Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293

2nd CIRP 2nd CIRP Conference on Surface Integrity (CSI)

Surface Integrity in Hard Machining of 300M Steel: Effect of

Cutting-Edge Geometry on Machining Induced Residual Stresses
P. I. Varela, C. S. Rakurty, A. K. Balaji *
Sustainable Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Utah,
50 S. Central Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-801-587-7772; fax: +1-801-585-9826. E-mail address: balaji@eng.utah.edu.

Abstract

300M steel is widely used in the aerospace industry to manufacture landing gears due to its ultrahigh strength and high fracture
toughness. Surface integrity in the hard turning process (one of the final manufacturing processes in making landing gears) can be
influenced by tool geometries and cutting conditions. An experimental study is conducted on 300M steel to understand the role of
cutting tool geometry and cutting conditions on surface integrity (surface roughness and residual stresses). Cutting tool geometries
are varied along the nose edge region (chamfer, hone, and chamfer-hone). These varied geometries are tested at different cutting
conditions to highlight the combinational complexity of cutting edges and cutting conditions in producing surface roughness and
residual stresses. The results show the necessity of edge preparation in improving machining surface integrity in such a material.

2014
2014 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Publishedby
byElsevier B.V.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
ElsevierB.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibilityof Theof
International
The International Committee
ScientificScientific of the 2ndofConference
Committee on Surface
the 2nd CIRP Integrity
Conference on
in the person
Surface of theinConference
Integrity the personChair
of theProf Dragos Axinte
Conference dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk
Chair Prof. Dragos Axinte dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk

Keywords: Hard machining; Surface integrity; Tool geometry

1. Introduction 2. Background

It is well known that residual stresses are a natural
consequence of manufacturing processes. These residual
stresses, depending upon their nature, can significantly
affect fatigue life, corrosion fatigue, and stress corrosion
cracking with possible catastrophic consequences.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms
and the nature of the residual stresses induced during
machining operations. This is especially true in the case
where the safety of the component is of vital importance.
In this paper, the effects of tool edge geometry on the
residual stress induced by machining 300M steel
(modified 4340 steel with higher silicon content) are
discussed. 300M steel can exhibit both high toughness
and ductility at elevated tensile strengths. The mentioned
properties make this high strength steel ideal for
applications like landing gears and slaps tracks in the
aviation industry. However, given the role of finish
machining as one of the final steps, it is important to
understand how to control residual stresses in the
machining process.
During the finishing operation residual stresses are
induced on the machined surface. It is well know that
tensile residual stresses can reduce the fatigue life of a
component [1,2] and even make some high strength steel
susceptible to stress-cracking corrosion [3] that can
result in catastrophic failures. On the other hand,
induced compressive residual stresses can increase
fatigue life and improve corrosion resistance resulting in
an overall increase in safety [3]. Machining surface
residual stresses have been a subject of extensive
investigation by many researchers [48].
As early as 1950, it was well understood that residual
stresses were the result of thermal and mechanical loads
on the machined surface. Henriksen [9], in his extended
research on the mechanisms of residual stress creation,
concluded that mechanical forces are the main cause and
the thermal stresses load is insignificant. Matsumoto et
al. [10] while studying the effect of hardness on residual
stresses carried out experiments machining 57 HRC

2212-8271 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The International Scientific Committee of the 2nd Conference on Surface Integrity in the person
of the Conference Chair Prof Dragos Axinte dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.04.049
 P.I. Varela et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293
hardened steel with two different geometries. The first
tool had a sharp edge and the second tool had a chamfer
edge. A microstructure analysis showed that a thin white
layer was present on the surface machined with the
chamfer tool. However, the same was totally absent in
the surface machined by a sharp edge. It was concluded
that phase transformation was not responsible for the
residual stress profile. On the other hand, the increase in
hardness is correlated with an increase in the magnitude
of the compressive residual stress. In a later study
Matsumoto et al. [11], conducted further research to
study the effect of tool edge geometry on residual
stresses. Specimens of carburized case steel with
hardness of 58 to 62 HRc were machined with cutting
tools having four different edge geometries. The results
revealed that when hardness and other cutting
parameters remain constant, the plastic deformation near
the cutting edge is a dominant factor in the creation of
residual stresses profile. Thiele and Melkote [12] studied
subsurface residual stresses on hardened AISI 52100
steel with hardness of 41 to 57 HRC. As expected, it was
found that the material with a hardness of 57 HRC
produce the highest residual stresses. The surface
machined with the large hone yielded the most
compressive residual stress profiles. This was true for all
the different hardness tested. The authors concluded that,
the increase in residual stress can be the result of
increase in the stresses field induced by the tool. Plastic
flow created by machining with large edge hone is the
result of this increased residual stress profile along the
cutting edge.
The previous research was focused on hone, sharp
and chamfers tool edge geometries; in this paper the
effect of a combination of chamfer and hone edges are
studied. This paper presents a study of the effect of
cutting-edge geometry on residual stresses induced by
hard turning of 300M steel. The effects of other
machining parameters such as feed rate and depth of cut
are analyzed and their influence on the residual stress
profile is presented here.
3. Experimental Setup
Cutting Edge Preparation
h Chamfer only edge
1
Sharp edges
V Rhone
Feed
h
1
Sharp edge
Depth of Rhone
cut
h =chamfer land, 1 =chamfer angle, Rhone=hone radius
Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental set up and cutting edge
preparation details.
289
The main focus of this paper is to determine the
effects of cutting edge geometry on the surface integrity
in hard turning of 300M steels. 300M steel workpieces
were machined with three different edge geometries
under constant cutting conditions in an attempt to
explain the edge geometry effect on surface integrity.
Ceramic inserts with chamfer, hone, and chamfer with
hone geometries as shown in Figure 1 were used. The
inserts were coated with a PVD TiN coating over an
aluminum oxide and titanium carbonitride composite
ceramic (Al2O3/TiCN). The inserts are rhomboid
geometry corresponding to CNGA 432 ISO
classification with a nose radius of 0.8 mm. The tool
holder used to run the experiments was an ISO
classification PCLNR 124 BHP with a rake angle -50 and
an inclination angle -50. The face turning (facing) tests
were conducted on a HAAS SL-20 turning center as
shown in Figure 1. Round bars of 300M steel (127 mm
in diameter and 50.8 mm in length) were machined
without any coolant with the selected cutting tools. The
experiments consisted of facing with a length of cut of 3
inches on the diameter. Two depths of cuts of 0.2 mm
(low depth of cut) and 0.4 mm (high depth of cut) were
used and the cutting speed was kept constant at 150
m/min for all tests. Two feed rates of 0.1 mm/rev (low
feed) and 0.2 mm/rev (high feed) were used in
combination with the two depths of cut and three
different edge geometries. Before machining, the 300M
steel bars were normalized to a temperature of 1700 Fo
for 150 minutes in an inert atmosphere. Subsequently
pieces were oil quenched followed by a double temper at
a temperature of 300 Fo for five hours each time.
Normalizing, quenching and double tempering heat
treatment resulted in a hardness of 52 HRC. 300M Steel
is essentially a modified AISI 4340 with a silicon
content of 1.45% to 1.80%; the details of the
composition are given in Table 1 [13]. 300M has very
similar properties to 4340, but the addition of silicon
adds more hardenability and prevents embrittlement
when the steel is tempered at low temperatures.
Table 1: 300M material composition [13].
Details Alloy C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo V
300M 0.40- 0.65- 1.45- 0.70- 1.65- 0.30- 0.05
h = 0.15 mm 0.46 0.90 1.80 0.95 2.00 0.45 min
1 =250
Hone only edge
The hole-drilling method was used to measure the
Rhone 0.02 mm
subsurface residual stresses in the machined work-pieces
Chamfer -Hone edge following the ASTM standard E837 [14]. The residual
h = 0.15 mm
1 =250
strains were precisely measured at the same radial
Rhone 0.02 mm distance from the center for all the machined work-
pieces for consistency. The subsurface residual stresses
were calculated from the measured residual strains using
H-Drill software. An optical surface profilometer
290
Zygo NewViewTM 5000 series along with the
MetroPro metrology software was used to quantify the
average surface roughness (Ra). An image zoom of 2x
and 5x objective were used. A cutoff length (roughness
sampling length) of 0.8 mm was used while estimating
the average roughness profile as recommended [15]. Ra
measurements were taken at three different locations for
each sample and the average of three measurements was
used for this analysis. Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) with 75x magnification was used to analyze the
tool tribological aspects and their effects on the
machining induced surface integrity.
4. Results and Discussion
After carefully conducting facing experiments on the
HAAS SL-20 turning center, subsurface residual stress
profile and average surface roughness were measured as
mentioned above. The maximum principal residual
stress profile is generated for each case and used for the
analysis as it is well known that the failure occurs along
the maximum principal stress plane [16].
The measured machining induced subsurface residual
stress profiles for the low depth of cut (0.2 mm)
experiments are shown in Figure 2. The solid lines in the
figure pertain to residual stresses induced by the lower
feed rate (0.1 mm/rev) and the dotted lines show the
residual stresses induced by higher feed rate (0.2
mm/rev). Figure 2 shows that the chamfer edge cutting
tools produce higher surface residual stress compared to
the hone only and chamfer-hone cutting tools. The
chamfer-hone produced larger compressive residual
stresses compared to hone only tools. The combination
of chamfer edge and hone edge effectively produced
better (compressive) residual stresses.
The residual
250
Principal Residual stresses (MPa)
50
-150
-350
-550
-750
0.0051
Figure 2. Maximum principal residual stresses (MPa) induced in
300M steel with coated ceramic tools at a depth of cut of 0.2 mm.
P.I. Varela et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293
stress formation due the
Low Feed - Chamfer
Low feed - Hone
Low Feed - Chamfer Hone
High Feed - Chamfer
High Feed - Hone
High feed - chamfer Hone
Subsurface Depth (mm)
0.3051 0.6051 0.9051
preparation can be attributed to the ploughing action,
and the thermal gradients due to the large local negative
rake angles. The chamfer edge, hone edge, and chamfer-
hone edge produces higher local negative rake angles,
due to which higher cutting forces and temperatures are
produced. These forces and temperatures primarily
affect the machining induced residual stress formation.
The mechanical loads tend to induce compressive
residual stresses, while the thermal loads induce tensile
residual stresses [17]. At lower feed rate, the thermal
effects on the residual (higher) stress formation can be
observed in Figure 2. At low feed rate (0.1 mm/rev) the
tool movement is relatively slow, thereby allowing more
time for the heat generated during the machining process
to effect the subsurface. The effect can be seen in higher
subsurface residual stress formation. Apparently, the
chamfer edge and the hone edge produced tensile
subsurface residual stresses at lower feed due to thermal
dominance over the ploughing action along the cutting
edge.
The chamfer tool produced a predominantly a tensile
residual stress profile, with a peak residual stress of
202.5 MPa. The hone only edge produced a tensile
surface residual stress (47 MPa) but the residual stress
profile is predominantly compressive. The peak residual
stress due the hone edge is compressive in nature (-138
MPa). The chamfer-hone on the other hand produced a
higher compressive surface residual stress (-358.28
MPa) and peak residual stress (-358.28 MPa). In the
chamfer-hone tools, the subsurface residual stresses tend
to be compressive, possibly due to larger mechanical
loading than the chamfer and hone edge tools. It is well
established that a chamfer-hone edge produces higher
cutting forces than chamfer and hone edge alone, the
same was observed in the measured machining cutting
forces. Also the chamfer-hone has higher local negative
edge rake angles, thereby inducing more compressive residual
stresses in hard machining [4].
Additionally, the location of the hone in the chamfer-
hone and hone only tools is near the flank surface,
thereby, more material is ploughed underneath the
cutting edge into the just machined surface. It is reported
in the literature that hone radius creates subsurface
plastic flow, which in turn produces a compressive
subsurface [12]. The hone edge ploughing effectively
induces compressive loads into machined surface. Thus
the hone only tool generated more compressive residual
stresses than the chamfer (sharp edge near the flank
face) only tool. This process also produces a material
side flow as observed by Kishawy and Elbestawi at
lower feed rates and higher rake angles [18]. Material
side flow effect on the surface integrity is discussed in
detail later in this paper.
 P.I. Varela et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293
At higher feed rate (0.2 mm/rev), the cutting tool
moves relatively faster, thereby providing lesser time for
the heat generated to affect the just machined
subsurface; here a lower or more compressive residual
stresses was generated. A similar trend is observed in
hard machining of AISI 52100 steels by Dahlman et al.
[4]. At higher feed rates, higher cutting forces are
produced along with a larger plastic deformation thereby
contributing to more compressive residual stresses [4].
The peak and surface residual stresses for all the three
cutting tools were compressive with high feed rate (0.2
mm/rev) and low depth of cut (0.2 mm). The peak and
surface residual stress for chamfer, hone and chamfer-
hone tools are -412.7 MPa, -456.8 MPa and -703.5 MPa
respectively. Even at higher feed rate, the chamfer-hone
tool produced better subsurface residual stresses due to
its high local negative rake angles.
