Experimental investigation of copper nanofluid based minimum quantity lubrication in turning of H 11 steel

  • K. Ganesan
  • M. Naresh Babu
  • M. Santhanakumar
  • N. Muthukrishnan
Technical Paper


Plentiful supply of coolant might enhance the machining cost and also generates environmental hazard. As a result, substitute methods are required to eliminate the problems encountered during use of coolant. In this investigation, the impact of cutting speed, feed and lubrication conditions (dry: no lubrication, oil: machining is performed with groundnut oil and nano fluid: machining performed with copper nano fluid) on surface roughness, tool wear and chip morphology in turning of H 11 steel with minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) were examined. Experiments were conducted using L18 orthogonal array. The results reveal that copper nanofluids with MQL provide a substitute for dry and oil machining. Response surface methodology has been used to derive optimal values and mathematical models. Tool wear was reduced by 66% and surface roughness by 40% while machining with copper nano fluids. The surface roughness and tool wear were decreased under optimal machining conditions. Generation of large notched tooth in chips has been minimised with copper nano fluids. Furthermore, the morphology of the chips were analysed for dry, oil and nano fluid under scanning electron microscope to observe the texture created.


Copper Nano fluids Minimum quantity lubrication Response surface method 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.


  1. 1.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR (2016) Effects of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in machining processes using conventional and nanofluid based cutting fluids: a comprehensive review. J Clean Product 127:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    VamsiKrishna P, Srikant RR, NageswaraRao D (2010) Experimental investigation on the performance of nanoboricacid suspensions in SAE-40 and coconut oil during turning of AISI1040 steel. Int J Mach Tool Manu 50:911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jianhua D, Tongkun C, Xuefeng Y, Jianhua L (2006) Self-lubrication of sintered ceramic tools with CaF2 additions in dry cutting. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 46:957–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dilbag S, Rao PV (2008) Performance improvement of hard turning with solid lubricants. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attanasio A, Gelfi M, Giardini C, Remino C (2006) Minimal quantity lubrication in turning: effect on tool wear. Wear 260:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee PH, Nam JS, Lee SW (2012) An experimental study on micro-grinding process with nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Int J Precis Eng Man 13:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhar NR, Ahmed MT, Islam S (2007) An experimental investigation on effect of minimum quantity lubrication in machining AISI 1040 steel. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47:748–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan MMA, Dhar NR (2006) Performance evaluation of minimum quantity lubrication by vegetable oil in terms of cutting force, cutting zone temperature, tool wear, job dimension and surface finish in turning AISI-1060 steel. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 7:1790–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leppert T (2012) Surface layer properties of AISI 316L steel when turning under dry and with minimum quantity lubrication conditions. Proc IMech E Part B J Eng Manuf 226:617–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasu V, Pradeep Kumar Reddy G (2011) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication with Al2O3 nanoparticles on surface roughness, tool wear and temperature dissipation in machining Inconel 600 alloy. Proc IMech E Part N J Nano Eng Nanosyst 225:3–16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marques A, Narala SKR, Machado AR, Gunda RK, Josyula SK, Da Silva RB, Da Silva MB (2015) Performance assessment of MSQL: minimum quantity solid lubricant during turning of Inconel 718. Proc IMech E Part B J Eng Manuf 231:1144–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elmunafi MHS, Yusof NM, Kurniawan D (2015) Effect of cutting speed and feed in turning hardened stainless steel using coated carbide cutting tool under minimum quantity lubrication using castor oil. Adv Mech Eng 7:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amrita M, Srikant RR, Sitaramaraju AV (2014) Performance evaluation of nanographite-based cutting fluid in machining process. Mater Manuf Process 29:600–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Y, Li C, Zhang Y, Li B, Yang M, Zhang X, Guo S, Liu G (2016) Experimental evaluation of the lubrication properties of the wheel/workpiece interface in MQL grinding with different nanofluids. Trib Int 99:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma AK, Singh RK, Dixit AR, Tiwari AK (2016) Characterization and experimental investigation of Al2O3 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in turning of AISI 1040 steel under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Mater Today Proc 3:1899–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    NarayanaRao S, Satyanarayana B, Venkatasubbaiah K (2011) Experimental estimation of tool wear and cutting temperatures in MQL using cutting fluids with CNT inclusion. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3:2928–2931Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma P, Sidhu BS, Sharma J (2015) Investigation of effects of nanofluids on turning of AISI D2 steel using minimum quantity lubrication. J Clean Prod 108:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang WT, Wu DH, Lin SP, Chen JT (2014) Robust design of using MWCNTs in minimum quantity lubrication. Appl Mech Mater 670–671:11–21Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Padmini R, Vamsi Krishna P, Krishna Mohana Rao G (2014) Performance assessment of micro and nano solid lubricant suspensions in vegetable oils during machining. Proc IMech E Part B J Eng Manuf 229:2196–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mao C, Zhang J, Huang Y, Zou H, Huang X, Zhou Z (2013) Investigation on the effect of nanofluid parameters on MQL grinding. Mat Manuf Process 28:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prasad M, Srikant R (2013) Performance evaluation of nano graphite inclusions in cutting fluids with MQL technique in turning of AISI 1040 Steel. Int J Res Eng Tech 2:381–393Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sredanovic B, Lakic GG, Cica D, Kramar D (2013) Influence of different cooling and lubrication techniques on material machinability in machining. Strojniski vestnik J Mech Eng 59(12):748–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh RK, Sharma AK, Dixit AR, Mandal A, Tiwari AK (2017) Experimental investigation of thermal conductivity and specific heat of nanoparticles mixed cutting fluids. Mater Today Proc 4:8587–8596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR (2016) Rheological behaviour of nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain Rev 53:779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh RK, Sharma AK, Dixit AR, Tiwari AK, Pramanik A, Mandal A (2017) Performance evaluation of alumina-graphene hybrid nano-cutting fluid in hard turning. J Clean Product. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh RK, Dixit AR, Mandal A, Sharma AK (2017) Emerging application of nano particle-enriched cutting fluid in metal removal processes: a review. Soc Mech Sci Eng, J Braz. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR, Singh RK, Singh M (2018) Novel uses of alumina/graphene hybrid nanoparticle additives for improved tribological properties of lubricant in turning operation. Tribol Int 119:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma AK, Singh RK, Dixit AR, Tiwari AK (2017) Novel uses of alumina-MoS2 hybrid nanoparticle enriched cutting fluid in hard turning of AISI 304 steel. J Manuf Process 30:467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR, Singh RK (2017) Investigation into performance of SiO2 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in machining process. Mater Today Proc 4:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR, Singh RK, Dixit AR (2016) Tribological investigation of TiO2 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in machining under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Mater Today Proc 3:2155–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Q Technol 12:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gopalakannan S, Senthilvelan T (2013) Application of response surface method on machining of Al–SiC nano-composites. Measurement 46:2705–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naresh Babu M, Muthukrishnan N (2017) Exploration on Kerf-angle and surface roughness in abrasive waterjet machining using response surface method. C, J Inst Eng India Ser. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhardwaj B, Kumar R, Singh PK (2013) Prediction of surface roughness in turning of EN 353 using response surface methodology. Trans Indian Inst Met 67:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Priyadarshi D, Sharma RK (2016) Effect of type and percentage of reinforcement for optimization of the cutting force in turning of Aluminium matrix nanocomposites using response surface methodologies. J Mech Sci Technol 30:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lin YC, Tsao CC, Hsu CY, Hung SK, Wen DC (2012) Evaluation of the characteristics of the microelectrical discharge machining process using response surface methodology based on the central composite design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 62:1013–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vasu V, Pradeep Kumar Reddy G (2011) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication with Al2O3 nanoparticles on surface roughness, tool wear and temperature dissipation in machining Inconel 600 alloy. Proc IMech E Part N J Nanoeng Nanosyst.
  38. 38.
    Santhanakumar M, Adalarasan R, Siddharth S, Velayudham A (2016) An investigation on surface finish and flank wear in hard machining of solution treated and aged 18% Ni maraging steel. Sci Eng, J Braz Soc Mech. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manimaran R, Palaniradja K, Alagumurthi N, Sendhilnathan S, Hussain J (2014) Preparation and characterization of copper oxide nanofluid for heat transfer applications. Appl Nano Sci 4:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ravi S, Pradeep Kumar M (2011) Experimental investigations on cryogenic cooling by liquid nitrogen in the end milling of hardened steel. Cryogenics 51:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dhar NR, Islam MW, Islam S, Mithu MAH (2006) The influence of minimum quantity of lubrication (MQL) on cutting temperature, chip and dimensional accuracy in turning AISI-1040 steel. J Mat Pro Technol 171:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khana MMA, Mithua MAH, Dhar NR (2009) Effects of minimum quantity lubrication on turning AISI 9310 alloy steel using vegetable oil-based cutting fluid. J Mater Proc Techn 209:5573–5583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Padmini R, VamsiKrishna P, Krishna Mohana Rao G (2016) Effectiveness of vegetable oil based nanofluids as potential cutting fluids in turning AISI 1040 steel. Tribol Int 94:490–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kalaimathi M, Venkatachalam G, Sivakumar M (2014) Experimental investigations on the electrochemical machining characteristics of monel 400 alloys and optimization of process parameters. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 8:143–151Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gupta MK, Sood PK, Sharma VS (2016) Machining parameters optimization of titanium alloy using response surface methodology and particle swarm optimization under minimum quantity lubrication environment. Mater Manuf Process 31:1671–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Khandekar S, Ravi Sankar M, Agnihotri V, Ramkumar J (2012) Nano-cutting fluid for enhancement of metal cutting performance. Mater Manuf Process 27:963–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kakac S, Pramuanjaroenkij A (2016) Single-phase and two-phase treatments of convective heat transfer enhancement with nanofluids—a state-of-the-art review. Int J Therm Sci 100:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jia D, Li C, Zhang Y, Yang M, Wang Y, Guo S, Cao H (2017) Specific energy and surface roughness of minimum quantity lubrication grinding Ni-based alloy with mixed vegetable oil-based nanofluids. Precis Eng 50:248–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raju RA, Andhare A, Sahu NK (2017) Performance of multi walled carbon nano tube based nanofluid in turning operation. Mat Manuf Process 32:1490–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mahboob Ali MA, Azmi AI, Mohd Khalil AN, Leong KW (2017) Experimental study on minimal nanolubrication with surfactant in the turning of titanium alloys. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Priyadarshi D, Sharma RK (2015) Optimization for turning of Al-6061-SiCGr hybrid nanocomposites using response surface methodologies. Mat Manuf Process 31:1342–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Muthukrishnan N, Murugan M, Prahlada Rao K (2008) Machinability issues in turning of Al-SiC (10p) metal matrix composites. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39(3):211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ciftci I, Turker M, Seker U (2004) CBN cutting tool wear during machining of particulate reinforced MMCs. Wear 257(9–10):1041–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Khettabi R, Nouioua M, Djebara A, Songmene V (2017) Effect of MQL and dry processes on the particle emission and part quality during milling of aluminum alloys. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92(5–8):2593–2598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zulay C, Yidney P, Patricia ME (2004) Built-up edge effect on tool wear when turning steels at low cutting speed. J Mater Eng Perform 13(5):542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Ganesan
    • 1
  • M. Naresh Babu
    • 2
  • M. Santhanakumar
    • 2
  • N. Muthukrishnan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringJaya Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSaveetha Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSri Venkateswara College of EngineeringSriperumbudurIndia

Personalised recommendations