Applied Chemical Engineering

MULTI-RESPONSE OPTIMIZATION IN CUTTING MILD STEELS

Yusuf Şahin

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ostim Technical University

Demiral Akbar

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ostim Technical University

---

Abstract

Machine tools are very important metal cutting process that used widely in manufacture/construction and energy sector. Material removal rate (MRR) in any metal cutting process is very important because it significantly affects the production rate, generated energy/forces, tool life. Improper choice of the machine tools/cutting tools or parameters will lead to more wear/energy and deterioration of surface qualities. The cutting process should be controlled during cutting/shaping process. In this study, therefore, multi-response optimization was carried out on AISI 1040 hardened mild steels when machined with ceramic cutting tools using response surface methodology under different cutting conditions. It can be noted that there are two responses. One is the Surface Roughness (SR) while the second is the Volume or Material Removal Rate (MRR). The experimental results exhibited that all three factors revealed significant influence on generating metal cutting energy. The optimal levels were found out in terms of maximum Multi Response Performans Index (MRPI) that are A3, B3 and C3. Analysis of variance and Pareto chart indicated that besides basic factors, AC, AB, BC interactions had an influence on MRR with SR. It was concluded that the correlation coefficient was found about 99.06%. Therefore, MRPI approach was capable of providing good modelling results for the combination of SR and MRR. 

---

References

1. Sahin Y. Comparison of tool life between ceramic and cubic boron nitride (CBN) cutting tools when machining hardened steels. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2009; 209(7): 3478–3489. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.08.016

2. Abhang LB, Hameedullah M. Multi performance optimization in machining of EN-31 steel alloy using Taguchi-utility concept. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Research 2011; 3(3): 265–281.

3. Şahin Y. Talas Removal Principles (Turkish). Seçkin Yayın; 2003.

4. Santos MC, Machado AR, Sales WF, et al. Machining of aluminum alloys: A review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2016; 86(9–12): 3067–3080. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-8431-9

5. Şahin Y. Prediction of surface roughness when machining mild steel using statistical methods. Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies 2023; 2013: 1–17. doi: 10.1080/2374068x.2023.2198822

6. Ibrahim MA, Yahya MN, Şahin Y. Predicting the mass loss of polytetraflouroethylene-filled composites using artificial intelligence techniques. Bayero Journal of Engineering and Technology (BJET) 2021; 16(3): 80–93.

7. Şahin Y, Deniz A, Şahin F. Investigation of abrasive wear performances of different polyamides by response surface methodology. Tribology in Industry 2019; 41(3): 321–329. doi: 10.24874/ti.2019.41.03.02

8. Krishnaiah K, Shahabudeen P. Applied Design of Experiments and Taguchi Methods. PHI Learning Private Limited; 2012.

9. Tseng TL, Konada U, Kwon Y. A novel approach to predict surface roughness in machining operations using fuzzy set theory. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2016; 3(1): 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcde.2015.04.002

10. Jeyapaul R, Shahabudeen P, Krishnaiah K. Quality management research by considering multi-response problems in Taguchi method—A review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2004; 26(11–12): 1331–1337. doi: 10.1007/s00170-004-2102-y

11. Liao HC, Chen YK. Optimizing multi-response problem in the Taguchi method by DEA-based ranking method. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 2002; 19(7): 825–837. doi: 10.1108/02656710210434766

12. Panneerselvem R. Research Methodology. Prentice-Hall of India; 2004.

13. Markopoulos AP, Karkalos NE, Mia M, et al. Sustainability assessment, investigations, and modelling of slot milling characteristics in eco-benign machining of hardened steel. Metals 2020; 10(12): 1650–1657. doi: 10.3390/met10121650

14. Pimenov DY, Abbas AT, Gupta MK, et al. Investigations of surface quality and energy consumption associated with costs and material removal rate during face milling of AISI 1045 steel. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2020; 107(7–8): 3511–3525. doi: 10.1007/s00170-020-05236-7

15. Abbas AT, Pimenov DY, Erdakov IN, et al. Optimization of cutting conditions using artificial neural networks and the Edgeworth-Pareto method for CNC face-milling operations on high-strength grade-H steel. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2019; 105(5–6): 2151–2165. doi: 10.1007/s00170-019-04327-4

16. Muhammad A, Kumar Gupta M, Mikołajczyk T. Effect of tool coating and cutting parameters on surface roughness and burr formation during Micro-milling of Inconel 718. Metals 2021; 11(1): 167. doi: 10.3390/met11010167

17. Sen B, Hussain SAI, Gupta AD, et al. Application of type-2 fuzzy AHP-ARAS for selecting optimal WEDM parameters. Metals 2021; 11(1): 42. doi: 10.3390/met11010042

18. Mia M, Gupta MK, Lozano JA, et al. Multi-objective optimization and life cycle assessment of eco-friendly cryogenic N2 assisted turning of Ti-6Al-4V. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019; 210: 121–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.334

19. Gürbüz H, Emre Gönülaçar Y. Optimization and evaluation of dry and minimum quantity lubricating methods on machinability of AISI 4140 using Taguchi design and ANOVA. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 2021; 235(7): 1211–1227. doi: 10.1177/0954406220939609

20. Tosun N, Huseyinoglu M. Effect of MQL on surface roughness in milling of AA7075-T6. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2010; 25(8): 793–798. doi: 10.1080/10426910903496821

21. Pillai JU, Sanghrajka I, Shunmugavel M, et al. Optimization of multiple response characteristics on end milling of aluminum alloy using Taguchi-Grey relational approach. Measurement 2018; 124: 291–298. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.04.052

22. Arokiadass R, Palaniradja K, Alagumoorthi N. Predictive modeling of surface roughness in end milling of Al/SiCp metal matrix composite. Archives of Applied Science Research 2011; 3(2): 228–236.

23. Abas M, Sayd L, Akhtar R, et al. Optimization of machining parameters of aluminum alloy 6026-T9 under MQL-assisted turning process. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 2020; 9(5): 10916–10940. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.07.071

24. Bhushan RK, Kumar S, Das S. Effect of machining parameters on surface roughness and tool wear for 7075 Al alloy SiC composite. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2010; 50(5–8): 459–469. doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2529-2

25. Pereira RBD, Leite RR, Alvim AC, et al. Multivariate robust modeling and optimization of cutting forces of the helical milling process of the aluminum alloy Al 7075. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2017; 95(5–8): 2691–2715. doi: 10.1007/s00170-017-1398-3

26. Davim PJ. A note on the determination of optimal cutting conditions for surface finish obtained in turning using design of experiments. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2001; 116(2–3): 305–308. doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(01)01063-9

27. Shnfir M, Olufayo OA, Jomaa W, Songmene V. Machinability study of hardened 1045 steel when milling with ceramic cutting inserts. Materials 2019; 12(23): 3974. doi: 10.3390/ma12233974

28. Ashish George J, Lokesha K. Optimization and effect of tool rake and approach angle on surface roughness and cutting tool vibration. SN Applied Sciences 2019; 1(9): 1133. doi: 10.1007/s42452-019-1175-z

29. Motorcu AR. Surface roughness evaluation when machining carbon steel with ceramic cutting tools. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering 2009; 14 (1): 139–145. doi: 10.17482/uujfe.21390

30. Rao CJ, Rao DN, Srihari P. Influence of cutting parameters on cutting force and surface finish in turning operation. Procedia Engineering 2013; 64: 1405–1415. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.222

31. Elbah M, Yallese MA, Aouici H, et al. Comparative assessment of wiper and conventional ceramic tools on surface roughness in hard turning AISI 4140 steel. Measurement 2013; 46(9): 3041–3056. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.018

32. Sanjay C, Alsamhan A, Abidi MH. Multi response optimization of machining parameters for an annealed Monel K 500 alloy in drilling using machine learning techniques and ANN. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 2022; 42(6): 5605–5625. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-212087

33. Sahoo SK, Sahoo BN, Panigrahi SK. Investigation into machining performance of microstructurally engineered in-situ particle reinforced magnesium matrix composite. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys 2023; 11(3): 916–935. doi: 10.1016/j.jma.2022.10.015

34. Juliyana JS, Prakash JU, Čep R, Karthik K. Multi-objective optimization of machining parameters for drilling LM5/ZrO2 composites using grey relational analysis. Materials 2023; 16(10): 3615–3621. doi: 10.3390/ma16103615

35. Iqbal MU, Santhakumar J, Sharma G, Singh R. Multi objective optimization of drilling process parameters on aluminum 6061 alloy using GRA and DEAR technique. AIP Conference Proceedings 2022; 2460(11): 020010. doi: 10.1063/5.0095655

36. Doreswamy D, Sai Shreyas D, Bhat SK, Rao RN. Optimization of material removal rate and surface characterization of wire electric discharge machined Ti-6Al-4V alloy by response surface method. Manufacturing Review 2022; 9: 15–21. doi: 10.1051/mfreview/2022016

37. Usca ÜA, Şap S, Uzun M, Kuntoğlu M, Salur E, Karabiber A, Pimenov DY, Giasin K, Wojciechowski S. Estimation, optimization and analysis based investigation of the energy consumption in machinability of ceramic-based metal matrix composite materials. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 2022; 17: 2987–2998. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.02.055