Institute of Machining Technology

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Prof. h.c. Dirk Biermann

MMT LabWork

Experimental and simulative investigations

of turning a C45 material
Summer Semester – 2020

Group A
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Technical University Dortmund

Submitted by
Ali, Shan (223142)
Md Inzamim, Khan (215112)
Kayzad Aspi, Mistry (223168)
Meetkumar Nayankumar, Soni (223146)

Instructor
Youssef Alammari M.Sc.

Submission date: June, 29th 2020

I
 Content
1. Table of Contents
Content ................................................................................................................................ I
Formula dictionary ............................................................................................................. II
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... III
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. IV
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... IV

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
2. Experimentation .................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Experiment Setup .................................................................................................... 1

2.2. Tool Data ................................................................................................................. 1
2.3. Work piece Data ...................................................................................................... 1

3. Experimental investigation of cutting parameters ............................................. 2

3.1. Test series 1 (Variation of cutting speed Vc)........................................................... 2

3.1.1. Calculation I: Rotational speed with perspective test ............................................. 3
3.1.2. Calculation II: Average cutting power Pc for the perspective test .......................... 3
3.2. Test series 2 (Variation of feed f) ............................................................................ 3
3.2.1. Calculation III: Determination of kc1.1 .................................................................... 4
3.2.2. Roughness depth as a function of feed rate ............................................................. 5
3.3. Test Series 3 (Variation of depth of cut ap) ............................................................. 6
3.4. Test series 4 (Varying the tool insert) ..................................................................... 7
3.4.1. Tool Insert CI1: DNMG 150612-M6 TP1501 ......................................................... 8
3.4.2. Tool Insert CI2: DNMG 150612-M5 TP1501 ......................................................... 8
3.4.3. Tool Insert CI3: DNMG 150612-M3 TP1501 ......................................................... 8
3.4.4. Tool Insert CI4: DNMG 150612-MF2 TP1501 ...................................................... 8

4. Simulation .............................................................................................................. 9
5. Summary .............................................................................................................. 11
6. Bibliography......................................................................................................... 13
7. Appendix .............................................................................................................. 14

I
 Formula dictionary
Formula symbol Device Meaning
ap mm Depth of cut
A mm Cross-section of undeformed chip
b mm Width of undeformed chip
dB mm Turning diameter over bed
dS mm Turning diameter over head
f mm Feed
fe kHz Stiffness
F N Resultant force
Fa N Active force
Fc N Cutting force
Ff N Feed force
Fp N Passive force
h mm Undeformed chip thickness
kc N/mm² Specific cutting force
kc1.1 N/mm² Specific cutting force for cross-section of undeformed
lmax mm Chip A = 1 mm²
ln mm Maximum turning length
lr mm Total measuring range
n 1/min Length of the individual measuring section Rotation speed
Pc kW Cutting power
Pmax kW Drive power
Pz kW Material removal rate
rε mm Corner Radius
R Ω Electrical resistance
Ra μm Arithmetic mean roughness
Rmax μm Maximum roughness depth
Rth μm Theoretical roughness depth
Rz μm Average roughness depth
S μm/N Stiffness
U V Voltage
Vc m/min Cutting speed
ve m/min Effective velocity
vf m/min Feed velocity
α0 ° Tool orthogonal clearance
αa ° Heli angle
β ° Wedge angle
γ ° Tool orthogonal rake angle
κ ° Tool cutting edge angle
λc μm Cut-off wavelength
μ - Efficiency
r mm Edge radius
D mm Diameter of workpiece
Z - Kienzle parameter of flow stress model

II
 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
C Carbon
DIN German Institute for Standardization
WSG Wire strain gauge
EN European Norm
ISO International Organization for Standardization
HW Tungsten carbide based cemented carbide
N Normalized
NC Numerical Control
WP Workpiece
TL Tool

III
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1: Force v/s Cutting Speed with literature comparison [Script 20] ................................. 2
Fig. 3.2: Specific Cutting force v/s Feed .................................................................................... 3
Fig. 3.3: log-log plot specific cutting force v/s undeformed chip thickness .............................. 4
Fig. 3.4: Surface roughness v/s feed with literature comparison [Script 20] ............................. 5
Fig. 3.5: Force v/s Depth of cut with literature comparison [Script 20] .................................... 6
Fig. 3.6: Specific cutting force v/s Depth of cut ........................................................................ 7
Fig. 3.7: Tool inserts v/s Cutting forces ..................................................................................... 8
Fig. 3.8: Images of formed chip with different tool inserts........................................................ 9
Fig. 4.1: Comparison of flow stress models ............................................................................. 10
Fig. 4.2: Effect of edge radius on cutting forces ...................................................................... 10
Fig. 4.3: Effect of undeformed chip thickness on cutting forces. ............................................ 11

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Measurement Chain ................................................................................................. 1

Table 3.1: Cutting parameters with varying speed ..................................................................... 2
Table 3.2: Cutting parameters with varying feed ....................................................................... 3
Table: 3.3 kc11 values at different values of h ............................................................................. 5
Table: 3.4 Cutting parameters with varying depth of cut ........................................................... 6
Table: 3.5 Cutting parameters with varying tool insert geometry. ............................................. 7

IV
1. Introduction
This laboratory work addresses several problems which arise by changing the tool insert. The
analysis for process of turning a cylindrical workpiece material C45+N and results achieved
through experimentation and simulation have been reported here. The best alternative tool insert
for this process has also been suggested in this report.

Material used for the workpiece, properties of the material, cutting tool data and the measure-
ment are defined. The three major parameters: feed (f), depth of cut (ap) and cutting speeds (Vc)
are varied to observe the changes in the force components (Fc, Fp, Ff), surface roughness, spindle
speed (n) and cutting power (Pc) values during each experiment. The effect of these values can
be determined by keeping two parameters constant and changing the third one respectively.
Secondly, the tool inserts were changed by keeping the three cutting parameters constant and
the chip geometry and chip forming mechanism was observed. Lastly, simulations were done
using DEFORM 2D to select a suitable flow stress model to achieve a realistic representation
to the experimental measurements for an orthogonal cutting phenomenon. The inferences de-
rived from these tasks are discussed in detail in this report.

2. Experimentation
2.1. Experiment Setup
The experimental setup is as follows: The machine used to perform the experiments is Monforts
Typ RNC602 which has a spindle range of 28 to 4000 /min., max turning length of 600 mm,
max turning diameter of 360 mm and power of 30 kW. The work piece specimen is of C45+N
with an initial diameter of 100 mm. The tool inserts and holder used to conduct the experiments
here are the DNMG 150612-M3 TP2501 and PDJNL 2525-M15 which is going to be altered
with a new product. The experiment is performed without any lubricant. The measurement
chain used to measure the experimental forces are shown in Table: 2.1

Table 2.1: Measurement Chain

Dynamometer: Kistler 9121
Charge amplifier: Kistler 5017 A
Measuring card: National Instruments BNC 2140
Software: LabView
Manual force gauge: Mecmesin AFG 50 N

2.2. Tool Data

The tool data for DNMG cutting tools is as follows:
Clearance angle (0): -6°
Wedge angle ( 0): 90°
Clearance angle (0): 6°
Tool approach angle (): 93°
For detailed tool geometries refer to Appendix A and C.

2.3. Work piece Data

Material number: C45+N
Classification: Low alloy general structural steels
Hardness HV: 580
Seco material group: P4 [Seco 20]
1
 3. Experimental investigation of cutting parameters
3.1. Test series 1 (Variation of cutting speed Vc)
In this test series, the feed and depth of cut have been kept constant (f=0.15 mm; ap=0.4 mm).
Following are the results:

Table 3.1: Cutting parameters with varying speed

Cutting speed in m/min vc1= 150 vc2= 200 vc3= 225 vc4= 250 vc5= 275 vc6= 300
Cutting force Fc in N 195.13 206.24 201.75 202.01 202.56 203.75
Feed force Ff in N 67.62 64.16 62.94 61.46 61.67 63.35
Passive force Fp in N 137.33 135.36 136.13 136.96 139.11 142.09

Ave. roughness depth Rz in

5.34 4.98 4.72 4.31 3.92 3.87
µm

Rot. speed n in 1/min 477.70 636.94 716.56 796.18 875.80 955.41

Cutting power Pc in W 487.83 687.50 756.56 841.71 928.40 1018.75

250

200

150
Force

Ff
100 Fp
Fc
50

0
150 200 250 300 350
Vc

Fig. 3.1: Force v/s Cutting Speed with literature comparison [Script 20]
Similar to the trend explained by [Klo 12], there is a peak in the cutting force at Vc = 200 m/min
due to the strain hardening of the material, further a decrease in the forces can be observed
which can be explained by the growth of the built-up edge of the tool insert. Further increase
in the forces is indicative of the fact that the workpiece undergoes for strain hardening. Same
pattern is followed by Ff and Fp. From literature it is noted that after certain cutting speed is
reached, the material undergoes thermal softening Fig. 3.2 leading to lowering of forces which
is not observed during these experiments. A peculiar thing to note, Fp is higher than Ff which is
different from literature. This is because the nose radius for the tool is 1.2 mm and the depth of
cut here being 0.4 mm, cutting edges are not able to engage with the work piece. Ploughing
takes place which consequently is the reason for high passive forces in the system. Also, the
roughness decreases with increase in cutting speed. This is because, with increase in cutting
speed, the effect of built up edge mechanism is lowered and leads to better surface finish [Iov
19].
2
 3.1.1. Calculation I: Rotational speed with perspective test
𝜋∗𝐷∗𝑛
𝑉𝑐 = 1000

3.1.2. Calculation II: Average cutting power Pc for the perspective test

𝑃𝑐 = 𝐹𝑐 ∗ 𝑉𝑐

3.2. Test series 2 (Variation of feed f)

In this test series, the cutting speed and depth of cut have been kept constant (Vc=200m/min;
ap=0.4 mm). Following are the results:

Table 3.2: Cutting parameters with varying feed

Feed in mm f1 = 0,025 f2 = 0,05 f3 = 0,1 f4 = 0,2 f5 = 0,3 f6 = 0,4
Cutting force Fc in N 72.01 99.21 152.90 238.47 316.71 393.21
Feed force Ff in N 36.48 44.60 62.01 77.21 85.91 93.26
Passive force Fp in N 69.13 84.13 119.20 158.39 190.40 221.24
Ave. roughness depth Rz in 6.48 4.26 4.91 5.37 8.97 13.41
µm

8000

7000

6000

5000
Kc

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Feed

Fig. 3.2: Specific Cutting force v/s Feed

With increase in feed, there is increase in contact area which results into increase of material
being removed. Due to which the cutting force Fc increases. Thus, the cross-section of the de-
formed chip increases and reduces the value of kc. [Dan 17] the calculation of kc is done based
on Kienzle-Victor model. Based on this kc value the kc1.1 has been calculated by calculating the
slope of a log-log plot of kc v/s h. Fig. 3.3

3
 3.2.1. Calculation III: Determination of kc1.1
In order to find kc1.1, it is required to find the slope of the log-log plot of kc v/s h. For this
purpose kc is calculated from Kienzle-Victor model [Kie 57] and the following are the equations
for this:
𝐹𝑐 = 𝐴 ∗ 𝑘𝑐
𝑎𝑝
𝐴 = 𝑎𝑝 ∗ 𝑓 = 𝑏 ∗ ℎ 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑏 = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ = 𝑓 ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑛
𝑠𝑖𝑛
𝐹𝑐
∴ 𝑘𝑐 =
𝑎𝑝 ∗𝑓

100000

10000

1653.4
Kc

y= 1653.4x-0.382
R² = 0.9926

1000

100
0.010 0.100 1.000
h

Fig. 3.3: log-log plot specific cutting force v/s undeformed chip thickness
With these equations, values of kc and h for different feed is calculated at Vc =200 m/min and
ap = 0.4 mm. The trend line is taken as a power function since it best approximates the said
curve with R2 = 0.9926. The equation of the curve is y = 1653.4x-0.382 which gives the slope
z=0.382 and slope angle α = 20.9°.

The kc1.1 is calculated based on the following equation:

𝑘𝑐 = 𝑘𝑐1.1 ∗ ℎ−𝑧
The results of kc1.1 are presented in the Table: 3.3

4
Table 3.3: kc11 values at different values of h
h kc kc1.1
0.025 7201 1758.65
0.050 4960.5 1578.72
0.100 3822.5 1585.33
0.200 2980.875 1611.05
0.300 2639.25 1665.38
0.399 2457.5625 1730.87

The average of these values is calculated as 1655 N/mm2. Also, to determine this value graph-
ically, linear extrapolation to h=1mm is done Fig. 3.3. It gives the approximate value of 1653
N/mm2.

3.2.2. Roughness depth as a function of feed rate

16

14

12

10
Rz

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
f

Fig. 3.4: Surface roughness v/s feed with literature comparison [Script 20]

Since the corner radius of the tool is 1.2 mm (see Appendix C), the behaviour of roughness
with respect to feed should lie between the curve with corner radii 1mm and 2 mm which can
be seen by comparison. The dip in roughness between 0 and 0.1 mm is and effect of radius
rounding due to initial wear of the tool. Hence the corner radius will increase to certain amount
leading to lower roughness. Also with further increase in feed, chances of instability of the tool
increases leading to higher surface roughness. Simultaneously, the grooves left along the surface
when the cutting tool moves with higher feed has greater separation between consecutive posi-
tions leading to higher surface roughness. [Zur 18]

5
 3.3. Test Series 3 (Variation of depth of cut ap)
In this test series, the feed and cutting velocity is kept constant (Vc = 200 m/min, f= 0.15 mm)
and the effect of depth of cut on the process is observed by varying it. The results are presented
in Table: 3.4

Table 3.4: Cutting parameters with varying depth of cut

ap (mm) Ff Fp Fc (N) Kc (n/mm2) Rz
0.1 12.24 57.13 70.04 4669.33 6.12
0.2 28.41 89.12 115.28 3842.67 5.88
0.4 64.87 135.54 195.19 3253.17 4.63
0.75 130.65 184.55 318.25 2828.89 5.27
1 183.79 206.95 405.36 2702.40 4.15
2 403.29 251.84 755.07 2516.90 3.81

The reason for decrease in roughness can be explained by the cutting of the hard inclusions
which may be present in the work piece. Hence, they do not come in contact with the tool
leading to lesser tool wear and eventually better surface quality. Another reason is due the nose
radius being 1.2 mm, with low depth of cut, the cutting edges won’t come in contact of the
surface. Ploughing will occur at radii lower than 1.2 mm leading material being pushed on flank
and rake faces. This leads to poor surfaces. The lastly reason could be the instability of the tool
due to higher passive forces at radii less than 1.2 mm leading to tool chatter and higher rough-
ness parameters. The effect can be observed in Fig. 3.5, where initially (no need of when) the
depth of cut is lower than 1.2 mm, the passive forces are higher than the feed forces. The rate
of increase rapidly drops when the depth of cut exceeds 1.2 mm and soon at higher depth the
feed force gets higher as the cutting edges come into action. Fig. 3.5 image on the right is the
case when the cutting edges are removing the material.

800

700

600

500
Force (N)

400 Ff

300 Fp

200 Fc

100

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ap

Fig. 3.5: Force v/s Depth of cut with literature comparison [Script 20]

6
 5000.00

4500.00

4000.00
Kc

3500.00

3000.00

2500.00

2000.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ap

Fig. 3.6: Specific cutting force v/s Depth of cut

The kc value in Fig. 3.6 is calculated using the equations described in section 3.2.1. The trend
is comparable to the plot in Fig. 3.2 but it can be observed that at lower values of ap, the curve
is steeper. In the Fig. 3.6 it can be clearly seen that the constant growth of the tangential cutting
force is directly related with the incremental amount of material removed in each cut. This
Kienzle-Victor relation explains the main reason of the increment in all the cutting forces.

3.4. Test series 4 (Varying the tool insert)

In this test series, the cutting parameters are kept constant (Vc=200 m/min, f=0.15 mm, ap=0.4
mm) and the tool inserts are changed. It is important to mention here that the tools only differ
based on their chip breaker geometries to specifically influence the chip formation as the tool
angles, tool material and similar coating are identical. The forces and the surface roughness
measured are reported in the Table: 3.5

Table 3.5: Cutting parameters with varying tool insert geometry

Cutting insert CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4
Cutting force Fc in N 201.05 207.89 187.08 171.58
Feed force Ff in N 78.22 83.07 68.66 58.78
Passive force Fp in N 159.92 164.61 141.67 131.1
Ave. roughness depth
4.13 5.80 5.69 3.72
Rz in µm

Here,
CI1 = DNMG 150612-M6 TP1501
CI2 = DNMG 150612-M5 TP1501
CI3 = DNMG 150612-M3 TP1501
CI4 = DNMG 150612-MF2 TP1501

7
 300

250

200
Forcce (N)

Fc
150
Ff

100 Fp
FR
50

0
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4
Tool Inserts

Fig. 3.7: Tool inserts v/s Cutting forces

3.4.1. Tool Insert CI1: DNMG 150612-M6 TP1501

The machining with this tool provided with a force Fc = 201.05 N, Fp = 159.92 N and Ff= 78.22
N. The chip formation observed is continuous, ribbon shaped and tangled Fig. 3.8. This kind of
chips are not acceptable because, while machining they tend to clutter around the tool causing
hindrances. [Yil 20] Such continuous chips are also not good for the surface roughness as it
scratches the treated surface. On the other hand, a higher passive force may lead to chatter and
instability leading to higher surface roughness (4.13µm) and low dimensional accuracy. The
lower Fc is indicative of a probable built-up edge reducing the actual cutting force, but when
this edge breaks, it damages the machined surface.

3.4.2. Tool Insert CI2: DNMG 150612-M5 TP1501

The machining with this tool provided with a force Fc = 207.89 N, Fp = 164.61 N and Ff= 83.07
N. The chip is a helical ribbon shaped and tangled Fig. 3.8 In turning, continuous chip formation
is seen as a problem because, chip formation traps heat in the cutting zone, leading to problems
with chip removal, chip entanglement and tool breakdown. [You 19] The long chips produced
can be problematic for the operations and production. The edges of the chips are scorching hot
and sharp putting the operator at risk. [Mod 20] Experiments with this tool insert showed high
cutting forces especially high passive force which will cause tool instability, tool breakage and
poor surface roughness (5.80µm) and tolerances [You 19].

3.4.3. Tool Insert CI3: DNMG 150612-M3 TP1501

The machining with this tool provided with a force Fc = 187.08 N, Fp = 141.67 N and Ff= 68.66
N. Type of chip observed is helical tangled with some screw and helical type discontinuous
chips. According to [Script 20] at least helical shaped chips are necessary for proper machining
operation. Thus, the kind of chips are favourable. Even though helical chips are desirable, it is
favourable to have shorter chips to reduce the clutter and instability of the equipment.

3.4.4. Tool Insert CI4: DNMG 150612-MF2 TP1501

The machining with this tool provided with a force Fc = 171.58 N, Fp = 131.1 N and Ff= 58.78
N. Type of chip observed is conical small and screw type discontinuous chips. Based on chip
8
formation, this is the most favourable tool insert. Since, discontinuous chips neither clutter
around the tool nor they require more forces for removal due to breaking off. Even the effect of
built up edge is low because of this phenomenon. Due to the formation of discontinuous chips,
fewer cutting forces are required which is observed here. Also, the low passive and feed forces
are indicative for better tool stability, good tolerances and lower surface roughness (3.72 µm).
[You 19] The reason why this tool insert has such properties could be due to the influence of
the chip breaker geometry. Please refer Appendix B for further details.

Fig. 3.8: Images of formed chip with different tool inserts

4. Simulation
The simulation has been performed on the tool insert DNMG 150612-M3 TP2501. The soft-
ware used is the DEFORM 2D. The goal is to select a comparable flow stress model to achieve
realistic results with similar experimentation conditions. From literature [Dav 13], it is estab-
lished that the Johnson-cook model is better estimation model for cutting processes and there-
fore used for our comparison. Here, a comparison between Oxley’s flow stress model, the John-
son-Cook’s Model and the experimental values are shown in Fig. 4.1

Here, it can be observed that for Fx the Oxley’s equation is closer to the experimentation than
the Johnson-Cook’s model. But, for Fy Johnson-Cook’s model is precise. This change is because
of the Oxley’s equation, which is a basic model and suitable only for medium carbon steel [Klo
12]. Whereas, Johnson-Cook material model is known to be used for a wider range and sup-
posed to provide better results. Therefore, is used for further analysis. In the figure above, a
deviation of 10 to 20 % is expected due to various errors and consideration of wide range of
cutting parameters. [Klo 13]

9
 300

250

200
Force (N)

Experiment
150
Oxley's
JC
100

50

0
Fx =Fc Fy=Ff

Fig. 4.1: Comparison of flow stress models

300

250

200
Force (N)

r=0.01
150
r=0.015
r=0.02
100

50

0
Fx=Fc Fy=Ff

Fig. 4.2: Effect of edge radius on cutting forces

The Fig. 4.2 is plotted to observe the effect of increasing the edge radius on the cutting param-
eters. The JC-parameters for this can be found in the Appendix D. It can be seen that by increase
in edge radius which occurs physically in the tool due to wear. When the tool insert possesses
a smaller radius, it will increase the cutting forces because, it is sharp and facilitates efficient
chip breaking. With the increase in radius due to wear, the smoothening of this edge leads to
instability and chattering due to increase in radial and tangential forces [Umb NTNU].

10
 500
450
400
350
300
Force(N) h=0.15
250
h=0.20
200
h=0.30
150
100
50
0
Fx=Fc Fy=Ff

Fig. 4.3: Effect of undeformed chip thickness on cutting forces

The Fig. 4.3 shows the relation between the resultant force components and the uncut chip
thickness h. Since κ = 93°, sin κ ≈ 1. So, the effect of h can be related to the effect on f. Fig. 4.1
shows a comparable result with Fig. 3.2 where increase in h means increase in f and conse-
quently rise of the value A. This leads to higher required Fc to shear the material. It can also be
noted that Ff decreases but the effect is almost negligible.

5. Summary
In this laboratory, C45 material was investigated with two different parts. The first part is about
the investigation of the influence of various cutting parameters for C45 experimentally. While,
in the second part 2D simulation was carried out. According to the task description, all the
variable parameters and inserts are taken into consideration in this report. From the experi-
mental approach, it is clear that the three parameters: Feed, depth of cut and the cutting speed
affects not only the force components but also plays an important role to achieve the desired
surface finish and dimensional accuracies of the work piece. It is difficult to understand the
effect of each parameter with varying values. As an approach, two out of these parameters were
kept constant and the third value is varied. This has helped to carried out a thorough investiga-
tion regarding the problem. In total, there are six variations (three each per parameter) which
were considered. It is crucial to take the standard deviation into consideration. It indicates the
amount of variation of a set of values. While calculating the arithmetic mean for each of the
three force components, it is important to keep in mind that standard deviation plays an essential
role in the accuracy of the values. A low standard deviation indicates that the values tend to be
close to the mean (also it means accuracy is good) of the set, while a high standard deviation
indicates that the values are spread out over a wider range. As a result, a certain degree of
inaccuracy of mean approximation is to be expectedAdditionally, four tool inserts with DNMG
series from Seco tools and their effects on force values were analysed and their roughness val-
ues were measured. In the second part of investigation, simulative analysis has been performed
on tool insert DNMG 150612-M3 TP2501. The main aim in this approach was to select a com-
parable flow stress model to achieve realistic results.

From section 3.1, it is observed that increase in cutting speed improves the surface roughness.
But according to literature [You 19], higher cutting speeds lead to vibrations and lower dimen-
sional stability. Thus, the absolute upper limit of Vc from Table: 3.1 cannot be used. A certain
value between 200 m/min to 225 m/min should be good enough to have a balance between the
roughness and dimensional tolerances. From section 3.2, at low feed rates the roughness is
more due to the burnishing effect since the forces are not high enough to shear the material
11
[You 19]. Due to this, a possibility of chatter may arise leading to instability in the system
further causing poor dimensional control. Because of these results, it is recommended to use a
feed between 0.1 mm to 0.15 mm here. From section 3.3, it is observed that the surface rough-
ness improves with increase in depth. This is because of ploughing effect as discussed in this
section. Thus, the nose radius plays an important role here. The high passive forces can be
reduced if this value is kept above 1.2 mm as observed in Fig. 3.5. It should be noted that
increasing the depth of cut too much may adversely affect the system since it will increase the
cutting forces leading to instability. From section 3.4 it is evident that tool inserts 1 and 2 cannot
be used since the chips observed are on continuous tangled type. Chances of surface damage
due to the built-up edge and instability are more. Tool inserts 3 and 4 have a favourable chip
formation with tool insert 4 having total discontinuous chips. Due to this, the forces exerted on
the tool are less, so instability is reduced. Also, the best surface roughness is observed here
which is due to the fact that discontinuous chip formation has a lower chance of built-up edge
formation. From section 4, it can be inferred from Fig. 4.2 that increasing the edge radii in-
creases the cutting forces exerted on the tool. Basically, sharper this radius, better the chip
breaking which is desirable. The insert is a finishing insert (MF2), this feature probably means
that the cutting edge is sharper than the normal inserts used for roughing. This simultaneously
reduces the cutting-edge strength. This characteristic provides a better surface quality and ac-
curate results. As per the Table: 3.7, it is observed that the tool “MF2” is able to achieve the
best roughness with lowest cutting forces. From the above discussion, it is recommended that
CI4 - DNMG 150612-MF2 TP1501 with the tool holder PDJNL 2525-M15 as a replacement
of the tool insert DNMG 150612-M3 TP2501 be used along with the above suggested cutting
parameters due to its eminent benefits over its peers.

12
6. Bibliography
[Kie57] Kienzle, O., Victor, H. (1957): Spezifische schnittkräfte bei der
metallbearbeitung, Werkstattstechnik und Maschinenbau, vol. 47, no. 5, p. 224-
225.

[Dan17] Ipilakyaa T Daniel, Gundu D Terfa and Nwankwo N Kingsley. (2017): A Study
on the Effect of Rake Angle and Feed Rate on Cutting Forces during Orthogonal
Cutting.

[Zur18] Omar Zurita, Verónica Di-Graci, María Capace. (2018): Effect of cutting pa-
rameters on surface roughness in turning of annealed AISI-1020 steel, Revista
Facultad de Ingeniería (Rev. Fac. Ing.) Vol. 27 (47), pp. 111-118. Enero-Abril,
Tunja-Boyacá, Colombia.

[Yil20] Bahattin Yılmaz, Şener Karabulut, Abdulkadir Güllü. (2020): A review of the
chip breaking methods for continuous chips in turning, Journal of Manufactur-
ing Process, Volume 49, Pages 50-69.

[Mod 20] Modern Machine Shop (2020, June 16) Retrieved from mmsonline.com:
https://www.mmsonline.com/articles

[You19] Sasan Yousefi & Mehdi Zohoor. (2019): Effect of cutting parameters on the di-
mensional accuracy and surface finish in the hard turning of MDN250 steel with
cubic boron nitride tool, for developing a knowledged base expert system, Inter-
national Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering volume 14, Article
number: 1

[Dav13] M. Davies, P.J. Arrazola, D. Umbrello, I.S. Jawahir, T. Ozel. (2013): Recent
advances in modelling of metal machining processes, CIRP Annals - Manufac-
turing Technology, CIRP.

[Klo12] Klocke, F; Abouridouane, M.; Lung, D.; Adams, O. (2012): A new

3D multiphase FE model for micro cutting ferritic–pearlitic carbon steels, CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology 61/1, pp. 71-74

[Klo13] F. Klockea, D. Lunga, S. Buchkremera. (2013): Inverse Identification of the

Constitutive Equation of Inconel 718 and AISI 1045 from FE Machining Simu-
lations, Procedia CIRP 8, 212 – 217.

[Umb, NTNU] Sergi Martín Umbert, Cutting Forces in Turning Operations

Bachelor Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, NTNU

[Seco 20] Seco Tools. (2020, May 25). Seco. Retrieved from secotools.com:
https://www.secotools.com/article/8458

[Script 20] Youssef Alammari (2020): Script for the experimental work: „Experimental and
Simulative Investigations on the Turning of a C45 Material“

[Iov 19] Ivan Iovkov (2019): Machining Technology I lecture series

13
7. Appendix

A) Tool Holder Geometry Available from Seco tools: PDJNL 2525-M15

14
B) Chip Breaker Geometries from Seco Tools

15
C) Tool Geometry available from Seco tools: DNMG 150612-M3 TP2501

16
D) Johnson-Cook Parameters

17
E) Tool Primitive settings:

18
E) Simultion 1:-

Flow Stress Model: Oxley’s Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.15 mm
r= 0.01 mm

19
F) Simulation 2:-

Flow Stress Model: Johnson-Cook Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.15 mm
r= 0.01 mm

20
G) Simultion 3:-

Flow Stress Model: Johnson-Cook Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.30 mm
r=0.01

21
H) Simultion 4:-

Flow Stress Model: Johnson-Cook Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.15 mm
r=0.02 mm

22
I) Simultion 5:-

Flow Stress Model: Johnson-Cook Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.15 mm
r=0.015 mm

23
J) Simultion 6:-

Flow Stress Model: Johnson-Cook Equation

h= f*sin κ=0.20 mm
r=0.01 mm

24