Advertisement

Influence of milling direction in the machinability of Inconel 718 with submicron grain cemented carbide tools

  • Antonio Favero Filho
  • Leonardo Rosa Ribeiro da SilvaEmail author
  • Rodrigo de Souza Ruzzi
  • Eder Silva Costa
  • Wisley Falco Sales
  • Mark James Jackson
  • Álisson Rocha Machado
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

The nickel-based alloys have a growing demand in many fields due to their outstanding properties at high temperatures. These properties lead to relatively low machinability, one of the main obstacles to its more extensive use. Improvements in cutting tool quality are one of the key points to overcome the challenges. The decrease to a submicron scale of the grains of cemented carbide tools is one of the alternatives to improve the machinability of the nickel-based superalloys. In this paper, two different grades of submicron grains of uncoated cemented carbide tools, TMG30 (10% Co, S30-40) and CTS18D (9% Co, S20-40), were evaluated in the end milling process of Inconel 718, through a 24 factorial design of experiments having as parameters the cutting speed, feed rate, machining direction (up and down milling), and tool grade. The tool life, machining power, and surface roughness were used as machinability evaluators. It was found that the machining direction, cutting speed, and feed rate had a significant influence on the machinability output variables, with the machining direction being the most significant one. The differences in the two tool grades were too small to be statistically significant. Simulations using the finite element method of the effective plastic strain, validated by the measurement of experimental machining power, showed that the up milling presented around 14% more plastic deformation than the down milling, which combined with the work-hardenability of the Inconel 718 explains the shorter tool life of this condition.

Keywords

Submicron grain cemented carbide tools Inconel 718 End milling direction Plastic strain simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ceratizit Latin America® and OSG Sulamericana de Ferramentas Ltda® for providing the tools and Villares Metals S.A. for donation of the work material.

Funding information

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001. The authors also thank CNPq and FAPEMIG for further financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Roy S, Kumar R, Anurag A, Panda RKD (2018) A brief review on machining of Inconel 718. Mater Today Proc 5:18664–18673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.06.212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim E, Lee C (2018) A study on the machining characteristics of curved workpiece using laser-assisted milling with different tool paths in Inconel 718. Metals 8:968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li H, Zeng H, Chen X (2006) An experimental study of tool wear and cutting force variation in the end milling of Inconel 718 with coated carbide inserts. J Mater Process Technol 180:296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xavior MA, Manohar M, Jeyapandiarajan P, Madhukar PM (2017) Tool wear assessment during machining of Inconel 718. Procedia Eng 174:1000–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liao YS, Lin HM, Wang JH (2008) Behaviors of end milling Inconel 718 superalloy by cemented carbide tools. J Mater Process Technol 201:460–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rahman M, Seah WKH, Teo TT (1997) The machinability of inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 63:199–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(96)02624-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alauddin M, El Baradie M, Hashmi M (1995) Tool-life testing in the end milling of Inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 55:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Wardany TI, Mohammed E, Elbestawi MA (1996) Cutting temperature of ceramic tools in high speed machining of difficult-to-cut materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 36:611–634.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-6955(95)00043-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trent EM, Wright PK (2013) Metal cutting. Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Upadhyaya GS (1998) Cemented tungsten carbides: production, properties and testing. William AndrewGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gille G, Szesny B, Dreyer K, van den Berg H, Schmidt J, Gestrich T, Leitner G (2002) Submicron and ultrafine grained hardmetals for microdrills and metal cutting inserts. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater 20:3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-4368(01)00066-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ganesh M, Sidpara A, Deb S (2017) Fabrication of micro-cutting tools for mechanical micro-machining, Advanced manufacturing technologies. Springer, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kara F, Aslantaş K, Cicek A (2016) Prediction of cutting temperature in orthogonal machining of AISI 316 L using artificial neural network. Appl Soft Comput 38:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kara F, Aslantas K, Çiçek A (2015) ANN and multiple regression method-based modelling of cutting forces in orthogonal machining of AISI 316 L stainless steel. Neural Comput Applic 26:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kara F (2017) Taguchi optimization of surface roughness and flank wear during the turning of DIN 1.2344 tool steel. Mater Test 59:903–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kara F, Öztürk B (2019) Comparison and optimization of PVD and CVD method on surface roughness and flank wear in hard-machining of DIN 1.2738 mold steel. Sens Rev 39:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jafarian F, Ciaran MI, Umbrello D, Arrazola P, Filice L, Amirabadi H (2014) Finite element simulation of machining Inconel 718 alloy including microstructure changes. Int J Mech Sci 88:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markopoulos A (2013) Application of FEM in metal cutting, pp 59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4330-7_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grzesik W, Rech J, Żak K (2014) Determination of friction in metal cutting with tool wear and flank face effects. Wear 317:8–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2014.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kesheh farahani H, Ketabchi M, Zangeneh S (2017) Determination of Johnson–Cook plasticity model parameters for Inconel718.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-2990-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thellaputta GR, Chandra PS, Rao CSP (2017) Machinability of nickel based superalloys: a review. Mater Today Proc 4:3712–3721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    I.O.f. Standardization (1989) ISO8688-2 : Tool life testing in milling. Part 2 : end milling. ISOGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zemzemi F, Rech J, Salem WB, Dogui A, Kapsa P (2014) Identification of friction and heat partition model at the tool-chip-workpiece interfaces in dry cutting of an Inconel 718 alloy with CBN and coated carbide tools. Adv Manuf Sci Technol 38Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grzesik W, Niesłony P, Laskowski P (2017) Determination of material constitutive laws for Inconel 718 superalloy under different strain rates and working temperatures. J Mater Eng Perform 26:5705–5714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-3017-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Praveen KVU, Sastry G, Singh V (2008) Work-hardening behavior of the Ni-Fe based superalloy IN718.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-007-9375-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tian X, Zhao J, Zhao J, Gong Z, Dong Y (2013) Effect of cutting speed on cutting forces and wear mechanisms in high-speed face milling of Inconel 718 with Sialon ceramic tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69:2669–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hadi MA, Ghani J, Haron C, Kasim M (2013) Evaluation of tool life-tool wear in milling of inconel 718 superalloy and the investigation of effects of cutting parameters on surface roughness with taguchi method. Tehnicki vjesnik/Technical Gazette 20Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park K-H, Yang G-D, Lee DY (2015) Tool wear analysis on coated and uncoated carbide tools in inconel machining. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 16:1639–1645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-015-0215-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hadi MA, Ghani J, Haron C, Kasim M (2013) Comparison between up-milling and down-milling operations on tool wear in milling Inconel 718.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.12.234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Favero Filho
    • 1
  • Leonardo Rosa Ribeiro da Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rodrigo de Souza Ruzzi
    • 1
  • Eder Silva Costa
    • 1
  • Wisley Falco Sales
    • 1
  • Mark James Jackson
    • 2
  • Álisson Rocha Machado
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringFederal University of UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.School of Integrated StudiesKansas State UniversityKansasUSA
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program—PPGEMPontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná—PUCPRCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations