Corresponding Author

Thc 11|h Asia Pacilic Indus|rial Lninccrin and Manacmcn| Svs|cms Conlcrcncc
Thc 14|h Asia Pacilic Rcional Mcc|in ol In|crna|ional Iounda|ion lor Produc|ion Rcscarch
Melaka, 7 10 December 2010
EIIect oI Insert Geometry on SurIace Roughness
In the Turning Process oI AISI D2
Zahari Taha
Department oI ManuIacturing Engineering,
Faculty oI ManuIacturing Engineering and Technology Management, University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia
Email : zaharitahaump.edu.my
Hani Kurniati Lelana

2
Centre Ior Product Design and ManuIacture
Faculty oI Engineering, University oI Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Email: kurnialelanayahoo.com
Hideki Aoyama
Department oI System Design Engineering,
Faculty oI Science and Technology, Keio University, Japan
Email : haoyamasd.keio.ac.jp
Raja Ariffin
4
1ulirose Gonzales
5
Novita Sakundarini
6
Sugoro Bhakti
7
Centre Ior Product Design and ManuIacture
Faculty oI Engineering, University oI Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Email: rariIIinum.edu.my
4
cholerossyahoo.com
5
novitas73yahoo.com
6
sb.sutonoyahoo.com
7
$EVWUDFW
Surface roughness is an important parameter in ensuring that the aimension of a geometry is within the
permittea tolerance. The iaeal surface roughness is aeterminea by feea rate ana the geometry of tool.
However, several uncontrollable factors such as, work material factor, tool angle, machine tool vibration, etc.
may also influence surface roughness. The obfective of this stuay is to compare measurea surface roughness
(from experiment) with theoretical surface roughness (from theoretical calculation) of two types of insert, C
type ana T type. The experiment focuses on the turning process. The feea rate is variea within the
recommenaea feea rate range. It is observea that there are large aeviations between measurea ana theoretical
surface roughness at low feea rates (0.05mm/rev) for both inserts. The work material factor of AISI D2
affecting the chip character is presumably the cause of this phenomenon. Interestingly, at high feea rates (0.4
mm/rev), the C type insert resultea in 40 lower roughness comparea to the T type aue to the aifferences
in insert geometry.
.H\ZRUGV Surface roughness, turning, insert geometry, feea rate
1. INTRODUCTION
Machining is a process to create a part or shape with
speciIied dimensions and its tolerances. SurIace roughness
is related to the quality oI product. It allows the proper
Iunction oI the product in its usage. (Mahardika, 2005).
SurIace quality signiIicantly improves Iatigue strength,
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
corrosion resistance, or creep liIe (Lou, et al., 1999; Vishal
et al, 2008). This parameter is increasingly needed in
automotive, aerospace, die and mold manuIacturing
application. SurIace roughness is expressed in surIace
roughness value. The higher the value, the poorer surIace
Iinish and the shorter Iatigue liIe is. ThereIore, the surIace
roughness required need to be clearly stated in a design to
ensure the machining process is adjusted to achieve it.
SurIace roughness can be theoretically calculated. The
equation oI surIace roughness is
e
a
r
f
R
32
2

(1)
where R
a
: surIace roughness (
P
m), f : Ieed rate
(mm/rev), and r
e
is tool nose radius (mm). The equation
shows that to improve the surIace roughness, Ieed rate need
to be decreased, and nose radius should be increased.
Due to its large application, surIace roughness are
described by three main speciIication (Lou, et al., 1999 and
Mahardika, 2005)
Ra : Roughness Average. This parameter
is known as the arithmetic mean roughness, arithmetic
average (AA), or center line average (CLA). This
parameter is the most common parameter used to express
surIace roughness. This is the arithmetic mean oI the
diIIerence oI the roughness contour Irom the mean line.
Rq : Root-mean-square (rms) roughness
Ry (max) : Maximum peak-to-valley roughness
height. This is the distance between the top proIile peak
line and the bottom proIile on the contour within the
roughness sampling rate.
SurIace roughness value is expressed in micrometer
(m).
The Iinal surIace roughness in machining operation is
resulted Irom two independent Iactors (Lou, et al., 1999
and Mahardika, 2005)
a. The ideal surIace roughness. It is the result oI
geometry oI tool and machining parameter such as
Ieed rate.
b. The natural surIace roughness. This is the result oI the
irregularities and uncontrollable Iactors in the cutting
operations which is diIIicult to predict.
Groover (2007) illustrates three groups oI Iactors
inIluencing surIace roughness:
a. Geometric Iactors
b. Work material Iactors,
c. Vibration and machine tools Iactors
Geometric Iactor covers the type oI machining operation,
cutting tool geometry (nose radius) and Ieed rate.
Machining process achieves the ideal roughness iI the
roughness is as a result oI these Iactors without any
disturbance Irom work material, vibration, and machine
tools Iactors.
Fig 1.End cutting edge angle (ECEA)
For single-point tool, the eIIect oI tool points shape is
important in tool geometric Iactor. With the same Ieed rate,
a larger nose radius causes a smoother Ieed marks and
creates a smoother Iinish. In reverse, iI the nose radius is
kept the same, the larger Ieed will create a higher surIace
roughness value since the separation between Ieed marks is
larger than iI a smaller Ieed rate is used. End cutting edge
angle (ECEA) Iactor has an impact on surIace roughness
when the Ieed rate is quite large while the nose radius is
small enough (Figure 1). This is because when the smaller
angle used, it will decrease the slope oI Ieed marks and
produce a smoother surIace. In ideal condition, zero ECEA
will result in zero degree slope hence it will make a perIect
smooth surIace. However, the imperIection oI machining
condition and work material keep the result Irom an ideal
Iinish (Groover, 2007).
However, an ideal surIace Iinish is diIIicult to obtain
in most machining operations because oI work material
Iactors and how it interacts with the tool. (Groover, 2007
and Carlsson) Work material Iactors that aIIects surIace
Iinish are Built-up-edge eIIects, damage to the surIace
caused by the chip curling back into the work,
tearing oI the work surIace during chip Iormation
especially Ior ductile materials, cracks in the surIace caused
by discontinuous chip Iormation when machining brittle
materials, and Iriction between the tool Ilank and the newly
generated work surIace.
Several studies in surIace roughness have been
conducted. Lou et al., (1999) built a surIace roughness
prediction technique Ior CNC End-Milling. The machining
parameters include spindle speed (rpm), Ieed rate (ipm),
and depth oI cut. Multiple regression was used to built a
surIace roughness (Ra) prediction model with the
machining parameters as inputs. It is proven that surIace
roughness can be predicted Irom spindle speed, Ieed rate,
depth oI cut and their interactions. Feed rate is the most
signiIicant parameter aIIecting surIace roughness.
Side cutting edge angle
End cutting edge angle (ECEA)
Nose Radius
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
DiIIerent cutting tools may give diIIerent results. However
this is not considered in this study.
Anirban et al. (2009) investigated the eIIect oI cutting
conditions on power consumption and surIace Iinish using
the Taguchi method oI AISI 1045 steel. The parameters
used are cutting speed, Ieed rate, and depth oI cut, and the
output are three values oI surIace roughness and power
consumption. The experiment was conducted using Taguchi
method and the analysis using ANOVA to investigate a
contribution oI each Iactor. Trade-oII is observed when the
higher cutting speed results with a better surIace roughness,
but consumed higher power. A compromise should be made
between the surIace quality required and the economic
aspects. (Anirban et al.2009).
The aim oI this study is to investigate the surIace
roughness resulting Irom diIIerent geometry oI inserts.
The value between experimental and theoretical surIace
roughness are compared.
2. Experimental Set up
The turning process oI AISI D2 is conducted using a
manual lathe machine, a Colchester 6000. AISI D2 is
chosen as it represents a hard material. It is Hot Work
Chromium type that is commonly used as punch and dies/
insert in Blanking application. There are two insert
geometry types used in this study. CNMG 120408
representing the type C`, rhombus shape with 80
0
angle
and TPMR 160308 representing the type T`, triangle shape
with 60
0
angle (Figure 2).
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Insert shape, (a) C type and (b) T type
Feed rate is the machining parameter considered in
this study. This is because theoretically, Ieed rate is the
parameter that has aIIect on surIace roughness as seen in
Equation 1.
Three Ieed rate values are used in the experiment
which are 0.05, 0.2, and 0.4 mm/rev as recommended by
the material manuIacturer (ASSAB Steel). The surIace
roughness oI the work piece aIter turning is measured using
a portable and wireless perthometer, MarSurI PS1 Irom
Mahr. This portable device is beneIicial since it allows
measurement oI an object clamped on the chuck oI the
lathe. The traversing length used is 17.5 mm.
Measurements are conducted on two areas along the x axis
(turning direction).
3. Result and Discussions
Several studies have highlighted that a higher Ieed
rate, higher depth oI cut, and lower cutting speed would
increase the surIace roughness value (Lou, et al., 1999,
Anirban et al., 2009, Puertas Arbizu, I, and Luis Perez, C.J.,
2003). However, in this study, the experiment produced a
diIIerent result. A Ieed rate oI 0.05mm/rev resulted in
almost similar roughness value with the Ieed rate oI
0.2mm/rev Ior both types oI inserts. There is a large
diIIerence in the surIace roughness between a Ieed rate oI
0.2mm/rev and 0.4mm/rev (Figure 3). The result is
compared to the theoretical surIace roughness.
Ra pIot, TPMR compare to CNMG, cutting
speed 150 m/min

Feed rate
R
a

(
m
i
c
r
o

m
e
t
e
r
)
Ra- TPMR DOC 0.5 Ra- TPMR DOC 1 Ra- TPMR DOC 1.5
Ra- CNMG DOC 0.5 Ra- CNMG DOC 1 Ra- CNMG DOC 1.5
Fig. 3 Ra plot, TPMR versus CNMG at cutting speed 150
The deviation between theoretical and actual
roughness is calculated. The percentage deviation is
calculated to check how much the actual value deviates
Irom the theoretical value.
100
) (
exp
u

theretical
l theoretica erimental
Ra
Ra Ra
percentage Deviation
(2)
Deviation between measured value and theoretical
value oI surIace roughness was calculated Ior TPMR and
CNMG insert (Table 1).
From Figure 4 and 5, it is observed that there is a large
deviation with a Ieed rate oI 0.05mm/rev Ior both inserts,
which are 94.59 and 93.9 , respectively. The diIIerence
between theory and actual surIace roughness resulting Irom
the experiment may be caused by the work material Iactor.
This is highlighted by Carlsson and StjenstoIt (2007) and
Groover (2007), in that the deviation Irom ideal surIace
roughness (as theory) can be caused by work material
Iactors such as built-up layers, built-up edge Iormation,
chip interIace, chip squeezing, tool vibration, tool wear,
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
workpiece vibration, temperature and cutting speed
variations. The probability oI Built-up-edge (BUE)
Iormation and cracks in cyclical is higher at a lower Ieed
rate. Chip interIace and chip squeezing are the most
signiIicant Iactors in this experiment. When a low Ieed rate
is applied, the chips are small, curly, and spacious (Figure
9.a). Moreover, the movement oI Ieed is very slow.
ThereIore, chips are curling back to the workpiece, trapped
in between the tool and workpiece, pressing against the
workpiece surIace (Figure 9.a). This causes scratching on
the new surIace as the chips pass. Finally, when a low Ieed
rate is employed, this results in high surIace roughness
(Figure 9.b).
^ZZs^

&
Z

Zd
Z
Fig. 4 SurIace roughness deviation, insert TPMR 160308
Fig. 5 SurIace roughness deviation, insert CNMG 120408
A Ieed rate oI 0.2 mm/rev seems to be the suitable
Ieed applied Ior this material. Both inserts result in similar
deviation Irom theoretical surIace roughness value (10).
The chips are broken easily and smaller chips are Iormed
(Figure 9.c). In addition, the gaps between Ieed marks
created by the tool tip are very narrow even smaller than
the nose radius. Hence, this results in a good quality surIace
(Figure 9.d).
When a Ieed rate oI 0.4mm/rev is applied, apparently,
the chips Iormed are similar to the chips Iormed at
0.2mm/rev (Figure 9.e). However, the gaps between Ieed
marks are bigger, resulting in a rougher surIace. Figure 9.I
shows the appearance oI uniIorm texture. Hence, this Ieed
rate results in low quality surIace roughness.
However, it is observed that at Ieed rate oI 0.4mm/rev,
both inserts result in diIIerent surIace roughness. CNMG
insert results in 40 lower surIace roughness than TPMR
insert. It means that CNMG insert produces a better surIace
than TPMR insert at Ieed rate oI 0.4mm/rev.
The possible reason oI this surIace roughness
diIIerence is End cutting edge angle (ECEA) Iactor that is
involved in surIace roughness when the Ieed rate is quite
large and the nose radius is small enough.
Figure 6 and 7 show the eIIect oI ECEA oI diIIerent
insert type on surIace roughness. It can be seen that the
rhombus shape with 80
0
point angles has an ECEA oI a 10
0
lower angle compared to the TPMR which has an ECEA oI
30
0
. The CNMG insert creates a shallower slope oI Ieed
marks than the TPMR insert. Hence, the CNMG results in a
Iiner surIace than the TPMR. This is the reason Ior the
signiIicant diIIerence oI surIace roughness resulting Irom
the two inserts geometry.
Fig.6 Feed mark Iormation oI CNMG 120408 (Rhombus)
Fig.7 Feed mark Iormation oI TPMR 160308 (Triangle)
It was known that high Ieed rate may consume higher
power (Campatelli 2009 and Kadirgama 2005). However,
based on the Sandvik technological guide (Figure 8), scale
2 shows that power requirement (P) is lower to the right.
Hence, T` type insert requires higher power than C` type.
ECEA 10
0
Feed mark
ECEA 30
0
Feed mark
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Table 1 Deviation calculation between Ra Theoretical and Ra Experimental
TPMR 160308 CNMG 120408
Feed
rate
Ra
Theoretical
Ra
experimental Deviation
Deviation
percentage ()
Ra
Experimental Deviation
Deviation
percentage ()
0.05 0.10 1.8 1.71 94.59 1.60 1.50 93.91
0.2 1.56 1.7 0.18 10.18 1.42 0.14 10.13
0.4 6.25 6.5 0.2 3.13 3.84 2.41 62.91
Fig.9 Chips Iormed and surIace roughness resulting Irom each Ieed rate
a. Chip, Ieed rate 0.05 mm/rev
b. SurIace, Ieed rate 0.05 mm/rev
c. Chip, Ieed rate 0.2 mm/rev
d. SurIace, Ieed rate 0.2 mm/rev
e. Chip, Ieed rate 0.4 mm/rev
.I. SurIace, Ieed rate 0.4 mm/rev
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Fig. 8 Typical insert shape available
(Sandvik Technological Guide)
ThereIore, even iI the surIace roughness Iormed by a
CNMG insert is better than a TPMR insert, the application
oI CNMG insert cannot be considered as beneIicial as the
power consumption oI CNMG insert is signiIicantly higher
than TPMR insert. Further study on the trade-oII between
power consumption and surIace roughness resulting Irom
diIIerent geometries oI inserts and its optimization is
required.
4. Conclusions
SurIace roughnesses resulting Irom two types oI insert
in turning oI AISI D2 have been studied. There a large
deviation between measured surIace roughness
(experiment) and calculated surIace roughness (theory) at a
Ieed rate oI 0.05mm/rev Ior both inserts. This is because oI
the work material Iactor oI AISI D2 in which curly chips
are created that scratch the work piece surIace when a Ieed
rate oI 0.05mm/rev is applied.
The surIace quality resulting Irom the two types oI
insert geometry, TPMR and CNMG are similar at Ieed rates
oI 0.05mm/rev and 0.2mm/rev, but signiIicantly diIIerent at
high Ieed rate. By using the CNMG insert, the surIace
quality at a high Ieed rate (0.4 mm/rev) is 40 better than
when using a TPMR insert.
However, the experiments were conducted only on
turning oI AISI D2 and two types oI inserts. DiIIerent
materials and cutting tools may give diIIerent results oI the
surIace roughness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work presented in this paper was Iunded by JICA
through AunSeed/Net, and Universiti Malaya Research
Grant.
REFERENCES
Anirban, B., Das, S., Majunder, P., Batish, A.(2009).
Estimating the eIIect oI cutting parameters on surIace Iinish
and power consumption during high speed machining oI
AISI 1045 steel using Taguchi design and ANOVA. Proa.
Eng. Res. Devel. 3:31-40
ASSAB XW-42, Material SpeciIication Sheet.
Retrieved oI 14 September 2009, Irom
http://assabmalaysia.com/english/1723ENGHTML.htm.
Campatelli, G. (2009) Analysis oI the environmental
impact Ior a turning operation oI AISI 1040 Steel. IPROMS
Conference.
Carlsson, T., and StjernstoIt, T.(2001).A model Ior
calculation oI the geometrical shape oI the cutting tool-
work piece interIace, CIRP Annals, Manufacturing
Technology, Volume 50, pp.41-44
Groover, Mikell, P. (2007) Funaamentals of Moaern
Manufacturing, Materials, Processes, ana Systems,John
Wiley & Sons (Asia) Stuaent Eaition.
Kadirgama, K. and Abou-El-Hossein, K.A. (2005)
Power prediction model Ior milling 618 stainless steel
using response surIace methodology. American Journal of
Appliea Sciences, 2 (7): 1182 1187.
Lou, Mike, S., Chen, Joseph, C., and Li, M. Caleb.
(1999) SurIace Roughness Prediction Technique Ior CNC
End-Milling, Journal of Inaustrial Technology, Volume 15
No 1.
Mahardika, M. (2005) Neural Networks Prediction oI
Cutting Tool Wear During Turning Operations, Master
Thesis, University of Malaya.
Puertas Arbizu, I., Perez, Luis, C.J. (2003) SurIace
roughness prediction by Iactorial design oI experiments in
turning processes, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 143-144, 390-396
Vishal, S., Dhiman, S., Sehgal, R., Dharma,
S.K.(2008).Estimation oI cutting Iorces and surIace
roughness Ior hard turning using neural networks. J. Intell
Manufac, 19.473-483, Springer ScienceBusiness Meaia.