Ferri Umm 54 Machining Study

Pankl Aerospace Systems 1
Machining Investigation of Ferrium M54

Executive Summary
This study compared machining operations that are typically required to produce aircraft landing gear
components when using Ferrium M54 vs. AerMet 100 and developed quantitative and qualitative
results that will assist in determining initial manufacturing processes and cost comparisons. While no
limitations were found for machining either alloy, it was considerably easier to remove material through
outside diameter turning operations from Ferrium M54 vs. AerMet 100, reducing machining times by 30%
to 50% and while achieving superior or comparable surface finish. However, it was generally easier to drill
holes and thread an outside diameter in AerMet 100 vs. Ferrium M54. Other operations such as face
milling, inner diameter turning, and hole tapping were comparable. Deep bottle boring operations were
also investigated for Ferrium M54, and no limitations were found. In terms of net effect on the cost of
manufacturing components, the information obtained from this study can be applied to estimate the cost
of machining of a component. For example, a currently funded Navy program (Contract Number N6833511-C-0369) is evaluating T-45 hook shanks produced from Ferrium M54. For this case, it is estimated that
the cost to machine a T-45 hook shank component from Ferrium M54 is up to 15% less than one made
from AerMet 100, and up to 20% more than one made from 300M.
NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Distribution Statement A- "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited"

I. Introduction
The goal of this study was to evaluate the machinability of Ferrium M54 and determine the initial machine
inputs for basic manufacturing processes. Ferrium M54 was initially conceived and developed to be an
ultrahigh-strength and high-toughness structural steel to replace AerMet 100 for the Navy's high strength,
high fracture toughness applications such as landing/arresting gear. And while the chemistry of this
material offers some reductions in cost, the main question surrounding this novel material is how it will
machine. Rapid tool wear, poor chip formation, and overheating of the work-piece are all common issues
with high alloy steels that contribute to manufacturing costs. Therefore, it is essential to know any
machining obstacles or benefits that Ferrium M54 will present over AerMet 100.
II. Approach of the Study
A square bar stock of Ferrium M54 at Rockwell C40 hardness with the dimensions of 3.750 x 3.750 x
7.500 served as the raw configuration of the test component. AerMet 100 in the same configuration was
used in the comparison study. The following processes were identified as conventional operations for
landing gear production.
Interrupted Turning, Square to Round Cross Section
Continuous Turning, Outer Diameter
Face Milling
Axial Hole Drilling, Inner Diameter
Continuous Turning, Inner Diameter
Hole Drilling and Tapping
External Thread Turning
Grinding, Outer Diameter
In the interest of efficiency and cost, each machining process was performed on the same test pieces in
sequence. However, each test piece was processed with a different combination of experimental inputs
to generate a broad cross-section of results. While it varies depending on the manufacturing technique,
the inputs included the machine settings (feed rate, spindle speed, depth of cut), cutting tools (style, size,
coatings), and heat treat condition. The results of each set of parameters were evaluated quantitatively
by the machining time and the surface finish of the test piece, as well as qualitatively by the chip formation
and the extent of the tool wear. It should be noted that two pieces were processed in the heat treated

condition and two in the annealed condition. Heat treatment did not occur until after Large Hole Drilling
to optimize material removal prior to hardening. At the conclusion of this portion of the study, a set of
initial parameters for Ferrium M54 were ascertained for basic manufacturing.
Table 1: Ferrium M54 Material Condition for Initial Machinability Study
S/N 0001
Operation
Interrupted Turning
(Square to Round
Cross Section)
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
S/N 0002
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
S/N 0003
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
S/N 0004
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Continuous Turning
(Outer Diameter)
Face Milling
Axial Hole Drilling

(Inner Diameter)
Continuous Turning
(Inner Diameter)
Hole Drilling and

Tapping
External Thread
Turning
Grinding
(Outer Diameter)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
Another study focused on deep bottle boring, a common practice in landing gear production. Deep bottle
boring is the process of machining an ID that tapers out larger than the entrance hole and it provides its
own unique challenges in manufacturing. Unfortunately, this is difficult to replicate with the size
constraints of the test pieces, so another test piece with the raw configuration of 4.00 x 4.00 x 40.00
was machined. Inputs were tested and evaluated as with the machining investigation for Ferrium M54.


Figure 1: Finished Configuration of Ferrium M54 (Deep Bottle Bore) Test Piece.
After establishment of initial machining parameters, the second phase of this study was to determine
whether Ferrium M54 has any discernible advantages or disadvantages over AerMet 100 in regards to
machinability and cost. Two test samples of each material were manufactured concurrently to the finished
configuration. The parameters for Ferrium M54 was selected based on the recommendations from the
machining investigation and were kept constant for the multiple test pieces. The parameters for AerMet
100 were derived from prior experience and adjusted based on observations. Again, the metric for
machinability were the work time, chip formation, and tool wear. By running these two materials in
parallel, it was clear how the material affects each operation, and it can be definitively stated whether
parts can be manufactured more effectively with Ferrium M54 or AerMet 100.
Figure 2: Finished Configuration of Ferrium M54/AerMet 100 Test Piece.


Table 2: Ferrium M54 and AerMet 100 Material Condition for Machinability Comparison Study
Ferrium M54
Operation
Interrupted Turning
(Square to Round
Cross Section)
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
AerMet 100
Annealed
(40 HRC)
Continuous Turning
(Outer Diameter)
Face Milling
Axial Hole Drilling

(Inner Diameter)
Continuous Turning
(Inner Diameter)
Hole Drilling and

Tapping
External Thread
Turning
Grinding
(Outer Diameter)
Hardened
(54 HRC)
III. Machining Investigation of Ferrium M54

The following sections detail each machining operation conducted. Special considerations, experimental
machine parameters, results, and engineering recommendations are all included within each section.
A. Interrupted Turning, Square to Round Cross Section
The following table outlines the various test parameters used throughout interrupted turning. Since the
part needed to be fixtured on the machine, only one side of the part could be cut at a time. This allowed
for additional machine settings to be compared as each side can be processed differently. For this
operation, the recommended parameters lasted the entire roughing stage without insert breakage or
significant wear. Therefore, a robust, high-grade carbide insert is ideal. Brittle grades of carbide must be
avoided and the spindle speed kept low, because of the interrupted cut.

Figure 3: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Interrupted Turning
Table 3: Machine Parameters for Interrupted Turning of Ferrium M54

Machine: CNC Lathe, Mori-Seiki SL-403C/2000
Coolant: Starchem Co., Starbright 485/Water Solution
Insert
S/N
Side
1
0001
Ingersoll
CNMG
432 MT
TT5030
2
1
0002
2
1
0003
Seco
CNMG
432 M5
TP1500
2
1
0004
2
Pass
Type
Rough
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
409
Finish
Rough
281
Finish
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
0.010
Depth
of Cut
(in)
0.080
0.008
0.080
0.015
0.080
0.012
0.080
Rough
250
0.012
0.100
Finish
250
0.010
0.020
Rough
250
0.018
0.100
Finish
250
0.015
0.020
Rough
200
0.010
0.080
Finish
200
0.008
0.030
Rough
145
0.010
0.080
Finish
218
0.008
0.030
Rough
250
0.012
0.100
Finish
250
0.005
0.020
Rough
250
0.006
0.100
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
20
64
Finish
250
0.005
0.020
Bold font represents ideal machine settings from initial test matrix
130
60
125
45
125
45
90
44
90
60
64
80
64


B. Continuous Turning, Outer Diameter

This operation does not produce much wear on the tool, but for feed rates greater than 0.015 inches/rev,
there were signs of excessive heat transfer on the outer diameter. The recommended parameters
achieved a good machined surface finish with a conservative machine time.
Figure 4: (left) Test Piece Fixtured in the Lathe.

(right) Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Continuous Turning
Table 4: Machine Parameters for Continuous OD Turning of Ferrium M54

Insert
S/N
Side
1
0001
Seco
DNMG
432 M3
TP2500
2
1
0002
2
Pass
Type
Rough
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
350
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
0.012
Depth
of Cut
(in)
0.080
Finish
350
0.010
0.020
Rough
350
0.018
0.080
Finish
350
0.015
0.020
Rough
300
0.015
0.060
Finish
300
0.008
0.015
Rough
300
0.017*
0.060
Finish
300
0.010
0.015
(Table is continued on the next page)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
45
125
30
250
10
90
125


1
0003
Sandvik
DNMG
432 MF
Gr2015
2
1
0004
2
Rough
350
0.012
0.080
Finish
350
0.010
0.020
Rough
350
0.010
0.080
Finish
350
0.008
0.020
Rough
300
0.015
0.060
Finish
300
0.008
0.015
Rough
300
0.020
0.060
Finish
300
0.012
0.015
* Feed rate initially set at 0.020 IPR but was reduced to 0.017 IPR
15
90
12
64
10
90
125
C. Face Milling
A large diameter cutting face would be the most efficient approach to this operation. It provides a more
stable machining set-up, each insert must remove less material, and the resulting finish is more consistent.
For the two-inch cutter, there was little to no wear on any of the inserts and it had less burrs on the exit
edge of the face. For the one-inch cutter, the operation generated lots of noise and vibration, which would
cause maintenance issues in the long term. Also, the chips cut were discolored purple and dark brown,
implying the inserts were beginning to dull and rub against the cutting surface. The recommended tools
could withstand very aggressive cuts, reducing lead time and insert wear.
Figure 5: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Face Milling


Figure 6: (left) Test Piece Set-Up Prior to Face Milling. (right) Test Piece after Face Milling.
Figure 7: (left) 1-inch Face Milling Cutter and Inserts. (right) 2-inch Face Milling Cutter and Inserts
Table 5: Machine Parameters for Face Milling of Ferrium M54
Machine: CNC Vertical Mill, Mazak Super Velocity 2000L
Tool
Cutter
Diameter
Pass
Body
S/N
(in)
Type
Sandvik
R245-12 T3
E-PL 4230
Ingersoll
APKT120308R
IN2005
0001
2.00
0002
0003
1.00
0004
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Rough
700
15.0
0.080
Finish
700
10.0
0.050
Rough
700
22.5
0.080
Finish
700
15.0
0.050
Rough
800
14.0
0.060
Finish
800
12.0
0.030
Rough
800
28.0
0.060
Finish
800
24.0
0.030
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
13
32
32
18
32
12
90


D. Large Hole Drilling on Axis
In order to drill a hole into the part in one pass, the diameter of the drill head must be equal to the
diameter of the hole generated. Also, theres a limited amount of chip breakers and grades available for
this diameter, so this operation concentrated mainly on the machine settings instead of the cutting tools.
The feed rate for this part was relatively high for this tough material because the length of the bore was
short compared to the diameter. For longer parts, it is recommended that the feed rate be slowed down
to mitigate the need for tool changes.
Figure 8: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Hole Drilling
Table 6: Machine Parameters for Large Hole Drilling of Ferrium M54

Machine: NC Gun Drill Machine, Pratt & Whitney Gun Drill Machine
Coolant: W.S. Dodge Oil Company, Gun Drill Oil #5110
Gun Drill
Head
EJ Co.
420.6-103
G24 D1.8
S/N
Tool
Diameter
(in)
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
0001
1.800
148
0.0030
20
90
0002
1.800
155
0.0030
20
90
0003
1.800
155
0.0015
45
90
0004
1.800
155
0.0015
45
90


E. Continuous Turning, Inner Diameter

For the annealed parts, we could be aggressive without any significant chip wear. Therefore, we settled
for a relatively high feed rate with a moderate speed. For the heat treated parts, the same parameters
would not be suitable for the increased hardness. It was necessary to slow the machine settings by fifty
percent, which almost doubles the machining time over the non-heat treated parts.
Figure 9: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Continous Turning
Table 7: Machine Parameters for Continuous ID Turning of Ferrium M54

