International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57

Experimental study of surface roughness in slot end milling

AL2014-T6
Ming-Yung Wang ∗, Hung-Yen Chang
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tatung University, 40, ChungShan North Road, 3rd Section, Taipei 104, Taiwan

Received 19 May 2003; accepted 26 August 2003

Abstract

The aim of this work was to analyze the influence of cutting condition and tool geometry on surface roughness when slot end
milling AL2014-T6. The parameters considered were the cutting speed, feed, depth of cut, concavity and axial relief angles of the
end cutting edge of the end mill. Surface roughness models for both dry cutting and coolant conditions were built using the response
surface methodology (RSM) and the experimental results. The results showed that the dry-cut roughness was reduced by applying
cutting fluid. The significant factors affecting the dry-cut model were the cutting speed, feed, concavity and axial relief angles;
while for the coolant model, they were the feed and concavity angle. Surface roughness generally increases with the increase of
feed, concavity and axial relief angles, while concavity angle is more than 2.5°.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Surface roughness; End milling; Response surface methodology

1. Introduction mental results, Melkote and Thangaraj [1] derived a sur-

Manufactured part qualities are determined by their
form errors and surface finishes produced by the manu-
facturing processes. Surface roughness generally plays
important role in wear resistance, ductility, tensile, and
fatigue strength for machined parts and cannot be neg-
lected in design. A machined surface is a result of geo-
metric and kinematics reproduction of the tool point
shape and trajectory. In actual practice, there are many
factors such as workpiece material, cutting condition,
tool geometry, run out and machine vibration affecting
the chip formation and machined surface roughness.
How to control the complex end milling process and
choose appropriate cutting tool to meet the accuracy
requirement is an important issue due to the complex
system.
In the past, numerous researchers have studied the
influences of cutting variables on surface finish for prac-
tical end milling. By computer simulation and experi-
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-2-25925252x3491; fax: +886-
2-25941371.
E-mail address: hychang@ms27.url.com.tw (M.-Y. Wang).
face texture model including the influences of radial rake
and primary end tooth relief angles. To study the influ-
ence exerted by the tool nose radius, flank width and the
cutting conditions on residual stress and surface rough-
ness, Fuh and Wu [2] built prediction models by using
the Takushi method and the response surface method-
ology (RSM). By using factors including cutting speed,
feed and depth of cut, Hashmi and coworkers [3,4]
developed surface roughness models and determined the
cutting conditions for 190 BHN steel and Inconel 718.
In general, the helical mills with two or more teeth
are generally used for slotting, stepping, profiling and
facing of narrow surfaces. The end cutting edges per-
form the major cutting work and develop the floor sur-
face profile in machining process, as shown in Fig. 1. A
large concavity angle increases the height of residual
ridge; thus, surface finish is poor. Similarly, a small
value of concavity angle induces the more contact length
between tool and chip/workpiece; thus, surface rough-
ness increased too. Further, the axial relief angle deter-
mines the end cutting edges strength, the heel of land
rubbing on the machined surface and tool life. A large
relief angle may reduce friction between the tool and
workpiece, but excess relief angle reduces the support

0890-6955/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2003.08.011
52 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57

Fig. 1. End geometry of a 2-fluted end mill. Fig. 3. Grinding the end cutting edges with a tool grinder.

under the cutting edge, thereby causing failure under

heavy-duty operation, and may result in inferior surface
roughness on machined parts [5]. However, the vari-
ations of both tool angles have important effects on sur-
face roughness but are still not studied in the above-
mentioned research. In order to model and analyze the
effect of each associated factor and minimize the cutting
tests, surface roughness models utilizing response sur-
face methodology [6] and the experimental design were
carried out in this investigation.

2. Surface roughness in end milling

2.1. The theoretical surface roughness

Under ideal conditions, the theoretical roughness pro-

file measured parallel to the feed and coincident with the Fig. 4. Photograph of a machined surface (condition: X 1 = 80 m/
cutter axis rotation is a function of feed and the con- min, X 2 = 0.04 mm / edge, X 3 = 1.3 mm, X 4 = 3.5°, X 5 = 7° with
coolant).
cavity angle on end cutting edges. In Fig. 2, a square

Table 1
Coding of milling parameters

Parameter Symbol Levels

⫺2 ⫺1 0 1 2

Cutting speed X1 20 40 60 80 100

(m/min)
Feed (mm/edge) X2 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Depth of cut (mm) X3 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7
Concavity angle (°) X4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
Axial relief angle (°) X5 5 7 9 11 13

end mill (nose radius = 0), the maximum peak-to-valley

roughness height Rmax is [7]:
f
Rmax ⫽ (1)
Fig. 2. Theoretical surface profile (nose radius = 0). cot␬
 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57 53

where f is feed per edge, and ␬ is the concavity angle. practical processes according to the response surface
The arithmetic average roughness Ra can be written as: methodology was assumed:
f
Ra ⫽
冘 冘 冘冘
5 5 5 5
(2)
4cot␬ Ra ⫽ b0 ⫹ biXi ⫹ biiX2ii ⫹ bijXiXj ⫹ e
i⫽1 i⫽1 i⫽1 j⫽1
It is understood that improved surface finish can be
achieved by using a small concavity angle and a small i⬍j
(3)
feed in the theory model.

2.2. The practical model
From the aforesaid research and considering the
influence by the tool geometry, the investigated factors
in this work were the cutting speed, feed and depth of
cut, and the concavity and axial relief angles on the end
cutting edges. In order to model the interactions between
these variables, the arithmetic average roughness in
where X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5 represented the cutting
speed, feed, axial depth of cut, concavity and axial relief
angles, respectively; X2i and XiXj, the squares and interac-
tion terms of these factors; the constants b, the regression
coefficients of parameters and e, the experimental error.
Since the cutting fluid provides a lubricating and cooling
effect, the tests were divided into dry cutting and cool-
ant conditions.

Table 2
The experimental design and results

Number Cutting speed Feed Depth of cut Concavity Axial relief (a) Surface (b) Surface (c) Surface
(m/min) (mm/edge) (mm) angle (°) angle (°) roughness (µm) roughness (µm) roughness (µm)

1 20 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.59 0.91

2 100 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.47 1.17
3 60 0.02 0.9 2.5 9 0.22 0.33 0.44
4 60 0.1 0.9 2.5 9 1.09 1.33 1.71
5 60 0.06 0.1 2.5 9 0.65 0.44 0.37
6 60 0.06 1.7 2.5 9 0.65 0.43 0.77
7 60 0.06 0.9 0.5 9 0.13 0.94 1.42
8 60 0.06 0.9 4.5 9 1.18 0.64 0.76
9 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 5 0.65 0.58 0.63
10 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 13 0.65 0.66 0.95
11 80 0.08 1.3 3.5 11 1.22 2.01 3.79
12 40 0.04 1.3 3.5 11 0.61 0.73 1.58
13 40 0.08 0.5 3.5 11 1.22 2.00 3.03
14 40 0.08 1.3 1.5 11 0.52 0.89 1.98
15 40 0.08 1.3 3.5 7 1.22 0.72 0.75
16 80 0.04 0.5 3.5 11 0.61 0.70 1.13
17 80 0.04 1.3 1.5 11 0.26 0.94 2.05
18 80 0.04 1.3 3.5 7 0.61 0.49 0.65
19 80 0.08 0.5 1.5 11 0.52 0.71 1.80
20 80 0.08 0.5 3.5 7 1.22 1.34 2.19
21 80 0.08 1.3 1.5 7 0.52 0.74 1.12
22 80 0.04 0.5 1.5 7 0.26 0.39 0.84
23 40 0.08 0.5 1.5 7 0.52 0.43 0.89
24 40 0.04 1.3 1.5 7 0.26 0.51 1.94
25 40 0.04 0.5 3.5 7 0.61 0.45 0.63
26 40 0.04 0.5 1.5 11 0.26 0.37 0.94
27 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.41 0.84
28 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.40 0.55
29 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.40 0.53
30 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.42 0.51
31 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.44 0.49
32 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.38 0.52
33 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.43 0.41
34 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.44 0.51
35 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.46 0.39
36 60 0.06 0.9 2.5 9 0.65 0.42 0.38

(a) Theoretical model; (b) coolant model; (c) dry-cut model.

