Comparison of Tool Wear Rate of Insert Lathe TNMG160404-MA and TNMG160404-TF
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24014/sitekin.v20i2.22824Abstract
Lathe machines are used to work on cylindrical objects. Tool wear is often a problem in the turning process and impacts the results of the machining process. The research aims to compare lathe insert tool wear levels TNMG160404-MA and TNMG160404-TF. The research used the experimental method directly using a lathe with variable machining on feeding (f) 0.04 mm/rev and 0.08 mm/rev, spindle (n) 540 rpm, and depth of cut (a) 4 mm. Tool wear was measured using an optical microscope by measuring the maximum edge wear on the tool (VBmax) and to determine the significance of tool wear using statistical analysis. The results showed wear level insert tool of TNMG160404-MA at a feeding of 0.04 mm/put an average of VBmax = 85.00(μm) and a feeding of 0.08 mm/put VBmax = 63.23(μm). TNMG160404-TF insert tool wear at 0.04 mm/put feed VBmax = 76.18(μm) and 0.08 mm/put feed VBmax = 58.43(μm). On a feeding, 0.08 mm/put motion, the standard deviation (s) of the TNMG160404-MA insert tool is 16.2, and the standard deviation (s) of the TNMG160404-TF insert tool is 17.8. On a feeding of 0.08 mm/rev, the results of t-count = 0.630 and t-table = 2.101, so t-count < t-table (0.630 < 2.101), the statistical analysis results using the t-test showed no significant difference in the level of wear of the two types insert tools.
References
Á. Bartha, “Tnmplot.Com: A web tool for the comparison of gene expression in normal, tumor and metastatic tissues,” Int. J. Mol. Sci., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijms22052622.
P. Sánchez-Velázquez, “Benchmarks in Pancreatic Surgery: A Novel Tool for Unbiased Outcome Comparisons,” Ann. Surg., vol. 270, no. 2, pp. 211–218, 2019, doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003223.
M. M. Rozaq and I. Iswanto, “Analisa Pengaruh Gerak Makan Dan Putaran Spindel Terhadap Keausan Pahat Pada Proses Bubut Konvensional,” R.E.M. (Rekayasa Energi Manufaktur) J., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 13, 2017, doi: 10.21070/r.e.m.v2i1.842.
E. Marsyahyo, Mesin Perkakas Pemotongan Logam. Malang: Malang Bayumedia Publishing, 2003.
F. Izzaty, M. R. Harahap, and A. H. Nasution, “Pengaruh Feeding Terhadap Keausan Mata Pahat ( Vb ) Karbida Berlapis Pada,” Bul. Tek., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 165–171, 2023.
A. Suhendi, “Pengaruh Kecepatan Spindle, Kedalaman Penyayatan, dan Variasi Campuran Cairan Pendingin Terhadap Keausan Pahat Insert Karbida pada Proses Pembubutan,” J. Tek. Mesin dan Pembelajaran, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 134, 2020, doi: 10.17977/um054v2i2p134-140.
M. Thafar, “Comparison Study of Computational Prediction Tools for Drug-Target Binding Affinities,” Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 7. 2019. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00782.
T. Rochim, Perkakas dan Sistem Pemerkakasan Umur Pahat, Cairan Pendingin. Bandung: ITB, 2007.
A. Karim, Hamdani, and Ariefin, “PENGARUH VARIASI KECEPATAN POTONG DAN KEDALAMAN PEMAKANAN PROSES BUBUT BAJA ST 37 DAN ST 60 TERHADAP KEKASARAN PERMUKAAN,” J. MESIN SAINS Terap., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2023.
Rosehan, M. Sobron, Y. Lubis, and D. Chandra, “Pengaruh gaya potong pembubutan terhadap keausan pahat karbida coated pada benda kerja baja AISI 4340,” J. Imiah Tek. Mesin POROS, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2018.
B. Levis, “Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screening tools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: A meta-research review,” BMC Med., vol. 17, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6.
D. Mohamed, “Application of NEMI, Analytical Eco-Scale and GAPI tools for greenness assessment of three developed chromatographic methods for quantification of sulfadiazine and trimethoprim in bovine meat and chicken muscles: Comparison to greenness profile of reported HPLC methods,” Microchem. J., vol. 157, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.104873.
S. Martínez-Puchol, “Characterisation of the sewage virome: comparison of NGS tools and occurrence of significant pathogens,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 713, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136604.
F. Bellanti, “Comparison of three nutritional screening tools with the new glim criteria for malnutrition and association with sarcopenia in hospitalized older patients,” J. Clin. Med., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi: 10.3390/jcm9061898.
S. Chaabani, “Comparison between cryogenic coolants effect on tool wear and surface integrity in finishing turning of Inconel 718,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 285, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116780.
G. Meraj, “Modeling on comparison of ecosystem services concepts, tools, methods and their ecological-economic implications: a review,” Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, vol. 8, no. 1. pp. 15–34, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s40808-021-01131-6.
P. C. Avgeriou, “An Overview and Comparison of Technical Debt Measurement Tools,” IEEE Softw., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 61–71, 2021, doi: 10.1109/MS.2020.3024958.
M. Ahmadfard, “A review of vertical ground heat exchanger sizing tools including an inter-model comparison,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 110. pp. 247–265, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.045.
J. K. Barstow, “A comparison of exoplanet spectroscopic retrieval tools,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. 493, no. 4, pp. 4884–4909, 2021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa548.
Z. G. Liang, “Comparison of radiomics tools for image analyses and clinical prediction in nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 92, no. 1102, 2019, doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190271.
E. M. Hahn, “The 2019 Comparison of Tools for the Analysis of Quantitative Formal Models: (QComp 2019 Competition Report),” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 11429. pp. 69–92, 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_5.
R. Dörfert, “Comparison of the fatigue strength between additively and conventionally fabricated tool steel 1.2344,” Addit. Manuf., vol. 27, pp. 217–223, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.01.010.
C. Watts, “DNA metabarcoding as a tool for invertebrate community monitoring: a case study comparison with conventional techniques,” Austral Entomol., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 675–686, 2019, doi: 10.1111/aen.12384.
M. Yang, “Comparison of four sarcopenia screening tools in nursing home residents,” Aging Clin. Exp. Res., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1481–1489, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s40520-018-1083-x.
R. S. S. B. Boulhosa, “Comparison between criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in patients with advanced chronic liver disease: GLIM group proposal versus different nutritional screening tools,” J. Hum. Nutr. Diet., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 862–868, 2020, doi: 10.1111/jhn.12759.
J. H. Rubenstein, “Validation and Comparison of Tools for Selecting Individuals to Screen for Barrett’s Esophagus and Early Neoplasia,” Gastroenterology, vol. 158, no. 8, pp. 2082–2092, 2020, doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.037.
L. Ferreira, “A Comparison of AutoML Tools for Machine Learning, Deep Learning and XGBoost,” Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 2021. 2021. doi: 10.1109/IJCNN52387.2021.9534091.
A. Das, “A Comparison of Machinability in Hard Turning of EN-24 Alloy Steel Under Mist Cooled and Dry Cutting Environments with a Coated Cermet Tool,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 115–130, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11668-018-0574-6.
D. Sejani, “Stationary shoulder friction stir welding–low heat input joining technique: a review in comparison with conventional FSW and bobbin tool FSW,” Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences, vol. 47, no. 6. pp. 865–914, 2022. doi: 10.1080/10408436.2021.1935724.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Copyright Notice
An author who publishes in the SITEKIN Journal agrees to the following terms:
- Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
- Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Read more about the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
