Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ceramics International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ceramint

Hard machining performance of PVD AlCrN coated Al2O3/TiCN ceramic MARK

inserts as a function of thin film thickness
⁎
Ch Sateesh Kumar , Saroj Kumar Patel
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: In the present work, AlCrN coating was deposited on Al2O3/TiCN ceramic inserts with varying thin film
Hard turning thickness using physical vapor deposition (PVD) technique. The thickness, surface morphology, chemical
Mixed ceramic inserts composition, hardness and adhesion strength of the coating to the substrate were characterized by field-
AlCrN coating emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive
FEM
spectroscopy (EDS), micro-indentations and scratch tests respectively. The machining performance of uncoated
and coated tools was investigated in hard turning of AISI 52100 steel (62 HRC) under dry environment. The
cutting behavior was analyzed in terms of machining forces, tool temperature, wear, friction and chip
morphology. Further, a 3D finite element model with hybrid friction criterion has been adopted to support
the experimental findings. The results revealed that coating/substrate adhesion and edge radius were the
deciding criteria for the machining performance of coated tools with 3 µm coating thickness tool exhibiting best
turning performance on Al2O3/TiCN mixed ceramic insert.

1. Introduction ceramic tools owing to the advancement in ceramic processing

technology and their economic nature are being extensively used for
Hard turning is a finishing or semi-finishing turning operation machining difficult to cut materials [9–11]. However, the biggest
performed on highly wear resistant materials having a hardness in the problem with these tools is their low fracture strength which makes
range of 45 HRC to 70 HRC which can significantly improve surface them inappropriate for interrupted cutting applications. The addition
roughness, reduce machining time and increase overall production of some ductile phases to brittle ceramic material has proved to be
capacity during machining. Advantageous effects of hard turning have highly beneficial in aggregating the fracture toughness of the ceramics.
deduced it as an imperative alternative to grinding process for finishing The ceramic composite, thus, formed has higher thermal conductivity
operations performed on hardened alloy steel. The hard machining and better resistance to impact loads [12]. Sobiyi et al. [1] carried out a
investigations till now are concentrated on turning of super alloys, AISI comparative study on the machining performance of mixed ceramic
52100 steel, tool steels (H11-H13) and hardened alloy steels (4140– and CBN cutting tools and revealed that ceramic tools produced a
4340) using coated carbide, cermet, ceramic, composite ceramic, cubic superior surface finish as compared to CBN tools. The tool wear can
boron nitride (CBN) and polycrystalline boron nitride (PCBN) cutting further be reduced by deposition of hard coatings on the cutting tool
tools [1–4]. substrate [13–19]. Aslantas et al. [1] investigated the effect of TiN
The most significant problem faced during hard turning process is coating on Al2O3/TiCN based mixed ceramic cutting tools and revealed
the tool wear that substantially impacts the machining responses such that coated tools outperformed uncoated tool while turning of har-
as cutting forces, tool temperature, chip-tool interface temperature, dened AISI 52100 steel. PVD and CVD coated Al2O3/TiC tool while
surface integrity, cost of production and tool life either directly or machining gray cast iron showed a substantial improvement of tool life
indirectly [5]. Therefore, exceedingly wear resistant tools like CBN, as compared to the uncoated tool [13]. Effect of varying coating
PCBN and ceramic tools are usually used in this machining process thickness on machining performance of cutting tools was also explored
[6,7]. Although CBN and PCBN tools are much costlier but possess to determine optimum TiN coating thickness [20,21].
highly wear resistant, oxidation resistant and high hot hardness Finite element modeling has proved very efficient in predicting the
properties in comparison to ceramics [8]. Alternatively, alumina-based performance of cutting tools. Özel [22] performed experimental and

Abbreviations: AISI, American iron and steel institute; AlCrN, aluminum chromium nitride; CBN, cubic boron nitride; PCBN, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Sateesh Kumar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2017.07.030
Received 10 May 2017; Received in revised form 28 June 2017; Accepted 4 July 2017
Available online 05 July 2017
0272-8842/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Nomenclature σn normal stress [MPa]

τ̄ shear flow stress of workpiece material [MPa]
σ* material flow stress for workpiece material [MPa] Fy cutting force [N]
A initial yield stress for workpiece material [MPa] Fx feed force [N]
B strain hardening coefficient for workpiece material [MPa] Fz thrust force [N]
n strain hardening exponent for workpiece material Fxz equivalent thrust force [N]
C strain-rate hardening coefficient for workpiece material εf̅ , effective strain rate [s−1]
ε equivalent strain σp workpiece material principal stress [MPa]
ε̇ plastic strain rate [s−1] σh hydrostatic stress [MPa]
ε̇0 reference strain rate (1.0 s−1) DR critical damage value
TR room temperature [°C] h workpiece hardness [HRC]
TM melting temperature [°C] w flank wear [mm]
m temperature dependent coefficient pt interface pressure [MPa]
τf frictional shear stress [MPa] Vs sliding velocity [m/min]
µc Coulomb's friction coefficient ϴ interface temperature [°C]
ms shear friction factor

numerical investigations in turning Ti-6Al-4V with TiAlN and CBN 2.1. Constitutive model for workpiece material
coated carbide tools and revealed that coated tools showed an increase
in cutting forces at high speeds but represented favorable wear The workpiece designated for this work is AISI 52100 bearing steel
characteristics. Various 2D and 3D finite element models have been hardened to 62 HRC hardness. A J-C material constitutive model
proposed to study the process of hard machining more precisely implemented by Kim et al. [27] has been adopted (see Table 1).
[23,24]. Maranhão and Paulo [25] revealed that friction has a Adaptation of J-C material model is entirely validated in hard
significant effect on the predicted machining responses using FEM machining due to its capability to handle large strains and strain rates.
and thus, should be modeled sparingly to obtain accurate numerical A generalized J-C model representing the equivalent stress is given as:
predictions. Arrazola and Özel [26] made a recommendable study on
⎡ ⎛ ε ̇ ⎞⎤⎡ T − TR ⎤
m
the effect of different friction models and limiting shear stress on FEM σ * = [A + B. ε n]⎢1+C.ln ⎜ ⎟⎥⎢1− ⎥
analysis. An interesting work on the performance of micro-textured ⎢⎣ ⎝ ε 0̇ ⎠⎥⎦⎣ TM − TR ⎦ (1)
PCBN tool during hard machining of AISI 52100 steel by Kim et al.
[8,27] using 3D finite element analysis and experimental validation is where A is the initial yield stress, B is the strain-hardening coefficient,
reported in the literature. Also, Attanasio [28,29] proposed abrasive n is the strain-hardening exponent, C is the strain-rate hardening
and diffusive finite element wear model to precisely predict the wear of coefficient, ε is the equivalent strain, ε̇ plastic strain rate, ε̇0 reference
uncoated carbide cutting tools. Many researches have used Usui wear strain rate (1.0 s−1), TR is the room temperature, TM is the melting
rate model based on abrasive wear with acceptable results [24,30]. temperature and m is the temperature dependent coefficient. The
From the literature review, it is evident that investigations on the mechanical and thermal properties of the workpiece material adopted
performance of hard coated composite ceramic tools are limited. for numerical simulations are depicted in Table 2.
Further, the investigations on the performance of coated Al2O3/TiCN
mixed ceramic inserts is restricted in the literature. It was also found 2.2. Tool geometry and tool holder
that finite element modeling to predict machining behavior of compo-
site ceramic cutting tools has rarely been considered. Moreover, no The composite Al2O3/TiCN ceramic insert with SNGA120408
work on the effect of coating thickness variation can be seen during the designation has been adopted for this work. Further, AlCrN coating
hard machining process. has been considered on the tool. The thermal and mechanical proper-
High hot hardness and wear resistance of AlCrN coating makes it ties of the insert and coating material that are used for simulation
suitable for all kinds of dry and wet machining applications in the purpose are illustrated in Table 3. The tool holder was created
industry that include continuous as well as interrupted cutting [31]. according to the specification of PSBNR2020K12. As the considered
Thus, the present work is emphasized on investigating the hard coating thickness is small, the emissivity and thermal expansion
machining performance of PVD AlCrN coated Al2O3/TiCN mixed coefficient of both coated and uncoated tools were assumed to be same.
ceramic inserts during hard machining of AISI 52100 bearing steel
(62 HRC) under dry cutting conditions. Further, a 3D finite element
2.3. Friction modeling
model has been developed for the comparative study of machining
forces, temperature and chip morphology.
Friction plays a pivotal role in deciding the nature of machining
responses such as machining forces, temperatures, and surface integ-
rity. Many friction models have been presented taking both Coulomb
and shear models into consideration [26,32]. The present work
2. Finite element modeling employs a hybrid friction model depicted in Eq. (2) to precisely study
the frictional behavior on the sticking and sliding zones of friction
Present work utilizes Deform 3D finite element codes for numerical respectively. The model is given as:
analysis of hard turning process using composite ceramic inserts. Due
to the rigid behavior of the tool and material flow taking place in the Table 1
workpiece material, the tool is modeled as rigid whereas the workpiece Material constitutive J-C flow stress model coefficients for hardened AISI 52100 steel (62
HRC) [27].
as a plastic material. The Lagrangian approach has been adopted in the
numerical modeling process with defined chip separation criteria. The A (MPa) B (MPa) m C n Tm (°C)
Johnson-Cook (J-C) material flow stress model is used to study the
effective plastic flow in AISI 52100 steel. 774.78 134.46 3.171 0.0173 0.371 1487

13315
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Table 2 Fxz is further given as:

Mechanical and thermal properties of AISI 52100 steel (62 HRC).
Fxz = Fx 2 + Fz 2 (5)
Property Property value Temperature (°C)

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) [38] 201.33 20 where Fx is the feed force, and Fz is the thrust force. The mean of the
178.58 200 coefficient of friction was considered for numerical simulation purpose.
162.72 400 The evaluated mean coefficient of friction for uncoated inserts was
103.42 600
0.45, and AlCrN coated inserts was 0.35 respectively. These values also
86.87 800
66.88 1000 validate the data provided by the manufacturers. Shear friction factors
Poisson's ratio, ν [38] 0.277 20 were obtained from the stress data of AlCrN coating [33] and Al2O3/
0.269 200 TiCN ceramic composite [12]. Shear friction factor (0.5 for coated tool
0.255 400 and 0.85 for the uncoated tool) was used in the sticking zone whereas,
0.342 600
0.396 800
Coulomb's coefficient of friction was utilized for the sliding zone.
0.490 1000
Density, ρ (kg/m3) [27] 7853 –
Thermal expansion coefficient, α (µm/m/ 11.9 20 2.4. Numerical formulation
°C) [27] 12.5 100
13.00 200
13.6 300 A linear model as shown in Fig. 1 has been adopted for the rotating
14.1 400 workpiece to precisely define the chip flow during the simulation
14.5 500 process. The tool and the workpiece are meshed with 1,55,000 and
14.9 600
90,000 thermally coupled tetrahedral elements respectively. The mesh
14.9 1500
Thermal conductivity, k (W/m K) [34] 52.5 20 size for both the tool and the workpiece was selected after performing
47.5 200 mesh convergence study. Mesh windows have been utilized to define a
41.5 400 finer mesh at the tool tip. The air convection is assumed to be 0.02 N/s/
32.5 600 mm/°C on the free surface, and the heat transfer coefficient is reserved
26 800
29 1000
as 28 N/s/mm/°C [22]. Both tool and workpiece are assumed to be at
30 1200 an initial temperature of 20 °C. Brozoo's damage criterion [34] was
29.5 1300 adopted to consider the effect of hydrostatic stress on chip segmenta-
Heat capacity (N/mm2/°C) [34] 3.354 20 tion which may be expressed as
4.0622 200
4.75 400 ε ̅f 2σp
5.75 600 ∫0 3(σ1 − σh )
dε = DR
(6)
6.0278 700
12.75 750
5 800 where εf̅ is the effective strain rate, σp is the material principal stress, σh
4.5 900 is the hydrostatic stress and DR is the critical damage value for the
workpiece material. The criterion is the simplest one that incorporates
determination of only one material constant i.e., the critical damage
Table 3 value DR which can be given by the hardness based expression given by
Mechanical and thermal properties of uncoated tool and coating material.
Umbrello et al. [34]
Property Al2O3/TiCN AlCrN coating
DR = −0.0011h + 0.1288 (7)
insert [9]

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 400 600 [33] where h is the hardness of the material in HRC. Based on the above
Poisson's ratio, ν 0.25 0.3 (assumed) equation, critical damage value of 62 HRC AISI 52100 steel was
Thermal conductivity, k (W/m K) 20 5.5 [39] estimated to be 0.0606.
Heat capacity (N/mm2/°C) 9 4.0 [39]
Thermal expansion coefficient, α 8.3 × e−6 (same as Al2O3/TiCN
(µm/m/°C) substrate)
2.5. Simulation conditions

⎧ μ σn, if μ σn < msτ

⎪ The simulations were carried out at a constant cutting speed of
c c
τf = ⎨ 189 m/min, feed rate of 0.12 mm/rev and depth of cut of 0.5 mm for
⎩ msτ , if μcσn ≥ m sτ
⎪
(2)
both coated and uncoated composite ceramic cutting tools. The
where τf is the frictional shear stress, μc Coulomb's friction coefficient, machining parameters were selected based on the recommendations
σn is the normal stress, ms is the shear friction factor and τ is the shear from the insert manufacturer as well as based on the workpiece
flow stress of the workpiece material which may further be expressed as diameter, and on the permissible spindle speeds and feed rates of the
σ lathe machine on which the experiments were performed. This selec-
τ = tion was made for proper comparison of numerical data with the
3 (3)
experimental results. On the contrary, depth of cut was set at the
To determine Coulomb's friction coefficient, 5 repetitive turning maximum value recommended by the insert manufacturer. Moreover,
tests were performed at 115 m/min at a constant feed rate and depth of the selection was made based on the work carried out by Aslantas et al.
cut of 0.12 mm/rev and 0.5 mm respectively for both uncoated and [1] which reports very less flank wear for ceramic tools. Three different
AlCrN coated composite ceramic inserts. Machining forces were coating thicknesses of 2 (AlCrN2), 3 (AlCrN3) and 4 (AlCrN4), µm of
recorded using a dynamometer and coefficient of friction was deter- AlCrN coating, have been utilized in the FEM analysis. Higher coating
mined by the expression given as [26] thickness has not been considered in this study due to increase in
Fxz + Fytanα residual stresses with coating thickness which will not be suitable for
μc = hard machining [20,21]. The edge radius of the modeled tools was
Fy − Fxztanα (4)
considered as per Table 4.

13316
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 1. Linear simplified simulation setup.

Table 4 3.2. Material characterization

Edges radius, surface roughness and microhardness for uncoated and coated tools.
The hardness of the cutting tools was determined by micro-
Tools Coating Edge Surface Micro- Critical
thickness radius roughness hardness Load (LC)
indentation tests using LECO made Vickers microhardness tester
(µm) (µm) (Ra) (µm) (HV300) (N) (model number: LM248 AT). The surface roughness of the tool and
machined surface were measured using Taylor Hobson surface rough-
Uncoated – 30 0.28 2997 – ness tester (model number: Surtronic 3+). The cross-sectional and
AlCrN coated 2 41 0.21 3047 66
surface morphologies of deposited coatings were investigated using
AlCrN coated 3 47 0.23 3415 97
AlCrN coated 4 52 0.22 3542 81 field-emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM, model number:
NOVA NANO-SEM 450) and scanning electron microscope (SEM,
JEOL, model number: JSM-6490) respectively. The chemical composi-
tion of cutting tools was evaluated using energy dispersive spectroscopy
3. Experimental procedure and model validation (EDS). Further, a Ducom made scratch tester equipped with a
metallurgical microscope was used to determine the coating/substrate
3.1. Deposition of coating adhesion. The scratch test parameters adopted by Sargade et al. [21]
were used for adhesion strength testing for coated tools.
Commercial CTB7070 grade mixed ceramic Al2O3/TiCN inserts
with ISO designation SNGA120408 were coated with AlCrN monolayer
coatings using rapid coating system (RCS) machine (make: Oerlikon 3.3. Turning tests
Balzers) in the cathodic arc evaporation mode. Al70Cr30 targets were
used for deposition in the reactive environment of nitrogen gas In the present study, AISI 52100 steel with 62 HRC hardness,
supplied at a pressure of 2 Pa. Fig. 2 shows a schematic representation 80 mm diameter and 500 mm length was used as workpiece material.
of the coating process setup. Before coating, the uncoated mixed Turning tests were performed on a heavy duty lathe machine from
ceramic tools were heated and then ion etched by bombardment of
argon ions at a pressure of 0.3 Pa and substrate bias voltage of −150 V.
This process is necessary to produce a clean impurity free substrate
base material to ensure optimum adhesion of the coating and also to
avoid atomic contamination. Further, argon blasting on the tool surface
is necessary to ensure good adhesion between the coating and the
substrate.
The mixed ceramic substrate was maintained at a temperature of
450–520 °C using bias voltage of −50 to −150 V during the deposition
process. The deposition pressure and operational power were main-
tained at 3.5 Pa and 3.5 kW respectively. For the deposition of coating,
the deposition rate was kept constant at approximately 1.4 µm/h to
obtain uniform surface morphology for different thin film thicknesses.
On the other hand, deposition time was increased by 45 min to get
1 µm increment in coating thickness. The effect of deposition time has
further been elaborated by Persson et al. [35]. Fig. 2. Schematic representation of coating setup used for thin film deposition.

13317
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

4. Results and discussion

The results that are obtained from the numerical and experimental
study are as follows:

4.1. Characterization of cutting tools

Before machining, cutting tools were characterized based on their

microhardness, surface roughness, and coating/substrate adhesion
strength (see Table 4). It was observed that the micro-hardness of
the coated tools increased with increase in coating thickness which is
on par with the results reported by Sargade et al. [21]. The observa-
tions evidently reveal that both uncoated and coated tools retain very
low values of average surface roughness values (Ra). Further, the
scratch test results show higher adhesion strength for 3 µm coating
thickness tool. Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows a typical microstructural surface
Fig. 3. Experimental setup for turning AISI 52100 steel.
morphology of uncoated and AlCrN coated cutting tools that indicate a
uniform surface morphology without any cracks which is necessary for
satisfactory performance of cutting tools avoiding premature failure.
HMT India Ltd. (model number: NH26). Tool holder with ISO However, droplets and pores can be seen on the surface of AlCrN
designation PSBNR2020K12 was used to conduct all the experiments. coated tool due to localised and intense heating from the arc [36]. The
Cutting experiments were performed under a dry environment at chemical composition of coated and uncoated cutting tools is as
speed, feed rate and depth of cut of 189 m/min, 0.12 mm/rev and illustrated in Fig. 5. Further, Fig. 6 shows the fractography of the
0.5 mm respectively. The machine tool exhibited incapability to main- coated tools indicating variation in thin film thickness. No interface
tain the cutting speed resulting in a 3–4% error and thus, each cracks can be seen at the coating/substrate interface indicating
experiment was repeated four times to uphold statistical accuracy. excellent adhesion between the coating and the ceramic tool.
Fig. 3 shows the experimental setup used for turning experiments.

4.2. Effect on machining forces

3.4. Measurement Machining forces play a fundamental role in heat generation during
any metal cutting process, and higher forces may aggregate the tool
The machining forces during turning process were measured using wear substantially. Fig. 7 shows the comparison of experimental and
four component Kistler (model number: 9272, Switzerland) piezo- predicted machining forces. Hard AlCrN coating on Al2O3/TiCN mixed
electric dynamometer equipped with a charge amplifier (model num- ceramic substrate resulted in a reduction of cutting forces owing to the
ber: 5070A 10100, Switzerland). HTC made infrared thermometer lower friction offered by the coated inserts against AISI 52100 steel as
(model number: IRX 65) with the capability to measure the tempera- already examined under friction modeling. It was observed that
ture of 1 mm spot size from a distance of 30 mm was used to measure variation of coating thickness resulted in varying machining forces.
tool flank temperatures. Emissivity values were set to 0.45 for both AlCrN coated insert with 3 µm coating thickness corresponded to
coated and uncoated cutting tools after taking temperature readings at lowest machining forces with 28% reduction in cutting force as
different emissivity values and comparing them with the contact compared to the uncoated cutting tool. Both finite element analysis
temperature measured by K-type bead probe. The cutting tools were and experimental runs collectively agreed on this fact. Although, on an
monitored for tool wear after each experimental run with the help of average, a variation of 3.5% in cutting forces, 11.86% in thrust forces
Zeiss made optical microscope (model number: Scope. A1 AX10). and 22.85% in feed forces can be seen in the predicted and experi-
Further, FESEM and SEM in combination with EDS were used to study mental results which is considerable. As reported by Al-Zkeri et al. [37]
the wear mechanism and chip morphology. there is always an optimum edge radius that can be predicted using

Fig. 4. SEM images representing surface morphology of (a) uncoated (b) AlCrN coated tools.

13318
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 5. EDS spectra of (a) uncoated (b) AlCrN coated tools.

Fig. 6. Fractographs of (a) 2 µm (b) 3 µm (c) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools.

finite element modeling. Thus, the cutting tools tend to generate lower enhanced tool wear which would adversely affect the tool life and
machining forces at 47 µm edge radius. This effect has been studied by surface roughness of the machined surface.
the numerical analysis. However, the finite element model was unable
to predict the drastic increase of machining forces for 4 µm coating 4.3. Effect on temperature
thickness tool due to combined effect of lower coating adhesion and
higher edge radius. This decrease in machining forces for coated tools Tool temperature is a major factor governing the thermal failure of
is further characterized by the reduction of effective stress (see Fig. 8) the cutting tools. It was observed that during machining, tool tem-
generated in the workpiece material which has been studied numeri- perature increased with machining time as the wear increases. The
cally. Higher stresses generated during machining would result in measured temperature of coated tools was much less as compared to

13319
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental and predicted machining forces (a) cutting force (b) thrust force (c) feed force at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev
feed rate.

Fig. 8. Effective stress (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools while machining at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

13320
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

tools. Highest coefficient of friction was evaluated for uncoated mixed

ceramic tool whereas an increase in the coefficient of friction can be
seen with the growth of coating thickness. Lower chip bend angles
exhibited by the coated tools in numerical analysis further validate the
condition of decrease in friction for coated tools (see Fig. 13) [27].
Coated tools exhibited chip bend angles in the range of 69–74°
whereas, uncoated tool resulted in a chip bend angle of 78° with a
variation of ± 1°. Higher chip bend angle for the uncoated tool is
basically due to the incremental sticking of the chip to the rake face as
compared to coated tools. Additionally, the chip bend angles and
coefficient of friction is affected by the edge radius. Although the
frictional coefficient increased with increase in edge radius, the lower
adhesion strength of 2 µm coating thickness tool resulted in higher
machining forces as compared to 3 µm coating thickness tool due to
elevated wear rate which has been elaborated in Section 4.5. Further,
this sticking phenomenon is greatly influenced by friction coefficient
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental and predicted tool temperatures while machining at offered by the cutting tool.
189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

4.5. Effect on tool wear

the uncoated cutting tool (see Fig. 9) which is due to the lower thermal
conductivity of AlCrN coating material as compared to the Al2O3/TiCN
4.5.1. Optical microscopy study
mixed ceramic insert. Temperature gain was observed to be minimum
Wear mechanism plays a vibrant role in defining the tool life of a
for 3 µm coating thickness tool illustrating edge radius of 47 µm to be
cutting tool. Firstly, wear behavior was investigated using optical
optimum, but the difference of temperature with coating thickness was
microscopy for both coated and uncoated tools. Figs. 14 and 15 show
not significant. Also, the tool temperatures were significantly affected
optical microscope images comparing crater and flank wear of coated
by the coating adhesion strength and surface properties of cutting tool
and uncoated tools respectively. Uncoated tools exhibited excellent
materials. Temperature distribution in the cutting tools was predicted
resistance to chip flow on the rake face, but flank wear was the major
using finite element analysis (see Fig. 10) which exhibited the same
wear criterion which collectively took place due to abrasion, adhesion,
trend. However, the lower predicted temperatures compared to the
and chipping. Abrasion for uncoated tools was observed to be rough
experimental observation was basically due to the consideration of
with groove formation. Interestingly, wear mechanism varied with the
lower coefficient of friction for the cutting tools during simulations.
thickness of coating film. For 2 µm AlCrN coated tool, flank wear was
Experimental and numerical studies revealed a maximum reduction of
observed to be more than that of the uncoated tool, but no signs of
44.54% and 42% in tool temperature respectively. Further, the
crater wear were seen whereas, coating removal in the form of peeling
numerical studies at the chip-tool interface (see Fig. 11) revealed
and flaking can be seen prominently on rake and flank face in 3 µm
lowest interface temperature for 3 µm coating thickness tool.
AlCrN coated inserts. Further, 4 µm AlCrN coated tool exhibited
prominent crater wear, but a reduction in flank wear can be seen as
4.4. Effect on coefficient of friction compared to uncoated cutting tool with no groove formation.
Prominent crater wear in case of 4 µm coating thickness tool developed
The coefficient of friction was calculated as per Eq. (4). Fig. 12(a) due to the combined effect of increased friction and edge radius with
shows the comparison of friction coefficient for uncoated and coated coating thickness. Fig. 16 illustrates flank wear progression with

Fig. 10. Temperature distribution in (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools while machining at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev
feed rate.

13321
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 11. Temperature distribution in workpiece while machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and
0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and predicted results (a) coefficient of friction (b) chip width (c) chip thickness while machining at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut,
and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

13322
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 13. Chip bend angle while machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed
rate.

Fig. 14. Optical microscope images of rake face after 120 s of machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of
cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

13323
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 15. Optical microscope images of flank surface after 120 s of machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm
depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

chip flow with no signs of prominent crater wear, but edge chipping
and peeling can be seen in the case of coated tool. This may be due to
the sliding of high-temperature chips formed during the hard machin-
ing process over the rake face of coated tools that may have exceeded
the service temperature of the coating material. Coated tools exhibited
very good anti-sticking properties with minimal chip adhesion whereas
the sticking of chips and adhesion on rake face of the uncoated tool can
be seen conspicuously.
Wear study was further extended onto the flank surface of uncoated
and 3 µm AlCrN coated cutting tool. Fig. 18 illustrates that flank wear
on the uncoated tool resulted due to the amalgamation of adhesion,
chipping and abrasion. Adhesion of the workpiece material is further
validated using EDS spectrum which reveals the adhesion of the
workpiece material to the flank face. Fig. 19 depicts that coated tool
exhibits no sign of abrasion but a prominent flaking zone was seen
exposing the ceramic substrate. EDS spectrum further discloses the
exposure of the mixed ceramic substrate due to flaking of deposited
Fig. 16. Flank wear progression with cutting time while machining at 189 m/min AlCrN coating. Anti-sticking properties of AlCrN coated tool were also
cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate. revealed by the EDS spectrum that shows no signs of the presence of
workpiece material. The deposited coating exhibited favorable wear
cutting time for coated and uncoated cutting tools which apparently phenomenon of prevention of abrasion of the mixed ceramic substrate.
discloses superior wear behavior of 3 µm coated cutting tool. Moreover,
the wear behavior of coated tools was considerably affected by the 4.6. Effect on chip morphology
coating/substrate adhesive strength. Higher adhesive strength resulted
in lower tool wear for coated tools. There was a reduction of 54.65% in Machining with uncoated tool resulted in the formation of con-
flank wear for 3 µm coating thickness tool whereas 2 µm coating tinuous helical chips whereas, coated tools produced continuous
thickness tool resulted in an increase of 93.18% flank wear due to snarled chips (see Fig. 20). Figs. 21 and 22 show SEM images of the
lower adhesion to the substrate. free and back surface of the chips formed during machining process
using coated and uncoated tools respectively. From the SEM analysis, it
4.5.2. SEM study is evident that chip formation is characterized by serrated teeth
It is evident from the above results that 3 µm AlCrN coated tool formation during machining hardened AISI 52100 steel. A reduction
exhibited the best wear behavior in comparison to uncoated and other in serration can be seen evidently with the chips formed while
coating thickness tools. Thus, further SEM and FESEM studies were machining with coated tools due to the lower friction offered by the
carried out for both coated and uncoated tools. Fig. 17 compares the coating material. The back surface of the chips reveals the formation of
wear on the rake surface of uncoated and 3 µm AlCrN coated cutting prominent feed marks while machining with coated tools whereas,
tools. It was observed that both tools exhibited excellent resistance to heavy serration with the complete formation of primary and secondary

13324
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 17. FESEM images of rake face after 120 s of machining with (a) uncoated (b) AlCrN coated tool at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

serrated teeth can be seen with chips corresponding to uncoated tools. and AlCrN coated Al2O3/TiCN ceramic composite inserts during hard
The width of feed mark ridges, chip width, and chip thickness increased turning of AISI 52100 steel using numerical and experimental
with the increment of coating thickness. This increment is closely approach. The most significant conclusions drawn from the study are
related to the growth of coefficient of friction with coating thickness summarized as follows:
which is at par with the earlier findings that report an increase of chip
thickness with frictional coefficient [5]. Interestingly, a decrement in 1. Lower coefficient of friction offered by AlCrN coating material as
chip width and thickness was observed while machining with coated compared to the uncoated tool has resulted in a reduction of
tools owing to the lower coefficient of friction offered by the coating machining forces with 3 µm coating thickness tool leading to the
material. Moreover, chip width and thickness were found to increase maximum reduction due to higher coating adhesion and lesser tool
with edge radius for coated tools. wear.
2. The numerical analysis further revealed lowest effective stress for
5. Conclusions 3 µm coating thickness tool serving 47 µm as the optimum edge
radius for coated cutting tools.
The present research work studied the performance of uncoated 3. The lower thermal conductivity of AlCrN coating as compared to

13325
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 18. SEM and EDS analysis of the flank surface of uncoated tool after 120 s of machining at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

Fig. 19. SEM and EDS analysis of the flank surface of AlCrN coated tool after 120 s of machining at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

13326
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 20. Optical images of chips formed while machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and
0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

Fig. 21. SEM images of free surface of chips formed during machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of
cut, and 0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

the ceramic cutting tool has resulted in the reduction of tool tional properties with low values of coefficient of friction for both
temperatures. The tool temperature is further, governed by the coated and uncoated cutting tools with coated tools having the
coefficient of friction at the chip-tool interface and coating/ lowest value of the frictional coefficient. This diminution in friction
substrate adhesion strength. for coated tools is further explicated by reduction of chip bend
4. Numerical and experimental results revealed excellent anti-fric- angle.

13327
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

Fig. 22. Back surface of chips formed during machining with (a) uncoated (b) 2 µm (c) 3 µm (d) 4 µm AlCrN coated tools at 189 m/min cutting speed, 0.5 mm depth of cut, and
0.12 mm/rev feed rate.

