See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335096734

FEM-Based Study of Precision Hard Turning of Stainless Steel 316L

Article in Materials · August 2019

DOI: 10.3390/ma12162522

CITATIONS READS

34 8,039

4 authors, including:

Ahmed Elkaseer Mohammed Saber

British University in Egypt King Faisal University
123 PUBLICATIONS 1,780 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 281 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Nassef
Port Said University
88 PUBLICATIONS 444 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Nassef on 10 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 materials
Article
FEM-Based Study of Precision Hard Turning of
Stainless Steel 316L
Ahmed Elkaseer 1,2, * , Ali Abdelaziz 3 , Mohammed Saber 1,4 and Ahmed Nassef 1,5
1 Department of Production Engineering and Mechanical Design, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said University,
Port Fuad 42526, Egypt
2 Institute for Automation and Applied Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology,
76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
3 Northern Workshop, Port Said Shipyard, Suez Canal Authority, Port Fuad 42526, Egypt
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
5 High Institute of Engineering & Technology, North Sinai, EL-Arish 45511, Egypt
* Correspondence: ahmed.elkaseer@kit.edu; Tel.: +49-721-608-25754




Received: 19 June 2019; Accepted: 5 August 2019; Published: 8 August 2019


Abstract: This study aims to investigate chip formation and surface generation during the precision
turning of stainless steel 316L samples. A Finite Element Method (FEM) was used to simulate the
chipping process of the stainless steel but with only a restricted number of process parameters. A set of
turning tests was carried out using tungsten carbide tools under similar cutting conditions to validate
the results obtained from the FEM for the chipping process and at the same time to experimentally
examine the generated surface roughness. These results helped in the analysis and understanding the
chip formation process and the surface generation phenomena during the cutting process, especially
on micro scale. Good agreement between experiments and FEM results was found, which confirmed
that the cutting process was accurately simulated by the FEM and allowed the identification of the
optimum process parameters to ensure high performance. Results obtained from the simulation
revealed that, an applied feed equals to 0.75 of edge radius of new cutting tool is the optimal cutting
conditions for stainless steel 316L. Moreover, the experimental results demonstrated that in contrast
to conventional turning processes, a nonlinear relationship was found between the feed rate and
obtainable surface roughness, with a minimum surface roughness obtained when the feed rate laid
between 0.75 and 1.25 times the original cutting edge radius, for new and worn tools, respectively.

Keywords: precision hard turning; chip formation; surface quality; minimum chip thickness; cutting
edge radius; FEM

1. Introduction
One of the important recent milestones in the machining field has been the development of
advanced precision machining processes. Chief among them, precision turning is an efficient process
for machining precise cylindrical components with tight tolerances and high quality features, which
has increased its deployment for industrial applications [1]. Precision hard turning refers to the use of
a single point tool to machine materials that have high strength, corrosive resistance, toughness, ductility,
and wear resistance [2]. These are referred to as ‘hard-to-cut’ materials, e.g., nickel superalloys, titanium
alloys, and stainless steel [3,4]. Precision hard turning is considered a profitable and dependable
alternative to grinding, with a reduction in machining time as high as 60% [5]. It is worth emphasizing
that appropriate cutting conditions have to apply to enable precision hard turning to deliver very fine
machined surfaces [6–8].

Materials 2019, 12, 2522; doi:10.3390/ma12162522 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2522 2 of 16

Precision hard turning is used in numerous applications, including bearings, dies, gears, and
molds because it improves the quality of the product while simultaneously reducing lead times
and manufacturing costs [9]. These benefits are especially noticeable with, for example ceramics,
polycrystalline cubic boron nitride (PcBN) and tungsten carbide tools which are commercially
available as super-hard tool materials. Different approaches, entailing experimental [1,3–7,9–13],
analytical [14,15], and FEM [16–29], have been utilized to examine the performance of a wide range of
machining operations in terms of surface quality, generated cutting force and tool wear. Nevertheless,
the potential of the precision hard turning process has not been fully realized as of yet. This is caused
because of the constraints of size-scale of the process. As in precision hard turning, the cutting edge
radius of the tool and the feed rate are comparable in scale. Therefore, there can be substantial
differences between the physical principles that govern the underlying phenomenon of this technique
at the macro scale. Resulting in undesirable changes to the chip formation and surface generation
processes [10,11]. In particular, in contrast to conventional turning where the obtainable surface
roughness decreases proportionally with the reduction of undeformed chip thickness (applied feed),
in precision hard turning the undeformed chip thickness can be smaller than the cutting edge radius of
the tool [12,16]. When the undeformed chip thickness is less than the minimum chip thickness, a certain
thickness of the material to be removed under which no cutting mechanism occurs, ploughing is the
governing mechanism. This is associated with generation of rough surface. In addition, the ploughed
material ahead of the tool cutting edge exerts high stresses on the cutting tool which accelerates tool
wear and results in even higher surface roughness [12,17].
A number of researchers have performed FEM simulation of machining processes validated by
experimental tests, with the aim of determining the optimum parameters for a given process [18].
Shao et al., [19] investigated tool wear and cutting temperature for the turning of Ti-6Al-4V alloy
with a Tungsten carbide–cobalt cutting tool. Combining FEM with thermo-dynamics, a comparison
was undertaken between experimental results and simulation predictions for depth of tool wear with
cutting temperature. The accuracy of the FEM was confirmed by good match of practical results and
FEM model simulations, but only on condition that the parameters input for cutting tool and workpiece
were correctly chosen.
Akbar et al., [20] examined the performance of the machining process in terms of the heat generated
and its division between the chip and the cutting tool. The investigation was carried out by FEM
modelling and, then, was validated by experiments with infrared techniques used to measure the
cutting temperature. It was reported that the heat generated could significantly alter the contact area
between tool and chip, and therefore affect the ability of FEM model to simulate the process. Accurate
measurement of the heat division between chip and tool was necessary for accurate FEM modelling of
the cutting operation.
Zhou et al., [21] used a polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tool to carry out 2-D orthogonal cutting of
SiCp/Al composites. The study investigated von-Mises equivalent stresses and the cutting force under
different cutting conditions both experimentally and with a FEM model. Simulation and experimental
results agreed that the machining of SiCp/Al composites needs to be at as high cutting speed as possible.
However, they found that the inverse applied to cutting depth. They also found that the removal of
SiCp particles was dependent on the relative position of cutting tool and particle.
Li, [22] used FEM simulations to simulate the progression of tool wear in turning operation under
conditions where cutting process variables were difficult to obtain experimentally.
Yang et al., [23] used FEM to investigate the mechanical behavior of hydrogenated-6Al-4V alloy at
high strain rates and elevated temperatures using a split Hopkinson pressure bar. The cutting process
was modelled numerically, and the results obtained showed that an increase in hydrogen content
significantly affected the temperature and cutting forces. Further investigation by simulation showed
that it was better to machine titanium hydride at high cutting speeds.
John et al., [24] investigated surface roughness of AISI 1020 steel when cut at different speeds with
different feed rates and depths of cut using HSS tools and CNMA diamond inserts. This study used
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 3 of 16

both FEM simulation and experimental tests. The differences between the experimental results and
simulation results ranged between 3.74% and 22.8% for the HSS tool and between 1.15% and 11.8%
for the CNMA insert. The best surface quality for the AISI 1020 steel using the CNMA insert tool
was obtained at: cutting speed of 5.45 mm/sec, depth of cut of 0.50 mm and feed rate of 0.05 mm/rev.
However, the quality of the surface obtained using diamond insert was better than that obtained using
the HSS tool.
Haddag et al., [25] reported a two-step modelling strategy to investigate cutting tool heat
transfer. The initial step was to simulate chip formation and estimate the cutting forces via a 3-D
thermo-mechanical FEM model. The final step was to simulate the thermal response of the cutting tool
under thermal load using a 3-D FEM thermal model. This thermal load was estimated using quantities
gained during the initial step; including sliding velocity, and contact area and pressure. Comparison
between model and experimental results were in good agreement.
Ali et al., [26] compared the results obtained from an FEM model with experimental results
when studying the machining of Ti-6Al-4V. However, the simulation and experimental results showed
a significant difference.
Bushlya et al., [27] developed an FEM model to simulate the creation of machined subsurface layer
when turning using a tool with a nose-radius and compared the simulation results with experimental
measurements. The simulation predicted multiple deformations of the workpiece material would
take place in the region around the tip of any tool with a nose radius. Numerous distortions of the
machined surface were observed when machining at low feed rates using tools with a sizeable nose
radius. These results suggested that the formation of the machined surface was, in significant part,
due to severe wear of the cutting tool which was the result of work-hardening of the surface material.
Aurich et al., [28] developed an FEM model to analyze the accuracy of turning operations using
dry machining and compared the simulated results with experiments. It was shown that the cutting
operation had a substantial effect on the heat generated which then affected the cutting tool, tool holder
and workpiece, and thus could detract from the accuracy of the process. It was claimed that least depth
of cut, maximum cutting speed, and feed rate, gave maximum accuracy of machining. These authors
found that the temperatures of both tool holder and tool must be considered to ensure maximum
accuracy of machining.
Maruda et al., [30] utilized FEM to study chip formation and tool wear of sintered carbide P25
tool when turning AISI 1045 steel under different cooling methods, i.e., dry machining, MQCL method
and MQCL + EP/AW, under a range of cutting speeds. The results revealed that MQCL method with
phosphate ester-based additive reducing the friction coefficient between the chips and rake face of the
tool which and chip thickening coefficient which eases the chip removal away from the cutting zone.
From the literature it is clear that there has been a noticeable number of studies of precision
hard turning. Nevertheless, there is still a need for a deeper understanding of the science behind the
underpinning chip formation and surface generation of the precision hard turning process at micro scale.
This is because the large body of the reported work has, generally, examined the process responses at
conventional ranges of the process parameters (viz. when the values of the applied feed rate are well
above the value of the cutting edge radius of the tool at which the underlying mechanism is mainly pure
cutting) [1,4,7,31–34]. However, at micro-scale machining, to achieve a proper chipping mechanism and
high-quality machined surface and minimum cutting forces, extremely restrictive cutting conditions,
especially the applied feed, have to be identified and rigorously applied. Accordingly, the current
research focusses on filling the gaps in the current scientific understanding of precision hard turning to
examine the influence of the restricted cutting conditions (particularly applied feed rate at the vicinity
of the edge radius of the cutting tool, due to their significant influence on the process performance).
However, powerful engineering tools such as FEM are needed to better understand the process in
its details. In this regard, the aim for this manuscript is to carry out a FEM-based study to examine
the influence of a limited range process conditions (under which the cutting mechanism changes
dramatically) on the chip formation and surface generation process when machining stainless steel 316L
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 4 of 16

workpieces in a precision hard turning operation. The results of the FEM will be used to identify the
optimum cutting parameters that enable proper chipping mechanism, higher quality of the machined
surface and increased productivity of the process.
Following to this introduction, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the FEM
simulation procedure is described. Then, the experimental set-up is detailed, including a description
of workpiece material, machine setup, applied cutting conditions and instrumentation. After that, the
paper discusses the FEM obtained results, the agreement between these results and experiments. Next,
the effect of the applied feed rate on surface quality is analyzed. Finally, the paper summarizes and
draws relevant conclusions based on the results and discussion.

2. Modelling and Simulation

For the simulation processes, a commercial FEM package, Abaqus/explicit (version 6.14, Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA), was used. A proposed analysis program was developed
to simulate the chip formation process of a precision turning operation of stainless steel 316L. The results
obtained from the FEM simulations were then compared to those obtained from the experimental work.

2.1. Material Models for the Cutting Process

The Johnson–Cook plasticity model is suitable for predicting deformation at high-strain rates and
is particularly suitable for use with metals. It is commonly used to describe flow stress in metals as the
product of temperature effects, strain and strain rate effects as given in Equation (1).
In this research, the chip formation in precision turning process of stainless steel 316L is studied
where the applied depth of cut is 10 µm and the maximum feed rate is 70 µm. With this small feed
rates and depth of cut, the effect of temperature on chip formation can be suppressed. Therefore, the
value of temperature-dependent term Johnson–Cook equation was taken as unity which simplifies the
calculations and accelerates the simulation.
 . "
 εpl 
 !m #
  n  T − Ttr
σ = A + B εpl 1 + CLn .  1 −
    (1)
εre f Tmelt − Ttr
.
where σ is the flow stress (MPa), εpl is the equivalent plastic strain at which σ is calculated, εpl is the
.
plastic strain rate (s−1 ), εre f is the reference plastic strain rate, which is generally normalized to a strain
rate of 1 per second. T is the current analysis temperature (◦ C), Ttr is the transient temperature (◦ C)
which is defined as the temperature at, or below which, there is no temperature dependence on the
expression of the flow stress. Tmelt (◦ C) is the melting temperature of the material.
A, B, C, n, and m are material constants of the workpiece and cutting tool that can be determined
experimentally at or below the transition temperature. The values of these constants for the workpiece
material (stainless steel 316L) are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters for the Johnson–Cook plasticity model and Johnson–Cook damage model for 316L
grade stainless steel [35].

A (MPa) B (MPa) n m c d1 d2 d3 d4
490 600 0.21 0.60 0.015 0.05 3.44 2.12 0.002

Because the material is removed with chip formation, we use the Johnson–Cook damage model.
pl
This model assumes the plastic strain at the inception of damage, εD , can be written as:
 . "
 ε 
" !# !m #
p
pl
εD 1 + d4 Ln . pl  1 − d5 T − Ttr

= d1 + d2 exp d3  ε  (2)
q 
re f Tmelt − Ttr
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 5 of 16

pl
where εD , is the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage, d1 –d5 are failure parameters, p is
. .
the mean (or hydrostatic) stress, q is the von Mises stress, εre f is the reference strain rate, εpl is plastic
strain rate, T is the current analysis temperature, Ttr is the transient temperature, Tmelt is the melt
temperature and m is a material constant.
In this study the effect of temperature on the machining process was suppressed (by setting d5 = 0.0
and m = 0) for two reasons, first due to the lack of material properties at different temperatures for
both the workpiece and the cutting tool, and to simplify the calculations. The values of the parameters
of Johnson–Cook damage model for stainless steel 316L are given in Table 1.

