Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Computational Mechanics
Fractal Analysis
in Machining
123
Prasanta Sahoo
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Jadavpur University
Kolkata 700032
India
e-mail: psjume@gmail.com
Tapan Barman
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Jadavpur University
Kolkata 700032
India
e-mail: tkbarman@gmail.com
ISSN 2191-5342
ISBN 978-3-642-17921-1
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-17922-8
e-ISSN 2191-5350
e-ISBN 978-3-642-17922-8
Preface
The present book deals with fractal analysis of surface roughness in different
machining processes. Surface roughness is an important attribute of any machine
component. Conventionally several statistical roughness parameters are used for
describing surface roughness. But surface topography is a non-stationary random
process for which the variance of the height distribution of roughness features is
related to the length of the sample. Consequently, instruments with different resolutions and scan lengths yield different values of these statistical parameters for
the same surface. A logical solution to this problem is to use scale-invariant
parameters to characterize rough surfaces. In this context, to describe surface
roughness, the concept of fractals is considered. Fractals retain all the structural
information and are characterized by single descriptor, the fractal dimension,
D. Fractal dimension is intrinsic property of the surface and independent of the
filter processing of measuring instrument as well as the sampling length scale.
Four machining processes viz. CNC end milling, CNC turning, electrical discharge machining and cylindrical grinding are considered for three different
materials. The generated machined surfaces are measured to find out fractal
dimension (D) of the surfaces. The experimental results are further analyzed with
response surface methodology (RSM) to consider the effects of process parameters
on fractal dimension. Also the effect of work-piece material variation on fractal
dimension of machined surfaces is considered. It is believed that the present book
will prove to add significant contribution to the existing literature from the point of
view of both industrial importance and academic interest.
Contents
Fundamental Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Surface Metrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Fractal Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1 Fractal Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.2 Fractal Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.3 Self-Similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.4 Self-Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.5 Fractal Description of Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.6 Fractal Dimension Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.7 Fractal Dimension Measurement in the Present Study .
1.4 Review of Roughness Study in Machining . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Design of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.1 Full Factorial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.2 Central Composite Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 Response Surface Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.7 Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
3
6
6
6
7
8
9
11
12
12
18
19
19
21
22
22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
38
40
42
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vii
viii
Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
45
47
47
47
47
47
48
49
50
54
56
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
57
58
58
58
58
59
59
62
66
68
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
69
71
71
72
72
72
73
74
76
77
81
81
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 1
Fundamental Consideration
Abstract The importance and usefulness of fractal dimension in describing surface roughness over the conventional roughness parameters are presented in this
chapter. The fundamental of fractal dimension and the methodology for evaluation
of fractal dimension are also discussed. Literature survey is carried out for four
different types of machining processes and shows that there is scarcity of literatures which deal with fractal description of surface roughness. Fundamentals of
design of experiments and response surface methodology are also discussed.
1.1 Introduction
Surfaces are irregular though they may look like very smooth. When the surfaces
are magnified, the irregularities become prominent. This is true for the machining
surfaces as well. In a material removal process such as machining, unwanted
material is removed and altered surface topography is obtained. The surface
generated consists of inherent irregularities left by the cutting tool, which are
commonly defined as surface roughness. Such a surface is composed of a large
number of length scales of superimposed roughness that are generally characterized by the standard deviation of surface peaks. Three statistical characteristics are
generally used to describe the structure of machined surface topography: texture,
waviness and roughness. The texture determines the anisotropic property of the
surface. The waviness reflects the reference profile (or surface). The surface
roughness is formed by the micro deformation during the machining process.
Surface roughness plays an important role. It has large impact on the
mechanical properties like fatigue behavior, corrosion resistance, creep life, etc.
It also affects other functional attributes of machine components like friction,
wear, light reflection, heat transmission, lubrication, electrical conductivity, etc.
Surface roughness may depend on various factors like machining parameters,
work-piece materials, cutting tool properties, cutting phenomenon, etc. In a review
P. Sahoo et al., Fractal Analysis in Machining,
SpringerBriefs in Computational Mechanics,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-17922-8_1, Prasanta Sahoo 2011
1 Fundamental Consideration
article, Benardos and Vosniakos (2003) have presented a fishbone diagram with
parameters that affect surface roughness. As a case study, they have considered
two machining operationsturning and milling. They broadly classified the factors as machining parameters, cutting tool properties, work-piece properties and
cutting phenomena. Machining parameters may include process kinematics, depth
of cut, cutting speed, feed rate, etc. Cutting tool properties may include tool
material, nose radius, tool shape, etc. Work-piece properties may include workpiece hardness, work-piece size etc. and cutting phenomena includes vibration,
cutting force variations, chip formation, etc. It is obvious that for other machining
operations also, there are several factors that affect surface roughness. Many
researchers have attempted to model surface roughness but the developed models
are far from complete as it is not possible to consider all the controlling factors in a
particular study. So, researchers always pay attention to model surface roughness
in a better way so that surface roughness modeling can be done more accurately.
Surface roughness is generally expressed by three types of conventional
roughness parameters viz. amplitude parameters, spacing parameters and hybrid
parameters. Amplitude parameters are the measure of vertical characteristics of
surface deviation. Center line average roughness (Ra), root mean square roughness
(Rq), etc. are the examples of these types of parameters. Spacing parameters are
measures of the horizontal characteristics of surface deviations. Examples of such
parameters are mean line peak spacing (Rsm), high spot count, etc. On the other
hand, hybrid parameters are the combination of both vertical and horizontal
characteristics of the surface deviations e.g. root mean square slope of the profile,
root mean square wavelength, peak area, valley area, etc. Most commonly used
roughness parameters are centre line average value (Ra), root mean square value
(Rq), mean line peak spacing (Rsm), etc.
Conventionally, the deviation of a surface from its mean plane is assumed to be
a random process for which statistical parameters such as the variances of the
height, the slope and curvature are used for characterization (Nayak 1971).
However, it has been found that the variances of slope and curvature depend
strongly on the resolution of the roughness-measuring instrument or any other
form of filter and are hence not unique (Thomas 1982; Bhushan et al. 1988;
Majumdar and Tien 1990). It is also well known that surface topography is a nonstationary random process for which the variance of the height distribution is
related to the length of the sample (Sayles and Thomas 1978). Consequently,
instruments with different resolutions and scan lengths yield different values of
these statistical parameters for the same surface. The conventional methods of
characterization are therefore fraught with inconsistencies which give rise to the
term parameter rash (Whitehouse 1982) commonly used in contemporary literature. The underlying problem with the conventional methods is that although
rough surfaces contain roughness at a large number of length scales, the characterization parameters depend only on a few particular length scales, such as the
instrument resolution or the sample length. A logical solution to this problem is to
use scale-invariant parameters to characterize rough surfaces. In this context, to
describe surface roughness, the concept of fractals is applied. The concept is based
1.1 Introduction
1 Fundamental Consideration
Transducer
Skid
Amplifier
Stylus
A-D
converter
Specimen
Chart
recorder
Data logger
1 Fundamental Consideration
1:1
Similarly to measure the area of surface, let us break up the surface into small
squares of size [ 9 [ and then add the number of units as
A R 22
1:2
Here in Eqs. 1.1 and 1.2 the exponents 1 and 2 correspond to the dimensions of
the objects. These measures of length and area have a unique property that they are
independent of the unit of measurement [ and in the limit [ ? 0 these measures
remain finite and non-zero. This concept of Euclidean dimension thus can be
generalized in the form
M R 2D
1:3
Here M is the measure and D is a real number. If the exponent D makes the
measure M independent of the unit of measurement [ in the limit of [ ? 0, then D
is the dimension of an object.
Contrary to common understanding of dimension, this generalization allows the
dimension of an object to take non-integer values. If, in this argument, it is
assumed that an object is broken into N equal parts then Eq. 1.3 can be written as
M = N[D. Since the measure is invariant with the unit of measurement, one can
write N * [-D. Now if the length of an object is evaluated, then the length would
vary as L = N[1 * [1-D, as was observed for the lengths of the coastlines. It can
be easily seen that the length will be independent of [ only when D = 1.
1.3.3 Self-Similarity
The generalized concepts of measure and dimension are fundamental to the issue
of self-similarity. Let us consider a one-dimensional line of unit length and break it
up into N equal segments. Each segment of the line, of size 1/m, is similar to the
whole line and needs a magnification of m to be an exact replica of the whole line.
Since the length of the line remains independent of 1/m, it follows that the number
of units is N * m. Now let us consider a square, which has a side of unit length.
Each small square of side 1/m is similar to the whole square and needs a magnification of m to be an exact replica of the whole square. However, the number of
small squares in the whole is N * m2. In general, for an object of dimension D, it
follows that
N mD
1:4
log N
log m
1:5
1 Fundamental Consideration
The non-differentiability arises because of the fact that if the curve is repeatedly
magnified, more and more details of the curve keep appearing. This means that
tangent cannot be drawn at any point and therefore the curve cannot be differentiated. Secondly, the curve is exactly self-similar. This is because if a small
portion of the curve is appropriately magnified, it will be an exact replica of the
whole Koch curve. Thirdly, the dimension of the curve remains constant at all
scales, although the curve contains roughness at a large number of scales. This
scale-invariance of the dimension is an important property, which is utilized to
characterize rough surfaces. The coastline of an island is an example of a selfsimilar object found in nature. Although these objects are not exactly self-similar,
they are statistically self-similar. Statistical self-similarity means that the probability distribution of a small part of an object will be congruent with the probability
distribution of the whole object if the small part is magnified appropriately.
However, not all fractal objects are self-similar. This leads to the more general
concept of self-affinity.
1.3.4 SelfAffinity
The definition of self-similarity is based on the property of equal magnification in
all directions. However, there are many objects in nature, which have unequal
scaling in different directions. Thus these are not self-similar but self-affine. The
dimension of self-affine fractals cannot be obtained from Eq. 1.5, which is based
on the self-similarity of an object. Mandelbrot showed that the lengths of selfaffine fractal curves do not follow the relation L * [1-D for all values of [ and
therefore the dimension of self-affine curves cannot be obtained by measuring their
lengths. Instead, the dimension of self-affine functions can be obtained from their
power spectra.
10
1 Fundamental Consideration
measure) tends to zero. Here, self-similarity implies the property of equal magnification in all directions while self-affinity refers to unequal scaling in different
directions. Thus, the Hausdorff or fractal dimension, D ? 1, of rough surfaces is a
fraction between 2 and 3. The profile of a rough surface z(x), typically obtained
from stylus measurements, is assumed to be continuous even at the smallest scales.
This assumption breaks down at atomic scale. But for engineering surfaces the
continuum is assumed to exist down to the limit of a zero-length scale. Since
repeated magnifications reveal the finer levels of detail, the tangent at any point
cannot be defined. Thus the surface profile is continuous everywhere but nondifferentiable at all points. This mathematical property of continuity, non-differentiability and self-affinity (Berry and Lewis 1980) is satisfied by the modified
WeierstrassMandelbrot (WM) fractal function, which is thus used to characterize and simulate such profiles. The WM function has a fractal dimension D,
between 1 and 2, and is given by
zx GD1
a
X
cos 2pcn x
1\D\2;
2Dn
nn1 c
c[1
1:6
G2D1 1
2 ln c x52D
1:7
When this equation is compared with the power spectrum of a surface, the
dimension D is related to the slope of the spectrum on a loglog plot against x.
The constant G is the roughness parameter of a surface, which is invariant with
respect to all frequencies of roughness and determines the position of spectrum
along the power axis. In this characterization method both G and D are independent
of the roughness scales of the surface and hence intrinsic properties. The constants
of the WM function, G, D, and n1 form a complete and fundamental set of scaleindependent parameters to characterize a rough surface. The physical significance
of D is the extent of space occupied by the rough surface, i.e., larger D values
correspond to denser profile or smoother topography (Yan and Komvopoulos 1998;
Sahoo and Ghosh 2007).
11
12
1 Fundamental Consideration
by its power spectrum, which gives the amplitude of the roughness at all length
scales. The parameters G and D can be found from the power spectrum of the W
M function given by Eq. 1.7. Usually, the power law behavior would result in a
straight line if S(x) is plotted as a function of x on a loglog graph. Using fast
Fourier transform (FFT), the power spectrum of profile can be calculated and then
be plotted verses the frequency on a loglog scale. Thereafter, the fractal
dimension, D, can be related to the slope m of a fitting line on a loglog plot as:
D = (5 ? m).
The structure function method considers all points on the surface profile curve
as a time sequence z(x) with fractal character. The structure function s(s) of
sampling data on the profile curve can be described as s(s) = [z(x ? s) z(x)]2 = cs 4 - 2D where [z(x ? s) - z(x)]2 expresses the arithmetic average value
of difference square, and s is the random choice value of data interval. Different s
and the corresponding s(s) can be plotted verses the s on a loglog scale. Then, the
fractal dimension D can be related to the slope m of a fitting line on loglog plot
as: D = (4 - m).
13
14
1 Fundamental Consideration
most of the studies (Yang and Tarng 1998; Davim 2001; Lin et al. 2001; Suresh
et al. 2002; Arbizu and Perez 2003; Jiao et al. 2004; Dabnun et al. 2005; Sahin and
Motorcu 2005; Bagci and Isik 2006; Ramesh et al. 2008; Palanikumar 2008;
Karayel 2009).
Grinding is the most commonly used manufacturing process in the industry and
this is a complex machining process with many interactive parameters and surface
quality produced is influenced by various parameters. Several researchers have
tried to model surface roughness in grinding and few of the recent literatures are
reviewed here. Zhang et al. (2001) have developed the relationships between the
fractal dimension and conventional roughness parameters (Ra or Rq or Rsm of
surface roughness) of different ground surfaces and justified the usefulness of
fractal theory. They concluded that fractal dimension D is relative to vertical
parameters and transverse parameters of surface topography. Zhou and Xi (2002)
have developed a model for predicting surface roughness in grinding taking into
consideration the random distribution of the grain protrusion heights. Maksoud
et al. (2003) have used artificial neural network to achieve desired surface
roughness under grinding wheel surface topography variations. Hassui and Diniz
(2003) have developed a relation between the process vibration signals and
roughness in a plunge cylindrical grinding operation of AISI 52100 quenched and
tempered steel. Hecker and Liang (2003) have presented the prediction of the
arithmetic mean surface roughness based on a probabilistic undeformed chip
thickness model. Bigerelle et al. (2005) have shown that grinding could be characterized with an elementary function and the worn profile can be modeled by a
fractal curve defined by only two parameters (amplitude and fractal dimension)
with an infinite summation of these elementary functions. Krajnik et al. (2005)
have used response surface methodology to develop a model to minimize the
surface roughness in plunge center less grinding operation of 9SMn28, free-cutting
unalloyed steel. The analysis of variance shows that the grinding wheel dressing
condition most significantly affects the ground surface roughness. The surface
roughness is additionally affected by the geometrical grinding gap set-up factor
and the control wheel speed. Kwak (2005) has investigated the various grinding
parameters affected the geometric error in surface grinding process using combined Taguchi method and response surface method. Four grinding parameters
such as grain size, wheel speed, depth of cut and table speed are selected for
experimentation. A second-order response model for the geometric error is
developed and the utilization of the response surface model is evaluated with
constraints of the surface roughness and the material removal rate. Fredj and
Amamou (2006) have tried to establish a model combining the application of
design of experiments (DOE) and neural network method for ground surface
roughness prediction. Kwak et al. (2006) have developed a model for grinding
power spent during the process and the surface roughness in the external cylindrical grinding of hardened SCM440 steel using the response surface method.
They have shown from the study that the grinding power seems to increase linearly
with increasing work-piece speed and the traverse speed and surface roughness is
dominantly affected by the change of the work-piece speed. Choi et al. (2008) have
15
established the generalized model for power, surface roughness, grinding ratio and
surface burning for grinding of various steel alloys using alumina grinding wheels
based on the systematic analysis and experiments. It is seen that steady-state
surface roughness is primarily dependent only on the effective chip thickness.
Mohanasundararaju et al. (2008) have developed a neural network and fuzzy-based
methodology for predicting surface roughness in a grinding process for work rolls
used in cold rolling. This methodology predicts the most likely estimates of surface roughness along with lower and upper estimates using fuzzy numbers.
Siddiquee et al. (2010) have investigated the optimization of an in-feed centreless
cylindrical grinding process performed on EN52 austenitic valve steel (DIN:
X45CrSi93) considering dressing feed, grinding feed, dwell time and cycle time as
process parameters. They have optimized the multiple responses viz. surface
roughness, out of cylindricity of the valve stem and diametral tolerance using grey
relational Taguchi analysis.
Milling also is a popular machining process in modern industry. There are
several researchers who have tried to model the roughness in milling process. In
this section, few available literatures on surface roughness modeling in milling are
reviewed. Fuh and Wu (1995) have developed a model for prediction of surface
quality in end milling of 2014 aluminium alloy and shown that surface roughness
is mainly affected by the feed rate and tool nose radius. Alauddin et al. (1996) have
pointed out that feed rate is the most significant factor and with increase in feed,
surface roughness increases while with increase in cutting speed, surface roughness decreases in end milling Inconel 718 using uncoated carbide inserts. Lou et al.
(1998) have used multiple regression models to develop a surface roughness model
to predict Ra in CNC end milling of 6061 aluminum and concluded that the feed
rate is the most significant factor. Yang and Chen (2001) found out the optimum
cutting parameters for milling of Al 6061 material using Taguchi design considering cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and tool diameter as the cutting
parameters. Lee et al. (2001) presented a method for the simulation of surface
roughness of the machined surface in high-speed end milling. Lin (2002) has
optimized cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut with consideration of multiple
performance characteristics including removed volume, surface roughness and
burr height in face milling of stainless steel and shown that the most influence of
the cutting parameters is the feed rate. Mansour and Abdalla (2002) have concluded that with increase in feed rate or in axial depth of cut, surface roughness
increases whilst with increase in cutting speed, surface roughness decreases in end
milling operations of EN32 materials. Ghani et al. (2004) have studied surface
roughness in end milling of hardened steel AISI H13 with TiN coated P10 carbide
insert tool and concluded that use of high cutting speed, low feed rate and low
depth of cut leads to better surface finish. Wang and Chang (2004) have analyzed
the influence of cutting condition and tool geometry on surface roughness in slot
end milling of AL2014-T6. Oktem et al. (2005) have developed an effective
methodology to determine the optimum cutting conditions leading to minimum
roughness in milling of Aluminum (7075-T6) molded surfaces considering feed,
cutting speed, axial depth of cut, radial depth of cut and machining tolerance as
16
1 Fundamental Consideration
cutting parameters. Reddy and Rao (2005) have developed a model to see the
effects of tool geometry, cutting speed and feed rate on surface roughness in end
milling of medium carbon steel. The investigations of this study indicate that the
parameters cutting speed, feed, radial rake angle and nose radius are the primary
factors influencing the surface roughness of medium carbon steel during end
milling. Reddy and Rao (2006a) have investigated the role of solid lubricant
assisted machining with graphite and molybdenum disulphide lubricants on surface quality, cutting forces and specific energy while milling AISI 1045 steel using
cutting tools of different tool geometry (radial rake angle and nose radius). Reddy
and Rao (2006b) have studied the effect of various parameters such as cutting
speed, feed rate, radial rake angle and nose radius on surface roughness in milling
of AISI 1045 materials. They have shown that surface roughness decreases with
increasing cutting speed. Jesuthanam et al. (2007) have developed a hybrid neural
network trained with GA and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for the prediction of surface roughness in CNC end milling operation of mild steel materials.
For the development of network, spindle speed, feed, depth of cut and vibration
data are considered. Chang and Lu (2007) have applied a grey relational analysis
to determine the cutting parameters for optimizing the side milling process with
multiple performance characteristics and concluded that feedingdirection roughness, axial-direction roughness and waviness are improved
simultaneously through the optimal combination of the cutting parameters
obtained from the proposed two-stage parameter design. El-Sonbaty et al. (2008)
have developed artificial neural network (ANN) models for the analysis and
prediction of the relationship between the cutting conditions and the corresponding
fractal parameters of machined surfaces in face milling operation using rotational
speed, feed, depth of cut, pre-tool flank wear and vibration level as input
parameters. Routara et al. (2009) have studied the influence of machining
parameters on conventional roughness parameters in CNC end milling of aluminium, steel and brass materials using response surface method. Berglund and
Rosen (2009) have evaluated the connection between surface finish appearance
and measured surface roughness using scale sensitive fractal analysis in milling.
ktem (2009) has developed an integrated study of surface roughness to model
and optimize the cutting parameters in end milling of AISI 1040 steel material
with TiAlN solid carbide tools under wet condition using ANN and GA. He has
shown that the axial depth of cut is the most important cutting parameters affecting
surface roughness (Ra). Zain et al. (2010a) have carried out a study using GA to
observe the optimal effect of the radial rake angle of the tool, combined with speed
and feed rate in influencing the surface roughness result. With the highest speed,
lowest feed rate and highest radial rake angle of the cutting conditions scale, the
GA technique recommends the best minimum surface roughness value. For end
milling also, to modeling surface roughness different tools are used like RSM
(Alauddin et al. 1996; Mansour and Abdalla 2002; Wang and Chang 2004; Oktem
et al. 2005; Reddy and Rao 2005; Reddy and Rao 2006b; Routara et al. 2009),
Taguchi analysis (Yang and Chen 2001; Lin 2002; Ghani et al. 2004; Bagci and
Aykut 2006), ANN (Tsai et al. 1999; Balic and Korosec 2002; Benardos and
17
Vosniakos 2002; El-Sonbaty et al. 2008; ktem 2009; Zain et al. 2010b). From the
literature survey, it is seen that most of literatures deal with conventional roughness parameters to describe surface roughness and also in the study, three
machining parameters viz. spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut are the most
common machining parameters (Fuh and Wu 1995; Lou et al. 1998; Tsai et al.
1999; Yang and Chen 2001; Lin 2002; Ghani et al. 2004; Wang and Chang 2004;
Bagci and Aykut 2006; Zhang and Chen 2007; Routara et al. 2009).
Electrical discharge machining (EDM) is a non-conventional machining
process that can be used all types of conductive materials. It can also be used for
machining of difficult-to-machine shapes and materials. In this section, few of the
available literatures on surface roughness modeling in EDM are reviewed. Zhang
et al. (1997) have investigated the effects on material removal rate, surface
roughness and diameter of discharge points in electro-discharge machining (EDM)
on ceramics and shown that the material removal rate, surface roughness and the
diameter of discharge point all increase with increasing pulse-on time and
discharge current. Lee and Li (2001) have shown that the negative tool polarity
gives better surface finish in EDM of tungsten carbide. Also, surface roughness
increases with increasing peak current and pulse duration. Ramasawmy and Blunt
(2002) have illustrated the influencing process factors in modifying the surface
textures using Taguchi method in EDM on M300 tool steel and shown that the
direct current is the most dominant factor in modifying the surface texture. Lin and
Lin (2002) have studied an approach for the optimization of the electrical discharge machining process (work-piece polarity, pulse on time, duty factor, open
discharge voltage, discharge current, and dielectric fluid) with multiple performance characteristics viz. MRR, surface roughness and electrode wear ratio using
grey relational analysis. Lin and Lin (2005) have tried to optimize the electrical
discharge machining process using grey-fuzzy logic considering pulse on time,
duty factor and discharge current as process parameters. Puertas and Luis (2003)
have modeled centre line average value (Ra) and root mean square roughness value
(Rq) in terms of current, pulse on time and off time in EDM on soft steel (F-1110).
It has been seen that the current intensity has the most influence on surface
roughness and there is a strong interaction between the current intensity and the
pulse on time factors being advisable to work with high current intensity values
and low pulse on time values. They have justified the fact of having to employ high
current intensity values to obtain a better surface roughness because a better arc
stability causes a more uniform production of sparks and a narrow variation
interval of the Ra and Rq roughness parameters. Yih-fong and Fu-chen (2003) have
presented an approach for optimizing high-speed EDM using Taguchi methods.
They have concluded that the most important factors affecting the EDM process
robustness have been identified as pulse-on time, duty cycle, and pulse peak
current. Ramasawmy and Blunt (2004) have quantified the effect of process
parameters on the surface texture using Taguchi method in EDM of steel and
concluded that the pulse current is the most dominant factor in affecting the
surface texture. Puertas et al. (2004) have carried out a study on the influence of
the factors of intensity, pulse time and duty cycle over surface roughness, material
18
1 Fundamental Consideration
removal rate, etc. in EDM of a cemented carbide and observed that in the case of
Ra parameter the most influential factors are intensity, followed by the pulse time
factor. Petropoulos et al. (2004) have emphasized the interrelationship between
surface texture parameters and process parameters in EDM of Ck60 steel plates.
They have considered amplitude, spacing, hybrid, as well as random process and
fractal parameters. Puertas et al. (2005) have carried out a study on the influence of
EDM parameters over two spacing parameters in machining of siliconised or
reaction-bonded silicon carbide (SiSiC) and shown that intensity, pulse time and
duty cycle are most influential factors affecting mean spacing between peaks and
the number of peaks per cm whereas the dielectric flushing pressure is not an
influential factor. Amorima and Weingaertner (2005) have shown that the increase
of average surface roughness of the work-piece is directly related to the increase in
discharge current and discharge duration on the EDM of the AISI P20 tool steel
under finish machining. Ramakrishnan and Karunamoorthy (2006) have proposed
a multi objective optimization method in WEDM process using parametric design
of Taguchi method and identified that the pulse on time and ignition current
intensity are the influential parameters. Keskin et al. (2006) have shown that
surface roughness has an increasing trend with an increase in the discharge
duration in EDM on steel work-pieces. Sahoo et al. (2009) have investigated the
influence of machining parameters, viz., pulse current, pulse on time and pulse off
time on the quality of surface produced in EDM of mild steel, brass and tungsten
carbide materials using response surface methodology. It is seen that the pulse
current has the maximum influence on the roughness parameters while pulse on
time has some effect and pulse off time has no significant effect on roughness
parameters. Shah et al. (2010) have shown that the material thickness has little
effect on the material removal rate and kerf but is a significant factor in terms of
surface roughness in wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) of tungsten
carbide samples. Now-a-days, artificial neural network is used as a tool in modeling of EDM process (Spedding and Wang 1997; Tsai and Wang 2001; Sarkar
et al. 2006; Mandal et al. 2007; Assarzadeh and Ghoreishi 2008).
From the literature survey, it is revealed that there are many researches on
surface roughness modeling in different machining processes. However, most of
the literatures deal with conventional roughness parameters and there is scarcity of
literatures which deal with fractal dimension modelling in machining.
19
20
1 Fundamental Consideration
points are located on the axes of the coordinate system symmetrically with respect
to the central point at a distance a from the design center.
There are two main varieties of CCD namely Face centered CCD and Rotatable
CCD. In face centered CCD, a k factor 3-level experimental design requires
2k ? 2k ? C experiments, where k is the number of factors, 2k points are in the
corners of the cube representing the experimental domain, 2k axial points are in the
center of each face of the cube a; 0; . . .0; 0; a; . . .0; 0; 0; . . . a and C
points are the replicates in the center of the cube that are necessary to estimate the
variability of the experimental measurements, it is to say the repeatability of the
phenomenon which carry out the lack-of-fit or curvature test for the model. The
centre points may vary from three to six. The example of 3-level three factor FCC
design is shown in Fig. 1.5. In this figure, the deep black circles represent the
fractional points at the corner of cube while the white circles represent axial points
in the center of each face of the cube and the star mark represents the centre points.
For the three factor experiment, eight (23) factorial points, six axial points (2 9 3)
and six centre runs, a total of 20 experimental runs can be considered. The value of
a is chosen here as 1. The upper and lower limits of a factor are coded as +1 and
-1 respectively using the following relations Eq. 1.8. Generally, the experimental
runs are conducted in random order.
xi
2x xmax xmin
xmax xmin
1:8
The rotatable central composite design is the most widely used experimental
design for modeling a second-order response surface. A design is called rotatable
when the variance of the predicted response at any point depends only on the distance
of the point from the center point of design. The rotatable design provides the
uniformity of prediction error and it is achieved by proper choice of a: In rotatable
designs, all points at the same radial distance (r) from the centre point have the same
magnitude of prediction error. For a given number of variables, the a required to
achieve rotatability is computed as a nf 1=4 ; where nf is the number of points in
the 2k factorial design. A rotatable CCD consists of 2k fractional factorial points,
augmented by 2 k axial points a; 0; . . .0; 0; a; . . .0; 0; 0; . . . a and nc
21
centre points (0, 0, 0, 0,0). Here also, the centre points vary from three to six. With
proper choice of nc the CCD can be made orthogonal or it can be made uniform
precision design. It means that the variance of response at origin is equal to the
variance of response at a unit distance from the origin. Considering uniform precision, for three factor experimentation, eight (23) factorial points, six axial points
(2 9 3) and six centre runs, a total of 20 experimental runs may be considered and the
value of a is 81=4 1:682.
n
X
i1
bi x i
n
X
i1
bii x2i
XX
bij xi xj e
1:9
i\j
where, e represents the noise or error observed in the response y such that the
expected response is (y -e and bs are the regression coefficients to be estimated.
The least square technique is being used to fit a model equation containing the
input variables by minimizing the residual error measured by the sum of square
deviations between the actual and estimated responses. The calculated coefficients
or the model equations however need to be tested for statistical significance and
thus the following tests are performed.
To check the adequacy of the model for the responses in the experimentation,
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used. ANOVA calculates the F-ratio, which is
the ratio between the regression mean square and the mean square error. The
F-ratio, also called the variance ratio, is the ratio of variance due to the effect of a
factor (the model) and variance due to the error term. This ratio is used to measure
the significance of the model under investigation with respect to the variance of all
the terms included in the error term at the desired significance level, a: If the
calculated value of F-ratio is higher than the tabulated value of F-ratio for
22
1 Fundamental Consideration
roughness, then the model is adequate at desired a level to represent the relationship between machining response and the machining parameters.
In the ANOVA Table, there is a P-value or probability of significance for each
independent variable in the model the value of which shows whether the variable
is significant or not. If the P-value is less or equal to the selected a-level, then the
effect of the variable is significant. If the P-value is greater than the selected
a-value, then it is considered that the variable is not significant. Sometimes the
individual variables may not be significant. If the effect of interaction terms is
significant, then the effect of each factor is different at different levels of the other
factors. ANOVA for different response variables are carried out in the present
study using commercial software Minitab (Minitab user manual 2001) with
confidence level set at 95%, i.e., the a-level is set at 0.05.
1.7 Closure
In this chapter, different basic considerations are discussed. The chapter starts with
the essence of fractal dimension to describe surface roughness. The basics of
surface metrology including the different roughness parameters along with the
surface roughness measurement technique are presented. Basics of fractal
dimension and its calculation are also discussed. Then the essence of design of
experiments and different design of experiment techniques are presented.
Response surface methodology (RSM) is discussed which is used to analyze the
experimental data in the subsequent chapters.
References
Abburi NR, Dixit US (2006) A knowledge-based system for the prediction of surface roughness
in turning process. Robotics Comput-Integr Manuf 22:363372
Abouelatta OB, Madl J (2001) Surface roughness prediction based on cutting parameters and tool
vibrations in turning operations. J Mater Process Technol 118:269277
Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ (1996) Optimization of surface finish in end milling
Inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 56:5465
Amorima FL, Weingaertner WL (2005) The influence of generator actuation mode and process
parameters on the performance of finish EDM of a tool steel. J Mater Process Technol
166:411416
Arbizu IP, Prez CJL (2003) Surface roughness prediction by factorial design of experiments in
turning processes. J Mater Process Technol 143144:390396
Assarzadeh S, Ghoreishi M (2008) Neural-network-based modeling and optimization of the
electro-discharge machining process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39:488500
Bagci E, Aykut S (2006) A study of Taguchi optimization method for identifying optimum
surface roughness in CNC face milling of cobalt-based alloy (stellite 6). Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 29:940947
Bagci E, Isik B (2006) Investigation of surface roughness in turning unidirectional GFRP
composites by using RS methodology and ANN. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:1017
References
23
Balic J, Korosec M (2002) Intelligent tool path generation for milling of free surfaces using
neural networks. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:11711179
Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2002) Prediction of surface roughness in CNC face milling using
neural networks and Taguchis design of experiments. Robotics Comput-Integr Manuf
18:343354
Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness in machining: a review. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 43(8):833844
Berglund J, Rosen BG (2009) A method development for correlation of surface finish
appearance of die surfaces and roughness measurement data. Tribol Lett 36(2):157164
Berry MV, Lewis ZV (1980) On the Weierstrass-Mandelbrot fractal function. Proc R Soc A
370:459484
Bhushan B, Wyant JC, Meiling J (1988) A new three-dimensional non-contact digital optical
profiler. Wear 122:301312
Bigerelle M, Najjar D, Iost A (2005) Multiscale functional analysis of wear a fractal model of the
grinding process. Wear 258:232239
Brown CA, Savary G (1991) Describing ground surface texture using contact profilometry and
fractal analysis. Wear 141:211226
Chang CK, Lu HS (2007) Design optimization of cutting parameters for side milling operations
with multiple performance characteristics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 32:1826
Chavoshi SZ, Tajdari M (2010) Surface roughness modelling in hard turning operation of AISI
4140 using CBN cutting tool. Int J Mater Form. doi:10.1007/s12289-009-0679-2
Choi TJ, Subrahmanya N, Li H, Shin YC (2008) Generalized practical models of cylindrical
plunge grinding processes. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:6172
Dabnun MA, Hashmi MSJ, El-Baradie MA (2005) Surface roughness prediction model by design
of experiments for turning machinable glass-ceramic (Macor). J Mater Process Technol
164165:12891293
Davim JP (2001) A note on the determination of optimal cutting conditions for surface finish
obtained in turning using design of experiments. J Mater Process Technol 116:305308
El-Sonbaty IA, Khashaba UA, Selmy AI, Ali AI (2008) Prediction of surface roughness profiles
for milledsurfaces using an artificial neural network and fractal geometry approach. J Mater
Process Technol 200:271278
Feng CX, Wang XF (2003) Surface roughness predictive modeling: neural networks versus
regression. IIE Trans 35:1127
Feng CXJ, Yu ZG, Kusiak A (2006) Selection and validation of predictive regression and neural
network models based on designed experiments. IIE Trans 38:1323
Fredj NB, Amamou R (2006) Ground surface roughness prediction based upon experimental
design and neural network models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:2436
Fuh KH, Wu CF (1995) A proposed statistical model for surface quality prediction in end-milling
of Al alloy. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 35(S):11871200
Ge S, Chen G (1999) Fractal prediction models of sliding wear during the runningin process.
Wear 231:249255
Ghani JA, Choudhury IA, Hassan HH (2004) Application of Taguchi method in the optimization
of end milling parameters. J Mater Process Technol 145:8492
Grzesik W (1996) A revised model for predicting surface roughness in turning. Wear
194:143148
Gupta AK (2010) Predictive modelling of turning operations using response surface
methodology, artificial neural networks and support vector regression. Int J Prod Res
48(3):763778
Han JH, Ping S, Shengsun H (2005) Fractal characterization and simulation of surface profiles of
copper electrodes and aluminum sheets. Mater Sci Eng A 403:174181
Hasegawa M, Liu J, Okuda K, Nunobiki M (1996) Calculation of the fractal dimensions of
machined surface profiles. Wear 192:4045
Hassui A, Diniz AE (2003) Correlating surface roughness and vibration on plunge cylindrical
grinding of steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:855862
24
1 Fundamental Consideration
He L, Zhu J (1997) The fractal character of processed metal surfaces. Wear 208:1724
Hecker RL, Liang SY (2003) Predictive model of surface roughness in grinding. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 43:755761
ISO 4287:1997 (1997) Geometrical product specification (GPS)surface texture: profile
methodterms, definitions and surface texture parameters. International Organization of
Standardization, Geneva
Jahn R, Truckenbrodt H (2004) A simple fractal analysis method of the surface roughness.
J Mater Process Technol 145:4045
Jesuthanam CP, Kumanan S, Asokan P (2007) Surface roughness prediction using hybrid neural
networks. Mach Sci Technol 11:271286
Jiang Z, Wang H, Fei B (2001) Research into the application of fractal geometry in characterizing
machined surfaces. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:21792185
Jiao Y, Lei S, Pei ZJ, Lee ES (2004) Fuzzy adaptive networks in machining process modeling:
surface roughness prediction for turning operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:16431651
Kang MC, Kim JS, Kim KH (2005) Fractal dimension analysis of machined surface depending on
coated tool wear. Surf Coat Technol 193(13):259265
Karayel D (2009) Prediction and control of surface roughness in CNC lathe using artificial neural
network. J Mater Process Technol 209:31253137
Keskin YH, Halkac HS, Kizil SM (2006) An experimental study for determination of the effects
of machining parameters on surface roughness in electrical discharge machining (EDM). Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 28:11181121
Kirby ED, Zhang Z, Chen JC, Chen J (2006) Optimizing surface finish in a turning operation
using the Taguchi parameter design method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:10211029
Kohli A, Dixit US (2005) A neural-network-based methodology for the prediction of surface
roughness in turning process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25:118129
Krajnik P, Kopac J, Sluga A (2005) Design of grinding factors based on response surface
methodology. J Mater Process Technol 162163:629636
Kwak JS (2005) Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for geometric error
in surface grinding process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:327334
Kwak JS, Sim SB, Jeong YD (2006) An analysis of grinding power and surface roughness in
external cylindrical grinding of hardened SCM440 steel using response surface method. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 46:304312
Lee SH, Li XP (2001) Study of the effect of machining parameters on the machining
characteristics in electrical discharge machining of tungsten carbide. J Mater Process Technol
115:344358
Lee KY, Kang MC, Jeong YH, Lee DW, Kim JS (2001) Simulation of surface roughness and
profile in high-speed end milling. J Mater Process Technol 113:4104125
Lin TR (2002) Optimisation technique for face milling stainless steel with multiple performance
characteristics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19:330335
Lin JL, Lin CL (2002) The use of orthogonal array with grey relational analysis to optimize the
electrical discharge machining process with multiple performance characteristics. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 42:237244
Lin JL, Lin CL (2005) The use of grey-fuzzy logic for the optimization of the manufacturing
process. J Mater Process Technol 160:914
Lin WS, Lee BY, Wu CL (2001) Modeling the surface roughness and cutting force for turning.
J Mater Process Technol 108:286293
Ling FF (1990) Fractals, engineering surfaces and tribology. Wear 136:141156
Lou MS, Chen JC, Li CM (1998) Surface roughness prediction technique for CNC end-milling.
J Ind Technol 15 (1), November 1998 to January 1999
Majumdar A, Bhushan B (1990) Role of fractal geometry in roughness characterization and
contact mechanics of surfaces. Trans ASME J Tribol 112:205216
Majumdar A, Tien CL (1990) Fractal characterization and simulation of rough surfaces. Wear
136:313327
References
25
Maksoud TMA, Atia MR, Koura MM (2003) Applications of artificial intelligence to grinding
operations via neural networks. Mach Sci Technol 7(3):361387
Mandal D, Pal SK, Saha P (2007) Modeling of electrical discharge machining process using back
propagation neural network and multi-objective optimization using non-dominating sorting
algorithm-II. J Mater Process Technol 186:154162
Mandelbrot BB (1967) How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional
dimension. Science 156:636638
Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. W H freeman, New York
Mansour A, Abdalla H (2002) Surface roughness model for end milling: a semi-free cutting
carbon casehardening steel (EN32) in dry condition. J Mater Process Technol 124:183191
Minitab User Manual Release 13.2 (2001) Making data analysis easier. MINITAB Inc. State
College, PA
Mohanasundararaju N, Sivasubramanian R, Gnanaguru R, Alagumurthy N (2008) A neural
network and fuzzy-based methodology for the prediction of work roll surface roughness in a
grinding process. Int J Comput Methods Eng Sci Mech 9:103110
Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York
Muthukrishnan N, Davim JP (2009) Optimization of machining parameters of Al/SiC-MMC with
ANOVA and ANN analysis. J Mater Process Technol 209:225232
Nalbant M, Gokkaya H, Sur G (2007) Application of Taguchi method in the optimization of
cutting parameters for surface roughness in turning. Mater Des 28:13791385
Nayak PR (1971) Random process model of rough surfaces. Trans ASME J Lubr Technol
93:398407
ktem H (2009) An integrated study of surface roughness for modeling and optimization of
cutting parameters during end milling operation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:852861
Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Kurtaran H (2005) Application of response surface methodology in the
optimization of cutting conditions for surface roughness. J Mater Process Technol 170:1116
Pal SK, Chakraborty D (2005) Surface roughness prediction in turning using artificial neural
network. Neural Comput Appl 14:319324
Palanikumar K (2008) Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for surface
roughness in machining glass fiber reinforced plastics by PCD tooling. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 36:1927
Palanikumar K, Karunamoorthy L, Karthikeyan R (2006) Parametric optimization to minimise
the surface roughness on the machining of GFRP composites. J Mater Sci Technol
22(1):6672
Petropoulos G, Vaxevanidis NM, Pandazaras C (2004) Modeling of surface finish in electrodischarge machining based upon statistical multi-parameter analysis. J Mater Process Technol
155156:12471251
Puertas I, Luis CJ (2003) A study on the machining parameters optimisation of electrical
discharge machining. J Mater Process Technol 143144:521526
Puertas I, Luis CJ, lvarez L (2004) Analysis of the influence of EDM parameters on surface
quality, MRR and EW of WC-Co. J Mater Process Technol 153154:10261032
Puertas I, Luis CJ, Villa G (2005) Spacing roughness parameters study on the EDM of silicon
carbide. J Mater Process Technol 164165:15901596
Ramakrishnan R, Karunamoorthy L (2006) Multi response optimization of wire EDM operations
using robust design of experiments. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:105112
Ramasawmy H, Blunt L (2002) 3D surface characterisation of elctropolished EDMed surface and
quantitative assessment of process variables using Taguchi Methodology. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 42:11291133
Ramasawmy H, Blunt L (2004) Effect of EDM process parameters on 3D surface topography.
J Mater Process Technol 148:155164
Ramesh S, Karunamoorthy L, Palanikumar K (2008) Surface roughness analysis in machining of
titanium alloy. Mater Manuf Process 23:174181
Reddy NSK, Rao PV (2005) Selection of optimum tool geometry and cutting conditions using a
surface roughness prediction model for end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26:12021210
26
1 Fundamental Consideration
Reddy NSK, Rao PV (2006a) Experimental investigation to study the effect of solid lubricants on
cutting forces and surface quality in end milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:189198
Reddy NSK, Rao PV (2006b) Selection of an optimal parametric combination for achieving a
better surface finish in dry milling using genetic algorithms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
28:463473
Routara BC, Bandyopadhyay A, Sahoo P (2009) Roughness modeling and optimization in CNC
end milling using response surface method: effect of workpiece material variation. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 40:11661180
Sahin Y, Motorcu AR (2005) Surface roughness model for machining mild steel with coated
carbide tool. Mater Des 26:321326
Sahoo P (2005) Engineering tribology. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi
Sahoo P, Ghosh N (2007) Finite element contact analysis of fractal surfaces. J Phys D Appl Phys
40:42454252
Sahoo P, Routara BC, Bandyopadhyay A (2009) Roughness modeling and optimization in EDM
using response surface method for different workpiece materials. Int J Mach Mach Mater
5(23):321346
Sarkar S, Mitra S, Bhattacharyya B (2006) Parametric optimisation of wire electrical discharge
machining of c titanium aluminide alloy through an artificial neural network model. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 27:501508
Sayles RS, Thomas TR (1978) Surface topography as a non-stationary random process. Nature
271:431434
Shah A, Mufti NA, Rakwal D, Bamberg E (2010) Material removal rate, kerf, and surface
roughness of tungsten carbide machined with wire electrical discharge machining. J Mater
Eng Perform. doi:10.1007/s11665-010-9644-y
Siddiquee AN, Khan ZA, Mallick Z (2010) Grey relational analysis coupled with principal
component analysis for optimisation design of the process parameters in in-feed centreless
cylindrical grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:983992
Singh D, Rao PV (2007) A surface roughness prediction model for hard turning process. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 32:11151124
Spedding TA, Wang ZQ (1997) Parametric optimization and surface characterization of wire
electrical discharge machining process. Precis Eng 20:515
Suresh PVS, Rao PV, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic algorithm approach for optimization of
surface roughness prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:675680
Thomas TR (1982) Defining the microtopography of surfaces in thermal contact. Wear 79:7382
Tricot C, Ferlans P, Baran G (1994) Fractal analysis of worn surfaces. Wear 172:127133
Tsai KM, Wang PJ (2001) Predictions on surface finish in electrical discharge machining based
upon neural network models. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:13851403
Tsai YH, Chen JC, Lou SJ (1999) An in-process surface recognition system based on neural
networks in end milling cutting operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:583605
Venkatesh K, Bobji MS, Biswas SK (1998) Some features of surface topographical power spectra
generated by conventional machining of a ductile metal. Mater Sci Eng A A252:153155
Venkatesh K, Bobji MS, Gargi R, Biswas SK (1999) Genesis of workpiece roughness generated
in surface grinding and polishing of metals. Wear 225229:215226
Wang MY, Chang HY (2004) Experimental study of surface roughness in slot end milling
AL2014T6. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:5157
Whitehouse DJ (1982) The parameter rash, is there a cure? Wear 83:7578
Yan W, Komvopoulos K (1998) Contact analysis of elastic-plastic fractal surfaces. J Appl Phys
84(7):36173624
Yang JL, Chen JC (2001) A systematic approach for identifying optimum surface roughness
performance in end-milling operations. J Ind Technol 17, 2 February 2001 to April 2001
Yang WH, Tarng YS (1998) Design optimization of cutting parameters for turning operations
based on the Taguchi method. J Mater Process Technol 84:122129
Yih-fong T, Fu-chen C (2003) A simple approach for robust design of high-speed electrical
discharge machining technology. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:217227
References
27
Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2010a) Application of GA to optimize cutting conditions for
minimizing surface roughness in end milling machining process. Expert Syst Appl
37:46504659
Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2010b) Prediction of surface roughness in the end milling
machining using artificial neural network. Expert Syst Appl 37:17551768
Zhang JZ, Chen JC (2007) The development of an in-process surface roughness adaptive control
system in end milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31:877887
Zhang JH, Lee TC, Lau WS (1997) Study on the electro-discharge machining of a hot pressed
aluminum oxide based ceramic. J Mater Process Technol 63:908912
Zhang Y, Luo Y, Wang JF, Li Z (2001) Research on the fractal of surface topography of grinding.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:20452049
Zhong ZW, Khoo LP, Han ST (2006) Prediction of surface roughness of turned surfaces using
neural networks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:688693
Zhong ZW, Khoo LP, Han ST (2008) Neural-network predicting of surface finish or cutting
parameters for carbide and diamond turning processes. Mater Manuf Process 23:9297
Zhou X, Xi F (2002) Modeling and predicting surface roughness of the grinding process. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 42:969977
Zhu H, Ge S, Huang X, Zhang D, Liu J (2003) Experimental study on the characterization of
worn surface topography with characteristic roughness parameter. Wear 255:309314
Chapter 2
Abstract This chapter deals with the fractal dimension modeling in CNC end
milling operation. Milling operations are carried out for three different materials
viz. mild steel, brass and aluminium work-pieces for different combinations of
spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut. The generated surfaces are measured
with Talysurf instrument and analyzed to get fractal dimension. The experimental
results are further processed to model fractal dimension using response surface
methodology (RSM). It is seen that spindle speed and depth of cut are the significant factors affecting fractal dimension for mild steel. For brass material, the
significant factors are spindle speed and feed rate but for aluminium the significant
factor is depth of cut. In general, for mild steel and brass, with increase in spindle
speed, D increases. Comparing the developed response surface models, it is
concluded that the models are material specific and the tool-work-piece material
combination plays a vital role in fractal dimension of the generated surface profile.
Keywords Fractal dimension (D) CNC End Milling RSM Mild steel Brass
Aluminium
2.1 Introduction
CNC milling is a popular machining process in the modern industry because of its
ability to remove materials with a multi-point cutting tool at a faster rate with a
reasonably good surface quality. In order to get specified surface roughness,
selection of controlling parameters is necessary. There has been a great many
research developments in modeling surface roughness and optimization of the
controlling parameters to obtain a surface finish of desired level since only proper
selection of cutting parameters can produce a better surface finish. But such studies
29
30
Mild steel
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
4,500
4,750
5,000
5,250
5,500
900
950
1,000
1,050
1,100
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1,500
1,800
2,100
2,400
2,700
550
600
650
700
750
0.150
0.175
0.200
0.225
0.250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250
3,500
300
350
400
450
500
are far from complete since it is very difficult to consider all the parameters that
control the surface roughness for a particular manufacturing process. In CNC
milling there are several parameters which control the surface quality. The analysis
of surface roughness on CNC end milling process is a big challenge for research
development. Several factors involved in machining process have to be optimized
to obtain a desired surface quality. In this study, three machining parameters are
considered viz. spindle speed, feed rate and depth of cut. Also the study is conducted on three different materials, viz. mild steel, brass and aluminium to consider the effect of work-piece material variation on fractal dimension of machined
surfaces. The experimental results are analyzed using RSM.
31
450 9 250 mm
200 Kgs
250 mm
175 mm
175 mm
300 mm
280 mm
BT 30
9,000 rpm
15 m/min
10 m/min
3.7 kW
3 Nm
3 Nm
6 Nm
802 D SINUMERIK
7.5 kW/10 H.P.
Tellus 33 or EN KLO 68
32
Brass
(UNS
C34000)
Mild Steel
(AISI
1040)
2:1
33
Table 2.4 Experimental results for CNC milling considering full factorial design
Sl
Depth of
Spindle
Feed
D for mild
D for
D for
No
cut(d)
speed(N)
rate(f)
steel
brass
aluminium
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1.31
1.33
1.29
1.30
1.32
1.29
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.34
1.32
1.35
1.38
1.34
1.39
1.38
1.36
1.36
1.40
1.34
1.40
1.38
1.41
1.36
1.37
1.41
1.39
1.35
1.39
1.38
1.31
1.37
1.40
1.41
1.40
1.38
1.32
1.37
1.39
1.39
1.41
1.40
1.36
1.41
1.28
1.31
1.22
1.28
1.27
1.30
1.29
1.30
1.32
1.27
1.38
1.33
1.31
1.30
1.31
1.36
1.33
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.37
1.35
1.34
1.35
1.30
1.30
1.27
1.26
1.25
1.28
1.31
1.29
1.31
1.29
1.29
1.38
1.34
1.31
1.28
1.29
1.35
1.33
1.32
1.32
1.34
1.34
1.37
1.29
1.36
1.38
1.32
1.35
1.35
1.36
1.35
1.34
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.35
1.38
1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
1.31
1.37
1.36
1.39
1.31
1.35
1.32
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.38
1.33
1.31
1.37
1.36
(continued)
34
Table
Sl
No
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Feed
rate(f)
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
D for mild
steel
1.36
1.38
1.38
1.32
1.39
1.41
1.38
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.41
1.38
1.41
1.38
1.38
1.40
1.38
1.37
1.34
1.41
1.38
1.40
1.39
1.36
1.40
1.38
1.43
1.41
1.40
1.39
1.43
1.40
1.39
1.38
1.43
1.38
1.39
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.41
1.35
1.32
1.37
D for
brass
1.29
1.37
1.37
1.36
1.32
1.31
1.26
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.29
1.36
1.27
1.32
1.27
1.29
1.35
1.35
1.32
1.31
1.31
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.32
1.36
1.37
1.33
1.35
1.34
1.36
1.24
1.27
1.23
1.26
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.33
1.25
1.28
1.38
1.33
1.32
D for
aluminium
1.35
1.36
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.38
1.41
1.35
1.37
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.35
1.39
1.31
1.34
1.34
1.37
1.35
1.31
1.28
1.34
1.34
1.37
1.35
1.36
1.35
1.37
1.36
1.36
1.38
1.32
1.29
1.33
1.32
1.38
1.38
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.33
1.36
1.36
(continued)
2.4 (continued)
Depth of
Spindle
cut(d)
speed(N)
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-0.5
1
-0.5
1
-0.5
1
-0.5
1
-0.5
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
Feed
rate(f)
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
D for mild
steel
1.39
1.41
1.36
1.38
1.37
1.39
1.38
1.44
1.43
1.44
1.43
1.42
1.30
1.42
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.35
1.38
1.33
1.36
1.40
1.39
1.37
1.35
1.39
1.41
1.40
1.38
1.38
1.36
1.39
1.41
1.41
1.40
1.40
1.36
D for
brass
1.29
1.31
1.39
1.33
1.32
1.31
1.36
1.36
1.37
1.37
1.34
1.34
1.29
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.26
1.31
1.28
1.31
1.27
1.30
1.37
1.33
1.34
1.27
1.33
1.39
1.37
1.31
1.29
1.35
1.37
1.37
1.36
1.33
1.31
D for
aluminium
1.31
1.28
1.33
1.36
1.33
1.37
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.3
1.3
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.32
1.29
1.36
1.37
1.24
1.33
1.33
1.22
1.36
1.34
1.34
1.32
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.32
1.35
1.33
1.35
1.33
1.31
1.3
1.32
36
Table 2.5 ANOVA for second order model for D in CNC milling of mild steel
Source
Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated
Regression
Residual error
Total
9
115
124
0.051657
0.080004
0.131661
0.005740
0.000696
8.25
Table 2.6 ANOVA for model coefficients for D in CNC milling of mild steel
Source Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated
d
N
f
d*N
d*f
N*f
Error
Total
4
4
4
16
16
16
64
124
0.0293648
0.0146848
0.0052688
0.0232112
0.0075072
0.0159072
0.0357168
0.1316608
0.0073412
0.0036712
0.0013172
0.0014507
0.0004692
0.0009942
0.0005581
13.15
6.58
2.36
2.60
0.84
1.78
F0.05
1.96
F0.05
2.52
2.52
2.52
1.82
1.82
1.82
0.000
0.000
0.063
0.004
0.636
0.054
calculated value of the F-ratio is more than the standard value of the F-ratio for
D. It means the model is adequate at 95% confidence level to represent the relationship between the machining response and the considered machining parameters of the CNC end milling process on mild steel. Table 2.6 represents the
ANOVA table for individual model coefficients where it can be seen that there are
three effects with a P-value less than 0.05 which means that they are significant at
95% confidence level. These significant effects are: depth of cut, spindle speed and
the interaction between spindle speed and depth of cut. Figure 2.1 depicts the main
effects plot for the fractal dimension and the design factors considered in the
present study. From this figure also, it is seen that spindle speed and depth of cut
have the significant effect on fractal dimension. To see the effects of process
parameters on fractal dimension in the experimental regime, three dimensional
surface as well as contour plots are presented at high level and low level of the
parameters (Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4).
37
Fig. 2.2 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: a at high level of spindle
speed, b at low level of spindle speed
Fig. 2.3 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: a at high level of depth of
cut, b at low level of depth of cut
Fig. 2.4 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: a at high level of feed rate,
b at low level of feed rate
38
Table 2.7 ANOVA for second order model for D in CNC milling of brass
Source
Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated
Regression
Residual Error
Total
9
115
124
0.138293
0.048614
0.186907
0.015366
0.000423
36.35
Table 2.8 ANOVA for model coefficients for D in CNC milling of brass
Source Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated
d
N
f
d*N
d*f
N*f
Error
Total
4
4
4
16
16
16
64
124
0.0006512
0.1095792
0.0264432
0.0043968
0.0092528
0.0196048
0.0169792
0.1869072
0.0001628
0.0273948
0.0066108
0.0002748
0.0005783
0.0012253
0.0002653
0.61
103.26
24.92
1.04
2.18
4.62
F0.05
1.96
F0.05
2.52
2.52
2.52
1.82
1.82
1.82
0.654
0.000
0.000
0.433
0.015
0.000
2:2
39
Fig. 2.6 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: a at high level of spindle speed,
b at low level of spindle speed
Fig. 2.7 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: a at high level of depth of cut,
b at low level of depth of cut
machining response and the considered machining parameters of the CNC end
milling process on brass. Table 2.8 represents the ANOVA table for individual
model coefficients where it can be seen that spindle speed, feed rate, the interaction
between spindle speed and feed rate and the interaction of depth of cut and feed
rate are significant factors at 95% confidence level. Figure 2.5 depicts the main
effects plot for the fractal dimension and the design factors considered in the
present study. From this figure also, it is seen that spindle speed and feed rate have
the significant effect on fractal dimension. Figures 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 show the estimated
three-dimensional surface as well as contour plots for fractal dimension as functions of the independent machining parameters. All these figures clearly depict the
variation of fractal dimension with controlling variables within the experimental
regime.
40
Fig. 2.8 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: a at high level of feed rate, b at
low level of feed rate
Table 2.9 ANOVA for second order model for D in CNC milling of aluminium
Source
Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated
Regression
Residual error
Total
9
115
124
0.025241
0.0717
0.096941
0.002805
0.000624
4.5
F0.05
1.96
2:3
Table 2.9 presents the ANOVA table for the second order model proposed for
D given in Eq. 2.3. It can be appreciated that the P-value is less than 0.05 which
means that the model is significant at 95% confidence level. Also the calculated
value of the F-ratio is more than the standard value of the F-ratio for D. It means
the model is adequate at 95% confidence level to represent the relationship
between the machining response and the considered machining parameters of the
CNC end milling process. Table 2.10 represents the ANOVA table for individual
model coefficients where it can be seen that depth of cut and the interaction
between spindle speed and feed rate are significant at 95% confidence level.
Figure 2.9 depicts the main effects plot for the fractal dimension and the design
factors considered in the present study. From this figure also, it is seen that depth
of cut has the significant effect on fractal dimension. Figures 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 show
the estimated three-dimensional surface as well as contour plots for fractal
41
Table 2.10 ANOVA for model coefficients for D in CNC milling of aluminium
Source Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares Fcalculated F0.05
d
N
f
d*N
d*f
N*f
Error
Total
4
4
4
16
16
16
64
124
0.0146608
0.0004928
0.0032048
0.0110272
0.0102352
0.0226432
0.0346768
0.0969408
0.0036652
0.0001232
0.0008012
0.0006892
0.0006397
0.0014152
0.0005418
6.76
0.23
1.48
1.27
1.18
2.61
2.52
2.52
2.52
1.82
1.82
1.82
P
0.000
0.922
0.219
0.243
0.307
0.003
Fig. 2.10 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for aluminium: a at high level of spindle
speed, b at low level of spindle speed
42
Fig. 2.11 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for aluminium: a at high level of depth
of cut, b at low level of depth of cut
Fig. 2.12 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for aluminium: a at high level of feed
rate, b at low level of feed rate
2.4 Closure
For three different work-piece materials, fractal dimension models are developed
in CNC end milling using response surface method. The second order response
models have been validated with analysis of variance. A comparison of the
response surface models for fractal dimension in different materials reveals the fact
that these models are material specific or in other words, the tool-work-piece
material combination plays a vital role in fractal dimension of the generated
surface profile. Also the effect of the cutting parameters on fractal dimension is
different for different materials as evidenced from Tables 2.6, 2.8 and 2.10.
Accordingly, optimum machining parameter combinations for fractal dimension
depend greatly on the work-piece material within the experimental domain.
2.4 Closure
43
Chapter 3
Abstract Modeling of fractal dimension in CNC turning of mild steel, brass and
aluminium work-pieces are presented in this chapter. Spindle speed, feed rate and
depth of cut are considered as the process parameters. The generated surface in
CNC tuning operations are measured and processed to calculate fractal dimension.
The experimental results are then analyzed with RSM. From the analysis, it is seen
that the work-piece speed is the most significant factor affecting the fractal
dimension for mild steel turning whereas feed rate is the significant factor for both
brass and aluminium materials. It can be concluded from the analysis that for all
the materials, with increase in feed rate, fractal dimension, D decreases. So, to get
smoother surface, feed rate should be at low level. With increase in spindle speed,
fractal dimension increases giving smoother surface for mild steel turning.
Keywords Fractal dimension (D)
Aluminium
3.1 Introduction
Turning operation is an old and very common machining process in the industry. In
recent times, uses of computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines have
become popular to minimize the operator input and to get higher surface finish.
Turning operations are carried out on a lathe. In turning, there are several machining
parameters which control the surface quality of the machined work-piece which
include cutting conditions, tool variables and work-piece variables. Cutting conditions include speed, feed and depth of cut where as tool variables include tool
material, nose radius, rake angle, cutting edge geometry, tool vibration, tool overhang, tool point angle, etc. and work-piece variables include material hardness and
other mechanical properties. It is very difficult to consider all the parameters that
45
46
Table 3.1 Process parameters levels used in the experimentation for all the three materials
Process variables
Unit
Levels
A Depth of cut(d)
B Spindle speed(N)
C Feed rate(f)
mm
rpm
mm/rev
-1.682
-1
1.682
0.032
528
0.0224
0.1
800
0.07
0.2
1,200
0.14
0.3
1,600
0.21
0.368
1,872
0.2576
Table 3.2 Design matrix of the rotatable CCD design with coded and actual value
Std. order
Run order
Coded values
Actual values
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
1
9
11
7
8
13
3
10
6
5
14
12
19
2
4
17
16
18
15
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1.682
1.682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
0
0
-1.682
1.682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
-1.682
1.682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.032
0.368
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
800
800
1,600
1,600
800
800
1,600
1,600
1,200
1,200
528
1,872
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.0224
0.2576
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
control the surface quality. In a turning operation, it is the vital task to select the
cutting parameters to achieve the high quality performance. For this, modeling of the
surface roughness is necessary to predict and control the desired level of surface
roughness. In this study, CNC turning operations are carried out varying the
machining parameters, viz., depth of cut (mm), spindle speed (rpm) and feed rate
(mm/rev). Machining surfaces are further analyzed to find out the profile fractal
dimension. These experimental results are further analyzed using response surface
methodology.
47
48
D for brass
D for aluminium
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1.435
1.437
1.395
1.420
1.300
1.292
1.297
1.297
1.355
1.367
1.375
1.355
1.380
1.257
1.350
1.375
1.375
1.362
1.377
1.377
1.417
1.315
1.392
1.440
1.300
1.302
1.292
1.262
1.377
1.360
1.397
1.347
1.485
1.252
1.362
1.370
1.385
1.367
1.300
1.297
1.370
1.300
1.362
1.410
1.267
1.282
1.390
1.417
1.320
1.370
1.300
1.420
1.360
1.290
1.397
1.400
1.415
1.415
1.402
1.412
length 60 mm. The chemical and mechanical properties of the materials are
already given in Table 2.3 (Chap. 2).
49
Table 3.4 ANOVA for second order model for mild steel
Source
DF
SS
MS
Regression
Residual Error
Total
9
10
19
0.049
0.0032
0.052
0.005,409
0.000319
F0.05
16.96
3.02
0.049
0.0007933
0.023
0.003009
0.00211
0.0005281
0.003003
0.005608
0.002998
0.010
0.00318
0.002871
0.0003177
0.05186
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
5
5
19
0.005409
0.0007933
0.023
0.003009
0.00211
0.0005281
0.003003
0.005608
0.002998
0.010
0.0003189
0.0005742
0.00006354
F value
P value
16.96
2.49
72.48
9.44
6.62
1.66
9.42
17.59
9.40
32.46
0.0001
0.1458
0.0001
0.0118
0.0277
0.2271
0.1190
0.0018
0.0119
0.0002
9.04
0.0152
3:1
The developed model is also checked for adequacy. Table 3.4 represents the
ANOVA table for the second order response model developed for D. It is clear that
the developed model is significant at 95% confidence level. The calculated value
of F ratio is greater than the tabulated value of F ratio and it can be concluded that
the model is adequate at 95% confidence level. ANOVA table for mild steel
(Table 3.5) shows that work speed, feed rate, interaction of depth of cut with
work-piece speed are significant factors at 95% confidence level. The main effects
plots for fractal dimension are shown in Fig. 3.1. From the main effect plots, it is
seen that work-piece speed and feed rate are significant. It can also be concluded
that with increase in work speed, D increases but with increase in feed rate,
D decreases in mild steel turning. Response surface plots are also generated using
50
Minitab. Figs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 show the estimated three dimensional surface as
well as contour plots for fractal dimension as functions of two independent
machining parameters while the third machining parameter is held constant. All
these figures clearly depict the variation of fractal dimension with controlling
variables within the experimental regime.
3:2
The developed model is checked for adequacy and ANOVA result for the
model is presented in Table 3.6. From the ANOVA table, it is seen that the model
is significant and adequate at 95% confidence level. From the full ANOVA table
(Table 3.7), it is seen that feed rate is the main significant factor affecting fractal
dimension in brass turning. The calculated F-value of the lack-of-fit for D is much
lower than the tabulated value of the F-distribution (tabulated value 5.05) found
from the standard table at 95% confidence level. It implies that the lack-of-fit is not
significant relative to pure error. From the main effect plot (Fig. 3.5), it is seen that
only feed rate is significant and the other parameters are insignificant. It is also
51
Fig. 3.2 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for mild steel: a at high level of spindle
speed, b at low level of spindle speed
Fig. 3.3 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for mild steel: a at high level of depth
of cut, b at low level of depth of cut
Fig. 3.4 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for mild steel: a at high level of feed
rate, b at low level of feed rate
52
9
10
19
0.041
0.0034
0.045
0.041
1.232E-4
5.753E-4
0.036
1.125E-4
1.531E-4
4.500E-4
1.707E-6
1.389E-5
3.405E-3
3.393E-3
2.775E-3
6.177E-4
0.045
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
5
5
19
0.004603
0.000319
F0.05
13.56
3.02
Mean square
F value
P value
4.603E-3
1.232E-4
5.753E-4
0.036
1.125E-4
1.531E-4
4.500E-4
1.707E-6
1.389E-5
3.405E-3
3.189E-4
5.551E-4
1.235E-4
13.56
0.36
1.70
107.57
0.33
0.45
1.33
5.032E-3
0.041
10.03
0.0002
0.5602
0.2221
0.0001
0.5775
0.5169
0.2763
0.9448
0.8437
0.0100
4.49
0.0624
seen that with increase in feed rate, D decreases. The estimated three dimensional
surface as well as contour plots for fractal dimension are presented in Figs. 3.6, 3.7
and 3.8. To draw these surface plots, fractal dimension is plotted as functions of
two independent machining parameters while the third machining parameter is
53
Fig. 3.6 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for brass: a at high level of spindle
speed, b at low level of spindle speed
Fig. 3.7 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for brass: a at high level of depth of
cut, b at low level of depth of cut
Fig. 3.8 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for brass: a at high level of feed rate,
b at low level of feed rate
54
9
10
19
0.041
0.0032
0.052
0.005409
0.000319
F0.05
16.96
3.02
0.052
9.174E-4
7.307E-5
0.047
1.726E-3
9.453E-5
2.720E-3
1.751E-5
8.496E-5
1.751E-5
0.017
9.952E-3
7.293E-3
0.070
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
5
5
19
5.841E-3
9.174E-4
7.307E-5
0.047
1.726E-3
9.453E-5
2.720E-3
1.751E-5
8.496E-5
1.751E-5
1.724E-3
1.990E-3
1.459E-3
F value
P value
3.37
0.53
0.042
27.08
1.000
0.055
1.580
0.010
0.049
0.010
0.0359
0.4825
0.8410
0.0004
0.3407
0.8196
0.2377
0.9217
0.8288
0.9217
1.36
0.3707
held constant at high and low levels. All these figures clearly depict the variation
of fractal dimension with controlling variables within the experimental regime.
3:3
Table 3.8 presents the ANOVA table for the second order model proposed for
D of aluminium material. It is observed that the model is significant and adequate
at 95% confidence level. From the full ANOVA table (Table 3.9), it is seen that
feed rate is the main significant factor affecting fractal dimension in aluminium
turning. The calculated F-value of the lack-of-fit for D is much lower than the
tabulated value of the F-distribution (tabulated value 5.05) found from the standard table at 95% confidence level. From the main effects plot (Fig. 3.9), it is seen
55
Fig. 3.10 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for aluminium: a at high level of
spindle speed, b at low level of spindle speed
that only feed rate is significant. It is also seen that with increase in feed rate,
fractal dimension, D decreases. Response surface plots are also generated using
Minitab. Figs. 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 show the estimated three dimensional surface as
well as contour plots for fractal dimension as functions of two independent
machining parameters. The third machining parameter is held constant at high and
low levels. From these figures, variations of fractal dimension with machining
parameters can be observed within the experimental regime.
56
Fig. 3.11 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for aluminium: a at high level of
depth of cut, b at low level of depth of cut
Fig. 3.12 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension, D for aluminium: a at high level of feed
rate, b at low level of feed rate
3.4 Closure
Response surface models for three materials viz. mild steel, brass and aluminium
are developed in CNC turning. All the developed second order models are adequate at 95% confidence level. From the analysis, it is seen that the work-piece
speed is the most significant factor affecting the fractal dimension for mild steel
turning whereas feed rate is the significant factor for both brass and aluminium
materials. It can be concluded from the analysis that for all the materials, with
increase in feed rate, fractal dimension, D decreases. So, to get smoother surface,
feed rate should be at low level. With increase in spindle speed, fractal dimension
increases giving smoother surface for mild steel turning.
Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
Grinding is one of the common machining processes. In todays production, finishing of components is done by grinding due to the fact that it has the great
potential to replace other machining processes and to achieve significant reduction
in production time and cost. The acceptance of grinding as a finishing process is
connected with a high form and size accuracy, high surface finish and surface
integrity of the work-piece. In grinding there are several parameters which control
the surface quality. It is very difficult to consider all the parameters that control the
surface roughness for a particular manufacturing process. In this study, only three
machining parameters are considered viz. work-piece speed, longitudinal feed and
radial infeed. Also the study is conducted on three different materials, AISI 1040
mild steel, UNS C34000 brass and 6061-T4 aluminium to consider the effect
of workpiece material variation. The experimental results are analyzed using
57
58
Work-piece speed
Long feed
Radial infeed
56
11.33
0.02
80
17.00
0.04
112
22.66
0.06
160
28.33
0.08
rpm
mm/rev
mm
N
f
d
response surface modeling (RSM). The experimental details and the results are
discussed below.
59
Table 4.2 Specification of the cylindrical grinding machine used in the experiment
Make HMT
Maximum grinding length
Maximum distance between
centers
Maximum travel of the table
Maximum swivel of the table
Grinding wheel
Wheel speed
Wheel Signature
Wheel Diameter
Face width
Bore diameter
Work head
Number of speed
Swivel
Morse taper
57169
340 mm
340 mm
310 mm
200 mm
1910 and 2120 rpm
A70K5V10
270 mm
40 mm
50 mm
8 (56-80-112-160-224-315450-630)
90 towards wheel and 30
away from wheel
3
4:1
60
Table 4.3 Design matrix of process variables and the experimental results
Std
Run N Workpiece
f Longitudinal
d Radial
D for
D for
order order speed (rpm)
Feed (mm/rev)
infeed (mm) mild
brass
steel
D for
aluminium
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
1.39
1.35
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.34
1.34
1.37
1.35
1.34
1.36
1.35
1.35
1.37
1.36
1.35
1.40
1.41
1.36
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.35
1.36
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.35
1.36
1.34
1.35
1.35
1.39
1.35
1.37
1.34
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.35
22
45
7
37
54
38
26
42
13
43
63
59
32
5
40
34
51
10
14
21
1
64
48
61
23
31
53
29
12
56
2
46
25
3
19
33
8
49
17
6
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1.46
1.48
1.40
1.46
1.47
1.44
1.45
1.43
1.47
1.43
1.42
1.42
1.41
1.45
1.44
1.45
1.49
1.47
1.45
1.46
1.43
1.42
1.44
1.41
1.47
1.45
1.35
1.39
1.45
1.45
1.43
1.44
1.47
1.45
1.46
1.48
1.48
1.47
1.44
1.47
1.42
1.390
1.408
1.415
1.415
1.413
1.435
1.420
1.433
1.453
1.445
1.420
1.445
1.455
1.468
1.450
1.450
1.413
1.415
1.428
1.428
1.440
1.445
1.430
1.425
1.455
1.455
1.448
1.455
1.460
1.430
1.443
1.448
1.415
1.430
1.420
1.425
1.393
1.430
1.428
1.425
1.455
(continued)
61
f Longitudinal
Feed (mm/rev)
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
44
15
57
36
35
28
41
11
47
30
27
39
16
9
52
24
50
4
20
62
60
58
55
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
d Radial
D for
infeed (mm) mild
steel
2
1.47
3
1.43
4
1.45
1
1.43
2
1.39
3
1.45
4
1.42
1
1.45
2
1.48
3
1.44
4
1.47
1
1.47
2
1.45
3
1.46
4
1.47
1
1.47
2
1.41
3
1.46
4
1.42
1
1.45
2
1.45
3
1.45
4
1.44
Table 4.4 ANOVA for the response model of D for mild steel
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj MS
F
Regression
Residual error
Total
9
54
63
0.012291
0.029903
0.042194
0.001366
0.000554
2.47
D for
brass
D for
aluminium
1.450
1.453
1.468
1.463
1.468
1.428
1.455
1.440
1.408
1.435
1.430
1.453
1.445
1.460
1.455
1.470
1.453
1.450
1.465
1.472
1.465
1.470
1.445
1.34
1.32
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.37
1.39
1.41
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.40
1.39
1.40
1.38
F0.05
2.04
0.020
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique has been used to check the
adequacy of the developed model at 95% confidence level. As per this technique,
if the calculated value of the F-ratio of the regression model is more than the
standard tabulated value of table (F-table) for 95% confidence level, then the
model is considered adequate within the confidence limit. From Table 4.4, it is
observed that the developed model is adequate at 95% confidence level. From the
ANOVA table of individual parameters (Table 4.5), it can be concluded that the
longitudinal feed rate is the most significant factor affecting the fractal dimension
at 95% confidence level. The main effect plots of fractal dimension D is presented
in Fig. 4.1. From this figure, it is seen that longitudinal feed rate and radial infeed
have influences on fractal dimension. The estimated three dimensional surface as
62
3
3
3
9
9
9
27
63
0.0021187
0.0074563
0.0034062
0.0059187
0.0034187
0.0050312
0.0148437
0.0421937
0.0007062
0.0024854
0.0011354
0.0006576
0.0003799
0.0005590
0.0005498
1.28
4.52
2.07
1.20
0.69
1.02
F0.05
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.04
2.04
2.04
0.300
0.011
0.128
0.337
0.711
0.452
Fig. 4.1 Main effect plots for D in cylindrical grinding of mild steel
63
Fig. 4.2 Surface and contour plots of D for mild steel: a at high level of radial infeed, b at low
level of radial infeed
Fig. 4.3 Surface and contour plots of D for mild steel: a at high level of work-piece speed, b at
low level of work-piece speed
Fig. 4.4 Surface and contour plots of D for mild steel: a at high level of longitudinal feed, b at
low level of longitudinal feed
64
F0.05
12.46
2.04
0.000
F0.05
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.04
2.04
2.04
0.000
0.000
0.632
0.034
0.116
0.051
Regression
Residual error
Total
N
f
d
N*f
N*d
f*d
Error
Total
3
3
3
9
9
9
27
63
9
54
63
0.016541
0.007968
0.024509
0.00305352
0.01316367
0.00016602
0.00210742
0.00153633
0.00191367
0.00256836
0.02450898
0.001838
0.000148
0.00101784
0.00438789
0.00005534
0.00023416
0.00017070
0.00021263
0.00009512
10.70
46.13
0.58
2.46
1.79
2.24
From ANOVA analysis of the second order model at 95% confidence level, it is
seen that the model is adequate (Table 4.6). From ANOVA table of individual
parameters (Table 4.7), it can be concluded that the work-piece speed, longitudinal
feed rate and interaction between work-piece speed and longitudinal feed are the
most significant factors affecting the fractal dimension. The main effect plots of
fractal dimension D is presented in Fig. 4.5. From this figure also, it is seen that
work-piece speed and longitudinal feed are significant while the radial infeed is
insignificant on fractal dimension in the studied range. The estimated three
dimensional surface as well as contour plots for D as function of the independent
machining parameters are presented in Figs. 4.6, 4.7, 4.8. It is seen that with
65
Fig. 4.6 Surface and contour plots of D for brass: a at high level of radial infeed, b at low level
of radial infeed
Fig. 4.7 Surface and contour plots of D for brass: a at high level of work-piece speed, b at low
level of work-piece speed
Fig. 4.8 Surface and contour plots of D for brass: a at high level of longitudinal feed, b at low
level of longitudinal feed
66
F0.05
5.97
2.04
0.000
F0.05
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.04
2.04
2.04
0.009
0.000
0.028
0.007
0.015
0.431
Regression
Residual error
Total
N
f
d
N*f
N*d
f*d
Error
Total
9
54
63
3
3
3
9
9
9
27
63
0.012886
0.012950
0.025836
0.0019672
0.0095922
0.0014672
0.0041516
0.0036266
0.0013016
0.0037297
0.0258359
0.001432
0.000240
0.0006557
0.0031974
0.0004891
0.0004613
0.0004030
0.0001446
0.0001381
4.75
23.15
3.54
3.34
2.92
1.05
increase in work-piece speed and longitudinal feed, the fractal dimension increases
i.e. the surface gets smoother while the radial infeed is kept constant at middle
level.
4:3
From the ANOVA analysis of the second order model at 95% confidence level,
it is seen that the model is adequate (Table 4.8). From the ANOVA table of
individual parameters (Table 4.9), it can be concluded that the work-piece speed,
longitudinal feed rate and radial infeed are the significant factors affecting the
fractal dimension at 95% confidence level. Also the interaction between workpiece speed and longitudinal feed and between work-piece speed and radial infeed
are significant at 95% confidence interval. The main effect plots of fractal
dimension D is presented in Fig. 4.9. From this figure also, it is seen that workpiece speed, longitudinal feed and radial infeed are significant in the studied range.
The variations of fractal dimension with two machining parameters are presented
in Figs. 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 while the third machining parameter is kept constant.
67
Fig. 4.10 Surface and contour plots of D for aluminium: a at high level of radial infeed, b at low
level of radial infeed
Fig. 4.11 Surface and contour plots of D for aluminium: a at high level of work-piece speed,
b at low level of work-piece speed
68
Fig. 4.12 Surface and contour plots of D for aluminium: a at high level of longitudinal feed, b at
low level of longitudinal feed
4.4 Closure
Response surface models for three materials viz. mild steel, brass and aluminium
are developed in cylindrical grinding. All the developed second order models are
adequate at 95% confidence level. For mild steel, the longitudinal feed rate is the
most significant factor affecting the fractal dimension whereas for brass materials,
the work-piece speed, longitudinal feed rate and interaction between work-piece
speed and longitudinal feed are the most significant factors. For brass materials,
with increase in work-piece speed and longitudinal feed, the fractal dimension
increases i.e. the surface gets smoother while the radial infeed is kept constant at
middle level. For aluminium materials, it is seen that the work-piece speed, longitudinal feed rate and radial infeed are the significant factors affecting the fractal
dimension.
Chapter 5
5.1 Introduction
Electrical discharge machining (EDM) is a widespread machining technique used
for all types of conductive materials including metals, metallic alloys, graphite,
composites and ceramic materials. It is a non-conventional machining process
used for machining of difficult-to-machine materials and shapes with high degree
of accuracy (El-Hofy 2005). It is based on removing material from a part by means
of a series of repeated electrical discharges created by electric pulse generated at
short intervals between two electrodes; a tool electrode and a work-piece electrode. The electrodes are separated by a dielectric fluid that makes it possible to
flush eroded particles from the gap between the electrodes. The electric spark
P. Sahoo et al., Fractal Analysis in Machining,
SpringerBriefs in Computational Mechanics,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-17922-8_5, Prasanta Sahoo 2011
69
70
-1
0
1
50
75
100
3.125
6.250
9.375
50
100
150
Table 5.2 Design matrix of the FCC design (coded values and actual value of the factors)
Std. order
Run order
Coded value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
5
2
8
12
18
16
14
1
9
11
6
13
19
3
7
20
10
15
17
4
Current (I)
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
0
0
-1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
-1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
raises the surface temperature of both the tool and work-piece to a point that is in
excess of the melting or even boiling points of the substances. Thus material is
mainly removed in the liquid and vapor phases, and the surface generated consists
of debris either been melted or vaporized during machining. Since the tool does
not physically contact the work-piece, no mechanical stress is exerted on the workpiece and the characteristics of the EDM process are thus not governed by the
mechanical properties of the work-piece material. Instead, the thermal and electrical properties play a significant role in the process performance. The EDM
performance is characterized by three parameters, viz., material removal rate
(MRR), electrode wear rate (EWR) and surface roughness. In this study, surface
roughness is modeled based on fractal dimension for three different materials viz.
mild steel, brass and tungsten carbide materials in EDM using response surface
methodology (RSM). The experimental details and the results for different materials are presented below.
71
TOOL CRAFT A 25
C type
300 mm 9 200 mm
465 mm 9 270 mm 9 200 mm
100 mm
175 mm
140 mm
90 mm
45 kg
Stepped drive
150 mm
100 mm sq
0.01 mm over 200 mm
better than 10 l
side, 1.23 l/min (max)
15 kPa
A 25
25 A maximum through current selector
22,000 ls
22,000 ls
400/440 V, 50 Hz, 3-ph supply
72
Brass (UNS
C34000)
94%WC6%Co
the machine used in the experimentation as well as the recommended specifications for different workpiecetool material combinations. Table 5.2 shows the
experimental matrix of the FCC design employed in the present study.
73
Specifications
Material
Composition
Density
Melting point
Conductivity
Tensile strength
Electrolytic copper
99.09% copper
8 904 kg/mm3
1083 C
101.41% IACS
23.47 kg/mm2
D for WC
D for MS
D for Brass
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1.383
1.350
1.356
1.250
1.410
1.313
1.356
1.216
1.390
1.270
1.323
1.250
1.320
1.386
1.263
1.313
1.310
1.343
1.310
1.293
1.413
1.310
1.330
1.276
1.426
1.306
1.426
1.283
1.333
1.286
1.346
1.343
1.346
1.316
1.356
1.306
1.363
1.306
1.330
1.316
1.440
1.406
1.430
1.400
1.453
1.423
1.420
1.386
1.413
1.410
1.440
1.420
1.430
1.406
1.420
1.423
1.410
1.400
1.416
1.416
5
2
8
12
18
16
14
1
9
11
6
13
19
3
7
20
10
15
17
4
positive polarity (Puertas et al. 2005). The properties of the tool electrode have
been given in Table 5.5. Kerosene was used as dielectric because of its high flash
point, good dielectric strength, transparent characteristics and low viscosity and
specific gravity.
74
Table 5.7 ANOVA for second order model for D in EDM of mild steel
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
F0.05
4.66
3.02
0.012
Table 5.8 ANOVA for machining parameters for D in EDM of mild steel
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
F0.05
3.81
3.81
3.81
0
0.139
0.556
Regression
Residual Error
Total
I
ti
t0
Error
Total
2
2
2
13
19
9
10
19
0.029628
0.007057
0.036685
0.021962
0.004156
0.000912
0.009656
0.036685
0.029628
0.007057
0.022226
0.003419
0.000912
0.009656
0.003292
0.000706
0.011113
0.001709
0.000456
0.000743
14.96
2.3
0.61
5:1
75
Fig. 5.1 Main effect plot of fractal dimension for mild steel
Fig. 5.2 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: (a) at high level of pulse on
time, (b) at low level of pulse on time
Fig. 5.3 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: (a) at high level of current,
(b) at low level of current
76
Fig. 5.4 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for mild steel: (a) at high level of pulse off
time, (b) at low level of pulse off time
Table 5.9 ANOVA for second order model for D in EDM of brass
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
Regression
Residual Error
Total
9
10
19
0.003635
0.000982
0.004616
0.003635
0.000982
0.000404
0.000098
F0.05
4.11
3.02
0.019
significant effect on fractal dimension while pulse on time and pulse off time have
no effect on fractal dimension of the surface topography generated in EDM of mild
steel. The estimated three-dimensional surface as well as contour plots for fractal
dimension are presented in Figs. 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. To draw these surface plots,
fractal dimension is plotted as functions of two independent machining parameters
while the third machining parameter is held constant. All these figures clearly
depict the variation of fractal dimension with controlling variables within the
experimental regime.
5:2
77
2
2
2
13
19
0.001693
0.001557
2.83E - 05
0.001338
0.004616
0.00182
0.001502
2.83E - 05
0.001338
0.00091
0.000751
1.42E - 05
0.000103
8.84
7.3
0.14
F0.05
3.81
3.81
3.81
0.004
0.008
0.873
confidence level. Also the calculated value of the F-ratio is more than the standard
value of the F-ratio for D which implies the model is adequate at 95% confidence
level to represent the relationship between the machining response and the considered machining parameters of the EDM process on brass. Table 5.10 represents
the ANOVA table for individual machining parameters where it can be seen that
pulse current and pulse on time are the significant factors affecting fractal
dimension. Figure 5.5 depicts the main effects plot for the fractal dimension and
the design factors considered. From this figure also, it is seen that pulse current and
pulse on time have the significant effect on fractal dimension. Figures 5.6, 5.7, and
5.8 shows the estimated three-dimensional surface as well as contour plots for
fractal dimension. To draw these surface plots, fractal dimension is plotted as
functions of two independent machining parameters while the third machining
parameter is held constant. All these figures clearly show the variation of fractal
dimension with controlling variables within the experimental regime.
78
Fig. 5.6 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: (a) at high level of pulse on
time, (b) at low level of pulse on time
Fig. 5.7 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: (a) at high level of current,
(b) at low level of current
Fig. 5.8 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for brass: (a) at high level of pulse off
time, (b) at low level of pulse off time
79
Table 5.11 ANOVA for second order model for D in EDM of tungsten carbide
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
F0.05
Regression
Residual error
Total
9
10
19
0.046159
0.006621
0.05278
0.046159
0.006621
0.005129
0.000662
7.75
3.02
Table 5.12 ANOVA for machining parameters for D in EDM of tungsten carbide
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
F0.05
I
ti
t0
Error
Total
2
2
2
13
19
0.026341
0.01304
0.003839
0.00956
0.05278
0.025185
0.014658
0.003839
0.00956
0.012592
0.007329
0.00192
0.000735
17.12
9.97
2.61
3.81
3.81
3.81
P
0.002
P
0
0.002
0.111
5:3
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the F-ratio test have been performed to
check the adequacy of the developed model. Table 5.11 presents the ANOVA
table for the second order model proposed for D given in Eq. 5.3. It is seen that the
developed model is significant at 95% confidence level. Also the calculated value
of the F-ratio is more than the standard value of the F-ratio for D. It means the
model is adequate at 95% confidence level to represent the relationship between
the machining response and the considered machining parameters of the EDM
process. Table 5.12 represents the ANOVA table for individual machining
parameters where it can be seen that pulse current and pulse on time are significant
at 95% confidence level. Figure 5.9 shows the main effects plot for the fractal
dimension and the design factors considered in the present study. From this figure
also, it is seen that both pulse current and pulse on time have the significant effect
on fractal dimension while the effect of pulse off time is insignificant.
80
Fig. 5.10 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for tungsten carbide: (a) at high level of
pulse on time, (b) at low level of pulse on time
Fig. 5.11 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for tungsten carbide: (a) at high level of
current, (b) at low level of current
Fig. 5.12 Surface and contour plot of fractal dimension for tungsten carbide: (a) at high level of
pulse off time, (b) at low level of pulse off time
81
Figures 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12 shows the estimated three-dimensional surface as well
as contour plots for fractal dimension. To draw these surface plots, fractal
dimension is plotted as functions of two independent machining parameters while
the third machining parameter is held constant. These figures clearly depict the
variation of fractal dimension with controlling variables within the experimental
regime.
5.4 Closure
Response surface models are developed for fractal dimension in EDM of three
different materials. A comparison of the response surface models reveals the fact
that these models are material specific or in other words, the toolworkpiece
material combination plays a vital role in fractal dimension modeling. Also the
effect of the cutting parameters on fractal dimension is different for different
materials as evidenced from Table 5.8, Table 5.10 and Table 5.12. For tungsten
carbide and brass, both pulse current and pulse on time play a significant role in
determining the fractal dimension while for mild steel it is only the pulse current
that plays the significant role. Accordingly, optimum machining parameter combinations for fractal dimension depend greatly on the workpiece material within
the experimental domain. However, it can be concluded that it is possible to select
a combination of pulse current, pulse on time and pulse off time for achieving the
surface topography with desired fractal dimension within the constraints of the
available machine.
References
El-Hofy HAG (2005) Advanced machining processes. McGraw-Hill, New York
Puertas I, Luis CJ, Villa G (2005) Spacing roughness parameters study on the EDM of silicon
carbide. J Mater Process Technol 164165:15901596