Metalworking fluids are essential for a grinding operation. They provide the workpiece with thermal protection, lubrication, and corrosion protection. Advancements in chemistry and technology have allowed coolant manufacturers to develop complex solutions for a multitude of applications. The main hurdle now for manufacturers is to determine which coolant would work best in their application. To address this issue, a process was developed to test and analyze a variety of metalworking fluids in an operational manufacturing environment. The testing consisted of two phases to account for the time constraints of commercial manufacturing. For Phase 1, a four hour testing procedure was developed to evaluate a sufficient amount of factors to confidently choose the top two coolants. The two coolants from Phase 1 were tested over a four week period in Phase 2. Phase 2 was more of a study of the longevity and durability of each fluid. The safety of the machinists and the quality of the workpiece remained at the foundation of the testing for each phase. Coolant A and Coolant B were selected to continue from the Phase 1 analysis, with Coolant A ranking the highest. Phase 2 produced similar results with Coolant A exemplifying superior metalworking fluid properties.
","abstract_html":"<p>Metalworking fluids are essential for a grinding operation. They provide the workpiece with thermal protection, lubrication, and corrosion protection. Advancements in chemistry and technology have allowed coolant manufacturers to develop complex solutions for a multitude of applications. The main hurdle now for manufacturers is to determine which coolant would work best in their application. To address this issue, a process was developed to test and analyze a variety of metalworking fluids in an operational manufacturing environment. The testing consisted of two phases to account for the time constraints of commercial manufacturing. For Phase 1, a four hour testing procedure was developed to evaluate a sufficient amount of factors to confidently choose the top two coolants. The two coolants from Phase 1 were tested over a four week period in Phase 2. Phase 2 was more of a study of the longevity and durability of each fluid. The safety of the machinists and the quality of the workpiece remained at the foundation of the testing for each phase. Coolant A and Coolant B were selected to continue from the Phase 1 analysis, with Coolant A ranking the highest. Phase 2 produced similar results with Coolant A exemplifying superior metalworking fluid properties.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Bland, Matthew D"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science in Applied Engineering (M.S.A.E.)","degree_level":"Thesis (restricted to Georgia Southern)","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["David Williams","Gustavo Molina"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2015-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:28:22Z","subjects":["ETD","Metalworking Fluid","Workpiece","Coolant","Grinding","Machinist","Lubricity","Automotive Engineering","Industrial Engineering"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1252","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["David Williams","Gustavo Molina"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Bland, Matthew D"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-04-12T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis (restricted to Georgia Southern)"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science in Applied Engineering (M.S.A.E.)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["ETD","Metalworking Fluid","Workpiece","Coolant","Grinding","Machinist","Lubricity","Automotive Engineering","Industrial Engineering"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1252"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Metalworking fluids are essential for a grinding operation. They provide the workpiece with thermal protection, lubrication, and corrosion protection. Advancements in chemistry and technology have allowed coolant manufacturers to develop complex solutions for a multitude of applications. The main hurdle now for manufacturers is to determine which coolant would work best in their application. To address this issue, a process was developed to test and analyze a variety of metalworking fluids in an operational manufacturing environment. The testing consisted of two phases to account for the time constraints of commercial manufacturing. For Phase 1, a four hour testing procedure was developed to evaluate a sufficient amount of factors to confidently choose the top two coolants. The two coolants from Phase 1 were tested over a four week period in Phase 2. Phase 2 was more of a study of the longevity and durability of each fluid. The safety of the machinists and the quality of the workpiece remained at the foundation of the testing for each phase. Coolant A and Coolant B were selected to continue from the Phase 1 analysis, with Coolant A ranking the highest. Phase 2 produced similar results with Coolant A exemplifying superior metalworking fluid properties.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparing Various Performance Aspects of Synthetic Metalworking Fluids in a Manufacturing Setting to Determine the Best Choice for a Grinding Operation"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["David Williams","Gustavo Molina"],"dc:creator":["Bland, Matthew D"],"dc:date.available":["2020-04-12T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Metalworking fluids are essential for a grinding operation. They provide the workpiece with thermal protection, lubrication, and corrosion protection. Advancements in chemistry and technology have allowed coolant manufacturers to develop complex solutions for a multitude of applications. The main hurdle now for manufacturers is to determine which coolant would work best in their application. To address this issue, a process was developed to test and analyze a variety of metalworking fluids in an operational manufacturing environment. The testing consisted of two phases to account for the time constraints of commercial manufacturing. For Phase 1, a four hour testing procedure was developed to evaluate a sufficient amount of factors to confidently choose the top two coolants. The two coolants from Phase 1 were tested over a four week period in Phase 2. Phase 2 was more of a study of the longevity and durability of each fluid. The safety of the machinists and the quality of the workpiece remained at the foundation of the testing for each phase. Coolant A and Coolant B were selected to continue from the Phase 1 analysis, with Coolant A ranking the highest. Phase 2 produced similar results with Coolant A exemplifying superior metalworking fluid properties.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1252"],"dc:subject":["ETD","Metalworking Fluid","Workpiece","Coolant","Grinding","Machinist","Lubricity","Automotive Engineering","Industrial Engineering"],"dc:title":["Comparing Various Performance Aspects of Synthetic Metalworking Fluids in a Manufacturing Setting to Determine the Best Choice for a Grinding Operation"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis (restricted to Georgia Southern)"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science in Applied Engineering (M.S.A.E.)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:28:22Z"}