Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2710-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimization of drilling parameters on surface roughness

in drilling of AISI 1045 using response surface
methodology and genetic algorithm
Erol Kilickap & Mesut Huseyinoglu & Ahmet Yardimeden

Received: 14 January 2010 / Accepted: 2 May 2010 / Published online: 20 May 2010
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Abstract Modeling and optimization of cutting parameters

are one of the most important elements in machining
processes. The present study focused on the influence
machining parameters on the surface roughness obtained in
drilling of AISI 1045. The matrices of test conditions
consisted of cutting speed, feed rate, and cutting environment. A mathematical prediction model of the surface
roughness was developed using response surface methodology (RSM). The effects of drilling parameters on the
surface roughness were evaluated and optimum machining
conditions for minimizing the surface roughness were
determined using RSM and genetic algorithm. As a result,
the predicted and measured values were quite close, which
indicates that the developed model can be effectively used
to predict the surface roughness. The given model could be
utilized to select the level of drilling parameters. A
noticeable saving in machining time and product cost can
be obtained by using this model.
Keywords Response surface methodology . Genetic
algorithm . Box-Behnken design of experiments . Minimum
quantity lubricant . Drilling . Surface roughness

E. Kilickap (*) : M. Huseyinoglu : A. Yardimeden

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dicle University,
21280 Diyarbakir, Turkey
e-mail: ekilickap@dicle.edu.tr
M. Huseyinoglu
e-mail: mesuth@dicle.edu.tr
A. Yardimeden
e-mail: ayardim@dicle.edu.tr

1 Introduction
Drilling is one of the most common and complex
operations among many kinds of machining methods. It is
widely used in a variety of manufacturing industries
including aerospace and automotive sectors [1]. Surface
roughness resulting from drilling operations has traditionally received considerable research attention. It has an
impact on the mechanical properties like fatigue behavior,
corrosion resistance, creep life, etc. It also affects other
functional attributes of parts like friction, wear, light
reflection, heat transmission, lubrication, electrical conductivity, etc. [2].
Metal removal fluids decrease friction between the
cutting tool and the workpiece material, preventing tool
wear, and reducing surface roughness [3]. The conventional
cutting fluids utilized in machining are considered a
problem for manufacturer, since these substances can
seriously damage human health and environment. Environmental concerns have become increasingly important to
productive processes, allied with their economic and
technological aspects. Large quantities of emulsion-based
cooling fluids for machining are still widely used in the
metal working industry, generating high consumption and
discard costs and impacting the environment. The increasing need for environmentally friendly production techniques and rapid growth of cutting fluid disposal costs have
justified the demand for an alternative to machining
processes using fluids. Over the last decade, however, the
goal of research in this field has been to restrict as much as
possible the use of cooling fluids or lubricants in metal
production processes. Dry machining and minimum quantity lubricant (MQL) machining have become the focus of
attention of researches and technicians in the field of
machining as an alternative to traditional fluids [49].

80

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

Table 1 Single point crossover process

1
2
1
2

A1
B1
A1
B1

Parent
Parent
Child
Child

A2.An
B2.Bn
A2.An
B2.Bn

An+1.... Ak
Bn +1.....Bk
Bn +1.Bk
An +1.Ak

Process modeling and optimization are two important

issues in manufacturing. The manufacturing processes are
characterized by a multiplicity of dynamically interacting
process variables. Surface finish has been an important
factor of machining in predicting performance of any
machining operation. In order to develop and optimize a
surface roughness model, it is essential to understand the
current status of work in this area [10]. In order to
understand the effects of machining parameters in the
various machining, a lot of researchers used optimization
techniques [1113]. Most surface roughness prediction
models are empirical and are generally based on experiments in the laboratory. In addition, it is very difficult in
practice to keep all factors under control as required to
obtain reproducible results [12]. Generally, these models
have a complex relationship between surface roughness and
operational parameters, work materials, and chip-breaker
types [14]. Optimization of machining parameters not only
increases the utility for machining economics, but also the
product quality to a great extent [15]. As a result, there have
been a great many research developments in modeling
surface roughness and optimisation of 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 are far from complete since it is very
difficult to consider all the parameters that control the surface
roughness for a particular manufacturing process [16].
In this study, an effort has been made to estimate the
surface roughness using experimental data. The surface
roughness model was developed by response surface
methodology (RSM). It has also been attempted to optimize
the surface roughness prediction model using a genetic
algorithmic approach.

Table 3 Uniform crossover

process

1 Parent
2 Parent
1 Child
2 Child

A1
B1
1
B1
A1

A2
B2
0
A2
B2

A3
B3
0
A3
B3

A4
B4
1
B4
A4

2 Methodology
2.1 Response surface methodology
Response surface methodology is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques, which are useful for the
modeling and analyzing the engineering problems and
developing, improving, and optimizing processes. It also
has important applications in the design, development, and
formulation of new products, as well as in the improvement
of existing product designs, and it is an effective tool for
constructing optimization models [17].
RSM consists of the experimental strategy for exploring the space of the process or input factors, empirical
statistical modeling to develop an appropriate approximating relationship between the yield and the process
variables, and optimization methods for finding the levels
or values of the process variables that produce desirable
values of the response outputs [17]. Response surface
method designs also help in quantifying the relationships
between one or more measured responses and the vital
input factors.
The first step of RSM is to define the limits of the
experimental domain to be explored. These limits are made
as wide as possible to obtain a clear response from the
model [18]. The cutting speed, feed rate, and cutting
environment are the drilling variable, selected for our
investigation.
In the next step, the planning to accomplish the experiments by means of RSM using a Box-Behnken design.
In many engineering fields, there is a relationship
between an output variable of interest (y) and a set off
controllable variables (x1, x2,xn). The relationship be-

Table 4 Mutation process

Table 2 Double point crossover process

1 Parent
2 Parent
1 Child
2 Child

A
D
A
D

B
E
E
B

C
F
C
F

Original child 1
Original child 2
Child with mutation 1
Child with mutation 2

1101111000011110
1101100100110110
1100111000011110
1101101100110110

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

Table 5 Experimental factors
and their levels

81

Symbol

Drilling parameter

Level 1 (1)

Level 2 (0)

Level 3 (1)

A
B
C

Cutting speed, V (m/min)

Feed rate, f (mm/rev)
Cutting environment

5
0.1
MQL (1)

10
0.2
Comp. air (2)

15
0.3
Dry (3)

tween the drilling control parameters and the responses is

given as:
y f x1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn "

where, represents the noise or error observed in the

response (y). If we denote the expected response be Ey
f x1 ; x2 ; . . . xn h and then the surface represented by;
h f x1 ; x2 ; . . . xn

is called a response surface. The variable x1, x2,xn in

Eq. 2 are called natural variables, because they are
expressed in natural units of measurement.
In most RSM problems, the form of the relationship
between the independent variables and the response is
unknown, it is approximated. Thus, the first step in RSM is
to find an appropriate approximation for the true functional
relationship between response and the set of independent
variables. Usually, a low-order polynomial in some region
of the independent variables is employed. If the response is
well modeled by a linear function of the independent
variables, then the approximating function is the first order
model;
y b 0 b 1 x1 b 2 x2 . . . b k xk "

Table 6 Design matrix and

observed values of surface
roughness

Trial no.

If there is curvature in the system, then a polynomial of

higher degree must be used, such as the second order
model;
y b0

k
X
j1

b j xj

k
X
j1

bjj x2j

k 1 X
k
X
i

bij xi xj "

where, i 1; 2; . . . ; k  1 and j=1,2,,k also i<j [18].

2.2 Genetic algorithm
GA, which imitates the evolution mechanism of nature, is
used for finding a particular data in a dataset [19]. GA
produces ever-improving solutions based on the rule the
best one survives. For this purpose, it uses a fitness
function that selects the best and operators like regeneration
and mutation to produce new solutions. Another feature of
GA is that it involves a group solution. By the way
optimum solutions among other ones could be picked and
disqualified ones are eliminated.
The most important feature that distinguishes GA from
other algorithms is selection. Fitness of a solution increases
the chance for it to be selected. However, it does not
guarantee that. Formation of first group in selection is

Cutting speed

Feed rate

Cutting environment

Surface roughness (Ra)

1
2
3
4

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0

2.33
4.27
4.10
6.64

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

3.04
6.63
3.48
5.37
2.06
3.37
3.10
4.23
3.10
3.15
3.05
3.07
3.10

82
Table 7 Model summary statistics for surface roughness

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

Source

SD

R2

Adj. R2

Sum of square

Lack of fit

Linear
2FI
Quadratic

0.88
0.96
0.45

0.6400
0.6692
0.9495

0.5569
0.4707
0.8846

17.96
18.78
26.64

10.10
9.28
1.41

Suggested
Suggested

regeneration, the chromosomes in coming generations

might start to repeat each other after some period of time
and thus, production of different chromosomes might halt
or decrease drastically. For this reason, some of the
chromosomes are subject to mutation in order to increase
the diversity of them. Mutation process is as indicated in
Table 4.

random. However, fitness of solutions determines the

chance of being selected in that random selection [1921].
GA passes through three phases to form a new generation:
Evaluating the value of fitness for each individual in the old
generation, selecting individuals based on their value of
fitness (using fitness function) and continuing generations
with selected individuals using operators such as crossover
and mutation.
The aim of crossover process is to produce child
chromosomes by changing the locations of main chromosome genes and hence to obtain chromosomes having even
higher value of fitness from the ones with high values of
fitness. There are three types of mostly used crossover for
binary coding in the literature [20]. Single point, double
point, and uniform crossover processes were explained in
order and following tables are helpful [1921] (Tables 1
and 2).
In the uniform crossover, in order to determine displacing genes, the numbers 0 and 1 are generated randomly. In
this manner, the same numbers of genes are generated. In
Table 3 the string 1001 is a randomly generated number
string. For number of 1 genes will be displaced, but for
number of 0 will not be displaced (Table 3).
The purpose of this process is to form a new chromosome by changing the place of one or more genes of an
existing chromosome. As a consequence of permanent

A detailed survey has been carried out to find out how

drilling parameters affect surface roughness. The three
cutting parameters selected for the experiments are cutting
speed (V), feed rate (f), and cutting environment (dry,
compressed air and MQL). The drilling parameters for the
experiments are shown in Table 5.
Drilling tests were conducted under conditions using a
SX XHMT vertical drilling machine. AISI 1045 was used
for the drilling experiments in the study. All the samples are
the form of 200  40  20 mm3 blocks. The cutting tools
used for experimental study were 8 mm diameter TiN
coated HSS drills. Surface roughness (Ra) finish of each
drilled hole was measured using Taylor-Hobsons Surtonic
3+ surface roughness tester using a meter cut-off length of
0.8 mm. The measurements of surface roughness (Ra) at

Table 8 ANOVA table for response surface quadratic model

DF

SDQ sum of squares,

DF degrees of freedom,
MS mean square

Source

SDQ

Model
ACutting speed
BFeed rate
CCutting
environment
AB
AC
BC
A2
B2
C2
Residual
Total
SD
Mean

26.64
12.40
5.41
0.15
0.09
0.72
8.100E-003
7.57
0.042
0.16
1.42
28.06
0.45
3.77

3 Experimental details

MS
9
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
7
16
C.V.
PRESS

2.96
12.40
5.41
0.15
0.09
0.72
8.100E-003
7.57
0.042
0.16
0.20
11.93
22.59

F value

Prop>F

14.63
61.27
26.74
0.72

0.0009
0.0001
0.0013
0.4241

0.44
3.57
0.04
37.38
0.21
0.80

0.5262
0.1008
0.8471
0.0005
0.6637
0.4022

R2
Adj. R2

0.9495
0.8846

Significant

Pred. R2 0.1951
Adeq. precision
12.651

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

Table 9 ANOVA table for
reduced response surface
quadratic model

SDQ sum of squares, DF

degrees of freedom, MS mean
square

83

Source

SDQ

DF

MS

Model
ACutting speed
BFeed rate
CCutting environment
A2
Residual
Lack of Fit
Total
SD
Mean

25.63
12.40
5.41
0.15
7.67
2.43
2.43
28.06
0.45
3.77

4
1
1
1
1
12
8
16
C.V.
PRESS

6.41
12.40
5.41
0.15
7.67
0.20
0.30
11.94
6.13

90o around the drilled hole were taken at four positions

from three different samples and averaged surface roughness was taken for the analysis.

F value

Prop>F

31.62
61.19
26.71
0.72
37.85

<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0.0412
<0.0001

Significant

212.08

<0.0001

Significant

R2
Adj. R2

0.9133
0.8844

Pred. R2 0.7814
Adeq. precision 17.903

4.2 RSM based surface roughness mathematical model

Drilling tests were conducted to assess the influence of

drilling parameters on surface roughness in drilling AISI
1045. The design of experimental was accomplished
with three input parameters: cutting speed, feed rate,
and cutting environment. It was performed in Table 6.
Table 6 also gives experimental results for surface
roughness.

The RSM was performed to predict the surface roughness

in drilling of AISI 1045. Table 7 gives the model summary
statistics for surface roughness.
Table 7 reveals that quadratic model is the best suggested
model for surface roughness. So, for further analysis this model
was used. The relative importance of the drilling parameters
with respect to the surface roughness was investigated to
determine more accurately the optimum combinations of the
drilling parameters by using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 8 gives the ANOVA results for the response surface
quadratic model for surface roughness in drilling AISI 1045.
The model F value of 14.63 in Table 8 implies that the
model is significant for surface roughness. The values of
"Prob>F" for model is less than 0.1000 which indicates that

Fig. 1 Normal probability plot of residuals for surface roughness

Fig. 2 Residuals versus predicted response for surface roughness

4 Implementation (methodology) and results

4.1 Design of experiments

84

the model terms are significant. In this case A, B, and A2

are significant model terms. Other model terms can be said
to be not significant. These insignificant model terms can
be removed and may result in an improved model. By
selecting the backward elimination procedure to automatically reduce the terms that are not significant, the resulting
ANOVA table for the reduced quadratic model for surface
roughness is shown in Table 9.
From Table 9, the model F value of 42.84 indicates that
the model is still significant. The values of Prob>F less
than 0.1000 show model terms are important. It is noted

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

that interaction among drilling parameters are in significant

while the independent effects of drilling parameters are also
significant. Therefore, cutting speed (A), feed rate (B), and
the second-order effect of cutting speed (A2) are the
significant model terms.
The Lack of Fit F-value of 199.84 implies the lack of fit
is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a "Model FValue" this large could occur due to noise. The R2 (0.9081)
value is high, close to 1, which is desirable. Adequate
precision measures the S/N ratio. Ratio greater than 4
indicates adequate model discrimination. In this particular

Fig. 3 Variation of surface roughness with cutting speed at different feed rates. a MQL, b compressed air, c dry

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

case, it is 19.611 indicates an adequate signal. Therefore, the

model can be used to navigate the design space.
In analyzing the surface roughness in drilling, statistical
models play an important role. The models are used for
prediction of results [22, 23]. RSMs Box-Behnken design
consisting of 17 experiments was calculated for developing
the mathematical model for surface roughness. The mathematical relationship for correlating the surface roughness
and the considered drilling parameters (cutting speed, feed

85

rate, and cutting environment) is obtained from coefficients

resulting using the Design Expert software. The following
equations are the final empirical model in terms of coded
factors for surface roughness (Ra);
Ra 4:115  0:82767A 8:225B 0:135C
0:0538A2

