See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260072192

The Effects of Cutting Tool Coating on the Surface Roughness of AISI 1015
Steel Depending on Cutting Parameters

Article  in  Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

17 685

2 authors, including:

Muammer Nalbant
Gazi University
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,302 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Machining of super alloys View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muammer Nalbant on 07 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci.
30 (2006) , 307 – 316.

c TÜBİTAK

The Effects of Cutting Tool Coating on the Surface Roughness of

AISI 1015 Steel Depending on Cutting Parameters

Hasan GÖKKAYA
Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Safranbolu Vocational High School, Karabük-TURKEY
e-mail: [email protected]
Muammer NALBANT
Gazi University, Technical Education Faculty, Beşevler, Ankara-TURKEY

Received 07.11.2005

Abstract
The effects of a number of cutting tool coating materials on the surface quality of workpieces, depending
on various cutting parameters, were investigated. AISI 1015 steel was processed without cooling on a
lathe using 4 different cemented carbide cutting tools, i.e. uncoated, coated with AlTiN and coated with
TiAlN using the PVD technique, and one with 3-layer coatings (outermost being TiN) applied by the CVD
technique. Among the cutting parameters, the depth of cut was kept constant (2.5 mm) while the cutting
speed and feed rate were changed. Five cutting speeds (50, 73, 102, 145, 205 m/min) and 2 feed rates
(0.24 and 0.32 mm/rev) were used during the machining process. Coating type, feed rate and cutting speed
have different effects on surface roughness. In the experiments, less average surface roughness was obtained
by using a 3-layer coated tool coated outermost with TiN. The lessening of cutting speed by about 33%
improves the surface roughness by about 26%, and increasing the cutting speed by about 310% resulted in
an improvement of about 69%.

Key words: Machining, Surface roughness, Cutting tool coating, Cutting parameters.

Introduction parts is surface roughness. Surface roughness is

mainly a result of process parameters such as tool ge-
In all manufacturing methods, besides the dimen- ometry (nose radius, edge geometry, rake angle, etc.)
sions and geometrical tolerances of products, a sat- and cutting conditions (feed rate, cutting speed,
isfactory surface roughness quality is of great impor- depth of cut, etc.) (Özel and Karpat, 2005).
tance. Besides other parameters, the desired produc- The first study on surface roughness was per-
tivity, tool life and resistance against the outer effects formed in Germany in 1931 (Bayrak, 2002). As a
of operating machine tool types are dependent on the result of this study, the surface qualities were ar-
surface quality as well. Surface operations realized ranged as the standard DIN 140. Surfaces are ex-
in various manufacturing systems are affected by the pressed as “machined or not machined surfaces”. In
process parameters directly or indirectly. Process all machined pieces, the examinations performed by
parameters chosen with non-accordance cause losses hand and eye are taken into consideration. The sur-
such as rapid tool wear and tool fracture besides the faces are classified according to tactile feeling and
economic losses including spoiled workpieces or re- the naked eye. Surface qualities are designated in 4
duced surface quality (Thomas, 1982). different forms: coarse, rough, medium and fine.
In machining, surface quality is one of the most Kopac and Bahor (1999), who studied the
commonly specified customer requirements in which changes in surface roughness depending on the pro-
the major indication of surface quality on machined cess conditions in tempered AISI 1060 and 4140

307
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

steels, found speed to be the most dominant factor with the process parameters, cutting speed and feed
if the operating parameters were chosen randomly. rate of cemented carbide cutting tools during the ma-
They also reported that, for both steel types, the chining of AISI 1015 steel. The materials coated on
cutting tools with greater radius cause smaller sur- the cutters were AlTiN and TiAlN, deposited by the
face roughness values. Similar studies were published PVD tehnique, and TiN, which possesses the small-
by Yuan et al. (1996) and Eriksin and Özses (2002). est friction coefficient, and coated outermost by the
Gökkaya et al. (2004) investigated the effect CVD technique in 3 layers. While machining, the
of cutting tool coating material, cutting speed and effect of coating materials and process parameters
feed rate speed on the surface roughness of AISI on the surface roughness of the workpiece was in-
1040 steel. In their study, the lowest average sur- vestigated using cutting tools containing the same
face roughness was obtained using cutting tool with underlayer. To determine the effect of the built up
coated TiN. A 176% improvement in surface rough- edge (BUE) on surface roughness, after the cutting
ness was provided by reducing feed rate by 80% and a process the BUE was investigated using a scanning
13% improvement in surface roughness was provided electron microscope (SEM).
by increasing the cutting speed by 200%.
Lin and Lee (2001) formulized the experimen- Surface Roughness
tal results of surface roughness and cutting forces
by regression analysis, and modeled the effects of The surface parameter used to evaluate surface
them using S55C steel. Similar investigations were roughness, in this study, is the roughness average,
conducted by Risbood and Dixit (2003), Ghani and Ra. This parameter is also known as the arithmetic
Choudhury (2002), Petropoulos et al. (2003), Feng mean roughness value, arithmetic average (AA) or
and Wang (2002), Sekulic (2002) and Gadelmavla centerline average (CLA). Ra is recognized univer-
and Koura (2002). sally as the most common international parameter
This study was conducted because sufficiently in- of roughness (ISO 4287, 1997 standard). The aver-
depth studies have not been carried out about the age roughness (Ra) is the area between the roughness
effects of coated materials, coating method and cut- profile and its center line, or the integral of the ab-
ting parameters on the surface roughness while pro- solute value of the roughness profile height over the
cessing AISI 1015 steel according to the results of evaluation length (Figure 1). Therefore, the Ra is
previous research. This investigation is concerned specified by the following equation:

Y
Z H

Cutoff Length

Y: Profile curve
X: Profile direction Roughness center
Z: Average roughness height line
L: Samling length
H: Profile herght

Figure 1. Surface roughness profile.

308
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

Cutting tools, machine tool and surface

roughness measuring instrument

L
1
Ra = |Y (x)| dx, (1) In attempts to evaluate the effect of cutting tool
L
0 coating types and cutting parameters on surface
roughness, as equivalent to ISO P10-P20 grade for
When evaluated from digital data, the integral is nor- common steel, UTi20T grade uncoated cemented
mally approximated by the trapezoidal rule: carbide produced by Mitsubishi, UE6005 grade ce-
mented carbide coated with AlTiN and coated with
1
n
Ra = |Yi | (2) TiAlN by the PVD technique, and 3-layer (the out-
n ermost TiN by CVD, Al2 O3 , TiC) coated cemented
i=1
carbide cutting tools were used. The technical fea-
where tures of the cutting tools are given in Table 3. During
Ra is the arithmetic average deviation from the the tests, SNMA 120408 indexable inserts and appro-
mean line, L is sampling length and Y represents the priate PSBNR 2525 M12 tool holders were used. For
ordinate of the profile curve the turning operations a Tezsan type SN50 univer-
sal lathe was used under approximately orthogonal
Materials and Methods machining conditions.
As recommended in the standard ISO 3685, the
Test specimens cutting speed intervals of tool quality given by the
tool manufacturers were taken into consideration and
During the experimental investigations, AISI 1015 5 different cutting speeds, i.e. 50, 73, 102, 145 and
steel test samples of dimensions ø65 × 650 mm were 205 m/min, were selected. Depending on the tool
prepared and used. Chemical composition obtained radius of 0.8 mm, at the interval recommended in
by spectral analysis and other mechanical properties ISO 3685, 0.24 and 0.32 mm/rev feed rates and 2.5
of the test samples are given in Tables 1 and 2, re- mm depth of cut were selected.
spectively. Surface roughness was measured by a MAHR-
Perthometer M1 and measurements were repeated
3 times. To measure the surface roughness formed
by machining the workpieces, the cut-off length was
Table 1. Chemical composition of the AISI 1015 test taken as 0.8 mm and the sampling length as 5.6
specimens (weight%). mm. The surface roughness diagram obtained by
using the uncoated cemented carbide cutting tools
C Mn Si P S Fe while machining at 205 m/min cutting speed and
0.135 0.674 0.321 0.00957 0.0314 Rem. 0.24 mm/rev feed rate is given in Figure 2.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the AISI 1015 test specimens.

Hardness Yield Strength Tensile Strength Max. Elongation

BSD 30 N/mm2 N/mm2 % (5 do)
111 325 385 18

Table 3. The technical features of interconvertible cemented carbide cutting tools.

Coated Coating Material quality Hardness Coefficient Thermal Conductivity

material Method ISO (Grade) (HV) of friction W/m*K
TiN (TiN, Al2 O3 , TiC) CVD P10 2500 0.35 27
TiAlN PVD P20 3100 0.4 28
AlTiN PVD P20 3200 0.47 29
Wc-Co Uncoated P20 1800 0.6 38

309
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

Figure 2. The diagram of average surface roughness value (Ra ) obtained by processing AISI steel with an uncoated
cemented carbide cutting tool at 205 mm/min cutting speed and 0.24 mm/rev feed rate.

Results and Discussion coating type, cutting speed and feed rate on surface
roughness were significant. According to the coat-
In this investigation, the average surface roughness ing type, the lowest average surface roughness was
values (Ra ) obtained by a machining process with a obtained by machining using the TiN coated cutting
full factorial design of 5 cutting speeds and 2 feed tools, followed by TiAlN and AlTiN coated tools.
rates using 4 different cutting tools are shown in Ta- The highest average surface roughness was obtained
ble 4. The results of the variance analysis of cutting using the uncoated cemented carbide tool set. The
parameters and coating type are presented in Table box plot of average surface roughness values obtained
5. due to coating type is depicted in Figure 3.
In the analysis of variance, the main effects of

Table 4. Average surface roughness values depending on coating type, cutting speed and feed rate.

Cutting Feed Average Cutting Feed Average

Coating Type Speed Rate Surface Coating Type Speed Rate Surface
(m/min) (mm/rev) Roughness (m/min) (mm/rev) Roughness
V f Ra (µm) V f Ra (µm)
0.24 2.6 0.24 2.2
205 205
0.32 3.3 0.32 2.9
Uncoated 0.24 3.2 0.24 2.5
145 145
Cemented 0.32 4.1 0.32 3.8
Carbide 0.24 4.2 TiAlN, PVD 0.24 2.8
102 102
0.32 4.6 0.32 4.1
0.24 4.9 0.24 3.2
73 73
0.32 5.1 0.32 4.5
0.24 5.1 0.24 3.8
50 50
0.32 5.4 0.32 4.8
0.24 2.3 0.24 1.9
205 205
0.32 3.1 0.32 2.4
0.24 2.9 0.24 2.2
145 145
0.32 3.9 0.32 2.9
0.24 3.2 0.24 2.4
AlTiN, PVD 102 TiN, CVD 102
0.32 4.4 0.32 3.1
0.24 3.6 0.24 2.8
73 73
0.32 4.8 0.32 3.3
0.24 4.1 0.24 3.1
50 50
0.32 5.1 0.32 3.6

310
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

Table 5. Analysis of variance for surface roughness in turning of AISI 1015 using various coated tools.

Source DF Sum of squares Mean squares F values P values

Coating type 3 11.16 3.72 46.10 0.001
Cutting speed 4 14.87 3.71 46.05 0.001
Feed rate 1 6.90 6.90 85.57 0.001
Error 31 1.22 0.04
Total 39 35.95

Figure 3. The average surface roughnesses (Ra ) obtained by processing the AISI steel using 4 different coating types.

The average surface roughness (4.25 µm) of the ined, it is seen that the surface roughness decreases
workpiece obtained by the machining process with as the cutting speed increases (Figure 4). A decreas-
uncoated cemented carbide was greater than the val- ing correlation exists between the cutting speed and
ues obtained by using coated cutting tools. The low- surface roughness (P < 0.01). The improvement in
est average surface roughness obtained with coated surface roughness depending on the augmentation of
cutting tools was realized with TiN coated cutting cutting speed is an expected feature and improving
tool (2.77 µm). Then the values 3.46 µm with TiAlN the surface roughness by increasing the cutting speed
coated and 3.74 µm with AlTiN coated cutting tools is a widespread method according to the literature
were obtained. The average surface roughness ob- (Boothroyd, 1981; Shaw, 1984; Trent, 1984; Sand-
tained by machining with uncoated cemented car- vik, 1994; DeGarmo et al., 1997; Şeker, 1997; Altın
bide was 4.25 µm, whereas it was improved to 2.77 et al., 2006).
µm by processing with a TiN coated cutting tool. The improvement in surface roughness by in-
The reason for the lower average surface roughness creasing the cutting speed can be explained by be-
obtained from the tools coated with TiN could be ing an easy deformation process because of the in-
that the ones coated with TiN have a higher coeffi- creasing temperature at high speeds, i.e. the easy
cient of friction and thermal conductivity compared deformation of workpiece type at the cutting side
with the other 3 tools. and around the tip radius, and flow zone (Fz) oc-
The average surface roughness values obtained at curring at these high temperatures. The easily de-
the selected cutting speeds are, in increasing order, formed materials can be formed without being torn.
as follows: 2.587 µm at the highest cutting speed of By working at low speeds, the considerable improve-
205 mm/min, 3.187 µm at 145 mm/min, 3.60 µm at ment (69%) in surface roughness by increasing the
102 mm/min, 4.025 µm at 73 mm/min, and 4.375 µm cutting speed by about 310% reveals the effect of
at 50 mm/min. The roughness values obtained are cutting speed on the surface roughness clearly.
high, possibly due to the ductility of the 1015 steel. The increase in feed rate from 0.24 to 0.32
When the average surface roughness values at cut- mm/rev increases the average surface roughness by
ting speeds of 50, 73, 102, 145 and 205 m/min exam- 26%. Consequently, there is an increasing relation

311
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

between the surface roughness and the feed rate val- and it was seen that the effect of feed rate is greater
ues (P < 0.01). Another well-known application to than the effect of cutting speed. As a result, to im-
improve the surface roughness is decreasing the feed prove the surface roughness, a good combination of
rate values (Shaw, 1984; Trent, 1984; Boothroyd, cutting speed and feed rate needs to be selected.
1981; Sandvik, 1994; DeGarmo et al., 1997; Şeker, A multiple regression analysis was conducted on
1997; Gokkaya and Nalbant, 2005). The improve- the tested data. Average coefficients of friction (due
ment in average surface roughness of 26% is seen to coating type) were used instead of the coating
by decreasing the feed rate by about 33% (Figure type. The analysis of variance results of the re-
5). Average surface roughness was 3.96 µm at 0.32 gression model also supported linear relationships in
mm/rev, and 3.15 µm at 0.24 mm/rev feed rates. the model (Table 6). The F value of regression was
To compare the averages of surface roughnesses, the 112.06. This value indicated a great significance (α <
Tukey-Kramer test was performed. It is seen that 0.0001) for the model in rejecting the null hypothesis
the averages of surface roughness values obtained at (H0 ) that every coefficient of the predictor variables
0.24 and 0.32 mm/rev feed rates are considerably in the model was zero. Instead, the alternative hy-
different. pothesis, that at least one of these coefficients did not
To see the influence of cutting speed and feed rate equal to zero, was accepted. Therefore, a significant
on surface roughness, the effect-test was performed linear relationship between the predicted variable

Figure 4. The average surface roughness (Ra ) obtained by processing the AISI steel with different cutters at different
cutting speeds and at chosen 0.32 and 0.24 mm/rev feed rates.

Figure 5. The average surface roughnesses (Ra ) obtained by processing the AISI steel using 4 different cutting tools and
2 different feed rates at cutting speeds of 50, 73, 102, 145 and 205 mm/min.

312
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

(Ra) and predictor variables existed. From the anal- surface roughness predicted is illustrated in Figure
ysis of variance, coefficients of friction of coating 6. The distribution of values in Figure 7 shows that
type, cutting speed and feed rate had a significant the tests were reliable.
effect on the surface roughness. Figures 3-5 show that the surface roughness is af-
According to calculated coefficients of the main fected by the cutting tool coating material, cutting
factors, the multiple regression model of surface speed and feed rate. The surface roughness values
roughness was built as shown in Eq. (3). obtained by using TiN coated tools are lower than
those obtained by using AlTiN and TiAlN coated,
and uncoated cutting tools. Again, this difference
Ra = 2.393 + 5.416C − 0.0111V + 0.405fR2 = 0.903
is more considerable at lower cutting speeds. The
(3)
better surface features of TiN coated tools may be
The scatter plot of surface roughness actual ver- due to the smaller friction coefficient of this type
sus surface roughness predicted by regression equa- than the others, and the developing temperature. At
tion is illustrated in Figure 7. Most of the points lie lower cutting speeds (50 m/min), depending on the
close to the line of prediction. A line inclined at 45◦ developing low temperatures at the tool-chip inter-
and passing through the origin is also drawn in the face, the occurrence of a BUE was observed on un-
figure. For perfect prediction, all points should lie on coated cemented carbide and AlTiN coated cutting
this line. Here, it is seen that most of the points are tools (Figure 8). However, at the same speed, the
close to this line. Hence, this model provides a re- BUE was not formed when TiAlN and TiN coated
liable prediction. Surface roughness residual versus cutting tools were used.

Table 6. Analysis of variance for the surface roughness linear model in turning of AISI 1015 using various coated carbide
tools.

Source DF Sum of squares Mean squares F values P value

Model 3 32.48 10.82 112.06 0.001
Coefficient of friction of coating type, C 1 10.35 10.35 107.19 0.001
Cutting speed, V 1 15.56 15.56 161.09 0.001
Feed rate, f 1 6.56 6.56 67.91 0.001
Error 36 3.47 0.09
Total 39 35.95

Figure 6. Surface roughness actual versus surface roughness predicted.

313
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

Figure 7. Surface roughness residual versus surface roughness predicted.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. A BUE occurred on the cutting tool during the machining process at the cutting speed of 50 m/min. a)
Uncoated cemented carbide, b) AlTiN coated cemented carbide.

If the cutting speeds are 73 m/min or greater, 50% according to the surface obtained by using the
BUE occurrence is not seen on uncoated and coated uncoated sementite carbide cutting tool set. For each
cutting tools. This effect can be related, depend- of the 4 tool sets, the developing high temperatures
ing on the high cutting speed, to the developing at high speeds facilitate the occurrence of flow zone,
high temperature. Increasing the cutting speed is a and make the flow of the BUE easy. Consequently,
widespread application to prevent a BUE on the cut- the differences between the surface roughness values
ting tool (Sandvik, 1994; Şeker, 1997). In addition obtained by using each of the 4 sets are decreasing.
to the parameters stated above, the BUE formed at
low cutting speeds can affect the surface roughness
negatively. Conclusions

This case is seen at 50 m/min cutting speed and The effects of the coating method, coated materi-
the surface roughness obtained by using the TiN als and cutting parameters on the AISI 1015 steel
coated tool set exhibits an improvement of 33% ac- workpiece were investigated under orthogonal cut-
cording to the surface obtained by using the TiAlN ting conditions approximated in cylindrical turning.
coated tool set, of 42% according to the surface ob- The experiment was established in full factorial de-
tained by using the AlTiN coated tool set, and about sign. The conclusions of the investigation can be

314
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

summarized as follows: • Decreasing the feed rate by 33% improves the

surface roughness by about 26%, while increas-
• According to the coating types, the best sur-
ing the cutting speed by about 310% improves
face roughness is obtained by means of cutting
the surface roughness by 69%.
tools coated with TiN using the CVD tech-
nique. The next best cutting tools were ones • A good combination of cutting speed and feed
that were TiAlN and AlTiN coated with the rate can provide better surface qualities.
PVD technique and uncoated cemented car-
bide, respectively. • The average friction coefficient of coating ma-
terial affects the surface roughness.
• The relationship between cutting speed and
surface roughness is inversely proportional. In- • Low cutting speeds of uncoated and AlTiN
creasing the cutting speed decreases the surface coated tools cause a BUE.
roughness.
• Formation of a BUE affects the surface rough-
• The relationship between feed rate and surface
roughness is proportional. Increasing the feed ness negatively.
rate increases the surface roughness.
This study was carried on a Tezsan type SN50
• On surface roughness, the effect of feed rate is universal lathe. It should also be carried on a CNC
more considerable than cutting speed. lathe, which can accelerate to higher cutting speeds.

References

Altın, A., Gökkaya, H. and Nalbant, M., “The Ef- Gokkaya, H., Sur, G. and Dilipak, H., “Experimen-
fect of Cutting Speed in Machine Parameters on the tal Investigating of the Effect of Cemented Carbide
Machinability of Inconel 718 Superalloys” J. Fac. Cutting Tools Coated by PVD and CVD on Sur-
Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ., 3, 581-586, 2006. face Roughness According to Machining Parame-
Bayrak, M., “The Effect of Machining Parameters ters”, Journal of Zonguldak Karaelmas University,
on Surface Roughness and Their Comparison With Technical Education Faculty, 3-4, 473-478, 2004.
Expert System”, MSc Gazi University Institute of ISO 4287, Geometrical Product Specifications
Science and Technology, Ankara, Turkey,2002. (GPS) - Surface texture: Profile method - Terms,
definitions and surface texture parameters, 1997.
Boothroyd, G., “Fundamentals of Metal Machin-
ing and Machine Tools”, International Student ed., Kopac, J. and Bahor, M., “Interaction of the Tech-
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981. nological History of a Workpiece Material and the
Machining Parameters on the Desired Quality of the
DeGarmo, P.E., Black, J.T. and Ronaldo A.K., Ma-
Surface Roughness of a Product,” Journal of Mate-
terials and Processes in Manufacturing, Prentice rials Processing Technology, 92-93, 381-387, 1999.
Hall International Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 1997. Lin, W.S. and Lee, B.Y., “Modeling the Surface
Roughness and Cutting Forces During Turning”,
Eriksen, E., “Influence from Production Parameters Journal of Material Processing Technology, 108,
on the Surface Roughness of a Machined Short Fibre 286-293, 2001.
Reinforced Thermoplastic”, International Journal of
Machine Tools & Manufacture, 39, 1611-1618, 1998. Ozses, B., “The Effect of the Different Machining
Conditions on the Surface Roughness on CNC Ma-
Feng, C. and Wang, X., “Development of Empirical chine Tools”, MSc Gazi University Institute of Sci-
Models for Surface Roughness Prediction in Finish ence and Technology, 2002.
Turning”, International Journal of Advanced Man-
Özel, T. and Karpat, Y., “Predictive modeling of
ufacturing Technology, 20, 1-8, 2002.
surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning us-
Gadelmavla, E.S. and Koura, M.M., “Roughness ing regression and neural networks”. International
Parameter”, Journal of Material Processing Tech- Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 45, 467-
nology, 123, 133-145 2002. 479, 2005.
Ghani, A.K. and Choudhury, I.A., “Study of Tool Petropoulos, G.A., Torrance, A. and Pandazaras,
Life Surface Roughness and Vibration in Machining C.N., “Abbott Curves Characteristics of Turned
Nodular Cast Iron With Ceramic Tool”, Journal of Surfaces”, International Journal of Machine Tool &
Material Processing Technology, 127, 17-22, 2002. Manufacture, 43, 237-243, 2003.

315
 GÖKKAYA, NALBANT

Risbood, K.A. and Dixit, U.S., “Prediction of Sur- Shaw, M.C., Metal Cutting Principles, Oxford Uni-
face Roughness and Dimensional Deviation by Mea- versity Press, London, pp. 594, 1984.
suring Cutting Forces and Vibration in Turning Pro-
cess”, Journal of Material Processing Technology, Thomas, T.R., Rough Surface, Longman, New York,
132, 203-214, 2003. 1982.
Sandvik Coromant, Modern Metal Cutting, Practi-
cal Handbook, Tofters Tryckeri AB, 1994. Trent, E.M., Metal Cutting, 2nd ed., Butterworths,
Sekulic, S., “Correlation between the Maximal London, 1984.
Roughness Height and Mean Arithmetic Deviation
of the Profile from the Mean Line of Machined Sur- Yuan, Z.J., Zhou, M. and Dong, S., “Effect of Dia-
face in Finish Turning”, International Conference on mond Tool Sharpness on Minimum Cutting Thick-
Tribology, pp 29-34, Kayseri, 2002. ness and Cutting Surface Integrity in Ultraprecision
Şeker, U., Textbook Notes on Tool Design, Gazi Machining”, Journal of Material Processing Tech-
University, Technical Education Faculty, 1997. nology 62, 327-330, 1996.

316

View publication stats