5. The coefficient of friction increased with the increment of thin film References
thickness.
6. Adhesion, abrasion, and chipping were the main sources of wear [1] K. Aslantas, T.I. Ucun, A. Çicek, Tool life and wear mechanism of coated and
for uncoated tool whereas, for AlCrN coated tool, wear is char- uncoated Al2O3/TiCN mixed ceramic tools in turning hardened alloy steel, Wear
274–275 (2012) 442–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2011.11.010.
acterized by abrasion, flaking and chipping of cutting edge. [2] S.Y. Luo, Y.S. Liao, Y.Y. Tsai, Wear characteristics in turning high hardness alloy
7. AlCrN coating exhibited excellent anti-sticking properties prevent- steel by ceramic and CBN tools, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 88 (1999) 114–121.
ing adhesion of workpiece material to the tool surface. The anti- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(98)00376-8.
[3] S.B. Hosseini, T. Beno, U. Klement, J. Kaminski, K. Ryttberg, Cutting temperatures
abrasive behavior of the coating material resulted in smooth during hard turning – measurements and effects on white layer formation in AISI
abrasion and prevented the formation of grooves. 52100, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (2014) 1293–1300. http://dx.doi.org/
8. Machining with AlCrN coated tool has resulted in a reduction of 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.01.016.
[4] K. Sobiyi, I. Sigalas, G. Akdogan, Y. Turan, Performance of mixed ceramics and
serration, chip thickness, and width as compared to the uncoated CBN tools during hard turning of martensitic stainless steel, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
cutting tool. Technol. 77 (2015) 861–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6506-z.
9. Chip thickness and width increased with increase in coating [5] A. Thakur, S. Gangopadhyay, Influence of tribological properties on the perfor-
mance of uncoated, CVD and PVD coated tools in machining of Incoloy 825, Tribol.
thickness which is further characterized by the increment of the
Int 102 (2016) 198–212.
frictional coefficient. [6] J.G. Lima, R.F. Ávila, A.M. Abrão, M. Faustino, J.P. Davim, Hard turning: AISI 4340
10. The coefficient of friction, chip width and thickness tend to increase high strength low alloy steel and AISI D2 cold work tool steel, J. Mater. Process.
with edge radius for coated tools. Technol. 169 (2005) 388–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.082.
[7] C.S. Kumar, S.K. Patel, Experimental and numerical investigations on the effect of
11. Comparison of machining forces, chip morphology, tool temperature varying AlTiN coating thickness on hard machining performance of Al2O3-TiCN
and coefficient of friction of FEM and experimental analysis revealed mixed ceramic inserts, Surf. Coat. Technol. 309 (2017) 266–281. http://dx.doi.org/
a close agreement between the predicted and experimental results. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2016.11.080.
[8] D.M. Kim, I. Lee, S.K. Kim, B.H. Kim, H.W. Park, Influence of a micropatterned
insert on characteristics of the tool-workpiece interface in a hard turning process, J.
Therefore, it was witnessed that application of 3 µm AlCrN coating Mater. Process. Technol. 229 (2016) 160–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmat-
on Al2O3/TiCN mixed ceramic cutting tool resulted in remarkable protec.2015.09.018.
[9] H. Yang, F. Shang, L. Gao, Microstructure and mechanical properties of gas
improvement of cutting performance during hard machining of AISI pressure sintered Al2O3/ TiCN composite, Ceram. Int. 33 (2007) 1521–1524.
52100 steel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2006.07.001.
[10] S.R. Das, D. Dhupal, A. Kumar, Experimental investigation into machinability of
hardened AISI 4140 steel using TiN coated ceramic tool, Meas. J. Int. Meas.
Acknowledgements Confed. 62 (2015) 108–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measure-
ment.2014.11.008.
[11] H. Yang, S. Roberts, Gas pressure sintering of AlO/TiCN composite, Ceram. Int. 31
This research work was supported by National Institute of (2005) 1073–1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2004.11.007.
Technology, Rourkela funded by Ministry of Human Resource and [12] K. Geric, Ceramics tool materials with alumina matrix, Mach. Des. 3 (2010)
367–372.
Development.

13328
C. Sateesh Kumar, S. Kumar Patel Ceramics International 43 (2017) 13314–13329

[13] L.A. Dobrzański, J. Mikuła, Structure and properties of PVD and CVD coated Al2O3 [26] P.J. Arrazola, T. Özel, Investigations on the effects of friction modeling in finite
+ TiC mixed oxide tool ceramics for dry on high speed cutting processes, J. Mater. element simulation of machining, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52 (2010) 31–42. http://
Process. Technol. 164–165 (2005) 822–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmat- dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2009.10.001.
protec.2005.02.089. [27] D.M. Kim, V. Bajpai, B.H. Kim, H.W. Park, Finite element modeling of hard turning
[14] M. Okada, A. Yoshida, T. Furumoto, H. Watanabe, N. Asakawa, M. Otsu, process via a micro-textured tool, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 78 (2015)
Mechanisms and characteristics of direct cutting of tungsten carbide using a 1393–1405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6747-x.
diamond-coated carbide end mill, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 86 (2016) [28] A. Attanasio, E. Ceretti, S. Rizzuti, D. Umbrello, F. Micari, 3D finite element
1827–1839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8324-3. analysis of tool wear in machining, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 57 (2008) 61–64.
[15] S.K. Khrais, Y.J. Lin, Wear mechanisms and tool performance of TiAlN PVD coated http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.123.
inserts during machining of AISI 4140 steel, Wear 262 (2007) 64–69. http:// [29] A. Attanasio, E. Ceretti, A. Fiorentino, C. Cappellini, C. Giardini, Investigation and
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2006.03.052. FEM-based simulation of tool wear in turning operations with uncoated carbide
[16] L. Li, N. He, M. Wang, Z.G. Wang, High speed cutting of Inconel 718 with coated tools, Wear 269 (2010) 344–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2010.04.013.
carbide and ceramic inserts, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 129 (2002) 127–130. [30] T. Özel, Computational modelling of 3D turning: influence of edge micro-geometry
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00590-3. on forces, stresses, friction and tool wear in PcBN tooling, J. Mater. Process.
[17] W. Liu, Q. Chu, J. Zeng, R. He, H. Wu, Z. Wu, S. Wu, PVD-CrAlN and TiAlN coated Technol. 209 (2009) 5167–5177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatpro-
Si3N4 ceramic cutting tools −1. Microstructure, turning performance and wear tec.2009.03.002.
mechanism, Ceram. Int. (2017) 0–1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cera- [31] Oerlikon Balzers, Balinit Alcrona Pro, (n.d.). 〈www.oerlikon.com/balzers〉.
mint.2017.04.041. [32] T. Özel, The influence of friction models on finite element simulations of
[18] W. Yang, J. Xiong, Z. Guo, H. Du, T. Yang, J. Tang, B. Wen, Structure and machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 46 (2006) 518–530. http://dx.doi.org/
properties of PVD TiAlN and TiAlN/CrAlN coated Ti(C, N)-based cermets, Ceram. 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.001.
Int. 43 (2016) 1911–1915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.10.151. [33] J.L. Endrino, G.S. Fox-Rabinovich, C. Gey, Hard AlTiN, AlCrN PVD coatings for
[19] Y. Long, J. Zeng, W. Shanghua, Cutting performance and wear mechanism of Ti-Al- machining of austenitic stainless steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 200 (2006) 6840–6845.
N/Al-Cr-O coated silicon nitride ceramic cutting inserts, Ceram. Int. 40 (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.10.030.
9615–9620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.02.038. [34] D. Umbrello, J. Hua, R. Shivpuri, Hardness-based flow stress and fracture models
[20] K. Tuffy, G. Byrne, D. Dowling, Determination of the optimum TiN coating for numerical simulation of hard machining AISI 52100 bearing steel, Mater. Sci.
thickness on WC inserts for machining carbon steels, J. Mater. Process. Technol. Eng. A 374 (2004) 90–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2004.01.012.
155–156 (2004) 1861–1866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.277. [35] A. Persson, J. Bergström, C. Burman, S. Hogmark, Influence of deposition
[21] V.G. Sargade, S. Gangopadhyay, S. Paul, A.K. Chattopadhyay, Effect of coating temperature and time during PVD coating of CrN on corrosive wear in liquid
thickness on the characteristics and dry machining performance of TiN film aluminium, Surf. Coat. Technol. 146–147 (2001) 42–47. http://dx.doi.org/
deposited on cemented carbide inserts using CFUBMS, Mater. Manuf. Process. 26 10.1016/S0257-8972(01)01366-4.
(2011) 1028–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2010.526978. [36] H. Takikawa, Review of cathodic arc deposition for preparing droplet-free thin
[22] T. Özel, M. Sima, A.K. Srivastava, B. Kaftanoglu, Investigations on the effects of films, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Discharges and Electrical
multi-layered coated inserts in machining Ti-6Al−4V alloy with experiments and Insulation in Vacuum, ISDEIV, 2, 2006, pp. 525–530. 〈https://dx.doi.org/10.
finite element simulations, CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 59 (2010) 77–82. http:// 1109/DEIV.2006.357354〉.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.055. [37] I. Al-Zkeri, J. Rech, T. Altan, H. Hamdi, F. Valiorgue, Optimization of the cutting
[23] S. Buchkremer, F. Klocke, D. Lung, Finite-element-analysis of the relationship edge geometry of coated carbide tools in dry turning of steels using a finite element
between chip geometry and stress triaxiality distribution in the chip breakage analysis, Mach. Sci. Technol. 13 (2009) 36–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
location of metal cutting operations, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 55 (2015) 10–26. 10910340902776051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2015.03.009. [38] Y.B. Guo, C.R. Liu, Mechanical properties of hardened AISI 52100 steel in hard
[24] R.K. Yadav, K. Abhishek, S.S. Mahapatra, A simulation approach for estimating machining processes, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 124 (2002) 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
flank wear and material removal rate in turning of Inconel 718, Simul. Model. 1.1413775.
Pract. Theory 52 (2015) 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2014.12.004. [39] J. Martan, P. Beneš, Thermal properties of cutting tool coatings at high tempera-
[25] C. Maranhão, J. Paulo Davim, Finite element modelling of machining of AISI 316 tures, Thermochim. Acta 539 (2012) 51–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
steel: numerical simulation and experimental validation, Simul. Model. Pract. j.tca.2012.03.029.
Theory 18 (2010) 139–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2009.10.001.

13329