Robotic machining is starting to feature in the industry thanks to its high flexibility, adaptability, large workspace and low cost. In fact, many studies have already confirmed that robotic machining can be a real cost saving and flexible alternative to large scale conventional CNC machines, due to the aforesaid advantages. However, robotic machining operations are usually carried out in open environments in industrial companies, making conventional cooling systems (flood coolants such as neat oils or water-soluble oils) not directly applicable to them. Thus, the aim of this paper is to evaluate the possible implementation of different non-liquid alternative coolants such as gaseous nitrogen (N2), air, carbon dioxide (CO2) or argon (Ar) into robotic machining with the purpose of improving the current capability of this technology. To that end, different round turning tests were conducted on the 34CrNiMo6 alloyed steel, where several cooling conditions were applied: cryogenic nitrogen gas (2.5 bar), compressed air (2.5, 6.9 and 8 bar), cold compressed air (6.9 bar) and flood cooling (1 L/min). Results were compared against dry machining. Thereby, the study proved the analysed non-liquid alternative coolants to be a great option for robotic machining, since they were able to improve both the machining performance and productivity of dry machining. On the other hand, compressed air showed to be the most cost-effective solution among the alternative coolants, due to the high purchase price of the nitrogen (N2).

1.
International Federation of Robotics
, “
Executive Summary World Robotics 2017 Industrial Robots
,”
2017
.
2.
The Robotic Industries Association
, “
The Robotic Industries Association
,”
2009
. [Online]. Available: www.robotics.org.
3.
Iglesias
,
M.
Sebastián
and
J.
Ares
, “
Overview of the state of robotic machining: Current situation and future potential
,”
Elsevier
,
Torneiros
,
2015
.
4.
J.
Barnfather
and
T.
Abram
, “Efficient compensation of dimensional errors in robotic machining using imperfect point cloud part inspection data,”
Elsevier
,
Manchester
,
2017
.
5.
Y.
Zeng
,
W.
Tian
and
W.
Liao
, “Positional error similarity analysis for error compensation of industrial robots,”
Elsevier
,
Nanjing
,
2016
.
6.
S.
Sun
,
M.
Brandt
,
S.
Palanisamy
and
M. S.
Dargusch
, “Effect of cryogenic compressed air on the evolution of cutting force and tool wear during machining of Ti–6Al–4V alloy,”
Elsevier
,
Victoria
,
2015
.
7.
S. Y.
Hong
and
M.
Broomer
, “Economical and ecological cryogenic machining of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel,” in
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
, vol.
2
,
New York
,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
,
2000
, p.
157
166
.
8.
B. Dilip
Jerold
and
M. Pradeep
Kumar
, “
Machining of AISI 316 Stainless Steel under Carbon-Di-Oxide Cooling
,”
Taylor & Francis
,
Chennai
,
2012
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.