Advertisement

Sustainability assessment associated with surface roughness and power consumption characteristics in nanofluid MQL-assisted turning of AISI 1045 steel

  • Adel Taha Abbas
  • Munish Kumar Gupta
  • Mahmoud S. Soliman
  • Mozammel MiaEmail author
  • Hussein Hegab
  • Monis Luqman
  • Danil Yurievich Pimenov
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The constant pressure on the manufacturers to innovate and implement sustainable processes has triggered researching on machining with low carbon footprint, minimum energy consumption by machine tools, and improved products at the lowest cost—this is exactly done in this paper. Herein, the advanced cooling lubrication, i.e., nanofluid assistance, besides dry and flood cooling, during machining has been experimented, and used as the basis for sustainability assessment. This assessment is carried out in respect of surface quality and power consumption as well as the impact on environment, cost of machining, management of waste, and finally the safety and health issues of operators. For a better sustainability, a systematic optimization has been performed. In addition, the solution for an improved machinability has been proposed along with the statistically verified mathematical models of machining responses. Results showed that the nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication showed the most sustainable performance with a total weighted sustainability index 0.7, and it caused the minimum surface roughness and power consumption. The highest desirable (desirability = 0.9050) optimum results are the cutting speed of 116 m/min, depth of cut 0.25 mm, and feed rate of 0.06 mm/rev. Furthermore, a lower feed rate is suggested for better surface quality while for reduced power consumption the lower control factors are better.

Keywords

Steel AISI 1045 Sustainability assessment Optimization Nanofluid Power consumption Surface roughness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group no. (RG-1439-020).

