Advertisement

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 43, Issue 9, pp 4863–4870 | Cite as

Finite Element Modelling of Cutting Forces and Power Consumption in Turning of AISI 420 Martensitic Stainless Steel

  • Mehmet Erdi Korkmaz
  • Mustafa Günay
Research Article - Mechanical Engineering

Abstract

Martensitic stainless steels have high hardenability, good strength and good corrosion resistance; however, high power consumption is encountered in machining operations due to their hard machinability. The consumption should be eliminated for cleaner production in terms of sustainable machining. Therefore, this study aims modelling of cutting forces and power consumption in turning of AISI 420 martensitic stainless steel based on finite element method. Finite element modelling of cutting forces is preferred to estimate optimum cutting parameters for less power consumption. In this regard, finite element simulations are performed based on three different levels as cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate. Depth of cut could be assessed as the most important factor with percentage contribution ratio of 49.55% in respect of the power consumption. The average of 7% difference is achieved between experimental and simulated cutting forces. The deviation of 4.5% is evaluated between experimental results and simulation outputs by means of comparing the power consumption. The finite element modelling of cutting forces and power consumption is quite compatible with the experimental results, and it can be performed by high accuracy without excessive machining experiments of difficult-to-cut materials.

Keywords

AISI 420 Cutting force Power consumption Turning Finite element method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vijayaraghavan, V.; Garg, A.; Gao, L.; Vijayaraghavan, R.; Lu, G.: A finite element based data analytics approach for modeling turning process of Inconel 718 alloys. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1619–1627 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Tamimi, A.M.; Soliman, M.S.; El-Hossainy, T.M.; Muzher, J.A.: Developed models for understanding and predicting the machinability of a hardened martensitic stainless steel. Mater. Manuf. Process. 25(8), 758–768 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouzid, L.; Yallese, M.A.; Chaoui, K.; Mabrouki, T.; Boulanouar, L.: Mathematical modeling for turning on AISI 420 stainless steel using surface response methodology. Proc. IMechE Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 229(1), 45–61 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, J.T.; Kohser, R.A.: DeGarmo’s Materials and Processes in Manufacturing, 11th edn, pp. 538–560. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao, H.; Barber, G.C.; Zou, Q.: A study of flank wear in orthogonal cutting with internal cooling. Wear 253(9–10), 957–962 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahad, M.; Mativenga, P.; Sheikh, M.: A comparative study of multilayer and functionally graded coated tools in high-speed machining. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 62(1–4), 43–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Özturk, S.: Machinability of stellite-6 coatings with ceramic inserts and tungsten carbide tools. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39, 7375–7383 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Özer, A.; Bahçeci, E.: Machinability of AISI 410 martensitic stainless steels depending on cutting tool and coating. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gaz. 24(4), 693–698 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campatelli, G.; Lorenzini, L.; Scippa, A.: Optimization of process parameters using a response surface method for minimizing power consumption in the milling of carbon steel. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 309–316 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Tamimi, A.M.; El-Hossainy, T.M.: Investigating the machinability of AISI 420 stainless steel using factorial design. Mater. Manuf. Process. 23(4), 419–426 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liew, W.Y.H.; Ding, X.: Wear progression of carbide tool in low-speed end milling of stainless steel. Wear 265, 155–166 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thamizhmanii, S.; Hasan, S.: Machinability of hard martensitic stainless steel and hard alloy steel by CBN and PCBN tools by turning process. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering Vol I WCE, London, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ezilarasan, C.; Senthil kumar, V.S.; Velayudham, A.: Theoretical predictions and experimental validations on machining the Nimonic C-263 super alloy. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 40(0), 192–207 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valiorgue, F.; Rech, J.; Hamdi, H.; Gilles, P.; Bergheau, J.M.: 3D modeling of residual stresses induced in finish turning of an AISI304L stainless steel. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf. 53(1), 77–90 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galanis, N.I.; Manolakos, D.E.: Finite element analysis of the cutting forces in turning of femoral heads from AISI 316L stainless steel. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2014 Vol II, WCE, London, UK (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koyee, R.; Schmauder, S.; Heisel, U.; Eisseler, R.: Numerical modeling and optimization of machining duplex stainless steels. Prod. Manuf. Res. 3(1), 36–83 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    John, M.R.S.; Shrivastava, K.; Banerjee, N.; Madhukar, P.D.; Vinayagam, B.K.: Finite element method-based machining simulation for analyzing surface roughness during turning operation with HSS and carbide insert tool. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 38, 1615–1623 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, G.J.; Cook, W.H.: A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, pp. 541–547 (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dorogoy, A.; Rittel, D.: Determination of the Johnson–Cook material parameters using the SCS specimen. Exp. Mech. 49, 881–885 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishida, T.; Moriguchi, H.; Ikegaya, A.: Development of cemented carbide tool of reduced rare metal usage. SEI Tech. Rev. 73, 52–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bil, H.; Kılıç, S.E.; Tekkaya, A.E.: A comparison of orthogonal cutting data from experiments with three different finite element models. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf. 44(9), 933–944 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Özel, T.: The influence of friction models on finite element simulations of machining. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf. 46, 518–530 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Günay, M.; Korkmaz, M.E.; Yaşar, N.: Finite element modeling of tool stresses on ceramic tools in hard turning. Mechanika 23(3), 432–440 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Korkmaz, M.E.; Günay, M.: Finite Element modeling of tool stresses in hard turning of AISI L2 steel: prediction by ANN. Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 6(2), 30–40 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karabük University Engineering FacultyKarabükTurkey

Personalised recommendations