Journal Pre-proofs

Measurement of Machining Forces and Surface Roughness in Turning of AISI

304 steel using Alumina-MWCNT Hybrid Nanoparticles Enriched Cutting Flu-
id

Anuj Kumar Sharma, Arun Kumar Tiwari, Amit Rai Dixit, Rabesh Kumar Singh

PII: S0263-2241(19)30944-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107078
Reference: MEASUR 107078

To appear in: Measurement

Received Date: 18 April 2017

Revised Date: 16 May 2019
Accepted Date: 19 September 2019

Please cite this article as: A. Kumar Sharma, A. Kumar Tiwari, A. Rai Dixit, R. Kumar Singh, Measurement of
Machining Forces and Surface Roughness in Turning of AISI 304 steel using Alumina-MWCNT Hybrid
Nanoparticles Enriched Cutting Fluid, Measurement (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.
2019.107078

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will
undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing
this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Measurement of Machining Forces and Surface Roughness in
Turning of AISI 304 steel using Alumina-MWCNT Hybrid
Nanoparticles Enriched Cutting Fluid
Anuj Kumar Sharma*1, Arun Kumar Tiwari 2, Amit Rai Dixit3, Rabesh Kumar Singh1
1Mechatronics, Centre for Advanced Studies, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow 226031, India
2Mechanical Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering & Technology, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam Technical University, Lucknow 226021, India
3Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004,
India
Abstract

Researchers so far have given more attention to the performance of mono type nanoparticle
enriched cutting fluids in machining. In present investigation, a hybrid nano-cutting fluid has
been developed by mixing alumina based cutting fluid with multi walled carbon nano tube
(MWCNT) nanoparticles in different volumetric concentrations of 0.25, 0.75 and 1.25 vol. %.
The prepared hybrid and base (Alumina nanofluid) nanofluids were tested for their
thermophysical properties. Furthermore, pin on disc test and contact angle measurement of all the
nanofluid samples were performed to understand their tribological behaviour and spreadability,
respectively. The results revealed that the increase of nanoparticle concentration in cutting fluid
reduced the wear and the lowest wear was observed with hybrid nanofluid. Later their
performances as a cutting fluid by using minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) technique has
been evaluated during turning of AISI 304 steel in the terms of machining forces and surface
roughness and regression models have been developed for machining forces and surface
roughness. The results clearly establish that the performance of hybrid nanofluid is found to be
significantly better compare to alumina nanoparticle mixed cutting fluid.

Keywords: Hybrid; nanofluid; MQL; Al/MWCNT; MWCNT; Turning.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9711037075

E-mail address: sharmaanuj79@gmail.com
1. Introduction

During dry machining of steels, due to high degree of heat generation at the machining

zone, the cutting velocity of the tool gets restricted. Moreover, the heat affects hardness and

sharpness of the cutting tools and result in their premature breakage. Therefore, a suitable cutting

fluid becomes necessary in order to overcome these difficulties in high speed machining. The

cutting fluid plays a vital role by cooling and lubricating the cutting tool work piece interface and

washing away the chips from machining zone [1]. This conventional way of cooling, however,

serves the purpose up to an extent. The excessive use of the conventional cutting fluids pollutes

the environment and may even be hazardous for human beings. Moreover, the cutting fluid used

in machining occupies 16-20% of the cost of production in the manufacturing industry, hence the

extravagant use of conventional cutting fluids should be restricted [2].

To limit the excessive use of conventional cutting fluids, MQL/NDM (near dry machining)

has emerged as a promising technique in which a small quantity of any cutting fluid is sprayed

into the cutting zone at high pressure so that it can penetrate the machining zone properly. Braga

et al. [3] found that the MQL technique is capable of spraying cutting fluid into the cutting zone

optimally. Li and Chou [4] noticed that by using the MQL technique in milling, the tool flank

wear length in the cutting tool could be reduced up to 60% compared to dry machining. A few

researchers like Kishawy et al. [5] and Li and Lin [6] concluded that the use of the MQL

technique improves the surface finish, tool life and reduces impact of the cutting forces.

Furthermore, Bhowmick et al. [7] established that the use of MQL with fatty acid fluids provided

a performance equal to that of flooded tapping with high quality threads. Dhar et al. [8] found

that MQL jet provided reduced tool wear, improved tool life and better surface finish as
2
compared to dry and wet turning of steel. This may be attributed due to the reduction in the

cutting zone temperature and favourable changes in the chip–tool and work–tool interaction.

Khan et al. [9] used MQL in turning of AISI 9310 alloy steel and observed that MQL systems

enabled reduction in average chip–tool interface temperature up to 10% as compared to wet

machining with a substantial reduction in tool wear which in turn enhanced the tool life and

surface finish. In their opinion, it can be a viable alternative to wet machining because the MQL

technique can minimize both, the manufacturing cost and the environmental hazards.

The conventional fluids may possess good lubrication properties but poor thermal

properties possessed by them restrict their use as a cutting fluid for industrial purpose. Therefore,

to overcome this problem, nanometre-sized particles have been added into conventional fluids,

leading to the synthesis of a new generation fluids, which are called ‘nanofluids’. Tiwari et al.

[10] observed in their investigations that the nanofluids’ thermal conductivity increases with a

rise of nanoparticle (np) volumetric concentration in the base fluid. An improvement of up to

22.4% in thermal conductivity of conventional fluid at room temperature could be achieved by

adding 6 % of Al2O3 in the base fluid [11]. Yang [12] and Choi et al. [13] noticed a massive

increment of approx. 200% and 150% respectively in thermal conductivity when multi-walled

carbon nanotube (MWCNT) was added to the base fluid.

Besides thermal conductivity of cutting fluid, friction between cutting tool and work piece

interface plays a critical role in heat generation at machining zone. It increases the tool tip

temperature, and, in turn, may also decrease hardness and sharpness of the tool cutting edge. As a

result, the surface finish gets affected and the tool wear is aggravated. Sharma et al. [14] and

Singh et al. [15] reviewed various published research works on nano-cutting fluid and found that

3
mixing of nanoparticles into cutting fluid enhances its thermal conductivity, which in turn,

improves the tool life and reduces the cutting force, surface roughness and cutting temperature. It

has been found that addition of graphite nanoparticles into the base fluid enhances its tribological

property due to reduced coefficient of friction [16]. Khandekar et al. [17] used 1.0 vol.% Al2O3

nanoparticle enriched cutting fluid in turning operation and observed an improved surface quality

with a reduction in tool wear, cutting force and chip thickness compared to dry and conventional

wet machining.

Sayuti et al. [18] experimentally investigated the SiO2 nanoparticle enriched cutting fluid

in hard turning of AISI4140 steel and measured less tool wear, surface roughness with low

cutting fluid consumption. Amrita et al. [19] evaluated the performance of nano-graphite based

nano cutting fluid in turning and found that MQL method reduces the surface roughness, cutting

force, cutting temperature and tool wear by 30%, 54%, 25% and 71%, respectively, in

comparison with the conventional flood machining. Kumar and Ghosh [20] performed grinding

with MWCNT nanoparticle enriched sunflower oil based cutting fluid and observed that the

atomization of nanofluid at a low flow rate in small quantity cooling lubrication (SQCL) was

capable of offering high degree of cooling and lubrication, leading to an overall improvement in

machinability. Roy and Ghosh [21] found that 1% vol. of MWCNT and 3% vol. of alumina

showed a noticeable reduction in specific energy and cutting force. A lot of work has been

carried out in the field of machining with cutting fluids enriched with a single type of

nanoparticles and their characterization. However, to the best of author’s knowledge, very few

investigations has been performed with hybrid nanofluids (i.e. a colloidal suspension enriched by

two different types of nanoparticles).

4
 Tansen et al. [22] observed that a little inclusion of MWCNT nanoparticle into water based

alumina solution makes it a potential heat transfer fluid to transport heat efficiently. Nine et al.

[23] added MWCNT nanoparticles into alumina nanofluid in different volumetric proportions

and noticed a significant improvement in thermal conductivity. Moreover, Ahammed et al. [24]

recorded an enhancement of 88.62% in convective heat transfer coefficient and a reduction of

4.7°C in equipment temperature by the use of alumina-graphene hybrid nanofluid. Zhang et al.

[25] used MoS2-CNT hybrid nanofluid in grinding. They observed that for the same mass

fraction, MoS2-CNTs hybrid nanofluid achieved lower G ratio and surface roughness (Ra = 0.328

μm) than MoS2 and CNTs. This may be attributed to the physical collaboration of the mixed

nanoparticles. Many researchers have performed the thermo-physical characterization of hybrid

nanofluids and found that hybridization of different types of nanoparticles may enhance the

thermo-physical (Abbasi et al. [26]) and tribological (Kanthavel et al. [27]) properties of base

nanofluid. However not much significant work could be reported in literature regarding the

application of hybrid nanofluids as a cutting fluid in machining, especially in turning operation.

In the present work, a hybrid nano-cutting fluid has been developed by mixing alumina

based nanofluid with multi walled carbon nano tubes (MWCNT) in different volumetric

concentrations of 0.25, 0.75 and 1.25 vol. %. The developed nanofluids have been tested for

various thermo-physical properties followed by the study of their tribological behaviour and

spreadability. At last, their performances as a cutting fluid has been evaluated in turning of AISI

304 steel regarding machining forces and surface roughness by using minimum quantity

lubrication (MQL) technique and compared with the results achieved with that of alumina

nanoparticle mixed nanofluid.

5
2. Materials and Methods

Prior to the machining of AISI 304 steel, the prepared nano-cutting fluids were prepared

and tested for their thermo-physical properties such as thermal conductivity, specific heat,

viscosity and density at different temperatures to understand their thermo-physical behaviour.

2.1 Preparation and characterization of nanofluids

The commercially available colloidal suspension containing 23% of Al2O3 nanoparticles

(spherical shape, 45 nm diameter) in water, was procured from Alfa Aesar®. The surfactant

CTAB (Cetyl trimethylammonium bromide) was already added to the suspension by the

manufacturer. The base fluid was prepared by mixing 5 vol. % vegetable oil in distilled water and

the detergent in 0.5 vol. % was used as an emulsifier to get stable emulsion of base fluid. The

hybrid (Al2O3/MWCNT) nanofluid was prepared by mixing Al2O3 with MWCNT (cylindrical

shape, 3-15 walls, 5-20 nm outer dia; 2-6 nm inner dia and 1-10 μm in length) nanoparticles in

volumetric ratio of 90:10 in the base fluid in three volumetric concentrations (0.25%, 0.75% and

1.25% vol.). However, before finalizing the range of concentration of nanoparticles, the author

have conducted several pilot experiments. The authors observed that the machining forces were

reduced with the increase of nanoparticle concentration and when the concentration reached 1

vol. %, the reduction in machining forces was not significant. Therefore, in present investigation,

the nanoparticle range of 0.25 to 1.25 vol. % is selected. The TEM images (Fig. 1) of nanofluids

confirm the size of nanoparticles present in various nano-cutting fluids.

6
 (a)

(c)

Fig.1 TEM images of (a) Alumina (b) MWCNT nanofluid and (c) Al-MWCNT hybrid
nanofluid [28]
The prepared nano fluids were kept in ultrasonicator (Toshiba, India), generating 100W

ultrasonic pulses at 36±3 kHz at a stretch for 6 hours to get a homogeneous and stable

suspension. A fresh nano-cutting fluid sample was developed for each test and used immediately

to avoid possible agglomeration/sedimentation. The prepared hybrid nanofluid samples were

tested for four thermo physical properties (thermal conductivity, viscosity, specific heat and

density) at five temperatures: 25, 35, 40, 45 and 50 °C. The effect of nanoparticle concentration

on its properties was also studied. A transient hot wire apparatus (Decagon Devices, Inc., USA)

was used to determine nanofluids’ thermal conductivity. The viscosity of various nanofluids was
7
measured with the help of digital viscometer equipped with a temperature bath which sets the

temperature of nanofluid at different values. Additionally, for assessment of nanofluids’ specific

heat capacity, differential scanning calorimetry (Setaram C80D) was used.

Figs 2(a-b) clearly illustrate that the increase of nanoparticle concentration and temperature

both enhances the thermal conductivity of nanofluid as well as hybrid nanofluid. Al-MWCNT

hybrid nanofluid shows a significant improvement of 11.13% in thermal conductivity over base

fluid (Fig.2a).

Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid Nanoparticle concentration 1.25 vol.%

0.72
Thermal conductivity ratio (Knf/Kbase)

1.125 Al2O3 nanofluid Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

Al2O3 nanofluid

Thermal conductivity (W/mK)

0.70

1.100
Temperature 50 Deg C Base fluid
0.68

1.075
0.66

1.050 0.64

0.62
1.025

0.60
1.000 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Temperature (Deg C)
Nanoparticle concentration (vol. %)
(b)
(a)
Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid Temperature 50 C
0
1.2
Nanoparticle concentration 1.25%
1.40
Al2O3 nanofluid
1.35
Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid
1.1
Base fluid
Viscosity ratio (vnf/vbase)

1.30 Al2O3 nanofluid

1.0
1.25
Viscosity (cP)

0.9
1.20

1.15 0.8

1.10
0.7

1.05
0.6
1.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
0.5
Nanoparticle concentration (vol. %) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
Temperature ( C)
(c) (d)

8
 o Nanoparticle concentration 1.25%
1.03
Temperature 50 C Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid 4400
Al2O3 nanofluid Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid
1.02
Base fluid
1.01 4300
Al2O3 nanofluid
Sp heat ratio (Cp-nf/Cp-base)

1.00

Specific heat Cp (J/kg K)

0.99
4200
0.98
0.97
4100
0.96
0.95
0.94 4000

0.93
0.92 3900
0.91
0.90
3800
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Nanoparticle concentration (vol. %) 0
Temperature ( C)

