ISSN 1018-5593

* +

European Commission

technical steel research

Properties and in-service performance

Interaction of free-cutting steel microstructure with machining technology

STEEL RESEARCH

European Commission

I;

fe

t>.

"';> "''

'-.;

*-.

Properties and in-service performance

Interaction of free-cutting steel microstructure with machining technology

C. Vasey, A. Turner, C. Betteridge, C. Elliot

British Steel Swinden Technology Centre Moorgate Rotherham S60 3AR United Kingdom

Contract No 7210-MA/817 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1993

Final report

Directorate-General Science, Research and Development

1998

EUR 17840 EN

LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998 ISBN 92-828-1687-7 European Communities, 1998 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

I N T E R A C T I O N OF F R E E C U T T I N G S T E E L M I C R O S T R U C T U R E WITH TECHNOLOGY British Steel pic ECSC Agreement No. 7210.MA/817 SUMMARY

MACHINING

The advances in cutting tools capable of operating at higher cutting speeds and temperatures may place different demands on steel which m u s t respond to the increased deformation r a t e s a n d increased temperatures. In this project the emphasis has been a finishing operation where high cutting speeds and small depths of cut are of importance, rather than heavy metal removal using slower speeds, high feed rates and substantial depths of cut. The major objectives of the work have been to determine the response of different tool/workpiece combinations for optimum performance, and to examine the potential for a predictive model in assessing the machinability of these combinations, in order to reduce extensive machinability testing in the future in the search for ideal combinations of steel, tool and cutting condition. The work encompassed three basic types of steels - low carbon, medium carbon low alloy and austenitic stainless steels, including various free cutting additives and deoxidation treatments, with the emphasis on the low carbon steels and stainless grades representing contrasting grades known to machine easily and with some difficulty. All of the steels were tested using coated carbide, ceramic, and cermet cutting tools. The tool wear produced by austenitic stainless steels was determined largely by the a d h e r e n c e of workpiece material. This was severe with coated carbide tooling, resulting in decohesion of the coating and a marked deterioration in surface finish. In the resulphurised austenitic stainless steel ceramic tooling produced the best performance, but, overall, cermet tooling proved advantageous with all of the austenitic stainless grades as there was little tendency for the adherence of workpiece material. Small volumes of manganese sulphide were found to be of value in AISI 304 qualities, suggesting that even in non-resulphurised steels the sulphur content should be tightly controlled for product consistency and quality with respect to machining. In low carbon steels at high cutting speeds the beneficial effect of manganese sulphide inclusions was apparent with all cutting tool types in both prolonging tool life and improving surface finish. However, the metallic additives, lead, and a combination of lead, b i s m u t h , and t e l l u r i u m did not offer further improvements in reducing tool wear, although chip form and surface finish were improved. Sulphide inclusions were also beneficial in promoting chip breaking in low carbon steels. For the unresulphurised plain CMn steel the cermet cutting tool gave the best performance, and this cutting tool type also proved to be satisfactory with the resulphurised balanced free cutting steel grades. With silicon-killed free cutting steels cermet cutting tools produced a poorer quality surface finish than t h a t generated with coated carbide and ceramic tooling. In a silicon killed calcium-treated quality this was shown to be due to the adherence of manganese sulphide deposits to coated carbide and ceramic tooling, suggesting these tools should be preferred for killed free cutting steels. Such deposits were not observed on balanced free cutting steels. Increased feed rates prolonged tool life for a given rate of metal removed. A workpiece/tool thermocouple technique proved to be inadequate in characterising the temperatures obtained during machining. The temperatures measured did not correspond with those obtained from compression testing for similar stresses and strains as determined in a modified Merchant model. The model proved to be insufficiently precise to define m a t e r i a l performance a c c u r a t e l y . A l i m i t e d investigation of tool vibration in the 0-40 kHz range suggested no effect on tool wear. Although chatter resulted in a deterioration in surface finish it was not found to be detrimental to the tool life of the coated carbide insert employed. It is apparent from this research that there is scope for the development of new free cutting steels offering the capability of enhanced machinability with a wide range of cutting tools and cutting conditions.

CONTENTS 1. 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3. 3.1 3.2 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Trends in Machining Technology Definition of Machinability Metallurgy of Free Machining Steels Modern Tool Materials MATERIALS FOR EXAMINATION Steel Qualities Tool Materials RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS Tool Wear Tests Machinability Model for Non-Orthogonal Cutting Conditions Scanning Electron Microscopy Tool Life Tests - Uncoated Carbide Tooling Tool Temperature Measurements Chip Form Metallography and Automatic Image Analysis Mechanical Properties Tool Vibration DISCUSSION Austenitic Stainless Steels Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steels Low Carbon Steels Mechanical Modelling Vibration CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 MACHINABILITY MODEL FOR NON-ORTHOGONAL CUTTING CONDITIONS TOOL TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION VERIFICATION OF ACCELEROMETER OUTPUT

PAGE 11 11 11 12 12 14 15 15 15 16 16 19 21 21 22 22 23 24 25 27 27 28 28 30 31 32 33 35 46 121 133 137

LIST OF TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Chemical Compositions. Material Condition. Tool Materials. Chip Form and Colour. Inclusion Size and Material Hardness. Mechanical Properties: Tensile Data Mechanical Properties: Compression Test Data. Cutting Tip Failure Modes Coated Carbide Tips. Surface Roughness Measurements Made by Taly Surf for Bars Cut with Coated Carbide Tips.

LIST OF APPENDICES 1. 2. 3. Machinability Model for Non-Orthogonal Cutting Conditions. Tool Temperature Determination Verification of Accelerometer Output

LIST OF FIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Wear Test Data: AISI304; Coated Carbide Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 304: Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 304; Ceramic (K060) Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 304 Ca; Coated Carbide Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 304 Ca; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 304 Ca; Ceramic (K090) Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 303; Coated Carbide Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 303; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: AISI 303; Ceramic (K060) Tooling. Wear Test Date: AISI 303; Coated Carbide Tooling; 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: AISI 303; Cermet Tooling; 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: AISI 303; Ceramic (K060) Tooling; 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: 709M40; Cutting Speed: 260 m/min. Wear Test Data: 709M40Ca; Cutting Speed: 260 m/min. Wear Test Data: CMn; Coated Carbide (GC415MF) Tooling. Wear Test Data: CMn; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: CMn; Ceramic Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Coated Carbide (GC415MF) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Ceramic Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Cermet Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rate. Wear Test Data: 230M07; Ceramic Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rate. Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb ; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb; Ceramic Tooling.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb; Cermet Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: 230M07Pb; Ceramic Tooling, 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev Feed Rates. Wear Test Data: 230M07PbBiTe; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07PbBiTe; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07PbBiTe; Ceramic Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07S; Coated Carbide (GC415MF) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07S; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07Si; Ceramic Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07SiCa; Coated Carbide (GC415P) Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07SiCa; Cermet Tooling. Wear Test Data: 230M07SiCa; Ceramic Tooling. Merchant Model Test Data: AISI 304. Merchant Model Test Data: AISI304Ca. Merchant Model Test Data: AISI 303. Merchant Model Test Data: 709M40. Merchant Model Test Data: 709M40Ca. Merchant Model Test Data: CMn. Merchant Model Test Data: 230M07. Merchant Model Test Data: 230M07Pb. Merchant Model Test Data: 230M07PbBiTe. Merchant Model Test Data: 230M07 + S. Merchant Model Test Data: 230M07 + Si + Ca. Tool Wear and Deposits. Tool Wear and Deposits. Chip Forms, AISI 303, Feed Rate = 0.189 mm/rev, Depth of Cut/1.0 mm. (a) (b) Flank Wear Data: CMn; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: CMn; P30 Carbide.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

(a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

Flank Wear Data: 230M07; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07; P30 Carbide. Flank Wear Data: 230M07Pb; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07Pb; P30 Carbide. Flank Wear Data: 230M07PbBiTe; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07PbBiTe; P30 Carbide. Flank Wear Data: 230M07 + Si; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07 + Si; P30 Carbide. Flank Wear Data: 230M07+Si + Ca; P30 Carbide. Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07 + Si+Ca; P30 Carbide.

60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Uncoated Carbide Tool Life (Flank Wear) of Low Carbon Steels. Uncoated Carbide Tool Life (Crater Wear) of Low Carbon Steels. Cutting Temperatures for Austenitic Stainless Steel. Cutting Temperatures for Low Carbon Steel Qualities:- Carbide Cutting Tool. Cutting Temperatures for Low Carbon Steel Qualities:- Cermet Cutting Tool. Oxide Inclusion Parameters - CMn Quality. Inclusion Morphology. Stress-Strain-Temperature Surface: AISI 304 Quality. Stress-Strain-Temperature Surface: 230M07 Quality. Tool Holder Vibration Spectrum Cermet Tip; 95 mm Tool Holder Overhang. Machined Bar Surface Profiles AISI 303. Machined Bar Surface Profiles: Low Carbon Steels. Coated Carbide Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Austenitic Stainless Steels. Coated Carbide Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Low Carbon Steels. Cermet Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Austenitic Stainless and Medium Carbon Steels. Cermet Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Low Carbon Steels. Ceramic Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Austenitic Stainless and Medium Carbon Steels. Ceramic Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Low Carbon Steels. Cermet Tools: Parameters after 3000 m Cut at 260 m/min, Calcium Treated Qualities

INTERACTION OF FREE CUTTING STEEL MICROSTRUCTURE WITH MACHINING TECHNOLOGY British Steel pic ECSC Agreement No. 7210.MA/817 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

1.

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances in the machining of steels have included developments in workpiece metallurgy, tool technology and the widespread automation via computer numerical control, of many machining operations. In particular, new tool variants allow much higher metal removal rates to be achieved. However, performance is crucially dependent on the mechanical and chemical interactions between the tool and the workpiece under the selected cutting conditions. The objective of the research was to identify a new method for developing improved steels suitable for advanced cutting processes and to identify the optimum cutting conditions and tool design for these new steels. To achieve this objective the work was aimed at achieving a better understanding of the cutting mechanism and its interaction with the steel microstructure. One of the aims of the work was to establish a numerical description of the microstructural distribution and cutting forces for each phase in the steel, and the phase interfaces. Based on this numerical description of the microstructure a further aim of the work was to obtain a mathematical model of the machining process capable of making predictions of high speed machining characteristics under different cutting/tooling conditions. There are indications that under high speed machining conditions that the conventional additives such as lead may be less effective and that under these conditions other phases, such as complex silicates may prove to be more useful in improving machinability. This programme has examined the responses obtained from a variety of tool/workpiece combinations using single-point turning. Cutting speeds and feed rates were selected to allow higher rates of metal removal to be assessed at depths of cut typical of finishing operations, where surface finish tolerances and part size are at a premium. This has enabled recommendations to be made for optimised tool/workpiece combinations.

2.
2.1

BACKGROUND
Trends in Machining Technology

The increases in productivity available from NC/CNC technology have led to demands for increased performance from both workpiece materials and tooling to maximise the potential of these machines. One method of increasing productivity is to machine at higher rates of metal removal, thus reducing part production times. The economies forthcoming will be offset, at some critical rate of metal removal, by increasing tooling costs owing to rapid wear*1). However, whilst the capital and labour costs involved in machining operations have risen, tooling costs have decreased over recent years in terms of performance price, such that tool life may not be the dominant consideration in many situations. Indeed, Stjernberg and Thelin reasoned that, with new production technology, reliability and reproducibility may be more important than utilising the maximum capacity of each cutting edge*2). Therefore, it is possible that higher rates of metal removal may assume some prominence in future, and this concept is often described as "high speed machining'. This is a relative term in view of the vast range of speeds at which different materials can be effectively machines, and it is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive definition.

11

In the case of single-point turning, Hoshi has described current and anticipated future machining conditions as follows*3). V (m/min) X f (mm/rev) Work Material Operation Present Low C Steels High C Steels Steels (General) Roughing Roughing Finishing 350 X 0.6 200 X 0.4 450 X 0.15 Future 500X0.6 300 X 0.4 700 X 0.15

These figures are necessarily speculative, but serve to underline the increases in cutting speeds which are anticipated.
2.2

Definition of Machinability

The concept of 'machinability' of a given material takes on different meanings under various circumstances and a precise definition cannot be made. In the past, machinability ratings have been developed to describe the relative ease of difficulty of transforming a raw material into a finished product, based on tool life predictions*4). However any measure of machinability should relate to the minimum total cost required to produce a satisfactory part*5). Consequently, it is impossible to devise a single all-embracing test to evaluate 'machinability', since the concept is reliant upon costing information which will vary according to circumstance. An alternative approach is to generate scientific data on the response of a tool/workpiece combination to a wide range of machining conditions for a given operation and then determine 'machinability' by imposing selected 'acceptance criteria' on the information thus generated to determine the maximum acceptable rate of metal removal. The criteria may include constraints on rate of tool wear, surface finish, part size etc. to suit.
2.3

Metallurgy of Free Machining Steels

The objective underlying free machining steel design is to increase the ease with which metal can be removed by cutting operations. Increasingly, interactions between the tool and the workpiece must be considered in order to achieve optimum performance. However, enhancements in machining performance are often at the expense of mechanical properties. 2.3.1 Steel Matrix

The cutting behaviour of carbon and alloy steels is influenced by chemical composition, microstructure, quantity and type of inclusions and work hardening rate. In normalised ferritic/pearlitic steels, increasing carbon contents reduce tool lives rapidly, with chip formation changing from a flow mechanism to a shear mechanism*6). However, for steels containing less than 0.15% C, large built-up edges of material may develop on the tool rake face, leading to unpredictable machining characteristics*7). Reductions in strain hardening rates can induce lower tool wear, shorter chip lengths and a superior surface finish, and this can be promoted by cold work or increases in phosphorus or nitrogen levels. If quantities of hard second phases (e.g. bainite) are present instead of pearlite, the region of shear in front of the tool tip is restricted, leading to higher temperatures and lower feed forces*8). Quenched and tempered martensitic/bainitic structures exhibit inferior machining characteristics because of high hardness levels, although most medium carbon steels are machined in this condition*9).

12

Austenitic stainless steels are generally regarded as difficult to machine in comparison to low carbon ferrite/pearlite structures because of their high ductility, toughness, high work hardening rate and poor thermal conductivity*10). Consequently, tools tend to run hotter with a tendency to develop large built-up edges and the high work hardening rates can cause problems if feed rates are low or cutting is interrupted. 2.3.2 Effect of Inclusions

For a given matrix structure, one of the most popular methods of enhancing machining performance is to manipulate the nature and distribution of inclusions present within the steel. Inclusions can be broadly classified in terms of their influence on cutting behaviour as follows*11). 2.3.2.1 Detrimental (abrasive, hard): AI2O3, S1O2, Cr203, TiN etc. Favourable: MnS, MnSe, MnTe, Pb, Bi. Little or no effect: FeO, MnO, soft basic silicates. Sulphide Phases

One of the most common techniques for enhancing machining performance is to elevate the sulphur level, thereby increasing the volume of deformable MnS inclusions. Typically, the highest commercial S levels are ~-0.35%*12) and sulphur is the cheapest machinability additive*13). Additions are beneficial in several ways*14-15). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) The shearing work involved in chip formation is reduced. A strong lubricating effect occurs at the tool/chip interface. Chip embrittlement is promoted. Protective sulphide deposits form on carbide tools over a wide range of cutting speeds. Built-up edge stability is increased and size is reduced, resulting in improved surface finish.

Machinability is optimised by a uniform distribution of large globular sulphides, whose distribution is strongly influenced by casting and deoxidation practices*16). Additions of selenium and/or tellurium, which are virtually insoluble in steel, are also used. Both elements can substitute for sulphur to form mixed inclusions and their high surface activities lead to lower surface energies at matrix/sulphide interfaces, thereby encouraging microvoid formation and cracking. Tellurium may also reside as a thin film at interphased boundaries, thereby reducing resistance to shear still further*12). 2.3.2.2 Lead/Bismuth Additions

Although the solubility of lead in molten steel at 1550C is ~0.3%, it is virtually insoluble in the solid state and forms a random dispersion of inclusions in low sulphur steels*12). In resulphurised grades, lead additions also form 'tails' on MnS inclusions. Lead acts as an internal lubricant, reducing friction, promoting chip embrittlement, improving chip form and surface finish. However, at high cutting temperatures leaded steels begin to behave similarly to non-leaded variants. Under these conditions it has been suggested that lead becomes inefficient in the liquid state*17), but as rake face temperatures are generally in excess of the melting point of lead, this contention may be in some doubt. However lead can actively promote the beneficial globularisation of sulphides leading to enhanced machining performance*18). Additions beyond 0.35% are not normally feasible owing to segregation phenomena; however, the co-introduction of up to 0.10% Bi, which is closely related to lead, allows the

13

total insoluble phase content to be elevated further*19). If no lead is present, bismuth is normally present as tails to MnS inclusions and as a fine dispersion*12). 2.3.2.3 Oxide Modification

Inclusions of AI2O3 and S1O2 are believed to restrict shear and impede plastic flow in shear zones, thereby elevating cutting temperature and reducing tool life*19). Alumina is also likely to be abrasive to most cutting tools. One strategy involves the modification of these oxides to form complex silicate inclusions via small calcium additions, which can soften and behave in a similar manner to sulphides at the temperatures generated by carbide cutting tools at high speeds*16). Favourable phases include anorthite (CaO.Al 2 0 3 .2Si0 2 ) with a melting point of 1350C, and gehlenite (2CaO.Al 2 0 3 .Si0 2 ) with a slightly lower melting point. Good deoxidation practice is a prerequisite. In the case of tools containing a surface layers of TiC/N/(C, N), the plastic oxides form chffusion-inhibiting deposits on the tool, reducing thermal wear*18). However, in the case of alumina coatings, or for alumina-based ceramic tooling, calcium and silicon can diffuse into the tool tip, causing softening and degradation* 26 ). Therefore, ultimate machining performance is strongly dependent on interactions between the tool and workpiece at the cutting temperature generated. 2.4 Modern Tool Materials

In the field of single-point turning, the range of tools available is vast, with most materials being available in a wide range of indexable insert geometries which are selected to suit the desired operation. The most common materials include carbides, which consist principally of tungsten carbide embedded in a cobalt based matrix, coated carbides, in which single and multiple layers of TiN, TiC and AI2O3 are added to enhance wear and crater resistance allowing higher rates of metal removal, and cermets. This latter category consists of composite materials with high TiC contents in a nickel-based binder, resulting in very high thermal deformation resistances and hardnesses. Inserts made in these categories are usually offered in either 'plain' or 'chipbreaking' geometries; chipbreaking grooves are moulded into the rake faces allowing chip control and leading to reductions in cutting forces. Specialised chipbreaking geometries have been developed to suit particular workpiece materials, operations or tool grades*20). 2.4.1 2.4.1.1 Novel Tool Materials Alumina-Based Ceramics

Alumina tooling has been under development since the 1940's with the main objective of optimising thermomechanical properties. Three main categories have evolved; (i) (ii) (iii) AI2O3-T1C. Al 2 0 3 -Zr0 2 AI2O3 reinforced with SiC whiskers*21).

The aim of the modifications to the alumina matrix is to increase fracture toughness and thermal shock resistance, although this may be at the expense of ultimate hardness. Tools reinforced with SiC are generally restricted to the machining of superalloys owing to the high reactivity of SiC, particularly with ferrous workpieces. Alumina-based tools excel at high cutting speeds (>300 m/min) and cutting fluids are permissible in most instances. However as noted previously, chemical interactions limits their applicability with calcium-treated steels. Although some simple chipbreaking geometries have been demonstrated, these are not yet available on commercial inserts.

14

2.4.1.2

Silicon Nitride-Based Materials

Tooling based on silicon nitride has attracted great attention owing to a combination of excellent high temperature mechanical properties and resistance to oxidation and thermal shock*21). However, production problems have, until recently, limited availability. The thermal conductivity of S13N4 is approximately double that of AI2O3-T1C whilst the coefficient of thermal expansion is lower by a factor of 2, resulting in a much improved thermal shock resistance. A vast range of alloyed variants have been researched with common additives including AI2O3, A1N and S1O2. 2.4.1.3 Polycrystalline Cubic Boron Nitride

Following diamond, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride is the second hardest material known to man, and in contrast to diamond, it is thermally stable in air and in contact with ferrous workpieces* 22 '. Consequently, these tools have found favour in application where many identical operations are to be performed at a minimal rate of tool wear in order to ensure reproducibility, and also for the machining of ultrahard ferrous materials where other tool materials are inadequate. However, owing to the nature of the production route, the cost of PCBN inserts is higher by at least an order of magnitude than that of carbide tooling, and it is unlikely that such tools are competitive in the cutting of free machining steels. 3. 3.1 MATERIALS FOR EXAMINATION Steel Qualities

The steels were acquired for testing as forged 63 or 130 mm diameter bars, which were heat treated as appropriate to the quality. The three austenitic stainless steels at the 130 mm section - AISI 304, AISI 304 calcium treated, and AISI 303 resulphurised - were examined in the solution treated condition. The medium carbon engineering grades, 709M40 and 709M40 calcium treated, were examined in a 63 mm section in the oil quenched and tempered condition. The six low carbon variants- base, S, Pb, SPbBiTe, silicon killed and silicon killed calcium treated, were normalised prior to the machining tests. The bars were prepared for machining by skimming to remove all surface scale, with a final pass at a 1 mm depth of cut to avoid excessive surface hardening of the workpiece. The chemical compositions of the materials and material conditions are given in Tables 1 and 2. With the exception of the Si and SiCa low carbon free cutting steels, which were produced under vacuum as 1 tonne melts to ensure cleanness of a commercial quality, all of the materials were of production origin. The calcium treatment of the silicon killed low carbon free cutting steel was attempted by taping calcium metal to the sides of the ingot mould. 3.2 Tool Materials

Of the range of tool materials described above the following were selected as being of most relevance; Coated Carbides Cermets Alumina Based Ceramics Plain and Chipbreaking Geometries; Chipbreaking only; Plain Only.

The performance of S13N4 based ceramics was not regarded as sufficiently known to justify inclusion, and PCBN inserts were not considered to be competitive for free machining applications. The tool materials acquired are detailed in Table 3, together with their application within the project. All of the tools were 12 mm square inserts, 4 mm thick, with a 0.075 mm nose radius. The inserts were either plain or of the MF chipbreaker geometry to limit the range of tool geometry used.

15

4.

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS

Machinability data were obtained by long turning under standard conditions for each quality to a maximum distance cut of 5100 m. Tool forces were monitored using a 3-axis Kistler dynamometer with the output displayed on a portable microcomputer. The tool forces were logged immediately prior to interruption of the cut at 300 or 600 m intervals when surface finish and tool wear were determined. 4.1 4.1.1 Tool Wear Tests Austenitic Stainless Steel

Wear tests were conducted on the three qualities of austenitic stainless steel using the grades of tooling under investigation. A standard feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev was used at four cutting speeds (170, 260, 420, 650 m/min) with a 1 mm depth of cut and no coolant. Tool wear was monitored by the determination of flank wear at 300 or 600 m intervals, with determination of surface finish and tool force at the same intervals. The results are presented graphically in Figs. 1 - 1 2 which give the variation of flank wear, surface finish, feed force (x) and cutting force (z) for the various tool material combinations. The standard grade austenitic stainless steel caused rapid tool failure of all three tool grades at cutting speeds of 420 m/min, Figs. 1-3. At a cutting speed of 260 m/min tool failure was rapid on the ceramic tooling, and neither cermet nor coated carbide tool achieved the aim cutting distance of 5100 m, with tool failure at ~ 300 m for both tools. However, cutting forces were lower for the cermet tooling and surface finish better and more consistent; the surface finish with the coated carbide tooling deteriorated rapidly with increasing wear. At a cutting speed of 170 m/min, coated carbide tooling completed the aim cutting distance of 5100 m but flank wear measurements became large and could not be reliably determined, and surface finish deteriorated progressively. The cermet tool almost completed the full test distance at 170 m/min, with a better surface finish than the coated carbide and with similar tool forces. The ceramic tooling, even at 170 m/min, failed quickly. At a cutting speed of 260 m/min, all of the tools cut for 5100 m on the resulphurised austenitic stainless steel. Cermet and ceramic tooling performed for the full duration of the test at 420 m/min, but only the ceramic tooling was adequate at 650 m/min, Figs. 8-10. The surface finish obtained by cermet and ceramic tooling was quite uniform over the tests to 5100 m, but the finish obtained with the coated carbide tooling deteriorated after 3000 m, rising from 1.5 pm to 3.5 urn. The lowest feed and cutting forces were obtained with the cermet tooling, with coated carbide and ceramic tooling high and similar. The calcium-treated austenitic stainless steel could not be machined satisfactorily with the ceramic tooling at any of the three cutting speeds, with rapid flank wear and deteriorating surface finish on all tests followed by tool failure, Figs. 4-6. The coated carbide tooling also failed rapidly at 420 m/min, and at 260 m/min flank wear increased substantially throughout the test with the surface finish being poor and variable. Tool forces were similar to those obtained with the standard austenitic grade. At 170 m/min surface finish deteriorated very markedly with distance cut, with tool forces similar to those at 260 m/min. The cermet tool performed satisfactorily at 170 and 260 m/min, with low flank wear, good surface finish and lower cutting forces than for the coated carbide tooling. To widen the cutting conditions used, further tests were conducted on the austenitic stainless quality at cutting speeds of 260 and 420 m/min with feed rates of 0.31 and 0.50 mm/rev. The higher feed rate of 0.31 mm/rev at the lower cutting speed of 260 m/min is equivalent in metal removal rate to 420 m/min at 0.2 mm/rev and that of 0.5 mm/rev equivalent to 650 m/min at 0.2 mm/rev and to 420 m/min at 0.31 mm/rev. As shown by comparing Figs. 7 and 10, longer tool lives can be obtained by increasing the feed rate while maintaining metal removal rate, but at the expense of increased tool forces. The surface finish using the coated carbide tooling at the higher feed rates remained similar to some of the values obtained at 0.2 mm/rev due to nose wear removing the nose radius. With cermet tooling the results suggest a similar pattern, but with a deterioration in surface finish as the nose radius maintained

16

integrity despite the high feed rates. Using ceramic tooling all of the tests completed the 5100 m test length, with forces increasing with feed rate, but with erratic surface finish values obtained. 4.1.2 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steels (709M40)

The size of the bars restricted testing to a maximum cutting speed of 260 m/min. In the standard, calcium-free quality at this cutting speed only the ceramic (K060) cutting tool was capable of completing the full test, with both coated carbide and cermet tools failing at about one-third of the test distance. With the calcium-treated quality there was little difference in performance, with flank wear rates higher on the ceramic tool. With ceramic tools, cutting forces increased with tool wear but surface finish did not deteriorate. The surface finish obtained on the calcium-treated steel was inferior to that of the standard grade, Figs. 13 and 14. 4.1.3 4.1.3.1 Low Carbon Steels Carbon-Manganese

The plain carbon-manganese steel was tested at 260, 420 and 650 m/min using a feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev. Under these conditions, all of the tools completed the test distance of 5100 m at 260 and 420 m/min, but only the cermet tooling endured at 650 m/min, Figs. 15-17. On all of the tools, flank wear increased with cutting speed and distance cut. Surface finish was ~2-3 pm with all of the tools and conditions, with cutting forces also very similar for all conditions. 4.1.3.2 Low Carbon Balanced Free Cutting Steel

On the unleaded LCFCS, using plain geometry coated carbide tools, flank wear increased steadily with distance cut, but with little variation with cutting speed for either 260 or 420 m/min, Fig. 8. At the highest cutting speed used, 650 m/min, flank wear increased rapidly between 2000 and 3500 m of cut. The surface finish (between 2 and 3 pm) varied little with cutting speed, but also tended to increase with the distance cut. The measured tool forces did not show a consistent variation with cutting speed, but also tended to increase with cutting distance. Similar tests conducted using the coated carbide tool with a built-in chipbreaker, gave similar results, but the tool forces were ~50 N/mm lower, Fig. 19. At the lowest cutting speed of 260 m/min flank wear was higher than for the CMn steel, but substantially lower at the two higher cutting speeds. The flank wear on the cermet cutting tool increased with both cutting speed and distance cut, Fig. 20, as did surface roughness after the distance cut exceeded 4000 m and at the highest cutting speed. The cutting forces increased with distance cut, and were comparable to those obtained with the coated carbide. The tool wear tended to be slightly higher than that on the CMn steel, but with better surface finish. The ceramic cutting tool gave results similar to those obtained with the coated carbide tool, Fig. 21, but with a better surface finish at the high cutting speeds. The wear on the ceramic tooling tended to be lower than with the plain CMn steel. The use of higher feed rates, Figs. 22-24, showed reduced tool wear for similar metal removal rates, but surface finish deteriorated and tool forces increased. 4.1.3.3 Leaded Low Carbon Balanced Free Cutting Steel

The leaded free cutting steel generated flank wear on the plain coated carbide cutting tools similar to that of the unleaded grade at cutting speeds of 260 and 420 m/min, Fig. 25, but severe spike and nose wear occurred at 650 m/min, preventing satisfactory measurements of flank wear. The uneven tool wear led to a severe deterioration in surface finish after a cutting distance of 2000 m. At 260 m/min surface finish was similar to the unleaded grade, but at 420 m/min surface finish improved with cutting distance. At 260 m/min and 400 m/min the feed and cutting forces tended to be lower for the leaded free cutting steel than the unleaded grade, but at a 650 m/min, the heavy wear with the leaded steel resulted in higher tool forces.

17

With the cermet tooling, flank wear increased with both cutting speed and distance, Fig. 26, but at a lower rate than that on the unleaded steel. However surface finish on the leaded steel was generally inferior to that of the unleaded grade, especially at 420 m/min with surface finish ~3.5 pm compared with 1.5 pm. Both feed and cutting forces were slightly lower than for the unleaded steel when using the cermet tooling, with the lowest forces at 420 m/min. The flank wear on the ceramic tool was similar to that of the cermet tool, Fig. 27, increasing with both cutting speed and distance cut but at a lower rate than on the unleaded quality. The lowest cutting speed (260 m/min) exhibited the poorer overall surface finish 2.3 pm, slightly inferior to that of the unleaded steel. At the higher cutting speeds the leaded steel gave surface finish values of2 pm which were slightly inferior to the unleaded grade. With the ceramic tools the 420 m/min cutting speed gave the highest forces and the 260 m/min speed the lowest, though these were erratic. Overall, the leaded steel tended to produce slightly lower cutting forces than the unleaded grade. The use of increased feed rates of 0.31 and 0.5 mm/rev did not affect flank wear on coated carbide tools, Fig. 28. The surface finish deteriorated as would be anticipated, but at the highest feed rate the surface finish 8.5 pm was below the theoretical finish of 10 pm. The increased feed rates resulted in more erratic cutting forces but only the 0.5 mm/rev feed rate produced a significant increase in cutting force. Using cermet cutting tools, flank wear was increased by both increased cutting speed and increased feed rate, with feed rate increasing both cutting forces and feed forces, Fig. 29. The ceramic tooling showed increased flank wear with increased feed rate, together with increased feed and cutting forces, Fig. 30. At a cutting speed of 260 m/min and a feed rate of 0.31 mm/rev the surface finish was consistently better than the value expected as a function of the nose radius and feed rate. 4.1.3.4 Lead-Bismuth-Tellurium Treated Low Carbon Balanced Free Cutting Steel

Using plain coated carbide inserts, flank wear increased most rapidly at the highest cutting speed, 650 m/min, with little difference in wear rate at 260 and 420 m/min, Fig. 31. The increased wear at the highest cutting speed led to a deterioration in surface finish. Cutting forces were relatively unaffected by variations in speed or tool wear. With cermet tools, wear increased with cutting speed, with significant differences between then speeds used, Fig. 32, but surface finish was not notably affected by the increased tool wear. Cutting forces were lower with the cermet tool, but varied little with speed. The ceramic cutting tool, K060, gave similar flank wear behaviour to the cermet tool, with cutting forces similar to those of the carbide tool, Fig. 33. The surface generated using all three tools varied little with cutting speed, but the ceramic cutting tool gave the best overall performance. 4.1.3.5 Silicon Killed Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel

Wear tests were conducted using similar conditions to other low carbon steel variants. All of the tooling completed the full test distance under all conditions, with a performance similar to the balanced 230M07 grade on the coated carbide and ceramic tools. The cermet tool generated lower wear and forces but poorer surface finish, Figs. 34-36. 4.1.3.6 Silicon Killed and Calcium Treated Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel

The silicon and calcium treated grade gave a broadly similar performance to the silicon killed equivalent, though flank wear tended to be lower on all of the cutting tools. 4.1.3.7 Tool Selection

The results of the wear tests and surface finish measurements suggest the following material/workpiece combinations for use in high speed finish machining operations:

18

Quality Austenitic Stainless AISI304 AISI 304Ca AISI303 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steel 709M40 709M40Ca Low Carbon CMn 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07 + S 230M07 + Si+Ca
4.2

Tool Type

Suitable Cutting Speed m/min

Cermet Cermet Ceramic

120 150 250

Cermet/Ceramic Cermet/Ceramic

250 250

Cermet Coated Carbide/Cermet/Ceramic Cermet/Ceramic Cermet/Ceramic Coated Carbide/Ceramic Coated Carbide/Ceramic

300 450 450 450 600 600

Machinability Model for Non-Orthogonal Cutting Conditions

The modification of the Merchant model to cater for non-orthogonal cutting conditions is given in Appendix 1. Machining tests were performed at a feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev, with a 3.0 mm depth of cut and cutting speeds ranging from 110-650 m/min for a helical distance cut of 150 m. Immediately prior to the end of the cut a record of tool forces was taken and a chip sample obtained. A new tool tip was used for each test, with tests conducted using coated carbide, cermet and ceramic tooling. The chip samples were mounted in cold setting resin. After polishing, selected cross sectional areas were determined using an image analyser (IBAS 2) to obtain values for use in the machinability model. 4.2.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels

Shear Angle The shear angle determined for the standard austenitic stainless grade (AISI 304) was 20-30 at the slower cutting speeds increasing to 25-35 at the higher cutting speeds, Fig. 40. Repeat testing to determine the significance of the anomaly apparent for the K060 cutting tool shows that the scatter in the data obtained was quite large. Calcium treatment did appear to affect shear angle, Fig. 41, but an increase in sulphur content raised the shear angle to 30/40, Fig. 42. Shear Stress Shear stresses were lowest for the resulphurised steel -500/700 N/mm 2 compared with -500/800 N/mm2 for the AISI 304 grades. Shear Strain Shear strain calculated for all of the steels were fairly similar - 2 . 5 , with the resulphurised steel tending to be the lowest.

19

Friction Coefficient The calculated coefficient of friction were in the range 0.3 - 0.4, with the cermet tool giving the lowest value for all of the austenitic stainless grades. 4.2.2 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steels

Shear Angle The values on both the calcium and standard 709M40 qualities were very similar at 35, Figs. 43 and 44. Shear Strain Shear strains were 2.4 for both grades. Shear Stress The shear stress for the steels was 700-800 N/mm 2 . Friction Coefficient The friction coefficients obtained, unlike the other parameters, were significantly different, ranging from 0.25for the cermet tool to 0.35 for the coated carbide, and 0.45 for the ceramic. These results were similar for both steel types. 4.2.3 Low Carbon Steels

Shear Angle On the CMn steel, the shear angle tended to increase with cutting speed increasing from 10-15 to 20 at 650 m/min, Fig. 45. The resulphurised 230M07 steel had a higher range of shear angle increasing from 13-20 at 110 m/min to 19-25 at 650 m/min, Fig. 46, with generally similar results for the leaded and lead-bismuth-tellurium variants, Figs. 47 and 48. The silicon killed LCFCS showed a similar shear angle, Fig. 49, with a wider scatter on the calcium treated variant, but shear angles of the same magnitude, Fig. 50. A repeat test on the resulphurised steel suggested results on the low carbon steel could be more reproducible than those on the austenitic grades. Shear Strain The shear strains determined on the CMn steel were quite variable ranging from 4.5 to 6.3 at the lower speeds generally decreasing to 3.2 at 650 m/min. On the resulphurised quality shear strains were lower, decreasing from 3.3-4.6 to 2.8-3.4 at the higher speeds, with shear strains of similar magnitude on the other low carbon steel. Shear Stress Shear stresses were similar on all of the low carbon variants at 500 N/mm 2 , showing little variation with cutting speed. Friction Coefficient The friction coefficients determined for the CMn steel decreased with increased cutting speed from -0.48/0.58 to 0.28/0.48 at 650 m/min. The friction coefficients tended to be lower for the free cutting steels with 0.35-0.45 at a cutting speed of 110 m/min and 0.15-0.37 at 650 m/min. The cermet cutting tools gave the lowest friction coefficients, especially with two silicon killed free cutting steels.

20

4.3

Scanning Electron Microscopy

Selected tools used to perform both short and long term machining tests on some of the qualities were examined for wear and deposits. 4.3.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels

For the AISI 304 steel, only short term tests at 260 m/min were examined as the majority of the tests ended in tool failure. Workpiece material was observed adhering to all three tool types especially to the chipbreaker, and to the nose of the ceramic tool. Severe damage to the coating was occurring even after short times on the coated carbide, with the coating being peeled from the cutting edge to reveal the carbide substrate. Similar damage occurred with the AISI 304Ca steel after a much longer cutting time, Fig. 51(a). No deposits of manganese sulphide were found on the coated carbide tools with either of the AISI 304 qualities. On the cermet cutting tool no massive deposits of workpiece material were observed with the AISI 304Ca steel, with only thin layers of adherent workpiece material present, together with traces of manganese sulphide. With the ceramic tooling all the tests terminated quite rapidly, with workpiece material adhering to the tools, and the catastrophic nature of the failures made evaluation difficult. However, on a test with a K090 ceramic tool, failure was limited to the nose area and the adherent workpiece deposits and nature of the tool wear could be examined, Fig. 51(b), revealing a deeply grooved flank face, with grooves containing significant amounts of calcium as well as silicon and aluminium. With the AISI 303 steel, workpiece material was observed adhering to areas of the tool where the coating has been badly worn, such as the flank wear band, Fig. 51(c). Across the rake face a layer of manganese sulphide thick enough to prevent detection of the underlying tool material was observed. The sulphide layer displayed a pattern of cracking suggestive of contraction of a solidifying layer during cooling after cutting. On the cermet tool a similar layer of sulphide was observed on the rake face, Fig. 52(a), with no significant workpiece material deposits present. The ceramic tool, Fig. 52(b), also had no significant workpiece material deposits, and although a thin layer of MnS was present across the rake face there was no crazing of the layer. The flank wear was very uniform with a pattern of small vertical grooves. 4.3.2 Low Carbon Steels

At 260 m/min there was very little wear or deposits present on any of the tools, and only the standard 230M07 and the calcium-silicon-killed 230M07 steels were examined in any detail after 5100 m of cut. On the 230M07 steel, both cermet and coated carbide cutting tools were free of deposits of either workpiece material or manganese sulphide. The ceramic tool had developed numerous shallow grooves along the flank wear band and there was a thin smear of manganese sulphide over the bevel of the ceramic cutting tool edge. The silicon killed calcium treated 230M07 steel showed little tool wear on the coated carbide tool, and there was a crazed layer of manganese sulphide, similar to that illustrated for the AISI 303 steel, covering the rake face of tool. 'Fingers' of sulphide extending across the tool from the general area of chip contact, Fig. 52(c), were thick enough to prevent detection of the underlying tool coating. On the flank face, a layer of iron was observed adhering to the tool where the outer TiN layer had worn away. On the cermet cutting tool there was no general covering of manganese sulphide, and where sulphide was detected it was insufficient to prevent detection of the underlying tool material. In contrast, the ceramic (K060) cutting tool had a coherent layer of manganese sulphide sufficient to prevent detection of the underlying aluminium, and behind the cutting area deposits rich in calcium, silicon, and aluminium were observed. 4.4 Tool Life Tests - Uncoated Carbide Tooling

To provide a link with more conventional data, cutting tool wear tests were conducted on the 130 mm diameter low carbon steel bars using SPGN120308 ES30 (P30) uncoated carbide tooling with lubrication

21

using a 0.25 mm/rev feed rate and 2.5 mm depth of cut as per IS03865:1977 condition B. The flank wear curves and crater depth wear curves, Figs. 54-59 were used to determine the times to a flank wear criterion of 300 pm, and crater depth wear criterion of 100 pm. These values are shown as Taylor plots in Figs. 60 and 61 to obtain 15 min tool lives for each criterion. Flank wear results on the CMn steel were quite scattered, with poor tool lives from the inner regions of the bar, Fig. 60. Overall the Vi 5 value was -186 m/min. The 230M07,230M07Pb and 230M07PbBiTe qualities all gave similar results within a range of 250-266 for the V15 value. The silicon-killed steels gave a substantially higher values at 511/513 m/min. The crater depth wear criterion, Fig. 61, shows the 230M07, 230M07Pb and 230M07PbBiTe steels to form a similar group as for the flank wear criterion, but the slopes of the CMn, and silicon killed steel curves were steeper, with the calcium treated steel having the least crater wear. Although few of the tests on the CMn steel attained the 100 pm criterion, the steep slope of the curve has been inferred from the data shown in Fig. 54(b). 4.5 Tool Temperature Measurements

The tool/workpiece temperatures were determined using the experimental arrangement described in Appendix 2, using uncoated carbide cutting tools and cermet cutting tools. 4.5.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels

Tool temperatures were determined on the stainless grades using a feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev and a depth of cut of 1 mm with carbide cutting tools. A new tool tip was used for each test and the emf recorded as soon as a steady state was achieved. There was little difference between the three grades with temperatures ~500C for a cutting speed of 110 m/min, rising to ~900C at 420 m/min, Fig. 62. 4.5.2 Low Carbon Steels

Cutting temperatures were determined on all of the low carbon grades, Fig. 63. The lowest cutting temperature of 330C at 110 m/min was the 230M07PbBiTe steel, and this gave consistently lower cutting temperatures than all of the other resulphurised steels, rising to 700C at 420 m/min. The other resulphurised steels all performed similarly, with cutting temperatures increasing from 500C at 110 m/min to 800C at 420 m/min. The plain CMn steel gave the lowest temperatures at cutting speeds in the range 260 - 420 m/min. Four of the steels were tested with a cermet tool, Fig. 64. The tool temperatures obtained on the plain CMn, 230M07PbBiTe, and silicon killed free cutting steels were similar in rank order to those obtained with the carbide tooling, and also very similar in terms of absolute cutting temperature obtained, Fig. 64. 4.6 Chip Form

The chip form and colour observed in the wear tests is summarised in Table 4. The temper colours cannot be treated as an absolute measure of temperature as the oxidation layers in chips are generated in very rapid heating and are also in influenced by alloy content. However, the relative temperatures denoted can be used on a comparative basis, with temperatures increasing from silver-gold-purple-blue-grey. 4.6.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels

The AISI 304 steel produced a well broken chip form in most of the tests using chipbreaker tools, with signs of heating of the chip towards the end of some tests shown by the occurrence of gold/purple oxidation colours. At 170 m/min using the coated carbide tool chip breakup was poor with some snarled ribbon and helical chips. With the ceramic tool the absence of a chipbreaker led to the occurrence of snarled ribbon chips. Snarled ribbon chips were not observed in any of the tests on the AISI 304 steel, and oxidation of chips was less than evident in the base AISI 304 grade.

22

The resulphurised AISI 303 steel had loose chips in all of the tests, with chip localisation severe at the highest cutting spaces, resulting in fine fragmentation of some chips, Fig. 53. This phenomenon was most pronounced for the ceramic tools. 4.6.2 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steels

Chip breakup was good when controlled by the chipbreaker geometries, but snarled ribbon chips were produced with the ceramic tools. 4.6.3 Low Carbon Steels

The plain CMn steel was machined using a chipbreaker geometry for the coated carbide as snarled ribbon chips from plain tooling gave difficulty in cutting. Chip colours indicated that the cermet tools produced hotter chips that the coated carbide tooling. The ceramic tooling gave some problems with snarled ribbon chips at 420 and 650 m/min, but at 260 m/min a well broken helical form was produced. The standard 230M07 resulphurised grade gave no swarf breakup problems with any tool, and the comparison of plain and chipbreaker tools showed the latter to be associated with a small reduction in chip temperature. The leaded resulphurised steel showed less oxidation of the chips for all tool grades, with heavily oxidised blue chips only evident at the highest cutting speed on the ceramic cutting tool. The resulphurised Pb-Bi-Te free cutting steel showed a similar chip form and colour to the leaded grade, with some indications in chip colour that the swarf may have been slightly cooler. The silicon killed low carbon free cutting steel gave swarf breakup problems with the plain carbide geometry so tests were conducted using the MF chipbreaker geometry. The consistent silver colour of the chips showed chip temperatures to be comparable or lower than for the balanced steels, with only the ceramic tool producing heavily oxidised swarf. The calcium treated silicon killed steels also produced chips with little oxidation, and comparison of the chips produced by the ceramic tooling suggested lower chip temperatures than experienced with the silicon killed grade. The tests using P30 uncoated carbide tooling showed a range of chip form and colour. The CMn and 230M07 steels both gave blue or blue/purple chips showing that the swarf temperature of these grades was hotter than that of the leaded and resulphurised silicon treated variants, which had chips which were smaller and more broken, with gold the predominant colour suggestive of a reduced amount of oxidation. 4.7 Metallography and Automatic Image Analysis

Longitudinal sections were taken from one bar of each quality for the assessment of hardness and inclusion size by automatic image analysis. Each sample was assessed for inclusions categorised into four types :Free oxide Free sulphide h Isolated/non-touching inclusions Associated oxide - an oxide inclusion in contact with or encapsulated by a sulphide inclusion. Associated sulphide - sulphide inclusion in contact with an oxide inclusion.

23

4.7.1

Austenitic Stainless Steel

The polished metallographic specimens were scanned in a single block of 100 fields using a magnification of 500 X over an area of 1.46 mm 2 . The oxide area was the highest in the AISI 304 steel, Table 5, with inclusions more numerous but smaller in the resulphurised quality. Sulphide areas observed related to the sulphur content of the steels, with the AISI 304Ca having a sulphide area 5X that of the AISI 304 grade and the AISI 303 being 7 X higher again. 4.7.2 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steels

The calcium-treated quality had an oxide content 5 X that of the calcium-free variant, with the oxide in the calcium treated steel associated with the sulphide. Despite the high oxide volume most of the sulphide within the steel was not associated with oxide but present as elongated inclusions. 4.7.3 Low Carbon Steels

The CMn steel was characterised by a high globular oxide inclusion content, which increased in size towards the centre of the bar, Fig. 65. The silicon killed free cutting steel variants were both quite clean, with relatively few oxide inclusions compared with the balanced free cutting steels which contained substantial volumes of ductile manganese silicates, with highest frequencies in the leaded and lead-bismuth-tellurium variants. The bulk of these silicates was present in association with sulphides, often occurring as inclusion tails. The sulphide morphology of selected grades is illustrated in Fig. 66. In the austenitic stainless steels the sulphides were quite globular, with the pattern of sulphides in the AISI 304Ca variant showing evidence of the as cast structure, Fig. 66(b). The medium carbon engineering steels had very fine elongated sulphides. In the low carbon steels, the killed variants both had elongated sulphides, but the sulphides in the balanced steels were much more globular, with the tellurium treated variant showing the least deformed inclusions of the resulphurised grades. 4.8 4.8.1 Mechanical Properties Ambient

The room temperature mechanical properties of all of the steels were determined on the remains of bars used for the machining tests. In austenitic stainless grades, the resulphurised AISI 303 quality had the lowest ductility and highest tensile strength, Table 6. The yield strengths of the three steels were in the range 194-250 N/mm 2 , with the calcium-treated grade having the highest yield strength. The medium carbon low alloy steels were similar in ductility, but the calcium-treated steel had a significantly lower strength. Of the low carbon resulphurised grades, the Pb-Bi-Te quality had the lowest yield strength, and both silicon treated steels had higher strengths and greater ductility. The CMn steel was similar in strength to the resulphurised grades but had a much greater ductility. 4.8.2 Elevated Temperature

Stress-strain-temperature curves were determined by compression testing on 15 X 10 mm diameter cylindrical compression specimens machined from material of the AISI 304 and 230M07 steels. Samples were heated to various initial temperatures between ambient and 700C and subject to compression testing as described previously*24). The compression forces, temperatures and displacements were monitored throughout the test and recorded on a microcomputer. The data was used to define the stress-strain-temperature surface assuming a constitutive relationship of the form: = exp ( A ^ + A 2 2 + A 3 T3)

24

The curves are shown in Figs. 67 and 68. Superimposed on these curves are the instability loci when the rate of work hardening corresponds to the rate of thermal softening. The adiabatic straining locus was also superimposed on the curves to define the adiabatic, thermally aided instability strain, at the intersection with the instability locus. The shear stresses and strains for metal cutting were defined for various speeds using shear stresses determined from the cutting forces obtained by the modified Merchant model and shear strains calculated from the chip thickness. The data were transformed to axial stresses and strains and are recorded in Table 7, together with temperatures determined on the plain carbide inserts. 4.9 Tool Vibration

A subsidiary aim of the project was to assess the significance of vibration in single point machinability tests and to determine whether it is responsible for the poor reproducibility of such tests. Trials were therefore arranged in which the major machining parameters (cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate) were fixed but tool geometry was varied in order to provide different vibration regimes. A description of the accelerometer and its associated instrumentation is given in Appendix 3. All of the tests were performed on Type 304 stainless steel. The tool geometry was varied by changing the distance the tool holder projected from the clamping arrangement. This distance was referred to as the 'overhanging length' and was measured from the cutting tip of the tool to the point where the tool holder entered the clamp. Two overhang lengths were used in the trial, i.e. 43 mm and 95 mm. The latter value was excessive in relationship to the cross section of the tool holder (25 mm square) and prevented the normal tool post arrangement from being used. A new clamp was therefore built specifically for this trial. The following parameters were constant throughout the trial for all three tool types: 1. 2. 3. Cutting speed:- 260 m/min Feed rate:- 0.2 mm/rev Depth of cut:- 1mm

Test were performed using the three different types of tool tip adopted in the rest of this project. Surface finish and flank wear measurements were made after a cutting distance of 300 m. The tip's cutting corner and the tool holder overhang position were then returned to their former positions and the process repeated. This continued until a catastrophic tool failure occurred (i.e. the tip broke) or some other event occurred that would in practice result in a tool change. An accelerometer was screwed into the underside of the tool holder to measure vibration. The purpose of the accelerometer was twofold: 1. 2. To verify that changing the overhanging length of the tool holder altered its vibration characteristics. To monitor any changes in the vibration of the tool holder as the test progressed

Each tip type was tested twice; a total of six tests were therefore performed. The first three tests were performed on the coated carbide tip, the cermet tip and ceramic tip respectively. This sequence was repeated for the final three tests.

25

4.9.1

Surface Finish

The coated carbide results, suggested that the CLA measurements were similarly erratic for both tool holder positions, although in the second test, there was a slight indication that the surface finish was worse with the tool holder in the 43 mm overhang position. The CLA results for cermet tips, were much more consistent. However, it was again difficult to discern any significant difference in the CLA values caused by changing the tool overhang position. The first test on the ceramic tool tip was more successful. It indicated that the CLA results were of similar order for both overhang positions, although the initial performance was somewhat better when the 43 mm tool overhang position was used. 4.9.2 Flank Wear

In the first test, on coated carbide tools, the flank wear measurements for both tool holder positions were almost identical. However, in the repeat test, there was an indication that the flank wear was reduced for the shorter tool overhang distance. The flank wear measurements for the cermet tips, were virtually identical, irrespective of the tool holder position. The results from the first tests on the ceramic tip again suggested that the tool overhang length had little effect on the flank wear. Unfortunately there are too few data from the repeat test to corroborate this finding. 4.9.3 Vibration

A typical Fourier transform of the accelerometer measurements is shown in Fig. 69. Chatter only occurred with the coated carbide tips and then only when the greatest tool overhang position was used. Fourier transform clearly demonstrated resonant behaviour in these cases with an initial peak at 1.4 kHz of the order 40 m/s2 when the tip was new but this increased to over 4000 m/s 2 at the end of the test when the tip was worn. The magnitude of the tool holder's vibration also increased when the shorter overhang distance was used but its magnitude only increased from 150 m/s 2 to 550 m/s 2 , and chatter did not occur. 4.9.4 Ultimate Failure Modes

The individual tests were ended by a variety of different failure modes. These are catalogued in Table 7. None of the tools failed catastrophically during the tests on the coated carbide tips. The tests were eventually halted because there seemed little point in continuing them after so much flank wear had occurred. Consequently these particular tests did not determine whether catastrophic tool failure was possible. Catastrophic tool failure occurred in three out of the four tests on the cermet tips, the exception being for one of the tests with the tool holder in its 43 mm overhang position. The corner of the tips chipped off after cutting distance of 2700 m and 2400 m when the tool holder was in its 95 mm overhang position and after 2100 m when it was in the 43 mm overhang position. Thus if the performances of the tool holder positions are ranked in terms of the tips' resistance to fracture it can be seen that the 43 mm position occupies the first last position. This suggests that the tool holder position has little effect on this mode of failure, although the evidence is rather limited. All the ceramic tips failed catastrophically but unlike the cermet tips, the entire edge chipped off rather than just the corner. This behaviour resulted in both of the tip's corners being removed when the first ceramic tip failed (Test 3). Separate tips were therefore used in the repeat tests to avoid a recurrence of this behaviour. They failed after cutting distances of 1500 m and 900 m for the 43 mm and 95 mm overhang position respectively. This limited evidence suggests that the vibration regime associated with the 95 mm tool overhang decreased tool life.

26

5.

DISCUSSION

The advances made in cutting tool technology have enabled machinists to contemplate the use of higher cutting speeds as the tool materials are capable of withstanding the higher temperatures generated. The differing tool types examined in this work may show a variety of responses to the differing iron matrices being cut, whether austenitic, martensitic, or ferritic. It is conceivable that steels may need to be developed which perform advantageously under these conditions. In selecting the appropriate tool for machining, the machinist must have regard for its performance in a number of aspects, of which tool life and surface finish are important features. 5.1 Austenitic Stainless Steel

The cermet cutting tools produced the most satisfactory performance with the two AISI 304 grades, achieving the lowest tool wear and tool force, together with the better overall surface finish. The workpiece was less adherent to those tools, and the SEM examination conducted suggests that this feature is the controlling factor of the machining of stainless steel under the cutting conditions used. The adherence of the workpiece material was particularly marked on the coated carbide tools, and it would seem that this tooling is vulnerable to damage by peeling of the coated layers, with workpiece material then adhering very strongly to the exposed carbide tool. Although one of the steels was calcium treated to modify the inclusions it is more likely that differences in wear between the two 304 qualities was due to the difference in sulphide content, with the AISI 304Ca quality having 5 X the volume of manganese sulphide inclusions as the base AISI 304 quality. No layers of calcium bearing inclusions were observed on any of the cutting tools. The differences in chip form, with snarled ribbon chips evident in lower sulphur steels can also be attributed to differences in sulphide volume, resulting in inherently poor chipbreaking. The examination of the ceramic tools used to cut the AISI 304Ca steel strongly indicated evidence of chemical attack, with the calcium probably reacting with the alumina of the tool, so that these tools had an even shorter tool life than with the base 304 steel, offsetting the potential benefits of the increased sulphide volume. With the resulphurised austenitic stainless steel the ceramic cutting tool gave the better tool lives, with no significant material deposits adhering to the cutting edge, and surface finish was much better than with coated carbide, reflecting the poor performances of this tool due to adherent deposits, Fig. 70. The cermet cutting tool also showed little tendency for workpiece material to adhere strongly, and this was reflected in the lowest forces with this tool type. The modified Merchant model used did show the advantage of sulphurisation in reducing shear stress, shear strain and friction, but the scatter on the data was high, principally due to difficulties in assessing the area of chips which suffered from considerable distortion and fragmentation. The trends for shear localisation are well illustrated by the chip form of the resulphurised grade. The degree of segmentation is increased by cutting speed and was most prevalent with alumina tools and least with the cermet tooling. Such segmentation is caused by localisation of the shear in the chip, and the effect of tool type would be associated with the efficiency with which the tool conducts heat from the cutting zone. As the thermal conductivity of alumina tools is substantially lower than cermet tools, which have a metallic matrix, a greater proportion of heat will remain in the chip, thus increasing the rate of thermal softening. In these circumstances the Merchant model is invalid, and while the results obtained using the modified model do show some general trends, the difficulties encountered suggest that the model is not an appropriate one for use with austenitic stainless steels. Any model devised will need to take into account the localisation of shear due to the development of critical strain instability. The experiment aimed at using higher feed rates showed that this technique can be used to reduce wear, but surface finish, which depends principally on feed rate and nose radius, deteriorates unless a tool with a reduced nose radius is used. However, this would increase the risk of severe nose wear and on the basis of these results would not be practical with coated carbides. In these tests the cermet tool did maintain its

27

integrity but this tool type can be liable to brittle fractures*20). However, under finishing conditions the lower toughness of cermet tools compared with coated carbides should not be critical. The reasons for the reduced adherence of the austenitic stainless grade to cermet materials are not immediately apparent, and further research work needs to be conducted on this topic. For intermediate and roughing cuts cermets could be unsuitable, and the benefits of the tougher coated carbide is required. However, some consideration should be given to the development of a carbide cutting tool with a cermet-type coating or similar so that the benefits of these tool types may be combined. 5.2 Medium Carbon Low Alloy Steel

The wear tests which were conducted on the medium carbon engineering grades did not produce surface finish values close to the theoretical value anticipated by the combination of nose radius and feed rate. In respect of tool wear and tool force there was little difference between the standard and calcium-treated grades, despite the lower strength of the latter. The surface finish of the calcium-treated steel was poorer than that of the standard grade, possibly due to its lower strength and higher ductility. The ceramic tools showed the lowest wear, but the cermet tools exhibited the lowest cutting forces, though part of this difference would be a feature of the differing tool tip geometries. The results obtained using the modified Merchant model also showed no differences between the grades other than the friction measurements which indicated the cermet tool to have the lowest friction and the ceramic the highest. Although the calcium-treated steel did have a higher oxide content, which is usually the case for such steels, the low product calcium observed could be suggestive of partial rather than full inclusion modification practice. On this basis it would be unwise to draw too many generalised conclusions on the relative merits of calcium-treated and non-calcium-treated steels from this data. 5.3 Low Carbon Steels

In terms of tool wear, the best composition was the calcium-treated, silicon killed free cutting steel, with all of the other low carbon compositions, including the CMn steel, having similar wear responses, with some minor variations e.g. at high cutting speeds the coated carbide tool suffered severe nose wear with the leaded free cutting steel. In respect of surface finish, the standard balanced free cutting steel was better than the CMn steel but no further advantages were noted with the leaded and tellurium treated grades. The surface finish data suggest that when using advanced cutting tools leaded and premium grades of free cutting steels do not offer any advantages, but resulphurisation does retain some benefits, talysurf profiles for the K060 tooling at 260 m/min does suggest that lead does contribute to a more regular surface finish even at high cutting speeds, Fig. 71. The calcium treated silicon killed low carbon free cutting steel was the only variant showing a positive response to tool wear when compared with the plain CMn steel. This response was also confirmed by the cooler chip colour of these steels and appears to be associated with the tendency of this steel to form sulphide deposits on both coated carbide and ceramic cutting tools. The oxide inclusions present also had a tendency to adhere to the ceramic tool. Despite a wide variation in steel cleanness over the range of low carbon steels tested the tool wear did not appear to be affected, suggesting that the inclusion species present did not have sufficient hardness difference compared with the tool to produce significant abrasion. Although the CMn steel did produce a good performance compared with free cutting grades, it should be noted that on the coated carbide tooling a chipbreaker was used rather than a plain insert, as the use of the latter resulted in poor chipbreaking so that swarf was a considerable problem. The results on the uncoated carbide tools using IS03685 standard testing techniques did show up significant differences between the low carbon steels. A difference in performance between the interior and surface of the bar of the CMn steel suggests that abrasion effects, which were of no significance with the coated carbide, were detrimental to the uncoated tool. The balanced free cutting steels all gave similar results, suggesting a similar wear behaviour between unleaded, leaded and lead-bismuth tellurium variants, and that under the conditions used in this project the presence of lead has a limited benefit to tool life. These results confirm the findings of Mills and Ahktar*17). The difference in wear behaviour between silicon killed and balanced free cutting steels suggests a different wear mechanism dependent on the level

28

of deoxidation, including the low sulphur steel, which would in itself be worthy of further study. It is possible that a current ECSC*27) project being conducted by Unimetal will elucidate this aspect of material performance. The measured tool temperatures with cermet and carbide cutting tools were very similar for corresponding test on similar qualities, indicative of tool temperature being generated almost wholly by deformation of the workpiece material rather than by interaction between workpiece and tool. The most notable differences between the qualities was for the CMn steels, which gave the lowest overall cutting temperatures, and the lead-bismuth-tellurium steel which produced the second lowest temperatures. The increase in cutting temperature can be calculated from a simple shear strain model: = where Y c

11
pc Cutting temperature increase Shear flow stress Shear strain Density Heat capacity

= = = = =

Calculations based on this relationship using the modified Merchant model data suggest cutting temperatures ~620C for the CMn steel, - 500C for the silicon killed LCFCS and ~460C for the SPbBiTe free cutting steel at a cutting speed of 420 m/min. The calculated temperatures for the resulphurised steels are at variance with the measured temperatures which were 300C higher. The reduced temperature of the PbBiTe steel compared to the other resulphurised steels can be attributed to a lower shear stress, but the higher shear strain of the CMn quality should have produced the highest measured temperature, not the lowest as observed. The significance of the tool temperature measured by the tool-work thermocouple technique is always subject to some doubt due to the steep temperature gradient that exist across the secondary shear zone*6). The chip colour temperatures do suggest that the CMn did machine hotter, as would be expected from the Merchant model data, so the temperatures determined on the CMn steel, and also on the resulphurised 230M07 quality appear to be in error. It can be postulated that this difference will be due to differences in flow behaviour at the secondary shear zone and the area of contact of chip and tool, but this aspect requires further examination. It is imperative for any model of the machining behaviour that the temperature distribution within the material is known so that flow stress-strain behaviour can be utilised. These data show that the temperatures measured by the workpiece/tool thermocouple method are not sufficiently reliable to use in such circumstances. It is possible that they could be used in conjunction with other methods of chip temperature determination to give estimates of the temperatures involved. The low cutting temperature observed on the CMn steel does suggest that such a tool would have a reduced level of crater wear by diffusion, and the tool life criterion for crater wear does suggest a difference in behaviour at cutting speeds 200-250 m/min when compared with resulphurised steels. However, investigation of the wear characteristics of the P30 tooling was not within the remit of this project. With such a wide range of microstructure employed it is difficult to obtain direct comparisons under similar cutting conditions, whilst at the same time considering the differing aspects of machinability for each tool/workpiece combination. One possible technique is that of multiaxis diagrams, and these have been generated for all of the qualities under the cutting conditions of 260 m/min cutting speed and a 0.2 mm/rev feed rate, Figs. 72 - 77. Figure 72 shows clearly the advantages of the resulphurised austenitic grade with coated carbide tooling, with increased sulphur levels improving all three machinability parameters. Under these conditions the medium carbon low alloy steel provided no relevant data as the tool life was too short. All of the low carbon variants gave a similar performance in respect of cutting force, Fig. 73, but considerable variation is apparent on the other two machinability parameters, with the silicon killed, calcium, treated steel in particular having the lowest flank wear but poorest surface finish. Comparison of Figs. 72 and 73 shows that under these cutting conditions the AISI 303 austenitic stainless steel is actually performing in a very similar manner to the low carbon resulphurised grades.

29

With the cermet cutting tools, Figs. 74 and 75, it is possible to compare the performance of the austenitic stainless grade with the medium carbon low alloy steel. Under these conditions the higher hardness of the low alloy steels outweighs the well known difficulties in machining the ductile austenitic stainless grades. At the cutting speeds employed there is only a limited range in cutting force over the whole range of qualities examined, as seen by comparing these two figures, and considerable overlap in the surface finish and tool wear values obtained. On ceramic tools there again seems to be little difference in performance between the resulphurised austenitic stainless grade and some of the low carbon free cutting steels, and with the austenitic stainless grade performing in a better manner than the two low alloy steels, Figs. 76 and 77. The calcium treated engineering steel has the poorest performance, (even though it has a lower strength than the standard 709M40 steel), and this is comparable to the CMn steel which performs poorly with this tooling under these conditions. The similarities between the resulphurised steels, whether ferritic or austenitic implies that under these cutting conditions the inclusion volume controls the machinability of the austenitic grade, rather than the work hardening characteristics of the material. To facilitate the comparison of the three types of material, the results for the calcium variants on cermet tools have been plotted on a single diagram as Fig. 78. 5.4 Mechanical Modelling

It has been proposed that the machining cutting mechanisms occurs by plane strain fracture at an adiabatic thermally aided shear band*25). Since the current work has enabled the stress and strain in metal cutting to be measured at the operating temperature defined by the cutting speed, it should be feasible to define the instability point. Previous work has enabled the instability locus to be defined from the stress-strain-temperature surface obtained from compression tests*24*. If a correspondence can be defined between the stress-strain-temperature relationship instability locus and that from independent compression testing, then it may be concluded that the cutting mechanism would be dependent on the factors controlling the thermally aided instability strains i.e. the work hardening rate and the rate of change of flow strength with temperature, in the operating range. Since limited data were available from the metal cutting tests, the constitutive relationship from the compression tests was used to predict the equivalent axial stress at the measured cutting temperatures and strains. Table 7 shows the calculated stresses for compression testing for comparison with the metal cutting stresses. No direct correlation exists which would suggest that there is either an incorrect assumption in the comparison or there are errors in the measurement of the stress, strain and/or temperature. The compression stress-strain-temperature surface has several limitations in this comparison. Since the sample temperature must be limited to prevent phase transformations, the data has been extrapolated for comparisons and this is probably incorrect. Furthermore, although the instability locus is independent of speed, it is feasible that there are dynamic metallurgical reactions occurring in the metal cutting zone that were not reproduced in the compression testing. The metal cutting temperatures in Table 7 were determined from the thermocouple measurements. It has been assumed that this temperature reflects the temperature operating at the tool tip interface. However, the temperatures were significantly greater than those corresponding to the stresses and strains in the compression test. This may be due to a thermocouple junction occurring at the secondary shear zone on the face of the tool, if the cutting fracture occurs ahead of the tool nose so that it is no longer in contact. This may be assessed by a more detailed analytic model of the metal cutting using finite element analysis. The limited data obtained from metal cutting showed no evidence of a conventional work hardening curve. Although the results occur from different cutting speeds and therefore temperatures, this lack of correlation would not have been expected. Consequently, no conclusion can be drawn from this comparison without a more detailed generation of the stress-strain relationship in cutting. The cutting stresses and strains have been calculated with the simple Merchant model that assumes the strain energy is dissipated over the small material volume defined by the single shear plane. However, work hardening

30

materials, such as stainless steel, would have an extended shear zone which would dissipate the strain energy over a larger material volume. The qualitative comparison of the instability strain, which has been reported as the mechanism for serrated chip formation, did not relate to the experimental observations. The stainless chips which were generally serrated, occurred at strains less than the instability strain. This would suggest that the metal cutting model used in this work is not precise enough to define the strain accurately and separate the differences in cutting performance. 5.5 Vibration

The effect of vibration on machining response was determined by conducting machinability tests on Type 304 stainless steel bars using the three different types of tool (coated carbide, cermet and ceramic). The cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rate and workpiece material were kept constant throughout the tests but the tool holder position was varied in order to provide different vibration regimes. Machinability was initially assessed in terms of surface finish and flank wear on the tip. The test results suggested that neither of these factors were greatly affected by the vibration regimes used in the experiment, regardless of the tip type although slight differences were apparent. Chatter only occurred when the coated carbide tips were tested with the tool holder in the 95 mm overhang positions. Despite a hundredfold increase in the magnitude of vibration there was no evidence to suggest that this had a deleterious affect upon flank wear. However, chatter marks were apparent on the surface of bar. These marks would be unacceptable in situations where surface finish was important, thus in this case it could be held that vibration had a deleterious effect on machinability. However, in practice machinability tests for turning operations are performed on rigid machines to avoid this type of behaviour. The CLA surface finish values measured in the chatter and chatter-free regions of the bar were of a similar order, although there was a marked difference in their appearance. This observation prompted remeasurement of these values on the machined test pieces, but using a Talysurf 10, rather than the Surtronic 3P that was originally used for these measurements. The results are given in Table 4. They suggest that the original, measurements underestimated the differences in the CLA values, but this is believed to be a function of the operation of the equipment. However, it is anticipated that the findings concerned with the surface finish for the coated carbide and cermet tools (i.e. surface finish is independent of the tool overhang distance) would not change. In both these cases the magnitudes of the CLA values, relating to the respective tool holder positions, alternated. The situation for the ceramic tool was somewhat different in that the CLA values measured after each 300 m cut were always greater when the tool holder overhang was 95 mm. Thus, in this case, it is considered that the vibration regime associated with 95 mm tool overhang gives a worst surface finish than when carbide coated tools are used. Originally it was intended to assess machinability in terms of surface finish and flank wear, but as the tests progresses, and certain of the tool tips fractured, it became apparent that the cutting distance to tool fracture could also be recorded as measure of machinability. However, this could not be regarded as entirely satisfactory because only one or two tests were used to establish this parameter for each tip/tool holder combination and the results suggested that it could be rather variable. Thus the cutting distance to tool failure results should be treated with caution. Ideally, more of these tests should be performed to develop greater confidence in these results. Annular bands of swarf formed around the workpiece in certain of the tests with the cermet and ceramic tools. Although this is not normally recognised as a mode of failure it is though that if this occurred in practice it would necessitate changing the tip. Therefore the occurrence of this event has been registered in Table 3. However, the results do not indicate a significant difference for this type of behaviour with respect to the tool holder overhang positions. During the course of this work it became apparent that the factors used to assess machinability in the tests were either inherently difficult to measure (flank wear) or inherently variably (cutting distance to tip failure). It may be possible to develop better experimental techniques that measure certain factors more accurately, but this outcome is not guaranteed and would certainly be a time consuming process.

31

Furthermore, improved experimental techniques would not reveal more informative data from individual tests in cases where the machinability criterion is known to be inherently variable. Therefore it can be argued that numerous repeated tests should always be performed in order to determine the statistical variation on the machinability factor under consideration. If this were done it might be possible to determine if vibrational behaviour of a machine effects machinability with more confidence. At present it appears that much of the observed variation in machinability data arises from measurement problems and it is therefore difficult to determine the significance of vibration on machinability. 6. CONCLUSIONS

Although there are some interactions between tools and workpiece material the results show that cutting speed and the consequence of high cutting temperatures are the dominant effect in high speed machining. The tool life of uncoated tools with austenitic stainless steels may be reduced by metal adherence to coatings resulting in decohesion of the coating. This can also lead to a severe deterioration in surface finish. Cermet cutting tools have little tendency for adherence of austenitic stainless steel qualities, suggesting that this tool type is a suitable choice for high speed machining of these grades. The volume of manganese sulphide in austenitic stainless steels is critical and should be controlled to tight limits for consistency of machinability. Ceramic tooling should be the first choice for high speed finishing cuts of AISI 303 quality where practicable. The localisation of shear within chips formed during the machining of austenitic stainless steels may be sufficient to preclude estimated of material properties using a modified Merchant model where strain is assumed to be uniform. The presence of manganese sulphide has been confirmed to be beneficial in the machining of free cutting low carbon steels in respect of wear and surface finish with all cutting tool types. The use of metallic additives such as lead was not shown to be advantageous in respect to tool wear, but some small benefit in respect of surface finish was apparent, together with a small benefit in reduction of cutting temperature as indicated by chip colour. The lead additions also tended to give a tighter chip curl. Manganese sulphide present in steels deoxidised with silicon and calcium shows a marked tendency to adhere to both coated carbide and ceramic cutting tools, but with a reduced interaction with cermet tooling, reducing tool wear under high speed finishing conditions. Calcium and silicon treated low carbon free machining steel may be particularly well suited to finish machining operations where high cutting speeds are employed. The potential for silicon killed low carbon free cutting steels with advanced tools is probably restricted in practice by the capability of machines to cut at high speeds and by the necessity of all steel qualities to perform adequately with all classes of tooling. To take full advantage of the benefits accorded by advanced tooling steels should be developed which are capable of making optimum use of the full range of tool types and cutting conditions. No substantial differences were observed when comparing standard and calcium treated medium carbon low alloy steels, but as there is some doubt about the efficiency of the calcium treatment the merits of the latter may not have been fully examined. In small finishing cuts, surface finish is often a primary criterion which is dependent on nose radius and feed rate. Where surface finish criteria are not stringent, then higher feed rates could be exploited to extend life for a given rate of metal removal. The use of the workpiece/tool thermocouple technique is insufficient to characterise the temperature obtaining during machining. A range of temperature-measuring techniques may need to be employed to

32

estimate material temperatures required for input to machining models rather than reliance on a single method. Tool vibration in the 0-40 kHz range investigated did not show any effect on tool wear. A deterioration in surface finish was observed when chatter occurred, but chatter was not seen to be detrimental to tool life. The metal cutting model used was not precise enough to define the material performance accurately. The definition of the stress-strain-temperature relationship in metal cutting requires significantly more data points suggesting that more precise measurements are required. The temperatures measured in cutting do not correspond with those derived from elevated temperature compression testing for similar stresses and strains. This suggests that the thermocouple junction used to measured the temperature reflects higher temperatures from the secondary shear zone where there is a high level of friction heating. The findings of this work have demonstrated areas that will need to be examined further; in particular the stress-strain-temperature relationship and tool vibration aspects. These aspects will form part of a recently started collaborative ECSC project. The tool wear and surface finish data have been used to select optimum combinations of tool and workpiece material for use in high speed finish machining operations. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. C. Zimmerman, S.P. Boppana and K. Katbi: 'Machinability Test Methods', Metals Handbook (9th Edition), (1989), Vol. 16, p639. K. Stjernberg and A. Thelin: Wear Mechanisms of Coated Carbide Tools in Machining of Steel, in High Productivity Machining', Ed. V.K. Sarin, ASM (1985), p95. T. Hoshi: 'Research for High Productivity Machining in Japan', as per Ref. 2, pl5. E.M. Trent: 'Metal Cutting', Butterworth and Co., London (1977). N.H. Cook: "What is Machinability?', in 'Influence of Metallurgy on Machinability', Ed. V.A. Tipnis, ASM (1975), pi. M.E.Finn: 'Machining of Carbon and Alloy Steels', as Ref. 1, p666. J. Tolley and J. A. Charles: 'Influence of Microstructure on Machinability of Wrought Steels', Metals Tech. May-June 1976, p248. T. Araki and S. Yamamoto: 'An Evaluation of Machinability of Low Alloy Steel Materials With or Without Heat Treatment', in 'Machinability Testing and Utilisation of Machining Data', ASM (1980), pi 17. D.J. Naylor, D.T. Llewellyn and D.M. Keane: 'Control of Machinability in Medium Carbon Steels', Metal Tech., May-June, 1976, pp254-269. T. Kosa and R.P. Ney: 'Machining of Stainless Steels', as per Ref. 1, p681. T. Araki and S. Yamamoto: 'Some Aspects of New Type Non-Metallic Inclusions Favourable for Machinability', as per Ref. 5, 159. T. Kato, S. Abeyama, S.A. Kumura and S. Nakamura: 'Machinability and Other Properties of Resulphurised Free-Machining Steel Containing a Small Amount of Tellurium', as per Ref. 2,pl89.

9. 10. 11. 12.

33

13. 14.

M.L. Pickett, D.J. Naylor and M. Cristinacce: 'Development and Application of Improved Machinable Engineering Steels', ibid, p253. D. Thivellier, A. Mostacchi, D. Rousseau and R. Tricot: 'Resulphurisation Structural Alloy Steels with Globular Shaped Sulphides', Int. Symp. on Influence of Metallurgy on Machinability of steels', Tokyo (1977), pl39. S.V. Subramanian and D.R. Kay: 'Inclusion and Matrix Effects on the Machinability of medium Carbon Steels, in 'Inclusions and Residual in Steels'; Effects on Fabrication and Service Behaviour', Ed. J.D. Boyd and C S Champion, Ottowa (1985), p417. D.J. Naylor: 'Free Machining Steels', Presented to Institute of Metals Conf. 'A Cutting Edge for the 1990s', Univ. Sheffield (1989). B. Mills and S. Ahktar: 'A Metallurgical and Machining Study of Free Machining Low Carbon steels', as per Ref. 5, p73. J.C. Brunet, H. Hugo, P. Torterat and J. Bellot: 'Machinability Improvement by Inclusion Control Influence on Mechanical Properties of Steels', as per Ref. 14, pl51. R.A. Joseph and V.A. Tipnis: 'The Influence of Non-Metallic Inclusions on the Machinability of Free-Machining Steels', as per Ref. 5, p55. A.T. Santhanam and P. Tierney: 'Cemented Carbides', as per Ref. 1, p71. R. Komanduri and S.K. Samanta: 'Ceramics', as per Ref. 1, p98. P.J. Heath: 'Ultrahard Tool Materials', as per Ref. 1, pl05. W.W. Gruss: 'Cermets', Metals Handbook, 16,90, ASM, 1989. ECSC Agreement No. 7210.KC/802 (F3.3/83) Draft Final Report. W.A.Backofen: 'DeformationProcessing',Addison-Wesley, 1972. A. Nordgren and A. Helarder: 'Tool wear and Inclusion Behaviour During Turning of a Ca-Treated Quenched and Tempered Steel using Coated Cemented Carbide Tools,', Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on the Behaviour of Materials in Machining, Stratford, November 1988, Institute of Metals, Paper 20. ECSC Research Contract 720-MA/315, 'Improving the Machinability of Free-Cutting Steels by Controlling Inclusions', Unimetal Research.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

CD.

34

TABLE 1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element, Wt. % Quality

C
AISI 304 AISI 303
UJ LH

Si 0.320 0.490 0.560 0.180 0.240 0.190 0.008 0.030 0.009 0.210 0.110

Mn 1.73 1.89 1.70 0.70

0.022 0.024 0.032 0:015

S
0.008 0.27 0.022 0.025 0.027 0.014

Cr 18.10 17.90 18.00 0.05 0.99 0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02

Mo 0.23 0.32 0.56 0.31 0.20 <0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 <0.005

Ni 8.68 8.30 9.33 0.14 0.15 0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04

AI <0.005 <0.005

Co 0.10 0.08

Cu

Sn ND ND

O 0.0084 0.0073

Ca
0.0008 0.0008 <0.0005

Pb 0.25 0.25

Bi 0.06

Te 0.024

0.04 0.05 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.07

0.18 0.047 0.22 0.054 0.49 0.071 0.20 0.009 0.26 0.009 <0.02 0.002 <0.02 0.002 0.01 0.009 0.02 0.004 < 0 . 0 2 0.004 0.01 0.004

AISI 304Ca 709M40 709M40Ca CMn (En2) 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07S 230M07SiCa

< 0.005 0.32 0.022 0.035 < 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

0.027 0.0047 0.014 0.018 <0.005 <0.005 0.0013 0.0022 0.010 0.0120 0.0180

0.72 0.011 0.60 0.012 1.01 1.17 1.31 1.24 1.30

0.068 0.280 0.069 0.060 0.056 0.071 0.370 0.380 0.370 0.330

< 0.005 0.0150 <0.005 0.0050 0.002 0.0040

ND = Not Determined

TABLE 2 MATERIAL CONDITION Quality AISI304 AISI303 AISI 304Ca 709M40 709M40Ca CMn (En2) 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07S 230M07SiCa Bar Diameter 130 130 130 63 63 130 130 130 130 130 130 Condition 1050C (1 h) AC 1050C (1 h) AC 1050C(lh)AC 860C (1 h) OQ; 600C (1 h) AC 860C (1 h) OQ; 600C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC 920C (1 h) AC

36

TABLE 3 TOOL MATERIALS

Tool Type Designation Geometries Available MF Chipbreaking Plain/MP chipbreaking MF Chipbreaking Plain Plain Side Cutting Angle, Compositions degrees Coating: 2 Ti (C.N): 6 pm TiN (outer) Substrato: WC + Co Coating: Ti(C,N): A1203: TiN (outer), total thickness 9 pm Substrate: WC + Co TiN/TiC particles in an Ni/Co matrix 99.9% A1203 70%Al 2 O 3 + 30% TiC 15 15 Rake Angle, x, degrees -6 -6 Inclination Angle, i, degrees -6 -6

Application

Coated Carbide
UI

GC216 GC415

Austenitic stainless Low carbon Medium carbon All All All

Coated Carbide

Cermet 'White'Ceramic 'Black'Ceramic

CT525 K060 K090

15 15 15

-6 -5 -5

-6 -5 -5

TABLE 4 CHIP FORM AND COLOUR

(a) Advanced Cutting Tools Tool Type GC215MF CT525MF K060 Cutting Speed 420 260 170 420 260 170 420 260 170 420 260 170 420 260 170 420 260 170 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 Chip Colour Silver Silver Straw/gold Silver Silver Silver - gold/purple at end oftest Silver -> gold at end oftest Silver -+ gold at end oftest Straw/gold Silver Straw/gold Silver -* blue/gold at end oftest Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Chip Form Loose arcs Connected arcs Snarled/broken helical Loose and connected arcs Loose and connected arcs Connected arcs Well broken helical, snarled, broken helical at end oftest Well broken helical, snarled, broken helical at end oftest Snarled Loose and connected arcs Well broken helical Connected arcs Connected arcs Connected arcs Loose and connected arcs Loose arcs, well broken short tubular towards end oftest Loose arcs, well broken helical Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs (Cont...)

Steel Quality AISI304

AISI304Ca
OJ 00

GC215MF CT525MF K060

AISI303

GC215MF CT525MF K060

TABLE 4 (CONTINUED)
Steel Quality 709M40 Tool Type GC215MF CT525MF K060 GC215MF CT525MF K060 GC415MF Cutting Speed 260 260 260 260 260 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 Chip Colour Blue -* silver Silver/blue -> silver/straw Silver Silver/straw Silver/blue Silver Gold/purple, blue/grey at end oftest Gold/purple, blue/grey at end oftest Gold/purple, blue/grey at end oftest Blue Blue/purple/gold, blue/grey at end oftest Blue Silver Silver Blue/purple, silver Blue/gold, testing to blue at end oftest Blue/gold, testing to blue at end oftest Blue Silver, blue towards end oftest Silver, blue towards end oftest Gold/blue Silver, blue/purple towards end oftest Gold/blue, blue towards end oftest Straw, blue towards end oftest Blue/gold Blue/gold, blue towards end oftest Blue/gold Chip Form Loose arcs Loose arcs Snarled -> connected arcs Connected arcs Loose arcs, tubular towards end oftest Snarled, connected arcs at end oftest Loose and connected arcs Connected arcs Connected arcs Connected arcs Connected arcs Connected arcs broken Ribbons, changing to broken helical Snarled and broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken tubular Well broken tubular Connected arcs Loose and connected arcs Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical

709M40Ca

CMn

UI ID

CT525MF

K060

230M07

GC415P

GC415MF

CT525MF

K060

(Cont...)

TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) Steel Quality 230M07Pb Tool Type GC415P CT525MF K060 Cutting Speed 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 Chip Colour Blue/gold Gold Gold Silver Silver Silver Gold/blue, blue at end oftest Gold/purple Gold Gold/straw, blue by end oftest Gold/straw, gold/blue/purple at end oftest Gold, gold/purple at end oftest Silver Silver Silver Purple/gold Purple/gold Gold, gold/purple at end oftest Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Silver Blue/purple/gold Gold/purple, blue/purple at end oftest Gold/purple, blue/purple at end oftest Well broken Well broken Well broken Well broken Well broken Well broken Loose arcs Well broken Well broken tubular tubular tubular tubular tubular tubular helical helical Chip Form

230M07PbBiTe
o

GC415P CT525MF K060

Well broken helical Well broken helical Short tubular Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Well broken helical Well broken helical Well broken helical (Cont...)

230M07 + S

GC415MF CT525MF K060

TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) Steel Quality 230M07 + Si + Ca Tool Type GC415MF CT525MF K060 Cutting Speed 650 420 260 650 420 260 650 420 260 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Gold Gold Gold Silver Silver Silver Gold/purple Gold/purple Gold/purple Chip Colour Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Loose arcs Chip Form

(b) Uncoated Carbide Tooling (ISO 3685 Tests) Steel Quality CMn 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07 + S 230M07 + Si + Ca Tool Type P30 P30 P30 P30 P30 P30 Cutting Speed Chip Colour Blue/purple Blue Gold/small amount purple Gold/small amount purple Gold Gold Helical Arc chips Very short flat spirals Very short flat spirals Short flat spirals Short flat spirals Chip Form

200 225 250 400 500 550

TABLE 5 INCLUSION SIZE AND MATERIAL HARDNESS

Free Oxide Steel Quality No/mm AISI304 AISI 304Ca AISI303
NJ

Associated Oxide
2 2

pm2/mm2 No/mm2 pm /mm 70 5 4 <0.5 1 39 55 12 36 2 20 80 55 134 8 26 92 119 346 450 26 43 458 98 200 26 132 715 369 1682 1302 44 121

Total Oxide pm2/mm2 528 103 204 27 133 254 424 1694 1338 46 141

Free Sulphide No/mm 2 182 222 1390 868 486 140 244 650 1388 22 80 461 pm2/mm2 201 1432 13 377 1790 2 064 184 3 211 4 328 10 096 21704 12214

Associated Sulphide No/mm 2 101 74 138 12 28 138 93 442 446 40 36 pm 2 /mm 2 259 544 2 083 66 686 246 8 600 16 698 12 730 1088 2 651

Total Sulphide pm2/mm 2 460 1976 15 460 1856 2 750 430 11811 21026 22 826 22 792 14 865

Hardness HV30 127 175 141 383 356 98 109 113 105 118 114

15.8 2.1 2.7 0.6 1.2 8.2 33.0 8.2 5.6 1.2 8.0

709M40 709M40Ca CMn 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07 + S 230M07 + Si + Ca

TABLE 6 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES: TENSILE DATA

Steel Quality AISI304 AISI 304Ca AISI303 709M40 709M40Ca CMn 230M07 230M07Pb 230M07PbBiTe 230M07+S 230M07 + Si + Ca Tensile Strength, N/mm2 551 545 595 1115 990 355 377 388 353 407 402 Yield Strength, N/mm 2 199 250 220 934 834 202 198 212 176 253 249 Elongation, % 69 64 56 16 16 48 40 38 41 39 40 Reduction of Area, % 77 80 51 56 59 76 60 57 57 62 63

43

TABLE 7 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES: COMPRESSION TEST DATA Cutting Stress/Strain Steel Quality Speed, m/min 230Mo7 (GC415MF) 650 420 260 170 110 650 420 260 170 110 Stress, N/mm 2 912.9 1004.6 935.3 919.7 968.2 970 882 1341 1351 1266 Strain 1.54 1.43 1.63 1.88 2.32 1.275 1.255 1.235 1.360 1.595 Temperature,
C

Compression Stress/Strain Constants Cale. Stress, N/mm 2 K n 103 2 106 3 109 * N/mm 2 * 195 000 238 000 17 700 7180 4 780 94700 27 700 19 900 12 400

940 858 714 608 550 881 766 730 676

649 0.2029

-1.204

9.0461

-1.4973

774.9

1.951

AISI304 (GC215MF)

1237 0.384

-4.064

10.198

-9.1522

902.8

2.221

TABLE 8 CUTTING TIP FAILURE MODES COATED CARBIDE TIPS Coated Carbide Tips Testi 43 mm Overhang No Catastrophic tool Failure about 300 micron wear limit passed quite early in test. Test discontinued because further machining seemed pointless after so much flank wear had occurred. Test 4 43 mm Overhang No catastrophic tool failure but 300 micron wear limit passed quite early in test. Test discontinued because further machining seemed pointless after so much flank wear had occurred. Cermet Tips Test 2 43 mm Overhang No catastrophic tool failure up to 3,300 m of cut but annular bands of swarf formed around workpiece. Test 5 43 mm Overhang Corner of tool chipped of after 2,100 m cutting distance. Annular bands of swarf formed around workpiece on final cut. Ceramic Tips Test 3 43 mm Overhang Edge of tool broke off after 1,800 m cutting distance, this event also removed the corner which had used for the 95 mm tool overhang position. Annular bands of s warf formed around workpiece. Teste (Note, separate tips used to prevent edge chipping from removing both corners) 43 mm Overhang Edge of tool broke off after 1,500 m cutting distance. Annular bands of swarf formed around workpiece.

95 mm Overhang No catastrophic tool failure but 300 micron wear limit passed quite early in test. Test discontinued because further machining seemed pointless after so much flank wear had occurred. 95 mm Overhang No catastrophic tool failure but 300 micron wear limit passed quite early in test. Test discontinued because further machining seemed pointless after so much flank wear had occurred.

95 mm Overhang Corner of tool chipped of after 2,700 m. Annular bands of swarf did not form. 95 mm Overhang Corner of tool chipped of after 2,400 m cutting distance. Annular bands of swarf formed around workpiece during final cut.

95 mm Overhang Trial halted prematurely because cutting corner removed when edge broke off when tool holder was in the 43 mm overhang position.

95 mm Overhang Edge of tool broke off after 900 m cutting distance. Annular bands of swarf formed around workpiece.

TABLE 9 SURFACE ROUGHNESS MEASUREMENTS MADE BY TALY SURF FOR BARS CUT WITH COATED CARBIDE TIPS Testi Chatter Region CLA, pm 4.6 Chatter-Free Region 2.5 Chatter Region 12.0 Test 4 Chatter-Free Region 4.2

45

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of looi Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 900 o 420 m/min m/rnin m/min

600 500

O 260 o 170

800

<

400 300 200 100

co a

700 \ 600 500 400

U.

TD
CD

300 200 100 0

1000

2000

3OO0 Distance cut. m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

en Variation of Surface Finish with C u t t i n g Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800

c
c u.
0 en

J~

S A 3 2
cu
i-

700 600 o 500 400 300 200 100

0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

^-<N>

41

< >
J

li

t/l

ri U

Fl<3= . w w . A . P T K S T n A T A . A i s n n 4 j

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Torre with Cutting Speed Cutting Foice

600
500

1000 900 800 700 600

cu
li

400

| c ~

300

500 400 300 200 100

200 \
*>

en c
3

100

1000

0 2000 3000 Distance c ut, m 4000 5000 6000 0

1000

2000

3000 Distam cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Culling Speed Feed Foice

000 900 800

E
3

A'M 260

m/min m/min

170 m / m i n

E E
cu
o

700 600 500 400 300 200 100

. O

D l/l

cu cu

0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

0
1000 2000 3000 D i s l a m e cut, m 4 000

5000

6000

FIG. 2

WEAR TEST DATA: AISI 304: CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variution of l o o i Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600
500

1000 900 800 700

O 420 m / m i n O 260 m / m i n 170 m / m i n

E 3. S

400

600I
300 c u

500 400 4

200

cu cu

300 200

100

100 4 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance c u l , m 4000 5000 6000

6000

00

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Speed

lool Force with Cutting Cutting t o i ce

1000 900 800

7 E a.

700 600

c il
cu
t

500 400
en c

to

\A-o

300 200 100 0

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000
A.T * T f i m :

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distam e cut, m

4000

5000

6000

TJW*^1_ 5

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of looi f o r c e with (Jutting Speed Feed Force

600 500

1000,
o 420 m/min m/min m/min

900 800

O 260 a 170

3.

400
300

cu o

700 600 500 400

000
9 200
cu cu

300 200

100
100 Ol
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000
Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Cu

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 9 8 E 7 6

co 'e
CU

Variation of Speed

fool Force with Cutting Cutting f o r c e

1000 900 800 700 600

o o
Li

ir
cu t
l/l

5 4

500 400 300 200 100 0 2000 5000 Distant e cut, m 4 000 5000 6000

3 21 1 0

en c

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

FIG. 4

WE AR TEST DATA: AISI 304 Ca; COATE D CARBIDE TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variotion of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500
E

1000 900 800

O 420 O 260 170

m/min m/min m/min

a.

400

c u

700 600 500 400300 200

S 300
c o 200 li100 0 0

cu

c, c Q > cft=
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

-&*&=G^&=S>

100 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

tn o
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900
5 E =
Li eu

800 E E 700 600 500 o

li

o o

400 300 \

eoj^o^

<H^8^

-0-

Il

200 100 0

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

50T00

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600 1000 900 500 E E
cu

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force O 420 O 260 m/min m/min

800 700 600 4

o 170 m / m i n

E
l-

400 300 200

100

4)

500 400

U-

cu cu

300-I 200 100-1 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 9 7 E

-C

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force 1000-,

900

8001
700 600
cu

Li

6 5 4

500 400 300 200 100

3 -j 2 1 0

en O

LO

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. WEAR TEST DATA: AISI 304 Ca; CERAMIC (K090) TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600 ! 1000,

Variation of Tool Foice with Cutting Speed Feed Force o 650 m / m i n

900 500
rV

O 420 m / m i n 260 m / m i n

800
b 700 600 500 400

S c ?

400
300

cu" o
i.

o
T3

200

CU

300 200

U.

100

100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distunce c u i , ITI 4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 6 ! 1000 900 800 E ^

C tn c ? Li eu
<j

Variation of looi Foice with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

700 4 600 3

o^

cu

500 400

t
l/l

en c

4r
0 1000 2000
^^W^W.^1 I *.*-*.* T K I ^

ft^

300 200 100 0 3' Distance c u l , m 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000
c - -"- * ^ " w f c

^. ^

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of looi FOK e with Cutting Speed l e e d Force

600 500 E 400 300

1000 900 800

O 650 0 420 260

m/min m/min m/min

cu
CI

700 \ 600 500 400 300 200

a.
|
o

L a 2 200 ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ 100
<u

100 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0

%J^
1000

o^r^^-^^-^^^^^s

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

uu
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Foice wilh Cutting Speed Cutting I oico

1000
900

800 700 600

cu

E =

E E
CJ

l!

500 400 300 200 100

<y

Li

2
l/l

*
u

en c

&-^*=w

>

~r o

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000

"ooo

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cul, m

5000

6000

FIG. 8 WE AR TEST DATA: AISI 303; CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600

1000
900

500 400 a. S
c

800

o 650 0 420 o 260

m/min m/rnin m/min

cu u

700 600 500

300 200 100

4001
X3 CU

cu

300 200 100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

UI

-t
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed
6

Variation of Tool Force with ('uiting Speed Cutting Force 1000 900 800

E * rf
tn
C

700 4 600 o 500 \ 400 300 2001 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 Distance cut, m PIO. B 1000 2000 3000 Distance c u l , m W E A R T E S T D A T A ; A I S I 3 0 3 , C R R A M I C /KOBO) T O O L I N G , 4000 5000 6000

7.

o t
LO

CU

li

2 -

en c
O

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool f o r c e with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600
500

1000

900 800
E E
v. cu o
k,

O 0.31 m m / r e v ; O 0.31 m m / r e v ; o 0.50mm/rev;

420m/min 260m/min 260rn/min

E
3.

700 600
500 400

400

S
c o

300
200

o
li

ti

cu
lx.

300 200 <^>^ ~ ^ ^ ^

00. > -O

100

100
0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 40O0 5000 6000

Ol

en

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 12 11 10

S

Variation of looi f o r c e with Cutting Speed Cullili') I oice

1 1 00
1000

900
E E

E
3L

9 8 7
6

800 700 600 500 400 300

200
O .j> " . 0 e ^ o
<J

o
li

o
en

cu

't
D
LO

100 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distam.e c u l , m 4000 5000 6000

FIG. 10 WE AR TEST DATE: AISI 303; COATE D CARBIDE TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev FEED RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of fool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Foice

600 500 eo E
3.

HOO,
1000
900

o 0.31 m m / r e v ; O 0.31 m m / r e v ; o 0.50mm/rev;

420m/min 260m/min 260m/min

400

b s
Li

800 700 600 500

300 4

ai

c 9 200
3
OO

ei <u
LI

400
300 200 100

100

^^^Vwo
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, rn 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

en
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed
16

Variation of looi f o r c e with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

E a. n
tn

'c Li eu o O t n LO

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1000 900 800] 700 600

cu o o u. en c

500 400 300 200 100 \

r^^^

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, i n

5000

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of looi Foice with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600
500

1000
900 800 700

O 0.31 m m / r e v ; O 0.31 m m / r e v ; o 0.50mm/rev;

420m/min 260m/min 260m/min

E
cu

400
cu

600 500 400

a

300

200 100

cu cu

300 200 100

^-^^<^^^^^
0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 50T00 6000

UI

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 13 12 11 10 E

c

Voriotion of Tool Force with Culling Speed Cutting Force 1000, 900 800 700 600 c u o o U en 5 o

9 8 7 6 S 4 3 2 1 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance eut, m 4000 5000 6000

>. 3 < 2 >

UI

li

c
ai

500 400 300 200 100 0

o o

1/1

1000

2000

3000 Distance c u l , m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 12 WE AR TEST DATA: AISI 303; CERAMIC (K060) TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev FEED RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1200, 1100 o GC415MF O CT525MF o K060

600

500

1000 900

a. |
c

400 4
cu k

800 700

300

600 500 400 300

o
U

200

cu cu

100

200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

6000

Ui

co Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1200, 1100

5 E *
c m

1000

E E \

900 800

700
li

'E il
4)

cu o en c
3

600 500
400 300

a o

t
10
3

u
1

200 100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m
',== * > ^ . . ^((iv*.** < = m : r j ^ j v err?Tr> rt^H

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1200 1100 o CC415MF 0 CT525MF K060

600 500
E
O I

1000 900 4

400 <u o
Lu O Ol

800 700

300 200 100

600

s
c
D

500 \
400 300 200 100 0

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cul, m

5000

6000

UI ID

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 1200 1100 10004 E

=

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed - Cutting Force

E E

900 800 700 \ 600

S
cu o

li en c

500 400 \ 300 200 100^ 0

-3-^-^-_er-^-~0-0

LO

1000

2000

3000 4O00 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distonce cut, m

5000

6000

FIG. 14 WEAR TEST DATA: 709M40Ca; CUTTING SPEED: 260 m/min

Variation of Flonk Wear with Cutting Speed 1000 900 800

rV

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 900 800 o 650 m / m i n 0 420 m / m i n 260 m / m i n

a. cu
C O Lu

700 600 500 400 300 200I 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

cu o

700 600

u. O Lu

500 400 300 200 4 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance c u l , m 4000 5000 6000

"O CU CU U

o Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 1000 900 800 E

= 4

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

700 600 500

Lu cu

400 en c 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m

A . -KJttfiUK^^^

I 2
D LO

O
1

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000 ri

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

M U iti

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 900 800 700 700 E 600
cu

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 900 800 O 650 m / m i n O 420 m/min o 260 m / m i n

600 500 4004 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000
lu

500 cu

400

I 300
200 100 0

C U C U Lu

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force 1000-, 900

6 -,

E ^

800 700 600

c Lu
41

500 o
Lu

a a t
3 IO

400 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

c
3

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 16 WEAR TEST DATA: CMn; CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 900 800700600
CU

1200 1100 1000900

o 650 0 420 o 260

m/min m/min m/min

o cu c

800 700 600 500 400 300 4 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Distance cut, m 5000 6000
X3 CU CU

500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

e n
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800

E = 4
co 'e cu t LO
1 -

700 600 4
cu o o en c
ZI

500 400 3004 200 100 4 0

lu

1000

2000

3000 Distance c u t , m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Foice 1000 O 650 m / m i n 900 800] 700 0 420 m/min m/min o 260

600 , 500 400

V^^-

600

S 300
c o
Lu

<u
i~

500 400 300 200

o
Lu

200 100

<v cu

^'

100
0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 ~6000 0

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

uu

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Fool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000, 900
v E ^ 4

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ^

E E

c Lu cu o

cu
l i

0^^

O 3

Ui

c *-> *
3

LO

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, ITI

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 18 WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07; COATED CARBIDE (GC415P) TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500
E

1000n
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 4 200

o 650 m / m i n O 420 m / m i n o 260 m / m i n

400 a. S
5

u. Lu

300 200

cu o

"O 41 CU

100

^ : =e=^i

100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000, 900 800

E E
4

E
=*
tn

700 600 500

a t
LO
3

tu

Li

400 300 200 100

en c
3

FS^*^

;&*--Q<-

--Q

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m
P I O . IB , S8LE 1

4000

5000

6000

o
.- r r n i T i a r i i M B i i w i r

1000

2000

3000 Distance c u l , m

4000

5000

6000

S A T A

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force wilti Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500
(V

000,
o 650 m/min m/min m/min

900 800

O 420 a 260

a. |

400
300

700

ai"

600 500 400 300 200

Lu
u
CU

2 200

100 100

0
100O 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of l o o l Force with Culling Speed Cutting Foice

1000,
900
M

800 700 600 500 400 300 200

E =* 4
sz
tn

E b

ai o o
Lu

41 V

2
3 LO

en c
4

+J

100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Dislance cut, m

5000

6000

FIG. 20

WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07; CE RME T TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600 1000 900 500 E E 800 700 4 600 300
Ol

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force O 650 m / m i n O 420 m / m i n o 260 m / m i n

a.
41 C

400

500 400

200

41 41

300 200

100 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force 1000 900 4 800

Variation of Surlace Finish with Cutting Speed

E
=>s
tn

700 4
4

600
cu o o en c

500 400 300 200 100 4 0

cu o o t
3 LO

li

4 1 *^-s&%^& * -*=^\ \
..

**&

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000 F I G . 21

5000

3000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

W E A R T E S T D A T A ; 230M07: C E R A M I C TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000, O 0.31 m m / r e v ; O 0.31 m m / r e v ; o 0.50mm/rev; 420m/min 260m/min 260m/min

600 500 400 a.

900 800 700 600 500 400

C

S 300
S 200 100
41 41 Lu

300 200 4 100 0

0 1000 2000 3000 Distance c u l , m 4 000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 12 11 10 E

3.

Variation of Speed

lool Force with Cutting Catling Force

1000 900 800 700 600 J o

lu

94 8 7

C Lu

6 5

500 400 300

V ' '3'

a t
3 LO

4 3 2

cn c

o=&^

200 100

0 1000 2000 3000 Distonce cut, m 4000

5000

6000

0 0

1000

2000

3000 Distance c u l , m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 22

WEAR TEST DATA: 230M07; COATED CARBIDE (GC415P) TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev F EED RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Viiiitition <>l li.iol l o n e wilh C u l l i n g Speed Feed Forc e

600 500
E 400 a. S c o 300
a 41 41

1000 900 800 700 4 600 500 4 400

0.31 m m / r e v ; O 0.31 m m / i e v ; a 0.50mm/rev;

420m/min 260m/rnin 260m/min

200 100

3004 200 100 0

0 1 o'oo 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance c ut, m

4000

5000

6000

Distance c ut, m

oo

Variation of Surfac e Finish with Cutting Speed 12 1 1 10 E 9 8 7 6

4 1

Variation of Speed

tool For c e wilh Cutting Culling I oic e

1000 900 800 4 700 600

o
)

500

o t
3
LO

CU

5 4 3 2 1 0

$'

-- -0--0-O-0e-

_^-^e-o

o o o ^=r <N>

li

en

400
300 200 100 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4 000 5000 6000

' U
3

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Distance c u l , m Distance c ut, m PIG. 23 W E A R T E S T D A T A i 2 3 0 M 0 7 : C E R M E T T O Q L I N O : 0 . 3 1 A N D , m n . / C c y , F K . e n , ; ,

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of fool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600,

1000,
O 0.31 m m / r e v ; 420m/min 260m/min 260m/min

900

0.31 m m / r e v ;

500
E

800 700 600 500 400

0.50mm/rev;

E 400 a. S c
L

41

300

o
TD 41 41 Lu

200 100

300 200 100 0

0 1000 2000 3000

*=#*=

1000

2000

3000 Distance c u t , m

4000

5000

6000

4000

5000

6000

Distance cut, m

io

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 12 11 104

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Cutting Force Speed

1000, 900 800 4 700 600 4

4) U

E a.
Lu

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance c u t , m 4000 5000 6000

500 400 300 200 100 0

rW/^'

-&-&--

o t
3 LO

41

&=*<4=#&^^

cn c
O

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut,

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 24 WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07; CERAMIC TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev FEED RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600 1000, 900 500 800 700

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force O 650 0 420 o 260 m/min m/min m/min

a.
41

400 6004 300 500 400 300 200 4 100 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

c o

200

41

cu

^1

o
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000, 900
5 E *
E E

800 700 600

4
cu o

n CO 'E c

Li eu a t
3
LO

500 4 400
V *

I^e
=**<$

en c
3

300 4 200
1004 o 0 IO'OO 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000
i n A

6000

'

*"* Odi*

mow^isia

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 O 650 m / m i n 900 0 420 m / m i n o 260 m / m i n 800 700 600

600,
500

400
a.
u. 41

300 200
100

41 O

500 400 300 200 1004 0 20T00

lu C

lu

T3 41 41 lu

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 1000, 900 800 E = * > 4 700 600
c Lu cu o o

Variation of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed Cutting Force

t
3 LO

a o "" en ' 3 O

500 400 4 300 200 4 100

^4=

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

0 1000 2000 3000 Dislance cul, m 4000 5000 6000

FIG. 26 WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07Pb; CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600 500

41

Variation of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed - Feed Force 1000 900 800 700 600 o 650 m/min 0 420 m/min o 260 m/min

400 300 200 100

4)

C D

Lu T3 41 4) Lu

k. o

500 400 300 200 100

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

6 -

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force 1000 900 800

E * 4
c
41 O O

700 600

lu

3 2
en c
3 O

500 400 300 200 100 1000 2000 3000 4000 Distance cut, m 5000

3 LO

6000

ToOO

2000 3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

^.-^Ei^-a^g^,-^^.. a a o ^ o - 7 ^ ^ ,

^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ . ^ T O C . H S J ^

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 900 o 0.31 m m / r e v ; 4 2 0 m / m i n 0 0.31 m m / r e v ; 2 6 0 m / m i n o 0.50mm/rev; 2 6 0 m / m i n

600,

500
E
400
E E
cu o
t_

800 7004 600

a
|
300
o

500 4004 300 200

c 2 200

Lu
T3
CU 41

100

<^==*
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

OJ

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

a
Z

LZ
41

tn

3 IO

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 28 WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07Pb; COATED CARBIDE (GC415P) TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev FEED RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600-,

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

1000 900

O 0.31 m m / r e v ; 4 2 0 m / m i n 0 0.31 mm/rev; a 0.50mm/rev; 260m/min 260m/min

500

800 700 600

u Lu

400
cu

a
S 300
5 200

500 400 300 200 100 0 -^-&

41 4) Lu

100

1000

2000

3000
Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

^ *
Variation af Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 12 11 10 Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800 E E 700 600

4 1
-

9 8 7

il o t
LO 4)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000

500 400 300 4 200 100 0

ij-

en c
3

5000

6000

1000

2000 3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

FIG. 29

WEAR TEST DATA: 230M07Pb: CERMET TOOLING: 0.31 A N D 0.5 mm/rev F E E D RATES

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600

1000, 900

500

800 7004 600 500 400

41 41 Lu

o 0.31 mm/rev; 4 2 0 m / m i n 0 0.31 mm/rev; 2 6 0 m / m i n o 0.50mm/rev; 2 6 0 m / m i n

400

S 300
c , ? 200

300 200 100

100

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

-J ui

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 12 11IDE 9 8 7

c Lu
41 O
4

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force 1100 1000 900

a.

E E \

800 700 600

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 o

500 400 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

3 LO

^ e - ^
<y-&

Li

^^^^-^^-^^V^^-^

en c
3

FIG. 30

WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07Pb; CE RAMIC TOOLING; 0.31 AND 0.5 mm/rev FEED RATE S

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600, 1000-, 900

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force o 650 m/min O 420 m/min 260 m/min

500

800 700 600 500 400

4) 41

E 400 a. o 300
4 1

? .
C O

200 100

300 200 100 0

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 1000, 900 8004 E

-C co 'c
Lu
ll

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

a.

700 600 500 o

Lu

400 300

3 l/l

200 1004 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

100O

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

~6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600

1000 900

500 400 a. S
c

800 700 600

41 V Lu ei 41 4)

o 650 m/min O 420 m/min D 260 m/min

300

500 400 300 200

200

100

1004 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

300
Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800 E

*
tn

700 600 500

Lu

il.

c
41

en c
3

400 4 300 200 100 4 0

3 LO

u
1 -

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 32 WEAR TEST DATA: 230M07PbBiTe; CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting S peed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600,

1000 900

500 400 a.
41

800 700 600

u, Lu Xi 4) 4)

o 650 m/min 0 420 m/min o 260 m/min

S
J

300

5004 400 300 2004

200

100

100 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

o o
Variation of S urface Finish with Cutting S peed Variotion of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 BOO

E
1

700
4

600 500
o
Lu

CO

c il
41 O

400 300 200 100 0

0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

en
C

t
3 LO

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut,

4000
E I C -

5000

6000
MBMiwPhilgP^

W E A B J - B S T .

C E B A M I G i C a a m M

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Vnriution of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500

1000, 900 800 700

o 650 m / m i n 0 420 m / m i n o 260 m / m i n

400
600
41

a S 300
c r? 200

500 400 300 200 4

u. O Lu
Xl 41 CU

Lu

100
100 0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

&=tF^r&
1000 2000 3000 Dislance c u i , ni 4000 5000 6000

J IO

Variation of Surface Finish wilh Cutting Speed 6 ,

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800

E => 4

700 600 4

c Lu

500 o
Lu

3 LO

u a t

41

400 300 200 100 0

cn c
3

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Dislanre cut, rn

4000

5000

6000

FIG. 34

WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07S; COATE D CARBIDE (GC415MF) TOOLING

Variotion of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed Feed Force 1000 o 900 0 650 m / m i n 420 m/min

600,
500

800 700

260 m / m i n

E a

400
600
41 O u. O
li

S 300
c 9 200
J

500 400 300 2004

ei 41 41

100
100

0 1000

s
2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

04
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

00

o
Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000, 900 800

E => 4
sz
Lu

700 600

'
t
4) O O

tn

4) U

500 400 300 200 100 4 0 1000 2000 4000 3000 Distance cut, m 5000 6000

lu

en c
3

<

^Wew

LO

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500

1000
900 800 700 600
41 U

o 650 O 420

m/min m/min

o 260 m / m i n

E 400 a
|
300 4

500 400

c 3 200

ei
41 Lu

300 200 100

100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

00

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed

Variotion of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000,
900
5 E *

800 700 4 600

cu o
Lu

500 4 400 300

N^ -ec

41 O O 3

3^

LO

U
1

200 100

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distam e cut, m 4 000 5000 6000

FIG. 36 WE AR TEST DATA: 230M07S; CERAMIC TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600 500 400 a. S

J

1000 900 800

E E
cu li
ei
41 41

O 650 m / m i n O 420 m / m i n o 260 m / m i n

7004 600 500 400 4 300 200 100

04

300

c 9

200

100

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000
Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

00

Variation of Surface Finish with Cutting Speed 6 ,

Variation of Tool Force wilh Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000, 900

5 E *
SI

800 700 600

41 U u. O Lu

co

500 400 300 200 100 0

o a t
3
LO

41

en c
3

1000

2000

3000
Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Dislance cut,

4000

5000

6000

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed 600

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

000, 900

o 650 m / m i n 0 420 m / m i n D 260 m / m i n

500 E E

800 700 600

E a.

41
J

400

300

41 U

500 400

c o

200

TP 41 CU

300 200 100 0

100

= P =
0 1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, rn 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

co uu

Variation of Surface Finis h with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Cutting Force

1000 900 800

E * 'c il
CO

4
41 O

700 600 500 400 300 200 100

4J

3 LO

en c
3

0
1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000 6000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Distance cut, m

5000

6000

FIG. 38 WEAR TEST DATA: 230M07SiCa; CERMET TOOLING

Variation of Flank Wear with Cutting Speed

Variation of Tool Force with Cutting Speed Feed Force

600
500

1000 900 800 700

O 650 m / m i n O 420 m / m i n 260 m / m i n

E a. |
J

400

600
300 e, 200
41 41

500 400 300 200 100 0

1000 2000 3000 Distance cut, m 4000 5000

c 2

=
100

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

co

Variationof Surface Finish wilh Cutting Speed 1000 900 800 E *

CO

Variation of Fool Foice with Culling Speed Cutting Force

E E 4

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

41 U

34

4) U Lu

a t
3 LO

<0-^
e"9

en c
3

+&%**2.

~~ or^

1000

2000

3000 Distance cut, m

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000 Distonce cut, m

4000

5000

6000

x f i | A X a a a U i A X A r

wmmaatmmtmm

Variation of Shear Stress with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic 'Stainless: 304 50 45
en

900
800 4
CN

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 100

40 35

" 8 cu
k.

41

? 30 4 <
o
41 C LO

tn

25 20 15 10 100

t/i

200

^300

400

500 m/min

600

700

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

oo
tn

Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304 5.0 0.80

Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless; 304

4.5
c

0.70

o
4.0
u.

0 60
0.50 0.40
0.30 O

lu

3.5

LO
O 41 C

*-> c 41
u

ia

3.0

* 41
O

2.5

* =

2.0 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

20 4 100

200

300

400

500
m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

FIG. 40

ME RCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: AISI 304

Variation of Shear Stress with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304Ca

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304Co 50 45
en

900

800
?
700

40

" 600
S 500

41 ei

35 4

i 1 30 4 <
o "
ai

<

400
300
200 100 100

25 20 15 10 100

LO

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

co Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304Ca 5.0 0.80 Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 304Ca

4.5

0.70 c o u

4.0
u. LO O 41 C LO

0.60

3.5

"
C 4J

0.50

3.0

2.5

' cu o u

0.40

3
200 300 400 500 m/min 600 700 Cutting Speed

0.30 0.20 100

2.0 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed - & & 1 1

Variation of Shear Stress with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 303 resulphurised

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 303 resulphuiised 50 O GC215MF O GC215MF 45
en e>
41

900, 800
(N

O CT525MF o K060

O CT525MF o K06<

700 600

40 35

S
L.

500

<" 400
ui

en 30 c < o 25
CU

41

300

l/l

20 15 10 100

200 100 100

200 300 400 500 m/min 600 700

200

300

400~

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

00

Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Austenitic Stainless: 303 resulphurised 5.0] O GC215MF O CT525MF 4.5

Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool tyoe: Austenitic Stainless: 303 resulphurised

0.80 ,

K060

o GC215MF O CT525MF 0.70 o K060

c o

c o o

40

0.60
0.50

3.5
4)
JLZ

cu 'o

LO

3.04

CU o

0.40

2.5

0.30

0 0.20 100
'00

o
300

e
400 500 m/min 600 Cutting Speed

O 700

2.0 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

FIG. 42

ME RCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: AISI303

Variation of Shear Stress with c u t t i n g speed and tool type: 709M40 0.4CMnCrMo

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: 709M40 0.4CMnCrMo 50 O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060 45 40 O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060
en
41 TD

900
800 rs

CO 41

700 600 500 400

35 4

< 30
41 .c
LO

"i
u.

25 20 15 10 100

to

300
200 100 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

^00

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

00

oo Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: 709M40 0.4CMnCrMo 3.0 0.80 0 2.8 GC415MF CT525MF c g o 0.70 Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: 709M40 0.4CMnCrMo

GC415MF CT525MF 060

o K060

0.60

I
2
a

2.6
0.50 c

2.4

41

~~0

ui 2.2

U
41

0.40 0.3

>
2.0 100 200

300 400

loo

400

500 m/min

600

700

0.20 100

200

500
m/mi

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed . . 4 8 JVUBJELf - o o r ' ^ E L S T EiJiji. gg&S^g--

Variation of Shear Stress with c u l l i n g speed and tool type: 709M40CO - f) 4CMnCrMo t- Co

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: 709M40CO - 0.4CMnCrMo + Ca O GC415MF 0 C1525MF
en

900
800
(N

50 45 4C 35 30 25 20 15 10

O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060

co" co

700 600 500 400 300 200

o^.- e
^^^-^

-e
-e

o K060 ei
41

LO

41 u.

<
o

en c

r l/l

41

sz ui

41

100 )0

200

.J00

400

500 m/min

600

700

too

200

300

400

500 m/min

COO

/00

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

00

Variation of She Strain with cutting speed und looi type: 709M40CU 04CMnCrMo I Ca 3.0 O GC415MF O CT525MF 2.8 o K060 c g y O GC415MF O CT525MF 0.70o K060 0 60 0.50 0.40
O

Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: /09M40C 0.4CMnCrM<> 1 Cu 0.80-,

6
LO

2.6 O .. c
cu y
41 U

i
LO

24

:.-

::*>

2 2

o- - 200

0.30 00.20 00

2.0 100

< ; >
3(J0 401) 500 m/min 600 700 Cutting Speed

200

300

400

501) m/min

6(10

700

Cutting Speed

FIG. 44 MERCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: 709M40Ca

Voriation of Shear Stress with cutting speed and tool type: Carbon Manganese Steel 900 800 E 700 4
-

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Carbon Manganese Steel

O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060

en
41 TD

50 45 40 35 30 25
20 15

o GC415MF O CT525MF
o

K060

S
cu w

600 500
400

<

< u en c
ci 41

U)

x:

LO

300
200 100 100 600 ^00

200

300

400

500 m/min

10 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

IO

o Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Carbon Manganese Steel Voriation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Carbon Mangonese Steel 0.80 O GC415MF 0 CT525MF c o 0.60 a K060 0.70 GC415MF CT525MF K060

6.5 6.0 5.5

S
e> cu
Ul
JC

'
c

0.50
L.

4.01
3.5 3.02.5 2.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

cu o u

0.40

0.30 0.20 100

200

loo

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

FIG. 45

MERCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: CMn

Variation of Shear Stress with c u t t i n g speed and tool type: Low Carbon Freecutting Speed: S

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Freecutting Speed 50 45 40 35 30 O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060

900,

O GC415MF

IN

cu
u.

41 TD

en

<

en c

U1
CI 41

*-*

. LO

o cu

25
20 15 10 100

LO

sz

100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

^00

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

lu Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: l o w Carbon Freecutting Steel : S O GC415MF O CT525MF o K060 Variation of friction coefficient with c u t t i n g speed and tool type: Low Carbon Freecutting Steel : S 0.80
O GC415MF O CT575MF 0.70K060

*-*
o c o c o
i/i
CU

0.600.50

cu

o U

41

0.40 0.30 --.T-.Q 200 300 400 500 m/min 600 700 Cutting Speed

400 Cutting Speed

500 m/min

600

700

0.20 100

FIG. 46 MERCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: 230M07

Variation of S hear S tress with cutting speed and tool type: Law Carbon Free Cutting S teel ; S Pb 900800CN

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel : SPb
JU -

O GC415P O CT525MF o K060

en
41 TD

700600 500 400 300 200 10010

O GC415P 45- O CT525MF o K060 4035^ 302520 15 10

100 200
1

C O C O 41 u. *J LO

<

en c

41 . LO

41 -C LO

^=^h
^ ^ \ > ^ #^ ^ - ^ ^= =

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

300

400

500

600

700

Cutting S peed

Cutting Speed

m/min

ID

Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel: SPb 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5c
U

Variation o friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Leaded Free Cutting Steel SPb O GC415P O CT525MF o K060 0.80 GC425P 0.70 c o CT525MF K060

c '

.y

0.60
0.50

ui
-C LO

u.

cu

3.0-

cu o o

0.40

2.5-

0.30

2.0100

200

300

400

500 m/min . 1

600
M R R

700

0.20 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed .H,

A

, M T MniygLTESJLllAJlA.

22SS2Sfe~

Variation of Shear Stress with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel: SPbB iTe

Variation of Shear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free. Cutting Steel: SPbB iTe 50 O GC415P 45 40 35 30 O CT525MF o K060 en
41 TD

900
GC4I5P

800
tN

CT525MF

K060 700 600 4

co
IO

500 400 300

~'~~}~^^^^

en c <
a 41 x:
U1

41 k.
*J

&

25
20 15

LO O 41 LO

"^~

=^

200
100 100

o4
200 300 400 500 m/min 600 700

100

200

Cutting Speed

300 400 Cutting Speed

500 m/min

600

700

IO OJ

Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel: SPbB iTe

Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Low Carbon Free Cutting Steel: SPbB iTe 0.80 O GC415P O CT525MF - K060 GC425P CT525MF K060

5.0 4.5 4 0 3.5

o
41 Z LO

0.70 c o
'u, lu

c o

0.60

0.50
C

<u
'tj

30 2.5
2.0 100

.^s
200 300 400 500 m/min 600 700

41 O U

..

0.40

0.30

0.20 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

FIG. 48 MERCHANT MODELTEST DATA: 230M07PbBiTe

Vnriiiticin of Sfiecii Stiess with culting '..peed ond tool type: Silicon Killed I C I CS

Voiidliiin ut Shear Anglo with cutting speed and tool typ^: Silicon Killed ICI CS 50 O GC4 15MF 45 40 35 30 25 20
15

900
f) <;.41 f>Mf

800
tN

O CI525MF o K060
en cu
TD

O CT525MF K060

700 600 O
D

~z
co 41

o
""'

O O

g < o cu

u.

"

400

"

I 300
LO

200 100 100 10 4 100

500 600 700

200

.500 Cutting

400 >peed

200

300

400 peed

500

60i I

700

Cutting

m / m in

m/min

IO

Variation of Shear Strain with cutting speed and tool type: Silicon Killed LCFCS 5.0 0.75 O GC415MF O CT525MF 4.5 o K060 c g O GC415MF O CT525MF . K060

Variation of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Silicon Killed LCFCS

0.65 4 5 0.55 0.45

c
I

c
ui

4.0

3.5

41

' 3.0 ." '"

2.5

4)

0.35
o

0.25 "300 400 500 m/min

600

-0
700

2.0 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

0.15 100

200

Cutting Speed

Cutting Speed

FIG. 49

MERCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: 230M07 + Si

Variation of S hear S tress with cutting speed and tool type: Calcium k S ilicon treated LCFCS

Variation of S hear Angle with cutting speed and tool type: Calcium & S ilicon treated LCFCS

900
800
CN

50
O GC415P O CT525MF o K060 cr
41 TD

45 40

O GC415P O CT525MF o K060

700

600

35
30

S 500
41
L.

g" a
41 JC LO

w o
41 JC LO

400 300 200 100 100

25
20 15 10 100

200

300

400

500 m/min

60

700

20

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting S peed

Cutting S peed

IO

en Variation of S hear S train with cutting speed and tool type: Calcium St S ilicon treated LCFCS 5.0 0.75, O GC415MF O CT525MF 4.5 a K060 o
'C Lu

Variotion of friction coefficient with cutting speed and tool type: Calcium S ilicon treated LCFCS O GC415P O CT525MF 0.65 K060

4.0

0.55

3.5 a
41 C 4)

0.45 O

"

3.0-

>*z
41

2.5
-O 2.0

100

200

300

400

500 m/min

600

700

500 m/min

600

700

Cutting S peed

FIG. 50 MERCHANT MODEL TEST DATA: 230M07 + Si + Ca

 650

AISI 304Ca GC215MF Coated Carbide 260 m/min; 5100 m Cut; Cutting Edge

(a)

650

AISI 304Ca K090 Ceramic 260 m/min; 1800 m Cut; Flank Face

(b)

"%#?

200

AISI 303 GC215MF Coated Carbide 260 m/min; 5000 m Cut; Flank Face FIG. 51a-c TOOL WEAR AND DEPOSITS

(c)

96

P>XK ". * "**

7=

vis.' , $

1000

AISI 303CT525MF Cermet 260 m/min; 70 m Cut; Rake Surface

(a)

200

AISI 303 K090 Ceramic 260 m/min; 5000 m Cut; F lank F ace

(b)

x750

230Mo7 + Si + CaGC415P Coated Carbide 5100 m Cut; Rake Face FIG. 52ac TOOL WEAR AND DEPOSITS

97

GC215MF Coated Carbide

CT525MF Cermet

K060 Ceramic

x5

650 m/min FIG. 53

420 m/min

260 m/min

CHIP FORMS, AISI 303, FEED RATE = 0.189 mm/rev, DEPTH OF CUT/1.0 mm

(a)"

Flank Wear Data:

CMn; P30 Carbide

FLank Wear ()

300

200 Cutting Speed m/min 200 250 250(1) 300 300(1) 350

T 300

min 14 10.4 6.3 7.8 4.5 5.3

100

1 = Inner Region of Bar

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l i Cutting Time (min) (b) Crai:er Depth Wear Data: CMn; P30 Carbide Crater Depth 200 plUU Cutting Speed min m/min 150 200 250(1) 250 300(1) 300 350 13.7 6.4 11.2 4.7 8.9 6.3 NF NF NF NF NF

100 -

I = Inner Region of Bar 50 -

8 10 12 Cutting Time (min) (R4/1426) 99

FIG. 54a and b

( a ) F l a n k Wear D a t a : F l a n k Wear ()

230M07;

P30 C a r b i d e

400 m/min 450 m/min X /

/

/ /

x350

300

^^^ 275 m/min

225 m/ia

200
T 300

Cutting Speed m/min 450 400 350 275 225

mm 2.9 4.9 6.5 8.8 21.4

100

9 10 11 12 13 14 C u t t i n g Time ( m i n )

15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22

(b)

Crater Depth Wear Data:

230M07; P30 Carbide

T100

Crater Depth () 200

Cutting Speed m/min

min 15.7 8.9 6.9 5.7 3.0 NF NF NF NF

150 -

6 8 10 Cutting Time (min) FIG. 55a and b

12

(R4/I427)

100

(a)

Flank Wear Data:

230M07Pb;

P30 Carbide 350 m/min

Flank Wear () 450 m/min

300

250 m/min

200

Cutting Speed m/min 450 350 250

T 300

min 4.6 7.5 15.7

100

7 8 9 10 1 1 12 Cutting Time (min) 230M07Pb; P30 Carbide

13

14

15

16 17

(b)

Crater Depth Wear Data:

Crater Depth () 200 Cutting Speed m/min 150 250 450 350

T 100

min 16.0 NF 5.0 NF 8.0 NF

100

50

8 10 12 Cutting Time (min)

16

18

FIG. 56a and b

(R4/1428)

101

(a) Flank Wear Data: Flank Wear ()

230M07PbBiTe; 400 m/min

P30 Carbide

450 m/min 300

250 m/min

200 x 200 m/min

100
XX

Cutting Spee d m/min 250 300 400 450

TJUL

mm 18.5 9.0 5.2 3.5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Cutting Time (min) P30 Carbide

L__J

'

'

(b) Crater Depth Wear Data: 230M07PbBiTe; Crater Depth () 200 Cutting Time m/min 200 250 150 -

x250

100 -

50 -

8 10 12 Cutting Time (min) FIG. 57a and b (R4/1429)

102

( a ) F l a n k Wear D a t a : F l a n k Wear () 300

230M07+S;

P30 C a r b i d e

200

; 710 m/min / / / / 660 m/min ' F x

550 m/min
F
60 m

500 m/min

/min

Cutting Time m/min

100

T uu

min 1.9 3.0 5.8 9.7 11.1 NF

710 660 600 550 500 NF = Not F a i l e d F = F ailed

J L
J I I I I I ' '

1 2

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cutting Time (min) 230M07+S; P30 Caribde

rn IUI/

(b) Crater Depth wear Data: Crater Depth () 200 660 150
/

Cutting Speed m/min 600

mm 1 1.5 6.3 4. 1 1.8

550

500 550 600 660

100

50

6 8 10 Cutting Time (min)

12

FIG. 58a and b

(R4/1430)

103

( a ) F l a n k Wear Data: Flank Wear ()

230M07+Si+Ca;

P30 Carbide

600 m/min 700 m/min

300

__
525

.
m/min

550 m/min

200

Cutting Speed m/min 700 600 550 525

jOUU

mm 4.8 8.4 10.8 13.5

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Cutting Time (min)

(b) Crater Depth Wear Data: Crater Depth () 200

230M07+Si+Ca;

P30 Carbide

Cutting Speed m/min 525 550 600 700

rnlUU

mm 14. 1 NF 10.8 NF 8.3 NF 4.9

150 *

6 8 10 Cutting Time (min)

FIG. 59a and b

(R4/I431)

104

Flank Wear Uncoated Carbide Tooling P30 (SPGN 120308 ES30) 0.25 mm/rev 2.5 mm Depth of Cut No Lubrication

Base (CMn) S SPb SPbBiTe LCFCS+Si LCFCS+Si+Ca

,300 15 m/min 186 250 256 266 513 511

O V O

Cutting Time (min)

20 -

10

X 200

X X X 250 300 350 400 Cutting Speed (m/min)

J I I I L X 450 500 550 600 650 700

FIG. 60

UNCOA T ED CARBIDE TOOL LIFE (FLANK WEAR) OF LOW CARBON STEELS

(R4/1432)

105

v 100

Crater Wear Uncoated Carbide Tooling P30 (SPGN 120308 ES30) 0.25 mm/rev 2.5 mm Depth of Cut No Lubrication

X Base (CMn)

15 m/min (290) (230) (270) 221 468 (500)

s
SPb V SPbBiTe D LCFCS+Si

Cutting Time (min) 20

LCFCS+Si+Ca NF = Not Failed

\

NFV NFX

QNF v\\.

\v ANF

NF V O NF

J L
200

'

250 300 350 400 Cutting Speed (m/min)

450 500 550 600 650 700

FIG. 61

UNCOAT E D CARBIDE TOOL LIFE (CRATER WEAR) OF LOW CARBON STEELS

(R4/1433!

106

Cutting speed temperature of different stainless steels depth of cut 1mm 1000-,

900

o
co

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

0 O
D

!u_

CU

en
TD
k

cu
-t-1

=5

OJ CL

l-

o AISI 304 O AISI 303 o AISI 304 Ca

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

~750

Cutting speed M/min

FIG. 62 CUTTING TEMPERATURES FOR AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL

Cutting Temperature C 900 r

CMn

Depth of Cut:

mm

s
O SPb SPbBiTe

800

G LCFCS+Si LCFCS+Si+Ca

700

o
00

600

500

400

300

100

200 Cutting Speed (m/min)

300

400

FIG. 63

T CU T ING TEMPERATURES FOR LOW CARBON STEEL QUALITIES:-

CARBIDE CUTTING TOOL

(R4/812)

Cutting Temperature C 900 r

Depth of Cut: X 9 CMn SPbBiTe LCFCS+Si

1 mm

800

LCFCS+Si+Ca

700

o
UD

600

500

400

300 100

X 200 Cutting Speed (m/min)

300

400

FIG. 64

T CU T ING TEMPERATURES FOR LOW CARBON STEEL QUALITIES:-

CERMET

CUTTING TOOL

(R4/1434)

Oxide Area % 0.1

Average Oxide Inclusion Size 2 15 r -

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 -

20

30

J X 40 50 0 10 Distance from Bar Surface (mm)

20

30

40

50

FIG. 65

OXIDE INCLUSION PARAMETERS - CMn QUALITY

(R4/1435)

fc

,,.
a.

*a ^ ,
*m
>

..

*
^r*"'"

.,,
<Si
*

x200

AISI304

(a)

200

AISI 304Ca

(b)

x200

CMn

(c)

200

230M07Pb

(d)

x200

230M07PbBiTe FIG. 66af

(e)

200

230M07 + S

(f)

INCLUSION MORPHOLOGY

111

Temperature C 700 T T _V

Stress N/mm 2

1 800

600

_; 900

500 "

! I

f .^
400
Instability Locus

300

I
i
I

./
/
- /

>
Adiabatic Strain Path

200 t, ii !
I i 1 I'

/
,' ;

100 t i

.'

f /
.

."" """ r'"

/ / / / V

, .-

ir? , 4
0.5

1.5 Strain

2.5

FIG. 67

STRE SSSTRAINTE MPE RATURE

SURFACE : AISI 304 QUALITY

112

Temperature C 700 . . -

Stress N/mm2 200 . 1 300 1 400 - 500

600 T

500 -' i '

."""^

C-H 600 700

I 400
7a"

2.02
300\

V
V-' X Abiabatic Strain Path

! Instability j Locus

200

Il !

mo+:
i

_-J-

t: 0.5 1.5 Strain 2.5

FIG. 68

STRESS-STRAIN-TEMPERATURE SURFACE: 230M07 QUALITY

113

Test 5' 221.20

":

e m e t ip Overhang 189.60 95fm Distanc C ut M^OM''

15.00 126.40 94, 63.20 31.60

CNI

tn

.
31.60 63.20 94. 126.4 15. 189.6 221.2 252.8 284.4 316.0 347.6

i Tjj^

rW

OJ

aa
Frequency, kHz

sa

40

FIG. 69 TOOL HOLDER VIBRATION SPECTRUM CERMET TIP; 95 mm TOOL HOLDER OVERHANG

114

(a)

GC215MF coated carbide, 260 m/min, 5000 m cut

20 Um

0.2 mm (b) CT525MF cermet, 260 m/min, 5000 m cut

20 ym

0 .2 mm (c) K060 ceramic, 260 m/min, 5000 m cut

20 u r n

0 .2 mm

FIG. 70a-c

MACHINED BAR SURFACE PROFILES AISI 303

115

(a) CMn

20

0.2 mm

(b) 230M07

20 pm

I 0.2 mm

(c) 230M07Pb

20 pm

I 0.2 mm

FIG. 71

MACHINED BAR SURFACE PROFILES: LOW CARBON STEELS

(R4/1436)

116

lurface Finish FIG. 72

600

Cutting Force

COATED CARBIDE TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELS (R4/1606) Flank Wear

Surface Finish 400 FIG. 73 COATED CARBIDE TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m LOW CARBON STEELS Cutting Force

CUT AT 260 m/min (R4/1606)

117

Flank Wear

709M40Ca 303

Surface Finish Cutting Force

FIG. 74

CERMET TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min AUSTENITIC STAINLESS AND MEDIUM CARBON STEELS (R4/1607) Flank Wear

CMn SPbBiTe Si

Surface Finish Cutting Force FIG. 75 CERMET TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min LOW CARBON STEELS (R4/1607)

118

Flank Wear

Surface Finish

FIG. 76

Cutting 'Force CERAMIC TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min AUSTENITIC STAINLESS AND MEDIUM CARBON STEELS (R4/1608)

SiCa and SPbBiTe

Surface Finish FIG. 77

Cutting Force CERAMIC TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min LOW CARBON STEELS (R4/1608)

119

Flank Wear

709M40Ca

LCFCS+Si+Ca

Surface Finish Cutting Force

FIG. 78

CERMET TOOLS: PARAMETERS AFTER 3000 m CUT AT 260 m/min CALCIUM TREATED QUALITIES

(R4/160

120

APPENDIX 1 MACHINABILITY MODEL FOR NON-ORTHOGONAL CUTTING CONDITIONS

All

ORTHOGONAL CUTTING MODEL

A simple model for the mechanics of orthogonal cutting, where the cutting edge is perpendicular to the cutting speed vector and the feed direction, was first proposed by Merchant^ 1 1 ). With this 2-dimensional model of chip formation, the influence of tool geometry, and the nature of the interactions between the tool and the chip, can be examined analytically. Although the model is subject to a number of assumptions and limitations, and more sophisticated analyses have been developed, it has been widely used as a technique for the investigation of cutting processes.. The geometry of the orthogonal cutting process is illustrated in Fig. A l . l . The measured forces in the orthogonal axes, F c , (primary cutting force) and F t (tangential force) may be resolved onto the shear plane via the shear angle, 0 and onto the rake face through the rake angle, a. The resultant force, R, acting on the tool rake face is colinear to, and equal in magnitude to the resultant force R' acting on the shear plane. Assuming that stresses are distributed uniformly on the rake face, a classical coulomb sliding friction coefficient, , may be defined as follows (Fig. Al.l); F where and F = Fc sina + Ft cos a = Fc cosa - Ft sin a F sina + F cosa Therefore = F cosa F^sina
c t

(D
. . . (2) . . . (3)

Also, the force acting parallel to the shear plane, Fs = F c cos 0 - F t sin 0 ...(5)

Similarly, the force acting perpendicular to the shear plane, Fn = Fcsin0-Ftcos0 ...(6)

where the shear angle, 0 is given by, f cosa 0 = tan-1 f 1 sin te

te \ ...(7)

121

The shear strain is defined as, cosa

Y = ^"7

'\

(8)

sui 0 cos (0 a) and the shear stress on the shear plane is given by,
s " s

..(9)

where the shear plane area is given by, fd

A

s =
s

"~^

( 1 0 )

sm0

Therefore from (5) and (9), (Fc COS0 F t ts i n 0 ) s i n 0 ...(11)

F sin 0 cos 0 F sin 2 0

Q2)

The shear stress, xs is a material property closely related to the flow stress in compression under appropriate conditions. The most significant assumptions in this analysis, are: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) The tool tip is sharp and no rubbing or ploughing occurs. The deformation does not involve side spread or bulging. The stresses on the rake face and shear plane are uniformly distributed. Shear takes place in a highly localised zone about the defined shear plane. The resultant force R acting on the chip is equal, opposite and colinear to the force R' at the tool chip interface. MODIFI E D MODEL FOR NONORTHOGONAL CUTTING CONDITIONS

A1.2

In most practical machining operations, cutting is nonorthogonal. F or instance, in singlepoint turning, the geometry is modified as follows; (see Fig. Al.2); (i) (ii) The cutting edge of the tool is rotated in the xy plane by an angle K (known as the side cutting angle). In addition to the rake angle, a, made with respect to the orthogonal xaxis, the tool is tilted by an inclination angle, i, relative to the yaxis.

122

(iii)

The tool nose is modified by a nose radius, r, which may comprise a substantial proportion of the total depth of cut. (This is not illustrated in Fig. Al.2 on grounds of clarity).

The effect of these modifications is to rotate the plane ABCDEF containing both the input material vector (the cutting or z-direction) and the chip flow vector (output direction) out of the xz plane to form some angle with the y-axis. This is known as the chip flow angle. In this plane, the outgoing chip forms some angle (= f (, i, )) with the xy plane which may be defined as the effective rake angle, a'. It is proposed that, within this plane ABCDEF, forces may be resolved onto the shear plane and tool-chip interface in a manner analogous to the orthogonal case allowing a similar analysis to be carried out. In the plane ABCDEF, the section of the incoming material (equivalent to the feed, f in the orthogonal model) is given by, f(s) = sm . . . (13)

and the 'thrust' force acting on the chip, F t in plane ABCDEF is a function of the orthogonal feed and reaction forces Fx and Fy; Ft = -^ ...(14)

The effective rake angle, a' is given by, a' From(l), = = a sin + i cos F sin a' + F cosa' F c o s a ' - F sina'
c t

...(15) ...(16)

f(s) and from (7), 0 = tan - 1 / cosa t te> \ f(s) . 1 sm t (c) ...(17)

From (8),

cosa sin 0 cos (0 a')

From the xy plane view given in Fig. A 1.3, Shear plane area, A = 1 sin f (s) ds . . . (18) ...(19)
(20)

= fdsin F c sincos F t sin 2 0 Therefore, from (12), = s fd

123

A 1.3

DERIVATION OF CHIP FLOW DIRECTION

The analysis outlined above depends crucially on the chip flow angle, . Several attempts have been made to predict the direction of flow when cutting with nose radius tools. From a geometric construction, Colwell(A1-2) derived the following expression; , d tan K + rtan = cot
-1

n K\ f - _ + - , \4 2/

. .. (21)

This is based on the condition that the rake and inclination angles, and i, are both 0. Alternatively, Young et aKA1-3>, assuming that the force associated with the chip flow direction is the friction force, integrated the friction developed in infinitesimal elements of the chip width to determine a resultant assumed to be colinear to the direction of chip flow. Again, and i were assumed to be zero. As in the Col well analysis, is a function ofr, f, d and K although the expression is complex mathematically. A short series of machining experiments was undertaken in order to determine if either of the above methods was able to predict chip flow directions accurately. A matrix of cutting trials was made on an 230M07 low carbon ferrite/pearlite resulphurised bar using plain geometry GC415 TiN coated inserts, with conditions as follows; Cutting Speed Feed Rates Depth of Cut i r Helical cut distance 170 - 520 m/min 0.189 -0.476 mm/rev 1 -3 mm 6 6 15 0.8 mm 100 m

The direction of chip flow, , for each set of conditions was evaluated by examining the rake face of the inserts at high magnification. The rubbing action of the chip wore striations into the coating of the tools, which were taken to represent the direction of chip flow. The mean direction was evaluated from photomicrographs of the tool tips. The measured values for are compared with the calculations according to Colwell and Young's analyses respectively in Table A l . l . The results are also presented in Figs. A1.4, Al.5 and Al.6 to illustrate the effects of varying cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut on the chip flow angle. It can be seen that the trends in the experimental data agree well with those predicted by the two theorems. However, the predictions of the model according to Young are closer to the experimental data, although generally slightly higher. In general, the disparities were below 4. Additionally GC415MF chipbreaking tools were also used in some further trials. As can be seen in Table A l . l . , the chip flow angles observed for these tools, within the range of parameters used, were similar to those recorded with plain geometry tools.

124

A1.4

USE OF MODEL AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL

This model may provide a useful method for analysing tool/workpiece interactions by studying variations in 0, , and under different conditions for various tool/workpiece combinations. However, the model is subject to several important limitations, as follows; (i) (ii) The limitations of the orthogonal Merchant model regarding the nature of the shear zone, cutting tip, etc. apply. The assumption of uniform stress distribution on the rake face may not be valid, as a complex set of interactions occur, including sticking friction/sliding friction secondary in different zones leading to substantial secondary deformation. The model requires an accurate value for the chip flow angle. The theory assumes that shear occurs in a continuous manner on the shear plane, and is therefore invalid if substantial shear localisation (segmentation) effects occur.

(ii) (iv)

A1.5
Al.l A1.2 Al.3

REFERENCES
M.E. Merchant; 'Basic Mechanics of Metal Cutting Process', J. Appi. Mech. , (1944), A168A175. L.V. Colwell; 'Predicting the Angle of Chip Flow for Single Point Cutting Tools', Trans. ASME, 76, (1954), 199-204. H.T. Young, P. Mathew and P.L.B. Oxley; 'Allowing for Nose Radius Effects in Predicting the Chip Flow Direction and Cutting Forces in Bar Turning', Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C, 201. (C3). (1987). 213-226.

125

TABLE A l . l CHIP FLOW ANGLE CALCULATIONS/EXPERIMENTS Cutting Speed, m/min 170 210 260 325 420 520 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 Feed Rate, f, mm/rev 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.244 0.296 0.374 0.476 0.189 0.189 0.189 Depth of Cut, d, mm 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 Chip Flow Angle, , (degrees) Colwell 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 44.8 44.0 42.7 41.5 53.4 58.0 63.2 Young 59.6 59.6 59.6 59.6 59.6 59.6 58.8 57.8 56.0 53.9 64.5 67.0 69.6 Measured 57.3 56.3 56.7 55.0 60.7 56.7 53.3 54.3 51.7 50.3 62.3 66.7 71.3 Measured (Chipbreaker) 54.0 56.0 64.3 69.0

126

Workpiece

KEY F Fs Fn Fc Ft R,R',R" f tc 0 Vi V2 Friction force at tool/chip interface Normal force at tool/chip interface Shear force on shear plane CF Normal force on shear plane CF Cutting force ( = Fz) Thrust force ( = Fy) Resultant forces Feed, mm/rev Chip thickness Shear plane angle Rake angle Surface speed Chip velocity

FIG. A l . l

MECHANICS OF ORTHOGONAL CUTTING PROCESS

127

KEY f(s) t(s) 0 Equivalent feed, mm/rev Chip thickness Shear plane angle Rake angle w.r.t. x-axis FIG. A1.2 i a' Inclination angle w.r.t. x-axis Effective rake angle Chip flow angle Side cutting angle

MODEL FOR NON-ORTHOGONAL CONDITIONS

128

Workpiece

Feed d i r e c t i o n

FIG. A1.3

AREA OF UNCUT CHIP SURFACE

129

70
O

60

50
A A

40

100

200

300 Speed, m/min _Expt. ^_ Young

400
A _Colwell

500

600

Depth of cut = 1mm Feed rate = 0.1S9 mm/rev

FIG. A1.4

ANALYSIS OF CHIP FLOW DIRECTION

130

80
C

70 0
\
'

ft

60

*. fc

ii 50
L

U
40 0.15 0.2

'

0.25 _Expt.

