INTRODUCTION

Titanium alloys are having an increasing demand throughout several industries such as
aerospace, automotive, biomedical industries. It is also becoming prominent in defence
applications. The requirement of finished products of titanium alloys pushes for more
efficient and eco-friendly methods for machining these materials. The subject material
for this seminar, Ti-6Al-4V has some exceptional properties like high strength,
corrosion resistance, fatigue endurance and biocompatibility. It is also significant that it
has low density.

The machining of Ti-6Al-4V is challenging owing to the fact that it has low
conductivity which decreases the heat removal from machining zone through
conductivity. So, such heat resistant alloys are less efficient to be machined by
conventional methods.

Apart from machining challenges and energy consumption while machining heat
resistant alloys the workers face health issues. Application of conventional fluids by
high velocity spraying or high velocity jets causes formation of poly-disperse aerosols
which can cause respiratory and skin diseases. The contamination of cutting fluids by
micro-organisms also poses a potential threat to workers.

Sustainable methods are being adopted more widely to protect the environment and
research is conducted for creating more sustainable machining methods. Such methods
are opted with the aim to reduce environmental impacts and to improve energy
efficiency, resource efficiency and operator health and safety while maintaining high
quality of the product. Economic, environmental and social issues associated with
machining processes are covered under sustainability.

Cryogenic machining is developed as a sustainable alternative to conventional

machining of heat resistant alloys.
 2. CRYOGENIC MACHINING
Machining of materials while using cryogenic fluids like liquid nitrogen (LN 2) and
liquid carbon dioxide (LCO2) as coolants instead of ordinary flood or mist coolants
while accomplishing the cooling phenomena. The peculiarity of cryogenic coolants is
that they evaporate immediately as they hit the machining zone. This also provides the
advantage in waste disposal costs. Also the evaporated coolant is free from harmful
surfactants, defoamers, biocides and chelating agents.

Turning performance of conventional and cryogenic machining are evaluated in

terms of surface roughness of work piece, tool wear, energy consumption and chips.
These parameters are found to be mainly dependent on input cutting parameters and
cutting environments. We are trying to assess the sustainability for different
combinations of cutting parameters under various environments in this seminar.

Fig 1. Factors of sustainability

The assessments presented in this seminar is results of turning titanium alloys in

different conditions using Liquid nitrogen at a constant pressure of 0.6 MPa for
cryogenic coolant and semi-synthetic cutting oil-based emulsion (oil concentration of
6%) commonly used in industry.
 3. MACHINABILITY ASSESSMENT
Machinability of a material using a machining method is assessed by considering
the parameters listed in the figure

Fig 2. Assessments

3.1 Tool wear analysis

Although tool is subjected to wear continuously, it is not ideal to have uncontrolled

wear. So, wear of tool used is a crucial parameter of machinability. There are several
wear mechanisms for tool wear in each machining cases. In the case of turning of
titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), significant wear is caused by chipping, notching and
catastrophic failure mechanisms. The temperature of the shear zone significantly affects
the wear phenomenon. So that very high and very low temperatures are unideal for
machining zone.

The machining cost of a product is dependent on tool wear as the replacement of

tool incurs charges. This presentation puts forward the analysis of tool wear of the
cutting insert used in turning Ti-6Al-4V at different spindle speeds under wet and
cryogenic conditions.
 Flank wear and crater wear (Rake face) is analysed for understanding tool wear.
The measurements were done under ISO3685 criteria. The flank wear rate increases at a
high rate on increasing the speed under both the conditions.

Case 1 (At 70 m/s):

Fig 3. Flank image, rake profile, flank wear versus machining time graph at v=70m/s.

In the provided SEM image of flank face we can see very high abrasion in cryogenic
machining than in wet machining. Overcooling of the work piece under the contact of
the cryogenic liquid may be the reason for this demerit. At low cutting speeds, rate of
heat generated while cutting is much less than the heat carried away by cryogenic fluid.
This overcooling causes over hardening of the work piece surface.

The path profile of rake face is indicates the extent of crater wear. We can observe
that the path profile while using cryogenic machining is higher than the base line.
Adhesion of work piece on the rake face of tool is inferred from this. i.e; the adhesion
on rake face is higher while using cryogenic machining compared to wet machining.

The tool is disposed off when the flank wear exceeds a certain value. As cryogenic
machining causes high abrasion wear on the flank face the tool needs to be disposed off
earlier as depicted in graph
 Therefore, at 70 m/s using cryogenic machining is disadvantageous compared to wet
machining.

Case 2 (At 80 m/s):

Fig 4. Flank image, rake profile, flank wear versus machining time graph at v=80m/s

It is observed that the path profile of rake face goes deeper below the baseline in wet
machining as cutting speed increased. But while using cryogenic machining path profile
does not show below baseline. This shows that the wet technique cannot take away the
heat at the required rate

Observed profile of rake face above baseline indicating the adhesion on the rake face
while using cryogenic machining.

SEM images of flank face provides the surface conditions which can be compared. We
can observe that wear while using cryogenic machining is higher compared to wet
machining.

Micro-chipping is present on the flank face while using cryogenic machining, this can
also be observed in the SEM image. Adhesion is observed on the top edge of flank face.
It can be seen that the performance of cryogenic machining is enhanced compared to 70
m/s, even though wet machining is still better.

Case 3 (At 90 m/s):

Fig 3. Flank image, rake profile, flank wear versus machining time graph at v=90m/s

Path profile is observed to be varying below the baseline while using wet machining
compared to cryogenic machining. This shows the higher abrasion wear..

As the flank wear is still less using wet machining than cryogenic machining. The tool
life is lesser while using cryogenic machining.

Chipping and formation of micro BUE is observed on flank face more using cryogenic
machining.

It can be inferred so far that at 90 m/s and below tool life is longer while using wet
machining. There is approximately 17% decrease in tool life while using cryogenic
machining than wet machining
So, it is unideal to use cryogenic machining at lower speeds. The reason for the bad
characteristics may be the overcooling which increases the hardness of work piece
under machining.

Case 4 & 5 (At 100 and 110 m/s):

Fig 6 &7. Flank image, rake profile, flank wear versus machining time graph at v=100m/s and 110 m/s

Path profile variation below baseline is seen to increase as cutting speed increases.
Comparing the path profile of both machining techniques shows that crater wear using
wet machining is significantly higher when compared to that using cryogenic
machining.

Height of path profile above baseline in cryogenic machining may be due to the BUE
formation. This is observed from flank image.

The wear is very high while using wet machining at such high speeds and therefore
decreases the tool life considerably.

Notching is observed in SEM image of flank face of tool using wet machining. And the
tool surface performance worsens on increasing speed.

Flank wear is very less in cryogenic machining at high speeds. So that tool life
improved 125% compared to wet machining at high speeds. Tool wear due to
dissolution and also due to diffusion are reduced by cryogenic machining at all speeds.
3.2 Power consumption analysis

Sustainability of a process is greatly dependent on the energy it consumes to get

the output. So, power consumption is a crucial parameter which affects sustainability.
The power consumption increases with spindle speed in both machining cases. So, for
comparison we are considering Specific Cutting Energy (SCE). SCE is the power
consumed for machining per material removal rate (MRR).

Fig 8. Power consumption graph

Energy efficiency is observed higher in cryogenic machining over wet machining.

As the cryogenic setup is void of coolant delivery system, power consumption from that
energy is saved.

Surface roughness values (Ra) are also considered along with power consumption
because improved surface finish which eventually saves the cost of rework and repair.
Lower Ra values indicate superior surface finish and lesser defects.
 Fig 9. Surface roughness graph

The surface roughness values are found to be lesser using cryogenic machining
significantly up to 22.1% using cryogenic machining.

4. COST ASSESSMENT

The adoption of machining process by industries is based on cost consideration.

Cost is also a measure considered for sustainability. Various costs associated with
machining are considered here.

4.1 Machine tool usage and labour

The main cost associated with machining is the machine tool, its installation,
maintenance and insurance costs. Labour cost is also significantly high. An additional
cost is incurred for cryogenic coolant delivery setup in the case of cryogenic machining.
And high skilled labour is required to operate the advanced, sophisticated setup. The
total cost of all these requirements is found to be higher for cryogenic machining than
wet machining by 18%

4.2 Cost of fluids and associated cost

 The cutting fluids used in wet machining are lost by vaporization, leakage, chips,
machine parts handling, and manipulating devices. Additionally wet machining incurs
cost for disposing the waste fluid. But in spite of all, the cryogenic coolant has high
purchasing cost.

4.3 Cost of energy

Average power consumed is higher for wet machining than cryogenic machining.

4.4 Waste processing cost

Waste processing includes segregating of swarf and coolant fluids in the case of wet
machining as the coolant in cryogenic machining evaporates immediately on contact
with the cutting zone. Thereby waste processing cost is higher in wet machining.
 Fig 10. Cost assessments

The total cost for each spindle speed is plotted. It can be observed that total cost is
higher in wet machining compared to cryogenic machining at high cutting speeds by
27%, Although cost is lesser for wet machining at low speeds. Higher cost for cryogenic
machining at slow speed can be associated with the failure of technique to achieve the
desired improvement at low speeds.
 5. CARBON EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
An important measure of sustainability is the amount of carbon emissions. Carbon
emissions in tangible and intangible forms associated with various regions of machining
like work piece material, cutting tool, machine tool, cutting fluid, machine tool, cutting
fluid is considered. Also energy consumption associated with cutting and waste
processing contribute to carbon emissions.

Fig 11. Carbon emissions assessment

Emissions are higher for cryogenic machining at lower speeds and lower at high speeds
compared to wet machining.
 6. CONCLUSION
-Cryogenic machining proves more efficient and sustainable compared to conventional
machining techniques at some high cutting speeds, although it does not provide
expected performance at lower speeds

-Flank wear, rake face wear, abrasion, chipping, and BUE formation are the main
failure phenomenas observed on cutting tool on machining of TI-6Al-4V under wet and
cryogenic environments.

-Tool wear associated with dissolution-diffusion are reduced to a minimum by

cryogenic technique by reducing temperature of cutting zone at all cutting speeds.

-Total machining cost is found to have reduced up to 27% and total carbon emissions by
22% while using cryogenic machining compared to wet machining at higher cutting
speeds.
 7. REFERENCE
Chetan Agarwal, Jwalant Wadhwa, Anjali Pitroda, Catalin Iulian Pruncu, Murat
Sakariya, Navneet Khanna; Comprehensive analysis of tool wear, tool life, surface
roughness, costing and carbon emissions in turning Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy:
Cryogenic versus wet machining (2020)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106597

Navneet Khanna, Chetan Agrawala, Danil Yu Pimenovb, Anil Kumar Singlac, Alisson
Rocha Machado, Leonardo Rosa Ribeiro da Silvad, Munish Kumar Guptab, Murat
Sarikaya, Grzegorz M. Krolczykh, Review on design and development of cryogenic
machining setups for heat resistant alloys and composites (2021)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.05.053