Page 50 - rise 2017

Experimental results obtained based on experiment methods described is discuss and analysed. The
software, EzANOVA version 0.98 is used to analyse the variance between three damping conditions.
P value of pairwise comparison is obtained to determine whether the deference of result is statistically
significant.

Mixed Ceramic (AI 2O 3 + TiCN) Coated With TiN Insert Tool Wear
The result obtained from the experiment is inserting to the ezANOVA and analysed. P value is
obtained by perform analysis of variance using ezANOVA version 0.98. The P value is then process
with GraphPad Software to determine the statistically difference of the data.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of tool wear mean value. Machining with neoprene damping
material has shown the lowest tool wear mean of 0.17 mm, compare to the no damping which has the
mean value of 0.20 mm. The p value for no damping vs. neoprene damping is less than 0.0001, which
indicates that the difference is extremely statistically significant. As for the tool wear of mixed
ceramic (AI 2O 3 + TiCN) coated with TiN insert machining AISI D2 cold work tool steel (45 HRC),
machining with neoprene damping shows the best performance.

Figure 3: Tool wears mean value comparison

Tool Vibration
The result obtained from the experiment is key in to the ezANOVA and analysed. Machining
neoprene damping has lower tool vibration compare to the no damping (Figure 4). Neoprene damping
2
machining has mean tool vibration of 39.17 mm/s2. No damping machining has result 46.60 mm/s
tool vibration. P value for no damping vs. neoprene damping is less than 0.0001, shows that the
difference is consider being extremely statistically significant.
As for mixed ceramic (AI 2O 3 + TiCN) coated with TiN insert machining AISI D2 cold work
tool steel (45 HRC), machining with neoprene damping has the better performance in the experiment.
However, no damping has result significant high tool vibration compare to neoprene damping.