Performance Evaluation of PVD Coated Ceramic Insert Using AISI 52100 in Hard Turning

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441
A Publisher for Research Motivation........
Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2016
Performance Evaluation of PVD Coated

Ceramic Insert Using AISI 52100 in Hard
Turning
Rachit Poddar1, Chetan Darshan2 ,Sanjeev Saini3
1
Research scholar, DAV Institute of Engineering & Technology, (PB) INDIA.
2,3
Assistant Professor, DAV Institute of Engineering & Technology, (PB) INDIA.
ABSTRACT
Now days, Hard turning technology has wide application at industrial level due to its several benefits over the grinding process.
The slow & cost-intensive grinding process is being replaced with finish hard turning in many industrial applications such as
bearings, transmission shafts, axles, and engine components, flap gears, landing struts and aerospace engine components.
Hard turning is a technology that can be used in finishing operations for the hardened steel which have hardness above 45
HRC. In the present work attempt has been made to evaluate the performance of mixed ceramic PVD-coated insert during hard
turning of AISI 52100 steel under different cutting conditions. The analysis of variance is applied to study the effect of cutting
speed, feed rate and depth of cut on tool flank wear, surface roughness, radial cutting forces and temperature on tool tip. The
analysis of variance was used to analyze the input parameters and their interactions during machining. The developed model
predicted response factor at 95% confidence level.
Keywords: Hard turning, ANOVA, RSM, Mixed ceramic PVD-coated insert, AISI 52100.
1. INTRODUCTION
Hard turning is a machining process for producing precision surfaces in hardened steel and cast iron components with
hardness value above 45 HRC, using high strength cutting tools on a rigid and accurate machine tool. In the modern
machining processes hard turning is the most favorable process for manufacturers to machine tool steel, alloy steel and
other steel parts in the condition of high hardness above 45 HRC with single point cutting tool which serve under dry
cutting conditions. Finishing of hard steel is a time consuming process through grinding because the shape of grinding
wheel limits the ability to finish the complex geometry parts. High material removal rate and reduction of process time
are some of the salient features of turning process. Surface quality is the main factor for the machined parts for
manufacturers to achieve their parts to function according to geometric, dimensional and surface requirements. The
demand of quality products is increasing so it is difficult for manufacturers to increase productivity without
compromising quality. Tool wear is the other important criteria to evaluate the performance of tool used for hard
turning. The mechanism involved in wear of cutting tool during hard turning is complicated and may include different
interacting effects linked together in a complex manner. Chou, [1] and Huang, [2] investigated that the abrasion,
adhesion, diffusion and the chemical reactions are dominant wear mechanisms in hard turning with the main wear
pattern of flank wear, crater wear, thermal shock, cracking, notching wear and chipping. PCBN is the cutting tool
material with the longest possible tool life. Surface roughness is greatly affected by cutting conditions (feed rate, cutting
speed and depth of cut), tool geometry (edge preparation, tool nose radius, tool orientation) and tool wear in finish hard
turning process. Chinchanikar et. al.,[3] investigated the effect of workpiece hardness, cutting parameters, and type of
coating for coated cemented carbide inserts on flank wear during turning of hardened AISI 4340 steel at different levels
of hardness. The results of their study revealed that flank wear is dominant wear form for CVD coated tool and crater
wear is dominant wear form for PVD coated tool. Further, they found that abrasion and adhesion are the main cause for
wear of CVD coated tool and abrasion, adhesion and diffusion leads to the wear of PVD coated tool.
De Oliveira et al., [4] studied the performance of CBN and whiskers reinforced ceramics in continuous and interrupted
hard turning with constant cutting conditions. Tool life, wear progress/wear mechanisms as well as roughness vs. time
dependency were used to express the performance of CBN and ceramics. Tonshoff H.K et al.,[5] in his research found
that due to hard materials characteristics, the applicable cutting tool should meet the following requirements: high
indentation hardness, high hardness to modulus ratio, high thermal conductivity, high abrasive wear resistance and
high thermal physical and chemical stability. The most often applied cutting tool materials for hard turning and face
milling operations are Al2O3/TiC ceramics, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride (PCBN) and CBN composite tools.
PCBN tools have higher fracture toughness, higher thermal conductivity and low thermal expansion coefficient,
favorable in interrupted cutting operations, all of which have made PCBN the most widely used tool material for hard
Page 58