0.3 0.35 Feed, mm/rev ^_ Young

A

0.4 Colwell

0.45

0.5

Cutting Speed, 260 m/min Depth of cut = 1mm

FIG. A1.5

ANALYSIS OF CHIP FLOW DIRECTION

131

80

C 70

o
H

rt

+""~^^^'^

60

0
mi

r~"~^~

li 50
D.

40

0.5

1.5

Depth of Cut, mm Cutting speed = 260 m/min Feed rate = 0.189 mm/rev

2.5 Colwell

3.5

FIG. A1.6 ANALYSIS OF CHIP FLOW DIRECTION

132

APPENDIX 2 TOOL TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION The experimental arrangement to assess the tool/workpiece temperatures is shown in Fig. A2.1. A water cooled rod of tool material ensures that the secondary junction is maintained at a constant temperature throughout testing. Initial experiments using an uncoated carbide tool have generated a range of emfs as shown in Fig. A2.2. The tool/workpiece combinations will be calibrated by use of a furnace.

133

Tailstock Copper

UI

Recirculating water

Water proofed

contact

FIG. A2.1

EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF TOOL TEMPERATURE

(R3/8408)

Thermocouple output, mV 25-_

20

Tool: Material: 15

Uncoated carbine Low carbon free cutting steel (230M07)

Depth of cut: 10 1 mm 3 mm 0.2 mm/rev

Feed rate:

100

-L 200

J. X 300 400 500 Cutting speed, m/min

600

00

FIG. A2.2

TOOL/WORKPIECE THERMOCOUPLE OUTPUT

(R3/8409)

135

Comparison of seperate Calibrations on Cermet \ LCFCS Thermocouple

300

450

600

750

900

1200

Temperature degrees C Comparison of seperate Calibrations of Cermet / Stainless Thermocouple

300

450

600

750

900

1050

T2OO

Temperature Degrees C
FIG. A2.3 CALIBRATION CURVES FOR WORKPIECE/CERMET THERMOCOUPLES

136

APPENDIX 3 VERIFICATION OF ACCELEROMETER OUTPUT

The following items comprise the proposed instrumentation to measure and record vibration of the tool holder:1. 2. 3. 4. Piezoelectric Accelerometer: Bruel and Kjaer Type 83009. Charge Amplifier: Bruel and Kjaer Type 2635. Dual Channel Transient Recorder: Stobes Engineering, Acquisition Unit 901 A. IBM Compatible PC.

The layout of these instruments is shown in Fig. Al.l. Software on the PC can be used to perform harmonic analysis of the accelerometer signal. A. preliminary trial was arranged to gain confidence in the instrument system. The accelerometer was mounted on a steel bar adjacent to a non-contacting distance transducer (Gaptek 2004), see Fig. Al.2. The bar was struck to make it vibrate and the ensuing outputs from both transducers were sent to the transient recorder and subsequently recorded on the PC. The accelerometer signals were then integrated twice (numerically) to provide displacement plots that could be compared with those measured directly by the distance transducer. The resulting plots are shown in Fig. Al.3. It can be seen that the signals are almost identical. Consequently the performance of the instrumentation system is thought to be satisfactory.

137

Tool holder Accelerometer

VJ

Charge amplifier

PC

Dual channel transient recorder

U) 00

Channel A

Channel

FIG. A3.1

INSTRUMENTATION TO MEASURE VIBRATION OF TOOL HOLDER

Non-contacting distance transducer

ui IO

FIG. A3.2 VERIFICATION OF ACCELEROMETER OUTPUT

45-1

o o o

-^

4035302520-

OL CO

151050-5-10-15-20-25-30-

5 6 1/1,000 Time, s

10

11

FIG. A3.3

COMPARISON OF NON-CONTACTING DISTANCE TRANSDUCER SIGNAL AND PLOT DERIVED FROM ACCELEROMETER SIGNAL

CORDIS
The Community Research and Development Information Service

Your European R&D Information Source

CORDIS represents a central source of information crucial for any organisation - be it industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, research organisations or universities - wishing to participate in the exploitation of research results, participate in EU funded science and technology programmes and/or seek partnerships. CORDIS makes information available to the public through a collection of databases. The databases cover research programmes and projects from their preparatory stages through to their execution and final publication of results. A daily news service provides up-to-date information on EU research activities including calls for proposals, events, publications and tenders as well as progress and results of research and development programmes. A partner search facility allows users to register their own details on the database as well as search for potential partners. Other databases cover Commission documents, contact information and relevant publications as well as acronyms and abbreviations. By becoming a user of CORDIS you have the possibility to: Identify opportunities to manufacture and market new products Identify partnerships for research and development Identify major players in research projects Review research completed and in progress in areas of your interest The databases - nine in total - are accessible on-line free of charge. As a user-friendly aid for on-line searching, Watch-CORDIS, a Windows-based interface, is available on request. The databases are also available on a CD-ROM. The current databases are: News (English, German and French version) - Results Partners - Projects - Programmes - Publications Acronyms - Comdocuments - Contacts

CORDIS on World Wide Web

The CORDIS service was extended in September 1994 to include the CORDIS World Wide Web (WWW) server on Internet. This service provides information on CORDIS and the CORDIS databases, various software products, which can be downloaded (including the above mentioned Watch-CORDIS) and the possibility of downloading full text documents including the work programmes and information packages for all the research programmes in the Fourth Framework and calls for proposals. The CORDIS WWW service can be accessed on the Internet using browser software (e.g. Netscape) and the address is: http://www.cordis.lu/ The CORDIS News database can be accessed through the WWW.

Contact details f or further Information

If you would like further information on the CORDIS services, publications and products, please contact the CORDIS Help Desk : CORDIS Customer Service B.P. 2373 L-1023 Luxembourg Telephone: Fax: E-mail: WWW: +352-401162-240 +352-401162-248 helpdesk@cordis.lu http://www.cordis.lu/

European Commission EUR 17840 Properties and in-service performance Interaction of free-cutting steel microstructure with machining technology C. Vasey, A. Turner, C. Betteridge, C. Elliot Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 1998 140 p p . 21 29.7 cm Technical steel research series ISBN 92-828-1687-7 Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 23 The advances in cutting tools capable of operating at higher cutting speeds and temperatures may place different demands on steel which must respond to the increased deformation rates and increased temperatures. In this project the emphasis has been a finishing operation where high cutting speeds and small depths of cut are of importance, rather than heavy metal removal using slower speeds, high feed rates and substantial depths of cut. The major objectives of the work have been to determine the response of different tool/workpiece combinations for optimum performance, and to examine the potential for a predictive model in assessing the machinability of these combinations, in order to reduce extensive machinability testing in the future in the search for ideal combinations of steel, tool and cutting condition. The work encompassed three basic types of steels low carbon, medium carbon low alloy and austenitic stainless steels, including various free cutting additives and deoxidation treatments, with the emphasis on the low carbon steels and stainless grades representing contrasting grades known to machine easily and with some difficulty. All of the steels were tested using coated carbide, ceramic, and cermet cutting tools. The tool wear produced by austenitic stainless steels was determined largely by the adherence of workpiece material. This was severe with coated carbide tooling, resulting in decohesion of the coating and a marked deterioration in surface finish. In the resulphurised austenitic stainless steel ceramic tooling produced the best performance, but, overall, cermet tooling proved advantageous with all of the austenitic stainless grades as there was little tendency for the adherence of workpiece material. Small volumes of manganese sulphide were found to be of value in AISI 304 qualities, suggesting that even in non-resulphurised steels the sulphur content should be tightly controlled for product consistency and quality with respect to machining. In low carbon steels at high cutting speeds the beneficial effect of manganese sulphide inclusions was apparent with all cutting tool types In both prolonging tool life and improving surface finish. However, the metallic additives, lead, and a combination of lead, bismuth, and tellurium did not offer further improvements in reducing tool wear, although chip form and surface finish were improved. Sulphide inclusions were also beneficial in promoting chip breaking in low carbon steels. For the unresulphuhsed plain CMn steel the cermet cutting tool gave the best performance, and this cutting tool type also proved to be satisfactory with the resulphurised balanced free cutting steel grades. With silicon-killed free cutting steels, cermet cutting tools produced a poorer quality surface finish than that generated with coated carbide and ceramic tooling. In a silicon killed calcium-treated quality this was shown to be due to the adherence of manganese sulphide deposits to coated carbide and ceramic tooling, suggesting these tools should be preferred for killed free cutting steels. Such deposits were not observed on balanced free cutting steels. Increased feed rates prolonged tool life for a given rate of metal removed. A workpiece/tool thermocouple technique proved to be inadequate in characterising the temperatures obtained during machining. The temperatures measured did not correspond with those obtained from compression testing for similar stresses and strains as determined in a modified Merchant model. The model proved to be insufficiently precise to define material performance accurately. A limited investigation of tool vibration in the 0-40 kHz range suggested no effect on tool wear. Although chatter resulted in a deterioration in surface finish it was not found to be detrimental to the tool life of the coated carbide insert employed. It is apparent from this research that there is scope for the development of new free cutting steels offering the capability of enhanced machinability with a wide range of cutting tools and cutting conditions.

Venta Salg Verkauf Sales Vente Vendita Verkoop Venda Myynti Frsljning
BELGIQUE/BELGI Moniteur beige/Belgisch Staatsblad Rue de Louvain 4042/Leuvenseweg 4042 B1000 Bruxelles/Brussel Tl. (322) 552 22 11 Fax (322) 51101 84 Jean De Lannoy Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202 B1060 Bruxelles/Brussel Tl. (322) 538 51 69 Fax (322) 538 08 41 Email: jean.de.lannoy@infoboard.be URL: http://www.jeandelannoy.be Librairie europenne/Europese Boekhandel Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 B1040 Bruxelles/Brussel Tl. (322) 295 26 39 Fax (322) 735 08 60 DANMARK J. H. Schultz Information A/S Herstedvang 1012 DK2620 Albertslund TH. (45)43 63 23 00 Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 Email: schultz@schultz.dk URL: http://www.scriultz.dk DEUTSCHLAND Bundesanzeiger Verlag Breite Strae 7880 Postfach 10 05 34 D50667 Kln Tel. (49221) 20 2P0 Fax(49?21> n mr ; ' ^ECE G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA International Bookstore Panepistlmiou 17 GR10564Athina Tel. (301)331 41 80/1/2/3 Fax (301) 323 98 21 Email: elebooks@netor.gr ESPANA Mundi Prensa Libros, SA Castell, 37 E28001 Madrid Tel. (341)431 33 99 Fax (341) 575 39 98 Email: libreriamundiprensa.es URL: http://www.mundiprensa.es Boletn Oficial del Estado Trafalgar, 27 E28010 Madrid Tel. (341)538 21 11 (Libros)/ 384 17 15 (Suscripciones) Fax (341) 538 21 21 (Libros)/ 384 17 14 (Suscripciones) Email: webmaster@boe.es URL: http://www.boe.es FRANCE Journal officiel Service des publications des CE 26, rue Desaix F75727 Paris Cedex 15 Tl. (33) 140 58 77 01/31 Fax (33) 140 58 77 00 IRELAND Government Supplies Agency Publications Section 45 Harcourt Road Dublin 2 Tel. (3531)661 31 11 Fax (3531) 475 27 60 ITALIA Licosa SpA Via Duca di Calabria, 1/1 Casella postale 552 150125 Firenze Tel. (3955) 64 54 15 Fax (3955) 64 12 57 Email: llcosa@ftbcc.it URL: http://www.ftbcc.rt/licosa LUXEMBOURG Messageries du livre SARL 5, rue Ralffeisen L2411 Luxembourg Tl. (352)40 10 20 Fax (352) 49 06 61 Email: mdl@pt.lu Abonnements: Messageries Paul Kraus 11, rue Christophe Plantin L2339 Luxembourg Tl. (352) 49 98 888 Fax (352) 49 98 88444 Email: mpk@pt.lu URL: http://www.mpk.lu ISLAND Bokabud Larusar Blondel Sklavrdustlg, 2 IS101 Reykjavik Tel. (354) 551 56 50 Fax(354)552 55 60 NORGE NIC Info A/S Ostenjoveien 18 Boks 6512 Etterstad N0606 Oslo Tel. (4722) 97 45 00 Fax (4722) 97 45 45 SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA OSEC Stampfenbachstrae 85 CH8035 Zrich Tel. (411)365 53 15 Fax (411) 365 54 11 Email: uleimbacher@osec.ch URL: http://www.osec.ch BLGARIJA EuropressEuromedla Ltd 59, Bid Vitosha BG1000 Sofia Tel. (3592) 980 37 66 Fax (3592) 980 42 30 ESK REPUBLIKA NIS CR prodejna Konviktsk 5 CZ113 57 Praha 1 NEDERLAND SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers Externe Fondsen Postbus 20014 2500 EA Den Haag Tel. (3170) 378 98 80 Fax (3170) 378 97 83 Email: sdu@sdu.nl URL: http://www.sdu.nl. OSTERREICH Manz'sche Verlags und Universittsbuchhandlung GmbH Siebenbrunnengasse 21 Postfach 1 A1050 Wien Tel. (431)53 16 13 34/40 Fax (431) 53 16 13 39 Email: auslieferung@manz.co.at URL: http://www.austria.EU.net:81/manz PORTUGAL Imprensa NacionalCasa da Moeda, EP Rua Marqus de S da Bandeira, 16 A P1050 Lisboa Codex Tel. (3511)353 03 99 Fax (3511 ) 353 02 94, 384 01 32 Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld. Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4/A Apartado 60037 P2701 Amadora Codex Tel. (351 1 ) 495 90 50, 495 87 87 Fax (3511) 496 02 55 zeiger.de .. izeiger.de SUOMI/FINLAND Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/Akademiska Bokhandeln Pohjoisesplanadi 39/ Norra esplanaden 39 PL/PB 128 FIN00101 Helsinki/Helsinglors ./tfn (3589) 121 41 F./fax (3589) 121 44 35 Email: akatilaus@stockmann.mailnet.f URL: http://booknet.cultnet,fi/aka/index.htm SVERIGE BTJ AB Traktorvgen 11 S221 82 Lund Tfn (4646) 18 00 00 Fax (4646) 30 79 47 Epost: btjeupub@btj.se URL: http://www.btj.se/medla/eu UNITED KINGDOM The Stationery Office Ltd International Sales Agency 51 Nine Elms Lane London SW8 5DR Tel. (44171)873 90 90 Fax (44171) 873 84 63 Email: jlll.speed@theso.co.uk URL: http://www.thestationeryoffice.co.uk
n

CYPRUS Cyprus Chamber of Commerce & Industry GrivaDigeni 38 & Deligiorgi 3 Mail orders: PO Box 1455 CY1509 Nicosia Tel. (3572) 44 95 00, 46 23 12 Fax (3572) 36 10 44 Email: cy1691_eic_cyprus@vans.infonet.com MAGYARORSZG Euro Info Service Europa Haz Margitsziget PO Box 475 H1396 Budapest 62 Tel. (361)111 60 61, 111 62 16 Fax (361) 302 50 35 Email: euroinfo@mail.matav.hu URL: http://www.euroinfo.hu/index.htm MALTA Miller Distributors Ltd Malta International Airport PO Box 25 LQA 05 Malta Tel. (356) 66 44 88 Fax(356)67 67 99 POLSKA Ars Polona Krakowskle Przedmiescte 7 Skr. pocztowa 1001 PL00950 Warszawa Tel. (4822)826 12 01

INDIA EBIC India 3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan Centre Gen. J. Bhosale Marg. 400 021 Mumbai Tel. (9122)282 60 64 Fax (9122) 285 45 64 Email: ebic@giasbm01 .vsni net in ISRAL ROY International 17, Shimon Hatarssi Street

PO Box 13056

61130 Tel Aviv Tel. (9723)546 14 23 Fax (9723) 546 14 42 Email: royil@netvision.net.il Subagent for the Palestinian Authority: Index Information Services POBox 19502 Jerusalem Tel. (9722)627 16 34 Fax (9722) 627 12 19 JAPAN PSIJapan Asahl Sanbancho Plaza #206 71 Sanbancho, Chiyodaku

Tokyo 102
Tel. (813)32 34 69 21 Fax (813) 32 34 69 15 Email: psljapan@gol.com URL: http://www.psijapan.com MALAYSIA EBIC Malaysia Level 7, Wisma Hong Leong 18 Jalan Perak 50450 Kuala Lumpur Tel. (603) 262 62 98 Fax (603) 262 61 98 Email: ebickl@mol.net.my PHILIPPINES EBIC Philippines 19th Floor, PS Bank Tower Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor.Tindalo St. Makati City Metro Manilla

Fax (4822) 826 62 40, 826 53 34, 826 86 73

Email: ars_pol@bevy.hsn.com.pl ROMANIA Euromedia Str. Gral Berthelot Nr 41 RO70749 Bucuresti Tl. (401) 210 44 01,614 06 64 Fax (401) 210 44 01, 312 96 46 SLOVAKIA Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information Nmestie slobody 19 SK81223 Bratislava 1 Tel. (4217)531 83 64 Fax (4217) 531 83 64 Email: europ@tbb1 .sltk.stuba.sk SLOVENIA Gospodarski Vestnik Zalozniska skupina d.d. Dunajska cesta 5 SLO1000 Ljubljana Tel. (386)611 33 03 54 Fax (386) 611 33 91 28 Email: belicd@gvestnik.si URL: http://www.gvestnlk.sl TURKIYE Dnya Infotel AS Istlkll Cad. No: 469 TR80050 TnelIstanbul Tel. (90212)251 91 96 Fax (90212) 251 91 97 AUSTRALIA Hunter Publications PO Box 404 3167 Abbotsford, Victoria Tel. (613)94 17 53 61 Fax (613) 94 19 71 54 CANADA Subscriptions only/Uniquement abonnements: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd 5369 Chemin Canotek Road Unit 1 K U 9J3 Ottawa, Ontario Tel. (1613)745 26 65 Fax (1613) 745 76 60 Email: renouf@fox.nstn.ca URL: http://www.renoufbooks.com EGYPT The Middle East Observer 41, Sherif Street Cairo Tel. (202) 393 97 32 Fax (202) 393 97 32 HRVATSKA Mediatrade Ltd Pavia Hatza 1 HR10000 Zagreb Tel. (3851)43 03 92 Fax (3851) 43 03 92

Tel. (632) 759 66 80 Fax (632) 759 66 90

Email: eccpcom@globe.com.ph RUSSIA CCEC 60letiya Oktyabrya Av. 9 117312 Moscow Tel. (7095) 135 52 27 Fax (7095) 135 52 27 SOUTH AFRICA Sarto 5th Floor Export House, CNR Maude & West Streets PO Box 782 706 2146Sandton Tel. (2711)883 37 37 Fax (2711)883 65 69 SOUTH KOREA Kyowa Book Company 1 F l . Phyung Hwa Bldg 4112 Hap Jeong Dong, Mapo Ku 121220 Seoul Tel. (822) 322 67 80/1 Fax (822) 322 67 82 Email: kyowa2@ktnet.co.kr. THAILANDE EBIC Thailand Vanissa Building 8th Floor 29 Soi Chidlom Ploenchit 10330 Bangkok

Tel. (662) 655 06 27

Fax (662) 655 06 28 Email: eblcbkk@ksc15.th.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Bernan Associates 4611 F Assembly Drive MD20706 Lanham Tel. (800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone) Fax (800) 865 34 50 (toll Iree fax) Email: query@bernan.com URL: http://www.beman.com ANDERE LANDER/OTHER COUNTRIES/ AUTRES PAYS Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Bro Ihrer Wahl / Please contact the sales office of your choice /Veuillez vous adresser au bureau de vente de votre choix

Tel. (4202) 24 22 94 33, 24 23 09 07

Fax (4202) 24 22 94 33 Email: nkposp@dec.nis.cz URL: http://www.nls.cz

. Country order: EU, EFTA. EU applicant countries, others.

NOTICE TO THE READER

Information on European Commission publications in th e areas of research and innovation can be obtained from: C ORDIS, the C ommunity R & D Information Service For more information, contact: CORDIS Customer Service, B P 2373, L1023 Luxembourg Tel. (352) 40 11 62240; Fax (352) 40 11 62248; email: helpdesk@cordis.lu or visit the website at http://www.cordis.lu/ euro abstracts The European Commission's periodical on research publications, issued every two months. For more information, contact: RTD helpdesk, European Commission, DG XIII, L2920 Luxembourg Fax (352) 43 0132084; email: rtdhelpdesk@lux.dg13.cec.be

Price (excluding VAT) In Luxembourg: ECU 23 ISBN * * *

*
EUR

T2EfilLfl77

op *
! *

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUB LICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES L2985 Luxembourg 9 789282"816875 >