Energy consumption, mechanical and metallographic properties of cryogenically treated tool steels

Abstract

This article examines energy consumption, microstructure, mechanical properties, and the change in the wear amount during the machining of GGG-42 cast iron material with two types of guide cutting tool produced by powder metallurgy and casting method The tap. tool samples used as cutting tool material were first subjected to the traditional hardening process and then to two different cryogenic treatments (24–16 h) at −90°C. The internal structures of the guide samples obtained from conventional heat treatment and cryogenic treatment were examined with an optical microscope and Scanning Electron Microscope. The hardness changes were checked with Vickers measurement method. The wear amount forming after the threading process was measured with CLEMEX program in a light microscope. In addition, by measuring the current amount drawn during the machining of the cast iron with guide cutter tools, instantaneous power consumption during cutting and power consumption during chip removal were calculated. The application of heat treatment and cryogenic process increased the hardness of the guides. Moreover, the power consumption during the chip removal was also seen to increase. This can be commented that cutting tools produced with powder metallurgy perform better than the cutting tools produced via casting and 30% energy saving.

Cryogenic Treatment of Martensitic Steels: Microstructural Fundamentals and Implications for Mechanical Properties and Wear and Corrosion Performance

“…The extent of the changes in wear performance can also be affected by the manufacturing route applied for steel preparation. Savas et al [316] found only a small positive effect of cryogenic treatments at −196 • C on the wear resistance of cast AISI M2, while the same treatments on PM steel resulted in a significant reduction in wear rate.…”

“…Interesting results were achieved through CT (at −196 • C for 16 or 24 h) of AISI M2 steels produced by different methods. While the treatments of cast steel had no effect on the steel hardness, this property was increased by 27 and 40 HV, respectively, after 16 and 24 h treatments of PM steel [316]. The effect of prior-to-CT treatment (especially the austenitisation temperature) was also examined.…”

“…The extent of the changes in wear performance can also be affected by the manufacturing route applied for steel preparation. Savas et al [316] Apparent fracture toughness (also known as K a ) was studied for AISI M35 after cryogenic treatment at −180 • C for 24 h (sequence A or E) [350]. Only a marginal (1.4%) improvement in apparent fracture toughness was found for sequence E, while K a increases of 3.5% and 4.6% were obtained for sequence A, with triple and double tempering, respectively.…”