0
Research Papers

Multiresponse Optimization of Al Alloy-SiC Composite Machining Parameters for Minimum Tool Wear and Maximum Metal Removal Rate

[+] Author and Article Information
Rajesh Kumar Bhushan

Assistant Professor
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University,
Katra, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir,
182320, India e-mail: rkbsmvdu@gmail.com

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. Manuscript received June 25, 2012; final manuscript received January 3, 2013; published online March 22, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Robert Landers.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 135(2), 021013 (Mar 22, 2013) (15 pages) Paper No: MANU-12-1186; doi: 10.1115/1.4023454 History: Received June 25, 2012; Revised January 03, 2013

Optimization in turning means determination of the optimal set of the machining parameters to satisfy the objectives within the operational constraints. These objectives may be the minimum tool wear, the maximum metal removal rate (MRR), or any weighted combination of both. The main machining parameters which are considered as variables of the optimization are the cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut, and nose radius. The optimum set of these four input parameters is determined for a particular job-tool combination of 7075Al alloy-15 wt. % SiC (20–40 μm) composite and tungsten carbide tool during a single-pass turning which minimizes the tool wear and maximizes the metal removal rate. The regression models, developed for the minimum tool wear and the maximum MRR were used for finding the multiresponse optimization solutions. To obtain a trade-off between the tool wear and MRR the, a method for simultaneous optimization of the multiple responses based on an overall desirability function was used. The research deals with the optimization of multiple surface roughness parameters along with MRR in search of an optimal parametric combination (favorable process environment) capable of producing desired surface quality of the turned product in a relatively lesser time (enhancement in productivity). The multi-objective optimization resulted in a cutting speed of 210 m/min, a feed of 0.16 mm/rev, a depth of cut of 0.42 mm, and a nose radius of 0.40 mm. These machining conditions are expected to respond with the minimum tool wear and maximum the MRR, which correspond to a satisfactory overall desirability.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Yang, W. H., and Tarng, Y. S., 1998, “Design Optimization of Cutting Parameters for Turning Operations Based on the Taguchi Method,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 84, pp. 122–129. [CrossRef]
Azouzi, R., and Guillot, M., 1998, “On-Line Optimization of the Turning Process Using an Inverse Process Neurocontroller,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 120(1), pp. 101–108. [CrossRef]
Liao, T. W., and Chen, L. J., 1998, “Manufacturing Process Modeling and Optimization Based on Multi-Layer Perceptron Network,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 120(1), pp. 109–119. [CrossRef]
Motghare, P. R., 1998, “Monitoring of Cutting Tools by the Estimation of Tool Wear,” M.S. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India (unpublished).
Van Luttervelt, C. A., Childs, T. H. C., Jawahir, I. S., Klocke, F., Venuvinod, P. K., Altintas, Y., Armarego, E., Dornfeld, D., Grabec, I., Leopold, J., Lindstrom, B., Lucca, D., Obikawa, T., Shirakashi, and Sato, H., 1998, “Present Situation and Future Trends in Modelling of Machining Operations Progress Report of the CIRP Working Group on ‘Modelling of Machining Operations’,” Ann. CIRP, 47(2), pp. 587–626. [CrossRef]
Taraman, K., 1974, “Multi Machining Output—Multi Independent Variable Turning Research by Response Surface Methodology,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 12, pp. 233–245. [CrossRef]
Hasegawa, M., Seireg, A., and Lindberg, R. A., 1976, “Surface Roughness Model for Turning,” Tribol. Int., 9, pp. 285–289. [CrossRef]
Kopac, J., Bahor, M., and Sokovic, M., 2002, “Optimal Machining Parameters for Achieving the Desired Surface Roughness in Fine Turning of Cold Pre-Formed Steel Workpieces,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 42(6), pp. 707–716. [CrossRef]
Vernon, A., and Özel, T., 2003, “Factors Affecting Surface Roughness in Finish Hard Turning,” 17th International Conference on Production Research, Blacksburg, VA.
Davim, J. P., 2003, “Study of Drilling Metal-Matrix Composites Based on the Taguchi Techniques,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 132, pp. 250–254. [CrossRef]
Kopf, A., Feistritzer, S., and Udier, K., 2006, “Diamond Coated Cutting Tools for Machining of Non-Ferrous Metals and Fibre Reinforced Polymers,” Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., 24, pp. 354–359. [CrossRef]
Akdemir, A., Yazman, S., Saglam, H., and Uyaner, M., 2012, “The Effects of Cutting Speed and Depth of Cut on Machinability Characteristics of Austempered Ductile Iron,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 134(2), p. 021013. [CrossRef]
Box, G. E. P., and Wilson, K. B., 1951, “On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,” J. R. Stat. Soc., 13, pp. 1–45.
Myers, R. H., and Montgomery, D. C., 1995, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Design Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Grum, J., and Slab, J. M., 2004, “The Use of Factorial Design and Response Surface Methodology for Fast Determination of Optimal Heat Treatment Conditions of Different Ni-Co-Mo Surface Layers,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 155–156 , pp. 2026–2032. [CrossRef]
Ozecelik, B., and Erzurmlu, T., 2005, “Determination of Effective Dimensional Parameters on Wrapage of Thin Shell Plastic Parts Using Integrated Response Surface Methods and Genetic Algorithm,” Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer, 32, pp. 1085–1094. [CrossRef]
Kansal, H. K., Singh, S., and Kumar, P., 2005, “Parametric Optimization of Powder Mixed Electrical Discharge Machining by Response Surface Methodology,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 169, pp. 427–436. [CrossRef]
Oktem., H., Erzurmlu., T., and Kurtaran, H., 2005, “Application of Response Surface Methodology in the Optimization of Cutting Conditions for Surface Roughness,” J. Material Process. Technol., 170, pp. 11–16. [CrossRef]
Montgomery, D. C., 1990, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.
Montgomery, D. C., and Peck, E. A., 1992, Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, Wiley, New York.
Box, G. E. P., and. Hunter, J. S., 1957, “Multi Factor Experimental Design,” J. Ann. Math. Stat., 28, pp. 195–241. [CrossRef]
Cochran, G., and Cox, G. M., 1962, Experimental Design, Asia Publishing House, New Delhi.
Montgomery, D. C., 2001, Design and Analysis of Experiment, 5th ed., Wiley, New York.
Hines, W. W., and Montgomery, D. C., 1990, Probability and Statistics in Engineering and Management Science, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York.
Derringer, G., and Suich, R., 1980, “Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables,” J. Quality Technol.,” 12, pp. 214–219.
Li, J., Ma, C., Ma, Y., Li, Y., Zhou, W., and Xu, P., 2007, “Medium Optimization by Combination of Response Surface Methodology and Desirability Function: An Application in Glutamine Production,” Appl. Microbio. Biotech., 74, pp. 563–571. [CrossRef]
Dhupal, D., Doloi, R., and Bhattacharyya, B., 2008, “Parametric Analysis and Optimization of Nd:YAG Laser Micro-Grooving of Aluminium Titanate (Al2TiO5) Ceramics,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 36(9–10), pp. 883–893. [CrossRef]
Manna, A., and Bhattacharayya, B., 2003, “A Study on Machinability of Al/SiC-MMC,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 140, pp. 711–716. [CrossRef]
Mohan, B., Venugopal, S., Rajadurai, A., and Mannan, S. L., 2008, “Optimization of the Machinability of the Al-SiC Metal Matrix Composite Using the Dynamic Material Model,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 39, pp. 2931–2940. [CrossRef]
Manna, A., and Bhattacharayya, B., 2005, “Influence of Machining Parameters on the Machinability of Particulate Reinforced Al/SiC–MMC,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 25, pp. 850–856. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

CNC turning machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Central composite rotatable design in 3X variables

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Normal probability of residuals flank wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Effect of cutting speed and feed on flank wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Effect of cutting speed and depth of cut on flank wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of cutting speed and nose radius on flank wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normal probability of residuals crater wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variation of crater wear with feed and cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variation of crater wear with depth of cut and cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of cutting speed and nose radius on crater wear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Normal probability of residuals MRR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Variation of MRR with depth of cut and cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Variation of MRR with nose radius and cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Variation of MRR with nose radius and depth of cut

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Contour graph at maximum desirability value

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Contour graph flank wear-cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Contour graph at maximum desirability value

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Contour graph crater wear-cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Contour graph at maximum desirability value

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Contour graph MRR-cutting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Ramp function graph for overall desirability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Individual desirability value of each response

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In