54 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57

Table 3
Regression coefficients and the t distributions

Parameter (a) Dry-cut model (b) Coolant model

Regression coefficient t-Distribution Regression coefficient t-Distribution

b 0 = 17.808 4.647a b 0 = 6.318 3.118a

X1 b 1 = ⫺0.116 ⫺2.779a b 1 = ⫺0.019 ⫺0.899
X2 b 2 = ⫺158.841 ⫺3.777a b 2 = ⫺66.802 ⫺3.004a
X3 b 3 = ⫺0.642 ⫺0.316 b 3 = ⫺0.496 ⫺0.462
X4 b 4 = ⫺3.096 ⫺3.770a b 4 = ⫺1.270 ⫺2.925a
X5 b 5 = ⫺1.452 ⫺3.166a b 5 = ⫺0.544 ⫺2.247
X21 b 11 = 0.0005 2.932a b 11 = 0.0001 1.254
X22 b 22 = 588.281 3.045a b 22 = 315.625 3.090a
X23 b 33 = 0.681 1.411 b 33 = 0.171 0.673
X24 b 44 = 0.239 3.093a b 44 = 0.116 2.845a
X25 b 55 = 0.041 2.123 b 55 = 0.018 1.805
X1X2 b 12 = 0.417 1.527 b 12 = 0.046 0.324
X1X3 b 13 = 0.006 0.509 b 13 = 0.011 1.557
X1X4 b 14 = 0.005 0.978 b 14 = 0.0001 0.065
X1X5 b 15 = 0.001 0.372 b 15 = 0.0007 ⫺0.519
X2X3 b 23 = ⫺23.046 ⫺1.687 b 23 = ⫺6.875 ⫺0.952
X2X4 b 23 = 17.968 3.288a b 24 = 9.812 3.396a
X2X5 b 25 = 6.265 2.293 b 25 = 2.312 1.601
X3X4 b 34 = 0.442 ⫺1.618 b 34 = ⫺0.268 ⫺1.860
X3X5 b 35 = 0.202 1.481 b 35 = 0.073 1.017
X4X5 b 45 = 0.104 1.904 b 45 = 0.050 1.730

a
The percentage points of t distribution for the significant level a = 0.01 and degree of freedom 35 is t 0.0135 = 2.44.

3. Experimental design 5. Results and discussion

Five levels of each factor from practical experiences
[8,9] were selected and coded in Table 1. When con-
sidering with the wide ranges of these factors and mini-
mizing the trails, an orthogonal central composite design
with half replication was used. The design matrix
includes dry and coolant models (36 × 2); each model
includes 10 axial trials (from 1 to 10), 16 composite
trials (from 11 to 26) and 10 central trials (from 27 to
36), as seen in Table 2. To validate the effect of cutting
fluid on surface finish, the cutting tests with both dry
cutting and coolant conditions (3 l/min water-soluble
cutting fluid) were carried out.
4. Experimental apparatus
The tests were performed on a vertical CNC machin-
ing center with 2-fluted end mills of diameter 20 mm,
helix angle 30°, and overhang length 60 mm. Mills with
different angles on end cutting edges were ground by
the tool grinder, as shown in Fig. 3. The workpiece
AL2014-T6 with dimensions 260 mm × 260 mm × 17
mm was bolted onto the machine table. Surface rough-
ness was determined by the Talysurf 6 surface texture
measuring system with traverse length of 0.25 mm along
the centerline of the slot.
The surface profile is a collection of resembles of feed
marks. In Fig. 4, a micrograph (×50) including the feed
marks due to tool tips trajectories is presented. Rough-
nesses adopted to fit the approximate response surface
were obtained and are listed in Table 2. It is clear that the
effective application of cutting fluid reduced the surface
friction on tool and chip/workpiece interfaces; hence, the
roughness is lower than in the dry-cut process. By the
SAS computer package, the F values with 99% confi-
dence interval in dry cutting and coolant conditions are
4.87 and 3.94 (the significant level of F = 3.37); thus,
the adequacies of the proposed models are suitably
tested. The regression coefficients and the t-tests of these
models were calculated, as given in Table 3. The sig-
nificant factors affecting the dry-cut model were the cut-
ting speed, feed, concavity and axial relief angles, while
for the coolant model, they were the feed and con-
cavity angle.
To compare the difference between practical and
theoretical values, the three-dimensional diagrams with
mean responses were plotted. In Fig. 5(a), the theoretical
roughness is a linear scale of feed. The increase in feed
value induces a greater peak-to-valley roughness on the
surface profile. Since the cutting fluid reduces friction at
the chip/tool interface, the effect of roughness on the
cutting speed is not significant here, as plotted in Fig.
 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57 55

occurred, as seen in Fig. 5(c). For a better surface finish,

an effective application of cutting fluid, middle cutting
speed and small feed is needed.
Fig. 6 shows the interactions between the depth of cut
and concavity angle on surface roughness. In Fig. 6(a),
the end concavity is generally sharpened to less than 5°,
so the theoretical roughness is still a linear function of
the concavity angle. It is understood that to increase the

Fig. 5. Effect of cutting speed and feed on surface roughness for

X 3 = 0.9 mm, X 4 = 2.5° and X 5 = 9°.