Fig. 4 Variation of surface roughness with cutting environment at different cutting speeds. a Feed rate: 0.1 mm/rev, b feed rate: 0.2 mm/rev, c
feed rate: 0.3 mm/rev

86

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

The normal probability plots of the residuals and the

plots of the residuals versus the predicted response for
surface roughness are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Figure 1
revealed that the residuals generally fall on a straight line
implying that the errors are normally distributed. Also
Fig. 2 shows that the residuals versus predicted responses
for surface roughness data, it is seen that no obvious pattern
and unusual structure. This implies that the models
proposed are adequate and there is no reason to suspect
any violation of the independence or constant variance
assumption [24, 25].
From the developed RSM-based mathematical model,
the effect of drilling parameter on surface roughness is
examined. Figures 3a-c and 4a-c show graphs of surface
roughness as a function of drilling parameters when drillng
AISI 1045.
From Figs. 3a-c and 4a-c, it can be noticed that surface
roughness is affecting by cutting speed ant the best results
are obtained at lower cutting speeds. The values of hole
surface roughnes were much better for the MQL condition
thn for the compressed air and dry drilling [7]. It appeared
from these figures that the surface roughness increased
under dry drilling. This case was explained due to more
intensive temperature and stress at the hole tips [26].
Additionally, comprasing Figs. 3a-c and 4a-c it can be seen
tht the surface roughenss deteriorates as feed rates is
increased. This result was similar with studies cited in Ref
[7, 27]. From these figures, it can be said that the best
condition used to drill this material is using the cutting
speed of 5 m/min, the feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev and the MQL
conditions.

predict the surface roughness values for any combination of

drilling parameters within the range of experimentation.

5 Optimisation of surface roughness with GA

In this study, optimum drilling parameters for AISI 1045
material at the lowest possible surface roughness value was
calculated using GA. Equation 5 derived by response
surface method was taken as the objective function to be
minimized for the lowest surface roughness value. The
flowchart of the Basic GA was given in Fig. 6.
The variation graph of objective function (5) is shown in
Fig. 7. When Fig. 7 is checked, low values of A, B, and C
parameters produced minimum Ra values. This result is
similar to experimental study results. Moreover, in this
study, although it can be seen as simple study, optimum
drilling parameters for minimum surface roughness was
obtained and Eq. 5 would provide drilling parameter
condition by using GA for the selected experimental
material (AISI 1045). This study would provide basic
information for complex studies considering drilling of
similar materials.
Taking the minimum and the maximum values of
drilling parameters into account, boundary conditions for
the objective function (5).
5  A  15

0:1  B  0:3

4.3 Validation of experimental results

1C3

In order to predict and verify the improvement surface

roughness for drilling of AISI 1045 with respect to the
chosen initial parameter setting, confirmation tests are used.
The predicted optimum value of S/N ratio (pred.) is
calculated from the following expression.

Equation 5 was also taken as the fitness function for the

optimization of surface roughness value obtained from
drilling AISI 1045. The algorithm given in Fig. 6 was run
by using single point, double point, uniform crossover, and
different mutation operators. This approach provides

k
X
i1

hi hm

where, m is total mean of S/N ratio, i is the mean of S/N

ratio at the optimal level, and k is the number of main
drilling parameters that significantly affect the performance
[23, 28, 29].
Figure 5 shows the validation of experimental results for
the surface roughness. As shown in Fig. 5, the difference
between the predicted the surface roughness by Eq. 5 and
the experimental value is small. Thus, the response
equations for the surface roughness evolved through
response surface methodology can be used to successfully

Experimental

7
Surface roughness, Ra(m)

hperd: hm

Predicted

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

10

13
16
Trial number

19

22

25

Fig. 5 Validation of experimental results for surface roughness

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

87
Best: 1.8895 Mean: 1.8896

Start
Fitness value

Randomly generate first population (P)

Print the
result

i=i+1
Evaluate the fitness of chromosomes in
the generation

Select and match qualifiedindividuals

for crossover and mutation (p)

Mean fitness

2
1

End

Current best individual

Function tol. <_ 10-3

Best fitness

10

15

20

25
30
Generation

35

40

45

50

Current Best Individual

X= 1
Y= 7.6239

6
4

X= 3
Y= 1

X= 2
Y= 0.1

2
1

2
Number of variables (3)

Fig. 8 Variation of fitness function and best individuals

Crossover and mutation matched

individuals

Evaluate the fitness of chromosomes

in the population (p)

Select parent individuals from (p) and

(p) populations for the next iteration

Fig. 6 Flowchart of the basic GA

optimum drilling conditions for corresponding, given

maximum and minimum values surface roughness [13].
The best result for minimum surface roughness was
obtained by using double point crossover. Also, various
values were examined for mutation and crossover possibilities. The optimum possible result could be produced by
0.80 for crossover and 0.001 mutation possibilities. The
input drilling parameter levels were fed to the GA program.

Initial population was randomly produced according to 100

iteration number 1 elitism and 30 starting number for the
drilling parameters of upper and lower limits. Function
tolerance was selected 0.001.
Variation of fitness function and best individuals in the
optimization are given Fig. 8. As seen in the figure, value
of the mean fitness decreases with increasing number of
iteration. Function tolerance was found after 20 iteration
number. Best individuals taken GA program were given
Table 10.
Considering the optimum drilling parameters in the GA,
the minimum surface roughness (Ra=1.89 m) value was
obtained at V=7.62 m/min, f=0.1 mm/rev, and MQL(1).
Three experiments were performed according to the
optimum drilling parameters for testing. As a result of
these experiments, average surface roughness was measured 1.97 m. It was show that the results found by GA
were in conformity with the experimental and theoretical
ones.

6 Conclusions

8
7

Ra

f=0.3

f=0.2

f=0.1

Experiments were conducted on drilling machine using

TiN-coated HSS drills, the data surface roughness was
collected under different drilling conditions for various
combination of cutting speed, feed rate, and cutting
environment.
Table 10 Best individuals for minimum surface roughness

2
1
3

Parameters

Variable

Value

Cutting speed, V (m/min)

Feed rate, f (mm/rev)
Cutting environment

A
B
C

7.62
0.1
MQL (1)

15
2

Cutting Environment

10
1

Fig. 7 The variation of objective function

Cutting speed

88

Main contribution of the study is to the minimum surface

roughness and to find out optimum drilling condition using
an integration of RSM and GA. RSM and GA approach
provide a systematic and effective methodology for the
modeling and the optimization.
RSM provides a large amount of information with a
small amount of experimentation. The RSM based surface
roughness model in terms of cutting speed, feed rate, and
cutting environment was developed by means of the
experimental database as per Box-Behnken design of
experiments. The quadratic modes developed using RSM
were reasonable accurate and can be used for prediction
within the limits of the factors investigated.
Genetic algorithms have been very useful in optimisation
of the response variable and also in multi-response cases.
The RSM based surface roughness model can be optimized
using a genetic algorithm in order to find the optimum
values of independent variables.
From the RSM model and the optimization results, the
predicted and measured values are quite close, which
indicates that the developed model can be effectively used
to predict the surface roughness. The given model can be
utilized to select the level of drilling parameters. Using this
model, a noticeable saving in time and cost has been
obtained.

References
1. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Siddeswarapa B, Achyutha BT (2008)
Integrating Box-Behnken design with genetic algorithm to
determine the optimal parametric combination for minimizing
burr size in drilling of AISI 316 L stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 37:230240
2. Sahoo P, Barman TK, Routara BC (2008) Fractal dimension
modelling of surface profile and optimisation in CNC end milling
using response surface method. Int J Manuf Res 3:360377
3. Bhowmick S, Alpas AT (2008) Minimum quantity lubrication
drilling of aluminium-silicon alloys in water using diamond-like
carbon coated drills. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:14291443
4. Nandi AK, Davim JP (2009) A study of drilling performance with
minimum quantity of lubricant using fuzzy logic rules. Mechatronics 19:218232
5. Silva LR, Bianchi EC, Catai RE, Fusse RY, Frana TV, Aguiar PR
(2005) Study on the behavior of the minimum quantity lubricantMQL technique under different lubricating and cooling conditions
when grinding ABNT 4340 steel. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 27
(2):192199
6. Diniz AE, Micaroni R (2007) Influence of the direction and flow
rate of the cutting fluid on tool life in turning process of AISI
1045 steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:247254
7. Braga DU, Diniz AE, Miranda GWA, Coppini NL (2002) Using a
minimum quantity of lubricant (MQL) and a diamond coated tool
in the drilling of aluminumsilicon alloys. J Mater Process
Technol 122:127138
8. Heinemann R, Hinduja S, Barrow G, Petuelli G (2005) Effect of
MSS on the tool life of small twist drills in deep-hole drilling. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 1:16

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 52:7988

9. Zeilmann RP, Weingaertner WL (2006) Analysis of temperature
during drilling of Ti6Al4V with minimal quantity of lubricant. J
Mater Process Technol 179:124127
10. Suresh KRN, Venkateswara RP (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
11. Mital A, Mehta M (1988) Surface roughness prediction models for
fine turning. Int J Produc Res 26:18611876
12. Van Luttervelt CA, Childs THC, Jawahir IS, Klocke F, Venuvinod
PK (1998) Present situation and future trends in modelling of
machining operations. Progress Report of the CIRP Working
Group on Modelling of machining operations. Ann CIRP 47
(2):587626
13. Ozel C, Kilickap E (2006) Optimisation of surface roughness with
GA approach in turning 15% SiCp reinforced AlSi7Mg2 MMC
material. Int J Mach Machinability Mater 1(4):476487
14. Suresh PVS, Venkateswara RP, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic
algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness
prediction model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:675680
15. Azouzi R, Guillot M (1998) On-line optimization of the turning
using an inverse process neuro controller. J Manuf Sci Eng
120:101107
16. Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness
in machining: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43:833844
17. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (1995) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, New York
18. Pradhan MK, Biswas CK (2008) Modelling of machining
parameters for MRR in EDM using response surface methodology. Proceedings of NCMSTA08 Conference, Hamirpur 535542
19. David G (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and
machine learning. Addison, Wesley
20. Mitsuo G, Runwei C (1997) Genetic algorithms and engineering
design. Wiley-Interscience Publication
21. Zbigniew M (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures =
evolution programs. Springer
22. 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
23. Palanikumar K, Karthikeyan R (2006) Optimal machining conditions for turning of particulate metal matrix composites using
Taguchi and response surface methodology. Mach Sci Technol
10:417433
24. Noordin MY, Vankatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A
(2004) Application of response surface methodology in describing
the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045
steel. J Mater Process Technol 145:4668
25. Alrabii SA, Zumot LY (2007) Chip thickness and microhardness
prediction models during turning of medium carbon steel. J App
Math 2007:112
26. Khan MMA, Dhar NR (2006) Performance evaluation of
minimum quantity lubrication by vegetable oil in terms of cutting
force, cutting zone temperature, tool wear, job dimension and
surface finish in turning AISI-1060 steel. J Zhejiang University
Science:A 7(11):17901799
27. Mendes OC, Avila RF, Abrao AM, Reis P, Davim JP (2006) The
performance of cutting fluids when machining aluminium alloys.
Ind Lubr Tribol 58(5):260268
28. Tosun N, Cogun C, Tosun G (2004) A study kerf and materials
removal rate in wire electrical discharge machining based on
Taguchi method. J Mater Process Technol 152:316322
29. Davidson MJ, Balasubramanian K, Tagore GRN (2008) Surface
roughness prediction of flow-formed AA 6061 alloy by design of
experiments. J Mater Process Technol 202:4146