# Ecodesign of the Aluminum Bronze Cutting Process

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

_{c}; F

_{f}; F

_{p}) for 3 tools construction variants and power consumed. The results showed that, if a certain constructive variant of the cutting tool is used in the processing, a reduction of the power consumed to cutting can be obtained by approximately 30% and a reduction of the roughness of the processed surface by approximately 90–100%. Furthermore, following the statistical processing of the results, it was shown that it would be advisable to use, especially in roughing processes, the cutting tool variant that offers the greatest reduction in roughness and cutting power.

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and methods

#### 2.1. Materials Used in Research

#### 2.2. Equipment and Tools Used in the Processings by Cutting

_{p}= 0.4–0.8 mm, longitudinal advance f = 0.15–0.25 mm/rot. Since the main objective of the paper is to analyze how the construction of the cutting tool can influence the energy consumed in cutting and the quality of the processed surfaces, the method of factorial experiments for the programming of experiments was used in the research. Thus, for the three parameters (n, a

_{p}, f) two levels were considered (maximum and minimum), depending on which the cutting force (calculated power at cutting) was observed, respectively, the roughness of the processed surfaces for the three variants of cutting tools. In these conditions, considering the fact that 3 variable parameters were established, each having 2 levels, 8 types of samples were made, according to those presented in Table 3.

#### 2.3. Analysis of the Evolution Forțelor Și Puterii la Strunjirea Pieselor

_{i}

_{11}is the specific cutting force; ${\chi}_{r}$ cutting edge angle; i–c exponent that is determined experimentally.

_{M}is the diameter of an M point on the surface of the workpiece

_{M}.

_{cut}+ P

_{ad}

_{cut}is the power required to remove the material; P

_{ad}= α·P

_{cut}—the load loss; α- The additional power loss coefficient that can be considered that have a fixed value for a CNC machine tool. Thus, the power calculation relationship becomes:

_{cut}·(1 + α)

_{c}is the cutting force [daN}, v

_{c}is the cutting speed [m/min].

_{cut}was considered, considering that the value of the coefficient α can be considered constant.

#### 2.4. Measurement of the Roughness of the Processed Surfaces

_{n}of the edge decreases, the contact surface will be smaller and as a result the plastic deformations will decrease and the roughness R

_{a}will decrease. The clearance angle γ, influences the roughness of the processed surface by means of plastic deformations, including by the phenomenon of deposits on the edge. Thus, the area of the tool tip influences the intensity of the plastic deformations and directly contributes to the formation of the roughness of the machined surface. From a mathematical point of view, the dependence of the roughness on the constructive geometry and the functional geometry of the tool can be expressed with the relations [21]:

_{v}; K

_{v}; x

_{v}is the coefficients; T—tool durability; V

_{f}—feed rate; γ—rake angle, α—clearance angle; α

_{Fe}—effective clearance angle; γ

_{Fe}—effective rake angle.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Analysis of the Values of the Forces That Appear during the Cutting Process

_{c}, Table 5 for F

_{f}and Table 6 for F

_{p}.

_{c}and F

_{f}, respectively, and in the case of component F

_{p}the reduction of its value was very small.

_{c}component, a reduction in energy consumption can be obtained due to the fact that this is one of the most important parameters that influence the size of the power consumed in cutting. The presence of very high frictional forces also determines the release of high frequency energies in the cutting area, with negative effects on the roughness of the parts’ surfaces. Thus, the use of the V03 tool, which allows a reduction in the size of the forces by about 30%, creates conditions to reduce the temperature of the elements of the technological system, but also a decrease in the amount of high frequency energy with positive effects on the roughness of processed surfaces.