ISSN 2321-6441
turning applications. Though polycrystalline cubic diamond (PCD) tools exhibit excellent wear resistance and higher
hardness than PCBN tools, PCD tools diffuse rapidly to the steel workpiece due to the carbon composite, especially in
high temperature hard turning process. PCBN tools are formed by sintering CBN particles mixed with cobalt, TiC, TiN
or other materials. In general there are two categories of PCBN tools: High CBN content tools which consist of 90%
volume of CBN grains with metallic binders (e.g., cobalt); Low CBN content tools which consist of 50-70%volume of
CBN grains with ceramic binders (e.g., TiC, TiN).
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
A. Work Piece Material
The work piece material was AISI 52100 steel in the form of round bars of 40 mm diameter and length of 200 mm
axial cutting length. The composition of material is 1.10% C, 0.35% Si, 0.50% Mn, 1.43% Cr, 0.049% S and 0.035%
P. This material is used to make axels, gears, camshafts, driving pinion and link components for transportation and
energy products as well as many applications in general mechanical engineering. The bars of AISI 52100 were heat
treated at a temperature of 850C (austenization temp.) for 60 min. followed by oil quenched at 100 C for 15-20 min.
Then tempering was done at 170C for 1 hr to achieve hardness above 55 HRC throughout. A rough turning pass was
conducted initially to eliminate the run out of the work piece, after that diameter obtained for experimentation is
approximately 39 mm and 150 mm of cutting length.
B. Cutting Inserts
The cutting inserts used are mixed ceramic AB 2010 series with PVD coated according to ISO designation of TNGA
160408 T02020. The edge preparation provided on the inserts was 200.2mm chamfer with honing. The nose radius
is constant 0.8 mm supplied by manufacturer. The geometry angles of insert seating: side rake angle -6, back rake
angle -6, clearance angle 6, cutting edge angle 60 triangle-shaped inserts. The cutting inserts were clamped on the
tool holder (make: Sandvik Coromat, model: DCLNL 2525 mm)
C. Experimental Apparatus
The hard turning of work piece serve under dry turning conditions were conducted on lathe (Make: HMT; Model:
LB17-01-401) having following specifications: Maximum Power: 5.5/7 KW, Spindle speed: 50-3000 rpm, Maximum
turning diameter: 225 mm, Maximum turning length: 300 mm.
D. Measurement of Flank wear, Surface roughness, Cutting forces & Temperature on tool tip
During experimentation the tool flank wear carried on inserts is measured with the help of MITUTOYO Tool
makers microscope model: TM-505.
The surface roughness of the machined workpiece was measured with MITUTOYO make Surface roughness tester
model SJ-201P with a cut-off length of 0.8 mm over three sampling lengths. The average value of surface
roughness (Ra) was used to quantify the roughness achieved on machined surfaces.
While turning the workpiece, the specific cutting forces were measured with the help of dynamometer and digitally
indicated by multi component digital force indicator made by: IEICOS, Model-652.
Temperature on the tool tip during turning was measured by portable infrared pyrometer having following
specification: - Distance: Spot ratio = 50:1, temp. range = -18C to1350C, Made by Tashika Model : M-1350.
E. Design of Experiment
In this investigation three factors were studied and their low level and high level are given in Table 1. The levels are
selected according to the recommendation of manufacturer. Two-level full Factorial design was used for the planning
of experiments because it was widely used for involving several factors for a response. The design layout is produced
by the software Design Expert Version 7.0.0 (Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, and 185 MN USA) is given in Table 2.
Table 1: Factors and Levels of Process Parameters
Factors
Speed, m/min
Feed, mm/rev
Depth of cut, mm
Low level (-1)