2.2. Materials: Mechanical and Physical Properties

Tables 2 and 3 give the mechanical and physical properties of the stainless steel 316L. It needs to
be noted that the accuracy of the obtained results depends on the accuracy of this data.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of 316L grade stainless steel [36].

Tensile Strength Yield Strength 0.2% Elongation (% Hardness Hv

Grade
(MPa) Min Proof (MPa) Min in 50 mm) Min Rockwell Max Vickers (HV)
316L 515 205 40 95 222

Table 3. Physical properties of 316L grade stainless steel [36].

Grade Density kg/m3 Elastic Modulus GPa Specific heat 0–100 ◦ C J/kg ◦ C
316L 8000 193 500

2.3. FEM Mesh

2-D models to represent the workpiece and cutting insert were designed, see Figure 1. Plane strain
quadrilateral four node reduced integration elements, CPE4R as designated in ABAQUS, were used.
It was reported that although 3D FEM gave more accurate results in terms of cutting forces, 3D FEM
analyses are more expensive in terms of computational time, specifically, when fine mesh is used [37].
The mesh size was chosen to give more emphasis on the chip separation region of the workpiece,
which is a vital aspect during the cutting process. Therefore, the size of the elements decreased on the
top area of the workpiece, and increased gradually with distance from the top surface, see Figure 2a.
The same approach was employed to model the cutting tool with focus on the tip part, see Figure 2b.
This helps to examine the tool wear that takes place during the cutting process; however, tool wear
procreation is not part of this study.

2.4. Assembly
In order to simulate real experimental angles and positions, the cutting tool and the workpiece
were assembled together. Figure 3 depicts a side view of the assembly of the cutting tool with
the workpiece.
Surface to surface contact algorithm by using penalty mechanical constraint is employed to the
model. For the first surface, the tool surface is chosen and for the second surface, the workpiece surface
with internal nodes, by defining a set of nodes in which the tool would engage during simulation,
is chosen.
 workpiece, which is a vital aspect during the cutting process. Therefore, the size of the elements
decreased on the top area of the workpiece, and increased gradually with distance from the top
surface, see Figure 2a. The same approach was employed to model the cutting tool with focus on the
tip part, see Figure 2b. This helps to examine the tool wear that takes place during the cutting process;
however,
Materials 2019,tool wear procreation is not part of this study.
12, 2522 6 of 16

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Figure 1. Modelling of turning process using Finite Element Method (FEM): (a) Turning process
normal arrangement, 3D FE representation of the turning process (b) and (c) 2D FEM model of turning
process where the tool remove a feed rate each stoke.

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Figure 1.1. Modelling

Modellingofofturning
turning process
process using
using Finite
Finite Element
Element Method
Method (FEM):(FEM): (a) Turning
(a) Turning process process
normal
normal arrangement,
arrangement, 3D FE representation
3D FE representation of the process
of the turning turning (b)
process (b)2D
and (c) and (c) 2D
FEM FEMofmodel
model of turning
turning process
processthe
where where the tool aremove
tool remove a feed
feed rate eachrate each stoke.
stoke.

Figure 2. Meshing of (a) the workpiece and (b) the cutting tool.

2.4. Assembly
In order to simulate real experimental angles and positions, the cutting tool and the workpiece
were assembled together. Figure 3 depicts a side view of the assembly of the cutting tool with the
workpiece.
Surface to surface contact algorithm by using penalty mechanical constraint is employed to the
model. For the first surface, the tool surface is chosen and for the second surface, the workpiece
surface with internal nodes, by defining a set of nodes in which the tool would engage during
simulation, is chosen. Figure 2. Meshing of (a) the workpiece and (b) the cutting tool.

2.4. Assembly
In order to simulate real experimental angles and positions, the cutting tool and the workpiece
were assembled together. Figure 3 depicts a side view of the assembly of the cutting tool with the
workpiece.
Surface to surface contact algorithm by using penalty mechanical constraint is employed to the
model. For the first surface, the tool surface is chosen and for the second surface, the workpiece
surface with internal nodes, by defining a set of nodes in which the tool would engage during
simulation, is chosen.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Side
Side view
view of
of the
the cutting
cutting tool–workpiece
tool–workpiece assembly
assembly showing
showing the
the tool angles.
tool angles.

2.5. Boundary
Boundary Conditions
The boundary
boundary conditions
conditionsandanddata
dataprovided
provided toto Abaqus/explicit
Abaqus/explicit to to model
model thethe cutting
cutting process
process are
as follows. The workpiece is fixed in the X, Y, and Z-directions at its bottom surface, where thethe
are as follows. The workpiece is fixed in the X, Y, and Z-directions at its bottom surface, where Z-
Z-direction
direction is is normal
normal toto thepage.
the page.The
Thecutting
cuttinginsert
insertwas
wasfixed
fixedininthe
theY-
Y-and
and Z-directions
Z-directions while
while it was
allowed to move in the X-direction with a cutting speed, Vc,, of 120 m/min which is the same as that
was applied in the experimental
experimental work. Figure
Figure 44 and Table 4 summarizes
summarizes the boundary conditions
which were applied to both the the cutting
cutting tool
tool and
and the
the workpiece.
workpiece.
Figure 3. Side view of the cutting tool–workpiece assembly showing the tool angles.

2.5. Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions and data provided to Abaqus/explicit to model the cutting process are
as follows. The workpiece is fixed in the X, Y, and Z-directions at its bottom surface, where the Z-
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 7 of 16
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Figure 4. Boundary conditions for the workpiece and the cutting tool models.
Figure 4. Boundary conditions for the workpiece and the cutting tool models.
Table 4. Boundary conditions for the modelling of the workpiece and the cutting tool.
Table 4. Boundary conditions for the modelling of the workpiece and the cutting tool.
Boundary Condition Workpiece Cutting Tool
Boundary Condition
Displacement in x axis = UX Workpiece
0 Cutting Tool
−150 mm
Displacement in xinaxis
Displacement = U=
y axis X U
Y
0 0 −150 mm
0
Displacement in yinaxis
Displacement = U=
z axis Y UZ 0 0 00
DisplacementVelocity
in z axis = UZ 0 0 0
120 m/min in negative X axis direction
Velocity 0 120 m/min in negative X axis direction
3. Experimental Validation
3. Experimental Validation
3.1. Workpiece Material
3.1. Workpiece Material
The workpiece material selected for this study was stainless steel 316L, because of its wide
The workpiece
industrial applications material
and to selected for this
its resistance study environmental
to severe was stainless steel 316L, [38].
conditions because
Theof its wide
workpiece
industrial applications and to its resistance to severe environmental conditions
material was assessed using a Spectro-lab (LAV L7) [39] to determine its chemical composition, see [38]. The workpiece
material
Table 5. was
Also,assessed using aofSpectro-lab
the hardness the material (LAV
wasL7) [39] to determine
quantified using a Sonohardits chemical composition,
ultrasonic see
hardness
Table
tester, 5. Also,
[40]. Thetheaverage
hardness of the material
measured hardnesswas wasquantified
217 ± 7 HV. using It isa worth
Sonohard ultrasonic
stressing hardness
that although
tester, [40]. Thehardness
the measured average was
measured
not veryhardness was 217steel
high, stainless ± 7 HV.
316LIt isisconsidered
worth stressing that although
a hard-to-cut the
material,
measured hardnessoperation
and its machining was not very high,a stainless
remains steelissue
challenging 316Ltois be
considered
addressed a hard-to-cut
[3,4]. This ismaterial,
becauseand the
its machining operation remains a challenging issue to be addressed [3,4].
machining of this material is associated with very tough cutting conditions owing to its superior This is because the
machining of this material is associated with very tough cutting conditions
mechanical properties, e.g., strength, toughness, wear resistance and low thermal conductivity which owing to its superior
mechanical
mean high wear properties, e.g., strength,
of the cutting toughness,
tool, thus wearprocess
the turning resistance and material
for this low thermal conductivity
is categorized as awhich
hard
mean high wear
turning operation. of the cutting tool, thus the turning process for this material is categorized as a hard
turning operation.
Table 5. Chemical composition of stainless-steel 316l (in weight percent wt%).
Table 5. Chemical composition of stainless-steel 316l (in weight percent wt%).
C Mn Si Cr Co Ni Mo Fe
C Mn Si Cr Co Ni Mo Fe
0.03 0.95 0.5 15.7 0.19 10 2.2 Balance
0.03 0.95 0.5 15.7 0.19 10 2.2 Balance

3.2. Machining
3.2. Machining Set-Up
Set-Up
Seven machining
Seven machiningexperiments
experiments were carried
were out. In
carried eachInmachining
out. test, the machining
each machining test, the parameters
machining
were kept the same except the feed rate which was changed from one test to the following
parameters were kept the same except the feed rate which was changed from one test to the following test.
The machine used for these tests was a precise three-axis computerized numerical control
test. The machine used for these tests was a precise three-axis computerized numerical control (CNC) (CNC)
turning machine,
turning machine, see
see Figure
Figure 5.
5.
The selected cutting tool used for the experimental validation was a right-hand (CNC) turning
tool. The tungsten carbide insert, SECO (VBMT 160408 TP3000), with 0.8 mm corner radius and
0.04 cutting edge radius (re), is shown in Figure 6.
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Materials 2019, 12, 2522 8 of 16

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Figure 5. Machine setup.

The selected cutting tool used for the experimental validation was a right-hand (CNC) turning
tool. The tungsten carbide insert, SECO (VBMT 160408 TP3000), with 0.8 mm corner radius and 0.04
cutting edge radius (re), is shown in Figure
Figure6.5.5. Machine
Figure setup.
Machine setup.

The selected cutting tool used for the experimental validation was a right-hand (CNC) turning
tool. The tungsten carbide insert, SECO (VBMT 160408 TP3000), with 0.8 mm corner radius and 0.04
cutting edge radius (re), is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The cutting
cuttinginsert.
insert.

3.3.3.3.
Cutting Conditions
Cutting Conditions
Figure 6. The cutting insert.
DueDue to toitsits
significant
significant influence
influence ononthe theattributes
attributesofofthe
themachining
machiningprocess,
process,the theeffect
effectof
offeed
feedrate
rateon
theon 3.3.performance
the Cutting of
performance Conditions
theofprecision
the precisionturning operation
turning operationof Stainless
of Stainless steel 360L
steel (the(the
360L chipping
chipping process
process and
surface quality)
and surface was
quality) examined.
was In
examined. particular,
In the
particular, experiment
the experiment was undertaken
was undertaken at
Due to its significant influence on the attributes of the machining process, the effect of feed rate seven
at different
seven differentfeed
feedfrom
rates, rates,
on 10from
the to 7010µm/rev
performance to 70ofµm/rev
in steps
the inofsteps
precision 10 of 10Each
µm.
turning µm.feed
Each
operation feed
ofwas wassteel
applied
Stainless applied
to360L to a different
a different
(the chipping workpiece.
workpiece.
process As the
As theandundeformed
undeformed surface
chipquality)
thicknesswasthickness
chip examined.
equals the Inapplied
particular,
equals thefeed theper
experiment
applied feed per was
revolution, undertaken
revolution,
varying the at seven
varying different
feed the
per feed per
revolution
made itfeed
revolution rates,
possiblemade from 10 to 70undeformed
toit apply
possible µm/rev
to apply in steps of 10
undeformed
chip µm.chip
Eachthickness
thickness feed wassmaller
values applied to a different
values smaller
and workpiece.
and larger
larger than thancutting
the the
As edge
cutting the undeformed
radius of chipinsert.
the thickness
This equals
processthe applied
should feed
be per to
able revolution,
identify varying
the the feedvalue
optimum per for
edge radius of the insert. This process should be able to identify the optimum value for minimum
revolution made it possible to apply undeformed chip thickness values smaller and larger than the
minimum
surface surfaceand
roughness roughness chip and proper chip The formation. The cutting
remaining cutting parameters were
cutting edge radiusproperof the insert.formation.
This process should remaining
be able to parameters
identify the optimum were
valuemaintained
for
maintained
constant: cutting constant:
speed,cutting
550 rpm speed, 550 rpm
(equivalent to (equivalent
120 m/min),to 120axial
and m/min),
depth andof axial
cut, depth
100 µm.ofwere
Thecut,cutting
100
minimum surface roughness and proper chip formation. The remaining cutting parameters
µm. The
conditions cutting
are listed
maintained
conditions
in Table
constant:
are listed in Table 6.
6. speed, 550 rpm (equivalent to 120 m/min), and axial depth of cut, 100
cutting
µm. The cutting conditions are listed in Table 6.
Table6.
Table 6. Cutting
Cutting conditions.
conditions.
Table 6. Cutting conditions.
Constant
ConstantParameters
Parameters Changed Parameters
Changed Parameters
Workpiece Constant
diameter Parameters
(D) = 70 mm Feed rateChanged Parameters
for experiment 1 = 0.01 mm/rev
Workpiece diameter (D) = 70 mm Feed rate for experiment 1 = 0.01 mm/rev
Workpiece diameter
Workpiece (D) mm
= 70 mm Feed rate for experiment 1 =20.01 mm/rev
Workpiece length =
length = 80
80 mm Feed
Feed rate for experiment 2 == 0.02
rate for experiment 0.02 mm/rev
mm/rev
Lathe Workpiece length = 80 mm rpm Feed rate for experiment 2 =30.02 mm/rev
Lathe chuck revolutions/min (n)= 550
chuck revolutions/min (n)= 550 rpm Feed rate for experiment = 0.03 mm/rev
Feed rate for experiment 3 = 0.03 mm/rev
Lathe chuck revolutions/min (n)= 550 rpm Feed rate for experiment 3 = 0.03 mm/rev
Cutting
Cuttinglength (L) == 50
length (L) 50 mm
mm Feed
Feedrate
rate for experiment 44== 0.04
for experiment 0.04mm/rev
mm/rev
Cutting length (L) = 50 mm Feed rate for experiment 4 = 0.04 mm/rev
Feed rate for experiment 5 = 0.05 mm/rev
Depth of cut (ap) = 0.01 mm Feed rate for experiment 6 = 0.06 mm/rev
Feed rate for experiment 7 = 0.07 mm/rev

Longitudinal turning passes were carried out and repeated seven times on seven different
workpieces. A digital microscope with optical magnification up to 800× was employed to image the
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 9 of 16

resultant chips. A Hommel Roughness Tester T500 [41], with 4.8 mm standard tracing length and
0.8 cut-off, was utilized to quantify the surface roughness obtained. The simple arithmetic average
roughness, Ra, was evaluated by averaging five readings.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Chip Formation: FEM Simulation vs. Experimental Results

Figures 7–13 show chip formation obtained experimentally and using FEM simulations. It can be
seen that there is an agreement between the experimental and the simulated results. Looking at the
figures it is evident that the cutting process and chip formation changed significantly with the change
of the applied feed rate from 0.01–0.03 mm/rev to the feed rate 0.04–0.07 mm/rev. Particularly, due to
the poor cutting performance, the chip formation at the very low feed rates is not considered. It is
mix of cutting and ploughing which is a result of the comparable magnitudes of the tool edge radius
(Figure 6) and the feed rate. The chip formation process is governed by this relationship.
At feed rate below the minimum chip thickness; no cutting takes place while ploughing and
plastic deformation of the material are the visible phenomenon. From the simulation, it was evident no
chips were formed when applying a feed well below the edge radius of cutting tool, and the material
is compressed underneath the cutting tool. Korkmaz et al., [42], found that no cutting takes place
when the depth of cut is about 0.38 the cutting tool nose radius. At that undeformed chip thickness, or
less, only plastic deformation of the uncut surface occurs and, hence, less power is consumed. When
this occurs, deformed material aggregates in front of the cutting edge radius until the thickness of
the material exceeded the minimum chip thickness. Then separation of the chip occurred and this
process occurs repeatedly. At higher feed rates, which commences at a value in the vicinity of the tool
edge radius, the chip formation process was more as expected forming continuous and longer chips.
It is worth emphasizing that, at this cutting scale, the transition of both underlying regimes is very
important. Particularly, it is by such critical points that the optimal cutting conditions are identified,
where the minimum cutting force and highest surface quality can be obtained.
In Figure 7, the feed rate was 0.01 mm/rev. The cutting process generated a distorted chip which
can be attributed to a mixed underlying mechanism, i.e., cutting and ploughing. At such low feed rate,
the stresses are extremely high and rough surface due to tearing happened in the machined surface is
expected. Besides, the simulation results revealed that the stress was found to be very high due to
large frictional
Materials 2019, 12,forces.
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure7.7.Machining
Figure Machining Stainless
StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Latatfeed rate
feed 0.01
rate mm/rev:
0.01 (a) and
mm/rev: (b) chip
(a) and formation,
(b) chip and (c)and
formation,
produced chip.
(c) produced chip.

Figure 8 illustrates the simulation results at a feed rate of 0.02 mm/rev, where looking at the
results obtained at this feed rate and the lower feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev, it is not so difficult to notice
that the shape of the produced chip relatively changed but remained distorted. One can argue that
the stresses were still very high and, again, the surface quality did not significantly improve due to
the tearing that occurred in the machined surface, because the undeformed chip thickness was less
 Figure
Materials 2019,7.
12,Machining
2522 Stainless Steel 316L at feed rate 0.01 mm/rev: (a) and (b) chip formation, and (c)
10 of 16
produced chip.

Figure
Figure 88illustrates
illustratesthe
thesimulation
simulation results at aatfeed
results rate rate
a feed of 0.02
of mm/rev, wherewhere
0.02 mm/rev, lookinglooking
at the results
at the
results obtained
obtained at this
at this feed feed
rate andrate
theand thefeed
lower lower
ratefeed rate
of 0.1 of 0.1 mm/rev,
mm/rev, it isdifficult
it is not so not so difficult
to noticeto notice
that the
that the
shape of shape of the produced
the produced chip changed
chip relatively relativelybut
changed
remainedbutdistorted.
remainedOne distorted. Onethat
can argue canthe
argue that
stresses
the stresses
were still verywere
highstill
and,very high
again, theand, again,
surface the surface
quality did notquality did not
significantly significantly
improve due to improve due
the tearing to
that
the tearing
occurred thatmachined
in the occurred surface,
in the machined
because thesurface, becausechip
undeformed the thickness
undeformed waschip thickness
less than was less
the minimum
than thickness.
chip the minimum chip thickness.

Figure Machining Stainless

Figure 8. Machining StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Latatfeed
feedrate
rate0.02
0.02mm/rev:
mm/rev:(a)(a)
andand
(b)(b) chip
chip formation,
formation, andand
(c)
(c) produced
produced chip.
chip.

In
In Figure
Figure 9,9, with
with the
the increase
increase in
in the
the applied
applied feed
feed rate
rate to 0.03 mm/rev,
to 0.03 mm/rev, the
the shape
shape of
of the
the generated
generated
chip was beginning to become longer, and the chip formation process was becoming
chip was beginning to become longer, and the chip formation process was becoming more nearly more nearly stable.
In addition,
stable. the stresses
In addition, the slightly
stressesdecreased, and the effect
slightly decreased, and ofthetheeffect
minimum
of thechip thickness
minimum became
chip less,
thickness
giving
becamea2019,
Materials better
less, xsurface
giving
12, and
a better
FOR PEER improved
surface and
REVIEW cutting.
improved cutting. 11 of 16

Figure 9. Machining
MachiningStainless
StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Lat at
feed rate
feed 0.03
rate mm/rev:
0.03 (a) (a)
mm/rev: Chip formation
Chip and and
formation (b)
produced chip.
(b) produced chip.

10 and
Figures 10 and11
11shows
showsthethesimulation
simulation results
results when
when thethe
feedfeed
raterate
werewere
0.04 0.04
mm/revmm/rev and
and 0.05
0.05 mm/rev,
mm/rev, respectively.
respectively. Again,
Again, thethe increase
increase in in
thethe feed
feed rate
rate meantthat
meant thatatat0.04
0.04mm/rev,
mm/rev, its
its magnitude
magnitude
reached the value of the tool edge radius, so the shape of the generated chip became more consistent
and the stresses were noticeably reduced, and better
better surface
surface quality
quality resulted.
resulted.
 produced chip.
produced chip.

Figures 10 and 11 shows the simulation results when the feed rate were 0.04 mm/rev and 0.05
Figures 10 and 11 shows the simulation results when the feed rate were 0.04 mm/rev and 0.05
mm/rev, respectively. Again, the increase in the feed rate meant that at 0.04 mm/rev, its magnitude
mm/rev, respectively. Again, the increase in the feed rate meant that at 0.04 mm/rev, its magnitude
reached the value of the tool edge radius, so the shape of the generated chip became more consistent
reached2019,
Materials
the 12,
value
2522
of the tool edge radius, so the shape of the generated chip became more consistent
11 of 16
and the stresses were noticeably reduced, and better surface quality resulted.
and the stresses were noticeably reduced, and better surface quality resulted.

Figure 10.
10. Machining
MachiningStainless
StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Lat feed
feedrate 0.04 mm/rev: (a) (a)
Chip formation andand
(b)
Figure Machining Stainless Steel 316L atatfeed rate
rate 0.04
0.04 mm/rev:
mm/rev: (a) ChipChip formation
formation and (b)
produced
(b) chip.
produced chip.
produced chip.

MachiningStainless
Figure 11. Machining StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Latatfeed
feedrate
rate 0.05
0.05 mm/rev:
mm/rev: (a) (a) Chip
Chip formation
formation andand
(b)
Figure 11. Machining Stainless Steel 316L at feed rate 0.05 mm/rev: (a) Chip formation and (b)
(b) produced
produced chip.
chip.
produced chip.
In
In Figures
Figures 12 12 and
and 13,
13, the
the feed
feed rates
rates were
were 0.06
0.06 mm/rev
mm/rev and
and 0.07
0.07 mm/rev.
mm/rev. The
The simulation
simulation results
results
In Figures 12 and 13, the feed rates were 0.06 mm/rev and 0.07 mm/rev. The simulation results
show produced chips with a conventional formation (contentious longer chips than
show produced chips with a conventional formation (contentious longer chips than that obtained that obtained from
show produced chips with a conventional formation (contentious longer chips than that obtained
lower feed rates, which was also the case with the chips produced by experiment.
from lower feed rates, which was also the case with the chips produced by experiment. However, However, there was
from lower feed rates, which was also the case with the chips produced by experiment. However,
no substantial
there was no12, differencedifference
substantial in the stress obtained
in the and the improvement
stress obtained in surface
and the improvement quality quality
in surface was notwas so
there was
Materials no substantial
2019, x FOR PEERdifference
REVIEW in the stress obtained and the improvement in surface quality was
12 of 16
much,
Materialswhere
2019, it
12, xis more
FOR similar
PEER REVIEW to the conventional cutting process.
not so much, where it is more similar to the conventional cutting process. 12 of 16
not so much, where it is more similar to the conventional cutting process.

Figure 12. Machining Stainless Steel 316L at feed rate 0.06 mm/rev: (a) Chip formation and (b)
MachiningStainless
Figure 12. Machining StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Latatfeed
feedrate
rate 0.06
0.06 mm/rev:
mm/rev: (a) (a) Chip
Chip formation
formation andand
(b)
produced chip.
(b) produced
produced chip.
chip.

Figure
Figure 13. MachiningStainless
13. Machining StainlessSteel
Steel316L
316Latatfeed
feedrate
rate0.07
0.07mm/rev:
mm/rev:(a) (a) Chip
Chip formation
formation andand
(b)
Figure
(b) 13. Machining
produced chip. Stainless Steel 316L at feed rate 0.07 mm/rev: (a) Chip formation and (b)
produced chip.
produced chip.

4.2. Surface Roughness

4.2. Surface Roughness
Surface roughness, Ra, was evaluated over the machined surfaces after the first and the last
Surface roughness, Ra, was evaluated over the machined surfaces after the first and the last
passes to assess the roughness generated using new and worn tools, respectively. Figure 14 shows
passes to assess the roughness generated using new and worn tools, respectively. Figure 14 shows
the measured average roughness for the new and worn tools as a function of feed rate for the given
 Figure 13. Machining Stainless Steel 316L at feed rate 0.07 mm/rev: (a) Chip formation and (b)
produced chip.

4.2. Surface Roughness

Materials 2019, 12, 2522 12 of 16
Surface roughness, Ra, was evaluated over the machined surfaces after the first and the last
passes to assess the roughness generated using new and worn tools, respectively. Figure 14 shows
the measured
4.2. average roughness for the new and worn tools as a function of feed rate for the given
Surface Roughness
conditions: Cutting speed, 120 m/min and axial depth of cut, 100 µm.
Surface roughness, Ra, was evaluated over the machined surfaces after the first and the last
The curves shown in Figure 14 are essentially the same shape though that for the worn tool is
passes to assess the roughness generated using new and worn tools, respectively. Figure 14 shows
both amplified and stretched along the abscissa compared to that for the new tool. For both new and
the measured average roughness for the new and worn tools as a function of feed rate for the given
worn tools the surface roughness, after reaching its maximum value, dropped sharply to a minimum
conditions: Cutting speed, 120 m/min and axial depth of cut, 100 µm.
before slowly increasing again.

Obtainable Roughness Average [Ra µm]at different

Feed Rates [mm/rev]
6
5
Roughness Average [Ra µm]

4
3
2
1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
Feed Rate [mm/rev]
Roughness Average [Ra µm] using new tool
Roughness Average [Ra µm] using blunt tool

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Mean
Mean surface
surfaceroughness
roughnessasasa afunction
function
ofof feed
feed rate
rate andand
tooltool wear
wear (cutting
(cutting speed
speed 550 rpm
550 rpm and
and axial depth of cut 100
axial depth of cut 100 µm). µm).

The curves shown in Figure 14 are essentially the same shape though that for the worn tool is
both amplified and stretched along the abscissa compared to that for the new tool. For both new and
worn tools the surface roughness, after reaching its maximum value, dropped sharply to a minimum
before slowly increasing again.
From the results, it is clearly observed that, as expected, the surface roughness significantly
changed with both applied feed and condition of the tool. Especially, the surface roughness generated
using the worn tool was substantially greater than that produced by the new tool, but more importantly,
the feed at which minimum roughness occurred increased with tool wear.
For the new tool, the minimum surface roughness (0.14 µm) was obtained at a feed rate of
0.03 mm/rev., about 0.75 re where re is the original edge radius of the new tool (0.04 mm). The maximum
surface roughness (2.2 µm) occurred at a feed rate of 0.02 mm/rev., about 0.50 re. It can be also be
seen that for the worn tool, the minimum surface roughness (0.81 µm) was found at a feed rate of 0.05
mm/rev, 1.25 re. Maximum surface roughness (5.7 µm) occurred at a feed rate of nearly 0.03 mm/rev,
which is about 0.75 re. This can be explained by the increase of edge radius of the worn tool.
Clearly the ratio of (feed: edge radius) has an important effect on surface roughness. The curves
shown in Figure 6 reflect the trade-off between kinematic parameters (cutting tool geometry and the
tool trajectories) and minimum chip thickness. In particular, the decrease in surface roughness with
decrease of feed rate from 0.07 mm/rev to 0.03 mm/rev (new tool) and to 0.05 mm/rev (worn tool) is
due to the interaction of such kinematic factors.
The increase in roughness with decrease in feed rates below 0.03 mm/rev (new tool) and 0.05 mm/rev
(worn tool) can be explained by reference to the minimum chip thickness effect, where the applied
chip load below a critical value under which no cutting could take place. In this case the minimum
chip thickness effect dominates the machining regime and changes the cutting mechanism into mixed
cutting/ploughing which is associated with the emergence of surface defects and deterioration of the
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 13 of 16

machined surface [43,44]. The reduction in mean surface roughness at very low feed rates can also be
attributed to changes in the cutting mechanisms: from cutting/ploughing to burnishing [45].
It appears that for the given system, optimal levels of surface roughness will be achieved for feed
rates which are numerically in the range 0.75 < (feed rate/re) < 1.25. For new tools the value of re
is at the lower end, and for worn tools re is at the upper end of the range, the latter will increase in
magnitude with increase of machined length, reflecting the effect of tool condition and tool wear on
the achievable roughness.

5. Conclusions
This article has reported the results of a FEM modelling and simulation study of chip formation
and surface generation during the turning of stainless steel 316L. These simulation results were then
compared with those obtained by experimental trials in order to establish the feasibility of this approach.
Seven sets of experimental tests were performed on a CNC turning machine and the morphologies
of the formed chips were employed as the performance indicator and criteria for comparison of the
FEM simulations and experimental findings. In addition, the surface roughness was experimentally
evaluated twice for each machining trial, first after tuning the first path (with a new tool) and second
after finishing the turning operation (where the tool considered worn) to identify the relationship
between feed rate and surface roughness for new and worn tools. The main conclusions drawn are
as follows:
The results reveal that a strong relationship exists between the applied feed rate, the cutting
tool edge radius and the governing cutting mechanism. The chip formation process is controlled
by this strong relationship. Particularly, the transition between mixed cutting/ploughing process
into a complete cutting mechanism was observed when the feed rate exceeded the minimum chip
thickness, meaning that the optimal cutting conditions of stainless steel 316L are at 75% of the cutting
tool edge radius. Especially, when the applied feed was just greater than the value of the minimum
chip thickness, the cutting mechanism altered from mixed cutting/ploughing to pure cutting with
conventional chip formation. This is considered the optimal cutting parameters, when the minimum
surface roughness was generated and when lowest stresses were observed.
Surface roughness was affected by feed rate in a non-linear manner. Minimum surface roughness
occurs when the feed rate lies between about 0.75 to 1.25 times the original edge radius of the cutting
tool. From this it is concluded that the edge radius also has an effect on surface roughness in a way
that is related to feed rate. There was a major peak in the surface roughness measurements as the
feed rates decreased below 0.03 mm/rev for the new tool and 0.04 mm/rev for the worn tool. This can
be explained by minimum chip thickness effects. However, further reduction in the feed rate led to
improvements in the surface finish which could be attributed to changes in the cutting mechanisms,
from cutting to burnishing.
This investigation revealed the importance of the insert edge radius, re. The value of the cutting
edge radius of the tool played an important role in the cutting process, determining the optimum feed
rate to produce minimum surface roughness and optimize tool wear. Thus, re should be known before
selecting a cutting insert, especially for fine turning operations where accurate dimensions and best
surface finish are essential.
It is worth reiterating that this study focused on limited process parameters due to their significant
influence on the process outcomes. However, in future work investigation of further process parameters
such as cutting speed and type of cooling and their effects on other process responses such as cutting
forces, tool wear and surface integrity will be conducted.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.E.; methodology, A.E., M.S., A.N. and A.A.; software, A.A., M.S.;
validation, A.A. and A.E.; formal analysis, A.E., A.A., M.S. and A.N.; investigation, A.A., A.E., M.S. and A.N.;
resources, A.A., A.E. and A.N.; data curation, A.A., A.E. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E., M.S.
and A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.E., M.S. and A.N.; visualization, A.E., M.S., A.A. and A.N.; supervision,
A.E. and A.N.; project administration, A.E. and A.N..
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 14 of 16

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the Suez Canal authority for giving them access to
the available facility in the Suez Canal shipyard to conduct the experimental trials. The authors also acknowledge
support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the open access publishing fund of Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Revel, P.; Jouini, N.; Thoquenne, G.; Lefebvre, F. High precision hard turning of AISI 52100 bearing steel.
Precis. Eng. 2016, 43, 24–33. [CrossRef]
2. Huang, Y.; Chou, Y.; Liang, S. CBN tool wear in hard turning: A survey on research progresses. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2007, 35, 443–453. [CrossRef]
3. Zou, B.; Zhou, H.; Huang, C.; Xu, K.; Wang, J. Tool damage and machined-surface quality using hot-pressed
sintering Ti(C7 N3 )/WC/TaC cermet cutting inserts for high-speed turning stainless steels. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2015, 79, 197–210. [CrossRef]
4. Ahmed, Y.S.; Fox-Rabinovich, G.; Paiva, J.M.; Wagg, T.; Veldhuis, S.C. Effect of built-up edge formation
during stable state of wear in AISI 304 stainless steel on machining performance and surface integrity of the
machined part. Materials 2017, 10, 1230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Chou, K.; Evans, C.J. Tool Wear Mechanism in Continuous Cutting of Hardened Tool Steels; National Institute of
Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1997.
6. Thamizhmanii, S.; Kamarudin, K.; Rahim, E.; Saparudin, A.; Hassan, S. Tool wear and surface roughness in
turning AISI 8620 using coated ceramic tool. In Proceedings of the World Congress Engineering, London,
UK, 2–4 July 2007; Volume 2.
7. Hernández González, L.W.; Seid Ahmed, Y.; Pérez Rodríguez, R.; Zambrano Robledo, P.D.C.; Guerrero
Mata, M.P. Selection of machining parameters using a correlative study of cutting tool wear in high-speed
turning of AISI 1045 steel. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2018, 2, 66. [CrossRef]
8. Shaojian, Z.; Yuanping, Z.; Haijun, Z.; Zhiwen, X.; Suet, T. Advances in ultra-precision machining of
micro-structured functional surfaces and their typical applications. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2019, 142,
16–41. [CrossRef]
9. Jouini, N.; Revel, P.; Mazeran, P.E.; Bigerelle, M. The ability of precision hard turning to increase rolling
contact fatigue life. Tribol. Int. 2013, 59, 141–146. [CrossRef]
10. Yue, X.; Xu, M.; Du, W.; Chu, C. Effect of cutting edge radius on surface roughness in diamond tool turning
of transparent MgAl2O4 spinel ceramic. Opt. Mater. 2016, 71, 129–135. [CrossRef]
11. Xiao, G.; Ren, M.; To, S. A study of mechanics in brittle–ductile cutting mode transition. Micromachines 2018,
9, 49. [CrossRef]
12. He, C.L.; Zong, W.J.; Sun, T. Origins for the size effect of surface roughness in diamond turning. Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manuf. 2016, 106, 22–42. [CrossRef]
13. Doukas, C.; Stavropoulos, P.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Foteinopoulos, P.; Vasiliadis, E.; Chryssolouris, G.
On the estimation of tool-wear for milling operations based on multi-sensorial data. Procedia Cirp. 8 2013, 8,
415–420. [CrossRef]
14. Lu, X.; Wang, F.; Jia, Z.; Si, L.; Chi, Z.; Steven, Y.L. A modified analytical cutting force prediction model under
the tool flank wear effect in micro-milling nickel-based superalloy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 91, 3709.
[CrossRef]
15. Elkaseer, A.M.; Dimov, S.S.; Popov, K.B.; Negm, M.M.; Minev, R.R. Modeling the material microstructure
effects on the surface generation process in microendmilling of dual-phase materials. ASME. J. Manuf.
Sci. Eng. 2012, 134, 044501. [CrossRef]
16. Davoudinejad, A.; Tosello, G.; Parenti, P.; Annoni, M. 3D finite element simulation of micro end-milling by
considering the effect of tool run-out. Micromachines 2017, 8, 187. [CrossRef]
17. Huang, P.; Lee, W.B. Cutting force prediction for ultra-precision diamond turning by considering the effect of
tool edge radius. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2016, 109, 1–7. [CrossRef]
18. Xiong, Y.; Wang, W.; Jiang, R.; Lin, K.; Shao, M. Mechanisms and FEM simulation of chip formation in
orthogonal cutting in-situ TiB2/7050Al MMC. Materials 2018, 11, 606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 2019, 12, 2522 15 of 16

