Advertisement

Improving surface integrity aspects of AISI 316L in the context of bioimplant applications

  • Sadaf ZahoorEmail author
  • Muhammad Qaiser Saleem
  • Walid Abdul-Kader
  • Kashif Ishfaq
  • Adeel Shehzad
  • Hafiz Usman Ghani
  • Amir Hussain
  • Muhammad Usman
  • Muhammad Dawood
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Bioimplants demand unique surface integrity (SI) requirements wherein the primary target is to have minimum surface roughness and maximum microhardness to improve their corrosion and wear resistance characteristics. This demands a more meticulous approach while machining biocompatible materials such as AISI 316L than may be the case when the alloy is to be machined for other applications. Various machinability studies have been conducted on AISI 316L targeting the aforementioned aspects. However, in view of the range of parameters that could be investigated and the availability of various parametric optimization algorithms, it is felt that research gaps still exist. This paper reports on the improvement of surface integrity aspects of AISI 316L in the context of bioimplant applications. The grey relational analysis (GRA) approach has been used to first optimize the influence of various milling parameters: cutting environment (wet and dry conditions), the cutting speed (CS), the feed rate (FR), and the axial depth of cut (Ap) for the aspects of surface roughness (Ra), and microhardness with biocompatibility requirements in mind. The experimentation work involves two phases: Taguchi L18 array was used for phase I experimentation followed by multi-attribute GRA-based optimization. Phase II experimentation explored the possibility of further increase in microhardness by machining with worn tools taking GRA-identified optimized parameter levels as a baseline and then increasing the cutting speed. It has been found that the use of worn tools at GRA-optimized parameters results in further improvement in SI aspects in general. An extent of 37% improvement in terms of the maximum value of microhardness (301 HV at 15-μm depth) has been reported compared with GRA-optimized value (218 HV) when worn tools at higher cutting speeds are employed. This is accompanied by a machined hardened layer extending up to a depth of 222 μm and an associated Ra of 0.85 μm. Microstructure analysis shows more machined-affected zones with worn tools thus supporting the findings.

Keywords

AISI 316L austenitic stainless steel Bioimplant Surface integrity Milling operation Multi-attribute optimization Gray relational analysis (GRA) 

Nomenclature

CS

Cutting speed

FR

Feed rate

Ap

Axial depth of cut

Ra

Surface roughness

SI

Surface integrity

GRA

Grey relational analysis

GRC

Grey relational coefficient

GRG

Grey relational grading

TiAlN

Titanium aluminum nitride

BUE

Built-up edges

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

PCR

Percentage contribution

MAZ

Machined-affected zone

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Saini M, Sing Y, Arora P, Arora V, Jain K (2015) Implant biomaterials: a comprehensive review. World J Clin Cases 3(11):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Majumdar JD, Kumar A, Pityana S, Manna I (2018) Laser surface melting of AISI 316L stainless steel for bio-implant applications. Proc Natl Acad Scie India Section A Phys Sci 88(3):387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saptaji K, Gebremariam MA, Azhari MABM (2018) Machining of biocompatible materials: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97:2255–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abellán-Nebot JV, Siller HR, Vila C, Rodríguez CA (2012) An experimental study of process variables in turning operations of Ti–6Al–4V and Cr–Co spherical prostheses. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63:887–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demir AG, Previtali B, Ge Q, Vedani M, Wu W, Migliavacca F, Petrini L, Biffi CA, Bestetti M (2014) Biodegradable magnesium coronary stents: material, design and fabrication. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 27:936–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen Y, Xu Z, Smith C, Sankar J (2014) Recent advances on the development of magnesium alloys for biodegradable implants. Acta Biomater 10:4561–4573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang CW, Fang FZ (2018) State of the art bioimplant manufacturing: part 1. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 6:20–40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Godbole N, Yadav S, Manickam R (2016) A review on surface treatment of stainless steel orthopedic implants. Int J Pharm Rev Res 36(1):190–194Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaladhar M (2012) Machining of austenitic stainless steel- a review. Int J Mach Mach Mater 12(1/2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odedeyi PB, Abou-El-Hossein K, Liman M (2017) An experimental study of flank wear in the end milling of AISI 316 stainless steel with coated carbide inserts. 6th International Conference on Fracture Fatigue and Wear, J Phys. 843Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ebara R (2010) Corrosion fatigue crack initiation behavior of stainless steels. Procedia Eng 2:1291–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shalabi MM (2006) Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res 85:496–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ronold HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE (2003) Analysing the optimal value for titanium implants roughness in bone attachment using a tensile test. Biomaterials. 24(25):4559–4564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murray D, Rae T, Rushton N (1989) The influence of the surface energy and roughness of implants on bone resorption. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:632–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gürbüz H, Seker U, Kafkas F (2017) Investigation of effects of cutting insert rake face forms on surface integrity. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90:3507–3522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kadi RK (2015) Optimization of dry turning parameters on surface roughness and hardness of austenitic stainless steel (AISI 316) by Taguchi technique. J Eng Fundam 2(2):30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaynak Y, Kilag O (2018) Porosity, surface quality, microhardness and microstructure of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel resulting from finish machining. J Manuf Mater Process 2(36)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maurottoa A, Tsivoulas D, Gu Y, Burke MG (2017) Effects of machining abuse on the surface properties of AISI 316L stainless steel. Int J Press Vessel Pip 151:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alabdullah M, Polishetty A, Nomani J, Littlefair G (2019) An investigation on machinability assessment of Al-6XN and AISI 316 alloys: an assessment study of machining. Mach Scie Technol 33(2):171–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yasir M, Ginta TL, Alkali AU, Danish M (2015) Experimental investigation to improve surface integrity of biomedical devices by end-milling AISI 316L stainless steel. Appl Mech Mater 789-790:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alkali AU, Ginta TL, Abdul-Rani AM, Fawad H (2015) Improved surface integrity during end milling AISI 316L stainless steel using heat assisted machining. Appl Mech Mater 752-753:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghani HU, Hussain A, Usman M, Dawood M (2018) Parametric characterization of milled surface of SS-316-L using coated inserts. University of Engineering and Technology, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shrisungsittisunti P, Mahathanabodee S (2018) Surface modification on AISI 316L stainless steel by nanosecond laser with boron nitride powders. Mater Proc 5(3):9461–9466Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chikarakara E, Naher S, Brabazon D (2010) Process mapping of laser surface modification of AISI 316L stainless steel for biomedical application. Appl Phys 101(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar A, Roy SK, Berger H, Majumdar JD (2013) Laser surface cladding of Ti-6Al-4V on AISI 316L stainless steel for bio-implant applications. Laser Eng 28(1):11–33Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    https://www.iso.org/standard/16092.html. Retrieved on April 17, 2019
  28. 28.
    Zahoor S, Mufti NA, Saleem MQ, Mughal MP, Qureshi MAM (2017) Effect of machine tool’s spindle forced vibrations on surface roughness, dimensional accuracy and tool wear in vertical milling of AISI P20. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89:3671–3679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kayiri Y, Suzgunoi M (2018) Optimization of cutting parameters in drilling AISI P20 die mold steel with Taguchi and GRA Methods. J Sci 31(3):898–910Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ishfaq K, Mufti NA, Ahmed N, Mughal MP, Saleem MQ (2018) An investigation of surface roughness and parametric optimization during wire electric discharge machining of cladded material. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97:4065–4079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zahoor S, Mufti NA, Saleem MQ, Shehzad A (2018) An investigation into surface integrity of AISI P20 machined under the influence of spindle forced vibration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96(9-12):3565–3574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abd Halim NFH, Helen AH, Barnes S (2017) Analysis of tool wear, cutting force, surface roughness and machining temperature during finishing operation of ultrasonic assisted milling (UAM) of carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP). Procedia Eng 184:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marques A, Guimaraes C, Batista da Silva R, Fonseca MPC, Sale WF, Machado AR (2016) Surface integrity analysis of Inconel 718 after turning with different solid lubricants dispersed in neat oil delivered by MQL. Proc Manuf 5:609–620Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Devillez A, Coz GL, Dominiak S, Dudzinski D (2011) Dry machining of Inconel 718 workpiece surface integrity. J Mater Process Technol 211:1590–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nurhaniza M, Ariffin MKAM, Mustapha F, Baharudin BTHT (2016) Analyzing the effect of machining parameters setting to the surface roughness during end milling of CFRP-aluminium composite laminates. Int J Manuf Eng 2016:4680380Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khan SA, Ahmad MA, Saleem MQ, Ghulam Z, Qureshi MAM (2017) High-feed turning of AISI D2 tool steel using multi-radii tool inserts: tool life, material removed, and workpiece surface integrity evaluation. Mater Manuf Process 32(6):670–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ulutan D, Ozel T (2011) Machining induced surface integrity in titanium and nickel alloys: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 51:250–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kalpakjian S, Schmid SR (2013) Manufacturing engineering and technology, 7th edn. Pearson, IrvingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sadaf Zahoor
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Muhammad Qaiser Saleem
    • 1
  • Walid Abdul-Kader
    • 2
  • Kashif Ishfaq
    • 1
  • Adeel Shehzad
    • 1
  • Hafiz Usman Ghani
    • 1
  • Amir Hussain
    • 1
  • Muhammad Usman
    • 1
  • Muhammad Dawood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyLahorePakistan
  2. 2.University of WindsorOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations