Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research

Vol. 66, March 2007, pp. 220-226

Mathematical models of tool life and surface roughness for turning operation
through response surface methodology
Hari Singh1,* and Pradeep Kumar2
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra 136 119
2
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247 667

Received 22 September 2005; revised 03 October 2006

Mathematical models of tool life and surface roughness have been developed for turning En24 steel with titanium
carbide coated tungsten carbide inserts. Response surface methodology (RSM) has been applied for developing the models
in the form of multiple regression equations correlating dependent parameters, tool life and surface roughness, with cutting
speed, feed rate and depth of cut, in a turning process. The second order response surface was found suitable for present
work. The central composite rotatable design was used to plan the experiment.

Keywords: Carbide inserts, En24 steel, Experimental design, RSM, Surface roughness, Tool life
IPC Code: G09B25/02

Introduction found that the multi layer coated insert Widalon TK

En24 is an alloy steel having: iron, 95-96;
carbon, 0.35-0.45; nickel, 1.3-1.8; chromium, 0.9-1.4;
vanadium, 0.09; molybdenum, 0.20-0.35; silicon,
0.10-0.35; manganese, 0.45-0.70; sulphur, 0.05; and
phosphorus, 0.05%. Physical and mechanical
properties of En24 steel are1: hardness, 220-280 BHN;
tensile strength, 1.982×103 N/mm2; melting point,
1500°C; density, 7840 kg/m3; thermal conductivity,
41.9 W/m-°C; and Young’s Modulus, 207x109 N/m2.
Typical uses of En24 steel include automobile
main shafts, axle shafts, push rods, studs, differential
shafts, mandrel for tube production, gun barrels,
various parts of machine tools such as spindle gears,
power transmission gears, etc1,2. Properties of En24
steel like low specific heat, tendency to get strain
hardened and diffusion between tool and work
material give rise to certain problems in its machining
such as large cutting forces, high cutting tool
temperatures, poor surface finish and built-up-edge
formation, thereby making material difficult to
machine3-5. Shaw & Nakayama4 recommended a
cutting speed of 25 m/min with HSS tools and
165 m/min with carbide tools based on a depth of cut
of 2.5 mm and a feed value of 0.25 mm/rev. Sarmah5
_______________
*Author for correspondence
E-mail: hsingh_nitk@rediffmail.com
15 with Al-O-N as the surface layer gives improved
tool life and better surface finish at 247 m/min in spite
of the insert experiencing high rake face temperature
and stresses. TiC coated single layer insert TG was
reported best flank wear resistant and TK 15 best
crater wear resistant. Lo & Chen6 studied the tool life
in DC. hot machining of En24 steel using carbide tool
in the speed range of 35-230 m/min using response
surface methodology (RSM). Kalnth et al7 recom-
mended an optimum heating current of 200 amperes
for machining En24 steel at 80 m/min. Dearnley &
Trent8 found the flank and rake face wear rates of
coated tools 10 to 100 times less than that of an
uncoated carbide tool. Dearnley9 found the aluminium
oxide coating most resistant to rake face wear, being
stable at elevated temperature, and titanium carbide
coating as flank face wear resistant. Bose et al10
concluded that coated tools with positive rake and in
built chip breaker cause reduction of cutting forces
and cutting temperature resulting in improved surface
finish. A little research has been conducted to obtain
mathematical models of machining characteristics for
difficult to machine materials using response surface
designs11-14.
This paper attempts to obtain mathematical models
of tool life (TL) and surface roughness (SR) for
turning En 24 steel with titanium carbide coated
carbide inserts using RSM.
 SINGH & KUMAR: MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF TOOL LIFE AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS 221

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) Table 1—Components of central composite second order
In RSM15, it is possible to represent independent rotatable design
factors in quantitative form. Then these factors can be Number of Factorial Star Center Total Value
thought of as having a functional relationship or variables points points points N α
response: K 2k 2k n

Y = φ (X1, X2, . . . ., Xk) ± er … (1) 3 8 6 6 20 1.682

between the response Y and X1, X2, . . . . Xk of k
quantitative factors. Function φ is called response
surface or response function. Residual er measures
experimental error16. For a given set of independent
variables, a characteristic surface is responded. In
applying RSM, dependent parameter is viewed as a
surface to which a mathematical model is fitted. For
the development of regression equation, second order
response surface has been assumed as:
k k k present work are 6; and iii) A few more points
2
Y = bo + ∑
i =1
bi X i + ∑
i =1
bii X i + ∑b
i< j =2
ij
Y contains linear, squared and cross product terms of
variables Xi’s. Scheme based on central composite
rotatable design is reported17 to fit in second order
response surfaces very accurately.
Central Composite Second Order Rotatable Design
In this design, standard error remains same at all
the points that are equidistant from centre of the
region. This criterion of rotatability can be explained
as follows: Let the point (0, 0, . . . 0) represent centre
of the region, in which the relation between Y and X is
under investigation. From the results of any
experiment the standard error, er, of Y can be
computed at any point on the fitted surface. This
standard error will be a function of the co-ordinates
Xi’s of the point. Due to rotatability condition, this
standard error is same at all equidistant points with
the distance ρ from centre of the region i.e. for all
points for which16:
X12 + X22 + . . . . + Xk2 = ρ2 = constant
A central composite rotatable design is subdivided
into three parts: i) Points related to 2k design, where k
is the number of parameters and 2 is the number of
levels, at which parameters are kept during experi-
mentation. In present work, k = 3, so it results into
(23)= 8 experiments; ii) Extra points called star points
positioned at a distance α from origin on both sides
of the co-ordinate axes. For k < 5, α may be
calculated by 2k/4, whereas, for k ≥ 5, α is given by
4 16 8 7 31 2.000
5 16* 10 6 32 2.000
6 32* 12 9 53 2.378
*Half replication
α -Distance of the star points from the center
2(k-1)/4 (Table 1). In present work, α turns out to be
1.682. These points will result in 2k additional
experiments. So, total additional experiments in the
X i X j ± er … (2) added at the centre to give roughly equal precision for
response Y with a circle of radius one. For three
parameters, six additional experiments need to be
conducted at the origin.
The total number of experiments in the present
work is 8+6+6=20 (Fig. 1). Entire experimentation
need not be replicated to find the error mean square,
since this can be found out by replicating the centre
points15,18.
Turning Process Parameters
The identified process parameters affecting charac-
teristics of turned parts are: i) Cutting tool parameters
–tool geometry and tool material; ii) Work piece
related parameters- metallography, hardness, etc.; iii)
Cutting parameters- cutting speed, feed rate, depth of
cut; and iv) Environment parameters –dry cutting and
wet cutting19-23.
Process parameters selected for study are cutting
speed (A, 190-310 m/min), feed rate (B, 0.12-
0.20 mm/rev) and depth of cut (C, 0.70-1.00 mm).
The following parameters were kept constant during
… (3) entire experimentation: i) Tool material – Widadur
TG inserts; ii) Work material – En 24 steel; and iii)
Environment – dry cutting. Ranges of selected turning
process parameters (Fig. 2) were decided by
conducting experiments and using one variable at a
time approach24.
Experimental Procedure
En24 alloy steel rods (90 mm diam, 500mm long)
were turned on an H-22 centre lathe of Hindustan
Machine Tools. TiC coated carbide inserts were used
222 J SCI IND RES VOL 66 MARCH 2007

Fig. 1—Experimental points for three variables

Fig. 2—Ishikawa cause-effect diagram of a turning process

 SINGH & KUMAR: MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF TOOL LIFE AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS 223

Table 2—Values of selected variables at different levels to machine En24 steel (0.4%C) of 220 BHN. ISO
Variable Levels designation of insert is SPUN 120308 and tool holder
symbols -1.682 -1 0 +1 +1.682 is CSBPR 2525 H 12. Observations (20) of TL, by
measuring flank wear (width of wear land), were
A, m/min 190 209.82 242.69 280.71 310 recorded using Large Tool Maker’s microscope. For
B, mm/rev 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.20 TL assessment, flank wear width was measured at an
C, mm 0.70 0.75 0.84 0.93 1.00 interval of 1 min and the flank wear criterion of
0.45 mm against 1 TL was applied. SR was measured
Table 3—Experimental design values and average values of for each run using a Philips roughness tester having a
responses least count of 1 ru (0.025 µ). The levels at which the
Sr. Randomized A B C TL SR parameters were tested are given in Table 2.
No. Experimental design values of process variables along
with average values of TL and SR are given in
1 19 210 0.13 0.75 25 80 Table 3.
2 18 280 0.13 0.75 17 70
3 17 210 0.18 0.75 23 110 Results and Analysis
4 16 280 0.18 0.75 15 100 Design Expert 7.0 software (dx7) was used for
5 15 210 0.13 0.93 24 80 regression and graphical analysis25. For analysis of the
6 14 280 0.13 0.93 16 80
data, checking of goodness of fit of model is very
much required. Model adequacy checking includes
7 13 210 0.18 0.93 22 120
test for significance of regression model and on model
8 12 280 0.18 0.93 15 110
coefficients, and test for lack of fit26. Analysis of
9 1 190 0.16 0.84 27 100 variance (ANOVA) is performed for this purpose.
10 2 310 0.16 0.84 13 90
11 3 240 0.12 0.84 21 70 Analysis of Tool Life
12 4 240 0.20 0.84 18 120 The fit summary recommended that linear model is
13 20 240 0.16 0.70 20 90 statistically significant for analysis of TL. Model F-
14 11 240 0.16 1.00 19 100
value of 274.56 implies the model is significant
(Table 4). There is only a 0.01% chance that a "Model
15 5 240 0.16 0.84 19 100
F-Value" this large could occur due to noise. Values
16 6 240 0.16 0.84 20 110
of "Prob > F" (< 0.0500) indicate model terms are
17 7 240 0.16 0.84 19 100 significant. In this case A, B, C are significant model
18 8 240 0.16 0.84 19 90 terms. Values more than 0.1000 indicate the model
19 9 240 0.16 0.84 21 90 terms are not significant. "Lack of Fit F-value" of
20 10 240 0.16 0.84 20 100 0.15 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative
to the pure error. There is a 99.51% chance that a
TL - Tool life, min; SR – Surface roughness, ru "Lack of Fit F-value" this large could occur due to

Table 4—Analysis of variance table for tool life

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p-value
Prob > F
Model 230.08 3 76.69 274.56 < 0.0001 (significant)
A- Cutting speed 217.85 1 217.85 779.90 < 0.0001
B- Feed rate 10.62 1 10.62 38.03 < 0.0001
C- Depth of cut 1.60 1 1.60 5.75 0.0291
Residual 4.47 16 0.28 — —
Lack of fit 1.14 11 0.10 0.15 0.9951 (not significant)
Pure error 3.33 5 0.67 — —
Cor. Total 234.55 19 — — —

Standard deviation = 0.53, Mean = 19.65, Coefficient of variation % = 2.69, Predicted residual error of sum of
squares (PRESS) = 5.79, R2 = 0.9809, R2 adjusted = 0.9774, Predicted R2 = 0.9753, Adequate precision = 56.837
224 J SCI IND RES VOL 66 MARCH 2007
noise. Non-significant lack of fit is good. Predicted R2
of 0.9753 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted
R2 of 0.9774. Adequate precision measures signal to
noise ratio. A ratio more than 4 is desirable; ratio of
56.837 indicates an adequate signal. This model can
thus be used to navigate design space. Normal
probability plot of residuals for TL (Fig. 3) shows that
residuals are falling on a straight line, which means
the errors are normally distributed. Final response
equation in terms of coded factors is given as:
TL = +19.65 -3.99* A -0.88* B -0.34 * C … (4)
The final response equation in terms of actual
factors is given as:
TL = +55.95470 -0.11268* Cutting speed -35.28010*
Feed rate -3.80907 * Depth of cut … (5)
The developed response surface, within the
experimental region, is as:
TL = 26914 v -1.424 f -0.299 d -0.160 ± 0.1687×10-2 … (6)
where TL = tool life, min; v = cutting speed, m/min;
f = feed, mm/rev; d = depth of cut, mm.
Analysis for Surface Roughness (SR)
The fit summary recommended that the linear
model is statistically significant for analysis of SR.
Fig. 3—Normal probability plot residuals for tool life
Model F-value of 46.93 implies the model is
significant (Table 5). There is only a 0.01% chance
that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to
noise. Values of "Prob > F" (< 0.0500) indicate model
terms are significant. In this case, A, B, C are
significant model terms. The "Lack of Fit F-value" of
0.22 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative
to the pure error. There is a 98.39% chance that a
"Lack of Fit F-value" this large could occur due to
noise. Non-significant lack of fit is good. The
predicted R2 of 0.8709 is in reasonable agreement
with adjusted R2 of 0.8788. Adequate precision
measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio more than 4
is desirable; ratio of 23.072 indicates an adequate
signal. This model can thus be used to navigate design
space. Normal probability plot of the residuals for SR
(Fig. 4) indicates that residuals are falling on a
straight line, indicating that the errors are normally
distributed. The final response equation in terms of
coded factors is given as:
SR = +95.50 -3.43 * A +15.68 * B +3.43 * C … (7)
The final response equation in terms of actual
factors is given as:
SR= -9.96807 -0.096718 * Cutting speed + 627.05404
* Feed rate+38.09070 * Depth of cut … (8)
Fig. 4—Normal probability plot residuals for surface roughness
 SINGH & KUMAR: MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF TOOL LIFE AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS 225

Table 5—Analysis of variance table for surface roughness

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p-value
Prob > F
Model 3677.14 3 1225.71 46.93 < 0.0001 (significant)
A- Cutting speed 160.50 1 160.50 6.15 0.0247
B- Feed rate 3356.14 1 3356.14 128.51 < 0.0001
C- Depth of cut 160.50 1 160.50 6.15 0.0247
Residual 417.86 16 26.12 — —
Lack of fit 134.52 11 12.23 0.22 0.9839 (not significant)
Pure error 283.33 5 56.67 — —
Cor. Total 4095.00 19 — — —

Standard deviation = 5.11, Mean = 95.50, Coefficient of variation % = 5.35, Predicted residual error of sum of
squares (PRESS) = 528.74, R2 = 0.8980, R2 adjusted = 0.8788, Predicted R2 = 0.8709, Adequate precision =
23.072

The developed response surface within the experi-
mental region is as:
SR = 3112 v-0.248 f1.112 d0.34 ± 0.5815×10-2 … (9)
where SR = surface roughness, ru; v = cutting speed,
m/min; f = feed, mm/rev; and d = depth of cut, mm.
The predicted values of TL (24.8688 min) and SR
(79.8236 ru) in this case study are similar to reported
values27 of TL (20.19 min) and SR (81.38 ru) at 95 %
confidence level. The results thus compare well with
the present case study through RSM.
Limitations of the Case Study
The results of this case study are valid for En 24
steel and selected process variables and their specified
range. Any extrapolation must be confirmed through
further experimentation.
Conclusions
Models developed in this study can be used to
predict tool life of titanium carbide coated tungsten
carbide inserts and surface roughness obtainable for
turning En 24 alloy steel provided process variables
are within the specified range. The predicted values of
the tool life and surface roughness are 24.8688 min
and 79.8236 ru respectively. The effect of process
variables on tool life and surface roughness can be
further ascertained by plotting the developed models.
References
1 Mottram R A & Woolman J, The Mechanical and Physical
Properties of the British Standard EN Steels, 1st edn, vol 2,
EN 21-EN 39 (Pergamon Press, Oxford) 1966, 72-73.
2 Robert R B, Metallic Materials, Specification Hand Book
(McGraw-Hill, New York) 1968, 60-64.
3 Komanduri R, Schroeder T, Hazra J, von Turkovich B F &
Flom D G, Catastrophic shear instability in high speed
machining of AISI 4340 steels, Trans ASME, J Eng Ind, 104
(1982) 121-131.
4 Nakayama K & Shaw M C, Machining High Strength
Materials, Annals of CIRP, 15 (1967) 456-459.
5 Sarmah B P, Some investigations into performance of CVD-
coated indexable carbide inserts in machining of difficult to
machine materials, Ph D Thesis, Mech. and Ind Engg Dept,
University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 1988.
6 Lo K C & Chen N N S, Prediction of tool life in hot
machining of alloy steels, Int J Prod Res, 15 (1977) 47-63.
7 Kalnth G S, Sachdeva S C & Choudhary A P, An
Experimental investigation into hot machining of En 24 steel,
Proc AIMTDR Conf (IIT Bombay, Mumbai) 1978, 285-289.
8 Dearnley P A & Trent E M, Wear Mechanism of Coated
Carbide Tools, Metal Technology, 9 (1982) 60-74.
9 Dearnley P A, Rake and flank wear mechanism of coated and
uncoated carbide tools, ASME Trans, J Engg Mat & Technol,
107 (1985) 68-82.
10 Bose et al, Improved performances of coated carbide tools
with positive rake and in-built chip breaker, Power
Metallurgy Int, 17 (1985) 78-82.
11 Lambert B K & Taraman K, Development and utilization of a
mathematical model of a turning operation, Int J Prod Res, 11
(1973) 69-81.
12 Taraman K, Multi-machining output multi-independent
variable turning research by response surface methodology,
Int J Prod Res, 12 (1974) 232-245.
13 Hassan G A & Suliman S M A, Experimental modelling and
optimization of turning medium carbon steel, Int J Prod Res,
28 (1990) 1057-1065.
14 El Baradie M A, Surface roughness model for turning grey
cast iron (154 BHN), Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 207 (1993) 43-
50.
15 Cochran G & Cox G M, Experimental Design (Asia
Publishing House, New Delhi) 1962, 27-32.
16 Box G E P & Hunter J S, Multifactor experimental design, J
Ann Math Stat, 28 (1957) 195-241.
17 Box G E P, Hunter W G & Hunter J S, Statistics for
Experimenters (Wiley, New York) 1978, 45-55.
18 Draper N R, Center points in second order response surface
designs, Technometrics, 18 (1982) 127-133.
226 J SCI IND RES VOL 66 MARCH 2007
19 Singh H & Kumar P, Multi-criteria optimization of machining
parameters using the concept of fuzzy set logics, Proc 16th
National Conv Mech Eners (University of Roorkee, Roorkee)
2000, 516-521.
20 Singh H, Kumar P & Singh I P, Effect of process parameters
on surface roughness of turned parts using response surface
methodology, Proc Int Conf Math Modelling (University of
Roorkee, Roorkee) 2001, 483-489.
21 Singh H & Kumar P, Quality optimization of turned parts
(EN24 Steel) by Taguchi Method, Productivity, 44 (2003) 43-
49.
22 Singh H & Kumar P, Tool wear optimization in turning
operation by Taguchi method, Indian J Eng Mater Sci, 11
(2004) 19-24.
23 Singh H & Kumar P, Effect on power consumption for turned
parts using Taguchi technique, Productivity, 45 (2004) 231-
238.
24 Singh H, Optimization of machining parameters for turned
parts through Taguchi’s technique, Ph D Thesis, Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra, India, 2000.
25 Design expert software, Version 7, Users Guide, Technical
manual, Stat-Ease Inc. Minneapolis, MN, 2004.
26 Montgomery D C, Peck E A & Vining G G, Introduction to
Linear Regression Analysis, 3rd edn (Wiley, New York) 2003,
70-89.
27 Singh H & Kumar P, Optimizing multi-machining charac-
teristics through Taguchi’s approach and utility concept, J
Manuf Technol Manage, 17 (2006) 255-274.