Authors

Norman Iskandar

Mechanical Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia

Sulardjaka

Mechanical Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia

Bernadus Endra Tri Rahardjo

Mechanical Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia

Abstract

The notching process of stainless steel pipes is widely applied in fabrication industries, particularly for structural joint preparation. However, machining stainless steel presents inherent challenges due to its low thermal conductivity, high toughness, and work hardening characteristics. This study investigates tool failure in a bi-metal hole saw used under manual machining conditions based on real industrial observations. The research adopts an observational approach without controlled parameter variation, reflecting actual shop-floor conditions. The results indicate that tool degradation is strongly influenced by thermal accumulation, unstable manual feeding, and insufficient cooling conditions. The dominant wear mechanisms include abrasive wear, adhesive wear, and thermal degradation. Furthermore, the use of an alternative method such as an angle grinder improves productivity but reduces dimensional accuracy. This study highlights the importance of thermal management and process stability in improving machining performance in manual systems and provides practical insights applicable to small- and medium-scale industries.

Keywords

Cutting tool wear Stainless steel machining Manual machining process Thermal effects in machining Process stability

Citation of this Article

Norman Iskandar, Sulardjaka, & Bernadus Endra Tri Rahardjo. (2026). Analysis of Tool Failure in Stainless Steel Pipe Notching Using Bi-Metal Hole Saw under Manual Operation. International Current Journal of Engineering and Science (ICJES), 5(5), 1-8. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.47001/ICJES/2026.505001

Licence Copyright (c) 2026 International Current Journal of Engineering and Science. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International Licence.

References

  1. Shokrani, A., Dhokia, V., & Newman, S. T. (2012). Environmentally conscious machining of difficult-to-machine materials with regard to cutting fluids. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 57, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2012.02.002
  2. Younas, M., Khan, M., Jaffery, S. H. I., Khan, Z., & Khan, N. (2024). Investigation of tool wear and energy consumption in machining Ti6Al4V alloy with uncoated tools. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13548-1
  3. Wu, J., Hu, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., Wu, C., & Yang, Z. (2025). Investigation of wear behavior for innovative cutting tool in machining AISI 304 stainless steel. Engineering, 6(9), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6090248
  4. Tatar, K., & Svenningsson, I. (2026). Investigation of sustainable face milling of austenitic stainless steel: material removal performance and tool modification. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 142, 349–359.
  5. Sheik Muhamad, S., Ghani, J. A., Haron, C. H. C., & Yazid, H. (2022). Wear mechanism of multilayer coated carbide cutting tool in milling of AISI 4340 under cryogenic environment. Materials, 15, 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15020524
  6. O’Hara, J., & Fang, F. (2019). Advances in micro cutting tool design and fabrication. International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing, 1. https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-7990/ab3e7f
  7. Sayit, E., Aslantas, K., & Çiçek, A. (2009). Tool wear mechanism in interrupted cutting conditions. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24, 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426910802714423
  8. Muthuswamy, P., & Shunmugesh, K. (2022). Artificial intelligence based tool condition monitoring for digital twins and Industry 4.0 applications. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 17, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-01050-5
  9. Tsujimoto, A., et al. (2017). Wear of resin composites: current insights into underlying mechanisms. Japanese Dental Science Review, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2017.11.002
  10. Oxley, P. L. B., & Hastings, W. (1976). Minimum work as a possible criterion for determining frictional conditions at the tool/chip interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 282(1310), 565–584.
  11. Bin Che Ghani, S., Wan Harun, W. S., Ab. Rashid, M. F. F., & Ibrahim, R. (2016). Numerical analysis of internal flow embedded in a cutting tool. 11, 11009–11012.
  12. Abukhshim, N. A., Mativenga, P. T., & Sheikh, M. A. (2006). Heat generation and temperature prediction in metal cutting: a review. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46(7–8), 782–800.
  13. Longbottom, J. M., & Lanham, J. D. (2006). A review of research related to Salomon’s hypothesis. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46(14), 1740–1747.
  14. Shaw, M. C. (2005). Metal cutting principles (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  15. Guimarães, B., Marques, F., Fernandes, C., Figueiredo, D., Silva, F., & Miranda, G. (2025). Enhancing the cutting performance of laser surface textured WC–Co cutting tools—a study on AISI 316L stainless steel turning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 139, 4431–4439.
  16. Kalpakjian, S., & Schmid, S. R. (2014). Manufacturing engineering and technology (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  17. Dambhare, S., Kore, S., Pathan, F., & Kurne, S. (2019). Effect of machining parameters on tool wear and surface roughness in dry and wet machining of AISI 316 austenitic stainless steel by Taguchi method. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8, 3292–3298. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.H7441.078919.
  18. Ch, S. R., & Vinay, P. V. (2014). Effect of machining parameters on tool wear in hard turning of AISI D3 steel. Procedia Engineering, 97, 338–345.
  19. Upadhyaya, G. S. (2004). Trent, E. M., & Wright, P. K. Metal cutting (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. Science of Sintering, 36, 54. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOS0401054U.