E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:29 Page 585

ECONOMIC AND
24 PRODUCT DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
IN MACHINING
Chapter Contents In this chapter, we conclude our coverage of traditional
machining technology by discussing several remaining
24.1 Machinability topics. The first topic is machinability, which is concerned
24.2 Tolerances and Surface Finish with how work material properties affect machining per-
24.2.1 Tolerances in Machining formance. The second topic is concerned with the tolerances
24.2.2 Surface Finish in Machining and surface finishes (Chapter 5) that can be expected in
24.3 Selection of Cutting Conditions machining processes. Third, we consider how to select cut-
24.3.1 Selecting Feed and Depth of Cut ting conditions (speed, feed, and depth of cut) in a machining
24.3.2 Optimizing Cutting Speed operation. This selection determines to a large extent the
economic success of a given operation. Finally, we provide
24.4 Product Design Considerations in Machining some guidelines for product designers to consider when they
design parts that are to be produced by machining.

24.1 MACHINABILITY
Properties of the work material have a significant influence on
the success of the machining operation. These properties and
other characteristics of the work are often summarized in the
term ‘‘machinability.’’ Machinability denotes the relative
ease with which a material (usually a metal) can be machined
using appropriate tooling and cutting conditions.
There are various criteria used to evaluate machin-
ability, the most important of which are: (1) tool life,
(2) forces and power, (3) surface finish, and (4) ease of
chip disposal. Although machinability generally refers to
the work material, it should be recognized that machining
performance depends on more than just material. The type
of machining operation, tooling, and cutting conditions are
also important factors. In addition, the machinability crite-
rion is a source of variation. One material may yield a
longer tool life, whereas another material provides a better
surface finish. All of these factors make evaluation of
machinability difficult.

585
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:29 Page 586

586 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

Machinability testing usually involves a comparison of work materials. The machining

performance of a test material is measured relative to that of a base (standard) material.
Possible measures of performance in machinability testing include: (1) tool life, (2) tool wear,
(3) cutting force, (4) power in the operation, (5) cutting temperature, and (6) material
removal rate under standard test conditions. The relative performance is expressed as an
index number, called the machinability rating (MR). The base material used as the standard is
given a machinability rating of 1.00. B1112 steel is often used as the base material in
machinability comparisons. Materials that are easier to machine than the base have ratings
greater than 1.00, and materials that are more difficult to machine have ratings less than 1.00.
Machinability ratings are often expressed as percentages rather than index numbers. Let us
illustrate how a machinability rating might be determined using a tool life test as the basis of
comparison.

Example 24.1 A series of tool life tests are conducted on two work materials under identical cutting
Machinability conditions, varying only speed in the test procedure. The first material, defined as the
base material, yields a Taylor tool life equation vT 0.28 ¼ 350, and the other material
(test material) yields a Taylor equation vT 0.27 ¼ 440, where speed is in m/min and tool
life is in min. Determine the machinability rating of the test material using the cutting
speed that provides a 60-min tool life as the basis of comparison. This speed is denoted
by v60.
Solution: The base material has a machinability rating ¼ 1.0. Its v60 value can be
determined from the Taylor tool life equation as follows:


v60 ¼ 350=600:28 ¼ 111 m/min

The cutting speed at a 60-min tool life for the test material is determined similarly:


v60 ¼ 440=600:27 ¼ 146 m/min

Accordingly, the machinability rating can be calculated as

146
MR(for the test material) ¼ ¼ 1:31 (131%)
111 n

Many work material factors affect machining performance. Important mechanical

properties include hardness and strength. As hardness increases, abrasive wear of the tool
increases so that tool life is reduced. Strength is usually indicated as tensile strength, even
though machining involves shear stresses. Of course, shear strength and tensile strength
are correlated. As work material strength increases, cutting forces, specific energy, and
cutting temperature increase, making the material more difficult to machine. On the
other hand, very low hardness can be detrimental to machining performance. For
example, low carbon steel, which has relatively low hardness, is often too ductile to
machine well. High ductility causes tearing of the metal as the chip is formed, resulting in
poor finish, and problems with chip disposal. Cold drawing is often used on low carbon
bars to increase surface hardness and promote chip-breaking during cutting.
A metal’s chemistry has an important effect on properties; and in some cases,
chemistry affects the wear mechanisms that act on the tool material. Through these
relationships, chemistry affects machinability. Carbon content has a significant effect
on the properties of steel. As carbon is increased, the strength and hardness of the steel
increase; this reduces machining performance. Many alloying elements added to steel
to enhance properties are detrimental to machinability. Chromium, molybdenum, and
tungsten form carbides in steel, which increase tool wear and reduce machinability.
Manganese and nickel add strength and toughness to steel, which reduce machinability.
Certain elements can be added to steel to improve machining performance, such as
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:30 Page 587

Section 24.2/Tolerances and Surface Finish 587

TABLE 24.1 Approximate values of Brinell hardness and typical machinability ratings for selected
work materials.
Brinell Machinability Brinell Machinability
Work Material Hardness Ratinga Work Material Hardness Ratinga

Base steel: B1112 180–220 1.00 Tool steel (unhardened) 200–250 0.30
Low carbon steel: 130–170 0.50 Cast iron
C1008, C1010, C1015 Soft 60 0.70
Medium carbon steel: 140–210 0.65 Medium hardness 200 0.55
C1020, C1025, C1030 Hard 230 0.40
High carbon steel: 180–230 0.55 Super alloys
C1040, C1045, C1050 Inconel 240–260 0.30
Alloy steels24b Inconel X 350–370 0.15
1320, 1330, 3130, 3140 170–230 0.55 Waspalloy 250–280 0.12
4130 180–200 0.65 Titanium
4140 190–210 0.55 Plain 160 0.30
4340 200–230 0.45 Alloys 220–280 0.20
4340 (casting) 250–300 0.25 Aluminum
6120, 6130, 6140 180–230 0.50 2-S, 11-S, 17-S Soft 5.00c
8620, 8630 190–200 0.60 Aluminum alloys (soft) Soft 2.00d
B1113 170–220 1.35 Aluminum alloys (hard) Hard 1.25d
Free machining steels 160–220 1.50 Copper Soft 0.60
Stainless steel Brass Soft 2.00d
301, 302 170–190 0.50 Bronze Soft 0.65d
304 160–170 0.40
316, 317 190–200 0.35
403 190–210 0.55
416 190–210 0.90

Values are estimated average values based on [1], [4], [5], [7], and other sources. Ratings represent relative cutting speeds for a given tool
life (see Example 24.1).
a
Machinability ratings are often expressed as percents (index number  100%).
b
Our list of alloy steels is by no means complete. We have attempted to include some of the more common alloys and to indicate the range
of machinability ratings among these steels.
c
The machinability of aluminum varies widely. It is expressed here as MR ¼ 5.00, but the range is probably from 3.00 to 10.00 or more.
d
Aluminum alloys, brasses, and bronzes also vary significantly in machining performance. Different grades have different machinability
ratings. For each case, we have attempted to reduce the variation to a single average value to indicate relative performance with other
work materials.

lead, sulfur, and phosphorus. The additives have the effect of reducing the coefficient
of friction between the tool and chip, thereby reducing forces, temperature, and built-
up edge formation. Better tool life and surface finish result from these effects. Steel
alloys formulated to improve machinability are referred to as free machining steels
(Section 6.2.3).
Similar relationships exist for other work materials. Table 24.1 lists selected metals
and their approximate machinability ratings. These ratings are intended to summarize the
machining performance of the materials.

24.2 TOLERANCES AND SURFACE FINISH

Machining operations are used to produce parts with defined geometries to tolerances
and surface finishes specified by the product designer. In this section we examine these
issues of tolerance and surface finish in machining.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 588

588 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

TABLE 24.2 Typical tolerances and surface roughness values (arithmetic average) achievable in machining
operations.
Tolerance Surface Tolerance Surface
Capability Roughness Capability Roughness
—Typical AA—Typical —Typical AA—Typical

Machining Operation mm in mm m-in Machining Operation mm in mm m-in

Turning, boring 0.8 32 Reaming 0.4 16

Diameter D < 25 mm 0.025 0.001 Diameter D < 12 mm 0.025 0.001
25 mm < D < 50 mm 0.05 0.002 12 mm < D < 25 mm 0.05 0.002
Diameter D > 50 mm 0.075 0.003 Diameter D > 25 mm 0.075 0.003
Drilling 0.8 32 Milling 0.4 16
Diameter D < 2.5 mm 0.05 0.002 Peripheral 0.025 0.001
2.5 mm < D < 6 mm 0.075 0.003 Face 0.025 0.001
6 mm < D < 12 mm 0.10 0.004 End 0.05 0.002
12 mm < D < 25 mm 0.125 0.005 Shaping, slotting 0.025 0.001 1.6 63
Diameter D > 25 mm 0.20 0.008 Planing 0.075 0.003 1.6 63
Broaching 0.025 0.001 0.2 8 Sawing 0.50 0.02 6.0 250

Drilling tolerances are typically expressed as biased bilateral tolerances (e.g., þ 0.010/–0.002).
Values in this table are expressed as closest bilateral tolerance (e.g., 0.006).
Compiled from various sources, including [2], [5], [7], [8], [12], and [15].

24.2.1 TOLERANCES IN MACHINING

There is variability in any manufacturing process, and tolerances are used to set
permissible limits on this variability (Section 5.1.1). Machining is often selected when
tolerances are close, because it is more accurate than most other shape-making processes.
Table 24.2 indicates typical tolerances that can be achieved for most machining opera-
tions examined in Chapter 22. It should be mentioned that the values in this tabulation
represent ideal conditions, yet conditions that are readily achievable in a modern factory.
If the machine tool is old and worn, process variability will likely be greater than the
ideal, and these tolerances would be difficult to maintain. On the other hand, newer
machine tools can achieve closer tolerances than those listed.
Tighter tolerances usually mean higher costs. For example, if the product designer
specifies a tolerance of 0.10 mm on a hole diameter of 6.0 mm, this tolerance could be
achieved by a drilling operation, according to Table 24.2. However, if the designer
specifies a tolerance of 0.025 mm, then an additional reaming operation is needed to
satisfy this tighter requirement. This is not to suggest that looser tolerances are always
good. It often happens that closer tolerances and lower variability in the machining of the
individual components will lead to fewer problems in assembly, final product testing, field
service, and customer acceptance. Although these costs are not always as easy to quantify
as direct manufacturing costs, they can nevertheless be significant. Tighter tolerances that
push a factory to achieve better control over its manufacturing processes may lead to
lower total operating costs for the company over the long run.

24.2.2 SURFACE FINISH IN MACHINING

Because machining is often the manufacturing process that determines the final geome-
try and dimensions of the part, it is also the process that determines the part’s surface
texture (Section 5.3.2). Table 24.2 lists typical surface roughness values that can be
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 589

Section 24.2/Tolerances and Surface Finish 589

achieved in various machining operations. These finishes should be readily achievable by

modern, well-maintained machine tools.
Let us examine how surface finish is determined in a machining operation. The
roughness of a machined surface depends on many factors that can be grouped as follows:
(1) geometric factors, (2) work material factors, and (3) vibration and machine tool factors.
Our discussion of surface finish in this section examines these factors and their effects.

Geometric Factors These are the machining parameters that determine the surface
geometry of a machined part. They include: (1) type of machining operation; (2) cutting
tool geometry, most importantly nose radius; and (3) feed. The surface geometry that
would result from these factors is referred to as the ‘‘ideal’’ or ‘‘theoretical’’ surface
roughness, which is the finish that would be obtained in the absence of work material,
vibration, and machine tool factors.
Type of operation refers to the machining process used to generate the surface. For
example, peripheral milling, facing milling, and shaping all produce a flat surface;
however, the surface geometry is different for each operation because of differences
in tool shape and the way the tool interacts with the surface. A sense of the differences
can be seen in Figure 5.14 showing various possible lays of a surface.
Tool geometry and feed combine to form the surface geometry. The shape of the
tool point is the important tool geometry factor. The effects can be seen for a single-point
tool in Figure 24.1. With the same feed, a larger nose radius causes the feed marks to be
less pronounced, thus leading to a better finish. If two feeds are compared with the same
nose radius, the larger feed increases the separation between feed marks, leading to an
increase in the value of ideal surface roughness. If feed rate is large enough and the nose
radius is small enough so that the end cutting edge participates in creating the new
surface, then the end cutting-edge angle will affect surface geometry. In this case, a higher
ECEA will result in a higher surface roughness value. In theory, a zero ECEA would yield
a perfectly smooth surface; however, imperfections in the tool, work material, and
machining process preclude achieving such an ideal finish.

Large
Feed feed Feed

New work New work

Zero nose surface New work surface
radius surface

Small
Feed feed Feed

New work Large New work

New work ECEA
Large nose surface surface
surface
radius

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 24.1 Effect of geometric factors in determining the theoretical finish on a work surface for
single-point tools: (a) effect of nose radius, (b) effect of feed, and (c) effect of end cutting-edge angle.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 590

590 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

The effects of nose radius and feed can be combined in an equation to predict the
ideal average roughness for a surface produced by a single-point tool. The equation
applies to operations such as turning, shaping, and planing

f2
Ri ¼ ð24:1Þ
32NR
where Ri ¼ theoretical arithmetic average surface roughness, mm (in); f ¼ feed, mm (in);
and NR ¼ nose radius on the tool point, mm (in).
The equation assumes that the nose radius is not zero and that feed and nose radius
will be the principal factors that determine the geometry of the surface. The values for Ri
will be in units of mm (in), which can be converted to mm (m-in). Eq. (24.1) can also be
used to estimate the ideal surface roughness in face milling with insert tooling, using f to
represent the chip load (feed per tooth).
Equation (24.1) assumes a sharp cutting tool. As the tool wears, the shape of the
cutting point changes, which is reflected in the geometry of the work surface. For slight
amounts of tool wear, the effect is not noticeable. However, when tool wear becomes
significant, especially nose radius wear, surface roughness deteriorates compared with
the ideal values given by the preceding equations.

Work Material Factors Achieving the ideal surface finish is not possible in most
machining operations because of factors related to the work material and its interaction
with the tool. Work material factors that affect finish include: (1) built-up edge effects—as
the BUE cyclically forms and breaks away, particles are deposited on the newly created
work surface, causing it to have a rough ‘‘sandpaper’’ texture; (2) damage to the surface
caused by the chip curling back into the work; (3) tearing of the work surface during chip
formation when machining ductile materials; (4) cracks in the surface caused by dis-
continuous chip formation when machining brittle materials; and (5) friction between the
tool flank and the newly generated work surface. These work material factors are influenced
by cutting speed and rake angle, such that an increase in cutting speed or rake angle
generally improves surface finish.
The work material factors usually cause the actual surface finish to be worse than
the ideal. An empirical ratio can be developed to convert the ideal roughness value into
an estimate of the actual surface roughness value. This ratio takes into account BUE
formation, tearing, and other factors. The value of the ratio depends on cutting speed as
well as work material. Figure 24.2 shows the ratio of actual to ideal surface roughness as a
function of speed for several classes of work material.
The procedure for predicting the actual surface roughness in a machining operation
is to compute the ideal surface roughness value and then multiply this value by the ratio
of actual to ideal roughness for the appropriate class of work material. This can be
summarized as

Ra ¼ rai Ri ð24:2Þ
where Ra ¼ the estimated value of actual roughness; rai ¼ ratio of actual to ideal surface
finish from Figure 24.2, and Ri ¼ ideal roughness value from Eq. (24.1).

Example 24.2 A turning operation is performed on C1008 steel (a relatively ductile material) using a
Surface tool with a nose radius ¼ 1.2 mm. The cutting conditions are speed ¼ 100 m/min, and feed ¼
Roughness 0.25 mm/rev. Compute an estimate of the surface roughness in this operation.
Solution: The ideal surface roughness can be calculated from Eq. (24.1):

Ri ¼ (0:25)2 =(32  1:2) ¼ 0:0016 mm ¼ 1:6 mm n

E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 591

Section 24.3/Selection of Cutting Conditions 591

2.4
Ductile metals
2.2

2.0

Theoretical
Actual
1.8
Cast irons

Ratio =
1.6

1.4

1.2 Free machining alloys

FIGURE 24.2 Ratio of 1.0

actual surface roughness 0 100 200 300 400
to ideal surface Cutting speed–ft/min
roughness for several
classes of materials.
(Source: General Electric 30.5 61 91.5 122
Co. data [14].) Cutting speed–m/min

From the chart in Figure 24.2, the ratio of actual to ideal roughness for ductile metals at
100 m/min is approximately 1.25. Accordingly, the actual surface roughness for the
operation would be (approximately)

Ra ¼ 1:25  1:6 ¼ 2:0 mm

Vibration and Machine Tool Factors These factors are related to the machine tool,
tooling, and setup in the operation. They include chatter or vibration in the machine tool
or cutting tool; deflections in the fixturing, often resulting in vibration; and backlash in
the feed mechanism, particularly on older machine tools. If these machine tool factors
can be minimized or eliminated, the surface roughness in machining will be determined
primarily by geometric and work material factors described in the preceding.
Chatter or vibration in a machining operation can result in pronounced waviness in
the work surface. When chatter occurs, a distinctive noise occurs that can be recognized
by any experienced machinist. Possible steps to reduce or eliminate vibration include:
(1) adding stiffness and/or damping to the setup, (2) operating at speeds that do not cause
cyclical forces whose frequency approaches the natural frequency of the machine tool
system, (3) reducing feeds and depths to reduce forces in cutting, and (4) changing the
cutter design to reduce forces. Workpiece geometry can sometimes play a role in chatter.
Thin cross sections tend to increase the likelihood of chatter, requiring additional
supports to alleviate the condition.

24.3 SELECTION OF CUTTING CONDITIONS

One of the practical problems in machining is selecting the proper cutting conditions for a
given operation. This is one of the tasks in process planning (Section 40.1). For each
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 592

592 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

operation, decisions must be made about machine tool, cutting tool(s), and cutting
conditions. These decisions must give due consideration to workpart machinability, part
geometry, surface finish, and so forth.

24.3.1 SELECTING FEED AND DEPTH OF CUT

Cutting conditions in a machining operation consist of speed, feed, depth of cut, and
cutting fluid (whether a cutting fluid is to be used and, if so, type of cutting fluid). Tooling
considerations are usually the dominant factor in decisions about cutting fluids (Section
23.4). Depth of cut is often predetermined by workpiece geometry and operation
sequence. Many jobs require a series of roughing operations followed by a final finishing
operation. In the roughing operations, depth is made as large as possible within the
limitations of available horsepower, machine tool and setup rigidity, strength of the cutting
tool, and so on. In the finishing cut, depth is set to achieve the final dimensions for the part.
The problem then reduces to selection of feed and speed. In general, values of these
parameters should be decided in the order: feed first, speed second. Determining the
appropriate feed rate for a given machining operation depends on the following factors:

å Tooling. What type of tooling will be used? Harder tool materials (e.g., cemented
carbides, ceramics, etc.) tend to fracture more readily than high-speed steel. These
tools are normally used at lower feed rates. HSS can tolerate higher feeds because of
its greater toughness.
å Roughing or finishing. Roughing operations involve high feeds, typically 0.5 to 1.25
mm/rev (0.020 to 0.050 in/rev) for turning; finishing operations involve low feeds,
typically 0.125 to 0.4 mm/rev (0.005 to 0.015 in/rev) for turning.
å Constraints on feed in roughing. If the operation is roughing, how high can the feed
rate be set? To maximize metal removal rate, feed should be set as high as possible.
Upper limits on feed are imposed by cutting forces, setup rigidity, and sometimes
horsepower.
å Surface finish requirements in finishing. If the operation is finishing, what is the
desired surface finish? Feed is an important factor in surface finish, and computations
like those in Example 24.2 can be used to estimate the feed that will produce a desired
surface finish.

24.3.2 OPTIMIZING CUTTING SPEED

Selection of cutting speed is based on making the best use of the cutting tool, which
normally means choosing a speed that provides a high metal removal rate yet suitably
long tool life. Mathematical formulas have been derived to determine optimal cutting
speed for a machining operation, given that the various time and cost components of the
operation are known. The original derivation of these machining economics equations is
credited to W. Gilbert [10]. The formulas allow the optimal cutting speed to be calculated
for either of two objectives: (1) maximum production rate, or (2) minimum unit cost.
Both objectives seek to achieve a balance between material removal rate and tool life.
The formulas are based on a known Taylor tool life equation for the tool used in the
operation. Accordingly, feed, depth of cut, and work material have already been set. The
derivation will be illustrated for a turning operation. Similar derivations can be devel-
oped for other types of machining operations [3].

Maximizing Production Rate For maximum production rate, the speed that minimizes
machining time per workpiece is determined. Minimizing cutting time per unit is equivalent
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 593

Section 24.3/Selection of Cutting Conditions 593

to maximizing production rate. This objective is important in cases when the production
order must be completed as quickly as possible.
In turning, there are three time elements that contribute to the total production
cycle time for one part:

1. Part handling time Th. This is the time the operator spends loading the part into the
machine tool at the beginning of the production cycle and unloading the part after
machining is completed. Any additional time required to reposition the tool for the
start of the next cycle should also be included here.
2. Machining time Tm. This is the time the tool is actually engaged in machining during
the cycle.
3. Tool change time Tt. At the end of the tool life, the tool must be changed, which takes
time. This time must be apportioned over the number of parts cut during the tool life. Let
np ¼ the number of pieces cut in one tool life (the number of pieces cut with one cutting
edge until the tool is changed); thus, the tool change time per part ¼ Tt/np.

The sum of these three time elements gives the total time per unit product for the
operation cycle
Tt
Tc ¼ Th þ Tm þ ð24:3Þ
np
where Tc ¼ production cycle time per piece, min; and the other terms are defined in the
preceding.
The cycle time Tc is a function of cutting speed. As cutting speed is increased, Tm
decreases and Tt/np increases; Th is unaffected by speed. These relationships are shown in
Figure 24.3.
The cycle time per part is minimized at a certain value of cutting speed. This
optimal speed can be identified by recasting Eq. (24.3) as a function of speed. Machining
time in a straight turning operation is given by previous Eq. (22.5)
pDL
Tm ¼
vf
where Tm ¼ machining time, min; D ¼ workpart diameter, mm (in); L ¼ workpart length,
mm (in); f ¼ feed, mm/rev (in/rev); and v ¼ cutting speed, mm/min for consistency of
units (in/min for consistency of units).

FIGURE 24.3 Time

elements in a machining
cycle plotted as a function
of cutting speed. Total
cycle time per piece is
minimized at a certain
value of cutting speed.
This is the speed for
maximum production rate.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 594

594 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

The number of pieces per tool np is also a function of speed. It can be shown that
T
np ¼ ð24:4Þ
Tm
where T ¼ tool life, min/tool; and Tm ¼ machining time per part, min/pc. Both T and Tm
are functions of speed; hence, the ratio is a function of speed
f C1=n
np ¼ ð24:5Þ
pDLv1=n1
The effect of this relation is to cause the Tt/np term in Eq. (24.3) to increase as cutting
speed increases. Substituting Eqs. (22.5) and (24.5) into Eq. (24.3) for Tc, we have


pDL T t pDLv1=n1
Tc ¼ Th þ þ ð24:6Þ
fv f C1=n

The cycle time per piece is a minimum at the cutting speed at which the derivative of
Eq. (24.6) is zero
dT c
¼0
dv
Solving this equation yields the cutting speed for maximum production rate in the
operation
C
vmax ¼ 
n ð24:7Þ
1
n  1 Tt

where vmax is expressed in m/min (ft/min). The corresponding tool life for maximum
production rate is
 
1
T max ¼  1 Tt ð24:8Þ
n
Minimizing Cost per Unit For minimum cost per unit, the speed that minimizes
production cost per piece for the operation is determined. To derive the equations for this
case, we begin with the four cost components that determine total cost of producing one
part during a turning operation:

1. Cost of part handling time. This is the cost of the time the operator spends loading
and unloading the part. Let Co ¼ the cost rate (e.g., $/min) for the operator and
machine. Thus the cost of part handling time ¼ CoTh.
2. Cost of machining time. This is the cost of the time the tool is engaged in machining.
Using Co again to represent the cost per minute of the operator and machine tool, the
cutting time cost ¼ CoTm.
3. Cost of tool change time. The cost of tool change time ¼ CoTt/np.
4. Tooling cost. In addition to the tool change time, the tool itself has a cost that must be
added to the total operation cost. This cost is the cost per cutting edge Ct, divided by the
number of pieces machined with that cutting edge np. Thus, tool cost per workpiece is given
by Ct/np.

Tooling cost requires an explanation, because it is affected by different tooling

situations. For disposable inserts (e.g., cemented carbide inserts), tool cost is determined as
Pt
Ct ¼ ð24:9Þ
ne
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 595

Section 24.3/Selection of Cutting Conditions 595

where Ct ¼ cost per cutting edge, $/tool life; Pt ¼ price of the insert, $/insert; and ne ¼
number of cutting edges per insert.
This depends on the insert type; for example, triangular inserts that can be used
only one side (positive rake tooling) have three edges/insert; if both sides of the insert can
be used (negative rake tooling), there are six edges/insert; and so forth.
For regrindable tooling (e.g., high-speed steel solid shank tools, brazed carbide
tools), the tool cost includes purchase price plus cost to regrind:
Pt
Ct ¼ þ T g Cg ð24:10Þ
ne
where Ct ¼ cost per tool life, $/tool life; Pt ¼ purchase price of the solid shank tool or brazed
insert, $/tool; ng ¼ number of tool lives per tool, which is the number of times the tool can be
ground before it can no longer be used (5 to 10 times for roughing tools and 10 to 20 times
for finishing tools); Tg ¼ time to grind or regrind the tool, min/tool life; and Cg ¼ grinder’s
rate, $/min.
The sum of the four cost components gives the total cost per unit product Cc for the
machining cycle:
Co T t Ct
Cc ¼ Co T h þ Co T m þ þ ð24:11Þ
np np
Cc is a function of cutting speed, just as Tc is a function of v. The relationships for the
individual terms and total cost as a function of cutting speed are shown in Figure 24.4.
Eq. (24.11) can be rewritten in terms of v to yield:


Co pDL ðCo T t þ Ct Þ pDLv1=n1
Cc ¼ Co T h þ þ ð24:12Þ
fv f C1=n
The cutting speed that obtains minimum cost per piece for the operation can be
determined by taking the derivative of Eq. (24.12) with respect to v, setting it to zero,
and solving for vmin
 n
n Co
vmin ¼ C  ð24:13Þ
1  n Co T t þ Ct

FIGURE 24.4 Cost

components in a
machining operation
plotted as a function of
cutting speed. Total cost
per piece is minimized
at a certain value of
cutting speed. This is the
speed for minimum cost
per piece.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:31 Page 596

596 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

The corresponding tool life is given by

  
1 Co T t þ Ct
T min ¼ 1 ð24:14Þ
n Co

Example 24.3 Suppose a turning operation is to be performed with HSS tooling on mild steel, with Taylor
Determining tool life parameters n ¼ 0.125, C ¼ 70 m/min (Table 23.2). Workpart length ¼ 500 mm and
Cutting Speeds in diameter ¼ 100 mm. Feed ¼ 0.25 mm/rev. Handling time per piece ¼ 5.0 min, and tool
Machining change time ¼ 2.0 min. Cost of machine and operator ¼ $30/hr, and tooling cost ¼ $3 per
Economics cutting edge. Find: (a) cutting speed for maximum production rate, and (b) cutting speed
for minimum cost.
Solution: (a) Cutting speed for maximum production rate is given by Eq. (24.7)
 0:125
0:125 1
vmax ¼ 70  ¼ 50 m/min
0:875 2
(b) Converting Co ¼ $30/hr to $0.5/min, minimum cost cutting speed is given by Eq. (24.13)
 0:125
0:125 0:5
vmin ¼ 70  ¼ 42 m/min
0:875 0:5(2) þ 3:00 n

Example 24.4 Determine the hourly production rate and cost per piece for the two cutting speeds
Production Rate computed in Example 24.3.
and Cost in Solution: (a) For the cutting speed for maximum production, vmax ¼ 50 m/min, let us
Machining calculate machining time per piece and tool life.
Economics
p(0:5)(0:1)
Machining time T m ¼ ¼ 12:57 min/pc
(0:25)(103 )(50)
 8
70
Tool life T ¼ ¼ 14:76 min/cutting edge
50

From this we see that the number of pieces per tool np ¼ 14.76=12.57 ¼ 1.17. Use np ¼ 1.
From Eq. (24.3), average production cycle time for the operation is

T c ¼ 5:0 þ 12:57 þ 2:0=1 ¼ 19:57 min/pc

Corresponding hourly production rate Rp ¼ 60=19.57 ¼ 3.1 pc/hr. From Eq. (24.11), average
cost per piece for the operation is

Cc ¼ 0:5(5:0) þ 0:5(12:57) þ 0:5(2:0)=1 þ 3:00=1 ¼ $12:79=pc

(b) For the cutting speed for minimum production cost per piece, vmin ¼ 42 m/min, the
machining time per piece and tool life are calculated as follows

p(0:5)(0:1)
Machining time T m ¼ ¼ 14:96 min/pc
(0:25)(103 )(42)
 8
70
Tool life T ¼ ¼ 59:54 min/cutting edge
42
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:32 Page 597

Section 24.4/Product Design Considerations in Machining 597

The number of pieces per tool np ¼ 59.54=14.96 ¼ 3.98 ! Use np ¼ 3 to avoid failure
during the fourth workpiece. Average production cycle time for the operation is

T c ¼ 5:0 þ 14:96 þ 2:0=3 ¼ 20:63 min/pc:

Corresponding hourly production rate Rp ¼ 60=20.63 ¼ 2.9 pc/hr. Average cost per piece
for the operation is

Cc ¼ 0:5(5:0) þ 0:5(14:96) þ 0:5(2:0)=3 þ 3:00=3 ¼ $11:32/pc

Note that production rate is greater for vmax and cost per piece is minimum for vmin. n

Some Comments on Machining Economics Some practical observations can be

made relative to these optimum cutting speed equations. First, as the values of C and n
increase in the Taylor tool life equation, the optimum cutting speed increases by either
Eq. (24.7) or Eq. (24.13). Cemented carbides and ceramic cutting tools should be used at
speeds that are significantly higher than for high-speed steel tools.
Second, as the tool change time and/or tooling cost (Ttc and Ct) increase, the cutting
speed equations yield lower values. Lower speeds allow the tools to last longer, and it is
wasteful to change tools too frequently if either the cost of tools or the time to change
them is high. An important effect of this tool cost factor is that disposable inserts usually
possess a substantial economic advantage over regrindable tooling. Even though the cost
per insert is significant, the number of edges per insert is large enough and the time
required to change the cutting edge is low enough that disposable tooling generally
achieves higher production rates and lower costs per unit product.
Third, vmax is always greater than vmin. The Ct/np term in Eq. (24.13) has the effect
of pushing the optimum speed value to the left in Figure 24.4, resulting in a lower value
than in Figure 24.3. Rather than taking the risk of cutting at a speed above vmax or below
vmin, some machine shops strive to operate in the interval between vmin and vmax—an
interval sometimes referred to as the ‘‘high-efficiency range.’’
The procedures outlined for selecting feeds and speeds in machining are often
difficult to apply in practice. The best feed rate is difficult to determine because the
relationships between feed and surface finish, force, horsepower, and other constraints
are not readily available for each machine tool. Experience, judgment, and experimen-
tation are required to select the proper feed. The optimum cutting speed is difficult to
calculate because the Taylor equation parameters C and n are not usually known without
prior testing. Testing of this kind in a production environment is expensive.

24.4 PRODUCT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN MACHINING

Several important aspects of product design have already been considered in our
discussion of tolerance and surface finish (Section 24.2). In this section, we present
some design guidelines for machining, compiled from sources [1], [5], and [15]:

å If possible, parts should be designed that do not need machining. If this is not
possible, then minimize the amount of machining required on the parts. In general, a
lower-cost product is achieved through the use of net shape processes such as
precision casting, closed die forging, or (plastic) molding; or near net shape processes
such as impression die forging. Reasons why machining may be required include
close tolerances; good surface finish; and special geometric features such as threads,
precision holes, cylindrical sections with high degree of roundness, and similar shapes
that cannot be achieved except by machining.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:32 Page 598

598 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

å Tolerances should be specified to satisfy functional requirements, but process

capabilities should also be considered. See Table 24.2 for tolerance capabilities in
machining. Excessively close tolerances add cost but may not add value to the part.
As tolerances become tighter (smaller), product costs generally increase because of
additional processing, fixturing, inspection, sortation, rework, and scrap.
å Surface finish should be specified to meet functional and/or aesthetic requirements,
but better finishes generally increase processing costs by requiring additional
operations such as grinding or lapping.
å Machined features such as sharp corners, edges, and points should be avoided; they
are often difficult to accomplish by machining. Sharp internal corners require pointed
cutting tools that tend to break during machining. Sharp external corners and edges
tend to create burrs and are dangerous to handle.
å Deep holes that must be bored should be avoided. Deep hole boring requires a long
boring bar. Boring bars must be stiff, and this often requires use of high modulus
materials such as cemented carbide, which is expensive.
å Machined parts should be designed so they can be produced from standard available
stock. Choose exterior dimensions equal to or close to the standard stock size to
minimize machining; for example, rotational parts with outside diameters that are
equal to standard bar stock diameters.
å Parts should be designed to be rigid enough to withstand forces of cutting and
workholder clamping. Machining of long narrow parts, large flat parts, parts with thin
walls, and similar shapes should be avoided if possible.
å Undercuts as in Figure 24.5 should be avoided because they often require additional
setups and operations and/or special tooling; they can also lead to stress concentra-
tions in service.
å Materials with good machinability should be selected by the designer (Section 24.1).
As a rough guide, the machinability rating of a material correlates with the allowable
cutting speed and production rate that can be used. Thus, parts made of materials
with low machinability cost more to produce. Parts that are hardened by heat
treatment must usually be finish ground or machined with higher cost tools after
hardening to achieve final size and tolerance.
å Machined parts should be designed with features that can be produced in a minimum
number of setups—one setup if possible. This usually means geometric features that
can be accessed from one side of the part (see Figure 24.6).

FIGURE 24.5 Two machined

parts with undercuts: cross
sections of (a) bracket and (b) rota-
tional part. Also shown is how the
part design might be improved.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:32 Page 599

Review Questions 599

FIGURE 24.6 Two parts

with similar hole
features: (a) holes that
must be machined from
two sides, requiring two
setups, and (b) holes that
can all be machined from
one side.

å Machined parts should be designed with features that can be achieved with standard
cutting tools. This means avoiding unusual hole sizes, threads, and features with
unusual shapes requiring special form tools. In addition, it is helpful to design parts
such that the number of individual cutting tools needed in machining is minimized;
this often allows the part to be completed in one setup on a machine such as a
machining center (Section 22.5).

REFERENCES
[1] Bakerjian, R. (ed.). Tool and Manufacturing Engi- [9] Ewell, J. R.‘‘Thermal Coefficients—A Proposed
neers Handbook. 4th ed. Vol VI, Design for Man- Machinability Index.’’Technical Paper MR67-200.
ufacturability. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn,
Dearborn, Michigan, 1992. Michigan, 1967.
[2] Black, J, and Kohser, R. DeGarmo’s Materials and [10] Gilbert, W. W. ‘‘Economics of Machining.’’ Machin-
Processes in Manufacturing, 10th ed., John Wiley & ing—Theory and Practice. American Society for
Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2008. Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, 1950, pp. 465–485.
[3] Boothroyd, G., and Knight, W. A. Fundamentals of [11] Groover, M. P.‘‘A Survey on the Machinability of
Metal Machining and Machine Tools. 3rd ed. CRC Metals.’’Technical Paper MR76-269. Society of
Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2006. Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan,
[4] Boston, O. W. Metal Processing. 2nd ed. John Wiley 1976.
& Sons, New York, 1951. [12] Machining Data Handbook. 3rd ed. Vols. I. and II,
[5] Bralla, J. G. (ed.). Design for Manufacturability Metcut Research Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Handbook. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998. 1980.
[6] Brierley, R. G., and Siekman, H. J. Machining Prin- [13] Schaffer, G. H.‘‘The Many Faces of Surface
ciples and Cost Control. McGraw-Hill, New York, Texture.’’ Special Report 801, American Machinist
1964. & Automated Manufacturing. June 1988 pp. 61–68.
[7] Drozda, T. J., and Wick, C. (eds.). Tool and Manu- [14] Surface Finish. Machining Development Service,
facturing Engineers Handbook. 4th ed. Vol I, Publication A-5, General Electric Company, Sche-
Machining. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, nectady, New York (no date).
Dearborn, Michigan, 1983. [15] Trucks, H. E., and Lewis, G. Designing for Econom-
[8] Eary, D. F., and Johnson, G. E. Process Engineering: ical Production. 2nd ed. Society of Manufacturing
for Manufacturing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1987.
New Jersey, 1962. [16] Van Voast, J. United States Air Force Machinability
Report. Vol. 3. Curtis-Wright Corporation, 1954.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
24.1. Define machinability. 24.3. Name some of the important mechanical and phys-
24.2. What are the criteria by which machinability is com- ical properties that affect the machinability of a
monly assessed in a production machining operation? work material.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:32 Page 600

600 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

24.4. Why do costs tend to increase when better surface 24.9. The unit cost in a machining operation is the sum of
finish is required on a machined part? four cost terms. The first three terms are: (1) part
24.5. What are the basic factors that affect surface finish load/unload cost, (2) cost of time the tool is actually
in machining? cutting the work, and (3) cost of the time to change
24.6. What are the parameters that have the greatest the tool. What is the fourth term?
influence in determining the ideal surface rough- 24.10. Which cutting speed is always lower for a given
ness Ri in a turning operation? machining operation, cutting speed for minimum
24.7. Name some of the steps that can be taken to reduce cost or cutting speed for maximum production
or eliminate vibrations in machining. rate? Why?
24.8. What are the factors on which the selection of feed
in a machining operation should be based?

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUIZ

There are 14 correct answers in the following multiple choice questions (some questions have multiple answers that are
correct). To attain a perfect score on the quiz, all correct answers must be given. Each correct answer is worth 1 point. Each
omitted answer or wrong answer reduces the score by 1 point, and each additional answer beyond the correct number of
answers reduces the score by 1 point. Percentage score on the quiz is based on the total number of correct answers.
24.1. Which of the following criteria are generally rec- 24.6. When cutting a ductile work material, an increase in
ognized to indicate good machinability (four best cutting speed will generally (a) degrade surface
answers): (a) ease of chip disposal, (b) high cutting finish, which means a higher value of Ra or
temperatures, (c) high power requirements, (b) improve surface finish, which means a lower
(d) high value of Ra, (e) long tool life, (f) low value of Ra?
cutting forces, and (g) zero shear plane angle? 24.7. Which one of the following operations is generally
24.2. Of the various methods for testing machinability, capable of the best surface finishes (lowest value of
which one of the following is the most important: Ra): (a) broaching, (b) drilling, (c) end milling,
(a) cutting forces, (b) cutting temperature, (c) (d) planing, or (e) turning?
horsepower consumed in the operation, (d) surface 24.8. Which of the following time components in the
roughness, (e) tool life, or (f) tool wear? average production machining cycle is affected by
24.3. A machinability rating greater than 1.0 indicates cutting speed (two correct answers): (a) part load-
that the work material is (a) easier to machine than ing and unloading time, and (b) setup time for the
the base metal or (b) more difficult to machine machine tool, (c) time the tool is engaged in cut-
than the base metal, where the base metal has a ting, and (d) average tool change time per piece?
rating ¼ 1.0? 24.9. Which cutting speed is always lower for a given
24.4. Ingeneral,whichoneofthefollowing materialshasthe machining operation: (a) cutting speed for maxi-
highest machinability: (a) aluminum, (b) cast iron, mum production rate, or (b) cutting speed for
(c) copper, (d) low carbon steel, (e) stainless steel, minimum cost?
(f) titanium alloys, or (g) unhardened tool steel? 24.10. A high tooling cost and/or tool change time will
24.5. Which one of the following operations is generally tend to (a) decrease, (b) have no effect on, or
capable of the closest tolerances: (a) broaching, (b) (c) increase the cutting speed for minimum cost?
drilling, (c) end milling, (d) planing, or (e) sawing?

PROBLEMS
Machinability
24.1. A machinability rating is to be determined for a C ¼ 500, where speed is in m/min and tool life is
new work material using the cutting speed for a 60- min. For the new material, the parameter values
min tool life as the basis of comparison. For the were n ¼ 0.21 and C ¼ 400. These results were
base material (B1112 steel), test data resulted in obtained using cemented carbide tooling. (a) Com-
Taylor equation parameter values of n ¼ 0.29 and pute a machinability rating for the new material.
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:33 Page 601

Problems 601

(b) Suppose the machinability criterion were the test data resulted in a Taylor equation with param-
cutting speed for a 10-min tool life rather than the eters n ¼ 0.29 and C ¼ 490. For the new material,
present criterion. Compute the machinability rat- the Taylor parameters were n ¼ 0.23 and C ¼ 430.
ing for this case. (c) What do the results of the two Units in both cases are: speed in m/min and tool life
calculations show about the difficulties in machin- in min. These results were obtained using
ability measurement? cemented carbide tooling. (a) Compute a machin-
24.2. A small company uses a band saw to cut through 2- ability rating for the new material using cutting
inch metal bar stock. A material supplier is pushing speed for a 30-min tool life as the basis of compari-
a new material that is supposed to be more ma- son. (b) If the machinability criterion were tool life
chinable while providing similar mechanical prop- for a cutting speed of 150 m/min, what is the
erties. The company does not have access to machinability rating for the new material?
sophisticated measuring devices, but they do 24.4. Tool life turning tests have been conducted on
have a stopwatch. They have acquired a sample B1112 steel with high-speed steel tooling, and
of the new material and cut both the present the resulting parameters of the Taylor equation
material and the new material with the same are: n ¼ 0.13 and C ¼ 225. B1112 is the base metal
band saw settings. In the process, they measured and has a machinability rating ¼ 1.00 (100%).
how long it took to cut through each material. To During the tests, feed ¼ 0.010 in/rev, and depth
cut through the present material, it took an average of cut ¼ 0.100 in. Based on this information, and
of 2 minutes, 20 seconds. To cut through the new machinability data given in Table 24.1, determine
material, it took an average of 2 minutes, 6 seconds. the cutting speed you would recommend for the
(a) Develop a machinability rating system based on following work materials, if the tool life desired
time to cut through the 2.0-inch bar stock, using the in operation is 30 min (the same feed and depth of
present material as the base material. (b) Using cut are to be used): (a) C1008 low carbon steel with
your rating system, determine the machinability 150 Brinell hardness, (b) 4130 alloy steel with 190
rating for the new material. Brinell hardness, and (c) B1113 steel with 170
24.3. A machinability rating is to be determined for a Brinell hardness.
new work material. For the base material (B1112),

Surface Roughness
24.5. In a turning operation on cast iron, the nose radius on mm. The nose radius on the tool ¼ 1.0 mm. Deter-
the tool ¼ 1.5 mm, feed ¼ 0.22 mm/rev, and speed ¼ mine the feed that will achieve the specified surface
1.8 m/s. Compute an estimate of the surface rough- finish.
ness for this cut. 24.11. The surface finish specification in a turning job is
24.6. A turning operation uses a 2/64 in nose radius 0.8 mm. The work material is cast iron. Cutting
cutting tool on a free machining steel with a feed speed ¼ 75 m/min, feed ¼ 0.3 mm/rev, and depth of
rate ¼ 0.010 in/rev and a cutting speed ¼ 300 ft/min. cut ¼ 4.0 mm. The nose radius of the cutting tool
Determine the surface roughness for this cut. must be selected. Determine the minimum nose
24.7. A single-point HSS tool with a 3/64 in nose radius is radius that will obtain the specified finish in this
used in a shaping operation on a ductile steel work- operation.
part. The cutting speed is 120 ft/min. The feed is 24.12. A face milling operation is to be performed on a
0.014 in/pass and depth of cut is 0.135 in. Determine cast iron part to finish the surface to 36 m-in. The
the surface roughness for this operation. cutter uses four inserts and its diameter is 3.0 in.
24.8. A part to be turned in an engine lathe must have a The cutter rotates at 475 rev/min. To obtain the
surface finish of 1.6 mm. The part is made of a free- best possible finish, a type of carbide insert with 4/
machining aluminum alloy. Cutting speed ¼ 150 m/ 64 in nose radius is to be used. Determine the
min, and depth of cut ¼ 4.0 mm. The nose radius on required feed rate (in/min) that will achieve the
the tool ¼ 0.75 mm. Determine the feed that will 36 m-in finish.
achieve the specified surface finish. 24.13. A face milling operation is not yielding the re-
24.9. Solve previous Problem 24.8 except that the part is quired surface finish on the work. The cutter is a
made of cast iron instead of aluminum and the four-tooth insert type face milling cutter. The ma-
cutting speed is reduced to 100 m/min. chine shop foreman thinks the problem is that the
24.10. A part to be turned in an engine lathe must have a work material is too ductile for the job, but this
surface finish of 1.5 mm. The part is made of alumi- property tests well within the ductility range for the
num. The cutting speed is 1.5 m/s and the depth is 3.0 material specified by the designer. Without
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:33 Page 602

602 Chapter 24/Economic and Product Design Considerations in Machining

knowing any more about the job, what changes in same time maximizing the metal removal rate. It
(a) cutting conditions and (b) tooling would you has been decided that the speed should be in the
suggest to improve the surface finish? range 200 ft/min to 400 ft/min, and that the depth of
24.14. A turning operation is to be performed on C1010 cut will be 0.080 in. The tool nose radius ¼ 3/64 in.
steel, which is a ductile grade. It is desired to Determine the speed and feed combination that
achieve a surface finish of 64 m-in, while at the meets these criteria.

Machining Economics
24.15. A high-speed steel tool is used to turn a steel work- tooling cases, compare (a) cutting speeds for mini-
part that is 300 mm long and 80 mm in diameter. The mum cost, (b) tool lives, (c) cycle time and cost
parameters in the Taylor equation are: n ¼ 0.13 and per unit of production. Which tool would you
C ¼ 75 (m/min) for a feed of 0.4 mm/rev. The recommend?
operator and machine tool rate ¼ $30/hr, and the 24.20. Solve Problem 24.19 except that in part (a) deter-
tooling cost per cutting edge ¼ $4. It takes 2.0 min to mine the cutting speeds for maximum production
load and unload the workpart and 3.50 min to rate.
change tools. Determine (a) cutting speed for maxi- 24.21. Three tool materials are to be compared for the
mum production rate, (b) tool life in min of cutting, same finish turning operation on a batch of 150
and (c) cycle time and cost per unit of product. steel parts: high-speed steel, cemented carbide, and
24.16. Solve Problem 24.15 except that in part (a) deter- ceramic. For the high-speed steel tool, the Taylor
mine cutting speed for minimum cost. equation parameters are: n ¼ 0.130 and C ¼ 80 (m/
24.17. A cemented carbide tool is used to turn a part with a min). The price of the HSS tool is $20 and it is
length of 14.0 in and diameter ¼ 4.0 in. The parame- estimated that it can be ground and reground 15
ters in the Taylor equation are: n ¼ 0.25 and C ¼ 1000 times at a cost of $2 per grind. Tool change time is 3
(ft/min). The rate for the operator and machine tool min. Both carbide and ceramic tools are in insert
¼ $45/hr, and the tooling cost per cutting edge ¼ form and can be held in the same mechanical
$2.50. It takes 2.5 min to load and unload the work- toolholder. The Taylor equation parameters for
part and 1.50 min to change tools. The feed ¼ 0.015 the cemented carbide are: n ¼ 0.30 and C ¼ 650
in/rev. Determine (a) cutting speed for maximum (m/min); and for the ceramic: n ¼ 0.6 and C ¼ 3,500
production rate, (b) tool life in min of cutting, and (m/min). The cost per insert for the carbide is $8
(c) cycle time and cost per unit of product. and for the ceramic is $10. There are six cutting
24.18. Solve Problem 24.17 except that in part (a) deter- edges per insert in both cases. Tool change time is
mine cutting speed for minimum cost. 1.0 min for both tools. The time to change a part is
24.19. Compare disposable and regrindable tooling. The 2.5 min. The feed is 0.30 mm/rev, and depth of cut is
same grade of cemented carbide tooling is availa- 3.5 mm. The cost of machine time is $40/hr. The
ble in two forms for turning operations in a certain part is 73.0 mm in diameter and 250 mm in length.
machine shop: disposable inserts and brazed in- Setup time for the batch is 2.0 hr. For the three
serts. The parameters in the Taylor equation for tooling cases, compare: (a) cutting speeds for mini-
this grade are: n ¼ 0.25 and C ¼ 300 (m/min) under mum cost, (b) tool lives, (c) cycle time, (d) cost per
the cutting conditions considered here. For the production unit, (e) total time to complete the
disposable inserts, price of each insert ¼ $6, there batch and production rate. (f) What is the propor-
are four cutting edges per insert, and the tool tion of time spent actually cutting metal for each
change time ¼ 1.0 min (this is an average of the tooling? Use of a spreadsheet calculator is
time to index the insert and the time to replace it recommended.
when all edges have been used). For the brazed 24.22. Solve Problem 24.21 except that in parts (a) and (b)
insert, the price of the tool ¼ $30 and it is estimated determine the cutting speeds and tool lives for
that it can be used a total of 15 times before it must maximum production rate. Use of a spreadsheet
be scrapped. The tool change time for the regrind- calculator is recommended.
able tooling ¼ 3.0 min. The standard time to grind 24.23. A vertical boring mill is used to bore the inside
or regrind the cutting edge is 5.0 min, and the diameter of a large batch of tube-shaped parts. The
grinder is paid at a rate ¼ $20/hr. Machine time diameter ¼ 28.0 in and the length of the bore ¼ 14.0
on the lathe costs $24/hr. The workpart to be used in. Current cutting conditions are: speed ¼ 200 ft/min,
in the comparison is 375 mm long and 62.5 mm in feed ¼ 0.015 in/rev, and depth ¼ 0.125 in. The
diameter, and it takes 2.0 min to load and unload parameters of the Taylor equation for the cutting
the work. The feed ¼ 0.30 mm/rev. For the two tool in the operation are: n ¼ 0.23 and C ¼ 850 (ft/
E1C24 11/10/2009 13:24:33 Page 603

Problems 603

min). Tool change time ¼ 3.0 min, and tooling cost ¼ increase cutting speed (at the same tool life) or
$3.50 per cutting edge. The time required to load and increase tool life (at the same cutting speed). (a)
unload the parts ¼ 12.0 min, and the cost of machine What is the cutting speed that would result from
time on this boring mill ¼ $42/hr. Management has using the cutting fluid if tool life remains the same
decreed that the production rate must be increased by as with no fluid? (b) What is the tool life that would
25%. Is that possible? Assume that feed must remain result if the cutting speed remained at 125 ft/min?
unchanged to achieve the required surface finish. (c) Economically, which effect is better, given that
What is the current production rate and the maximum tooling cost ¼ $2 per cutting edge, tool change time
possible production rate for this job? ¼ 2.5 min, and operator and machine rate ¼ $30/
24.24. An NC lathe cuts two passes across a cylindrical hr? Justify you answer with calculations, using cost
workpiece under automatic cycle. The operator per cubic in of metal machined as the criterion of
loads and unloads the machine. The starting diam- comparison. Ignore effects of workpart handling
eter of the work is 3.00 in and its length ¼ 10 in. The time.
work cycle consists of the following steps (with 24.26. In a turning operation on ductile steel, it is desired
element times given in parentheses where applica- to obtain an actual surface roughness of 63 m-in
ble): (1) Operator loads part into machine, starts with a 2/64 in nose radius tool. The ideal roughness
cycle (1.00 min); (2) NC lathe positions tool for first is given by Eq. (24.1) and an adjustment will have
pass (0.10 min); (3) NC lathe turns first pass (time to be made using Figure 24.2 to convert the 63 m-in
depends on cutting speed); (4) NC lathe repositions actual roughness to an ideal roughness, taking into
tool for second pass (0.4 min); (5) NC lathe turns account the material and cutting speed. Disposable
second pass (time depends on cutting speed); and inserts are used at a cost of $1.75 per cutting edge
(6) Operator unloads part and places in tote pan (each insert costs $7 and there are four edges per
(1.00 min). In addition, the cutting tool must be insert). Average time to change each insert ¼ 1.0
periodically changed. This tool change time takes min. The workpiece length ¼ 30.0 in and its diame-
1.00 min. The feed rate ¼ 0.007 in/rev and the depth ter ¼ 3.5 in. The machine and operator’s rate ¼ $39
of cut for each pass ¼ 0.100 in. The cost of the per hour including applicable overheads. The Tay-
operator and machine ¼ $39/hr and the tool cost ¼ lor tool life equation for this tool and work combi-
$2/cutting edge. The applicable Taylor tool life nation is given by: vT0.23f0.55 ¼ 40.75, where T ¼
equation has parameters: n ¼ 0.26 and C ¼ 900 tool life, min; v ¼ cutting speed, ft/min; and f ¼
(ft/min). Determine (a) the cutting speed for mini- feed, in/rev. Solve for (a) the feed in in/rev that will
mum cost per piece, (b) the average time required achieve the desired actual finish, (b) cutting speed
to complete one production cycle, (c) cost of the for minimum cost per piece at the feed determined
production cycle. (d) If the setup time for this job is in (a). Hint: To solve (a) and (b) requires an
3.0 hours and the batch size ¼ 300 parts, how long iterative computational procedure. Use of a
will it take to complete the batch? spreadsheet calculator is recommended for this
24.25. As indicated in Section 23.4, the effect of a cutting iterative procedure.
fluid is to increase the value of C in the Taylor tool 24.27. Solve Problem 24.26 only using maximum produc-
life equation. In a certain machining situation using tion rate as the objective rather than minimum
HSS tooling, the C value is increased from C ¼ 200 piece cost. Use of a spreadsheet calculator is
to C ¼ 225 owing to the use of the cutting fluid. The recommended.
n value is the same with or without fluid at n ¼ 24.28. Verify that the derivative of Eq. (24.6) results in
0.125. Cutting speed used in the operation is v ¼ Eq. (24.7).
125 ft/min. Feed ¼ 0.010 in/rev and depth ¼ 0.100 24.29. Verify that the derivative of Eq. (24.12) results in
in. The effect of the cutting fluid can be to either Eq. (24.13).