Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Review

Comparative assessment of wiper and conventional ceramic

tools on surface roughness in hard turning AISI 4140 steel
Mohamed Elbah a,, Mohamed Athmane Yallese a,1, Hamdi Aouici a,1, Tarek Mabrouki b,2,
Jean-Franois Rigal b,2
a
b

Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, PO Box 401, Guelma 24000, Algeria
LaMCoS, CNRS, INSA Lyon, UMR5259, Lyon University, F69621, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 October 2012
Received in revised form 25 February 2013
Accepted 17 June 2013
Available online 26 June 2013
Keywords:
Wiper ceramic
Roughness
3D surface topography
Hard turning
RSM
Wear

a b s t r a c t
This study considers the comparison between the surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt)
of the wiper inserts with conventional inserts during hard turning of AISI 4140 hardened
steel (60 HRC).The planning of experiments was based on Taguchis L27 orthogonal array.
The response surface methodology (RSM) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to
check the validity of quadratic regression model and to determine the signicant parameter affecting the surface roughness. The statistical analysis reveals that the feed rate and
depth of cut have signicant effects in reducing the surface roughness. The optimum
machining conditions to produce the best possible surface roughness in the range of this
experiment under these experimental conditions searched using desirability function
approach for multiple response factors optimization. The results indicate that the surface
quality obtained with the wiper ceramic insert signicantly improved when compared
with conventional ceramic insert is 2.5. Roughness measurements reveal a dependence
on CC6050WH tool wear. However, although the wear rises up to the allowable ank wear
of value 0.3 mm, roughness Ra did not exceeded 0.9 lm.
Crown Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents
1.
2.

3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Material, workpiece and tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Graphic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Study of surface roughness response surface method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
ANOVA and effects of factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1.
Arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.
Mean depth of roughness (Rz). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3.
Total roughness (Rt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Regression equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3042
3043
3043
3045
3045
3045
3045
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +213 (0) 37 21 58 50.

E-mail addresses: elbah_med@yahoo.fr (M. Elbah), yalese@yahoo.fr (M.A. Yallese), aouici_hamdi@yahoo.fr (H. Aouici), Tarek.Mabrouki@insa-lyon.fr
(T. Mabrouki), jean-francois.rigal@insa-lyon.fr (J.-F. Rigal).
1
Tel./fax: +213 (0) 37 21 58 50.
2
Tel.: +33 4 72 43 82 84; fax: +33 4 72 43 89 13.
0263-2241/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.018

3042

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Nomenclature
aii
aj
ANOVA
ap
f
H
HRC
PC%
R2

4.

5.
6.

quadratic terms
coefcients of linear terms
analysis of variance
depth of cut (mm)
feed rate (mm/rev)
workpiece hardness
rockwell hardness
percentage contribution ratio (%)
determination coefcient

Ra
RSM
Rt
Rz
VB
Vc

arithmetic mean roughness (lm)

response surface method
total roughness (lm)
mean depth of prole (lm)
ank wear (mm)
cutting speed (m/min)

Responses surface analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.
3D Surface plots for surface roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
3D surface topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Roughness evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Optimization of machining condition and validation of experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction
The use of alumina based ceramic tools in hard machining is an attractive alternative to grinding in order to
reduce processing costs, improve material properties, and
for the environmental benets [1].
Many studies have been conducted to investigate the
performance of ceramics tools in the cutting of various
hardened materials. Wiper inserts are increasingly being
utilized during the last years. The inuences of the wiper
inserts on the surface roughness were described in turning
by Correia and Davim [2]. Using with wiper insert and
high feed rate, was obtained machined surface with
Ra < 0.8 lm. Benga and Arabo [3] and Kumar et al. [4]
observed a better surface quality in turning of hardened
steel components using alumina TiC ceramic tools.
Recently, Davim [5] has provided some industrial applications concerning the machining of hard materials. He had
also explained the physics of hard material removal based
on the mechanics of cutting and chip formation. Moreover,
dedicated computational methodologies for optimizing
hard machining process were discussed. Davim and Figueira [6] had evaluated the performance of conventional and
wiper ceramic tools in terms of cutting forces, surface
roughness and tool wear for hard turning AISI D2 steel. It
was reported that, while machining, the wiper ceramic
performed better in respect to surface roughness and tool
wear whereas the conventional ceramic exhibited less
machining force and power. Suresh et al. [7] evaluated
the performance of multilayer CVD coated TiN/TiCN/
Al2O3 cemented carbide inserts during machining of
hardened AISI 4340 steel having hardness of 48 HRC. The
analysis of results concluded that, low feed rate and depth
of cut and high cutting speed were benecial for minimizing the machining force and surface roughness. Asiltrk

3050
3050
3053
3053
3053
3055
3055
3055

and Akkus [8] carried out hard turning experiment on

hardened AISI 4140 steel (51 HRC) with coated carbide insert using Taguchi orthogonal array for surface roughness.
Results of this study indicate that the feed rate has the
most signicant effect on Ra and Rz. In addition, the effects
of two factor interactions of the feed rate-cutting speed
and depth of cutting speed appear to be important. However, other machinability characteristics like tool wear
and tool life, cutting force, chip morphology and cutting
temperature have not been considered for study which is
essential for hard turning.
The inuence of cutting speed, feed rate and machining
time on machinability aspects such as specic cutting
force, surface roughness and tool wear in AISI D2 cold work
tool steel hard turning was studied by Gaitonde et al. using
RSM [9] and ANN [10] based models. Fnides et al. [11] Conducted experimental study to determine statistical models
of surface roughness criteria in turning hardened AISI H11
(X38CrMoV5-1) steel (50 HRC) with mixed ceramic tool.
Mathematical models were elaborated based on the software Minitab in order to express the inuence degree of
each cutting regime on surface roughness. The results indicate that feed rate is the dominant factor affecting surface
roughness, followed by cutting speed. As for the depth of
cut, its effect is not very important. Yalesse et al. [12]
explored the effects of cutting conditions on mixed ceramic and cubic boron nitride tool wear and on surface
roughness during machining of X200Cr12 steel (60 HRC).
The analysis also revealed that, under the allowable wear
limit, the ceramic tool gave quality surfaces with higher
roughness than the CBN tool. Suresh et al. [13] focused
on machining mild steel and TiN-coated tungsten carbide
cutting tools for developing a surface roughness prediction
model using response surface methodology (RSM). Genetic
algorithms (GAs) were also used to optimize the objective

