ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Effect of plastic side flow on surface roughness in micro-turning process

Kai Liu, Shreyes N. Melkote
The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0406, USA
Received 2 November 2005; accepted 28 November 2005
Available online 18 January 2006

Abstract

Kinematic roughness-based surface finish prediction is known to often under-predict the measured surface roughness in turning
process, especially at small (micron level) feed rates. It has also been observed that the surface roughness in micro-turning decreases
with feed, reaches a minimum, and then increases with further reduction in feed. This paper presents a model for predicting the
surface roughness in micro-turning of Al5083-H116 alloy that takes into account the effects of plastic side flow, tool geometry, and
process parameters. The model combines these effects with more accurate estimation of the average flow stress of Al5083-H116 at micron
scale of deformation with the help of a previously reported strain gradient-based finite element model. The surface roughness model is
evaluated through a series of micro-turning experiments. The results show that the model can predict the surface roughness in micro-
turning quite well. It is shown that the commonly observed discrepancy between the theoretical and measured surface roughness
in micro-turning is mainly due to surface roughening caused by plastic side flow. Further, it is shown that the increase in roughness
at low feed can be attributed to the increased side flow caused by strain gradient-induced strengthening of the material directly ahead of
the tool.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Surface roughness; Plastic side flow; Micro-cutting; Strain gradient strengthening

1. Introduction is given approximately by the following equation [1]:

The need for products with very fine surface finish keeps
increasing rapidly because of new applications in various
fields including optics and die and mold manufacturing.
Surface roughness is an important feature of practical
engineering surfaces because of its influence on the
tribological performance of the surface. Therefore, accu-
rate prediction of surface roughness produced by a
mechanical cutting process carried out at the micron/
submicron level can contribute to improvement partly in
quality and performance.
In conventional single-point turning, the surface rough-
ness of the machined part is known to be affected mainly
by the feed and tool nose radius. The geometric contribu-
tion of tool nose geometry and tool feed, shown in Fig. 1, is
also called kinematic or theoretical surface roughness and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 894 8499; fax: +1 404 894 9342.
E-mail address: shreyes.melkote@me.gatech.edu (S.N. Melkote).
f2
Rth ffi , (1)
8rn
where f is the feed and rn is the tool nose radius.
The kinematic surface roughness is widely used to
estimate the surface roughness in the turning process, but
it gives poor estimation of the surface roughness,
particularly at small feeds. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that
the kinematic surface roughness under-predicts the mea-
sured surface roughness in turning, especially at small
feeds. It is also observed that surface roughness in micro-
turning decreases with feed, reaches a minimum, and then
tends to increase with further reduction in feed. This trend
can be clearly seen in Fig. 2 for micro-turning of AISI 1045
steel at feeds less than 50 mm/rev.
It has been reported [2–6] that the surface roughness in
turning is also affected by the depth of cut, cutting speed,
tool wear, presence of built-up edge (BUE), workpiece
hardness etc. However, due to lack of understanding of the

0890-6955/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.11.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785
Fig. 1. Illustration of turning operation showing primary and secondary
cutting edges and characteristic roughness left on the finished surface [1].
surface-roughening mechanism at the micron/submicron
level and lack of physics-based surface roughness models,
techniques such as regression analysis, neural network etc.,
are commonly employed [2–6]. In particular, the contribu-
tion of material deformation at the micron scale to surface
roughening has not been accounted for in modeling the
surface generation mechanism in micro-cutting process.
A few studies on roughening of free surfaces of metallic
materials due to plastic deformation have been reported in
sheet metal forming [7–9]. Plastic deformation roughens a
free surface by producing slip bands within grains along
with relative rotation and sliding among the grains.
The effect of material swelling in ultra-precision dia-
mond turning has been investigated [10] and a good
correlation between the surface roughness and the amount
of elastic recovery has been shown. Influences of vibration
[11–13] and crystallographic orientation [14] on surface
roughness in diamond turning have also been investigated.
Sokolowski [15] suggested that there is a minimum uncut
chip thickness, below which a chip will not form. When this
occurs, rubbing takes place instead. Applying this idea to
the secondary cutting edge of a turning tool, it is suggested
that a small triangular portion of the material is left
behind. The portion left behind has been analyzed by
Brammertz [16] who called it a Spanzipfel. An additional
purely geometric term (see Eq. (2)) was proposed by
Brammertz to supplement the kinematic surface roughness
to account for the contribution of the Spanzipfel to the
surface roughness in turning.


