Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 67 71

2nd CIRP Conference on Surface Integrity (CSI)

Influence of the minimum chip thickness on the obtained surface

roughness during turning operations
Fredrik Schultheissa,*, Sren Hgglundb, Volodymyr Bushlyaa, Jinming Zhoua,
Jan-Eric Sthla
a
Division of production and materials engineering, , Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
Seco Tools AB, 737 82 Fagersta, Sweden
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-46-222-8520; fax: +46-46-222-8504. E-mail address: fredrik.schultheiss@iprod.lth.se.

Abstract

Considerable efforts have been put into analyzing the obtained surface roughness during turning operations. However, knowledge is
still lacking on how to model the arithmetic mean surface roughness Ra through using a general model applicable for all workpiece
materials and process parameters. Further, the influence of the minimum chip thickness on the obtained surface roughness needs to
be clarified. This article presents a new model for predicting the Ra surface roughness during turning operations. The model is
based on physical and empirical knowledge of the turning process and has been experimentally validated through turning Al-SiCp
MMC, cast iron, conventional- and stainless steels, as well as Ti6Al4V. The obtained results show great potentials with an average
error of 6.7% even though errors as large as 16.6% were obtained for some cases.

2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The International Scientific Committee of the 2nd Conference on Surface Integrity
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The International Scientific Committee of the 2nd Conference on Surface
in the person of the Conference Chair Prof Dragos Axinte dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk
Integrity in the person of the Conference Chair Prof Dragos Axinte dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk

Keywords: Turning; Surface roughness; Minimum chip thickness; Material properties

will result in a deviation of the Ra value from the

1. Introduction
Surface roughness is an important parameter while
evaluating the quality of a machined part. Further, the
obtained surface roughness could be considered as
having a significant influence on the sustainability
during machining since it strongly influences the choice
of machining process and parameters. The aim of this
study has been to predict the obtained arithmetic mean
surface roughness, Ra, during longitudinal turning
operations. Ra is a commonly used parameter for
describing the deviation of a surface from an ideal level
defined according to ISO 4287:1997. Several Ra models
have been published through the years but these are
seldom analytical and are commonly only valid for a
limited range of process conditions based on empirical
data [1-5]. In many practical cases Ra is instead
calculated as a function of the maximum theoretical
surface roughness, Rmax, for a specific machining case
[6]. The existence of a minimum chip thickness h1min
analytically expected due to plastic deformation of the
workpiece surface generally referred to as ploughing.
Depending on circumstances ploughing may either result
in a better or worse surface roughness than analytically
expected depending on how the deformed material is
distributed over the machined surface. Since the location
of the plastically deformed material is stochastic in
nature it is generally only possible to predict a range for
potential Ra values for a given situation. The authors
have previously published an analytical model for
calculating the theoretical Ra surface roughness [7],
Equation 1. This model is only valid if radius-radius
contact exists at the nose radius of the cutting tool, Case
A, as previously described by several authors [8-11],
Fig. 1.
r2 f r f2
Ra ,theoretical | 0.77 r  sin 1  1 2 (1)
f 2r 2 4r
given that f d 2 r sin N b

2212-8271 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The International Scientific Committee of the 2nd Conference on Surface Integrity in the person
of the Conference Chair Prof Dragos Axinte dragos.axinte@nottingham.ac.uk
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.04.012
68 Fredrik Schultheiss et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 67 71

of h1min could be divided into two regions depending on

the underlying physical processes. In a later article [7] a
model based on this correlation was presented, Equation
2.

Fig. 1. Principle illustration of three different combinations of feed and

nose radius resulting in different machining cases [9].

In Equation 1 f is the feed, r is the tool nose radius

and b is the minor cutting edge angle. A problem with
this analytical model is that it neglects the influence of
the minimum chip thickness h1min. This problem was
briefly addressed in the previous article [7], however, no
conclusive answers were attained.

2. Proposed model for calculating Ra

For a general machining operation h1min is defined as

the lowest theoretical chip thickness h1 at which a chip is
still being formed. Fig. 2 illustrates a frozen machining
case as seen from the reference plane at the tool nose
radius. In this figure a crack in the workpiece material Fig. 2. Workpiece material close to the tool nose radius as seen from
the reference plane while turning SAF 2205. The approximate location
close to the tool nose radius is clearly evident indicating
of the major cutting edge is marked by the red line in the figure.
the existence of a stagnation point as well as the related Adapted from [12].
minimum chip thickness. All three deformation zones
during a machining process may be seen in Fig. 2, these g2

being the primary deformation zone (Zone I) where the h g1 g1

workpiece material is separated from the workpiece, the
secondary deformation zone (Zone II) at which the
workpiece material is sliding against the cutting tool, as
well as the tertiary deformation zone (Zone III) which is
mainly formed due to the plastic deformation of the
machined surface due to h1min as well as sliding against
the clearance face of the cutting tool. It is also of interest
to note the side flow inside the chip at which the chip is
plastically deformed after it has been cut.
Several different workpiece material properties could
be considered as influencing the size of h1min. However,
through using the material properties influencing the
potential machinability previously presented by
Andersson and Sthl among others [13, 14] as a starting
point it was considered that mainly the elongation at
rupture and the strain hardening could be considered as
having a major influence on the size of h1min. A method
for experimentally measuring h1min has previously been
presented by the authors [12]. Through measuring the
width of the obtained chip and comparing this to the
h1min h1min,0 1  1 (2)
h1,0
In Equation 2 h1min,0 describes h1min at h1 < h1,0. In turn
h1,0 is defined as the breakpoint between the r-region
and the ch-region at which the tool edge radius r and
chip flow direction ch respectively has a major influence
on the size of h1min. Both g1 and g2 are model constants
which need to be determined empirically. Previous
articles have only to a certain extent discussed the
influence of h1min on the obtained surface roughness [15,
16]. Due to the existence of h1min a certain amount of the
theoretical chip area A will only be plastically deformed
onto the machined surface through ploughing of the
workpiece material [17]. Note the correlation between
h1min and the ploughing area Apl as exemplified in Fig. 3.
Apl can be calculated according to Equation 3 as a
function of the angle defined according to Fig. 3.
G h1min
h G 
G h G  r  2 dG
1
Apl (3)
expected theoretical width it was possible to calculate 1
0
h1min. During the previous study [12] it was found that
the influence of different process parameters on the size where h1 G  f sin G   r  r 2  f 2 cos 2 G 
 Fredrik Schultheiss et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 67 71 69

for A48-40B) placed in a DCLNR2525M12 or

Fig. 3. Principle illustration of h1min at the tool nose radius and the
corresponding ploughing area Apl [10].
In Equation 3 0 and h1min are defined as the value of
the angle at h1 = 0 mm and h1 = h1min, respectively,
Equation 4 and 5.
DCLNL3225P12 tool holder depending on the machined
material. In total 7 different materials were investigated;
AlSi9Mg0.3 20 % vol. SiCp, A48-40B, AISI 1045,
AISI 4140, AISI 420, AISI 316L and Ti6Al4V. Due to
the large variation of workpiece materials it was decided
to use the optimum tool grade and chip breaker
geometry for each material as proposed by the tool
manufacturer. For each of the workpiece materials 4
different tool nose radii were used (r = 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 and
1.6 mm) and for each of these up to 4 different feeds (f =
0.06, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 mm/rev) were used
sequentially. The depth of cut remained constant at ap =
1.5 mm except the for the smallest nose radius while
machining Ti6Al4V at which ap = 1.0 mm was used due
to practical reasons. The cutting conditions used during
this study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Cutting conditions used during the current study.

f (4)
G0  sin 1
2r
Material f [mm/rev] ap [mm] vc [m/min] r [mm]

f 2  2 r h1min  h1min 2 (5)

Al-SiCp 0.06 0.20 1.5 100 0.4 1.6
G h1min  sin 1
2 f  r  h  A48-40B 0.06 0.20 1.5 250 0.4 1.6
1min
AISI 1045 0.06 0.20 1.5 225 0.4 1.6
Depending on circumstances Apl may either increase
AISI 4140 0.06 0.20 1.5 275 0.4 1.6
or decrease the surface roughness. One possible
approach for solving this problem could be through AISI 420 0.06 0.20 1.5 200 0.4 1.6
using Rh1min, Equation 6. This variable can be seen as the AISI 316L 0.06 0.20 1.5 250 0.4 1.6
average influence of the ploughing material over the
Ti6Al4V 0.06 0.20 1 and 1.5 70 0.4 1.6
whole machined surface.

Apl
Rh1min
f were measured 100 times at random locations through
In order to better describe the influence of h1min on the
Ra surface roughness an improvement of the previously
published model is proposed, Equation 7. In this
equation theoretical indicates the value obtained
through using the analytical model, Equation 1. R0 and
are both model constants which need to be determined
experimentally. Also, stochastic variations of the surface
roughness will always appear during any machining
process [18]. Thus, a variation factor, , was introduced
in Equation 7. This variation factor will obtain two
different values, larger and smaller than one, describing
the possible range of obtainable surface roughnesses.
(6) For each of the investigated cases the chip widths
using a digital micrometer. In addition, the obtained
surface roughness was measured 100 times at random
locations on the machined surface for each case
investigated through using a conventional perthometer.
In order to minimize the influence of errors during the
measurement process it was decided that the 5 largest
and lowest measured values, respectively, should be
removed from the analysis for each machining case.
For the cases investigated h1min appears to be
dependent upon the product between the elongation at
rupture b and the strain hardening factor Dn, Fig. 4. Dn
was in this case defined as the ratio between ultimate
tensile strength and yield strength for the investigated
material. These material properties were primarily
Ra Z  Ra,theoretical  R0  F Rh1min  (7)
3. Experimental investigation
Longitudinal turning operations were performed
through using CNMG1204XX inserts (CNMA1204XX
chosen for their previously reported influence on the
potential machinability of different workpiece materials
[13, 14, 19]. Through using the previously described
procedure it was possible to determine h1min for several
different process parameters and thus the model
constants found in Equation 2 could be calculated and
the resulting model errors could be assessed, Table 2.
70 Fredrik Schultheiss et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 67 71

Table 2. Obtained model errors [%] while modeling the average h1min The obtained and modeled Ra values for AISI 1045
value for different workpiece materials and tool nose radii. are illustrated in Fig. 5. These may be seen as typical for
all results obtained during this investigation. As
r Al- A48- AISI AISI AISI AISI
[mm] SiCp 40B 1045 4140 420 316L
Ti6Al4V expected it was found that the Ra value decreases as a
function of the tool nose radius. More interesting,
0.4 7.65 8.41 12.12 10.63 6.66 6.00 11.62
however, was that the influence of the feed on the Ra
0.8 8.37 6.23 6.44 8.67 15.04 5.03 8.86 value seemed to be much larger at small values of f.
1.2 7.81 14.74 10.60 6.75 15.86 5.53 5.99 Also, for the larger tool nose radii Equation 1 appear to
1.6 8.28 6.44 11.36 6.24 7.43 9.25 6.55 underestimate the obtained surface roughness. Table 3
displays the average model error for each machining
case.
h1min
150 Table 3. Obtained surface roughness model error [%] for different
[m] r = 0.4 mm f = 0.06 mm/rev workpiece materials and tool nose radii.
f = 0.10 mm/rev
100 r Al- A48- AISI AISI AISI AISI
Ti6Al4V
[mm] SiCp 40B 1045 4140 420 316L
0.4 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
50
0.8 0.08 1.49 2.78 7.88 7.88 1.61 4.01
1.2 16.50 15.48 3.86 15.51 15.51 13.38 13.89
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.6 4.08 11.31 16.63 14.08 14.08 1.31 9.48
b . Dn
h1min
150 Ra Ra
[m] r = 0.8 mm 2 2
f = 0.06 mm/rev [m] r = 0.4 mm [m] r = 0.8 mm
f = 0.10 mm/rev
1.5 1.5
100 f = 0.15 mm/rev

1 1

50
0.5 0.5

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
b . Dn f [mm/rev ] f [mm/rev
h1min Ra Ra
150 2 2
[m] r = 1.2 mm [m] r = 1.2 mm [m] r = 1.6 mm
f = 0.06 mm/rev
f = 0.10 mm/rev 1.5 1.5
100 f = 0.15 mm/rev
f = 0.20 mm/rev 1 1

50
0.5 0.5

0 0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
f [mm/rev ] f [mm/rev
b Dn
.
h1min
[m]
150 Fig. 5. Attained model values for the Ra surface roughnesses while
f = 0.06 mm/rev machining AISI 1045. The red circles indicate each singular
f = 0.10 mm/rev experimentally obtained value. The thick solid- and interrupted curves
100 f = 0.15 mm/rev indicate the modeled values according to Equation 7 and Equation 1,
f = 0.20 mm/rev respectively. By using the average values of the variation factor the
thin, blue, solid curves were obtained.
50

To attain a complete overview of the whole range of

0
r = 1.6 mm obtained values the maximum and minimum value of the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 variation factor for each machining case was
b . Dn
calculated. Mathematically it is possible to calculate the
variation factor for each of the machining cases
Fig. 4. h1min as a function of the product between the elongation at
rupture b and the strain hardening Dn for all cases investigated, investigated. This is however neither a practical nor a
Table 1. probable solution from a theoretical standpoint. It could
 Fredrik Schultheiss et al. / Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 67 71
be speculated whether the value varies as a function of
the feed or the tool nose radius even though no clear
indications of this was observed during the current
study. Thus, for simplicity reasons an average maximum
and minimum value of was calculated for each
workpiece material investigated. When performing these
calculations it was noted that the values varied only
slightly from one workpiece material to the other. Thus,
it was theorized that there might exist a global value for
these two parameters which is applicable for all
workpiece materials. Thus, an average maximum- and
minimum value of was calculated for all machining
cases, Table 4.
Table 4. Average maximum- and minimum values of for each
material investigated as well as the global averages.
Al- A48- AISI AISI AISI AISI
Ti6Al4V Average
SiCp 40B 1045 4140 420 316L
Maximum 1.38 1.19 1.12 1.13 1.18 1.20 1.17 1.20
Minimum 0.80 0.89 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.89
4. Conclusions
The proposed model appears to produce good results
for all machining cases investigated. Further, by the
addition of a variation factor it is possible for the user to
estimate the range of stochastic variations on the size of
the Ra value. It is however important to note that the
variation factor only describes the variation occurring
during ideal conditions. Factors such as vibrations, tool
wear, built-up edges, etc. might dramatically alter the
variation of the obtained surface roughnesses and thus it
is important to minimize the influence of these factors
during any machining operation. The global variation
factor was found to be sufficient for describing the
variation of the obtained experimental values for the
investigated machining cases. However, it is suggested
that for certain machining operations an additional safety
factor in addition to the variation factor could be used,
especially while finishing critical surfaces. This since it
does exist a certain risk of obtaining Ra values outside of
the range indicted by the variation factor.
Acknowledgements
This research is a part of the ShortCut research
project financed by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic
Research SSF. It is also a part of the Sustainable
Production Initiative, SPI. The authors would like to
express their gratitude towards Seco Tools AB and
Mustafa Gatea for their assistance during this study.
71
References
[1] Choudhury, I.A., ElBaradie, M.A., 1997. Surface roughness
prediction in the turning of high-strength steel by factorial design
of experiments. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 67,
p. 55-61.
[2] Fang, X.D., Safi-Jahanshahi, H., 1997. A new algorithm for
developing a reference-based model for predicting surface
roughness in finish machining of steels. International Journal of
Production Research, 35, p. 179-199.
[3] Feng, C.X., Wang, X., 2002. Development of empirical models
for surface roughness prediction in finish turning. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 20 p. 348-356.
[4] Sahin, Y., Motorcu, A.R., 2004. Surface roughness prediction
model in machining of carbon steel by PVD coated cutting tools.
American Journal of Applied Sciences, 1, p. 12-17.
[5] Sahin, Y., Motorcu, A.R., 2008. Surface roughness model in
machining hardened steel with cubic boron nitride cutting tool.
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials,
26, p. 84-90.
[6] Whitehouse, D.J., 1994. Handbook of surface metrology, Institute
of Physics Publishing, Bristol, UK.
[7] Sthl, J.-E., Schultheiss, F., Hgglund, S., 2011. Analytical and
Experimental Determination of the Ra Surface Roughness during
Turning. Procedia Engineering, 19, p. 349-356.
[8] Bus, C., Touwen, N.A.L., Veenstra, P.C., Van Der Wolf, A.C.H.,
1971. On the Significance of Equivalent Chip Thickness. CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 19, p. 121-124.
[9] Puhasmgi, V., 1973. Finsvarvning med hrdmetall. Licentiate
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Enginnering, Lund University.
[10] Sthl, J.-E., 2012. Metal Cutting - Theories and models. Division
of Production and Materials Engineering, Lund University in
cooperation with Seco Tools AB, Lund/Fagersta, Sweden.
[11] Isaev, A.I., 1950. Microgeometry of a surface generated in
turning. Academy of Science USSR, Moscow.
[12] Schultheiss, F., Agmell, M., Hgrelius, B., Bushlya, V., Sthl, J.-
E. 2011. Experimental Study of the Minimum Chip Thickness
during the Machining of Duplex Stainless Steel, AMST'11 -
Advanced Manufacturing Systems and Technology, p. 175-189.
[13] Andersson, M., Sthl, J.-E., 2007. Polar Machinability Diagram
- A Model to Predict the Machinability of a Work Material.
Swedish Production Symposium.
[14] Xu, L., Schultheiss, F., Andersson, M., Sthl, J.-E., 2013. General
conception of polar diagrams for the evaluation of the potential
machinability of workpiece materials. International Journal of
Machining and Machinability of Materials, 14, p. 24-44.
[15] Shaw, M.C., 1997. Metal cutting principles. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, UK.
[16] Bissacco, G., Hansen, H.N., De Chiffre, L., 2005. Micromilling
of hardened tool steel for mould making applications. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 167, p. 201-207.
[17] Waldorf, D.J., DeVor, R.E., Kapoor, S.G., 1999. An evaluation of
ploughing models for orthogonal machining. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 121, p. 550-558.
[18] Petropoulos, P.G., 1974. Statistical basis for surface roughness
assessment in oblique finish turning of steel components.
International Journal of Production Research, 12, p. 345-360.
[19] Avdovic, P. Xu, L., Andersson, M., Sthl, J.-E., 2011. Evaluating
the Machinability of Inconel 718 Using Polar Diagrams. Journal
of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 133.