72
J. Eur. Opt. Society-Rapid Publ. 21, 37( 2025)
Fig
. 9. Evolution of the form error during form correction runs using SAG wheel tool.
TIF ¼ kP s vt ð4Þ
where, k is the removal coefficient, v is the relative velocity between wheel and the workpiece, and t is the dwell time chosen for influence. Since the form error P-V is quite large ~ 72 lm, 9 lm NBD pad was used to ensure higher material removal rate [ 19 ] and faster form correction. An influence function of the wheel type tool with 9 lm NBD abrasive pad was obtained by making a toolworkpiece contact for t = 30 s, and wheel offset, and rotation were set to T = 0.1 mm and n 2 = 150 rpm, respectively. The simulated and measured influence footprints are shown in Figure 7a. The simulated footprint looks symmetric from �y to + y and �x to + x directions. In contrast, the experimental footprint is comparatively assymetric due to wobbly motion of the wheel caused by low rigidity of the assembly. Removal rate calculated from the footprints came out to be 0.042 mm 3 / min and 0.036 mm 3 / min in case of experiments and simulation, respectively. Section profiles across the footprints showed
Fig. 10. 2-D profiles along the center of the channel across different form correction runs.