Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Cutting Tools

Walter W. Gruss Komet of America, Inc. Schaumburg, IL

Kilian M. Friederich Cerasiv GmbH Plochingen, Germany

INTRODUCTION The first attempts to apply ceramic cutting tools for turning of gray cast irons were made in the early 1930s. The high hot hardness, compressive strength, wear resistance and chemical inertness of ceramics promised success. However, the difficult manufacturing process of ceramics combined with unsuitable machine tools and lack of experience delayed implementation. Initially, only aluminum oxide ceramics (oxide ceramics) were used, but in the early 1970s aluminum oxide/titanium carbide composites (carboxide ceramics) were introduced. They provided improved results in finish turning of ferrous metals and turning of hard ferrous metals. Optimization of the composition including the introduction of new sintering technologies resulted in further improvements in this group of cutting tool materials.

COMPOSITION,

MICROSTRUCTURE

AND PROPERTIES

Commercially available cutting tool materials belonging to the group of carboxide ceramics consist of aluminum oxide with additions of 30-40% titanium carbide and/or titanium nitride. The dispersion of these hard particles increases the hardness for

Aluminum OxideRitanium

Carbide Composite Tools

49

temperatures up to 800C when compared to oxide ceramics (Table 4-1, Figures 4-l & 4-2). Simultaneously, the fracture toughness and bending strength is improved through crack impediment, crack deflection or crack branching caused by the dispersed hard particles. The higher hardness in combination with the higher toughness increases the resistance to abrasive and erosive wear considerably. The lower thermal expansion and higher thermal conductivity of the composite improve the thermal shock resistance and thermal shock cycling capabilities when compared to oxide ceramics. At temperatures exceeding 800C, the titanium carbide and/or titanium nitride particles oxidize and begin to lose their reinforcing properties. The composite weakens and this phenomenon must be taken into consideration when selecting cutting conditions, such as cutting speed, depth of cut and feedrate. Table 4-1. Comparison of the Physical Properties of Oxide Ceramics with Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composites.

Cutting Materials

Oxide Ceramic Al,O, + ZrO,

AI,OJTiC Composite

Hardness (Vickers) Modulus of Elasticity (k-N/mm2) Bending Strength (N/mm2) Fracture Toughness (mN/mm2) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (IO-%) Thermal Conductivity (W-m--K-)

2000 390 350 4.5 7.5 30

2200 400 600 5.4 7.0 35

50

Ceramic Cutting Tools

Figure 4-1. Hardness vs. temperature of cemented carbide, oxide ceramic and aluminum oxide/titanium carbide composite.

Figure

4-2. Microstructure carbide composite.

of aluminum

oxide -30%

titanium

Aluminum Oxiderritanium Carbide Composite Tools

51

Powders with high purity and fine particle size (generally one micron or smaller) are selected for the manufacture of aluminum oxide/titanium carbide composites. Uniform blending of these components is achieved through dry or wet milling. Organic binders are added to provide sufficient strength for preforming processes. The heat treatment is very critical. The goal is to minimize porosity while maintaining a fine microstructure. The titanium carbide and nitride additives impede the densification through heat treatment. Various processeshave been developed to overcome this difficulty all basedon the simultaneous application of temperature and pressure. Originally, graphite dies at temperatures between 1600C and 1750C were used to mechanically densify the material at pressures between 200-350 bar. Graphite limits the maximum allowable pressure and temperature, and rest porosities of up to 1% may occur in the composite (see Figure 4-3). In recent years, hot isostatic pressing methods were introduced operating at pressuresof up to 200 Mpa with inert gas (N2, Ar) as the compacting media [3]. The process requires that the product be hermetically sealed or pre-sintered to 94% minimum density {closed pores only) to prevent penetration by the inert gas. Hot isostatic pressing increases density and reduces porosity, resulting in higher reliability of the composite.

Figure

4-3.

Defect

microsttucture

of A120J30%TiC

composite.

52

Ceramic Cutting Tools

GRADE APPLICATIONS The cutting tool industry classifies cemented carbide grades either by IS0 Standard R513 of the International Organization for Standardization or by the standards of the Joint Industrial Council of the United States. An abbreviated version of this classification method and how it applies to aluminum oxide/titanium carbide cutting tools is shown in Table 3-2. Table 4-2. Grade Classification Charts Showing Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Cutting Ranges. Steel, Cast Steel, and Stainless
Capability
Range IS0 Classification Class
I

Steel
Increased Toughness P20 C6
I

4--

Increased Wear Resistance

_I) P30

PO1 PO5 PlO C8

I

P15

c7

Turning

Aluminum oxide Titanium carbide Composites

Cast Iron , Non-Ferrous Capability Range IS0 Classification Class e

Metal, and Non-Metallic

Metal II) K20 c2

Increased Wear Resistance Increased Toughness KOl C4

I Aluminum oxide Titanium carbide

KO5

KlO c3

K15

Turning

Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Tools

53

As described, the aluminum oxide/titanium carbide composite grades are usually selected for machining of ferrous metals at high cutting speeds when a high accuracy of dimension and fine finish is required. Interrupted cuts are only recommended with very small chip sections and strong cutting edge designs as provided by round or square inserts with T-lands. In recent years, various industries have started to replace grinding of hardened steel components through turning with carboxide ceramic cutting tools. The economic justification of such a change includes:
l

capital investment - CNC lathe versus grinder, perishable tooling - indexable insert tooling versus bonded abrasives, cycle time - turning versus grinding, OSHA/EPA - coolant eliminated with ceramic cutting tools.

The aggregate cost comparison often justifies the shift from grinding to turning. For example, the automotive industry now applies this process to turn hardened ring gears, side gears, axle shafts and similar components. Refer to the case study presented in Figure 4-4.
Pinion: Hardened Steel HRc = 62 - 63 = 0.15-0.2 mm = 0.08 mm/rev. = 100-180 rn/min. Tool Designation Insert Designation = CDJNR 2525 Ml 5 = DNGN 150812T Tool Life = 130 Pieces R. < 18crm

Machining
Cost

Production
Time

Tool Changing
Co.9

Figure 4-4. Case study - automotive

pinion production.

54 TOOL

Ceramic Cutting Took DESIGN

Aluminum oxide/titanium carbide composite cutting tools are exclusively used as indexable inserts. Solid ceramic tools or brazed tools made of this composite are rarely applied. The lower bending strength and toughness of this composite in comparison to cemented carbides has led to the design of toolholders with deeper pockets to accept thicker ceramic inserts. Insert holding systems applicable for ceramic composite cutting tools are similar to those designed for cemented carbides. Top clamping and/or hole clamping is common for regular insert styles, such as rounds, squares, triangles, 80 diamonds and 55 diamonds. However, in rough turning it is practical to use fixed or adjustable chipbreakers to obtain better distribution of the clamping force (Figure 4-5).

Clamping element with thrust plate (for short chip material)

Clamping element with adjustable chip breaker

Notch Clamping

Center hole clamping

Figure 4-5. Clamping

systems with various chipbreaker

types.

Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Tools

55

Negative rake style inserts are preferable but in situations where low cutting pressure is required, positive rake style inserts are also used. Tool nose radii of 0.4 mm (0.016 inches) or smaller are rarely suitable for carboxide ceramic cutting tools. V-bottom style indexable tools with top clamp are recommended with single ended grooving inserts or round positive rake inserts, applicable for profiling or grooving (Figure 4-6). Edge preparations are another important factor in the performance of aluminum oxide titanium carbide composite cutting tools. The purpose of the edge preparation is to eliminate microchips from previous grinding operations and to strengthen and smooth the cutting edge. Table 4-3 provides information on typical edge preparations.

cut-off

Flat bottom grooving

Full nose radius grooving

Profiling

Figure 4-6. Various v-bottom style grooving using inserts with top clamps.

and profiling

tools

56

Ceramic Cutting Tools

Table 4-3. Typical Edge Preparations.

The edge preparation for indexable inserts consists either of a chamfer or a hone or a combination of both. The chamfer is characterized by the width and the angle as shown below, while the hone is identified by the radius Y. Edge preparation selection is especially critical for ceramic inserts and should be matched to the application for which the Insert IS to be applied. In general larger chamfers with or without hone are recommended for rough turning while smaller chamfers and/or hones are recommended for finish turning.

Process Finish Turning Finish Turning Roughing Roughing Heavy Roughing Roll Turning
l l

Rake Angle Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Neutral

W(mm) x a 0.08 x 25 0.08 x 20 0.2 x 20 0.2 x 25 0.3 x 3o 0.15 x 2V

Additional hone 0.03mm / 0.05mm recommended

MACHINING

RECOMMENDATIONS

The basic machining recommendations are cutting speed, feedrate and depth of cut. The shape and size of the work piece, the material and its hardness, surface finish and dimensional tolerances, machine tool capabilities and production quantities are factors determining machining recommendations. For carboxide ceramic cutting tools, the most critical parameter is the selection of the feedrate. The feedrate determines the surface finish but also may cause breakage of the insert when too high a feedrate is selected.

Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Tools

57

Table 4-4 provides general guidelines for the selection of feedrate and tool nose radius to achieve a specific surface finish. For practical reasons, selection of the conditions that will achieve 50% of the maximum permissible roughness is recommended. Table 4-4. Peak to Valley Height Depending Corner Radius. on Feedrate and

25

100

14.2

60

9.25-1

40

r=
1 E 5 aI2 B

5.5 -

25

2.9 - i -210 2

15

5 1.33-q I) 5 0.93-B % iti 5 It > 0.53ii g 0.34-

7 5

3 2

0.16]

0.09' w

0.6 0.1 Pm 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

Feedrate (mm/rev.)

Figures 4-7 and 4-8 describe the relationship between feedrate and undeformed chip thickness for straight and round cutting edges. The maximum undeformed chip thickness is limited by the strength and toughness of the cutting edge in relation to the hardness and strength of the work piece materials.

58

Ceramic Cutting Tools

Figure 4-7. Feedrate (f) vs. undeformed cutting edges.

chip thickness for straight

Figure 4-8. Feedrate (f) vs. undeformed cutting edges.

chip thickness

for round

Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Tools Tables 4-5 and 4-6 present feedrate permissible with various cutting tools when turning gray cast Additional guidelines are provided ferrous metals with aluminum oxide in Tables 4-7 and 4-8.

59

guidelines for the maximum styles of carboxide ceramic iron and medium carbon steel. for the turning of various titanium carbide cutting tools

Table 4-5. Guidelines for Maximum Feedrate vs. Nose Radius and Edge Preparation Permissible with AI,O,/TiC Composite Cutting Tools for Gray Cast Iron and Medium Carbon Steel.

Turning of medium carbon steel (200 BHN) Lead angle .080 8;:
8 d c

Nose Radius .064 .048 .032

0.014 0.020 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.014 0.007 0.010 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.006

Edge .016
0.005 0.006 0.003 0.004

Prep

0
-3" -5"

0.015 0.022
0.010 0.014

w = 0.008" a=200

Turning of gray cast iron (180 BHN)

Lead angle .080 8 :z 0

-5" -3" 0.018 0.025 0.016 0.011

Nose .064
0.016 0.022 0.014 0.010

Radius .048 .032

0.008 0.011 0.007 0.006

Edge .016
0.006 0.007 0.005 0.003

Prep

0.012 0.016 0.011 0.008

w = 0.008" a=200

60

Ceramic Cutting Tools

Table 4-6. Guidelines for Maximum Feedrate (mm/rev) Permissible with AI,O,/TiC Composite Cutting Tools for Gray Cast Iron and Medium Carbon Steel.

The feedrate fdepends on the depth of cut and the diameter of the insert. After determining the maximum permissable chip thickness chip,from the first table below, select the factor M from the second table below to calculate the feedrate by following this formula:

f = chip, x M
t
Brinell
225 255 285 325 370 400 480 525 580 635 690

Han ess Vickers ShoreC 34 237 266 38

42 48 54 57 67 71 73 80 85 302 345 390 390 513 560 613 674 746

Recommended max.
Rockwell
20 25 30 35 40 43 50 53 56 59 62

Chip
0.35 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.10
1

Depth of Cut (mm) 0.30 0.50 1.02 1.52 2.03 3.05 4.06

with various IC Fa or Mfor rounl insert: Bnly 16 19 1 25 1 32 6 10 I 13 4.0 4.6 5.1 3.6 3.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.0 2.8 2.2 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.4 1.6 2.0 --1.7 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.4 --1.6 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.5 ___ ___ 1.4 1.5 1.7 --1.3 ___ ___----

Aluminum Oxide/Titanium Carbide Composite Tools Table 4-7. Machining Recommendations for Turning Steels with AI,O,/TiC Composite Cutting Tools.

61 Various

Hardness Material Carbon Steels 1000Series (BHN) 110 170 (5 Rc) 230(20 Rc) 290(31 Rc) 350(38 Rc) 400(43 Rc) 110 170 (5 Rc) 230(20 Rc) 290(31 Rc) 350(38 Rc) 400(43 Rc) 336(36 Rc) 390(42 Rc) 450(48 Rc) 514(52 Rc) 578(56 Rc) 653(60Rc) 712(64 Rc)

T
I

Cutting Speed (Si=M-)

From Mediin To

/ /
From

Feedrate

(IPR)
Itiedian To

650 500 400 350 250 230 600 450 350 300 250 200 300 250 230 200 175 150 100

2300 2100 1800 1500 1300 1000 2100 1900 1600 1300 1200 800 800 850 750 660 550 450 400

4000 3500 2600 2000 1500 1100 3800 3200 2400 1800 1400 1100 1200 1100 980 800 650 550 450

.003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 ---------------

.012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .014 .Oll .008 .007 .006 .005 .004

.030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 .030 max max max max max max max

Alloy Steels

Hardened Steels

62

Ceramic Cutting Tools

Table 4-8. Machining Recommendations for Turning Various Cast Irons and Other Materials with AI,O,/TiC Composite Cutting Tools.
Hardness Material Chilled Cast Irons 326 370 400 435 480 530 578 630 685 (BHN) (35 (40 (43 (46 (50 (53 (56 (59 (62 Rc) Rc) Rc) Rc) Rc) Rc) Rc)

l-

Cutting

Speed
I

r
To =rom ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _-_ ___ ___ ___

Feedrate
T

From

n hdiar
520 460 390 330 290 260 230 200 160 2300 1650 1100 1600 1400 1150 900 800 600 900 800 600 500

(IPR) Ivlediin To

Rc)
Rc)

390 330 300 250 200 170 150 130 100 650 650 350 1000 800 500 600 600 400 600 400 400 300

790 720 660 590 520 460 390 330 260 3906 230(1 150(3 200(1 18oc) 13Oc 1200 1oOc 800 1200 1oOc 800 600
-

.Oll .OlO .009 .008 .007 .006 .006 .005 .004 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .012 .006 .006 .006 .006 .006 .005 .004
-

max max max max max max max max max .030 .030 .020 .030 .030 .030 .OlO .008 .008 .OlO .008 .008 .006

Gray,
Malleable Cast Irons Nodular Cast Irons lnconel 600, Monel

150-200 200 - 250 250 - 300 140 190 (10 Rc) 240 (23 Rc) 115 200 (14 Rc) 360 (39 Rc) 360 (39 Rc) 450 (47 Rc) 300 (32 Rc) 375 (40 Rc)

003 003 003 003 003 003 005 004 004 005 004 003 002

lnconel700, Waspalloy Hastelloy, Rene

REFERENCES 1. Evans, A.G., Philos. Mag., 2b p. 1327 (1972). 2. Wiederhom, S.M., J. Mat. Sci., 18 p. 766 (1983). 3. Burden, S.J. et al., Amer. Ceram. Sot. Bull., 67 p. 1003 (1988).