Performance analysis of developed micro-textured cutting tool in machining aluminum alloy 7075-T6: assessment of tool wear and surface roughness

Abstract

Due to the wide applications of aluminum alloy in numerous industrial sectors and products, significant attention has been paid by many researchers to improve the production and manufacturing aspects of aluminium alloys and related products. One of the main concerns in this regard is the cutting tool life when machining aluminium alloys. This work aims to present the capability and performance analysis of a new strategy of life improvement in the tungsten carbide inserts by creating micro-textured grooves on their surface. For this purpose, the laser was used to create the different morphologies of textures on the insert surfaces. The grooves were created with different distances in parallel to the cutting edge on the tool rake face. The effects of fabricated grooves on the tool wear attributes were discussed in three directions, including the main edge (x-direction), side edge (y-direction), and radial (in the direction of 45°), and the effect of these grooves/textures on the surface roughness attributes was also studied. To that end, experimental works were performed under dry and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL), as well as three levels of cutting speed, feed, and grooves distance. The experimental results were compared with those measured under non-textured inserts. Finally, the obtained results were statistically analyzed, and the empirical models were formulated. Experimental results indicated that micro-textured inserts in both MQL and dry conditions led to surface quality and tool wear as compared to readings made under non-textured inserts.

Appendix

Tables 12 and 13 show the values of measured tool wear in different directions using dry and MQL machining modes.

Table 12 Matrix L20 of response surface methodology of wear results in the dry method using the textured tool

Table 13 Matrix of response surface methodology of wear results using conventional tool

The final tool wear models in different directions for dry machining with the textured tool, MQL machining with the conventional tool, and dry machining with the conventional tool are presented in Eqs. (7) to (9), Eqs. (10) to (12), and Eqs. (13) to (15), respectively:

$$\begin{aligned}TWx&=1.257-0.008{V}_{c}+0.68545f-0.0011d-0.008{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&-0.000002{V}_{c}d+0.000fd+0.0000247{{V}_{c}}^{2}\\&+4.18182{f}^{2}+0.00000605{d}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(7)

$$\begin{aligned}TWy&=1.246-0.0092{V}_{c}+1.54f-0.00116d-0.008{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&-0.000001{V}_{c}d+0.0005fd+0.000032{{V}_{c}}^{2}+0.000{f}^{2}\\&+0.0000055{d}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(8)

$$\begin{aligned}TWr&=0.292+0.0042{V}_{c}-0.458f-0.0014d\\&-0.011{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf+0.0000005{V}_{c}d+0.00325fd\\&-0.0000138{{V}_{c}}^{2}+6.5454{f}^{2}+0.0000041{d}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(9)

$$\begin{aligned}TWx&=-0.26362+0.013701{V}_{c}+4.75557f\\&-0.0134{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf+0.00006209{{V}_{c}}^{2}-4.72414{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(10)

$$\begin{aligned}TWy&=-3.84953+0.13122{V}_{c}+31.78626f\\&-0.0622{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf-0.0005935{{V}_{c}}^{2}-39.7931{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(11)

$$\begin{aligned}TWr&=2.34057-0.02034{V}_{c}+0.77931f\\&+0.000{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf+0.000056{{V}_{c}}^{2}+2.06897{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(12)

$$\begin{aligned}TWx&=3.1046-0.025485{V}_{c}-0.83218f+0.008{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&+0.0000662{{V}_{c}}^{2}+4.55172{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(13)

$$\begin{aligned}TWy&=2.53017-0.017221{V}_{c}-1.25287f+0.028{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&+0.00002648{{V}_{c}}^{2}-3.37931{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(14)

$$\begin{aligned}TWr&=5.44098-0.06825{V}_{c}-1.0885f+0.036{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&+0.00023{{V}_{c}}^{2}-6.48276{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(15)

Tables 14 and 15 show the values of measured surface roughness in different machining modes

Table 14 Matrix L20 of response surface methodology of roughness results in dry method using textured tool

Table 15 Matrix of response surface methodology of roughness results using conventional tool

The final roughness models for MQL machining with textured tool, dry machining with textured tool, MQL machining with conventional tool, and dry machining with conventional tool are presented in Eqs. (16) to (19), respectively:

$$\begin{aligned}{R}_{\mathrm{a}}&=1.047-0.0129{V}_{c}+3.909f-0.00096d-0.013{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&-0.0000066{V}_{c}d-0.0014fd+0.000053{{V}_{c}}^{2}-3.1818{f}^{2}\\&+0.0000078{d}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(16)

$$\begin{aligned}{R}_{\mathrm{a}}&=0.8221-0.015{V}_{c}+9.9377f-0.0004d\\&-0.0158{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf-0.000006{V}_{c}d-0.0013fd\\&+0.000065{{V}_{c}}^{2}-19.10909{f}^{2}+0.00000622{d}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(17)

$$\begin{aligned}{R}_{\mathrm{a}}&=-0.26362+0.013701{V}_{c}+4.75557f-0.0134{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&+0.00006209{{V}_{c}}^{2}-4.72414{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(18)

$$\begin{aligned}{R}_{\mathrm{a}}&=2.16109-0.0110781{V}_{c}-2.73931f-0.0072{V}_{c}\kern 0.1500emf\\&+0.00002692{{V}_{c}}^{2}+27.13103{f}^{2}\end{aligned}$$

(19)