Processing of Diamond Composites for Cutting Tools by Powder
Metallurgy and Rotary Forging
Marcello Filgueira(1) and Daltro Garcia Pinatti(2)
(1) Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense. Laboratório de Materiais Avançados. Av. Alberto
Lamego, 2000. Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ. 28015-620.
(2) Departamento de Engenharia de Materiais. DEMAR/FAENQUIL. Polo Urbo Industrial. Gleba
AI6. Lorena/SP. 12600-000.
Keywords: In Situ Technology, swaging, sintering, diamond composite
ABSTRACT. This paper shows the manufacture route of the bronze 4% weight diamond composite
rope for direct application as diamond wires, and linear saws in the slabbing and cutting of
dimension stones. This route consists of powder mix compaction, sintering and rotary forging
techniques. Tensile tests were performed, reaching an ultimate tensile strength of 230MPa for the
diameter of ∅=1.84mm. Scanning electron microscopy showed the diamond crystals distribution
along the composite rope during its manufacture, as well as the diamond adhesion to the bronze
matrix. Cutting tests were carried out with the external cutting rope, showing a probable
performance 4 times higher than the diamond sawing discs, however its probable performance was
about 5 to 8 times less than the conventional diamond wires (pearl system) due to the low abrasion
resistance of the bronze matrix, low adhesion between the pair bronze-diamond due to the use of
not metallized diamond single crystals.
INTRODUCTION
Linear and circular saws, grinding wheels, wire saw pearls among others, are diamond
cutting tools used in the slabbing, cutting, and polishing of dimension stones, ceramic materials and
nonferrous metals in general [1]. There are a wide range of types of materials used in the
manufacture of these tools, but the most employed is the system metal bond matrix - diamond
crystals [2]. Diamonds are impregnated in the metal matrix via two ways: electrodeposition or
sintering. In the electrodeposited tools there are only a monolayer of diamonds on the tool surface,
while the sintered ones show diamond crystals distributed into the bulk and on the surface of the
tools, and is cheaper and easier to process. In this sense, sintered diamond cutting tools are more
common allover the world [2, 3].
The metal matrix selection is based on the abrasivity of the material to be cut or polished.
For highly abrasive materials such as concrete, SiC, Si3N4, Al2O3, tungsten bond is used. Cobalt
bond is employed in the cutting of materials whose abrasivities are similar to the granites. Bronze,
cobalt bonds and its alloys are used for marbles. Brass, bronze or copper bonds are employed in the
cutting of ceramics, glasses, and nonferrous metals [2].
The sintering is normally accomplished by hot pressing. In this case, the powder or green
body (in the desired form) is submited to sintering at the same time in which it is pressed into a
mold. A classical example is performed by Contardi [4], explaining a method to process diamond
pearls for cutting wires, where the metal matrix bond + diamond crystals mix is confined into holes
of a graphite mold. This mold is put into a resistive vacuum furnace chamber coupled to a press.
The press punches conduct the current for the green bodies sintering, at the same time that press
them into the mold holes. The productivity is high, about 960 pearls per 8 hours.
In this work we present an alternative route to process diamond composites, called "In Situ"
Technology, which evolves conventional sintering and swaging (rotary forging) of the metal matrix
- diamond mix, instead of the conventional hot pressing route. It was produced wires of bronze 4%
weight diamond for use as diamond wires and linear saws in general.
EXPERIMENTAL
Table 1 gives the typical concentration versus density of diamond in cutting tools. In the
present work we used a diamond concentration 50 (2.2carat/cm3; 0.44g/cm3; 0.13cm3 of
diamond/cm3 of tools) since this is the concentration used for cutting dimension stones. The
diamonds used was the De Beers SDA+65 40/50 mesh (425 - 300µm). The atomized bronze
powder used in this work presents 80% of particles in 75/60µm size range, and table 2 shows its
chemical analisis, accordingly to the ref.[5]. Figure 1 shows the processing flow chart of the
bronze/diamond composite wire, starting with bronze 4 %wt diamond.
Table 1- Typical concentration versus density of diamonds in cutting tools.
Concentration of
diamond
150
125
100*
75
50
42
30
25
Mass of diamond/cm3 of tool volume
Carat
Grams
6.6
1.32
5.5
1.10
4.4
0.88
3.3
0.66
2.2
0.44
1.85
0.37
1.32
0.26
1.10
0.22
Volume of diamond
(cm3)/tools (cm3)
0.38
0.32
0.25
0.19
0.13
0.11
0.07
0.06
*Concentration 100 refers to 25 % in volume of diamond per cm3 of tool and has 4.4 carat of diamond / cm3
of tools; 1 carat = 0.2 g. The fourth column is obtained dividing the third column by the diamond density
(ρdiam. = 3.48 g/cm3)
Mixture of bronze 4 wt% diamond
↓
Cold isostatic pressing at 200 MPa, rubber matrix, ∅initial=12.87mm, ∅final=8.00mm
↓
Sintering at 8500C/20 min., vacuum 2.10-4 mmHg
↓
Capping into eletrolytic copper tube, ∅ext.=13.70mm, ∅int.=9.20mm
↓
Rotary forging from ∅=11.45mm down to ∅=2.54mm; lamination down to ∅=1.20mm
↓
Annealing at 6500C/20 min., vacuum 2.10-4 mmHg, at each area reduction of 30%
↓
Pickling of the copper capping in a HNO3 + H2O solution
Figure 1- Processing flow chart of the bronze / diamond composite wire.
Table 2- Chemical composition of the bronze powder (%).
bronze
---- absent.
Sn
10.8
Fe
0.008
Al
----
Zn
----
Pb
----
C
0.03
S
----
O
0.04
N
0.01
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Microstructure and Tensile Behavior
Fig.2 shows the longitudinal microstructure of the initial sintered bronze 4 %wt. diamond at
∅=8.00mm. The distribution of diamond is relatively spaced. The samples were cupped in Bakelite
and ground by 80 mesh emery paper. 1H2O + 1HNO3 pickling did not work because corrosion was
not uniform and pitting takes place in the bronze/diamond interface. Fig.3 shows the cross section
of the diamond wire at ∅=1.84mm (R=82/1.842 =18.90X). As can be seen, the swaging promoted
an elevated area reduction, and the diamond crystals remained intact without further breakage. This
is very important because the cutting capacity of the tool is strongly dependent on the diamonds
integrity.
For bronze 4wt.% diamond the rupture load is shown as a function of the external cap
diameter along the various stages of the processing (fig.4). The curve of fig.4 does not extrapolate
to zero, but to ∅=1.20mm, whose diameter is the limit of the contact diamond to diamond. At this
diameter, the rupture load is 180N, indicating some adherence between bronze and diamond of the
order of 160MPa (σ≈180N/[π.∅2/4] ≈ 180N/[(π/4).(1.20)2.10-6 m2] ≈ 160MPa). In fig.5 the UTS
remains constant at 230MPa, up to ∅=1.84mm, after which it decreases. The data of the fig.8 refers
to the UTS values for the same material. This indicates that it is the optimum diameter for this
composition and grain size of the diamonds (350 µm).
Fig.2
Fig.3
Figure 2 and 3- Longitudinal section of the sintered bronze 4wt% diamond. ∅=8.00mm (fig.2).
Cross section of diamond composite. ∅=1.84mm (fig.3).
The measurements were made in the annealed condition (6500C/20min.) and data are an
average over 5 to 7 samples. The average modulus of elasticity was E=11.5GPa. For annealed
commercial bronze, UTS=260MPa and E=16GPa [3]. The presence of diamond up to ∅=1.84mm
has a minor influence in UTS, but it decreases E (more flexible material) since it is now distributed
as a composite. All the tensile tests were performed accordingly to the reference [6].
Bronze – Diamond Adherence
Figs. 6 and 7 show the interface bronze-diamond in the various stages of the processing (as
sintered-∅=8.00mm, and ∅=5.00mm respectively). The Cu layer is removed with 1H2O + HNO3
in order to expose the diamond cutting faces. There are no gaps (faults) between bronze and
diamond. There is no interdiffusion between them, and the adherence is smaller than the
UTS=230MPa of the bronze 4wt.% diamond.
Fig.4
Fig.5
240
1600
220
Rupture Tension, UTS (MPa)
Rupture Load (N)
1400
Bronze 4wt% Diamond
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
200
Bronze 4wt% Diamond
180
160
140
120
100
0
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Diamond External Cap Diameter (mm)
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Diamond External Cap Diameter (mm)
Figure 4 and 5- Rupture load as a function of diamond external cap diameter (mm) (fig.4). Rupture
tension (UTS) of diamond external cap diameter (mm) (fig.5).
Fig.6
Fig.7
Figure 6 and 7- View of a diamond crystal spiked in the bronze matrix. Sample as sintered (fig.6).
Bronze-diamond interface. ∅=5.00mm. longitudinal view (fig.7).
Preliminary cutting of marble
Table 3 presents the data of marble cutting by a monolithic bronze 4 wt% diamond wire.
