Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6707-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Surface roughness modeling using RSM for HSLA steel by coated

carbide tools
Muhammad Azam & Mirza Jahanzaib & Ahmad Wasim &
Salman Hussain

Received: 23 May 2014 / Accepted: 11 December 2014 / Published online: 27 December 2014
# Springer-Verlag London 2014

Abstract Surface roughness is the main indicator of surface

quality on machined parts. Accurate predictive models for
surface roughness help to choose optimum machining parameters, ultimately support to maximize the productivity without
any compromise on quality. In this paper, an average surface
roughness (Ra) model has been developed for turning highstrength low-alloy steel (AISI 4340 with carbon contents less
than 0.3 %) using multilayer coated carbide tools. A series of
tests using response surface methodology (RSM) has been
employed to develop a relationship between Ra and machining
parameters (feed, speed, and depth of cut). The feed rate has
been observed as the main parameter that influences surface
roughness. Contour plots of feed versus speed and feed
versus depth of cut signify that target Ra value can be
achieved through optimal combination of cutting parameters.
The accuracy of proposed model has been confirmed through
validation data with average prediction error of 3.38 %.
Keywords Surface roughness . High-strength low-alloy
steel . Response surface methodology . Coated carbide tool

1 Introduction
The surface finish has direct influence on functional properties
such as fatigue strength, corrosion and wear resistance, heat
transmission, ability to distribute and hold lubricant, and
reflection. The parameters that control the surface finish include speed, feed, depth of cut, tool material, tool geometry,
and cutting fluids. Research work related to the effect of these
M. Azam : M. Jahanzaib : A. Wasim (*) : S. Hussain
University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Punjab, Pakistan
e-mail: wasim.ahmad@uettaxila.edu.pk

parameters on surface finish has been studied [14]. These

researchers focus on the issues related to machining, material
roughness relation with cutting tools, tool failure, and cutting
of hardened materials. The technique used for the testing of
their work was mainly statistical design in which few focuses
on the optimized parameters for specific materials.
This research aims to investigate the effects of cutting
parameters, development of mathematical model, and their
optimization through response surface methodology (RSM).
The contribution to the research is the optimal combination of
cutting conditions to achieve the target roughness value for
AISI 4340 steel with carbon content less than 0.3 %. A range
of parametric values has been used in a systematic manner to
obtain target Ra to ensure maximum productivity. This paper
has been structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the literature
review related to research conducted in the areas of cutting
tools, cutting fluids, machining parameters, and statistical
design. Section 3 describes the experimental detail.
Section 4 presents the experimental design. Results and discussion are presented in Section 5; whereas, the validation of
results are outlined in Section 5.2. Finally, the overall conclusions are discussed in Section 6.

2 Literature review
High surface finish is always necessary, particularly for the
automobile and aerospace industry which demands high
surface-finished components. It has been experimentally
established that high value of surface roughness decreases
the fatigue life of machined parts [5]. To achieve high quality
products, certain factors need to be within control [6]. The
parameters which influence the surface roughness include
cutting tools, cutting fluids, and machining parameters. Therefore, this section will present the previous work related to
these parameters and their effects on surface roughness.

1032

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Cutting tool parameters include coatings, cutting tool angles, and materials. Turning of steel has been carried out in
literature for coated and uncoated carbide tools. However, it is
worthy to note that more than 80 % of all machining is
performed using coated carbide tools [7]. Multilayer coated
carbide tools are seen as replacement of uncoated carbide
tools. The coatings are applied using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and physical vapor deposition (PVD) processes.
Sahoo and Sahoo [7] compared the effect of uncoated and
multilayer coated carbide inserts on surface roughness of
hardened AISI 4340 steel. It was revealed that multilayer
coated carbide inserts performed better. Nalbant et al. [8]
investigated the effects of coating methods, coating material,
and cutting parameters on surface roughness of AISI 1030
steel. The results indicated that positive linear relationship of
surface roughness exists between coated/uncoated cemented
carbide tools and feed rate. Naseli et al. [4], on the other hand,
explored the effect of approach angle and rake angle of Al2O3coated tool on the surface roughness of AISI 1040 steel.
The cutting fluid also influences the surface roughness. The
cutting fluid effect on the surface roughness has been studied
by Xavior and Adithan [9] on turning AISI 304 steel using
carbide tool. Coconut, soluble, and straight cutting oils were
compared. The results indicated that coconut oil resulted in
improved tool life and better machined surface quality as
compared to the other two types of cutting fluids.
Apart from tool parameters and cutting fluids, machining
parameters have an impact on surface roughness. The relation
for surface roughness in turning operation [2] is given by:
Ra

f2
32r

where f is the feed rate and r is the tool nose radius.

Problems have been reported with this model. For example,
the model does not take into account process imperfections
such as chip adhesion, and tool vibrations. Certain tools like
cubic boron nitride (CBN) need specific geometries to improve surface roughness and tool life. Values of surface roughness in experiments conducted with low feed rates do not
match with theoretical ones [4]. However, it has been
established experimentally that improved surface roughness
(Ra) can be achieved by increasing feed rate, while cutting
speed and depth of cut have reverse impact. Chinchanikar and
Choudhury [10] evaluated machining parameters impact on
performance measures including surface roughness, cutting
forces, and tool life. Turning experiments were performed on
AISI 4340 steel hardened to 35 HRC and 45 HRC. Interaction
between feed and speed and feed and depth of cut is
reported to be significant for surface roughness model
(35 HRC). Higher value of feed and depth of cut affected
the Ra value significantly. Lima et al. [11] investigated the

machinability of hardened steels AISI 4340 using various

cutting tools. For AISI 4340 hardened at 42 and 48 HRC,
coated carbide and polycrystalline cubic boron nitride
(PCBN) tools were investigated, respectively. It was revealed
that for steel hardened to 42 HRC, surface finish improved as
speed was increased to 120 m/min, while it started deteriorating as speed was further increased to 180 m/min. For steel
hardened to 48 HRC, surface finish improved as speed was
elevated. On the other hand, feed rate negatively influenced Ra
over its entire range. Depth of cut was reported to have an
almost negligible effect on Ra up to the value of 1.5 mm.
Suresh et al. [12] studied the machinability aspects including
surface roughness, cutting force, and tool wear of AISI 4340
steel hardened to 48 HRC using CVD coated carbide tools.
Surface roughness appeared to be more sensitive to change in
feed at low speed as compared to elevated speed. Similar
sensitivity was experienced for depth of cut. Suresh et al.
[13] investigated the surface roughness (Ra) of AISI 4340
steel hardened to 48 HRC using coated carbide tools. It was
found that low feed rate coupled with high cutting speed led to
minimum Ra value. Sahoo and Sahoo [14] examined the effect
of cutting parameters on surface roughness and flank wear for
AISI 4340 hardened to 47 HRC, using multilayer coated
carbide tools. Response surface methodology and the Taguchi
method were used in this investigation. The results indicated
that feed affected the Ra value significantly followed by speed
and depth of cut. Significant interaction has also been reported
between feed and depth of cut. Noordin et al. [15] studied the
effect of speed, feed, and side cutting edge angle (SCEA) on
surface roughness and tangential cutting force for 1045 steel
machined using coated carbide tools. Results revealed that
feed and SCEA interaction had significant influence on Ra.
The effect of feed, speed, CVD coated, physical vapor deposition (PVD) coated, and uncoated carbide tools on surface
roughness for AISI 1030 steel was investigated by Nalbant
et al. [8]. Results showed that Ra decreased with increasing
cutting speed for coated carbide tools. However, for uncoated
carbide tools, Ra increased with increasing cutting speed. Feed
rate affected the Ra in a linear fashion for both coated and
uncoated carbide tools. Moreover, lower values of friction
coefficient and thermal conductivity reduced the Ra value.
Precise experimental design and evaluation methodology is
essential for better judgment of the process parameters relation
to achieve high surface finish. Benardos and Vosniakos [16]
reviewed different methodologies being employed to predict
surface roughness. Different approaches were classified on the
basis of machining theory, design of experiments, and artificial intelligence. It has been reported that response surface
methodology and the Taguchi method are most widely used
for surface roughness prediction. Sahin and Motorcu [17] used
response surface methodology to study the effects of cutting
parameters on surface roughness in turning hardened AISI
1050 steel using CBN tools. Central composite design

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Table 1
C

1033

Chemical composition (wt%) of HSLA steel

Si

Cr

Mn

Ni

Cu

Table 2
Mo

Balance

0.28 0.01 1.50 0.01 0.15 1.11 0.77 0.11 0.22 0.44 96.42

(CCD) was chosen to develop a 2nd order surface roughness

model. Davim and Luis [18] used the Taguchi method and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the machinability
of D2 tool steel using ceramic inserts.
It can be concluded from literature review that cutting
tools, cutting fluids, and machining parameters have direct
influence on surface roughness. It can also be identified that
the impact of machining parameters like feed, speed, and
depth of cut varies when carbon contents and/or hardness of
AISI 4340 steel changes. Carbon content affects mechanical
properties as do the type and percentage of different alloying
elements, which ultimately influence machinability. Little or
no research work has been reported in literature on AISI 4340
with carbon contents less than 0.3 %.
The aim of the present research work is the study of
average surface roughness as function of machining parameters in finish turning. The research work has been carried out
on high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel (AISI 4340 with
carbon contents less than 0.3 % and hardened at 31 HRC)
using coated carbide tools. By employing response surface
methodology and central composite design, the model has
been developed with 95 % confidence level.

3 Experimental details
This section describes the details regarding the experimental
apparatus, cutting conditions, and methodology adopted for
the study. Dry turning tests have been performed on HSLA
steel rod having a 50-mm diameter and 360 mm in length. Test
runs have been performed randomly to prevent any contamination of results and to assure that errors are normally and

Heat treatment parameters

Austenizing

Quenching

Tempering

Temp
(C)

Time
(min)

Medium Temp
(C)

Time
(min)

Temp
(C)

Time
(min)

900

60

Oil

3040

675

120

30

independently distributed. The materials hardness value is

31 HRC, which has wide applications in the automobile and
aviation industry such as connecting rods, axle shafts, bolts,
studs, and screws. Chemical composition of the material is
given in Table 1. Before conducting experiments, the chemical composition was verified through XRF analyzer and wet
analysis techniques.
Samples from specimen were also subjected to grinding;
polishing, and etching. The microstructure of the workpiece
was captured using a Leica microscope at magnification level
of 500 shown in Fig. 1.
Before conducting experimental runs, the specimens were
subjected to heat treatment (quenching and tempering) to
reach an average hardness value of 31 HRC. Parameters used
for heat treatment are shown in Table 2.
To measure the hardness value, a Rockwell hardness tester
HR-150A was employed with diamond indenter preloaded at
98 N and test loaded at 1470 N. Ten readings were taken along
the section to measure average hardness value. For turning,
the specimen was held in a 3-jaw chuck and supported by a
live center at the other end. To prepare the specimen for actual
tests, a rough cut of 2 mm was performed on the outer surface.
The specimen was divided into 18 sections (each 20 mm long)
along the length to take surface roughness average (Ra)
readings.
The tool used for the turning was multilayer coated carbide
insert (negative) CNMG 12 04 04 PF 4025 with ISO P25
grade. The coating was MT-Ti(C, N)+Al2O3 +TiN applied
through chemical vapor deposition (CVD) procedure. The
tool holder was a PCLNL 2525M with a rake angle of 6,
approach angle of 95, and a lead angle of 5.

Table 3
Factors

Levels of the independent variables

Levels
Lowest

Low

Center High

Highest

Speed, V (m min1) 149.32

180
225
270
300.68
Feed, f (mm rev1)
0.08
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.28
Depth of cut, d (mm)
0.26
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.94
Coding
1.6818 1
0
1
1.6818
Fig. 1 Microstructure of work piece (500)

1034

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

The experiments were performed on a John Ford ST 60A

horizontal axis CNC lathe machine having a spindle power of
22.4 kW and spindle speed of 203000 rpm. The cutting edge
was changed after every three trials to prevent the effect of tool
wear on surface roughness. The objective of this research is to
optimize the cutting parameters so that target Ra value would
be obtained. Selected design space (enlisted in Table 3) has
been adapted from the Sandvik handbook [19] and is based on
medium-finish cuts. Similar ranges have been used by

Run no.

Model summary statistics

Source

Std.
dev.

Rsquared

Adjusted Predicted PRESS

RRsquared squared

Linear
2FI
Quadratic
Cubic

0.11
0.12
0.12
0.072

0.9843
0.9865
0.9893
0.9982

0.9810
0.9791
0.9772
0.9922

0.9720
0.9438
0.9248
0.9758

0.32
0.64
0.86
0.28

Suggested

Aliased

previous researchers for investigating surface roughness of

AISI 4340 [10, 12, 13].
For measuring average roughness (Ra), calibrated Mahrs
Perthometer as per standard was used. Three readings of Ra
were taken along the periphery approximately 120 apart.
Average value of surface roughness was used in the analysis.
Cutoff value is 0.8 or 2.5 mm depending on the magnitude of
surface roughness.

Fig. 2 Central composite design with three factors [1]

Table 4

Table 5

4 Experimental design
Response surface methodology (RSM) has been used for the
optimization of surface roughness (Ra). The RSM combines
the statistical and mathematical approaches to explore the
response when factors are varied simultaneously. The model

Design matrix with response

Feed

DoC

Coding

(m/min)

(mm/rev)

(mm)

X1

X2

X3

(m)

14
15
8
10
9
4
1
13
7
17

180
270
180
270
180
270
180
270
149.32
300.68

0.12
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.18
0.18

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.6818
1.6818

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

0.94
0.982
2.74
2.855
0.896
1.085
3.058
2.86
1.69
2.08

0.007
0.028
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.020
0.020
0.010

3
18
6
2
16
12
5
11

225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225

0.08
0.28
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

0.6
0.6
0.26
0.94
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

1.6818
1.6818
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1.6818
1.6818
0
0
0
0

0.64
3.453
1.825
1.985
2.055
1.955
1.86
1.925

0.007
0.013
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.025
0.007
0.015

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Ra

Std dev

Speed

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Table 6

1035

ANOVA for response surface linear model

4.1 Central composite design

Source

Sum of
squares

df

Mean
square

F
value

p value
prob>F

Model
A-speed
B-feed
C-DOC

11.23
0.047
11.15
0.031

3
1
1
1

3.74
0.047
11.15
0.031

293.33
3.71
873.84
2.43

<0.0001
0.0746
<0.0001
0.1415

Residual
Lack of fit
Pure error
Cor total
Std. dev.
Mean
C.V.%
PRESS

0.18
0.16
0.020
11.41
0.11
1.94
5.83
0.32

14
11
3
17

2.19

0.2817

0.013
0.014
6.590E-003
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Pred R-squared
Adeq precision

0.9843
0.9810
0.9720
57.075

has been developed through design of experiments and regression technique. The results were modeled to fit either firstor second-order model represented by the following equations
[20]:
y 0 1 x1 2 x2 k xk

All the experimental runs are based on central composite

design (CCD). Eighteen experimental runs are composed of
eight factorial/cube points, four center points, and six
star/axial points. Center points are added to estimate pure
error. Star points are added to have an idea about quadratic
relationship between response and independent variables.
CCD can also detect curvature (if present) very efficiently.
Each factor contains five levels, namely (i) low axial, (ii)
low factorial, (iii) center, (iv) high factorial, and (v) high
axial. Star or axial points are located at a specific distance
outside the original factors range to maximize the efficiency.
Their value is usually very close to the square root of
number of factors, which is 1.6818 in the present scenario.
Coding of the factors was carried out to avoid problems
caused by different measuring units while comparing coefficients (Fig. 2).
The following section provides the details of the parameters used for modeling. Ra has been measured through three
parameters namely cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut, and
coded as X1, X2, and X3, respectively. Complete design
matrix in random order with responses and standard deviation
is shown in Table 4.

2
4.2 Statistical analysis

y 0

i xi

ii xi 2

i1

XX
i< j

xi x j

i j

Where, 0, i, ii, and ij are called parameters of approximating functions, y is response variable, and xi is input variable.

The RSM has been performed to predict surface roughness in

turning of high-strength low-alloy steel (HSLA) using coated
carbide tool. Table 5 provides the model summary statistics
for surface roughness. It is evident from Table 5 that first order
model is best suggested; therefore, it has been used for further
analysis.

Normal Plot of Residuals

Fig. 3 Normal probability plot of

residuals for Ra data
99

Normal % Probability

95
90
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
1

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

Internally Studentized Residuals

1.00

2.00

1036

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Residuals vs. Run

Fig. 4 Plot of residuals versus

run number

Internally Studentized Residuals

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

11

13

15

17

Run Number

4.3 First order model

Central composite design (CCD) consisting of 18 experiments
has been employed for developing the mathematical model.
Mathematical relationship for correlating the surface roughness and turning parameters (feed, speed, and depth of cut) has
been coded in Design Expert. The first order model for surface
roughness has been developed based on Eq. (2). Response
surface equation for surface roughness in terms of actual
variables is given by Eq. (4).
Ra 1:21 0:0013v 15:06f 0:238d

speed and depth of cut. Interaction terms being insignificant have been excluded. Coefficient of determination (R2)
is a measure of degree of fit. The value of R2 statistic
shows that 98.4 % of the total variations are explained by
the model. The value of R2 obtained after adjusting for
size (terms) of model is 98.1 %. Comparison of R2Adj =
0.9810 with R2Pred =0.9720 shows that both terms are in
good agreement with each other and the model would be
expected to explain 97.2 % variability in new data. Improved precision and reliability of test results is shown by
low value of coefficient of variation (C.V.) which is
5.83 %.
4.4 Residual analysis

Analysis of variance for the model is shown in Table 6.

It is evident from Table 6 that the feed rate is the most
important factor affecting surface roughness followed by

Residual analysis is the primary diagnostic tool to check the

adequacy of the proposed model [20]. The normal probability plots of the residuals, residuals versus run number, and

Predicted vs. Actual

Fig. 5 Plot of predicted versus

actual values

4.00

Predicted

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Actual

2.50

3.00

3.50

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

1037
One Factor
3.5

2.5

2.5

Ra

Ra

One Factor
3.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5
0.12

0.24

180

270

A: Speed

B: Feed

b - Ra Vs Speed

a - Ra Vs feed
One Factor
3.5

Ra

2.5

1.5

0.5
0.40

0.80

C: DOC

c - Ra Vs Depth of cut
Fig. 6 a Ra versus feed. b Ra versus speed. c Ra versus depth of cut

predicted versus actual values of surface roughness have

been shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5, respectively. It is evident
Fig. 7 3D response surface Ra
versus feed and speed

from Fig. 3 that points lie reasonably close to a straight line

which shows that errors are normally and independently

1038

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Fig. 8 3D response surface Ra

versus feed and depth of cut

distributed and assumptions are not violated. Plot of residuals versus run number in Fig. 4 shows that there is no
pattern and unused structure, which discloses that independent and constant variance assumptions are not violated and
no correlation between residuals has been observed. Fig 5
shows that predicted and actual values fall on a straight line,
implying that errors are distributed normally. It can be
concluded from the above discussion that the proposed
model is adequate, and there is no reason to suspect any
violation of independence or constant variation assumptions.

Fig. 9 Contour plot: feed versus

depth of cut

5 Results and discussion

The main effects of cutting conditions on surface roughness
are shown in Figs. 6a, b, c. The following conclusions can be
drawn from the plots: (i) Slope of line on Ra versus feed plot
(Fig. 6a) shows that there is substantial increase in the value of
Ra when feed rate is increased from 0.12 mm/rev to 0.24 mm/
rev; (ii) Ra is not changed significantly when speed is changed
from 180 to 270 m/min (Fig. 6b); and (iii) Ra is not influenced
by depth of cut i.e., constant behavior is observed when depth

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

1039

Fig. 10 Contour plot: feed versus

speed

of cut is increased from 0.4 to 0.8 mm (Fig. 6c). It clearly

states that feed is a significant factor influencing the value of
Ra. This is further validated by ANOVA for response surface
linear model (Table 6).

5.1 Three dimension response surface

Three dimension response surface plots are shown in Figs. 7
and 8. It is clear from the figures that no twist is observed in the
plots which signify the fact that interactions are insignificant.
Three dimension contour plots help to optimize the cutting
parameters against Ra which is imperative for productivity and
quality as a tradeoff exists for selecting target Ra value for
Table 7

Validation data
Average surface Residuals
roughness, Ra

Trial no. Actual values of

input parameters

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

V (m/min) f (mm/rev) d (mm) Exp.

Pred.

200
250
200
250
200
250
200
250

1.440
1.505
2.344
2.408
1.476
1.540
2.319
2.444

0.15
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.21
0.21

0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70

1.570
1.549
2.410
2.350
1.544
1.518
2.407
2.440

certain speed and feed ranges. The target value of surface

finish on specific portions of a part may vary depending upon
design and functional requirements. It can be seen from contour plots that 1.25 2.5 m surface roughness can be
achieved by the optimal combination of speed, feed, and depth
of cut. It is also evident from contour plots (Figs. 9 and 10)
that a target Ra value of 1.6 m can be achieved by setting the
speed to 180270 m/min, and depth of cut to 0.40.8 mm;
however, feed should be set within 0.150.165 mm/rev. In
order to achieve the objective of minimum machining time,
the highest speed of 270 m/min and depth of cut of 0.8 mm
may be selected. Similar target Ra value can be achieved on
other combinations within design space that would ensure
maximum productivity without any compromise on required
surface finish. It can be concluded from the ongoing discussion that for design ranges of cutting conditions for 4340
HSLA with less than 0.3 % carbon, optimum combination
can be achieved.
5.2 Validation of results

0.130
0.044
0.066
0.058
0.068
0.022
0.088
0.004

The model has been validated by conducting an additional

eight experiments. These experimental runs do not belong to
the CCD data set. The accuracy of the model is calculated
through relation provided by Suresh et al. [12].


N
100 X  yi;exp yi;pred 

5


N i1  yi;pred 
where =error estimator.

1040

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

Fig. 11 Predicted versus

experimental Ra values

0.2%
3.8%
1.4%
4.6%
2.4%
2.8%
2.9%

Table 7 shows the actual and predicted values for average

surface roughness of experiments. Experimental and predicted
Ra values are shown graphically in Fig. 11.
It is clear from Fig. 11 that both experimental and predicted
values match closely with each other. The average prediction
error for the validation data has been found to be 3.38 %.

6 Conclusions
HSLA steel (AISI 4340 with carbon contents less than 0.3 %
and hardened at 31HRC) has been investigated for optimum
Ra value using multilayer coated carbide tools. The following
are the findings drawn as a result of a series of experiments
and subsequent analysis of results:
1. ANOVA results indicate that linear model is better with
highest prediction accuracy, and is validated through additional experiments.
2. The established equations clearly reflect that feed
rate is the most influencing parameter on the surface
roughness. On the other hand, speed and depth of
cut are insignificant. The value of Ra increases by
increasing the feed rate and decreases negligibly by
increasing the speed and depth of cut.
3. It is observed that a surface roughness value range of
1.252.5 m can be achieved by optimal combination
of speed of 180270 m/min, feed of 0.120.24 mm/rev,
and depth of cut of 0.40.8 mm.
4. By using a developed model, it is possible to predict the
surface roughness before conducting machining. Furthermore, the machining conditions satisfying constraints of
required surface finish for a specific industrial application
can be easily selected.
The research findings along with developed mathematical
model will provide effective guidelines, and the results would

be a good technical database for the aerospace and automobile

applications in machining aspects.
Future investigations should look into the recast layer
modeling of the surface roughness during machining.

References
1. Asiltrk I, Akku H (2011) Determining the effect of cutting parameters on surface roughness in hard turning using the Taguchi method.
Measurement 44(9):16971704
2. Boothroyd, G., and Knight, W.A. (2005), Fundamentals of machining and Machine tools (3rded.), Taylor and Francis Group: CRC
Press.
3. Lalwani DI, Mehta NK, Jain PK (2008) Experimental investigations
of cutting parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel. J Mater Process Technol
206:167179
4. Neeli, S., Yaldz, S., and Trke, E. (2011), Optimization of tool
geometry parameters for turning operations based on the response
surface methodology, Measurement, 44(3), 580587.
5. Sharma VS, Dhiman S, Sehgal R, Sharma SK (2008) Estimation of
cutting forces and surface roughness for hard turning using neural
networks. J Intell Manuf 19:473483
6. Chen JC, Lou MS (1999) In process surface roughness recognition
system in end milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15:200
209
7. Sahoo AK, Sahoo B (2012) Experimental investigations on machinability aspects in finish hard turning of AISI 4340 steel using uncoated and multilayer coated carbide inserts. Measurement 45:2153
2165
8. Nalbant M, Gokkaya H, Toktas I, Sur G (2009) The experimental
investigation of the effects of uncoated, PVD- and CVD-coated
cemented carbide inserts and cutting parameters on surface roughness
in CNC turning and its prediction using artificial neural networks.
Robot Comput Integr Manuf 25:211223
9. Xavior MA, Adithan M (2009) Determining the influence of cutting
fluids on tool wear and surface roughness during turning of AISI 304
austenitic stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol 209:900909
10. Chinchanikar S, Choudhury SK (2013) Effect of work material
hardness and cutting parameters on performance of coated carbide

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 78:10311041

11.

12.

13.

14.

tool when turning hardened steel: an optimization approach.

Measurement 46(4):15721584
Lima JG, Avila RF, Abrao AM, Faustino M, Davim JP (2005) Hard
turning: AISI 4340 high strength low alloy steel and AISI D2 cold
work tool steel. Mater Proc Technol 169:388395
Suresh R, Basavarajappa S, Gaitonde VN, Samuel GL (2012)
Machinability investigations on hardened AISI 4340 steel
using coated carbide insert. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater
33:7586
Suresh R, Basavarajappa S, Samuel GL (2012) Some studies on hard
turning of AISI 4340 steel using multilayer coated carbide tool.
Measurement 45(7):18721884
Sahoo AK, Sahoo B (2013) Performance studies of multilayer hard
surface coatings ((TiN/TiCN/Al2O3/TiN)) of indexable carbide inserts in hard machining: part-I (an experimental approach).
Measurement 46(8):28542867

1041
15. Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004)
Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J
Mater Process Technol 145(1):4658
16. Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness in
machining: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:833844
17. Sahin Y, Motorcu AR (2008) Surface roughness model in machining
hardened steel with cubic boron nitride cutting tool. Int J Refrac Met
Hard Mater 26:8490
18. Davim JP, Luis F (2007) Machinability evaluation in hard turning of
cold work tool steel (D2) with ceramic tools using statistical techniques. Mater Des 28:11861191
19. Sandvik Coromant (Firm). (2010), Metal cutting technologyTechnical guide, SandvikCoromant, Sweden
20. Montgomery, D.C. (2004), Design and analysis of experiments
(5thed.), New York: John Wiley & Sons.