PSI - Issue 53

5

A. Teixeira et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 53 (2024) 352–366 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

356

In addition to cutting force acquisition, surface roughness measurements and tool flank wear measurements and images of the rake and clearance face were collected after machining. One cutting insert was used for each test, repeating the turning operations two times. These tests were stopped at different machining times to measure surface roughness and flank wear, to evaluate the tool wear. A DinoLite digital microscope was used to measure tool flank wear and imagine capture of the rake and flank face. Additionally, the tools were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, to further characterize the tools’ wear and wear mechanisms. The SEM / EDS analysis was performed using a high resolution (Schottky) Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope with X-Ray Microanalysis and Electron Backscattered Diffraction analysis: FEI Quanta 400 FEG ESEM / EDAX Genesis X4M Regarding surface roughness measurements, these were performed using a TESA RUGOSURF 10G roughness gauge mounted in the upper turret of the machine, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Surface roughness gauge setup.

2.3. Simulation procedure For the simulation of the cylindrical turning, DEFORM 3D software was used. Regarding the workpiece material law characterization methodology, an identical methodology to that of Silva et al., 2021was used. The workpiece material, Inconel 718, is already characterized in the software, however, to obtain more accurate values the material model was updated using the information obtained through the compression tests. This is the flow stress constitutive model was replaced by a Johnson Cook equation practically calibrated model (named IN718), the used Johnson Cook parameters were the same as shown in Matos et al., 2023. Regarding workpiece geometry, this can be observed in Fig. 5., which was generated by the software according to the process parameters, namely feed rate and depth of cut. The analysis domain corresponds to only a small part of the turning operation, this was chosen due to the long computational time of the simulation.

Fig. 5. Workpiece geometry used in process 3D simulation.