Paper No.

2036, Proceedings of the 2001 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

Copyright 2001, Institute of Industrial Engineers

An Experimental Study of
the Impact of Turning Parameters on Surface Roughness
Chang-Xue (Jack) Feng
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Bradley University
Peoria, IL 61625 USA
cfeng@bradley.edu
Abstract
Surface roughness and tolerances are among the most critical quality measures in many mechanical products. As
competition grows closer, customers now have increasingly high demands on quality, making surface roughness
become one of the most competitive dimensions in todays manufacturing industry. Surfaces of a mechanical
product can be created with a number of manufacturing processes. This research applies the fractional factorial
experimentation approach to studying the impact of turning parameters on the roughness of turned surfaces.
Analysis of variances is used to examine the impact of turning factors and factor interactions on surface roughness.
Finally, contributions are summarized and future research directions are highlighted.

Keywords
Machining optimization; surface roughness; design of experiments; computational manufacturing; predictive
process engineering.

1. Introduction
Surface roughness has been one of the most important quality measures in many mechanical products. As early as
in 1984, Tabenkin (1984) has brought its significance to our attention. The impact of three factors, namely, the
feed, nose radius, and cutting-edge angles, on surface roughness is depicted in Groover (1996, p. 635). Past
computational studies have been reported recently in Groover (1996) and Boothroyd and Knight (1989). For clarity
of presentation, the most notable models for estimating the ideal surface roughness in turning are briefed next. An
interested reader is referred to the above two books for a more detailed discussion. For an in-depth discussion of the
various models, refer to Sata (1963/1964), Dickinson (1968), and Fischer and Elrod (1971). Assuming a non-zero
cutter nose radius (r), the following equation is used to estimate the ideal roughness value (Groover 1996, p. 634
and Boothroyd and Knight 1989, p. 166):
f2
(1)
32r
where: Ri = ideal arithmetic average (AA) surface roughness (in. or mm); f = feed (in./rev or mm/rev); and r =
cutter nose radius (in. or mm). Refer to Figure 1 for illustration. This equation gives a roughness value in in. or
mm that can be converted to microinches or m. This equation assumes that the feed and nose radius are the
principal factors that determine the geometry of the surface. If the nose radius would be zero (left hand side
illustration in Figure 1), then Equation 2 is used to estimate the ideal surface roughness (Boothroyd and Knight
1989, p. 168):
f
Ri =
(2)
4(cot + cot )
where and are the working major cutting edge angle (MCEA) and end cutting edge angle (ECEA),
respectively.
GE (19XX) has recommended a procedure that modifies the ideal surface roughness value in the form of root mean
square (RMS) by considering two additional factors: speed and material group. It classified materials into three
groups: free machining metal, ductile metal, and cast iron. The ideal surface roughness was charted by using the
following three parameters: feed, nose radius, and the end cutting edge angle.
Ri =

The literature contains a good body of knowledge on the research of surface roughness in the past. A good survey
of literature up to 1988 is referred to Mital and Mehta (1988), and a summary of studies up to date is presented in
Table 1. However, none of the existing researches has applied a fractional factorial experimentation approach to
cross examining the impact of individual factors and factor interactions, which is the focus of this paper. Feng and
Hu (2001) provides a comparative study of the ideal AA values computed by Equations 1 and 2 and the actual AA
values observed in a number of experiments.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the planning and execution method of the
experiments, while Section 3 provides a method for analyzing the experiment data. Finally, conclusions and future
research directions will be presented in Section 4.

Figure 1. The Impact of Nose Radius on Surface Roughness

(Source: Groover 1996, p. 635 with permission
from Professor Mikell Groover, Lehigh University)

2. Planning and Execution of Experiments

The screening experiments examined the impact of the following parameters on surface roughness in finish
turning: (1) feed; (2) work piece material (in terms of hardness); (3) cutting tool point angle (180- ); (4)
spindle speed; (5) depth of cut. The carbide inserts have a multiphase coating with Ti(C, N), AL2O3, and TiN
(Carboloy grade TP200). The length (hang) and diameter of the starting block is 76.200 mm (3 in.) and 31.750
mm (1.25 in.). The nose radius is fixed at 0.819 mm (1/32) with a fixed depth of cut equal to the nose radius. This
depth of cut is so selected that either Equation 1 or Equation 2 could be used in computing the ideal surface
roughness. Feng and Hu (2001) has shown that Equation 1 provides a much better prediction in virtually all the
tested cases than Equation 2.
Table 2. Factors and levels of experiments

Level
Low
(-1)
High
(+1)

Hardness
A
Steel (8620)
HRB 86
Al (6061T)
HRB 52

Feed
B
0.051 mm/rev.
(.002 in./rev.)
0.127 mm/rev.
(.005 in./rev.)

Factors
Point Angle
Depth of cut
C
E
0.51 mm
35 degrees
(.02 in.)
1.02 mm
80 degrees
(.04 in.)

Spindle Speed
D
1000 rpm (261.8 ft/min or
79.80 m/min)
1500 rpm (392.7 ft/min or
119.7 m/min)

The levels of interest for each factor are presented in Table 2. This research assumes that the three-, four- and fivefactor interactions are negligible, because these high order interactions are normally assumed highly impossible in
practice. Therefore, a 25 1 fractional factorial design is sufficient to investigate the five main effects and the ten
two-factor interactions (Montgomery 2001). This resolution IV design with generator I = ABCDE leads to sixteen
runs of experiments. The design is shown in Table 2, where E = ABCD. To consider system variations, especially
the tool wear and vibration, a replicate number of three is selected. As a result, the total number of screening
experiments is 16 3 = 48.
The order of the forty experiments is randomized first. Then these experiments are conducted on a production type
YAM CK-1 CNC Lathe. In collecting the surface roughness data of the shaft with surface profilometer Mitutoyo
Surface Tester SJ-301, three measurements are taken along the shaft axis for each sample and each measurement is

about 120apart. Their averages are presented in Table 3. Based on the recommendation from ASME B46.1-1995
(ASME 1995), the probe radius of 10 micrometers (diamond) is used.

Table 3. Design of experiments and data

Factor
Standard Material
Feed
Point Angle
Order
(A)
(B)
(C)

Ra (m)
2

Mean
Ra
(m)

Replicates
Speed

Depth. of Cut

(D)

(E)

-1

-1

-1

-1

2.06

1.75

1.61

1.81

-1

-1

-1

-1

2.16

1.73

2.15

2.01

-1

-1

-1

-1

1.84

1.76

1.68

1.76

-1

-1

1.46

1.64

2.03

1.71

-1

-1

-1

-1

1.45

2.07

1.80

1.77

-1

-1

0.76

0.51

0.51

0.59

-1

-1

2.10

2.14

1.79

2.01

-1

-1

0.90

1.21

0.87

0.99

-1

-1

-1

-1

0.72

1.01

0.95

0.89

10

-1

-1

0.87

0.80

0.73

0.80

11

-1

-1

1.23

1.10

1.17

1.17

12

-1

-1

1.31

1.32

1.54

1.39

13

-1

-1

1.74

1.77

1.18

1.56

14

-1

-1

0.81

0.91

0.43

0.72

15

-1

-1

1.67

1.29

1.44

1.47

16

1.06

1.14

0.82

1.01

3. Analysis of Experiments
The data presented in Table 3 are analyzed with the MINITAB (19XX) software. The first round of regression
analysis considers all the five main effects and their ten two-factor interaction terms (Figure 2). Its purpose is to
determine which factors and factor interactions are statistically significant in affecting the surface roughness.
Based on a 95% confidence interval, material, feed, point angle, and speed have a statistically significant impact
on surface roughness, since their p-values are smaller than 5%. In addition, the following three two-factor the
interactions of AC (Material Point Angle), AE (Material Depth of Cut), and CD (Point Angle Speed)
produce a statistically significant impact on the surface roughness, because their p-values are also smaller than
0.05. Although this model has an adjusted R2 value of 82.6%, it is quite complex and can be further simplified.
Therefore, a second round of regression analysis is conducted to include only those factors and factor interactions
with a p-value smaller than 5%. The regression analysis and ANOVA results are provided in Figure 3. As one can
see from Figure 3, the adjusted R2 of this regression model is only slightly reduced to 79.6% from 82.6% of the full
model, and the ANOVA result for the regression model in the bottom of Figure 3 is satisfactory. This is despite of
the fact that factor D and the following seven out of ten two-factor interaction terms are removed from the previous
regression model: AB, AD, BC, BD, BE, CE and DE. The normal probability plot of residuals is shown in Figure 4
and the residuals versus order plot is shown in Figure 5 for the simplified model shown in Figure 3. Both Figure 3
and Figure 4 appear satisfactory.
Further analysis can be conducted with the aid of the main effect and interaction plots. The main effects plots and
select interaction plots are provided in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The following additional observations can be
made from these two figures:

1) Among the main effects, the tool point angle (C) also has a significant impact on the surface roughness, in
addition to other factors, including feed, nose radius, work material, and speed, that have been examined in
the literature. Refer to observation 4 for further elaboration.
2) The interaction issue has not been formally examined in the literature, although three out of the ten two-factor
interactions have a significant impact on the surface roughness.
3) Based on Figure 6, the following level of main factors tends to produce a smoother surface: softer material,
smaller feed, larger point angle (smaller end cutting edge angle), and higher speed.
4) In terms of the interaction plots shown in Figure 7, the following observations can be made. Figure 7(a)
suggests that a larger point angle working with the softer material would tend to produce a smoother surface.
Figure 7(b) suggests a smoother surface could be produced when a softer material is combined with a relatively
large depth of cut within the range of parameter levels in finish turn. Figure 7(c) indicates that a higher speed
combined with a smaller point angle would likely produce a little better surface roughness than if this speed
would be used with a larger point angle.
5) The main effect plot and the interaction plot appear to support each other for conclusions reached in
observations 3 and 4.

Ra = 1.35 - 0.201 A + 0.0840 B - 0.0885 C - 0.229 D - 0.0219 E + 0.0381 AB - 0.237 AC

+ 0.0540 AD - 0.104 AE + 0.0198 BC + 0.0481 BD + 0.0573 BE + 0.151 CD + 0.0498 CE +
0.0306 DE (Based on coded units)
Predictor
Constant
A
B
C
D
E
AB
AC
AD
AE
BC
BD
BE
CD
CE
DE
S = 0.2065

Coef
1.35396
-0.20104
0.08396
-0.08854
-0.22854
-0.02188
0.03813
-0.23688
0.05396
-0.10354
0.01979
0.04812
0.05729
0.15146
0.04979
0.03063

StDev
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981
0.02981

R-Sq = 88.1%

T
45.42
-6.74
2.82
-2.97
-7.67
-0.73
1.28
-7.95
1.81
-3.47
0.66
1.61
1.92
5.08
1.67
1.03

P
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.006
0.000
0.468
0.210
0.000
0.080
0.001
0.512
0.116
0.064
0.000
0.105
0.312

(material)
(feed)
(point angle)
(speed)
(depth of cut)

R-Sq(adj) = 82.6%

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2. Regression analysis with all the main factors and two-factor interaction terms.

Ra = 1.35 - 0.201 Material + 0.0840 Feed - 0.0885 PointAngle - 0.229 Speed - 0.237
Material * PointAngle - 0.104 Material * Depth + 0.151 PointAngle * Speed
(based
on coded data)
Predictor
Constant
A
B
C
D
AC
AE
CD
S = 0.2263

Coef
1.35396
-0.20104
0.08396
-0.08854
-0.22854
-0.23687
-0.10354
0.15146

StDev
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267
0.03267

R-Sq = 82.2%

Analysis of Variance
Source
DF

T
41.44
-6.15
2.57
-2.71
-7.00
-7.25
-3.17
4.64

P
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000

(Material)
(Feed)
(Point angle)
(Speed)
(Mat. * Angle)
(Mat. * Depth)
(Angle * Speed)

R-Sq(adj) = 79.1%
SS

MS

Regression
Residual Error
Total

7
40
47

9.4708
2.0492
11.5199

1.3530
0.0512

26.41

0.000

Figure 3. Regression analysis with the important factors and interactions.

(Response is Ra)
(Response is Ra)

0.5

Residual

Normal Score

0.0

-1

-2
-0.5

-0.5

0.0

0.5

10

15

20

Residual

25

30

35

40

45

Observation Order

Figure 4. Normal probability plot of residuals.

Material

Figure 5. Residuals versus run order.

Feed (mm/rev.) Point Angle (Degree)

Speed (m/min)

DOC (mm)

1.6

1.5

Ra

1.4

1.3

1.2

e
St

el
A

m
nu
mi
lu

51
0.0

27
0. 1

35

80

0
.8
79

9 .7
11

08
0.5

16
1.0

Figure 6. The main effects plot.

Material
Aluminum
Steel

1.7
1.6

Mean Ra

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
35

80

Point Angle (Degree)

(a) Material and point angle interaction

Point Angle
(Degree)

Material
Aluminum
1.6

1.85

Steel

1.5

35

1.65

1.4

Mean Ra

Mean Ra

80

1.75

1.3

1.55
1.45
1.35

1.2
1.25

1.1

1.15
1.05

1.0
0.508

Depth of Cut (mm)

1.016

119.7

79.80

Speed (m/min)

(b) Material and depth of cut interaction

(c) Point-angle and speed interaction

Figure 7. Select interaction plots.

4. Conclusions and Further Research

This research presented a fractional factorial experimentation approach to studying the impact of turning
parameters on surface roughness. It featured the following contributions. First, the depth of cut does not impact the
surface roughness in the studied range, which could be used to improve productivity if it would not worsen the
surface microstructure of the material and the dimensional and geometric accuracy. Second, in addition to feeds,
nose radius, work material and speeds, the tool point angle has a significant impact on the observed surface
roughness. Third, strong interactions were observed among the above turning parameters. Most significant
interactions were found between work materials, point angle and speeds. Fourth, a systematic approach was
provided to design and analyze the experiments, which is able to reduce the cost and time of experiments and to
utilize the data obtained to the maximum extend.
Further research will investigate the following issues. (1) Add nose radius as another factor to investigate the
problem. (2) Develop models or procedures that would more accurately estimate the ideal surface roughness. (3)
Examine the impact of coolants on the surface roughness. (4) Study the impact of these cutting parameters on the
new surface roughness measures, Rk , R pk , Rvk , MR1, and MR2 suggested in DIN 4776-90 (DIN 1990).
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially funded by The Graduate School and College of Engineering and Technology of
Bradley University and Caterpillar Fellowship #25-11-149 awarded to Dr. Jack Feng. The author is grateful to Ms.
Z-J. Hu of my former graduate research assistant, who developed the NC codes and measured the surface
roughness, and to Mr. Ron Jones of the department mechanical lab technician, who performed the metal-cutting
operations. The insightful comments made by the two reviewers are appreciated.

References
Albrecht, A. B., 1956, How to secure desired surface finish in turning operations. American Machinist, Oct. 8, pp.
133-136.
ASME, 1995, Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay), ASME B46.1-1995 (Revision of
ANSI/ASME B46.1-1985), The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Azouzi, R. and M. Guillot, 1997, On-line prediction of surface finish and dimensional deviation in turning using
neural network based sensor fusion. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 37(9):
1201-1217.
Bhattacharyya, A., R. Faria-Gonzalez, and Inyong Ham, 1970, Regression analysis for predicting surface finish
and its application in the determination of optimum machining conditions. Journal of Engineering for
Industry, Aug., pp. 711-714.

Boothroyd, Geoffrey and Winston A. Knight, 1989, Fundamentals of Machining and Machine Tools, 2nd Edition,
Marcel Dekker, New York.
Chandiramani, K. L. and N. H. Cook, 1964, Investigations on the nature of surface finish and its variation with
cutting speed. Journal of Engineering for Industry, May, pp. 134-140.
Dikinson, G. R., 1967/1968, Survey of factors affecting surface finish. Proceedings of Conference on Properties
and Metrology of Surfaces, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain), Vol. 182, Part 3K,
pp. 135-147.
DIN 4776-90, 1990, Determination of Surface Roughness Parameters Rk , R pk , Rvk , MR1, and MR2, Serving to
Describe the Material Component of the Roughness Profile.
Feng, C-X. and Z-J. Hu, 2001, A comparative study of the ideal and actual surface roughness in finish turning.
Submitted to International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
Fischer, H. L. and J. T. Elrod, 1971, Surface finish as a function of tool geometry and feed a theoretical
approach. Microtecnic, 25(3): 175-178.
GE, 19XX, Surface Finish, Machining Development Service, Publication A-5, General Electric Company,
Schenectady, NY.
Groover, Mikell, 1996, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (now
published by John Wiley & Sons, New York).
Hasegawa, M., A. Seireg, and R. A. Lindberg, 1976, Surface roughness model for turning. Tribology
International, Dec., pp. 285-289.
Hasunuma, Hirosi, 1966, Statistical characteristic of surface profile. Bulletin of the Japan Society of Precision
Engineering, 1(4): 205-211.
Jang, Dong Young, Young-Gu Choi, Hong-Gil Kim, and Alex Hsiao, 1996, Study of the correlation between
surface roughness and cutting vibrations to develop an on-line roughness measuring technique in hard
turning. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 36(4): 453-464.
Lambert, Brian, K., 1983, Determination of metal removal rate with surface finish restrictions. SME Technical
Paper MR83-194, SME, Dearborn, MI.
Miller, John C., John W. Sutherland, and Richard E. DeVor, 1982, Surface roughness characteristics for turning
380 and 390 aluminum casting alloys. 1982 SME Manufacturing Engineering Transactions, pp. 282-288.
Mital, Anil, and Manish Mehta, 1988, Surface finish prediction models for fine turning. International Journal of
Production Research, 26(12): 1861-1876.
Montgomery, Douglas, 2001, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th Edition, Wiley, New York.
Olsen, K. V., 1968, Surface roughness on turned steel components and the relevant mathematical analysis. The
Production Engineer, Dec., pp. 593-606.
Petropoulos, Petros G., 1974, Statistical basis for surface roughness assessment in oblique finish turning of steel
components. International Journal of Production Research, 12(3): 345-360.
Rasch, F. O. and A. Rolstradas, 1971, Selection of optimum feed and speed in finish turning. Annals of the
C.I.R.P., Vol. 19, pp. 787-792.
Sata, T., 1963/1964, Surface finish in metal cutting. C.I.R.P. Annalen, 12(4): 190-197.
Sata, T., M. Li, S. Takata, H. Hiraaka, C.Q. Li, X. Z. Xing, and X. G. Xiao, 1985, Analysis of surface roughness
generation in turning operation and its applications. CIRP Annals, 34(1): 473-476.
Shaw, Milton C., 1984, Metal Cutting Principles, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shiraishi, M. and S. Sato, 1990, Dimensional and surface roughness controls in a turning operation. Journal of
Engineering for Industry, Feb., pp. 78-83.
Solaja, Vladimir, 1958/59, Wear of carbide tools and surface finish generated in finish turning of steel. Wear, Vol.
2, pp. 40-58.
Sundaram, R. M. and B. K. Lambert, 1981, Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel:
Part I and Part II. International Journal of Production Research, 19(5): 557-564.
Sundaram, R. M. and B. K. Lambert, 1979, Surface roughness variability of ANSI 4140 steel in fine turning using
carbide tools. International Journal of Production Research, 17(3): 249-258.
Tabenkin, Alex N., 1984, The growing importance of surface finish specs. Machine Design, Sept. 20, pp. 99-102.
Takeyama, Hidehiko and Tomohiko Ono, 1966, Study on roughness of turned surfaces. Bulletin of the Japan
Society of Precision Engineering, 1(4): 274-280.

Taraman, K. and B. K. Lambert, 1974, A surface roughness model for a turning operation. International Journal
of Production Research, 12(6), pp. 691-703.

Paper No. 2036, Proceedings of the 2001 Industrial Enginee

Copyright 2001, Instit

Table 1. Major investigations in studying the relationship between surface roughness and machining parameters
Investigator(s)
A. B. Albrecht
V. Solaja

T. Sata

Then Title/Association
Metallurgical Engineer, The Monarch Machine Tool
Co. Sidney, Ohio
Wolverhampton and Staffordshire College of
Technology

Major factors investigated

Material, feed, depth of cut, nose
Albrec
radius, coolant
Grade of carbide tips, workpiece
Solaja
material, rake and clearance angles
of tools, feed, speed
Cutting Speed, feed, tool nose
Sata
radius, depth of cut

H. Hasunuma

Senior Research Engineer, Dept. of Mechanical

Engineering, Carnegie Institute of Technology,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
*Graduate Student & **Associate Professor,
Cutting tool, speed, feed
Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts; Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Mass
Dept. Applied Physics, University of Tokyo
Statistical of surface profile

H. Takeyama & T. Ono

The government mechanical laboratory, Tokyo

G. R. Dickinson

Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Manchester

K. V. Olsen
A. Bhattacharyya, R. FariaGonzalez & Inyong Ham

Professor, Mechanical Engineering Dept. Technical

University of Denmark
Department of Industrial Engineering, The
Pennsylvania State University

F. O. Rasch & A. Rolstadas

Technical University of Norway

H. L. Fischer & J. T. Elrod*

*Professor, Industrial Engineering, University of

Houston, Texas
*Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Detroit; ** Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Texas
Tech University
Director, Research Centre for National Defense,
Galatsi, Athens, Greece
*Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, National Defense
Academy; ** Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin-Madison

K. L. Chandiramani * & N. H.
Cook**

K. Taraman* & B. Lambert**

P. G. Petropoulos
M. Hasegawa*, A. Seireg** and
R.A. Lindferg**

Chand
Cook.

Hasun

Cutting speed, feed, nose radius,

Takeya
rake angle, depth of cut
Feed, nose radius, cutting edge
Dickin
angles
Tool nose radius, feed, cutting speed Olsen

Feed, cutting speed, tool nose radius, Bhatta

workpiece hardness
Faria-G
Ham
Speed, feed, tool radius
Rasch
Feed and tool angles

Fische

Speed, feed, depth of cut

Taram

Tool Geometry

Petrop

Depth of cut, feed, cutting speed,

tool nose radius

Hasega
and

Table 1. Contd
R. M. Sundaram* & B. K.
Lambert**

*School of Engineering, Old Dominion University,

Norfolk, Virginia; **Industrial Engineering, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
R. M. Sundaram* & B. K.
*Industrial Engineering, Tennessee Tech University,
Lambert**
Cookeville, Tennessee; **Industrial Engineering,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
J. C. Miller*, J. W. Sutherland** *Product Manager, Reynolds Metals Company,
& R. E. Devor**
Richmond, Virginia; **Graduate Res. Assistant and
Associate Professor, Dept. of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, U. I. Urbana
B. K. Lambert
Associate Professor, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas
A. N. Tabenkin
Product Manager, Federal Products Corp.
Providence, RI
T. Sata*, M. Li**, S. Takata*, et * University of Tokyo, ** University of Science and
al.
Technology of China
A. Mital & M. Mehta
Dept. of Mechanical and Industry Engineering,
University of Cincinnati
M. Shiraishi & S. Sato
Ibaraki University, Hitachi, Japan
D. Y. Jang, Y-G. Choi, H-G.
Kim, Alex Hsiao

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University

of Missouri Columbus

Material, tools, cutting speed, feed

Sunda
Lambe

Cutting speed, feed, depth of cut and Sunda

time of cut of the tool
Lambe
Material, tool, speed, feed, coolant

Miller
Devor

Cutting speed, feed, nose radius

Lambe

Surface measurement

Taben

Feed, speed, chatter vibration, and

work material
Material, cutting speed, feed and
tool nose radius
Dimensional and surface roughness
control
Cutting speed, feed, depth of cut

Sata et

Mital &

Shirais

Jang e