Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental investigation on surface finish during intermittent

turning of UNS M11917 magnesium alloy under dry and near
dry machining conditions
D. Carou a,⇑, E.M. Rubio b, C.H. Lauro a, J.P. Davim a
a
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
b
Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering, National University of Distance Education (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal, 12, E28040-Madrid, Spain

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

Article history: In the last decades, light materials, such as magnesium, are increasing their use in a wide
Received 4 April 2014 range of industrial applications. The growing use of magnesium encourages the study of its
Received in revised form 23 May 2014 use under different production processes. In this sense, the present study shows an exper-
Accepted 19 June 2014
imental investigation in intermittent turning of UNS M11917 magnesium alloy, analysing
Available online 4 July 2014
different machining conditions: cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate, along with the
use of dry machining and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) system. To evaluate
Keywords:
intermittent turning process, continuous bars and slotted bars were used. The process is
ANOVA
Dry machining
evaluated taking as response variable the surface roughness. Full factorial experimental
Intermittent turning designs are used and their results are analysed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Magnesium Main results of the statistical analysis include the identification of feed rate as the main
MQL system significant factor for all the tests, explaining the most part of the variability analysed. By
Surface finish contrast, cutting speed and type of interruption were not found to be significant sources
of variability when analysed in isolation. Moreover, more dispersion of surface roughness
values, in terms of Ra, was identified when machining at low feed rates which can difficult
its prediction. In addition, when analysing depth of cut, this factor and its interaction with
feed rate are also found to be significant sources of variability for Ra. Finally, the influence
of the environment used in the machining process is also studied, finding that the use of
the MQL system can lead to slightly worse surface roughness (Ra) results at the higher feed
rates tested.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction density of plastics [2]. The use of light metals to replace

Light materials have attracted a lot of attention in the
last decades mainly due to the need for improving fuel
economy. Materials such as aluminium and magnesium
are being used in transport applications because of their
low density [1]. In the case of magnesium, its density
(1740 kg/m3) is considered the lowest density of all the
engineering metals and only slightly higher than the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: diecapor@gmail.com (D. Carou).
other materials must not decrease product properties,
being necessary to consider specific material properties
[3]. In this sense, magnesium provides high strength-to-
weight and high stiffness-to-weight ratios [4]. In addition,
magnesium has good machining properties (cutting speed,
depth of cut, relative power required and tool wear) in
comparison with other usual structural materials (e.g. alu-
minium, cast iron, mild steel and stainless steel) [5]. Thus,
magnesium has found place in applications in different
industrial sectors such as aerospace, automotive, electronic
or medical, mainly, using die-casting processes [6].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.06.020
0263-2241/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
Nomenclature
c MQL flow rate (ml/h)
Cv coefficient of variation (%)
d depth of cut (mm)
f feed rate (mm/rev)
i type of interruption (mm)
l machining length (mm)
Ra arithmetical average roughness (lm)
However, there are also problems associated with its use as
the ignition risk [7] and its reactivity with water [8]. Thus,
cooling/lubricating in magnesium machining is an impor-
tant topic to address, being preferred to avoid the use of
water-based cutting fluids [9].
Conventionally, cutting fluids are used in machining to
take advantage of their cooling and lubricating properties.
Their use let reduce tool wear and thus, considering that
tool wear progression is related with surface quality dete-
rioration, improve surface quality [10]. However, the high
cost of cutting fluids, that represents approximately a
7%–17% of the total cost of the machining process [11]
and an increasing need for protecting the environment,
encouraged by public authorities [12], are stimulating the
research in cooling/lubricating alternatives. Among these
alternatives, MQL system that uses flow rates of cutting
fluid between 10 and 100 ml/h is being used in recent
years [13]. In terms of surface roughness, the use of the
MQL system is recognised by Kamata and Obikawa [14]
as a useful method to diminish surface roughness in com-
parison with other methods (dry and wet machining).
The increasing use of magnesium in industry make
necessary to study its application in different machining
processes. When analysing machining processes it is
important to consider the complexity of nowadays pieces,
being usual to find pieces with discontinuous surfaces [15]
due to the existence of holes, key slots lubrication channels
or splines [16].
Surface quality is an important parameter in the manu-
facturing industry, being a characteristic that can influence
the performance of mechanical parts and production costs
[17]. In addition, surface roughness is widely used as an
index of product quality and, even, as a technical require-
ment for mechanical products [18].
2. Literature review
The results obtained in discontinuous cutting can vary
from the ones obtained under continuous cutting at similar
machining conditions. Continuous and discontinuous turn-
ing processes are studied by Sayit et al. [19]. In their study,
continuous and discontinuous nodular graphite cast iron
bars with one, two and four slots of 10 mm were tested.
Machining conditions researched were: cutting speed
(240 and 340 m/min), depth of cut (1 and 2 mm) and feed
rate (0.11 and 0.32 mm/rev). A clear effect of feed rate on
surface roughness is identified, while no clear influence
of cutting speed and depth of cut is recognised. Regarding
137
Rai ideal surface roughness for Ra (lm)
Rh tool nose radius (mm)
Rt maximum roughness height (lm)
Rti ideal surface roughness for Rt (lm)
Rz mean roughness depth (lm)
v cutting speed (m/min)
the number of interruptions, only some influence is identi-
fied at the lower feed rate, increasing surface roughness as
the number of slots is increased.
Pavel et al. [20] investigated the hard turning of two
steel workpieces: continuous (camshaft) and interrupted
(shafts with 10 splines). Machining conditions researched
were: cutting speed (125 and 175 m/min), depth of cut
(0.178 mm) and feed rate (0.102 and 0.15 mm/rev). A dif-
ferent behaviour of continuous and discontinuous turning
is observed. In discontinuous cutting, surface roughness
increases slightly only at the beginning of cut and then it
starts to decrease even below the initial value recorded
with a new tool. However, in the case of continuous cutting
surface roughness increases with the progression of tool
wear.
Godoy and Diniz [21] researched the discontinuous
turning of AISI 4340 using two workpieces in form of discs.
In the case of discontinuous workpieces, four 10 mm width
slots were machined in the radial direction. Machining
conditions researched were: cutting speed (in continuous
turning, 150 and 270 m/min; and in discontinuous turning,
150 and 195 m/min). During the CBN tool life, roughness
remained virtually constant as the material removed was
increased. Regarding cutting speed, a significant effect is
observed when using CBN tools. At the lower cutting
speed, roughness values are around 0.4 lm, whereas at
the higher cutting speed, roughness values are around
0.6 lm. When using ceramic tools, roughness increased
rapidly, exceeding 1 lm after removing less than 50 cm3
of material. Similar results are found in the study by
Oliveira et al. [16].
Liang et al. [22] studied the turning process of A390
aluminium alloy. Workpieces included continuous and dis-
continuous cylindrical bars characterised by four 9.5 mm
width slots that were milled in the radial direction.
Machining conditions researched were: cutting speed
(from 600 to 1400 m/min), depth of cut (0.635 mm) and
feed rate (0.125 mm/rev). The surface finish obtained
under interrupted cutting was approximately 20% better
than under continuous cutting. Authors identified the
absence of build-up edge in interrupted machining that is
identified as a factor that limits the increase in surface
roughness in the process.
Although there are not too many studies in the litera-
ture regarding magnesium machining, specifically in the
case of discontinuous cutting processes, some of the main
studies are highlighted in this section.
Tönshoff and Winkler [23] studied the influence of tool
coatings (uncoated, and TiN and PCD coated tools) in the
138 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
turning of AZ91 HP magnesium alloy. Roughness is evalu-
ated using mean roughness depth (Rz). All the values
observed were below 30 lm, testing cutting speeds
between 300 and 2400 m/min, and using a depth of cut
of 1.5 mm and a feed rate of 0.4 mm/rev.
Pu et al. [24] researched the turning process of
AZ31B magnesium alloy, evaluating the influence of the
environment (dry machining and cryogenic refrigeration).
Cutting speed and feed rate were fixed at 100 m/min and
0.1 mm/rev, respectively. Surface roughness values obtained,
in terms of arithmetical average roughness (Ra), were
below 0.2 lm, being worse the results obtained when
using dry machining.
Wojtowicz et al. [25] analysed the turning process of
Elektron21 magnesium alloy using experimental designs.
The research included the evaluation of the influence of
depth of cut, feed rate, spindle speed and tool nose radius
on surface roughness. Surface roughness was analysed in
terms of Ra and Rt (maximum roughness height). The
results identified feed rate, tool nose radius and the inter-
action feed rate⁄tool nose radius as significant factors.
The dry facing of UNS M11917 magnesium alloy is eval-
uated in the study by Rubio et al. [26]. Machining condi-
tions tested consisted of: depth of cut (0.25 mm), feed
rate (0.04, 0.08 and 0.12 mm/rev) and spindle speed (280,
500 and 800 rpm). The surface roughness values obtained
were within the range 0.19–0.82 lm for all the tests
performed.
Finally, Rubio et al. [27] studied the intermittent turn-
ing of UNS M11917 magnesium alloy. The experiments
were performed at low cutting speeds to emulate repair
and maintenance operations. Machining conditions tested
consisted of: depth of cut (0.25 mm), feed rate (0.051 and
0.1 mm/rev) and spindle speed (500 and 800 rpm). The
main results of the investigation let identified several fac-
tors and their interactions as significant sources of variabil-
ity according to the statistical analysis performed. In
particular, feed rate, MQL flow rate, spindle speed, type
of interruption, type of tool, and the interactions MQL flow
rate⁄feed rate and type of tool⁄type of interruption were
found to be statistically significant. The surface roughness
values obtained were within the range 0.28–0.80 lm for all
the tests performed.
Based on the previous results, the present research eval-
uates intermittent turning of UNS M11917 magnesium
alloy, focusing on machining parameters and the cooling/
lubricating environments used. Main objective of the
research is the evaluation of surface quality during inter-
mittent turning operations under various machining condi-
tions when using environmentally friendly environments.
3. Experimental procedure
3.1. Materials and equipment
A Kingsbury MHP 50 CNC lathe with a maximum spin-
dle speed of 4500 rpm was used to perform the experi-
ments. A Coolubricator JR™ UNIST MQL equipment was
chosen as cooling system, using a r.rhenus NOR SSL cutting
fluid. The cutting fluid is specially recommended for
magnesium machining and is formulated based on esters
without mineral oil and chlorinate. The nozzle of the
MQL system was directed to the tool rake. The cutting fluid
was supplied in form of mist, using an air pressure of
0.6 MPa, and placed at a small distance from the tool
(around 10 mm). Fig. 1 shows an image of the CNC lathe
(Fig. 1a), MQL system (Fig. 1b) and a detail of the MQL
nozzle positioning (Fig. 1c).
Uncoated tools used in the research were cemented car-
bide (K10) tools from Sandvik Coromant (TPGN 16 03 04
H13A manufacturer code). Tool geometry is defined by
rake angle 6°, clearance angle 11°, tool cutting edge angle
91°, cutting edge inclination angle 0° and tool nose radius
0.4 mm. And a CTGPL 2020 K16 (ISO) tool holder from
Sandvik Coromant was used.
Workpieces were shaped from one of the most used
types of magnesium alloys: Mg–Al alloys [28]. In particu-
lar, UNS M11917 magnesium alloy, with the main chemi-
cal composition of Mg–9%Al–1%Zn (mass%), was used
[29]. Magnesium bars had an initial diameter of 46 mm
and a length of 125 mm (75 mm being useful). Workpieces
were only fixed to the spindle using the three-jaw chuck as
shown in Fig. 1c. Three types of pieces were used (Fig. 2a):
one continuous without any slot and two discontinuous
with rectangular slots of 15 mm and 30 mm of width. To
evaluate surface roughness a Hommel Tester T1000 profi-
lometer connected to a PC using the RS-232 interface and
the Turbo-Datawin software was used (Fig. 2b).
3.2. Methodology
Main objective of the experiment is the analysis of the
influence of several machining parameters on surface qual-
ity in the intermittent turning of magnesium, when using
environmentally friendly cooling/lubricating systems.
Thus, as response variable the surface roughness is
selected. Surface roughness is evaluated, according to ISO
4287/1, in terms of Ra and Rt.
Hwang et al. [30] state that machinability is affected by
several factors that consist of: machine tool variables, cut-
ting condition variables, work material variables and extra
variables. In this study, only factors of the cutting condi-
tion variables, work material variables and extra variables
were selected to be analysed.
The selected factors are based on previous results [27],
but not studying the effect of tool material. Feed rate (f) is a
parameter that is widely recognised to be an important
factor for the surface quality of the machined workpieces,
in particular, in magnesium turning operations [26,27]. In
addition, main expressions to predict the roughness values
in a single-point turning operation are closely related to
the geometry of feed marks that depends on the feed rate
and tool corner radius [31]. The expected influence of cut-
ting speed (v) is lower than that of the feed rate, but some
studies reported that it could have a significant effect on
surface roughness [26,27]. In the same way, depth of cut
(d) is also a parameter to consider as influential factor.
For instance, Asiltürk and Çunkas [32] recognised the influ-
ence of the depth of cut on surface roughness using the
ANOVA methodology. In addition, the influence of the
cutting environment is also included as study factor.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 139

Fig. 1. (a) Kingsbury MHP 50 CNC lathe, (b) coolubricator JRTM UNIST MQL system and (c) detail of the MQL nozzle positioning.

Fig. 2. (a) Types of workpieces used and (b) Hommel Tester T1000 profilometer.

Concretely, the MQL flow rate (c) is used. The influence of
the coolant strategy is reported in the literature. For
instance, the work by Sreejith [33] identifies a beneficial
effect of the use of the MQL on surface roughness due to
the reduction in the material transfer onto the machined
surface.
The influence of the selected factors is evaluated in the
same type of workpieces (i) as the ones tested in other
research [27], but higher machining parameters values
were selected. The discontinuity of the surface of the work-
piece can affect the process in different ways. For instance,
the appearance of thermal cycles and the constant
mechanical impacts of the tool can cause a tool deteriora-
tion that would have influence on surface quality [34].
The ranges selected for the machining parameters
were: from 0.05 to 0.2 mm/rev and from 100 to
400 m/min for feed rate and cutting speed, respectively.
Depth of cut is evaluated fixing a range between 0.25
and 1 mm. The MQL flow rate (30 ml/h) was fixed between
the usual ranges used in MQL applications (from 10 to
100 m/h) [13]. Major part of the research is performed in
short machining length (l) tests of 25 mm, whereas a
length of 75 mm was also used in the part of the research
destined to study in more detail the depth of cut influence.
It should be noticed that the selection of the higher
feed rate was done to evaluate more adequately the
effect of the MQL system, taking advantage of the good
machinability of magnesium [5].
To do the investigation an experimental plan in which
the tests to be performed are conveniently detailed is estab-
lished. The experimental plan includes three kinds of tests
to analyse the surface roughness. First type of tests consist
of short length tests using dry machining, second part are
long dry machining tests to evaluate more specifically the
140 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

influence of depth of cut, and third part includes short
machining tests similar to the ones of the first part, but
performed with the MQL system. Machining conditions
analysed in the three types of tests are listed in Table 1.
The experimental plan is based on full factorial experi-
mental designs and includes a single replication of each of
the short dry machining and MQL tests. According to
Montgomery [35] the use of replications let the experi-
menter estimate experimental errors and also helps the
experimenter to obtain more precise estimates of the
effects. The order of the experiments and the machining
parameters chosen for each experiment are listed in
Table 2.
The influence of the measurement point on the
workpiece surface was analysed using the Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) by Rubio et al. [27]. The results of the
analysis let identify no significant influence of the mea-
surement point on surface roughness when machining
short lengths of material. Taken into account this result,
the measurement point was not considered as a possible
source of variability. However, to diminish the effect of
experimental errors and get more reliable results, three
repeated measurements [35] of surface roughness were
taken for each test, and their average was calculated to
perform the statistical analysis. These values are measured
fixing the profilometer randomly at different points of the
measurement length, taking as reference a separation of
120° as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, in the case of discontinuous
workpieces, surface roughness values are taken after and
before the interruption, and also in the opposite part to
the interruption.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Short dry machining tests
4.1.1. Statistical analysis
Short dry machining tests consist of a set of tests done
using a machining length of 25 mm, using the machining
conditions established in Table 1. These tests were per-
formed following the order established in the experimental
plan (Table 2). The average surface roughness values (Ra
and Rt) of the three values measured for each of the tests
and the types of workpiece are listed in Table 3.
The data obtained are analysed using two ANOVAs to
evaluate the influence of the factors cutting speed, feed
rate, type of interruption and the interactions between
these factors (cutting speed⁄type of interruption, feed
rate⁄cutting speed, feed rate⁄type of interruption, and feed
rate⁄cutting speed⁄type of interruption) on Ra and Rt. The
ANOVAs are performed using R statistical software and the
main results of the analysis are listed in Table 4.
The ANOVAs results presented in Table 4 let appreciate
how only feed rate and, in the case of Ra, the interaction

Table 1
Machining parameters of intermittent turning tests.

Short dry machining tests Long dry machining tests Short MQL system tests
Feed rate (mm/rev) 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 0.05, 0.1 0.1, 0.2
Cutting speed (m/min) 100, 200, 400 100, 200, 400 100, 200, 400
Depth of cut (mm) 0.25 0.5, 1 0.25
Length of cut (mm) 25 75 25
MQL flow rate (ml/h) 0 0 30
Type of tool K10–H13A K10–H13A K10–H13A
Initial workpiece diameter (mm) 46 41 43

Table 2
Experimental plan.

Short dry machining tests (c = 0 ml/h) Long dry machining tests (c = 0 ml/h) Short MQL machining tests (c = 30 ml/h)
Test f (mm/rev) v (m/min) l (mm) d (mm) f (mm/rev) v (m/min) l (mm) d (mm) f (mm/rev) v (m/min) l (mm) d (mm)
1 0.2 400 25 0.25 0.05 100 75 1 0.2 400 25 0.25
2 0.1 400 25 0.25 0.1 100 75 1 0.2 200 25 0.25
3 0.05 400 25 0.25 0.05 100 75 0.5 0.2 100 25 0.25
4 0.2 400 25 0.25 0.1 100 75 0.5 0.2 400 25 0.25
5 0.1 400 25 0.25 0.2 200 25 0.25
6 0.05 400 25 0.25 0.2 100 25 0.25
7 0.2 200 25 0.25 0.1 400 25 0.25
8 0.1 200 25 0.25 0.1 200 25 0.25
9 0.05 200 25 0.25 0.1 100 25 0.25
10 0.2 200 25 0.25 0.1 400 25 0.25
11 0.1 200 25 0.25 0.1 200 25 0.25
12 0.05 200 25 0.25 0.1 100 25 0.25
13 0.2 100 25 0.25
14 0.1 100 25 0.25
15 0.05 100 25 0.25
16 0.2 100 25 0.25
17 0.1 100 25 0.25
18 0.05 100 25 0.25
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 141

Fig. 3. Measurement zones for the surface roughness.

Table 3
Surface roughness results in short dry machining tests.

Test f (mm/rev) v (m/min) i = 0 mm i = 15 mm i = 30 mm

Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm)
1 0.2 400 2.81 13.83 2.76 11.99 2.92 14.30
2 0.1 400 0.73 4.07 0.74 4.69 0.69 4.19
3 0.05 400 0.31 2.13 0.32 2.06 0.32 2.07
4 0.2 400 2.76 13.11 2.84 13.28 2.93 13.57
5 0.1 400 0.76 5.71 0.71 3.52 0.73 3.74
6 0.05 400 0.26 1.86 0.23 1.61 0.25 1.73
7 0.2 200 2.83 12.25 2.78 11.83 2.86 13.55
8 0.1 200 0.80 3.95 0.74 3.77 0.77 7.55
9 0.05 200 0.24 2.97 0.35 3.53 0.24 1.79
10 0.2 200 2.81 13.91 2.68 11.45 2.72 11.96
11 0.1 200 0.77 3.89 0.72 3.43 0.75 3.80
12 0.05 200 0.24 1.85 0.23 1.97 0.27 2.09
13 0.2 100 2.83 12.44 2.82 16.08 2.81 13.19
14 0.1 100 0.73 3.89 0.77 4.21 0.78 4.00
15 0.05 100 0.23 1.83 0.23 1.79 0.24 1.99
16 0.2 100 2.91 17.45 2.95 13.59 2.96 13.11
17 0.1 100 0.75 4.01 0.73 3.77 0.79 4.22
18 0.05 100 0.25 1.97 0.25 1.85 0.23 1.97

Table 4
ANOVA for short dry machining tests.

ANOVA for Ra ANOVA for Rt

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F)
f 2 67.175 33.587 14662.1964 <2e16 2 1299.05 649.53 562.6142 <2e16
v 2 0.006 0.003 1.2959 0.29014 2 0.98 0.49 0.4232 0.6592
i 2 0.005 0.002 1.0291 0.37092 2 1.29 0.64 0.5577 0.57896
f⁄ v 4 0.034 0.008 3.6993 0.01584 4 10.29 2.57 2.2292 0.09238
f⁄i 4 0.009 0.002 1.0133 0.41801 4 2.24 0.56 0.4855 0.74618
v⁄ i 4 0.005 0.001 0.5489 0.70137 4 2.71 0.68 0.587 0.67478
f ⁄ v⁄ i 8 0.023 0.003 1.2334 0.31807 8 8.55 1.07 0.926 0.5111
Residuals 27 0.062 0.002 27 31.17 1.15
Total 53 67.319 53 1356.28

feed rate⁄cutting speed have p-values (right column)
below a 0.05 significance level (a), that corresponds to
95% (100⁄(1a)%) confidence level [36]. Feed rate has
the lowest p-value, so it is the main factor in order to
explain the surface roughness variability for both Ra and
Rt. The next source of variability with the higher p-value
is the interaction feed rate⁄cutting speed (p-value of
0.01584 for the Ra ANOVA). Therefore, only feed rate and
the interaction feed rate⁄cutting speed are considered to
have significant influence on surface roughness variability.
According to the statistical analysis, when considering in
isolation, neither cutting speed nor type of interruption
have significant influence on surface roughness.
The influence of feed rate was also identified in the
study by Rubio et al. [27] in the intermittent turning of
UNS M11917 magnesium alloy. In that study, an increase
in the surface roughness (Ra) is observed when increasing
feed rate from 0.051 to 0.1 mm/rev. Moreover, other
sources of variability were also identified as significant
according to the statistical analysis. However, their influ-
ence on surface roughness was small in comparison with
the influence of feed rate, which explained 63.2% of the
142 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
total variability. Regarding cutting speed, the first statisti-
cal analysis provided an initial p-value of 0.0574, smaller
than the obtained in the present study (0.29014), but any-
way it would not be considered significant taking as refer-
ence a significance level of 0.05. In addition, a significant
influence of type of interruption was highlighted in previ-
ous study, but in the present no significant influence was
found, having all the sources of variability in which
appears the type of interruption p-values over 0.3 (in the
case of the isolated factor, 0.37092).
4.1.2. Effects of significant sources
Taken into account the findings obtained from the sta-
tistical analysis, surface roughness is represented in Figs. 4
and 5 versus cutting speed and feed rate. In the graphs,
each point represents the average value of each test and
its correspondent replication.
Figs. 4 and 5 show how increasing feed rate causes
worse (higher) surface roughness (both Ra and Rt), increas-
ing greatly at the higher feed rates. When using feed rates
up to 0.1 mm/rev, Ra values are below a range suited for
aerospace and aeronautic fields (0.8 < Ra < 1.6 lm) [37].
However, when machining with the highest feed rate
(0.2 mm/rev), Ra is clearly above the usual range used in
these fields. Thus, further finish operations can be needed
in case of selecting high feed rates.
The different behaviour of surface roughness depending
on feed rate was recognised by More et al. [38], identifying
a small influence of low feed rates on the results. In Figs. 4
Fig. 4. Surface roughness (Ra) versus cutting speed and feed rate: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
and 5, it is possible to see that cutting speed has no clear
influence by itself on surface roughness, as it was already
identified in the ANOVA. These results agree with the study
by Sayit et al. [19] in which a detrimental effect of feed rate
is identified in discontinuous turning, finding also no sig-
nificant influence of cutting speed. However, based on
the ANOVA results, the interaction feed rate⁄cutting speed
has a significant influence on Ra variability. This influence
is analysed using Fig. 4. In the graphs, it is possible to iden-
tify a different behaviour of Ra with cutting speed depend-
ing on the feed rate chosen. At the lower feed rate
(0.05 mm/rev), in general, the increase of cutting speed
leads to higher surface roughness, whereas at higher feed
rates (0.1 and 0.2 mm/rev) a less defined trend is observed.
4.1.3. Comparison of results with theoretical values
After contrasting the results with other studies, con-
firming, in general, a satisfactory agreement, next, the
results obtained are contrasted against ideal surface
roughness (Rai and Rti). Although, in general, theoretical
results are found to be better than measured results [39]
not taking into account any imperfections in the process,
such as tool vibration or chip adhesion [40], the theoretical
equations are considered to be a good reference point to
analyse surface roughness in intermittent turning.
Ideal surface roughness equations only consider feed
rate (f) and tool nose radius (Rh) as influential factors on
surface roughness. Their values are calculated using the
following equations [41,42]:
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 143

Fig. 5. Surface roughness (Rt) versus cutting speed and feed rate: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.

f2 turning processes, a similar theoretical equation for Rt rep-

Rai ffi ð1Þ
32  Rh resents a good model for surface roughness. Thus, surface
roughness values obtained in experimental tests are used
to calculate the deviation, in percentage, with the theoret-
f2 ical values using the following equations:
Rti ffi ð2Þ
8  Rh
ðRa  Rai Þ
Based on the ANOVA results, it is considered that Eqs. (1) Deviationð%Þ ¼  100 ð3Þ
Rai
and (2) fit well with the present research because the
ANOVA results indicate that feed rate and, only in the case
ðRt  Rti Þ
of Ra, its interaction with cutting speed are the only signif- Deviationð%Þ ¼  100 ð4Þ
Rti
icant sources of variability among the evaluated, with a
small influence in the case of the interaction. Moreover, tool The calculated deviations for each of the tests are repre-
nose radius was fixed constant in the research. The results sented in Fig. 6 versus the test order for the three types of
provided by the study, already highlighted, by Wojtowicz workpieces used. The graphs show how in tests 3, 6, 9, 12,
et al. [25] also indicate that, in the case of continuous 15 and 18, that were performed at the lower feed rate

Fig. 6. Deviation (%) between experimental and ideal surface roughness: (a) Ra and (b) Rt.
144 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

(0.05 mm/rev), the deviations obtained are considerably
higher than the obtained at the higher feed rates (0.1 and
0.2 mm/rev) for all the workpieces. These deviations are
on average: 9.4%, 4.3% and 33.6%, for 0.2, 0.1 and
0.05 mm/rev, respectively (for Ra), and 7.1%, 35.9% and
163.4%, for 0.2, 0.1 and 0.05 mm/rev, respectively (for Rt).
At the lower feed rate (0.05 mm/rev), measured surface
roughness are higher than the calculated theoretical val-
ues. An explanation for the differences observed at low
feed rates is given by Grzesik [31] based on other works,
stating that the main sources of this discrepancy are plastic
deformation in the primary zone extended into the mate-
rial adjacent to the machined surface, post-machining
elastic recovery of this surface, adhesive interaction
between the chip and the rounded cutting edge, and the
relative vibrations between the tool and the workpiece.
From another side, Özel and Karpat [43] identified as main
causes for the deterioration of the surface the adhesion and
ploughing. The already mentioned study by Hocheng and
Hsieh [39] also identified higher measured surface rough-
ness values when using a low feed rate in comparison with
the theoretical values. On the contrary, at the higher feed
rates (0.1 and 0.2 mm/rev), measured values are closer to
the theoretical ones. In the case of Ra the measured values
are even slightly lower. The improving in roughness can be
justified in the existence of a minor influence of the
ploughing effect [44]. However, the ploughing effect can
be a suitable explanation for the negative deviations
according to Ståhl et al. [45] that state that this effect can
lead to worse or better results in surface roughness.
Although the trend identified in Fig. 6 seems clear, the
extremely high deviation that appeared in the test 9 for
the interruption of 15 mm makes precise to check the data
validity. In particular, it is needed to analyse the possibility
of the existence of outliers (observations that are pre-
sumed to come from a different distribution than that for
the majority of the data) that lead to erroneous conclu-
sions. The existence of outliers can be identified using
the next equations [46]:
lf 1 ¼ q1  1:5  Hspread ð5Þ
lf 3 ¼ q3 þ 1:5  Hspread ð6Þ
lF1 ¼ q1  3  Hspread ð7Þ
lF3 ¼ q3 þ 3  Hspread ð8Þ
In Eqs. (5)–(8) Hspread denotes the estimated inter-
quartile range, which is the difference between third (q3)
and first (q1) quartiles, and the pairs lf1 and lf3, and lF1
and lF3 denotes the inner and outer fences, respectively.
According to Tukey et al. [47] the observations that fall
between the inner and outer fences in each direction are
denoted as ‘‘outside’’ outliers, while those that fall below
the outer fence lF1 or above the outer fence lF3 are identi-
fied as ‘‘far out’’ outliers. Thus, a high level of disturbance
appears when the data includes ‘‘far out’’ outliers [46].
Using Eqs. (5)–(8), outliers for 0.05 mm/rev feed rate
were searched. Data were checked using the following cal-
culated values: lf1 = 0.195 (Ra) and 0.9275 (Rt), lf3 = 0.315
(Ra) and 2.9475 (Rt), lF1 = 0.15 (Ra) and 0.17 (Rt) and
lF3 = 0.36 (Ra) and 3.705 (Rt). According to the values
obtained, only Ra3 measurement in the test 9 (workpiece
i = 15 mm) can be marked as a ‘‘far out’’ outlier, and thus,
it should be remove from data. In the case of Rt, three cases
of ‘‘far out’’ outliers can be identified: Rt2 and Rt3
measurement in the test 9 (workpiece i = 15 mm) and Rt3
in the test 9 (workpiece i = 0 mm). However, removing

Fig. 7. Coefficient of variation (%) versus feed rate in short dry machining for the three types of interruptions: (a) Ra and (b) Rt.

Table 5
Surface roughness results in long dry machining tests.

Test f (mm/rev) d (mm) i = 0 mm i = 15 mm i = 30 mm

Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm)
1 0.05 1 0.28 2.20 0.26 2.10 0.29 2.39
2 0.1 1 0.77 5.28 0.75 4.81 0.78 4.73
3 0.05 0.5 0.26 2.19 0.29 2.34 0.28 2.19
4 0.1 0.5 0.81 4.17 0.81 4.13 0.82 4.89
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 145

Table 6
ANOVA for long dry machining tests.

ANOVA for Ra ANOVA for Rt

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F)
f 1 0.79053 0.79053 13552.0000 7.378e05 1 17.7633 17.7633 112.1187 0.008802
d 1 0.00163 0.00163 28.0000 0.03391 1 0.2133 0.2133 1.3465 0.365678
i 2 0.00052 0.00026 4.4286 0.18421 2 0.0845 0.0422 0.2666 0.789535
f⁄ d 1 0.00163 0.00163 28.0000 0.03391 1 0.2296 0.2296 1.4494 0.35178
d ⁄i 2 0.00072 0.00036 6.1429 0.14000 2 0.0505 0.0252 0.1593 0.862613
f⁄i 2 0.00012 0.00006 1.0000 0.50000 2 0.1491 0.0745 0.4704 0.680069
Residuals 2 0.00012 0.00006 2 0.3169 0.1584
Total 11 0.79527 11 18.8072

Fig. 8. Surface roughness (Ra) versus feed rate for 0.5 and 1.0 mm depth of cut: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
146 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

those values would not change significantly the obtained
results, and in qualitative terms the conclusions would
not change.
Considering that the effect of outliers is limited to only
four values, an interesting result that can be observed in
Fig. 6 is that the differences existing between the devia-
tions obtained when using the lower feed rate could make
difficult the prediction of surface roughness with high pre-
cision. To assess the differences between surface rough-
ness results, an analysis of the dispersion of the values
using the coefficient of variation (Cv), where l is the mean
and r is the standard deviation of the data, that can be
calculated with the following equation [48]:
r
C v ð%Þ ¼ ð9Þ
l
Using Eq. (9), coefficients of variation for short dry
machining tests are calculated for each of the feed rates
and for the three types of workpieces used. The coefficient
of variation results are plotted in Fig. 7.
In Fig. 7a, it is possible to see in a clear manner how the
results obtained using the lower feed rate have higher

Fig. 9. Surface roughness (Rt) versus feed rate for 0.5 and 1.0 mm depth of cut: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 147

coefficient of variation when analysing Ra. As feed rate is
increased, the coefficient of variation of the data dimin-
ishes. As it was commented before, at low feed rates,
besides the feed rate and tool nose radius other factors
influence surface roughness, but at higher feed rates mea-
sured surface roughness is closer to the one provided by
theoretical expressions. Thus, at higher feed rates there is
a lower variability because the surface roughness responds
mainly to the effect of feed rate. This result indicates that
surface roughness prediction, when machining at the
lower feed rate, can be more difficult than when machin-
ing at the higher feed rates. In particular, a dispersion of
the results higher than 10% can be expected. In the case
of Rt (Fig. 7b), the results are slightly different. First, the
values of the coefficient of variation are higher for all of
the cases, and second, because of the high values obtained
for the medium feed rate, there is no clear trend in the
results.

Table 7
Surface roughness results in short MQL machining tests.

Test f (mm/rev) v (m/min) i = 0 mm i = 15 mm i = 30 mm

Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm) Ra (lm) Rt (lm)
1 0.2 400 3.03 12.82 3.06 12.94 3.03 13.35
2 0.2 200 3.04 16.26 3.10 12.83 2.93 15.92
3 0.2 100 2.99 14.78 3.06 13.47 2.91 17.02
4 0.2 400 2.95 12.82 3.11 17.53 2.87 12.72
5 0.2 200 3.02 14.62 2.93 12.58 3.04 12.61
6 0.2 100 3.02 13.22 2.98 12.69 3.03 15.36
7 0.1 400 0.76 5.29 0.77 4.18 0.75 3.91
8 0.1 200 0.77 4.20 0.74 4.15 0.78 4.29
9 0.1 100 0.76 3.93 0.78 4.58 0.76 4.07
10 0.1 400 0.75 3.64 0.77 3.92 0.80 5.17
11 0.1 200 0.77 4.19 0.77 4.24 0.76 4.08
12 0.1 100 0.77 4.42 0.79 3.79 0.78 5.71

Table 8
ANOVA for short MQL machining tests.

ANOVA for Ra ANOVA for Rt

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F)
f 1 45.046 45.046 16136.0488 <2e16 1 858.29 858.29 631.1686 1.82e15
v 2 0.000 0.000 0.0070 0.9931 2 0.97 0.48 0.3555 0.7056
i 2 0.007 0.004 1.3323 0.2887 2 2.23 1.12 0.8214 0.4556
f ⁄v 2 0.001 0.000 0.0965 0.9085 2 0.8 0.4 0.2947 0.7483
f ⁄i 2 0.008 0.004 1.4935 0.2511 2 0.28 0.14 0.1042 0.9016
v ⁄i 4 0.006 0.001 0.5264 0.7178 4 11.8 2.95 2.1703 0.1137
f ⁄v ⁄i 4 0.004 0.001 0.3652 0.8302 4 11.51 2.88 2.1167 0.1207
Residuals 18 0.050 0.003 18 24.48 1.36
Total 35 45.122 35 910.36

Table 9
ANOVA for short Dry and MQL machining tests.

ANOVA for Ra ANOVA for Rt

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F)
f 1 84.024 84.024 31410.8432 <2.2e16 1 1613.69 1613.69 1095.472 <2e16
v 2 0.008 0.004 1.4268 0.2533 2 3.18 1.59 1.0796 0.35049
i 2 0 0 0.0109 0.9892 2 4.24 2.12 1.4396 0.25034
c 1 0.168 0.168 62.8785 2.06e09 1 2.96 2.96 2.0098 0.16488
f ⁄v 2 0.007 0.003 1.2482 0.2992 2 4.32 2.16 1.4673 0.244
f ⁄i 2 0.001 0 0.1501 0.8612 2 0.47 0.23 0.1579 0.8545
v ⁄i 4 0.012 0.003 1.1199 0.3623 4 4.17 1.04 0.7077 0.59198
f ⁄c 1 0.104 0.104 38.9803 3.29e07 1 1.59 1.59 1.0795 0.30574
v ⁄c 2 0.009 0.004 1.6137 0.2132 2 0.89 0.44 0.3007 0.74213
i ⁄c 2 0.017 0.008 3.095 0.0575 2 0.66 0.33 0.2246 0.79993
f ⁄v ⁄i 4 0.006 0.002 0.5877 0.6736 4 6.49 1.62 1.102 0.37057
f ⁄v ⁄c 2 0.012 0.006 2.2264 0.1226 2 3.75 1.87 1.2721 0.29255
f ⁄i ⁄c 2 0.012 0.006 2.1812 0.1276 2 1 0.5 0.341 0.71336
v ⁄i ⁄c 4 0.005 0.001 0.4611 0.7638 4 13.79 3.45 2.3406 0.07352
f ⁄v ⁄i ⁄c 4 0.012 0.003 1.1282 0.3586 4 9.47 2.37 1.6068 0.19373
Residuals 36 0.096 0.003 1.2482 0.2992 36 53.03 1.47
Total 71 84.493 71 1723.7
148 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

4.2. Long dry machining tests
4.2.1. Statistical analysis
Long dry machining tests using a machining length of
75 mm were performed in order to evaluate the influence
of depth of cut on surface roughness according to the
experimental plan. The values obtained in these tests are
listed in Table 5.
Two ANOVAs were performed to evaluate the influence
on surface roughness of the factors depth of cut, feed rate
and type of interruption, and the main interactions
between these factors (depth of cut⁄type of interruption,
feed rate⁄depth of cut and feed rate⁄type of interruption).
The interaction among the three factors was not consid-
ered to perform the analysis.
In Table 6 are listed the results obtained in the ANOVAs.
They let identify as significant sources of variability both
depth of cut and feed rate, when considering the ANOVA
for Ra. However, feed rate is clearly the most important
source of variability in order to explain surface roughness
variability, representing a sum of squares of 0.79053 from
a total of 0.79527. In addition, a significant effect of the

Fig. 10. Surface roughness (Ra) versus feed rate in short dry machining and MQL tests: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 149

interaction feed rate⁄depth of cut is also observed. In a
same manner than when analysing short dry machining
tests, the type of the interruption was not found to be a sig-
nificant factor. In the case of Rt, only the feed rate was
found be statistically significant.
4.2.2. Effects of significant sources
To evaluate the effect of the significant sources of vari-
ability on surface roughness, in Figs. 8 and 9 are repre-
sented the obtained results versus feed rate for the
different depths of cut studied.
The influence of feed rate on surface roughness is in
good agreement with the results of short length machining
tests for both Ra and Rt cases. Thus, increasing feed rate
leads to poorer surface roughness. In addition, regarding
depth of cut, it is possible to identify in Fig. 8 how increas-
ing depth of cut leads to slightly better surface roughness.
The effect of the interaction feed rate⁄depth of cut can be
appreciated comparing the results for the two different
feed rates. In general, at the lower feed rate, the higher
depth of cut provides the worst results, whereas at the
higher feed rate, the higher depth of cut provides the best

Fig. 11. Surface roughness (Rt) versus feed rate in short dry machining and MQL tests: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
150 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154

results. However, in the case of Rt no clear effect can be
identified.
The influence of depth of cut is evaluated in the study
by Sayit et al. [19], testing depths of cut of 1 and 2 mm.
Their findings include that no clear trend in surface rough-
ness was identified due to the depth of cut selection. Con-
sidering that in the present research the values of depth of
cut used are lower and that not too many experiments
were performed, future research may be needed to address
more adequately the influence of depth of cut in discontin-
uous turning.
4.3. Short MQL system tests
4.3.1. Statistical analysis
The use of MQL systems is identified as a method to
improve the results of cutting processes, specifically, in
the case of surface roughness as it was reported by
Kamata and Obikawa [14]. To evaluate the influence of
the MQL system on surface roughness, the whole set of
short dry machining tests for feed rates of 0.1 and
0.2 mm/rev were repeated using a MQL flow rate of
30 ml/h.

Fig. 12. Coefficient of variation (%) for Ra versus feed rate in short dry machining and MQL tests: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154 151

The results obtained in the short length MQL tests per-
formed are listed in Table 7.
In the same way than in short dry machining tests, two
ANOVAs are performed to evaluate the influence of cutting
speed, feed rate and type of interruption and their interac-
tions (cutting speed⁄type of interruption, feed rate⁄cutting
speed, feed rate⁄type of interruption, and feed rate⁄cutting
speed⁄type of interruption) on surface roughness. The
ANOVA results can be found in Table 8.
The ANOVA results are in accordance with the ones
obtained in the short dry machining tests. Thus, only
feed rate is identified as a significant source of variability
for both Ra and Rt. All the remaining factors and their
interactions gave p-values higher (>0.25, for Ra, and
>0.10, for Rt) than the significance level considered
(0.05).
To evaluate the influence of the MQL system on the sur-
face roughness results two more ANOVAs are performed.
These statistical analysis use as input data the surface
roughness results obtained for the dry and MQL tests per-
formed using 0.1 and 0.2 mm/rev feed rates. The results of
the ANOVAs are listed in Table 9.

Fig. 13. Coefficient of variation (%) for Rt versus feed rate in short dry machining and MQL tests: (a) i = 0 mm, (b) i = 15 mm and (c) i = 30 mm.
152 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
The results of the statistical analysis (Table 9) show
how only the feed rate and MQL flow rate factors are statis-
tically significant (p-value < 0.05) when analysing Ra. In
addition, the interaction between feed rate and MQL flow
rate is also significant. In the case of the ANOVA for Rt, only
the feed rate is identified as a significant factor.
4.3.2. Effects of significant sources
The influence of the MQL system is analysed by using a
graphical method. Thus, considering that cutting speed
was identified as a non-significant source of variability,
in Figs. 10 and 11 the average surface roughness for all
the tests done at a specific feed rate is represented versus
feed rate for both dry and MQL short machining tests.
From Fig. 10 it is possible to identify a limited detrimen-
tal effect of the use of the MQL system on surface rough-
ness (Ra) for all the tests done. Thus, when increasing
feed rate from 0.1 to 0.2 mm/rev, higher surface roughness
is obtained when using the MQL system. The values using
the MQL system at a feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev are 6.43%,
8.38% and 4.52% higher than when using dry conditions
for the types of interruption 0, 15 and 30 mm, respectively.
By contrast, when analysing the case of Rt the results do
not show a clear trend.
In the investigation by Rubio et al. [27], MQL flow rate
was identified as a significant factor when testing MQL
flow rates between 0 and 9 ml/h. Moreover, the optimisa-
tion process let acknowledged an optimum MQL flow rate
(4.5 ml/h) for the machining conditions analysed. Thus, the
use of MQL systems can lead to an improvement on surface
roughness, but it can also lead to worse results as the ones
obtained in the study reported and the present one.
The findings regarding the MQL system must take into
account that in the present research short machining
lengths, therefore machining times, were used. This fact
is important considering the results provided by Dhar
et al. [49]. In that work, a beneficial effect of the MQL sys-
tem is identified when machining times are high is identi-
fied. In the case of the present research, machining times
used are below 1.93 min that is calculated for long dry
machining tests at a feed rate of 0.05 mm/rev and a cutting
speed of 100 m/min. Thus, machining times used are in a
range in which, according to Dhar et al. [49], expected dif-
ferences in surface roughness between cooling/lubricating
systems are reduced. It should be noticed that higher
machining times are expected to cause higher tool wear
and higher temperatures in the cutting process. Although
further research is needed it is considered that one of the
main reasons for the results obtained when using the
MQL system can be a higher level of vibrations provoked
by the flow of the cutting fluid.
Considering that the expected benefits, in terms of
surface roughness, of using MQL systems are low, when
using machining conditions as the evaluated, dry machin-
ing can be the best choice. It must be taken into account
that dry machining solution has lower costs and less
environmental impact, and it can also help to improve
the productivity.
Jointly with the average surface roughness analysis, an
analysis of the variability of the values using the coefficient
of variation equation, Eq. (9), is performed. The coefficient
of variation results are represented in Figs. 12 and 13 for
both dry and MQL short machining tests. From Fig. 12, it
is possible to recognise that a better Ra prediction can be
done at 0.2 mm/rev feed rate because of the lower coeffi-
cient of variation. This result agrees with the one obtained
for the short dry machining tests. In comparison, surface
roughness dispersion is lower when using the MQL system
(Cv < 5%). Thus, in general, it is expected that surface
roughness could be predicted more accurately when using
the MQL system than when using dry machining. When
analysing the results for Rt the coefficient of variation
reached higher values, showing no clear trend for the dif-
ferent conditions analysed.
5. Conclusions
The present study shows an experimental research in
intermittent turning of UNS M11917 magnesium alloy,
evaluating various machining conditions (cutting speed,
depth of cut and feed rate) under dry machining and
MQL system. Intermittent process is evaluated using as
response variable the surface roughness (Ra and Rt). Main
results of the investigation include:
 The statistical analysis performed let identify feed rate
as the main factor in order to explain surface roughness
(Ra and Rt) variability. In particular, the increase of feed
rate leads to higher surface roughness. Especially at the
higher feed rates.
 A comparison between measured surface roughness in
short dry machining tests and ideal surface roughness
shows how the results are closer when machining at
the 0.1 and 0.2 mm/rev feed rates, but distant at the
lower feed rate tested (0.05 mm/rev). Thus, at the
higher feed rates the theoretical equation is a good pre-
dictor for surface roughness in intermittent turning for
both Ra and Rt.
 Dispersion of surface roughness values was also stud-
ied, identifying how at the lower feed rate (0.05 mm/
rev) more dispersion is observed for the Ra results. This
fact can difficult the prediction of surface roughness at
low feed rates. In the case of Rt the values of the coeffi-
cient of variation are higher for all of the cases, indenti-
fying also no clear trend in the results obtained.
 Cutting speed and type of interruption of the workpiece,
analysed in both dry and MQL short machining tests,
were identified as no significant factors according to
the statistical analysis.
 Regarding depth of cut, this factor and its interaction
with feed rate are also found to be significant factors
when analysing long dry machining tests for Ra results.
The increase of depth of cut provides slightly better sur-
face roughness results, while in the case of Rt no influ-
ence was observed.
 A limited detrimental effect of the use of the MQL
system on surface roughness is recognised at the high-
est feed rate tested (0.2 mm/rev) only when analysing
Ra. However, it is point out that the use of higher
machining times could lead to better surface finish
results when using MQL systems in intermittent
turning.
 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
 Although further research is needed, the limited nega-
tive effect of the MQL system on surface roughness is
justified on a higher level of vibrations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to the University of the
Aveiro for providing the facilities and equipment to per-
form the tests. They would also like to thank the support
given by the Research Groups: ‘‘Machining & Tribology
(MACTRIB)’’ (University of Aveiro) and ‘‘Industrial Produc-
tion and Manufacturing Engineering (IPME)’’ (National
University of Distance Education - UNED). In addition,
the authors would like to thank to Grupo Antolín Magnesio
S.L. for the transfer of part of the materials used in this
study.
The study had the support of the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation, and the Industrial Engineering
School-UNED by the funding of the Projects DPI2011-
27135 and REF2013-ICF03.
References
[1] J. Hirsch, T. Al-Samman, Superior light metals by texture
engineering: optimized aluminum and magnesium alloys for
automotive applications, Acta Mater. 61 (3) (2013) 818–843.
[2] M.A. Thein, L. Lu, M.O. Lai, Effect of milling and reinforcement on
mechanical properties of nanostructured magnesium composite, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009) 4439–4443.
[3] M. Kleiner, M. Geiger, A. Klaus, Manufacturing of lightweight
components by metal forming, CIRP Annals – Manuf. Technol. 52
(2003) 521–542.
[4] F.Z. Fang, L.C. Lee, X.D. Liu, Mean flank temperature measurement in
high speed dry cutting of magnesium alloy, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 167 (2005) 119–123.
[5] I.J. Polmear, Light Alloys: From Traditional Alloys to Nanocrystals,
fourth ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2005.
[6] L.D. Scintilla, L. Tricarico, Experimental investigation on fiber and
CO2 inert gas fusion cutting of AZ31 magnesium alloy sheets, Opt.
Laser Technol. 46 (2013) 42–52.
[7] K. Weinert, I. Inasaki, J.W. Sutherland, T. Wakabayashi, Dry
machining and minimum quantity lubrication, CIRP Annals –
Manuf. Technol 53 (2) (2004) 511–537.
[8] N. Tomac, K. Tønnessen, Formation of flank build-up in cutting
magnesium alloys, CIRP Annals – Manuf. Technol. 40 (1) (1991) 79–
82.
[9] M.K. Kulekci, Magnesium and its alloys applications in automotive
industry, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39 (9–10) (2008) 851–865.
[10] Y.S. Hong, Economical and ecological cryogenic machining, J. Manuf.
Sci. Eng. – Trans. ASME 12 (2001) 331–338.
[11] F. Klocke, G. Eisenblaetter, Dry cutting, CIRP Annals – Manuf.
Technol. 46 (2) (1997) 519–526.
[12] L.R. Silva, E.C. Bianchi, R.Y. Fusse, R.E. Catai, T.V. França, P.R. Aguiar,
Analysis of surface integrity for minimum quantity lubricant—MQL
in grinding, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 47 (2007) 412–418.
[13] V.S. Sharma, M. Dogra, N.M. Suri, Cooling techniques for improved
productivity in turning, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 49 (6) (2009) 435–
453.
[14] Y. Kamata, T. Obikawa, High speed MQL finish-turning of Inconel-
718 with different coated tools, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 192–193
(2007) 281–286.
[15] A.E. Diniz, D.M. Gomes, A.B. Junior, Turning of hardened steel with
interrupted and semi-interrupted cutting, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
159 (2) (2005) 240–248.
[16] A.J. Oliveira, A.E. Diniz, D.J. Ursolino, Hard turning in continuous and
interrupted cut with PCBN and whisker-reinforced cutting tools, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (12–13) (2009) 5262–5270.
[17] S. Ramesh, L. Karunamoorthy, K. Palanikumar, Measurement and
analysis of surface roughness in turning of aerospace titanium alloy
(gr5), Measurement 45 (5) (2012) 1266–1276.
153
[18] P.G. Benardos, G.-C. Vosniakos, Predicting surface roughness in
machining: a review, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 43 (8) (2003) 833–844.
[19] E. Sayit, K. Aslantas, A. Çiçek, Tool wear mechanism in interrupted
cutting conditions, Mater. Manuf. Processes 24 (4) (2009) 476–483.
[20] R. Pavel, I. Marinescu, M. Deis, J. Pillar, Effect of tool wear on surface
finish for a case of continuous and interrupted hard turning, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 170 (1–2) (2005) 341–349.
[21] V.A.A. Godoy, A.E. Diniz, Turning of interrupted and continuous
hardened steel surfaces using ceramic and CBN cutting tools, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 211 (2011) 1014–1025.
[22] Q. Liang, Y.K. Vohra, R. Thompson, High speed continuous and
interrupted dry turning of A390 Aluminum/Silicon Alloy using
nanostructured diamond coated WC–6 wt.% cobalt tool inserts by
MPCVD, Diam. Relat. Mater. 17 (12) (2008) 2041–2047.
[23] H.K. Tönshoff, J. Winkler, The influence of tool coatings in machining
of magnesium, Surf. Coat. Technol. 94–95 (1997) 610–616.
[24] Z. Pu, J.C. Outeiro, A.C. Batista, O.W. Dillon Jr, D.A. Puleo, I.S. Jawahir,
Enhanced surface integrity of AZ31B Mg alloy by cryogenic
machining towards improved functional performance of machined
components, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 56 (2012) 17–27.
[25] N. Wojtowicz, I. Danis, F. Monies, P. Lamesle, R. Chieragatia, The
influence of cutting conditions on surface integrity of a wrought
magnesium alloy, Proc. Eng. 63 (2013) 20–28.
[26] E.M. Rubio, J.L. Valencia, A.J. Saá, D. Carou, Experimental study of the
dry facing of magnesium pieces based on the surface roughness, Int.
J. Precision Eng. Manuf. 14 (6) (2013) 995–1001.
[27] E.M. Rubio, M. Villeta, D. Carou, A. Saá, Comparative analysis of
sustainable cooling systems in intermittent turning of magnesium
pieces, Int. J. Precision Eng. Manuf. 15 (5) (2014) 929–940.
[28] A. Zafari, H.M. Ghasemi, R. Mahmudi, An investigation on the
tribological behavior of AZ91 and AZ91 + 3 wt% RE magnesium
alloys at elevated temperatures, Mater. Des. 54 (2014) 544–
552.
[29] R. Zeng, Y. Chiu, I.P. Jones, Characterisation of nano-sized Al–Mn–
(Mg) particles in AZ91 and their effect on Mg17Al12 precipitation, J.
Alloy. Compd. 579 (2013) 34–38.
[30] Y.-K. Hwang, C.-M. Lee, S.-H. Park, Evaluation of machinability
according to the changes in machine tools and cooling lubrication
environments and optimization of cutting conditions using Taguchi
method, Int. J. Precision Eng. Manuf. 10 (3) (2009) 65–73.
[31] W. Grzesik, A revised model for predicting surface roughness in
turning, Wear 194 (1996) 143–148.
[32] I. Asiltürk, M. Çunkas, Modeling and prediction of surface roughness
in turning operations using artificial neural network and multiple
regression method, Exp. Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 5826–5832.
[33] P.S. Sreejith, Machining of 6061 aluminium alloy with MQL, dry and
flooded lubricant conditions, Mater. Lett. 62 (2008) 276–278.
[34] G. Chakraverti, P.C. Pandey, N.K. Mehta, Analysis of tool temperature
fluctuation in interrupted cutting, Precision Eng. 6 (1984) 99–
105.
[35] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, seventh ed.,
John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 2009.
[36] 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 (2007) 1186–1191.
[37] M. Villeta, B. Agustina, J.M.S. Pipaón, E.M. Rubio, Efficient
optimization of machining processes based on technical
specifications for surface roughness: application to magnesium
pieces in the aerospace industry, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 60
(9–12) (2011) 1237–1246.
[38] A.S. More, W. Jiang, W.D. Brown, A. Malshe, Tool wear and
machining performance of CBN–TiN coated carbide inserts and
PCBN compact inserts in turning AISI 4340 hardened steel, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 180 (2006) 253–262.
[39] H. Hocheng, M.L. Hsieh, Signal analysis of surface roughness in
diamond turning of lens molds, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 44 (2004)
1607–1618.
[40] V.S. Sharma, S. Dhiman, R. Sehgal, S.K. Sharma, Estimation of cutting
forces and surface roughness for hard turning using neural
networks, J. Intell. Manuf. 19 (2008) 473–483.
[41] G. Boothroyd, W.A. Knight, Fundamentals of machining and machine
tools, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
[42] A.E. Correia, J.P. Davim, Surface roughness measurement in turning
carbon steel AISI 1045 using wiper inserts, Measurement 44 (2011)
1000–1005.
[43] 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 (2005) 467–479.
154 D. Carou et al. / Measurement 56 (2014) 136–154
[44] G. Bartarya, S.K. Choudhury, Effect of cutting parameters on cutting
force and surface roughness during finish hard turning AISI52100
grade steel, Proc. CIRP 1 (2012) 651–656.
[45] J.E. Ståhl, F. Schultheiss, S. Hägglund, Analytical and experimental
determination of the ra surface roughness during turning, Proc. Eng.
19 (2011) 349–356.
[46] N.C. Schwertman, M.A. Owens, R. Adnan, A simple more general
boxplot method for identifying outliers, Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 47
(2004) 165–174.
[47] J.W. Tukey, Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts, 1977.
[48] S.Y. Hong, Lubrication mechanisms of LN2 in ecological cryogenic
machining, Mach. Sci. Technol. 10 (1) (2006) 133–155.
[49] N.R. Dhar, M. Kamruzzaman, M. Ahmed, Effect of minimum quantity
lubrication (MQL) on tool wear and surface roughness in turning
AISI-4340 steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 172 (2) (2006)
299–304.