36

CHAPTER 4

MODELLING AND OPTIMIZATION OF MACHINING

PARAMETERS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

An attempt has been made in this research by developing the

various models to find out the influence of machining parameters on the
performance measure. The effect of machining parameters on surface
roughness and flank wear has been investigated for the performance analysis
uncoated carbide cutting tool in finish turning and facing processes. The data
collected from the experiments were used to build the mathematical model
using linear and non-linear regression analysis. The experimental results were
analyzed by means of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) through statistical
simulation software used for identifying the factors that significantly affect
the performance measures. The machining parameters are optimized by using
Taguchi, response surface methodology (RSM) and GA-based multi objective
optimization techniques. In the GA-based simultaneous optimization process,
the mathematical models were used as objective functions.

4.2 MODELLING AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES OF

MACHINING PARAMETERS FOR FINISH TURNING AND
FACING PROCESSES

The data collected from the experiments are used to build the linear
and non-linear regression models. Using these models, the multi-objective
optimization technique employed for optimization of machining parameters.
 37

Taguchi’s technique is adopted for optimizing and selection of the machining

parameters as single objective function. The multi objective optimization
process generates optimum machining parameters as Pareto optimal front for
minimizing surface roughness and flank wear. These processes briefly
discussed in the following sub-sections.

4.2.1 Development of Mathematical Model Using Regression

Analysis

Regression is a methodology that is grounded in the relationship

between two quantitative variables (y, x) such that the value of y (dependent
variable) can be predicted based on the value of x (independent variable).
Determining the mathematical relationship between these two variables, such
as surface roughness and feed rate is very common in applied research.
Mathematical model is a representation in mathematical terms of the
behaviour of real devices and objects. The fundamental model for a simple
regression is

Yi 0 1 i i (4.1)

where Y is the response or dependent variable for the i th observation; 0 is the

population y intercept, when x i= 0; 1 is the population regression parameter;
xi is the independent variable; i is the random error for the ith observation.
Multiple linear regressions are the direct extension of simple linear
regression. In simple linear regression models, only one x predictor variable is
present, but in multiple linear regression, there are k predictor values, x 1, x2, .
. . , xk. A three-variable predictor model is presented in the following
equation:

Yi 0 1 i1 2 i2 3 i3 i (4.2)
 38

where 1 is the ith regression slope constant acting on x i1; 2, the ith regression
slope constant acting on x i2; xi1, the ith x value in the first x predictor; x i2, the
ith x value in the second x predictor; x i3, the ith x value in the third x predictor
and i is the ith error term (Oktem et al 2005).

The correlations between the factors (cutting speed, feed and depth
of cut) and the measured surface roughness on the workpiece and flank wear
on the tool face were obtained by multiple linear regressions. The obtained
equations for surface roughness (Ra) and flank wear (VB) under dry, wet and
refrigerated coolant turning and facing processes were as follows:

‘Ra Dry turning’ = 0.361 - 0.00383×V + 2.09×f + 0.0289×a, (4.3)

R-Squared value is 82.9%.

‘Ra Dry facing’ = 0.404 - 0.00428×V + 2.32×f + 0.0356×a, (4.4)

R-Squared value is 82.6%.

‘Ra Wet turning’ = 0.292 - 0.0030×V + 1.68×f + 0.0244×a, (4.5)

R-Squared value is 82.8%

‘Ra Wet facing’ = 0.319 - 0.00339×V + 1.82×f + 0.0289×a, (4.6)

R-Squared value is 82.3%

‘Ra Refrigerated turning’ = 0.219 - 0.00239×V + 1.13×f + 0.0556×a, (4.7)

R-Squared value is 66%

‘Ra Refrigerated facing’ = 0.216 - 0.00228×V + 1.24×f + 0.0178×a, (4.8)

R-Squared value is 82.8%

‘VB Dry turning’ = 0.0569 + 0.00299×V + 0.0944×f - 0.0502×a, (4.9)

R-Squared value is 81.1%

‘VB Dry facing’ =0.0325 + 0.00360×V + 0.112×f - 0.0416×a, (4.10)

R-Squared value is 80.0%
 39

‘VB Wet turning’ = 0.0227 + 0.0030×V + 0.0678×f - 0.0324×a, (4.11)

R-Squared value is 84.7%

‘VB Wet facing’ =0.0260 + 0.00284×V + 0.0878×f - 0.0329×a, (4.12)

R-Squared value is 80.0%

‘VB Refrigerated turning’ = 0.0151 + 0.00194×V + 0.0456×f - 0.0213×a, (4.13)

R-Squared value is 84.6%

‘VB Refrigerated facing’ = 0.00598 + 0.000656×V + 0.0144×f - 0.00644×a (4.14)

R-Squared value is 78.6%

being, Ra the arithmetic average roughness in m, VB the flank wear in mm,

V the cutting speed in m/min, f the feed in mm/rev and a the depth of cut in
mm. The R-squared value of the model is always greater than 0 and less than
1 (0<R-sq. <1). If the value closes to 1, the developed model gives the reliable
estimation of performance measure.

Nonlinear regression models are another important and useful

family of regression models. Nonlinear regression is a method of finding a
nonlinear model of the relationship between the dependent variable and a set
of independent variables. Unlike traditional linear regression, which is
restricted to estimating linear models, nonlinear regression can estimate
models with arbitrary relationships between independent and dependent
variables. This is accomplished using iterative estimation algorithms. The
proposed mathematical models of various responses are presented in the
following form

Yi =C×V k1×f k2 ×a k3 (4.15)

where C is the constant, V is the cutting speed, f is the feed, a is the depth of
cut and x1, x2, x3 are estimated coefficients of regression model. Statistical
 40

simulation software estimates the parameters in nonlinear models using the

Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least-squares algorithm.

Non-linear regression equations, to obtain the relations between the

response variables of surface roughness and flank wear and input machining
parameters of cutting speed, feed and depth of cut, were developed by means
of the NCSS simulation software. By using the machining parameters and
responses from the experiments the following empirical models for surface
roughness and tool flank wear were developed. The obtained equations for
surface roughness (Ra) and flank wear (VB) under dry, wet and refrigerated
coolant turning and facing processes were given below.

0.2188181
‘Ra Dry turning’ = 3.365515 V f 0.5294387 a 0.08976348 (4.16)

‘Ra Dry facing’ = 3.722944 × V-0.2177489 × f 0.5243214 × a0.09660935 (4.17)

0.20969
‘Ra Wet turning’ = 2.616893 V f 0.5218135 a 0.091756 (4.18)

‘Ra Wet facing’ = 8.32541× V-0.5117385 × f 0.5340432 × a0.3574919 (4.19)

0.2188181
‘Ra Refrigerated turning’ = 3.365515 V f 0.5294387 a 0.08976348 (4.20)

0.3480606
‘Ra Refrigerated facing’ = 5.74774 V f 1.225497 a 0.9238904 (4.21)

‘VB Dry turning ’ = 0.00607674×V 0.9239683×f 0.1288328 ×a -0.5574793 (4.22)

‘VB Dry facing ’ = 0.004987501×V1.011719 ×f 0.1591203×a -0.3990844 (4.23)

‘VB Wet turning ’ = 0.002876988×V1.058313×f 0.08526174 ×a -0.3694086 (4.24)

‘VB Wet facing ’ = 0.003946223×V1.010674 ×f 0.1582187 ×a -0.3996844 (4.25)

‘VB Refrigerated turning ’ = 0.001892394×V1.058552 ×f 0.0907384 ×a -0.3774002 (4.26)

‘VB Refrigerated facing ’ = 0.0009541166×V 0.9818614 ×f 0.1223279 ×a -0.3384602 (4.27)

 41

The proposed models require to be checked to find out whether

they actually fit the experimental data. The checks used here involved
computation of the various R-squared coefficients which have values between
0 and 1. In addition to the above, the adequacy of the model is also
investigated by the examination of residuals (Puertas Arbizu et al 2003,
Palanikumar 2007). The residuals, which are the differences between the
respective observed responses and the predicted responses, are examined
using the normal probability plots of the residuals and the residuals verses the
predicted responses plots. If the model is adequate, the points on the normal
probability plots of the residuals should be a straight line. On the other hand,
the plots of the residuals versus the predicted responses should be structure-
less, that is, they should contain no obvious patterns.

4.2.1.1 Estimation of Nonlinear Models

The developed model was estimated by using this analysis.

Following terms are visualizing the model estimation processes.

R-Squared: There is no direct R-Squared defined for nonlinear

regression. This is a pseudo R-Squared constructed to approximate the usual
R-Squared value used in multiple regression. The following generalization of
the usual R-Squared formula as,

R-Squared = (Model SS – Mean SS)/(Total SS-Mean SS) (4.28)

where Mean SS is the sum of squares due to the mean, Model SS is the sum
of squares due to the model, and Total SS is the total (uncorrected) sum of
squares of Y (the dependent variable). This version of R-Squared tells about
how well the model performs after removing the influence of the mean of Y.
Since many nonlinear models do not explicitly include a parameter for the
mean of Y, this R-Squared may be negative or difficult to interpret. However,
a direct extension of the R-Squared used in multiple regressions, it will serve
well for comparative purposes.
 42

Iterations: The number of iterations that were completed before the

nonlinear algorithm terminated. If the number of iterations set by less than
that the required Maximum Iterations the algorithm did not converge, but was
aborted.

Estimated Model: This expression displays the estimated nonlinear-

regression model. It is displayed as per required format so that it may be
copied to the clipboard and used elsewhere.

Source : The labels of the various sources of variation.

DF : The degrees of freedom.

Sum of Squares: The sum of squares associated with this term.

Note that these sums of squares are based on Y, the dependent variable.
Individual terms are defined as follows:

Mean: The sum of squares associated with the mean of Y. This may
or may not be a part of the model. It is presented since it is the amount used to
adjust the other sums of squares.

Model : The sum of squares associated with the model.

Model (Adjusted) : The model sum of squares minus the mean

sum of squares.

Error : The sum of the squared residuals. This is

often called the sum of squares error or just SSE.

Total : The sum of the squared Y values.

Total (Adjusted) : The sum of the squared Y values minus the

mean sum of squares.

Mean Square : The sum of squares divided by the degrees of

freedom. The Mean Square for error is an
estimate of the underlying variation in the
data.
 43

4.2.1.2 Surface Roughness Model

The obtained surface roughness model by the non-linear regression

analysis is shown in Equations (4.16-4.21). The R-Squared value is high and
close to 1; this is desirable for prediction of surface roughness. A check on the
plots in Figures 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5 revealed that the residuals generally fall on a
straight line, implying that the errors are distributed normally. Figure 4.2, 4.4,
4.6 reveals that the predicted responses have no obvious pattern and the plots
have unusual structures. This implies that the proposed model is adequate for
the prediction of surface roughness.

Nonlinear Regression Report for Surface roughness of the turning

process under dry turning conditions was given in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for dry
turning process

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper

Name Estimate Standard 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
Error
C 3.365515 0.8272648 1.654187 5.076843
k1 -0.2188181 6.282258E-02 -0.3487765 -0.08
k2 0.5294387 5.735224E-02 0.4107966 0.6480
k3 8.976348E-02 9.212647E-02 -0.1008147 0.2803

Model ‘Ra’ = C×Vk1× fk2×ak3

R-Squared = 0.818261
Iterations = 13
-0.2188181 0.5294387 8.976348E-02
Estimated Model = 3.365515 × V ×f ×a
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 8.955648 8.955648
Model 4 9.176457 2.294114
Model (Adjusted) 3 0.2208093 7.360309E-02
Error 23 0.0490426 2.132287E-03
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.2698519
Total 27 9.2255
 44

Normal Probability Plot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.1 -0.1
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.1 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted surface

roughness of dry turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for turning process Surface roughness

under wet turning conditions was given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for wet
turning process

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper

Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 2.616893 0.6354383 1.302389 3.931397
K1 -0.20969 6.205816E-02 -0.3380671 -0.081313
K2 0.5218135 5.656654E-02 0.4047967 0.6388302
K3 9.091756E-02 0.0909953 -9.732056E-02 0.2791557
k k k
Model Ra = C V 1 f 2 a 3
R-Squared 0.816961
Iterations 13
Estimated Model ‘Ra’ = 2.616893 × V-0.20969 × f0.5218135 × a0.09091756
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 5.945515 5.945515
Model 4 6.087164 1.521791
Model (Adjusted) 3 0.141649 4.721632E-02
Error 23 3.173622E-02 1.379836E-03
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.1733852
Total 27 6.1189
 45

Normal Probability Plot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

-0.1 -0.1
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.2 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted surface

roughness of wet turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Surface roughness of turning

process under refrigerated coolant turning conditions was given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for

refrigerated coolant turning process

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper

Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 1.719974 0.5843411 0.5111719 2.928775
K1 -0.2051812 8.693255E-02 -0.3850149 -2.534749E-02
K2 0.4377969 7.807502E-02 0.2762864 0.5993074
K3 0.1827729 0.1278215 -8.164589E-02 0.4471917
k k k
Model Ra = C V 1 f 2 a 3
R-Squared 0.635802
Iterations 11
Estimated Model ‘Ra’ = 1.719974 × V-0.2051812 × f0.4377969 × a0.1827729
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 3.793126 3.793126
Model 4 3.862094 0.9655235
Model (Adjusted) 3 6.896799E-02 2.298933E-02
Error 23 3.950609E-02 1.717656E-03
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.1084741
Total 27 3.9016
 46

Normal Probability Plot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

-0.1 -0.1
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.3 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted surface

roughness of refrigerated coolant turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Surface roughness under dry

facing conditions was given in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for dry
facing process

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper

Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 3.722944 0.9155447 1.828995 5.616892
K1 -0.2177489 6.285577E-02 -0.3477759 -0.08772185
K2 0.5243214 5.732733E-02 0.4057308 0.642912
K3 9.660935E-02 9.219092E-02 -0.0941021 0.2873208
k k k
Model Ra = C V 1 f 2 a 3
R-Squared 0.815541
Iterations 14
-0.2177489 0.5243214 0.09660935
Estimated Model ‘Ra’ = 3.722944 × V ×f ×a
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 11.2908 11.2908
Model 4 11.56433 2.891083
Model (Adjusted) 3 0.2735323 9.117744E-02
Error 23 6.186767E-02 2.689899E-03
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.3354
Total 27 11.6262
Total 27 3.9016
 47

Residuals vs Predicted Normal Probability Plot of Residuals

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.1 -0.1
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
Predicted Expected Normals

Figure 4.4 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted surface

roughness of dry facing process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Surface roughness of facing

process under wet conditions was given in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for wet
facing process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.

C 8.32541 6.526523 -5.17573 21.82655

K1 -0.5117385 0.2016653 -0.928915 -0.0945621
K2 0.5340432 0.1836252 0.1541855 0.9139009
K3 0.3574919 0.297724 -0.2583971 0.9733809
k k k
Model Ra = C V 1 f 2 a 3
R-Squared 0.410391
Iterations 21
Estimated Model ‘Ra’ = 8.32541 × V-0.5117385 × f 0.5340432 × a0.3574919
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 7.76557 7.76557
Model 4 8.072883 2.018221
Model (Adjusted) 3 0.3073126 0.1024375
Error 23 0.441517 1.919639E-02
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.7488296
Total 27 8.5144
 48

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.5 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted plot surface
roughness of wet facing process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Surface roughness of facing

process under refrigerated coolant conditions was given in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Surface roughness model estimation and analysis for

refrigerated coolant facing process
 49

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.6 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted plot surface
roughness of refrigerated coolant facing process

4.2.1.3 Flank Wear Model

The obtained flank wear model by the non-linear regression

analysis is shown in Equations (4.22-4.27). The R-Squared value is high and
close to 1; this is desirable for prediction of flank wear. A check on the plots
in Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.12 revealed that the residuals generally fall on a
straight line, implying that the errors are distributed normally. From the
Figures 4.7- 4.12 reveals that the predicted responses have no obvious pattern
and the plots have unusual structures. This implies that the proposed model is
adequate for the prediction of flan wear.

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank Wear in dry turning process

was given in Table 4.7.
 50

Table 4.7 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for dry turning
process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.

C 6.076764E-03 2.416022E-03 1.078842E-03 0.01107469

K1 0.9239683 0.1006263 0.7158069 1.13213
K2 0.1288328 7.811905E-02 -3.276877E-02 0.2904344
K3 -0.5574793 0.1327506 -0.8320948 -0.2828638
k k k
Model VB = C V 1 f 2 a 3
R-Squared 0.830288
Iterations 25
Estimated Model ‘VB’ = 0.00607674 × V0.9239683 × f 0.1288328 × a-0.5574793
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 0.3438596 0.3438596
Model 4 0.3636299 9.090748E-02
Model (Adjusted) 3 1.977032E-02 6.590106E-03
Error 23 4.04109E-03 1.756995E-04
Total (Adjusted) 26 2.381141E-02
Total 27 0.367671

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.7 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
dry turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank Wear in dry facing process

was given in Table 4.8.
 51

Table 4.8 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for dry facing
process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper

Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 4.987501E-03 2.264574E-03 3.028726E-04 9.67213E-03
K1 1.011719 0.1148805 0.7740704 1.249367
K2 0.1591203 8.807188E-02 -2.307031E-02 0.3413108
K3 -0.3990844 0.1487553 -0.7068082 -9.136061E-02
k1 k2 k3
Model VB = C V f a
R-Squared 0.809936
Iterations 25
1.011719
Estimated Model = 0.004987501×V ×f 0.1591203×a -0.3990844
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 0.4109467 0.4109467
Model 4 0.4370982 0.1092745
Model (Adjusted) 3 2.615147E-02 8.717155E-03
Error 23 6.136831E-03 2.668187E-04
Total (Adjusted) 26 0.0322883
Total 27 0.443235

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.8 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
dry facing process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank wear of wet turning process

was given in Table 4.9.
 52

Table 4.9 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for wet turning
process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 2.876988E-03 1.215817E-03 3.618789E-04 0.005392098
K1 1.058313 0.1069287 0.8371146 1.279512
K2 8.526174E-02 8.070245E-02 -0.081684 0.2522075
K3 -0.3694086 0.1372205 -0.653271 0.08554626
k1 k2 k3
Model VB = C V f a
R-Squared 0.838266
Iterations 27
1.058313
Estimated Model = 0.002876988×V ×f 0.08526174 ×a -0.3694086
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 0.2569613 0.2569613
Model 4 0.2739351 6.848377E-02
Model (Adjusted) 3 1.697376E-02 5.65792E-03
Error 23 3.274906E-03 1.423872E-04
Total (Adjusted) 26 2.024867E-02
Total 27 0.27721

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.9 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
wet turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank wear of wet facing process

was given in Table 4.10.
 53

Table 4.10 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for wet facing
process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 3.946223E-03 1.790898E-03 2.414693E-04 7.650977E-03
K1 1.010674 0.1148242 0.7731426 1.248206
K2 0.1582187 8.803728E-02 -2.390034E-02 0.3403377
K3 -0.3996844 0.1487119 -0.7073184 -9.205046E-02
k1 k2 k3
Model VB = C V f a
R-Squared 0.809682
Iterations 26
1.010674
Estimated Model = 0.003946223×V ×f 0.1582187 ×a -0.3996844
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 0.2561815 0.2561815
Model 4 0.2724452 6.811129E-02
Model (Adjusted) 3 0.0162637 5.421232E-03
Error 23 3.822823E-03 1.662097E-04
Total (Adjusted) 26 2.008652E-02
Total 27 0.276268

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.10 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
wet facing process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank wear of refrigerated turning

process was given in Table 4.11.
 54

Table 4.11 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for refrigerated
turning process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 1.892394E-03 7.97736E-04 2.421515E-04 3.542637E-03
K1 1.058552 0.1066634 0.8379018 1.279202
K2 0.0907384 8.053679E-02 -7.586465E-02 0.2573414
K3 -0.3774002 0.1368853 -0.6605692 -9.423135E-02
k1 k2 k3
Model VB = C V f a
R-Squared 0.839707
Iterations 26
1.058552
Estimated Model = 0.001892394×V ×f 0.0907384 ×a -0.3774002
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 0.1086803 0.1086803
Model 4 0.1159024 2.897559E-02
Model (Adjusted) 3 7.22204E-03 2.407347E-03
Error 23 1.378627E-03 5.994029E-05
Total (Adjusted) 26 8.600667E-03
Total 27 0.117281

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.11 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
refrigerated coolant turning process

Nonlinear Regression Report for Flank wear of refrigerated facing

process was given in Table 4.12.
 55

Table 4.12 Flank wear model estimation and analysis for refrigerated
coolant facing process

Model Estimation Section

Parameter Parameter Asymptotic Lower Upper
Name Estimate Standard Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L.
C 9.541166E-04 4.333562E-04 5.7651E-05 1.850582E-03
K1 0.9818614 0.11492 0.7441311 1.219592
K2 0.1223279 8.825677E-02 -6.024513E-02 0.3049009
K3 -0.3384602 0.1495224 -0.6477709 -2.914945E-02
k1 k2 k3
Model VB = C V f a
R-Squared 0.795794
Iterations 27
0.9818614
Estimated Model = 0.0009541166×V ×f 0.1223279 ×a -0.3384602
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square
Mean 1 1.432904E-02 1.432904E-02
Model 4 1.516857E-02 3.792142E-03
Model (Adjusted) 3 8.395329E-04 2.798443E-04
Error 23 2.154301E-04 9.366527E-06
Total (Adjusted) 26 1.054963E-03
Total 27 0.015384

Normal ProbabilityPlot of Residuals Residuals vs Predicted

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Expected Normals Predicted

Figure 4.12 Normality plot and residuals versus predicted flank wear of
refrigerated coolant facing process

4.2.2 Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is a combination of

experimental and regression analysis and statistical inferences. The concept of
 56

a response surface involves a dependent variable y called the response

variable and several independent variables x1, x2,…,xk (Hicks 1993). The
RSM was initially developed and described by Box et al (1957) in the study
of optimization problems in chemical processing engineering. Mead et al
(1975), Hill et al (1966) and Choudhury et al (1999) used this RSM method in
their research. Davim (2003, 2007) also established a correlation between
cutting speed, feed and the cutting time with the tool wear using multiple
regression analysis. This has been used in tool life modelling, surface
roughness modelling, cutting force modelling in the other machining
processes. If all of these variables are assumed to be measurable, the response
surface can be expressed as

y = f(x1 ,x 2 ,x 3 ,........x k ) (4.29)

The goal is to optimize the response variable y. It is assumed that

the independent variables (x 1,x2,…,xk) are continuous and controllable by the
experimenter with negligible error. The response or the dependent variable is
assumed to be random variable. In general, a suitable combination of cutting
speed (V), feed (f) and depth of cut (a) that optimizes tool life, surface
roughness, cutting force and material removal rate for the lathe machining
operations. The observed response y as a function of the cutting speed, feed
and depth of cut can be written as

y = f(x1 ,x 2 ,...,x k )+ (4.30)

where is a random error. If the expected response is denoted by E(y) = , the

surface represented by = f(x1,x2,x3) is called a response surface. It is
required to find a suitable approximation for the true functional relationship
between y and the set of independent variables xi’s. Usually a second order
model is utilized in response to the surface methodology (Montgomery 1991).
 57

k k
y 0 i xi ii x i2 ij xi x j for i < j (4.31)
i 1 i 1 i j

The parameters of the polynomials are estimated by the method

of least squares. The response surface methodology can be used to find the
values of the controllable parameters that results in optimization of response
to discover what values for the x values will result in a process satisfying
several requirements or specifications (Kwak 2005). In the present set of
analysis, cutting speed (V), feed (f) and depth of cut (a) are considered as
controlling variables. Their effects on surface roughness and flank wear are
optimized for various cutting conditions.

The optimization of machining parameters has been carried out

using response optimizer in MINITAB software and is discussed below. Here
minimizing surface roughness and flank wear are the important objectives in
the machining process. To establish the response optimizer the settings given
in the Table 4.13 are keyed into the program. As per the optimization
requirements the surface roughness and the tool life are having more
importance than the cutting force and material removal rate. Minitab’s
response optimizer searches for combination of input variables that jointly
optimize a set of responses by satisfying the requirements for each response in
the set. The optimization is accomplished by:

Obtaining the individual desirability (d) for each response

Combining the individual desirability to obtain the combined

desirability (D)

Maximizing the composite desirability and identifying the

optimal input parameter settings.
 58

The useful approach to optimization of multiple responses is to use

the simultaneous optimization technique based on the desirability functions.
The general approach is to first convert each response y i into an individual
desirability function d i that varies over the range 0 d i 1 where if the
response yi is at its goal or target, then d i =1, and response is outside an
acceptable region, d i =0. Then the design variables are chosen to maximize
the overall desirability

1
D d1 d 2 ......d m m (4.32)

where there are m responses.

Table 4.13 Settings for optimization process

Parameters Goal Lower Target Upper Weight

Surface roughness ‘Ra’ Minimum 0.5 0.5 0.7 1
Flank wear ‘VB’ Minimum 0.1 0.1 0.175 1

The response optimizer generated the optimization plot based on

the individual and composite desirability value. The optimization results are
discussed in detail at results and discussion chapter.

4.2.3 Genetic Algorithm Based Multi-Objective Optimization

Even though some real-world problems can be reduced to a matter

of a single objective, it is very often hard to define all the aspects in terms of a
single objective. Defining multiple objectives often gives a better idea of the
task. Multi-objective optimization has been available for about two decades,
and its application in real-world problems is continuously increasing
(Malakooti 1991). A single objective optimization algorithm will normally be
 59

terminated upon obtaining an optimal solution. However, for most of the

multi-objective problems, there could be a number of optimal solutions.
Suitability of one solution depends on a number of factors including user’s
choice and problem environment, and hence finding the entire set of optimal
solutions may be desired. Genetic algorithm works with a population of
feasible solutions and, therefore, it can be used in multi-objective
optimization problems to capture a number of solutions simultaneously. The
cutting parameters must be selected that the cutting tool is utilized to the
maximum possible extent and that the desired surface finish as much as
possible. These are two conflicting objectives; therefore a compromise must
be reached. If cutting speed, feed and cutting depth are decreased, the work
efficiency is reduced and the tool resistance to wear prolonged (Cus et al
2002, 2003, 2006). In this way, the tools are saved and the cost of the tool
replacement reduced, but the labour cost and the machining cost are
increased. Inversely, it is not always our aim to produce as much as possible
within the shortest possible time because of machining difficulties of Inconel
718 material. When selecting the optimum cutting conditions for finish
turning operation, the process planner makes a compromise between the
extent of removal of the material and the maximum tool life. The purpose of
the optimization is to determine such a set of the machining parameters V
(cutting speed), f (feed rate), a (depth of cut) that satisfies the limitation
equations and balances the conflicting objectives. The main objective of the
present paper is to determine the optimal machining parameters that minimize
(surface roughness, and cutting force) and maximize (tool life and material
removal rate) the objective functions without violating any imposed cutting
constraints. All of the mentioned objectives are represented as a function of
the cutting speed, feed and depth of cut.
 60

The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) is another

modification to the ranking procedure originally proposed by Goldberg for
Multi-objective optimization. This NSGA algorithm is based on several layers
of classifications of the individuals. Before selection is performed, the
population is ranked on the basis of non domination: all non-dominated
individuals are classified into one category (Arsecularatne et al 1992). To
maintain the diversity of the population, these classified individuals are
shared with their dummy fitness values (Ahn 2006). Subsequently, this group
of classified individuals is ignored and another layer of non-dominated
individuals is considered. The process continues until all individuals in the
population are classified. The NSGA is also a highly inefficient algorithm
because of the way in which it classifies individuals. Kalyanmoy Deb (2002)
has proposed an improved version of the NSGA algorithm, called NSGA-II.
The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) is a generic non-
explicit based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm applied to multi-
objective problems based on the original design of NSGA shown in
Figure 4.13.

Due to limitations of the machine and cutting tool the cutting

parameters (decision variables) are limited to the bottom and top permissible
limits. Permissible range of cutting conditions of the selected tool, based on
the tool maker specifies the limitations of the cutting conditions. Here surface
roughness and the flank wear are restricted to a maximum of 1.0 m and
0.15 mm respectively. Since these are the constraints which affect selection of
the optimal cutting conditions, they will be taken into account. These
constraints are mathematically modelled using non-linear regression analysis.
 61

Figure 4.13 Flow chart of NSGA II Optimization process

 62

The proposed algorithm was implemented in MATLAB program

for and which the following parameters were established.

Population Size : 20
No. of generations : 100
Selection Strategy : Tournament Selection
Cross-over Probability : 0.95
Mutation Probability : 0.05

The optimization results are obtained at the end maximum

generation is completed. An elaborated discussion is made on the
optimization results in the Results and discussion chapter.

4.2.4 Taguchi’s Optimization of Machining Parameters in Finish

Turning and Facing Processes

Dr. Genichi Taguchi is regarded as the foremost proponent of

robust parameter design, which is an engineering method for product or
process design that focuses on minimizing variation and/or sensitivity to
noise. Taguchi designs are used orthogonal arrays, which estimate the effects
of factors on the response mean and variation. Orthogonal arrays allowed to
investigate each effect independently from the others and may reduce the time
and cost associated with the experiment when fractionated designed are used.
In Taguchi designed experiments, the objective is to identify control factor
settings that minimize the variability produced by uncontrollable factors,
called noise factors. Examples of control factors are equipment settings,
material used to manufacture the product, or product design features. The
factors used in the experiments that cause variability in the performance of a
system or product, but cannot be controlled during production or product use
(Yang et al 1998). However, it can control or simulate noise factors during
experimentation. Based on the choice of noise factor levels reflect the range
of conditions under which the response should remain robust.
 63

Common types of noise factors are:

External: Environmental factors, customer usage, and so on

Manufacturing variations: Part-to-part variations

Product deterioration: Degradation that occurs through usage

and environmental exposure.

During experimentation, the manipulation noise factors are to force

variability to occur, then from the results, identify optimal control factor
settings that make the process or product resistant, or robust to variation from
the noise factors. Control factors are those design and process parameters that
can be controlled (Davim 2007). The goal of robust experimentation is to find
an optimal combination of control factor settings that achieve robustness
against (insensitivity to) noise factors. Minitab software calculates response
tables, linear model results, and generates main effects and interaction plots
for:

Signal-to-noise ratios (S/N ratios, which provide a measure of

robustness) versus the control factors

Means (static design) or slopes (dynamic design) versus the

control factors

Standard deviations versus the control factors

Natural log of the standard deviations versus the control

factors.

Use the results and plots to determine factors and interactions are
important and evaluate how they affect responses. To get a complete
understanding of effects of factor, it is advisable to evaluate S/N ratios, means
and standard deviations. Make sure that the choice of an S/N ratio that is
appropriate for the type of data and desired goal for optimizing the response.
In this research the lower values of surface roughness and flank wear are
 64

desirable. In the finishing turning and facing processes, desired responses are
minimum surface roughness and minimum flank wear so “Smaller is Better”
ratio is selected (Table 4.14). The surface roughness and flank wear are
individually analysed using MINITAB software. The mean S/N ratio for each
level of the machining parameters is calculated and the results are obtained.
Based on this data the optimal performance for the surface roughness and
flank wear are analysed. The detailed discussion on the optimization results
and its effectiveness are presented in the results and discussion chapter.

Table 4.14 Taguchi’s optimization techniques and its characteristics

Choice
of S/N S/N ratio formulas Desired goal Data type
ratio
Larger 1 Maximize the Positive
S/N = - 10×log )/n
is better Y2 response
Target the Non-negative
response and you with an
(Y 2 ) want to base the "absolute zero"
Nominal S/N = -10 log 2 S/N ratio on in which the
is best means and standard
standard deviation is
deviations zero when the
mean is zero
Y2 Minimize the Non-negative
Smaller S/N = -10 log response with a target
is better n
value of zero

4.3 SUMMARY

The experimental data were analysed by means of the statistical

simulation software for predicting the effect of various input machining
parameters such as cutting speed, feed and depth of cut on the surface
roughness and flank wear under dry, wet and refrigerated machining
conditions. A non-linear regression equation has been developed and
 65

proposed in this chapter. The NCSS, MINITAB and MATLAB software have
been used to develop the mathematical model and optimization process. The
various modelling, optimization and selection techniques have been applied
for analysis of machining parameters and their interaction with the response
variables. The next chapter discuss the performance of carbide cutting tool in
finish turning and facing processes.