Accepted Manuscript

Analysis of surface roughness of aluminium alloys fine turned: united phenomenological models and multi-performance optimization
Richrd Horvth, gota Drgelyi-Kiss
PII:
DOI:
Reference:

S0263-2241(15)00031-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.01.013
MEASUR 3226

To appear in:

Measurement

Received Date:
Revised Date:
Accepted Date:

23 October 2014
17 December 2014
14 January 2015

Please cite this article as: R. Horvth, . Drgelyi-Kiss, Analysis of surface roughness of aluminium alloys fine
turned: united phenomenological models and multi-performance optimization, Measurement (2015), doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.01.013

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Analysis of surface roughness of aluminium alloys fine turned:

united phenomenological models and multi-performance
optimization

Richard Horvath, Agota

Dregelyi-Kiss

Obuda
University, Donat Banki Faculty of Mechanical and Safety Engineering, Budapest, Hungary
H-1081, Budapest, Nepsznhaz u.8

Abstract
The use of aluminium and aluminium alloys as raw materials has been increasing in the last
decades due to their several excellent mechanical properties (such as tensile strength, hardness
or corrosion resistance) and technological properties (such as excellent castability or finish turning). Most metal parts are manufactured by machining resulting in one of the most important
characteristics of all metal parts which is the surface roughness of the machined surfaces. In
this article an investigation into the fine turning of two types of aluminium was carried out with
diamond tools of different cutting edge materials and different shape of cutting tool edges. The
tests were performed with the design of experiments methodology. In order to estimate the Ra
and Rz surface roughness parameters widely used in the industry reduced united phenomenological models were built from the measurement results utilizing edge materials, and work piece
materials as qualitative members. After multi-performance optimization an optimum point with
desirability functions was defined so as to maximize productivity and minimize surface roughness.
Keywords:
aluminium fine turning, design of experiment, response surface method, optimization,
phenomenological model

Abbreviations
a p : depth of cut, mm
AS12: type of an aluminium alloy
AS17: type of an aluminium alloy
CCD: central composite design
CVD: chemical vapour deposition diamond
DOE: design of experiments
f : feed, mm
HB: Brinell hardness

Email address: dregelyi.agota@bgk.uni-obuda.hu (Agota

Dregelyi-Kiss)
Preprint submitted to Measurement

January 27, 2015

HRC: Rockwell hardness

HSC: high speed cutting
ISO: conventional shape of cutting tool edge
MDC: monocrystalline diamond
MQL: minimum quality lubrication
PCD: polycrystalline diamond
P f : productivity factor, m2 /min
Ra: arithmetical mean deviation of the roughness profile, m
Rz: maximum height of the roughness profile, m
RSM: response surface method
T M: tool material
vc : cutting speed, m/min
Wiper: non-conventional shape of cutting tool edge
W M: workpiece material
1. Introduction
The surface roughness of machined parts is a criterion as important in terms of the quality
of a product as is geometrical sizes and their tolerance. The two most important surface roughness parameters preferred in industries are arithmetical mean deviation of the roughness profile
(Ra) and maximum height of the roughness profile (Rz). Estimating these surface roughness
parameters before the manufacturing process is an important field of research nowadays. The
phenomenological models used for estimating surface roughness can only be made with the help
of well-planned experiments. Making experiments and repeating them are rather costly and time
consuming, therefore it is advisable to reduce the number of experimental runs and use design of
experiments (DOE) in order to evaluate them better.
Significant research has focused on the relationship between cutting parameters and surface
roughness with the help of DOE. The cutting capacities of a machinable glassceramic material
(Macor) were examined by Dabnum et al. [1] with uncoated carbide inserts under dry cutting
conditions with the help of DOE. A so-called 23 central composit design (CCD) consisting of 12
experimental runs was carried out. The cutting parameters (cutting speed vc ; feed f ; the depth
of cut a p ) were varied during three independent input parameters. In every experimental run
machined surface roughness (Ra) was measured. To estimate Ra (and the rate of metal removal)
equations depending on the input parameters were set up.
A turning experiment of metal matrix composites (MMCs) with a PCD tool was made by
Davim [2]. In his research the so-called L27 (Taguchi design) was used. In addition to cutting
parameters, cutting time was also an input parameter. An empirical model was built to estimate
Ra. With this model, as total cutting time increases, the surface roughness (resulting from tool
wear) and its deterioration can be calculated.
A MMC material (2024 Al alloy composite reinforced with 7.3 and 23.3 vol.% Al2 O3 particles) was examined by Kok [3] the tools used were CCMT09T308-F1 and CCMT09T308-41.
The two types of cutting tools were a TiN coated K10, and a triplayer coated P30, respectively. In
his research the so-called L8 Taguchi design was chosen. To estimate the surface roughness machined with the examined tools, they built a model for each tool, and demonstrated that surface
roughness values were higher in the case of the K10 tool as opposed to the TP30 tool.
Several researchers have dealt with the examination and the estimation of the surface roughness machined by hard turning. AISI H11 steel was turned with a CBN tool by Aouici et al.
2

[4]. A model was built from 29 experimental runs to estimate Ra in which the hardness of the
workpiece is also included along with cutting parameters, which are essential in the case of hard
turning. It was proved by Aouici et al., that not only feed rate but the hardness of the workpiece
also has a significant influence on surface roughness.
Aouici et al. [5] have also examined cold work tool steel AISI D3 heat-treated (hardness:
60 HRC) with TiN layer covered ceramic cutting tools, composed approximately with 70 %
of Al2 O3 and 30 % of TiC (SNGA120408) under hard turning. The surface roughness was
estimated based on a 33 full factorial experimental design, where the quadratic effects were also
determined. The optimum was looking for where the surface roughness, cutting force and power
were at a minimum level.
Hessainia et al. [6] tested steel (42CrMo4, hardness: 56 HRC) under dry hard turning condition. The cutting tool used was an uncoated ceramic, which is approximately composed of 70 %
of Al2 O3 and 30% of TiC (SNGN 120408 T01020). The experimental design was L27 Taguchi
design. The input parameters were the cutting parameters and the vibration of tool, the output
parameters were Ra and Rz. The optimum point was determined where the surface roughness
and the vibration were minimized. It was concluded that the feed rate and the cutting speed had
significant effect, and the depth of cut and vibrations had no statistically significant effects on the
surface roughness.
AISI 4340 steel (hardness: 48 HRC) was examined by Suresh et al. [7]. The tool used
throughout the investigation was CNMG 120408 with chip breaker. The inserts used had multilayer CVD coating (TiN/MT-TiCN/Al2 O3 ) on a cemented carbide substrate. A design of experiments consisting of 108 experimental runs was carried out to estimate the value of Ra. The
research it was concluded that surface roughness is highly sensitive to variations in depth of cut
especially at lower values of cutting speed as compared to higher cutting speeds, but surface
roughness was found to be insensitive to variations in machining time irrespective of the cutting
speed specified. The same author [8] in another study also examined the above-mentioned steel
and tool with a DOE consisting of 27 measurement runs.
Asilturk and Akkus [9] investigated AISI 4140 (hardness: 51 HRC) steel, and Al2 O3 and
TiC-coated (WNMA 080408) inserts as cutting edge material. In his study he carried out 9
experimental runs on the basis of the Taguchi method (L9 ). The goal was to minimize the values
of Ra and Rz.
In another study Asilturk and Neseli [10] examined the turning of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel with an uncoated insert (SNMG 120408-PP) under dry cutting conditions. The DOE
consisted of 27 experimental runs (33 ). Empirical models were set up with which the expected
values of Ra and Rz could be estimated.
Venkata et al. [11] tested AISI 316 (its corrosion resistance is regarded as marine grade)
stainless steel with physical vapor deposition coated tungsten carbide tool inserts with two nose
radii of 0.8 mm (DNMG150608) and 0.4 mm (DNMG150604) under dry boring condition. It
was used L8 Taguchi orthogonal array to analyze the experimental results obtained from boring
process (2 levels of cutting speed, nose radius and feed). Output parameters were Ra, flank wear
and the vibration of the workpiece. Artificial neural network (ANN) was implemented to predict
the surface roughness, tool wear and work piece vibration. Then it was possible to change the
cutting tool at correct time in order to get good quality of products.
Correira and Davim [12] examined the surface roughness performance of conventional and
non-conventional (so-called Wiper) edge tools during the turning of carbon steel AISI 1045
(hardness: 207 HB). Inserts with two types of nose radius (0.4 and 0.8 mm) were used. A
DOE consisting of 9 experimental runs was made. In his research he pointed out that Wiper
3

shape produces lower surface roughness with the same feed than ISO shape and a high feed rate
(0.25 mm) is possible to obtain machined surfaces with less than 0.8 m of Ra.
The cutting performance of carbon steel AISI 1045 was also examined by Hwang and Lee
[13] with a carbide insert (CNMG 120404 FG, coated, conventional edged tool, classification
K10) under MQL (minimum quality lubrication) and wet conditions with the help of DOE, which
was a 251 design. In the above mentioned research he set up models for the cutting conditions in
order to estimate average surface roughness (Rawet , Ra MQL ). He determined an optimum plotted
against the cutting force and expected surface roughness, and concluded that MQL has more
advantages than wet turning (in terms of surface roughness and cutting forces).
Chinchanikar et al. [14] tested AISI 4340 steel under turning at different levels of hardness
(35 and 45 HRC) with chemical vapor deposition Kennametal KC9110 (CNMG 120408) tool
(with TiCN/Al2 O3 /TiN coating layer sequence). The experimental design was a CCD design
consisting of 20 experimental runs. Two independent equation were developed for Ra in case of
different levels of hardness. The feed rate and the depth of cut had significant effect on the Ra,
especially in case of softer workpiece. In their study the goal was to find the optimum values of
process variables (cutting speed, feed and depth of cut) in order to get better tool life, minimum
cutting forces and minimum surface roughness for each material.
Zebala and Kowalczyk [15] examined WC-Co material with Mitsubishi triangular PCD tool
(TNGA 160408). The Cobalt content in a work piece were 10, 15, and 25 wt%. Their research
plan was based on the L9 Taguchi method. Two empirical models were developed. The first
model was based on the power function; the second was based on the polynomial function according to modified RSM equations.
The L27 Taguchi method was used by Lazarevic et al. [16] to examine the turning of polyamide
(PA-6). The inserts used had different nose radii (VCGX 160404-AL, classification H10 and
VCGX 160408-AL, classification H10). In his results he concluded that feed had the biggest
influence on the surface roughness of the machined polyamide, the effect of nose radius was less
important, while the influence of cutting speed was non-significant. Since cutting speed was not
significant, it could be set at the highest level to obtain a higher material removal rate.
Mankova et al. [17] examined the chip deformation of coated and uncoated drills with the
Taguchi method (L9 ) and built a mathematical model with the machining parameters as input.
The authors dealt with cutting research helped by design of experiments and with the investigation of the statistical surface roughness of aluminium alloys [18].
As demonstrated in the above references it can be stated that research of the machining of
different materials should be carried out with a well-chosen DOE.
In this article two types of aluminium alloys are investigated under fine-turning conditions
with different edge materials and edge cutting tools. Surface roughness (Ra, Rz) was defined
as a criterion of the quality of the turned workpiece. The systematic changing of the values of
cutting parameters were carried out with DOE and RSM (response surface method). Our aim is
to set up reduced combined phenomenological models to estimate surface roughness in which
apart from cutting parameters (cutting speed, vc , m/min; feed, f , mm; depth of cut, a p , mm),
both workpiece materials (W M) and tool materials (T M) are used as input data. Based on the
mathematical models, we intend to minimize roughness and maximize productivity as well as
define optimum cutting parameters to aid in technological planning.

2. Materials and methods

In this study the finish turning of two types of die-cast aluminium alloys often used in the
industry was examined. During the manufacturing of the workpiece the performance of diamond
tools with different shape of cutting tool edges and edge materials was characterized.
2.1. The materials used
Besides iron and steel, aluminium and aluminium alloys are the most often used metals in
industry and their use is increasing. The most popular alloys for aluminium are silicon, copper
and magnesium. We examined two types of alloys widely used in industrial mass production.
These alloys combine excellent mechanical features with their technological advantages. The
advantage of the AS12 eutectic alloy is its excellent castability while the advantages of the AS17
(hyper-eutectic) alloy is improved hardness and wear resistance (due to primary silicon forming
during the cooling process). The chemical composition and the hardness of the raw materials is
in Table 1. The size of material that was used for a cutting experiment is 110 40 mm.
Table 1: The chemical composition and the hardness of the raw materials
Material
AS17
AS12

Al, wt. %
74.35
88.54

Si, wt. %
20.03
11.46

Cu, wt. %
4.57
-

Fe, wt. %
1.06
-

Hardness
114 3 HB2.5/62.5/30
64 2 HB2.5/62.5/30

2.2. The tools used

Our tests were carried out with commercially available diamond tools (code: DCGW 11T304).
Tools of three types of edge material were applied: polycrystalline synthetic diamond (PCD),
chemical vapour deposition synthetic diamond (CVD), and monocrystalline synthetic diamond
(MDC). These tools were tested with conventional (ISO) and non-conventional (Wiper) shapes.
The theoretical differences between ISO and Wiper shapes are shown in Fig. 1. The tools used
in the examinations are summarized in Table 2.

(a) conventional (ISO) geometry

(b) non-conventional (Wiper) geometry

Figure 1: Differences between ISO and Wiper geometries (based on [19])

(Symbols: f feed; a p depth of cut; re radius of the cutting edge; re1 and re2 radii of wiper
curvature; rbo radius of smoothing part; Rz surface height)
The electron microscopy images of the tools used in the experiments are shown in Fig. 2.
The difference between ISO and Wiper shapes can be clearly seen in the photos.
5

Table 2: The tools and edge shapes used in the experiment (x)
Edge shapes
ISO
Wiper

(a) edge material: PCD,

edge shape: ISO

Edge materials
PCD CVD MDC
x
x
x
x
x
-

(b) edge material: CVD,

edge shape: ISO

(d) edge material: CVD,

edge shape: Wiper

(c) edge material: MDC,

edge shape: ISO

(e) edge material: PCD,

edge shape: Wiper

Figure 2: The electron microscope photos of tools used

2.3. The devices/equipment used

The lathe used in the experiment was EuroTurn 12 B CNC with 7kW spindle power, and a
maximum rpm of 6000. Surface roughness was measured with a Surftest SJ301 surface tester
(measuring setup: c = 0.8 cutoff length, N=5 number of sampling length). Surface roughness was measured 12 times (at 30 degrees) at each experimental point. The values in the article
are the averages of these 12 measurements. The workpiece and the points of surface roughness
measurement can be seen in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Measurement points

2.4. Design of experiments

During the examination of the finish turning of the material and the cutting capacity of tools
several parameters can be changed, such as type of raw material, the material and shape of cutting
tools, and cutting parameters. Cutting experiments are considered expensive, so it is advisable to
reduce the number of experiments as much as possible. The method for this is DOE. In the course
multi-factor experimental designs the main and the interaction effects of the given parameters can
be examined. If the quadratic effects of the given parameters are also taken into consideration,
the response surface method (RSM) is recommended.
We used the response surface methodology (RSM) method with CCD (central composite design), where all parameters could be examined at 5 levels. The basis of the experimental design
was a design consisting of 16 experimental runs, in which three cutting parameters (such as cutting speed, vc , m/min; feed rate, f , mm and depth of cut , a p , mm) were changed systematically,
including a measurement in the central point of the design and its repeat measurement. The values set in the experimental runs are in Table 3 and in Fig. 4 in coded units. The factors of the
CCD were set in a way that the effects of the main factors could be estimated orthogonally.
The limits of the examined cutting parameters were selected so that they correspond to the
values used in industrial practice and meet the requirement of high speed cutting (HSC) applications and cover a relatively wide range in accordance with the requirements of fine turning.
While the investigated cutting tools have two types of shapes (ISO and Wiper), it was considered
that the tools with Wiper shape are able to make better surface roughness (i.e. lower surface
7

Table 3: Levels of the experimental runs

No. of Runs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

vc
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1.28719
1.28719
0
0
0
0
0
0

f
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
0
0
-1.28719
1.28719
-1
-1
0
0

Figure 4: Measurement points

ap
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
0
0
0
0
-1.28719
1.28719
0
0

roughness values). Therefore in the case of experiments made with the Wiper cutting tool shape
the feed rate was twice as high [19] in order to compare the surface roughness data provided with
the other different cutting tool shapes. The values set for the manufacturing parameters are in
Table 4.
Table 4: The levels of the manufacturing parameters in uncoded units
vc , m/min
fIS O , mm
fWiper , mm
a p , mm

-1.28719
500
0.05
0.1
0.2

-1
667
0.058
0.116
0.267

0
1250
0.085
0.17
0.5

1
1833
0.112
0.224
0.733

1.28719
2000
0.12
0.24
0.8

The design of experiments (Table 3) was made for the five type tools and both workpiece
materials. The surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rz) of the manufactured parts were determined
by 12 repeated measurements (see Fig. 3), which is a total of 16 (experimental runs) 5 (tools)
2 (workpiece materials) 12 (repeated measurements) = 1920 measurement points. The
following relationship is examined for the measurement results:
Y = (vc , f, a p )

(1)

where is the so-called response function, Y is the output parameter (Ra, Rz), and vc , f and a p
are the input cutting parameters.
For the prediction of Ra and Rz the phenomenological models for all tools and workpiece
materials are used:
Ra = b0 + b1 vc + b2 f + b3 a p + b11 vc 2 + b22 f 2 +
+b33 a p 2 + b12 vc f + b13 vc a p + b23 f a p + 

(2)

Rz = c0 + c1 vc + c2 f + c3 a p + c11 vc 2 + c22 f 2 +
+c33 a p 2 + c12 vc f + c13 vc a p + c23 f a p + 

(3)

where b0 , bi , bi j , c0 , ci , ci j are calculated coefficients and  is the experimental error.

To facilitate technological planning and eliminate the 20 individual equations (for 5 tools and
2 workpiece materials) we set out to develop a united mathematical model which also consists
of the tool materials and workpiece materials as input parameters. The following united model
was developed for the results:
Y = (vc , f, a p , T M, W M)

(4)

where T M is the tool material and W M is the workpiece material. The values of these quality
parameters can be found in Table 5.
The united phenomenological models are as follows:
Ra = d0 + d1 W M + d2 T M + d3 vc + d4 f + d5 a p + d22 T M 2 + d33 vc 2 + d44 f 2 +
+d55 a p 2 + d12 W M T M + d13 W M vc + d14 W M f + d15 W M a p + d23 T M vc +
+d24 T M f + d25 T M a p + d34 vc f + d35 vc a p + d45 f a p +  (5)
9

Table 5: The coded values for the quality variables

W M workpiece material

AS12
0

AS17
1

T M tool material

PCD
0

CVD
1

MDC
2

Rz = e0 + e1 W M + e2 T M + e3 vc + e4 f + e5 a p + e22 T M 2 + e33 vc 2 + e44 f 2 +

+e55 a p 2 + e12 W M T M + e13 W M vc + e14 W M f + e15 W M a p + e23 T M vc +
+e24 T M f + e25 T M a p + e34 vc f + e35 vc a p + e45 f a p +  (6)
where d0 , di , di j , e0 , ei , ei j are the calculated coefficients and is the experimental error. The
values of d22 and e22 are zero in the case of Wiper tools, since the tool material only has two
levels.
2.5. Optimization
To calculate optimal cutting parameters it is important to choose a proper objective function.
The requirements (restrictions) contradict one another, because the aim is to minimize roughness
parameters (Ra, Rz) of the machined surface and to maximize productivity (P f ), which is the
product of cutting speed and feed rate:
Ra = Min

(7)

Rz = Min

(8)

P f = vc f = Max

(9)

To determine the optimum of these three objective functions, so-called desirability functions
were used [20]. As can be seen, the equations representing the desirability functions take values from the interval (0, 1), the larger the desirability value, the better the solution is. In our
investigation the selected desirability functions denoted by dRa , dRz and dP f are shown in Fig. 5.
The limits of surface roughness were determined to be the same as the minimum values (Ra, Rz)
expected during grinding. In order to fulfil the requirements represented by Eqs. 7-9, a composite desirability function was constructed. The composite desirability function (D), which is
designated to look for the optimal point, is obtained by computing the geometrical average of the
three individual desirability functions:
q
(10)
D = 3 dRa dRz dP f

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Measurement data
The experiments were performed with five types of tools and two types of workpiece materials in the range of the examined cutting parameters. The results are grouped according to these
two types of tools.
The average surface roughness values (Ra) are in the range of 0.363-1.220 m for Wiper and
0.284-1.763 m for ISO in the case of AS12, and 0.351-1.040 m for Wiper and 0.428-1.677 m
for ISO in case of AS17. The standard deviation of the measured values of Ra are in the range
10

(a) Desirability of Ra

(b) Desirability of Rz

(c) Desirability of P f

Figure 5: Desirability functions

of 0.028-0.208 m for Wiper and 0.009-0.301 m for ISO in the case of AS12, and 0.007-0.084
m for Wiper and 0.005-0.093 m for ISO in the case of AS17.
The same pattern is found regarding Rz values and their standard deviation. The Rz values
are in the range of 2.176-5.179 m for Wiper and 1.714-7.599 m for ISO in the case of AS12,
and 2.082- 4.398 m for Wiper and 2.193-7.786 m for ISO in the case of AS17. The standard
deviation of the measured Rz values are in the range of 0.117-0.658 m for Wiper and 0.0981.214 m for ISO in the case of AS12, and 0.072-0.359 m for Wiper and 0.084-0.444 m for
ISO in the case of AS17.
The interaction plots (for Ra and Rz, Figs. 6 and 7, respectively) show how the parameters
set change surface roughness on average. It can be seen that surfaces manufactured by Wiper
cutting tools (in red and orange) have lower average surface roughness and surface height in all
cases. There are differences in the values of Rz depending on the workpiece materials (AS12 or
AS17). In the case of AS17, the machined surface has lower Rz values on average. As the feed
rate is increased, the Ra and Rz values increase the change is greater with ISO cutting tools
than in the case of Wiper cutting tools.
In Figs. 8 and 9 the mean values of Ra and Rz can be seen by experimental run, by tool and
by workpiece material. It is obvious that Wiper cutting tools have different surface roughness
values and the MDC tool differs from the other ISO cutting tools.
3.2. Effect of cutting conditions
Mathematical models were fitted to the measurement results according to Eq. 2 and 3. It was
examined whether the values of the coefficients are equal to zero, or have a significant effect on
the measurement results (Table 6). The coefficients which have a significant effect at the 95%
level are denoted by x. It can be seen from the investigation of significant coefficients that the
cutting speed and the feed rate (and its square) have the largest impact on surface roughness, and
the interaction of the previously mentioned factors have a significant effect on the measurement
results.
In the field of cutting research [1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 16] it is found for various raw materials
(from hard steel to PA6) that the largest effect on the surface roughness has the feed rate. Our
examinations show similar results but it is found that the square of the feed rate and the product
of the feed and the cutting speed have statistically significant effect for the surface roughness.
United phenomenological models were calculated according to Eq. 4 for the tools and workpiece materials examined. The results of the analysis of significant coefficients (see Eq. 5 and 6)
at the 95% level can be seen in Table 7. It can be stated that depth of cut has no significant effect
on average surface roughness in the case of ISO tools, either as main effects or as interactions.
11

Figure 6: Interaction plot for Ra (the levels of the factors are in Coded units)

Figure 7: Interaction plot for Rz (the levels of the factors are in Coded units)
12

Figure 8: Ra mean values by various categories

Table 6: The significance of the coefficients of the individual models (x - significant; o nonsignificant)

vc
f
ap
vc 2
f2
ap2
vc f
vc a p
f ap

PCD-ISO
AS12
AS17
Ra Rz Ra Rz
x
x
x
o
x
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
x
o
x
o
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
o
x
x
o

CVD-ISO
AS12
AS17
Ra Rz Ra Rz
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
o
o
o
x
o

13

MDC-ISO
AS12
AS17
Ra Rz Ra Rz
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
o
o
x
o

PCD-Wiper
AS12
AS17
Ra Rz Ra Rz
x
o
x
x
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
o

CVD-Wiper
AS12
AS17
Ra Rz Ra Rz
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
x
x
o
x
o
o
o
x
x
o
o
x
x
o
x
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
o
x
x

Figure 9: Rz mean values by various categories

14

Table 7: The significance of the coefficients of the united models (x - significant; o non significant)

WM
TM
vc
f
ap
TM TM
vc 2
f2
ap2
WM T M
W M vc
WM f
W M ap
T M vc
TM f
T M ap
vc f
vc a p
f ap

ISO shape
Ra
Rz
x
x
o
o
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
x

Wiper shape
Ra
Rz
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
o
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
o
o
o
x
o

As opposed to ISO cutting tools, the depth of cut parameter cannot be neglected in the case of
Wiper cutting tools. The reduced united mathematical models for Ra and Rz are as follows (for
ISO and Wiper shape separately):
RaIS O = 5.176 101 + 2.510 101 W M + 3.687 102 T M + 3.694 104 vc 14.806 f +
+3.753 102 a p 1.019 101 T M 2 1.430 107 vc 2 + 184.3 f 2 + 4.679 102 W M T M +
5.191 105 W M vc 2.306 W M f + 8.865 105 T M vc +
+4.702 101 T M f 1.151 103 vc f (11)
R2 = 0.8621
RzIS O = 1.717 101 + 1.421 W M 2.333 101 T M + 2.475 103 vc 11.36 f +
+1.013 a p 4.937 101 T M 2 6.934 107 vc 2 + 532.2 f 2 + 1.354 101 W M T M +
1.735 104 W M vc 14.10 W M f + 2.903 104 T M vc + 8.249 T M f +
+2.437 101 T M a 1.165 102 vc f 12.69 f a (12)
R2 = 0.8384

15

RaWiper = 1.150 + 1.445 101 W M + 1.569 101 T M 3.291 104 vc 7.799 f +

1.023 a p + 9.717 108 vc 2 + 31.06 f 2 + 7.602 101 a2 1.263 W M f +
4.718 105 T M vc 7.103 101 T M f +
+8.152 104 vc f + 2.463 f a (13)
R2 = 0.7857
RzWiper = 3.041 2.991 101 W M + 2.042 102 T M 9.093 104 vc 2.103 f 1.064 a p +
+3.131 107 vc 2 + 52.65 f 2 + 1.010 a2 + 2.133 104 W M vc 3.298 W M f +
+5.701 101 W M a 2.951 T M f (14)
R2 = 0.7742
The equations described above describe the measured Ra and Rz values well. Therefore
these equations can estimate the surface roughness of the machined surface using the cutting
parameters, workpiece material, tool material and tool type. To illustrate the above developed
mathematical models some example can be seen in Fig. 10.

(a) Surface plot of Eq. 11 for AS17 and

PCD-ISO tool

(b) Surface plot of Eq. 12 for AS17 and

PCD-ISO tool

(c) Surface plot of Eq. 13 for AS17 and

CVD-Wiper tool

(d) Surface plot of Eq. 14 for AS17 and

CVD-Wiper tool

Figure 10: Surface plots

It is usual to develop mathematical equations for the surface roughness, where the input
parameters are the cutting parameters (such as vc , f , a) [1, 7, 9, 14, 15]. The above developed
16

united phenomenological models contain the cutting tool material and the workpiece material as
quality variables besides the cutting parameters.
3.3. Analysis of residuals
The mathematical models described above were verified with the analysis of residuals (i.e.
the difference between the estimated and measured values). It was found for the united mathematical models (Eq. 11 14) that the differences are random and nearly normally distributed
(Fig. 11). This means that these equations describe the relationship between surface roughness
parameters and cutting parameters well.

(a) Residuals of Eq. 11

(b) Residuals of Eq. 12

(c) Residuals of Eq. 13

(d) Residuals of Eq. 14

Figure 11: Normal probability plots

The united mathematical models have good fitting thus they can be used in optimization. In
the process of technological planning it is practical to take into account as many parameters as
possible; therefore the united models are more useful.
3.4. Optimization
By using a reduced combined mathematical model, we looked for the optimum of lowest surface roughness (Ra, Rz) and highest productivity (P f ). Optimization was carried out separately
for ISO and for Wiper cutting tools, due to the different feed values (for surface roughness comparability [19]). Optimization was performed with desirability functions. The criteria for surface
roughness were set so that the favourable value could be compared with the surface roughness
achieved by grinding and the unacceptable value should be the highest value in the case of fineturning. If Ra is smaller than or equal to 0.4 m, it is acceptable, but if its value is higher than
17

0.8 m, it is unacceptable. The connection between the two values is linear (see Fig. 5a). For
the parameter Rz, the best is if surface roughness is below 3 m, but its value is unacceptable if
it is above 4.5 m (see Fig. 5b). The limit values of productivity factor in the case of ISO cutting
tools are 0.160 m2 /min and 0.205 m2 /min, whereas in the case of Wiper cutting tools they are
0.160 m2 /min and 0.48 m2 /min (see Fig. 5c).
Having carried out optimization, we obtained the following values for ISO cutting tools:
W M = 1 (AS17), and T M = 0 (PCD). The cutting parameters to be set are: vc = 2000 m/min,
f = 0.089 mm, and a p = 0.2 mm. The surface roughness parameters and productivity to be
achieved are: Ra= 0.579 m, Rz = 3.301 m, and P f = 179.2 m2 /min. In the case of desirability
functions dRa = 0.552, dRz = 0.799, dP f = 0.426, and composite desirability D = 0.573.
In the case Wiper cutting tools the results are as follows:
W M = 1 (AS17), and T M = 1 (CVD). The cutting parameters to be set are: vc = 2000 m/min, f
= 0.158 mm, a p = 0.42 mm. The surface roughness parameters and productivity to be achieved
are: Ra = 0.444 m, Rz = 2.587 m, P f = 315.9 m2 /min. In the case of desirability functions
dRa = 0.889, dRz = 1, dP f = 0.516, while composite desirability D = 0.771.
The determination of the optimum points is essential in technological planning. Many researchers use the smaller the better method for the optimization. The surface roughness could
be minimized alone [6, 9], or the surface roughness together with the cutting force could be optimized [13, 14]. In our research such a multi-performance optimization were carried out where
surface roughness values were minimized (quality criterion) and productivity factor (economic
criterion) was maximized.
3.5. Confirmation
Once the optimal level of the design parameters has been determined, the final step of our
investigations to verify the obtained results. Therefore confirmation tests were carried out (Fig.
12). It is seen that the differences between the measured and the estimated Ra values quite small.
The measured Rz value in case of ISO cutting tool is lower, in case of Wiper cutting tool is
higher than estimated values, but the magnitude of this difference is not notable in technological
planning.

Figure 12: The results of confirmation tests

18

4. Conclusion
In this article we examined the finish turning of two types of aluminium alloy and the cutting
capacities of five types of diamond tools. In summary, the following can be stated:
A relatively large amount of information can be obtained from a relatively small number of
experimental runs with the use of the response surface method, and it is enough to create
good predictive equations resulting in a good fit.
Combined models were built to estimate the Ra and Rz parameters of surface roughness,
with cutting parameters, workpiece material, tool shape and edge material as input data.
The correlation (R2 ) of the created models is suitable for manufacturing process planning.
The cutting speed and feed have the largest influence on surface roughness but the interactions of these factors also significantly affect surface roughness.
In the case of ISO and Wiper cutting tools the optimum points were defined with desirability functions, while multi-performance optimization were made: minimizing roughness,
and maximizing productivity.
The optimum points in the case of ISO cutting tools: tool material PCD, vc = 2000 m/min,
f = 0.089 mm, a p = 0.2 mm, while in the case of Wiper cutting tools: tool material CVD;
vc = 2000 m/min, f = 0.158 mm, a p = 0.42 mm.
Among the examined workpiece materials the harder hyper-eutectic alloy has better finish
turning (lower roughness values).
The response surface method in the field of design of experiments is an excellent technique
in cutting research.
References
References
Dregelyi-Kiss, A.
Czifra, Measurement uncertainty and gauge capability of surface roughness measurements in
[1] A.
the automotive industry: a case study, Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties 2 (3) (2014) 034001.
[2] J. P. Davim, Design of optimisation of cutting parameters for turning metal matrix composites based on the orthogonal arrays, Journal of materials processing technology 132 (1) (2003) 340344.
[3] M. Kok, Modelling the effect of surface roughness factors in the machining of 2024al/al2o3 particle composites
based on orthogonal arrays, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 55 (9-12) (2011)
911920.
[4] H. Aouici, M. A. Yallese, K. Chaoui, T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal, Analysis of surface roughness and cutting force
components in hard turning with cbn tool: Prediction model and cutting conditions optimization, Measurement
45 (3) (2012) 344353.
[5] H. Aouici, H. Bouchelaghem, M. Yallese, M. Elbah, B. Fnides, Machinability investigation in hard turning of aisi
d3 cold work steel with ceramic tool using response surface methodology, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 73 (2014) 17751788.
[6] Z. Hessainia, A. Belbah, M. A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal, On the prediction of surface roughness in the hard
turning based on cutting parameters and tool vibrations, Measurement 46 (5) (2013) 16711681.
[7] R. Suresh, S. Basavarajappa, V. Gaitonde, G. Samuel, Machinability investigations on hardened aisi 4340 steel
using coated carbide insert, International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 33 (2012) 7586.
[8] R. Suresh, S. Basavarajappa, G. Samuel, Some studies on hard turning of aisi 4340 steel using multilayer coated
carbide tool, Measurement 45 (7) (2012) 18721884.

19

[9] I. Asilturk, H. Akkus, Determining the effect of cutting parameters on surface roughness in hard turning using the
taguchi method, Measurement 44 (9) (2011) 16971704.
[10] I. Asilturk, S. Neseli, Multi response optimisation of cnc turning parameters via taguchi method-based response
surface analysis, Measurement 45 (4) (2012) 785794.
[11] K. Venkata Rao, B. Murthy, N. Mohan Rao, Prediction of cutting tool wear, surface roughness and vibration of
work piece in boring of aisi 316 steel with artificial neural network, Measurement 51 (2014) 6370.
[12] A. Esteves Correia, J. Paulo Davim, Surface roughness measurement in turning carbon steel aisi 1045 using wiper
inserts, Measurement 44 (5) (2011) 10001005.
[13] Y. K. Hwang, C. M. Lee, Surface roughness and cutting force prediction in mql and wet turning process of aisi
1045 using design of experiments, Journal of mechanical science and technology 24 (8) (2010) 16691677.
[14] S. Chinchanikar, S. Choudhury, Effect of work material hardness and cutting parameters on performance of coated
carbide tool when turning hardened steel: An optimization approach, Measurement 46 (4) (2013) 15721584.
[15] W. Zebala, R. Kowalczyk, Estimating the effect of cutting data on surface roughness and cutting force during wc-co
turning with pcd tool using taguchi design and anova analysis, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2014) DOI:10.1007/s0017001463826.
[16] D. Lazarevic, M. Madic, P. Jankovic, A. Lazarevic, Surface roughness minimization of polyamide pa-6 turning by
taguchi method, Journal of Production Engineering 15 (1) (2012) 2932.
[17] I. Mankova, M. Vrabel, J. Beno, P. Kovac, M. Gostimirovic, Application of taguchi method and surface response
methodology to evaluate of mathematical models to chip deformation when drilling with coated and uncoated twist
drills, Manufacturing Technology 13 (1) (2013) 492499.
Czifra, A.
Dregelyi-Kiss, Effect of conventional and non-conventional tool geometries to skewness
[18] R. Horvath, A.
and kurtosis of surface roughness in case of fine turning of aluminium alloys with diamond tools, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2014) DOI:10.1007/s0017001466425.
[19] W. Grzesik, T. Wanat, Surface finish generated in hard turning of quenched alloy steel parts using conventional and
wiper ceramic inserts, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 46 (15) (2006) 19881995.
[20] E. Harrington, The desirability function, Industrial quality control 21 (10) (1965) 494498.

20

Highlights

Effect of speed, feed and depth of cut on fine turning surface roughness is
studied.
Effect of tool-geometry, -material and workpiece material on surface
roughness is also studied.
United reduced phenomenological models are established.
In united models edge material and workpiece material are used as
quantitative variables.
Multi objective optimization are calculated for fine turning process.