Advertisement

The Challenge of Adopting Minimal Quantities of Lubrication for End Milling Aluminium

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 229)

Abstract

End milling is a very common metal cutting process used for the machining of most types of metal. The process is inherently intermittent causing the tool tip edge to constantly fluctuate between various levels of temperatures, specifically from cold to \(300\,\,^\circ \mathrm{C}\) when cutting Al alloy. During dry end milling cutting temperatures need to remain within the design specifications of the tool tip. Even working with Al alloy the tool tip is subjected to thermal cyclic stresses. Conventional wisdom states that it is essential to use flood cooling during end milling, as intermittent cooling increases the effect of thermal shock and build up edge. Al alloy—unlike other materials—needs cutting fluid to avoid smearing the insert edges and to improve the surface finish. Modern machining companies constantly face the challenges of environmental issues that affect the manufacturing costs of machined parts. New environmental manufacturing techniques need to be developed for companies to remain competitive in the future. The research presented in this paper represents the experimentation involved in determining a suitable environmental alternative to using copious amounts of cutting fluid during end milling of Al alloy. Previous experimental evaluation of Minimal Quantities of Lubrication (MQL) when applied to the machining of Al alloy has proved to be inconclusive.

Keywords

End milling Environmental issues Flood coolant  Intermittent cooling Minimal quantities of lubrication Thermal shock 

References

  1. 1.
    Childs THC, Maekawa K, Obikawa T, Yamane Y${\hat{\rm {A}}}{\hat{\rm {A}}}{\hat{\rm {A}}}$ (2000) Metal machining—theory and applications. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drozda TJ (ed) (1976) Machining. Tool and manufacturing engineers handbook. Mc Graw-Hill, DearbornGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soković M, Mijanović K (2001) Ecological aspects of the cutting fluids and its influence on quantifiable parameters of the cutting processes. J Mater Process Technol 109:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tant CO, Bennett EO (1958) The growth of aerobic bacteria in metal-cutting fluids. Appl Microbiol 6:4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvert GM, Ward E, Schnorr TM, Fine LJ (1998) Cancer risks among workers exposed to metalworking fluids: a systematic review. Am J Ind Med 33:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang Y-K, Lee C-M, Park S-H (2009) Evaluation of machinability according to the changes in machine tools and cooling lubrication environments and optimization of cutting conditions using Taguchi method. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 10:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinert K, Inasaki I, Sutherland JW, Wakabayashi T (2004) Dry machining and minimum quantity lubrication. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 53:511–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boswell B (2010) An experimental approach to determining the effectiveness of minimum liquid cooling for end milling 1040 steel. Presented at the 6th Australasian congress on applied mechanics, ACAM 6, PerthGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boubekri N (2010) A technology enabler for green machining: minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). J Manuf Technol Manag 21:556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahman M, Senthil Kumar A, Salam MU (2002) Experimental evaluation on the effect of minimal quantities of lubricant in milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:539–547Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman M, Senthil Kumar A, Manzoor UIS, Manzoor UIS (2001) Evaluation of minimal of lubricant in end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:235–241Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kishawy HA, Dumitrescu M, Ng EG, Elbestawi MA (2005) Effect of coolant strategy on tool performance, chip morphology and surface quality during high-speed machining of A356 aluminum alloy. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boswell B, Islam MN (2012) Feasibility study of adopting minimum quantities of lubrication for end milling aluminium. In: Lecture notes in engineering and computer science: proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2012 (WCE2012), London, 4–6 July 2012, pp 1358–1362Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roy R (1990) A primer on the Taguchi method. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, DearbornGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutherland JW, Rivera JL, Brown KL, Law M, Hutchins MJ, Jenkins TL, Haapala KR (2008) Challenge for the manufacturing enterprise to achieve sustainable development. In: The $41^{\rm {st}}$ CIRP conference on, manufacturing systems, pp 15–18Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gutowski T, Murphy C, Allen D, Bauer D, Bras B, Piwonka T, Sheng P, Sutherland J, Thurston D, Wolff E (2005) Environmentally benign manufacturing: observations from Japan Europe and the United States. J Clean Prod 13:1–17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly JF, Cotterell MG (2002) Minimal lubrication machining of aluminum alloys. J Mater Process Technol 120:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diakodimitris C, Hendrick P, Iskandar Y (2010, 12 Dec 2011) Study of minimum quality cooling (MQC) on the tool temperature in milling operations. http://msep.engr.wisc.edu/phocadownload/cirp44_study%20of%20minimum%20quantity%20cooling.pdf
  19. 19.
    Dasch JM, Kurgin SK (2010) A characterisation of mist generated from minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) compared to wet machining. Int J Mach Mach Mater 7:14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations