International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

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

Effect of cutting parameters in the surface residual stresses generated

by turning in AISI 4340 steel
Virginia Garcı́a Navas n, Oscar Gonzalo, Ion Bengoetxea
Fundación TEKNIKER-IK4, Avda. Otaola 20, 20600 Eibar, Guipúzcoa, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Machining processes induce a residual stress state in the machined part that, depending on its
Received 5 August 2011 magnitude and sign, can be very detrimental to the service life of the machined components. This way,
Received in revised form tensile residual stresses favour crack nucleation and propagation, leading to a reduction of fatigue life
24 May 2012
and corrosion and wear resistance. The final residual stress state in a piece depends on the material of
Accepted 24 May 2012
Available online 1 June 2012
the component and on the cutting parameters employed: cutting speed, cutting feed, depth of cut, kind
of cutting tool (geometry, coating of the tool, etc), wear of the tool, lubrication, etc. Nevertheless, there
Keywords: is some lack of agreement in the literature regarding the specific tendency of residual stresses with
Residual stress each cutting parameter (feed and cutting speed) and there is not much literature about the effect of tool
Turning
geometry and tool characteristics (coating). The present paper aims to put some light in this lack of
Cutting conditions
agreement and complement the studies found in the literature.
Cutting tool characteristics
AISI 4340 steel In this work, it has been studied the effect on the final surface stress state in AISI 4340 steel of cutting
speed, feed, tool nose radius, geometry of the tool chip breaker and coating of the cutting tool. For this
study surface residual stresses have been measured, by means of X-ray diffraction, in AISI 4340 steel bars
subjected to turning tests using different cutting speeds (between 200 and 300 m/min), different cutting
feeds (between 0.075 and 0.200 mm/rev), and cutting tools with two nose radius (0.4 and 0.8 mm), two
different surface states (one coated by CVD and the other without coating) and two different geometries of
the chip breaker. In all cases surface tensile residual stresses have been measured, tending to be more or
less tensile (and consequently more or less detrimental to the service life of the machined component)
depending on the cutting conditions and the characteristics of the cutting tool.
In this work, not only the magnitude but also the orientation of the principal residual stresses has been
determined. This is not commonly encountered in the literature, in spite of its significance: the direction of
maximum residual stress is a critical direction because if it coincides with the direction of the stresses
acting on the component as a result of the nominal load (load suffered by the component during its normal
service), the service life of the part will be significantly affected, leading to possible premature failure of the
component. That is the reason why knowing the orientation and not only the magnitude of principal
residual stresses is of huge importance.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Surface integrity of components affects their service life and
dimensional stability, so it is extremely important to control the
final surface state of parts after manufacturing. Among the
properties commonly enclosed in the surface integrity of a
component, the most relevant are residual stresses, roughness,
hardness and microstructure. Particularly, residual stresses
play a key role in the service life of components, because they
add up to the external stresses acting over the part during service,
leading to a real stress higher than the applied stress, and
therefore the fatigue resistance of the component is reduced,
leading to possible premature failure of the components during
its service life.
Residual manufacturing of materials (forge, machining, heat
treating, etc) [1,2]. In turning processes, and in general in cutting
machining processes, the cutting energy results in temperature
increase and plastic deformation and therefore residual stresses
are originated as response to thermo-mechanical phenomena
occurring during the process. There can be distinguished three
factors that contribute to the final residual stress state [1,3]:

n
Corresponding author.
 Tool/part pressure leads to rubbing and therefore plastic
E-mail addresses: vgarcia@tekniker.es (V. Garcı́a Navas), deformation of the machined material, resulting in compres-
ogonzalo@tekniker.es (O. Gonzalo), ibengoetxea@tekniker.es (I. Bengoetxea). sive residual stresses (mechanical stresses).

0890-6955/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.05.008
 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57
 Tool/part friction and heat generated during plastic deforma-
tion lead to heating of the part. The temperature increase
causes momentarily an expansion of the material surface that
is constrained by the bulk material. The resulting stresses may
exceed the yield stress at the actual temperature and, there-
fore, the surface material will be plastically deformed. The
thermal contraction during the subsequent cooling leads to
tensile residual stresses at the surface. These residual stresses
are thermal residual stresses.
 If during cutting the temperature reached is high enough,
phase transformations can occur in the machined material.
This way, if the workpiece is made of hardenable steel,
martensite may form due to the rapid heating and cooling,
causing compressive stresses, due to the volumetric changes
associated to the martensite transformation.
The final stress state depends, therefore, on the relative
importance of each of these three factors (mechanical, thermal
and structural/phase transformation effects), which is determined
not only by the physical and mechanical properties of the
material to be machined, but also by the machining parameters
employed. Consequently, it is very important to control the effect
that each cutting parameter has in the final surface integrity of
the machined part, in order to determine the most adequate
machining parameters.
Several authors have observed, in different materials, (for
example Dahlman et al.[4] in AISI 52100 steel, Jang et al.[5] in
AISI 304 stainless steel, Capello [6] in different steels and Schlauer
and Oden [7] in Inconel 718), an increase with feed of the surface
residual stresses in the machined part. Nevertheless, other
authors, such as Rech and Moisan [8], state that this is only true
for a specific range of feeds.
Regarding cutting velocity, something similar occurs (that is,
no agreement between authors): some authors [9–11] affirm that
surface residual stresses increase with cutting speed, but Rech
and Moissan [8] have observed that from a certain cutting speed
on, an increase in cutting speed leads to a reduction in the surface
residual stresses.
Therefore, there is a certain lack of agreement in the literature
regarding the real tendency of residual stresses with feed and
cutting velocity. Aiming to put some light on it, in this work it has
been studied the effect of cutting speed and feed on the final
surface stress state in AISI 4340 steel.
Not only cutting parameters, but it is also expected that tool
properties affect the final surface integrity of the machined parts,
as mechanical and thermal loads are modified by changes in the
tool characteristics. This is why in this work it has been as well
studied the effect of tool nose radius, geometry of the tool chip
breaker and coating of the cutting tool in the surface integrity of
the machined part.
Most of the studies found in bibliography concerning the effect
of cutting parameters in the final stress state present the stresses
measured in two directions: cutting and feed direction. Never-
theless, nothing demonstrates that these directions are the
principal stress directions so in this work the full stress tensor
has been obtained in each studied case, in order to obtain, by
means of Mohr’s circle construction, maximum and minimum
(principal) stresses and the direction at which these principal
stresses are located. Knowing not only the magnitude but also the
orientation of the principal stresses, what is not commonly
done in the literature, has a huge importance since it can
dramatically affect the component service life: if the direction
of maximum residual stress matches with the direction of the
stress that acts on the component resultant of the nominal load
(load suffered by the component during its normal service) the
failure of the component will be sooner (catastrophic premature
49
failure) than if the direction of both stresses are different, since
the residual stresses add up to the external stresses that the
component suffers during service. In general, it can be said
that residual stresses are beneficial when they operate in the
plane of stresses generated by the applied load and are opposite
in sense.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Material and turning tests
The material employed in this work is AISI 4340 steel in
normalized state. The chemical composition of this steel mea-
sured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis is gathered in Table 1.
This kind of steel has typically structural applications, such as
aircraft landing gears, axles, crankshafts, etc.
A first set of experiments has been carried out to study the
effect of cutting speed and feed in the final surface stress state
in the machined part. For these tests the tool employed has been
a TCMT16T308-UF 525 P10 M10 Sandvik Coromant tool, which
is a tool with M10 hard metal quality and without coating.
With these tool cylindrical turning tests have been done using
three different cutting speeds (vc: 200–255–300 m/min) and six
different feeds (fn:0.075–0.100–0.125–0.150–0.175–0.200 mm/rev),
keeping constant the depth of cut (ap ¼ 0.4 mm) and without using
cooling fluid.
A second set of turning tests has been planned for the study of
the effect on surface residual stresses of cutting tool character-
istics, concretely the effect of tool nose radius, tool coating and
tool chip-breaker geometry. In these tests, cutting speed has been
fixed at 200 m/min, and three different feeds have been employed
(fn: 0.075–0.125–0.175 mm/rev). No cooling fluid has been
employed, and the depth of cut has been ap ¼0.4 mm. The cutting
tools employed for these tests are:
– Mitsubishi TCMT16T304 UTi20T: tool without coating and
with 0.4 mm tool nose radius.
– Mitsubishi TCMT16T304 UE6020: tool with CVD coating and
with 0.4 mm tool nose radius.
– Mitsubishi TCMT16T308 UE6020: tool with CVD coating and
with 0.8 mm tool nose radius.
– Mitsubishi TCMT16T304-FV UE6020: tool with CVD coating,
0.4 mm tool nose radius and with a chip-breaker of different
geometry, concretely FV chip breaker instead of the standard
(ST) chip breaker of the other tools employed in this study
(Fig. 1).
Each turning test has been done along 20 mm, in normalized
AISI 4340 steel bars of 55 mm diameter, such as the one shown in
Fig. 2.
2.2. Residual stress and roughness measurement
Macroscopic residual stresses induce distortion of the crystal-
line lattice that is reflected in a displacement of the X-ray
diffraction peaks. The measurement of this displacement is the
base of the measurement of macroscopic residual stresses by
Table 1
Chemical composition [wt%] of AISI 4340 steel.
C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo Fe
wt% 0.425 0.31 0.81 0.015 0.0058 0.83 1.80 0.25 Balance
50 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57

ST (Standard) FV

Fig. 1. Geometry of the two kinds of chip breakers studied (pictures of the tools from Mitsubishi [12] and confocal microscopy images of the tool tip obtained in this work).

fn
vc
ap

Fig. 2. Geometry of the cutting tests (cylindrical turning) and samples employed.

