1

MCE 331
Manufacturing Processes
Spring 2014


Project A5: Turning Experiment on low-Carbon Steel (using coolant)
I nstructor: Dr. Noha Mohamed Hussein

Date : 18/5/2014
Section # : 1
Group # : 4

This report is entirely our own work and we have kept a soft/ hard copy for our own records. It is
based on experimental work which we performed in the Manufacturing Lab. This report and the
laboratory work on which it is based, has not been submitted for assessment in any other unit of
study. We are aware of the Universitys policies on cheating and plagiarism. We understand the
safety concerns related to this experiment.

Submitted by:

SR. NO NAME ID SIGNATURE
1 Arsalan Ajaz 42247
2 Syed Hamdan Mustafa 50262
3 Younas Charkaoui 41001
2

Table of Contents

Contents Page Number
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
Methodology 9
Results 15
Discussion of Results 23
Conclusion 36
References 37
Appendix 38












3

List of Figures and Tables
Figure/Table
Number
Description
Page
Number
Figure 1 Turning Operation 4
Figure 2 Facing 4
Figure 3 Threading 4
Figure 4 Literature Values for Low Carbon Steel 5
Figure 5 CNC Lathe Machine 9
Figure 6 Goggles 9
Figure 7 Toolmaker Microscope 9
Figure 8 Roughness Tester 9
Figure 9 Infra-Red Temperature Gun 10
Figure 10 HackSaw Machine 10
Figure 11 Vernier Caliper 10
Figure 12 Steel Rods 11
Figure 13 Carbide Tool used to remove coating 14
Figure 14 Carbide Tool used to perform turning 14
Table 1 Results Data 16
Figure 15 PowerSight Manager 17
Figure 16 Power plot for Test 1 18
Figure 17 Power plot for Test 5 18
Table 2 Data Results including Power and Cutting Force 20
Figure 18 Discontinuous Chips 21
Figure 19 Rough surface produced after the first Test 3 21
4

Figure 20
End product of the Turning Operation
22
Figure 21 Another product of the Turning Operation 22
Figure 22 Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 23
Figure 23 Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at 150 m/min 23
Figure 24 Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at 100 m/min 24
Figure 25 Temperature vs feed at different depths at 100 m/min 25
Figure 26 Temperature vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 25
Figure 27 Temperature vs feed at different depths at 150 m/min 26
Figure 28 Tool Wear vs feed at different depths at 100 m/min 27
Figure 29 Tool Wear vs feed at different depths at 150 m/min 27
Figure 30 Tool Wear vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 28
Figure 31 Power Consumption vs feed at different depths at 100 m/min 29
Figure 32 Power Consumption vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 29
Figure 33 Power Consumption vs feed at different depths at 150 m/min 30
Figure 34 Cutting Force vs feed at different depths at 100 m/min 31
Figure 35 Cutting Force vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 31
Figure 36 Cutting Force vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min 32
Figure 37 Characteristics of tool materials 35
Table 3 Summary of the meetings 38

5

Abstract
The group is required to study to experimentally investigate the influence of at least six
factors on the turning machining operation and some of those factors include tool material,
shape, work-piece material, lubricants, cutting conditions like speed feed and depth of cut, work-
holding fixtures. Students are to study the effects of such factors on the type of chip produced,
surface roughness, force and energy dissipated, temperature rise and tool wear. The aim is to
come up with a predictive modeling of tooling and machine performance. The independent
variables to be examined are rotational speed, feed, and depth of cut. (Each variable should were
varied at least 3 levels). The work-piece used is low carbon steel with the addition of a coolant
(oil/emulsion). The objective of the manufacturing group projects is designed to prepare the
students to gain understanding of how everyday products are made and to use learned materials
to solve real world problems. Each project team have 3 students, who are expected to work
together to accomplish specific tasks. The results of the experiment are discussed in detail and
the relationships between the independent and dependent variables are mentioned. The results
were accurate and the experiment was a success.



6

Introduction
Turning is a machining process in which a single point cutting tool removes material
from a rotating work-piece to form a cylindrical shape.
Figure 1: Turning Operation
There are various operations related to turning which can be performed in the Lathe Machines.
Here are some of the following operations:
Figure 2: Facing Figure 3: Threading
Turning can also be defined as a machining operation that reduces the diameter of the cylindrical
work-piece. It is performed on a Lathe Machine which can be numerically controlled as well.
The machines will be described later in the next section.
The material to be used for this experiment is a low-Carbon Steel with a lubricant. To start off,
Low-carbon steels (AISI 1005 to1026) are produced with 0.06 to 0.28 percent carbon and 0.25 to
1.00 percent manganese. Low-carbon steels are limited to 0.040 percent phosphorus and 0.050
percent sulfur. (Isakov, 2007)
7

The recommended values of feed, depth and cutting speed according to literature are as follows:
Figure 4: Literature values for low-Carbon Steel
Determining the feed, depth and cutting speed is a very important step before beginning any
machining operation. These decisions must be taken with respect to the work-part machinability,
part geometry, surface finish and others.
Depth of cut is often predetermined by work-piece geometry and operation sequence. It depends
on whether the operation is roughing or finishing. Selecting the feed depends on the tool material
used. Select cutting speed to achieve a balance between high metal removal rate and suitably
long tool life. Another consideration for the cutting speed in the production rate, higher speeds
mean higher production rate but a lower tool life. Hence, it is a trade-off between high
production rate and tool life.
The values, from Figure 4, might not all be possible to use due to machining constraints and
material constraints. Machining constraints might not allow a wide range of cutting speeds and
material constraints means only a limited amount of material is available. The choosing of the
feed, depth and cutting values have to be done considering all these constraints. This will be
discussed in the next section in more details.
8

The coolant is also used in this experiment, which is oil in this case, to investigate its effect on
properties such as temperature rise.
The independent variables in the experiment are:
Feed
Depth of Cut
Cutting Speed
The dependent variables in the experiment are:
Power
Surface Roughness
Tool Wear
Type of chips produced
Forces
Temperature rise
The report now carries on with the description of the tools used in the experiment and a detailed
procedure carried out to perform the experiment. The work-part, which in this case is the Low-
Carbon Steel rod, is introduced along with the dimensions. The results are then tabulated and
they are discussed briefly with the aid of graphs and pictures. The relationship between the
dependent and independent variables are derived and discussed. They are also compared to the
literature to measure the reliability and accuracy of the experiment. The sources of errors are also
discussed to account for the discrepancies in the results. The report then ends with a conclusion
and the summary of the meetings held are attached in the end.
9

Methodology
This section will explain how all of the independent variables were used to obtain the dependent
variables.
Here is a list of tools that were used in this process:
1. CNC Lathe Machine: It is the same concept as the Lathe Machine but it is computer-
controlled. The forces are calculated automatically without any manual labor. This is
quite accurate and efficient at a cost of being expensive. It can perform the same
operations as the Lathe Machine.

Figure 5: CNC Lathe Machine
This machine can be used to perform various operations like:
Facing- Creating a flat surface on the end of a cylinder using a single point tool.
Turning- Process used to generate a cylindrical part.
Drilling- Making a hole using multi point tool
10

Chamfering- Generating a beveled edge on the end of the work piece.
Boring - Increasing the diameter of an inner hole of a cylinder.
The tool depends on the procedure that is to be performed.
2) Goggles: This is used as a precaution since the metal (chip) produced and the coolant can
be dangerous.
Figure 6: Safety Goggles
3) Toolmaker Microscope: This used to observe and measure the flank wear of the tool.
Figure 7: Toolmaker Microscope
4) Roughness Tester: This is put on the materials surface to measure the surface roughness.
Figure 8: Roughness Tester
11

5) Infra-Red Temperature Gun: This is pointed at the tool-work piece interface to measure
the temperature.
Figure 9: Infra-Red Temperature Gun
6) Hacksaw Machine: Used to cut the steel rod into pieces.
Figure 10: Hacksaw Machine

7) Vernier Caliper: To measure the dimension of the work-piece

Figure 11: Vernier Caliper
12

The group was provided with a 1 meter Low Carbon Steel rod. This was further divided in to 10
pieces each having the length of 10 meter and a diameter of 25 mm.



Figure 12: Steel Rods used for the experiment

Three experiments were conducted on one piece resulting in total of 30 experiments. However,
there were only two experiments performed on work piece that had been worked on at high
rpms.
The procedure is as follows:
Use the HackSaw cutting machine to obtain 10 steel work-pieces.
Set the low carbon steel work-piece in the holding jaws.
Start the turning operation, using the specific tool, to remove the outer coating and facing
the work-piece.
Select the spindle rpm from 100, 120 and 150. These rpms are decided according to the
diameter of the work-piece.

Where v is the cutting speed and d is the diameter of the rod measured using a Vernier
caliper.
Select the depth of cut from 1, 1.5 and 2 mm.
Select the feed from 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2.
Select the cutting speed from 100, 120 to 150.
13

The values for spindle, depth and feed were changed in a systematic manner and the
values were taken from the literature discussed earlier totaling in a total of 27
experiments. The justification for these values is provided later.
They are entered in to CNC Lathe Machine using the G-Code.
Start the recording of the power using the software PowerSight Manager
Start the recording of the Forces using the software DelaWare.
Start the turning operation.
Keep the Infra-red Gun pointed at the tool-work piece interface and record the
temperature.
Save the forces and power measured from the software during the experiment.
Keep the Roughness Tester on the material and record the roughness.
After each experiment, remove the tool and put it under the toolmaker microscope to
calculate tool wear.
Note down the values surface roughness, temperature and too wear on a table.
Change the tool side every time the cutting speed changes.
This experiment should be performed following all the safety precautions and goggles
should be worn.
Note: This experiment was performed under the guidance of the Lab Instructor to make sure
all of the necessary precautions were taken. They were also instrumental in guiding us during
the experiment.


14

Here is a picture of the tool used to remove the coating on the rod:
Figure 13: Carbide Tool
Here is the tool, also made out of Carbide, used to carry out the actual turning operation:
Figure 14: Carbide Tool
Each side of the triangular tool was used for a specific cutting speed. For example, for 100
m/min, one side of the tool was used and for 120 m/min, another side was used.
This was used to obtain and tabulate the results and discuss it using plots to derive relations
between the independent and dependent variables.
15

Results
The following results were obtained from the experiment:
Test
No.
RPM
Diamet
er
(mm)
Cutting
Speed
(m/min)
Depth
of Cut
(mm)
Feed
(mm/re
v.)
Length
of Cut
(mm)
Wear
(mm)
Surface
(m)
Temp.
1 1274 25 100 1 0.2 35 0.121 3.62 43
2 1274 25 100 1 0.3 35 0.134 7.92 32
3 1385 23 100 1 0.4 35 0.206 13.56 47
4 1274 25 100 1.5 0.1 35 0.216 1.96 51
5 1274 25 100 1.5 0.15 35 0.228 2.44 66
6 1448 22 100 1.5 0.2 35 0.238 3.58 54
7 1274 25 100 2 0.1 35 0.249 2.47 59
8 1517 21 100 2 0.15 35 0.281 3.99 61
9 1517 21 100 2 0.2 35 0.304 4.07 83
10 1529 25 120 1 0.1 35 0.136 2.27 35
11 1529 25 120 1 0.15 35 0.161 3.65 43
12 1662 23 120 1 0.2 35 0.247 4.65 39
13 1529 25 120 1.5 0.1 35 0.291 2.41 43
14 1529 25 120 1.5 0.15 35 0.311 3.78 43
16

15 1737 22 120 1.5 0.2 35 0.354 7.15 47
16 1529 25 120 2 0.1 35 0.378 2.42 50
17 1529 25 120 2 0.15 35 0.412 4.37 55
18 1820 21 120 2 0.2 35 0.45 5 53
19 1911 25 150 1 0.1 35 0.077 1.44 38
20 1911 25 150 1 0.15 35 0.161 2.28 29
21 2077 23 150 1 0.2 35 0.188 4.25 34
22 1911 25 150 1.5 0.1 35 0.212 1.12 35
23 1911 25 150 1.5 0.15 35 0.225 1.93 34
24 2171 22 150 1.5 0.2 35 0.255 2.88 40
25 1911 25 150 2 0.1 35 0.305 1.3 57
26 1911 25 150 2 0.15 35 0.347 1.92 56
27 1911 25 150 2 0.2 35 0.381 3.04 56
28 1517 21 100 1 0.1 35 0.071 1.23 45
29 1517 21 100 1 0.15 35 0.1 1.8 43
30 1517 21 100 1 0.2 35 0.173 3.46 48
Table 1: Results data

17

The power was calculated during the 30 tests using the software named PowerSight Manager.

Figure 15: PowerSight Manager
The power graphs were also generated using the same software.
The Total Power is around 694.79W for test 1 and 908.81W for test 5.
Here are the power graphs for test number 1 and 5 respectively:
18

Figure 16: Power plots for test 1
Figure 17: Power plots for test 5
19

Assumption: The total power is tabulated for each test, not the maximum or minimum since the
total value is the best reflection on the power consumption during the tests.
The power consumption of each of the 30 tests was calculated using the same procedure.
The forces were calculated using DelaWare. The average cutting speed was calculated in MS
Excel and the results were tabulated along with the total power consumption:
Test No.
Cutting
Speed
(m/min)
Depth of Cut
(mm)
Feed
(mm/rev.)
Power
Consumption
(W)
Cutting Force
(kN)
1 100 1 0.2 694.79
0.515797

2 100 1 0.3 819.15
0.167705

3 100 1 0.4 852.32
0.318

4 100 1.5 0.1 819.19 0.198
5 100 1.5 0.15 908.81
0.211

6 100 1.5 0.2 887.45
0.151

7 100 2 0.1 1127 0.404
8 100 2 0.15 1139.9 0.244
9 100 2 0.2 924.71 0.253
10 120 1 0.1 919.36 0.121
11 120 1 0.15 865.95 0.117
12 120 1 0.2 592.28 0.099745
13 120 1.5 0.1 1294.4 0.192
14 120 1.5 0.15 1108.4 0.166
15 120 1.5 0.2 999.83 0.133
20

16 120 2 0.1 1111 0.229923
17 120 2 0.15 444.41 0.284
18 120 2 0.2 1143.4 0.164
19 150 1 0.1 1174.3 0.112
20 150 1 0.15 961.47 0.109
21 150 1 0.2 1325.8 0.0948
22 150 1.5 0.1 1572.3 0.148472
23 150 1.5 0.15 1287.3 0.137
24 150 1.5 0.2 1577.6 0.170
25 150 2 0.1 1345.9 0.187
26 150 2 0.15 1152.5 0.22
27 150 2 0.2 1545.9 0.205109
28 100 1 0.1 1175.7 0.0805
29 100 1 0.15 1205.9 0.0956
30 100 1 0.2 1151.8
0.107655

Table 2: Data Results including Power and Cutting Force
21

The chips produced were all discontinuous due to reasons discussed later. Here is an image
showing the chips produced:

Figure 18: Discontinuous chips
Note: The experiment was supposed to comprise of 27 experiments but the first 3 tests were
unsatisfactory and hence were discarded. This was due to very high surface roughness obtained
due to very high feeds (which were obtained from literature); the range was changed from 2-4
mm/rev to 1-2 rev/mm. Here is the material image obtained from the first three tests:
Figure 19: Rough surface produced after the first Test 3
22

