EFFECTS OF LUBRICATION AND COOLING

A Lab Report

Submitted By

Neel Nadpara

ME 3217 Metal Cutting Principles

Instructor: Thomas Mealy

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Connecticut

November 2, 2015
Abstract:
Metalworking coolants are often utilized in a variety of manufacturing processes such as milling
and turning operations since they have the potential to reduce tool wear, decrease cutting
temperature, and even improve surface finish. The purpose of this lab was to determine the
effects of lubrication and cooling media on 6061 Aluminum during the metal removal process
specifically in terms of shear angles (α), frictional forces (F), and friction angle (β). In the
experiment, a High Speed Steel tool with a rake angle of 17° was utilized in a turning operation
with 4 different coolant means: dry (no coolant), water, emulsified oil, and synthetic oil and
water emulsion. The experimental data and subsequent calculations despite some error showed
that the synthetic oil and water emulsion had the greatest shear angle and lowest frictional forces
making it the most effective cooling agent while dry cutting proved to be the least effective
method.

Theory behind the Lab:

Metal cutting procedures, such as the turning or round stock, remove material from a workpiece
by shearing and deforming the material to be removed producing chips. In a turning process, the
cutting tool engages the rotating workpiece at a certain depth of cut (to) and travels horizontally
on a tool carriage at a certain feed rate (f). When the operation is broken down into an orthogonal
cutting model, one is able to then study the mechanics of cutting. Four key parameters among
others influence machining parameters they include cutting speed (SFM), depth of cut, feed, and
the use of cutting fluids. These parameters influence forces, power, temperature rise, tool life,
type of chip produced, surface finish, and integrity. In this lab, the independent variable is the
use of different cooling media (cutting fluids). The constants include the RPM of the lathe, the
rake angle (α) of the cutting tool, the surface feet per minute (SFM), the feed and the depth of
cut. Thus, the chip thickness (tc), cutting force (Fc), the thrust force (Ft), and the radial force (Fr)
should become the dependent variables. The chip thickness is measurable with calipers while the
three forces were measured using a force transducer measuring in the x, y, and z directions. From
these known parameters additional parameters can be determined thanks to the orthogonal
cutting model and the use of force triangles. First, we can determine the frictional force (F) since
it can be found that:
 𝐅 = 𝐑𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛃 = 𝐅𝐜 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂 + 𝐅𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛂 = 𝐅𝐭 + 𝐅𝐜 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛂 (𝟏)

Where F is the frictional force in pounds force (lbf), Ft is thrust force in pounds force (lbf), Fc is
cutting force in pounds force (lbf), and α is the rake angle of the cutting tool in degrees.
Likewise, the normal force can be determined:

𝐍 = 𝐑𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛃 = 𝐅𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛂 − 𝐅𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂 = 𝐅𝐜 − 𝐅𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛂 (𝟐)

By knowing the friction force and the normal force it is then possible to determine the friction
angle (β). The coefficient of friction equations allows one to use the frictional and normal forces
in order to determine the friction angle:

𝐅
𝛍 = 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛃 𝐨𝐫 𝛍 = (𝟑)
𝐍

The equations can be rearranged as such:

𝐅 𝐅
= 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛃 → 𝛃 = 𝐭𝐚𝐧−𝟏 (𝟒)
𝐍 𝐍

This in turn, allows one to find the friction angle which can then be used to determine the
theoretical shear angle (ϕtheo ) by use of the Merchant equation which is shown below.

𝛂 𝛃
𝛟𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨 = 𝟒𝟓° + − (𝟓)
𝟐 𝟐

In the Merchant equation (ϕtheo ) is the theoretical shear angle, α is the rake angle, and β is the
friction angle. The experimental shear angle (ϕexp ), on the other hand, can be determined using
cutting ratio (r) and the rake angle as seen below:

𝐭𝐨
𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛂 𝐭𝐨 −𝟏 𝐭 𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛂
𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛟𝐞𝐱𝐩 = 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫 = → 𝛟𝐞𝐱𝐩 = 𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐭 (𝟔)
𝟏 − 𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂 𝐭𝐜 𝟏 − 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂
𝐜

In this equation, r is the cutting ratio which is defined as the feed (to) divided by the chip
thickness (tc). Moreover, the specific cutting energy (uc) can also be quantified by employing the
cutting force, width of cut (w), and the feed as follows:
 𝐅𝐂
𝐮𝐜 = (𝟕)
𝐰𝐭 𝐨

Logically, the addition of a cutting fluid should affect the mechanics of cutting by lowering the
cutting and thrust forces as well as the chip thickness. Therefore when cooling media is utilized
the frictional forces should decrease, the frictional angles should decrease, and the shear angles
should increase. Also, the type of cutting fluid is relevant since some are only capable of
reducing temperatures while others are only able to lubricate. For instance, water functions well
for cooling but poorly for lubrication meaning that it does not significantly decrease frictional
forces. Thus, a cooling media with good cooling and lubricating properties is desired to achieve
the full benefits that cooling fluids can provide (less friction at the tool-chip interface, increased
shear angles, thinner chips, reduction in temperature, etc.).

Experimental Procedure:

In this lab, a lathe was set up with round 6061 aluminum stock mounted to the chuck and a live
center supporting the stock via the tailstock. A force transducer was set up to measure the forces
in each of the three axis of interest the x to measure the thrust force, the y to measure the radial
force, and in the z to measure the cutting force. The lab was set up in order to measure the forces
during cutting as seen in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Figure showing all of the key parameters of interest during the cutting operation including the feed,
SFM, tool, cutting force, thrust force, and radial force.
A LabVIEW VI was also programed and used with a PC in order to record the forces that are
detected by the force transducers during each of the five individual cutting operations. In each of
these operations everything was held constant with the exception of the coolant media. There
was one dry run to start in which no coolant was used (serves as a baseline), then water was used
as the coolant, afterwards, oil was utilized, next a synthetic coolant and water emulsification was
employed, last the dry run was repeated to ensure the data retrieved is accurate. Furthermore, the
thickness of the chips produced during each operation is determined by measuring with calipers
multiple times and averaging the results.

Results and Discussion:

Determination of Average Chip Thickness (tc) in inches

Cut Dry Wet Oil Synthetic Dry 2
Type
Trials 0.02 0.023 0.021 0.022 0.0225
0.022 0.02 0.024 0.0195 0.0225
0.0225 0.023 0.0205 0.021 0.023
0.023 0.021 0.022 0.0195 0.0245
0.024 0.0205 0.0215 0.021 0.025
Avg. 0.0223 0.0215 0.0218 0.0206 0.0235
Figure 2: Table showing the individual data measurements for chip thickness for each cutting fluid along
with the average chip thickness for each cutting fluid.

Constants and Force

Dry Water Oil Synthetic Dry
Transducer Data
Diam (inches) 2.688
RPM 330
alpha (degrees) 17
SFM 232.2
Dry Water Oil Synthetic Dry
Feed, to (inches) 0.008
Chip, tc (inches) 0.0223 0.0215 0.0218 0.0206 0.0235

DOC, w (inches) 0.0360

Fz (Fc) (lbf) mean 44.99 43.51 43.01 41.57 42.85
Fx (Ft) (lbf) mean 17.97 17.06 17.94 16.85 17.80
Fy (Fr) (lbf) mean 13.87 14.05 14.13 13.76 14.38
Calculated Data
Frictional Force
F 31.72 30.36 31.09 29.56 30.90
(lbf)
Normal Force (lbf) N 39.49 38.29 37.52 36.42 37.41
Mean Friction Angle
β 38.77 38.41 39.64 39.07 39.56
(Degrees)
Specific Cutting
µc 156204.97 151070.58 149325.06 144350.29 148790.29
Energy (lbf/in2)
Experimental Shear
φexp 20.97 21.77 21.46 22.73 19.88
Angle (Degrees)
Theoretical Shear
φtheo 34.11 34.30 33.68 33.97 33.72
Angle (Degrees)
Figure 3: Table showing all the cutting parameters that are given/constants, the measurements taken by the
force transducer, and the calculated values.

Aluminum 6061: Experimental and Theoretical Shear Angle vs.

Lubrication Method
40.00
34.11° 34.30° 33.68° 33.97° 33.72°
35.00

30.00
Shear Angle (Degrees)

25.00 22.73°
20.97° 21.77° 21.46° Experimental Shear Angle
19.88°
20.00 (Degrees)
Theoretical Shear Angle
15.00 (Degrees)
10.00

5.00

0.00
Dry Water Oil Synthetic Dry
Lubrication Method

Figure 4: Graph showing the experimental and theoretical shear angle so they can be compared with the
same and different means of coolants.
 Aluminum 6061: Frictional Forces vs. Lubrication Method

32.00
31.72 lbf
31.50
31.09 lbf
30.90 lbf
31.00
Frictional Forces (Lbf)

30.50 30.36 lbf

Frictional Force (lbf)
30.00
29.56 lbf
29.50

29.00

28.50

28.00
Dry Water Oil Synthetic Dry
Lubrication Method

Figure 5: Graph showing frictional forces with respect to different means of coolants.

Aluminum 6061: Frictional Angle vs. Lubrication Method

39.80
39.64°
39.56°
39.60
39.40
Frictional Angle (Degrees)

39.20 39.07°
39.00
38.77°
38.80 Mean Friction Angle
(Degrees)
38.60
38.41°
38.40
38.20
38.00
37.80
37.60
Dry Water Oil Synthetic Dry
Lubrication Method

Figure 6: Graph showing frictional angle with respect to different means of coolants.
The use of coolants should in theory reduce frictional forces, decrease the frictional angles, and
increase the shear angle. However, like any experimentally obtained data there is likely to be
error. From the data acquired, it can generally be seen that the frictional forces decrease when a
coolant is used. The data states that the frictional force starts out at 31.7 lbf in dry cutting, and is
reduced to 30.4 lbf when water is used, then the force increases to 31.1 lbf when oil is utilized,
the synthetic lowers the force to most down to 29.6 lbf, then the force returns to a higher 30.9 lbf
in the final dry cutting stage. In theory, the frictional force should be the highest for dry, then
slightly lower for water (since water does not have significant lubrication properties), then lower
for oil (since it has slightly better lubrication properties), then the lowest for the synthetic since it
offers both cooling and lubrication, afterwards the friction force should return to about the same
as the original dry run for the second dry run. However, the data that was collected shows oil
doing poorly comparted to water and the second dry run does not return to the same magnitude
of force as the original dry run. This error can be attributed to a number of factors. For instance,
there is likely some coolant on the second dry run due to splatter, there could be some water on
the section where the oil was supposed to be the only cutting fluid, the cutting fluid could have
been poured in the wrong spot (cutting fluids are only effective when they are applied to the tool-
chip interface), also since the cutting tool was hand ground the heat could have annealed the tool
and the initial cutting operations could have dulled the tool (not likely, but possible). Moreover,
there is significant error in the mean friction angles that were determined as the data is all over
the place and does not support what should have occurred theoretically. In theory, cutting fluids
should lower the friction angle so that the order from lowest to highest friction angle should have
been the synthetic, oil, water, and the two dry runs. However, the data shows the water having
the lowest friction angle and the oil having the highest which is definitely incorrect. Since the
calculation of the friction angle relies on the friction and normal forces which are calculated
using the thrust and cutting forces; the same errors affecting the frictional forces are likely to
blame as well. Furthermore, since the friction angle is used to calculate the theoretical shear
angle it is also skewed. In theory, cutting fluids should increase the shear angle so the order of
highest to lowest shear angle should have been synthetic, oil, water, followed by the two dry
runs. Now for the experimental shear angles, the synthetic has the highest and the dry has the
lowest which is what should be expected. However, for the other cutting fluids the results are not
what should be expected but the values themselves are very close together so even small error
could have caused such results. The experimental shear angles and the theoretical are very far
apart and this is likely due to the fact that the theoretical shear angle is determined using the
mean friction angle which also seems to be off of what it should be due to errors mentioned
previously.

Conclusion:

From the data that was obtained for this lab the theory that cutting forces and friction force are
reduced by the introduction of cutting fluids is validated. Additionally, in general the data also
confirms that the shear angle increases with the use of cutting fluids compared to dry conditions
as is theorized. There is sizable amount of error in this experiment (there is a percent error of
approximately 35% for the experimental shear angle verses the theoretical). Much of the error is
mostly due to excess cutting fluid being transferred from previous cutting operations and
accuracy issues with the force transducer (it is more accurate in measuring higher forces).
However, from this lab it can be seen that generally the use of cutting fluids can assist machine
operations by reducing cutting forces which in turn reduces energy needs, frictional forces, and
increases tool life. Also, dimensional accuracy is improved since there is less error from thermal
expansion, built up edges are less likely to occur, and machining becomes more economical as
tools last longer. Moreover, different cutting fluids preform differently and cutting fluids with
optimal cooling and lubricating properties such as the synthetic oil with water emulsion should
be utilized to take full advantage of the benefits of cutting fluids.
Appendix:

Sample Calculation Set (Dry 1):

For the actual calculations, Microsoft Excel was used to perform these calculations to speed up
the process. Also, the cutting force and the thrust force average was obtained by graphing the
forces in the x, y, and z axes and selecting two data points in the middle (see below) and
averaging all the data points between those two points by using excel.

60

50

45.332547 44.935913

40

forceX (Formula
30 Result)

forceY (Formula
Result)
20 19.077439
18.969364
forceZ (Formula
13.6191 13.667862 Result)
10

0
1283
2565
3847
5129
6411
7693
8975
1

10257
11539
12821
14103
15385
16667
17949
19231
20513
21795
23077
24359
25641
26923
28205
29487
30769
32051
33333

𝐅 = Rsinβ = Fc sinα + Ft cosα = Ft + Fc tanα = 17.97 + 44.99tan(17°) = 𝟑𝟏. 𝟕𝟐 𝐥𝐛𝐟

𝐍 = Rcosβ = Fc cosα − Ft sinα = Fc − Ft tanα = 44.99 − 17.97tan(17°) = 𝟑𝟗. 𝟒𝟗 𝐥𝐛𝐟

F
μ = tanβ or μ =
N

F F 31.72
= tanβ → 𝛃 = tan−1 = tan−1 = 𝟑𝟖. 𝟕𝟕°
N N 39.49
 α β 17° 38.77°
𝛟𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨 = 45° + − = 45° + − = 𝟑𝟒. 𝟏𝟏°
2 2 2 2

rcosα to
tanϕexp = where r =
1 − rsinα tc

to . 008
cosα cos(17°)
−1 t c −1 . 0223
→ 𝛟𝐞𝐱𝐩 = tan to = tan = 𝟐𝟎. 𝟗𝟕°
. 008
1 − t sinα 1 − . 0223 sin(17°)
c

FC 44.99 𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝐮𝐜 = = = 𝟏𝟓𝟔𝟐𝟎𝟒. 𝟗𝟕 𝟐
wt o (. 0360)(.008) 𝒊𝒏

Sources:

Kalpakjian, Serope. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.