Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2000) 16:700–708
 2000 Springer-Verlag London Limited
A Study on the Economics of Hypereutectic Aluminium-Silicon
(Al-Si) Alloy Machining
E.-S. Lee
School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, Korea
Hypereutectic aluminium-silicon (Al-Si) alloys are used in auto-
mobile components because of high wear resistance and good
strength properties. In this study, the cutting of a hypereutectic
Al-Si alloy with a single-crystal diamond tool for economical
production was investigated by simulation. Tool life and the
extraction rate of Si particles are inversely proportional to the
depth of cut. By reducing the depth of cut, reductions of tool
cost and tool changing time are achieved.
Keywords: Hypereutectic Al-Si alloy; Non-productive time;
Machining time; Minimum production cost; Silicon extraction;
Tool-life equation
1. Introduction
Hypereutectic aluminium-silicon (Al-Si) alloys are used in
automobile components because of high wear resistance and
good strength properties. Because of their low density, high
wear resistance and high strength at elevated temperature, such
alloys are used for engine blocks, air compressor cylinders and
VTR cylinder heads [1]. These alloys generally contains 16–
18% of silicon and have a wear resistance better by about
35% than that of eutectic Al-Si alloys containing 12% of
silicon. However, the hard particles present in hypereutectic
alloys accelerate the wear of cutting tools during machining
[2]. This restricts the use of hypereutectic Al-Si alloys. Miller
[3] has observed wear phenomena during the machining of Al-
Si alloy with a tungsten-carbide tool and a polycrystalline
diamond tool. Wilson [4] studied the machining economics of
cast aluminium alloys with compax blank tools. Advances in
hypereutectic Al-Si alloy machining have been suggested by
the finding that single-crystal diamond tools produce a good
mirror-like surface for Si extraction [5]. The application of
this in industry should be based on an analysis of the economics
and applicability. The final target of product manufacturing is
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Professor Eun-Sang Lee,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sejong University, 98, Kunja-
Dong, Kwangjin-gu, Seoul, 143-747, Korea. E-mail: eslee얀
sejong.ac.kr
cost reduction by improvement of productivity and quality.
In the context of productivity, improvements in machining,
manufacturing cost, tool cost, etc., must all be considered. It
is, therefore, essential to consider economics when selecting
cutting conditions for industrial applications. The economic
aspect was first studied by Wu [6], and various conclusions
have emerged so far. Armarego and Russell [7] studied the
cutting conditions for maximum profitability, and reported that
maximum profit is made at the point when the differentiation
of the speed function is “0”. Wu and Ermer [8] reported that
owing to the influence of machining cost and time, the cutting
speed for maximum profit is a compromise between minimum
machining cost and maximum production rate. However, they
explained [9] that profit is also greatly influenced by the tool-
life equation. Field et al. [10] proposed cutting conditions that
take economic considerations onto account for turning, milling
and drilling, but it was estimated that to apply these in industry
is difficult. Crookall [11] tried to define optimum cutting
conditions by computing machining cost on the basis of a
function that took account of time and cost variables. This
study helped to find the characteristics of an objective function,
but did not consider the constraints involved. Ermer and Morris
[12] proposed a unit production cost model using error esti-
mation for the selection of optimum cutting conditions, and
Bhattacharyya et al. [13] presented an optimum cutting con-
dition model incorporating constraints. However, these models
have the shortcoming that they require a different correction
factor for every workpiece. Iwata et al. [14] reported that
optimum cutting is influenced by a coefficient of a probabilistic
nature in relation to the constraints, but allowable power, time
and machining cost were not considered among these con-
straints. Friedman and Tipnis [15] introduced the R-T-F con-
cepts for the selection of cutting conditions, and found the
optimum cutting condition for milling at a point on the curve
of the R-T-F characteristic equation. However, this method is
restricted to a specific cutting condition range. Fenton and
Joseph [16] considered the tool life, which is influenced by
cutting speed, feedrate, depth of cut and tool geometry, under
conditions of maximum production rate, minimum machining
cost and maximum profit rate, but in this case also the con-
straints were not considered. The aim of the present study was
thus to investigate the economics of machining in relation to

Fig. 1. Tool geometry.
Fig. 2. An experimental workpiece: a forged swashplate (A390).
Fig. 3. Micrographs showing 50% silicon particle extraction.
Economics of Hypereutectic Al-Si Alloy Machining 701
changes of cutting speed, feedrate and depth of cut. The
cutting speeds corresponding to minimum machining cost and
maximum production rate were selected by using cutting input
data with a computer program. In particular, an important
feature of this study is the surface Si extraction level during
the cutting of hypereutectic Al-Si alloys. For this reason, the
constraints corresponding to surface Si extraction are con-
sidered. In addition, the tool life equation involving depth of
cut, feedrate and the economics of hypereutectic Al-Si alloy
machining is analysed.
2. Cutting Economics
2.1 Theory of Cutting Economics [17,18]
The production time per component (tpr) can be separated into
three items: non-productive time (ti), machining time (tm), and
tool exchanging time (tct (tm/T) (see Nomenclature at the end
of the paper)
␲DL
tpr = ti + + t (t /T) (1)
1000 f V ct m
Reduction of the production time per component can increase
manufacturing efficiency because of the growth of productivity.
The production time per component reflects the cost of machin-
ing, and production cost can be cut by reducing it. Production
cost per component (Cpr) can be separated into four parts:
machining cost, non-productive cost, tool exchanging cost, and
tool cost.
Cpr = Mtm + Mti + Mtct(tm/T) + Ct(tm/T) (2)
In this equation the tool cost applies to a particular product.
The machine and operator costs include the operator’s rate
of pay plus the overheads associated with the employment and
702 E.-S. Lee

Fig. 4. Relationship between tool life and cross-section of the cut.

the depreciation rate of the machine tool plus the overheads

associated with its use. However, in this study the overheads
are excluded because the method of calculating these costs
varies from factory to factory. The cutting speed for minimum
cost is the speed that will result in minimum cost for manufac-
turing one product. It is computed by finding the derivative of
the production cost per component with respect to the cutting
speed, and putting this equal to zero.

Cpr = Mti + M
␲DL
1000fV
+ Mtct
␲DL f ad b
1000fV C 冋 册 1/n
V1/n

+ Ct 冋 册
␲DL f ad b
1000fV C
1/n
V1/n (3)

The minimum cutting speed is given by:

⭸Cpr
=0 (4)
⭸V
Vc is the cutting speed for minimum cost, and can be obtained Fig. 5. Flowchart for the computation of economically optimum con-
from Eq. (4) ditions in swashplate machining.

冋 册
C

冋冉 冊冉 冊册
Vc = (5) C n n
Ct 1 n
Vp = (8)
tct + −1 a
f d b
f d b tct(1−n)
a
M n
In the case of cutting, the tool life greatly influences the
The cutting speed for maximum production rate is the speed
production rate and production cost. Generally, increasing the
that maximises production rate, by giving the fastest machining
cutting speed can increase the production rate, but it can also
for a particular product. It is expressed as follows:
reduce the tool life by promoting tool wear. In the cutting

tpr = ti +
␲DL
1000fV
+ tct
1000fV C 冋 册
␲DL f a d b 1/n
V(1−n)/n (6)
process, tool life is a function of cutting speed. Taylor
expressed this relationship as follows:

Maximum production rate corresponds to the minimum pro- V Tn = C (9)

duction time per component. Accordingly, the cutting speed A modified tool life equation, considering the depth of cut
for maximum production rate can be obtained by differentiating and the feedrate as well, can be expressed as follows:
the production time per component with respect to the cutting
speed and putting this equal to zero: V Tn fa db = C (10)

⭸tpr
=0 (7) 2.2 Constraint Conditions
⭸V
In this case, Vp is the cutting speed for minimum production In the cutting process, the optimum machining conditions are
time, and is expressed as follows: chosen in relation to various constraints. In this experiment,
 Economics of Hypereutectic Al-Si Alloy Machining 703

Fig. 6. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at feedrate Fig. 8. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at feedrate
0.01 mm rev−1. 0.06 mm rev−1.

Table 1. (a) Chemical composition of hypereutectic Al-Si alloy (A390;

ASTM STD. E716). (b) Mechanical properties of A390.

(a) Contents Composition (%)

Silicon 16.0–18.0
Copper 4.0–5.0
Magnesium 0.45–0.65
Manganese 0.1 Max
Iron 0.5 Max
Zinc 0.1 Max
Ttianium 0.2 Max
Others 0.2 Max
Aluminium Remainder

(b)

Young’s Modulus (kPa) 8.2 × 10′

Thermal Conductivity (W m−1 K) 126.4
Thermal Expansion (per °C) 1.8 × 10−5
Hardness – BNN 10 mm 100
500 kg 125
Density (kg m−3) 0.28
Fig. 7. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at feedrate
0.03 mm rev−1.

the constraint conditions considered are depth of cut, feedrate
and surface roughness, the latter being affected by silicon
extraction from hypereutectic Al-Si alloy. After machining, the
surface roughness should be no greater than that inevitably
resulting from the extraction of silicon particles from the
surface. With a tool of tip radius R (mm), and a feedrate f
(mm/rev), the geometric surface roughness along the feed
direction should be as follows [19]:
f2
Hmax = × 1000 (11)
8R
The constraint condition of feedrate is the relationship of
maximum surface roughness to feedrate which is represented
in Eq. (11). In this case, the maximum feedrate is constrained
by silicon extraction and the minimum feedrate by productivity.
These feedrate limits must be established by experiment, and
during machining the feedrate should be chosen within this
maximum/minimum feedrate range, in accordance with the
machine tool used. The optimum cutting speed is thus con-
strained by the machine tool and by silicon extraction.
3. Experiment and Simulation
The material used in this investigation was the hypereutectic
Al-Si alloy A390, whose chemical composition (ASTM STD
704 E.-S. Lee

Table 2. The cutting conditions and the experimental results.

Cutting speed Feed Depth of cut Tool life

(m min−1) (mm rev−1) (mm) (min)

500 0.1 0.3 38.7

600 0.1 0.35 26.9
650 0.07 0.25 46.4
700 0.07 0.4 29.1
650 0.06 0.2 65.4
750 0.05 0.2 65.9
590 0.06 0.2 74.2
650 0.04 0.12 151.4
670 0.02 0.2 203.6
680 0.009 0.25 392.9

E716) and mechanical properties are shown in Table 1. Figure 1

shows the geometry of the single-crystal diamond tool used in
the experiment, and Fig. 2 shows the forged swashplate used
as the experimental workpiece, for which a silicon extraction
of better than 50% was required. This machining was carried Fig. 9. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at depth of cut
out on a CNC lathe (model KD-6). Tool-life limit was assigned 0.05 mm.
at about 50% silicon extraction from the hypereutectic Al-Si
alloy, i.e. it was assumed that the tool life had been exhausted
when the silicon extraction amounted to less than 50%. Using
the 50% silicon extraction figure, the change of tool wear was
not taken into account because the amount of silicon extraction
varies with cutting conditions. Figure 3 is a microphotograph
(×400) showing 50% surface silicon extraction, which is the
reference for tool life. Table 2 summarises the experimental
cutting conditions used and the resulting tool life. Figure 4
shows the relationship between tool life and the cross-section
of the cut in Table 2. As the cross-section of the cut
(feedrate × depth of cut) increases, tool life decreases. In the
case where the cross-sections are different but the cutting speed
is the same, the larger the cross-section, the lower the tool
life. Therefore, the cross-section of the cut is an important
factor in the tool-life criterion. To select the optimum cutting
conditions and analyse tool life, the least-squares method,
which determines the parameters n, a, b, c in the tool-life
equation, was used. This procedure required a large amount
of data representing various experimental conditions, from
which the following tool-life equation emerged:
V T 0.7657 f 0.8187 d 0.6076 = 600.2 (12) Fig. 10. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at depth of
cut 0.2 mm.
From this equation, and on the basis of previous theories,
an economic analysis program was prepared. Figure 5 rep- a single-crystal diamond tool, the value of silicon extraction
resents the simulation flowchart showing the most economical largely depends on the feedrate. Also, from the previous experi-
conditions for machining the swashplate. The feedrate was set ments and analysis, it is known that feedrate affects the tool
at a reference value suitable for silicon extraction, and the life. Figures 6–8 show the relationship between cost and cutting
depth of cut and cutting speed were varied. speed at various feedrates in the case of a fixed depth of cut
(0.2 mm). Figures 6 to 18 are based on the experimental results
and are simulated. Figure 6 shows that tool cost increases but
4. Result and Discussion cutting cost decreases as the cutting speed is increased. The
tool-changing cost is very small and hardly appears in the
4.1 Effect of Feedrate on Economics figure. Non-productive cost is constant and can vary according
to the company’s situation, so it is not indicated. Machine and
Machining cost is a function of the depth of cut and the operator rate (M) is taken to be 435 won (1 $ = 1127 won)
feedrate. When a hypereutectic Al-Si alloy is machined with with reference to a large corporation. It is observed that the

Fig. 11. Relationship between cost and cutting speed at depth of
cut 0.25 mm.
Fig. 12. Effect of cutting speed on tool cost at various feedrates.
total cost curve is displaced to the left as the feedrate increases.
Figure 12 represents the tool cost curve with respect to feedrate.
There is no difference for feedrates between 0.01 mm and
0.06 mm. Thus, a high feedrate improves the productivity
rather than increasing the production cost in the range of
feedrate in which more than 50% silicon extraction takes place.
Figure 14 shows the effect on cutting cost of various feedrates.
As cutting speed is increased, the difference in the cutting cost
is reduced. It is important to note that an increase of cutting
speed, because of its effect on tool life, affects the decrease
of cutting cost. Table 3 shows the outcome of economical
cutting simulation with both input and calculated values. The
minimum cost is 879 won at a cutting speed of 389 m min−1,
Economics of Hypereutectic Al-Si Alloy Machining 705
Fig. 13. Effect of cutting speed on tool cost at various depths of cut.
Fig. 14. Effect of cutting speed on cutting cost at various feedrates.
but since at this speed silicon extraction is less than 50%, the
cutting speed is better set at 636 m min−1, which is a suitable
cutting speed for silicon extraction. Under these optimised
conditions, the production cost amounts to 894 won.
4.2 Effect of Depth of Cut on Economics
Figures 9 to 11 show the relationship between cost and cutting
speed as a function of the depth of cut. The change with
respect to depth of cut is similar to that with respect to
feedrate. However, Fig. 13 which represents the change of tool
cost as a function of depth of cut at a constant feedrate
(0.06 mm rev−1), shows that the tool cost changes rapidly as
the depth of cut is varied. From this it is evident that tool life
706 E.-S. Lee
Fig. 15. Change in cutting and feed forces with increase in depth of
cut.
Fig. 16. Tool life and ability at various feedrates.
is greatly affected by depth of cut. Figure 15 shows the change
in the cutting and feed force with increase in depth of cut. As
depth of cut is increased, the cutting force increases rapidly.
From this, it can be seen that the change of cutting force will
greatly affect the tool life. Thus, a small depth of cut is the
most effective condition to obtain the longest tool life.
4.3 Tool Life and Tool Ability
Figure 16 shows tool life and tool ability (i.e. the number of
pieces produced by a given tool before its life is exhausted)
during the machining of swashplates at various feedrates. As
feedrate increases, tool life decreases rapidly, but tool ability
Fig. 17. Tool life and ability at various depths of cut.
Fig. 18. Tool life and ability at various cuttng speeds.
decreases slowly. It is preferable to increase the feedrate to be
as high a value as possible for high productivity, because the
tool ability is decreased only slightly compared with the rapid
decrease of tool life owing to increased productivity as the
feedrate increases.
Figure 17 shows tool life and tool ability during swashplate
production, varying with depth of cut. As the depth of cut
increases, tool life decreases slowly but tool ability decreases
rapidly. It can be deduced from this that increasing the depth
of cut is a far less favourable condition for achieving higher
productivity, because the small change of tool life seriously
affects tool ability. Figure 18 shows tool life and tool ability
during swahplate production as a function of the cutting speed.
As cutting speed increases, both tool life and tool ability
decrease. Though tool life and tool ability are improved by
 Economics of Hypereutectic Al-Si Alloy Machining 707

Table 3. Output of economical cutting simulation. 2. J. L. Jorstad, “Applications of 390 alloy: An update”, AFS Trans-
actions, pp. 573–578, 1984.
Cutting conditions and results 3. J. C. Miller, “Machining high silicon aluminum”, Paper
⬎⬎⬎ Precision Machining and System Laboratory, SJU ⬍⬍⬍ G-T81–035, 11th International Die Casting Congress and Expo-
sition, 1981.
4. G. R. Wilson, “Machining of selected cast aluminum alloys with
Machine and operator rate M (won min−1) 435.00 compax blank tools”, Proceedings of an International Conference
Cost of a tool Ct (won) 180000.00 on Cutting Tool Materials, American Society for Metals, Metals
Tool changing time tct (min) 3.00 Park, Cleveland Ohio, 1981.
Non-productive time (min) 1.00 5. E. S. Lee and J. D. Kim, “A study on the mirror-like machining
Workpiece diameter D (mm) 81.00 of Al-Si alloy for extraction of Si particle”, Journal of Korean
Workpiece length L (mm) 22.00 Society of Mechanical Engineers, 16(12), pp. 2279–2286, 1992.
Depth of cut d (mm) 0.20 6. S. M. Wu, “Tool-life testing by response surface methodology –
feed f (mm) 0.06 Part 1”, ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 86, pp. 105–
Tool nose radius r (mm) 0000.00 109, 1964.
Allowable maximum surface roughness Hmax (mm) 0.0002 7. E. J. A. Armarego and J. K. Russell, “Maximum profit rate as a
Tool life index n 0.766 criterion for the selection of machining conditions”, International
Cutting constant w.r.t. depth of cut a 0.608 Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 6, pp. 15–23, 1966.
Cutting constant w.r.t. feed b 0.819 8. S. M. Wu and D. S. Ermer, “Maximum profit as the criterion in
Cutting constant C 600.200 the determination of the optimum cutting conditions”, ASME
Cutting speed for minimum cost Vc (m min−1) 389.97 Journal of Engineering for Industry, 88, pp. 435–442, 1966.
Cutting speed for minimum time Vp (m min−1) 890.64 9. D. S. Ermer and S. M. Wu, “The effect of experimental error on
Possible optimum cutting speed for this lathe with 636.17 the determination error on the determination of the optimum metal-
several constraints Vopt (m min−1) cutting conditions”, ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 89,
pp. 315–322, 1967.
minimum cost minimum time optimum condition 10. M. Field, N. Zlatin, R. Williams and M. Kronenberg, “Com-
Vc = 389.97 Vp = 890.64 Vopt=636.17 (m min−1) puterized determination and analysis of cost production rates for
NVc 532.49 NVp =3500.00 NVopt=2500.00 (r.p.m.) machining operations part-1 turning”, ASME Journal of Engineer-
Tool life T 127.54 43.37 67.31 ing for Industry, 90, pp. 455–466, 1968.
(min) 11. J. R. Crookall, “The performance-envelope concept in the
Tool ability 533.04 414.01 458.91 economics of machining”, International Journal of Machine Tool
(EA) Design and Research, 9, pp. 261–278, 1969.
Production 879.21 918.50 893.88 12. D. S. Ermer and M. S. Morris, “A treatment of errors of estimation
cost per in determining optimum machining conditions”, International
component Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 9, pp. 357–362,
Cpr (won) 1969.
13. A. Bhattacharyya, R. F. Gonzalez and I. Y. Ham, “Regression
analysis for predicting surface finish and its application in the
determination of optimum machining conditions”, ASME Journal
decreasing the cutting speed, this is not necessarily desirable of Engineering for Industry, 92, pp. 711–714, 1970.
when productivity is considered. Thus, in analysing the cost 14. K. Iwata, Y. Murotsu, T. Iwatsubo and S. Fujii, “A probabilistic
approach to the determination of the optimum cutting conditions”,
of machining, non-productive cost and feedrate should be ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 94, pp. 1099–1107,
considered as well as tool life and tool ability. 1972.
15. M. Y. Friedman and V. A. Tipnis, “Cutting rate-tool life character-
istic functions for material removal processes”, ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, 98, pp. 481–486, 1976.
5. Conclusion 16. R. G. Fenton and N. D. Joseph, “The effects of the statistical
nature of tool-life on the economics of machining”, International
From the results related to the economics of hypereutectic Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 19, pp. 43–50,
Al-Si alloy machining, the following conclusions emerge. 1979.
In the machining of hypereutectic Al-Si alloy the life of a 17. G. Boothroyd, Fundamentals of Metal Machining and Machine
Tools, Scripta Book, 1975.
single-crystal diamond tool is much affected by the depth 18. W. W. Gilbert, Machining Theory and Practice, American Society
of cut, but less so by the feedrate. The tool-life equation for Metals, Metals Park, Cleveland, Ohio, 1950.
obtained is: 19. M. E. Martellotti, “An analysis of the milling process”, Transaction
of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 63(8), pp. 677–
V T 0.7657 f 0.8187 d 0.6076 = 600.2 681, 1941.
In the machining of swashplates, the cross-section of the
cut (feed rate × depth of cut) is an important factor in the tool-
life criterion. The production cost and tool ability are improved
more by increasing the cutting speed than by increasing the Nomenclature
feedrate.
a,b cutting constant w.r.t. feedrate and depth of cut
C cutting constant
Cpr production cost per component (won)
References Ct cost of a tool (won)
Ct(tm/T) tool cost per component (won)
1. S. Hanasaki, M. Touge, E. Tanokubo and Y. Hasegawa, “In situ d depth of cut (mm)
observation of micro-cutting of Al-Si alloy by using scanning D workpiece diameter (mm)
electron microscope”, Light metal, 39(10), pp. 705–709, 1989. f feedrate (mm rev−1)
708 E.-S. Lee

Hmax geometric surface roughness
L workpiece length (mm)
M machine and operator rate (won min−1)
Mtct(tm/T) tool changing cost per component (won)
Mti non-productive cost per component (won)
Mtm machining cost (won pc)
n index of T in tool-life equation
R tool nose radius (mm)
tct(tm/T) tool changing time per component (min)
ti non-productive time per component (min)
tm machining time per component (min)
tpr production time per component (min)
T tool life (min)
V cutting speed (m min−1)
Vc cutting speed for minimum cost (m min−1)
Vp cutting speed for minimum time (m min−1)