Cutting fluids having a significant role in machining operation and have a great positive impact, especially on the tool life, tool wear and surface roughness of the workpiece. Investigation on end milling of hardened steel AISI 1045 using coated solid carbide cutting tool under different coolant conditions was carried out experimentally. Experimented work involved three different coolant concentrations which are 3%, 6%, and 9%, with a different cutting speed of 35m/min and 50m/min. The depth of cut and feed rate was kept constant at 4mm and 0.05mm/tooth, respectively. The machining performance was evaluated based on the effect of tool wear, tool life and surface roughness. Analysis of recorded data shows that tool performance during machining is dependent on coolant concentration and cutting speed. Coolant with 3% concentration gave the best overall performance as an effective combination of cooling and lubrication functions during machining. Longer tool life when machining at cutting at a higher cutting speed of 50mm/min, due to the reduced amount of the build-up edge (BUE) on the cutting tool.

Topics
Machining
1.
G. W.
 
Yogesh
,
R. S.
 
Prasad
,
A. P.
 
Umesh
 and
F.
 
Pathan
,
Effect of coolant surface roughness and tool life during turning
,
Int. Conf. on Emerg. Trends in Eng. and Manag. Res
. (
2016
).
Google Scholar
 
2.
E. O.
 
Ezugwu
,
J.
 
Bonney
 and
K. A.
 
Olajire
, “The effect of coolant concentration on the machinability of nickel-base, nimonic C-263, alloy, Machining Research Centre” (
South Bank University
,
London
,
2004
).
3.
A. S.
 
Kumar
,
M.
 
Rahman
 and
S. L.
 
Ng
,
Int. J. of Adv. Manuf. Tech.
 
20
,
83
–
91
(
2002
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700200128
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
4.
H. A.
 
Kishawy
,
M.
 
Dumitrescu
,
E. G.
 
Ng
 and
M. A
 
Elbestawi
,
Int. J. of Mach. Tools and Manuf.
 
45
,
219
–
227
(
2005
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.07.003
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
5.
P. S.
 
Sreejith
,
Materials Letters
 
62
,
276
–
278
(
2008
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2007.05.019
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
6.
R.
 
Polvorosa
 and
A.
 
Suarez
,
J. of Manuf. Proc.
 
26
,
44
–
56
(
2017
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2017.01.012
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
7.
T.
 
Ozel
,
T. K.
 
Hsu
 and
E.
 
Zeren
,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech.
 
25
,
262
–
269
(
2005
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1878-5
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
8.
A. S.
 
Kumar
,
A. R.
 
Durai
 and
T.
 
Sornakumar
,
Int. J. of Ref. Metals and Hard Mater.
 
21
,
109
–
117
(
2003
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-4368(03)00004-0
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
9.
S.
 
Chinchanikar
 and
S. K.
 
Choudhury
,
Int. J. of Mach. Tools and Manuf.
 
89
,
95
–
109
(
2015
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2014.11.002
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
10.
D. A.
 
Stephenson
 and
J. S.
 
Agapiou
,
“Metal Cutting Theory and Practice
” (
CRC Press Book
,
2016
).
Google Scholar
 
11.
S.
 
Kalpakjian
, “Manufacturing Engineering and Technology” (
Addison-Wesley
,
1995
).
12.
X.
 
Cui
 and
J.
 
Zhao
,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech.
 
71
,
1811
–
1824
(
2014
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5611-3
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
13.
O.
 
Cakir
,
A.
 
Yardimeden
,
T.
 
Ozben
 and
E.
 
Kilickap
,
J. of Achievem. in Mater. and Manuf. Eng.
 
25
,
99
–
102
(
2007
).
Google Scholar
 
14.
G.
 
Boothroyd
 and
W.
 
Knight
, “Fundamentals of Machining and Machine Tools” (
CRC Press Book
,
1990
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2021 Author(s).
2021
Author(s)
You do not currently have access to this content.