MMMS

Multidiscipline Modeling in Mat. and Str.4(2008) 345-358

www.brill.nl/mmms

MODELING OF MACHINING PARAMETERS TO PREDICT SURFACE ROUGHNESS IN MACHINING AL/SIC PARTICULATE COMPOSITES BY CARBIDE INSERT
K.Palanikumar1 and R.Karthikeyan2
1

Department of Mechanical & Production Engineering,Sathyabama University,Chennai-119, INDIA 2 Department of Manufacturing Engineering,Annamalai University, Chidambaram- 608001, India. palanikumar_k@yahoo.com , ramkalaikarthi@rediffmail.com Received 6 April 2007; accepted 9 July 2007

Abstract
Aluminium silicon carbide reinforced metal matrix composite (Al/SiC-MMC) materials are rapidly replacing conventional materials in various automotive, aerospace and other industries. Accordingly, the need for accurate machining of composites has increased enormously. The present work analyzes the machining of Al/SiC composites for surface roughness. An empirical model has been developed to correlate the machining parameters and their interactions with surface roughness. Response surface regression and analysis of variance are used for making the model. The developed model can be effectively used to predict the surface roughness in machining Al/SiC-MMC composites. The influences of different parameters in machining Al/SiC particulate composites have been analyzed through contour graphs and 3D plots. Keywords Empirical model, Turning, Al/SiC particulate composites, Surface roughness

1. Introduction
Metal matrix composites (MMC) are attractive materials because of their superiority in mechanical and physical properties. These materials play a significant role in applications for aerospace and automotive engineering components, and other diverse industries [1]. Even though many engineering components made from aluminium matrix composites are manufactured through casting, forging and extrusion, they frequently require machining to achieve the desired dimensions and surface finish [2]. The issues of machining MMCs have been addressed from various aspects. From the available literature on particulate metal matrix composites, it is clear that the morphology, distribution of hard abrasive particles in aluminium matrix, volume fraction of the
C Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008

346

K.Palanikumar et al

reinforcement and the properties of matrix materials are all factors that affect the overall cutting process. The machined surface quality of composite is one of the most important concerns which affect the actual application of the composites [3]. Surface finish is an important parameter in machining process and has serious attentions for many years. It has formulated an important design feature in many situations such as parts subject to fatigue loads, precision fits, fastener holes and aesthetic requirements. In addition to tolerances, surface roughness imposes one of the most critical constraints for selection of machines and cutting parameters in process planning [4]. The surface roughness on machining of Al/SiC MMC has been studied by several researchers. Yusuf Ozcatalbas [5] have investigated the machinability behaviour of Al4C3 reinforced Al-based composite produced by mechanical alloying technique. Kilickap et al. [6] have noticed that the surface roughness increased with using higher feed rates in all machining conditions. The effect of machining on the surface properties of SiC/Al composite is studied by Yanming Quan and Bangyan Ye [3]. Manna and Bhattacharayya [7] have observed abrupt change in surface roughness height (Rt). They have reported that the abrupt irregularity in the values of surface roughness heights may be due to the presence of hard abrasive reinforced SiC particles which are rolling over the machined surface during turning and ploughing on the surface finish. Published literature on machining of Al/SiC indicates that only polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tools provide good tool life. However, due to the high cost of PCD tools, ceramic and cemented carbide tools have been proposed; ceramic tools are found to be unsatisfactory and the cemented carbide tools have proved to be accepted tools [8-10] In the present work, machinability parameters which affect the surface roughness in machining Al/SiC particulate composites using carbide tool has been modeled. Regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are used in order to study the main and interaction effects of machining parameters, viz., % volume fraction of SiC, cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate. The adequacy of the developed model is verified by using coefficient of determination and residual analysis. The analysis of machining parameters on surface roughness has been carried out through contour graphs and 3D graphs.

2. Scheme of Investigation
For achieving the desired surface finish on the machined Al/SiC composite work piece, the present investigation has been planned in the following steps: 1) Identifying the predominant factors, which are affecting the surface roughness of the machined Al/SiC composites and finding the upper and lower limits of the factors identified; 2) Developing the experimental design matrix using design of experiments; 3) Performing the experiments as per design matrix; 4) Developing the model for surface roughness in machining of Al/SiC composites; 5) Checking the adequacy of the developed model using coefficient of determination and residual analysis.

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

347

2.1 Identification of predominant factors and finding the upper and lower limits of chosen factors
The independently controllable machining parameters, which are having greater influences on surface roughness while machining of Al/SiC-MMC composite work piece, have been analyzed and identified. They are: (i) cutting speed (A), (ii) % volume fraction of SiC (B), (iii) depth of cut (C) and (iv) feed rate (D), out of which % volume fraction of SiC has been specially applied to Al/SiC-MMC composites. A detailed analysis has been carried out to fix the lower and upper limits of the factors. Based on the analysis, the upper and lower limits of the factors have been identified and are given below [9]: 1) Previous studies on machining of Al/SiC-MMC composites indicated that higher cutting speed produces better surface finish [11]. But very high cutting speed produce higher interface temperature and severe tool wear. In the present study, the cutting speed is set between 50 -150 m/min. 2) The % volume of SiC particles embedded in aluminium matrix plays an important role for deciding the surface roughness. The increase in volume fraction reduces the surface roughness. This can be attributed to increased brittleness and subsequent disappearance of built-up edge (BUE) [8]. In the present study, % volume fraction of SiC particles selected in the work piece is between 10% and 25% 3) During machining of Al/SiC-MMC, depth of cut also plays some role in deciding the surface roughness. Abnormal depth of cut leads to the chances in formation of BUE [9]. The depth of cut considered in this work is between 0.50 and 1.50 mm. 4) The surface roughness increased with increase in feed rate. Higher feed values increase temperature and cause decrease in bonding effect between SiC and Almatrix [6]. In the present study, the feed rate has been set from 0.1 to 0.5 mm/rev.

2.2.

Developing the experimental design matrix

For experimentation, design of experiment in statistics has been used. Due to the narrow ranges of parameters selected, two level full factorial design has been used. The notations, units and their levels chosen are summarized in Table 1. For the convenience of recording and processing the experimental data, the upper and lower levels of the parameters are coded as +1 and 1. The coded value of any intermediate levels can be calculated by using the following expression [12]:

X Xi =

max +

min

2 X max X min 2

(1)

where Xmax is the upper level of the parameter, Xmin is the lower level of the parameter and Xi is the required coded values of the parameter of any value of X from Xmin to Xmax.

348

K.Palanikumar et al

Table 1 Control parameters and their levels S.No Parameter Cutting speed % volume fraction of SiC Depth of cut Feed rate Notation A B C D Unit m/min % mm mm/rev Levels Low (-1) 50 10 0.50 0.10 High (+1) 150 25 1.50 0.50

2.3 Performing the experiments

LM 25 aluminium alloy (7 Si 0.33 Mg 0.3 Mn 0.5 Fe 0.1 Cu 0.1Ni 0.2Ti) reinforced with green bonded silicon carbide particles of size 25 m is used with different volume fractions manufactured through stir casting route. The turning tests have been performed on PSG 141 lathe. The tool holder used in the present study is PTCNR 2525 M16. The cutting tool used is carbide tool TNMG 160404 IC 428. The design matrix used and the corresponding responses are given in Table 2. In the previous study by the authors [9], the average of three values is taken up for analysis. In the present study, the experiments have been repeated for three times and the experimental results are presented in Table 2. The average surface roughness (Ra), which is mostly used in industries, has been takenup for this present study. The surface roughness has been measured by using MITUTOYO SURF III surface tester. The specifications of the tester are as follows: speed of traverse 2-5 mm/sec., range of traverse 2.5 mm, driving power 2VA, measuring range 0.3-100 m.
Table 2 Design Matrix and Corresponding Output Response Coded values Original values Expt. Surface roughness (Ra), No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 B -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 C -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 D -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 A 50 150 50 150 50 150 50 150 50 150 50 150 50 150 50 150 B 10 10 25 25 10 10 25 25 10 10 25 25 10 10 25 25 C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 D 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

m
3.08 2.39 2.39 1.80 3.26 2.13 3.23 2.24 2.83 3.25 2.65 2.94 3.35 3.20 3.06 3.02 3.25 2.34 2.56 1.72 3.35 1.98 3.12 2.18 3.05 2.95 2.65 2.76 3.44 3.43 3.35 3.15 3.12 2.32 2.79 1.76 3.35 2.25 2.92 2.03 3.06 3.16 2.56 2.82 3.56 3.12 3.04 2.98

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

349

2.4 Developing the model for surface roughness in machining of Al/SiC composites
For modeling of surface roughness with machining parameters regression has been used. The regression model approach is more natural and intuitive [13]. For the machining experiment, representing the surface roughness of the Al/SiC-MMC composite Y, the regression model can be expressed as Y = 0 + 1 ( A) + 2 ( B) + + (2) Where A, B is coded variables represent different machining parameters, the s are regression coefficients and represents error associated with the model. In the present case the model chosen includes the effects of main and the interaction effect of all factors. The model selected is expressed as follows.

Y = 0 + 1 ( A) + 2 ( B ) + 3 (C ) + 4 ( D ) + 5 ( AB )

+ 6 ( AC ) + 7 ( AD ) + 8 ( BC ) + 9 ( BD ) + 10 (CD ) + 11 ( ABC ) + 12 ( ABD) + 13 ( ACD) + 14 ( BCD) + 15 ( ABCD ) Where 0 = constant .

(3)

1 , 2 ,, 15 - co-efficients that depends on main effects and interaction effects. Normally in engineering problems, the higher order interactions (three factor interactions and four factor interactions) are practically insignificant and hence they are not considered in this present work. After removing the three and four factor interactions, the eqs. (3) can be rewritten as
Y = 0 + 1 ( A) + 2 ( B ) + 3 (C ) + 4 ( D) + 5 ( AB ) + 6 ( AC ) + 7 ( AD) + 8 ( BC ) + 9 ( BD) + 10 (CD)
(4)

In eqn. (4), for finding the significant factors and their interactions analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been used. Consequently, taking cognizance of the findings from the ANOVA analysis which is presented in Table 3, the above equation has been modified by removing the insignificant effects on the response function. The interaction between factors AB, BD and CD (P, probability value is greater than 0.05, i.e, insignificant at 95% confidence level) have no effect on surface roughness, Eq.(4) can be rewritten as: Y = 0 + 1 ( A) + 2 ( B ) + 3 (C ) + 4 ( D) + 5 ( AC ) + 6 ( AD) + 7 ( BC ) (5)

The coefficients for the model are calculated and the final model developed in coded unit is: Surface roughness, Ra = 2.8113 0.2313( A) 0.1562( B) + 0.1363(C ) + 0.2462( D) 0.0738( AC ) + 0.2388( AD) + 0.0678( BC )
(6)

350

K.Palanikumar et al

Table 3 ANOVA test results Factors Sum of Degrees of freedom Squares (DOF)

A 2.5669 1 150.66 B 1.1719 1 68.78 C 0.8911 1 52.30 D 2.9107 1 170.84 AB 0.0331 1 1.94 AC 0.2611 1 15.32 AD 2.7361 1 160.59 BC 0.2269 1 13.3.2 BD 0.0091 1 0.53 CD 0.0469 1 2.75 Error 0.6304 37 Total 11.4839 47 AB, BD and CD are insignificant effects at 95% confidence level.

Adj. Mean Square 2.5669 1.1719 0.8911 2.9107 0.0331 0.2611 2.7361 0.2269 0.0091 0.0469 0.0170

Fratio

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.172 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.470 0.106

2.5 Checking the adequacy of the developed model using coefficient of determination and residual analysis
The quantity R2 called as coefficient of determination is used to judge the adequacy of 2 regression models developed. 0 R 1 . The R2 value is the variability in the data accounted for by the model in percentage [13]. SSError (7) R2 = 1 SStotal The coefficient of determination is 94.51% using the above expression for the present investigation, which shows that good correlation exists between the experimental and predicted values. Further more, Fig.1 shows the comparisons of values of surface roughness obtained from prediction and from actual experiment.

Fig.1 Correlation graph

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

351

Diagnostic checking of the developed model has been performed by using residual analysis. Residual is the value which is the difference between fitted values and experimental values. The normal probability of residuals is presented in Fig.2(a). Normal probability plot is used to verify the normality assumption. As shown in figure, the data are spread roughly along the straight line. It can be concluded that the data are normally distributed [14]. Fig.2 (b) is residual versus fitted values. In the present model, the residuals are within 0.2, which shows that good correlation exists between the observed values and predicted values. Fig 2(c) shows histogram of the residuals. The histogram gives the statistics about the residuals. Fig.2 (d) shows the residuals with respect to the experimental runs. From the figure it can be asserted that a tendency to have positive and negative residuals, which indicates the existence of a certain correlation. Also, the plot shows that the residuals are distributed evenly in both positive and negative along the run. Hence, the data can be said to be independent. From the residual plots, it has been observed that there is no abnormal condition existing between the observed results and predicted results and hence, the developed model can be highly significant and can be used for predicting the surface roughness of machined Al/SiC components. For confirmation of the model developed, verification tests are conducted at three selected conditions. Table 4 shows the test results. As shown in Table 4, the difference between the predicted surface roughnesses by the developed model is small and hence, the model can be used for predicting surface roughness in machining Al/SiC-MMC composites.
(a) Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
99 90 Residual Percent 50 10 1 -0.30 -0.15 0.00 Residual 0.15 0.30 0.2 0.1 0.0

(b) Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

-0.1 -0.2 2.0 2.4 2.8 Fitted Value 3.2 3.6

(c) Histogram of the Residuals

8 Frequency Residual -0.2 -0.1 0.0 Residual 0.1 0.2 6 4 2 0 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2

(d) Residuals Versus the Order of the Data

10

15 20 25 30 35 Observation Order

40

45

Fig.2 Plot of Residuals

352

K.Palanikumar et al

Table 4 Confirmation of trials and their comparison with the results S.No Trial No. with Experimental Predicted surface respect to Table 2 values roughness by Model 1 5 3.31 3.33 2 10 3.10 3.22 3 15 3.24 3.17

Error % 0.60 4.19 2.16

3. Results and discussion

Study of the machining characteristics of Al/SiC particulate composites is of current interest due to the presence of an abrasive phase in the metal matrix. The presence of SiC in metal matrix increases hardness, tensile strength and heat resistance [8]. During machining, the hard abrasive SiC particles intermittently come into contact with cutting tool and produces rapid tool wear which in turn affects the surface roughness of the workpiece. In application areas, surface roughness plays a leading role. In Al/SiC composite machining, many factors affect the surface finish of a machined part. The parameters such as % volume of SiC, cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut have good influences on the surface finish of a machined component. The effect of different parameters on surface roughness can be analyzed through standardized Pareto chart. Fig.3 shows Pareto chart for surface roughness in machining of Al/SiC composites. The Pareto chart indicates the effect of different parameters and its interactions. This chart displays the magnitude and its values. There is a reference line indicated in this chart. The effect of any parameter which extends more than the reference line indicates the significance of the variables used [15]. From figure, it can be asserted that the parameters A, B, C, D, AC, AD and BC bars are extended beyond the 2.03 line and are considered to be significant. Fig.4 and Fig.5 shows the microstructure of specimens used for experimentation with 10% volume fraction and 25% volume fraction of SiC particles. Figure clearly indicates the distribution of SiC particles in the aluminium matrix. The distribution of SiC in the matrix greatly affects the surface roughness in machining of Al/SiC composites [10].The micrograph of machined composite topography is presented in Fig.6 and Fig.7. Fig.6 shows the profile of smooth surface in machining of Al/SiC composites. In some places of the specimen, tiny surface cracks and very small pit holes are formed and is shown in Fig.7. This is due to the insufficient penetration of aluminium matrix in the fabrication of SiC composites through stir casting route. In the figure, the white layer shows the transformation of aluminium powder during the machining of Al/SiC particulate composites. The effects of different parameters on machining have been analyzed through contour graph and surface plots. Fig. 8 shows the contour plots for different parameters. The hold values for all the contour plots are middle values. This plots shows how a response variable relates to two factors based on a model equation [15]. Normally, contour plot shows only two factors at a time, while keeping the remaining factors at constant level. These contours graphs can help in the prediction of the surface roughness at any zone of the experimental domain. It is clear from these figures that the surface roughness reduces with the increase of cutting speed (A) and % volume fraction of SiC (B). However, it increases with the increase of depth of cut (C) and feed (D).

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

353

2.03 D AD Machining parameters A B C AC BC CD AB BD 0 2 4 6 8 Standardized Effect 10 12 14

Fig.3 Pareto chart of standardized effects

Fig.4 Microstructure of the specimen (10% volume fraction)

Fig.5 Microstructure of the specimen (25% volume fraction)

354

K.Palanikumar et al

Fig.6 Micrograph of machined specimen

Fig.7 Tiny cracks and pit holes observed on the machined specimen

1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0

3.11 2.99

B*A
2.75 2.51

1.0
3.11

C*A
2.99 2.75

1.0 0.5

D*A
2.99

0.5
2.63

2.75

0.0 -0.5
2.87 2.63

0.0
2.51

-0.5 -1.0
2.87 2.63

2.39 2.27

2.87

-1
2.99

-1.0

-1

1
2.99

-1
2.99

1.0 0.5

C*B

1.0
3.11

D*B

1.0 0.5
2.75

D*C
3.11

0.5
2.75

0.0 -0.5
2.87

0.0
2.87

0.0 -0.5
2.63 2.51

2.75 2.87

-0.5
2.63

-1.0

-1

-1.0

-1

-1.0

2.51

2.63

-1

A, Cutting speed, m/min B, % volume fraction of SiC C, Depth of cut, mm D, feed, mm/rev

Hold values: Middle values.

Fig.8 Contour graphs for surface roughness

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

355

The contour plots do not give the clear picture about the response surfaces. For clear understanding the effect of different parameters on three dimensional surface plots are used. Fig. 9 shows the 3D response surfaces for surface roughness in the case of two varying parameters by keeping the other parameters at middle level. Fig. 9(a) shows the effects of cutting speed at different % volume fraction of SiC. With a fixed value of % volume fraction of SiC, the surface roughness decreases with increase in cutting speed. The relation between cutting speed and depth of cut is presented in Fig. 9(b). The result shows that the increase in depth of cut at constant cutting speed increases the surface roughness. The reason being, at high depth of cut, the hard particles in the SiC have more contact with tool and this leads to more wear on the cutting tool which in turn increases the surface roughness. Fig. 9(c) shows the effect of cutting speed at different feed rate. From the figure, it can be asserted that the increase of cutting speed reduces the surface roughness. On the contrary to the cutting speed, the increase of feed rate increases the surface roughness. The relation between % volume fraction of SiC and depth of cut is presented in Fig. 9(d). The test results show that the surface roughness increases with increase in depth of cut. The angle of increase is not as steep as that of feed. Because the effect of depth of cut is small than other main parameters which is evident from the ANOVA analysis. Fig. 9(e) shows the effects of % volume of SiC with respect to feed. With a fixed value of % volume fraction of SiC, the surface roughness increases with increase in feed rate. The increase in feed increases the heat generation during turning which in turn produces high surface roughness. From Fig. 9(f), it can be seen that the surface roughness increases with increase in both feed and depth of cut. The increase in depth of cut increases the chatter on machine tool, which in turn produces high surface roughness.

Surface roughness, m

Cutting speed, / i

% volume fraction of

(a)

356

K.Palanikumar et al

Surface roughness, m

Depth of cut, mm Cutting speed,

(b)

Surface roughness, m

Feed rate, Cutting speed, / i

(c)

(d)

Modeling of machining parameters to predict

357

(e)

(f) Fig.9 Surface plots From the ANOVA analysis, it is found that feed rate and cutting speed are the parameters which affect the surface roughness in machining Al/SiC composites, while the depth of cut is the least significant parameter. Further more, the surface roughness decreases with increase in cutting speed and % volume fraction of SiC and it increases with increase in feed and depth of cut. The surface roughness produced on the Al/SiC MMC work piece is mainly due to the feed and cutting speed. The interaction between the parameters also plays a vital role in machining Al/SiC composites. Among the 6-two factor interactions considered, AC, AD and BC only have significant effect on the machining of Al/SiC composites.

4. Conclusions
Using the experimental design, an empirical model has been developed to study the factors which are having influence on the machining of Al/SiC composites.

358

K.Palanikumar et al

An empirical model has been developed to predict the surface roughness for machining of Al/SiC composites. The technique used is convenient to analyse the different machining parameters which affect the surface of Al/SiC composites. This method is also useful in studying the main effects and interaction effects of different influential combinations of machining parameters. Feed is the factor, which has more influence on surface roughness in machining Al/SiC- MMC composites The analysis of the effect of machining parameters on surface roughness has been performed by using contour graphs and 3D surface plots. The interaction between cutting speed and feed rate has more influence compared to other interactions on surface roughness in machining of Al/SiC-MMC composites. The developed model can be used to predict the surface roughness in turning Al/SiC-MMC composites at 95% confidence level. But the validity of the model is limited to the range of parameters considered for experimentation The accuracy of the developed model is further improved by accommodating more parameters and levels

References:
[1]. [2]. [3]. [4]. [5]. [6]. [7]. [8]. [9]. [10]. [11]. [12]. [13]. [14]. [15]. Abu Abdullah, Proceedings of Advances in Material Processing Technologies, (1998)374-384. M.El-Gallab, and M.Sklad, J.Mat. Proces. Tech, 83(1998)151-158. Yan`ming Quan, and Bangyan Ye, J.Mat.Proces.Tech, 138(2003)464-467. X. Wang, and C.X, Feng, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 20(5) (2002)348-356. Yuzuf Ozcatalbas, Mater. Design, 24(2003)215-221. E.Kilickap, O. Cakir, M.Aksoy and A.Inan, Journal of Mat. Proces. Tech., 164-165(2005)862867. A.Manna, and B.Bhattacharayya, J.Maert. Process. Tech., 140(2003)711-716. R.Karthikeyan Analysis and optimization of machining characteristics of Al/SiC particulate composites, Ph.D. Thesis, Annamalai University, Chidambaram:2000. K.Palanikumar, and R.Karthikeyan, Mater. Design, 28(2007)1584-1591. K.Palanikumar, and R.Karthikeyan, Mach. Sci. Technol, 10(2006)417-433. Alakesh Manna, and B.Bhattacharayya, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol, 25(2005)850-856. S.Ravi, V.Balasubramanian, S.Babu and S.Nemat Nasser, Mater. Design, 25(2004)125-135. D.C.Montgomery, Design and analysis of experiments, John Wiley and Sons, NewYork; 1991. Y.W.Shew and C.K. Kwong, Int. J. Adv. Manuf Technol., 20(2002)758-764. Meet MINITAB, Release 14 for Windows, Mini Tab Inc, USA, September, 2003.