The madness of wheel trials

Dear Doc: I sell grinding wheels and frequently find myself pulling my hair out when recommending wheels to customers. One customer achieved great success with a resin-bond, 400-mesh diamond wheel when grinding ¾”-dia. carbide endmills. It performed like a “superwheel.” I then took that same wheel to a customer who also grinds ¾” carbide endmills on the same machine model with the same coolant and it’s a disaster. Why?

The Doc Replies: All grinding wheels have a sweet spot, based on speeds and feeds, where they produce chips of an optimal thickness. Run a wheel so the chip thickness is too thin and you’ll glaze the wheel. Too thick and you’ll rip grits from the bond material.

Figure 1. Data from a test of two wheels grinding cermets at three different feed rates. Chart
courtesy J.Badger.

Let’s examine the company where the superwheel failed. For years, operators have likely been fine-tuning parameters for their current wheel and eventually found the sweet spot—for that wheel. Then, which parameters do they run when trying your superwheel? Probably the ones that work for their current wheel. Your superwheel might be great for their application, but not at their established parameters.

The figure shows data from a test of two wheels grinding cermets at three different feed rates. Which wheel and feed worked best? It depends. If you want a long-lasting wheel, go with wheel B at a slow feed rate (4). If you don’t want burn, go with wheel A at a fast feed rate (3) or wheel B at a fast feed rate (6). If you want some combination of long wheel life, low burn and short cycle time, go with (6), (5) or (3).