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

function and compared with RSM results. It was observed

that GA program provided minimum and maximum values
of surface roughness and their respective optimal machining conditions. Neseli et al. [14] have applied RSM to optimize the effect of tool geometry parameters on surface
roughness in the case of the hard turning of AISI 1040 with
P25 tool. Ramesh et al. [15] have used response surface
methodology for predicting the surface roughness in
machining of titanium alloy. The results revealed that the
feed is the most inuential factor which affects the surface
roughness. Sahoo and Sahoo [16] investigated ank wear,
surface roughness, chip morphology and cutting forces in
hard turning of AISI 4340 steel (47 HRC); using uncoated
and multilayer TiN and ZrCN coated carbide inserts. Experimental results showed that multilayer TiN/TiCN/Al2O3/TiN
coated carbide inserts performed better than the uncoated
and TiN/TiCN/Al2O3/ZrCN coated carbide inserts. Grzesik
and Wanat [17] presented a comparative study on surface
nish generated in a hard turning using conventional and
wiper ceramic inserts. According to these authors, keeping
equivalent feed rates, 0.1 mm/rev for conventional and
0.2 mm/rev for wiper inserts, the obtained surfaces have
similar roughness parameters and comparable values of
Skew and Kurtosis. Lima et al. [18] investigated the
machinability of hardened steels AISI 4340 and AISI D2
with different of hardness values, using various cutting
tool materials. The results indicated that when turning AISI
4340 steel the surface roughness improved with cutting
velocity and increases is deteriorated when feed rate increases. Depth of cut presents little effect on the surface
roughness values. Davim and Figueira [19] have evaluated
machinability turning AISI D2 hardened steel with ceramic
tools using statistical techniques. A plan of experiments
based on orthogonal arrays was designed made for turning
with pre-xed cutting parameters. Their tests show that
with the appropriated choice of cutting parameters it is
possible to obtain a surface roughness (Ra < 0.8 mm) that
allows cylindrical grinding operations to be eliminated.
Grzesik and Wanat [20] presented a new analysis of part
surface roughness in continuous cylindrical dry turning
of hardened steel (AISI 5140) when using mixed alumina
cutting tools. Results show that hard turning produces
specic surface proles and microstructures, although the

Fig. 1. Surface generation by wiper and conventional inserts.

3043

Ra values of about 0.25 mm are comparable to those produced by nish grinding. Subsequently, Gaitonde et al.
[21] explored the effects of depth of cut and machining
time on machinability aspects such as machining force,
power, specic cutting force, surface roughness, and tool
wear by using second-order mathematical models during
turning of high chromium content AISI D2 cold work tool
steel with CC650, CC650WG and GC6050WH ceramic inserts. zel et al. [22] indicate that the average surface
roughness (Ra) is attainable with wiper tools, with values
around 0.20 lm. Aouici et al. [23] applied response surface
methodology (RSM) to investigate the effect of cutting
parameters on surface roughness in hard turning of AISI
H11 with CBN tool. Recently, Aouici et al. [24] have applied
response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize the effect
of cutting parameters at the different levels of hardness
workpiece on surface roughness in the case of the hard
turning of AISI H11 with CBN tool. Chou et al. [25], Thiele
and Melkote [26] and zel et al. [27] identied various factors affecting cutting forces, surface roughness, and surface
integrity by conducting several experiments in hard turning of various grades of steels using CBN tools. Recently,
high feed rate turning with excellent surface roughness
become an important development with the introduction
of wiper inserts. Fig. 1 shows conventional and wiper (multi-radii) geometry. Today, multi-radii tool nose shaping
known as wiper insert geometry is a tool used in machining technology and designed for nish cutting, to give a
smooth surface on the surface being cut. It uses special
geometry multi-radii (Fig. 1) to give a good surface nish
on the workpiece at a higher-than-normal feed rate. Wiper
inserts generally have a lot of area in contact with the
workpiece, so they exert a lot of force on the workpiece [2].

2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Material, workpiece and tool
AISI 4140 steel with an initial grain size of about
120 lm was used as the samples for hot compression; torsion test and ability for polishing enable it to answer the
most severe requests in spindles, logging parts and pump
shafts. The chemical composition of the steel is listed in
Table 1. The workpiece is hardened to 60 HRC. Its hardness
was measured by a digital durometer DM2-D 390. It is
of 72 mm in diameter and it is machined under dry
conditions.
Type inserts ceramic tools reference CC6050WH,
CNGA120408S01525WH (ISO) and reference CC6050,
CNGA120408 S01525 (ISO) were used to machine the AISI
4140 steel with a geometry as follows: rake angle 6, 6
clearance angle and 75 approach edge. All ceramic tools
are the same chemical composition with Al2O3 (70%) and
TiC (30%). A type PCBNR2525M12 (ISO) tool holder was
used. The lathe used for machining operations is TOS
TRENCIN; model SN40C, spindle power 6.6 KW. The measurements of surface roughness (Ra, Rz and Rt) for each cutting condition were obtained from a Surftest 201 Mitutoyo
roughness meter. It consists of a diamond point (probe)
with a 5 lm radius and moves linearly on the working sur-

3044

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Table 1
Nominal chemical composition of AISI 4140 steel (wt%).
Composition

Mn

Si

Cu

Al

Ti

Nb

Ni

Cr

Mo

Va

Sn

(wt%)

0.43

0.79

0.24

0.024

0.025

0.029

0.004

0.001

0.022

1.10

0.19

0.005

0.002

Fig. 2. Experimental set up to measure the 3D surface topography of the machined workpiece.

face. The length examined is 4.0 mm with a basic span of

0.8 mm. The measurements were repeated three times
out of three generatrices equally positioned at 120 and
the result is an average of these values for a given machining pass.

In addition, four measurements were made using a 3D

with optical platform of metrology modular Altisurf 500.
The three-dimensional topographic maps of the machined
surfaces were produced using the interferometry
technique (Fig. 2). 3D data were also taken along the

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

pitch-surface generator, shape was removed and then

parameters were calculated with the Gaussian lter
(cut-off was 0.8 mm).
2.2. Experimental design

k
k
k
X
X
X
bi X i
bij X i X j
bii X 2i
i1

was obtained in the range of (0.220.45; 1.252.37 and

1.572.78) lm respectively (Ra, Rz and Rt) for CC6050WH,
on the other hand (0.641.38; 3.245.71 and 3.856.49)
lm respectively (Ra, Rz and Rt) for CC6050.
3.1. Graphic analysis

The response surface methodology (RSM) is the procedure for determining the relationship between the independent process parameters with the desired response
and exploring the effect of these parameters on responses,
including six steps [28]. These are, in the following order,
(1) dene the independent input variables and the desired
responses with the design constants, (2) adopt an experimental design plan, (3) perform regression analysis with
the quadratic model of RSM, (4) calculate the statistical
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the independent input
variables in order to nd which parameter signicantly
affects the desired response, then, (5) determine the situation of the quadratic model of RSM and decide whether the
model of RSM needs screening variables or not and nally,
(6) Optimize and conduct conrmation experiment and
verify the predicted performance characteristics.
The surface roughness parameters; arithmetic mean
roughness (Ra), total roughness (Rt) and mean depth of
prole (Rz) have been measured after the straight turning
operation. Using L27 Taguchi standard orthogonal array,
the experimental results are given in Table 3. This plan
was developed for establishing the quadratic model of surface roughness.
This model can be written as follows:

Y b0

3045

i;j

i1

where Y is the desired response: the surface roughness, b0

is constant, bj, bii and bij represent the coefcients of linear,
quadratic and cross-product terms, respectively. Xi reveals
the coded variables that correspond to the studied cutting
parameters.
Using this quadratic model of the response function in
this study was not only to investigate over the entire factor
space, but also to locate the region of being desired target
where the response approaches its optimum or near
optimal value. The tests were designed according to full
factorial design and conducted in dry cutting conditions.
Totally, 27 experiments (L27) were performed by the combinations of cutting parameters that are given in Table 2.

Figs. 3 and 4 express the evolution of surface roughness

criteria versus feed rate, for several depth of cut. According
to the graph, it can be seen that the surface roughness increase with increase feed rate, because its increase generates helicoids furrows the result tool shape helicoids
movement tool-workpiece. These furrows are deeper and
broader as the feed rate increases [29]. For this reason,
weak feed rate has to be employed during turning operation. Similar results were reported by Bouchelaghem [30]
when turning AISI D3 steel (60 HRC) using CBN tool. Maximal values of surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rt and Rz)
were registered at Vc = 80 m/min and f = 0.14 mm/rev and
ap = 0.10 mm (test number 7). In order to achieve
better surface nish, the highest level of cutting speed,
150 m/min, the lowest level of feed rate, 0.08 mm/rev,
should be recommended.
3.2. Study of surface roughness response surface method
The tests for signicance of the regression and individual model coefcients were performed to verify the goodness of t for the obtained model. The analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was applied to summarize these tests [15].
Additionally, plots of main effects and 3D response surface
corresponding to each ANOVA analysis were constructed.
These plots are used to investigate the inuences of cutting
parameters on the surface roughness, and are illustrated in
Figs. 514.
The statistical signicances of the tted quadratic models were evaluated by the P-values of ANOVA. Values are
given in Tables 46. When P-values are less than 0.05 (or
95% condence), the obtained models are considered to
be statistically signicant. It demonstrates that the terms
chosen in the model have signicant effects on the
responses. The other important coefcient is the determination coefcient, R2, which are dened as the ratio of
the explained variation to the total variation and is a measure of the degree of t. When R2 approaches to unity, the
better the response model ts the actual data.
3.3. ANOVA and effects of factors

3. Results and discussion

Table 3 shows all values of surface roughness for two
inserts; CC6050WH and CC6050. The surface roughness
Table 2
Cutting parameters and their levels for turning.
Symbol

Control factor

Unit

Vc
f
ap

Cutting speed
Feed rate
Depth of cut

m/min
mm/rev
mm

Levels
Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

80
0.08
0.1

115
0.11
0.2

150
0.14
0.3

The results of analysis of variance for surface roughness

criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) are shown in Tables 46. These
tables also show the degrees of freedom (DF), sum of
squares (SS), mean square (MS), F-values (F-value) and
probability (Prob.) in addition to the percentage contribution (Contr.%) of each factor and different interactions. A
low P-value indicates statistical signicance for the source
on the corresponding response.
It was done an ANOVA of the measured roughness
parameters, with the objective of analyzing the inuence
of cutting speed (Vc), feed rate (f) and depth of cut (ap)
on the total variance of the results. The characterization

3046

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Table 3
L27 (33) orthogonal array, experimental results.
Test no.

Factors

Surface roughness
CC6050WH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

CC6050

Vc (m/min)

f (mm/rev)

ap (mm)

Ra (lm)

Rz (lm)

Rt (lm)

Ra (lm)

Rz (lm)

Rt (lm)

80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150
80
115
150

0.08
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.14

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30

0.24
0.23
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.33
0.31
0.33
0.36
0.28
0.24
0.25
0.32
0.31
0.29
0.36
0.36
0.38
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.33
0.40
0.36
0.42
0.45
0.38

1.41
1.29
1.25
1.56
1.51
1.48
2.37
1.85
1.66
1.53
1.29
1.49
1.70
1.55
1.59
2.07
2.10
1.95
1.70
1.52
1.63
1.93
1.85
1.97
1.94
2.06
2.26

1.58
1.57
1.75
2.56
2.05
2.17
2.78
2.25
2.32
2.02
1.58
1.78
2.24
2.03
1.92
2.32
2.12
2.44
2.23
1.94
2.16
2.37
2.46
2.27
2.52
2.67
2.56

0.69
0.67
0.67
0.93
0.92
0.91
1.32
1.38
1.31
0.80
0.72
0.64
0.91
0.89
0.87
1.16
1.16
1.06
0.70
0.72
0.65
0.78
0.70
0.72
0.98
0.99
0.94

3.79
3.69
3.49
4.28
4.17
3.99
5.80
5.71
5.54
3.80
3.73
3.58
4.55
4.47
4.32
5.20
5.30
4.74
3.81
3.91
3.60
3.24
4.00
4.07
4.47
4.63
4.28

4.12
3.92
3.97
4.53
4.94
4.40
6.49
5.95
5.79
4.20
4.02
3.85
5.51
5.15
4.96
5.76
5.38
5.46
4.16
4.22
3.89
4.67
4.45
3.96
4.73
4.81
4.67

Fig. 3. Surface roughness evolution when cutting with the CC6050WH insert (Vc = 115 m/min).

of the machined surface quality was limited to the criteria

of arithmetic mean roughness (Ra), mean depth of roughness (Rz) and total roughness (Rt).
3.3.1. Arithmetic mean roughness (Ra)
Table 4 presents ANOVA results for Ra. It can be seen that
the feed rate is the most important factor affecting surface
nish Ra. Its contribution is (63.455 and 74.517)% respectively; (CC6050WH and CC6050) to these models, because
its increase generates helicoids furrows the result of tool

shape and helicoids movement tool-workpiece. These

furrows are deeper and broader as the feed rate increases.
However, a qualitative comparison can be made; for example,
Thamizhmanii et al. [31] found that the feed rate and depth of
cut are the important factors affecting surface roughness. The
second factor inuencing Ra is depth of cut. Its contribution is
(33.594 and 12.283)% respectively (CC6050WH and CC6050).
The effect of the cutting speed is not signicant because its
contribution is 0.560% for CC6050WH, but the interactions
Vc  f and Vc  ap are not signicant.

3047

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Fig. 4. Surface roughness evolution when cutting with the CC6050 insert (Vc = 115 m/min).

1.4
0.45
1.2

0.35

Ra, m

Ra, m

0.4

0.3

0.8

0.25
0.6

0.2

0.30
0.20

ap, mm

f, mm/rev

0.10
0.10 0.08

0.11

0.20

0.11
0.15

0.13

0.25

0.13

ap, mm

0.14

0.30

0.14
0.25

0.15

(a) CC6050WH

0.10

f, mm/rev

0.10 0.08

(b) CC6050

Fig. 5. Effect of depth of cut and feed rate on Ra (Vc = 115 m/min).

2.2

5.5
5
Rz, m

Rz, m

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

4.5
4
3.5

0.30

0.13

0.25

ap, mm

0.14

0.11

0.20
0.15

0.10
0.10 0.08

f, mm/rev

(a) CC6050WH

0.30

0.25

ap, mm

0.20

0.15

0.10 0.08

0.10

0.11

0.13

0.14

f, mm/rev

(b) CC6050

Fig. 6. Effect of depth of cut and feed rate on Rz (Vc = 115 m/min).

3.3.2. Mean depth of roughness (Rz)

ANOVA results for Rz are indicated in Table 5. It can be
noted that the feed rate affects Rz in a considerable way,
with (70.474 and 70.964)% contribution respectively
(CC6050WH and CC6050). The next factor inuencing

(Rz) is the depth of cut with (16.30 and 9.337)% contribution values.
The cutting speed (Vc) with (2.301 and 0.832)% contributions, has a very weak signicance effect. Similarly,
the interactions (Vc  f), (Vc  Vc) and (ap  ap) are not

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

2.6

2.4

5.5

2.2

Rt, m

Rt, m

3048

2
1.8
1.6

4.5
4
3.5

1.4

0.30
0.13

0.25

0.14

0.10

0.15

0.11

0.20

f, mm/rev

0.10 0.08

0.13

0.25

0.11

0.20

ap, mm

0.14

0.30

ap, mm

0.10

0.15
0.10 0.08

(a) CC6050WH

f, mm/rev

(b) CC6050

Fig. 7. Effect of depth of cut and feed rate on surface roughness Rt (Vc = 115 m/min).

Surface roughness, m

3
2.5
2
1.5

Meas-Ra
Pred-Ra
Meas-Rz
Pred-Rz
Meas-Rt
Pred-Rt

1
0.5
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Experimental run order

Fig. 8. Measured and predicted values of surface roughness parameters for the CC6050WH insert.

MeasRa
predRa
MeasRz
predRz
MeasRt
predRt

Surface roughness, m

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Eperimental run order

Fig. 9. Measured and predicted values of surface roughness parameters for the CC6050 insert.

signicant. Rz model is given by Eqs. (2) and (5). Its coefcient of correlation R2 is (89.28 and 93.10)% respectively
(wiper and conventional ceramic).
3.3.3. Total roughness (Rt)
Finally from the Table 6, it can be apparently seen
that the feed rate is the most important factor affecting

Rt. Its contribution is (65.678 and 70.615)% respectively

(CC6050WH and CC6050). The next factor inuencing (Rt)
is the depth of cut with (10.673 and 9.073)% contribution
respectively (CC6050WH and CC6050). The interactions
Vc  f and Vc  ap are not signicant. Rt model is given by
Eqs. (3) and (6). Its coefcient of correlation R2 is (84.84
and 91.11)% respectively (wiper and conventional ceramic).

3049

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Surface roughness Ra, m

1.6

Ra(CC6050WH)

Ra(CC6050)

RaCC6050 2.8 RaCC6050WH

1.4
1.2

Average line

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

Average line

0
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Experimental run order

Fig. 10. Comparison between CC6050WH and CC6050 for surface roughness Ra.

Surface roughness Rz, m

Rz(6050WH)

RzCC6050 2.5RzCC6050WH

Rz(CC6050)

6
5
Average line

4
3
2
1
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Experimental run order

Fig. 11. Comparison between CC6050WH and CC6050 for surface roughness Rz.

Surface roughness Rt, m

Rt (6050WH)

Rt (CC6050)

RtCC6050 2.2 Rt CC6050WH

6
Average line

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Eperimental run order

Fig. 12. Comparison between CC6050WH and CC6050 for surface roughness Rt.

3.4. Regression equations

The relationship between the factors and the performance measures were modeled by quadratic regression.
The regression equations obtained were as follows.
The arithmetic mean roughness (Rawiper) model is given
below in Eq. (2). Its coefcient of determination (R2) is
87.92%.
4

Rawiper 0:018 8:571  10 Vc 1:900f  0:028ap

Raconv : 0:368 1:696  103 Vc  4:569f 3:834ap

6:349  103 Vc  f  2:381  103 Vc
 ap  31:667f  ap  1:179  105 Vc2
80:247f 2  2:444ap2

3:174  103 Vc  f  1:667  103 Vc

 ap 0:278f  ap  3:175  106 Vc2
 2:469f 2 1:444ap2

The arithmetic mean roughness (Raconv.) model is given

below in Eq. (3). Its coefcient of determination (R2) is
98.12%.

The Mean depth of roughness (Rzwiper) model is given

below in Eq. (4). Its coefcient of determination (R2) is
89.28%.

3050

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

(b)

(a)

Length = 5.94 mm Pt = 6.34 m Scale = 10.0 m

Length = 5.94 mm Pt = 6.34 m Scale = 10.0 m

-2

-2

-4

-4

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5 mm

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5 mm

Fig. 13. 3D topography for turning with CC6050 insert, (a) f = 0.08 mm/rev and (b) f = 0.14 mm/rev.

Rzwiper 2:407  0:0204Vc  0:186f  1:984ap  0:019Vc

4. Responses surface analysis

 f 0:029Vc  ap  14:444f  ap 6:576

 105 Vc2 67:284f 2 3:889ap2

The Mean depth of roughness (Rzconv.) model is given by

the following Eq. (5) with a determination coefcient (R2)
of 93.10%.

Rzconv : 2:033 0:021Vc  19:709f 12:773ap

 0:014Vc  f 0:031Vc  ap  111:667f
 ap  1:211  104 Vc2 301:851f 2
 16:166ap2

The total roughness model (Rtwiper) is given by Eq. (6)

with a determination coefcient (R2) of 84.84%.

Rtwiper 1:583  0:038Vc 38:176f  4:519ap

 0:012Vc  f 0:013Vc  ap  28:611f
 ap 1:202  104 Vc2  95:679f 2
18:389ap2

The total roughness model (Rtconv.) is given by Eq. (7)

with a determination coefcient (R2) of 91.11%.

Rtconv : 0:739 3:507  103 Vc 46:529f

21:625ap  0:023Vc  f  1:428  103 Vc
 ap  118:889f  ap  2:539  105 Vc2
15:432f 2  27:278ap2

4.1. 3D Surface plots for surface roughness

3D surface plots of surface roughness versus different
combinations of cutting parameters are shown in Figs.
57. These gures were obtained using response surface
methodology (RSM).
Fig. 4 shows the effect of depth of cut and feed rate on
surface roughness (Ra). According to the previous analysis,
Table 4 indicates that the effect of depth of cut (ap) and the
feed rate (f) are the largest statistically signicant and the
best surface roughness (Ra) results with the combination
of lowest feed rate and low depth of cut at the middle cutting speed. Similar results were reported by Asiltrk and
Neseli [32] when turning AISI 304 steel using coated carbide tool.
The 3D surface graphs for the Rz are shown in Fig. 6. It is
clear from Fig. 6 that Rz decrease with decrease in depth of
cut and feed rate. Therefore, the ideal combination of control factors for lowest surface roughness should consist of
minimum depth of cut, minimum feed rate and maximum
cutting speed.
The inuence of depth of cut (ap) and feed rate (f) on total
roughness (Rt) is depicted in Fig. 7. The previous analyses
have shown that the interaction of (ap) and (f) are statistically signicant for conventional insert (CC6050); on the
other hand not signicant for wiper insert (CC6050WH)
and it is concluded that the lower feed rate and the lower
depth of cut resulted in lower total surface (Rt) [8,14].

3051

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

(b)
(a)

Length = 5.86 mm Pt = 2.79 m Scale = 5.00 m

m
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5

Length = 5.79 mm Pt = 4.11 m Scale = 10.0 m

m
4
2
0
-2
-4

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5 mm

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5 mm

Fig. 14. 3D topography for turning with CC6050WH insert, (a) f = 0.08 mm/rev and (b) f = 0.14 mm/rev.

Table 4
Analysis of variance for Ra.
DF

MS

F-value

Prob.

Cont.%

Remarks

(a) Wiper: CC6050WH

Model
0.081
Vc
4.500E4
f
0.051
ap
0.027
Vc  f
1.333E4
Vc  ap
4.083E4
f  ap
8.333E6
Vc  Vc
9.074E5
ff
2.963E5
ap  ap
1.252E3
Error
0.011
Total
0.092

Source

SS

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

8.977E3
4.500E4
0.051
0.027
1.333E4
4.083E4
8.333E6
9.074E5
2.963E5
1.252E3
6.531E4

13.75
0.69
78.40
41.68
0.20
0.63
0.013
0.14
0.045
1.92

0.0001
0.4180
0.0001
0.0001
0.6571
0.4400
0.9114
0.7139
0.8339
0.1841

0.560
63.455
33.594
0.166
0.508
0.010
0.113
0.037
1.558

Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant

(b) Conventional: CC6050

Model
1.21
Vc
0.014
f
0.91
ap
0.15
Vc  f
5.333E4
Vc  ap
8.333E4
f  ap
0.11
Vc  Vc
1.252E3
ff
0.031
ap  ap
3.585E3
Error
0.023
Total
1.24

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

0.13
0.014
0.91
0.15
5.333E4
8.333E4
0.11
1.252E3
0.031
3.585E3
1.365E3

100
98.67
10.17
664.22
106.80
0.39
0.61
79.33
0.92
22.93
2.63

0.0001
0.0054
0.0001
0.0001
0.5402
0.4454
0.0001
0.3517
0.0002
0.1235

1.146
74.517
12.283
0.044
0.068
9.008
0.103
2.538
0.294
100

Signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant

3052

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Table 5
Analysis of variance for Rz.
Source

DF

MS

F-value

Prob.

Cont.%

Remarks

(a) Wiper: CC6050WH

Model
2.09
Vc
0.048
f
1.47
ap
0.34
Vc  f
4.800E3
Vc  ap
0.13
f  ap
0.023
Vc  Vc
0.039
ff
0.022
ap  ap
9.074E3
Error
0.25
Total
2.34

SS

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

0.23
0.048
1.47
0.34
4.800E3
0.13
0.023
0.039
0.022
9.074E3
0.015

15.73
3.26
99.86
23.16
0.33
8.68
1.53
2.64
1.49
0.61

0.0001
0.0889
0.0001
0.0002
0.5759
0.0090
0.2333
0.1227
0.2387
0.4437

2.301
70.474
16.300
0.230
6.232
1.103
1.870
1.055
0.435

Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant

(b) Conventional: CC6050

Model
11.78
Vc
0.098
f
8.36
ap
1.10
Vc  f
2.700E3
Vc  ap
0.14
f  ap
1.35
Vc  Vc
0.13
ff
0.44
ap  ap
0.16
Error
0.87
Total
12.65

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

1.31
0.098
8.36
1.10
2.700E3
0.14
1.35
0.13
0.44
0.16
0.051

100
25.49
1.91
162.91
21.43
0.053
2.66
26.23
2.57
8.62
3.05

0.0001
0.1844
0.0001
0.0002
0.8214
0.1213
0.0001
0.1272
0.0092
0.0986

0.832
70.964
9.337
0.023
1.188
11.459
1.103
3.735
1.358

Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant

100

Table 6
Analysis of variance for Rt.
Source

DF

MS

F-value

Prob.

Cont.%

Remarks

(a) Wiper:CC6050WH
Model
2.44
Vc
0.087
f
1.60
ap
0.26
Vc  f
2.133E3
Vc  ap
0.025
f  ap
0.088
Vc  Vc
0.13
ff
0.044
ap  ap
0.20
Error
0.44
Total
2.87

SS

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

0.27
0.087
1.60
0.26
2.133E3
0.025
0.088
0.13
0.044
0.20
0.026

10.57
3.39
62.48
10.02
0.083
0.98
3.45
5.07
1.74
7.91

0.0001
0.0833
0.0001
0.0057
0.7765
0.3353
0.0807
0.0378
0.2052
0.0120

3.571
65.678
10.673
0.088
1.026
3.612
5.336
1.806
8.210

Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Signicant

(b) Conventional:CC6050
Model
12.66
Vc
0.58
f
8.95
ap
1.15
Vc  f
7.008E3
Vc  ap
3.000E4
f  ap
1.53
Vc  Vc
5.807E3
ff
1.157E3
ap  ap
0.45
Error
1.24
Total
13.89

9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
26

1.41
0.58
8.95
1.15
7.008E3
3.000E4
1.53
5.807E3
1.157E3
0.45
0.073

100

The predicted values of response factors illustrating

surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) for both ceramic
tools CC6050WH and CC6050, from regression Eqs. (2)(7)
corresponding to different combinations of machining
parameters are reported in Table 3. Moreover, they are

19.36
7.93
123.14
15.83
0.096
4.129E3
21.01
0.080
0.016
6.14

0.0001
0.0119
0.0001
0.0010
0.7599
0.9495
0.0003
0.7808
0.9010
0.0240

4.576
70.615
9.073
0.055
0.002
12.072
0.046
0.009
3.550

Signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Signicant
Not signicant
Not signicant
Signicant

100

compared with the corresponding experimental values

illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9.
Figs. 1012 show the comparison between the values of
the surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) for both ceramic tools CC6050WH and CC6050.The insert CC6050WH

3053

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

provides lower values than the CC6050 ceramic tool, which

translates to a decreased surface roughness with wiper
cutting radius. For example; RaCC6050  2.8RaCC6050WH,
RzCC6050  2.5Rz6050WH and RtCC6050  2.2RtCC6050WH.

roughness using the same cutting condition; Vc = 160 m/

min; f = 0.08 mm/rev and ap = 0.2 mm. Fig. 15 illustrate
this effect for the CC6050WH and CC6050 respectively.
Analysis shows that any increases in ank wear VB produces a corresponding deterioration in the machined surface quality.
For a time t = 10 min was recorded wear VBCC6050WH =
0.10 mm; VBCC6050 = 0.11 mm, which corresponds to the
surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) with the values
of (0.35; 2.24 and 2.54) lm for CC6050WH insert by
against the values (0.58; 3.58 and 4.18) lm for CC6050
insert.
For a time t = 50 min was recorded wear VBCC6050WH =
0.19 mm; VBCC6050 = 0.23 mm, which corresponds to the
surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) with the values
of (0.53; 3.18 and 3.8) lm for CC6050WH insert by against
the values (0.83; 4.63 and 4.91) lm for CC6050 insert.
At the end of the machining has been recorded wear
VBCC6050WH = 0.29 mm; VBCC6050 = 0.31 mm, which corresponds to the surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt)
with the values of (0.88; 5.16 and 5.49) lm for CC6050WH
insert by against the values (0.99; 6.55 and 7.32) lm for
CC6050 insert.
The analysis of the results (Fig. 15) shows that the wiper
ceramic cutting insert CC6050WH has the better performance compared with conventional ceramic cutting inserts CC6050, in particular the surface roughness of the
workpiece. On the other hand the average roughness Ra
did not exceed 0.88 lm for CC6050WH and 0.99 lm for
CC6050, that for a time cutting 90 min. Similar results were
reported by Grzesik and Wanat [17] and zel et al. [22] in a
hard turning using wiper ceramic inserts.

4.2. 3D surface topography

The representative examples of 3D images of hard
turned surfaces are visualized by means of four isometric
views and contour maps. Characteristic sharp and partially
blunt peaks localized by arrows are present in the scanned
surfaces obtained for conventional (Fig. 13a and b) and wiper (Fig. 14a and b) tools, respectively. These images are a
conrmation of the results obtained by [20] and others
[33,34]. The presence of the side ow along the peaks
ridges is very intense for (CC6050); on the other hand it
is less weak for machining by (CC6050WH).
The 2D surface proles of the hard turned surfaces
along the feed direction are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. It
must be noted that all the 2D proles have represented
pure roughness values, i.e. the waviness components have
been ltered out. The 2D prole along the feed direction for
conventional (CC6050) shows a very repeatable form of
peaks and valleys whereas the prole along the feed direction for wiper (CC6050WH) shows a random nature. The
prole has been taken along the valley portion of the
topography.
4.3. Roughness evolution
This subsection is dedicated to tracking the evolution of
the surface roughness of the steel AISI4140 depending on
the tool ank wear CC6050WH and CC6050. The objective
of this quantication is to highlight the relationship between the roughness of the surface considered as a criterion of quality of production and the cutting tools wear
an indicator of production control.
A series of experiments were carried out in order to
determine the effect of tool wear on machined surface

5. Optimization of machining condition and validation

of experiments
In this study, desirability function approach has been
used for multiple response factors (Ra, Rz and Rt) optimization using Design Expert Software. The optimization

VBwiper , mm

Rouhgness, m

0.101

0.13

0.166

0.187

0.195

0.221

0.24

0.267

t = 90 min

t = 50 min

t = 10 min

0.295

Rz (wiper)
Ra (conv)
Ra (wiper)
Rz (conv)
Rt (wiper)
Rt (conv)

0.113

0.161

0.181

0.21

0.232

0.259

0.27

0.293

0.311

VBconv , mm
Fig. 15. Flank wear effect on roughness at Vc = 160 m/min; f = 0.08 mm/rev; ap = 0.2 mm.

3054

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

module searches for a combination of factor levels that

simultaneously satises the requirements placed on each
of the responses and factors in an attempt to establish
the appropriate model.
During the optimization process the aim was to nd the
optimal values of machining parameters in order to produce the lowest surface roughness (Ra, Rz and Rt). To resolve this type of parameter design problem, an objective
function, F(x), is dened as follows [35]:

DF

n
Y

wi
di

j1

where di is the desirability dened for the ith targeted output and wi is the weighting of di. For various goals of each
targeted output, the desirability, di, is dened in different
forms. If a goal is to reach a specic value of Ti, the desirability di is:

di 0 if Y i 6 Lowi


di

Y i  Lowi
T i  Lowi

Yi  Highi
T i  Highi

if Lowi 6 Y i 6 T i


if T i 6 Y i 6 Highi

10

di 0 if Y i P Highi

11

For a goal to nd a maximum, the desirability is shown

as follows:

di 0 if Y i 6 Lowi
di

Yi  Lowi
Highi  Lowi

For a goal to search for a minimum, the desirability can

be dened by the following formulas:

di 1 if Y i 6 Lowi
di

Highi  Y i
Highi  Lowi

15
if Lowi 6 Y i 6 Highi

16
17

wi

Fx DF

14

di 0 if Y i P Highi

!Pn1

i1

di

di 1 if Y i P Highi

12
if Lowi 6 Y i 6 Highi

13

where the Yi is the found value of the ith output during

optimization processes; the Lowi and the Highi are, respectively, the minimum and the maximum values of the
experimental data for the ith output. In Eq. (6), wi is set
to one since the di is equally important in this study. The
DF is a combined desirability function [35], and the objective is to choose an optimal setting that maximizes a combined desirability function DF, i.e., minimizes F(x).
The constraints used during the optimization process
are summarized in Table 7 whereas the optimal solutions
are reported in Table 8 in order of decreasing desirability
level.
Table 8 shows the RSM optimization results for surface
roughness (Ra, Rz and Rt). The optimum cutting parameters
obtained in Table 8 for cutting speed of (103.42150) m/
min, feed rate of (0.080.09) mm/rev, respectively for
CC6050WH. On the other hand for CC6050 cutting speed
of (115150) m/min, feed rate of (0.080.1) mm/rev,
respectively (Table 9).
In order to verify the adequacy of the developed mathematical models, four conrmation run experiments were
performed. The test condition for rst two conrmation
experiments were among the cutting conditions that were
performed previously whilst the remaining two conrmation experiments were conditions that have not been used
previously but are within the range of the levels dened in

Table 7
Constraints for optimization of cutting conditions.
Condition

Goal

Lower limit
CC6050WH

Cutting speed (Vc)

Feed rate (f)
Depth of cut (ap)

Is in range
Is in range
Is in range

80
0.08
0.1

Ra (lm)
Rz (lm)
Rt (lm)

Minimize
Minimize
Minimize

0.22
1.25
1.57

Upper limit
CC6050

CC6050WH

CC6050

150
0.14
0.3
0.64
3.24
3.85

0.45
2.37
2.78

1.38
5.8
6.49

Table 8
Response optimization for surface roughness parameters (CC6050WH).
Test no.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Vc (m/min)

110.33
103.42
146.50
150.00
129.78
115.00

f (mm/rev)

0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08

ap (mm)

0.12
0.16
0.12
0.20
0.16
0.20

Surface roughness CC6050WH

Desirability

Ra (lm)

Rz (lm)

Rt (lm)

0.249
0.253
0.254
0.256
0.269
0.259

1.324
1.377
1.272
1.426
1.377
1.377

1.707
1.692
1.730
1.716
1.746
1.625

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

3055

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

Table 9
Response optimization for surface roughness parameters (CC6050).
Test no.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Vc (m/min)

f (mm/rev)

150.00
136.19
145.33
115.00
136.19
142.87

ap (mm)

0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.10

0.30
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.28

Surface roughness CC6050

Desirability

Ra (lm)

Rz (lm)

Rt (lm)

0.645
0.683
0.688
0.692
0.683
0.707

3.743
3.566
3.538
3.668
3.566
3.839

3.882
3.852
3.922
3.865
3.852
4.261

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Table 10
Conrmation experiments for surface roughness parameters for CC6050WH and CC6050.
No.

Vc (m/
min)

f (mm/
rev)

ap
(mm)

Surface roughness
CC6050WH

CC6050

Ra

1
2
3
4

80
115
140
140

0.08
0.14
0.09
0.12

0.3
0.25
0.15
0.25

Rz

Ra

Rz

Actuel

Pred

Error
(%)

Actuel

Pred

Error
(%)

Actuel

Pred

Error
(%)

Actuel

Pred

Error
(%)

0.3
0.33
0.28
0.34

0.33
0.35
0.27
0.37

0.1
2.78
3.57
8.82

1.7
1.85
1.47
1.66

1.59
1.89
1.33
1.80

6.47
2.16
9.52
8.84

0.7
1.38
0.72
0.93

0.73
1.33
0.74
0.86

4.28
3.62
2.77
7.52

3.81
5.71
4
4.45

3.65
5.70
3.81
4.27

4.20
0.17
4.75
4.04

the optimum machining conditions. Using the point prediction capability of the software, the surface roughness
(Ra and Rz) of the selected experiments were predicted together with the 95% prediction interval. The predicted values and the associated prediction interval are based on the
model developed previously. The predicted values and the
actual experimental values were compared and the percentage error was calculated. All these values were presented in Table 10. The percentage error range between
the actual and predicted value for response factors (Ra
and Rz) are as follows: Ra  8.82% to 3.57% and
Rz = 8.84% to 9.52% for wiper insert on other hand,
Ra  4.28% to 7.52% and Rz = 0.174.75% for conventional
insert.
6. Conclusion
In this paper a study of the surface roughness evolution
based on the response surface methodology is presented,
concerning the hard turning of AISI 4140 steel with wiper
and conventional ceramics inserts.
Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The result of ANOVA proved that the quadratic
mathematical models allow prediction of surface
roughness parameter with a 95% condent interval.
(2) In general, wiper ceramic cutting insert CC6050WH
has the better performance compared with conventional ceramic cutting inserts CC6050, in particular
the surface roughness of the workpiece. Ratios mean
value (L27) for roughness parameters (Ra, Rz and Rt)
is of (2.8; 2.5 and 2.2) respectively.
(3) The statistical analysis of the surface roughness indicates that the feed rate is the most signicant factor
on the surface roughness criteria (Ra, Rz and Rt) with

the respective contribution of (63.455; 70.474 and

65.678)% for CC6050WH insert by against a respective contribution (74.517; 70.964 and 70.615)% for
CC6050 insert by reducing the values of average
roughness.
(4) Flank wear is an important factor to consider. Its
evolution damages the surface nish of the workpiece. Even so when [VB] is 0.3 mm, the average
roughness Ra did not exceed 0.88 lm for CC6050WH
and 0.99 lm for CC6050.
(5) Factors optimized control parameter Ra are the
following CC6050WH: Vc (from 110.33 to 115
m/min), f (0.08 to 0.09 mm/rev) ap (0.12 to
0.2 mm) by against to insert CC6050 is following:
Vc (115 to 150 m/min), f (0.08 to 0.1 mm/rev) ap
(0.10 to 0.3 mm).
(6) 3D visualization conrmed some characteristic features of surfaces produced with both inserts tested,
i.e. sharp and blunt peaks.

Acknowledgements
This work was completed in the laboratory LMS
(University of Guelma, Algeria) in collaboration with University de Lyon (CNRS, INSA Lyon, LaMCoS, UMR5259, F69621,
France). The authors would like to thank the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientic Research (MESRS) and
the Delegated Ministry for Scientic Research (MDRS) for
granting nancial support for CNEPRU Research Project
LMS: No.: J0301520080027 (University of Guelma).
References
[1] G. Bartarya, S.K. Choudhury, State of the art in hard turning, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 53 (2012) 114.

3056

M. Elbah et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 30413056

[2] A.E. Correia, J.P. Davim, Surface roughness measurement in turning

carbon steel AISI 1045 using wiper inserts, Measurement 44 (5)
(2011) 10001005.
[3] G.C. Benga, A.M. Arabo, Turning of hardened 100Cr6 bearing steel
with ceramic and PCBN cutting tools, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 143
144 (2003) 237241.
[4] A.S. Kumar, R. Dural, T. Somakunar, Machinability of hardened steel
using alumina based ceramic cutting tools, Int. J. Refract. Metals
Hard Mater. 21 (2003) 109117.
[5] J.P. Davim (Ed.), Machining of Hard Materials, Springer, 2011.
[6] J.P. Davim, L. Figueira, Comparative evaluation of conventional and
wiper ceramic tools on cutting forces, surface roughness and tool
wear in hard turning AISI D2 steel, J. Eng. Manuf. 221 (4) (2007) 625
633.
[7] R. Suresh, S. Basavarajappa, G.L. Samuel, Some studies on hard
turning of AISI 4340 steel using multilayer coated carbide tool,
Measurement 45 (2012) 18721884.
[8] I. Asiltrk, H. Akkus, Determining the effect of cutting parameters on
surface roughness in hard turning using the Taguchi method,
Measurement 44 (2011) 16971704.
[9] V.N. Gaitonde, S.R. Karnik, L. Figueira, J.P. Davim, Analysis of
machinability during hard turning of cold work tool steel (Type:
AISI D2), J. Mater. Process. Technol. 24 (12) (2009) 13731382.
[10] V.N. Gaitonde, S.R. Karnik, L. Figueira, J.P. Davim, Performance
comparison of conventional and wiper ceramic inserts in hard
turning through articial neural network modeling, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 52 (14) (2011) 101114.
[11] B. Fnides, M.A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, Surface roughness model in
turning hardened hot work steel using mixed ceramic tool, Mech.
Kaunas. Technol. 3 (77) (2009) 6873.
[12] M.A. Yallese, J.-F. Rigal, K. Chaoui, L. Boulanouar, The effects of
cutting conditions on mixed ceramic and cubic boron nitride tool
wear and on surface roughness during machining of X200Cr12 steel
(60 HRC), J. Eng. Manuf. 219 (B) (2005) 3555.
[13] P.V.S. Suresh, P.V. Rao, S.G. Deshmukh, A genetic algorithmic
approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model,
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 42 (2002) 675680.
[14] S. Neseli, S. Yaldiz, E. Trkes, Optimization of tool geometry
parameters for turning operations based on the response surface
methodology, Measurement 44 (2011) 580587.
[15] S. Ramesh, L. Karunamoorthy, K. Palanikumar, Measurement and
analysis of surface roughness in turning of aerospace titanium alloy
(gr5), Measurement 45 (2012) 12661276.
[16] A.K. Sahoo, B. Sahoo, Experimental investigations on machinability
aspects in nish hard turning of AISI 4340 steel using uncoated and
multilayer coated carbide inserts, Measurement 45 (2012) 2153
2165.
[17] W. Grzesik, T. Wanat, Surface nish generated in hard turning of
quenched alloy steel parts using conventional and wiper ceramic
inserts, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 46 (15) (2006) 19881995.
[18] J.G. Lima, R.F. Avila, A.M. Abrao, M. Faustino, J.P. Davim, Hard
turning: AISI 4340 high strength low alloy steel and AISI D2 cold
work tool steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169 (2005) 388395.
[19] J.P. Davim, L. Figueira, Machinability evaluation in hard turning of
cold work tool steel (D2) with ceramic tools using statistical
techniques, Mater. Des. 28 (2007) 11861191.

[20] W. Grzesik, T. Wanat, Comparative assessment of surface roughness

produced by hard machining with mixed ceramic tools including 2D
and 3D analysis, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169 (2005) 364371.
[21] V.N. Gaitonde, S.R. Karnik, L. Figueira, J.P. Davim, Machinability
investigations in hard turning of AISI D2 cold work tool steel with
conventional and wiper ceramic inserts, Int. J. Refract. Metals Hard
Mater. 27 (2009) 754763.
[22] T. zel, Y. Karpat, L. Figueira, J.P. Davim, Modelling of surface nish
and tool ank wear in turning of AISI D2 steel with ceramic wiper
inserts, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 189 (2007) 192198.
[23] H. Aouici, M.A. Yallese, B. Fnides, K. Chaoui, T. Mabrouki, Modeling
and optimization of hard turning of X38CrMoV5-1 steel with CBN
tool: machining parameters effects on ank wear and surface
roughness, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 25 (11) (2011) 28432851.
[24] H. Aouici, M.A. Yallese, K. Chaoui, T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal, Analysis of
surface roughness and cutting force components in hard turning
with CBN tool: prediction model and cutting conditions
optimization, Measurement 45 (2012) 344353.
[25] Y.K. Chou, C.J. Evans, M.M. Barash, Experimental investigation on
CBN turning of hardened AISI 52100 steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
124 (2002) 274283.
[26] J.D. Thiele, S.N. Melkote, Effect of cutting edge geometry and
workpiece hardness on surface generation in the nish hard
turning of AISI 52100 steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 94 (1999)
216226.
[27] T. zel, T.K. Hus, E. Zerne, Effects of cutting edge geometry,
workpiece hardness, feed rate and cutting speed on surface
roughness and forces in nish turning of hardened AISI H13 steel,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 25 (2005) 262269.
[28] M.Y. Noordin, V.C. Venkatesh, S. Sharif, S. Elting, A. Abdullah,
Application of response surface methodology in describing the
performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 145 (2004) 4658.
[29] H. Aouici, M.A. Yallese, B. Fnides, T. Mabrouki, Machinability
investigation in hard turning of AISI H11 hot work steel with CBN
tool, Mechanika 6 (86) (2010) 7177.
[30] H. Bouchelaghem, M.A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, A. Amirat, J.F. Rigal,
Experimental investigation and performance analyses of CBN insert
in hard turning of cold work tool steel (D3), Mach. Sci. Technol. 14
(2010) 471501.
[31] S. Thamizhmanii, S. Saparudin, S. Hasan, Analyses of surface
roughness by turning process using Taguchi method, J. Ach. Mater.
Manuf. Eng. 20 (12) (2007) 503506.
[32] I. Asiltrk, S. Neseli, Multiresponse optimisation of CNC turning
parameters via Taguchi method-based response surface analysis,
Measurement 45 (2012) 785794.
[33] A. Zawada-Tomkiewicz, Analysis of surface parameters achieved by
hard turning with the use of PCBN tools, Estonia J. Eng. 17 (1) (2011)
8899.
[34] R.A. Waikar, Y.B. Guo, A comprehensive characterization of 3D
surface topography induced by hard turning versus grinding, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 197 (2008) 189199.
[35] R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology
Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments,
second ed., JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.