Optimization of Chemical Mechanical Solution for Close-to-Atomic Scale Polishing of 6061 Aluminum Alloy

Jiang Guo; Haijun Xu; Zhe Yang; Lei Wang; Hongxin Zhao

doi:10.3788/AOS231706

Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 44, Issue 5, 0522001(2024)

Optimization of Chemical Mechanical Solution for Close-to-Atomic Scale Polishing of 6061 Aluminum Alloy

Jiang Guo^1,2、*, Haijun Xu¹, Zhe Yang¹, Lei Wang³, and Hongxin Zhao³

¹State Key Laboratory of High-Performance Precision Manufacturing, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning , China

²NingBo Institute of Dalian University of Technology, Ningbo 315000, Zhejiang , China

³Aviation Industry Corporation of China Beijing Precision Engineering Institute for Aircraft Industry, Beijing 100076, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(17)

Fig. 1. UNIPOL-1200S auto lapping and polishing machine

Download full size

Fig. 2. Surface roughness of aluminum part after grinding

Download full size

Fig. 3. Variation of surface roughness at different pH values

Download full size

Fig. 4. Surface morphology of 6061 aluminum alloy after polishing at different pH values. (a) 3; (b) 6; (c) 9; (d) 12

Download full size

$Variation of surface roughness at different H2O2 mass fraction$

Fig. 5. Variation of surface roughness at different H₂O₂ mass fraction

Download full size

$Surface morphology and roughness of 6061 aluminum alloy after polishing at different mass fraction of H2O2. (a) 0.25%; (b) 0.5%; (c) 0.75%; (d) 1%$

Fig. 6. Surface morphology and roughness of 6061 aluminum alloy after polishing at different mass fraction of H₂O₂. (a) 0.25%; (b) 0.5%; (c) 0.75%; (d) 1%

Download full size

$Variation of surface roughness at different BTA mass fraction$

Fig. 7. Variation of surface roughness at different BTA mass fraction

Download full size

$Surface morphology and roughness of 6061 aluminum alloy after polishing at different mass fraction of BTA. (a) 0.3%; (b) 0.6%; (c) 0.9%; (d) 1.2%; (e) 1.5%$

Fig. 8. Surface morphology and roughness of 6061 aluminum alloy after polishing at different mass fraction of BTA. (a) 0.3%; (b) 0.6%; (c) 0.9%; (d) 1.2%; (e) 1.5%

Download full size

Fig. 9. Response surface plots of inter-factor interactions. (a) Interaction of factors A and B; (b) interaction of factors A and C; (c) interaction of factors B and C

Download full size

$XPS energy spectra of O 1s. (a) Initial surface; (b) solution I: pH value is 9, mass fraction of H2O2 is 0.5%; (c) solution II: pH is 9, mass fraction of H2O2 is 0.5%, mass fraction of BTA is 1.2%$

Fig. 10. XPS energy spectra of O 1s. (a) Initial surface; (b) solution I: pH value is 9, mass fraction of H₂O₂ is 0.5%; (c) solution II: pH is 9, mass fraction of H₂O₂ is 0.5%, mass fraction of BTA is 1.2%

Download full size

Fig. 11. Schematic diagram of chemo-mechanical synergy to suppress surface defects

Download full size

Fig. 12. Surface measurement results of aluminum parts after polishing. (a) Zygo chart; (b) AFM chart

Download full size

Table 1. Chemical composition of 6061 aluminum alloy
View table
Table 1. Chemical composition of 6061 aluminum alloy
Element Mg Si Cu Fe Mn Zn Ti Al
Mass fraction /% 0.8-1.2 0.4-0.8 0.15-0.4 ≤0.7 ≤0.15 ≤0.25 ≤0.15 Balance

Table 2. Experimental parameters

View table

Table 2. Experimental parameters

Parameter	Value
Flow rate of polishing fluid /（mL/min）	5
Rotating speed of polishing disc /（r/min）	70
Loading pressure /kPa	65
Mass fraction of SiO₂ abrasive particles（50 nm on average）/%	10
pH value of slurry	3, 6, 9, 12
Mass fraction of H₂O₂ /%	0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
Mass fraction of BTA /%	0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5

Table 3. Response surface experimental design and results

View table

Table 3. Response surface experimental design and results

Number	pH value	Mass fraction of H₂O₂ /%	Mass fraction of BTA /%	S_a /nm
1	9	0.50	1.2	0.47
2	6	0.50	0.9	2.65
3	9	0.50	1.2	0.40
4	12	0.50	1.5	1.42
5	9	0.75	1.5	0.65
6	9	0.25	0.9	0.93
7	9	0.25	1.5	1.53
8	6	0.75	1.2	1.80
9	9	0.75	0.9	1.03
10	6	0.50	1.5	2.36
11	12	0.25	1.2	0.89
12	12	0.50	0.9	0.80
13	9	0.50	1.2	0.42
14	9	0.50	1.2	0.41
15	6	0.25	1.2	2.38
16	9	0.50	1.2	0.35
17	12	0.75	1.2	0.92

Table 4. Results of analysis of variance of surface roughness regression model

View table

Table 4. Results of analysis of variance of surface roughness regression model

Source of variance	Square sum	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F	P
Sum	9.170	16	-	-	-
Model	9.130	9	1.010	188.97	<0.0001
A	3.330	1	3.330	620.02	<0.0001
B	0.220	1	0.220	41.19	0.0004
C	0.038	1	0.038	7.04	0.0327
AB	0.093	1	0.093	17.33	0.0042
AC	0.210	1	0.210	38.57	0.0004
BC	0.240	1	0.240	44.73	0.0003
A²	3.640	1	3.640	678.42	<0.0001
B²	0.100	1	0.100	19.46	0.0031
C²	0.920	1	0.920	171.43	<0.0001
Residual	0.038	7	0.005	-	-
Lack of fit	0.030	3	0.010	5.44	0.0678
Error term	0.007	4	0.002	-	-

Table 5. Optimal parameter conditions and roughness values predicted by model
View table
Table 5. Optimal parameter conditions and roughness values predicted by model
pH value Mass fraction of H₂O₂ /% Mass fraction of BTA /% S_a /nm
9.7 0.57 1.16 0.29

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Jiang Guo, Haijun Xu, Zhe Yang, Lei Wang, Hongxin Zhao. Optimization of Chemical Mechanical Solution for Close-to-Atomic Scale Polishing of 6061 Aluminum Alloy[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2024, 44(5): 0522001

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites