Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2007) 32: 1115 1124 DOI 10.

1007/s00170-006-0429-2

ORIGINA L ARTI CLE

Dilbag Singh . P. Venkateswara Rao

A surface roughness prediction model for hard turning process

Received: 4 April 2005 / Accepted: 7 December 2005 / Published online: 7 March 2006 # Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Abstract An experimental investigation was conducted to determine the effects of cutting conditions and tool geometry on the surface roughness in the finish hard turning of the bearing steel (AISI 52100). Mixed ceramic inserts made up of aluminium oxide and titanium carbonitride (SNGA), having different nose radius and different effective rake angles, were used as the cutting tools. This study shows that the feed is the dominant factor determining the surface finish followed by nose radius and cutting velocity. Though, the effect of the effective rake angle on the surface finish is less, the interaction effects of nose radius and effective rake angle are considerably significant. Mathematical models for the surface roughness were developed by using the response surface methodology. Keywords Effective rake angle . Hard turning . Nose radius . Surface finish Nomenclature b0, b1, b2, b3 C f a, b, c, d r Ra v y Y1 Y2 Estimates of parameters; Constant; Feed (mm/rev); Exponentially determined constant; Nose radius (mm); Surface roughness (m); Cutting velocity (m/min); Measured surface roughness (m); Estimated response based on first order model (m); Estimated response based on second order model (m);

Effective rake angle (degree); Experimental error.

1 Introduction
Hard turning is a process, in which materials in the hardened state (5070 HRC) are machined with the single point cutting tools. This has become possible with the availability of the new cutting tool materials (cubic boron nitride and ceramics). Since a large number of operations are required to produce the finished product, if some of the operations can be combined, or eliminated, or can be substituted by the new process, product cycle time can be reduced and productivity can be improved. The traditional method of machining the hardened materials includes rough turning, heat treatment, and then grinding process. Hard turning eliminates the series of operations required to produce the component and thereby reducing the cycle time and hence resulting in productivity improvement [1]. The various advantages of hard tuning are the higher productivity, reduced set up times, surface finish closer to grinding and ability to machine the complex parts. Various work materials which can be machined by the hard turning process include high speed steels, die steels, bearing steels, alloy steels, case hardened steels, white cast iron and alloy cast iron. Rigid machine tools with adequate power, very hard and tough tool materials with appropriate tool geometry, tool holders with high stiffness and appropriate cutting conditions are some of the prerequisites for hard turning. Surface roughness plays an important role as it influences the fatigue strength, wear rate, coefficient of friction, and corrosion resistance of the machined components. In actual practice, there are many factors which affect the surface roughness, i.e. tool variables, workpiece variables and cutting conditions. Tool variables include tool material, nose radius, rake angle, cutting edge geometry, tool vibration, tool overhang, tool point angle, etc. Workpiece variables include material, hardness and other mechanical properties. Cutting conditions include speed, feed and depth of cut. As the hard turning process involves

D. Singh . P. V. Rao (*) Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi -110016, India e-mail: pvrao@mech.iitd.ernet.in Tel.: +91-11-6591443 Fax: +91-11-8682037

1116

large number of parameters, the process control becomes complex and it would be difficult to select the appropriate cutting conditions and tool geometry for achieving the required surface quality. Various researchers have developed the surface roughness predictive models for the conventional turning, but these models may not be useful for hard turning because hard turning differs from that of the conventional turning process. So, it would be necessary to study the effects of speed, feed, effective rake angle and nose radius on the surface roughness so as to develop the predictive models for hard turning. This paper deals with the hard turning of bearing steel (AISI 52100) with ceramic tools. In hard turning process, the cutting inserts are always provided with the negative chamfer angle in order to increase the edge strength of the cutting tools. This negative chamfer angle acts as a negative rake angle to the insert. The total effective rake then becomes the sum of the negative rake angle provided by the chamfer angle of the inserts and the negative rake angle provided by the tool holder to the cutting inserts.

2 Literature review
The performance of hard turning is measured in terms of surface finish, cutting forces, power consumed and tool wear. Surface finish influences functional properties of machined components. Surface finish, in hard turning, has been found to be influenced by a number of factors such as feed rate, cutting speed, work material characteristics, work hardness, cutting time, tool nose radius and tool geometry, stability of the machine tool and the workpiece set-up, the use of cutting fluids, etc. Knig et al. [1] have reported that CBN and ceramic cutting tools are widely used in industries for the machining of the various hard materials. In many applications, the cutting of ferrous materials in their hardened condition can replace grinding to give significant savings in cost and increase in productivity. Cutting tool geometry plays a very important role in hard turning process. The rake angle and the nose radius of the turning inserts directly affect the cutting forces, power and surface finish. The edge strength of the cutting inserts depends upon edge preparation, i.e. by the honing radius, chamfer angles. Some investigations related to the effect of tool geometry have been reported by the researchers. Thiele and Melkote [2] have investigated the cutting edge geometry and the workpiece hardness on surface generation in the finish hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. CBN inserts, with various representative cutting edge preparations, were used as the cutting tool materials. This study shows that the effect of edge geometry on surface roughness and cutting forces is statistically significant. Specifically, large edge hones produce higher average surface roughness values than small edge hones. The effect of two factor interactions of the edge geometry and the workpiece hardness on the surface roughness is also found to be important. Also large edge hones generate higher

forces in the axial, radial and tangential directions than small edge hones. Dahlman et al. [3] have conducted the study on the influence of rake angle, cutting speed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard turning. Results show that a greater negative rake angle gives higher compressive stresses as well as a deeper affected zone below surface. The compressive stresses increase with the increased feed rate. Zhou et al. [4] have investigated the effect of chamfer angle on the wear of PCBN cutting tool. Results show that chamfer angle has a great influence on the cutting force and tool life. All the three force components increase with an increase of the chamfer angle. The optimized chamfer angle, for the maximum tool life as suggested by this study, is 15. In this study, cutting conditions were kept constant. Chou and Song [5] have investigated the effects of tool nose radius on finish hard turning with ceramic tools. In this study, surface finish, tool wear, cutting forces, and, particularly, white layers were evaluated at different machining conditions. Results show that large tool nose radii not only give finer surface finish, but also considerable tool wear compared to small nose radius tools. Specific cutting energy also increases slightly with tool nose radius. Large nose radius tools generate shallower white layers when cutting by worn tools. For new tools, small nose radius results in larger uncut chip thickness, and thus, induces deeper white layers. Endres and Kountanya [6] have reported the effects of corner radius and edge radius on tool flank wear. Results show the interaction of corner radius and edge radius and their effects on process performance, measured in terms of tool flank wear and forces. The general conclusion is that an advantage exists in using a larger corner radius when using a larger edge radius. Mital and Mehta [7] have conducted a survey of surface prediction models developed and factors influencing the surface roughness. They have developed the surface finish models for aluminium alloy 390, ductile cast iron, medium carbon leaded steel, medium carbon alloy steel 4130, and inconel 718 for a wide range of machining conditions defined by cutting speed, feed and tool nose radius. Statistical analysis of experimental data indicated that the surface finish is strongly influenced by the type of the metal, speed and feed and tool nose radius. While the effects of feed and the tool nose radius on surface finish were generally consistent for all materials, the effect of cutting speed was not. Sundram and Lambert [8, 9] have developed the mathematical models for predicting the surface roughness of AISI 4140 steel during the fine turning operation using both TiC coated and uncoated tungsten carbide throw away tools. The parameters considered were speed, feed, depth of cut, time of cut, nose radius and type of the tool. zel and Karpat [10] studied the predictive modelling of surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning using regression and neural networks. The cutting tool used was cubic boron nitride. In this study, effects of cutting edge geometry, workpiece hardness, feed rate and cutting speed on surface roughness and tool wear were experimentally investigated. A four factor-two level fractional factorial

1117

design was used. Noordin et al. [11] studied the application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. The factors investigated were cutting speed, feed and the side cutting edge angle. The response variables were surface finish and tangential force. ANOVA revealed that feed is the most significant factor influencing the response variables investigated. Suresh et al. [12] have developed a surface roughness prediction model for turning mild steel using a response surface methodology to produce the factor effects of the individual process parameters. Surface roughness prediction model has been optimized by using genetic algorithms (GA). It is clear from the literature that the proper selection of the cutting tool materials is essential for the machining of hard materials. CBN tool materials are being used for accomplishing this task. However, the cost of the CBN inserts is high. It is approximately 1015 times costlier than that of ceramic inserts. In view of this high cost, it is necessary to explore alternative cutting tool materials such as ceramic, which are economical and can perform hard turning reasonably well. Hence the cutting inserts made of mixed ceramic material were selected in this work. In order to increase the edge strength of the ceramic inserts, a chamfer is provided, which acts as a rake angle when attached to the tool holder. So, the effective rake angle and the nose radius of the inserts were selected to represent tool geometry in addition to the cutting conditions to see the combined effect on the surface finish.

by the multiple regression method. The purpose of developing the mathematical models is to understand the combined effect of involved parameters and to facilitate the optimization of the machining process. Response surface methodology, or RSM, is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques that are useful for the modelling and analysis of problems in which response of interest is influenced by several variables and the objective is to optimize the response. The following relationship is commonly used for representing the mathematical models: Y v; f ; ; r "; (1)

where Y is the hard turning response, is the response function, and v, f, , r are the cutting speed, feed, effective rake angle and the nose radius and is the error which is normally distributed with zero mean according to the observed response. The relationship between surface roughness and other independent variables is modelled as follows: Ra C va f b c rd ; (2)

where C is a constant and a, b, c and d are the exponents. The above function can be represented in linear mathematical form as follows: ln Ra ln C a lnv b lnf c lnd lnr: (3)

3 Methodology
Since there are a large number of variables controlling the process, some mathematical models are required to represent the process. However, these models are to be developed using only the significant parameters influencing the process rather than including all the parameters. In order to achieve this, statistical analysis of the experimental results will have to be processed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is a computational technique that enables the estimation of the relative contributions of each of the control factors to the overall measured response. In the present work, only the significant parameters will be used to develop mathematical models using response surface methodology (RSM). These models would be of great use during the optimization of the process variables. RSM methodology is practical, economical and relatively easy for use. The experimental results would be used to build first-order and second-order models
Table 1 Process variables and their levels S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Parameter Cutting speed (m/min) Feed (mm/rev) Effective rake angle () Nose radius (mm) Symbol v f r

The constants and exponents C, a, b, c and d can be determined by the method of least squares. The first -order linear model, developed from the equation, can be represented as follows: Y1 y " b0 x0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 b4 x4 ; (4)

where Y1 is the estimated response based on first order equation, and y is the measured surface roughness on a logarithmic scale, x0=1 (dummy variable), x1, x2, x3 and x4 are logarithmic transformations of cutting speed, feed rate, effective rake angle and nose radius respectively, is the experimental error and b values are the estimates of corresponding parameters. If this model is not sufficient to represent the process, then the second order model will be developed.

Level-1 (low) 100 0.10 6 0.4

Level-2 (medium) 150 0.20 16 0.8

Level-3 (high) 200 0.32 26 1.2

1118 Table 2 ANOVA for surface roughness Source v f r vf v vr f fr r vf vfr vr f r Error Total Sum of squares 3.1200 271.4395 1.5746 47.9819 1.2047 2.0237 1.7058 1.4215 23.8540 4.7727 0.6777 0.2107 2.7426 2.8785 3.0823 368.6902 DF 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 16 80 Mean squares 1.5600 135.7197 0.7873 23.9909 0.3012 0.5059 0.4265 0.3554 5.9635 1.1932 0.0847 0.0263 0.3428 0.3598 0.1926 Fcal 8.10 704.51 4.09 124.53 1.56 2.63 2.21 1.84 30.96 6.19 0.44 0.14 1.78 1.87 F0.05 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 F0.01 6.23 6.23 6.23 6.23 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77 3.89 3.89 3.89 3.89 Percent contribution 0.8462 73.6226 0.4271 13.0141 0.2767 0.5488 0.4623 0.3855 6.4699 1.2945 0.1838 0.0571 0.7438 0.7807 Remarks S S S S NS NS NS NS S S NS NS NS NS

Note: S = significant NS = not significant

The general second order model is as given below: Y2 Y " b0 x0 b1 x1 b2 x2 b3 x3 b4 x4 b12 x1 x2 b23 x2 x3 b14 x1 x4 b24 x2 x4
2 b13 x1 x3 b34 x3 x4 b11 x2 1 b22 x2 2 b33 x2 3 b44 x4 ;

experiments, each having a combination of different levels of factors as shown in Table 1, were carried out. The variables were coded by taking into account the capacity and the limiting cutting conditions of the lathe machine. The coded values of variables to be used in Eqs. (4) and (5), were obtained from the following transforming equations: (5) x1 ln v ln 150 ln 150 ln 100 ln f ln 0:2 ln 0:2 ln 0:1 ln ln 16 ln 16 ln 6 ln r ln 0:8 ; ln 0:8 ln 0:4 (6)

where Y2 is the estimated response based on second order equation. The parameters, i.e. b0, b1, b2, b3, b4, b12, b23, b14, are to be estimated by the method of least squares.

x2

(7)

4 Experimentation
The design of experiments has a major effect on the number of experiments needed. Therefore it is essential to have a proper design of experiments. A full factorial design was selected in this work so that all the interactions between the independent variables can be investigated though it was required to conduct large number of experiments. In this study, the four parameters namely cutting speed, feed, effective rake angle and the nose radius of the cutting tool were selected for the experimentation. The range of each parameter was set at three different levels, namely low, medium and high based on industrial practice. Based on a (34) full factorial design, a total of 81
Table 3 ANOVA for the firstorder model Source Model Error Total DF 4 76 80

x3

(8)

x4

(9)

where x1 is the coded value of cutting speed (v), x2 is the coded value of feed (f), x3 is the coded value of effective rake angle () and x4 is the coded value of nose radius (r). All the experiments were carried out at a constant depth of cut of 0.2 mm. A high precision NH-22 HMT lathe was
Mean squares 13.183 0.057625 Fcalculated 228.7659 F0.01 3.58 R2 92.33

Sum of squares 52.7307 4.3795 57.1102

1119

used for experimentation. Surface finish of the workpiece materials was measured by Talysurf6 with 0.8 mm cut-off value. The surface roughness was measured at three equally spaced locations around the circumference of the workpieces to obtain the statistically significant data for each test. In this investigation, the workpiece material was the AISI 52100 steel of diameter 70 mm. The workpiece material was heat treated to get 5802 HRC. This material is used for the manufacturing of the ball and roller bearings. In this investigation, mixed ceramic inserts (made by Kennametal Widia India Limited, Bangalore) of different geometry were used. ISO designation of the ceramic
Fig. 1 3D Plot of surface roughness

inserts, which were used in the experiments, was as under: SNGA1204 r S02 Where r S Nose radius, chamfer angle, combination of chamfered and rounded edge, ISO Designation of the tool holder was PSBNR 2525M12, Back rake angle -6, Side rake angle -6, Relief angle 6,

Effective rake angle = 6 , nose radius = 0.4 mm

6 8 Surface roughness (m) 5

2 3

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 1 180 160 200 2

Effective rake angle = 6 , nose radius = 0.8 mm

4 5 Surface roughness (m) 3.5 4 3 2 1 3

2.5

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200

1.5

1120 Fig. 1 (continued)

Effective rake angle = 6o, nose radius = 1.2 mm

4 Surface roughness (m)

2.5

2 2 1 1.5

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200 1

Effective rake angle = 16o, nose radius = 0.4 mm 7

8 Surface roughness (m)

4 4 2 3

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200 2

The approach angle of the tool holder was 75.

5 Results and discussion

In order to utilize the hard turning process in the manufacturing industries effectively, mixed ceramic inserts were considered for the study instead of the costly CBN inserts. Experiments were conducted to determine the effects of the tool geometry parameters and the cutting conditions on the surface finish during the hard turning of bearing steel with mixed ceramic cutting tools. The tool geometry parameters were the effective rake angle and the nose radius. The cutting conditions used in this experiment

were the cutting speed and the feed. The general 3n factorial was adopted for this present work. So, 81 experiments were conducted and the surface finish of all the components was measured. ANOVA was performed to find the statistical significance of the process parameters and their interactions. Though the experiments were conducted using full factorial design, replication of the experiments with each combination could not be carried out due to the limitation of experimental resources. Accordingly, it was assumed that the four factor interaction was not present and the corresponding sums of squares and degrees of freedom were taken as residual/error to conduct the ANOVA.

1121 Fig. 1 (continued)

Effective rake angle = 16o, nose radius = 0.8 mm 4.5 5 4 3.5 3 2.5 1 2 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 1 200

Surface roughness (m)

4 3 2

0 0.5

Effective rake angle = 16o, nose radius = 1.2 mm

3.5 4 Surface roughness (m) 3 3 2.5 2 2

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200

1.5

The results of ANOVA for surface roughness are shown in Table 2. This table also shows the percentage contribution of each factor and interaction in addition to the sum of squares, mean squares, degree of freedom, and Fvalue. Examination of F-values in this table indicate that the variables, cutting speed, feed and the nose radius are significant at 99% confidence level and the effective rake angle is significant at 95% confidence level. It is also clear from the results of ANOVA that the feed is the dominant factor determining the surface finish followed by nose radius and cutting velocity. However, the effect of the

effective rake angle on the surface finish is less, but interactions of the feed and the nose radius; and effective rake angle and the nose radius of the cutting tool are significant even at the 99% confidence level. All the three level interactions are not significant even at 95% confidence level. In order to understand the hard turning process, the experimental results were used to develop the mathematical models using response surface methodology (RSM). In this work, a commercially available mathematical software package (MATLAB) was used for the computa-

1122 Fig. 1 (continued)

Effective rake angle = 26 , nose radius = 0.4 mm 7 8

Surface roughness (m)

6 5 4 4 2 3

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200 2

Effective rake angle = 26 , nose radius = 0.8 mm

4.5 5 Surface roughness (m) 4 3.5 3 3 2 2.5 1 2 0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 1 200 1.5 4

tion of the regression constants and exponents. The proposed first order model developed from the above functional relationship using RSM method is as follows: Y1 0:7376 0 ::0782x1 1:1002x2 0:0633x3 0:4086x4 (10)

The transformed equation of surface roughness prediction is as follows: Ra 51:8535v0:1929 f 1:5872 0:0645 r0:5894 : (11)

Equation (11) is derived from the Eq. (10) by substituting the coded values of x1, x2, x3, x4 in terms of lnv, lnf, ln and lnr. The analysis of variance and the F-ratio test have been

1123 Fig. 1 (continued)

Effective rake angle = 26 , nose radius = 1.2 mm

3.5 4 Surface roughness (m) 3 3 2.5 2 2

0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Feed(mm/rev) 0.1 100 140 120 Cutting speed(m/min) 180 160 200

1.5

performed to justify fitness of the mathematical model. Since the calculated value of the F-ratio is more than the standard (tabulated) value of the F-ratio for surface roughness as shown in the Table 3, the model is adequate at 99% confidence level to represent the relationship between the machining response and the considered machining parameters of the hard turning process. The multiple regression coefficient of the first order model was found to be 0.9233. This shows that the first order can explain the variation to the extent of 92.33%. In order to see whether a second order model can represent better than the first order or not, a second order was developed. The second order surface roughness model thus developed is given as below: Y 2 0:7834 0:0159x1 1:1444x2 0:0247x3 0:6020x4 0:0490x1 x2 0:1007x1 x3 0:0937x1 x4 0:0393x2 x3 0:1146x2 x4
2 0:0096x3 x4 0:1749x2 1 0:1662x2 2 0:1597x2 3 0:3946x4 ;

(12)

where Y2 is the estimated response of surface roughness on a logarithmic scale and x1, x2, x3, x4 are logarithmic transformations of speed, feed, effective rake angle and the tool nose radius. The analysis of variance for the secondorder model is shown in the Table 4. Since Fcal is greater than F0.01, there is a definite relationship between the response variable and the independent variables at 99%
Table 4 ANOVA for the second-order model Source Model Error Total DF 14 66 80

confidence level. The multiple regression coefficient of the second order was found to be 0.9608. This means that the second order can explain the variation to the extent of 96.08%. Since the difference of the multiple regression coefficients between the first order and the second order is only 3.75%, so it can be concluded that the first order is adequate to represent the hard turning process. The first order model was used to plot surface roughness contours (Fig. 1ai) for each of the response surfaces at three selected levels of effective rake angle along with three constant nose radii. The selected levels of effective rake angles are chosen as 6, 16, 26 and nose radii as 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 mm (as per international standards). It can be seen from the plots that the surface roughness decreases with the increase in the cutting speed. The major effect on the surface roughness is due to the feed. As the feed increases, surface roughness also increases. Hence smaller values of feed must be selected in order to achieve the better surface finish. The effect of the nose radii can also be seen on the surface roughness. Small nose radii increase surface roughness as compared to the larger values. It is also clear from the surface plots that as the effective rake angle (-ve) increases, the surface roughness increases. This may be due to the fact that as the larger effective rake angle also increases cutting forces in addition to providing the edge strength to the cutting inserts, which may result in the increase of surface roughness. Hence it can be concluded that the process parameters (cutting conditions and the tool geometry) affect the hard
Mean squares 3.9192 0.0340 Fcalculated 115.3977 F0.01 3.58 R2 96.08

Sum of squares 54.8687 2.2415 57.1102

1124

turning process. Interactions of the nose radius and the effective rake angle, and feed and nose radius, are also important in order to achieve the desired accuracy for the surface roughness model. It can also be seen that the first order surface roughness model can represent the process reasonably well and in view of its simplicity, it can be considered as the representative model.

References
1. Knig W, Komanduri R, Tnshoff HK, Ackershott G (1984) Machining of hard materials. Ann CIRP 33(2):417427 2. Thiele JD, Melkote SN (1999) Effect of cutting edge geometry and workpiece hardness on surface generation in the finish hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. J Mater Process Technol 94:216226 3. Dahlman P, Gunnberg F, Jacobson M (2004) The influence of rake angle, cutting feed and cutting depth on residual stresses in hard turning. J Mater Process Technol 147:181184 4. Zhou JM, Walter H, Andersson M, Stahl JE (2003) Effect of chamfer angle on wear of PCBN cutting tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:301305 5. Chou YK, Song H (2004) Tool nose radius effects on finish hard turning. J Mater Process Technol 148:259268 6. Endres WJ, Kountanya RK (2002) The effects of corner radius and edge radius on tool flank wear. J Manuf Process 4(2):8996 7. Mittal A, Mehta M (1988) Surface finish prediction models for fine turning. Int J Prod Res 26(12):18611876 8. Sundaram RM, Lambert BK (1981) Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel, Part 1. Intl J Prod Res 19(5):547556 9. Sundaram RM, Lambert BK (1981) Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel, Part 2. Int J Prod Res 19(5):557564 10. zel T, Karpat Y (2005) Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning using regression and neural networks. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:467479 11. Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004) Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J Mater Process Technol 145:4658 12. Suresh PVS, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algorithm approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:675680

6 Conclusions
The investigations of this study indicate that the parameters cutting velocity, feed, effective rake angle and nose radius are the primary influencing factors, which affect the surface finish. The results also indicate that feed is the dominant factor affecting the surface roughness, followed by the nose radius, cutting velocity and effective rake angle. First order surface roughness prediction model has been found to represent the hard turning process very well. This model would be helpful in selecting the tool geometry and cutting conditions for the required surface quality. This can also be used for optimization of the hard turning process.