Group 1 Nick Chase

Section 13 Alek Erickson

Thomas Paul

Surface Finish Lab Report-2/3/20

Learning Objectives:
1. Analyze the effects of different cutting parameters on surface finish:
● Cutting tool geometry
● Depth of cut
● Feed rate
2. Operate the Acer metal lathe
3. Operate the Mahr profilometer and associated software
4. Create a team lab report based on data analysis
Materials and Equipment:
● Acer Lathe
● Mahr profilometer
● Two cylinders of 6061-T6 aluminum samples for cutting
● Two cutters, one with a nose radius of 1/32 the other 1/128
Questions for Process Analysis:
1. Discuss the relationships between the independent variables (nose radius, depth
of cut, feed rate) and the dependent variable (surface finish).
2. Use equations 1-4 to calculate the theoretical roughness values(Rmax for both,
Ra just for 1/128). Do the surface roughness meet theoretical expectations? Why
or why not?
3. To ensure a smoother surface finish, would you increase or decrease the feed
rate? Why?
Process Analysis:
1.
The surface finish of a cut can be affected by several factors, those being chiefly cutting
head nose radius and feed rate. It is worth noting that the depth of cut has little end
effect on the surface finish of the part in the end. While it may increase an Rmax value
as the part is being scored more deeply it has no effect on how close the cuts are to
each other, which is the primary determiner of surface finish.
In essence the “smoothness” of a part is determined by how many peaks and
valleys are on that part's surface. The cutting head nose radius directly affects this
surface finish. The lower the nose angles the less peaks and valleys are made per inch.
This means that less passes are needed to smooth over a particular section of the part.
Inturn this means that the part will be smoother with a wide cut head than a sharp one if
they both have the same feed rate.
Next there is the relationship of feed rate and surface finish. Put simply the feed
rate is probably the greatest factor in determining surface finish. As a lower feed rate
will mean more time for the cutting head to make repeated passes over the same

1
Group 1 Nick Chase
Section 13 Alek Erickson
Thomas Paul

Surface Finish Lab Report-2/3/20

section of a part, thus reducing the number of peaks and valleys there in. The opposite
will be true for a high feed rate. Figure 1 displays this relationship regarding the tool
nose radius of 0.031in and a depth of cut of 0.01in.

2.
To calculate the theoretical Ra and Rmax values for the various cutting depths the
equations from the lab manuals were used, those being:
fr
(1)Ra= ∗cot (40∘ )
8
fr
(2)Rmax= ∗cot (40∘ )
2
For the 1/128 radius cutting tool, and:
(3)Rmax + x=R
fr 2 ❑

( )
( 4) x 2 +
2
=R 2

For the 1/32 radius cutting tool. Where fris feed rate and R is cutting tool radius. Then
assuming the the values for R and frare known equation (4) can be rewritten to yield x
in terms of R and fr. After which it is reinstated into equation (3) which is then rewritten
to yield the final value of Rmax in terms of R and fr, this gives us:
(5)Rmax =R− √❑
This would be used to find the Rmax values for the 1/32 cutting tool.
An example of these calculations is as follows, calculations are for 1/32 cutting tool and
1/128 respectively. Also all final values are multiplied by 1 06to convert them to μ∈¿
(1/32) Rmax=( .031−√ ❑ )=1396.621814
.0184
(
(1/128) Ra=
8 )
∗cot (40∘) ∗1 06 =2741.03

.0184
(1/128) Rmax=( ∗cot( 40 ))∗1 0 =10964.126
∘ 6
2

The theoretical roughness values for both tools are much higher than their real world
counterparts (see table 1). This error is likely to be caused by a myriad of factors. First
there could have been inconsistencies in the feed rate due to the machines' extreme
age. Also the leathes used for these experiments had some mechanical wear on its
gearbox and would slip out of gear when certain speed settings were used. It is not
unreasonable to speculate that this gearbox did not perform exactly as expected due to
these mechanical shortcomings. Also the shape of the tool head may not exactly match
that used in the calculations dues do small errors in the manufacture of this tool. Finally
improper calibration of or small errors in the measurement equipment used in the lab.

2
Group 1 Nick Chase
Section 13 Alek Erickson
Thomas Paul

Surface Finish Lab Report-2/3/20

3.
“To ensure a smoother surface finish, one would decrease the feed rate.” (Kumar). N.
Satheesh Kumar completed an experiment much like the one completed in class. From
his data, he concluded that with a lower feed rate, the surface finish will be smoother.
Data from the experiment in class also backs this implication.(see Figure 1) The reason
for this is due to the possibility of part movement. If the part has ever so slight
movement, at a high feed rate one would be able to see an increase in roughness as
the movement causes the tool to not fully cut. At lower feed rates, the tool is able to
slowly go over the surface ensuring no movement would cause a missed spot as it has
the ability to go over the same spot more than once.. Going slower also prevents a
spiral effect the way a screw looks. Having higher feed rates leads to the potential of
having some of the part not get cut. Also, at high feed rates, chipping of the material has
potential to occur.

References:
Biswajit Das. “Analysis Of Surface Roughness On Machining Of Al-5Cu Alloy In
Cnc Lathe Machine.” International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, vol. 02, no. 09, 2013, pp. 296–299.,
doi:10.15623/ijret.2013.0209044.

Kumar, N. Satheesh, et al. “Effect of Spindle Speed and Feed Rate on Surface
Roughness of Carbon Steels in CNC Turning.” Procedia Engineering, Elsevier, 5
Sept. 2012, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705812020000.

Shelledy, James. “Lab 1 Lab Manual.” 2019.

Appendix:

3
Group 1 Nick Chase
Section 13 Alek Erickson
Thomas Paul

Surface Finish Lab Report-2/3/20

Table 1: Surface Finish Data

Measurements: Tool nose radius:0.031in, Depth of cut 0.01in

Figure 1