means of X-ray diffraction. The general equation for the determi-
nation of macroresidual stresses from diffraction measurements
is [13,14]:
djc d0 1þn
ejc ¼ ¼
d0 E Therefore, the full stress tensor can be obtained measuring
2
ðs11 cos2 j þ s12 sin2j þ s22 sin js33 Þ
1þn n 1þ n
sin2 c þ s33  ðs11 þ s22 þ s33 Þ þ
E E E
ðs13 cosj þ s23 sinjÞsin2c
where efc is the strain at (f,c) orientation, dfc is the interplanar
spacing measured in the stressed sample for (f,c) orientation, d0
is the stress free interplanar spacing, sij are the stress tensor
components and n and E are, respectively, Poisson coefficient and
Young modulus of the material (for AISI 4340 steel: n ¼0.30 and
E¼210 GPa).
The stress tensor components, sij, have been obtained using
the sin2c method that consists in representing dfc in front of
sin2c for different f values. The stress tensor components, sij,
are obtained from the slope and y-intercept of these representa-
tions. Lattice spacing, dfc, is obtained from the experimentally
measured peak position, 2y, and using Bragg law: l ¼ 2dsin y.
In this work, diffraction measurements have been done in a
Bruker D8 Advance X-ray diffractometer equipped with parallel
beam and Cr radiation (lCr ¼2.291 Å). The software employed for
the calculations is STRESS from Bruker that, using sin2c method,
gives normal (sN) and shear (sS) stresses for each measurement
orientation, f:
sN, j ¼ s11 cos2 j þ s12 sin2j þ s22 sin2 js33
ð2Þ
sS, j ¼ s13 cosj þ s23 sinj
residual stresses at three different f orientations. From the stress
tensor and using Mohr’s circle construction, principal (maximum
and minimum) stresses and their direction can be obtained. In
this work surface residual stresses have been measured, for each
turning test, at three directions: cutting direction (f ¼01, circum-
ð1Þ ferential direction), feed direction (f ¼901, longitudinal direction)
and at an intermediate direction (f ¼ 451). For these measure-
ments (h k l)¼(2 1 1) X-ray diffraction peak, located at 2y E 1561
when using Cr radiation, has been used. X-ray diffraction peaks
have been measured at eleven c values, from  451 to þ 451 at
equispaced sin2c values.
As indicated previously, macroscopic residual stresses produce
a shift in the position of the diffraction peak. On the other hand,
the width of the diffraction peak used for macroscopic residual
stress measurement is related with the level of microscopic
residual stresses; concretely, diffraction peak width increases as
material is cold worked, or as a result of phase transformations
such as hardening of martensitic steels. Therefore, as micros-
tresses and crystallite size reduction caused by plastic deforma-
tion result in a broadening of the diffraction peak [13], a study of
the peak width can give a qualitative idea of the level of plastic
deformation/work hardening in the material.
Macroscopic residual stresses (from now on just residual
stresses) vary continuously over large distances, in contrast to
 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57 51

microscopic residual stresses which vary over the grain scale 4.00
(intergranular stresses) or the atomic scale.
3.95
Surface roughness of the machined samples has been mea-
sured using a Mitutoyo SurfaceTester. 3.90 f = 0.200 mm/rev
3.85 f = 0.175 mm/rev

FWHM (º)
3.80 f = 0.150 mm/rev
3. Results and discussion
3.75 f = 0.125 mm/rev
3.1. Effect of feed and cutting speed 3.70 f = 0.100 mm/rev
3.65 f = 0.075 mm/rev
Surface residual stress values measured at three different direc-
tions (cutting, feed and intermediate direction) for each of the tests 3.60
have been gathered in Fig. 3, as well as principal (maximum and 3.55
minimum) stresses and the direction of maximum principal stress 100 150 200 250 300 350
(minimum principal stress acts in a direction perpendicular to Cutting speed, vc (m/min)
maximum principal stress), obtained using Mohr’s circle.
Fig. 4. Evolution with feed and cutting speed of the mean value of peak
In Fig. 4 are represented, as a function of feed and cutting width (FWHM) of the diffraction peaks measured for the calculation of residual
speed, the mean value of peak width (FWHM: full width at half stresses.

800 800
y = 478.27x + 589.12
700 y = 1030.86x + 387.59 700 R² = 0.92
R² = 0.98 y = 446.09x + 551.09
600 600 R² = 0.78
y = 1044.57x + 357.37
σcutting direction (MPa)

R² = 0.98 500 y = 499.27x + 462.19

500 R² = 0.62
y = 1056.00x + 284.80
σmax (MPa)

400 R² = 0.93
400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
vc = 200 m/min vc = 200 m/min
-100 -100
vc = 255 m/min vc = 255 m/min
-200 -200
vc = 300 m/min vc = 300 m/min
-300 -300
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
σfeed direction (MPa)

y = 1066.29x + 176.89
y = 1618.87x - 24.64
400
σmin (MPa)

400 R² = 0.97
y = 1301.71x + 90.51 R² = 0.97
300 y = 1900.19x - 103.20
300 R² = 0.86
R² = 0.91
y = 1490.29x + 16.75
200 200 y = 2047.02x - 160.64
R² = 0.98
R² = 0.99
100 100
0 0
vc = 200 m/min
-100 vc = 200 m/min -100
vc = 255 m/min
-200 vc = 255 m/min -200
vc = 300 m/min vc = 300 m/min
-300 -300
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

800 90
y = 416.00x + 572.80 φ = 90 º : FEED direction vc = 200 m/min
700 R² = 0.90 80
y = 401.14x + 525.01 vc = 255 m/min
600 R² = 0.63
y = 504.00x + 432.87
70
500 vc = 300 m/min
R² = 0.63
60
400
σ45º (MPa)

φσ max (º)

300 50
200 40 y = -34.42x + 36.16
100 R² = 0.85
30 y = -35.01x + 34.26
0 R² = 0.64
vc = 200 m/min 20
-100 y = -28.45x + 33.42
vc = 255 m/min R² = 0.91
-200 10
vc = 300 m/min φ = 0º : CUTTING direction
-300 0
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

Fig. 3. Surface residual stresses measured at cutting direction (a), at feed direction (b) and at 451 (c), and principal stresses (maximum stress (d) and minimum stress (e))
and the direction of maximum stress (f), obtained from Mohr’s circle construction.
52 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57
maximum) of the X-ray diffraction peaks measured for the
determination of surface residual stresses.
As feed increases, surface residual stresses tend to be more
tensile (Fig. 3) and diffraction peaks broaden (Fig. 4), indicating also
an increase in the level of microresidual stresses. The tendency
towards more tensile stresses can be associated to an increase in
cutting temperature with feed, measured experimentally by Outeiro
et al. [15]. This increase in temperature is due to the fact that as feed
increases, chip thickness increases too, what implies greater heat
generation associated with the plastic deformation of the material to
form the chip and, as mentioned previously, the heat generated in
the cutting process leads to thermal tensile stresses. The broadening
of the peak with the increase in feed indicates that the level of
plastic deformation and/or hardening due to martensitic transfor-
mation also increase with feed, what would lead to less tensile
macrostresses, that is not the case. Therefore, this indicates that
regarding the effect of feed, the thermal effect is the dominant effect
in the generation of residual stresses.
Concerning cutting speed, as it increases surface residual
stresses tend to be less tensile (Fig. 3) but there is not a clear
tendency regarding the peak width (Fig. 4): For lower feeds peak
width remains practically constant when taking into account the
errors (standard deviation of the mean value) but for higher feeds
peak width (and therefore plastic deformation and/or work hard-
ening) increases with cutting speed up to a cutting speed of
255 m/min and from there on, peak width decreases with an
increase in cutting speed.
The trend with cutting speed of the residual stresses opposed to
the one observed by some authors, such as Rech and Moissan [8]
and M’Saoubi et al. [10]. Nevertheless, the authors mentioned have
used lower cutting speed ranges than the ones used in the present
work. Therefore, it can be concluded that depending on the level of
cutting speeds employed, the trend changes. Thus, as is gathered in
bibliography [8,10], for cutting speeds up to around 200 m/min an
increase in cutting speed leads to higher surface residual stresses
but, as this work demonstrates, for higher cutting speeds surface
residual stresses tend to be less tensile as cutting speed increases.
An increase in cutting speed implies an increase in local
temperature near the cutting tip (as has been measured, among
others, by Outeiro et al. [15] for cutting speeds between 75 and
200 m/min and by Gunnberg et al. [16] in 18MnCr low carbon
steel using cutting speeds between 110 and 230 m/min), what
would result in surface tensile stresses (thermal stresses). The
concentration of heat in the generation zone is also mentioned by
Miguélez et al. [17], who state that when cutting speed is
increased, heat penetration and therefore the heat affected layer
thickness diminishes because as cutting speed increases the time
for heat propagation is smaller. This would imply that the
thickness of material with residual stresses would be thinner
(to verify this, measurement of residual stresses in depth would
be necessary) but this not necessarily implies a decrease in the
value of surface stress. Nevertheless, if high temperatures are
reached at the surface and heat penetration is lower, it would be
more probable the martensite transformation in quenching,
favouring the formation of compressive transformation stresses.
On the other hand, Abukhshim et al. [18] affirm that for higher
cutting speeds the process is more adiabatic and more heat is
evacuated in the chip, instead of remaining on the workpiece and/
or in the tool. Therefore, the temperature at the surface of the part
will be reduced, resulting in less tensile residual stresses. Never-
theless, although the process is adiabatic in the primary zone, the
temperature at the tertiary zone (zone of friction with the work-
piece surface) increases, leading to more tensile stresses. There-
fore, it is not obvious to make a conclusion; temperature
measurements would have been useful to refine the analysis,
although it is known that temperature measurements are not
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Ra (μm)
1
0.8
0.6
vc = 200 m/min
0.4
vc = 255 m/min
0.2
vc = 300 m/min
0
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev)
Fig. 5. Roughness as a function of feed and cutting speed.
easily performed due to chip obstacles, moving objects (moving
contact interface), etc.
Summarizing, in view of the results of this work and those
gathered from bibliography it can be concluded that for lower
cutting speeds the balance between the factors that contribute to
the generation of residual stresses is different than for higher
cutting speeds: For lower cutting speeds the dominant factor is
temperature that results in tensile thermal stresses; for higher
cutting speeds it seems that transformation stresses and/or
plastic deformation acquire more importance, although it is not
clearly reflected in the study of the peak width.
With reference to the location of principal stresses, maximum
stresses are located at around 301 from the cutting direction
(minimum stresses are located perpendicular to the maximum
stresses), tending to slightly approach the cutting direction as
feed and/or cutting speed increase. As it is mentioned previously,
it is important to know the direction where maximum residual
stresses are located in order to avoid the generation of them in
the same direction of the applied stress during the component
service life, because it can result in catastrophic premature failure
of the component.
In Fig. 5 roughness values measured for each test have been
represented. Feed is the main factor influencing the surface
roughness, as already known due to the geometrical relations
between the feed (f), tool nose radius (r) and roughness (Ra) in
2
turning operations [12]: Ra p fr . However, in real machining
operations other cutting parameters also influence surface rough-
ness, because of the material behavior under large deformations.
This way, in the present work it is observed that roughness
increases quadratically with feed and also slightly with cutting
speed. Thiele and Melkote [19] and Capello et al. [20] have also
observed an increase in surface roughness with cutting speed and
feed, respectively.
3.2. Effect of cutting tool characteristics
Surface residual stress values measured at three directions for
each of the second set of tests have been gathered in Fig. 6, as well
as principal stresses and the direction of maximum stress (mini-
mum stress is perpendicular to maximum stress), obtained using
Mohr’s circle, and diffraction peak width (FWHM).
3.2.1. Effect of tool nose radius
As can be seen in Fig. 7, for higher tool nose radius the surface
residual stresses tend to be more tensile, that is, more detrimental
to the service life of the part. This agrees with the observations of
other authors [6,11] [21–23].
 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57 53

