Issue 68

P. Kulkarni et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 68 (2024) 222-241; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.68.15

However, there is a significant difference in the free and sliding surfaces of the chip when produced with a sharp and worn out tool when using unitary nanofluid.

Figure 14: SEM images of the chip's back surface at experiment index 10 with unitary nanofluid for (a) Sharp tool, (b) Worn-out tool.

Figure 15: SEM images of the chip's free surface at experiment index 10 with hybrid nanofluid for (a) Sharp tool, (b) Worn-out tool.

Figure 16: SEM images of the chip's back surface at experiment index 10 with hybrid nanofluid for (a) Sharp tool, (b) Worn-out tool.

These findings confirm that the unitary nanofluid showed comparatively lower cooling effects, lower penetration, and wetting of less surface area compared to the hybrid nanofluid. It can also be confirmed by the higher values of surface

235