Also, from the microscopical evidence (images from
SEM at 75x magnification of the cutting edge as shown
in Figure 3) the tool-chip contact is larger for higher feed
rate as expected, and the complete chamfer land has
been utilized. The complete utilization of the chamfer
land increases the ploughing action which emphasizes
the compressive mechanical effect. The result is seen in
the subsurface residual stresses. The same effect is seen
for the chamfer-hone cutting tools as well.
Maximum principal residual stresses induced by
machining 300M steel at high depth of cut (0.4 mm) are
plotted as shown in Figure 4. Machining 300M steel at
high depth of cut with hone only tools resulted in
chipped (broken) edges as shown in Figure 5. The exact
instance of chipping is difficult to determine, hence the
results from the hone only edges at higher depth of cut
are not considered in the analysis. The hone only edges
chipped for both the feed rates (0.1 mm/rev and 0.2
mm/rev) at higher depth of cut. Thereby the 0.4 mm
depth cut is established as too high for machining 300M
steel for the hone only edged ceramic tool. Figure 4 also
shows the maximum principal stresses induced before
machining the work-pieces. These residual stresses are
induced pre-machining by the heat treatment process
Low feed & Low depth of cut High feed & Low depth of cut
Chamfer completely not utilized. Chamfer completely utilized.
Figure 3. Images from SEM at 75x magnification of chamfer tools
illustrating the utilization of the chamfer land at higher feed rate.
291
450
Principal Residual Stresses (MPa)
250
50
Pre Machining
-150
Low Feed - Chamfer
-350 Low Feed - Chamfer Hone
High Feed - Chamfer
-550
High Feed - Chamfer Hone
Subsurface Depth (mm)
-750
0.0051 0.3051 0.6051 0.9051
Figure 4. Maximum principal residual stress (MPa) induced in
300M steel with coated ceramic tools at a depth of cut of 0.4 mm.
described in Section 3. All the machining experiments
reduced the residual stresses from the pre-machined
state, thus effectively improving the subsurface integrity.
Figure 4 shows that the chamfer-hone tools produces
higher compressive residual stresses compared to
chamfer tools. The surface residual stresses for chamfer-
hone tools are -72.3 MPa and -717.9 MPa at 0.1 mm/rev
and 0.2 mm/rev feed rates respectively. The surface
residual stresses for chamfer only tools are -121.3 MPa
and 136.422 MPa at 0.1 mm/rev and 0.2 mm/rev feed
rates respectively. The scenario of chamfer tool
producing better surface residual stresses than chamfer-
hone is observed at low feed (0.1 mm/rev) and high
depth of cut (0.2 mm/rev). This can be explained by the
crater wear formed on the chamfer-hone edge as shown
in Figure 5. The crater wear formation can be explained
by the fact that chamfer-hone tools produce higher
forces and higher temperatures along the tool chip
contact area, thereby higher frictional load along the
tool-chip contact area leading to wear. At low feed rate,
the chip flow along the tool is assumed to have enough
time for diffusion process along the tool-chip contact
area. Also, 300M steel has high strength at elevated
temperatures exerting higher pressure along the tool-chip
contact area leading to crater wear. A detailed tool wear
Crater wear on chamfer-hone Chipped edge of a hone tool
tool at Low feed & High depth at High depth of cut
of cut
Figure 5. Images from SEM at 75x magnification of cutting tools
illustrating the wear and chipping at higher depth of cut
292
107
Surface Residual Stress (MPa)
47
-121
-358
-413
-457
-703
Low Feed Low High Feed Low Low Feed High High Feed High
Depth Depth Depth
Figure 6. Surface residual stresses (MPa) induced in 300M steel with
coated ceramic tools
study is planned for a later stage to understand the tool
wear progression and is considered out of scope for the
present paper. Thus with crater wear along the chamfer
land, higher residual stresses were formed near the
subsurface by chamfer-hone tools.
The feed rate effect remained same at higher depth of
cut as well. The higher feed rate (0.2 mm/rev) produced
more compressive residual stresses compared to lower
feed rate (0.1 mm/rev). The same explanation given
above (for low depth of cut) is attributed to residual
stress formation for higher depth of cut. The fact that the
depth of cut has minimal effect on residual stress
formation [4] is established again, but at higher depth cut
tool damage and tool wear was seen.
The machining induced surface residual stresses
developed in 300M steel are compared in Figure 6 to
summarize the effect of the cutting edge geometry. The
chamfer-hone out performs the chamfer only and hone
only cutting tools. Even with a crater wear at low feed
and high depth as well, a compressive surface residual
stress is induced by the chamfer-hone tool. Also, the
hone only cutting edge produced better surface residual
stresses than chamfer only cutting edge. The same trend
is observed for all the experiments expect for the broken
hone edges at higher depth of cut. The residual stress
formation is explained by the ploughing effect of the
hone edge and the high local negative rake angles. The
effect of the feed rate and depth of cut was also analyzed
and followed the trend observed by the previous
researchers.
The effects of tool edge geometry on machining
generated average surface roughness (Ra) are shown in
Figure 7. The chamfer edge cutting tool produced lower
P.I. Varela et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293
136 surface roughness values as compared to hone only
cutting tool and chamfer-hone edge cutting tool. The
theoretical machining surface roughness (Ra) was
calculated using equation 1 given below.
-74
(1)
Chamfer
f is the feed rate and R is the nose radius. The
Hone
theoretical surface roughness values are 0.39 m for the
feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev and 1.56 m for the feed rate of
Chamfer Hone 0.2 mm/rev. It was observed that the measured surface
roughness were higher than theoretical surface
-718
roughness. Similar results have been observed by Thiele
et al [12]. It was demonstrated that the edge hone tools
Depth
create a significant subsurface plastic flow. Additionally,
the same effect is not observed in cutting tools with
chamfered tools without hones edges.
During the cutting operation, the increased interaction
between the cutting edge and the material causes the
material to be pushed to the side of the cutting edge. At
higher negative rake angles and lower feed rates, the
material underneath the cutting edge plastically deforms
at higher temperature and behaves like a viscous liquid
[18]. The plastically deformed material is squeezed out
of the cutting edge region as material side flow [18].
This mechanism increases the height of the peaks of the
cut profile resulting in an increase of surface roughness.
It can be concluded that the effect of the hone radius has
a bigger impact on side plastic flow than chamfer
geometry. This same mechanism is not present in the
case of the chamfered tool without hones. As a result the
surface roughness of the chamfer tool follows more
closely to the values of the theoretical roughness. The
tool edge geometry play an important role in the surface
roughness but still the feed is the dominant mechanism.
Chamfer
1.82
Surface Roughness (m)
1.72 Hone
1.68
1.61
Chamfer Hone
1.40
0.78
0.68 0.68
0.56
0.42
Low Feed Low High Feed Low Low Feed High High Feed High
Depth Depth Depth Depth
Figure 7. Average surface roughness (m) generated by machining
300M steel with coated ceramic tools
 P.I. Varela et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 288 293
Table 2: Summary of edge-preparation performance
Edge preparation Chamfer Hone Chamfer +
comparative performance Hone
Peak Residual Stress Bad Good* Best
Surface Residual Stress Bad Good* Best
Surface Roughness Best Good Bad
Tool Tribology Best Bad Good*
* At lower depth of cut
5. Summary
The set of values required to determine the subsurface [1]
integrity of the machined surface includes the surface
roughness, residual stresses, etc. as per ANSI B211.1
[2]
standard [19]. The performance of different cutting-edge
geometries while machining 300M steel with respect to
surface integrity is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 is [3]
compiled by comparing the perfomances of the cutting
edge geometries with each other. For example, the
chamfer edge geometry produced better surface
roughness compared to the other edge preparations, thus [4]
it is deemed as the best then followed by hone edge,
which is deemed good and chamfer-hone is considered [5]
bad with respect to other tools. From Table 2, we can
see that the selection of appropriate cutting edge [6]
geometry is very complex as for example, the chamfer-
hone produces good subsurface residual stresses, but the
effect on surface roughness and tool life is not as good [7]
when compared to chamfer only cutting tool.
[8]
In conclusion, an experimental study to understand
the effects of edge preparation on machining induced
surface ingrity is conducted. Also, the effects of the feed
rate and depth of cut are also studied. The results show [9]
that the edge preparation has profound and complex [10]
effect on the surface integrity. The chamfer-hone and
hone tools (at low depth of cut) produced compressive [11]
natured residual stress profiles, but generated a higher
surface roughness. The ploughing action of the cutting [12]
edge and subsequent material side flow induced
compressive surface residual stresses but it increases the
average surface roughness. At higher depth of cut (0.4 [13]
mm) the hone only tools chipped, while crater wear was [14]
observed on the chamfer-hone tools. The chamfer tools [15]
produced tensile residual stresses due to the thermal
dominance and lower compressive ploughning effect. [16]
However, the chamfer only tools produced better surface
finish and displayed better tool tribological perfomance. [17]
This study has highlighted the intricate effect of feed
[18]
rate on subsurface integrity, the higher feed rate induces
more compressive residual stresses, but higher surface
roughness. The depth of cut had minimal effect on the [19]
surface integrity, but it affected the tool wear and tool
293
damage. Thus, the subsurface integrity generated by the
different edge geometry has exposed the combinational
complexity involved in selecting an appropriate cutting
tool and cutting conditions for machining 300M steel.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Mr. Eric Jenkins from
Kyocera for providing the cutting tools and Blanchard
Metals Processing Company for heat treating the steel.
References
Sasahara H., 2005, The effect on fatigue life of residual stress and
surface hardness resulting from different cutting conditions of 0.45%C
steel, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 45(2), pp. 131136.
Matsumoto Y., Magda D., Hoeppner D. W., and Kim T. Y., 1991,
Effect of machining processes on the fatigue strength of hardened
AISI 4340 steel, J. Eng. Ind., 113(2), pp. 154159.
Prevey P., Jayaraman N., Ontko N., Shepard M., Ware R., and Coate
J., 2005, Comparison of mechanical suppression by shot peening and
low plasticity burnishing to mitigate SCC and corrosion fatigue
failures in 300m landing gear steel, International Conference on Shot
Peening, Paris, France, pp. 247251.
Dahlman P., Gunnberg F., and Jacobson M., 2004, The influence of
rake angle, cutting feed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard
turning, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 147, pp. 181184.
Warren A. W., and Guo Y. B., 2009, Characteristics of Residual
Stress Profiles in Hard Turned Versus Ground Surfaces With and
Without a White Layer, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 131(4), p. 041004.
Guo Y. B., Warren A. W., and Hashimoto F., 2010, The basic
relationships between residual stress, white layer, and fatigue life of
hard turned and ground surfaces in rolling contact, CIRP J. Manuf.
Sci. Technol., 2(2), pp. 129134.
Hashimoto F., Guo Y. B., and Warren A. W., 2006, Surface Integrity
Difference between Hard Turned and Ground Surfaces and Its Impact
on Fatigue Life, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., 55(1), pp. 8184.
Thiele J. D., Melkote S. N., Peascoe R. A., and Watkins T. R., 2000,
Effect of Tool Edge Geometry on Workpiece Subsurface Deformation
and Through-Thickness Residual Stresses for Hard Turning of AISI
52100 Steel, J. Manuf. Process., 122, pp. 642649.
Henriksen E. K., 1951, Residual stresses in machined surfaces,
Trans. ASME, 73, pp. 6976.
Matsumoto Y. . Barash M. M., & C.R. Liu, 1986, Effects of Hardness
on the Surface Integrity of AISI 4340 Steel, J. Eng. Ind., 108, pp. 169
Matsumoto Y., Hashimoto F., and Lahoti G., 1999, Surface Integrity
Generated by Precision Hard Turning, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol.,
48(1), pp. 5962.
Thiele J. D., Melkote S. N., and George T., 2000, Effect of Tool Edge
Geometry on Workpiece Subsurface Deformation and Through-
Thickness Residual Stresses for Hard Turning of AISI 52100 Steel,
Trans. Manuf. Process., 2(4).
Davis R. J., 1998, Metals handbook: Desk Edition, ASM International.
ASTM E 837-08, 2008, Standard test method for determining residual
stresses by the hole-drilling strain-guage method.
Oberg E., Jones F. D., Horton H. L., and Ryffel H. H., 2008,
Machinery s Handbook, Industrial Press.
Schajer G. S., and Steinzig M., 2005, Full-field Calculation of Hole
Drilling Residual Stresses from Electronic Speckle Pattern
Interferometry Data, Exp. Mech., 45(6), pp. 526532.
Colwell L. V., Sinnott M. J., and Tobin J. C., 1955, The determination
of residual stresses in hardened, ground steel, Trans. ASME,
77(1955), pp. 10991105.
Kishawy H. A., and Elbestawi M. A., 1999, Effects of process
parameters on material side flow during hard turning, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manuf., 39(7), pp. 10171030.
ANSI, 1986, American National Standard ANSI B211.1 - 1986,
American National Standard Institute, New York.