Effect of Cutting-Edge Geometry

and Workpiece Hardness on

Jeffrey D. Thiele1
Shreyes N. Melkote2
The George W. Woodruff School
of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405
Roberta A. Peascoe
Thomas R. Watkins
High Temperature Materials Laboratory,
Oak Ridge National Laboratories,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6064
Surface Residual Stresses in
Finish Hard Turning of AISI 52100
Steel
An experimental investigation was conducted to determine the effects of tool cutting-edge
geometry (edge preparation) and workpiece hardness on surface residual stresses for
finish hard turning of through-hardened AISI 52100 steel. Polycrystalline cubic boron
nitride (PCBN) inserts with representative types of edge geometry including up-sharp
edges, edge hones, and chamfers were used as the cutting tools in this study. This study
shows that tool edge geometry is highly influential with respect to surface residual
stresses, which were measured using x-ray diffraction. In general, compressive surface
residual stresses in the axial and circumferential directions were generated by large edge
hone tools in longitudinal turning operations. Residual stresses in the axial and circum-
ferential directions generated by large edge hone tools are typically more compressive
than stresses produced by small edge hone tools. Microstructural analysis shows that
thermally-induced phase transformation effects are present at all feeds and workpiece
hardness values with the large edge hone tools, and only at high feeds and hardness
values with the small edge hone tools. In general, continuous white layers on the work-
piece surface correlate with compressive residual stresses, while over-tempered regions
correlate with tensile or compressive residual stresses depending on the workpiece hard-
ness. S1087-13570000304-X

1 Introduction 2 Prior Work in Hard Turning

Surface residual stresses are known to affect the fatigue life and
tribological properties of a machined surface and are also associ-
ated with distortion in machined components 1. These effects
can be either beneficial or detrimental depending on the magni-
tude and nature of the stress states. Consequently, numerous stud-
ies have been conducted to determine relationships between ma-
chining process parameters and residual stresses 26. These
investigations conclude that generation of residual stresses de-
pends on thermoplastic deformation of the workpiece. However,
these studies do not adequately account for surface generation in
finish machining.
Additional factors contributing to thermoplastic deformation
during turning processes must be investigated to improve under-
standing of the formation of residual stresses. These factors in-
clude the tool cutting-edge geometry and workpiece hardness.
Cutting-edge geometry, or edge preparation, is significant for fin-
ish machining because the undeformed chip thickness is of the
same order of magnitude as the edge radius. Therefore, most of
the interaction between the chip and tool occurs along the cutting-
edge. Workpiece hardness is significant because it can be modi-
fied to vary thermoplastic deformation characteristics.
Since hard turning is a process that encompasses a relatively
wide range of workpiece hardness values 4570 HRC, and be-
cause edge preparation such as hones and chamfers are regularly
applied to the CBN insert in hard turning to increase its edge
strength 7, it serves as an ideal process to examine the effects of
these two factors on the surface residual stresses.
1
Currently with Caterpillar, Inc., Peoria, IL.
2
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
Mar. 1999; revised Dec. 1999. Associate Technical Editor: M. Elbestawi.
Prior research in hard turning is concerned with chip formation,
tool wear, and surface integrity. Studies of chip formation show
that segmented chips produced in hard turning are mainly due to
cyclic cracking 811 and are influenced by a variety of factors
including work hardness, cutting speed, tool geometry, tool wear,
depth of cut, and feed 12,13. Investigations related to tool wear
have shown that forces and surface roughness tend to increase
with tool wear for hard turning of conventional and PM M50 steel
14, and M2 tool steel 15. Studies of surface integrity in hard
turning support the existence of rehardened white layers that are
caused by mechanical and thermal effects 16,17. Griffiths 18
suggests that white layer formation is influenced by temperature,
pressure, mechanical deformation, and surface reaction.
Prior research on residual stresses in hard turning addresses the
effects of workpiece hardness and tool wear. Matsumoto et al.
19 examined the effect of workpiece hardness on residual
stresses produced in facing of case hardened AISI 4340 steel. This
study showed that, in the absence of phase transformations, re-
sidual stresses become more compressive as workpiece hardness
increases. Wu and Matsumoto 20 showed that shear angle ef-
fects dominate the stress patterns in tube facing of AISI 4340 steel
of different hardness values. Tonshoff et al. 21 studied the ef-
fects of tool composition and tool wear on residual stresses and
surface integrity in hard turning of case hardened ASTM 5115
steel. They showed that tool wear results in the formation of a
martensitic white layer under a state of tensile residual stress.
Abrao and Aspinwall 22 examined the effects of tool wear in
hard-turning of AISI 52100 steel and compared the fatigue life of
hard-turned and ground specimens with the same surface rough-
ness. They showed that white layers produced by hard-turning are
in a state of compressive residual stress and fatigue life of hard-
turned specimens is greater than ground specimens, despite the

