Sample Report

“INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
INSERT SELECTION AND CUTTING

SPEED ON TOOL WEAR, MACHINE
CYCLE TIME, AND MACHINING COST”
Technical Report Submitted to: Dept. of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering

Prof. Edward C. De Meter
310 Leonhard Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Submitted by: Project Team 5

Sean Campbell, Gordy Tonkin, Ryan Turner
Date: October 29, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this analysis, experimental data was collected to determine the optimum
machining process with regards to stability and simple flank wear. The three
variables in question involved type of cutting insert, use of cutting coolant, and
cutting speed. These variables were experimented and documented using identical
machining processes on two different materials: AISI 4130 Steel and G2 Cast Iron.
Two types of inserts were used, a Grade C2 and Grade P20-P30 cutting insert. Each
were subjected to tests on both materials with and without cutting fluid and at a
cutting speed range of 300-1200sfm.
In regards to type of cutting insert, while machining AISI 4130 Steel, it was
discovered that the Grade C2 insert had a higher mean growth flank wear rate than
the Grade P20-P30 insert. The data also shows that the use of a coolant at higher
cutting speeds reduces the rate at which the cutting inserts experience flank wear.
When the same machining process was conducted at lower cuttings speeds, i.e.
300sfm, the machining process resulted in the cutting tool experiencing a built up
edge phenomena. Due to this fact, it is advised that while cutting AISI 4130 Steel,
it is best to use a Grade P20-P30 cutting insert at a higher cutting speed with the
use of coolant to prolong the life of the insert.
For the tests involving G2 Cast Iron, it was statistically proven that the Grade
C2 cutting insert had a lower mean growth rate with regards to flank wear. The
data also shows that the optimal machining process can be found when the process
is subjected to a coolant at cutting speeds, greater than or equal to 900sfm. When
the same process is tested without the use of a coolant, the cutting insert and
workpiece show significant signs of a built up edge phenomena. Likewise, when the
same process is tested at lower cutting speeds, i.e. less than 900sfm, it is again
subjected to the same built up edge phenomena. From this data, it is suggested
that while cutting G2 Cast Iron, a Grade C2 cutting insert should be used at higher
cutting speeds with the presence of a coolant. This will yield the most optimal
machining process and extend the overall life of the cutting insert.
2
Table of Contents
1. ANALYSIS OF INSERT NOMENCLATURE..................................................................4
2. ANALYSIS OF INSERT PERFORMANCE....................................................................5
2.1 Methodology......................................................................................................5
2.2 Results..............................................................................................................6
3. ANALYSIS OF MACHINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WITH OR WITHOUT CUTTING
FLUID..........................................................................................................................8
3.1 Methodology......................................................................................................8
3.2 Results..............................................................................................................9
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSERT SELECTION, COOLANT USE, AND CUTTING
SPEED RANGE...........................................................................................................11
REFERENCES............................................................................................................12
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................13
APPENDIX
3
1. ANALYSIS OF INSERT NOMENCLATURE
The meaning of the “SNG 422” nomenclature associated with the inserts
refers to the overall geometry of the cutting tool. The first letter of the insert
nomenclature refers to what shape the insert it. Given that the letter is “S” this
signifies that the shape of the given insert is square. The second letter refers to
the relief angle, also known as the clearance angle which is the angle between the
work piece’s cut surface and the flank face. Since the second letter is “N” this
communicates that the relief angle of the insert is 0o. The third letter, G, refers to
the tolerances of the insert. Since the third letter is “G” this represents an
inscribed circle tolerance of ±0.001 and a thickness tolerance of ±0.005. For the
numbered portion of the insert nomenclature, 422, the first number refers to the
size or the number of 1/8ths included in the insert inscribed circle diameter. So in
this case the number 4 means that there are four 1/8ths included, meaning 4/8 inch
or an inscribed circle diameter of ½ inch. The second number refers to the thickness
of the insert. It refers to the number of 1/16 inch units the thickness of the insert
contains. So the number 2 means that the thickness is 2/16 or 1/8 inch thick. The
final number refers to the cutting point radius. The number 2 means that the radius
is a 1/32 inch round radius [1].
The inserts carbide grade specification is used to identify the application,

work piece materials that the insert will cut, and the working methods & conditions.
The P20-P30 carbide insert is used for turning, boring, threading, and grooving. The
materials it is used to cut are low to medium carbon steels, alloy steels, and
stainless steels. P20-P30 carbide inserts are used from low to high speeds at high
feeds and depths of cuts for semi-finishing machining processes[2]. The C2 insert is
a general purpose cutting tool insert and used to cut mainly “problem free chip
forming materials” i.e.- cast irons[3].
4
2. ANALYSIS OF INSERT PERFORMANCE
An experiment was conducted using a turning center to test for process
stability, built up edge formation, and rates of tool wear. By varying cutting speed
and length of cut, it was possible to collect qualitative and quantitative data for the
above experimental variables. The data was collected on hardened steel using two
different carbide inserts. The inserts are explained in greater length in section 1 of
this report. The inserts were applied to a 6.0” workpiece at cutting speeds of 300
and 500 sfm to a radial depth of cut of 0.045”. The inserts were driven along the
workpiece at a constant feed rate of 0.002 ipr for a pre-determined length of cut.
The insert was then removed from the shank, and any noticeable flank wear was
measured and documented. A qualitative analysis of the workpiece was then made
to observe any noticeable differences in the freshly cut workpiece appearance. This
process was repeated varying cutting speeds, length of cuts, and insert type.
2.1 Methodology
In this analysis, data was collected for flank wear, signs of built up edge,
chipping and fracturing of tool, and machined surface appearance. By collecting
this data, many other aspects of this machining process can be interpreted.
Flank wear is the gradual deterioration of the cutting tool due to the forces
generated during the cutting process. As flank wear becomes larger and larger,
there is a higher probability that the tool will begin to chip and fracture. If this is
allowed to continue, the chipping and fracturing will lead to catastrophic failure of
the workpiece. One of the major contributors to flank wear is cutting speed. As the
cutting speed increases, greater forces are exerted onto the cutting tool, which in
turn causes greater flank wear.
Another qualitative feature of this analysis is the occurrence of built up edge.

This occurs when the material being removed from the workpiece experience a high
5
heat or chemical affinity to the cutting tool which causes the material to fuse or
weld to the rake face of the cutting tool. Once enough material is “built up”, the
workpiece material fractures from the cutting tool. This leads to flank wear because
as the material is fracturing from the rake face of the cutting tool, small particles of
the cutting tool are carried away by the workpiece material. Built up edge is also
affected by the cutting speed, but in this case, it is when the cutting speed is too
slow, not too fast. One way to detect built up edge is to observe the machined
surface. When built up edge formation occurs, the machined surface will have a
dull, streaky appearance. It is also possible to detect built up edge directly on the
cutting tool itself, but is often too small to notice any flank wear.
Chatter is defined as the unstable vibration of the cutting tool on the

workpiece [4]. This can be caused by the cutting tool have a more rigid material
than the workpiece it is cutting. Due to this unwanted vibration, chipping and
catastrophic fracture can occur prior the cutting tool reaching its allowable flank
wear limits. At certain cutting speeds, chatter may occur, while at other times,
chatter will not happen. Due to this variability in the presence of chatter, the best
way to avoid chatter is to use a common machining process where chatter was not
present.
2.2 Results
By comparing the qualitative results in Table 1 and Table 2, it is possible to
predict the machining process mode by utilizing the results for built up edge
deposits and machined surface finish. It can be seen in the tables that when built
up edge is present, the machined surface is dull, leading to a stable process with
the presence of a built up edge. The other data present shows no presence of a
built up edge, but the machined surface has signs of chatter marks. This leads to
the prediction of an unstable process due to the presence of chatter. These results
were identical for both the grade C2 and P20-P30 cutting inserts. It is interesting to
note that the built up edge was only present in tests that had cutting speeds of 300
sfm, but were not present in speeds of 500 sfm. This is exactly what was predicted
to happen due to the fact that built up edge can be prevented at higher cutting
speeds. These higher cutting speeds did however lead to an unstable process with
the existence of chatter. It is also seen by the data in these tables that cutting
length had no effect on the machining process mode.
The results in Table 3 and Table 4 in the appendix show the type of tool wear
mode in relation to the built up edge formation, flank wear, and chipping and
fracture of the cutting tool. It can be seen that when there is built up edge, there is
no data present for flank wear or chipping and fracture for either cutting insert.
6
This is because due to the built up edge, neither of these qualitative observations
can be seen without the use of an acid to break down the built up edge. The data
also shows that for a higher cutting speed of 500 sfm and regardless of cutting
length, the C2 cutting insert begins to chip and fracture, which leads to flank wear.
The same is not true for the P20-P30 insert. The flank wear is simple and consistent
until the length of cut reaches 1.2 inches, then the flank wear begins to chip and
fracture at the higher cutting speed.
By comparing length of cut to flank wear, it was possible to determine which

