| Literature DB >> 31480236 |
Munish Kumar Gupta1, Muhammad Jamil2, Xiaojuan Wang1, Qinghua Song3,4, Zhanqiang Liu1,5, Mozammel Mia6, Hussein Hegab7, Aqib Mashood Khan2, Alberto Garcia Collado8, Catalin Iulian Pruncu9, G M Shah Imran6.
Abstract
Recently, the application of nano-cutting fluids has gained much attention in the machining of nickel-based super alloys due their good lubricating/cooling properties including thermal conductivity, viscosity, and tribological characteristics. In this study, a set of turning experiments on new nickel-based alloy i.e., Inconel-800 alloy, was performed to explore the characteristics of different nano-cutting fluids (aluminum oxide (Al2O3), molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), and graphite) under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) conditions. The performance of each nano-cutting fluid was deliberated in terms of machining characteristics such as surface roughness, cutting forces, and tool wear. Further, the data generated through experiments were statistically examined through Box Cox transformation, normal probability plots, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Then, an in-depth analysis of each process parameter was conducted through line plots and the results were compared with the existing literature. In the end, the composite desirability approach (CDA) was successfully implemented to determine the ideal machining parameters under different nano-cutting cooling conditions. The results demonstrate that the MoS2 and graphite-based nanofluids give promising results at high cutting speed values, but the overall performance of graphite-based nanofluids is better in terms of good lubrication and cooling properties. It is worth mentioning that the presence of small quantities of graphite in vegetable oil significantly improves the machining characteristics of Inconel-800 alloy as compared with the two other nanofluids.Entities:
Keywords: environmentally friendly; nano-cutting fluids; nickel-based alloys; optimization; turning
Year: 2019 PMID: 31480236 PMCID: PMC6747821 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Chemical composition of Inconel-800 alloy.
| Ni | Cr | Fe | C | Al | Ti | Al + Ti |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30.0–35.0 | 19.0–23.0 | 39.5 min | 0.10 max | 0.15–0.60 | 0.15–0.60 | 0.30–1.20 |
Heat treatment conditions of Inconel-800 super alloy.
| Heat Treatment | Intermediate Treatment | Final Treatment | Rockwell Hardness |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1050 °C for 2 h, air-cooling | 850 °C for 6 h, air-cooling | 700 °C for 2 h, air-cooling | RC |
Tool geometry of cutting tool.
| Inclination Angle | −6° |
|---|---|
| Orthogonal rake angle | 6° |
| Orthogonal clearance angle | 80° |
| Auxiliary cutting-edge angle | 15° |
| Principal cutting-edge angle | 90° |
| Nose radius | 0.4 mm |
| Shape | Rhombic |
Properties of different nanofluids [26].
| Properties | Vegetable Base Oil | Al2O3 Nanofluid | MoS2 Nanofluid | Graphite Nanofluid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance | Bright and clear | White | Black | Grayish Black |
| Viscosity (CP) (at 20 °C) | 68.16 | 120.23 | 100.56 | 83.12 |
| Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) | 0.1432 | 0.2085 | 0.2362 | 0.2663 |
Machining parameters and their levels.
| Parameters | Coded Value | Units | Low Level (−1) | Middle Level (0) | High Level (+1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting Speed (Vc) | A | m/min | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| Feed Rate (f) | B | mm/rev | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.20 |
| Depth of cut ( | C | mm | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 |
| Cooling condition | D | - | Al2O3 | MoS2 | Graphite |
Figure 1Research methodology of current work.
Figure 2Box-Cox plots. (a) Cutting forces; (b) Tool wear; (c) Surface roughness.
Figure 3Normal distribution plots. (a) Cutting forces; (b) Tool wear; (c) Surface roughness.
Figure 4Effect of cutting parameters on main cutting forces. (a) Cutting Speed, where f = 0.15 mm/rev & a = 0.50 mm; (b) Feed Rate, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and a = 0.50 mm; (c) Depth of Cut, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and f = 0.15 mm/rev.
Figure 5Effect of cutting parameters on tool wear. (a) Cutting Speed, where f = 0.15 mm/rev & a = 0.50 mm; (b) Feed Rate, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and a = 0.50 mm; (c) Depth of Cut, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and f = 0.15 mm/rev.
Figure 6Atomic structure of the used nanoadditives. (a) Alumina structure; (b) MoS2 structure; (c) Graphite structure.
Figure 7Tool wear images at different working conditions at V = 300 m/min, f = 0.15 mm/rev, a = 0.50 mm. (a) Al2O3 nanofluid; (b) MoS2 nanofluid; (c) Graphite nanofluid.
Figure 8Effect of cutting parameters on surface roughness. (a) Cutting Speed, where f = 0.15 mm/rev & a = 0.50 mm; (b) Feed Rate, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and a = 0.50 mm; (c) Depth of Cut, where Vc = 250 mm/rev and f = 0.15 mm/rev.
Optimum results using composite desirability approach (CDA).
| Sr. No. | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Depth of Cut | Cutting Fluid | Cutting Force | Tool Wear | Surface Roughness | Desirability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 200 | 0.10 | 0.70 | 3 | 143 | 181 | 0.87 | 1.00 |
| 2 | 202 | 0.10 | 0.64 | 3 | 141 | 183 | 0.88 | 0.88 |
| 3 | 201 | 0.10 | 0.63 | 3 | 140 | 183 | 0.88 | 0.74 |
| 4 | 201 | 0.10 | 0.70 | 3 | 145 | 182 | 0.87 | 0.72 |
| 5 | 200 | 0.10 | 0.62 | 2 | 141 | 182 | 0.88 | 0.65 |
Figure 9Histogram plot represent the optimum values.