, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[3]  Kunal Ahluwalia,et al.  State-of-the-art on vibratory finishing in the aviation industry: an industrial and academic perspective , 2016 .

[4]  Wojciech Kapłonek,et al.  The Use of Focus-Variation Microscopy for the Assessment of Active Surfaces of a New Generation of Coated Abrasive Tools , 2016 .

[5]  K. Woon,et al.  A simple general process model for vibratory finishing , 2016 .

[6]  Liam Blunt,et al.  The topographic development and areal parametric characterization of a stratified surface polished by mass finishing , 2015 .

[7]  Fritz Klocke,et al.  Contact Forces in Unguided Vibratory Finishing , 2015 .

[8]  Sylvie Castagne,et al.  Effect of Workpiece Orientation, Lubrication and Media Geometry on the Effectiveness of Vibratory Finishing of Al6061 , 2015 .

[9]  T. Joyce,et al.  Changes in surface topography at the TKA backside articulation following in vivo service: a retrieval analysis , 2015, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[10]  G. L. Tnay,et al.  A material removal and surface roughness evolution model for loose abrasive polishing of free form surfaces , 2014 .

[11]  Danielle A. Macdonald,et al.  The application of focus variation microscopy for lithic use-wear quantification , 2014 .

[12]  G. Limbert,et al.  Towards an accurate understanding of UHMWPE visco-dynamic behaviour for numerical modelling of implants. , 2014, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[13]  XiaoFei Ding,et al.  Mobile bearing or fixed bearing? A meta-analysis of outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing bilateral total knee replacements. , 2014, The Knee.

[14]  S. Affatato,et al.  Quantification of Wear Rates and Plastic Deformation on Mobile Unicompartmental UHMWPE Tibial Knee Inserts , 2013, Tribology Letters.

[15]  Yulin Li,et al.  No difference in clinical outcome between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKA: a meta-analysis , 2014, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[16]  Yu Deng,et al.  Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials , 2014, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[17]  D. Berry,et al.  Knee Wear Measured in Retrievals: A Polished Tray Reduces Insert Wear , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  Richard K. Leach,et al.  Areal texture and angle measurements of tilted surfaces using focus variation methods , 2012 .

[19]  N. Mahomed,et al.  Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  Ying Huang,et al.  A meta-analysis of the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty , 2011, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[21]  R. Danzl,et al.  Focus Variation – a Robust Technology for High Resolution Optical 3D Surface Metrology , 2011 .

[22]  Jennie M. Scarvell,et al.  Detailed three-dimensional size and shape characterisation of UHMWPE wear debris , 2011 .

[23]  C. Hing,et al.  Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. , 2009, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[24]  K. Oh,et al.  Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[25]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Future Young Patient Demand for Primary and Revision Joint Replacement: National Projections from 2010 to 2030 , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  A. Essner,et al.  A highly crosslinked UHMWPE for CR and PS total knee arthroplasties. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  Joshua J. Jacobs,et al.  The UHMWPE Handbook. Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement , 2005 .

[28]  Liam Blunt,et al.  A metrology solution for the orthopaedic industry , 2005 .

[29]  Jan K. Spelt,et al.  Tribological behavior of aluminum alloys in a vibratory finishing process , 2003 .

[30]  Vikram Cariapa,et al.  Investigation of vibratory bowl finishing , 2003 .

[31]  Jan K. Spelt,et al.  Contact forces and mechanisms in a vibratory finisher , 2002 .

[32]  V. Saikko,et al.  A three-axis knee wear simulator with ball-on-flat contact , 2001 .

[33]  Jan K. Spelt,et al.  Experimental investigation of vibratory finishing of aluminum , 2000 .

[34]  F. Hashimoto,et al.  Modelling and Optimization of Vibratory Finishing Process , 1996 .

[35]  A. Sofronas,et al.  Model development and optimization of vibratory finishing process , 1979 .

[36]  Clinical Medicine Insights: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders , 2022 .