Here is a picture which shows the low Carbon Steel rod after the turning operation:

Figure 20: End product of the Turning Operation
Here is another picture of the work-piece produced:

Figure 21: Another product of the Turning Operation

23

Discussion of Results
The relation between surface roughness (dependent variable) and independent variables (feed,
depth and cutting speed) is demonstrated by the following plots from the data in Table 1:

Figure 22: Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at 120 m/min

Figure 23: Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at cutting speed of 150 m/min
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Surface Roughness vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting Speed=
120 m/min
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Surface Roughness vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=150
m/min
24


Figure 24: Surface roughness vs feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 100 m/min
Important points to be noted about the plots:
The surface roughness increases as the feed increases.
The surface roughness increases as the depth increases.
The surface roughness increases as the cutting speed increases.
Ways to reduce surface roughness:
Use a lower feed.
Increase the nose radius of the tool.
Low cutting edge angle.
The surface roughness was not very high after the first three tests which justify our selecting of
our feed range.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

(

m
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Surface Roughness vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=100
m/min
25

The relation between the temperature and the independent variables (feed, depth and cutting
speed). It is demonstrated by the following plots obtained from the data in Table 1:

Figure 25: Temperature against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 100 m/min

Figure 26: Temperature against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 120 m/min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

Feed (mm/rev.)
Temperature vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

Feed (mm/rev.)
Temperature vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=120
m/min
26


Figure 27: Temperature against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 150 m/min
Important points to be noted from the plots:
The temperature increases as the depth increases.
The coolant used reduces the effect of the cutting speed on the temperature and hence the
expected relationship between the two is not apparent in the plots.
The temperature increases as the feed increases.
Problems faced with high temperatures:
It influences tool life; usually more tool wear is expected if the temperature rise is high.
It may decrease the dimensional accuracy of the work-piece due to the expansion caused
because of high temperatures.
It may damage cause thermal damage and metallurgical changes to the work-piece
surface.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

Feed (mm/rev.)
Temperature vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=150m
/min
27

The next relation is between the tool wear and the independent variables (feed, depth and cutting
speed). It is demonstrated by the following plots based on the data tabulated in Table 1:

Figure 28: Tool Wear against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 100 m/min

Figure 29: Tool Wear against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 150 m/min
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
o
o
l

W
e
a
r

(
m
m
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Tool Wear vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=100
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
o
o
l

W
e
a
r

(
m
m
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Tool Wear vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=150
28


Figure 30: Tool Wear against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 120 m/min
Important points to be noted about the plot:
Tool Wear increases as feed increases.
Tool Wear increased as depth increases.
It is not wise to compare the tool wear with the cutting speeds since a different tool side
was used for different cutting speeds as mentioned earlier.
Problems associated with tool wear:
Higher surface roughness is expected if the tool wear is high.
It influences the temperature rise and the forces involved in the process.
It also influences the dimensional accuracy of the work-piece. The dimensional accuracy
will be low if the tool wear is high.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
T
o
o
l

W
e
a
r

(
m
m
)
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Tool Wear vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting
Speed=120m
/min
29

The next relationship is drawn for Power Consumption and dependent variables (feed, depth
and cutting speed). It is demonstrated by the following plots based on the data in Table 2:

Figure 31: Power Consumption against feed at different depths at cutting speed of 100 m/min


Figure 32: Power Consumption against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 120 m/min
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
P
o
w
e
r

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
W
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Power Consumption vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting Speed=
100 m/min
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
P
o
w
e
r

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
W
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Power Consumption vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting Speed=
120 m/min
30


Figure 33: Power Consumption against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 150 m/min
Important points to be noted from the plot:
The power consumption increases as feed increases. It is u-shaped mainly because
there is not a direct relationship between the two variables.
The power consumption varies with the change in depth.
Note: The average power consumption is not the same as the cutting power which is directly
proportional to the cutting speed and the cutting force.

The power consumption is directly related to the cost of the experiment. As the power
consumption increases, the cost increases. This can be reduced by using the coolant which helps
reduce friction between the work-piece and tool contact area and hence the power consumed
decreases.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
P
o
w
e
r

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
W
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Power Consumption vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2mm
Cutting Speed= 150
m/min
31

Finally, the relationship is drawn between the Cutting Force and the dependent variables (feed,
depth and cutting speed). It is demonstrated by the following plots obtained through Table 2:

Figure 34: Cutting force against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 120 m/min

Figure 35: Cutting force against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 120 m/min
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Cutting Force vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2 mm
Cutting Speed=
100m/min
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Cutting Force vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2 mm
Cutting Speed=
120m/min
32


Figure 36: Cutting force against feed at different depths at a cutting speed of 150 m/min
Important points to be noted from the plots:
The Cutting force increases as depth increases.
There is no direct relationship between the feed and the cutting force.
The cutting force is responsible for supplying the energy needed for cutting. It is directly
proportional to the cutting power as discussed earlier. As the depth increases, more material
needs to be cut and more energy is required which leads to an increase in the cutting force and
hence the cutting power.
The cutting force depends on the rake angles and shear angles. As the rake angle decreases, the
shear angle increases which means more materials needs to be cut and more energy is required.
This would mean the cutting force will increase to compensate for the energy requirement.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)

Feed (mm/rev.)
Cutting Force vs Feed
Depth= 1mm
Depth= 1.5mm
Depth= 2 mm
Cutting Speed=
150m/min
33

All of the results and plot discussed earlier demonstrates the reliability of the experiment
performed. This will further be verified by comparing some of the results to literature:
Starting with the surface roughness,

Where f is the feed, NR is the Nose Radius and R
i
is the surface roughness.
According to our experiment, the surface roughness increases as the feed was increases. The
equation justifies this relation and hence the experiment.
The literature also states that temperature rise increases when the cutting speed increases.
However, due to the presence of a coolant, this relationship could not be determined. The coolant
used was oil which had water in its contents. It is recyclable.
Also according to literature, the cutting force increases as the feed increases. This is because
when the feed increases, more material needs to be cut in one revolution, hence more energy is
required. This was also the relationship drawn from the relationship between cutting force and
the independent variables. This also adds to the reliability of the experiment performed and the
accuracy of the results.
Cutting fluids have seen extensive use and have commonly been viewed as a required addition to
high productivity and high quality machining operations. Cutting fluid related costs and health
concerns associated with exposure to cutting fluid mist and a growing desire to achieve
environmental sustainability in manufacturing have caused industry and academia to re-examine
the role of these fluids and quantify their benefits. (Adler, Michalec, Hii & Sutherland, 2006)
The coolant has some advantages and disadvantages.
34

Uses of the coolant:
It is effective as a lubricant; it reduces the friction at the tool and the work-piece interface
which reduces cutting forces and the power consumption.
It is effective as a coolant; it decreases the temperature rise which hence leads to better
dimensional accuracy and a better surface finish. The temperature rise would have been
much higher if the same experiment was performed without a coolant.
It makes the chip removal easy. It can also lead to the formation of discontinuous chip.
However, the coolant has some problems associated with it:
Environmental problems of disposing the coolant.
The coolant has varied effects; the change in temperature due to the coolant is no
predictable.
There were some discrepancies while deriving the relationship between the power consumption
and the dependent variables. The reasons for this and other discrepancies are discussed:
The number of work-pieces was a limited and hence 2-3 experiments had to be
performed on one work-piece. This could affect the surface roughness calculated.
The PowerSight Software used for power calculation might not have started exactly
when the experiment started.
The temperature calculated using the Infra-Red Gun might be inaccurate due to the
shaking of the hands while holding the gun during the experiment.
The tool wear measured could have been wrong due to not using the microscope
properly.
The feeds and depth ranges might not be within the machining limits.
35

Due to not having many tools, one tool was used for the 30 tests regardless of the
amount of tool wear. This could contribute to the high surface roughness.
The discontinuous chips were formed due to the following possible reasons:
Brittle work-materials.
Low cutting speeds.
Large feed and depth of cuts.
High tool-chip friction.
Lack of an effective cutting-fluid.
The tool material used was Carbide. It has the following properties:
It is a tough material which means it will not fracture easily. However, there are tougher
materials such as steel.
It has the ability to retain hardness at high temperatures.
It has a good resistance to wear.
Here is a picture which demonstrates the various tool materials and their properties:
Figure 37: Characteristics of tool materials
36

Conclusion
To summarize, 30 experiments of turning operations were performed on the Low-Carbon
Steel with the coolant on. The independent variables that were input into the CNC Lathe
Machine were the feed, depth and the cutting speed while the ones that were calculated were the
force, power, temperature rise, tool wear and the roughness of the surface. The types of chips
produced were also observed using the naked eye. The list of tools along with a detailed
procedure is also included. The results were tabulated and plots were drawn for each independent
variable against the dependent variables. This was followed by a discussion and comparison to
the literature to enhance the level of reliability of this experiment. The project was connected to
theory to display the understanding of the concept behind the different machining parameters and
the machining process itself. The effect of the tool material is also discussed. There were a few
problems faced during the experiment, mainly after the surface roughness after the first 3 tests
were too high and the value of feed range had to be altered to fix this problem. However, this
experiment was instrumental in understanding how to perform a machining operation from
scratch. This project was also helpful since it was a group operation and each was given a
specific task to perform. The experiment was carried out safely without any injuries since all the
safety precautions were taken.


37

References

Adler, D. P., Hii, W. S., Michalek, D. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2006). Examining the Role of
Cutting Fluids in Machining and Efforts to Address Associated Environmental/Health
Concerns. Machining Science & Technology, 10(1), 23-58. doi:
10.1080/10910340500534282
Goggles [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from
http://www.photo-dictionary.com/phrase/1510/safety-goggles.html
Groover, M.P., Principles of Modern Manufacturing, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 5th edition, 2013.
Isakov, E. (January 2007). Carbon Content. Industrial Press, 59(1).
Manufacturing engineering and technology, Kalpakjian, S. and Schmid, S., 5th Edition
Prentice Hall. ISBN: 978-0-13-148965-3
Laboratory Manual (MCE 332L), (10 March, 2014). The American University of Sharjah.
Retrieved from
https://ilearn.aus.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fweb
apps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_31475_1
%26url%3D
Vernier Calliper [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61dvgTmvXiL.jpg






38

Appendix

GROUP MEMBERS ATTENDANCE/ACTIVITIES
(To be used to help determine the percentage of points each person should receive. Please
record all your activities/meetings/tasks done with dates else whole group will be penalized)

Group # 4 Name 3: Younes Charkaoui
Name 1: Arsalan Ajaz
Name 2: Syed Hamdan Mustafa

Date Activity Member assigned Member assigned Signatures
20/4/2014 Introduction, getting to
know the members and
devising a plan on how the
project was to be
approached
Arsalan Ajaz


Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Younes
Charkaoui

22/4/2014 Researching about the
recommended feeds and
depth of Cut
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa

Arsalan Ajaz
Younes
Charkaoui

24/4/2014 First Appointment at the
Manufacturing Lab for the
CNC Lathe Machine
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Arsalan Ajaz
28/4/2014 Second Appointment at the
Manufacturing Lab for the
CNC Lathe Machine
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Arsalan Ajaz

Younes
Charkaoui

6/5/2014 A general consent was
reached as to what part each
of the group members were
to do for the project report
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Arsalan Ajaz


15/5/2014 To check the progress that
was made on the
completion of the project
report
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Arsalan Ajaz

Younes
Charkaoui

17/5/2014 The presentation slides
were made along with the
presentation rehearsals
Syed Hamdan
Mustafa
Arsalan Ajaz

Younes
Charkaroui

Table 3: Summary of the meetings