Comparative Analysis on Wiper and Standard Tools in Dry Finish Turning of Martensitic Stainless Steel AISI 420

Abstract:

Machining performance consists to associate the optimal process and cutting parameters and maximum material removal rate with the most appropriate tool while controlling the machined surface state. This work verifies the influence of standard and wiper cutting tools on generated surface roughness and residual stress in dry finish turning operation of the martensitic stainless steel AISI 420 in a comparative way. Tests are conducted for different combinations of tool nose geometry, feed rate and depth of cut being analyzed through the Design of Experiments regarding to surface roughness parameters R_a and R_t. Moreover, the formation of residual stresses in the material (using the technique of X-Ray Diffraction) was evaluated after the machining process for these two cutting geometries and thereafter the result was compared between them. An ANOVA is performed to clarify the influence of cutting parameters on generated surface roughness, which outputs inform that cutting tool geometry is the most influent on R_a and R_t. It is concluded that analyzed wiper inserts present low performance for low feed rates. Regarding the analysis of the residual stresses it can be stated that for standard and wiper tools the values collected show that for finish turning the compression stresses were found. It can be observed that the greatest amount of compressive stress has been found for the standard tool.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 845)
• Pages: 765-769
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.845.765
• Online since: December 2013
• Authors: Guilherme Cortelini Rosa*, André J. Souza, Flávio J. Lorini
• Keywords: Finish Turning, Residual Stress, Roughness, Stainless Steel AISI 420, Wiper Tool

References

[1] T. Childs, K. Maekaka, T. Obikawa, Y. Yamane, Metal Machining – Theory and Applications,. London: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 2000, 406p.

[2] F. Klocke, Manufacturing Processes 1: Cutting, Springer, RWTH Aachen, 2011, 522p.

[3] S. Kalpakjian and S. R. Schmid, Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 6. ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2010, 1176p.

[4] Sandvik, Metalcutting Technical Guide: General Turning, Sandvik Coromant, 2012, 156p.

[5] W. Grzesik, T. Wanat, Surface finish generated in hard turning of quenched alloy steel parts using conventional and wiper ceramic inserts, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 46, No. 15, pp.1988-1995, (2006).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.01.009

[6] J. P. Davim, Surface Integrity in Machining, Springer, London, 2010, 215p.

[7] J. C. Su, Residual Stress Modelling in Machining Processes,. Ph.D. Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering Department, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006, 170p.

[8] D. C. Montgomery and S. M. Kowalski, Design and Analysis of Experiments: MINITAB companion, 7. ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2011, 128p.

[9] O. P. Oladijo, A. M. Venter, L. A. Cornish, N. Sacks, X-ray diffraction measurement of residual stress in WC-Co thermally sprayed coatings onto metal substrates,. Surface and Coatings Technology, Vol. 206, No. 23, pp.4725-4729, (2012).

DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.01.044