Selecting a finishing process for a surface roughness of 0.75 µm to 1.25 µm (Ra) Which manufacturing process is typically used to achieve a surface finish within 0.75 µm to 1.25 µm on cylindrical bores or surfaces?

Introduction / Context:
Surface finish requirements drive the choice of finishing operations. Honing, grinding, lapping, and buffing each occupy a performance window in terms of achievable roughness and geometry control.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Target roughness range: approximately 0.75 µm to 1.25 µm Ra.
• Typical applications include hydraulic cylinders, engine liners, and precision bores.

Concept / Approach:
Honing uses low cutting speeds and bonded abrasive sticks with a reciprocating, expanding tool to correct form errors and impart a crosshatch surface. Its controllable stock removal and fine abrasive action make it ideal for finishes around 0.8–1.2 µm Ra. Grinding can reach near this range but is usually selected for slightly coarser to moderately fine finishes; lapping achieves much finer finishes; buffing is primarily cosmetic on external surfaces.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Map processes to finish ranges: grinding ~1.6–0.2 µm (varies), honing ~1.5–0.1 µm, lapping ~0.1–0.01 µm.Target lies well within honing’s sweet spot for bores.Select “honing”.

Verification / Alternative check:
Engine cylinder liners are honed to achieve oil-retaining crosshatch and controlled Ra within this range.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Grinding (A) may achieve the range but is less suited to correcting bore geometry and producing crosshatch; lapping (B) is typically finer; buffing (D) is for external shine, not precise bores; planing (E) is a roughing/forming method.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing Ra targets for different components; assuming lapping is always required for high quality when honing suffices; overlooking geometric corrections offered by honing.

Final Answer:
honing