4.7 Article

Effect of feed rate, workpiece hardness and cutting edge on subsurface residual stress in the hard turning of bearing steel using chamfer plus hone cutting edge geometry

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2004.11.011

Keywords

hard machining; residual stresses; material modeling; FEM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residual stress on the machined surface and the subsurface is known to influence the service quality of a component, such as fatigue life, tribological properties, and distortion. Therefore, it is essential to predict and control it for enhanced performance. In this paper, a newly proposed hardness based flow stress model is incorporated into an elastic-viscoplastic finite element model of hard turning to analyze process variables that affect the residual stress profile of the machined surface. The effects of cutting edge geometry and workpiece hardness as well as cutting conditions, such as feed rate and cutting speed, are investigated. Numerical analysis shows that hone edge plus chamfer cutting edge and aggressive feed rate help to increase both compressive residual stress and penetration depth. These predictions are validated by face turning experiments which were conducted using a chamfer with hone cutting edge for different material hardness and cutting parameters. The residual stresses under the machined surface are measured by X-ray diffraction/electropolishing method. A maximum circumferential residual stress of about 1700 MPa at a depth of 40 mu m is reached for hardness of 62 HRc and feed rate of 0.56 mm/rev. This represents a significant increase from previously reported results in literatures. It is found from this analysis that using medium hone radius (0.02-0.05 mm) plus chamfer is good for keeping tool temperature and cutting force low, while obtaining desired residual stress profile. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available