#### 3.2. The Influence of the Use of Smart Tools on the Roughness of Surfaces Machined through Cutting

## 4. Conclusions

- the maximum reduction in cutting forces was about 30%, and this reduction also allows a decrease in cutting power and, implicitly, in the amount of energy consumed;
- the effect of the constructive changes brought to the cutting tool also determines a reduction of the intensity of the adhesion phenomenon of the material to be processed on the cutting edge of the tool;
- by reducing the adhesion of the processed material on the cutting edge of the tool, an improvement of the surface roughness of the part was also obtained, thus achieving a correlation between energy consumption and surface roughness,
- there is the possibility to choose the design parameters that allow the transformation of the processing process into an eco-process.
- tool V03 allows to obtain the best performances if it is used in the roughing processes.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Zhong, Q.; Tang, R.; Peng, T. Decision rules for energy consumption minimization during material removal process in turning. J. Clean. Prod.
**2016**, 140, 1819–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, Z.; Zhang, C.; Xie, Y. Cutting parameters optimization for processing energy and efficiency in CNC lathe. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. China
**2015**, 21, 2410–2418. [Google Scholar] - Rizzo, A.; Goel, S.; Luisa Grilli, M.; Iglesias, R.; Jaworska, L.; Lapkovskis, V.; Novak, P.; Postolnyi, B.O.; Valerini, D. The Critical Raw Materials in Cutting Tools for Machining Applications: A Review. Materials
**2020**, 13, 1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Qu, S.; Sun, F.; Zhang, L.; Li, X. Effects of cutting parameters on dry cutting of aluminum bronze alloy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
**2014**, 70, 669–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yuanyuan, L.; Tungwai, L.N.; Wei, X.; Yan, L.; Datong, Z. A study of aluminum bronze adhesion on tools during turning. J. Mater. Processing Technol.
**2003**, 138, 479–483. [Google Scholar] - Chatterjee, S.; Rudrapati, R.; Pal, P.K.; Nand, G. Experiments, analysis and parametric optimization of cylindrical traverse cut grinding of aluminum bronze. Mater. Today Proc.
**2018**, 5, 5272–5280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ociepa, M.; Jenek, M.; Kuryło, P. The Geometric Surface Structure of EN X153CrMoV12 Tool Steel after Finish Turning Using PCBN Cutting Tools. Coatings
**2021**, 11, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meidcus, K.M.; Davies, M.A.; Dutterer, B.S.; Evans, C.J.; Fielder, R.S. Tool Wear and Surface Finish in High Speed Milling of Aluminum Bronze. Mach. Sci. Technol.
**2001**, 5, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vu, N.-P.; Nguyen, Q.-T.; Tran, T.-H.; Le, H.-K.; Nguyen, A.-T.; Luu, A.-T.; Nguyen, V.-T.; Le, X.-H. Optimization of Grinding Parameters for Minimum Grinding Time When Grinding Tablet Punches by CBN Wheel on CNC Milling Machine. Appl. Sci.
**2019**, 9, 957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Tomadi, S.H.; Ghanib, J.A.; Haronb, C.H.C.; Ayua, H.M.; Dauda, R. Effect of cutting parameters on surface roughness in end milling of AlSi/AlN metal matrix composite. Procedia Eng.
**2017**, 184, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dobrota, D.; Titu, M.A.; Dobrita, F.; Petrescu, V. The analysis of homogeneity of the chemical composition in castings made of aluminum alloy. Rev. Chim.
**2016**, 67, 520–523. [Google Scholar] - Brili, N.; Ficko, M.; Klančnik, S. Tool Condition Monitoring of the Cutting Capability of a Turning Tool Based on Thermography. Sensors
**2021**, 21, 6687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Giasin, K.; Hodzic, A.; Phadnis, V.; Ayvar-Soberanis, S. Assessment of cutting forces and hole quality in drilling Al2024 aluminium alloy: Experimental and finite element study. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
**2016**, 87, 2041–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuntoğlu, M.; Aslan, A.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Usca, Ü.A.; Salur, E.; Gupta, M.K.; Mikolajczyk, T.; Giasin, K.; Kapłonek, W.; Sharma, S. A Review of Indirect Tool Condition Monitoring Systems and Decision-Making Methods in Turning: Critical Analysis and Trends. Sensors
**2021**, 21, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuntoğlu, M.; Aslan, A.; Sağlam, H.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Giasin, K.; Mikolajczyk, T. Optimization and Analysis of Surface Roughness, Flank Wear and 5 Different Sensorial Data via Tool Condition Monitoring System in Turning of AISI 5140. Sensors
**2020**, 20, 4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, M.; Zan, T.; Yang, Y.; Fei, R. Design and implementation of nonlinear TMD for chatter suppression: An application in turning processes. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.
**2010**, 50, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zagórski, I.; Kulisz, M.; Kłonica, M.; Matuszak, J. Trochoidal milling and neural networks simulation of magnesium alloys. Materials
**2019**, 12, 2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Skrzyniarz, M.; Nowakowski, L.; Miko, E.; Borkowski, K. Influence of Relative Displacement on Surface Roughness in Longitudinal Turning of X37CrMoV5-1 Steel. Materials
**2021**, 14, 1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dutta, S.; Kumar, S.; Narala, R. Optimizing turning parameters in the machining of AM alloy using Taguchi methodology. Measurement
**2021**, 169, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kalpakjian, S.; Schmid, S. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Oberg, E.; Jones, F.D.; Horton, H.L.; Ryffel, H.H. Machinery’s Handbook, 28th ed.; Industrial Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ai, X.; Xiao, S.G. A Concise Manual of Machining Parameters; China Mechanical Press: Beijing, China, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Gutowski, T.; Dahmus, J.; Thiriez, A. Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing processes. Energy
**2006**, 31, 623–627. [Google Scholar] - Fujun, H.; Li, L.; Wei, C.; Congbo, L.; Xingguo, D.; John, W.S. Parameters optimization considering the trade-off between cutting power and MRR based on Linear Decreasing Particle Swarm Algorithm in milling. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 262, 121388. [Google Scholar] - Krolczyk, G.M.; Maruda, R.W.; Krolczyk, J.B.; Wojciechowski, S.; Mia, M.; Nieslony, P.; Budzik, G. Ecological trends in machining as a key factor in sustainable production—A review. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 218, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bi, Z.M.; Wang, L.H. Optimization of machining processes from the perspective of energy consumption: A case study. J. Manuf. Syst.
**2012**, 31, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Horváthová, M.; Lacko, R.; Hajduová, Z. Using Industry 4.0 Concept—Digital Twin—To Improve the Efficiency of Leather Cutting in Automotive Industry. Qual. Innov. Prosper.
**2019**, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Setiawan, S.; Setiawan, I.; Jaqin, C.; Prabowo, H.A.; Purba, H.H. Integration of Waste Assessment Model and Lean Automation to Improve Process Cycle Efficiency in the Automotive Industry. Qual. Innov. Prosper.
**2021**, 25, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leksic, I.; Stefanic, N.; Veza, I. The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag.
**2020**, 15, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dobtotă, D.; Tomescu, M. The influence of the functional geometry of the cutting tool on the main cutting force in the string operation. Ann. Constantin Brancusi Univ. Targu-Jiu-Lett. Eng. Ser.
**2018**, 2, 119–126. [Google Scholar] - Guicai, Z.; Changsheng, G. Modeling of Cutting Force Distribution on Tool Edge in Turning Process. Procedia Manuf.
**2017**, 1, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shalaby, M.A.; Hakim, M.A.E.; Veldhuis, S.C.; Dosbaeva, G.K. An investigation into the behavior of the cutting forces in precision turning. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
**2017**, 90, 1605–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Väliaho, H.; Pekkonen, T. A Procedure for Stepwise Regression Analysis (with a Program in FORTRAN V); De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basak, S.; Kim, C.; Jung, Y.I.; Jin, H.-K.; Lee, M.-G. Analyses of shearing mechanism during shear-cutting of 980 MPa dual-phase steel sheets using ductile fracture modeling and simulation. Int. J. Mater. Form.
**2022**, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Laghari, R.A.; Li, J.; Mia, M. Effects of Turning Parameters and Parametric Optimization of the Cutting Forces in Machining SiCp/Al 45 wt% Composite. Metals
**2020**, 10, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khajavi, M.N.; Nasernia, E.; Rostaghi, M. Milling tool wear diagnosis by feed motor current signal using an artificial neural network. J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
**2016**, 30, 4869–4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özbek, O.; Saruhan, H. The effect of vibration and cutting zone temperature on surface roughness and tool wear in eco-friendly MQL turning of AISI D2. J. Mater. Res. Technol.
**2020**, 9, 2762–2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bouacha, K.; Yallese, M.A.; Mabrouki, T.; Rigal, J.F. Statistical analysis of surface roughness and cutting forces using response surface methodology in hard turning of AISI 52100 bearing steel with CBN tool. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater.
**2010**, 28, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Krinninger, M.; Steinlehner, F.; Opritescu, D.; Golle, R.; Volk, W. On the influence of different parameters on the characteristic cutting surface when shear cutting aluminum. Procedia CIRP
**2017**, 63, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schenek, A.; Liewald, M. Punching with a slant angle-cutting surface quality. Esaform
**2021**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Davis, R. Optimization of Surface Roughness in Wet Turning Operation of En24 Steel. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev.
**2012**, 2, 28–35. [Google Scholar] - Fetecau, C.; Stan, F. Study of cutting force and surface roughness in the turning of polytetrafluoroethylene composites with a polycrystalline diamond tool. Measurement
**2012**, 45, 1367–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, W.S.; Lee, B.Y.; Wu, C.L. Modeling the surface roughness and cutting force for turning. J. Mater. Processing Technol.
**2001**, 108, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pankaj, K.S. Optimization of Machining Parameters for Turning of Aluminium Alloy-2011 using Taguchi Method. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 1116, 012092. [Google Scholar] - Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Zhou, J. Online Surface Roughness Prediction for Assembly Interfaces of Vertical Tail Integrating Tool Wear under Variable Cutting Parameters. Sensors
**2022**, 22, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**Figure 1.**Tools for longitudinal turning: (

**a**)—in the classic version (V01); (

**b**)—with improved constructive form with a spring washer (V02), (

**c**)—with improved constructive form with two spring washers (V03), 1—knife body; 2—screw fixing; 3—removable plate, 4—spring washer, 5—spherical washer, 6—spherical washer holder.

**Figure 2.**Constructive types of elements used to make tools: (

**a**)—corrugated spring washer—for tool V02; (

**b**)—spherical washer—conical base—for tool V03.

**Figure 6.**Deposits of processed material on the tool edge: (

**a**)—for tool V01; (

**b**)—for tool V02; (

**c**)—for the tool V03.

**Figure 8.**Profile curve: (

**a**)—in the case of machining with a V01 cutting tool; (

**b**)—in case of machining with V02 cutting tool; (

**c**)—in case of machining with cutting tool V03.

**Figure 9.**Filtered profiles: (

**a**)—in the case of machining with a V01 cutting tool; (

**b**)—in case of machining with V02 cutting tool; (

**c**)—in case of machining with cutting tool V03.

**Figure 10.**Abbott Firestone curve: (

**a**)—in the case of machining with a V01 cutting tool; (

**b**)—in case of machining with V02 cutting tool; (

**c**)—in case of machining with cutting tool V03.

Density Aprox. kg/dm^{3} | Composition, % | Tensile Strength, N/mm^{2} | Yeld Stress, N/mm ^{2} | Elongation, % | Brinell Hardness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

7.6 | Al = 9.5–10.7 | >578 | cca. 325 | >12.5 | 168–172 |

Fe = 2.1–3.8 | |||||

Mn 1.6–3.4 | |||||

Cu–balance |

Plate Type | Rake Angle | Clearance Angle | Cutting Edge Angle | Minor Edge Angle |
---|---|---|---|---|

SNMG 12 04 12-PMC | 6° | 8° | 85° | 5° |

Sample Number | n [rpm] | a_{p} [mm] | f [mm/rot] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

800 | 1200 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.15 | 0.25 | |

S1 | x | x | x | |||

S2 | x | x | x | |||

S3 | x | x | x | |||

S4 | x | x | x | |||

S5 | x | x | x | |||

S6 | x | x | x | |||

S7 | x | x | x | |||

S8 | x | x | x |

No. of the Sample | The Constructive Variant of the Tool | ||
---|---|---|---|

V01 | V02 | V03 | |

S1 | 86.21 | 68.91 | 59.54 |

S2 | 62.74 | 57.16 | 44.90 |

S3 | 83.17 | 71.97 | 61.36 |

S4 | 123.44 | 97.63 | 89.81 |

S5 | 119.18 | 93.11 | 87.32 |

S6 | 70.19 | 55.83 | 47.83 |

S7 | 44.79 | 39.77 | 30.79 |

S8 | 35.48 | 33.16 | 27.51 |

No. of the Sample | The Constructive Variant of the Tool | ||
---|---|---|---|

V01 | V02 | V03 | |

S1 | 50.13 | 41.95 | 25.29 |

S2 | 37.42 | 35.29 | 27.56 |

S3 | 49.12 | 41.07 | 25.35 |

S4 | 74.96 | 58.31 | 52.11 |

S5 | 70.51 | 57.72 | 49.32 |

S6 | 43.86 | 36.93 | 28.18 |

S7 | 28.39 | 22.01 | 18.17 |

S8 | 21.68 | 18.07 | 16.29 |

No. of the Sample | The Constructive Variant of the Tool | ||
---|---|---|---|

V01 | V02 | V03 | |

S1 | 34.53 | 68.91 | 59.54 |

S2 | 25.98 | 57.16 | 44.90 |

S3 | 33.17 | 71.97 | 61.36 |

S4 | 53.41 | 97.63 | 89.81 |

S5 | 48.29 | 93.11 | 87.32 |

S6 | 29.56 | 55.83 | 47.83 |

S7 | 26.63 | 39.77 | 30.79 |

S8 | 21.11 | 37.16 | 33.51 |

No. of the Sample | The Constructive Variant of the Tool | ||
---|---|---|---|

V01 | V02 | V03 | |

S1 | 1.081 | 0.865 | 0.714 |

S2 | 0.525 | 0.478 | 0.375 |

S3 | 0.696 | 0.602 | 0.513 |

S4 | 1.033 | 0.817 | 0.751 |

S5 | 1.504 | 1.169 | 1.096 |

S6 | 0.881 | 0.701 | 0.573 |

S7 | 0.374 | 0.332 | 0.257 |

S8 | 0.445 | 0.416 | 0.345 |

Parameters of the Cutting Regime | V01 | V02 | V03 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | p | F | p | F | p | |

n | 1.513 | 0.253 | 1.491 | 0.265 | 1.151 | 0.302 |

a_{p} | 6.752 | 0.041 | 6.753 | 0.035 | 8.597 | 0.019 |

f | 1.611 | 0.339 | 1.621 | 0.305 | 1.731 | 0.585 |

No. of the Sample | The Constructive Variant of the Tool | ||
---|---|---|---|

V01 | V02 | V03 | |

1 | 3.242 | 2.823 | 1.647 |

2 | 2.975 | 2.984 | 1.677 |

3 | 2.853 | 3.050 | 1.685 |

4 | 3.081 | 3.235 | 1.581 |

5 | 2.780 | 3.150 | 1.877 |

6 | 3.267 | 3.047 | 1.904 |

7 | 2.997 | 2.963 | 1.650 |

8 | 3.201 | 2.814 | 1.401 |

9 | 3.260 | 2.929 | 1.894 |

10 | 3.023 | 3.086 | 1.504 |

Mean | 3.068 | 3.008 | 1.682 |

StDev | 0.172 | 0.134 | 0.168 |

Cvariation | 5.635 | 4.455 | 3.012 |

Median | 3.052 | 3.015 | 1.664 |

p-value | 0.449 | 0.911 | 0.36 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Dobrotă, D.; Oleksik, M.; Chicea, A.L.
Ecodesign of the Aluminum Bronze Cutting Process. *Materials* **2022**, *15*, 2735.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082735

**AMA Style**

Dobrotă D, Oleksik M, Chicea AL.
Ecodesign of the Aluminum Bronze Cutting Process. *Materials*. 2022; 15(8):2735.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082735

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Dobrotă, Dan, Mihaela Oleksik, and Anca Lucia Chicea.
2022. "Ecodesign of the Aluminum Bronze Cutting Process" *Materials* 15, no. 8: 2735.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082735