Effect of cryogenic coolant on machinability of difficult-to-machine Ni–Cr alloy using PVD-TiAlN coated WC tool

  • K. Nimel Sworna RossEmail author
  • G. Manimaran
Technical Paper


Alloys of nickel are optimal metals to use in turbine parts and aircraft components. They are generally accepted as difficult-to-machine materials, because of its poor thermal conductivity. The selection of coolant and machining conditions is crucial for better performance. Problems with conventional coolant are failure of lubrication at higher metal removal and cause environmental pollution. The heat produced at the cutting zone can shorten the life of the tool, which leads to dimensional imprecision. The current experimental investigation is machining of Nimonic 80A under the effect of cryogenic liquid carbon dioxide (− 79.5 °C) using PVD-TiAlN coated tungsten carbide (WC) insert, which is compared with conventional dry, flood, and MQL environments. The machining is carried at varying cutting speed ranging from 45 to 90 m/min, a feed rate of 0.06–0.08 mm/tooth, and a constant depth of cut of 0.75 mm. The results admitted that cryogenic cooling lessens the average roughness by 42–47% over dry cutting, 24–27% over wet cutting, and 16–21% over MQL. It is proved that cryogenic cooling produces greater compressive stress on the machined surface and brings down the flank wear by decreasing the temperature on the cutting zone.

Graphical abstract


Nimonic 80A Cryogenic carbon dioxide (LCO2MQL Soya bean oil PVD-TiAlN 



Minimum quantity lubrication


Liquid carbon dioxide




Depth of cut


Physical vapor deposition


Surface roughness


Flank wear


Cutting speed


Feed rate



The authors express their gratitude to thank the Head of the Department and the staff members of the Mechanical Engineering Department, Saveetha Engineering College, Anna University, Chennai, for lending support during experimentation.