Figs.8 a, b and c shows micrographs of the wire before, in the middle and in the end of the cutting
trial, respectively. This was made in a linear saw frame of 0.22 m in lenght, resulting in 1188 X
10-4 m3 /0.22m = 0.54 m2 /m of cut area per meter of wire. This is 5 to 8 times less than the pearlsdiamond wire. The reason for this poor performance is the low abrasion resistance of the bronze
material shown in Fig. 8, where abrasion of the loose diamond powder is clearly seen. Another
comparison can be made with results of De Beers [7] for granite cutting with a circular saw of φ =
0.7 mm with a diamond volume of v= 1.7 X 10–5 m3 and a perimeter of λ = 1.7 mm (v=10–5 m3 /m,,
effective diamond DAS 100,40/50 mesh and concentration 30). The measured cutting capacity of
the circular saw was 0.62m2 resulting in 0.62/1.7 = 0.35 m2 /m. For marble, the cutting capacity is
doubled (0.73m2/m). The cutting capacity of the “in situ” linear saw frame (0.54 m2/m for diamond
volume of v = 1.7 X 10 –6 m3 ) is 4.4 times higher than the De Beers results [(0.54/1.7 X 10–6):
(0.73/10–5 )]. It is recognized that the critical point is the adhesion between the diamond and the
matrix . Metal coated diamond will improve the cutting area capacity of the “ in situ” wire.
A new characteristic of the “in situ” diamond wire is its possibility to be welded after
rupture . Fig.8.d shows the micrographs of a silver welded part of the “in situ” monolithic wire (φ =
1.69 mm) Mechanical resistance is maintained (UTS = 226 MPa) in the welded area and diamond
of this region is not lost. This characteristic is a considerable improvement over the pearl-diamond
wire that is completely lost after rupture.
Table 3 - Marble cutting data with the “In Situ” Diamond wire.
N
φ, mm
σ, mm
6
1.93
0.06
10
1.79
0.06
11
1.78
0.06
20
1.73
0.06
22
1.69
0.04
27
1.67
0.05
31
1.67
0.06
31
1.61
0.06
31
1.58
0.06
26
1.50
0.08
34
1.44
0.10
33
1.38
0.11
28
1.31
0.14
18
1.23
0.12
N – Number of measurements φ during cutting
φ - average diameter φ = (∑φi)/N
(a)
2
A , cm
±ε, mm
0.02
0
0.02
52.5
0.02
65
0.01
70.5
0.01
84
0.01
104
0.01
110
0.01
119
0.01
118.5
0.01
126
0.02
97.5
0.02
101.25
0.03
84
0.03
56.25
ε - error = __σ__
(N) ½
σ - variance: σ = (∑[φi - φ] 2) 1/2
N–1
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 8- Marble cutting of “In Situ” wire. (a)Before cutting operation, φ = 1.93 mm. (b)After
cutting an area of A = 605 cm2 , φ= 1.61 mm. (c) After cutting an area of A=1180cm2, φ= 1.23 mm.
(d) Silver welded junction of “In Situ” diamond wire.
CONCLUSIONS
1) A diamond wire was obtained by an alternative route called “in situ” process by sintering and
swaging with maintenance of integrity of the diamond crystal. By this route it is possible to process
diamond composites to operate as diamond wires or saws in general.
2) Abrasion of the bronze matrix was too high indicating the need of development in two directions:
use of metal coated diamond in order to improve adhesion and use of another metal matrix such as
W-Co or Fe-Co alloys.
3) The tensile strength measured for the “In Situ” wires are quite satisfactory in the point of view
of its application as diamond wire and saws.
4) Adherence between the pair bronze-diamond was weak. It’s due to the fact that the diamonds
crystals used in this work were free of metallization.
5) The junction of silver welding was satisfactory after rupture, promoting the constant recycling of
the external cutting rope.
6) When comparing the cutting data in marble using the “In Situ” external rope, it’s probable
performance was about 4 times higher than the conventional sawing discs; but 5 to 8 times less than
the conventional pearl system diamond wires, due to the low abrasion resistance of the bronze
matrix, and weak adherence between bronze-diamond.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thanks to DEMAR/FAENQUIL for the equipments used in the experiments .
REFERENCES
[1] M. Filgueira; D. G. Pinatti, Production of Diamond Wire by Cu 15%v Nb “In Situ” Process.
Proceedings of the 15th International Plansee Seminar, Reutte/Austria, Plansee Holding AG, v.1
(2001), pp.360-374.
[2] K. Przyklenk, Diamond Impregnated tools – Uses and Production. Toolmaking, Industrial
Diamond Review, ed. De Beers, v.4 (1993), pp.192-195.
[3] M. Filgueira, Production of “In Situ” Diamond Wires. PhD. Thesis, State University of North
Fluminense (2000), pp. 1-153. (in portuguese)
[4] G. L. Contardi, Wire Beads – Economic Productions. Toolmaking, Industrial Diamond Review,
ed. De Beers, v.5 (1993), p.256.
[5] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, section 3 – Chemical Analysis of Metals and Metal Bearing
Ores. v.03.03 (1984).
[6] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, section 3 – Metals Testing Methods and Analytical
Procedures. v.03.01 (1985).
[7] Diamond Wear. Diamond in Industry, Stone, ed. De Beers (1985), pp. 40-43.