A Study of Surface Roughness in Micro-end-milling of Aluminum

Kiha Lee
Sponsored by CODEF and ACLARA

Abstract A series of experiments has been conducted in order to

characterize the factors that affect surface roughness, and to determine
the range of attainable surface roughness values for the micro-endmilling process. A 229mm diameter end mill was used to cut slots into
aluminium 6061 samples. The machining factors studied were chip load
(feed per tooth), cutting speed, and depth of cut.
Keywords: aluminum, micro end milling, surface roughness.
1. Introduction
The end-milling process is one of the most widely used material removal processes in
industry. In recent years, the micro-end-milling process has received increased
attention. Micro-end-milling refers to a basic end milling process were tools down to
50 mm in diameter are used. Micro-end-milling is essentially the same process as endmilling on the macro scale. However, there are a few important differences. As the tool
diameter becomes smaller, the rotational speed theoretically required to achieve the
recommended cutting speed is far above the technical limit of the available spindles.
Another concern in micro-milling is that run-out can become comparable to the
diameter of the tools used. The run-out to tool diameter ratio is much larger for microend-milling than for traditional milling.

2. Experimental setup
A Mori Seiki CNC drilling center was used for the experiments. The drilling center has
a maximum spindle speed of 8000 rpm. However, by using an Air Turbine tool
attachment, operation at 40000 rpm is allowed. A 229 mm diameter tool from
Robbjack Corporation was used for the experiments. The end-mills are made of 92%
WC and 8% Co. Surface roughness measurements were taken with a diamond stylus
(Tenco P-10), traveling along a straight line over the surface of the machined
workpiece. It features the ability to measure micro-roughness with up to 0.5
resolution.

3. Results and Analysis

A two level factorial analysis was performed on a subset of the data. A graphical
representation of the results is shown in Figure 1. The high and low values for each of
the parameters, along with the calculated effect of each parameter is also shown in
Figure 1. The high and low values for depth of cut correspond to 1/2 and 1/4 the tool
diameter, respectively. The cutting speed values correspond to 7500 rpm and 40000
rpm with a 229 mm diameter tool.

1725

3843

3596

Chip
Load

2529

Cutting
Speed

652

653

Parameter
ft
vc
aa
ft*vc
ft*aa
vc*aa
ft*vc*aa

Effect ()
2276
-813
258
-779.5
267.5
123
155.5

Parameter
Chip Load (ft)
Cutting Speed (vc)
Depth of Cut (aa)

High
5.7 mm
0.48 m/s
114 mm

610

676

Low
0.83 mm
0.089 m/s
57 mm

Depth of Cut

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the results of the 2 level factorial analysis.

The numbers at the corners of the cube are the surface roughness values in
Angstroms. The effects of each parameter and interactions are also shown.

The chip load is by far the most dominant factor affecting the surface roughness.
However, cutting speed and cutting speed chip load interaction are also significant,
as shown on the normal probability plot (Figure 2). In this plot, any point that lies off
a straight line fit can be considered a real effect and not due to random variations in the
process. The effects of the other factors (points not labeled in Figure 2) are within the
noise of the process and have been left out of the models developed.
Although cutting speed and the cutting speed chip load interaction are significant,
their effect is far smaller than the effect of chip load. A linear model was developed
using the data from the 2 level factorial analysis:
Ra = 96.5 + 697 f t + 589vc - 818 f t vc

Figure 2. Normal probability plot of main effects and interactions. Points that lie off a
straight line fit (labeled) represent the significant effects.

Four different chip load levels were tested in order to generate a quadratic model for
this factor. The extra two levels were added between the high and low levels used for
the two-level factorial. Surface roughness results for two different depths of cut are
shown in Figure 3.
d=229 um, DOC = D/4

Vc = 0.09 m/s
Vc = 0.48 m/s

Ra (Angstroms)

Ra (Angstroms)

d=229um, DOC = D/2

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

4
Chip Load (um)

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Vc = 0.09 m/s
Vc = 0.48 m/s

4
Chip Load (um)

Figure 3. Surface Roughness as a function of chip load for 2 different depths of cut
and cutting speeds. The trend line is the value predicted by a quadratic polynomial
model.

The relationship between chip load and surface roughness appears slightly non-linear,
particularly at high cutting speed. A polynomial model was developed incorporating a
second order term for chip load.
Ra = 43.6 + 439 f t + 46.3 f t 2 + 1256vc - 990 f t vc

Figure 4 shows the surface roughness traces for several slots, machined with different
combinations of chip load and cutting speed. SEM micrographs of the machined slots
are also shown. Large marks from the cutting tooth (a deep valley followed by a high
peak) are easily visible on the surface roughness traces. These marks can also be seen
in the adjoining SEM micrographs. Interestingly, the period from large peak to large
peak is twice the chip load, which means that the large marks are created once per
revolution rather than once for each tooth. In many of the surface roughness traces, a
step is clearly visible midway between larger peaks. This phenomenon is most likely
the result of run-out.

Surface roughness [nm]

A functional part that will be used in a meso-scale electricity conversion system, for
potential use in very low power electronics, was fabricated as a verification part
(Figure 5). The entire size of the part is 17.5 mm x 17.5 mm x 0.5 mm.

500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
140

150

160

170

180

Feed distance [um]

Figure 4. Surface Roughness Traces and SEM Micrographs at 7500 rpm speed, 1/2d
DOC, and 4.233um/tooth feed for low and high chip loads.

Down-milling

Up-milling

Figure 5. Photograph of verification part and SEM micrograph of the verification

part. One arm broke during processing. The picture on the right shows a comparison
of surface roughness for up-milling and down-milling.

Although the surface roughness was not measured for this part, SEM micrographs
were taken and show some interesting qualitative results. Figure 5 shows a micrograph
of the verification part. The micrograph on the right shows the surface of the large
pocket milled out of the center. Both up-milling and down-milling were used on this
portion of the pocket as shown in Figure 5. From the micrograph, it can be seen that
the surface roughness is better for down-milling, as is commonly the case.