50
0.05
0.2
High level (+1)

250
0.2
0.5
Page 59

ISSN 2321-6441

Std
Run
Factor 1:
A: Speed
(m/min.)
14
18
20
15
11
6
13
16
2
1
19
8
3
12
17
9
10
5
4
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
247
50
179
50
50
179
150
250
50
50
50
131
50
128
250
131
250
250
250
250
Table 2: Experimental layout and desired Response

Factor
Factor
Response
Response 2:
Response 3:
2: B:
3: C:
1: Flank
Surface
Radial
Feed
Depth
wear (VB)
roughness
cutting force
(mm/re
of cut
(mm)
(Ra) (m)
(Fr) (N)
v.)
(mm)
0.13
0.22
0.196
0.52
110.56
0.05
0.2
0.142
0.18
153.89
0.2
0.5
0.33
1.96
395.64
0.1
0.33
0.256
0.41
245.63
0.2
0.5
0.439
1.84
414.65
0.2
0.5
0.29
2.09
384.98
0.06
0.21
0.186
0.23
170.89
0.05
0.5
0.156
0.26
223.36
0.1
0.5
0.299
0.51
334.36
0.2
0.3
0.42
1.7
296.56
0.2
0.3
0.37
1.77
333.65
0.14
0.2
0.26
0.59
213.32
0.05
0.2
0.148
0.16
151.28
0.14
0.39
0.386
0.64
276.86
0.2
0.2
0.21
1.6
140.41
0.05
0.38
0.195
0.23
261.16
0.14
0.38
0.323
0.72
179.45
0.05
0.2
0.233
0.25
155.39
0.2
0.2
0.191
1.82
143.95
0.05
0.5
0.161
0.2
227.97
Response
4:
Temperatu
re (T)(C)
530.19
212.12
501.68
286.21
424.36
489.75
310.58
566.39
334.62
392.42
404.25
402.13
234.77
427.4
594.35
387.54
554.5
517.63
615.47
584.09
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the responses flank wear (VB), Surface roughness (Ra), Radial cutting force (Fr) and temperature on
tool tip (T) using ANOVA is described in Table 3-6. The analysis of results was done using the software.
Table 3: ANOVA results for Flank Wear (VB)
Source
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean
Square
F
Value
p-value
Prob. > F
Model
0.15
0.022
20.04
< 0.0001
significant
A-speed
6.11E-03
6.11E-03
5.61
0.0355
significant
B-feed
0.071
0.071
65.65
< 0.0001
significant
C-depth of cut
3.40E-03
3.40E-03
3.13
0.1024
not significant
AB
0.019
0.019
17.3
0.0013
significant
BC
7.46E-03
7.46E-03
6.85
0.0225
significant
B^2
C^2
5.39E-03
5.13E-03
1
1
5.39E-03
5.13E-03
4.95
4.71
0.046
0.0508
significant
not significant
Residual
0.013
12
1.09E-03
Lack of Fit
0.011
1.54E-03
3.41
0.0976
not significant
Pure Error
Cor Total
2.26E-03
0.17
5
19
4.52E-04
Std.Dev. 0.033, R-squared 0.9212, Mean 0.26, Adj R-squared 0.8752, C.V % 12.71, Pred R-squared 0.7692, PRESS 0.038,
Adeq Precesion 13.244
Page 60

ISSN 2321-6441
Table 4: ANOVA results for Surface Roughness (Ra)
Model
Sum of
Squares
10.08
A-speed
2.44E-03
2.44E-03
0.27
0.6177
not significant
B-feed
6.43
6.43
700.02
< 0.0001
significant
C-depth of cut
0.092
0.092
10.01
0.0101
significant
AB
8.30E-03
8.30E-03
0.9
0.3644
not significant
AC
3.02E-03
3.02E-03
0.33
0.5789
not significant
BC
0.03
0.03
3.25
0.1015
not significant
A^2
1.43E-04
1.43E-04
0.016
0.9032
not significant
B^2
C^2
Residual
0.62
4.76E-05
0.092
1
1
10
0.62
4.76E-05
9.19E-03
67.76
5.18E-03
< 0.0001
0.944
significant
not significant
Lack of Fit
0.055
0.011
1.48
0.3395
not significant
Pure Error
0.037
7.42E-03
Cor Total
10.17
19
Source
Mean
Square
1.12
F
Value
121.85
p-value
Prob. > F
< 0.0001
significant
DF
Std.Dev. 0.096, R-squared 0.991, Mean 0.88, Adj R-squared 0.9828, C.V % 10.84, Pred R-squared 0.9663, PRESS 0.34,
Adeq Precesion 26.244
Table 5: ANOVA results for Radial cutting force (Fr)

Source
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean
Square
F
Value
p-value
Prob. > F
Model
1.63E+05
18074.16
48.86
< 0.0001
significant
A-speed
19671.55
19671.55
53.18
< 0.0001
significant
B-feed
14785.66
14785.66
39.97
< 0.0001
significant
C-depth of cut
51958.74
51958.74
140.46
< 0.0001
significant
AB
3177.13
3177.13
8.59
0.015
significant
AC
811.45
811.45
2.19
0.1694
not significant
BC
922.35
922.35
2.49
0.1454
not significant
A^2
5625.66
5625.66
15.21
0.003
significant
B^2
C^2
1757.71
45.36
1
1
1757.71
45.36
4.75
0.12
0.0543
0.7335
not significant
not significant
Residual
3699.12
10
369.91
Lack of Fit
2934.17
586.83
3.84
0.0832
not significant
Pure Error
764.95
152.99
Cor Total
1.66E+05
19
Std.Dev. 19.23, R-squared 0.9778, Mean 240.7, Adj R-squared 0.9578, C.V % 7.99, Pred R-squared 0.8817, PRESS
19675.08, Adeq Precesion 22.946
Page 61

ISSN 2321-6441
Table 6: ANOVA results for Temp. on tool tip (T)

Source
Sum of
Squares
DF
Mean
Square
F
Value
p-value
Prob. > F
Model
2.72E+05
45381
94.29
< 0.0001
significant
A-speed
1.47E+05
1.47E+05
306.28
< 0.0001
significant
B-feed
C-depth of
cut
AB
23367.92
23367.92
48.55
< 0.0001
significant
3924.39
3924.39
8.15
0.0135
significant
5302.19
5302.19
11.02
0.0055
significant
AC
BC
817.76
6930.01
1
1
817.76
6930.01
1.7
14.4
0.215
0.0022
not significant
significant
Residual
6256.67
13
481.28
Lack of Fit
5479.35
684.92
4.41
0.0596
not significant
Pure Error
Cor Total
777.32
2.79E+05
5
19
155.46
Std.Dev. 21.94, R-squared 0.9775, Mean 438.52, Adj R-squared 0.9672, C.V % 5, Pred R-squared 0.9379, PRESS
17307.09, Adeq Precesion 30.08
A.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

