ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my gratitude to Sir Dr.V.CHITTARANJAN DAS, Professor, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, R.V.R&J.C College of Engineering for giving me this golden
opportunity to carry out the project under his supervision. I am greatly indebted to him for his
inspiring guidance, constructive suggestion and criticism from time to time during the course
of progress of the work. I convey my sincere thanks to him for providing necessary facilities
in the department to carry out my project.
We express our thanks to our head of department, Sir Dr.K.Ravindra, for his co operation in
completing my mini project.
I would also like to majorly thank all staff members of workshop who have extended all
sorts of help for accomplishing this undertaking.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart, everyone else
involved directly or indirectly in assisting me to accomplish the objectives of this study. Their
help and support is highly appreciated.

ABSTRACT:
The present work concerned an experimental study of turning on Austenitic Stainless steel
of grade AISI 202 by a TiAlN coated carbide insert tool. The primary objective of the
ensuing study was to use the Response Surface Methodology in order to determine the effect
of machining parameters viz. cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut, on the surface roughness
of the machined material and the wear of the tool. The objective was to find the optimum
machining parameters so as to minimize the surface roughness and tool wear for the selected
tool and work materials in the chosen domain of the experiment. The experiment was
conducted in an experiment matrix of 20 runs designed using a full-factorial Central
Composite Design (CCD). Surface Roughness was measured using a Talysurf and tool wear
with the help of a Toolmakers microscope. The data was compiled into DESIGN EXPERT
for analysis. The relationship between the machining parameters and the response variables
(surface roughness and tool wear) were modelled and analyzed using the Response Surface
Methodology (RSM). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the
significance of these parameters on the response variables, and to determine a regression
equation for the response variables with the machining parameters as the independent
variables, with the help of a quadratic model. Main effects and interaction plots from the
ANOVA were obtained and studied along with contour and 3-D surface plots. The quadratic
models were found to be significant with a p-value of 0.033 and 0.049. Results showed that
feed is the most significant factor affecting the surface roughness, closely followed by
cutting speed and depth of cut, while the only significant factor affecting the tool wear was
found to be the depth of cut. The top three optimum settings for carrying out the machining
were obtained from Response Surface Optimizer and are shown in the results section.

CONTENTS
Title Page
Certificate
Acknowledgment
Abstract
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction

1.2 Objectives of present work

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Introduction

2.2 The Turning Operation

2.3 Machining Parameters

2.3.1 Cutting Speed

10
10

2.3.2 Feed

11

2.3.3 Depth of Cut

11

2.4 Cutting Tool

12

2.4.1 Cutting Tool Insert

13

2.4.1.1 Insert Material

13

2.4.1.2 Insert Coating

14

2.5 Tool Wear

14
3

2.5.1 Flank Wear

15

2.5.2 Crater Wear

16

2.6 Surface Roughness

17

2.7 Design of Experiments

19

2.7.1 Response Surface Method (RSM)

19

2.7.1.1 Central Composite Design (CCD)

20

CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Work Material
3.1.1 Features

23

3.1.2 Insert Material

25

3.2 Experimental Setup and Initial Preparation

26

3.3 Cutting condition

27

3.4 Measurement of Surface Roughness

27

3.5 Measurement of Tool Wear

28

3.6 Process parameters

29

3.7 Layout of Experiment for RSM

29

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Experimental Results

31

4.2 Analysis of Results and Plots

4.2.1 ANOVA

31

4.2.2Main Effects For Surface Roughness

36

4.2.3 Interaction Plates for Surface Roughness

37

4.2.4 Counter Plates For Surface Roughness

4.2.5 3D Plates For Surface Roughness

38
39

4.2.6 Main Plates For Tool wear

41

4.2.7 Interaction Plates for Tool wear

42

4.2.8 Plats For Tool wear

43

4.3 Optimum Setting

45
CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS
5.1Conclusions

46

5.2 Scope for future study

46
REFERENCES

References

47

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1: Basic turning operation in Lathe
Fig 2: Motions in turning operation
Fig 3: Single point cutting tool using in turning and its nomenclature
Fig 4: The adjustable machining parameters
Fig 5: Various shapes of cutting tool inserts
Fig 6: Different modes of tool wear
Fig 7: Flank wear
Fig 8: Crater wears
Fig 9: Co-ordinates used for Surface Roughness Measurement using Equation
Fig 10: Central Composite Design for 2-factors and 3-factors
5

Fig 11: Selected cutting tool insert

Fig 12: Experimental Setup
Fig13: Insert tool arrangement
Fig 14: Setup of Talysurf for measurement of Surface Roughness
Fig 15: Toolmakers Microscope
Fig 16: Cutting Speed Vs Surface Roughness
Fig 17: Feed Vs Surface Roughness

Fig 18: Depth of Cut Vs Surface Roughness

Fig 19: Interaction Graph between Cutting Speed and Feed
Fig 20: Interaction Graph between Cutting Speed and Depth of cut
Fig 21: Interaction Graph between Feed and Depth of cut
Fig 22: Counter Plot between Cutting Speed and Feed
Fig 23: Counter Plot between Cutting Speed and depth of cut
Fig 24: Counter Plot between Feed and depth of cut
Fig 25: 3D Plot between Cutting Speed and Feed
Fig 26: 3D Plot between Cutting Speed and Depth of cut
Fig 27: 3D Plot between Feed and Depth of cut
Fig 28: Residual Vs Run for Surface Roughness
Fig 29: Predicted Vs Actual for Surface Roughness
Fig 30: Speed Vs Tool wears
Fig 31: Feed Vs Tool wears
Fig 32: Cutting Speed Vs Tool wears
Fig 33: Interaction between Cutting Speed and Feed
Fig 34: Interaction between Cutting Speed and Depth of cut
Fig 35: Interaction between Feed and Depth of cut

Fig 36:3D Plot between Cutting Speed and Tool wear

Fig 37: 3D Plot between Cutting Speed and Depth of cut
Fig 38: 3D Plot between Feed and Tool wear
Fig 39: Residual Vs Run
Fig 40: Predicted Vs Actual
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1: Chemical composition (wt. %) of AISI 202 Steel
Table 2: Mechanical Properties of AISI 202 Steel
Table 3: Specification of Cutting Tool
Table 4: Specification of Toolmakers Microscope
Table 5: Factors and levels for the Response Surface Study
Table 6: Design Layout/Run Table
Table 7: Results Obtained
Table 8: ANOVA for Surface Roughness
Table 9: ANOVA for Tool Wear
Table 10: Estimated Coded Regression Coefficients for Surface Roughness
Table 11: Estimated Coded Regression Coefficients for Tool Wear
Table 12: Top three Optimum Settings