  1. 1.
    Ulutan D, Ozel T (2011) Machining induced surface integrity in titanium and nickel alloys: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 51(3):250–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ezugwu EO, Bonney J, Yamane Y (2003) An overview of the machinability of aeroengine alloys. J Mater Process Technol 134:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Selvaraj DP (2017) Optimization of cutting force of duplex stainless steel in dry milling operation. Mater Today Proc 4:11141–11147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma VS, Dogra M, Suri NM (2009) Cooling techniques for improved productivity in turning. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49:435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goindi GS, Sarkar P (2017) Dry machining: a step towards sustainable machining—challenges and future directions. J Clean Prod 165:1557–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debnath S, Reddy MM, Yi QS (2014) Environmental friendly cutting fluids and cooling techniques in machining: a review. J Clean Prod 83:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liew PJ, Shaaroni A, Sidik NAC, Yan J (2017) An overview of current status of cutting fluids and cooling techniques of turning hard steel. Int J Heat Mass Transf 114:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdalla HS, Baines W, McIntyre G, Slade C (2007) Development of novel sustainable neat-oil metal working fluids for stainless steel and titanium alloy machining. Part 1. Formulation development. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar A, Kumar A, Rai A (2016) Effects of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in machining processes using conventional and nano fl uid based cutting fluids: a comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 127:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahim EA, Sasahara H (2010) Effect of machining parameters and MQL liquids on surface integrity of high speed drilling Ti–6Al–4V. Adv Pre Eng 448:816–820Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sadeghi MH, Hadad MJ, Tawakoli T, Vesali A, Emami M (2010) An investigation on surface grinding of AISI 4140 hardened steel using minimum quantity lubrication-MQL technique. Int J Mater Form 3:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dhar NR, Kamruzzaman M, Ahmed M (2006) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear and surface roughness in turning AISI-4340 steel. J Mater Process Technol 172:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahim EA, Sasahara H (2011) An analysis of surface integrity when drilling inconel 718 using palm oil and synthetic ester under MQL condition. Mach Sci Technol 15:76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    López De Lacalle LN, Angulo C, Lamikiz A, Sánchez JA (2006) Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of spray cutting fluids in high speed milling. J Mater Process Technol 172:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang S, Li JF, Wang YW (2012) Tool life and cutting forces in end milling Inconel 718 under dry and minimum quantity cooling lubrication cutting conditions. J Clean Prod 32:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuram E, Ozcelik B, Bayramoglu M, Demirbas E, Tolga B (2013) Optimization of cutting fluids and cutting parameters during end milling by using D-optimal design of experiments. J Clean Prod 42:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma J, Sidhu BS (2014) Investigation of effects of dry and near dry machining on AISI D2 steel using vegetable oil. J Clean Prod 66:619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan MMA, Mithu MAH, Dhar NR (2009) Effects of minimum quantity lubrication on turning AISI 9310 alloy steel using vegetable oil-based cutting fluid. J Mater Process Technol 209:5573–5583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kouam J, Songmene V, Balazinski M, Hendrick P (2015) Effects of minimum quantity lubricating (MQL) conditions on machining of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79:1325–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yy Ã, Nalbant M (2008) A review of cryogenic cooling in machining processes. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:947–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pereira O, Rodríguez A, Barreiro J, De Lacalle LNL (2016) Cryogenic and minimum quantity lubrication for an eco-efficiency turning of AISI 304. J Clean Prod 139:440–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Musfirah AH, Ghani JA, Haron CH (2017) Tool wear and surface integrity of inconel 718 in dry and cryogenic coolant at high cutting speed. Wear 377:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manimaran G, Pradeepkumar M (2013) Influence of cryogenic cooling on the surface grinding of stainless steel 316. Cryogenics 59:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shokrani A, Dhokia V, Newman ST (2016) Investigation of the effects of cryogenic machining on surface integrity in CNC end milling of Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy. J Manuf Process 21:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dhananchezian M, Kumar MP, Sornakumar T (2011) Cryogenic turning of AISI 304 stainless steel with modified tungsten carbide tool inserts. Mater Manuf Process 26:781–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ravi S, Kumar MP (2011) Experimental investigations on cryogenic cooling by liquid nitrogen in the end milling of hardened steel. Cryogenics 51:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jerold B Dilip, Kumar MP (2013) The influence of cryogenic coolants in machining of Ti–6Al–4V. J Manuf Sci Eng 138:1–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biermann D, Abrahams H, Metzger M (2015) Experimental investigation of tool wear and chip formation in cryogenic machining of titanium alloys. Adv Manuf 3:292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pusavec F, Hamdi H, Kopac J, Jawahir IS (2011) Journal of materials processing technology surface integrity in cryogenic machining of nickel based alloy—Inconel 718. J Mater Process Tech 211:773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ayed Y, Germain G, Melsio AP, Kowalewski P, Locufier D (2017) Impact of supply conditions of liquid nitrogen on tool wear and surface integrity when machining the Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93:1199–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim DY, Kim DM, Park HW (2018) Predictive cutting force model for a cryogenic machining process incorporating the phase transformation of Ti–6Al–4V. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96:1293–1304Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaynak Y (2014) Evaluation of machining performance in cryogenic machining of Inconel 718 and comparison with dry and MQL machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72:919–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Danish M, Ginta TL, Habib K, Carou D, Rani AMA, Saha BB (2017) Thermal analysis during turning of AZ31 magnesium alloy under dry and cryogenic conditions. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91:2855–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sivaiah P, Chakradhar D (2018) Comparative evaluations of machining performance during turning of 17–4 PH stainless steel under cryogenic and wet machining conditions. Mach Sci Technol 22:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gupta MK, Singh G, Sood PK (2015) Experimental investigation of machining AISI 1040 medium carbon steel under cryogenic machining: a comparison with dry machining. J Inst Eng Ser C 96:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aramcharoen A, Putz PM (2016) Influence of cryogenic cooling on tool wear and chip formation in turning of titanium alloy. Proc CIRP 46:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ginting A, Nouari M (2009) Surface integrity of dry machined titanium alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pervaiz S, Rashid A, Deiab I, Nicolescu M (2014) Influence of tool materials on machinability of titanium and nickel-based alloys: a review. Mater Manuf Process 29:219–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharman ARC, Hughes JI, Ridgway K (2006) An analysis of the residual stresses generated in Inconel 718™ when turning. J Mater Process Technol 173:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leadebal WV, de Melo ACA, de Oliveira AJ, Castro NA (2018) Effects of cryogenic cooling on the surface integrity in hard turning of AISI D6 steel. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSaveetha Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations