Title: Experiment 6: Roughness Test of Machined Component

Objective:
1. To compare the experiment value of primary surface roughness with the theoretical
value
2. Study the effect of cutting speed and federate o primary surface roughness

Introduction:
Surface roughness is irregular geometry shape characteristic(error) which includes
peaks and valleys on the machined surfaces. Surface roughness is an important measure of
product quality since it greatly influences the performance of mechanical parts as well the cost
of production. The assessment of surface roughness can be carried out in many numbers of
ways. The most common used stylus method to calculate surface roughness has limitations
being contact with machined surfaces. Though it’s been shown that the surface roughness of a
work piece is strongly characterize by the surface image, sensible surface roughness
instruments supported machine vision technology are still tough.For quantitative comparison
of the work piece surface roughness, the roughness when machined using tool nose radii, r
specified in the arithmetic average value, 𝑅𝑎 is given by equation (1)

𝑅𝑎 = 1.22 × 105 𝑀𝑓 1.004 𝑉𝑐 −1.252 𝜇𝑚 (1)

where 𝑅𝑎 is the average surface roughness, 𝑀 = (𝑟)−0.714 (𝐵𝐻𝑁)−0.323 is the constant to

account for the influence of tool nose radii and workpiece hardness, f is the federate, BHN is
the Brinell hardness number for the workpiece and 𝑉𝑐 is the cutting velocity.

Apparatus
1. Manual lathe machine
2. Carbide cutting tool
3. MITUTOYO SV 400 surface roughness tester
4. Cylindrical work piece (D=38mm, L=100mm)
 Figure 1: MITUTOYO SV 400 Figure 2: Work piece on lathe
surface roughness tester machine

Procedure
1. Workpiece, cutting tool and machined tool is prepared.
2. Cutting parameters for the experiment (𝑉𝑐 , 𝑎, 𝑓) is determined.
3. The tool nose radii is determined.
4. By using the speed and federate determined in step (2), perform turning process using
a lathe machine
5. The surface roughness obtained is measured using MITUTOYO SV 400.
6. Graph of surface roughness as a function of cutting speed, 𝑉𝑐 is plotted.
7. Graph of surface roughness as a function of federate, f is plotted.

Results:
a) Constant cutting speed, varying federate
Feed Rate, Ra, 𝜇𝑚 Ra
mm/rev 1 2 3 Average, 𝜇𝑚
0.05 0.479 0.543 0.506 0.509333
0.1 0.577 0.621 0.466 0.554667
0.16 0.895 0.839 0.818 0.850667
0.2 1.151 1.029 0.861 1.013667
0.25 1.917 2.028 2.058 2.001
0.3 3.04 3.149 3.221 3.136667

Cutting Speed, 𝑉𝑐 (𝑚⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛) 143.256625

Spindle rotation,N, Rpm 1200
Tool noise radii, mm 0.8
Workpiece Brinell
hardness value, BHN 80
Depth of cut, mm 0.5
Feed rate, mm/rev 0.05 0.1 0.16 0.2 0.25 0.3
Theoretical roughness
value, 𝜇𝑚 0.10125 0.20306 0.32552 0.40726 0.5095 0.61189
Experimental roughness
value, 𝜇𝑚 0.50933 0.55467 0.85067 1.01367 2.0010 3.136667
Percentage difference 403.03% 173.14% 161.32% 148.89% 292.71% 412.62%
 Graph 1: Graph of Roughness Value vs Feed Rate
b) Constant feedrate, varying cutting speed
Ra Ra
Speed 1 2 3 Average
180 1.466 1.134 1.514 1.371333
260 0.787 0.703 0.734 0.741333
370 0.942 0.955 1.102 0.999667
540 1.425 1.577 1.457 1.486333
800 0.764 0.861 0.901 0.842
1200 1.466 1.453 1.454 1.457667
1700 1.554 1.518 1.433 1.501667

Tool nose radii, mm 0.8

Workpiece Brinell hardness value,
80
BHN

Feed rate, mm/rev 0.2

Depth of cut, mm 0.5

Spindle rotation, rpm 180 260 370 540 800 1200 1700
Cutting Speed, m/min 21.488 31.039 44.171 64.465 95.504 143.257 202.947
Theoretical roughness value, 𝜇𝑚 10.989 6.9349 4.458 2.777 1.698 1.022 0.661

Experimental roughness value, 𝜇𝑚 1.371 0.74139 0.9997 1.486 0.842 1.458 1.502

Percentage difference 87.52% 89.31% 77.58% 46.48% 50.41% 42.64% 127.27%

 Graph of Roughness Value vs Cutting Speed
12

10
Roughness Value

6
Theoritical roughness value,

4 Experimental roughness value

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Cutting Speed

Graph 2: Graph of Roughness Value vs Cutting Speed

Sample Calculation
Using;
Cutting speed= 143.56m/min
Feed rate= 0.5mm/rev

1200
𝑅𝑎 = 1.22𝑥105 )(0.8−0.714 𝑥80−0.323 )(0.051.004 )(143.26𝑥 𝑥2𝜋)−1.252
60
= 0.50933𝜇𝑚

Discussion:

Based on graph 1, generally the surface roughness for machined work piece tend to
increase with increasing feed rate. This trend can be observed from both the experimental
roughness value as well as the theoretical roughness value. This is because as the feed rate
increases, the tool geometry will be imprinted to the work piece surface thus resulted in
increased surface roughness. An increase in feed rate will increase the friction between work
piece and tool interface, which eventually increases the temperature in the cutting zone.
Hence, the shear strength of the material reduces, and the material behaves in a ductile
fashion. This in turn will cause chip formed to detach with utmost difficulty which increases
the surface roughness. Besides that, increasing the feed rate also cause unwanted vibration
which will affect the surface roughness.
 Based on graph 2, the surface roughness deceases as the cutting speed increases which
can be seen from the value of theoretical as well as experimental roughness value. The
decrease of surface roughness with increasing cutting speed is due to the decreasing built u
edge formation tendency. When built up edge formation is reduced, the tool will be able to
cut the work piece more thoroughly and smoothly. Furthermore, increase in cutting speed
will increase the rate of material removal. The temperature of the work pice will not increase
as fast as when using low cutting speed thus, chip formed will be able to detach more easily.
Lower work piece temperature will also increase the plastic deformation on the surface where
the chip is removed which will reduce the surface roughness.

Based on the calculations of error, the difference between the experimental surface
roughness and theoretical surface roughness is apparent. The differences may due to the lathe
machine error. One of the errors that can occur from the lathe machine is backlash. Backlash
will cause inconsistent feed rate and cutting speed and cause the cutting tool to not move
perfectly straight and the feed rate not accurate to the desired feed rate. This will affect the
surface roughness of the machined component since feed rate and cutting speed affects the
calculation of average surface roughness.

The roughness values obtained from this experiment is not acceptable because the
difference to the theoretical values are too large. The acceptable range for the percentage
error is less than 5%. However, the calculated percentage error has an average value of 264%
and 74% for the varying federate and cutting speed respectively.

Conclusion
For the experiment, one can observe that the feed rate and cutting speed are the parameters
that influences the surface roughness, Ra. Surface roughness of the machined work piece
increases with increasing the feed rate while the surface roughness decreases with increasing
cutting speed. However, the percentage error for the experiment is too large to be accepted
and proper precaution and some corrective steps must be done such as preventing backlash
error.

Reference
1. Pg 25-27. “Buku Makmal EML332/2, Makmal Kejuruteraan II, Sidang 2018-2019”,
Universiti Sains Malaysia
2. A.B. Abdullah, L.Y. Chia and Z. Samad. “The Effect of Feed Rate and Cutting Speed
to Surface Roughness”. Asian Journal of Scientific Research. 2008
3. F. Schultheissa, S. Hägglundb. “Analytical and Experimental Determination of the Ra
Surface Roughness during Turning”. Elsevier. 2011.
4. Grzegorz Krolczyk, Pero Raos, Stanislaw Legutko. “Experimental Analysis of
Surface Roughness and Surface Texture of Machined and Fused Deposition Modelled
Parts”. Journal Tehnički vjesnik. 2014