Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

IMME17

Machining characteristics evaluation of aluminium composites

based on cBN and PCD inserts
K. Rajkumara, K.M. Nambirajb, A. Gnanavelbabuc*, P. Sabarinathana
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SSN College of Engineering, Chennai-603110, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan College of Engineering and Technology, Mamallapuram-603104, India
c
Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India

Abstract

Today’s industrial trend encouraged the usage of advanced materials due to their superior properties like a high strength to
weight ratio and good corrosion resistance. This advanced materials also termed as composite, especially aluminium based
composite having a vast number of applications such as transportation, aerospace, automobiles and defence. Generally
aluminium based composites were reinforced with alumina, silicon carbide, boron carbide and graphite etc., to improve their
properties. Machining of composite materials is inevitable to realize the products or components. In this paper, it is aimed to
present that the AA 6061–B4C–Graphite composite fabrication and its machining characteristics. The aluminium composite was
fabricated through stir casting route. The turning experiment was conducted by varying the speed, feed and depth of cut. The
machining performance was evaluated using PCD and cBN tools to the lesser tool wear attainment. SEM images analysis was
carried out to assess the tool wear mechanism.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials and
Manufacturing Engineering (IMME17).

Keywords: B4C; Graphite; machining; cBN; PCD

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9894388442;

E-mail address: dr.agbabu@gmail.com

2214-7853 © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering
(IMME17).
 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430 8425

1. Introduction

Aluminium based metal matrix composites having a number of prominent mechanical properties including tensile
strength, wear resistance, stiffness and dimensional stability. Aluminium Matrix Composites (AMCs) widely
accepted as a major material for the advanced engineering applications such as aerospace, automobile, structural
application, military sector etc. [1-2]. Generally, composite materials have superior specific properties like high
strength to weight ratio compared to metals. The improved mechanical properties of composites like strength and
hardness, and the presence of reinforcement (particle, whisker and fiber) make it very hard to machine. The most
commonly used particulates as reinforcement in aluminium matrix include Al2O3, SiC and B4C to improve their
mechanical properties. Al matrix reinforced with B4C particulates are a new class of advanced materials with
exceptional mechanical properties and nuclear characteristics [3-5]. Several researchers were explored stir casting
techniques for the production of Al-B4C composites [6-10], squeeze casting [11] and mechanical alloying [12].
Currently, most of the hard materials are structured by grinding and/or electro-discharge machining (EDM)
processes [13]. These processes are time consuming, low material removal rate and high expensive. These made the
manufactures to find the way for cost reduction at every stage of production [14]. The major problem involved in a
metal matrix composite (MMC) machining is high tool wear that makes the machining process uneconomical [15].
In order to explicit problem associated with cutting tool might be selected to appropriate. Kilicka et.al [16]
investigated the 5% SiC particle reinforced aluminium composite. It reported that cutting speed was primary
influencing parameter; feed and depth of cut were secondary influencing parameters for the tool wear. Ciftci et.al
[17] presented the reinforced ceramic particles in matrix resulted a more tool wear. The results show that size and
percentage of reinforcement have an effect on tool wear rate. Most of the authors concluded that machining with
Poly Crystalline Diamond (PCD) tools produced lesser tool wear than the cBN insert [13, 18].
PCD is characterized by a high degree of hardness, high thermal conductivity (which helped in high heat
dissipation from the cutting zone), as well as a low coefficient of friction in contact with the material being worked
[19]. In this paper presented the machinability studies on the fabricated Al6061–2%B4C–8%Graphite composite.
The machining was performed with various cutting speeds, feed and depth of cut using PCD and cBN inserts and
comparative results were discussed.

2. Experimental Procedure

2.1. Composite Fabrication

Boron carbide and graphite size of 5 µm and 50 µm respectively were used to fabricate the composite.
Al6061was base material heated upto 8500 C for 2 hours in electric furnace under blanket of flux. 2 wt. % B4C – 8
wt. % Graphite reinforcements were added to the Al melt and stirred for distribution of reinforcement particles
throughout the matrix. The molten metal was stirred with the help of a Zirconia coated steel rod to generate vortex.
The three step addition of reinforcement particles were carried in this process i.e., the reinforcement to be added was
split into three equal volume percentages. At every stage stirring was carried before and after addition of
reinforcement particles to avoid agglomeration. The spindle speed of 250 rpm and stirring time of 5 min were
maintained during the stir casting. Thoroughly mixed molten metal was poured into metallic mould having
dimensions of 40 mm diameter and 220 mm long.

2.2. Microstructure analysis

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of fabricated Al6061-B4C-Graphite composite is shown in figure 1
to study the microstructure. It is clearly seen that the presence of B4C and graphite particles which were distributed
fairly uniform and homogenous in the matrix. It is also seen that no agglomeration or clustering of the particles were
made throughout the sample which could be due to better stirring action achieved via three step addition process.
8426 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430

Fig. 1. SEM image of Al6061-B4C-Graphite

2.3. Machining Specification

The fabricated Al 6061-B4C-Graphite composites were machined in the precision medium duty lathe machine.
The turning was carried out by varying the cutting speed (755 rpm and1255 rpm), feed (0.05, 0.1and 0.15 mm/rev)
and depth of cut (0.5, 0.75 and 1 mm). No chip breaker was used for the entire experiment and machining was
carried out under dry condition only. The main cutting forces were observed using Dynamometer. Cutting tool wear
analysis done using a SEM. The inserts used in machining composite were PCD (CNMG 120404) and cBN (CNGA
120404) as shown in figure 2. The mechanical properties of PCD and cBN are shown in table 1. This shows that
PCD relatively having a higher strength.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of tool materials [20]
Hardness Transverse
[GPa] rupture strength
Tool
[GPa]

PCD 100 1.7

cBN 50-55 1.3

Fig. 2 Image of both PCD and cBN inserts

3. Result and Discussion

Cutting force generated in the composite material is a complex phenomenon due to the microstructure, size and
amount of reinforcement particles. Variation of cutting force with different spindle speed, feed and constant depth of
 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430 8427

cut for the machining of composite is shown in figure 3 (a-c). For each machining condition, three trials were
carried out and average value is presented.
Figure 3 (a) shows the variation of cutting force with 0.5 mm of depth of cut. It is observed that increasing in
cutting speed decreases the cutting forces for the both PCD and cBN inserts due to thermal softening of the
workpiece. The temperature however, is often the dominant factor in metal matrix composite machining. Prominent
temperatures in metal matrix cause a lower flow stress. The working temperature of the workpiece material in the
primary shear zone is higher in higher cuttings speeds. Heat conduction in the Al-MMCs takes predominant place
through the aluminum because of the considerable greater thermal conductivity of the aluminum in comparison to
the B4C reinforcement. Comparing both the PCD and cBN inserts the PCD has produced a low cutting force in all
cutting speeds.

Fig. 3(a) Cutting force at 0.5 mm DOC Fig. 3(b) Cutting force at 0.75 mm DOC

Fig. 3(c) Cutting force at 1 mm DOC Fig. 4. Cutting force at 0.05 mm/rev feed.
8428 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430

The figure 3 (a) also denotes that increasing the feed rate from 0.05 mm/rev to 0.15 mm/rev cutting forces
increased in both the PCD and cBN inserts. It is observed that cutting force varies linearly with feed rate. This due
of high cutting force was required to deform the material within short period of time as increase in feed rate. High
temperature was generated in the tool – work interface zone. The generated heat was partially carried out by the chip
and excess amount were retained by the workpiece. Due to the short period for machining, high cutting force
required when increasing the feed rate. During machining sudden peak of cutting forces were also observed in
somewhere due to the presence of ceramic particles. Similarly figure 3(b) and 3(c) show the same trend of cutting
performance of varying cutting speed, feed and constant depth of cut 0.75 mm and 1 mm respectively for the both
inserts.
Figure 4 shows the variation of cutting force with varying process parameters of cutting speed and depth of cut at
constant feed rate of 0.05 mm/rev for the both PCD and cBN. It is observed that increasing in depth of cut from 0.5
mm to 1 mm, cutting force also increases. In all machining experiments PCD results a low cutting force than the
cBN due low coefficient of friction [19]. As increasing in depth of cut the number of solid layer removed by the
machining process was increased. Hence it requires a high cutting force to remove the material from workpiece
while increasing the depth of cut.
It is understood that PCD cutting performance is better than cBN insert. Because of cBN tool generated larger
tool wear width due to greater contact width between the tool and the work piece [20].

3.1. Tool Wear

The major problem involved in machining of aluminium alloys containing hard particles is greater tool wear. The
wear in both cutting tools were analyzed using scanning electron microscope. The main operating wear mechanism
in both the inserts (PCD and cBN) was abrasive and adhesive. The cutting tools (cBN and PCD) were subjected to
high stress, temperature and chip flowing on the rake face. The important tool wear namely flank and crater wear
were occurred during machining.
Flank wear was occurred at tool relief faces as relative rubbing action between the cutting tool and machined
surface. The rubbing action produce high temperature at cutting zone leads to abrasive wear. In addition, the
presences of boron carbide particles in the matrix resulted in increased abrasive wear. This wear also occurred due
to high hardness of the workpiece. This wear rate is accelerated by high temperature as cutting velocity increased
due to insufficient removal of heat from the workpiece. Also adhesive wear is caused mainly by the temperature
produced between tool and work interface.
Flank wear was increased with the depth of cut due to micro-cutting on the flank face by the reinforced ceramic
particles. However the order of wear could be reduced by presence of graphite particles in the cutting zone. These
graphite particles were providing a self-lubrication between cutting tool and work piece.

Fig. 5. Flank wear of cBN and PCD inserts. Fig. 6. SEM image of the crater wear of cBN insert.
 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430 8429

Figure 5 shows the flank wear of cBN and PCD inserts. It is observed that PCD inserts shows relatively lower
flank wear than that of cBN at low and high cutting speed. Inherent low co-efficient of friction between work and
tool and self lubrication of graphite makes the PCD inserts to wear out lesser than cBN inserts.
Crater wear occurs on the rake face of the tool. The temperature produced between the tool and chip causes the
crater wear. The tool-chip interface was also abraded by the hard inclusions (ceramic particles). Chemical affinity
may also take place between tool and chip due to the temperature rise. This result in boron dissolution at cutting
zone as believed to be occurred. Hence CBN tool was not performed at greater value. SEM image shown in figure 6
clearly displays the crater wear on the cBN tool.

3.2. Chip Formation

Machining process can be studied outmost efficiently and cheapest way with the types of chip produced while
machining metal matrix composites. The B4C particles present in the aluminium matrix reduces the work piece
ductility. This produces a less number of chip cycles (intermittent chip) or discontinuous chip. Therefore chip length
was reduced. But machining parameters also can change the formation of chip type. Fig. 7 showed the continuous
and discontinuous chip formed during machining with different cutting inserts. Machining of this metal matrix
composite with similar cutting conditions PCD insert produced a continuous chip as explicitly low friction between
the tool-work material and conversely cBN insert produced a discontinuous chip.

a b

Fig. 7. (a) Continuous chip made by PCD insert;

(b) Discontinuous chip made by cBN inserts at speed 750 rpm, feed 0.1 mm/rev and doc 0.7 mm.

4. Conclusion

The conclusion of this research studies on the machining of AA 6061-2% boron carbide-8% graphite using PCD
and cBN are given below,

1. High cutting speed is preferable for achieving low cutting force in both cBN and PCD inserts at the same time
wear rate is to be increased.
2. Low feed rate is advised for machining of metal matrix composite as resulted low cutting force.
3. It is also noted that low depth of cut produces low cutting force and less tool wear rate
4. Flank wear of PCD was less than cBN at any cutting condition.
5. Presence of boron carbide particles more prone to abrasive wear of tools.
Comparing both the inserts, PCD exhibited low cutting force and less tool wear than cBN when considering all
machining parameters. Hence it is advised that PCD inserts more suitable to machining of aluminium based
composites.
8430 Rajkumar et al., / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 8424–8430

References

[1] Y.C. J Feng, L. Geng, P.Q. Zheng, Z.Z. Zheng, G.S. Wang, Materials & Design, 29 (2008) 2023-2026.
[2] A. Kremer, M.E.I. Mansori, Wear, Vol. 271 (2010) pp. 2448-2453.
[3] K.B. Khan, T.R.G. Ktty, M.K. Surappa, Mater. Sci. Engg: A, Vol. 427 (2006) pp. 76-82.
[4] M. Aizenshtein, N. Froumin, E. Shapiro-Tsoref, M.P. Dariel, N. Frage, Scripta materialia, Vol. 53 (2005) pp. 1231-1235.
[5] Mohd Abdul Qadirkhan, M. Arif Siddiqui, Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, (2015) pp. 8362-
8368.
[6] M. Uthayakumar, S. Aravindan, K.Rajkumar, Materials and Design, Vol.47 (2013) pp. 456–64.
[7] H.R. Lashgari, A.R. Sufizadeh, M. Emamy, Mater. Des. Vol. 31, (2010) pp. 2187–95.
[8] A. Bradeswaran, A. ElayaPerumal, Composites: Part B Vol. 54 (2013) pp. 146–52.
[9] F. Topan, A. Kilicarslan, A. Karaaslan, M. Cigdem and I. Kerti, Mater. Design, Vol. 31 (2010) pp. 87–91.
[10] I. Kerti, F. Toptan, Mater. Lett, Vol. 62 (2008) pp. 1215–1218.
[11] F. Toptan, I. Kerti, L.A. Rocha, Wear, Vol. 290–291 (2012) pp.74–85.
[12] F. Tang, X. Wu, S. Ge, J. Ye, H. Zhuc, M. Hagiwara, Julie M. Schoenung, Wear, Vol. 264 (2008) pp. 555–61.
[13] L.N.L. De Lacalle, A. Lamikiz, F.J. De Larrinova, I. Azkona, Springer, (2011) pp. 33-8.
[14] S.T. Newman, A. Nassehi, R. Imani-Asrai, V. Dhokia, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. Vol. 5 (2012) pp. 127–136.
[15] R. Teti, CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 51(2) (2002) pp. 611-634.
[16] E. Kilickap, O. Cakir , M. Aksoy, A. Inan, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol 164-165 (2005) pp. 862-867.
[17] I. Ciftci, M. Turker, U.Seker, Mater. Des, Vol. 25(3), (2014) pp. 251–25.
[18] J.A. Arsecularatne, L.C. Zhang, C. Montross, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. Vol. 46, (2006) pp. 482–491.
[19] A. Bogus, I.C. Gebeshuber, A. Pauschitz, M. Roy, R. Haubner, Diamond and Related Materials, Vol. 17 (2008) pp. 1998–2004.
[20] HEO Sung Jung, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Vol. 23 (2009) pp. 1959-1966.