1000 1100
y = 1726.80x + 730.49
900 y = 2230.00x + 541.25 1000
R² = 0.99 R² = 1.00
900
800 y = 3370.00x + 294.08 800
y = 2572.00x + 559.19
R² = 0.88
700 R² = 0.91 700 y = 3013.80x + 403.88
y = 1880.00x + 501.67
σcutting direction (MPa)

600 R² = 0.91 600 R² = 0.87

500 y = 1145.90x + 704.80

σmax (MPa)
500 y = 3600.00x + 198.33
400 R² = 0.88 400 R² = 0.94
300
300 200
200 100
100 0
0 -100
-200
-100 R = 0.4 mm - Without coating
R = 0.4 mm - Without coating -300
-200 R = 0.4 mm - With coating R = 0.4 mm - With coating
-400 R = 0.8 mm - With coating
R = 0.8 mm - With coating
-300 -500 R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
-400 -600
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

1000 1100
900 1000
800 900
700 y = 2850.00x + 49.42 800
R² = 0.99 700
600 y = 4920.00x - 383.33 600 y = 2723.20x + 10.26
500 R² = 0.98 500 R² = 1.00

σmin (MPa)
σ45º (MPa)

y = 5160.00x - 429.00 y = 5296.20x - 502.29

400 400 R² = 0.88
R² = 0.88
300 y = 6720.00x - 794.67 300 y = 5454.10x - 548.80
R² = 0.89 200 R² = 0.99
200 100 y = 7318.00x - 984.44
100 R² = 0.88
0
0 -100
-100 -200
R = 0.4 mm - Without coating -300 R = 0.4 mm - Without coating
-200 R = 0.4 mm - With coating -400 R = 0.4 mm - With coating
-300 R = 0.8 mm - With coating R = 0.8 mm - With coating
R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
-500 R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
-400 -600
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

1000 f ← 90
900 R = 0.4 mm - Without coating
y = 2220.00x + 199.50 80 R = 0.4 mm - With coating
800 R = 0.8 mm - With coating
R² = 1.00
700 y = 4710.00x - 296.75 70 R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
600 R² = 0.87
σfeed direction (MPa)

500 y = 4720.00x - 345.67 60

φσ max (º)

R² = 1.00
400 y = 6520.00x - 719.33 50
300 R² = 0.87
200 40 y = -11.30x + 28.83
R² = 0.98
100 30 y = -36.70x + 31.86
0 R² = 0.70
20 y = 0.30x + 24.66
-100 R = 0.4 mm - Without coating R² = 0.00
-200 R = 0.4 mm - With coating
10 y = -2.00x + 23.44
R = 0.8 mm - With coating R² = 0.00
-300 R = 0.4 mm - With coating - Different chip breaker
-400 Vc ← 0
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

4.8

4.6

4.4
FWHM (º)

4.2

4.0

3.8
R = 0.4 mm - Without coating
R = 0.4 mm - With coating
3.6
R = 0.8 mm - With coating
R = 0.4 mm - With coating - FV chip breaker
3.4
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev)

Fig. 6. Surface residual stresses measured at cutting direction (a), at feed direction (b) and at 451 (c), principal stresses (maximum stress (d) and minimum stress (e)) and
their direction (f), obtained from Mohr’s circle construction, and diffraction peak width (FWHM) (g).

In the studied case, for the tool nose radius of 0.8 mm the Dogra et al. [24] gather the affirmation of Sasahara et al. [25] that
depth of cut is smaller than the radius of the tool and therefore increasing edge radius to a point that the edge roundness is larger
the tool cutting edge angle is not the same as for radius 0.4 mm. than the uncut chip thickness actually decreases the effective rake
54 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57

1200 3.00
1100
1000
900 2.50
800
700
600
500 2.00
400 R = 0.4 mm
σ (MPa)

Ra (μm)
300
200 1.50 R = 0.8 mm
100
0
-100 1.00
-200
-300
-400
-500 R = 0.4 mm - SIGMA max R = 0.8 mm - SIGMA max 0.50
-600
-700 R = 0.4 mm - SIGMA min R = 0.8 mm - SIGMA min
-800 0.00
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)
4.6

4.4 R = 0.4 mm
FWHM (º)

4.2 R = 0.8 mm

4.0

3.8

3.6
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
Feed, f (mm/rev)

Fig. 7. Effect of tool nose radius on principal (maximum, s max, and minimum, s min) surface residual stresses, on surface roughness, Ra, and on x-ray diffraction peak
width, FWHM.

angle towards the negative value. Hence, a large edge radius has a
similar effect to a negative rake angle i.e., to generate compressive
residual stress beneath the machined surface. Davim [26] also
states that the compressive zone expands visibly when cutting
with rounded cutting edge (higher ratio of the cutting edge radius
to undeformed chip thickness) and larger negative rake angles. As
a consequence, in such cases the work-hardening effect will
probably be more intensive due to the plowing effect. Never-
theless, all this affirmations are about subsurface residual stresses
and in the present work only surface residual stresses have been
studied.
Abhang and Hameedullah [27] state that as tool nose radius
increases the contact area for the dissipation of heat increases,
and therefore the local temperature along the cutting edge
diminishes, what would lead to less tensile surface residual
stresses. Nevertheless, as contact area increases, tool/part friction
increases too, leading to an increase in the heat generated
due to friction, what would result in more tensile stresses. At
the same time, as contact area increases, tool/part pressure per
area diminishes, and therefore the plastic deformation is lesser
too. Therefore, an increase in tool nose radius implies
higher temperatures due to friction and less plastic deformation
(as is reflected in the peak width values: X-ray diffraction
peaks are broader for the smaller tool nose radius), what results
in more tensile surface residual stresses, as observed in present
work.
As tool nose radius increases, the contact length between
tool and workpiece increases, diminishing the height of
feed marks and, therefore, diminishing the surface roughness
(Fig. 7).
3.2.2. Effect of tool coating
As can be seen in Fig. 8, when using a non coated tool the
minimum surface residual stresses are lower than when a coated
tool is used, and the maximum surface residual stresses are
greater only for higher feeds.
Rech and Moisan [8] and M’Saoubi et al. [10] state that for
comparable stable cutting conditions (that is low cutting forces
and good chip formation), the use of coated tools results in less
tensile residual stresses due to the better tribological behaviour
(less friction and therefore less heat generation).
Nevertheless, as other authors [28–30] also state, the coating of
the tool acts as a thermal barrier (because of lower thermal
conductivity, as is the case of Al2O3 coating layers), and then the
heat generated during the cutting process is not driven away through
the tool, leading to a higher tool life, but also to a higher heat
transmission to the workpiece. This heating of the workpiece would
be the responsible of more tensile residual stresses when using
coated tools.
Regarding roughness, it is slightly lower when using coated
tools, being the difference higher for intermediate feeds. This
coincides with the observation of Tawfiq [31] of lower roughness
values when turning steel using different coated tools instead of
non coated tools.
3.2.3. Effect of tool chip-breaker geometry
As can be seen in Fig. 9, for the higher feed employed, the
principal stresses and roughness are identical for the two kind of
chip breakers used. For the intermediate feed, maximum stress is
identical, but minimum stress and roughness are higher for the tool
 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57 55

1200 3.00
1100
1000 WITH coating
900 2.50
800
700 WITHOUT coating
600
500 2.00
400

Ra (μm)
σ (MPa)

300
200 1.50
100
0
-100 1.00
-200 WITH coating - SIGMA max
-300 WITHOUT coating - SIGMA max.
-400 0.50
-500 WITH coating - SIGMA min
-600
-700 WITHOUT coating - SIGMA min
-800 0.00
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)
4.6
Without coating
4.4 With coating
FWHM (º)

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
Feed, f (mm/rev)

Fig. 8. Effect of coating on principal (maximum, smax, and minimum, smin) surface residual stresses, on surface roughness, Ra, and on x-ray diffraction peak width, FWHM.

with FV chip breaker geometry. For the lower feed, minimum
stresses are identical, whereas maximum stress and roughness are
lower for FV chip breaker, indicating that this chip breaker geometry
is better only for low feeds. Regarding X-ray diffraction peaks, those
are broader for the ST chip-breaker geometry, indicating that the
level of microresidual stresses generated when using FV chip
breaker is lower than when standard chip breaker is employed.
Microstresses increase with feed for both chip breakers.
The FV chip breaker has a negative geometry and the ST
geometry has positive angle in the rake face, but it has not been
noticed any significant difference between both tools in the stress
measurements. It was expected a higher difference because of the
different chip deformation process for positive and negative rake
tools, being the load more compressive for the negative rake tools
(tools with negative rake angle generate compressive stresses in
the workpiece material during machining).
Nevertheless, the difference between the stress state gener-
ated with the two kind of tools (with different chip breaker
geometry) is not as important as the differences observed when
using coated/non coated tool or tool with different tool nose
radius, indicating that chip breaker geometry affects the final
stress state of the machined part, but is not as influential as other
tool characteristics such as nose radius or coating.
4. Conclusions
From the results obtained in this work, and based on current
knowledge of thermal conditions in turning, the following con-
clusions can be derived:
– As feed increases, residual stresses tend to be more tensile
due to an increase in cutting temperature with feed,
and also surface roughness increases. Therefore, surface integ-
rity of the part deteriorates with the increase in cutting
feed.
– For cutting speeds between 200 and 300 m/min, as cutting
speed increases residual stresses tend to be less tensile. For
lower cutting speeds the trend is opposite, indicating that the
relative importance of thermal, mechanical (plastic deforma-
tion) and transformation factors responsible of the generation
of residual stresses change depending of the range of cutting
speed employed, that is, for lower cutting speeds the balance
between the factors that contribute to the generation of
residual stresses is different than for higher cutting speeds:
For lower cutting speeds the dominant factor is temperature
that results in tensile thermal stresses; for higher cutting
speeds it seems that transformation stresses and/or plastic
deformation acquire more importance.
– Maximum stresses are located near cutting direction,
approaching this direction slightly as cutting speed and feed
increase.
– An increase in tool nose radius implies higher tool/workpiece
contact area, that results in higher temperatures due to friction
and less plastic deformation (the pressure per unit area
diminishes), leading to more tensile surface residual stresses,
although roughness improves.
– The use of coated tools results in better roughness values but
the surface residual stresses tend to be more tensile, because
the coating acts as a thermal barrier, introducing more heat
into the workpiece and therefore favoring the thermal factor
that leads to tensile stresses.
56 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57

1200 3.00
1100
1000
900 2.50
800 ST Chip breaker
700
600
500 2.00 FV Chip breaker
400
σ (MPa)

Ra (μm)
300
200 1.50
100
0
-100 1.00
-200
-300
-400 ST Chip breaker - SIGMA max FV Chip breaker - SIGMA max
-500 0.50
-600
-700 ST Chip breaker - SIGMA min FV Chip breaker - SIGMA min
-800 0.00
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Feed, f (mm/rev) Feed, f (mm/rev)

4.6

4.4 ST chip breaker

FWHM (º)

FV chip breaker
4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
Feed, f (mm/rev)

Fig. 9. Effect of chip breaker geometry on principal (maximum, smax, and minimum, smin) surface residual stresses, on surface roughness (Ra) and on x-ray diffraction peak
width (FWHM).

– The geometry of the tool chip breaker affects only slightly the
final stress state generated in the part (is not as influential as
tool nose radius or tool coating).
Therefore, for the feed and cutting speed ranges studied, it is
desirable to reduce feed and increase cutting speed in order to
achieve, in AISI 4340 steel, less tensile surface residual stresses
and, therefore, a stress state less detrimental for the service life of
the machined component. Also, it is better for the surface
integrity of the part to use non coated tools with smaller tool
nose radius.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Industrial Department of the Basque
Government for the financial support of this work, which is part
of the Manufacturing 0,0 project developed under the ETORTEK
program.
References
[1] G. Totten, M. Howes, T. Inoue, Handbook of Residual Stress and Deformation
of Steel, ASM International, 2002.
[2] P.J. Withers, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Residual stress Part 2—nature and origins,
Materials . Science. Technology. 17 (2001) 366–375.
[3] J.E. Wyatt, J.T. Berry, A new technique for the determination of superficial
residual stresses associated with machining and other manufacturing pro-
cesses, Journal of Materials Process Technology 171 (1) (2006) 132–140.
[4] P. Dahlman, F. Gunnberg, M. Jacobson, The influence of rake angle, cutting
feed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard turning, Journal of
Materials Process Technology 147 (2) (2004) 181–184.
[5] D.Y. Jang, T.R. Watkins, K.J. Kozaczek, C.R. Hubbard, O.B. Cavin, Surface
residual stresses in machined austenitic stainless steel, Wear 194 (1996)
168–173.
[6] E. Capello, Residual stresses in turning. Part I: Influence of process para-
meters., Journal of Materials Process Technology 160 (2005) 221–228.
[7] C. Schlauer, M Oden, Residual stress evolution and near surface microstruc-
ture after turning of the nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718, Z. Metallkunde
96 (2005) 385–392.
[8] J. Rech, A. Moisan, Surface integrity in finish hard turning of case-hardened
steels., International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 43 (2003)
543–555.
[9] M. Jacobson, P. Dahlman, F. Gunnberg, Cutting speed influence on surface
integrity of hard turned bainite steel, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 128 (2002) 318–323.
[10] R. M’Saoubi, J.C. Outeiro, B. Changeux, J.L. Lebrun, A. Moräo Dias, Residual
stress analysis in orthogonal machining of standard and resulfurized
AISI 316L steels, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 96 (1999)
225–233.
[11] R.M. Arunachalam, M.A. Mannan, A.C. Spowage, Residual stress and surface
roughness when facing age hardened Inconel 718 with CBN and ceramic
cutting tools., International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 44
(2004) 879–887.
[12] Mitsubishi Materials—Carbide & Tools Division /www.mitsubishicarbide.
comS.
[13] J. Lu, Handbook of Measurement of Residual Stresses, The Fairmont Press,
Inc., 1996.
[14] I.C. Noyan, J.B. Cohen, Residual Stress. Measurement by Diffraction and
Interpretation, Materials Research Engineering, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
[15] J.C. Outeiro, A.M. Dias, J.L. Lebrun, Experimental assessment of temperature
distribution in three-dimensional cutting process, Mechanical Science and
Technology 8 (3) (2004) 357–376.
[16] F. Gunnberg, M. Escursel, M. Jacobson, The influence of cutting parameters on
residual stresses and surface topography during hard turning of 18MnCr5
case carburized steel., Journal of Materials Processing Technology 174 (1-3)
(2006) 82–90.
[17] H. Miguélez, R. Zaera, R. Cheriguene, A. Rusinek, A. Moufki, A. Molinari.
Modelización numérica del corte ortogonal utilizando una formulación. ALE
81 CONGRESO IBEROAMERICANO DE INGENIERIA MECANICA Cuzco, 23 al 25
de Octubre de 2007.
[18] N.A. Abukhshim, P.T. Mativenga, M.A. Sheikh, Heat generation and tempera-
ture prediction in metal cutting: a review and implications for high speed
 V. Garcı́a Navas et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 61 (2012) 48–57
machining, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 46 (7-8)
(2006) 782–800.
[19] J.D. Thiele, S.N. Melkote, Effect of cutting edge geometry and workpiece
hardness on surface generation in the finish hard turning of AISI 52100 steel,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 94 (2-3) (1999) 216–226.
[20] E. Capello, P. Davoli, G. Bassanini, A. Bisi, Residual stress and surface
roughness in turning, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 121
(3) (1999) 346–351 –T ASME.
[21] D.W Schwach y, Y. Guo, Feasibility of producing optimal surface integrity by
process design in hard turning, Materials Science and Engineering A –
Structures 395 (1-2) (2005) 116–123.
[22] M. Liu, J. Takagi y, A. Tsukuda, Effect of tool nose radius and tool wear on
residual stress distribution in hard turning of bearing steel, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 150 (3) (2004) 234–241.
[23] F. Gunnberg, M. Escursell y, M. Jacobson, The influence of cutting parameters
on residual stresses and surface topography during hard turning of 18MnCr5
case carburised steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 174 (1-3)
(2006) 82–90.
[24] M. Dogra, V.S. Sharma, J. Dureja, Effect of tool geometry variation on finish
turning—a review, Journal of Engineering Science Technology Review 4 (1)
(2011) 1–13.
57
[25] H. Sasahara, T. Obikawa, T. Shirakashi, Prediction model of surface residual
stress within a machined surface by combining two orthogonal plane models,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 44 (2004) 815–822.
[26] J. Paulo Davim, Surface Integrity in Machining, Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[27] L.B. Abhang, M. Hameedullah, Chip-tool interface temperature prediction
model for turning process, International Journal of Engineering Science
Technology 2 (4) (2010) 382–393.
[28] P.J. Arrazola, I. Arriola, M.A. Davies, Analysis of the influence of tool type,
coatings, and machinability on the termal fields in ortogonal machining of
AISI 4140 steels, CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology 58 (1) (2009)
85–88.
[29] A.R.C. Sharman, J.I. Hughes, K. Ridgway, An analysis of the residual stresses
generated in Inconel 718 when turning, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 173 (2006) 359–367.
[30] J.C. Outeiro, A.M. Dias, I.S. Jawahir, On the effects of residual stresses induced
by coated and uncoated cutting tools with finite edge radii in turning
operations, CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 55/1 (2006) 111–116.
[31] M.A. Tawfiq, Effect of multi-coats of cutting tools on surface roughness in
machining AISI 1045 steel, Engineering and Technology 26 (12) (2008).