4.6 Article

Experimental investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 206, 期 1-3, 页码 167-179

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.12.018

关键词

finish hard turning; maraging steel; cutting forces; surface roughness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, an attempt has been made to investigate the effect of cutting parameters (cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut) on cutting forces (feed force, thrust force and cutting force) and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel (equivalent to 18Ni(250) maraging steel) using coated ceramic tool. The machining experiments were conducted based on response surface methodology (RSM) and sequential approach using face centered central composite design. The results show that cutting forces and surface roughness do not vary much with experimental cutting speed in the range of 55-93 m/min. A linear model best fits the variation of cutting forces with feed rate and depth of cut. Depth of cut is the dominant contributor to the feed force, accounting for 89.05% of the feed force whereas feed rate accounts for 6.61% of the feed force. In the thrust force, feed rate and depth of cut contribute 46.71% and 49.59%, respectively. In the cutting force, feed rate and depth of cut contribute 52.60% and 41.63% respectively, plus interaction effect between feed rate and depth of cut provides secondary contribution of 3.85%. A non-linear quadratic model best describes the variation of surface roughness with major contribution of feed rate and secondary contributions of interaction effect between feed rate and depth of cut, second-order (quadratic) effect of feed rate and interaction effect between speed and depth of cut. The suggested models of cutting forces and surface roughness adequately map within the limits of the cutting parameters considered. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据