Metal Working Fluids: Green Manufacturing and Minimum Quantity

Lubrication (MQL)

Md. Shafayet Hossain Bhuiya

MME9727B Seminar

April 1st, 2010

Outline

Introduction

Purpose of cutting fluid, Cost for wet machining

Problems with traditional process and its environmental issues

Dry machining and MQL as a solution

MQL fluid selection, supply systems and complete unit

Issues solved by MQL system

Comparison with other techniques and

Conclusion

Introduction

Manufacturing practices

Environmental issues, concerns and practices

GreenManufacturing

Sangwan et al(2004), Journal of Advanced Manufacturing System

Metal Working

fluids

Removal of heatgenerated during

Cutting

Fast removal of chips

Reduction of tool wear

Better surface finish

Purpose of using cutting fluid

Galanis et al (2008), Proceedings of third International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering, Greece.

Cost for wet machining

Cross Huller (2000), Thyssen Production Systems Division

Major problems with conventional process

Wetting and dirtiness

Corrosion and contamination of the lubricating system

Need of storage, additional floor space, pumping system, recycling and disposal

Environmental pollutions and health hazards.

Aronson(1995), Manufacturing Engineering Vol. 114, pp-33-36.

Working environmental issues

Inhalation and skin contact

Micro-organisms and hazardous end products

Use of biocides

Variety of contaminants

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), USA ,March 1998, 98-116

Living environmental issues

Ground, water and air pollution Environment protection cost

Sokovic et al (2001), Journal of manufacturing Process and Technology, pp-181-189

Dry machining

Winert et al (2004), University of Dortmund, Germany

Dry machining

Thermal degradation and tool wear. Operating at lower cutting speeds and production rates. Absence of chip removal benefits.

Winert et al (2004), University of Dortmund, Germany

Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL)

Cutting fluid :

• 50 to 500 ml/hour .

•Compared to flood cooling, this quantity is really low.

• Near dry lubrication

• Microlubrication

Dhar et al (2007), G.U. Journal of Science, 20(2), 23-32

Historical Background

M.T.Alam, M.A.Hasan, S.H. Bhuiya (2005),Undergrad thesis, BUET, Dhaka.

Fluid selection for MQL

Bio-degradability Oxidation stability Storage stability Toxicity

Suda et al ,Kagwa University, Japan and www.docstoc.com/environmentallyacceptablelubricants

MQL Supply Systems

Winert et al (2004), University of Dortmund, Germany and Adler et al, Journal of manufacturing Process and Technology, 10, 23-58.

Minimum Quantity Lubrication unit (external)

Dhar et al (2007), G.U. Journal of Science, 20(2), 23-32

Conventional cutting fluid supply versus MQL supply

MQLFlood CoolingWakabayashi et al (2006), Machining Science and Technology, Vol 53, No. 2, PP- 511-37.

Issues solved by MQL

Cost Tool wear Dimensional deviation OSHA requirements Pollution

www.masterchemical.com

Comparison based on application areas

Winert et al (2004), University of Dortmund, Germany

Comparison based on temperature

Varadarajan (2002), International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 42, 193-200.

Comparison based on cutting force

Varadarajan (2002), International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 42, 193-200

Comparison based on tool wear

Dhar et al (2007), G.U. Journal of Science, 20(2), 23-32

Comparison based on surface roughness

Dhar et al (2007), G.U. Journal of Science, 20(2), 23-32

Comparison based on chip formation

Varadarajan (2002), International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 42, 193-200.

Conclusion

•Traditional wet machining

•MQL

•Dry Machining (partially)

State of the art

•MQL•Dry Machining

Future

References[1] N.I Galanis et al, ‘’Comparison between dry and wet machining of stainless steel’’, proceedings of 3 rd

international conference on manufacturing engineering, 2008, Greece.[2] N. R. Dhar et al, ‘’Tool wear and surface roughness during turning AISI-1040 steel under MQL condition’’,

G.U. Journal of Science 20(2): 23-32 (2007)[3] Aronson(1995), R.B, ‘’Why dry machining’’, mfg. engineering vol. 114, pp-33-36.[4] K.S. Sangwan,’’ Performance value analysis for justification of green mfg. systems, Journal of Advanced

manufacturing system, vol. 5, No. 1 (2006) 59-73.[5] Winert et al(2004), ‘’Dry machining and minimum quantity lubrication’’, University of Dortmund, Germany.[6] Cross Huller, ‘’ Thyssen production systems division’’, October 2000.[7] T. Wakabayashi et al(2006), Tribological characteristics and cutting performance of lubricant esters for semi

dry machining’’, Machining Science and Technology, Vol. 53, No. 2. PP. 511-37.[8] M. Sokovic et al, ‘’Ecological aspects of the cutting fluids and its influence on quantifiable parameters of the

cutting processes’’, Journal of Manufacturing Process and Technology, 109(2001) 181-189.[9] Adler et al,’’ Examining the role of cutting fluids in machining and efforts to address associated

environmental/ health concerns’’, Journal of Manufacturing Process and Technology, 10. 23-58.[10] TRIM technical bulletin,’’ fluid solutions for metal working’’, www.masterchemical.com[11] S. Suda et al, ‘’ A synthetic ester as an optimal cutting fluid for minimal quantity lubrication machining’’,

Kagwa University, Japan.[12] www.docstoc.com/environmentallyacceptablelubricants[13] A.S. Varadarajan, Investigations on hard turning with minimal cutting fluid application (HTMF) and its

comparison with dry and wet turning, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 193–200.

[14] S.H. Bhuiya, M.T.Alam, M.A.Hasan (2005),Undergrad thesis, BUET, Dhaka.

[15] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), What you need to know about OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO METALWORKING FLUIDS,USA ,March 1998, 98-116