Measurement 138 (2019) 34–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Analysis and modeling of surface roughness based on cutting parameters

and tool nose radius in turning of AISI D2 steel using CBN tool
Vallabh D. Patel a,⇑, Anish H. Gandhi b
a
Gujarat Technological University, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 382424, India
b
C. K. Pithawalla College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Surface roughness of components having hardness above 45 HRC (Rockwell hardness) like bearings, dies,
Received 25 February 2017 tools etc. draws specific attention during the turning process. Analysis of surface roughness is presented
Received in revised form 1 November 2018 by many researchers based on cutting conditions during hard turning. In this paper, analysis of surface
Accepted 25 January 2019
roughness of AISI D2 steel in hard turning with CBN (cubic boron nitride) tools is performed based on
Available online 13 February 2019
variables like cutting speed, feed and nose radius at a constant depth of cut. Variation of feed affects sur-
face roughness most significantly followed by cutting speed and tool nose radius. Prediction of surface
Keywords:
roughness considering simultaneous effect of cutting parameters and tool geometry is very difficult.
CBN tool
Hard turning
Here, a mathematical model is developed based on simultaneous effect of feed, cutting speed and nose
Surface roughness radius. Moreover, developed model is validated using different sets of cutting conditions and found in
close agreement with experimental results.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and developed neural network model for prediction of surface

Surface roughness is one of the significant surface qualities of
hardened steels which has a specific application for manufacturing
of bearings, shafts, tools and dies. Turning of materials having
hardness above 45 HRC is abbreviated as a hard turning. Had turn-
ing using CBN cutting tool inserts greatly reduces the machining
time and improves surface finishing in comparison to grinding
[1,2]. Asiltürk and Çunkasß [3] reported modeling of surface rough-
ness of AISI 1040 steel using multiple regression and artificial neu-
ral networks (ANN) approach considering different cutting
parameters such as cutting speed, feed and depth of cut. Conclu-
sion shows that feed is most significant parameter affecting the
surface roughness followed by depth of cut and cutting speed.
However model does not includes different tool geometries as it
becomes very complex.
Lalwani et al. [4] evaluated the surface roughness by applying
the non-linear quadratic model to hard turning of MDN250 steel
(50 HRC) considering three cutting parameters cutting speed, feed
and depth of cut. They concluded that feed has primary contribu-
tion and interaction of feed and depth of cut has secondary contri-
bution. Ozel et al. [1] performed hard turning of AISI D2 steel
(60 ± 1 HRC) using mixed alumina ceramic inserts with TiN coating
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vdpatel_me@ldrp.ac.in (V.D. Patel).
roughness. They performed experiments for different combination
of cutting speed and feed rate at constant depth of cut (0.2 mm).
They concluded that lowest surface roughness is achieved at the
combination of lowest feed rate and highest cutting speed. Aouici
et al. [5] investigated the surface roughness obtained by turning
of the AISI H11 steel having different hardness values using CBN
tool. They reported mathematical model for surface roughness
based on response surface methodology (RSM) for different cutting
conditions and workpiece hardness. Conclusion shows that feed
rate and workpiece hardness have significant impact on surface
roughness. Feng [6] concluded using the fractional factorial exper-
imentation approach that there is a less contribution of depth of
cut on surface roughness of machined surfaces, whereas, feed rate
and workpiece hardness have considerable effect on surface rough-
ness of machined part. Agrawal et al. [2] performed hard turning of
AISI 4340 (69 HRC) using CBN cutting tool insert. They applied
three different regression models (Multiple regression, Random
forest, and Quantile regression) to obtain correlation of various
feed, depth of cut and spindle speed. Authors concluded that ran-
dom forest method is more suitable than other methods for predic-
tion of surface roughness of turned part and also, cited that cutting
feed and speed has major impact on surface roughness.
Surface roughness obtained by turning of hard materials is
investigated by many researchers [1–4,6]. Hard turning is a
complex oblique cutting process. It is quite difficult to inculcate

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.01.077
0263-2241/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V.D. Patel, A.H. Gandhi / Measurement 138 (2019) 34–38 35

Nomenclature

d depth of cut (mm) Ra pred average surface roughness prediction based on all possi-
v cutting speed (m/min) ble factors (lm)
f feed (mm/rev) Ra vfr average surface roughness based on v, f, and r (lm)
r tool nose radius (mm) c0, c1, c2, c3 constants corresponding to cutting conditions and
Ra experimental value of average surface roughness of ma- tool geometry
chined part (lm)

all possible factors affecting the surface roughness of the machined
part for analysis. Various researchers have considered the effect of
cutting conditions like speed, feed and depth of cut. Some have
considered the effect of workpiece hardness to analyze and inves-
tigate the variation in surface roughness. In reported work, effort is
made to model surface roughness obtained by turning of AISI D2
steel with CBN tool considering all possible factors including tool
geometry like. In this research, mathematical model is developed
based on cutting conditions and geometry of tool having different
tool nose radius.
2. Experimental details and analysis
Experimental setup, procedure, measurement of surface rough-
ness of machined workpiece and analysis are described in this
section.
2.1. Experimental details
Main objective of reported experimentation is to establish func-
tional relationship between surface roughness and all possible
input factors based on measured values of surface roughness.
Heavy duty lathe (model- HMT NH22) is used for turning of cold
worked through hardened AISI D2 steel with average hardness of
57 HRC. Workpiece of hardened AISI D2 steel with initial diameter
of 92 mm was turned to 88 mm diameter to achieve proper finish-
ing. Chemical composition of workpiece material is shown in
Table 1.
For finish hard turning experiments, three different values of
cutting speeds (i.e. 80, 116 and 152 m/min) and feeds (0.04, 0.12
and 0.20 mm/rev) are considered at constant depth of cut of
standard error of calibration is found to be 0.008. Average surface
roughness results are obtained based on three different values of
surface roughness measured at equally spaced locations around
the circumference of machined workpiece.
2.2. Experimental results and discussion
Total 27 experiments are performed using full factorial design
of experiment for all possible combinations of speed (v) (80, 116,
152 m/min), feed (f) (0.04, 0.12, 0.2 mm/rev) and nose radius (r)
(0.4, 0.8, 1.2 mm). Constant depth of cut of 0.2 mm is set for all
the 27 experiments. Table 2 shows experimental surface roughness
values for all 27 experiments.
Fig. 1 shows variation of surface roughness of AISI D2 steel for
different values of cutting speed and feed combinations at a con-
stant depth of cut 0.2 mm using CBN cutting tool having nose
radius of 1.2 mm in the hard turning. Similarly Figs. 2 and 3 show
variation of surface roughness for different values of cutting speed
and feed combinations at 0.2 mm depth of cut for tool nose radius
of 0.8 and 0.4 mm, respectively.
Experimental values of surface roughness obtained at different
cutting speed and feed combinations are in the range from
0.504 mm to 1.21 mm, 1.6 mm to 0.55 mm and 2.27 mm to 0.77 mm
with the CBN tool having nose radius of 1.2 mm, 0.8 mm and
0.4 mm, respectively. From Fig. 1, it can be analyzed that values
Table 2
Experimental results of surface roughness.
Exp. No. Factors Ra (lm)
v (m/min) f (mm/rev) r (mm)

0.2 mm [1,7–9]. Sandvik Coromant make CBN tool inserts of ISO 1 80 0.04 0.8 0.967
designations CNGA120404S01030A, CNGA120408S01030A and 2 80 0.12 0.8 1.21
3 80 0.2 0.8 1.6
CNGA120412S01030A are used for the experiments. Tool inserts 4 116 0.04 0.8 0.693
are fitted in standard tool holder of designation DCLNR2525M12. 5 116 0.12 0.8 1.02
In addition, inserts and holder assembly provides clearance angle 6 116 0.2 0.8 1.22
of 0°, orthogonal rake angle of
6°, inclination angle of
6°, cutting 7 152 0.04 0.8 0.55
8 152 0.12 0.8 0.739
edge angle of 95° and lead angle of
5°.
9 152 0.2 0.8 1.05
Surface roughness is measured using the surface roughness tes- 10 80 0.04 1.2 0.734
ter SJ210 of Mitutoya having a trace length of 5 mm and cut-off 11 80 0.12 1.2 1.03
length of 0.8 mm. Surface roughness tester (model: SJ210 Mitutoyo 12 80 0.2 1.2 1.21
make) used for measurement of surface roughness of machined 13 116 0.04 1.2 0.578
14 116 0.12 1.2 0.81
component is calibrated with the help of Auto-calibration function 15 116 0.2 1.2 0.997
(with Ra calibration, Average method up to 5 measurements) avail- 16 152 0.04 1.2 0.504
able with the instrument. Based on five different measured values 17 152 0.12 1.2 0.685
of average surface roughness (Ra) 2.96, 2.97, 2.97, 2.98 and 18 152 0.2 1.2 0.925
19 80 0.04 0.4 1.34
2.96 lm for calibration specimen of 2.97 lm surface roughness,
20 80 0.12 0.4 1.57
21 80 0.2 0.4 2.27
22 116 0.04 0.4 0.92
Table 1 23 116 0.12 0.4 1.2
Chemical composition of AISI D2 steel in percentage. 24 116 0.2 0.4 1.59
C Si Mn Cr Mo V T 25 152 0.04 0.4 0.77
26 152 0.12 0.4 0.97
1.63 0.27 0.31 11.89 0.51 0.37 0.23 27 152 0.2 0.4 1.128
36 V.D. Patel, A.H. Gandhi / Measurement 138 (2019) 34–38

f = 0.04 mm/rev 2.35 f = 0.04 mm/rev

1.3

f = 0.12 mm/rev f = 0.12 mm/rev

1.2 2.1

f = 0.2 mm/rev f = 0.2 mm/rev

1.1 1.85

Surface roughness ( μm)

Surface roughness (μm)

1
1.6
0.9
1.35
0.8
1.1
0.7

0.85
0.6

0.5 0.6
70 85 100 115 130 145 160
0.4 Cutting speed (m/min)
70 85 100 115 130 145 160
Fig. 3. Experimental values of surface roughness for different values of cutting
Cutting speed (m/min) speed and feed combinations at r = 0.4 mm and d = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 1. Experimental values of surface roughness for different values of cutting

speed and feed combinations at r = 1.2 mm and d = 0.2 mm.
feed (f) and nose radius (r). ANOVA is performed based on 95% con-
fidence level. Also, p-value is found less than 0.05. So, all input
parameters under consideration (i.e. cutting speed (v), feed (f)
1.8 f = 0.04 mm/rev
and nose radius (r)) are said to be statistically significant on surface
roughness (Ra). Percentage deviation (error) of sum of square of
f = 0.12 mm/rev
1.6 model is 8.84. Percentage contribution of cutting speed (v), feed
f = 0.2 mm/rev (f) and nose radius (r) in average surface roughness (Ra) is found
1.4 to be 30.56, 34.34 and 26.26, respectively. It is observed that feed
Surface roughness (μm)

(f) is most influencing parameter which affects surface roughness

1.2 (Ra) than cutting speed (v) and nose radius (r).
It is required to evaluate the functional relationship of surface
1 roughness with cutting conditions and tool geometry. In addition,
influence of factors is equally important to analyze for controlling
input variables based on output. Modeling of surface roughness is
0.8
essential for effective prediction.

0.6
0.4
70 85 100 115 130
Cutting speed (m/min)
Fig. 2. Experimental values of surface roughness for different values of cutting
speed and feed combinations at r = 0.8 mm and d = 0.2 mm.
of surface roughness decreases with increases the cutting speed at
constant feed of 0.04 mm/rev at 1.2 mm nose radius. Similar trend
can be observed at constant feed 0.12 mm/rev and 0.2 mm/rev.
Also, Figs. 2 and 3 show increase of surface roughness with increas-
ing value of feed. Surface roughness of machined component also
affects with the variation of tool nose radius. When tool nose
radius is increased from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm, the value of surface
roughness seems to be decreased. This tendency can be observed
when compare Figs. 1–3. When tool nose radius decrease then
grooves are produced during machining which deteriorates the
surface finish of machined part. More grooves are produced when
tool nose radius decreases from 1.2 mm to 0.4 mm [10]. Moreover,
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to evaluate percentage con-
tribution of each conditions like; cutting speed (v), feed (f) and
nose radius (r) on surface roughness (Ra). In order to complete
the ANOVA table, factor sum of square and total sum of square
are calculated and percentage contribution of each factors is
reported as shown in Table 3. Values of surface roughness (Ra)
are used to evaluate different contribution of cutting speed (v),
3. Modeling of surface roughness
145 160 Surface roughness of machined component draws great interest
in hard turning due to advancement in the cutting tool area. Pre-
diction of surface roughness is very difficult due to complex mech-
anism of hard turning. Mostly, researchers have developed the
modeling of surface roughness based on cutting parameters using
various methods. It is practically difficult to comprise all possible
factors simultaneously. Here, modeling is formulated as a function
of cutting parameters and geometry.
3.1. Modeling of surface roughness due to cutting conditions and
geometry
Cutting parameters like cutting speed, feed, depth of cut and
tool geometry significantly affect the surface roughness of
machined component. Singh and Rao [11] analyzed the surface
roughness using response surface methodology based on cutting
conditions, tool nose radius and effective rake angle. RSM is also
used by Aouici et al. [5] for modeling of surface roughness as a
function of cutting parameters and workpiece hardness. Regression
analysis is used for modeling of surface roughness as a function of
cutting speed, feed and depth of cut [1,12–14]. Researchers
reported their work in references [1,7–9] that surface roughness
decreased with the decrease of depth of cut. They concluded that
lower surface roughness value can be achieved using smaller value
of depth of cut (0.2 mm).
 V.D. Patel, A.H. Gandhi / Measurement 138 (2019) 34–38 37

Table 3
Percentage contribution of nose radius, cutting speed and feed attributes to surface roughness.

Parameters Total sum Factor sum of square % contribution % error

S(v, f, r) P(v, f, r) (Se)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
v 11.93 9.03 7.32 1.21 30.56
f 7.06 9.23 11.99 1.36 34.34 8.84
r 11.76 9.05 7.47 1.04 26.26

Some researchers [3,15] reported models showing the relation-

ship between surface roughness and cutting parameters. It was
found that variable cutting conditions affect the surface finish of
machined part. Surface roughness can be formulated as function
of independent parameters like cutting speed (v), feed (f), depth
of cut (d) and nose radius (r). Another possibility of variation of
surface roughness is the interaction of two parameters like v f, v
d, v r, f d, f r and d r. Depth of cut is taken as constant during hard
turning. Here variable cutting conditions are cutting speed (v), feed
(f) and tool nose radius (r). Simultaneous effect of all three variable
parameters like speed, feed and nose radius on the surface rough-
ness of machined component can be seen in the Figs. 1 to 3. So, Sur-
face roughness based on simultaneous interaction effect of three
variables (v, f and r) is formulated as per Eq. (1).

Ra v fr ¼ c0 v c1 f 2 rc3
c
ð1Þ
Now, Eq. (1) can be simplified as per Eq. (2).
ln Ra v fr ¼ b þ c1 ln v þ c2 ln f þ c3 ln r ð2Þ
where, b ¼ ln c0 .
Eq. (1) shows functional relationship between surface rough-
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental surface roughness and prediction values.
ness (Ra vfr) and cutting conditions (varying amount of cutting
speed, feed and nose radius with constant depth of cut) for turning
process.

3.2. Determination of constants

After plotting results, nature of surface roughness can be

observed and experimental results of surface roughness can be
effectively predicted using methods described in this section using
Eqs. (1) and (2).
22 experimental readings of surface roughness as shown in
Table 2 are randomly selected to evaluate the model constant as
depicted in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). Experiment number 1–27 except
2, 7, 17, 24 and 14 are used to evaluate model constants and these
remaining sets are used to validate the developed models. With
reference to experimental results, prediction of surface roughness
can be evaluated by solving the Eq. (1). Constants used in Eqs.
(1) and (2) were determined using Matlab and its values are Fig. 5. Validation of developed model using random selected experimental sets.
described as shown in Table 4.
Closeness of experimental surface roughness values with pre-
dictions correspondence to Eq. (1) can be analyzed from surface From Fig. 4, it can be observed that results obtained for Ra pred
roughness vs. experiment no. plot as shown in Fig. 4. is very close to the experimental readings of surface roughness
Standard error of prediction for comparison of readings as which is possible based on the values obtained due to Ra vfr. Per-
shown in Fig. 4 is 0.09 which is calculated based on all measured centage variation between experimental surface roughness (Ra)
and predicted value of surface roughness using Eq. (3). and prediction values (Ra pred) found between
11% and +12%.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Fig. 5 indicates the validation of developed models using randomly
P 2
ðRpred
RaÞ selected experimental sets and the percentage variation between
Standard error of prediction ¼ ð3Þ
n
2 experimental and predicted values found between
8% and 4.5%.

4. Conclusion
Table 4
Model constants evaluated based on experimental results. In this research work, values of surface roughness obtained
i=1 i=2 i=3 b = 4.1135 based on various cutting conditions and tool nose radius are
ci
0.7439 0.3177
0.3846 effectively predicted using mathematical model in the hard turning
of AISI D2 steel using CBN tools. Surface roughness values are
38 V.D. Patel, A.H. Gandhi / Measurement 138 (2019) 34–38
predicted by model and compared with the experimental work and
following conclusions are drawn;
 Linear relationship found between the input variables (cutting
speed, feed, nose radius) and surface roughness of AISI D2 steel
during hard turning.
 Surface roughness decreases with decreasing of feed from
0.2 mm/rev to 0.04 mm/rev. While value of surface roughness
decreases with increasing the cutting speed from 80 m/min to
152 m/min. When tool nose radius increases from 0.4 mm to
1.2 mm, lower value of surface roughness is obtained. Lower
surface roughness (0.504 mm) of machined part is achieved at
lower feed, high cutting speed and large nose radius.
 A mathematical model shows the functional relationship of
feed, cutting speed, nose radius and surface roughness. Predic-
tion of surface roughness found very close to the experimental
values of surface roughness. Percentage variation of 22 readings
which are used for determination of model constants found
between
10.5% and 12%.
 Validation of developed mathematical model is carried out
based on randomly selected experimental sets. Error variation
of experimental and predicted values is found in the range of

8% to 4.5%.
References
[1] T. Özel, Y. Karpat, L. Figueira, J.P. Davim, Modeling of surface finish and tool
flank wear in turning of AISI D2 steel with ceramic wiper inserts, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 189 (1) (2007) 192–198.
[2] A. Agrawal, S. Goel, W.B. Rashid, M. Price, Prediction of surface roughness
during hard turning of AISI 4340 steel (69 HRC), Appl. Soft Comput. 30 (2015)
279–286.
[3] I. Asiltürk, M. Çunkasß, Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in turning
operations using artificial neural network and multiple regression method,
Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (5) (2011) 5826–5832.
[4] D.I. Lalwani, N.K. Mehta, P.K. Jain, Experimental investigations of cutting
parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard
turning of MDN250 steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 206 (1) (2008) 167–179.
[5] 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 (3)
(2012) 344–353.
[6] C.X. Feng, An experimental study of the impact of turning parameters on
surface roughness, Proceedings of the industrial engineering research
conference 2036, 2001.
[7] 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 (3) (2005) 388–395.
[8] 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
(4) (2007) 1186–1191.
[9] G. Poulachon, B.P. Bandyopadhyay, I.S. Jawahir, S. Pheulpin, E. Seguin, Wear
behavior of CBN tools while turning various hardened steels, Wear 256 (3–4)
(2004) 302–310.
[10] C.R. Liu, S. Mittal, Single-step superfinish hard machining: feasibility and
feasible cutting conditions, Rob. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 12 (1) (1996) 15–27.
[11] D. Singh, P.V. Rao, A surface roughness prediction model for hard turning
process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 32 (11–12) (2007) 1115–1124.
[12] S. Thamizhmanii, S. Saparudin, S. Hasan, Analyses of surface roughness by
turning process using Taguchi method, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 20 (1–2)
(2007) 503–506.
[13] M. Mehrban, D. Naderi, V. Panahizadeh, H.M. Naeini, Modelling of tool life in
turning process using experimental method, Int. J. Mater. Form. 1 (1) (2008)
559–562.
[14] R. Suresh, S. Basavarajappa, G.L. Samuel, Some studies on hard turning of
AISI4340 steel using multilayer coated carbide tool, Measurement 45 (7)
(2012) 1872–1884.
[15] T. Özel, Y. Karpat, Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear in
hard turning using regression and neural networks, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.
45 (4) (2005) 467–479.