The ANOVA test was performed to evaluate the statistical significances of the fitted regression model and factors
involved there in for the response factors viz VB, Ra, Fr and T. ANOVA table is used to summarize the test for
significance of regression model, test for significance for individual model coefficient. Summary output reveals that
quadratic model is statistically significant for the selected response. Significant model terms were identified at 95%
significance level. Goodness of fit was evaluated from R2 and CV % in order to check the reliability and precision of the
model. The probability > F for the model in Table 3 is less than 0.05 which indicates that the model is significant,
which is desirable as it indicates that the terms in the model have a significant effect on the response. In case of flank
wear the Model F-value of 20.04 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a "Model FValue" this large could occur due to noise. In this case A, B, AB, BC, B2 are significant model terms. The ANOVA
table for regression model indicated that the model is significant at p < 0.0001. The desirable value of R2 is close to
one, which is R2 = 92.12% shows that this much percentage of the variability of result is explained by the model. The
predicted R2 value of 0.7692 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.8752. "Adeq Precision" measures the
signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. In this case ratio of 13.244 indicates an adequate signal. This
model can be used to navigate the design space. PRESS stands for Predicted residual error sum of squares and it is a
measure of how well the model for the experiment is likely to predict the responses in new experiments. Small values of
PRESS are desirable. In this case the value is 0.038. The equation (1) and (2) are the final empirical models in terms of
coded (standardized) and actual factors (un-standardized) for the response VB.
Quadr atic e quation for VB in te r ms of c ode d fac tor s :
Fla nk we a r (VB ) = 0.32 - 0.024 * A + 0.073 * B + 0.017 * C - 0.048 * A * B + 0.029 * B *C 0.042
* B 2 0.045 * C 2
..(1)
Quadr atic e quation for VB in te r ms of ac tual fac tor s :
Fla nk we a r (VB ) = -0.17300 + 5.63651E-004 * s pe e d + 2.87292 * fe e d + 1.17691* de pth of c ut
6.41556E-003 * s pe e d * fe e d + 2.61940 * fe e d * de pth of c ut 7.42768 * fe e d 2 1.98428 * de pth of
c ut 2
(2)
In case of surface roughness the Model F-value of 344.97 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01%
chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate
model terms are significant. In this case B, C, BC, B2 are significant model terms. The ANOVA table for regression
model indicated that the model is significant at p < 0.0001. The desirable value of R2 = 98.92% which is close to one
and desirable, which shows that this much percentage of the variability of result is explained by the model. The
Page 62


ISSN 2321-6441
predicted R2 value of 0.9796 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.9864. "Adeq Precision" measures the
signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. In this case ratio of 41.054 indicates an adequate signal. This
model can be used to navigate the design space. The value of PRESS in this is 0.21 which is small and desirable. The
equation (3) and (4) are the final empirical models in terms of coded (standardized) and actual factors (unstandardized) for the response Ra.
Quadratic equation for Ra in terms of coded factors:
Surface roughness (Ra) = 0.55 + 0.79 * B + 0.079 * C + 0.059 * B * C + 0.47 * B2
(3)
Quadratic equation for Ra in terms of actual factors:

Surface roughness (Ra) = 0.57629 12.01019 * feed 0.12796 * depth of cut + 5.23562 * feed * depth of cut +
82.88477 * feed2
(4)
In case of radial cutting force the Model F-value of 59.42 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01%
model terms are significant. In this case A, B, C, AB, A2 are significant model terms. The ANOVA table for
regression model indicated that the model is significant at p < 0.0001. The desirable value of R2 = 97.20 % which is
close to one and desirable, which shows that this much percentage of the variability of result is explained by the model.
The predicted R2 value of 0.9022 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R of 0.9556. "Adeq Precision" measures
the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. In this case ratio of 24.364 indicates an adequate signal.
This model can be used to navigate the design space. The value of PRESS in this is 16270.81 which is desirable. The
equation (5) and (6) are the final empirical models in terms of coded (standardized) and actual factors (unstandardized) for the response Fr.
Quadratic equation for Fr in terms of coded factors:
Radial Cutting Force (Fr) = 257.93 41.25 * A + 41.33 * B + 69.33 * C 19.91 * A* B + 13.18 * B * C 39.63 * A2
+ 22.13* B2
.......(5)
Quadratic equation for Fr in terms of actual factors:
Radial Cutting Force (Fr) = 62.92713 + 1.10829 * speed 444.32008 * feed + 315.77583 * depth of cut 2.65415 *
speed * feed + 1171.45818 * feed * depth of cut 3.96335E-003 * speed2 + 3934.03230 * feed2
.(6)
In case of temperature on tool tip the Model F-value of 107.44 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01%
model terms are significant. In this case A, B, C, AB, BC are significant model terms. The ANOVA table for
regression model indicated that the model is significant at p < 0.0001. The desirable value of R2 = 97.46% which is
close to one and desirable, which shows that this much percentage of the variability of result is explained by the model.
The predicted R2 value of 0.9389 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.9655. "Adeq Precision" measures
the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. In this case ratio of 30.856 indicates an adequate signal.
This model can be used to navigate the design space. The value of PRESS in this is 17011.4 which desirable. The
equation (7) and (8) are the final empirical models in terms of coded (standardized) and actual factors (unstandardized) for the response T.
2 FI equation for T in terms of coded factors:
Temperature on Tool Tip (T) = 442.00 + 113.89 * A + 49.04 * B + 17.06 * C 24.78 * A* B 27.02 * B * C..(7)
2 FI equation for T in terms of actual factors:
Temperature on Tool Tip (T) = - 17.39863 + 1.55190 * speed + 1990.02849 * feed + 413.93785 * depth of cut
..
3.30375 * speed * feed 2401.55684 * feed * depth of cut
(8)
B. EFFECT OF MACHINING PARAMETERS ON RESPONSE FACTORS

(a) Flank wear (VB)
Figure 1-3 shows the influence of machining parameters on the Flank wear, the interaction graph have been plotted. It
have been observed that flank wear (VB) increases with increase in feed at lowest speed and DOC, as a result of that abrasive
Page 63


ISSN 2321-6441
wear of tool dominates, Whereas the it remains almost constant with increase in speed at lowest feed and DOC. The flank
wear increase slightly followed by decrease in it with increase in depth of cut. The minimum value of flank wear is
achieved at high depth of cut and low feed. The 3D surface plot has been shown for flank wear.
Fig 1 : Effect of Speed and Feed on VB
Fig 2 : Effect of Speed and Depth of cut on VB
Fig 3 : Effect of Feed and Depth of cut on VB
(b) Surface roughness (Ra)

Figure 4-6 shows the influence of machining parameters on the surface roughness, the interaction graph have been
plotted. The feed is the most dominating factor on the surface roughness, Ra increases with increase of feed. The effect
of depth of cut has not much influence on surface roughness at constant feed; whereas it increases with increase in
depth of cut at constant speed. There is no effect of speed on the surface roughness. The minimum value of surface
roughness is achieved at low feed. The 3D surface plot has been shown for surface roughness.
Fig 4: Effect of cutting speed and feed on Ra Fig 5: Effect of cutting speed and depth of cut on Ra Fig 6: Effect of feed and depth of cut on Ra
Fig 7: Effect of cutting speed and feed on Fr
Fig 8: Effect of cutting speed and depth of cut on Fr
Fig 9: Effect of feed and depth of cut on Fr
(c) Radial cutting force (Fr)

Figure 7-9 shows the influence of machining parameters on the Radial cutting force, the interaction graph have been
plotted. It have been observed that radial cutting force (Fr) increases as the feed increases, Whereas with increase in speed
Page 64


ISSN 2321-6441
it is decease rapidly at constant feed and depth of cut. The radial cutting forces increases with increase in depth of cut at
higher feed and speed. The minimum value of radial cutting force is achieved at lowest depth of cut. The 3D surface plot
has been shown for radial cutting force.
(d) Temperature on tool tip (T)
Figure 10-12 shows the influence of machining parameters on the Radial cutting force, the interaction graph have been
plotted. It have been observed that radial cutting force (Fr) increases as the feed increases, Whereas with increase in speed
it is decease rapidly at constant feed and depth of cut. The radial cutting forces increases with increase in depth of cut at
higher feed and speed. The minimum value of radial cutting force is achieved at lowest depth of cut. The 3D surface plot
has been shown for radial cutting force.
C. OPTIMIZATION OF RESPONSE
The essential goals of experiments related to hard turning is to achieve the desired flank wear, surface roughness, radial
cutting force and temperature on tool tip of the optimal cutting parameters. For this multiple response optimization is
the ideal technique for determination of the best machining parameters combination in turning. The goal is to
minimize flank wear, surface roughness, radial cutting force and temperature on tool tip by taking machining
parameters in range as a constraint. The optimum value of surface roughness, flank wear, radial cutting force and
temperature on tool tip are 0.20 m and 0.146 mm, 164.301 N and 210.242 C respectively corresponds to speed = 50
m/min, feed = 0.05 mm/rev and depth of cut = 0.2 mm. The desirability value of 0.943 corresponds to minimum value
of VB, Ra, Fr & T in the given range of parameters during hard turning of material. The contours of the responses are
shown in Figure 13-16. It is clear from the figure that the flank wear is low at minimum feed and speed, it is increasing
either with the increase of feed or speed. In case of surface roughness it is clearly shown that minimum surface
roughness is at low value of feed, because feed is the most dominating factor for surface roughness. In case of radial
cutting force it is clearly shown that radial cutting force is low at higher value of speed. It is clear from the figure that
the temp. on tool tip is low at minimum feed and speed, it is increasing either with the increase of feed or speed.
Page 65


ISSN 2321-6441
D. CONCLUSION
This investigation shows the effect of machining parameters such as speed, feed and depth of cut on hard turning of
AISI 52100 hardened to above 45 HRC using mixed ceramic PVD-coated inserts. The conclusions of the present
research are as follows:
1. The prepared mathematical model for surface roughness, flank wear, radial cutting force and temperature on tool
tip comes out exceptionally fit when confirmed from the results of ANOVA and the validation of experimentation.
The prepared model predicted response factor at 95% confidence level.
2. For the manufactures during selection of the machining parameters while hard turning of AISI 52100, the obtained
mathematical model may be supportive in the direction to accomplish required surface finish with the optimum
value of flank wear, radial cutting force and temp. on tool tip.
3. Optimization, carried out using desirability function in this work gives us an opportunity to opt the best machining
parameters in order to get the required surface quality having with lesser tool wear radial cutting force and
temperature on tool tip. The optimized machining conditions for minimizing surface roughness, flank wear, radial
cutting force & temperature on tool tip are approaching; rate of cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut (DOC)
were 50 m/min, 0.05 mm/rev and 0.2 mm, then the optimum value of surface roughness, flank wear, radial cutting
force and temperature on tool tip are 0.20 m and 0.146 mm, 164.301 N and 210.242 C respectively.
4. The percentage error constructed through verified experiments is less than 5% exist in between the predicted
values of response factors & the experimental values of response factors.
5. As an alternative to grinding, the hard turning experiments represent that mixed ceramic with PVD TiN coated
generates superior surface finish with inferior flank wear, radial cutting force and temp. on tool tip on hardened
AISI 52100 steel.
REFERENCES
[1]. Chou, Y.K. (1994); Wear Mechanism of Cubic Boron Nitride Tools in Precision Turning of Hardened Steels;
Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.
[2]. Huang, Y. (2002); Predictive Modeling of Tool Wear Rate with Application to CBN Hard Turning; Ph.D. Thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
[3]. Chinchanikar, S., & Choudhury, S. K. (2013). Investigations on machinability aspects of hardened AISI 4340 steel
at different levels of hardness using coated carbide tools. International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard
Materials, 38, 124133.
[4]. De Oliveira, A.J., Diniz, A.E., Ursolino, D.J.,( 2009); Hard turning in continuous and interrupted cut with PCBN
and whisker-reinforced cutting tools, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209, 5262-5270.
[5]. Tonshoff, H. K., Wobker, H. G., and Brandt, D. (1995) "Hard Turning-Influence on the Workpiece Properties,"
Transactions of NAMRI/SME, Vol. (23) pp. (215-220).
Page 66

Performance Evaluation of PVD Coated Ceramic Insert Using AISI 52100 in Hard Turning

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Performance Evaluation of PVD Coated Ceramic Insert Using AISI 52100 in Hard Turning

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 4, Issue 5, May 2016