cutting insert has a higher overall comparable growth rate in regards to flank wear.
Table 5 and Table 6 show the length of cut in comparison to the measured flank
wear. This data was then plotted in a scatter plot to compare the overall rate of
flank wear in relation to the length of cut. In Figure 1 below, flank wear is compared
to the length of cut for both the grade C2 and P20-P30 inserts. It can be seen that
as the length of cut increases, the flank wear also increases. The most important
aspect of this graph is the constant rate at which both the inserts’ flank wears
increase. Due to the fact that the neither of the plots overlap, this is enough proof
to say that the true mean growth rate of flank wear for the Grade C2 insert is higher
than that of the Grade P20-P30 insert. This means that flank wear increases faster
for the Grade C2 than the P20-P30 insert.
Figure 1- Grade C2 & P20-P30 Length of Cut vs. Flank Wear
7
3. ANALYSIS OF MACHINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WITH
OR WITHOUT CUTTING FLUID
This section of the lab report investigates the effect of cutting fluids on
machining process mode (i.e.- stability), tool wear mode, and the rate of flank wear.
These effects are monitored on a straight turning process of a G2 gray cast iron
billet, where the diameter is to be turned down from 8 inches to 7.91 inches with a
single pass radial depth of cut equaling .045 inches and a feed of .002
inches/revolution. The data collected on the aforementioned variables will then be
analyzed to find whether the use of cutting fluid leads to a superior machining
process.
3.1 Methodology
The first step to compare the relative performance of the machining process
with coolant versus without coolant is to determine what data are relevant to each
other. To do so for the “Cast Iron Machining Data” excel file, you must find where
the least data is collected. This must be done so that all data that is compared is all
collected under identical conditions, except for the use of coolant, which is the
variable in question(i.e.- the variable that will be changed to see if it effects other
variables). Since the insert with grade P20-P30 with flood coolant is only observed
at a cutting speed of 900 sfm and insert with grade C2 without flood coolant is only
observed for cumulative length of cuts between .3 and 1.2. Therefore the other
insert’s measurements when cutting speed is not equal to 900 sfm and when their
cumulative length of cuts is outside of the range .3 to 1.2 the data collect are
meaningless since all combinations of inserts and flood coolant presence cannot be
compared.
Next the data given in excel file “Cast Iron Machining Data” must be organized
so that the relevant data needed to determine machining process mode, tool wear
mode, and rate of flank wear are all next to each other to ease comparison of the
data to determine the aforementioned modes. To determine machining process
mode the data that must be compared is presence of coolant, built up edge
deposits on tool, chipping and fracturing of tool, and machined surface appearance.
To determine the tool wear mode the data that must be compared is the presence
of coolant, built up edge deposits on tool, flank wear, and chipping & fracturing of
tool. To determine rate of flank wear the data that must be compared is the
8
presence of coolant, cumulative length of cut, and flank wear. To solve for the rate
of flank wear (ipr = inches per revolution) the number of rotations for each different
cumulative length of cut must be solved for. To do so the following equation must
be utilized:
• # of Revolutions = (Cumulative Length of Cut) / (Feed Rate)
Then to find the rate of flank wear the following equation is used:
• Rate of Flank Wear = (Flank Wear) / (# of Revolutions)
The previous steps are all completed for each combination of tool inserts(C2 & P20-
P30) and coolant(with or without). Then a scatter plot is created using excel having
length of cut as the independent variable and flank wear depth as the dependent
variable. Since flank wear data could not be measured for insert C2 without the use
of coolant a scatter plot could not be created.
The scatter plots are then analyzed to find whether the use of coolant
reduces the amount of flank wear on the respective cutting tool insert. “If there is
no overlap of data, it is reasonable to assume that the true mean growth rate of one
alternative is greater than the other”[4]. If there is overlap of data it must be
statistically analyzed to determine if there is a difference in the growth rate. This is
done by creating a chart similar to Table 1 within the lab Report [4]. The sample
standard deviation and sample average are computed for inserts of grade C2 and
P20-P30 and their respective combination of coolant using excel. Then a
comparison of variances and a comparison of means tests are both run for each
cumulative length of cut, insert, and coolant combination to determine which has a
higher mean growth rate of flank wear. Once the comparison of variances test is
completed the variances are compared to determine if equal or unequal variances
should be assumed for the comparison of means test. The null hypothesis for the
comparison of variance test is that the two variables (variable 1= flank wear w/o
coolant & variable 2= flank wear w/ coolant) standard deviations are equal. If the
computed F-statistic is greater than the Critical F-statistic the null hypothesis is
rejected and leads to the conclusion that σ1 < σ2(F-Stat Tables can be found in
appendix Tables 16-19). Since it is found that the variances are unequal the
comparison of means test or “t-test’s” null hypothesis is σ1 ≠ σ2. If the computed t-
statistic is greater than t-critical one tail value the null hypothesis is rejected,
meaning that there is no statistical evidence to support the idea that the variances
are unequal. (T-Stat tables can be found in appendix Tables 20-23)
9
3.2 Results
The following scatter plots were created to compare the cumulative length of
cut and the flank wear depth for all combinations of cumulative length and coolant
presence.
Figure 2 - Length of Cut vs. Flank Wear for Insert Grade C2 Without Coolant
Figure 3 - Length of Cut vs. Flank Wear for Insert Grade P20-P30 With and Without Coolant
Figure 2 represents the data collected for insert with grade C2. This scatter plot
only has data for insert of grade C2 with the presence of coolant due to the fact that
flank wear data could not be measured for this insert without the presence of
coolant. This means we are unable to draw a conclusion of whether or not the
presence of coolant is beneficial to insert of grade C2. Figure 3 represents the data
collected for insert with grade P20-P30 with and without the presence of coolant.
Since there is overlap of the data the graph must be statistically analyzed to
determine if there is a difference in growth rate between the use of coolant and not
using coolant. The Tables 14 and 15 represented in the Appendix shows that tools
used without the use of coolant have a higher true mean growth rate of flank wear.
Insert of grade P20-P30 is shown to be subject to greater variability with

regard to flank wear and greater average flank wear rate, shown in Table 14 of the
appendix. This could be due to the fact that P20-P30 grade tool inserts are
designed to cut medium carbon steels, alloy steels, and stainless steels and in this
particular experiment are being used to cut G2 gray cast iron. C2 inserts are used
to cut problem free chip forming materials which cast iron is included within.
Therefore the C2 inserts are being used correctly, i.e.- cutting the material they are
designed to cut, while P20-P30 inserts are being used to cut materials that they are
not designed to cut.
There is evidence that the use of coolant flooding leads to superior machining
system performance, due to the fact that the standard deviations and average
means of flank wear are less with coolant flooding than without coolant flooding.
This could be because coolant flooding:
1. Removes chip formations from the cutting so they do not interfere with the
cutting process
2. Lubricates the cutting tool- work piece interface to decrease friction, which
leads to a decrease in heat, which in turn decreases the amount flank wear
3. Decreases the forces needed to perform the cut, which will in turn decrease
the rate of flank wear
10
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSERT SELECTION, COOLANT
USE, AND CUTTING SPEED RANGE
The cutting tool with insert grade C2 should be used to turn the G2 gray cast
iron billet. This is due to the fact that the variation and average value of flank wear
for grade C2 are less than grade P20-P30. This implies that the cutting tool with
insert grade C2 will have a longer tool life than cutting tool with insert grad P20-
P30, which will in turn decrease the costs of the machining process.
The cutting zone should be flooded with coolant because as seen with P20-
P30 insert the flooding further decreases the variation and average value of flank
wear. This phenomenon could not be directly observed with insert C2 because of
the inability to measure flank wear. But from Tables 8 and 9 it can be seen that the
use of coolant leads to the removal of built up edge deposits in comparison to not
using coolant, coolant also betters the machined surface appearance and stabilizes
the machining process.
After analyzing the cutting speed data for G2 Cast Iron, it is apparent that
optimal and stable cutting is achieved at higher cutting speeds. This optimal
cutting is done using the grade C2 cutting insert while flooding with a coolant. This
is proven in Table 8 and Table 9 in the appendix, which shows that at a cutting
speed of 900sfm with a coolant present, the process is shown to be stable with the
presence of simple flank wear. If cutting speed is constant, but either the insert is
changed or coolant is removed, the machining process begins to form a built up
edge phenomena. Therefore, by the data collected in Tables 8 and 9 in the
appendix, it is recommended to use a cutting speed of 900sfm with the grade C2
cutting insert while flooding the process with coolant.
11
REFERENCES
1. "Carbide Insert Identification." Carbide Inserts | Cutting Tool Carbide Inserts.

Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://www.pgstools.com/servlet/the-
template/carbideinsertidentification/Page#Cross>.
2. "Valenite Insert Grades Chart." Carbide Inserts | Cutting Tool Carbide Inserts.
Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://www.pgstools.com/servlet/the-
template/valeniteinsertgradeschart/Page>.
3. SNG 422 C2 Carbide Insert. PGS Commodity Supply. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.pgstools.com/servlet/the-16475/SNG-422,C2-Carbide-
Insert,SNG422,Generic/Detail>.
4. Dr. De Meter. Investigation of the Effects of Insert Selection and Cutting

Speed on Tool Wear, Machine Cycle Time, and Machining Cost. Machining
Process Design & Analysis.
12
APPENDIX
Table 1 - Insert Grade C2 Machining Process Mode for 4130 Steel

Insert Grade C2
Cut. Spd. Length of Cut Replicat BUE Deposits Surf. Mach. Proc.
(sfm) (in) e on Tool Appearance Mode
300 0.3 1 On Flank and Rake Face Dull Stable, BUE
500 0.3 1 None Chatter Marks Unstable
13
Table 2- Insert Grade P20-P30 Machining Process Mode for 4130 Steel
Insert Grade P20-P30
Cut. Spd. Length of Cut Replicat BUE Deposits Surf. Mach. Proc.
(sfm) (in) e on Tool Appearance Mode
14
Table 3 - Insert Grade C2 Tool Wear Mode for 4130 Steel
Insert Grade C2
Cut.
Spd. Len. of Replic BUE Deposits on Flank Wear Chipping and Tool Wear
(sfm) Cut (in) ate Tool (in.) Fracturing Mode
On Flank and Rake
300 0.3 1 Face Unquantifiable None BUE
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
On Flank and Rake
500 0.3 1 None 0.00289 Slight Edge Chipping FW w/ Chip
Edge Chips Inc. in Sz.
500 0.6 1 None 0.0054 and No. FW w/ Chip
15
Table 4 - Insert Grade P20-P30 Tool Wear Mode for 4130 Steel
Insert Grade P20-P30
Cut. Spd. Len. of Replic BUE Deposits on Flank Wear Chipping and Tool Wear
(sfm) Cut (in) ate Tool (in.) Fracturing Mode
On Flank and Rake Unquantifia
300 0.3 1 Face ble None BUE
500 0.3 1 None 0.001 None Simp. FW
500 0.9 1 None 0.00308 None Simp. FW
16
Slight Edge
500 1.2 1 None 0.00347 Chipping FW w/ Chip
Slight Edge
Slight Edge
Table 5 - Grade C2 Length of Cut vs Flank 0.3 0.00231

Wear
0.6 0.0054
for 4130 Steel
0.6 0.00328
Grade C2
0.6 0.00463
Length of Cut
(in.) Flank Wear (in.) 0.9 0.00617
0.3 could not be measured 0.9 0.00424
0.6 could not be measured
0.9 could not be measured Table 6 - Grade P20-P30 Length of Cut vs
0.9 could not be measured Flank Wear
for 4130 Steel
Grade P20-P30
Length of Cut
1.2 could not be measured (in.) Flank Wear (in.)
0.3 0.00289 0.3 could not be measured
0.3 0.00231 0.3 could not be measured
17
0.3 0.001
0.3 0.0013
0.3 0.0013
0.6 0.0023
0.6 0.0027
0.6 0.0021
0.9 0.00308
0.9 0.0033
0.9 0.0038
1.2 0.00347
1.2 0.0041
1.2 0.0037
18
Table 7 - Sample Standard Deviation & Average for Grade C2 and P20-P30 Inserts for 4130
Steel
Grade P20-
Grade C2 P30 Grade P20-
Cum.Len. Sample Std. Sample Std. Grade C2 P30
of Cut Dev. Dev. Sample Avg Sample Avg
0.3 0.000334863 0.000173205 0.002503333 0.0012
0.6 0.001073142 0.000305505 0.004436667 0.002366667
0.9 0.000990269 0.000368963 0.005076667 0.003393333
1.2 0.001095628 0.0003188 0.0063 0.003756667
Table 8 - Insert Grade C2 Machining Process Mode for G2 Cast Iron

Cutting Cumulative Chipping and Mach.
Coola Speed Length of BUE Deposits on Fracturing of Machined Surface Process
nt (sfm) Cut(in.) Tool Tool Appearance Mode
Good metallic finish
YES 900 0.3 None None with no streaks Stable
Sig. Deposits on Stable w/
NO 900 0.3 Flank and Rake Face None Dull with Streaks BUE
Table 9 - Insert Grade C2 Tool Wear Mode for G2 Cast Iron

Cutting Cumulative Chipping and Tool
Coola Speed Length of BUE Deposits on Fracturing of Wear
nt (sfm) Cut(in.) Tool Flank Wear Tool Mode
Simple
YES 900 0.3 None 0.00231 None Flank Wear
Simple
Simple
Sig. Deposits on could not be
NO 900 0.3 Flank and Rake Face measured None BUE
Simple
Simple
Simple
Simple
Simple
Simple
Simple
20
Simple
Simple
Table 10 - Insert Grade C2 Flank Wear Rate for G2 Cast Iron

Cumulative Length of
Coolant Cut(in.) Flank Wear Flank Wear Rate(ipr)
YES 0.3 0.00231 0.0000154
YES 0.3 0.00212 1.41333E-05
YES 0.3 0.00289 1.92667E-05
NO 0.3 could not be measured could not be measured
YES 0.6 0.00385 1.28333E-05
YES 0.6 0.00308 1.02667E-05
YES 0.6 0.00385 1.28333E-05
YES 0.9 0.00405 0.000009
YES 0.9 0.00328 7.28889E-06
YES 0.9 0.00424 9.42222E-06
YES 1.2 0.00521 8.68333E-06
YES 1.2 0.00347 5.78333E-06
YES 1.2 0.00482 8.03333E-06
21
Table 11 - Insert Grade P20-P30 Machining Process Mode for G2 Cast Iron
Cutting Cumulative BUE Chipping and Mach.
Coola Speed Length of Deposits on Fracturing of Mach.Surface Process
nt (sfm) Cut(in.) Tool Tool Appearance Mode
NO 900 0.3 None None with no streaks Stable
22
Table 12 - Insert Grade P20-P30 Tool Wear Mode for G2 Cast Iron
Cutting
Coola Speed Cumulative BUE Deposits Flank Chipping and Tool Wear
nt (sfm) Length of Cut(in.) on Tool Wear Fracturing of Tool Mode
Simple Flank
YES 900 0.3 None 0.0027 None Wear
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
NO 900 0.3 None 0.00366 None Wear
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
23
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Simple Flank
Table 13 - Flank Wear Rate for G2 Cast Iron

Cumulative Length of Flank Wear
Coolant Cut(in.) Flank Wear Rate(ipr)
YES 0.3 0.0027 0.000018
YES 0.3 0.00289 1.92667E-05
YES 0.3 0.00308 2.05333E-05
NO 0.3 0.00366 0.0000244
NO 0.3 0.00383 2.55333E-05
NO 0.3 0.00463 3.08667E-05
YES 0.6 0.00521 1.73667E-05
YES 0.6 0.00598 1.99333E-05
YES 0.6 0.00771 0.0000257
NO 0.6 0.00598 1.99333E-05
NO 0.6 0.00636 0.0000212
NO 0.6 0.00791 2.63667E-05
YES 0.9 0.00791 1.75778E-05
YES 0.9 0.00926 2.05778E-05
YES 0.9 0.00945 0.000021
NO 0.9 0.0081 0.000018
NO 0.9 0.01177 2.61556E-05
NO 0.9 0.01196 2.65778E-05
YES 1.2 0.00945 0.00001575
YES 1.2 0.01157 1.92833E-05
YES 1.2 0.01157 1.92833E-05
NO 1.2 0.00887 1.47833E-05
NO 1.2 0.01177 1.96167E-05
NO 1.2 0.01199 1.99833E-05
Table 14 - Sample Standard Deviations and Averages for Flank Wear Measurements for G2
Cast Iron With Coolant
W/ COOLANT
Cumulative Length Sample Std Sample St Dev(in.) Sample Sample Avg(in.)

of Cut(in.) Dev(in.) for C2 for P20-P30 Avg(in.) for C2 for P20-P30
24
0.3 0.000401123 0.000517977 0.00244 0.00289
0.6 0.00044456 0.001022399 0.003593333 0.0063
0.9 0.000508363 0.002175799 0.003856667 0.008873333
1.2 0.000913072 0.104291259 0.0045 0.010863333
Table 15 - Sample Standard Deviation and Average For Flank Wear Measurements for G2
Cast Iron Without Coolant
W/O COOLANT
Cumulative Length Sample Std Sample St Dev(in.) Sample Sample Avg(in.)

of Cut(in.) Dev(in.) for C2 for P20-P30 Avg(in.) for C2 for P20-P30
0.3 N/A 0.00019 N/A 0.00404
0.6 N/A 0.001280352 N/A 0.00675
0.9 N/A 0.000839663 N/A 0.01061
1.2 N/A 0.104227316 N/A 0.010876667
Table 16 - F-Test for 0.3in Cutting Length of G2 Cast Iron

F-Test Two-Sample for Variances(CLC=0.3)
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 0.00404 0.00289
Variance 2.683E-07 3.61E-08
Observations 3 3
df 2 2
F 7.432132964
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.118593955
F Critical one-tail 19

Mean 0.00675 0.0063
Variance 1.0453E-06 1.6393E-06
Observations 3 3
df 2 2
F 0.637650217
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.389368994
F Critical one-tail 0.052631579

Mean 0.01061 0.008873333
25
Variance 4.7341E-06 7.05033E-07
Observations 3 3
df 2 2
F 6.71471798
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.129622366
Table 19 - F-Test for 1.2in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Mean 0.010876667 0.010863333
Variance 3.03213E-06 1.49813E-06
Observations 3 3
df 2 2
F 2.023940904
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.330694293
Table 20 - t-Test for 0.3in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances(CLC=0.3)
Mean 0.00404 0.00289
Variance 2.683E-07 3.61E-08
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 3
t Stat 3.610240582
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.018248725
t Critical one-tail 2.353363435
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.036497451
t Critical two-tail 3.182446305
Table 21 - t-Test for 0.6in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Mean 0.00675 0.0063
Variance 1.0453E-06 1.6393E-06
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 0.475700216
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.329551298
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.659102597
26
Table 22 - t-test for 0.9in cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Mean 0.01061 0.008873333
Variance 4.7341E-06 7.05033E-07
Observations 3 3
df 3
t Stat 1.289769918
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.143780999
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.287561998
Table 23- t-Test for 1.2in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron
Mean 0.010876667 0.010863333
Variance 3.03213E-06 1.49813E-06
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 0.010850193
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.495931277
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.991862555
27

Sample Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sample Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

“INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF

INSERT SELECTION AND CUTTING

Technical Report Submitted to: Dept. of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering

Submitted by: Project Team 5

The inserts carbide grade specification is used to identify the application,

Another qualitative feature of this analysis is the occurrence of built up edge.

Chatter is defined as the unstable vibration of the cutting tool on the

By comparing length of cut to flank wear, it was possible to determine which

Figure 1- Grade C2 & P20-P30 Length of Cut vs. Flank Wear

• # of Revolutions = (Cumulative Length of Cut) / (Feed Rate)

• Rate of Flank Wear = (Flank Wear) / (# of Revolutions)

Insert of grade P20-P30 is shown to be subject to greater variability with

1. "Carbide Insert Identification." Carbide Inserts | Cutting Tool Carbide Inserts.

4. Dr. De Meter. Investigation of the Effects of Insert Selection and Cutting

Table 1 - Insert Grade C2 Machining Process Mode for 4130 Steel

Table 5 - Grade C2 Length of Cut vs Flank 0.3 0.00231

Table 8 - Insert Grade C2 Machining Process Mode for G2 Cast Iron

Table 9 - Insert Grade C2 Tool Wear Mode for G2 Cast Iron

Table 10 - Insert Grade C2 Flank Wear Rate for G2 Cast Iron

Table 13 - Flank Wear Rate for G2 Cast Iron

Cumulative Length Sample Std Sample St Dev(in.) Sample Sample Avg(in.)

Cumulative Length Sample Std Sample St Dev(in.) Sample Sample Avg(in.)

Table 16 - F-Test for 0.3in Cutting Length of G2 Cast Iron

Table 17 - F-Test for 0.6in Cutting Length of G2 Cast Iron

Table 18 - F-Test for 0.9in Cutting Length of G2 Cast Iron

Table 19 - F-Test for 1.2in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Table 20 - t-Test for 0.3in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Table 21 - t-Test for 0.6in Cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Table 22 - t-test for 0.9in cutting Length for G2 Cast Iron

Você também pode gostar