A surface roughness prediction model for hard turning process

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

An experimental investigation was conducted to determine the effects of cutting conditions and tool geometry on the surface roughness in the finish hard turning of the bearing steel (AISI 52100). Mixed ceramic inserts made up of aluminium oxide and titanium carbonitride (SNGA), having different nose radius and different effective rake angles, were used as the cutting tools. This study shows that the feed is the dominant factor determining the surface finish followed by nose radius and cutting velocity. Though, the effect of the effective rake angle on the surface finish is less, the interaction effects of nose radius and effective rake angle are considerably significant. Mathematical models for the surface roughness were developed by using the response surface methodology.

Keywords

Effective rake angle Hard turning Nose radius Surface finish 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    König W, Komanduri R, Tönshoff HK, Ackershott G (1984) Machining of hard materials. Ann CIRP 33(2):417–427Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thiele JD, Melkote SN (1999) Effect of cutting edge geometry and workpiece hardness on surface generation in the finish hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. J Mater Process Technol 94:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlman P, Gunnberg F, Jacobson M (2004) The influence of rake angle, cutting feed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard turning. J Mater Process Technol 147:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou JM, Walter H, Andersson M, Stahl JE (2003) Effect of chamfer angle on wear of PCBN cutting tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chou YK, Song H (2004) Tool nose radius effects on finish hard turning. J Mater Process Technol 148:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endres WJ, Kountanya RK (2002) The effects of corner radius and edge radius on tool flank wear. J Manuf Process 4(2):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mittal A, Mehta M (1988) Surface finish prediction models for fine turning. Int J Prod Res 26(12):1861–1876Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sundaram RM, Lambert BK (1981) Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel, Part 1. Intl J Prod Res 19(5):547–556Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sundaram RM, Lambert BK (1981) Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel, Part 2. Int J Prod Res 19(5):557–564Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Özel T, Karpat Y (2005) Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning using regression and neural networks. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004) Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J Mater Process Technol 145:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suresh PVS, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algorithm approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of Technology, DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations