A quantitative study of the effect of surface texture on plasticity induced surface roughness and dislocation density of crystalline materials

2008 ◽  
Vol 104 (8) ◽  
pp. 084904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir R. Zamiri ◽  
Farhang Pourboghrat ◽  
Thomas R. Bieler
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Dislocation Density ◽  
Quantitative Study ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Crystalline Materials ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Effect of Workpiece Flatness and Surface Finish on the Holding Force of a Magnetic Chuck

1999 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Felix ◽  
S. N. Melkote
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Surface Finish ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Hardened Steel ◽  
Ferromagnetic Materials ◽  
Precision Grinding ◽  
Workpiece Surface ◽  
Surface Flatness ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Magnetic chucks are commonly used for workholding in precision grinding and turning of ferromagnetic materials. The workholding force produced by the chuck is strongly influenced by the texture and form of the workpiece surface in contact with the chuck surface. This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation into the effects of workpiece surface flatness, finish, and texture on the normal and frictional workholding forces produced by a radial 4-pole electromagnetic chuck. Ring shaped case-hardened steel specimens were used in the experiments. The results show that the normal holding force decreases with increasing flatness deviation. The effect of surface roughness on the normal holding force was found to be small compared to the effect of flatness but significantly impacts the tangential holding force. The workpiece surface texture was also found to have an effect on the workholding forces.

Effect of surface roughness and surface texture on scuffing

1973 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.E. Staph ◽  
P.M. Ku ◽  
H.J. Carper
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The effect of surface roughness on AES depth profile.

Shinku ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 793-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masao HIRASAKA ◽  
Masao HASHIBA ◽  
Toshiroh YAMASHINA
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Depth Profile ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

2021 ◽  
pp. 096739112110055
Author(s):  
Gunce Ozan ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren ◽  
Cansu Vatansever ◽  
Ugur Erdemir
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document