19. Shao, F.; Lui, Z.; Wan, Y.; Shi, Z. Finite element simulation of machining of Ti-6Al-4V alloy with
thermodynamical constitutive equation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2010, 49, 431–439. [CrossRef]
20. Akbar, F.; Mativenga, P.; Sheikh, M. An experimental and coupled hermos-mechanical finite element study
of heat partition effects in machining. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2010, 46, 491–507. [CrossRef]
21. Zhou, L.; Huang, S.T.; Wang, D.; Yu, X.L. Finite element and experimental studies of the cutting process of
SiCp/Al composites with PCD tools. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2011, 52, 619–626. [CrossRef]
22. Li, B. A review of tool wear estimation using theoretical analysis and numerical simulation technologies.
Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2012, 35, 143–151. [CrossRef]
23. Yang, S.B.; Xu, J.; Fu, Y.; Wie, W. Finite element modelling of machining of hydrogenated Ti-6Al-4V alloy.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2012, 59, 253–261. [CrossRef]
24. John, M.; Shrivastava, K.; Banerjee, N.; Madhukar, P.; Vinayagam, B. Finite element method-based machining
simulation for analysing surface roughness during turning operation with HSS and carbide insert tool.
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013, 38, 1615–1623. [CrossRef]
25. Haddag, B.; Kagnaya, T.; Nouari, M.; Cutard, T. A new heat transfer analysis in machining based on two steps
of 3D finite element modelling and experimental validation. Heat Mass Transf. 2013, 49, 129–145. [CrossRef]
26. Ali, M.; Ansari, M.; Khidhir, B.; Mohamed, B.; Oshkour, A. Simulation machining of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V)
based on the finite element modelling. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2014, 36, 315–324. [CrossRef]
27. Bushlya, V.; Zhou, J.; Stahl, J. Modelling and experimentation on multistage work-hardening mechanism in
machining with nose-radiused tools and its influence on machined subsurface quality and tool wear. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2014, 73, 545–555. [CrossRef]
28. Aurich, J.C.; Zimmernmann, M.; Schindler, S.; Steinmann, P. Analysis of the machining accuracy when dry
turning via experiments and finite element simulations. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 2014, 8, 41–50. [CrossRef]
29. Salonitis, K.; Stavropoulos, P.; Stournaras, A.; Chryssolouris, G. Finite element modeling of grind hardening
process. In Proceedings of the 10th CIRP International Workshop on Modeling of Machining Operations,
Calabria, Italy, 27–28 August 2007; pp. 117–123.
30. Maruda, R.W.; Krolczyk, G.M.; Nieslony, P.; Wojciechowski, S.; Michalski, M.; Legutko, S. The influence of
the cooling conditions on the cutting tool wear and the chip formation mechanism. J. Manuf. Process. 2016,
24, 107–115. [CrossRef]
31. Elkaseer, A.; Dimov, S.; Popov, K.; Minev, R. Tool Wear in Micro-Endmilling: Material Microstructure Effects,
Modeling, and Experimental Validation. ASME J. Micro Nano-Manuf. 2014. [CrossRef]
32. Tang, L.; Sun, Y.; Li, B.; Shen, J.; Meng, G. Wear performance and mechanisms of PCBN tool in dry hard
turning of AISI D2 hardened steel. Tribol. Int. 2019, 132, 228–236. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, L.; Tai, B.L.; Chaudhari, R.G.; Song, X.; Shih, A.J. Machined surface temperature in hard turning. Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 2017, 121, 10–21. [CrossRef]
34. Jouini, N.; Revel, P.; Thoquenne, G.; Lefebvre, F. Characterization of surfaces obtained by precision hard
turning of AISI 52100 in relation to RCF life. Procedia Eng. 2013, 66, 793–802. [CrossRef]
35. Sawarkar, N.; Boob, G. Finite element based simulation of orthogonal cutting process to determine residual
stress induced. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2014, 975, 8887.
36. Mechanical Properties of 316 L Grade Stainless Steel, URL. Available online: http://www.efunda.com/
materials/alloys/stainless_steels/show_stainless.cfm?ID=AISI_Type_316L&show_prop=all&Page_Title=
AISI%20Type%20316L (accessed on 15 June 2019).
37. Benjámin, B.; András, C.; Anna, H.; Bálint, K.; Antal, S.; Attila, K.; Gábor, S. Two-dimensional finite element
analysis of turning processes. Period. Polytech. Mech. Eng. 2016, 61, 44–54. [CrossRef]
38. American Iron and Steel Institute website. Available online: http://www.nickelinstitute.org/~{}/Media/Files/
TechnicalLiterature/StainlessSteelsforMachining_9011_.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2019).
39. Spectro website. Available online: http://representatives.spectro.com/spectro-za/products/sma/lab11/
(accessed on 15 June 2019).
40. Sptech System, website. Available online: http://www.spsystem.com/main/products/pdisplay.php?active=
product&no=712&thiscod.e=1305 (accessed on 20 June 2019).
41. Metrology World Website. Available online: http://www.metrologyworld.com/doc/surface-roughness-
measurement-tester-0001 (accessed on 20 June 2019).
42. Mehmet, E.; Korkmaz, M.E.; Mustafa, G. Finite element modelling of cutting forces and power consumption
in turning of AISI 420 martensitic stainless steel. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2018, 43, 4863–4870. [CrossRef]
 Materials 2019, 12, 2522 16 of 16

43. Oliveira, F.B.; Rodrigues, A.R.; Coelho, R.T.; Souza, A.F. Size effect and minimum chip thickness in
micromilling. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2015, 89, 39–54. [CrossRef]
44. Liu, X.; de Vor, R.E.; Kapoor, S.G. Model-based analysis of the surface generation in microendmilling—Part
II: Experimental validation and analysis. ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2006, 129, 461–469. [CrossRef]
45. Elkaseer, A.; Dimov, S.; Pham, D.; Popov, K.; Olejnik, L.; Rosochowski, A. Material microstructure effects in
micro-endmilling of Cu99.9E. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2018, 232, 1143–1155. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats