Subsurface mechanical damage of fused silica glass during grinding by various sub-aperture tools with and without ultrasonics

The subsurface mechanical damage (SSD) depth after grinding fused silica glass with a comprehensive set of sub-aperture fixed abrasive grinding tools [cup, wheel, belt, pad, and rotary face mill (with and without ultrasonics)] and process parameters has been statistically measured using the taper wedge technique and evaluated. Consistent with a previously reported grinding model [ J. Non-Cryst. Solids 352 , 5601 –5617 ( 2006 ) 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.09.012 , Materials Science and Technology of Optical Fabrication (Wiley & Sons, 2018 ) ], based on the sliding indentation fracture by sliding particles or asperities where the normal load per particle determines the depth of the fracture (and ultimately the overall SSD depth), the dominant factor controlling SSD depth was found to be the abrasive size regardless of the tool type and process conditions. Compared to full aperture grinding methods, the overall SSD depth was higher using the sub-aperture tools, likely due to the higher effective pressure and higher load per particle distribution. In addition to abrasive size, a significant reduction in SSD depth was achieved by: (1) reducing the load distribution on the abrasive particles via increase in contact area and/or decrease in mechanical loading; (2) using a more compliant host tool medium; and (3) in what we believe is a more novel way, using ultrasonics. Combining low abrasive size, larger contact area, and a compliant host, the 6 µm diamond in a resin matrix (Trizact) on a foam pad led to very low SSD depth (∼4.6µm), relatively fast grinding rate (186mm 3 /h), and little or no figure degradation. This grinding tool/process is an attractive choice for final grind, resulting in significantly reduced polish out (i.e., “grey out”) times. With the rotary face mill tool, the use of ultrasonics consistently led to a SSD depth reduction (ranging from 17%–34%). A new fracture mechanics-based model, to the best of our knowledge, where the relevant normal load is parallel to the feed direction, has been developed to explain how ultrasonics leads to lower SSD depth. The key factors, supported by finite element stress analysis and load measurements, are (1) the initiation of fractures at higher z heights during the tool’s ultrasonic vertical oscillations, thus propagating less deep into workpiece; (2) reduction in load (and therefore reduction in fracture propagation distance) due to smaller tool-workpiece feed direction contact area (again caused by higher z heights relative to depth of cut); (3) upward movement of the tool during oscillation leads to fracturing toward the surface instead into the depth; and finally (4) at tool’s lowest point of oscillation cycle, there may not be enough time for the fracture to propagate to its full length.