References

  1. 1.
    Garg GK, Garg S, Sangwan K (2018) Development of an empirical model for optimization of machining parameters to minimize power consumption. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol 1. IOP Publishing, p 012078Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fang K, Uhan N, Zhao F, Sutherland JW (2011) A new approach to scheduling in manufacturing for power consumption and carbon footprint reduction. J Manuf Syst 30(4):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sangwan KS (2011) Development of a multi criteria decision model for justification of green manufacturing systems. Int J Green Econ 5(3):285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhushan RK (2013) Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing power consumption and maximizing tool life during machining of Al alloy SiC particle composites. J Clean Prod 39:242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camposeco-Negrete C (2013) Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing energy consumption in turning of AISI 6061 T6 using Taguchi methodology and ANOVA. J Clean Prod 53:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pusavec F, Krajnik P, Kopac J (2010) Transitioning to sustainable production–part I: application on machining technologies. J Clean Prod 18(2):174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor FW (1906) On the art of cutting metals. American society of mechanical engineersGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yan J, Li L (2013) Multi-objective optimization of milling parameters–the trade-offs between energy, production rate and cutting quality. J Clean Prod 52:462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pimenov DY, Hassui A, Wojciechowski S, Mia M, Magri A, Suyama DI, Bustillo A, Krolczyk G, Gupta MK (2019) Effect of the relative position of the face milling tool towards the workpiece on machined surface roughness and milling dynamics. Appl Sci 9(5):842.   https://doi.org/10.3390/app9050842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kant G, Sangwan KS (2014) Prediction and optimization of machining parameters for minimizing power consumption and surface roughness in machining. J Clean Prod 83:151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yusup N, Zain AM, Hashim SZM (2012) Evolutionary techniques in optimizing machining parameters: review and recent applications (2007–2011). Expert Syst Appl 39(10):9909–9927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhattacharya A, Das S, Majumder P, Batish A (2009) Estimating the effect of cutting parameters on surface finish and power consumption during high speed machining of AISI 1045 steel using Taguchi design and ANOVA. Prod Eng 3(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarıkaya M, Güllü A (2014) Taguchi design and response surface methodology based analysis of machining parameters in CNC turning under MQL. J Clean Prod 65:604–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aggarwal A, Singh H, Kumar P, Singh M (2008) Optimizing power consumption for CNC turned parts using response surface methodology and Taguchi's technique—a comparative analysis. J Mater Process Technol 200(1–3):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abhang L, Hameedullah M (2010) Power prediction model for turning EN-31 steel using response surface methodology. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 3(1):116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pimenov DY (2014) Experimental research of face mill wear effect to flat surface roughness. J Frict Wear 35(3):250–254.  https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068366614030118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krolczyk GM, Maruda RW, Krolczyk JB, Wojciechowski S, Mia M, Nieslony P, Budzik G (2019) Ecological trends in machining as a key factor in sustainable production – a review. J Clean Prod 218:601–615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diniz AE, de Oliveira AJ (2004) Optimizing the use of dry cutting in rough turning steel operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44(10):1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diniz AE, Micaroni R (2002) Cutting conditions for finish turning process aiming: the use of dry cutting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42(8):899–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li K-M, Chou S-Y (2010) Experimental evaluation of minimum quantity lubrication in near micro-milling. J Mater Process Technol 210(15):2163–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahim E, Sasahara H (2011) A study of the effect of palm oil as MQL lubricant on high speed drilling of titanium alloys. Tribol Int 44(3):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Obikawa T, Kamata Y, Shinozuka J (2006) High-speed grooving with applying MQL. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(14):1854–1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hwang Y, Park H, Lee J, Jung W (2006) Thermal conductivity and lubrication characteristics of nanofluids. Curr Appl Phys 6:e67–e71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amrita M, Srikant R, Sitaramaraju A, Prasad M, Krishna PV (2014) Preparation and characterization of properties of nanographite-based cutting fluid for machining operations. Proc Inst Mech Eng J J Eng Tribol 228(3):243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen B, Shih AJ, Tung SC (2008) Application of nanofluids in minimum quantity lubrication grinding. Tribol Trans 51(6):730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emami M, Sadeghi MH, Sarhan AAD, Hasani F (2014) Investigating the minimum quantity lubrication in grinding of Al2O3 engineering ceramic. J Clean Prod 66:632–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hegab H (2018) Towards sustainable machining of difficult-to-cut materials using nano-cutting fluids (doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loos M (2014) carbon nanotube reinforced composites: CNT polymer science and technology. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mia M, Singh G, Gupta MK, Sharma VS (2018) Influence of Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube and nitrogen gas assisted MQL in precision turning of Al 6061-T6. Precis Eng 53:289–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2018.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mia M, Dhar NR (2017) Optimization of surface roughness and cutting temperature in high-pressure coolant-assisted hard turning using Taguchi method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88(1):739–753.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8810-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Groover MP (2007) Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials processes, and systems. WileyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12(4):214–219.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1980.11980968 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mia M (2017) Multi-response optimization of end milling parameters under through-tool cryogenic cooling condition. Measurement 111:134–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hegab H, Darras B, Kishawy H (2018) Towards sustainability assessment of machining processes. J Clean Prod 170:694–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Narita H, Desmira N, Fujimoto H (2008) Environmental burden analysis for machining operation using LCA method. In: Manufacturing systems and technologies for the new frontier. Springer, pp 65–68Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hegab H, Darras B, Kishawy H (2018) Sustainability assessment of machining with nano-cutting fluids. Procedia Manuf 26:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Trent E (1988) Metal cutting and the tribology of seizure: I seizure in metal cutting. Wear 128(1):29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hegab H, Umer U, Deiab I, Kishawy H (2018) Performance evaluation of Ti–6Al–4V machining using nano-cutting fluids under minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(9–12):4229–4241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hegab H, Umer U, Soliman M, Kishawy HA (2018) Effects of nano-cutting fluids on tool performance and chip morphology during machining Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96(9–12):3449–3458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hegab H, Kishawy H, Gadallah M, Umer U, Deiab I (2018) On machining of Ti-6Al-4V using multi-walled carbon nanotubes-based nano-fluid under minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97:1593–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eltaggaz A, Hegab H, Deiab I, Kishawy H (2018) Hybrid nano-fluid-minimum quantity lubrication strategy for machining austempered ductile iron (ADI). Int J Interact Des Manuf 12(4):1273–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of EngineeringKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of High Efficiency and Clean Mechanical Manufacturing, Ministry of Education, School of Mechanical EngineeringShandong UniversityJinanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.University Center for Research & DevelopmentChandigarh UniversityGharuanIndia
  4. 4.Mechanical and Production EngineeringAhsanullah University of Science and TechnologyDhakaBangladesh
  5. 5.Mechanical Design and Production Engineering DepartmentCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  6. 6.Department of Automated Mechanical EngineeringSouth Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussia

Personalised recommendations