5(b). Under dry cutting conditions, the built-up-edge

chips form at a low cutting speed between 20 and 40
m/min, or adhere to the chips on cutter edges at a high Fig. 6. Effect of depth of cut and concavity angle on surface rough-
cutting speed. Comparatively, large values of roughness ness for X 1 = 60 m / min, X 2 = 0.06 mm / edge, X 5 = 9°.
56 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57

depth of cut, the contact length and metal being cut and
cutting force are increased too. However, the deforming
and frictional forces on a unit contact length at the cut-
ting edge and the formation of chip thickness remain
consistent, thus the effect of depth of cut is not signifi-
cant, as seen in Fig. 6(b),(c). To increase the concavity
angle (more than 2.5°), enlarge the triangular cross-
section of geometric surface profile [10], and thus the
peak-to-valley roughness is raised. Similarly, a small
concavity angle increases the contact length and friction
force between tool and workpiece, causing poor sur-
face finish.
Fig. 7(a) shows the response of the theoretical model
in terms of the concavity and axial relief angles. The
axial relief angle is independent of the theoretical rough-
ness, but the influence is greatly seen in the dry-cut
model. The lubrication of cutting fluid reduces the fric-
tion effectively; the influence of axial relief in the cool-
ant model is rather small, as in Fig. 7(b). For a small
concavity angle (less than 2.5°) in dry cutting conditions,
the end teeth with a flat shape conflicted with the
machined surface, thereby the dry-cut roughness
increased, as seen in Fig. 7(c). Combining a high con-
cavity angle with a high axial relief angle, the residual
area and its residual height, a large value of practical
roughness is obtained.
To sum up the above inferences, for better surface
finish under dry cutting condition, the parameters are:
cutting speed 60–70 m/min, feed 0.02 mm/edge, depth
of cut 0.1 mm, concavity angle 2.5°, axial relief angle
of 12°. For coolant condition, the parameters are: cutting
speed 20 m/min, feed 0.035 mm/edge, depth of cut 1.7
mm, concavity angle of 4.5° and axial relief angle 5°.

6. Conclusion

The cutting condition, tool geometry and dynamics

determine the surface roughness in end milling oper-
ation. How to select appropriate cutting condition and
optimum tool geometry meeting accuracy requirement is
a difficult task. By RSM technique, the complex task
can be modeled efficiently through experimental results.
Important conclusions can be drawn as follows:

1. Practical roughness with dry cutting and coolant con-

ditions in end milling AL2014-T6 using the response
surface methodology and the experimental results
were modeled.
2. The significant factors affecting the dry-cut model
were the cutting speed, feed, concavity and axial
Fig. 7. Effect of concavity and axial relief angles on surface rough-
ness for X 1 = 60 m/ min, X 2 = 0.06 mm /edge, X 3 = 0.9 mm.
relief angles, while for the coolant model, they were
the feed and concavity angle.
3. The application of cutting fluid reduces the frictions
between tool and chip/workpiece; thus, the roughness
 M.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Chang / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 44 (2004) 51–57
in coolant conditions is greater than that in dry cut-
ting conditions.
4. Surface roughness generally increases with the
increase of feed, concavity and axial relief angles,
while concavity angle is more than 2.5°.
References
[1] S.N. Melkote, A.R. Thangaraj, An enhanced end milling surface
texture model including the effect of radial rake and primary
relief angles, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Ind. 116 (1994) 166–174.
[2] K.H. Fuh, C.F. Wu, A proposed statistical model for surface qual-
ity prediction in end-milling of Al alloy, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 35 (8) (1995) 1187–1200.
57
[3] M. Alauddin, M.A. El Baradie, M.S.J. Hashmi, Computer-aided
analysis of a surface-roughness model for end milling, J. Mat.
Proc. Tech. 55 (1995) 123–127.
[4] M. Alauddin, M.A. El Baradie, M.S.J. Hashmi, Optimization of
surface finish in end milling Inconel 718, J. Mat. Proc. Tech. 56
(1996) 54–65.
[5] G. Boothroyd, Fundamentals of Metal Machining and Machine
Tools, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975, pp. 212–213.
[6] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John
Wiley, New York, 1984, pp. 445–463.
[7] W.R. DeVries, Analysis of Material Removal Process, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1991, pp. 135–137.
[8] Metals Handbook, 9th ed., Machining, vol. 16, ASM inter-
national, 1989, pp. 313–314.
[9] Metal Cutting Tool Handbook, Metal Cutting Tool Institute,
1971, pp. 570–577.
[10] J.H. Zhang, Theory and Technique of Precision Cutting, Perga-
mon Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 81–82.