STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS

DURING MACHINING OF STAINLESS STEEL

JOURNAL DETAILS:

Refer Title Author Journal Vol. & Year

-ence
No

1. Optimization of process M.Kaladhar, k.Venkata Engineering Vol 5, 2010

parameters in turning of Subbaiah, Ch. Srinivasa Rao & applied
AISI202 austenitic stainless and K.Narayana Rao. sciences.
steel.

2. Multi-Response S D Sathishkumar & T Materials

Optimization Of Machining Rajmohan science and
2018
Parameters In CNC Turning Engineering
Of AISI 316L Stainless Steel.

Optimazation of surface Philip Selvaraj, Engineering Vol. 5, 2010

roughness of AISI 304 P.Chandramohan Science and
3. austenitic stainless steel in Technology
dry turning operation

INFERENCE:
The project of our group is to optimize process parameters like surface roughness by varying various
machining parameters like feed rate, depth of cut, spindle speed etc for three different materials such as

 AISI 304 Austenitic Steel

 AISI 316L Stainless Steel
 AISI 202 Austenitic Steel

The main objective is to find out the best combination of parameters for better surface roughness using
Taguchi method based Desirability Function Analysis. The details of the methods and the results are written in
the below inferences and abstract.

STUDY ON AISI 304 STAINLESS STEEL

The present work is concentrated with the dry turning of AISI 304 Austenitic Stainless Steel. This paper
presents the influence of cutting parameters like cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut on the surface
roughness of austenitic stainless steel during dry turning. A plan of experiments based on Taguchi’s technique
has been used to acquire the data. An orthogonal array, the signal to noise ratio and the analysis of variance
are employed to investigate the cutting characteristics of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel bars using TiC and
TiCN coated tungsten carbide cutting tool. Finally the confirmation tests that have been carried out to
compare the predicted values with the experimental values confirm its effectiveness in the analysis of surface
roughness.

Workpiece material : The workpiece material selected for investigation is the AISI 304 Austenitic
Stainless Steel rod with the composition given below. The size of the workpiece used for experimentation is a
round rod with the dimension 80 mm diameter and 300 mm length/height.

Chemical Composition of the Workpiece Material.

Element C Mn Si P S Cr Ni Fe

Weight 0.08 2.0 1.0 0.05 0.03 19 9 68.84

Machining processes : The cutting tests were made on medium duty Kirloskar Turn master-35 Lathe. A
tool holder with a general specification PSBNR 2525M12 was used in this experiment. Carbide insert with a
general specification of SNMG 120408 MT TT5100 coated with TiC and TiCN was used as the cutting tool
insert. The experiments were conducted as per the orthogonal array and the surface roughness for various
combinations of parameters was measured using TR-100 surface roughness tester. The measurement accuracy
meets the ISO and DIN standards. The Piezoelectric stylus and cut-off (2.5 mm) was used for taking the surface
roughness measurements. The experimentations were conducted with out the application of cutting fluid (dry
turning)

Plan of experiments : The experiments were planned using Taguchi’s orthogonal array in the design of
experiments, which helps in reducing the number of experiments. The experiments were conducted according
to a 3-level L9 orthogonal array. The cutting parameters identified were cutting speed, feed and depth of cut.
The control parameters and their levels are indicated in Table

Cutting Parameters and their Levels.

 symbol Cutting parameters Level1 Level2 Level3

A Cutting speed 80 100 120

B Feed rate 0.08 0.10 0.12

C Depth of cut 0.4 0.6 0.8

Design and Analysis of Cutting Parameters : The results of the cutting experiments were studied
using the S/N and ANOVA analyses. Based on the results of the S/N and ANOVA analyses, optimal cutting
parameters for surface roughness were obtained and verified.

Analysis of the S/N ratio : In the Taguchi method, the term ‘signal’ represents the desirable value
(mean) for the output characteristic and the term ‘noise’ represents the undesirable value (S.D) for the output
characteristic. Therefore, the S/N ratio is the ratio of the mean to the S.D. S/N ratio is used to measure the
quality characteristic deviating from the desired value. The S/N ratio η is defined as

η = −10log(M.S.D)

where M.S.D is the mean square deviation for the output characteristic. To obtain optimal cutting
performance, the–lower–the–better quality characteristic for surface roughness must be taken. The M.S.D. for
the–lower– the– better quality characteristic can be expressed as:

M.S.D = 1/M ∑mi-1 (Si2)

where, Si is the value of the surface roughness for the i-th test.

The experimental results for surface roughness and the corresponding S/N ratio. The S/N response table and
S/N response chart for surface roughness.

Experimental result for surface roughness and s/n ratio

Exp No. Cutting speed Feed rate Dept of cut Surface S/N ratio
roughness

1 80 0.08 0.4 0.66 3.61

2 80 0.10 0.6 0.81 1.83

3 80 0.12 0.8 0.90 0.92

 4 100 0.08 0.4 0.67 3.48

5 100 0.10 0.6 0.77 2.27

6 100 0.12 0.8 0.83 1.62

7 120 0.08 0.4 0.85 1.41

8 120 0.10 0.6 0.91 0.82

10 120 0.12 0.8 0.98 0.18

Response table for surface roughness

Symbol Cutting parameter Level1 Level2 Level3 Max-Min

A Cutting speed 2.12 2.46 0.8 1.66

B Feed rate 2.83 1.64 0.91 1.92

C Depth of cut 2.02 1.83 1.53 0.49

In this study, the Taguchi optimization method was applied to find the optimal process parameters, which
minimizes the surface roughness during the dry turning of AISI 304 Austenitic Stainless Steel. A Taguchi
orthogonal array, the signal to noise (S/N) ratio and the analysis of variance were used for the optimization of
cutting parameters. ANOVA results shows that feed rate, cutting speed and depth of cut affects the surface
roughness by 51.84%, 41.99% and 1.66% respectively. A confirmation experiment was also conducted and
verified the effectiveness of the Taguchi optimization method.
 STUDY ON AISI 202 STAINLESS STEEL

Introduction
Surface roughness has become the most significant technical requirement and it is an index of product quality.
In order to improve the tribological properties, fatigue strength, corrosion resistance and aesthetic appeal of
the product, a reasonably good surface finish is desired. Nowadays, manufacturing industries specially
concerned to dimensional accuracy and surface finish. In order to obtain optimal cutting parameters,
manufacturing to obtain optimal cutting parameters, manufacturing industries have depended on the use of
handbook based information which leads to decrease in productivity due to sub-optimal use of machining
capability this causes high manufacturing cost and low product quality. A high work hardening rate, low
thermal conductivity and resistance to corrosion are the characteristics of austenitic stainless steels (Groover,
1996). It was reported that austenitic stainless steels come under the category of difficult to machine
materials

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Work piece material The work piece material used for present work was AISI 202 austenitic stainless steel.
There are two types of austenitic stainless steel: 300-series and 200- series. Most stainless steel used around
the world is of the 300-series type. The 200 series stainless steels have become popular in the Asian continent,
particularly as an alternative to 300 series in view of increase in nickel prices. However, this has not been
without problems. The 200 series are non-magnetic and austenitic. Hence, it is very difficult to distinguish
from widely used 300 series of stainless steel, which are also non-magnetic. One such family of stainless steels
is the 200-series. The 200-series are a technically valid family of stainless steels but, like all stainless steel
stainless steels they have their limitations. The chemical composition of AIS202 is given in Table-1.

Table-1. Chemical composition (wt %) of AISI 202.

Cr Ni Mn N
(%) (%) (%) (%)
17.0 4.0 7.5 0.25

2.2 Cutting inserts and cutting conditions

Coated carbide tools have shown better performance when compared to the uncoated carbide tools
[17]. For this reason, commonly available Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) of Ti (C, N) +Al 2O3 coated
cemented carbide inserts of 0.8 and 0.4mm as nose radius are used in the present experimental investigation.
The Process parameters and levels used in the experiment, experimental set up and conditions are given in the
Tables 2 and 3.
 Table-2. Experimental set up and conditions.

Machine tool : ACE Designer LT-16XL

CNC lathe, 7.5 kW (10 hp) and 4000 rpm,
India. Work specimen
material : AISI 202 austenitic stainless
steel Size : Φ25 mm x 70mm
Cutting t inserts : CNMG 120408, CNMG
120404
(SECO make)
Tool material : CVD coated cemented
carbide (TP-2500).
Two holders : PCLNL 252570012(ISO
specification)
Environment : Dry machining

Table-3. Process parameters and levels used in the experiment.

Level Level
Code Process parameters
(-1) (+1)
A Cutting speed 111 200
(m/min)
B Depth of cut (mm) 0.25 0.75
C Feed (mm/rev.) 0.15 0.25
D Nose radius (mm) 0.4 0.8

2.3 Experimental procedure

In the present work, the machining process was studied under DOE whereby the factorial portion is a
full factorial design (24) with all combinations of the factors at two levels. Turning is a popularly used
machining process. As the CNC machines play a major role in modern machining industry to enhance product
quality as well as productivity [22]. Cutting tests were carried out on 10 hp CNC lathe machine under dry
conditions. The machining process on CNC lathe is programmed by speed, feed, and depth of cut. In total 16
work pieces (Φ25 mm x 70mm) are prepared. These work pieces cleaned prior to the experiments by
removing 0.5mm thickness of the top surface from each work piece in order to eliminate any surface defects
and wobbling. Two different nose radii of CVD coated inserts have been taken to study the effect of tool
geometry. The surface rough nesses of machined surfaces are measured by a Mitutoyo SJ-201 surface
roughness tester and measurements were repeated 3 times. The experimental design and results is given in
Table-4.
 Table-4. Experimental design and results.

Trial Std Run Center Ra

Blocks A B C D
No. order order Pt µm
1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1.320
2 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1.583
3 12 3 1 1 1 1 -1 1 0.833
4 9 4 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0.730
5 4 5 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1.300
6 16 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.683
7 14 7 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1.603
8 2 8 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1.310
9 5 9 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 2.726
10 3 10 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1.350
11 7 11 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 2.736
12 15 12 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1.623
13 13 13 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1.560
14 6 14 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1.713
15 10 15 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 0.70
16 11 16 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 0.813

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table-5. ANOVA test results.

Sum of Degrees of Mean F ratio

Source of Freedom Contribution
squares squares (MS/error
variation (DF) (%)
(SS) (MS) )
A 0.28891 1 0.28891 4.974 5.640
B 0.00391 1 0.00391 0.0673 0.076
C 2.94981 1 2.94981 50.788 57.586
D 1.27126 1 1.27126 21.888 24.817
A*B 0.00076 1 0.00076 0.0130 0.015
A*C 0.25251 1 0.25251 4.347 4.929
A*D 0.33931 1 0.33931 5.8421 6.624
B*C 0.00276 1 0.00276 0.0475 0.054
B*D 0.01266 1 0.01266 0.2179 0.247
C*D 0.00051 1 0.00051 0.00878 0.009
Total 5.1224 10
 Error 0.2904 5 0.05808

Table-6. Estimated effects and coefficients for surface

roughness (Ra) (coded units).

Effect Coef SE Coef T P

Term 1.4731 0.06289 23.42 0.000
constant
A -0.2688 -0.1344 0.06289 -2.14 0.086
B 0.0313 0.0156 0.06289 0.25 0.814
C 0.8588 0.4294 0.06289 6.83 0.001
D -0.5638 -0.2819 0.06289 -4.48 0.007
A* B -0.0138 -0.0069 0.06289 -0.11 0.917
A*C -0.2512 -0.1256 0.06289 -2.00 0.102
A*D 0.2913 0.1456 0.06289 2.32 0.068
B* C -0.0262 -0.0131 0.06289 -0.21 0.843
B* D 0.0563 0.0281 0.06289 0.45 0.673
C* D -0.0113 -0.0056 0.06289 -0.09 0.932

The results of ANOVA for the surface roughness are shown in Tables 5 and 6. This
analysis is carried out for a significant level of α=0.05 (confidence level of 95%). The
main effect of feed (the most significant parameter) (C), nosed radius (D) are significant.
It is evident that 57.59% feed C is contributing on surface roughness than other cutting
parameters. The nose radius is the next contributing factor. Based on Table-4, the
optimal machining parameters for AISI 202 is obtained for the minimum value (R a= 0.70
µm) of surface roughness. Basedon the main effects graph (Figure-1), the optimal
machining conditions achieved were; (a) cutting speed at level +1 (200 m/min) (b) feed
at level-1 (0.15 mm/rev) (c) depth of cut at level -1 (0.25 mm) (d) nose radius at level +1
(0.8mm).
 STUDY ON AISI 316L STAINLESS STEEL

In this research work, optimization of machining parameters in plain

turning operation to minimize surface roughness and cutting
temperature by applying Taguchi based Desirability function analysis
and ANOVA method is performed. Experiments have been
performed by plain turning of AISI 316L stainless steel on CNC lathe.
Carbon Nano tubes are mixed in a specific ratio (0.20% by wt.) with
the cutting fluid. The impact of input parameters on the response
variables such as surface roughness and cutting temperature are
analysed by using desirability function-based approach.
Previous References:
Sharma et al. [1] made an experimental work to optimize cutting
variables to reduce surface roughness and to maximize material
removal rate in plain turning of Alloy steel by using coated carbide
tool. They have developed a mathematical model using regression
technique and optimized the cutting conditions by using Box-
Behnken of response surface methodology. The experimental results
reveal that the spindle speed is the most significant factor affecting
the responses followed by depth of cut and feed rate. Liew et al. [2]
made an experimental investigation to optimize cutting variables
such as cutting speed, feed rate and type of coolant to minimize
surface roughness and flank wear in plain turning of AISI D2 steel.
Workpiece:
AISI 316L Stainless Steel with Standard compositions.
Machining Processes and plan of experiments:
The main objective of the statistical ANOVA is to find the significant
machining parameters which affect the performance characteristics.
In this study, the L18 taguchi orthogonal array design is used for
conducting the experimental runs. The desirability function analysis
method is applied to optimize the responses for the machining
parameters during CNC turning of AISI 316L stainless steel with
carbide tool inserts. It is shown that the multiple performance
characteristics during machining of AISI 316L stainless steel are
improved by using the desirability function analysis method in this
study. So, the main machining parameters being varied are feed rate,
Depth of cut, Spindle speed.
Conclusion:
They have selected Carbon Nano fibre Nano fluid and Deionized
water as their coolants. The experimental results reveal that cutting
speed is influencing more for tool wear and feed rate is influencing
more for surface roughness. They have found that 100m/min cutting
speed,0.2mm/rev feed rate and CNF coolant as optimal parameters
for flank wear by using Taguchi method. They have found that
200m/min cutting speed, 0.1mm/rev feed rate and CNF coolant as
optimum conditions for surface roughness by Taguchi method. They
have found that 144.58m/min cutting speed, 0.14mm/rev feed rate
and CNF coolant as optimum parameters for minimizing tool wear
and surface roughness. The optimal parametric settings are obtained
using DFA is A1B2C1D1. From the ANOVA and response tables, it is
concluded that feed rate is the most influencing cutting variable on
the response variables. Experimental results reveal that feed rate is
said to have more effect on the response variables followed by depth
of cut, type of cutting fluid and spindle speed.

Order Run Spindle Feed Depth Surface Cutting

 speed rate of cut Roughness Temperature
rpm Mm/rev mm µm *C
1 6 500 0.1 0.4 0.28 39.9
2 4 500 0.15 0.7 0.705 39.
3 5 500 0.2 1 1.1 39.7
4 7 750 0.1 0.4 0.575 36.2
5 16 750 0.15 0.7 0.78 42.4
6 2 750 0.2 1 1.065 46.8
7 10 1000 0.1 0.4 0.615 41.7
8 9 1000 0.15 0.7 0.775 42.7
9 17 1000 0.2 1 1.07 47.7
10 18 500 0.1 0.4 0.635 43.4
11 12 500 0.15 0.7 1.07 42.7
12 1 500 0.2 1 1.54 45.2
13 8 750 0.1 0.4 0.50 43.5
14 11 750 0.15 0.7 0.88 42.7
15 15 750 0.2 1 1.34 45.2

REFERENCES:
  Akasawa. T. 2003. Effect of free-cutting additives on the mach inability of austenitic stainless
steels. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 143/144: 66-71.
 Al-Ahmari. A.M.A. 2007. Predictive machinability models for a selected hard material in
turning operations. Journal of Material Processing Technology. 190: 305-311.
 Aman Aggarwal and Hari Singh. 2005. Optimization of machining techniques - A
retrospective and Literature review. Sadhana. 30(6): 699-711.
 Anthony xavior. M and Adithan. 2009. Determining the influence of cutting fluids on tool
wear and surface roughness during turning of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel. Journal of
Material processing Technology. 209: 900-909.
 Australian Stainless Steel Development Association (ASSDA). 2006. Technical bulletin 200
series stainless steel CRMN grades. 1(10): 2-3.
 Davis, J.R (1996). ASM specialty handbook stainless steels. ASM International.
 Bouchaïr, A.; Averseng, J.; and Abidelah, A. (2008). Analysis of the behaviour of stainless
steel bolted connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64(11), 1264-1274.
 Cigada, A.; Amici, F.; Cavallini, M.; De Santis, G.; Gatti, A.M.; Giacomazzi, M.; Rondelli, G.;
Roos, A.; Vicentini, B.; and Zaffe, D. (1990). Characterization of a high performance duplex
stainless steel for orthopedic applications. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society,
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 2082 – 2084.
 Cunat, Pierre-Jean (2000). Stainless steel properties for structural automotive applications.
Metal Bulletin, International Materials conference Cologne.
 HeNian, Q. (2001). Research of cold rolling oil for stainless sheet steel. Science in China
(Series A), 44, 142-148.
 Mahesh K Sharma, Sanjay Singh and Rakesh Kumar 2016 International Journal of Engineering
Trends and Technology 36(4) 166-173
 Pay Jun Liew, Ainusyafiqah Shaaroni, Jeefferie Abd Razak, Mohd Shahir Kasim and Mohd
Amri Sulaiman 2017 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 12(10) 2243-2252
 Venkata Ramana M, Krishna Mohan Rao G and Hanumantha Rao 2014 International Journal
of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing 2(4) 272-277
 Sonu Ram and Raj Kumar Yadav 2016 International Journal of Advanced Technology in
Engineering and Science 4(6) 275-287
 Shamnad M and Thulaseedharan Raman 2016 International Journal of Advances in
Mechanical and Automobile Engineering 3(1) 18-23

TEAM MEMBERS DETAIL:

Photo Photo Photo

Name: Name: Name:

AKSHY SUDHARSAN AADHAVAN
NAVEEN Register No: SUBBULAKSHMI
Register No: 2020509043 MANICKAM
2020509007 Batch No: Register No:
Batch No: 2020509001
Batch No: