Figure 189. The inuence of the cutting edge’s condition on the resultant machined surface integrity . Machinability and Surface Integrity In Fig. 189c, a ‘white-layer’ (i.e. for this ferrous drilled part, being a localised untempered martensitic phase of 63 H Rc 91 ) exists beneath the recast and rede- posited layer, in this case produced by a ‘dull’ drill’s cutting lips and margins. Due to the fact that the recast layer (i.e. heat-aected zone – HAZ) has a similar met- allurgy to that of the ‘white-layer’ , with the delineation of these ‘white-layers’ regions and their accompany- ing HAZ’s are not clearly dened. is latter HAZ is a complex metallurgical condition, comprising of some: untempered martensite (UTM); over-tempered mar- tensite (OTM), while beneath these layers, the bulk substrate material remains unaected. e thickness of these ‘white-layer’ zones is strongly inuenced by both the actual plastic deformation created here and, to a lesser degree, by the thermal inuence of the pas- sage of the tool’s edge over the machined surface as heat penetrates into the locality of the component’s surface. Probably the worst ‘abusive machining’ condi- tions that can exist, are when drilling holes in work- hardening materials having long length-to-diameter ratios (i.e. L/D ratios of >12:1) with inadequate cool- ant supply, creating high levels of friction, this condi- tion being exacerbated by an ineciency produced by a ‘dulled’ drill’s cutting lips. Virtually all tooling even the most sharp – the no- table exception here being monolithic faceted natu- ral diamond cutting edges, have a nite tip radius of ≈8 µm (i.e. see Fig. 184 – high-lighting the tool tip ‘rounding eect‘), this results in increased forces and tool wear, which can transform the surface metallurgy by thermo-mechanical generation. e case has al- ready been made concerning the fact that machining processes impart residual stresses into the surface lay- ers, as indicated in the schematically-represented mill- ing conditions shown in Fig. 190 and graphically, in Fig. 191 for a series of milling operations where preset ‘wear lands’ were generated on the cutter’s teeth prior to workpiece machining. is latter case (Fig. 191) of articially-inducing a controlled ‘wear land’ onto the face-milling cutter’s individual tooth (i.e. with the other teeth removed, hence, acting as ‘Fly-cutter‘), then aer 91 By way of comparison of this untempered martensitic ‘white- layer’ phase, a conventional high-speed steel (HSS) milling cutter’s teeth would have had a maximum hardness aer heat- treatment of 62 H Rc , which clearly signies the true local hard- ness of these ‘white-layers’. several milling passes plotting the residual stress levels from the surface and into the 4340 steel workpiece’s substrate under standardised cutting data (i.e the steel specimens having previously been quenched and tem- pered to a bulk hardness of 52 H Rc ). Hence, the eect of these dierent induced tool wear rates and their inuence in terms of their respective magnitudes and depths, can clearly be seen. Even when the cutting edge has ‘sharp tooth’ , a certain degree of tensile residual stress was apparent in the immediate surface region. Here, directly under this tensile stress zone, the stress concentration changed to one of compression (i.e. to a depth of ≈50 µm). As each milling cutter tooth ank became steadily more worn, the substrate compression layer also increased in magnitude, which could lead to considerable workpiece distortion, once the clamping forces had been released – particularly if only one-side of the part was milled (i.e. see Fig. 186b). If the forces involved in the machining process ex- ceed the ow stress, plastic deformation occurs and the structure is deformed. In the case o ductile materi- als, the plastic ow can create a range of degenerative surface topography characteristics, such as: burrs; laps; BUE residue; plus other unwanted debris deposits. If this deformation becomes severe as a result of exces- sive plastic ow, any grains adjacent to the surface may become fragmented to such an extent that little, or no metallic structure can be metallographically re- solved, therefore ‘white-layering’ will result. Normally, a ‘white-layer’ region extends to quite a small depth beneath the surface, in the region of 10 to 100 µm, de - pending upon the severity of the ‘abusive regime’ of surface generation. Considering Fig. 191 once again, as can be seen, the residual stress is indicated along the vertical axis, here instead, it is alternatively possible to superimpose a micro-hardness axis – see Fig. 191 circular inset graph. A note of care is required when changing the vertical axis from residual stress to that of micro-hardness, as they are two distinct quantita- tive values. As mentioned the hardness prole closely approximates that of the residual stress curve, however in the latter case, instead of tensile stress at the in the surface region, the sub-surface layer could equally be compressive in nature. ‘White-layers’ must be avoided under all occasions, because of the unstable metallurgical condition, com- pounded by the fact that the these regions act as po- tential stress-raisers for any critically-engineered com- ponent and can lead to premature failure, or at worse, catastrophic failure in-service. Chapter Figure 190. Typical fatigue characteristics within the component’s surface region, being inuenced by the mode of milling: up-cut or down-cut . Machinability and Surface Integrity Figure 191. Comparison of the residual stresses in some milled surfaces, obtained with articially- induced tooth wear lands. [After: Field & Kahles, 1971] . Chapter Altered Material Layers So that an impression of the altered material layers (AMLs) that can occur for a diverse range of: surface and sub-surface topographical features; dierent met- allurgical processes; mechanical applications and uses; Table 13 has been constructed, to high-light their par- ticular inuence on functional performance. In the majority of cases given in Table 13, the inuence of these sub-surface defects tends to be of signicance, especially with respect to an ‘abusive regime’ produc- ing a machined ‘white-layer’. In some instances, the ‘al- tered material zone’ (AMZ), can aect component in- service performance in a variety of ways. For example, where thein-service tribological situations produce ei- ther re-deposited, or recast layers in the surface region, it has been known that such defects will inuence wear and aect reliability. is oen undetected sub-surface Table 13. The inuence of substrate features on function Surface integrity: sub-surface features Function: Metallurgy Deformation Deposits Stress UTM or WL OTM rev Aust IGA WL Plastic defn Burrs Cracks Tears and laps Tool frags Redp matl Res stress Wear Strength Chemical attack Fatigue Magnetism Bearings Seals Friction Forming Bonding and adhesion Key: : strong inuence on function; : some inuence on function; : possible inuence on function Abbreviations: UTM: untempered martensite; OTM: over-tempered martensite; Aust rev: austenitic reversion; IGA: intergranular attack; WL: white-layer; Plast defn: plastic deformation; Tool frags: tool fragments; Redp matl: re-deposited material; Res stress: residual stress. [After: Griths et al., 2001] . Machinability and Surface Integrity condition degrades the functional performance, due to the fact that they are the product of hard, brittle and unstable layers, with tensile residual stresses present. ese factors, combined with an acute alteration to the bulk substrate, are likely to ‘spall’ (i.e. delaminate and break-away). Conversely, if a sub-surface feature pro- duces severe plastic deformation, evidence has shown in particular for the die and tool industry, that some dies benet from increased life due to enhanced abra- sion resistance. From Table 13, the design engineer can see that by simply selecting a production process without an inti- mate knowledge of how components are to be manu- factured will inevitably aect the subsequent part’s in-service application. Moreover, due regard must be given to the machined workpiece’s potential sub-sur- face state, as this condition will inexorably lead to problems in terms of potential impairment of its ser- vicing needs and reliability. Surface integrity Manipulation – Burnishing Par t’s for Surface Improvement Burnishing and in particular roller burnishing (Fig. 192) is a very fast production technique for improving both the nish and dimensional accuracy of either an internal, or external surface, by pressure rolling with- out removal of workpiece material. Roller burnishing is a cold-working process, that produces a ne surface texture by the application of the planetary rotation of hardened rolls over the previously machined bored, or turned surface (Fig. 192c). Moreover, unlike the pri- mary forming process of cold-rolling which normally produces large sectional changes, roller burnishing involves cold-working just the surface layers of the workpiece, to improve the surface structure. Roller burnishing tooling (Fig.192a) can be used for minute diameter adjustment down to 25 µm, allow - ing component dimensional accuracies of ±0.006 mm to be obtained. e action of roller burnishing causes plastic deformation of the workpiece’s previously ma- chined surface. At a given depth below the burnished surface, the material is elastically deformed and at- tempts to spring back. is action, gives rise to com- pressive stresses at the surface and tensile stresses in the elastically-deformed zone. is complex stress interaction increases the resistance of the material to fatigue failure, because any external forces must rstly overcome these residual stresses. e potential for cracking that can occur due to the interaction between the static and tensile stresses in the metal and a corrosive medium is termed ‘stress corrosion cracking’. During roller burnishing, these tensile stresses are eliminated when the burnising tool compresses the workpiece surface. Likewise, any pits, scratches and porosities in the surface, which might otherwise collect reactive substances and con- taminants, are eliminated, hence, roller burnishing in- creases the corrosion resistance of the material. Crystalline materials typied by their metal lattices, are never completely without aws. e atomic lattice will always contain built-in irregularities of various types. ese so-called atomic dislocations reduce the strength of the material, as less force is necessary to alter the atomic lattice. Dislocation motion of atoms is a complex subject, which goes beyond the scope of the present text, however, it can be said that upon the application of an external load (i.e. burnishing tool- ing), because the lattice is invariably not perfect, less force is necessary to defrom the structure. Here, an at- tempt is made to inhibit the movement of dislocations by means of diering hardening procedures. Cold- working increases the number of dislocations and one would expect the material to become soer, but in fact, the opposite eect transpires. is increased hardness takes place, because there are so many dislocations as a result of cold-working, that they prevent and restrict each other’s motion, as a result the surface hardens. is is what occurs in roller burnishing, as the material is displaced and the net result is that it becomes both harder and stronger – due to dislocation obstructions. By way of a cautionary note, both Rockwell and Brinell hardness testing methods cannot realistically obtain surface hardnesses readings satisfactorily, therefore it is recommended that the Knoop test (Fig. 192b) should be used, then converted with a suitable ‘hardness comparison chart’ – see the appropriate table in Appendix 12. is completes a brief synopsis of a discussion on certain aspects of both machinability and surface in- tegrity, which hopefully conveys the importance of the machining activities and the resulting machined sur- face condition. Considerably more space could have been devoted to a comprehensive review of these top- ics, but space was limited, this is the reason for a rea- sonably comprehensive list of references – for a more in-depth discriminating reading on these important machining and related issues. Chapter Figure 192. Roller burnishing improves the metallurgical properties of the previously machined surface. [Courtesy of Sand- vik Coromant] . Machinability and Surface Integrity References Journals and Conference Papers Albrecht, P. New Developments in the eory of Metal-cut- ting Process – Part 1: e Ploughing Process in Metal Cut- ting. ASME J. of Engg. For Ind., Vol.82, 348–358, 1960. Bayoumi, A.e., Xie, Q. and Hamdan, M.N. Eect of Cutting Conditions on Dynamic Properties and Surface Integrity of Work Material. WEAR, Vol. 146, 301–312, 1991. Bellows, G., Field, M. and Kohls, J.B. Inuence of Material and its Metallurgical State on Surface Integrity. In: Inu- ence of Metallurgy on Machinability, ASM Pub. (Ohio), 272–295, 1975. Bonifácio, M.E.R. and Diniz, A.E. Correlating Tool Wear, Tool Life, Surface Roughness and Tool vibration in Fin- ish turning with Coated Carbide Tools. Wear, Vol. 173, 137–144, 1994. Boothroyd, G. Temperatures in Orthogonal Metal Cutting. Proc. of IME., Vol. 177, 789, 1963. Bridgman, P.W. In: Phys. Rev., Vol. 48, 825, 1935; ibid. Proc. American Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. 71, 386, 1937; ibid, J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 8(5), 328, 1937; ibid, J. Appl. Phys. Vol.14(6), 273, 1943; and ibid, e Physics of High Pres- sure, G. Bell & Sons Ltd. (London), 1949. Brinksmeier, E., Cammett, J.T., König, W., Leskovar, P., Peters, J. and Tönsho, H.K. Residual Stresses: Measure- ment and Causes in Machining Processes. Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 31(2), 1982. Chou, K.Y. and Evans, C.J. White Layers and ermal Mod- elling of Hard Turned Surfaces. Int. J. of Mach. Tools & Manufact., Vol. 39, 1863–1881, 1999. Dagnell, J. Machinability Test by a Drilling Method. Annals of the C.I.R.P., Vol. XV, 301–308, 1967. Dillion, O.W., DeAngelis, R.J., Lu, W.Y., Gunasekera, J.S. and Deno, J.A. e Eects of Temperature on the Ma- chining of Metals. J. Mater. Shaping Technol., Vol. 8, 23–29, 1990. Dornfeld, D.A. Monitoring of the Machining Process by Means of Acoustic Emission Sensors. In: Acoustic Emis- sion: Current Practice and Future Directions, ASTM STP 1077, W. Sachse, J. Roget and K. Yamaguchi, ASTM (Philadelphia), 328–344, 1991. Dornfeld, D.A. König, W. and Ketteler. Aktueller Stand von Werkzeug- und Prozess-überwachung bei der Zer- spanung. Neuentwicklungen in der Zerspantechhnologie. Proc. Of the CIRP/VDI Conf., Düsseldorf, 363–376, 1993. El-Wahib, A.I. and Kishawy, H.A. A New Method to Im- prove the Surface Quality During CNC Machining. Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 38(16), 3711–3723, 2000. Eyada, O.S. Reliability of Cutting Forces in Machinability Evaluation. Proc. of FAIM’92, CRC Press, Inc. (Florida), 937–946, 1992. Ernst, H. and Merchant, M.E. Chip Formation, Friction and High Quality Machined Surfaces. In: Surface Treatment of Metals, ASM Pub. (NY), Vol. 29, 299, 1941. Fathailal, M., Danai, K. and Barber, G. Eect of Flank Wear on the Topography of Machined Surfaes. Tribology Trans., Vol. 36(4), 693–699, 1993. Feather, J.J. Using Value Analysis to Target Customer Service Process Improvements. Ind. Engg. Solutions, 33–39, May 1998 Fick, A.E. [Laws of Diusion], Annals of Physics (Leipzig, Germany), Vol. 170, 59, 1855. Field, M. and Kahles, J.F. Review of Surface Integrity of Machined Components. Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 20(2), 153–163, 1971. Gorzkowski, E. and Sathyanarayanan, E. Machinability. Cutting Tool Engg., 54–58, Feb., 1999. Griths, B.J. Problems in Measuring the Topography of Ma- chined Surfaces Produced by Plastic Deformation Mecha- nisms. WEAR, Vol. 109, 195–205, 1986. Griths, B.J. Manufacturing Surface Design and Monitor- ing for Performance. Surface Technology, Vol. 1, 61–69, 1988. Griths, B.J. and Furze, D.C. Tribological Advantages of White Layers Produced by Machining. Tans. of ASME – J. of Tribology, Vol. 109, 338–342, April 1987. Griths, B.J. Deciencies in Surface Specications. Proc. of Lamdamap III, Computational Mechanics, 465–474, 1997. Griths, B.J. Mechanisms of White Layer Generation with Reference to Machining and Deformation Processes. Trans. of ASME – J. of Tribology, Vol. 109, 525–530, July, 1987. Gugger, M. Getting to the Bottom of Chatter. Cutting Tool Engg., 54–60, April, 2000. Hirao, M. Determining Temperature Distribution on Flank Face of Cutting Tool. J. Mater. Shaping Technol., Vol. 6, 143–148, 1989. Kackar, R.N. O-line Quality Control Parameter Design and the Taguchi Method. J. of Quality Tech., Vol. 17(4), 176–188, Oct., 1985. Kasahara, N., Sato, H. and Tani, Y. Phase Characteristics of Self-excited Chatter in Cutting. J. of Engg, for Ind., 393–399, Vol. 114, Nov. 1992. Kennedy, B. Calming Chatter – Strategies for Minimising Tool Chatter. Cutting Tool Engg., 28–35, July, 2004. Kirchheim, A., Schaner, G. and Wolfer, P. Piezoelektrische Sensoren zur kombinierten Messung von Kräen und Acoustic Emission für die Prozessüberwachung. Int. CIRP/VDI Konferenz: Überwachung von Zerspan- und Umformprozessen, Düsseldorf, 30–31.3, 1995. Kohls, J.B. Metallurgical Damage in Drilling and Hole Qual- ity. In: Inuence of Metallurgy on Hole Making Opera- tions, ASM Pub. (Ohio), 145–158, 1978. Chapter Kops, L. Gould, M. and Mizrach, M. Improved Analysis of the Workpiece Accuracy in Turning, based on the Emer- ging Diameter. ASME Pub., J. of Engg. for Ind., Vol. 115, 253–257, Aug. 1997. Koster, W.P., Field, M., Fritz, L.J., Gatto, L.R. and Kahles, J.F. Surface Integrity of Machined Structural Compo- nents. Airforce Matls. Lab. Tech. Report: AFML-TR-70- 11, mmP Project No. 721-8, Metcut Research Associates Inc., Cincinnati (Ohio), March, 1970. Kramer, B.M. Tribilogical Aspects of Metal Cutting. Proc. of ASME, PED-Vol.54/TRIB-Vol.2, 1991. Kumar, S. and Hoeer, B. Simulated Action [FEA Model- ling of Machining]. Cutting Tool Engg., 44–49, March, 1999. Lamb, A.D. Some Aspects of the Character of Machined Sur- faces. Metals and Matls., 75–79, March, 1987. Lee, E.H. and Shaer, B.W. e eory of Plasticity Applied to a Problem of Machining. J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 18 (4), 405, 1951. Lombardi, G.G. Kinematics and Dynamics. [Internet ad- dress can be found as follows]: www.drphyscis.com/syl- labus/kinematics/kinematcis.htl Lorenz, G. Measurement of Machinability … A Survey of Testing Methods. IAAE Journal 70–81, June 1966. Marusich, T.D. and Ortiz, M. Modeling and Simulation of High-speed Machining. Int. J. Num. Met. Eng’g., Vol. 38, 3675–3694, 1995. Mechant, M.E. Mechanics of the Metal Cutting Process. J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 16 (5), 267 (a), (6) 318 and 324(b), 1945. Merchant, M.E. and Zlatin, N. In: Mech. Eng’g., Vol. 67, 737, 1945. Obikawa, T., Sasahara, H., Shirakashi, T. and Usui, E. Ap- plication of Computational Machining Method to Dis- continuous Chip Formation. J. of Manufact. Science and Engg., Vol. 119, 667–674, 1997. Pahitzsch, G. and Semmler, D. Z. fur wirtschalich Ferti- gung. In: Vol. 55, 242, 1960; Vol. 56, 148, 1961; and Vol. 57, 45, 1962. Painter, P.R., Smith, G.T. and Hope, A.D. Performance Eval- uation of a Machining Centre using Laser Interferometry and Artifact-based Techniques. Proc. of FAIM’96, CRC Press, Inc. (NY), 962–974, 1992. Pawar, K., Forrester, P. and Glazzard, J. Value Analysis: Inte- grating Product/Process Design. Integrated Manuf. Sys- tems, Vol. 4(3), 14–21, 1993. Pekelharing, A.J. and Hovinga, H.J. Wear at the End Cut- ting Edge of Carbide Tools in Finish and Rough Turning. Proc. of 8 th Mach. Tool Des. Res. Conf., 6430651, Sept. 1967. Pekelharing, A.J. Built-up Edge (BUE): Is the Mechanism Understood? Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 23(3), 207–211, 1974. Pontius, K. Split Personality [Machining Dissimilar Metals]. Cutting Tool Engg., 41–43, Feb., 2002. Pugh, H.D. Mechanics of the Cutting Process. Proc. of IME Conf. Tech. Eng’g. Manufact. (London), 237, 1958. Rakhit, A.k., Sankar, T.S. and Osman, M.O.M. e Inu- ence of Metal Cutting Forces on the Formation of Surface Texture in Turning. Int. J. of Mach. Tool Des. Res., Vol. 16, 281–292, 1976. Shainin, D. Better than Taguchi Orthogonal Tables. ANSQC Quality Congress Trans., Anaheim, USA, concerning: e Fundamentals and Future of Quality, 446–451, 1986. Shiraishi, M. and Sato, S. Dimensional and Surface Rough- ness controls in a Turning Operation. Trans. of ASME, Vol. 112, 78–83, 1990. Smith, G.T. Surface Integrity Aspects of Machinability of Fe- C-Cu Powder Metallurgy Components. Powder Metal- lurgy, Vol. 33(2), 157–164, 1990. Smith, G.T. e Surface Integrity of Turned Ferrous Powder Metallurgy Components. Powder Metallurgy, Vol. 33(2), 155–165, 1990. Smith, G.T. Secondary Machining Operations and the Re- sulting Surface Integrity: An Overview. Surface Topogra- phy, Vol. 3, 25–42, 1990. Smith, G.T. Some Aspects in the Surface Integrity and Tool Wear Associated with Turning Powder Metallurgy Com- pacts. WEAR, Vol. 151, 289–302, 1991. Smith, G.T., Hope, A.D., Painter, P.R. and Blackshaw, D.M.S. e Assessment of Machining and Turning Centres, using Artifact-based Techniques. Proc. of Lamdamap I, Com- putational Mechanics, 275–286, 1993. Smith, G.T. What is Machinability and How Can it be As- sessed? Int. Conf. on Industrial Tooling, Shirley Press (Southampton, UK), 105–114, Sept. 1995. Smith. G.T. Inspection of Components Manufactured on a Machining Centre, by On- and O-line Techniques. Proc. of FAIM’96, Begell House, Inc. (NY), 216–224, 1996. Smith, G.T. Ternary Manufacturing Envelopes (TME’s): A New Approach to Describing Machined Surfaces. Int. J. of Mach. Tools and Manufact., Vol. 40(2), 295–305, 2000. Smith, G.T. Fight to the Finish [Tool Geometry and its Af- fect on both: Roundness/Surface Texture]. Metalwork- ing Production, 49–52, June, 2001. Spur, G., Pöllmann, A. and Kirchheim, A. Kombi-Sensorik beim Scherschneiden, Zeitschri für wirtschaliche Ferti- gung und Automatisierung. In: Zwf, Vol. 90, 1–2, 1995. Stefanov, Y.P., Makarov, P.V., Burkov, P.V. and Matveev, V.S. Dynamic Simulation of Chip Generation and Formation in Metal Cutting. eoret. and Appl. Fracture Mechan- ics, Vol. 28, 117–124, 1997. Stout, K., How Smooth is Smooth? Surface Measurements and their Relevance in Manufacturing. Production Engr., 17–22, May 1980. Machinability and Surface Integrity Strenkowski, J.S, and Athavele, S.M. A Partially Constrained Eulerian Orthogonal Cutting Model for Chip Control Tools. J. of Manuf. Science, Vol. 119, 681–688, 1997. Tay, A.A.O. A Review of Methods of Calculating Machin- ing Temperature. J. of Matls. Processing Tech., Vol. 36, 225–257, 1993. Taylor, F.W. On the Art of Cutting Metals. Trans. of ASME, Vol. 28, 31, 1907. omsen, E.G., Application of the Mechanics of Plastic De- formation to Metal Cutting. Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 14, 113–123, 1966. Tlusty, J. and Polacek, M., e Stability of Machine Tool against Self-excited Vibrations in Machining. ASME Prod. Res. Conf. (Pittsburgh), 454–465, 1963. Tönsho, H.K. Eigenspannungen und plastische Verformun- gen im Werkstück durch spanned Bearbeitung. Dr Ing. Dissertation, TH Hannover, 1965. Turley, D.M., Doyle, E.D. and Samuels, L.E. A Structure of the Damaged Layer on Metals. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Prod. Engg., Tokyo, Japanese Society of Prec. Engrs.: Part 2, 1974. Vajpayee, S. Analytical Study os Surface Roughness in Turn- ing. WEAR, Vol. 70, 165–175, 1981. Wallace, P.W. and Boothroyd, G. Tool Forces and Tool-chip Friction in Orthogonal Machining. J. Mech. Eng’g. Sci., Vol. 6 (1), 74, 1964. Watson, D.W. and Murphy, M.C. e Eect of Machining on Surface Integrity. e Metallurgist and Matls. Technol., 199–204, April, 1979. Wells, J. Material Matters [Optimisation of Workpiece Matls]. Cutting Tool Engg., 58–64, June 2005. Williams, J.E., Smart, E.F. and Milner, D.R. e Metallurgy of Machining, Part 1: Basic Considerations and the Cut- ting of Pure Metals. Metallurgia, 3–10, Jan., 1970. Williams, J.E., Smart, E.F. and Milner, D.R. e Metallurgy of Machining, Part 2: e Cutting of Single-phase, Two- phase and some Free Machining Alloys. Metallurgia, 51–59, Feb., 1970. Whitehouse, D.J. Beta Functions for Surface Topologie? An- nals of the CIRP, Vol. 27, 491–497, 1978. Whitehouse, D.J. Conditioning of the Manufacturing Process using Surface Finish. Proc. of Lamdamap III, Computa- tional Mechanics, 3–20, 1997. Whitehouse, D.J. Surface Measurement Fidelity. Proc. of Lamdamap IV, WIT Press, 267–276, 1999. Young, H.T. An Experimental Investigation of Temperatures in Chip Formation. Proc. of 29 th Int. Matador Conf. (Manchester), e Macmillan Press Ltd., 559–565, April 1992. Zorev, N.N. Interrelation between Shear Processes Occurring along Tool Face and on Shear Plane in Metal Cutting. Int. Res. in Prod. Eng’g., 42, 1963 (Presented at Int. Prod. Eng’g. Res. Conf., Pittsburgh, 1963). Books, Booklets and Guides Akao, Y. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) – Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Productiv- ity Press (Portland, Oregon), 1988. American National Standard (ANS) B211.1 – Surface In- tegrity. 1986. Amontons, G. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences avec les Mémoires de Mathématique et de Physique. Paris, 1699. Armarego, E.J.A. and Brown, R.H. e Machining of Metals. Prentice-Hall Pub., 1969. Avner, S.H. Introduction to Physical Metallurgy (2 nd Ed.). McGraw-Hill Int. Book Co., 1974. Arvill, J. Mechanical Engineer’s Data Handbook. Butter- worth-Heinemann, 1997. Bajpai, A.C., Calus, I.M. and Fairly, J.A. Statistical Methods for Engineers and Scientists. John Wiley Pub., 1979. Bedford, a. and Fowler, W. Engineering Mechanics – Statics and Dynamics (3 rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2002. Bell, S. A Beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement – Measurement Good Practice Guide. NPL Pub. No. 11, Aug. 1999. Bhattacharyya, G.K. and Johnson, R.A. Statistical Concepts and Methods. John Wiley Pub., 1977. Birch, K. Estimating Uncertainties in Testing – Measurement Good Practice Guide. NPL Pub. No. 36, March 2001. Bird, J. Engineering Mathematics. Newnes – Elsevier Sci- ence Pub., 2003. Boulger, F.W. Machining – eory and Practice. ASM (Cleveland, OH), 1950. Boothroyd, G. Fundamentals of Metal Machining and Ma- chine Tools. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975. Bowman, K. Mechanical Behavior of Materials. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004. Bowden, F.P. and Tabor, D. Frictionand Lubrication of Sol- ids. Oxford University Press (London), 1954. Brammertz, P.H. Ursachen für Form und Massfehler an Fein- bearbeiten Werkstüchken. Dissertation (T.H. Achen), 1960. Carvil, J. Mechanical Engineer’s Data Handbook. Butter- worth-Heinemann, 1994. Childs, T.H.C., Maekawa, K., Obikawa, T. and Yamane, Y. Metal Machining – eory and Applications. Arnold Pub., 2000. Collett, C.V. and Hope, A.D. Engineering Measurements. Pitman Pub. Ltd., 1979. Coullomb, C.A. Mémoires de Mathématique et de Physique de l’Académie Royale des Sciences. Paris, 1785. Cross, N. Engineering Design Methods – Strategies for Prod- uct Design (3 rd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Nov. 2003. Chapter . condition on the resultant machined surface integrity . Machinability and Surface Integrity In Fig. 189c, a ‘white-layer’ (i.e. for this ferrous drilled part, being a localised untempered. Secondary Machining Operations and the Re- sulting Surface Integrity: An Overview. Surface Topogra- phy, Vol. 3, 25–42, 1990. Smith, G.T. Some Aspects in the Surface Integrity and Tool Wear Associated. Surface Measurements and their Relevance in Manufacturing. Production Engr., 17–22, May 1980. Machinability and Surface Integrity Strenkowski, J.S, and Athavele, S.M. A Partially Constrained