(e) (f)
Nanoparticle concentration 1.25%
0 1060
1.04 Temperature 50 C Al-MWCNT hubrid nanofluid
Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid 1050 Base fluid
Al2O3 nanofluid Al2O3 nanofluid
Relative density (nf/base)

1040
1.03

Density (Kg/m )
1030

3
1020
1.02

1010

1000
1.01

990

980
1.00
20 25 30 35 40
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 45 50 55 60
Temperature ( C)
Nanoparticle concentration (vol. %)

(g) (h)

Fig.2. (a) Thermal conductivity as a function of nanoparticles concentration and (b) temperature,
(c) Viscosity as a function of nanoparticles concentration and (d) temperature, (e) Specific heat
as a function of nanoparticles concentration and (f) temperature, (g) Density as a function of
nanoparticles concentration and (h) temperature [28]

The nano-cutting fluids showed a decrease in viscosity with increase of temperature. Fig

2(c) clearly shows an enhancement of 15.19%, 12.17% and 28.65% in viscosity of Al-MWCNT

hybrid nanofluid for concentration of 0.25%, 0.75% and 1.25%, respectively. Al-MWCNT at

1.0% vol. yields an increment of 28.65% in viscosity almost comparable to the data associated

with Al2O3 nanofluid (22%). This small increment in viscosity can be well compensated with the

significant increase of thermal conductivity (almost 11.12%) of hybrid nanofluid. This

observation clearly reveals that an increase of nanoparticle concentration enhances both, the
9
viscosity and thermal conductivity. Thermal conductivity positively affects the cooling of the

tool-work piece interface while higher viscosity affects negatively (pressure drop due to high

viscosity) during spray of nano-cutting fluid with the MQL method. It can be concluded from the

results of Fig. 2(d) that both alumina and its hybrid nanofluid have shown a reduction in viscosity

with rise of temperature largely following the behaviour of pure water for small particle content.

Furthermore, nanofluids’ specific heat and density variation were measured. As far as specific

heat ratio (ratio of specific heat of hybrid nanofluid to the specific heat of base fluid) is

concerned, Al-MWCNT showed an increment of 1.22 %, 0% and reduction of 1.1%, respectively

at 0.25, 0.75 and 1.25 vol. %. However, the Al2O3 mixed nanofluid possessed a reduction of

1.65%, 2% and 3.4% in specific heat for same nanoparticle concentrations (Fig. 2(e)). Fig. 2(f)

presents the variation of specific heat with temperature at a fixed nanoparticle concentration of

1.25 vol. % for different cutting fluids. The specific heat of different nanofluids was found to be

increased with an increase of temperature. The density was calculated by weighing a known

volume of the nanofluid. As far as relative density (ratio of density of hybrid nanofluid to the

density of base fluid) is concerned, Al2O3 mixed nanofluid recorded an increment of 1.8%, 2.9%

and 3.6%, respectively at 0.25, 0.75 and 1.25 vol. %. However, Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

possesses an increment of 1.11%, 1.8% and 2.9% in density at same nanoparticle concentrations

as shown in Fig. 2(g).

2.2 Tribology testing of nano-cutting fluids

The experiments were performed on a pin on disc wear and friction tester TR-20 (Ducom,

India) with maximum speed and load capacity of 2000 RPM and 1000 N, respectively, to

understand the tribological behaviour of nanofluids. The complete experimental setup is

10
illustrated in Fig. 3. The cylindrical pin (Dia. 3 mm, length 40 mm) and disc (pitch circle dia.

155 mm) made up of AISI 304 steel were used in this experiment. During the experiments, the

load, linear speed and time were kept constant at 40 N, 1 m/s and 5 min, respectively. The

sliding track of pin was changed after each run to ensure the availability of fresh surface to next

run and to maintain the constant sliding speed, RPM of the disc were changed accordingly. The

developed nanofluid samples were sprayed at the sliding zone by using MQL technique at a

pressure of 4 bar. The steel disc was cleaned with acetone after each run to ensure smooth and

clean disc surface.

(b) (c)
(a)

Fig.3. (a) Pin-on-disc experimental setup (b) Pin-on-disc machine (c) closed view of
sliding pin on rotating disc
Two different nanofluids namely Al2O3 and Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid in three

volumetric concentrations (0.25, 0.75 and 1.25 vol. %) and base fluid (5 vol. % oil-water

emulsion) were used as a lubricant during the wear testing. The wear of steel pin as a function of

nanoparticle concentration for different lubricating conditions is depicted in Fig. 4(a). A

reduction in wear was observed with an increase of nanoparticle concentration for each

nanofluid. This may be attributed to the formation of a nano-layer between the sliding surfaces

of pin and disc, and intensity of layer could be enhanced by the presence of more number of

nanoparticles at higher concentrations. Furthermore, a higher rate of wear was observed initially,

and after some time the amount of wear stabilises for all the nanofluids’ samples as illustrated in
11
Fig. 4(b). It can further be observed that Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid exhibits significantly

improved lubricating property followed by alumina mixed nanofluid and much better than base

fluid.

Al2O3 nanofluid Nanoparticle concentration

600 600
Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid 1.25 vol%
550
Al2O3 nanofluid
500
Base fluid
500

450

Wear (micrometer)
400 400
Wear (micrometer)

350
300 300

250
200 200

150
100 100

50
0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Nanoparticle concentration (vol %) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Base fluid mist Nanoparticle concetration
0.7 Al2O3 nanofluid mist 1.25 vol.%
Al-MWCNT nanofluid mist
0.6 Dry condition
Ball-bearing
Coefficient of friction

0.5
PIN effect by
0.4

0.3
Nanoparticles
0.2

0.1
DISC
0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (sec)
(d)
(c)
Fig.4. (a) Wear of AISI 304 pin as a function of nanoparticle concentration of different
nanofluids [28] (b) Variation of wear with time for different lubricating mediums [28] (c)
Coefficient of friction for different lubricating mediums (d) Ball-bearing effect caused due to the
nanoparticles entrapment between sliding surfaces

Fig. 4(c) depicts that Al-MWCNT possesses the lowest coefficient of friction followed by

alumina nanofluid. This lower value of the coefficient of friction reduced the friction force and

hence the machining forces. Fig. 5 presents the FESEM images of the sliding surface of the pin

during the pin-on-disc experiment for various lubricating mediums at a magnification of 100X

12
and 1.00 KX. A noticeable difference in the quality of surfaces is observed. Moreover, it can

easily be noticed that best surface is seen in the case of Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid and

therefore, proves it to be the superior lubricant than alumina nanofluid.

Sliding scar

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

13
 (g) (h)

Fig. 5. FESEM images of pin wear under (a-b) dry (c-d) base fluid (e-f) [28] Al2O3 (g-h) [28]
Al-MWCNT nanofluids in pin-on-disc test
2.3 Measurement of contact angle for nano-cutting fluids

The wettability characteristics of any cutting fluid can be determined by the measurement

of the contact angle between the solid surface and the droplet. The determination of contact angle

is often based on Young’s [29] contact angle equation (Eq. 1). This equation explains an

equilibrium force balance at three phase (air as the third phase) interface as shown in Fig. 6(c).

The equilibrium thermodynamic contact angle is given by:

𝜎𝑠𝑣 ― 𝜎𝑠𝑙
cos 𝜃 = 𝜎𝑙𝑣
(1)

Where θ is equilibrium contact angle, σlv, σsv and σsl are liquid-vapour, solid-vapour, and

solid-liquid interfacial tensions, respectively.

(b)

14

(a)
 (c)

Fig. 6. (a) Contact angle measurement setup (b) closed view of dropper and carbide tool
(c) Schematic diagram showing a liquid droplet on solid surface [28]
The free energy of a system depends on the intermolecular force potentials of constituent

molecules/atoms which give rise to surface tension phenomenon. Also, the net surface tension of

any liquid strongly depends on Van der Walls forces (Khandekar et al., [17]). These forces have

interaction length scale of nanometre size, equivalent to that of nanoparticle size. So it is

expected that addition of nanoparticles affects the net free energy of a pure liquid-solid-air

interface. For testing this hypothesis, the spreadability of all nanofluids (nanofluids of different

nanoparticle concentrations i.e. 0%, 0.75%, and 1.25%) was determined by the measurement of

the macroscopic contact angle between the fluid droplet and cemented carbide tool insert

surface. The contact angle measurement setup is illustrated in Fig. 6(a). The drop shape analyzer

25 (KRUSS make) equipped with inbuilt software DSA-4 was used to measure the contact angle

(θ). The cutting tool (carbide insert) surface was placed over the equipment table exposed to

room temperature for some time to achieve equillibrium condition. Then, using syringe (needle

OD 0.5 mm) the 10 µl cutting fluid sample was accurately and carefully dropped on the tool

15
surface of cutting tool and allowed the drop to get stabilize for some time. The contact angle of

drop formed with the tool surface was measured precisely by the inbuilt software followed by the

image captured by the camera attached with the instrument.

Base fluid
70
Al-MWCNT hybrid nofluid
Al2O3 nanofluid
60

50
Contact angle (deg)

40

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Nanopartcile concentration (vol%)

Fig. 7. Contact angle as a function of nanoparticle concentration of different cutting fluids

Figure 7 clearly shows that wettability (contact angle) of nano-cutting fluid is affected

significantly by the addition of nanoparticles. As nanoparticle concentration increases from 0%

to 1. 5 %, the contact angle reduces gradually. However, it is noticed that after 1.25%, the

reduction in contact angle is not significant. The similar findings are reported in the investigation

carried out by Chinnam et al. [30] in which Al2O3 nanofluid samples were investigated regarding

its contact angle as a function of nanoparticle concentration and temperature. Moreover, the

results are justified by the findings of [29-30] who noticed an increase in contact diameter

(spreading of the droplet) with an increase of nanoparticle concentration in the conventional

fluid. The lower contact angle for Al-MWCNT and alumina nanofluids are recorded at higher

concontrations, which results in more wetting area per unit liquid volume. The contact angle for
16
base fluid was recorded as 54.9º, which is much higher as compared to the contact angle

measured for each nanofluid. So it improves the heat extraction and lubricating properties

compared to base fluid. The findings are in good agreement with the results obtained in previous

investigations [17] and [33].

2.4 Experimental setup

Turning of AISI 304 steel was carried out on HMT (model NH 22/1500) lathe machine

under mist of different nanofluids using MQL technique. The pictorial view of experiment setup

is shown in Fig. 8(a). The coated cemented carbide insert (Widia's CCMT 09T304-TN2000) was

mechanically clamped on a rigid tool holder (widax SCLCR1212F09 D 3J). The MQL system

involves a compressor, a flow controlling unit, an air-dryer and a spray nozzle. The nanofluid

flow rate and air supply pressure for MQL system were set at 2.5 ml/min and 4 bar, respectively.

A discharge nozzle was placed at a distance of 5 cm just above the rake face of cutting tool,

capable of impinging mist vertically downward on tool as depicted in Fig. 8(b). As a result, the

mist of synthesized nano-cutting fluid effectively falls in the cutting zone.

5
5
9 7 2
1
6 3

8
1 10

(a)

(b)
17
 1. HMT Lathe (NH22) machine 6. Force display unit
2. Microprocessor based speed controller 7. MQL unit
3. Spray nozzle 8. Air dryer
4. Kistler force dynamometer 9. Air compressor
5. Kistler charge amplifier 10. Carbide cutting insert

Fig. 8(a) Pictorial view of experimental setup (b) closed view of machining zone

The experiments were conducted in triplicate and the average of the values was considered.

Cutting forces were calculated by using three-component piezoelectric Kistler dynamometer

(Type 9047CNK). For analysis, mean values of the cutting forces were noted over a regular

interval of time. The average surface roughness (Ra) of the work piece was measured by Surftest

SJ-210 (Mitutoya make) after every turning operation under different machining environments.

This exercise was repeated at six reference points at 60° angle on the cylindrical surface of the

work piece. Surftest SJ-210 is a contact-type measuring instrument with a probe (having

diamond tip of 2µm-radius) that is able to travel on the work piece surface. The instrument has a

measuring range of 360 µm (-200 µm to 160 µm), measuring speed of 0.25 mm/sec, probe

returning speed of 1 mm/sec and cut off length of 0.08 mm.

2.5 Experimental Design

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) usually consists of various statistical techniques

which model and analyse the problems pertaining to number of responses influenced by different

variables. It has two objectives: first is to correlate responses and variables empirically and

secondly, the optimization of various responses. The RSM identifies and fits a suitable response

surface model using experimental data recorded under an appropriate statistical experimental

design. Generally, a model of second order is adopted in RSM [34]. A second-order model is
18
preferred over first order model as the latter model possesses a lack of fit because of interaction

between surface curvature and response variables. However, second order model may improve

the process of optimization as it involves the interaction between variables and responses. A

general second-order model is defined as

𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛
𝑦 = 𝑎𝑜 + ∑𝑖 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑥𝑖 + ∑𝑖 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑥2𝑖 + ∑𝑖 = 1∑𝑗 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗 :𝑖˂𝑗 (2)

Where, a0 is the constant and ai, aii and aij are respectively, the coefficients of first-order

(linear), second-order (quadratic) and cross-product terms. The term xi and xj represent the input

variables.

Many researchers have used statistical analysis in various machining processes under

different cooling techniques. Das et al. [35] statistically analysed the machining characteristics of

EN-24 alloy steel during dry hard turning with multilayer coated cermet inserts. Khan and Maity

[36] have developed the models for machinability assessment of commercially available pure

titanium (CP-Ti) grade II using statistical techniques. Moreover, Parida and Maity [37]

developed a model of machining parameters affecting flank wear and surface roughness using

RSM. Therefore, in the present investigation the input variables were optimized by RSM, using a

Box-Behnken design to get the optimized value of response parameters. A total number of 27

trials along with three center points were executed. The experiments were performed

independently in triplicates, and the average values were presented as the response. The process

variable (input machining parameters) with their values on different levels are listed in Table 1.

The Design Expert 10.0 was applied for the Box-Behnken experimental design, regression

analysis of the experimental data, quadratic model buildings and to plot three-dimensional

19
response surface plots. The coefficient of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 were used to check

the quality of fit for the second order polynomial equation. The optimization of the levels for

each variable for the desirable response was carried out by point optimization method. The

combination of different optimized input variables, which yielded the desired value of the

response, was determined in an attempt to verify the validity of the model. At last, validation

experiments were performed to check the adequacy of the experimental setup. Table 2

summarizes the experimental design with run order and output in the terms of four response

parameters for alumina based nanofluid and its hybrid nanofluids.

Table 1 Control factors and their levels

Control factor Symbol Units Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Cutting speed V m/min 60 90 120
Cutting feed f mm/rev 0.08 0.12 0.16
Depth of cut d mm 0.6 0.9 1.2
Nanoparticle np Vol. % 0.25 0.75 1.25
concentration

Table 2 Experimental run and responses for alumina based nanofluid and Al-MWCNT hybrid
nanofluid.

Run Machining Parameters Al2O3 nanofluid Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

v F d np Ra Ra
Fz (N) Fy (N) Fx (N) Fz (N) Fy (N) Fx (N)
(m/min) (mm/rev) (mm) (%vol.) (µm) (µm)
1 90 0.16 1.2 0.75 527.275 287.955 103.296 2.712 481.425 246.125 92.943 1.89
2 60 0.12 1.2 0.75 475.335 259.26 94.389 2.367 428.876 221.62 83.805 1.65
3 120 0.12 0.9 1.25 314.111 240.305 76.872 1.474 284.676 217.935 87.576 0.91
4 60 0.12 0.6 0.75 256.83 181.665 56.955 2.234 226.821 155.26 58.665 1.56
5 90 0.12 0.9 0.75 361.039 222.605 74.799 1.978 329.644 190.325 71.871 1.38
6 60 0.12 0.9 0.25 444.668 243.62 89.136 2.456 445.564 225.335 85.089 1.71
7 120 0.12 1.2 0.75 479.339 292.275 95.082 1.823 433.657 249.825 94.344 1.27
8 120 0.08 0.9 0.75 241.584 217.98 54.363 1.568 236.705 189.315 72.939 1.09
9 90 0.08 1.2 0.75 350.378 218.465 72.969 1.656 311.346 186.725 70.542 1.15
10 60 0.08 0.9 0.75 260.687 174.92 62.802 1.824 242.571 149.615 53.466 1.27
11 90 0.12 0.9 0.75 347.774 217.415 72.525 1.945 317.534 185.81 70.173 1.36
12 120 0.12 0.9 0.25 395.178 221.66 82.032 1.856 368.235 189.48 86.562 1.29
13 90 0.12 1.2 1.25 464.884 247.205 92.619 1.901 424.466 209.875 83.046 1.33
14 90 0.12 0.9 0.75 381.591 230.725 78.462 1.911 315.217 197.185 74.475 1.33
15 60 0.16 0.9 0.75 441.945 254.43 88.659 2.973 356.111 217.465 74.262 2.08
16 120 0.12 0.6 0.75 173.075 148.785 42.576 1.899 158.606 137.17 48.039 1.32
17 90 0.12 0.6 0.25 218.995 166.87 50.439 2.034 184.541 142.625 53.856 1.42
20
18 90 0.08 0.6 0.75 138.866 95.415 36.702 1.611 114.716 81.585 30.795 1.12
19 90 0.08 0.9 0.25 297.045 197.475 63.825 2.197 245.385 168.825 63.768 1.53
20 90 0.08 0.9 1.25 253.575 180.415 56.388 1.527 209.475 154.22 52.239 1.06
21 60 0.12 0.9 1.25 335.685 195.16 69.441 2.116 312.305 171.785 68.652 1.48
22 90 0.12 1.2 0.25 484.204 271.07 95.919 2.111 400.001 231.69 87.495 1.47
23 90 0.12 0.6 1.25 199.234 159.06 47.046 1.899 164.591 135.945 51.348 1.32
24 90 0.16 0.6 0.75 236.684 173.775 53.469 2.656 195.524 148.56 56.079 1.85
25 90 0.16 0.9 1.25 412.965 243.08 83.775 2.455 341.145 197.715 78.456 1.71
26 90 0.16 0.9 0.25 449.211 257.27 89.922 2.745 371.105 219.93 83.049 1.92
27 120 0.16 0.9 0.75 435.785 276.065 84.102 2.499 304.129 223.14 84.282 1.65

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Machining with alumina nanoparticle mixed cutting fluid

The variance analysis of response parameters was made with the objective of analysing the

influence of nanoparticle inclusion on the obtained results. This analysis was carried out at a

confidence level of 95% (i.e. 5% significance level). The AVOVA results shows that V, f, d and

np all have significant effect on the main cutting force. It can be found from analysis result that

np and its interaction with speed have a significant effect on thrust force and feed force. ANOVA

results of surface roughness (Ra) for Al2O3 nanofluid establishes that feed is the most significant

factor associated with surface roughness, because its increase generates helicoids and these

helicoids become broader and deeper with the increase of feed rate. Similar findings were

observed by Bouacha et al. [38] in their investigations. The relationship between input variables

and response parameters are modelled by quadratic regression. From the regression models of

cutting force (Fz), feed force (Fy), thrust force (Fx), and the surface roughness (Ra) the coefficient

of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 were recorded as 98.14, 97.2, 98.76, 95.73, and 95.98,

93.93, 97.32, 90.75, respectively.

The response surfaces are drawn (Fig. 9) to investigate the influence of nanoparticle

concentration on various response variables. Figs. 9 (a-b) show that lowest cutting forces were

recorded with the combination of highest nanoparticle concentration and lowest feed rate, and

highest concentration and lowest depth of cut, respectively as reported by earlier researchers.
21
Furthermore, Fig. 9(c) shows the estimated responses surface for Ra in relation to nanoparticle

concentration and cutting speed, while the feed and depth of cut are kept at middle level. The

lowest surface roughness was achieved with a combination of highest nanoparticle concentration

and highest cutting speed. It can be deduced from Fig. 9(d) that lowest roughness was achieved

with a combination of highest nanoparticle concentration and lowest feed rate.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Estimated response surface plots for Alumina nanoparticle concentration (np) and (a) Fz
versus f (b) Fz versus d (c) Ra versus V and (d) Ra versus f

3.2 Machining with Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

22
 The Similar ANOVA analysis was again carried out at a confidence level of 95% for

cutting force (Fz), thrust force (Fy), feed force (Fx) and surface roughness (Ra) for Al-MWCNT

hybrid nanofluid. Results clearly indicate that np has a significant effect on cutting force. The np

and its interaction with cutting speed affects thrust and feed force remarkably. The ANOVA

results for surface roughness revealed that np has a significant effect on surface roughness but

depth of cut does not affect roughness in considerable way and can be ignored. Furthermore,

from the regression models of cutting force (Fz), feed force (Fy), thrust force (Fx), surface

roughness (Ra) the coefficient of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 were recorded as 95.9,

97.45, 97.44, 95.16, and 91.12, 94.48, 94.45, 89.51, respectively.

The response surfaces depicted in Figs. 10(a-b) show that lowest cutting forces were

recorded with the combination of highest nanoparticle concentration and lowest feed rate, and

highest concentration and lowest depth of cut, respectively as reported by earlier researchers.

Furthermore, Fig. 10 (c) shows the estimated responses surface for Ra in relation to nanoparticle

concentration and cutting speed, while the feed and depth of cut are kept at middle level. The

lowest surface roughness was achieved with a combination of highest nanoparticle concentration

and highest cutting speed. It can be deduced from Fig. 10(d) that lowest roughness could be

achieved with a combination of highest nanoparticle concentration and lowest feed rate.

23
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 10. Estimated response surface plots for Al-MWCNT nanoparticle concentration (np) and
(a) Fz versus f (b) Fz versus d (c) Ra versus V and (d) Ra versus f

3.3 Machining forces

Table 3 shows that the lowest machining forces were recorded by using Al-MWCNT

hybrid nanofluid. This may attributed to the lowest coefficient of friction generated in the case of

Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid as shown in Fig. 4(c) which depicts that Al-MWCNT possesses

the lowest coefficient of friction. This lower value of the coefficient of friction reduced the

friction force and hence the machining forces. The nanoparticles enriched cutting fluid forms a

24
thin layer between the tool and work piece as described in Singh et al. [39]. Sharma et al. [40]

discussed the synergistic effect of hybrid nanoparticles entrapped between the sliding surfaces of

cutting tool and work piece. The discussed mechanism might be responsible in reducing all the

three components of machining forces. Additionally, the thermo-physical properties of Al-

MWCNT hybrid are found to be better as compared to alumina mixed nanofluid [32] which

might helped in keeping the tool temperature within the permissible range recommended by the

manufacturer so as to sustain the tool’s hardness. Moreover, the increase of nanoparticle

concentration enhances the wettability with increase of concentration value as discussed in [30].

3.4 Surface roughness

Sharma et al. [41] in their study observed that two effects of nanofluids namely (a)

surface enhancement effect (mending/polishing) and (b) direct effect (sliding /rolling /filming)

affect the performance of the machining processes positively. In present work, the lowest surface

roughness could be achieved by the use of Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid as illustrated in Table

3. The probable reason may be the reduced coefficient of friction and better thermo-physical

properties. Because of higher thermal conductivity and specific heat of Al-MWCNT hybrid

nanofluid compare to other nanofluids, the temperature rise could remain under control which

helped the tool to sustain its hardness and hence the sharpness of cutting edge. Moreover, a

noticeable difference in the quality of surfaces (pin on disc test) could be observed in Fig. 5,

which clearly illustrates that best surface could be generated in the case of Al-MWCNT hybrid

nanofluid and hence proves it to be the superior lubricant than alumina nanofluid.

25
 40

% Variation in responce parameters

30

Reference line (y=0) indicates

20
Al2O3 nanofluid's performance
w.r.t alumina (%)
10 Fz Fy Fx Ra

-10

13.6%
-20
20.2% 21.3%
-30
Response parameters 33.4%
-40

Fig. 11. Effect of Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid on response parameters compare to alumina

nanofluid

For validation, three runs for each response were conducted, and the average was

considered for its comparison with the optimized values. The experimental values tabulated in

Table 3 are in good agreement (approx. ±5% variation except Fx) with the optimized values of

responses. The variation in results of validation experiments and optimized results for Fz, Fy, Fx

and Ra was recorded as 4.61%, 3.47%, 8.2%, and 4.84%, respectively. Therefore it can be

concluded that the experimental setup and regression models are valid for turning operation in

the range of parameters selected for alumina-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid.

Table 3 Responses of validation experiments for Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

Response Test v (m/min) f (mm/rev) d np Exp. Exp. Optimized %

parameter run (mm) (vol.%) value (Avg.) value Deviation
1 112.37
Fz 2 106.8 0.08 0.62 1.1 108.85 110.20 105.34 4.61
3 109.38
1 87.33
Fy 2 61.1 0.08 0.6 1.25 83.44 85.48 82.61 3.47
3 85.67
26
 1 33.05
Fx 2 74.8 0.08 0.62 1.24 32.13 32.86 30.37 8.2
3 33.39
1 0.928
Ra 2 113.4 0.08 0.8 1.23 1.017 0.953 0.909 4.84
3 0.913

The values of response parameters (Fz, Fy, Fx, and Ra) recorded during the machining using

alumina and its hybrid nanofluid are tabulated as shown in Table 4. Results clearly reveal that

Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid performed better as compared to alumina nanofluids regarding Fz,

Fy, Fx, and Ra. Fig. 11 depicts that the use of Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid has shown a

significant reduction of 20.2%, 21.25%, 13.57%, and 33.35%, in Fz, Fy, Fx, and Ra, respectively

over alumina nanoparticle mixed nanofluid. This may be attributed due to the better thermo-

physical and tribological properties and spreadability exhibited by Al-MWCNT hybrid

nanofluid.

Table 4 Performance comparison of different nanofluids

Nano-cutting Cutting Thrust Feed force Roughness

fluid force (Fz) force (Fy) (Fx) (Ra)
(N) (N) (N) (μm)
Al2O3 138.09 108.55 38.02 1.430
Al- MWCNT 110.20 85.48 32.86 0.953

4. Conclusions

Present study investigates the machining performance of different nanofluids regarding

machining forces (Fz, Fy and Fx), and surface roughness (Ra). The Al2O3 mixed nanofluid was

selected for getting hybridized with MWCNT in a volumetric ratio of 90:10 to develop Al-

MWCNT hybrid nanofluid. The optimization of different machining input variables (cutting

velocity, feed rate, depth of cut and nanoparticle concentration) for response parameters using

27
Al2O3 and its hybrid nanofluid (Al-MWCNT) with RSM technique was performed. Prior to the

experiments, the required thermo physical properties (thermal conductivity, viscosity, density

and specific heat) of all nanofluids were measured for different nanoparticle volume

concentrations such as 0.25, 0.75, and 1.25 vol. % at various temperatures 25, 30, 35, 45 and 50

ºC. Based on results and discussion, the following conclusions can be made:

 The thermal conductivity of all studied nanofluids increases with an increase of temperature as

well as particle volume fraction.

 An enhancement of 11.13% and 9.85% in thermal conductivity were recorded for 1.25 vol. %

Al-MWCNT and 1.25 vol. % alumina based nanofluids, respectively over base fluid.

 The effective viscosity of all the nanofluids is found to increase with an increase in the

particle volume fraction and decrease with an increase in the temperature.

 The amount of wear of pin material decreases with increase in the concentration of Al2O3

mixed nanofluid as well as Al-MWCNT hybrid mixed nanofluid over base fluid. 1.25 vol. %

Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid yields minimum amount of wear.

 The minimum value of coefficient of friction could be recorded by using 1.25 vol. % Al-

MWCNT hybrid nanofluid followed by alumina nanofluid and much lower than base fluid.

 Both of nanofluids has demonstrated a significant reduction in contact angle with increase of

nanoparticle concentration up to a certain limiting value of concentration i.e. 1.0 vol. % for

Alumina and 1.25 vol. % for Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid.

 Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid has shown a remarkable improvement in machining

performances over its base nanofluid (i.e. Al2O3 mixed nanofluid). A noticeable reduction of

20.2%, 21.3%, 13.6%, and 33.4 in Fz, Fx, Fy, and Ra, respectively, could be achieved by using

28
 Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid over Al2O3 mixed nanofluid.

 With the use of Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid as a cutting fluid, the lowest values of 110.20

N, 85.48 N, 32.86 N, and 0.953 µm, respectively, could be recorded for cutting force, thrust

force, feed force, and surface roughness.

Researchers so far have given more attention to nanofluids containing a single type

nanoparticles. This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of hybridization of two different

nanofluids in a fixed volumetric ratio (90:10). Therefore, further investigations can be attempted

focusing on combinations of various nanoparticles (hybrid nanoparticles) in different

proportions. Furthermore, the optimization of nanoparticle volume fraction can also be included

in future research. The investigation can further be extended to examine the effect of nanoparticle

size, shape and their concentration on machining performance parameters. The optimization of

various MQL parameters, such as nozzle orientation, its distance and nanofluid flow rate and air

pressure can also be included in future research.

References

[1] M.A. El Baradie, Cutting fluids: Part I. Characterisation, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 56

(1996) 786–797. doi:10.1016/0924-0136(95)01892-1.

[2] P.S. Sreejith, B.K.A. Ngoi, Dry machining: Machining of the future, J. Mater. Process.

Technol. 101 (2000) 287–291. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00445-3.

[3] D.U. Braga, A.E. Diniz, G.W.A. Miranda, N.L. Coppini, Using a minimum quantity of

lubricant (MQL) and a diamond coated tool in the drilling of aluminum–silicon alloys, J.

Mater. Process. Technol. 122 (2002) 127–138. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-

0136(01)01249-3.
29
[4] K.-M. Li, S.-Y. Chou, Experimental evaluation of minimum quantity lubrication in near

micro-milling, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2010) 2163–2170.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.07.031.

[5] H.A. Kishawy, M. Dumitrescu, E.G. Ng, M.A. Elbestawi, Effect of coolant strategy on

tool performance, chip morphology and surface quality during high-speed machining of

A356 aluminum alloy, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 (2005) 219–227.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.07.003.

[6] K.M. Li, C.P. Lin, Study on minimum quantity lubrication in micro-grinding, Int. J. Adv.

Manuf. Technol. 62 (2012) 99–105. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3789-1.

[7] S. Bhowmick, M.J. Lukitsch, A.T. Alpas, Tapping of Al-Si alloys with diamond-like

carbon coated tools and minimum quantity lubrication, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210

(2010) 2142–2153. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.07.032.

[8] N.R. Dhar, M. Kamruzzaman, M. Ahmed, Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL)

on tool wear and surface roughness in turning AISI-4340 steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol.

172 (2006) 299–304. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.09.022.

[9] M.M.A. Khan, M.A.H. Mithu, N.R. Dhar, Effects of minimum quantity lubrication on

turning AISI 9310 alloy steel using vegetable oil-based cutting fluid, J. Mater. Process.

Technol. 209 (2009) 5573–5583. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.05.014.

[10] A.K. Tiwari, G. Pradyumna, S. Jahar, Investigation of thermal conductivity and viscosity

of nanofluids, J. Environ. Res. Dev. 7 (2012) 768–777.

http://www.jerad.org/ppapers/dnload.php?vl=7&is=2&st=768.

[11] R.S. Vajjha, D.K. Das, A review and analysis on influence of temperature and

30
 concentration of nanofluids on thermophysical properties, heat transfer and pumping

power, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55 (2012) 4063–4078.

doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.048.

[12] Y. Yang, Carbon nanofluids for lubricant application, University of Kentucky, Lexington,

KY, 2006.

[13] S.U.S. Choi, Z.G. Zhang, W. Yu, F.E. Lockwood, E.A. Grulke, Anomalous thermal

conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (2001) 2252–

2254. doi:doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1408272.

[14] A.K. Sharma, A.K. Tiwari, A.R. Dixit, Progress of Nanofluid Application in Machining:

A Review, Mater. Manuf. Process. 30 (2015) 813–828.

doi:10.1080/10426914.2014.973583.

[15] R.K. Singh, A.R. Dixit, A. Mandal, A.K. Sharma, Emerging application of nanoparticle-

enriched cutting fluid in metal removal processes: a review, J. Brazilian Soc. Mech. Sci.

Eng. 39 (2017) 4677–4717. doi:10.1007/s40430-017-0839-0.

[16] C.-G. Lee, Y.-J. Hwang, Y.-M. Choi, J.-K. Lee, C. Choi, J.-M. Oh, A study on the

tribological characteristics of graphite nano lubricants, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 10

(2009) 85–90. doi:10.1007/s12541-009-0013-4.

[17] S. Khandekar, M.R. Sankar, V. Agnihotri, J. Ramkumar, Nano-Cutting Fluid for

Enhancement of Metal Cutting Performance, Mater. Manuf. Process. 27 (2012) 963–967.

doi:10.1080/10426914.2011.610078.

[18] M. Sayuti, A.A.D. Sarhan, F. Salem, Novel uses of SiO2 nano-lubrication system in hard

turning process of hardened steel AISI4140 for less tool wear, surface roughness and oil

31
 consumption, J. Clean. Prod. 67 (2014) 265–276. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.052.

[19] M. Amrita, R.R. Srikant, a. V. Sitaramaraju, Performance Evaluation of Nanographite-

Based Cutting Fluid in Machining Process, Mater. Manuf. Process. 29 (2014) 600–605.

doi:10.1080/10426914.2014.893060.

[20] K. Manojkumar, A. Ghosh, Assessment of cooling-lubrication and wettability

characteristics of nano-engineered sunflower oil as cutting fluid and its impact on SQCL

grinding performance, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 237 (2016) 55–64.

doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.05.030.

[21] S. Roy, A. Ghosh, High Speed Turning of AISI 4140 Steel Using Nanofluid through Twin

Jet SQL Syatem, in: ASME 2013 Int. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Conf. MSEC2013, 2016: pp. 1–6.

[22] M.R. Tanshen, S. Lee, J. Kim, D. Kang, J. Noh, H. Chung, H. Jeong, S. Huh, Pressure

distribution inside oscillating heat pipe charged with aqueous Al2O3 nanoparticles,

MWCNTs and their hybrid, J. Cent. South Univ. 21 (2014) 2341–2348.

doi:10.1007/s11771-014-2186-y.

[23] M.J. Nine, M. Batmunkh, J.-H. Kim, H.-S. Chung, H.-M. Jeong, Investigation of Al2O3-

MWCNTs Hybrid Dispersion in Water and Their Thermal Characterization, J. Nanosci.

Nanotechnol. 12 (2012) 4553–4559. doi:10.1166/jnn.2012.6193.

[24] N. Ahammed, L.G. Asirvatham, S. Wongwises, Entropy generation analysis of graphene

alumina hybrid nanofluid in multiport minichannel heat exchanger coupled with

thermoelectric cooler, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 103 (2016) 1084–1097.

doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.07.070.

[25] Y. Zhang, C. Li, D. Jia, B. Li, Y. Wang, M. Yang, Y. Hou, X. Zhang, Experimental study

32
 on the effect of nanoparticle concentration on the lubricating property of nanofluids for

MQL grinding of Ni-based alloy, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 232 (2016).

doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.01.031.

[26] S.M. Abbasi, A. Rashidi, A. Nemati, K. Arzani, The effect of functionalisation method on

the stability and the thermal conductivity of nanofluid hybrids of carbon

nanotubes/gamma alumina, Ceram. Int. 39 (2013) 3885–3891.

doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.10.232.

[27] K. Kanthavel, K.R. Sumesh, P. Saravanakumar, Study of tribological properties on

Al/Al2O3/MoS2 hybrid composite processed by powder metallurgy, Alexandria Eng. J.

55 (2016) 13–17. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.01.024.

[28] A.K. Sharma, J.K. Katiyar, S. Bhaumik, S. Roy, Influence of alumina / MWCNT hybrid

nanoparticle additives on tribological properties of lubricants in turning operations,

Friction. (2018) 1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-018-0199-5.

[29] T. Young, An Essay on the Cohesion of Fluids, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. 95 (1805)

65–87. doi:10.1098/rstl.1805.0005.

[30] J. Chinnam, D. Das, R. Vajjha, J. Satti, Measurements of the contact angle of nanofluids

and development of a new correlation, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 62 (2015) 1–12.

doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2014.12.009.

[31] D. Wasan, A. Nikolov, K. Kondiparty, The wetting and spreading of nanofluids on solids:

Role of the structural disjoining pressure, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 16 (2011)

344–349. doi:10.1016/j.cocis.2011.02.001.

[32] A.K. Sharma, R.K. Singh, A.R. Dixit, A.K. Tiwari, Novel uses of alumina-MoS2 hybrid

33
 nanoparticle enriched cutting fluid in hard turning of AISI 304 steel, J. Manuf. Process. 30

(2017) 467–482. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2017.10.016.

[33] R.K. Singh, A.K. Sharma, A.R. Dixit, A.K. Tiwari, A. Pramanik, A. Mandal, Performance

evaluation of alumina-graphene hybrid nano-cutting fluid in hard turning, J. Clean. Prod.

162 (2017) 830–845. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.104.

[34] A.V. Gopal, P. Venkateswara Rao, Selection of optimum conditions for maximum

material removal rate with surface finish and damage as constraints in SiC grinding, Int. J.

Mach. Tools Manuf. 43 (2003) 1327–1336. doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00165-2.

[35] A. Das, S.K. Patel, T.K. Hotta, B.B. Biswal, Statistical analysis of different machining

characteristics of EN-24 alloy steel during dry hard turning with multilayer coated cermet

inserts, Measurement. (2018). doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2018.10.065.

[36] A. Khan, K. Maity, Statistical modelling and machinability assessment of commercially

pure titanium ( CP-Ti ) grade II : An experimental investigation, Measurement. (2019).

doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2019.02.018.

[37] A. Kumar, K. Maity, Modeling of machining parameters affecting flank wear and surface

roughness in hot turning of Monel-400 using response surface methodology ( RSM ),

Measurement. 137 (2019) 375–381. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2019.01.070.

[38] K. Bouacha, M.A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, J.F. Rigal, Statistical analysis of surface

roughness and cutting forces using response surface methodology in hard turning of AISI

52100 bearing steel with CBN tool, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 28 (2010) 349–361.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2009.11.011.

[39] R.K. Singh, A.R. Dixit, A.K. Sharma, A.K. Tiwari, V. Mandal, A. Pramanik, Influence of

34
 graphene and multi-walled carbon nanotube additives on tribological behaviour of

lubricants, Int. J. Surf. Sci. Eng. 12 (2018) 207–227.

[40] A.K. Sharma, A.K. Tiwari, A.R. Dixit, R.K. Singh, M. Singh, Novel uses of

alumina/graphene hybrid nanoparticle additives for improved tribological properties of

lubricant in turning operation, Tribol. Int. 119 (2018) 99–111.

doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2017.10.036.

[41] A.K. Sharma, A.K. Tiwari, A.R. Dixit, Mechanism of Nanoparticles functioning and

Effects in Machining Processes: A review, Mater. Today Proc. 2 (2015) 3539–3544.

doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.331.

35
 Graphical Abstract

(a) (b)
Nanoparticles mixed
with water-based
emulsion followed by
Ultrasonication

Nano-lubricants
samples
TEM images of (a) Alumina nanofluid
(b) Al-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid

Base fluid
70
Al-MWCNT hybrid nofluid
Al2O3 nanofluid
60

50
Contact angle (deg)

40

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Nanopartcile concentration (vol%)
1.50
Contact angle
measurement setup Pin-on-disc
Contact angle as a function of
nanoparticle concentration of 0.7
0.7
Base fluid mist
Al2O3 nanofluid mist
Nanoparticle concetration
1.25 vol.%
Al-MWCNT nanofluid mist

alumina and its hybrid nanofluid

Al-GnP (1.25%) 0.6 Dry condition
0.6 Al-GnP (0.75%)
Al-GnP (0.25%)

Coefficient of friction
0.5
Alumina (0.25%)
Coefficient of friction

0.5
Alumina (0.75%)
0.4
Alumina (1.25%)
0.4
0.3

0.3
0.2
40
0.2
% Variation in responce parameters

0.1

30 0.1 0.0

Reference line (y=0)

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

0.0
indicates Time (sec)
20
Al2O3 nanofluid's 0performance
30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (sec)
210 240 270 300
w.r.t alumina (%)

10 Fz Fy Fx Ra 500
Alumina (1.25%)

Variation of coefficient of friction and wear of between

Alumina (0.75%)
450 Alumina (0.25%)
0 Al-GnP (0.25%)
400 Al-GnP (0.75%)

-10 sliding pin of AISI 304 w.r.t. time Wear of using 1.25 vol.%
Wear (micrometer)
350

300
Al-GnP (1.25%)

-20
20.2%
13.6%
alumina and alumina-MWCNT hybrid nanofluid 250

200
21.3%
Experimental setup -30 150

Response parameters 33.4% 100

-40 50

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (sec)

Machining Forces

36
 Highlights of manuscript

 Hybridization of Alumina and MWCNT in a fixed proportion of 90:10.

 Thermophysical properties characterization of hybrid nanofluids.
 Wettability and tribology testing of hybrid nanofluids.
 Performance analysis of hybrid nanofluid on turning operation.

37