642 Vol. 122, NOVEMBER 2000 Copyright 2000 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 existence of white layers on the workpiece surface. Mittal and Liu
23 presented an empirical model for the prediction of residual
stresses in hard turning as a function of the cutting conditions.
This model can be used for selection of process parameters that
yield a residual stress profile that maximizes the fatigue life of
rolling contact surfaces 24.
Jang et al. 25 have considered the effects of tool cutting edge
radius on surface residual stress for turning of 304 stainless steel.
The results of this study showed that tools with large edge radius
produce more compressive values of stress than small edge radius
tools at small feed rates. Additionally, Liu and Barash 5 sug-
gested that an increase in edge radius will result in more compres-
sive residual stress near the workpiece surface, based on residual
stress analysis of annealed low carbon steel. They simulated a
large tool edge radius by flank wear land with negative clearance Fig. 1 Typical PCBN cutting-edge preparation orthogonal
angle. In addition, the effect of thermally-induced microstructural cutting geometry shown
change on residual stresses was not examined. Therefore, these
studies are not exactly applicable to hard-turning processes where
thermal effects play a greater role in residual stress formation. Table 1 Nominal and measured edge hone values radii for
Although other researchers have acknowledged the potential each type of edge preparation
impact of cutting edge condition on residual stress formation in
hard turning, they mainly consider the effects of flank wear land
formed in a used tool 26,27. The effect of cutting edge radius in
a freshly made tool on residual stresses was not explicitly studied.
Kishawy and Elbestawi 28 reported on the effects of edge prepa-
ration and cutting speed on surface integrity of turned D2 tool
steel. They presented residual stress and surface integrity results
for sharp and honed 12.5 m radius CBN tools. However, the
interaction of cutting edge preparation and workpiece hardness
was not investigated.
Analysis of prior research shows that the effects of edge geom- CMM specifically designed for characterization of edge geometry.
etry on residual stresses and thermoplastic deformation character- Measurements were taken at five locations around the nose por-
istics have not been adequately addressed for hard turning opera- tion of the tool where cutting occurs. The average and standard
tions. Additionally, prior hard turning investigations have not deviation for each type of insert, as well as the corresponding
considered the effects of edge geometry and workpiece hardness nominal values, are given in Table 1. Henceforth, all inserts are
concurrently. This is significant because both factors play an im- identified by the measured value of the hone or chamfer corre-
portant role in thermoplastic deformation of the workpiece. There- sponding to each edge preparation. Note that a large hone radius
fore, this study presents the results of a detailed experimental was chosen to highlight the effect of cutting edge radius on re-
investigation to determine the effects of tool cutting-edge geom- sidual stress formation and not to approximate a worn tool.
etry and workpiece hardness on surface residual stresses for finish The inserts are low-CBN content finishing inserts of the same
hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. grade Kennametal KD050 and Valenite VC722, and are com-
posed of PCBN tips brazed to a WC substrate. The inserts are
3 Experimental Procedure triangular and correspond to ANSI classification TNGA-432 31
with a 0.813 mm nominal nose radius. These inserts were used
This investigation is part of a larger effort to determine the with a tool holder with a side rake angle of 5 deg, a back rake
effects of edge preparation and workpiece hardness on surface angle of 5 deg, and a 0 deg lead angle Kennametal DTGNL-
generation in hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. Samples prepared 164D.
with extreme values of edge preparation and hardness were used
in the surface residual stress measurements. A complete descrip- 3.2 Workpiece Material. AISI 52100 steel bars used as the
tion of all types of edge geometry and workpiece hardness values workpiece material were nominally 28.6 mm diameter and were
used in the larger investigation is given in a recent thesis by cut to 0.25 m in length prior to heat treatment. The bars were
Thiele 29. heat-treated to hardness values of 45 and 60 Rockwell hardness C
scale HRC. However, subsequent measurements showed that the
3.1 Tool Edge Characterization. Several types of edge actual hardness values were 411.0 HRC and 570.5 HRC, re-
preparation are available for PCBN inserts used in hard turning spectively. Henceforth, hardness values are defined by the mea-
operations. These include Up-sharp edges with no additional sured values.
processing to strengthen the edge, hones, Up-sharp chamfers,
and chamfers with edge hones applied. These representative edge 3.3 Experimental Design. A three-factor design of experi-
geometries are shown schematically in Fig. 1. Measurements of ment was used to determine the effects of edge preparation, work-
up-sharp inserts show that a small, measurable edge radius piece hardness, and feed rate on surface residual stresses. Figure 2
exists at the flank-rake face interface. Therefore, all PCBN inserts summarizes the factors and factor levels. Based on the experimen-
have a finite cutting edge radius, which may be obtained in vari- tal design, 21 triaxial residual stress measurements were made
ous sizes 30. including two replications for the 22.9 m Hone, 57 HRC com-
Fresh PCBN inserts with the following three representative bination and the 121.9 m Hone, 57 HRC combination.
types of edge preparation were used in this study: 1 Up-sharp Longitudinal turning was conducted on a very rigid and precise
edges, 2 large edge hones radii ranging from 100150 m lathe 15 HP Hardinge Conquest T42SP at a constant surface
nominal, and 3 Up-sharp chamfered edges nominally 115 speed of 121.9 m/min, consistent with industrial hard turning pro-
m17 deg land lengthchamfer angle. Because even the cesses. The depth of cut was also held at a value of 0.254 mm.
Up-sharp edges have a finite radius hone, this investigation The workpiece bars were held in a collet to maximize rigidity and
effectively involves a comparison of the effects of edge hone size. minimize runout. The workpiece material was fed out of the collet
Prior to machining, each insert was measured using a stylus-type in incremental fashion for each test so that cutting took place at

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering NOVEMBER 2000, Vol. 122 643

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 2 Factors and factor levels
the same location relative to the collet for each test. The length of
cut for each test was 20.3 mm in the axial direction and was kept
small in order to minimize the effect of tool wear on the results.
The effect of tool wear on residual stresses has been discussed by
other researchers 9,21,27.
3.4 Residual Stress Measurements. A four-axis goniom-
eter Scintag X2000 with a 290 mm radius was used to conduct
the residual stress measurements 32. The machined test speci-
mens were mounted on a vee block in the goniometer, secured
with cable ties, and were aligned with respect to the center of
rotation of the goniometer using a dial indicator. The goniometer
setup is shown in Fig. 3. Operation of the goniometer, data acqui-
sition, and peak profile analysis were conducted using a Win-
dows based software program DMS NT.
An X-ray tube generator operating at 1.8 kW was used to pro-
duce Cr K radiation with wavelength 2.28970 . This al- crystalline diamond slurries, including 9 m, 3 m, and 1 m
lowed for analysis of the ferritic 211 peaks with sufficient inten-
sity at a diffraction angle of approximately 155 deg. The effective
maximum depth of x-ray penetration was 3.9 m for 50 percent of
the total integrated peak intensity and 16.8 m for 95 percent of
the total integrated peak intensity 33. A short 2 mm collimator
was used with a 1 mm scattering slit and a 0.3 mm receiving slit
located on the detector. This configuration allowed for small x-ray
beam size and low divergence to minimize errors caused by the
curved surface of the cylindrical specimens.
Specimen alignment was accomplished using a dial gauge
probe, which was accurate to 5 m. Here, the relative distance
to the center of rotation is known, and the diffracting surface is
Fig. 3 Goniometer setup HTML, Oak Ridge National Labs
644 Vol. 122, NOVEMBER 2000
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
positioned accordingly. Goniometer alignment was ensured by ex-
amining LaB6 powder on a zero background plate. The maximum
observed peak shift for the 311 reflection of LaB6 132 deg 2
was less than 0.06 deg 2 for tilting.
Triaxial with shear stress analysis was conducted for all speci-
mens using specimen tilt angles of 55 deg, 42 deg, 28.2
deg, 0 deg, 28.2 deg, 42 deg, and 55 deg. The 211 peaks were
scanned using 0.1 deg 2 increments is the Bragg angle rang-
ing from 150 deg164 deg at each tilt angle. Count times of
1520 seconds were used to ensure accurate peak shapes.
The strain was plotted versus sin2 , where strain is determined
from d-spacing ((d d 0 )/d 0 ). The terms d and d 0 are the
measured and strain-free 211 interplanar spacings, respectively.
The curve was fitted using the generalized least squares method.
The strain-free interplanar spacing, d 0 , was calculated for each
sample using the Hauk method 34. X-ray elastic constants E
205 GPa, and 0.3 used to calculate residual stresses from
the strain data were taken from literature 35. Finally, stresses
were calculated using the Dolle-Hauk method 34.
It should also be noted that in this paper only surface residual
stresses are discussed. Nevertheless, these results are significant
because fatigue and friction and wear behavior of the machined
surface are intimately affected by the surface stresses. The effects
of tool edge geometry and workpiece hardness on through-
thickness residual stresses and sub-surface deformation have been
examined in another article 36.
3.5 Microstructural Sample Preparation. Microstructural
analysis was performed on all test specimens. Samples were pre-
pared by conventional metallographic techniques. Specimens
were cut with an abrasive cut-off saw under extremely mild con-
ditions to avoid excessive modification of the workpiece micro-
structure. Samples were then encapsulated in an epoxy mold using
a mounting press. The epoxy used for this investigation Buehler
Epomet was specifically designed to maximize edge retention
for polishing of high hardness materials. The samples were then
polished using 320 grit paper followed by three successive poly-
polycrystalline diamond suspensions. The samples were then
briefly polished using a 0.05 m alumina slurry. The samples
were etched using a 2 percent Nital solution for approximately 15
seconds. Microstructural analysis was done using a Reichert
metallograph.
4 Results
Tables 2 and 3 below provide a summary of the surface residual
stress data for all factor level combinations. These tables include
all normal components, defined in Fig. 4, as well as the in-plane
shear stress ( 12). Through-thickness shear stresses are ignored in
the tables because these components were approximately zero for
all tests. Finally, average values are presented for factor level
combinations where more than one replication was performed.
For experiments with replications, the residual stress measure-
ments were fairly repeatable see 29 for replication data.
Tables 2 and 3 show that the 121.9 m hone and 25.4 m
chamfer result in stresses that are more compressive less tensile
Table 2 Nominal stress values 57 HRC workpiece
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 3 Nominal stress values 41 HRC workpiece

Fig. 6 Effect of edge preparation and feed rate on axial stress

57 HRC workpiece

Fig. 4 Residual stress notation with respect to workpiece sur-

face

than the 22.9 m hone for almost all corresponding factor level
combinations. In other words, for a given feed rate, an increase in
edge hone results in more compressive values of residual stress
for all normal components of stress. Additionally, for a given edge
preparation, increasing the feed usually causes the axial residual
stress to become more tensile less compressive. These tables Fig. 7 Effect of edge preparation and feed rate on hoop stress
also show that the 121.9 m edge and 25.4 m chamfer result in 41 HRC workpiece
shear stresses of greater magnitude than the 22.9 m edge. Fi-
nally, these tables show that stresses in the radial direction are
generally smaller than the other stress components. Because the
axial and hoop components of residual stress have a clear physical
interpretation, the effects of edge hone and hardness on these
components are examined in greater detail.
4.1 Effect of Edge Preparation on Residual Stress
Graphs of surface residual stress in the 11 axial and 22 hoop
directions are shown in Figs. 58 below. These figures show the

Fig. 8 Effect of edge preparation and feed rate on axial stress

41 HRC workpiece

main effects of edge preparation and feed rate on surface residual

Fig. 5 Effect of edge preparation and feed rate on hoop stress
57 HRC workpiece
stress for each hardness level.
Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of edge preparation and feed
rate on hoop and axial residual stresses respectively, for the 57
HRC workpiece. Figures 7 and 8 show these effects for the 41
HRC workpiece. These figures show that the residual stresses as-
sociated with the 22.9 m hone tool are generally tensile or zero
and the residual stresses associated with the 121.9 m hone and
24.5 m chamfer tool are generally compressive. This is true for

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering NOVEMBER 2000, Vol. 122 645

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 all stress components except for the axial component, 22.9 m
hone, 57 HRC workpiece tests. For these cases, the 22.9 m hone
produces small compressive surface residual stresses at feed rates
of 0.05 mm/rev and 0.10 mm/rev.
Examination of Table 2 and Figs. 5 and 6 shows that the axial
and hoop stresses produced by the 121.9 m hone and 25.4 m
chamfer are similar at intermediate and high feed rates. Generally,
both types of edge preparation produce compressive residual
stresses of similar magnitude for these components. However,
close examination of Table 2 shows that the sign associated with
the in-plane shear stresses is different for each tool. Specifically,
the 121.9 m hone produces negative in-plane shear stresses and
the 25.4 m chamfer produces positive in-plane shear stresses.
This suggests that the principal stresses produced by each edge
preparation will be somewhat different, despite the similarities in
the normal stress components.
Fig. 11 Effect of hardness and feed rate on hoop stress22.9
4.2 Effect of Hardness on Residual Stresses. Graphs of m hone
the hoop and axial components of surface residual stress as a
function of hardness and feed rate are plotted in Figs. 912. These
graphs show the relationship between hardness and residual stress
for each cutting edge geometry.
Figures 9 and 10 show the relationship between workpiece
hardness and the axial component of residual stress for the 22.9
m and 121.9 m hone tools, respectively. These figures show
that the axial component of stress for the 57 HRC workpiece is
more compressive than for the 41 HRC workpiece. This is true for
all factor level combinations. Figures 11 and 12 show the effect of
hardness on hoop stress for the 22.9 and 121.9 m hone tools,
respectively. These figures show that the hoop stress components

Fig. 12 Effect of hardness and feed rate on hoop stress

121.9 m hone

for the 41 HRC workpiece materials are generally less compres-

sive than components of hoop stress for the 57 HRC workpiece.
This is true for all factor level combinations except the 121.9 m
hone, 0.15 mm/rev feed combination.

5 Discussion
5.1 Microstructural Correlation. Microstructural analysis
reveals that three basic microstructural patterns exist on the work-
Fig. 9 Effect of hardness and feed rate on axial stress22.9 piece surface see Fig. 13 for example, including: 1 continuous
m hone
white layers, 2 intermittent white layers, and 3 dark layers.
These layers are created by heating and subsequent cooling of the
workpiece material during the cutting process. White layers are

Fig. 10 Effect of hardness and feed rate on axial stress121.9 Fig. 13 Continuous white layer121.9 m hone, 0.15 mmrev
m hone feed, 57 HRC workpiece

646 Vol. 122, NOVEMBER 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 4 Summary of microstructural features, residual stresses, and strain-free
interplanar spacing d 0

composed mostly of fine-grained, untempered martensite that re-
sists etching and appears white when viewed with an optical mi-
croscope 18. White layers are created by heating of the work-
piece material above the transformation temperature and residual stress in the axial and hoop directions. Representative
subsequent rapid cooling during the cutting process. Dark layers
are composed of over-tempered martensite, which etches easily.
These layers are created by heating of the workpiece below the
transformation temperature. Dark layers are typically located deeper layer, which can then quench to a thicker layer of marten-
beneath continuous white layers and below and adjacent to inter-
mittent white layers. Finally, the interior surface of the workpiece
is revealed to be tempered martensite.
Table 4 provides a summary of microstructural features ob-
served on the surface of the workpiece for all tests. Stress com-
ponents in the axial and circumferential direction are included to
allow for correlation of microstructures with surface residual
stress. It also shows the correlation between the strain-free inter-
planar spacing (d 0 ) and workpiece microstructure. This parameter
is significant because d 0 is used to determine residual strain for
triaxial residual stress analysis according to the equation provided
in Section 3.3. Variation in strain-free interplanar spacing with
microstructure can be explained by considering that the 211
peak is a composite of separate 211 peaks from both martensite
and ferrite phases. This appears as a single broad peak because the
nominal spacings of these planes are very similar and each peak is
broadened by plastic deformation 33.
Surface residual stresses in the axial and hoop directions corre-
late with each microstructural pattern. Specifically, all samples
that show continuous white layers on the surface of the workpiece
display compressive residual stress in the axial and hoop direc-
tions. For example, the large edge hone tool 121.9 m hone
forms continuous white layers on the surface of the workpiece for
both hardness values and for all feeds, resulting in compressive
examples of continuous white layers are shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
Note the effect of feed on white layer thickness in Fig. 14. This
can be related to a greater degree of heating which austenitizes a
site. This microstructure-residual stress correlation is in agreement
with that reported by Abrao and Aspinwall 21 for hard turning
of 52100 steel 62 HRC with different tool materials, and more
recently by Matsumoto et al. 37 for turning of case-carburized
bearing steel 5862 HRC using a honed CBN tool.
The primary reason for compressive residual stress formation in
samples exhibiting continuous white layers is volume expansion
accompanying phase transformation 38,39. During machining,
the tempered martensite in the workpiece surface transforms to
austenite. Rapid cooling results in the formation of untempered
martensite, which attempts to expand. The interior workpiece ma-
terial places the surface layer in residual compression.
Samples that show dark layers on the workpiece surface see
Fig. 15 normally correlate with tensile residual stress in the axial
and hoop directions. For feeds larger than 0.05 mm/rev the small
edge radius tool 22.9 m hone generally forms a dark layer on
the workpiece surface, resulting in tensile residual stress in the
axial and hoop directions. This is true for both the 41 and 57 HRC
workpiece materials. This correlation can be explained by consid-
ering the thermal expansion and subsequent cooling of the work-
piece surface, constrained by the workpiece interior 5. Thermal

Fig. 14 Continuous white layer121.9 m hone, 0.15 mmrev

feed, 41 HRC workpiece. This white layer appears to be inter- Fig. 15 Dark layer22.9 m hone, 0.10 mmrev feed, 57 HRC
mittent but is continuous when viewed at high magnification. workpiece

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering NOVEMBER 2000, Vol. 122 647

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 16 Intermittent white layer24.5 m cham., 0.10 mmrev
feed, 57 HRC workpiece
gradient produced by the cutting process causes the surface layer
to expand more than the inner layers, eventually leading to plastic
deformation. Upon cooling, the surface layer attempts to shrink to
a length smaller than the interior layer and is placed in residual
tension to maintain equilibrium.
The two exceptions to the above observation are the 0.05 mm/
rev feed cases for the 57 HRC material when using the 22.9 m
hone and 25.4 m chamfer tools. For these cases, over-tempered
layers correlate with compressive residual stresses. This is ex-
plained by the fact that the surface residual stress in hardened
steel machining shifts from tension to compression with increas-
ing work material hardness 19. Analysis of Table 4 reveals this
trend in the current investigation as well. Specifically, the residual
stresses are more compressive or less tensile for the 57 HRC
material compared to the 41 HRC material for a given feed and
edge geometry.
Finally, surface layers consisting of intermittent white layers
may be tensile or compressive depending on the amount of white
layer present. Large amounts of intermittent white layer correlate
with compressive residual stress in the axial and hoop directions
and vice-versa. For example, the 25.4 m chamfer produces sur-
faces with large amounts of intermittent white layers for the 0.10
mm/rev feed, 57 HRC workpiece combination see Fig. 16. The
corresponding residual stresses are compressive.
6 Conclusion
This paper presented the results of an experimental investiga-
tion of the effects of cutting-edge geometry and workpiece hard-
ness on the surface residual stresses in finish hard-turning of AISI
52100 steel. Both factors were found to have a significant influ-
ence on the surface residual stresses and microstructure in finish
hard-turning. Specifically, the study yielded the following conclu-
sions: 1 Large edge hone radius tools produce more compres-
sive values of residual stress in the axial and hoop directions than
small edge hone tools, 2 The resulting workpiece microstructure
is a good indicator of the surface residual stress state, 3 Large
edge hone tools often produce continuous white layers, which are
in residual compression, 4 Small edge hone tools typically pro-
duce over-tempered surface layers, which are in residual tension
for low hardness 41 HRC steel and in residual compression for
high hardness 57 HRC steel.
Acknowledgments
The lead authors would like to thank Ken Niebauer and Jim
Kasperik of Kennametal, Inc., and Kenny Lanxton of Valenite,
Inc., for the donation of CBN cutting tools, tool holders, and time
and resources in measuring the edge preparation of the inserts.
648 Vol. 122, NOVEMBER 2000
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr. John McGraw of
Carpenter Technologies for providing AISI 52100 steel workpiece
material used in this study.
Residual stress measurement was sponsored by the Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Transportation Technologies, as part of the High Temperature
Materials Laboratory User Program, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp. for the
U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC05-
96OR22464.
References
1 Field, M., and Kahles, J., 1971, Review of Surface Integrity of Machined
Components, Ann. CIRP, 20, No. 2.
2 Henriksen, E. K., 1951, Residual Stress in Machined Surfaces, Trans.
ASME, 73, pp. 6976.
3 Leskovar, P., and Peklenik, J., 1982, Influences Affecting the Surface Integ-
rity in the Cutting Process, Ann. CIRP, 31, No. 1, pp. 447450.
4 Brinksmeier, E., Cammett, J. T., Konig, W., Leskovar, P., Peters, J., and Ton-
shoff, H. K., 1982, Residual StressesMeasurement and Causes in Machin-
ing Processes, Ann. CIRP, 31, pp. 491510.
5 Liu, C. R., and Barash, M. M., 1982, Variables Governing Patterns of Me-
chanical Residual Stress in a Machined Surface, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 104, pp.
257264.
6 Sadat, A. B., and Bailey, J. A., 1987, Residual Stresses in Turned AISI 4340
Steel, Exp. Mech., 27, No. 1, pp. 8085.
7 Chou, Y., and Barash, M. M., 1995, Review on Hard Turning and CBN
Cutting Tools, SME Technical Paper, Proceedings of the 1st International
Machining and Grinding Conference, MR95-214, pp. 951962.
8 Nakayama, K., Arai, M., and Kanda, T., 1988, Machining Characteristics of
Hard Materials, Ann. CIRP, 37, No. 1, pp. 8992.
9 Konig, W., Berktold, A., and Kock, K-F., 1993, Turning versus GrindingA
Comparison of Surface Integrity Aspects and Attainable Accuracies, Ann.
CIRP, 42, pp. 3943.
10 Vyas, A., and Shaw, M. C., 1997, Chip Formation When Hard Turning
Steel, Proceedings of the IMECE, ASME, MED-Vol. 6-2, pp. 2128.
11 Vyas, A., and Shaw, M. C., 1999, Mechanics of Saw-Tooth Chip Formation
in Metal Cutting, ASME Trans. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 121, No. 2,pp. 163172.
12 Davies, M. A., Chou, Y., and Evans, C. J., 1996, On Chip Morphology, Tool
Wear, and Cutting Mechanisms in Finish Hard Turning, Proceedings of
ASME IMECE, Manufacturing Science and Engineering, MED-Vol. 4, pp.
237242.
13 Kishawy, H. A., and Elbestawi, M. A., 1997, Effect of Process Parameters on
Chip Morphology When Machining Hardened Steel, Proc. IMECE, ASME,
6-2, pp. 1320.
14 Chou, Y. K., and Evans, C. J., 1997, Finish Hard Turning of Powder Metal-
lurgy M50 Steel, Trans. NAMRI/SME, XXV, pp. 8186.
15 Sista, P. S., Swain, S. O., Srinivasan, C., and Farris, T. N., 1997, Tool Wear
Characteristic of CBN Tools in the Finish Machining of Tool Steels, Manu-
fact. Sci. Technol., ASME, 6-2, pp. 161168.
16 Chou, Y. K., and Evans, C. J., 1997, White Layers and Thermal Modeling of
Hard Turned Surfaces, Proceedings of the ASME IMECE, MED-Vol. 6-2,
pp. 7582.
17 Brinksmeier, E., and Brockhoff, T., 1999, White Layers in Machining
Steels, Proceedings of the 2nd International German and French Conference
on High Speed Machining, Darmstadt, Germany, March 1011, pp. 713.
18 Griffiths, B. J., 1987, Mechanisms of White Layer Generation With Refer-
ence to Machining Processes and Deformation Processes, ASME J. Tribol.,
109, pp. 525530.
19 Matsumoto, Y., Barash, M. M., and Liu, C. R., 1986, Effect of Hardness on
the Surface Integrity of AISI 4340 Steel, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 108, pp. 169
175.
20 Wu, D. W., and Matsumoto, Y., 1990, The Effect of Hardness on Residual
Stresses in Orthogonal Machining of AISI 4340 Steel, ASME J. Eng. Ind.,
112, pp. 245252.
21 Tonshoff, H. K., Wobker, H-G., and Brandt, D., 1995, Hard Turning
Influences on Workpiece Properties, Trans. NAMRI/SME, Vol. XXIII, pp.
215220.
22 Abrao, A. M., and Aspinwall, D. K., 1996, The Surface Integrity of Turned
and Ground Hardened Bearing Steel, Wear, 196, pp. 279284.
23 Mittal, S., and Liu, C. R., 1998, A Method of Modeling Residual Stresses in
Superfinish Hard Turning, Wear, 218, pp. 2133.
24 Liu, C. R., and Mittal, S., 1998, Optimal Pre-Stressing the Surface of a
Component by Superfinish Hard Turning for Maximum Fatigue Life in Rolling
Contact, Wear, 219, pp. 128140.
25 Jang, D. Y., Watkins, T. R., Kozaczek, K. J., Hubbard, C. R., and Cavin, O.
B., 1996, Surface Residual Stresses in Machined Austenitic Stainless Steel,
Wear, 194, pp. 168173.
26 Schreiber, E., and Schlicht, H., 1986, Residual Stresses After Turning of
Hardened Components, Proceedings of the International Conference on Re-
sidual Stresses, Garnish-Partenkirchen FRG, pp. 853860.
27 Tonshoff, H. K., Wobker, H-G., and Brandt, D., 1995, Potential and Limita-
Transactions of the ASME
 tion of Hard Turning, Proceedings of the 1st International Machining and
Grinding Conference, MR95-215, p. 14.
28 Kishawy, H. A., and Elbestawi, M. A., 1998, Effect of Edge Preparation and
Cutting Speed on Surface Integrity of Die Material in High Speed Machin-
ing, Proc. ASME IMECE, 8, pp. 269276.
29 Thiele, J. D., 1998, An Investigation of Surface Generation Mechanisms for
Finish Hard Turning of AISI 52100 Steel, M. S. Thesis, August 1998, The
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA.
30 Valenite Indexable Cutting Tool Inserts Catalog, p. 24, 1993, Valenite Inc.
31 Kennametal Lathe Tooling Catalog 4000, Kennametal, Inc., Latrobe, Pennsyl-
vania, 1994.
32 Krause, H., and Haase, A., X-Ray Diffraction System PTS for Powder, Tex-
ture and Stress Analysis, in Experimental Techniques of Texture Analysis, H.
J. Bunge, ed., DGM Informationsgesellschaft-Verlag, 1986, pp. 405408.
33 Cullity, B. D., 1956, Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, Addison-Wesley, Read-
ing, MA.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
34 Noyan, I. C., and Cohen, J. B., Residual Stress Measurement by Diffraction
and Interpretation, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987.
35 Metals Handbook, 1990, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-
Performance Alloys, Vol. 1, ASM International.
36 Thiele, J. D., and Melkote, S. N., 1999, Effect of Tool Edge Geometry on
Workpiece Sub-Surface Deformation and Through-Thickness Residual
Stresses for Hard-Turning of AISI 52100 Steel, Trans. NAMRI/SME, 27, pp.
135140.
37 Matsumoto, Y., Hashimoto, F., and Lahoti, G., 1999, Surface Integrity Gen-
erated by Precision Hard Turning, Ann. CIRP, 48, No. 1, pp. 5962.
38 Moyer, J. M., and Ansell, G. S., 1975, The Volume Expansion Accompany-
ing the Martensite Transformation in Iron-Carbon Alloys, Metall. Trans. A,
6A, pp. 17851791.
39 Liu, C. R., and Barash, M. M., 1976, The Mechanical State of the Sublayer
of a Surface Generated by Chip-Removal Process, Part 2: Cutting With a Tool
With Flank Wear, Trans. ASME, 98, No. 4, pp. 12021208.
NOVEMBER 2000, Vol. 122 649