Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Comprehensive analysis of tool wear, tool life, surface roughness, costing

and carbon emissions in turning Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy: Cryogenic
versus wet machining
Chetan Agrawal a, Jwalant Wadhwa a, Anjali Pitroda a, Catalin Iulian Pruncu c, d,
Murat Sarikaya e, *, Navneet Khanna a, b, **
a
Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory, Institute of Infrastructure Technology, Research and Management, Ahmedabad, 380026, India
b
Adjunct Faculty, Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India
c
Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
d
Mechanics of Materials Division, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
e
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cryogenic machining has emerged as a sustainable technique that reflects in terms of reduced environmental
Crater wear effects, superior part quality, and lesser resource consumption. However, further exploration of machinability
Cryogenic turning and sustainability improvements using this technique will help the manufacturing industry to adopt it as an
Ti–6Al–4V
alternative to conventional techniques. In this government-supported work, the machinability of Ti–6Al–4V is
Power consumption
Machining cost assessment
assessed at five different cutting speeds (70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 m/min) under wet and cryogenic environ­
Carbon emissions ments. This article presents a detailed analysis of tool wear (flank and crater wear), power consumption, and
surface roughness to seek improvements in machinability of Ti–6Al–4V using cryogenic turning in comparison to
wet turning. To investigate the sustainability aspects of cryogenic and wet turning, results are also analyzed in
terms of total machining cost and carbon emissions that remain relatively less explored in literature. The results
show higher crater wear under a wet environment relative to the cryogenic environment at most of the cutting
speeds. However, tool life is improved (by up to 125%) using cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning
exclusively at higher cutting speeds (100 and 110 m/min). Reduced power consumption (by up to 23.4%) and
surface roughness (by up to 22.1%) are obtained using cryogenic turning than wet turning at all cutting speeds. It
is noted that machining cost is reduced (by up to 27%) using cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning,
especially at higher cutting speeds. Cryogenic turning is proved to be better in terms of environmental aspects as
it enables a reduction in overall carbon emissions (by up to 22%) at higher cutting speeds.

1. Introduction
The increasing demand for titanium alloys in aero, auto, defense, and
biomedical industries is the main driving force behind the need for
greener techniques for the processing of these materials. Ti–6Al–4V is a
titanium alloy that has high strength, corrosion resistance, fatigue
endurance, and biocompatibility properties [1]. Despite these excep­
tional properties, its extensive industrial application potential has been
hindered by its poor machinability. Conventional machining techniques
are less efficient in the machining of heat resistant alloys. The produc­
tivity and sustainability of conventional machining techniques are
questionable for heat resistant alloys. In the world with modern solu­
tions, manufacturing industries are considering alternative smart
machining techniques to improve the machinability of such
high-performance materials [2]. Environmental friendly government
regulations are also driving the manufacturing industries to adopt sus­
tainable machining techniques over less-efficient conventional unsus­
tainable machining techniques [3]. The sustainability term is to
emphasize the need to focus on sustained existence, environmental
protection, and minimal exploitation of limited natural resources [4].
Achieving or improving sustainability in manufacturing industries can
be a huge gain for sustainable development. It is because the
manufacturing sector contributes more than 15.6% of the total Gross

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory, Institute of Infrastructure Technology, Research and Management, Ahmedabad, 380026, India.
E-mail addresses: msarikaya@sinop.edu.tr (M. Sarikaya), navneetkhanna@iitram.ac.in (N. Khanna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106597
Received 22 June 2020; Received in revised form 8 August 2020; Accepted 14 August 2020
Available online 15 August 2020
0301-679X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Agrawal et al.
Nomenclature
ap Depth of cut (mm)
BUE Built-Up-Edge
Ccutting fluid Cost of cutting fluid ($/L)
Ccutting tool Cost of cutting tool ($/tool)
CE’chip recycling Carbon emissions due to chips recycling (kg CO2)
CE’cutting fluid Carbon emissions due to cutting fluid disposal (kg CO2)
CEcutting fluid Carbon emissions due to cutting fluid (kg CO2)
CEcutting tool Carbon emissions due to cutting tool (kg CO2)
CEF’cutting fluid Carbon emissions factors of cutting fluid disposal (kg
CO2/kg)
CEEnergy Carbon emissions due to energy consumption (kg CO2)
CE’cutting tool Carbon emissions due to cutting tool disposal (kg CO2)
CEF’cutting tool Carbon emissions factors of cutting tool disposal (kg
CO2/L)
CEFcutting fluid Carbon emissions factors of cutting fluid (kg CO2/L)
CEFcutting tool Carbon emissions factor of the cutting tool (kg CO2/kg)
CEFenergy Carbon emissions factor of energy (kg CO2/kWh)
CEMaterials Carbon emissions due to materials consumption (kg CO2)
Cenergy Cost of energy consumption ($)
CETotal Total carbon emissions (kg)
CEwaste Carbon emissions due to waste processing (kg CO2)
CLFs Cooling and Lubrication Fluids
Cmachine tool and labour Cost of machine tool usage and labour ($/h)
Domestic Product (GDP) worldwide [5]. Sustainable manufacturing
must deal with a target of reduction in environmental impacts and im­
provements in energy efficiency, resource efficiency, and operator
health and safety while maintaining the high quality of the product [6].
In the field of machining technology, sustainability is broadly tar­
geted as process sustainability and product sustainability as shown in
Fig. 1. These aspects of sustainability cover economic, environmental,
and social issues associated with machining processes [8]. In the course
of machining operations, dynamic forces like high-pressure spraying,
impaction, and centrifugation, are applied as Cooling and Lubrication
Fluids (CLFs). The vigorous and swift fracturing of fluid jets, caused by
these forces, produces polydisperse aerosols [9]. When workers are
exposed to these droplets/mist, it can cause a variety of respiratory and
skin diseases ranging from chronic cough, occupational asthma, irrita­
tion, and rashes to bronchitis, folliculitis, and keratosis. Numerous
studies were summarised by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) have indicated a relationship between CLFs
mist exposure and cancer [10]. The NIOSH conducted a survey, namely,
National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES), according to which
Fig. 1. Sustainable aspects of manufacturing [7].
2
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
CTotal Total machining cost ($)
Cwaste management Cost of waste management ($)
EBM Electron Beam Melting
ECchip recycling Energy consumed in chip recycling (kJ)
ECmachining Energy consumed by machine tool (kJ)
fr Feed rate (mm/rev)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
LN2 Liquid Nitrogen
MRR Material Removal Rate (mm3/sec)
MQL Minimum Quantity Lubrication
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOES National Occupational Exposure Survey
Pair Power consumed in air cut (kW)
Pm Power consumed in actual cut (kW)
Psb Power consumption in standby (kW)
Qcutting fluid Quantity of cutting fluid (L)
Ra Average surface roughness (μm)
SCE Specific Cutting Energy (J/mm3)
SEM Scanning electron microscope
tm Machining time (Sec)
Ttool Tool life (Sec)
vc Cutting speed (m/min)
Vchips Volume of the chips (mm3)
Wcutting tool Weight of the cutting tool (Kg)
ρchips Density of the chip (kg/mm3)
more than one million workers in the United States were potentially
vulnerable to the mist [9]. The contamination of the CLFs by
micro-organisms poses a potential health threat to workers from inha­
lation and infection. Moreover, direct contact with the biocides used to
control microbial growth in CLFs is yet another health risk [11]. The
health and safety of workers is one of the critical social aspects that
decide the sustainability of the machining technique. The endeavour
area had been made by the researchers to develop alternative machining
strategies that are driven by the aspiration to make them safer, healthier,
and hence more sustainable [12]. Cryogenic machining is one such
effort that is a sustainable option for the modern machining industry to
machine heat resistant alloys and composites [13]. Generally, liquid
nitrogen (LN2) is used as coolant/lubricant for cryogenic machining as it
immediately evaporates in the atmosphere from the cutting zone [14].
Evaporated nitrogen vapours are free from harmful surfactants,
defoamers, biocides, and chelating agents. This process also eliminates
the risk of machining mist formation. However, the risk of frostbite
persists with cryogenic machining processes, and to avoid any casualty,
workers need to equip with necessary safety gear such as face shield and
gloves. Apart from cooling and lubrication in the cutting region, cutting
fluid also act as a vehicle to carry away the chips produced during the
process. These cooling/lubricating fluids are generally emulsions of
10–30% mineral oil concentration, produced by distillation of crude oil,
with water and surfactants. The production of CLFs is not a sustainable
process in itself, as it involves water, land, and high energy usages, along
with the creation of solid waste and toxic gases. Over time, CLFs lose
their utility due to contamination from the environment and microbial
growth. Although the life of the CLFs may be prolonged by proper
maintenance, it is not possible to extend it indefinitely. Eventually, it
will have to be treated and disposed of as waste, which generates
additional cost. On the contrary, LN2 evaporates spontaneously in the
environment, thereby reducing disposal costs. However, it must be
noted that LN2 cannot be reused. The effect of machining processes on
the environment can be measured in terms of carbon emissions. How­
ever, limited knowledge in literature is available for this phenomenon,
and thus, it provides scope for new research in sustainability evaluation
for machining of heat-resistant alloys. Advanced manufacturing
C. Agrawal et al.
techniques can help in overcoming difficulties of machining heat resis­
tant alloys and composites [15]. Turning performance in terms of sur­
face roughness, tool wear, power consumption, and chip morphology
are mostly dependent on input cutting parameters and cutting envi­
ronments [16]. So, there is a need to establish sustainability measures
for different combinations of cutting parameters under various cutting
environments. Some of the important studies from literature concerning
sustainable machining of Ti–6Al–4V are discussed below:
Krolczyk et al. [17] reviewed ecological trends in the machining of
heat resistant alloys. They have highlighted the contribution of greener
machining techniques for improving machinability and sustainability in
the machining of heat resistant alloys. Authors have also emphasized the
need for ecologic and economic validation of cryogenic machining. In
this investigation, the sustainability aspects of cryogenic machining in
terms of machining cost and carbon emissions are explored.
Rotella et al. [18] explored the sustainability of cryogenic machining
of Ti–6Al–4V in terms of surface finish, micro-hardness, and regrowth
phases in microstructure and compared with Minimum Quantity
Lubrication (MQL) and dry turning techniques. Researchers suggested
the suitability of cryogenic machining to achieve improved surface
integrity, smaller grain size, improved product quality, and less envi­
ronmental pollution. Venugopal et al. [19] researched the cryogenic
machining of Ti–6Al–4V and compared the results with conventional
machining techniques. They reported better tool life using cryogenic
turning at lower vc when compared with conventional turning. How­
ever, the authors did not analyze the power consumption and sustain­
ability of these processes.
Pušavec and Kopač [20] studied the cryogenic turning of Inconel 718
and performed a life cycle assessment for the same. They reported a
considerable improvement in life-cycle, energy efficiency, and sustain­
ability in terms of reduction in environmental effect, improved product
quality, and health benefits for workers using cryogenic turning in
comparison to conventional turning.
Bermingham et al. [21] investigated the machining performance of
Ti–6Al–4V using dry and cryogenic turning techniques. They reported a
decrease in tool-chip contact length that results in a reduction in fric­
tional force using cryogenic turning. The authors also suggested that the
selection of input process parameters is crucial for improving tool life.
Bermingham et al. [22] claimed an improved tool life for turning of
Ti–6Al–4V under high-pressure water-based emulsion condition in
comparison to a cryogenic condition. However, the difference in tool life
was quite small in both of the above environments. Bordin et al. [23]
observed a decrease in adhesive wear under a cryogenic environment in
comparison to the dry environment when they machined additively
manufacturing Ti–6Al–4V.
Hong et al. [24] claimed a reduced friction coefficient using a
cryogenic environment in the cutting zone. They highlighted that the
increase in hardness of workpiece under the cryogenic environment
leads to a reduction in frictional force and thereby reducing the coeffi­
cient of friction.
Raza et al. [25] analyzed the machinability of Ti–6Al–4V using an
uncoated carbide tool under a cryogenic environment. They compared
the results with conventional (dry and flood) turning and near dry
turning techniques. They reported that at a low speed (90 m/min),
Minimum Quantity Cooled Lubrication (MQCL) outperformed other
turning options in point of higher tool life. However, at higher speed
(120 m/min), tool life under the cryogenic environment was found
better. They also emphasized that the air cooling of the cutting zone did
not result in any advantage due to the lack of lubrication. In another
study, researchers suggested the use of vegetable oil in MQCL and MQL
to improve the sustainability of these processes in machining Ti–6Al–4V
[26].
Kumar and Choudhury [27] investigated the machinability of
stainless steel (SS202) under the cryogenic environment and compared
the performance to dry machining concerning flank wear. They
observed a reduction in flank wear by up to 37.39% under the cryogenic
3
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
environment in comparison to a dry environment. Shokrani et al. [28]
explored the end milling of Inconel 718 under dry, wet, and cryogenic
environments. They reported the benefit of cryogenic milling at higher
process parameters. As at the higher parameters, tool life is a factor that
limits the increase of parameter levels and in this case, cryogenic envi­
ronments can reduce the rate of tool wear even at higher parameters.
They also reported that the chipping and abrasion are the main issues
inducing tool wear at lower process parameters and while the crater
wear, Built-Up-Edge (BUE), and adhesion are the dominant failure
modes, particularly at higher process parameters. Mia et al. [29] con­
ducted a life cycle assessment of cryogenic turning. They revealed that
dual jets of LN2 on the flank and rake faces are more advantageous than
single jets on the flank for titanium turning. The authors also proved the
sustainability of cryogenic machining over dry machining using life
cycle assessment. Various other cooling and lubrication techniques are
also reported in the literature which is cleaner machining processes and
exhibits superior performance and enhanced productivity. For instance,
Ross K et al. [30] investigated the milling of Ti–6Al–4V using dry, wet,
and cryogenic (LCO2 as a cutting fluid) conditions. They optimized the
results using the TOPSIS method and reported that the best performance
is obtained using the cryogenic technique. Mia et al. [31] compared dry
and HPC techniques for machining of hardened steel. They reported tool
wear reduction by up to 25% using HPC as compared to dry machining.
The main reasons for the reduction in tool wear were chip uplifting by
the jet wedge and reduced chip-tool contact length.
Shah et al. [32] proposed electrostatic MQL (EMQL), hybrid nano­
particles immersed EMQL (HNEMQL), and electrostatic lubrication (EL)
for turning 15–5 PH stainless steel. They observed a decrease in power
consumption by up to 10.75%, 4.88%, and 2.25% using the HNEMQL
technique in comparison to dry, EL, and EMQL techniques, respectively.
Authors also reported that compared with other processes, the use of EL
and HNEMQL processes can improve surface roughness and reduce the
chip reduction coefficient. Gupta et al. [33] investigated tool flank wear,
chip morphology, surface roughness (Ra and Rq), and chip-tool interface
temperature for turning of hardened steel using an olive oil-assisted
MQL. They reported a decrease in Ra, Rq, and cutting temperature by
up to 23.4%, 23.8%, and 24%, respectively using a modified machining
technique. They claimed improved machinability in terms of thermal
and tribology advantages using modified cutting environments. Mia
et al. [34] explored the application of six-sigma for continuous process
control during machining. They have also analyzed machining perfor­
mances of hardened steel using dry, wet, MQL, and solid lubricants with
compressed air. They reported improved surface finish using dry tech­
nique and temperature reduction using the MQL technique.
In literature, various cryogenic and hybrid machining techniques are
reported to improve the machinability of heat resistant alloys. The issue
is more profound with the sustainability of newly developed machining
techniques. To analyze the sustainability of machining techniques, it is
necessary to evaluate and quantify the sustainability performance in­
dicators. In recent times, the focus on the sustainability of
manufacturing processes has significantly grown. It is also a fact that
there are still lots of work that need to be done in terms of quantifying
the sustainability of advanced manufacturing techniques. Concerning
cryogenic machining of heat resistant alloys, which has been reported as
a promising option for sustainable machining, intensive efforts have
been made to close this gap. However, it is possible to state the de­
ficiencies need to be overcome to better understand some of the re­
sponses such as the behavior of crater wear under cryogenic turning that
is not explored explicitly. Besides, a detailed investigation of cost
assessment for the cryogenic turning of Ti–6Al–4V remains unexplored
in the available literature. In this regard, it is thought that the current
study fills these research gaps. For this, the cutting tool wear, which
affects indexes closely related to product quality (viz., surface integrity)
and machining cost, was handled from two different aspects i.e., flank
wear and crater wear in a wide range of vc under wet and cryogenic
cooling environments. Moreover, machinability is also analyzed in
C. Agrawal et al.
terms of power consumption and Ra values. Detailed cost assessment and
carbon emissions are also presented to establish the economic and
environmental benefits of cryogenic machining (refer to Fig. 2).
The rest of this article is organized in the following manner: exper­
imental setup and research methodology are presented in the second
section. Results, analysis, and discussion are presented in the third
section. This section is further broken down into three parts. The first
part compares the machinability of Ti–6Al–4V under wet and cryogenic
environments. The second and third parts compare wet and cryogenic
turning techniques in terms of total machining cost and carbon emis­
sions, respectively. The last section presents conclusions drawn from this
investigation.
2. Experimental setup and research methodology
Turning experiments were conducted on Macpower make (VX 200)
CNC turning center under wet and cryogenic environments. Fig. 3 shows
the turning center retrofitted with an in-house designed and developed
cryogenic dual jet delivery setup and measuring instruments used for
experimentation in this study. LN2 was supplied from 200 L capacity
Dewar to the cutting zone using vacuum jacketed hose. Phase separator
was also installed near the cutting region to ensure the supply of LN2 in
the liquid form. Overfilling of the phase separator controlled by placing
proper sensors and solenoid valves [35]. A constant pressure of 0.6 MPa
was maintained in the LN2 Dewar. Capacitance type digital level gauge
was installed on a Dewar to monitor the approximate flow rate of LN2.
Dual nozzle, each of 1 mm in diameter was employed for spraying LN2 at
face and flank of the cutting insert.
The semi-synthetic cutting oil-based emulsion (oil concentration of
6%) commonly used in industry is used for wet turning. Table 1 list the
detail of input process parameters and responses used in this
investigation.
In this study, five different vc are considered to evaluate turning
performance. As reported in the literature, vc has more effect on tool
wear in comparison to fr and ap [36]. Therefore, in this study, fr is kept
constant at 0.3 mm/rev and ap at 0.5 mm. Response values obtained
using wet and cryogenic turning techniques are compared. The detail of
instruments used to measure responses in this study is presented in
Table 2.
Fig. 2. Performance attributes selected to investigate turning performances of
Ti–6Al–4V under wet and cryogenic environments.
4
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
3. Results, analysis, and discussion
As per the research methodology discussed in the last section,
turning tests were conducted under wet and cryogenic environments.
The machinability, cost, and carbon emissions assessments are carried
out in detail and presented in this section. Machinability evaluation
results are analyzed and discussed in the first subsection of this section.
In the second subsection, machining cost components are assessed and
compared for wet and cryogenic tuning. The third section discusses the
carbon emissions involved in different components of the turning pro­
cess under wet and cryogenic environments.
3.1. Machinability evaluation
In this study, machinability analysis includes the result of tool wear,
power consumption, and Ra values. These machinability indicators are
evaluated and compared for wet and cryogenic turning techniques. In
subsequent subsections of this section, analysis of these machinability
indicators is presented.
3.1.1. Tool wear analysis
Tool wear plays a crucial role in deciding the machinability of any
material. Each material causes a different tool wear mechanism. In the
case of titanium machining, chipping, notching, and catastrophic failure
are the main failure mechanism [19]. The wear phenomenon mainly
depends on the temperature of the shear zone. As the shear strain rate
increases, the temperature of the deformation zone also increases, and it
leads to an increase in tool wear rate. The main cause of flank and crater
wear is diffusion driven by high temperature [37]. Tool life plays a
major role in deciding the manufacturing cost of a component and its
effects on the environment. Manufacturing processes that can produce
good quality parts are of greater use. This investigation presents the tool
wear analysis of the cutting inserts used in turning of Ti–6Al–4V at
different vc under wet and cryogenic cutting environments. To under­
stand the failure behavior, both flank wear and crater wear are analyzed
in this investigation. Criteria for measuring flank wear on to the cutting
insert ISO3685 was considered [19]. As per the tool wear criteria, the
turning test was stopped when flank wear exceeds the average value of
0.3 mm. Crater wear depth is measured along the yellow line on the rake
face of the cutting insert as shown in Figs. 4–8. From experimental re­
sults, it is found that the flank wear rate increases rapidly with an in­
crease in vc under both wet and cryogenic environments (Figs. 4–8). The
abrasive action of the workpiece against the cutting tool causes flank
and nose wear of the tool. In this course of action, the coating on insert
removed followed abrasion of base tool material [38].
At 70 m/min, high abrasion of the coating layer is observed under
cryogenic turning. Whereas, less abrasion is observed at the flank face in
case of wet turning (refer to Fig. 4(b)). At lower vc, the LN2 reduces the
cutting zone temperature resulting in increased hardness [39]. Adhesion
of chips is observed at the rake face when Ti–6Al–4V is turned using the
cryogenic technique in comparison to the wet technique. The change in
height above the baseline of the path profile on the rake face indicates
the adhesion during cryogenic turning (refer to Fig. 4(a)). However,
compared with cryogenic turning, wet turning reduces the adhesion on
the rake face. In nutshell, at vc = 70 m/min, high adhesion at rake face
and high abrasion on the flank face triggering the rapid tool wear using
cryogenic turning than in wet turning. At this vc, the performance of
flank wear is better using wet turning than that of cryogenic turning
(refer to Fig. 4(c)).
At 80 m/min, variation in depth along with path profile on crater
wear is found to be less under cryogenic environments (3 μm) in com­
parison to wet turning (14 μm). In this case, increased variation in height
above zero lines along the path profile on rake face indicates higher
adhesion of chips using cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning.
From the SEM image shown in Fig. 5(a), micro-chipping is seen at the
top edge of the flank face of insert used for cryogenic turning. This can
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 3. (a) Experimental setup used for cryogenic turning of Ti–6Al–4V; (b) Alicona Infinite Focus G5; (c) Hitachi 3400 scanning electron microscope; (d) Tool
maker’s microscope; (e) Fluke 435 (series II) three-phase power quality and energy analyzer; and (f) Taylor Hobson surface roughness tester.

However, on the rake face of cutting tool, higher crater wear is observed
Table 1
under wet environment relative to a cryogenic environment (refer to
Turning input process parameters.
Fig. 5(a) and (b)).
Attribute Remark At 90 m/min, variation in depth of craters along path profile on rake
Workpiece material Ti–6Al–4V face is found to be significantly less under cryogenic turning (2 μm) in
Cutting tool CNMG 120408 PR1535 Megacoat Nano comparison to wet turning (19 μm). In the case of cryogenic turning,
vc 70, 80, 90, 100 and 110 m/min
chipping and micro BUE formation are observed on the top of the flank
Feed rate (fr) 0.3 mm/rev
Depth of cut (ap) 0.5 mm as shown in Fig. 6(a). For turning of Ti–6Al–4V at 90 m/min, adhering
Workpiece Length = 150 mm, Initial diameter = 50 mm chips debris can be seen on top of the flank face as shown in Fig. 6(b). At
dimensions vc = 90 m/min, flank wear is less under wet environment relative to a
Turning Wet and cryogenic cryogenic environment (refer to Fig. 6(c)).
environments
Response Tool wear (flank and crater wear), power consumption, Ra,
In general, at lower vc (especially in 70, 80, and 90 m/min), the wet
total machining cost assessment, carbon emissions assessment turning of Ti–6Al–4V shown less wear (or better tool life) in comparison
to cryogenic turning. Tool life reduced by up to 17% at lower vc under
the cryogenic environment in comparison to the wet environment. It can
be due to excessive cooling effect of LN2 in response to heat generated in
Table 2
Measuring instrument detail.
the cutting region.
At 100 m/min, variation in depth of crater along path profile on the
Response Instrument Remark
rake face is observed less under cryogenic environments (1 μm) in
Tool wear Toolmakers microscope Flank face imaging was done comparison to wet turning (15 μm). But height along with the path
(flank wear) (Mitutoyo-TM series) and using a scanning electron
profile on rake face higher using cryogenic turning (14 μm) in com­
scanning electron microscope microscope (SEM), while flank
(Hitachi 3400) wear values obtained using
parison to wet turning (5 μm). BUE formations on the top of the insert as
Toolmakers microscope observed in the SEM image shown in Fig. 7(a) can be a reason for the
Tool wear Alicona Infinite Focus G5 Variation in height and weight increase in height under cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning.
(crater wear) of path profile on rake face was Contrary to this, higher crater wear, notching, and flank wear phe­
measured using this instrument
nomena are confirmed under wet environment as presented in Fig. 7(b
Power Three-phase power quality 4 readings/second of power
consumption and energy analyzer (Fluke consumption were collected and c).
435, series II) during experimentation At vc of 110 m/min, variation in depth of path profile of crater on
Ra Surtronic S128 (Taylor Evaluation, cut-off, and rake face is lesser using cryogenic turning (1 μm) than in wet turning
Hobson) sampling length were 4, 5, and
(13 μm). On the other hand, the height of the path profile of on rake face
0.8 mm respectively
is higher in the case of cryogenic turning (6 μm) than wet turning (4 μm).
Uniform flank wear is observed under the cryogenic environment as
be due to, increased chipping at tool nose and flank stimulated by the shown in SEM images (Fig. 8(a)). Contrary to this, higher crater wear,
increased hardness of workpiece under cryogenic environment [39]. abrasion, and notching phenomena are observed using wet environment
While in Fig. 5(b), adhesion of chips is seen at the top edge flank face of as presented in Fig. 8(b). At vc = 110 m/min, flank wear reduced using
insert used for wet turning. At vc = 80 m/min, flank wear is lesser under cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning (refer to Fig. 8(c)). In
wet environment than cryogenic environment (refer to Fig. 5(c)). general, at higher vc levels (100 and 110 m/min), flank wear is reduced
under cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning (refer to

5
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 4. Tool wear evaluation at vc = 70 m/min in terms of crater and flank wear under (a, b) cryogenic and wet turning; (c) flank wear progress with time under
cryogenic and wet turning.

6
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 5. Tool wear evaluation at vc = 80 m/min in terms of crater and flank wear under (a, b) cryogenic and wet turning; (c) flank wear progress with time under
cryogenic and wet turning.

Figs. 6–8). Tool life is improved up to 125% at higher vc using cryogenic adhesion, chipping, and BUE formation are the main reasons for the
turning in comparison to wet turning. Stable crater wear path profiles failure of the tool under wet and cryogenic environments. The cryogenic
are noticed under cryogenic turning when rake faces are examined. turning technique minimizes dissolution-diffusion tool wear by
In nutshell, it is observed that the crater wear, flank wear, abrasion, decreasing the temperature of the cutting region at all cutting speed (vc).

7
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 6. Tool wear evaluation at vc = 90 m/min in terms of crater and flank wear under (a, b) cryogenic and wet turning; (c) flank wear progress with time under
cryogenic and wet turning.

8
C. Agrawal et al.
Fig. 7. Tool wear evaluation at vc = 100 m/min in terms of crater and flank wear under (a, b) cryogenic and wet turning; (c) flank wear progress with time under
cryogenic and wet turning.
However, at lower vc levels, tool life is reduced using cryogenic turning.
It is due to an increase in hardness of workpiece due to its prolonged
exposure to the cryogenic environment that leads to a decrease in plastic
deformation of cutting edge and increase in friction, chipping, adhesion,
and BUE formation. At higher vc levels, tool life found to be increased
using cryogenic turning techniques. Cryogenic fluid efficiently released
extensive heat from the cutting area generated due to turning at high vc,
thereby reducing flank and crater wear.
9
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
3.1.2. Power consumption analysis
The economy of the machining technique is significantly dependent
on power consumption during the process. Machining techniques that
offer better performance and consume lesser power are preferred in the
industry to achieve sustainability goals. Power consumption not only
conveys the stability of the cutting process to the operators but also
helps them to identify the most effective process parameters to maxi­
mize energy efficiency. In this sub-section, the current study analyzed
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 8. Tool wear evaluation at vc = 110 m/min in terms of crater and flank wear under (a, b) cryogenic and wet turning; (c) flank wear progress with time under
cryogenic and wet turning.

the power consumed by machine tool during turning of Ti–6Al–4V at Accordingly, it is quite clear that power consumption has increased
various vc levels and under wet and cryogenic cooling environments. markedly against increased vc. In machining operations, this is an ex­
Fig. 9 indicates the impression of the varied vc under cryogenic and wet pected result. Since the increase in vc means that the spindle rotates
cooling mediums on power consumption. faster, the motor needs more power to achieve this. However, it is

10
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 9. Power consumption variation at different vc under cryogenic and
wet turning.
important to remember that increasing power consumption with vc does
not mean that energy efficiency is always falling. Since the chip removal
rate per unit time will increase proportionally at elevated vc, even if
energy consumption increases, it will also increase machining efficiency.
As a result, it is more beneficial to evaluate the increases in energy
consumption in this perspective, because specific energy consumption,
which is the criterion in evaluating energy efficiency, will also be
affected by this phenomenon [40]. When the effect of cooling prefer­
ences on power consumption is analyzed in Fig. 9, there is a distinct
difference between cryogenic cooling and wet cooling in favour of
cryogenic cooling. The decrease in power consumption with cryogenic
turning (up to 23.4%) is because the cryogenic delivery system does not
require power to operate in the case of self-pressurized Dewar. But in
case of wet turning, a huge amount of power is required in delivery,
filtration, and circulation of cutting fluid.
SCE = ​
Power ​ consumed ​ in ​ cutting ​ (Pcut )
(1)
Material ​ removal ​ rate ​ (MRR)
Pcut = ​ Pm − Pair (2)
MRR = ​ vc ​ × ​ ap × fr (3)
Fig. 10. Tool life and SCE variation at different vc under cryogenic and
wet turning.
acceptance and rejection of machined part [42]. This parameter is
frequently used by researchers and industries to know about the part
quality. Besides, any kind of surface attacks such as corrosion and fa­
tigue can be limited by improving the surface finish of the part [43]. In
this study, Ra of surfaces is measured that is machined at different vc
under wet and cryogenic environments.
During machining of Ti–6Al–4V, less serrated chips are obtained
under cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning that is desirable in
titanium machining. The serrated chips are formed due to the formation
of localized adiabatic shear bands in the chip. It is also responsible for an
increase in instability and Ra values due to the increase in cutting forces.
Referring to Fig. 11, it has been observed that cryogenic turning
produces better surface quality, whereas the worst machined surface is
obtained using wet turning. Ra values reduced significantly up to 22.1%
using cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning. The efficiency of
the cooling and lubrication technique is reflected in improvements in the
surface quality of the machined part. However, cryogenic fluid (LN2 in
this case) removed the frictional heat from the machining region. Thus,
less heat is induced in the cutting tool and machined surfaces due to the
cryogenic environment in comparison to the wet environment that re­
sults in less tool wear and fewer defects on the machined surface.
Moreover, it is highly probable that loosely attached chips adhesion to

Specific Cutting Energy (SCE) is an indication of the energy effi­

ciency of the process at different parameters. It is a ratio of power
consumed in cutting to the material removal rate as indicated in Equa­
tion (1) [41]. Where Pcut is the actual power used in turning operations.
It is the difference of power used during actual cutting (Pm) and power
consumed when the machine tool is running at the same parameters
without contact between tool and workpiece (Pair) as presented in
Equation (2). The Material Removal Rate (MRR) can be calculated using
Equation (3). Fig. 10 show the changes in tool life and SCE using wet and
cryogenic turning. In both turning environments, the value of SCE de­
creases as vc increases. However, values of SCE are significantly lower
under the cryogenic environment in comparison to the wet environ­
ment. Results of tool life and SCE support the suitability of cryogenic
turning at higher process parameters.

3.1.3. Ra values analysis

As part quality improves, the cost of rework and part rejection de­
creases. Ra values are generally used to check the quality of the part.
Least Ra value indicates higher surface quality defined with lesser de­
fects and free from adhesion of foreign particles and that determines the
Fig. 11. Ra variation at different vc under wet and cryogenic turning.

11
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

the surface under high-temperature during turning. In any case, the The disposal cost of the cutting fluid used in the conventional strategy
more effective cooling capacity of cryogenic application than the wet (using the phase separation procedure) is given in (Appendix-A2). On
cooling process prevented the micro-chip residues resulting from stick­ the contrary, in cryogenic machining, LN2 evaporates at once without
ing to the newly formed surface and increasing the Ra. causing air pollution, eliminating the disposal costs. The explanation for
the cost rate calculation is presented in Appendix-A2. The complete
elimination of oil-based cutting fluids in cryogenic machining makes it
3.2. Cost assessment
more preferable method of machining from the environmental
perspective. In the conventional strategy, the cutting fluids are changed
The economy is one of the main aspects of sustainability. Cost
after a certain period. So the life of the oil-based cutting fluids is
assessment is a means to evaluate the sustainability of different turning
required for cost determination. On the other hand, LN2 is represented as
techniques [44]. In this study, the total machining costs of wet and
a directly consumed item due to its instantaneous evaporation on de­
cryogenic turning techniques are evaluated and compared. Following
livery. The cost of cryogenic machining is relatively high owing to the
aspects are taken into account for the cost analysis:
non-reusability of LN2. The cost rate (on an hourly basis) for LN2 is 7.56
$/h, which is substantially higher than that for the oil-based cutting
• The cost associated with the machining process
fluids in conventional machining which is 0.11 $/h. Ccutting fluid com­
• Utilization of energy & resources
parison of wet and cryogenic tuning is shown in Fig. 12(b).
• Generation of waste & it’s subsequent disposal cost
• Impact on the environment
3.2.3. Cost of the cutting tool (Ccutting tool)
• Skillset needed to carry out the processes
To compare the cost of the cutting tool using wet and cryogenic
turning environments, cutting edges required to remove 5 cm3 from the
For cost comparison under wet and cryogenic turning, the total cost
workpiece is calculated as per tool life obtained under different cutting
of resources used in removing 5 cm3 material is calculated. These re­
environments. The cost of each cutting insert with cutting edges is 1.05
sources are divided into five categories as presented in Table 3. To
$. A comparison of Ccutting tool using wet and cryogenic tuning techniques
calculate total cost all cost components are added.
is illustrated in Fig. 12(c).
3.2.1. Cost rate for machine-tool usage and labour (Cmachine tool and labour)
3.2.4. Cost of energy consumption (Cenergy)
This cost includes machine tool cost, installation cost, maintenance
During machining, the average power consumed using wet turning is
cost, taxes, and insurance cost, and labour cost. In the case of the
found to higher than cryogenic turning. The electrical energy tariff is
cryogenic machining strategy, an additional setup cost is incurred to
taken to be 0.21 $/kWh. Total energy consumed in turning of 5 cm3
retrofit the cryogen delivery set up with a machine tool. It leads to a
material from the workpiece at different vc under wet and cryogenic
marginal increase in the initial cost. Moreover, labour cost is to be added
environments is calculated. Cenergy is obtained by multiplying total en­
to that of machine-tool. To operate an advanced, sophisticated setup (in
ergy consumption with energy tariff. A comparison of Cenerrgy for wet and
this case, the cryogenic machining), more skilled labour is necessary,
cryogenic tuning is provided in Fig. 12(d).
which in turn increases the labour cost. Thus, summing up the machine-
tool expenses and the labour cost will help in determining the overall
3.2.5. Cost of waste processing (Cwaste processing)
machining cost rate, i.e., Cmachine tool and labour. The cost rate is almost 18%
The cost of waste processing and its management is crucial for sus­
higher for the cryogenic machining technique in comparison to the
tainability assessment. In the conventional machining process, wastage
conventional counterpart. Cmachine tool and labour comparison for wet and
is related to cutting fluids in the form of worn-out cutting tools, and
cryogenic tuning is presented in Fig. 12(a). The calculation is presented
chips – swarf (The undesirable residues from machining are called
in detail in Appendix-A1.
swarf). Here, the swarf amount (mass) produced is assumed to be equal,
but the chips’ shape and environment are different for both the strate­
3.2.2. Cutting fluids consumption and its subsequent cost (Ccutting fluid)
gies. Hence, it results in equal costs related to swarf compression
Consideration of cutting fluid is the key factor while assessing the
(including shredding, if needed), which alleviates the difficulties in
effects of machining techniques on the environment. Of late, the use of
transportation. However, the process of segregating the swarf and cut­
cutting fluids regarding its environmental and economic parameters is
ting fluids results in an additional cost requirement in the conventional
under examination. Also, the losses of cutting fluids by vaporization,
strategy. In this segregation process of cutting fluids, the un-emulated
leakage, chips, machined parts handling, and manipulating devices have
oils are skimmed, filtered, and separated, followed by the treatment of
to be taken into account. Considering the harmful effects and the losses
the separated water. The chips and oil may be split by centrifugation,
of cutting fluids from the setup in case of wet machining, it can be
followed by draining. All of these processes generate additional costs
deduced that the utilization of cutting fluids in machining technologies
[44]. Cryogenic machining does not require additional cost for waste
is unsustainable. Moreover, the additional cost of disposing of the oil-
segregation as dry chips are obtained using this technique and LN2
based emulsions has to be reckoned. After multiple runs, the cutting
evaporates without leaving any residue. Cwaste management comparison for
fluid can no longer be used and has to be disposed of or rather recycled.
wet and cryogenic tuning is presented in Fig. 12(e).
This additional cost cannot be neglected in the conventional strategy.

3.2.6. Total machining cost (CTotal)

Table 3
After determining the various cost components, CTotal is calculated
Cost components.
for each set of parameters for wet and cryogenic turning techniques.
Cost components Remark CTotal comparison for using wet and cryogenic tuning is presented in
Cmachine tool and Cost of machine tool usage and labour in turning 5 cm3 material Fig. 12(f). The cost of using the conventional strategy is lesser at low vc
labour [Appendix–A1] levels. On the other hand, the cryogenic turning technique is found to be
Ccutting fluid Cost of cutting fluid used in turning 5 cm3 material [ economically sound at higher process parameters. Total machining cost
Appendix–A2]
Ccutting tool Cost of cutting tool required for turning 5 cm3 material
reduced up to 27% using cryogenic turning at higher levels of vc in
Cenergy Cost of energy consumed in turning 5 cm3 material at different vc comparison to wet turning. This is because the higher cost cryogenic
Cwaste management Cost of waste management after turning 5 cm3 material. liquid fails to achieve the expected process improvement at low vc levels,
CTotal Cmachine tool and labour+ Ccutting fluid+ Ccutting tool+ Cenergy+ C waste while it provides the desired improvement on the process at higher vc
management
levels.

12
C. Agrawal et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison of cost components for turning of Ti–6Al–4V under cryogenic and wet environments.
3.3. Carbon emissions assessment
Carbon emissions generating from a machining process is an indi­
cator of the sustainability of machining technique. Machining involves
various resources such as workpiece material, cutting tool, machine
tool, cutting fluid, and energy consumption involved in cutting and
waste processing as shown in Fig. 13. These resources produce carbon
emissions in tangible or intangible forms. Total carbon emissions
(CETotal) in machining is the sum of carbon emissions produced by using
these resources.
CETotal = ​ CEenergy ​ + CEmaterials + CEwaste ​
In this study, carbon emissions of cryogenic and wet turning
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
techniques are compared. Carbon emissions value in removing 5 cm3 of
material from the workpiece is calculated at different vc under wet and
cryogenic environments. Carbon emissions involved in the production of
workpiece material and machine tool remain out of the scope of this
investigation. Because these two factors are common for both turning
techniques. The sum of carbon emissions generated due to energy con­
sumption in machining, materials (cutting tool and cutting fluids), and
waste processing are expressed as total carbon emissions as shown in
Equation (4).
3.3.1. Equivalent carbon emissions from energy consumption
(4)
Carbon emissions due to energy consumption by machine tool during
machining process is calculated using Equation (5) [45]. Where, CEenergy,
13
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Fig. 13. Causes of carbon emissions in the machining process.

CEFenergy, and ECmachining are carbon emissions due to energy consump­ ∫Tsb ∫ ∫
tion, carbon emissions factor of energy, and energy consumption by the
Tair tm
ECmachining = Psb dt + Pair dt + Pm dt (6)
machine tool, respectively. ECmachining is the summation of energy 0 0
consumed by machine tool during standby mode, air cut, and cutting
o

operation as given in Equation (6) [46]. Different power consumption attributes of the machine tool such as
power consumption in standby mode (Psb), air cut (Pair), and actual
CEenergy ​ = ​ CEFenergy ​ × ​ ECmachining (5)
machining (Pm) are measured and the energy consumption is calculated

Fig. 14. Comparison of carbon emissions for turning of Ti–6Al–4V under wet and cryogenic environments.

14
C. Agrawal et al.
by multiplying with their respective time as given in Equation (6). The
carbon emissions factor for energy consumption is 0.721 kg CO2/kWh as
per the annual report of the Ministry of Power, Government of India
[47]. Fig. 14(a) shows carbon emissions due to energy consumption at
different vc using wet and cryogenic turning techniques. Power
consumed in case of wet turning is significantly higher at all considered
input settings in comparison to cryogenic turning and due to this carbon
emissions are more when turning is performed wet environment relative
to cryogenic environment (refer to Fig. 9).
3.3.2. Equivalent carbon emissions from materials
Due to the production of cutting tools and cutting fluids, a large
amount of carbon is emitted. Therefore, it is necessary to quantify their
effect on total carbon emissions of the machining process. Carbon
emissions value due to cutting tool usage is calculated using Equation
(7).
tm
CEcutting ​ tool = ​ × CEFcutting ​ tool × Wcutting ​ tool
Ttool
Where, CEcutting tool, CEFcutting tool, tm, Ttool, and Wcutting tool represent the
carbon emissions due to cutting tool usage, carbon emissions factor of
the cutting tool, actual machining time, tool life of the cutting tool, and
weight of the cutting tool.
In some cases, the cutting tool can be re-sharpen for reuse. However,
in this study, the cutting edge is scrapped only after one-time use. The
equivalent carbon emissions factor for the cutting tool is 31.62 kg-CO2/
kg, which is calculated according to the procedure given in the literature
[48]. Equivalent carbon emissions, in both cases, can be calculated using
Equation (8).
CEcutting ​ fluid = ​ CEFcutting ​ fluid × Qcutting ​ fluid
Where, CEcutting fluid, CEFcutting fluid, and Qcutting fluid represent carbon
emissions due to cutting fluid, carbon emissions factors of cutting fluid,
and quantity of cutting fluid, respectively. Flood coolants contribute
2.85 kg CO2/L equivalent carbon emissions during the life cycle coolant
[48]. Energy consumed in the production of LN2 is 0.549 kWh/L [49].
Accordingly, the carbon emissions factor for LN2 is calculated and it
turns out to be 0.32 kg CO2/L in this investigation. Carbon emissions
values due to materials (cutting fluid and cutting tools) at different vc
using wet and cryogenic turning are presented in Fig. 14(b).
Carbon emissions in case of cryogenic turning are higher in com­
parison to wet turning. It is because coolant used in cryogenic machining
(LN2 in this case) evaporates instantaneously after rejecting heat from
the cutting zone and cannot be reused and recirculated. While, in wet
turning technique, coolants are recirculated and changed periodically,
which reduces the cost of cutting fluid significantly in comparison to
cryogenic turning.
3.3.3. Equivalent carbon emissions from waste
During the machining process, the material is separated from the
workpiece in the form of chips in order to achieve a final shape. After the
machining process, chips, cutting fluids, and cutting tools are disposed
of or recycled. Equivalent carbon emissions in waste management can be
calculated using Equations (9)–(11). In waste management, recycling of
chips has a higher economic significance than cutting tools and cutting
fluids. But recycling of titanium chips to high-grade titanium alloys is
rather unusual. Instead, they are recycled to ferroalloys to be used in
substandard components in the steel industry [50]. The main reason for
that is the lack of macroscopic purity in the titanium chips. Usually,
titanium chips are contaminated during and after the machining process
when it comes in contact with contaminated coolants and their residue.
Researchers concerning this aspect of recycling stated that the best re­
sults considering the chip quality can be achieved by using cryogenic
machining [50]. They observed the least contamination of chips when
titanium was machined using cryogenic machining in comparison to
conventional dry and wet machining. The energy required in the
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
recycling of Ti–6Al–4V chips obtained using wet turning is nearly 83.04
kWh/kg, which reduced to 23.25 kWh/kg when chips are obtained using
cryogenic machining [50]. As, the energy required for primary pro­
duction of Ti–6Al–4V is nearly 60 kWh/kg, which is less than the energy
required for the recycling of chips obtained using wet turning to restore
it for primary use. Hence, the potential of cryogenic machining in terms
of reducing carbon emissions in improving the recyclability of chips is
significant. Carbon emissions due to recycling of chips can be calculated
using Equation (9).
CE’chip ​ recycling = ​ ECchip ​ recyling × CEFenergy × Vchips × ρchips (9)
CE’cutting ​ fluid = ​ CEF’cutting ​ fluid × Qchips (10)
CE’cutting ​ tool = ​ CEF’cutting ​ tool × Wcutting ​ tool (11)
Where, CE’chip recycling, ECchip recycling, Vchips, and ρchips shows carbon
emissions due to chip recycling, energy consumed in chip recycling, the
(7) volume of the chips, and density of the chip material, respectively.
CE’cutting fluid, CEF’cutting fluid, and Qcutting fluid indicate carbon emissions due
to cutting fluid disposal, carbon emissions factors of cutting fluid
disposal, the quantity of the cutting fluid to be disposed of, respectively.
CE’cutting tool, CEF’cutting tool, and Wcutting tool indicate carbon emissions due
to cutting tool disposal, carbon emissions factors of cutting tool disposal,
the weight of the cutting tool to be scrapped, respectively. The carbon
emissions factors for the EFF’cutting tool and EFF’cutting fluid are 0.013 kg
CO2/kg and 0.2 kg CO2/L, respectively [48,51]. Carbon emissions
calculated for waste processing at different vc using wet and cryogenic
turning are shown in Fig. 14(c).
Fig. 14(d) shows a comparison of total carbon emissions values ob­
tained for turning of Ti–6Al–4V under wet and cryogenic environments.
(8)
Carbon emissions significantly reduced (up to 22%) using cryogenic
turning at higher process parameters in comparison to wet turning.
Lesser energy consumption in waste processing using cryogenic turning
significantly contributed to a reduction in total carbon emissions in
comparison to wet turning. However, in the case of carbon emissions
due to material consumption, wet turning is found more efficient in
comparison to cryogenic turning. It is due to increased carbon emissions
due to the use of cryogenic fluid in higher quantities. Cryogenic fluid
evaporates instantaneously from the cutting zone and cannot be reused.
But in the case of wet turning, coolant can be reused by filtration and
recirculation in the cutting zone. These results advocate the suitability of
cryogenic turning at higher vc to reduce carbon emissions.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the performance of wet and cryo­
genic turning in the machining of Ti–6Al–4V in terms of machinability,
total machining cost, and carbon emissions. This comparison of wet and
cryogenic turning performance is presented at the highest material
removal rate. Results clearly show the suitability of cryogenic turning
over wet turning in terms of improved machinability, reduced cost, and
carbon emissions.
4. Conclusions
This paper investigates the machinability of Ti–6Al–4V using wet
and cryogenic turning techniques in terms of tool wear (both flank and
crater wear), power consumption, and surface roughness. This article
also provides a detailed assessment of the turning cost and carbon
emissions of wet and cryogenic turning techniques. Following are the
main conclusions drawn from this investigation:
• Flank wear, crater wear, abrasion, adhesion, chipping, and BUE
formation are the main phenomena of failure of cutting tool observed
during turning of Ti–6Al–4V under wet and cryogenic environments.
The cryogenic turning technique minimizes dissolution-diffusion
tool wear by reducing the temperature of the cutting zone at all
cutting speeds. However, the increased hardness of workpiece due to
prolonged exposure to the cryogenic environment leads to increased
15
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Table 4 carbon emissions. At higher cutting speed levels, total machining

Performance comparison for wet and cryogenic turning. cost is reduced by up to 27% using cryogenic turning in comparison
Comparison of wet and cryogenic turning performance at the highest material removal rate to wet turning. Total carbon emissions are also reduced by up to 22%
(vc = 110 m/min, fr = 0.3 mm/rev, ap = 0.5 mm) at higher cutting speeds using cryogenic turning in comparison to
Performance attributes Turning technique % change under wet turning. Reduced tool wear, lesser power consumption,
cryogenic improved surface finish, and lesser waste processing cost are the
Wet Cryogenic
turning turning
turning main reasons for improvements in sustainability using cryogenic
turning in comparison to wet turning.
Machinability Tool life 90 Sec 195 Sec Increased by
assessment 116%
Power 3.5 kW 3 kW Decreased by This work advocates the suitability of cryogenic machining of tita­
consumption 12.6% nium alloy over wet machining to improve its machinability and sus­
Average 0.87 μm 0.66 μm Decreased by tainability aspects. Future work may be directed toward the
Surface 22.1% investigations of machinability and sustainability improvements using
roughness
Total machining cost 17.6 $ 12.7 $ Decreased by
environment-friendly hybrid machining of heat resistant alloys.
27.9%
Carbon emissions 3.3 kg 2.6 kg CO2 Decreased by CRediT authorship contribution statement
CO2 21.2%

Chetan Agrawal: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal­

plastic deformation of cutting edge, increased friction, chipping,
adhesion, and BUE formations at lower cutting speeds (70, 80, and
90 m/min). Tool life decreased by up to 17% using cryogenic turning
in comparison to wet turning at lower cutting speeds. At higher
cutting speeds (100 and 110 m/min), the cryogenic fluid can effec­
tively release a large amount of heat from the cutting area, thereby
reducing flank and crater wear. Tool life is improved by up to 125%
using cryogenic turning in comparison to wet turning at higher
cutting speeds.
• Power consumption is reduced by up to 23.4% using cryogenic
turning in comparison with wet turning. It is due to extra power is
consumed in the coolant system in the case of wet turning. Surface
roughness values reduced by up to 22.1% using cryogenic turning in
comparison to wet turning. It is because the cryogenic fluid removed
the frictional heat from the machining region which leads to less
heat-induced damage to the cutting tool and machined surface.
Another reason for higher surface roughness values under wet
turning is due to loosely attached chips that adhere to the machined
surface under a high-temperature environment. The efficient cooling
under the cryogenic environment prevented the sticking of micro-
chip residue and that leads to better surface finish.
• To compare the sustainability of wet and cryogenic turning tech­
niques, results are analyzed in terms of total machining cost and
ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Software, Visualization,
Writing - original draft. Jwalant Wadhwa: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Software, Visualization, Writing - review &
editing. Anjali Pitroda: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Software, Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Catalin
Iulian Pruncu: Formal analysis, Resources, Validation, Visualization,
Writing - review & editing. Murat Sarikaya: Formal analysis, Valida­
tion, Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Navneet Khanna:
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Valida­
tion, Visualization, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors are thankful to the Science and Engineering Research
Board (SERB), India for financial support (Grant number: ECR/2016/
000735).

Appendix

Table A1
CMachine tool and labour

Item Cryogenic turning Wet turning

Machine-tool usage related costs Machine-tool investment [$] (I) 27874.56 27874.56
Investment for tooling (3% of (a)) [$] (II) 836.24 836.24
Investment for coolant delivery system [$] (III) 4181.18 0.00
Investment for machine-tool installation [$] (IV) 55.75 55.75
Total [$] (I + II + III + IV) 32947.74 28766.55
Depreciation period [a] 10.00 10.00
Cost rate for maintenance (1.5% of I + II + III $/a) 493.38 430.66
Cost rate for insurance/taxes (0.4% of I + II + III $/a) 131.57 114.84
Costs for tool holder [$] 20.90 20.90
Time fraction of machine-tool usage [h/a] 2808.00 2808.00
Down time fraction [%] 20.00 20.00
Time fraction of actual machine-tool usage [h/a] 2246.40 2246.40
Cost rate for machine-tool usage [$/h] 1.75 1.53
Labor costs Cost rate for direct labor [$/h] (V) 6.27 5.23
Cost rate for indirect labor 10% of (V)) [$/h] 0.63 0.52
Cost rate for supervision (12% of (V)) [$/h] 0.75 0.63
Cost rate for fringe benefits (33% of (V)) [$/h] 2.07 1.72
(continued on next page)

16
C. Agrawal et al. Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597

Table A1 (continued )
Item Cryogenic turning Wet turning

Cost rate for operator [$/h] 9.72 8.10

∑
Cost rate for overall machining– cm [$/h] 11.48 9.63

Table A2
Ccutting fluid

Item Cryogenic turning Wet turning

CLF concentrate (volumetric) price [$/l] / 7.66

CLF disposal with phase separation price [$/l] / 0.15
Volume fraction of CLF [%] / 5
Volume of CLF needed [l] / 100
Volume of CLF concentrate needed [l] / 4.76
Cost of CLF concentrate [$] / 36.50
Disposal cost of CLF [$] / 15.33
Costs of CLF maintenance and labour [$] / 0.18
Costs of overall CLF [$] / 52.01
Lifetime of cutting fluid [h] / 469.33
Non-returnable CLF usage [l/min] 1 /
Costs of non-returnable CLF specific usage [$/l] 0.12 /
CLF usage cost rate [$/h] 7.56 0.11

References [17] Krolczyk JB, Krolczyk GM, Wojciechowski S, Nieslony P, Maruda RW, Budzik G,
et al. Ecological trends in machining as a key factor in sustainable production – a
review. J Clean Prod 2019;218:601–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[1] Nieslony P, Krolczyk GM, Zak K, Maruda RW, Legutko S. Comparative assessment
jclepro.2019.02.017.
of the mechanical and electromagnetic surfaces of explosively clad Ti–steel plates
[18] Rotella G, Dillon OW, Umbrello D, Settineri L, Jawahir IS. The effects of cooling
after drilling process. Precis Eng 2017;47:104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conditions on surface integrity in machining of Ti6Al4V alloy. Int J Adv Manuf
precisioneng.2016.07.011.
Technol 2014;71:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5477-9.
[2] Khanna N, Agrawal C, Gupta MK, Song Q. Tool wear and hole quality evaluation in
[19] Venugopal KA, Paul S, Chattopadhyay AB. Tool wear in cryogenic turning of Ti-
cryogenic Drilling of Inconel 718 superalloy. Tribol Int 2020;143:106084. https://
6Al-4V alloy. Cryogenics 2007;47:12–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2019.106084.
cryogenics.2006.08.011.
[3] Yıldırım ÇV, Sarıkaya M, Kıvak T, Şirin Ş. The effect of addition of hBN
[20] Pušavec F, Kopač J. Sustainability assessment: cryogenic machining of Inconel 718.
nanoparticles to nanofluid-MQL on tool wear patterns, tool life, roughness and
Strojniški Vestn - J Mech Eng 2011;57:637–47. https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-
temperature in turning of Ni-based Inconel 625. Tribol Int 2019;134:443–56.
jme.2010.249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2019.02.027.
[21] Bermingham MJ, Kirsch J, Sun S, Palanisamy S, Dargusch MS. New observations on
[4] Garretson IC, Mani M, Leong S, Lyons KW, Haapala KR. Terminology to support
tool life, cutting forces and chip morphology in cryogenic machining Ti-6Al-4V. Int
manufacturing process characterization and assessment for sustainable production.
J Mach Tool Manufact 2011;51:500–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
J Clean Prod 2016;139:986–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.103.
ijmachtools.2011.02.009.
[5] Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, et al. Transforming
[22] Bermingham MJ, Palanisamy S, Kent D, Dargusch MS. A comparison of cryogenic
our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal
and high pressure emulsion cooling technologies on tool life and chip morphology
indicators. J Publ Health Pol 2016;37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0002-
in Ti-6Al-4V cutting. J Mater Process Technol 2012;212:752–65. https://doi.org/
7.
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.10.027.
[6] Jawahir IS, Badurdeen F, Rouch KE. Innovation in sustainable manufacturing
[23] Bordin A, Bruschi S, Ghiotti A, Bariani PF. Analysis of tool wear in cryogenic
education. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin; 2015.
machining of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy. Wear 2015;328–329:89–99.
[7] Lu T, Dillon OW, Jawahir IS. A thermal analysis framework for cryogenic
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.01.030.
machining and its contribution to product and process sustainability. In: 11th Glob.
[24] Hong SY, Ding Y, Jeong W. Friction and cutting forces in cryogenic machining of
Conf. Sustain. Manuf.; 2013. p. 262–7. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:
Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Mach Tool Manufact 2001;41:2271–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/
83-opus4-73249.
S0890-6955(01)00029-3.
[8] Bhanot N, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG. Sustainable manufacturing: an interaction
[25] Raza SW, Pervaiz S, Deiab I. Tool wear patterns when turning of titanium alloy
analysis for machining parameters using graph theory. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci
using sustainable lubrication strategies. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2014;15. https://
2015;189:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.192.
doi.org/10.1007/s12541-014-0554-z. 1979–85.
[9] Cohen H, White EM. Metalworking fluid mist occupational exposure limits: a
[26] Deiab I, Raza SW, Pervaiz S. Analysis of lubrication strategies for sustainable
discussion of alternative methods. J Occup Environ Hyg 2006;3:501–7. https://doi.
machining during turning of titanium Ti-6Al-4V alloy. In: Procedia CIRP, vol. 17.
org/10.1080/15459620600867872.
Elsevier B.V.; 2014. p. 766–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.112.
[10] Raynor PC, Kim SW, Bhattacharya M. Mist generation from metalworking fluids
[27] Kumar KVBSK, Choudhury SK. Investigation of tool wear and cutting force in
formulated using vegetable oils. Ann Occup Hyg 2005;49:289–93. https://doi.org/
cryogenic machining using design of experiments. J Mater Process Technol 2007;3:
10.1093/annhyg/meh092.
95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.10.036.
[11] Skerlos SJ, Hayes KF, Clarens AF, Zhao F. Current advances in sustainable
[28] Shokrani A, Dhokia V, Newman ST. Energy conscious cryogenic machining of Ti-
Metalworking Fluids research. Int J Sustain Manuf 2008;1:180–202. https://doi.
6Al-4V titanium alloy. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 2018;232:1690–706.
org/10.1504/IJSM.2008.019233.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405416668923.
[12] Umbrello D, Pu Z, Caruso S, Outeiro JC, Jayal AD, Dillon OW, et al. The effects of
[29] Mia M, Gupta MK, Lozano JA, Carou D, Pimenov DY, Królczyk G, et al. Multi-
cryogenic cooling on surface integrity in hard machining. Procedia Eng 2011;19:
objective optimization and life cycle assessment of eco-friendly cryogenic N2
371–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.127.
assisted turning of Ti-6Al-4V. J Clean Prod 2019;210:121–33. https://doi.org/
[13] Maruda RW, Krolczyk GM, Wojciechowski S, Powalka B, Klos S, Szczotkarz N, et al.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.334.
Evaluation of turning with different cooling-lubricating techniques in terms of
[30] NSR K, Ganesh, Kantharaj, Kumar S. Multi-response optimization of Ti-6Al-4V
surface integrity and tribologic properties. Tribol Int 2020;148:106334. https://
milling using AlCrN/TiAlN coated tool under cryogenic cooling. J Prod Syst Manuf
doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106334.
Sci 2020;1:4.
[14] Khanna N, Shah P, Agrawal C, Pusavec F, Hegab H. Inconel 718 machining
[31] Mia M, Gupta MK, Dhar NR. Evolution of tool flank wear and its influence on
performance evaluation using indigenously developed hybrid machining facilities:
machining characteristics in pressurized-oil jet assisted hard turning. J Prod Syst
experimental investigation and sustainability assessment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Manuf Sci 2020;1:2.
2020;106:4987–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-04921-x.
[32] Shah P, Khanna N, Zadafiya K, Bhalodiya M, Maruda RW, Krolczyk GM. In-house
[15] Shah P, Khanna N, Chetan. Comprehensive machining analysis to establish
development of eco-friendly lubrication techniques (EMQL, Nanoparticles+EMQL
cryogenic LN2 and LCO2 as sustainable cooling and lubrication techniques. Tribol
and EL) for improving machining performance of 15–5 PHSS. Tribol Int 2020;151:
Int 2020;148:106314. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRIBOINT.2020.106314.
106476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106476.
[16] Sarıkaya M, Güllü A. Multi-response optimization of minimum quantity lubrication
[33] Gupta MK, Mia M, Jamil M, Singh R, Singla AK, Song Q, et al. Machinability
parameters using Taguchi-based grey relational analysis in turning of difficult-to-
investigations of hardened steel with biodegradable oil-based MQL spray system.
cut alloy Haynes 25. J Clean Prod 2015;91:347–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.12.020.

17
C. Agrawal et al.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020;108:735–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-
05477-6.
[34] Mia M, Gupta MK, Pruncu CI, Sen B, Khan AM, Jamil M, et al. Six sigma
optimization of multiple machining characteristics in hard turning under dry,
flood, MQL and solid lubrication. J Prod Syst Manuf Sci 2020;1:6.
[35] Khanna N, Agrawal C. Titanium machining using indigenously developed
sustainable cryogenic machining facility. In: Gupta K, editor. Mater. Forming,
mach. Post process. Springer; 2020. p. 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-18854-2_8.
[36] Jawaid A, Sharif S, Koksal S. Evaluation of wear mechanisms of coated carbide
tools when face milling titanium alloy. J Mater Process Technol 2000;99:266–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00438-0.
[37] Dearnley PA, Grearson AN. Evaluation of principal wear mechanisms of cemented
carbides and ceramics used for machining titanium alloy IMI 318. Mater Sci
Technol 1987;2:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1179/mst.1986.2.1.47.
[38] Dutta S, Kanwat A, Pal SK, Sen R. Correlation study of tool flank wear with
machined surface texture in end milling. Measurement 2013;46:4249–60. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.07.015.
[39] Shokrani A, Al-Samarrai I, Newman ST. Hybrid cryogenic MQL for improving tool
life in machining of Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy. J Manuf Process 2019;43:229–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2019.05.006.
[40] Khan AM, Gupta MK, Hegab H, Jamil M, Mia M, He N, et al. Energy-based cost
integrated modelling and sustainability assessment of Al-GnP hybrid nanofluid
assisted turning of AISI52100 steel. J Clean Prod 2020;257:120502. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120502.
[41] Li W. Implementation towards improving energy and eco-efficiency of
manufacturing processes. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17365-8_6; 2015.
[42] Wojciechowski S, Królczyk GM, Maruda RW. Advances in hard-to-cut materials:
manufacturing, properties, process mechanics and evaluation of surface integrity.
Materials 2020;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030612.
18
Tribology International 153 (2021) 106597
[43] Öndin O, Kıvak T, Sarıkaya M, Yıldırım ÇV. Investigation of the influence of
MWCNTs mixed nanofluid on the machinability characteristics of PH 13-8 Mo
stainless steel. Tribol Int 2020:106323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
triboint.2020.106323.
[44] Pusavec F, Kramar D, Krajnik P, Kopac J. Transitioning to sustainable production –
part II : evaluation of sustainable machining technologies. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2010;18:1211–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.015.
[45] Jiang Z, Gao D, Lu Y, Kong L, Shang Z. Quantitative analysis of carbon emissions in
precision turning processes and industrial case study. Int J Precis Eng Manuf -
Green Technol 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-00155-9.
[46] Sadiq TO, Olawore SA, Idris J. Energy consideration in machining titanium alloys
with a low carbon manufacturing requirements: a critical review. Int J Eng Res Afr
2018;35:89–107. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.35.89.
[47] Central Electricity Authority. Power of Ministry G of I. CEA ANNUAL REPORT.
2019. India, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/annual/annualreports/annual_report
-2019.pdf.
[48] Li C, Tang Y, Cui L, Li P. A quantitative approach to analyze carbon emissions of
CNC-based machining systems. J Intell Manuf 2015;26:911–22. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10845-013-0812-4.
[49] Rai A, Tassou SA. Environmental impacts of vapour compression and cryogenic
transport refrigeration technologies for temperature controlled food distribution.
Energy Convers Manag 2017;150:914–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.05.024.
[50] Denkena B, Dittrich M, Jacob S. Energy efficiency in machining of aircraft
components. In: Procedia CIRP, vol. 48. Elsevier B.V.; 2016. p. 479–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.155.
[51] Narita H, Desmira N, Fujimoto H. Environmental burden analysis for machining
operation using LCA method. In: Mitsuishi M, Ueda K, Kimura F, editors. Manuf.
Syst. Technol. New front. London: Springer London; 2008. p. 65–8. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-84800-267-8_13.