International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Conservation law of surface roughness in single point diamond turning

W.J. Zong a,n, Y.H. Huang b, Y.L. Zhang c, T. Sun a
a
Center for Precision Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
b
Research Center of Laser Fusion, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Mianyang 621900, China
c
Xi’an Institute of Applied Optics, Xi’an 710065, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, a comprehensive model is established to predict the surface roughness achieved by single
Received 1 January 2014 point diamond turning. In addition to the calculation of the roughness components in relation to the
Received in revised form kinematics and minimum undeformed chip thickness, the newly developed model also takes the effects
15 April 2014
of plastic side flow and elastic recovery of materials as machined into account. Moreover, the ‘size effect’
Accepted 16 April 2014
has also been successfully integrated into the model, i.e. an inflection point appears in the trend line of
Available online 28 April 2014
predicted surface roughness as the ratio of maximal undeformed chip thickness to cutting edge radius
Keywords: (hDmax/rn) is equal to one unit. Face turning experiments validate that the maximal prediction error is
Diamond turning only 13.35%. As the ratio of hDmax/rn is higher than one unit, both the prediction and experiments reveal
Cutting edge radius
that a conservation law exists in diamond turned surface roughness, owing to the competitive effects of
Undeformed chip thickness
kinematics, minimum undeformed chip thickness, plastic side flow and elastic recovery of materials on
Surface roughness
surface formation. Under the conservation law, the freedom control for an invariable surface roughness
can be fulfilled in response to a quantitative ratio of hDmax/rn, either through an accurate configuration of
feed rate and depth of cut with fixed tool nose radius and cutting edge radius, or by a reasonable
selection of tool nose radius and controlled cutting edge radius with designed feed rate and depth of cut.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Diamond turning is of great importance for the fabrication of
precision parts in various industrial sectors, such as optics, clean
energy, information and communication technology, and others
[1,2]. As well known, diamond turning is capable of achieving a
super-smooth surface, which is usually free from the time-consu-
ming polishing. Such excellent capability, however, is strongly
dependent on the machining environment, performance of the
machine tool, process parameters, tool geometry as well as the
properties of workpiece materials [1,3]. For example, the famous
‘size effect’ of surface roughness appears frequently, and a lot of
cutting trials have to be carried out to select the process para-
meters and tool geometry reasonably, although it has been
demonstrated that the ‘size effect’ is attributed to the effect of
cutting edge radius of diamond tool [3–7]. In the light of previous
works reviewed above, interesting questions are raised but not
answered satisfactorily: is there a surface roughness law that gets
n
Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 413, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin,
150001, P.R. China. Fax: +86 0451 86415244.
E-mail addresses: zongwenjun@hit.edu.cn (W.J. Zong),
huangyanhua113@163.com (Y.H. Huang), fenyzhang@163.com (Y.L. Zhang),
taosun@hit.edu.cn (T. Sun).
across the ‘size effect’? Specifically, can the law accurately direct
the variations of surface roughness?
In order to fulfill the objects, Brammertz proposed a Spanzipfel
formula for finish turning to correct the kinematic surface rough-
ness, in which the minimum undeformed chip thickness was
considered [8]. Subsequently, Grezesik revised Brammertz's model
by making an assumption to accurately determine the minimum
undeformed chip thickness in relation to the cutting edge radius
[9]. Lee and Cheung put forward a dynamic surface topography
model to predict the 3D topography and calculate the surface
roughness of machined crystalline materials or aluminum alloy
[10,11]. They analyzed the factors affecting the surface generation
in detail, such as tool nose radius, feed rate, depth of cut as well as
tool-tip vibration induced by the cutting force fluctuations or the
motion errors of spindle. Furthermore, Lee, Cheung and Melkote
emphasised that the plastic side flow or swelling and elastic
recovery of materials are another two significant factors influen-
cing the surface generation [12–15]. Kim employed the FFT (fast
Fourier transform) analysis method and established a 3D topo-
graphy model to simulate the machined surface of aluminum alloy
and copper alloy based on the frequency domain information that
was extracted from the space domain signals of the measured
surface profile [16]. Wang and Zong introduced the wavelet
analysis method to decompose and reconstruct the 3D surface

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2014.04.006
0890-6955/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W.J. Zong et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63
topography as machined [17]. According to their work, the
diamond turned surface topography can be predicted first, and
subsequently the modification is performed to acquire the
designed surface. Moreover, Zong et al. recently established a 3D
finite element (FE) model to evaluate diamond tool geometries
affecting the 3D surface topography [18]. As parameters such as
tool nose radius, rake and relief angles, micro defects of tool edge
and cutting edge radius are input into the FE model, the surface
topography and surface roughness can be simulated in advance of
machining.
Although the works reviewed above have made great advances
in predicting surface roughness of diamond turned materials, little
attention has been paid to the ‘size effect’ of surface roughness
induced by the cutting edge radius of diamond tools, which
essentially is a vital factor affecting the surface quality. Therefore,
in this work a comprehensive surface roughness model is
proposed, into which the ‘size effect’ is integrated. Based on the
well predicting of surface roughness, a conservation law is found.
According to the conservation theory, the accurate configuration
of cutting edge radius, tool nose radius and process parameters
can be realized in response to the assigned surface roughness,
i.e. the freedom control for an invariable surface roughness is
accessible.
2. Theoretical modeling
In diamond turning, tool feed rate and nominal depth of cuts
are very fine. Such configuration of process parameters yields an
extremely small undeformed chip thickness, the order of which is
comparable to the cutting edge radius of diamond tool as
employed. In this case, the kinematic surface roughness in relation
to tool nose radius and feed rate has poor agreement with the
actual achieved surface roughness. Because the plastic side flow
introduced by tool nose radius and feed rate [14], as schematically
shown in Fig. 1(a), the residual minimum undeformed chip
thickness dependent on cutting edge radius [19], as well as the
elastic recovery of materials affected by tool cutting edge radius,
corner nose radius and rake angle [20], as shown in the sketch of
Tool marks affected by the plastic side flow
Rth, theoretical roughness Tool marks in kinematics
f f
O
rε
Rth
hDmin
Fig. 1. Schematic surface topography of diamond turned surface with a round nosed tool: (a) the effect of plastic side flow; (b) the effect of elastic recovery; and
(c) comprehensive height coupled with the effects of kinematics, minimum undeformed chip thickness, plastic side flow and elastic recovery.
59
Fig. 1(b), have reached up to the same magnitude of the residual
height in kinematics. For a diamond turned surface, therefore, the
final finished surface topography is pictorially described in Fig. 1
(c). In this figure, rε, f and ap denote tool nose radius, feed rate and
nominal depth of cut, respectively. Rth is the residual height in
kinematics, and Rth ' is the comprehensive height considering the
effects of kinematics, plastic side flow, minimum undeformed chip
thickness as well as elastic recovery of materials. hDmin and hDmax
are the minimum and maximal undeformed chip thickness,
respectively.
As revealed by previous work, the minimum undeformed chip
thickness is heavily dependent on tool cutting edge radius, which
can be given by
hDmin ¼ cr n ð1Þ
where c is a coefficient ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 [19], and c is equal
to 0.35 in this work. rn is the tool cutting edge radius.
hDmin is a significant factor affecting the surface formation in
diamond turning. For the effective undeformed materials with a
thickness larger than hDmin, they will undergo the extrusion effect
and gradually accumulate ahead of tool edge. Finally, the effective
undeformed materials are removed through micro cutting. For the
effective undeformed materials with a thickness less than hDmin,
however, chip formation disappears. In this case, the effective
undeformed materials are no longer removed. Instead, the burn-
ishing and friction take place due to the plowing of diamond tool.
As shown in Fig. 1(c), the maximal undeformed chip thickness
is calculated as
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
hDmax ¼ r ε  r 2ε þ f  2f 2r ε ap  a2p ð2Þ
For turning operation, the theoretical or kinematic ten-point
height, i.e. the surface roughness, can be written as
2
f
Rth ¼ ð3Þ
8r ε
As discussed above, the effect of minimum undeformed chip
thickness should be considered in predicting the diamond turning
finished surface roughness. Therefore, the surface roughness has
Tool marks affected by the elastic recovery
Rth, theoretical roughness
ap
hDmax
Rth'
60 W.J. Zong et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63

been corrected by Grezesik [9], which is given by
2   low feed rate can be attributed to the increased plastic side flow
f h r ε hDmin
' ¼
Rth þ Dmin 1 þ
8r ε 2 2
Unfortunately, Grezesik's formula has no consideration of the
elastic recovery of materials. Moreover, the ‘size effect’ has not
been taken into account. In this work, therefore, Grezesik's
formula is revised further as follows
2  
f h r ε hDmin H results in higher surface roughness than the kinematic one [15].
' ¼
Rth þ Dmin 1 þ þk1 r n k2 ð5Þ
8r ε 2 2 E Therefore, low feed rate and small tool nose radius are the
where k1 is a coefficient in relation to the elastic recovery, and k2 is
a coefficient denoting the ‘size effect’. H and E are the Vickers
hardness and Young's modulus. For example, H and E are 2.4 Gpa
and 117 Gpa of copper workpiece [20].
As schematically shown in Fig. 1(b), the elastic recovery causes
the materials swelling along the direction of depth of cut, and in
Eq. (5), it can be seen that such deformation is considered to be
dependent on the material properties of workpiece (H, E) and the
geometrical parameters of diamond tool (k1, rn). H and E are
invariable for a selected workpiece. Moreover, Eq. (1) indicates
that hDmin is determined by the cutting edge radius rn, and the
effective undeformed materials with a thickness less than hDmin
will suffer from the burnishing of tool. This means that the elastic
recovery of materials relies on the undeformed chip thickness
hDmin to a great extent because the maximal elastic deformation
under tool burnishing is restricted by hDmin. Furthermore, Chris-
topher's work claimed that the elastic recovery is also affected by
tool corner nose radius and rake angle [20]. For diamond tool
geometries, the corner nose radius and rake angle are two crucial
factors influencing the cutting forces, except for the cutting edge
radius. Certainly, the cutting forces will determine the materials'
deformation. For example, diamond tool with larger nose radius
and negative rake angle outputs bigger cutting forces, and resul-
tantly generates greater elastic deformation, which in return
creates more elastic recovery after cutting. Therefore in this work,
the effect of tool nose radius and rake angle is configured as a
coefficient of k1, which can be given by
k1 ¼ 12 where r ε 4 0:9 mm and 01 rake angle
k1 ¼ 10 where r ε r 0:9 mm and 01 rake angle
In diamond turning, the effect of cutting edge radius strength-
ens dramatically as tool feed rate and depth of cut decrease.
Resultantly, the material removal mode is strongly dependent on
the ratio of undeformed chip thickness to cutting edge radius [3].
The minimum undeformed chip thickness is approximate to be a
constant. And it is primarily determined by the cutting edge
radius, if the frictional behavior, performance of machine tool
and properties of workpiece remain unchanged. Therefore, in this
work the ratio of maximal undeformed chip thickness to cutting
edge radius is employed to identify the material removal mode.
As the ratio is not less than one unit, the materials are removed
by microcutting dominantly. If the ratio is less than one unit, the
plowing accounts for the primary mode. As a result, the burnishing
and friction become more and more, which strengthens the
materials swelling and consequently leads to an increase in surface
roughness. In summary, the unwanted ‘size effect’ of roughness is
characterized by the coefficient k2 as follows
 
hDmax hDmax
k2 ¼ 0:8 þ 0:002356 1 where Z1 ð7  1Þ
rn rn
 
hDmax hDmax
k2 ¼ 0:8  0:2356 1 where o1
rn rn
As reported in Melkote's work [14], the increase of roughness at
caused by strain gradient-induced strengthening of the material
ð4Þ
directly ahead of the trailing edge of the diamond tool. That is to
say, the appearance of plastic side flow in diamond turning is due
to the stress concentration ahead of tool edge. In order to release
the stress, the materials will flow to the side of the active cutting
edge, which increases the material's swelling finally. Moreover,
Sata reported that tool nose geometry dependent side swelling
preferred conditions for the prevailence of plastic side flow. With
a view to integrating the effect of plastic side flow into Eq. (5), as
schematically shown in Fig. 1(a), ten-point surface roughness is
modified again in this work, which is formulated as
" #
2  
f h r ε hDmin H
' ¼ k3
Rth þ Dmin 1 þ þ k1 r n k2 ð8Þ
8r ε 2 2 E
where k3 is a scale coefficient in relation to the plastic side flow.
As discussed above, k3 should be configured in terms of feed
rate and tool nose radius, which is written as
k3 ¼ 1 where f o o r ε and r ε Z 0:05 mm ð9  1Þ
1:856  r ε
k3 ¼ 0:35 þ e 1:856 where f o o r ε and r ε o 0:05 mm ð9  2Þ
According to Eq. (8), the average surface roughness Ra' can be
calculated from the following formula [9]:
Ra' ¼ 0:2566Rth
' ð10Þ
3. Experiments and discussions
In order to validate the model developed above, facing experi-
ments were carried out on machine tool Nanoform 250 (Taylor
Hobson PNEUMO). Pure copper plates were selected as workpiece
materials. In any face turning, process parameters were configured
as a spindle speed of 3000 rpm, a nominal depth of cut of 3 μm
and a variable feeding velocity for different feed rate. Four
ð6  1Þ diamond tools with different corner nose radius were carefully
prepared in our laboratory. Rake and flank faces of four tools were
ð6  2Þ all oriented as the (100) crystal plane. Cutting edge radius of each
tool was controlled deliberately. In order to avoid the disturbed
effect of micro defects of tool edge on the achieved surface
roughness, the polishing marks on rake face and waviness of flank
face were both controlled rigorously. After the completion of tool
fabrication, the cutting edge radius of each tool was evaluated
directly by the atomic force microscope (AFM). AFM operations for
measuring the cutting edge radius can be found in our previous
work [21]. In Fig. 2(a), the sketch of measurement principle is
given. Fig. 2(b) presents a 2D close-up of the measurement results.
All the measured geometries of four tools are listed in Table 1.
In any face turning, the finally finished average surface rough-
ness was acquired with a profile meter PGI 1240 (Tayler Hobson
PRECISION). The full measuring length in sampling was equal to
4 mm, as shown in Fig. 3, and three sampling points were captured
to calculate an average value. All the sampled results are listed in
Table 2 and plotted in Fig. 4.
In Table 2, the prediction error is calculated as
 
Ra'  predicted  Ra'  calculated 
error ¼  
 ð11Þ
Ra'  calculated
It can be seen clearly from Table 2 that the predicted results
have good consistency with the experimental data, although tool
nose radius, cutting edge radius and feed rate have great variations
ð7  2Þ
in all face turning experiments. More importantly, the maximal
 W.J. Zong et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63
Semiconductor laser
PSD
Cantilever
Probe
rn
Diamond tool
Fig. 2. Evaluation of the cutting edge radius with AFM, (a) schematic of the measurement principle and (b) a snap of the measured results.
Table 1
Geometrical parameters of tested diamond tools.
Tool Tool nose radius Rake angle Relief Measured rn Average rn
no. [mm] [1] angle [1] [nm] [nm]
1 1.856 0 9 15–43 29
2 0.954 0 9 20–31 25.5
3 0.495 0 9 29–64 46.5
4 0.045 0 9 11–19 15
prediction error is only 13.35%, which firmly validates the effective
of the roughness model developed in this work. In addition, the
‘size effect’ has been revealed perfectly. As presented in Table 2 or
Fig. 4, the measured and predicted surface roughness both
decrease with decreasing in the ratio of hDmax/rn. While the ratio
approaches to 1, the inflection point appears, such as Tool 3 and
Tool 4. Once the ratio is smaller than 1, both the measured surface
roughness and predicted ones increase quickly. As discussed
above, the ‘size effect’ is owing to the effect of cutting edge radius.
In the case of hDmax/rn o1, plowing will account for the dominant
material removal mode. The materials ahead of tool edge are
extruded and burnished heavily, which in return leads to the
deterioration of surface roughness.
In Fig. 4, it can be found that the surface roughness generated
by Tool 3 or Tool 4 is greater than that produced by Tool 1 and Tool
2. Such differences validate again that in diamond turning the
cutting edge radius dependent elastic recovery and minimum
undeformed chip thickness, and tool nose radius dependent
plastic side flow become significant factors affecting the surface
finish. On the other side, better surface roughness achieved with
Tool 4 than that of Tool 3 indicates that the increase of plastic side
flow induced by tool nose radius can be counteracted or even
surpassed by the decreasing of cutting edge radius dependent
elastic recovery and minimal undeformed chip thickness. They are
competitors influencing the surface formation, which indicates a
conservation law exists in diamond turned surface roughness. An
accurate configuration of process parameters or reasonable selec-
tion of tool geometries will enable the surface roughness to be
conserved.
Moreover, if the ratio of hDmax/rn is larger than 1, a linear
variation tendency appears under every diamond tool, as picto-
rially shown in Fig. 4. In addition, it can also be found that the
sloping rates of surface roughness corresponding to four diamond
tools have a good consistency. The consistency in sloping rate
indicates that there is a determined relationship among the
surface roughness variations achieved with different diamond
tools. In order to accurately represent the step-type and linear
variations above, therefore, a conservation law of surface roughness
61
PZT
Y direction [nm]
X direction [nm]
is firstly proposed in this work, which can be expressed by the
following formula
Ra ¼ Ra  ref ðk4 þ k5 Þ þ k6 þ ε ð12Þ
where Ra-ref is the surface roughness achieved by an assigned
reference tool. In this work, Tool 1 is considered as the reference
tool. ε is the residual error in modeling (compared to the data fitted
from the experimental results), and has an unit of nm. For instance,
ε is 0 for Tool 1, 0.3251 for Tool 2, 0.2984 for Tool 3 and  0.0678 for
Tool 4, when Ra 2.77 nm is considered as the reference datum.
Likewise, ε can be 0 for Tool 1, 0.2474 for Tool 2,  0.3266 for Tool
3 and  0.6968 for Tool 4, if the referred surface roughness of Tool
1 is Ra 3.57 nm.
k4 is a coefficient in relation to the plastic side flow, which is
given by
k4 ¼ eðrε  ref  rε Þ=ðrε  ref Þ  1:575 ð13Þ
where rε-ref is the corner nose radius of reference tool.
k5 is a coefficient dependent on the minimum undeformed chip
thickness and elastic recovery, which is expressed as
( 1:7   2:1  )

rn  rn  
k5 ¼ 1:575  min ; 1:7 ln   1 ð14Þ
r n  ref  r n  ref  
where rn-ref is the cutting edge radius of reference tool.
k6 is a coefficient decided by the kinematic effect, which is
written as
 
hDmax hDmax  ref
k6 ¼ 0:06937  ð15Þ
rn r n  ref
where ðhDmax  ref Þ=ðr n  ref Þ is the ratio of maximal undeformed
chip thickness to cutting edge radius of reference tool.
Under the conservation law, the freedom control aiming at an
invariable surface roughness can be fulfilled easily. For the first
manner, tool nose radius and cutting edge radius of employed
diamond tools are determined. In this case, an accurate configura-
tion of process parameters in response to the quantitative require-
ment of hDmax/rn makes the above object enabled. And in this
procedure, there is no appended requirement for the cutting
experiments. For example, while Tool 2 substitutes for Tool 1, tool
nose radius decreases from 1.856 mm to 0.954 mm, and the
cutting edge radius decreases from 29 nm to 25.5 nm. The decre-
ment of tool nose radius means the increment of plastic side flow,
and the decrease of cutting edge radius reduces the minimum
undeformed chip thickness and elastic recovery. With a view to
their differences, the adjustment of hDmax/rn can be made accord-
ingly. For instance, if Tool 1 yields a surface roughness of Ra 2.9 nm
at a hDmax/rn of 6, Tool 2 can produce the same surface roughness
at a hDmax/rn of about 6.9. If Tool 1 yields a surface roughness of Ra
62 W.J. Zong et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63

Fig. 3. Surface profile achieved with Too1 1 at a feed rate of 8 μm/r.

Table 2
Average surface roughness obtained in experiment and prediction.

Tool no. f [μm/r] hDmax/rn Ra0 [nm]

Measured Average Predicted Error (%)

1 8 15.09 3.60 3.60 3.50 3.57 3.93 10.08

5 9.57 3.20 3.50 3.30 3.33 3.24 2.70
3 5.80 3.00 2.70 2.60 2.77 2.94 6.14

2 5 15.03 3.40 3.40 3.60 3.47 3.33 4.03

4 12.10 3.10 3.20 3.20 3.17 3.01 5.36
3.5 10.63 3.20 2.80 3.10 3.03 2.88 4.95
3 9.14 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.00 2.77 7.67
2 6.13 3.00 2.90 3.00 2.97 2.59 12.79
1 3.09 2.90 2.70 2.70 2.77 2.48 10.47
0.5 1.55 2.70 2.40 2.50 2.53 2.66 5.14 Fig. 4. Variations of surface roughness Ra vs. hDmax/rn.
3 5 9.45 5.00 5.20 5.60 5.27 5.71 8.35
4 7.63 4.80 4.80 5.10 4.90 5.12 4.49 roughness invariably’. In terms of the presented results and
3 5.78 4.30 4.80 4.80 4.63 4.66 0.65
discussions above, some important conclusions can be drawn as
2 3.89 4.50 4.40 4.70 4.53 4.32 4.64
1 1.96 4.20 4.60 4.30 4.37 4.12 5.72 follows:
0.5 0.99 3.90 4.20 4.40 4.17 4.07 2.40
0.25 0.49 4.10 4.40 4.30 4.27 4.34 1.64 (1) To be different with the previous work, the newly developed
0.125 0.25 5.70 4.30 4.40 4.80 4.48 6.67 roughness model can calculate not only the components in
4 0.5 11.81 4.20 5.50 4.40 4.70 4.52 3.83 relation to the kinematics and minimum undeformed chip
0.325 7.71 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.40 4.18 5.00 thickness, but also the components of plastic side flow and
0.25 5.94 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.37 4.08 6.64
elastic recovery of materials. Above all, the ‘size effect’ has also
0.125 2.98 4.60 4.70 4.40 4.57 3.96 13.35
0.08 1.91 4.50 3.90 3.90 4.10 3.94 3.90 been considered successfully, i.e. that an inflection point
0.04 0.95 3.90 4.00 4.00 3.97 3.95 0.50 appears in the trend line of predicted surface roughness as
0.02 0.48 4.20 4.50 4.40 4.37 4.21 3.66 the ratio of maximal undeformed chip thickness to cutting
edge radius is equal to one unit. As a result, this novel model
gives a satisfying prediction error.
4.5 nm at a hDmax/rn of 29, the same surface roughness can be (2) In diamond turning, the kinematics, minimum undeformed
achieved at a hDmax/rn of 29.9 for Tool 2, 3 for Tool 3 and 8.1 for chip thickness, plastic side flow and elastic recovery of
Tool 4. Such configuration can be fulfilled in any case if only the materials have comparable effects on the finished surface
ratio of hDmax/rn is larger than one. In reverse, if the required roughness. They are competitors and counteract with each
surface roughness should be finished with designed feed rate and other, which means there is a conservation law in diamond
nominal depth of cut, a reasonable selection of tool nose radius turned surface roughness. Changing tool geometries and
and controlled cutting edge radius can also be reached referring to process parameters in response to a quantitative ratio of
the quantitative ratio of hDmax/rn. For the second manner, the maximal undeformed chip thickness to cutting edge radius
operation is similar to the procedure as described in the first can conserve surface finish. The first way is to accurately
manner, but the difficulties appeared in operation will be decided configure the feed rate and depth of cut based on the fixed tool
by tools supplier. nose radius and cutting edge radius. The second manner is to
reasonably select tool nose radius and controlled cutting edge
radius based on the assigned feed rate and depth of cut.
4. Conclusions

The factors affecting diamond turned surface topography are

analyzed carefully in this work, and a comprehensive model is Acknowledgments
formulated to predict diamond turned surface roughness. Further-
more, a conservation law of surface roughness is subsequently The Authors would like to thank the Natural Science Foundation
found, which can be employed to direct ‘how to control the surface of China for the support of this work (No. 51175127). Furthermore,
 W.J. Zong et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 84 (2014) 58–63
this work was supported by the Major Special Subject of High-end
CNC Machine Tools and Basic Manufacturing Equipment Science
and Technology of China (No. 2011ZX04004-031). Furthermore, the
authors would sincerely thank the reviewers for their very profes-
sional suggestions on this work.
References
[1] N. Ikawa, N.N. Donaldson, R. Komanduri, W. Koenig, T.H. Aachen, P.A. Mckeown,
T. Moriwaki, I.F. Stowers, Ultra-precision metal cutting – the past, the present
and the future, Ann. CIRP 40 (2) (1991) 587–594.
[2] S.M. Son, H.S. Lim, J.H. Ahn, Effects of the friction coefficient on the minimum
cutting thickness in micro cutting, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 (2005)
529–535.
[3] D. Dornfeld, S. Min, Y. Takeuchi, Recent advances in mechanical micromachin-
ing, Ann. CIRP 55 (2) (2006) 745–768.
[4] R. Komanduri, N. Chandrasekaran, L.M. Raff, Effect of tool geometry in
nanometric cutting – a molecular dynamics simulation approach, Wear 219
(1998) 84–97.
[5] S. Arefin, X.P. Li, M.B. Cai, M. Rahman, K. Liu, A. Tay, The effect of the cutting
edge radius on a machined surface in the nanoscale ductile mode cutting of
silicon wafer. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, J. Eng.
Manuf.: Part B 221 (2007) 213–220.
[6] T.H.C. Childs, K. Sekiya, R. Tezuka, Y. Yamane, D. Dornfeld, D.-E. Lee, S. Min,
P.K. Wright, Surface finishes from turning and facing with round nosed tools,
Ann. CIRP 57 (2008) 89–92.
[7] K.S. Woon, M. Rahman, The effect of tool edge radius on the chip formation
behavior of tool-based micromachining, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 50 (2010)
961–977.
[8] P.H. Brammertz, Reasons for Shape and Dimension Errors at Finished Parts
(Ursachen fur formund massfehler an feinbearbeiten werkstuchken),
(Dissertation), T.H. Aachen, 1961.
63
[9] W. Grzesik, A revised model for predicting surface roughness in turning, Wear
194 (1996) 143–148.
[10] W.B. Lee, C.F. Cheung, A dynamic surface topography model for the prediction
of nano-surface generation in ultra-precision machining, Int. J. Mech. Sci.
43 (2001) 961–991.
[11] H. Wang, S. To, C.Y. Chan, C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, A theoretical and experimental
investigation of the tool-tip vibration and its influence upon surface genera-
tion in single-point diamond turning, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 50 (2010)
241–252.
[12] C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, A multi-spectrum analysis of surface roughness
formation in ultra-precision machining, Precis. Eng. 24 (1) (2000) 77–87.
[13] C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, Characterisation of nano-surface generation in single-
point diamond turning, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 41 (2001) 851–875.
[14] K. Liu, S.N. Melkote, Effect of plastic side flow on surface roughness in micro-
turning process, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 46 (2006) 1778–1785.
[15] M.C. Kong, W.B. Lee, C.F. Cheung, S. To, A study of materials swelling and
recovery in single-point diamond turning of ductile materials, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 180 (2006) 210–215.
[16] K. Kim, Prediction and characterization of machined surface topography in the
frequency domain (Ph.D. dissertation), Northwestern University, 2000.
[17] H.X. Wang, W.J. Zong, T. Sun, Q. Liu, Modification of three dimensional
topography of the machined KDP crystal surface using wavelet analysis
method, Appl. Surf. Sci. 256 (16) (2010) 5061–5068.
[18] W.J. Zong, Z.Q. Li, L. Zhang, Y.C. Liang, T. Sun, C.H. An, J.F. Zhang, L. Zhou,
J. Wang, Finite element simulation of diamond tool geometries affecting the
3D surface topography in fly cutting of KDP crystals, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 68 (2013) 1927–1936.
[19] H.X. Wang, Research on establishing theoretical model of surface micro-
topography and experiment in ultraprecision turning (Ph.D. dissertation),
Harbin Institute of Technology, 2002.
[20] A. Christopher, Tool force, chip formation and surface finish in diamond
turning (Ph.D. dissertation), North Carolina State University, 1996.
[21] W.J. Zong, Z.Q. Li, T. Sun, K. Cheng, D. Li, S. Dong, The basic issues in design and
fabrication of diamond cutting tools for ultra-precision and nanometric
machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 50 (4) (2010) 411–419.