Insert
Ingersoll
CNMG
MT
Seco
CNMG
M5
S/N
Heat
Treat
SN-0001
AN
SN-0002
HT
SN-0003
HT
SN-0004
AN
Pass
Type
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Rough
250
0.014
0.050
Finish
250
0.010
0.010
Rough
75%
0.014
0.050
Finish
60%
0.010
0.010
Rough
50%
0.014
0.050
Finish
50%
0.010
0.010
Rough
300
0.012
0.025
Finish
250
0.008
0.010
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
62
90
30
100
140
100
108
64


F. Small Hole Drilling and Tapping

For this operation, four end mills at the finished diameter were used to machine the four holes. The end
mills were made of carbide and did not have any surface coatings. Also prior to milling, a spot drill was
used to help locate the end mills on the work face of the test piece. To generate the appropriate pitch in
hole tapping, the feed rate must be a fixed value (the inverse of the pitch). Therefore, all trials were
conducted at the same feed rate. Next, for the 0.1875 hole, a stop-off was built periodically into the
program to clear chips and reduces wear. This is crucial for smaller diameter holes to ensure chip build up
does not interfere with machining. Lastly, any machine time less than one minute in the following tables
were denoted as 1.
The R0.0938 hole presented some difficulty, because it required a small diameter hole be milled relatively
deeply. The result was there was some vibration at the tip causing rapid wear and chipping. The same
issue was observed for the tapping operation, which resulted in the tool breaking in the test piece. It
is recommended that for small diameter drilling, the cutting speed remain low to reduce the torque at
the end of the milling tool. For the heat treated pieces, both the spindle speed and the feed rate were
drastically reduced to account for the increase in hardness. Regardless, there is the potential risk of tool
breakage for this operation. Tool coatings should be explored for potentially extended tool life and wear
resistance.


Figure 10: Schematic for Input and Finished Stock for Hole Drilling and Tapping
Figure 11: (left) Machine Set-Up for Hole Drilling. (right) Required End Mills and Taps
Table 8: Machine Parameters for Hole Drilling of Ferrium M54 (Annealed Condition)
Machine: CNC Vertical Mill, Mazak Super Velocity 2000L
Drill
Diameter
(in)
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
0.7500
500
2.0
Guhring
DIN 6539 ( 9.40 mm)
0.3701
500
2.5
Guhring
DIN 6539 ( 8.60 mm)
0.3386
500
2.5
YG-1 (EDP 93198)
0.1875
500
1.5
Cutting
Tool
M.A. Ford
Twister XD 3X ( 0.750 in)
Table 9: Machine Parameters for Hole Tapping of Ferrium M54 (Annealed Condition)
Cutting
Tool
OSG Tap
HY-PRO-2832001
OSG Tap
EXO 1714301
Thread
Spec.
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
7/16-14
150
0.0714
1/4-28
150
0.0416


Table 10: Machine Parameters for Hole Drilling of Ferrium M54 (Heat Treated Condition)
Drill
Diameter
(in)
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
0.7500
400
1.5
Guhring
DIN 6539 ( 9.40 mm)
0.3701
500
1.0
Guhring
DIN 6539 ( 8.60 mm)
0.3386
500
1.0
YG-1 (EDP 93198)
0.1875
500
0.5
Cutting
Tool
M.A. Ford
Twister XD 3X ( 0.750 in)
Table 11: Machine Parameters for Hole Tapping of Ferrium M54 (Heat Treated Condition)
Cutting
Tool
OSG Tap
HY-PRO-2832001
OSG Tap
EXO 1714301
Thread
Spec.
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
7/16-14
50
0.0714
1/4-28
50
0.0416
G. External Thread Turning

A standard V-thread with a pitch of 10 was selected for this operation (2.500 - 10 UN CLASS 2A). Since
the part is short, the test piece was fixtured on a chuck and allowed to extend unsupported on the other
end. Also, the CNC lathe was initially programmed to turn this thread in a single pass due to the small
amount of material removal.
The most significant issue with the Ferrium M54 test piece observed was the presence of chatter on the
flanks of the thread. This indicates that either the set-up lacked rigidity or the machining parameters are
too aggressive causing the cutting tool to have uneven contact with the work-piece. In order to produce
a better surface finish, several actions were taken. Multiple spring passes were taken instead of a single
spring pass to reduce the depth of cut. The spindle speed was lowered for the heat treated pieces. And,
the part was fixtured more securely in the chuck to alleviate any vibration. The part was originally allowed

to hang 4.0 in. from the face of the chuck jaws but this was incrementally decreased to 2.5 in. to improve
the rigidity of the test piece and reduce chatter. Overall, there were no major limitations found in external
thread turning.
Figure 12: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for External Thread Turning
Table 12: Machine Parameters for External Thread Turning of Ferrium M54
S/N
Heat
Treat
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
0001
AN
150
0.100
24
Kennametal
Top Notch NJ3014R12
0002
HT
100
0.100
43
Kennametal
Top Notch NT3R
0003
HT
100
0.100
36
Insert
Kennametal
Top Notch NT3R
Kennametal
0004
AN
150
0.100
Top Notch NJ3014R12
26


Figure 13: Chatter on Thread Flanks on Test Pieces
H. Grinding, Outer Diameter

Instead of a direct traverse feed, the grind wheel initially plunged three tracks with a diameter slightly
oversized of the nominal diameter. Then, it came in as a straight pass for the final dimension. This
intermediate step allowed for minimal material removal in the subsequent passes as well as ensures even
wear over the corners of the grind wheel. Overall, the CNC grinding cut the material very easily. There
were no issues of overheating and the wheel only needed to be dressed once for each test piece.
Figure 14: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Grinding


Table 13: Machine Settings for OD Grinding of Ferrium M54
Machine: Shigiya CNC Grinder
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Grind Wheel
S/N
Heat
Treat
Aluminum Oxide J
SN-0001
HT
1750
0.004
23
16
545-J8VH Aluminum Oxide
SN-0002
HT
965
0.002
12
16
545-J8VH Aluminum Oxide
SN-0003
HT
965
0.002
38
16
Aluminum Oxide J
SN-0004
HT
1750
0.004
35
16
IV. Deep Bottle Boring

The raw configuration of the test piece for the deep bottle bore was a 40.00 inch long solid bar with a
square cross section. For ease of fixturing, the two end sections were turned round. Additionally, the raw
material did not include a hole through its axis, so the part was gun-drilled through at a diameter of 2.250
inches. This allowed for 0.125 inches per side of stock material at the necked-down section and 0.250
inches of stock material at the bottled section.
Figure 15: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Deep Bottle Boring


Figure 16: (left) Machine Set-Up for Deep Bottle Boring.

(right) Packed Chips from Inner Diameter of Deep Bottle Bore
The length of the bore relative to the inner diameter presented the need for a thick boring bar to maintain
its rigidity as tool pressure deflects the bar over long distances. In this instance, the 1.75 in boring bar
used to bore 2.40 inch I.D allowed for very little clearance limiting chip evacuation and coolant flow during
machining. Consequently, there is a risk of overheating the part, increased stress on the inserts, and work
hardening the machining surface. Therefore, conservative parameters are recommended.
Table 14: Machine Parameters for Deep Bottle Boring
Insert
Sandvik
DCMT11T304
FGTT5030
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
250
0.004
0.020
85
36
The operation initially produced long, thick, and loosely-coiled chips. Also, the leading edge of the chips
where the insert initially cut into the material was jagged, indicating a rough break. The depth of cut was
reduced and an insert with a chip breaker was employed. It is essential for this material not to approach
the machining too aggressively. Also, for the deep bottle bore, there were issues with clogging of the inner
diameter with chips. Ensure that there is a clear, unobstructed flow of coolant at the cutting surface to
flush the chips out the chucked end. All cuts produced a good 36 micro-inch surface finish over the inner


diameter surface. Improvements to this operation may be possible in time with advancements in
machining technologies to promote chip breaking and removal of chips from the work piece.
V. Comparison of Ferrium M54 and AerMet 100
The objective of this study is to compare the initial machining parameters for Ferrium M54 to that of
typical machining parameters for AerMet 100. This comparison is meant to supply quantitative feedback
for differences in machining between the two alloys. The machining operations selected follow the same
path as the initial study completed and outlined in Section III above. The initial machining parameters for
the Ferrium M54 pieces were based on the initial established results. The machinist/operator was then
allowed to adjust the parameters further to reduce the machining time. The initial parameters for AerMet
100 were selected based on prior experience and adjusted by the machinist/operator as necessary.
A. Interrupted Turning, Square to Round Cross Section
The insert was changed halfway through the operation for both materials. There were similar wear
patterns on all inserts corners. Improvements from the initial machining parameters identified for Ferrium
M54 were increased speed, feed, and depth of cut which led to a reduction in machine time as well as
improved surface finish.
Table 15: Material Comparison for Interrupted Turning
Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
250
0.012
0.100
43
64
AerMet 100
150
0.012
0.100
90
90
B. Continuous Turning, Outer Diameter

The ideal machine parameters for Ferrium M54 worked well for AerMet 100. There was some significant
chip wear even though there was no breaking. The spindle speed was dialed down slightly for the AerMet
100.
Table 16: Material Comparison for Continuous OD Turning


Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
350
0.010
0.080
22
90
AerMet 100
280
0.010
0.080
31
90
C. Face Milling
The face cutting inserts showed signs of slightly more wear, however this operation does not cause much strain on
the cutting tool. It is predicted that, over multiple production lots, Ferrium M54 would require less tooling compared
to AerMet 100.
Table 17: Material Comparison for Face Milling
Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
700
22.500
0.080
32
AerMet 100
700
22.500
0.080
32
D. Large Hole Drilling on Axis

There was no appreciable difference between Ferrium M54 and AerMet 100 for this operation.
Table 18: Material Comparison for Axial Hole Drilling
Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
155
0.0030
20
90
AerMet 100
155
0.0030
20
90
E. Continuous Turning, Inner Diameter

There was no appreciable difference between Ferrium M54 and AerMet 100 for this operation.
Table 19: Material Comparison for Continuous ID Turning


Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
250
0.014
0.050
62
90
AerMet 100
250
0.014
0.050
65
90
F. Small Hole Drilling and Tapping

For the hole drilling, the surface finish was slightly better for the AerMet 100. The machine produced a similar sound
and vibration but it seemed AerMet 100 could be machined more aggressively. There were no major limitations
indentified for Ferrium M54, however slightly reduced feed rates allowed for reduced vibration which will improve
tool life.
Table 20: Material Comparison for Hole Drilling
Drill
Diameter
(in)
Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
Ferrium M54
400
1.5
AerMet 100
400
1.5
Ferrium M54
500
1.0
AerMet 100
500
1.5
Ferrium M54
500
1.0
AerMet 100
500
1.0
Ferrium M54
500
1.5
AerMet 100
500
1.5
0.7500
0.3701
0.3386
0.1875
For the hole tapping, AerMet 100 cut much more easily. The chips produced were longer as well as tightly-curled
and there was less wear and damage on the milling tools. While the feed rate had to be kept constant for the thread
pitch, there was much less risk of the tool tap breaking or wearing down.
Table 21: Material Comparison for Hole Tapping


Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPM)
Machine
Time
(min)
Ferrium M54
50
0.0714
AerMet 100
100
0.0714
Ferrium M54
50
0.0416
AerMet 100
100
0.0416
Thread
Spec
7/16 - 14
1/4 - 28
G. External Thread Turning

Using the same parameters for Ferrium M54 produced threads with a severe degree of surface finish issues for
AerMet 100. In general, turning threads on AerMet 100 was tougher and resulted in unwanted chatter. Note that
more spring passes were taken on the Ferrium M54 to reduce chatter and improve surface finish as identified in the
initial study.
Table 22: Material Comparison for Thread Turning
Material
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
Rate
(IPR)
Machine
Time
(min)
Ferrium M54
100
0.100
36
AerMet 100
150
0.100
21
H. Grinding, Outer Diameter

The grinding of the Ferrium M54 test piece was performed somewhat more quickly than AerMet 100, however this
was due to set-up considerations and not attributable to any material considerations.
Table 23: Material Comparison for OD Grinding
Grind Wheel
Spindle
Speed
(RPM)
Depth
of Cut
(in)
Machine
Time
(min)
Surface
Finish
(in)
Ferrium M54
965
0.002
17
16
AerMet 100
965
0.002
25
16
VI. Conclusion

The initial machinability study for Ferrium M54 was able to establish initial recommended parameters for
various machining operations. There were no limitations found in machining Ferrium M54 for typical
machining processes identified for the various landing gear manufacturing operations. The parameters
established should be considered a good starting point for the various machining operations, but as shown
in the comparison study, improvements can be made as more experience is gained with the alloy which
will allow for further improvements in the machining process and reduction in the machining times.
The deep bottle boring of Ferrium M54 allowed for establishment of initial recommended parameters.
The chip formation observed indicates that an insert with a chip breaker will allow for improved
machinability. There were no limitations found in deep bottle boring of Ferrium M54.
The comparison study between Ferrium M54 and AerMet 100 for typical landing gear operations provided
quantitative feedback that will allow for initial manufacturing processes and costs to be compared. While
no limitations were found for either alloy, Ferrium M54 was easier to turn, while AerMet 100 was easier
to drill small holes and thread. An example of applying the information obtained from this study and
applying it to an example component, such as machining a T-45 hook shank (to support cost analysis under
Navy Contract Number N68335-11-C-0369), the estimated cost to machine a component from Ferrium
M54 is up to 15% less than one made from AerMet 100, and up to 20% more than one made from 300M.


Ferri Umm 54 Machining Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ferri Umm 54 Machining Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pankl Aerospace Systems 1

Machining Investigation of Ferrium M54

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 2

Interrupted Turning, Square to Round Cross Section

Continuous Turning, Outer Diameter

Axial Hole Drilling, Inner Diameter

Continuous Turning, Inner Diameter

Hole Drilling and Tapping

External Thread Turning

Grinding, Outer Diameter

Pankl Aerospace Systems 3

Axial Hole Drilling

Hole Drilling and

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 4

Figure 2: Finished Configuration of Ferrium M54/AerMet 100 Test Piece.

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 5

Axial Hole Drilling

Hole Drilling and

III. Machining Investigation of Ferrium M54

Pankl Aerospace Systems 6

Figure 3: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Interrupted Turning

Table 3: Machine Parameters for Interrupted Turning of Ferrium M54

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 7

B. Continuous Turning, Outer Diameter

Figure 4: (left) Test Piece Fixtured in the Lathe.

Table 4: Machine Parameters for Continuous OD Turning of Ferrium M54

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 8

Figure 5: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Face Milling

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 9

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 10

Figure 8: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Hole Drilling

Table 6: Machine Parameters for Large Hole Drilling of Ferrium M54

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 11

E. Continuous Turning, Inner Diameter

Figure 9: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Continous Turning

Table 7: Machine Parameters for Continuous ID Turning of Ferrium M54

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 12

F. Small Hole Drilling and Tapping

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 13

YG-1 (EDP 93198)

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 14

YG-1 (EDP 93198)

G. External Thread Turning

Pankl Aerospace Systems 15

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 16

Figure 13: Chatter on Thread Flanks on Test Pieces

H. Grinding, Outer Diameter

Figure 14: Schematic of Input and Finished Stock for Grinding

NAVAIR Public Release #2013-168

Pankl Aerospace Systems 17

545-J8VH Aluminum Oxide

545-J8VH Aluminum Oxide