f2 fm rf
R0th ¼ þ 1þ m .
8r 2 2
Grzesik [17] proposed a revised model based on
Brammertz’s work to account for the increasing trend in
surface roughness below a certain feed by introducing the
minimum uncut chip thickness as a function of the tool
feed.
1779
Fig. 2. Comparison of measured and theoretical values of surface
roughness (workpiece: AISI 1045 steel; tool: tungsten carbide) [1].
However, as pointed out by Shaw [1, pp. 519], the
Spanzipfel will be plastically deformed and made smaller as
it comes into contact with the clearance surface of the tool.
Consequently, it is not likely to completely account for the
observed trend at small feeds.
Sata [18] has studied the influence of material side flow
on surface finish and has found that this component of
roughness is zero for a brittle material such as brass, but
may contribute up to 6 mm to the roughness when alloy
steel is machined.
Shaw [1] also indicated that plastic side flow is most
significant at very small feeds and could be partly
responsible for the rise in surface roughness after reaching
a minimum for feeds less than a certain value. According to
Shaw, this is due in part to the fact that the specific cutting
energy, and hence the mean stress on the tool face,
increases rapidly as the feed decreases. This in turn will
cause more plastic side flow along the secondary cutting
edge. The furrow or ridge that is formed because of
material side flow will add to the discrepancy between the
measured and theoretical surface roughness. Although
Shaw [1, pp. 516] forwarded this as a likely explanation, he
did not demonstrate its validity through modeling and
analysis. The present paper attempts to do this explicitly.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to study surface
roughening due to plastic deformation in turning at
micron-level feed rates, i.e. micro-turning. In particular,
the surface roughness associated with material plastic side
flow is analyzed and modeled quantitatively.
2. Plastic side flow-induced surface roughness
In turning, the material around the cutting edge is
(2)
subjected to sufficiently high pressure to cause the material
to flow to the side (see Fig. 3). As shown schematically in
Fig. 4, the solid curve shows the ideal surface profile left
behind in the absence of side flow while the dotted curve
shows the surface profile with side flow. It is evident from
Fig. 4 that the peak-to-valley roughness is larger when side
flow is present.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1780 K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785
Tool feed direction
tool
Secondary
cutting edge
Plastic side flow
Fig. 3. Illustration of plastic side flow generated by cutting edge in
turning.
Rp, plastic side flow induced roughness
Rth, theoretical roughness
Fig. 4. Idealized surface profile generated by tool with nose radius, with
and without plastic side flow.
Since the material pile up height at the trailing edge of
the tool due to plastic side flow is dependent on the
strength and ductility of the material, it is very likely that
the increasing trend in surface roughness at low feeds, after
reaching a minimum, is linked to the size effect in micro-
turning. It is well known that metals strengthen remarkably
when the characteristic length scale of deformation is of the
order of a micron [19–23]. Size effect in micro-cutting
shows that the specific cutting energy increases nonlinearly
as the uncut chip thickness is decreased. This increase in
specific cutting energy can arise from the increase in
material strength due to large strain gradient, temperature
and/or strain rate effects [24]. If the material directly in
front of the tool face is strengthened much more than the
material on the side, more plastic side flow will occur and
the roughness due to plastic side flow will be greater.
Consequently, in this paper, a strain gradient-based finite
element model of micro-cutting, developed and validated in
earlier work [24], is used to obtain an estimate of the
material strength in the deformation zone for use in the
proposed model of surface roughness due to plastic side
flow.
3. Proposed surface roughness model
The proposed surface roughness model is based on
mechanical analysis of a scratch test performed on metals.
The scratch test is used mainly to study the mechanical
properties of materials near their surface. The scratch
hardness and surface deformation depend in particular on
the rheology of the material, the friction at the interface
and the indenter geometry.
The behavior in a scratch test depends on the rheological
factor, x [25,26]:
E cot y
x¼ , (3)
sy
where y is the semi-apical angle of the indenter, E is the
Young’s modulus and sy is the yield stress of the material.
The rheological factor represents the ratio of the plastic
strain caused by the indenter (ep  cot y) and the elastic
strain (ee so =E).
Jardret et al. [25] have studied scratch resistance of
elastoplastic materials such as metals and polymers. They
have performed experiments with a Berkovich indenter and
measured the scratch morphology. They define a depth ha,
which is measured from the bottom of the scratch groove
to the top of the lateral pile-up (see Fig. 5) and is given by
the following relation:
ha
¼ 0:3084 ln x þ 0:3233, (4)
h
where h is the contact depth.
Bucaille et al. [26] performed a three-dimensional finite
element analysis of scratching on elastic and perfectly
plastic materials and obtained a similar relation albeit with
different coefficients.
Since there exist similarities between a cutting test and the
scratch test, the general form of Eq. (3) (given by Eq. (5)) can
be used to represent the roughness due to plastic side flow as
a function of the rheological factor x. However, the tool used
in turning has a different geometry from the indenter used in
a scratch test. Also, in turning, the tool is fed in a direction
different from the cutting direction. Therefore, coefficients k1
and k2 in Eq. (5) need to be calibrated via actual turning tests
performed over a range of conditions.
Rp ¼ k1 ln x þ k2 , (5)
E cot y
x¼ . (6)
s̄y e
Material pile up
Indent
ha
h
Fig. 5. Illustration of contact depth h and actual contact depth ha in a
scratch test.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785
In the definition of the rheological factor x in Eq. (6), an
average flow stress s̄y is used to account for the hardening
effect. An additional variable e is introduced to account for
the difference in strength between the material in front and
the material on either side of the tool. The variable e is
defined as the ratio of the average flow stress with strain
gradient strengthening to the average flow stress without
strain gradient strengthening. For more details on strain
gradient strengthening due to inhomogeneous deformation
and its role in causing size effect in micro-cutting processes,
the reader is referred to the work of Fleck et al. [22] and Liu
and Melkote [24], respectively.
The developed model for surface roughness prediction in
micro-turning consists of the following three components:
kinematic surface roughness Rth, roughness due to plastic
side flow Rp, and roughness of the cutting edge Redge:
 
Rtotal ¼ Rth þ Rp þ Redge . (7)
Fig. 6 shows schematically the surface roughness
component due to roughness of the cutting edge Redge
and how it contributes to the overall peak-to-valley
roughness height. It is seen that the surface profile within
each trough is caused directly by the cutting edge rough-
ness. However, it is obvious that this component has little
effect on the overall peak-to-valley surface roughness
height at conventional feeds. Its contribution to the overall
peak-to-valley surface roughness becomes significant only
when the feed is so low that the roughness of the cutting
edge is comparable to overall peak-to-valley surface
Fig. 6. Surface roughness due to a non-smooth cutting edge.
Fig. 7. Material pile up at the edge of groove cut at a feed of 150 mm/rev.
1781
roughness. Thus, in Eq. (7) the term Redge is placed inside
a square bracket, which indicates that its inclusion in the
total surface roughness is subject to the above conditions
being satisfied.
4. Model calibration
The objective of the calibration experiments is to
establish a quantitative relationship between the peak-to-
valley surface roughness induced by plastic side flow and
the rheological factor x for aluminum alloy Al5083 H-116,
a strain-rate insensitive material used in this study. This
implies determination of the constants k1 and k2 in Eq. (5).
4.1. Experimental design and procedure
Turning tests were conducted on a Hardinge Conquest
T42SP lathe. Polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tools (TP432,
grade KD100) with 800 mm nose radius and toolholder
CTGPR-164D were used to turn a 40.6 mm initial diameter
bar of Al5083-H116. The toolholder together with the
insert gave a nominal side rake angle of 51, back rake angle
of 01, side cutting edge angle of 01 and a clearance angle
of 111.
Prior to the calibration tests, a grooving test was initially
conducted at a relatively large feed and the material pile up
height at the leading and trailing edges of the groove was
measured using a white light interferometer-based surface
measurement instrument (Zygos). The heights of material
pile up at the two edges were found to be comparable.
Therefore, in the calibration tests described below the
material pile up height was measured at the leading edge
instead of the trailing edge as it permitted easy measure-
ment. Fig. 7 shows the typical profile of material pile up
near the leading edge of the cut groove.
The cutting conditions employed in the plastic side flow-
induced roughness model calibration tests are listed in
Table 1. Three replications of each test condition were
performed. A cutting speed of 200 m/min was chosen to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1782 K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785

avoid the possible influence of built up edge formation on found to be negligible compared with the cutting and thrust
surface generation. Note that in general the depth of cut force components (and hence is not listed in Table 2), thus
will influence the material pile up height. However, suggesting near-orthogonal cutting conditions. Therefore,
preliminary tests at two additional depths of cut (50 the equivalent uncut chip thickness is assumed to be equal
and 150 mm) revealed that the material pile up heights to the feed used in the turning tests. The orthogonal cutting
due to plastic flow were only slightly different. Conse- equations used to calculate the average flow stress are
quently, the depth of cut was fixed in the model calibration summarized in Eqs. (8)–(12).
tests. To estimate the average flow stress in the primary shear
The following quantities were recorded in the experi- zone, the normal shear angle was calculated from the
ments: material pile-up height at the leading edge of the following equation:
groove, cutting forces, chip width and chip thickness. The

cutting forces were measured using a three-component 1 r cos an
jn ¼ tan , (8)
cutting force dynamometer (Kistler Model 9257B). The 1  r sin an
thickness and width of the deformed chips were measured
using a micrometer and an optical microscope, respec- where an is the normal rake angle (51) and r is the cutting
tively. ratio, which is defined as
t
r¼ . (9)
tc
4.2. Plastic side flow-induced roughness model
In Eq. (11) t is the uncut chip thickness and tc the deformed
Table 2 lists the cutting forces and chip geometry chip thickness.
measured in the model calibration tests. These data were The normal friction angle bn was determined from
used to estimate the rheological factor x required to

calibrate Eq. (5). In order to evaluate the rheological factor F t þ F c tan an
bn ¼ tan1 . (10)
x, the average flow stress of the material in the deformation F c  F t tan an
(shear) zone in front of the cutting edge needs to be
The mean shear stress was estimated using the following
determined. An equivalent orthogonal cutting analysis was
equation:
used in conjunction with data in Table 2 to determine the
average flow stress for each cutting condition used in the F c cos ðbn þ jn  an Þ sin jn
calibration tests. t̄ ¼ , (11)
cosðbn  an Þtw
The orthogonal cutting analysis makes use of the
equivalent uncut chip thickness for each turning test. Since where w is the width of the chip.
the tool nose radius is large (800 mm) compared with the Finally, the average flow stress was computed from
depth of cut (100 mm) used in the tests, a relatively small pffiffiffi
portion of the cutting edge is involved in surface s̄y ¼ t̄ 3. (12)
generation. Consequently, the variation in undeformed
chip thickness around the cutting edge is small. In addition, Table 3 lists the rheological factor x (computed using
the feed component of the measured cutting force was Eqs. (6) and (12)) for each calibration test and the
corresponding measured material pile up height, Rp.
Eq. (5) was fit to the data in Table 3 (as seen in Fig. 8)
Table 1 and the coefficients k1 and k2 were obtained. The roughness
Factor and factor levels for Rp model calibration tests Rp due to plastic side flow can now be established as a
function of the material rheological factor x via the
Feed (mm/rev) 30 60 100 150
following equation:
Depth of cut (mm) 100
Speed (m/min) 200
Rp ¼ 4:3408 ln ðxÞ  23:814 ðmmÞ. (15)

Table 2 Table 3
Measured forces and chip geometry in calibration tests Rheological factor and measured side flow induced roughness height Rp
used in model calibration
Feed (mm/rev) Cutting Thrust force, Chip thickness Chip width
force, Fc (N) Ft (N) (mm) (mm) Rheological factor, x Rp (mm)

30 8.18 9.04 51 270 4.15E+02 2.2

60 10.67 8.63 69 345 4.25E+02 2.5
100 13.18 10.66 91 405 5.17E+02 3.5
150 15.69 12.69 94 645 7.14E+02 4.63
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785 1783

5 flow stress with strain gradient strengthening and the

4.5 y = 4.3408Ln(x) - 23.814 e values listed in Table 5.
4
R2 = 0.9812 The surface roughness predictions R0total and R00total are
3.5
plotted in Fig. 9 and compared with the measured surface
Rp (µm)

3
roughness Rexp and the theoretical peak-to-valley surface
2.5
2
roughness Rth. It can be clearly seen from the figure that
1.5 the theoretical surface roughness Rth severely underpredicts
1 the surface roughness in the model validation tests. It can
0.5 also be seen that the theoretical roughness fails to capture
0 the increasing roughness trend at feed values less than
0 200 400 600 800 40 mm. It can be seen that for feeds greater than 50 mm/
x
rev, both R0total and R00total yield much better predictions than
Fig. 8. Determination of coefficients k1 and k2 . the theoretical surface roughness prediction since the
additional roughness associated with plastic side flow is
considered in both cases. However, for feeds less than
4.3. Effect of cutting edge roughness, Redge 40 mm/rev, R0total fails to predict the increasing roughness
trend. On the other hand, R00total , which considers strain
A cutting test was conducted at zero feed and a cutting gradient strengthening of material in front of the tool, is
speed of 200 m/min using a new PCD tool to examine the seen to capture this increasing trend quite well. Therefore,
surface roughness produced by the cutting edge roughness. it can be concluded that the increasing trend in surface
The surface roughness component was measured by roughness at low feeds is related to the size effect in micro-
scanning the surface profile within the cut groove using cutting arising from material strengthening due to strain
the white light interferometer. Most of the roughness
within the groove is attributed to the roughness of the
cutting edge. The measurement showed that the average Table 4
roughness due to cutting edge roughness is less than 2 mm, Factor and factor levels used in model validation tests
which is less than the peak-to-valley height measured in all Feed (mm/rev) 5 10 20 50 75 100
the calibration and model validation tests (see Table 6). Depth of cut (mm) 100
Hence, it is concluded that the cutting edge roughness does Speed (m/min) 200
not contribute significantly to the overall peak-to-valley
roughness in the current study and is therefore not included
in the total surface roughness results presented below. Table 5
Average flow stress and surface roughness prediction
5. Results and discussion
Feed (mm) s0 (MPa) s00 (MPa) e R0total (mm) R00total (mm)
Micro-turning tests for surface roughness model valida- 5 375 295.5 0.79 2.30 3.34
tion were conducted on Al5083-H116 at feeds ranging from 10 358.8 292.7 0.82 2.35 3.23
5 to 100 mm/rev. The cutting conditions used are given in 20 339.5 290 0.85 2.39 3.07
Table 4. Note that the feeds used in the validation tests are 50 310.5 285 0.92 2.46 2.83
75 297.45 280 0.94 2.54 2.80
different from those used in the Rp model calibration tests.
100 265 260 0.98 2.86 2.94
The surface roughness model prediction (Eq. (7)) was
compared with the experimental measurement of surface
roughness in micro-turning. First, the average flow stress
Peak-to-valley surface roughness

with and without strain gradient strengthening for each 6

feed in Table 5 were obtained. The average flow stress 5

without strain gradient strengthening (s00 ) was obtained
from the equivalent orthogonal cutting analysis presented 4
earlier. The average flow stress with strain gradient Rtotal”
(µm)

strengthening (s0 ) was obtained from the strain gradient- 3

based finite element model of orthogonal micro-cutting 2 Rtotal’ Rexp

presented in [24] and the equivalent uncut chip thickness
(equal to the feed). The average flow stresses s0 and s00 and 1
Rth
their ratio e are listed in Table 5.
The total surface roughness R0total in Table 5 was 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
calculated from the average flow stress without strain
Feed (µm)
gradient strengthening (e ¼ 1 in this case). The total
surface roughness R00total was calculated from the average Fig. 9. Surface roughness prediction using the developed model.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1784 K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785

Table 6 Acknowledgment
Comparison of predicted versus measured surface roughness in micro-
turning
This work was supported by the National Science
Feed Rexp Rth Rth error R00total R00total error Foundation through Grant DMI-0300457. The authors
(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (%) would like to thank Mr. Kenneth Niebauer at Kennametal
Inc. for providing the polycrystalline diamond tools used in
5 3.32 0.004 0.73 3.34 99.88
the experiments.
10 2.95 0.02 10.15 3.24 99.47
20 3.28 0.06 4.57 3.13 98.10
50 2.82 0.39 14.14 3.22 86.17
75 3.67 0.88 0.12 3.68 76.08 References
100 4.63 1.56 2.68 4.50 66.24
[1] M.C. Shaw, Metal Cutting Principles, Oxford University Press Inc.,
New York, 1984.
gradient effects (for Al5083-H116). This confirms Shaw’s [2] T. Ozel, Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear
in hard turning using regression and neural networks, Inter-
earlier hypothesis [1, pp. 516]. To obtain accurate predic- national Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 45 (4–5)
tions of the surface roughness in micro-cutting, strain (2005) 467–479.
gradient strengthening is important and should be con- [3] Y. Sahin, A.R. Motorcu, Surface roughness model for machining
sidered in the model. mild steel with carbide tool, Materials and Design 26 (4) (2005)
321–326.
Table 6 shows the surface roughness predicted by the
[4] A. Kohli, U.S. Dixit, A neural-network based methodology for the
theoretical surface roughness equation and the developed prediction of surface roughness in a turning process, International
model. It can be seen that the theoretical surface roughness Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (1–2) (2005)
is very poor and the percentage error is more than 66% for 118–129.
all feeds. In contrast, significant improvement in roughness [5] Y. Jiao, S.T. Lei, Z.J. Pei, Fuzzy adaptive networks in machining
prediction is achieved using the surface roughness model process modeling: surface roughness prediction for turning opera-
tions, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 44
developed in this paper. It can be seen that the percentage (15) (2004) 1643–1651.
error of the prediction by the developed model is less than [6] C.X. Feng, X. Wang, Development of empirical models for surface
15% for all feeds. roughness prediction in finish turning, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 20 (5) (2002) 348–356.
6. Conclusions [7] Y.Z. Dai, F.P. Chiang, On the mechanism of plastic deformation
induced surface roughness, Transactions of the ASME 114 (1992)
432–438.
This paper presented a model-based approach for [8] P.F. Thomson, P.U. Nayak, The effect of plastic deformation on the
predicting the surface roughness in micro-turning of roughening of free surfaces of sheet metal, International Journal of
Al5083-H116 alloy. The approach is based on a surface Machine Tool Design and Research 20 (1979) 73–86.
[9] P.F. Thomson, B.V. Shafer, The roughening of free surfaces during
roughness model that takes into account the effect of
plastic working, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and
plastic side flow, tool geometry, and process parameters. Research 22 (1982) 261–264.
The model uses more accurate information of average flow [10] S. To, C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, Influence of material swelling on
stress of Al5083-H116 at the micron length scale from a surface roughness in diamond turning of single crystals, Materials
previously developed strain gradient-based finite element Science and Technology 17 (2001) 102–108.
model [24]. The results show that the model can predict the [11] S. Takasu, M. Masuda, T. Nishiguchi, A. Kobayashi, Influence of
study vibration with small amplitude upon surface roughness in
roughness of a turned surface at small feeds accurately. The diamond machining, Annals of the CIRP 34/1 (1985) 463–467.
following specific conclusions can be drawn from this [12] O.B. Abouelatta, J. Madl, Surface roughness prediction based on
work: cutting parameters and tool vibrations in turning operations, Journal
of Materials Processing Technology 118 (1–3) (2001) 269–277.
[13] C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, Theoretical and experimental investigation
 It is shown that most of the discrepancy between the
of surface roughness formation in ultra-precision diamond turning,
theoretical and measured surface roughness in micro- International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40 (7)
turning of Al5083-H116 alloy is largely due to the (2000) 979–1002.
additional surface roughening caused by plastic side [14] Z.J. Yuan, W.B. Lee, Y.X. Yao, M. Zhou, Effect of crystallographic
flow. orientation on cutting forces and surface quality in diamond cutting
 The increase in roughness with decrease in feed after of single crystal, Annals of the CIRP 43/1 (1994) 39.
[15] A.P. Sokolowski, Prazision in der Metallbearbeitung, VEB Verlag
reaching a minimum can be attributed to increased Technik, Berlin, 1955.
plastic side flow caused by the strain gradient-induced [16] P.H. Brammertz, Ursachen fur formund massfehler an feinbearbeiten
strengthening of the material directly ahead of the tool. werkstuchken, Dissertation, T.H., Aachen, 1961.
 Significant improvement in roughness prediction is [17] W. Grzesik, A revised model for predicting surface roughness in
achieved using the developed surface roughness model. turning, Wear 194 (1996) 143–148.
[18] T. Sata, M.C. Shaw, Behavior of cellular materials undergoing plastic
The percentage error of the prediction using the flow, CIRP Annals 12 (1964) 190.
developed model is less than 15% for all feeds [19] W.D. Nix, Mechanical properties of thin films, Metallurgical
investigated. Transactions 20A (1989) 2217–2245.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Liu, S.N. Melkote / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1778–1785
[20] Q. Ma, D.R. Clarke, Size dependent hardness of silver single crystals,
Journal of Materials Research 10 (1995) 853–863.
[21] N.A. Stelmashenko, M.G. Walls, L.M. Brown, Y.V. Milman,
Microindentation on W and Mo oriented single crystals: an STM
study, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 41 (1993) 2855–2865.
[22] N.A. Fleck, G.M. Muller, M.F. Ashby, J.W. Hutchinson, Strain
gradient plasticity: theory and experiments, Acta Metallurgica et
Materialia 42 (2) (1994) 475–487.
[23] J.S. Stolken, A.G. Evans, A microbend test method for measuring the
plasticity length scale, Metallurgica et Materialia 46 (14) (1998)
5109–5115.
1785
[24] K. Liu, S. Subbiah, S.N. Melkote, Material strengthening mechan-
isms and their contribution to size effect in micro-cutting, in:
Proceedings of 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Orlando, Florida, November 7–11, 2005,
Paper No. ASME2005-81477, pp. 1–10.
[25] V. Jardret, H. Zahouani, J.L. Loubet, T.G. Mathia, Understanding
and quantification of elastic and plastic deformation during a scratch
test, Wear 218 (1998) 8–14.
[26] J.L. Bucaille, E. Felder, G. Hochstetter, Mechanical analysis of the
scratch test on elastic and perfectly plastic materials with the three-
dimensional finite element modeling, Wear 249 (2001) 422–432.