Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

On the prediction of surface roughness in the hard turning

based on cutting parameters and tool vibrations
Zahia Hessainia a, Ahmed Belbah a,, Mohamed Athmane Yallese a, Tarek Mabrouki b,
Jean-Franois Rigal b
a
b

Mechanics and Structures Research Laboratory (LMS), May 8th 1945 University, PO Box 401, Guelma 24000, Algeria
LaMCos, CNRS, INSA-Lyon, UMR5259, Lyon University, F69621 Lyon, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 18 January 2013
Keywords:
Hard turning
Ceramic tool
Surface roughness
Response surface methodology
Analysis of variance

a b s t r a c t
This research work concerns the elaboration of a surface roughness model in the case of hard
turning by exploiting the response surface methodology (RSM). The main input parameters
of this model are the cutting parameters such as cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and
tool vibration in radial and in main cutting force directions. The machined material tested
is the 42CrMo4 hardened steel by Al2O3/TiC mixed ceramic cutting tool under different conditions. The model is able to predict surface roughness of Ra and Rt using an experimental
data when machining steels. The combined effects of cutting parameters and tool vibration
on surface roughness were investigated while employing the analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The quadratic model of RSM associated with response optimization technique and composite desirability was used to nd optimum values of cutting parameters and tool vibration
with respect to announced objectives which are the prediction of surface roughness. The
adequacy of the model was veried when plotting the residuals values. The results indicate
that the feed rate is the dominant factor affecting the surface roughness, whereas vibrations
on both pre-cited directions have a low effect on it. Moreover, a good agreement was
observed between the predicted and the experimental surface roughness. Optimal cutting
condition and tool vibrations leading to the minimum surface roughness were highlighted.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Developments in tools and machine in the last few decades have made it possible to cut materials in their hardened state. The advantages of producing components in
hardened state can be listed as [1]: reduction of machining
costs, reduction of lead time, reduction of number of necessary machine tools, improved surface integrity, reduction of nishing operations and elimination of part
distortion caused by heat treatment.
Alumina (Al2O3) based ceramics are considered to be
one of the most suitable tool materials for machining hardened steels because of their high hot hardness, wear resis Corresponding author. Tel.: +213 698460066; fax: +213 37 21 58 50.
E-mail addresses: belbah@yahoo.fr (A. Belbah), tarek.mabrouki@insalyon.fr (T. Mabrouki), jean-francois.rigal@insa-lyon.fr<.
0263-2241/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.12.016

tance and chemical inertness [2]. On the other hand,

Al2O3 based tools have a high degree of brittleness which
usually leads to a short tool life due to excessive chipping
or fracture especially when machining hardened materials.
In order to improve toughness, Al2O3 based ceramic cutting
tools are usually reinforced with TiC, TiN, ZrO2 and TiB2
additions [3,4]. These additions result in some improvement, but the toughness of Al2O3 based tools are still much
less than that of other tools such as cemented carbides. As a
result, the possibility of sudden failures when machining
hardened materials with Al2O3 based ceramics is very high
[5]. Numerous studies had been conducted to investigate
the performance of ceramic and CBN tools when machining
various hard materials such as research works published in
[68]. Other authors [9,10] investigated the effects of different parameters affecting cutting forces, surface roughness,
tool wear and surface integrity in hard steel turning with

1672

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Nomenclature
Vc
f
ap
Vz
Vy
Ra
Rt
Xi
aii
aj
aij

cutting speed (m/min)

feed rate (mm/rev)
depth of cut (mm)
acceleration in the main cutting force (m/s2)
acceleration in radial cutting force (m/s2)
arithmetic average of absolute roughness (lm)
maximum height of the prole (lm)
coded machining parameters
quadratic term
coefcients of linear terms
cross-product terms

various grades of CBN tools. Benga and Abrao [11] observed

superior surface quality in turning of hardened steel components using alumina TiC ceramic tools. Recently, Davim
[12] had provides some industrial applications concerning
the machining hard materials. He had also explained the
physics of hard material removal based on the mechanics
of cutting and chip formation. Moreover, dedicated computational methodologies for optimizing hard machining process were discussed. Bartarya and Choudhury [13] had
developed an interesting review on hard machining and
on key issues related to the process performance. The review shows that tool material grade, cutting edge geometry
and cutting parameters affect the process efciencies in
terms of tool forces and surface integrity evolution. Vibrations have been reported to be fairly strongly correlated
with surface roughness [14] and different features of vibration signals have been chosen to estimate surface quality.
Cheung and Lee [15] studied the relative cutting vibrations
between tool and workpiece and shown that the machined
surface roughness presents specic frequency components
in the lower-frequency range that are closely related to the
natural frequencies of the spindle work piece system in
the high-frequency range. Kirby and Chen [16] collected
the acceleration signals of the vibrations in positive and
negative directions along sampling axes, and then, transformed into absolute values. This method enabled to calculate the mean amplitude of vibration using accelerations.
Arizmendi et al. [17] observed that one of the factors that
has the most inuence on the machined surface and can
deteriorate its quality is the presence of tool vibrations during the cutting process. Beauchamp and co-workers [18]
collected and analyzed surface roughness and tool vibration data generated by lathe dry turning of mild carbon
steel samples at different levels of speed, feed, depth of
cut, tool nose radius, tool overhang and workpiece length.
Vibration analysis revealed that the dynamic force, related
to the chip-thickness variation acting on the tool, is related
to the amplitude of tool vibration at its natural frequency
while cutting. Jang et al. [19] developed an on-line realtime monitoring algorithm for controlling a machine in a
exible manufacturing system. The algorithm, dealing with
the correlation between surface roughness and cutting
vibration, is reported to utilize the cutting vibrations between tool and workpiece. Zain et al. [20] recalled that
the surface arithmetic roughness Ra is currently used as

ANOVA
RSM
DF
Seq SS
Adj MS
PC%
R2

a
vr
c
k

analysis of variance
response surface methodology
degrees of freedom
sequential sum of squares
adjusted mean squares
percentage contribution ratio (%)
determination coefcient
clearance angle ()
major cutting edge angle ()
rake angle ()
cutting edge inclination angle ()

an indicator to characterize the surface nish in the

machining process. Modeling techniques for the prediction
of Ra can be classied into three groups: experimental
models, analytical models and articial intelligence (AI)based models. In this paper, an attempt has been made to
propose an experimental model through the response
surface methodology (RSM) in hard turning. The RSM is in
empirical modeling approach for determining the relationship between various process parameters and the responses with the various desired criteria, by means of
which one can further search the signicance of the process
parameters on the responses. It is a sequential experimentation strategy for building and optimizing the empirical
model. Therefore, RSM is a collection of mathematical and
statistical procedures that are useful for the modeling and
the analysis of problems in which response is affected by
several variables and the objective is to optimize this
response Montgomery [21]. This method was applied using
the design of experiments and regression analysis. The
modeling of the desired response to several independent
input variables can be gained. Consequentially, the RSM is
used to describe and identify, with a great accuracy, the
inuence of the interactions of different independent variables on the response when they are varied simultaneously.
In addition, it is one of the most widely used methods to
solve the optimization problem in the manufacturing environments as studied by Oktem et al. [22] and Ozcelik and
Erzurmlu [23]. The focus of the present study is to nd a
correlation between surface roughness and cutting tool
vibrations. Therefore, the effect of machining parameters,
including cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and cutting
tool vibration on the surface roughness parameters is presented. For that, the RSM approach associated with the response optimization technique and composite desirability
were adopted and the mathematical models have been
developed with 95% condence level of Al2O3/TiC mixed
ceramic tool in turning of the hardened steel 42CrMo4
(56 HRC).
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Equipment, materials and measurement
The goal of this work was to investigate the effects of
cutting parameters and cutting tool vibrations on surface

1673

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

roughness parameters, and to establish a correlation

between them. For this, cutting speed, feed rate and depth
of cut were chosen as process parameters.
The work material was 42CrMo4 steel in the form of
round bars with 74 mm diameter and 380 mm cutting
length. The work material was hardened and tempered
up to 56 HRC. The chemical composition of the work material is as follows: 0.42% C; 0.25% Si; 0.08% Mn; 0.018% S;
0.013% P; 0.021% Ni; 0.022% Cu; 1.08% Cr; 0.004% V;
0.209% Mo; 96.95% Fe.
The turning tests were conducted in dry conditions
using a universal lathe type SN40C with 6.6 kW spindle
power. The experimental set up is shown in Fig.1.
The cutting tool used was an uncoated Al2O3/TiC mixed
ceramic, which is approximately composed of 70% of Al2O3
and 30% of TiC. The physical properties are summarized in
Table 1. Mixed ceramic tool, type SNGN 120408 T01020,
was clamped onto a tool holder with a designation of
PSBNR 25  25K12, its geometry is as follows 6 rake
angle, 6 clearance angle, 6 inclination angle and 75
approach angle, nose radius of 0.8 mm.
Three levels were specied for each process parameter
as given in Table 2. The parameter levels were chosen
within the range recommended by the cutting tool manufacturer. Because of the selected experimental design, (see
below) three process parameters at three levels have led to
a total of 27 tests.
The measurements of the surface roughness were performed by using surf test 301 mitutoyo with a cut-off
length of 0.8 mm and sampling length of 5 mm.
The dynamic signal analyzer type BK2035 with bidirectional accelerometers were attached on the tool holder
measured vibration of the main cutting force and of the radial cutting force. The cutting vibration signal temporal
analyzer system features 2048 points, frequency sampling
of 6400 Hz. The out puts concern the acceleration in both
directions radial (Vy) and main cutting force (Vz).

combinations (26 of freedom), with 13 columns at three

levels as shown in Table 3. [24]. The rst column was
assigned to the cutting speed (Vc), the second column to
the feed rate (f), the fth column to the axial depth of cut
(ap), and the remaining columns to the interactions. One
test was performed for each combination resulting in a
total of 27 runs. A randomized schedule of runs was created using the design of experiment shown in Table 4.
The (RSM) applied in this work is a procedure to determine a relationship between independent input process
parameters and output data (process response). This procedure includes six steps [25]. These are, (1) dene the
independent input variables and the desired output
responses, (2) adopt an experimental design plan, (3)
perform regression analysis with the quadratic model of
RSM, (4) perform a statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA)
of the independent input variables in order to nd parameters which affect the most signicantly response, (5)
determine the situation of the RSM model and decide
whether this model needs screening variables or not and
nally, (6) optimize, conduct conrmation experiment
with verifying the predicted surface roughness.
The relationship between 5 inputs, cutting speed (Vc),
feed rate (f), depth of cut (ap) the cutting tool vibrations
in radial cutting force (Vy) and in main cutting force (Vz)
and the output Y is also analyzed. This output Y characterizes the surface roughness. It is the arithmetic average of
absolute roughness (Ra) or the maximum height of the
prole (Rt) given as:

Y FVc; f ; ap; Vy; Vz eij

where Y is the desired response and F is the response function (or response surface). In the procedure of analysis, the
approximation of Y was proposed using the tted
second-order polynomial regression model which is called
the quadratic model. The quadratic model of Y can be written as follows:

Y ao

2.2. Experimental design

k
k
k
X
X
X
ai X i
aii X 2i
aij X i X j
i1

Three levels were specied for each factor as indicated

in Table 2. The orthogonal array chosen was L27, which
has 27 rows corresponding to the number of parameter

i1

where ao is constant, ai, aii, and aij represent the coefcients

of linear, quadratic and cross product terms, respectively.
Xi reveals the coded variables that correspond to the

Operation of hard
turning

Roughnessmeter
(type 201Mitutoyo)

i\j

Dynamic signal analyzer

(type BK2035)

Fig. 1. Measure apparatus of surface roughness (Ra) and (Rt) vibrations signals (Vy) and (Vz).

1674

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Table 1
Physical properties of CC650 tool.
Cutting material

Hardness HV (daN/mm2)

Tenacity (MPa m1/2)

Youngs modulus (GPa)

Density (g/cm3)

Grain size (lm)

K (W/m K)

CC650

1900

4.0

410

4.15

2.0

28

Table 2
Attribution of the levels to the factors.

3.1. ANOVA and effect of the factors

Level

Cutting speed, Feed rate, f

Vc (m/min)
(mm/rev)

Depth of cut,
ap (mm)

1 (Low)
2 (Medium)
3 (High)

90
120
180

0.15
0.30
0.45

0.08
0.12
0.16

Table 3
Orthogonal array L27 (313) of Taguchi.
L27 (313)

10

11

12

13

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

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2

studied machining parameters and cutting tool vibration

on both directions. The surface roughness parameters indicated as Y1 and Y2 respectively, were analyzed as response.
3. Data analysis results and discussion
The plan of experiment was developed for assessing the
inuence of the cutting speed (Vc), feed rate (f), depth of
cut (ap) and cutting tool vibration (Vy) and (Vz) respectively in radial cutting force and in main cutting force
directions on the roughness parameters (Ra) and (Rt) of
the machined surface.
The statistical treatment of the data was made in three
phases. The rst phase was concerned with the ANOVA and
the effect of the factors and of their interactions. The second phase, a (quadratic regression), has allowed to obtain
the correlations between the parameters. Afterwards, the
results were optimized.

For machining process ANOVA can be useful on the one

hand for determining the inuence of given input parameters from a series of experimental results by design of
experiments (DOEs) and on the other hand, it can be used
to interpret experimental data. Obtained results were analyzed using Minitab-15, statistical analysis software which
is widely exploited in many engineering optimizations. The
ANOVA table consists of sum of squares and degrees of
freedom. The mean-square is the ratio of sum of squares
to degrees of freedom and F ratio is the ratio of mean
square to the mean square of the experimental error. In
robust design F ratio can be used for qualitative understanding of the relative factor effects. A large value of F
means that the effect of a given factor is large compared
to the error variance. So, the larger value of F, the more
important the given factor inuencing the process
response.
An ANOVA of the data with the surface roughness
parameters (Ra) and (Rt) with the objective of quantifying
the inuence of the cutting speed (Vc), of feed rate (f),
depth of cut (ap) and vibration signals (Vy) and (Vz)on
the total variance of the results. The orthogonal arrays to
obtain Ra and Rt may be observed in Table 4.
Tables 5 and 6 give the results of the ANOVA with the
surface roughness (Ra) and (Rt). This was carried out for
a signicance level of a = 0.05, i.e. for a condence level
of 95%. A low p-value indicates a statistical signicance
for the source on the corresponding response [8]. The last
column of the tables shows the percentage of contribution
(Cont.%) of each factor on the total variation. The greater
the percentage contribution, the greater the inuence a
factor has on the result.
From the analysis of Table 5, the main contribution are
noted for (Vc) 22.03%, for (f) 67.32%, for (ap) P = 1.41%, for
the interaction (Vc2) 2.72%, for (f2) 4.21%, for (Vc  f)
1.71%. All this factors and interactions have statistical
and physical signicance on the surface roughness (Ra)
especially the feed rate (f) factor. It can be revealed lower
surface roughness values obtained at higher cutting speed
where as nishing was obtained since less heat was dissipated to the worked material [12]. (Vy), (Vz) factors, the
interaction of (ap2), (Vy2), (Vz2), (Vc  ap) and so on, do
not present percentages of physical signicance of contribution on the surface roughness (Ra). The most signicant
factor based on the F was quadratic effect of feed rate with
67.99F ratio, effect of feed rate, cutting speed and quadratic
effect of cutting speed.
From the analysis of Table 6, the main contribution are
noted for (f) 73.72%, for the interaction (f2) 6.57%, (Vy2)
8.75% All this factor and interactions have statistical and
physical signicance on the surface roughness (Rt) especially the feed rate (f) factor. (Vc), (ap), (Vy), (Vz) factors,

1675

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Table 4
Design layout and experimental results.
Run

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

Coded factors

Actual factors

Response variables

X1

X2

X3

Vc (m/min)

f (mm/rev)

ap (mm)

Ra (lm)

Rt (lm)

Vy (m/s2)

Vz (m/s2)

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

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

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

90
180
90
90
90
180
180
120
90
120
90
120
180
180
180
180
90
120
120
180
180
120
120
90
120
120
90

0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.16

0.45
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.45
0.30

0.43
0.49
0.66
0.64
0.39
0.53
0.32
0.35
0.78
0.37
0.72
0.63
0.34
0.30
0.51
0.46
0.68
0.54
0.33
0.47
0.55
0.56
0.62
0.41
0.51
0.64
0.74

2.61
3.59
3.90
3.10
2.25
3.95
2.75
2.22
4.03
2.1
3.56
4.1
2.85
2.83
3.60
3.40
3.43
3.67
2.1
3.41
3.30
3.4
4.02
2.80
3.60
3.95
3.56

0.8323
0.1358
0.8323
0.0667
0.1672
0.0524
0.0834
0.9994
0.5529
0.2731
0.7766
0.7562
1.3098
0.5361
0.0858
0.5671
0.8025
0.0561
0.9930
0.0882
0.0953
0.4059
0.5857
0.1571
0.2314
0.1945
0.9711

1.9097
1.6966
1.9097
1.1977
1.4793
1.0111
1.5655
1.7648
0.8622
1.8447
1.8908
1.3789
1.4773
1.2732
1.8133
1.7014
1.9016
1.0652
1.5702
1.5679
1.0135
1.6720
1.7625
1.3369
1.7959
1.8255
1.1602

Table 5
Resultants of the analysis of variance for the surface roughness Ra.
Source

DF

SeqSS

AdjMS

F-value

Prob. > F

Cont.%

Vc
f
ap
Vy
Vz
Vc  f
Vc  ap
Vc  Vy
Vc  Vz
f  ap
f  Vy
f  Vz
ap  Vy
ap  Vz
Vy  Vz
Vc2
f2
ap2
Vy2
Vz2
Error
Total

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
26

0.11177
0.34168
0.00720
0.00034
0.00005
0.00869
0.00000
0.00005
0.00001
0.00009
0.00000
0.00024
0.00004
0.00009
0.00039
0.01383
0.02167
0.00006
0.00050
0.00035
0.00066
0.50751

0.00337
0.00753
0.00007
0.00000
0.00000
0.00274
0.00000
0.00008
0.00018
0.00000
0.00003
0.00014
0.00002
0.00021
0.00039
0.00273
0.00757
0.00004
0.00007
0.00000
0.00011

30.30
67.58
0.65
0.00
0.07
24.63
0.01
0.75
1.66
0.00
0.31
1.27
0.23
1.90
3.56
24.54
67.99
0.39
0.71
0.00

0.002
<0.000
0.450
0.963
0.807
0.003
0.921
0.420
0.245
0.968
0.595
0.302
0.651
0.217
0.108
0.003
<0.000
0.556
0.432
0.971

22.02
67.32
1.41
0.06
0.01
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.07
2.72
4.21
0.01
0.09
0.06
0.13
100

the interaction (Vc2), (ap2), (Vz2), (Vc  f) and so on do not

present percentages of signicance of contribution on the
surface roughness (Rt). The most signicant factor based
on the F is the quadratic effect of cutting depth with
10.16F ratio and the quadratic effect of vibration in radial
cutting force with 7.08F ratio.

Table 6
Resultants of the analysis of variance for the surface roughness Rt.
Source

DF

Seq SS

Adj MS

F-value

Prob. > F

Cont.%

Vc
f
ap
Vy
Vz
Vc  f
Vc  ap
Vc  Vy
Vc  Vz
f  ap
f  Vy
f  Vz
ap  Vy
ap  Vz
Vy  Vz
Vc2
f2
ap2
Vy2
Vz2
Error
Total

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
26

0.01212
7.60500
0.02420
0.02064
0.03278
0.06745
0.00001
0.00350
0.00000
0.01706
0.21133
0.09524
0.04951
0.08129
0.00044
0.00318
0.67773
0.15114
0.90270
0.00301
0.36670
10.31492

0.00425
0.00858
0.00227
0.20108
0.15309
0.00230
0.16664
0.07578
0.08126
0.08637
0.01717
0.17479
0.04512
0.07879
0.00044
0.05847
0.20743
0.62112
0.43278
0.09007
0.06112

0.07
0.14
0.04
3.29
2.50
0.04
2.73
1.24
1.33
1.41
0.28
2.86
0.74
1.29
0.01
0.96
3.39
10.16
7.08
1.47

0.801
0.721
0.854
0.120
0.165
0.852
0.150
0.308
0.293
0.279
0.615
0.142
0.423
0.300
0.935
0.366
0.115
0.019
0.037
0.270

0.11
73.72
0.23
0.20
0.31
0.65
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.16
2.04
0.92
0.47
0.78
0.00
0.03
6.57
1.46
8.75
0.02
3.55
100

Based on obtained results, feed is the most signicant

factor on surface roughness evolution. This is a good agreement with the previous researchers works [26,27]. It can
be noted also that a weak effect of vibration on the surface
roughness evolution. This is expected since machining
operations were done in good conditions characterized
by what is commonly said good surface generated with-

1676

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5

95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5

Percent

(b) 99

Percent

(a) 99

1
-0,01

0,00

0,01

-0,3

-0,2

-0,1

Residual

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

Residual

Fig. 2. Normal probability plot of residuals for Ra (a) and Rt (b).

out the presence of traces which can be caused with harmful vibrations. Here are the cutting parameters that mainly
control the nal result and in particular the roughness of
the machined surface. This is the technical result that it
is usually searched.
In this study, the factors and the interactions present a
statistical signicance F-value > Pa = 5%. Note that the error
associated to the response Ra was approximately 7.1% and
the error for the response Rt was 3.55% the effect and the
interactions do not present a physical signicance P (percentage of contribution) < error associated.
Using ANOVA to make this difference between signicant or not factors requires several assumptions to be satised. Residuals eij are determined by evaluating the
following equation [28]:

^ij
eij yij  y

abscissa (tted values) shows that the errors are independently distributed and the variance is constant for more
information refer Montgomery and Runger [30].

3.2. Regression equations

According to Huang and Chen [31], the correlations
between the factors and the performance measures were
modeled by quadratic regressions. The obtained equations
are as follows.
The roughness (Ra) is given the following equation:

Ra 0:0967  6:67  103 Vc 14:41f  2:83

 101 ap 8:5  103 Vy  8:3  102 Vz 2:4

 105 Vc2  31:39f 2 2:1  101 ap2  6:94

 102 Vy2  3:11  103 Vz2  1:86  102 Vc  f

When yij is the corresponding observation of the runs, and

ij is the tted value. A check of the normality assumption
y
may be made by constructing the normal probability plot
of the residuals. If the underlying error distribution is normal, this plot will look like a straight line. In Fig. 2a and b,
since the p-value is larger than 0.05, it is concluded that
normal assumption is valid [29]. The other two assumptions are shown valid by means of plot of residuals versus
tted values. This plot is illustrated in Fig. 3a and b. The
structure less distribution of dots above and below the

 1:07  104 Vc  ap  5:82  104 Vc  Vy

5:92  104 Vc  Vz 3:46  102 f  ap  2:96
 101 f  Vy  5:85  101 f  Vz 4:98
 102 ap  Vy 1:59  101 ap  Vz 1:03
 101 Vy  Vz

The roughness (Rt) is given by the following equation:

(b) 0,20

(a)
0,01

Residual

Residual

0,10

0,00

0,00

-0,10

-0,20
-0,01
5

10

15

20

25

10

Fitted Value
Fig. 3. Plot of residuals versus tted values for Ra (a) and Rt (b).

15

Fitted Value

20

25

1677

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Table 7
Table of coefcients for regression analysis, response Ra.
Predictor

Coefcient Seq. SS

SE coefcient

Prob.

Constant
Vc
f
Vc  Vc
ff
Vc  f

0.09671
0.0066792
14.4105
0.000023938
31.3964
0.0186

0.011
0.0102
0.0056
0.0097
0.0060
0.0067

43.45
8.66
24.30
4.954
8.24
4.96

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.003

The models are reduced by eliminating terms with no

signicant effect on the responses. The estimated regression coefcients for surface roughness Ra and Rt using data
in uncoded units are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Ra 0:0967  6:67  103 Vc 14:41f 2:4

 105 Vc2  31:39f 2  1:86  102 Vc  f
Rt 9:133 15:38f  26:22ap2  5:14Vy2

Table 8
Table of coefcients for regression analysis, response Rt.
Predictor

Coefcient Seq. SS

SE coefcient

Prob.

Constant
f
ap  ap
Vy  Vy

9.13260
15.3797
26.2287
5.1445

0.2719
0.1313
0.1851
0.4334

16.00
3.109
3.188
2.661

0.00
0.02
0.01
0.03

Table 9
ANOVA table for the tted models Ra.
Source

DF Seq SS Adj MS F-value Prob. > F Remarks

Regression
Residual error
Total
R2
R2 adjusted

20 0.5068 0.0253 227.44 0.000

6 0.0066 0.0001
26 0.5075

Adequate

99.9%
4%

Table 10
ANOVA table for the tted models Rt.
Source

DF Seq SS

Adj
MS

FProb. > F Remarks

value

Regression
Residual error
Total
R2
R2 adjusted

20 9.9482 0.4974 8.14 0.000

6 0.3667 0.0611
26 10.3149

96.4%
84.6%

A graphical analysis on the observed values was realized using Minitab 15. The responses plotted and based
on RSM are presented. Fig. 5ah shows the estimated response surface plots for roughness Ra and Rt versus the
cutting parameters (namely cutting speed, feed rate, depth
of cut) and tool vibration (Vz and Vy). Fig. 5a shows the
estimated surface roughness for the corresponding cutting
speed and feed rate. Feed rate has the most effect on surface roughness and its variation is very high when compared to other parameters. This gure also displays that
the surface roughness Ra decreases as the cutting speed increases. The best surface roughness was achieved at the

 5:14Vy2 2:30Vz2 1:70  102 Vc  f 4:01

 102 Vc  ap  1:75  102 Vc  Vy 1:2  102 Vc  Vz
23:13f  ap  6:57f  Vy 20:54f  Vz 2:10ap  Vy
3:06ap  Vz 1:08  101 Vy  Vz

Ra measured
Ra predicted

0,6

(b) 5

0,4
0,2

Rt measured
Rt predicted

Rt, m

Ra, m

0,8

The empirical Eqs. (6) and (7) shows a good agreement,

greater than 95% in the t values. Hence, these equations
can be used for calculate the surface roughness from
machining parameters.
ANOVA was derived to examine the null hypothesis for
the regression presented in Tables 9 and 10. The result
indicates that the estimated model signicant with a level
of signicance alpha equal to 0.05.
R-squared (R2) amount was calculated to check the
goodness of t. The R2 value with the arithmetic average
roughness (Ra) and maximum peak-to-valley height (Rt)
indicates that the predictors explain 99.9% and 96.4% of
the response variation respectively. Adjusted R2 for the
number of predictors in the models were 99.4% and
84.6% respectively. Both values show that the data are tted well.
Fig. 4 shows the predicted values of surface roughness
from quadratic model of response equation and the measured values. The predicted values of the surface roughness
parameters (Ra) Fig. 4a and (Rt) Fig. 4b are very close to
those recorded experimentally.
4. Surface plots

 12:16Vz  1:1  104 Vc2  164:28f 2  26:22ap2

3
2
1

0
1

13

17

Adequate

Rt 9:133 0:74  102 Vc 15:38f 1:58ap 7:51Vy

(a)

21

Experimental run order

25

13

17

21

25

Experimental run order

Fig. 4. (a) and (b) The comparison between measured and predicted value of Ra and Rt respectively.

1678

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

(a)

(b)
0,8
0,65

Ra

0,6

Ra 0,55
0,4
0,16
0,45

0,12
100

140

Vc

180

0,08

100

140

Vc

(c)

180

0,45
0,35
0,25 ap
0,15

(d)
0,52

0,6
0,5

Ra 0,48

Ra
0,4

2,0

0,16

0,3
0,15

0,44

0,12
0,25

0,35

ap

0,45

1,5

0,08

0,2

0,6

Vy

1,0

Vz

1,0

(f)

(e)
4,5

4,2

Rt

Rt 4,0
3,5

0,16
140

Vc

180

90

0,08

0,45

3,2

0,12
100

3,7

130

180

Vc

(g)

0,15

0,35
0,25 ap

(h)
4,5

4,0

Rt

Rt
3,5
3,0

0,16
0,15

0,12
0,25

0,35

ap

0,45

0,08

4
2,0
3

1,5
0,2

0,6

Vy

1,0

Vz

1,0

Fig. 5. The response surface plots of surface roughness Ra and Rt according to change of cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and cutting tool vibration.

lowest feed rate and highest cutting speed combination as

expected. Fig. 5b shows the estimated response for the corresponding cutting speed and depth of cut. Cutting speed
has signicant effect on surface roughness. As has been
previously pointed out, cutting speed around 180 m/min
gives the lowest surface nish. Ra value is almost constant

for lower depth of cut. Fig. 5c shows the response for the
corresponding feed rate and depth of cut. It is established
that feed rate has the highest impact on surface roughness.
Fig. 5e shows the surface roughness Rt versus cutting speed
and feed rate. Feed rate has the most signicant effect.
Surface roughness variation is very high when compared

1679

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

Fig. 6. Response optimization plot for surface roughness parameter component.

Table 11
Response optimization for the surface roughness parameters.
Parameters

Goal

Ra (lm)
Rt (lm)
Desirability = 1
Composite desirability = 1

Minimum
Minimum

Optimum combination
Vc
(m/mn)

f
(mm/rev)

ap
(mm)

Vy
(m/s2)

Vz
(m/s2)

180
180

0.08
0.08

0.15
0.15

0.999
0.999

0.862
0.862

to other parameters. The relation between cutting speed

and depth of cut with respect to surface roughness
parameter Rt is presented in Fig. 5f and g shows the estimated response of Rt for the corresponding feed rate and
depth of cut. The surface roughness parameter value reduces when the speed increases from 120 to 180 m/min.
Fig. 5d and h shows the effect of vibration signals (in the
main cutting force and radial cutting force directions) with
respect to surface roughness Ra and Rt. According to the
previous analysis, Tables 5 and 6 indicate that the effect
of the vibrations (Vz) and (Vy) are not statistically signicant. The (cutting condition are well adapted).

According to Bouacha et al. [32], one of the most important aims of experiments related to manufacturing is to
achieve the desired surface roughness with the optimal
cutting parameters and cutting tool vibration. To attain
this end, the exploitation of the RSM optimization seems
to be a helpful technique. Here, the goal is to minimize surface roughness (Ra) and (Rt).
To resolve this type of parameter design problem, an
objective function, F(x), is dened as follows [33]:
wi

DF Pni1 di

j1

wi

Target

Upper

Predicted response

0.30
2.83

0.30
2.83

0.78
4.03

0.21
2.40

forms. If a goal is to reach a specic value of Ti, the desirability di is:

di 0 if Y i 6 Lowi
di



Y i  Lowi
if Lowi 6 Y i 6 T i
T i  Lowi

di



Y i  Highi
if T i 6 Y i 6 Highi
T i  Highi

di 0 if Y i P Highi
For a goal to nd a maximum, the desirability is shown
as follows:

5. Optimization of response

Pn1

Lower

Fx DF
where di is the desirability dened for the ith targeted output and wi is the weighting of di. For various goals of each
targeted output, the desirability, di, is dened in different

di 0 if Y i 6 Lowi
di


Yi  Lowi
if Lowi 6 Y i 6 Highi
Highi  Lowi

10

di 1 if Y i P Highi
For a goal to search for a minimum, the desirability can
be dened by the following formulas:

di 1 if Y i 6 Lowi

di


Highii  Y i
if Lowi 6 Y i 6 Highi
Highi  Lowi

11

di 0 if Y i P Highi
where the Yi is the found value of the ith output during
optimization processes; the Lowi and the Highi are, respec-

1680

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

tively, the minimum and the maximum values of the

experimental data for the ith output. In Eq. (8), wi is set
to one since the di is equally important in this study. The
DF is a combined desirability function [33], and the objective is to choose an optimal setting that maximizes a combined desirability function DF, i.e., minimizes F(x).
Results shown in Fig. 6 and Table 11. Optimal cutting
parameters found to be cutting speed (Vc) of 180 m/min,
feed rate (f) of 0.08 mm/rev, cutting depth (ap) of
0.15 mm, cutting tool vibration (Vz) and (Vy) of 0.862 m/
s2 and 0.9994 m/s2 respectively. The optimized surface
roughness are Ra = 0.21 lm, Rt = 2.40 lm.

6. Conclusions
At the end of this research work some valid conclusions
can be announced for the hard turning of 42CrMo4 steel
(56 HRC) with Al2O3/Tic mixed ceramic.
(1) Response surface methodology (RSM) combined
with the factorial design of experiment is useful for
predicting machined surface roughness. Only a small
number of experiments are required to generate
helpful information exploited for predicting roughness equations.
(2) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrates that the
feed rate and the cutting speed have the highest
inuence on the evolution of machined surface
roughness. For the arithmetic average roughness
(Ra) the inuences are 67.32%, 22.02% for (f) and
(Vc), respectively. For the maximum peak-to-valley
height (Rt), the feed rate (f) effect is 73.72%. Nevertheless, the depth of cut has no inuence on the surface roughness.
(3) Completed and reduced experimental models have
been developed to correlate the surface roughness
parameters with machining ones and tool
vibrations.
(4) By referring to the surface roughness model Ra, it
can be noted that the feed rate provides the primary
contribution regarding the other working parameters and inuences the surface roughness evolution,
signicantly. The interaction between, on the one
side cutting speed and feed rate, and on the other
side quadratic effect of cutting speed and feed rate
provide secondary contribution to the model. Vibrations have no statistically signicant effects.
(5) Regarding the Surface roughness model Rt, it is
underlined that the feed rate provides primary contribution and inuence signicantly the surface
roughness. Quadratic effects of cutting depth and
tool vibration in the radial cutting force direction
provide secondary contribution to the model.
(6) According to the adopted choice of cutting parameters, Eqs. (4)(7) show the minor effect of vibrations
on the cut surface roughness. Moreover, neither selfexciting vibrations nor chattering was observed during our experiments. The machining operations
were properly conducted as it was demonstrated
by the pre-cited equations.

(7) The quadratic model of RMS with correlation coefcient of 99.9% and 96.4% for models Ra and Rt
respectively, have strong correlation with the predicted variable. The ANOVA results show that both
models are valid at a high signicance.
(8) Based on the response surface optimization and the
composite desirability method of RSM, the optimal
hard turning parameters of (42CrMo4) and the cutting tool vibration amplitudes are found to be as following: cutting speed of 180 m/min, feed rate of
0.08 mm/rev, cutting depth of 0.15 mm and cutting
tool vibration amplitude in the main cutting force
direction of 0.862 m/s2, radial cutting acceleration
of 0.999 m/s2. The optimized surface roughness are
Ra = 0.21 lm, Rt = 2.40 lm.
Therefore, the approach presented experimentally and
statistically in this study can be regarded as a paper method for the optimization of turning process. This method can
also be applied safely for the experiments where cutting
parameters are to be used.
Acknowledgements
This work was achieved in the laboratories LMS (University of Guelma Algeria) in collaboration with LaMCoS
(CNRS, INSA-Lyon, France). The authors would like to thank
the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientic
Research (MESRS) and the Delegated Ministry for Scientic
Research (MDRS) for granting nancial support for CNEPRU Research Project, CODE: 0301520080027 (University
08 May 1945, Guelma).
References
[1] P. Koshy, R.C. Dewes, D.K. Aspinwall, High speed end milling of
hardened AISI D2 tool steel (58 HRC), Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 127 (2002) 266273.
[2] R.C. Dewes, D.K. Aspinwall, A review of ultra high speed milling of
hardened steels, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 69
(1997) 117.
[3] D. Jianxin, A. Xing, Wear resistance of Al2O3/TiB2 ceramic cutting
tools in sliding wear tests and in machining processes, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 72 (1997) 249255.
[4] S. Lo Casto, E. Lo Valvo, E. Lucchini, S. Maschio, M. Piacentini, V.F.
Ruisi, Machining of steel with advanced ceramic cutting tools, Key
Engineering and Materials 114 (1996) 105134.
[5] E. Aslan, Experimental investigation of cutting tool performance in
high speed cutting of hardened X210 Cr12 cold-work tool steel
(62 HRC), Mater Design 26 (2005) 2127.
[6] H. Aouici, M.A. Yallese, K. Chaoui, T. Mabrouki, J.F. Rigal, Analysis of
surface roughness and cutting force components in hard turning
with CBN tool: prediction model and cutting conditions
optimization, Measurement 45 (2012) 344353.
[7] H. Bouchelaghem, M.A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, A. Amirat, J.F. Rigal,
Experimental investigation and performance analyses of CBN insert
in hard turning of cold work tool steel (D3), Machining Science and
Technology 14 (2010) 471501.
[8] J.P. Davim, L. Figueira, Machinability evaluation in hard turning of
cold work tool steel (D2) with ceramic tools using statistical
techniques, Materials and Design 28 (2007) 11861191.
[9] Y.K. Chou, C.J. Evans, M.M. Barash, Experimental investigation on
CBN turning of hardened AISI 52100 steel, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 124 (2002) 274283.
[10] T. Ozel, T.-K. Hsu, E. Zeren, Effects of cutting edge geometry,
workpiece hardness, feed rate and cutting speed on surface
roughness and forces in nish turning of hardened AISI H13 steel,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (3
4) (2000) 262269.

Z. Hessainia et al. / Measurement 46 (2013) 16711681

[11] G.C. Benga, A.M. Abrao, Turning of hardened 100Cr6 bearing steel
with ceramic and PCBN cutting tools, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 143144 (2003) 237241.
[12] J.P. Davim (Ed.), Machining of Hard Materials, Springer, 2011.
[13] G. Bartarya, S.K. Choudhury, State of the art in hard turning,
International Journal of Machine tools and Manufacture 53 (2012)
114.
[14] P.G. Bernardos, G.C. Vosniakos, Predicting surface roughness in
machining: a review, International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 43 (2003) 833844.
[15] C.F. Cheung, W.B. Lee, Multi-spectrum analysis of surface roughness
formation in ultra-precision machining, Precision Engineering 24 (1)
(2000) 7787.
[16] E.D. Kirby, J.C. Chen, Development of a fuzzy-nets-based surface
roughness prediction system in turning operations, Computers and
Industrial Engineering 53 (2007) 3042.
[17] M. Arizmendi, F.J. Campa, J. Fernandez, L.N. Lopes de Lacalle, A. Gil, E.
Bilbao, F. Veiga, A. Lamikiz, Model for surface topography prediction
in peripheral milling considering tool vibration, CIRP Annals
Manufacturing Technology 581 (2009) 9396.
[18] M. Thomas, Y. Beauchamp, A.Y. Youssef, J. Masounave, Effect of tool
vibration on surface roughness during lathe dry turning process,
Computers and Industrial Engineering 31 (34) (1996) 637644.
[19] D.Y. Jang, Y.G. Choi, H.G. Kim, A. Hsiao, Study of the correlation
between surface roughness and cutting vibrations to develop an online roughness measuring technique in hard turning, International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 36 (1996) 453464.
[20] A.M. Zain, H. Haron, S. Sharif, Prediction of surface roughness in the
end milling using articial neural network, Expert Systems with
Applications 37 (2010) 17551768.
[21] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 2001.
[22] H. Oktem, T. Erzurmlu, H. Kurtaran, Application of response surface
methodology in the optimization of cutting conditions for surface
roughness, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 170 (2005)
1116.
[23] B. Ozcelik, T. Erzurmlu, Determination of effecting dimensional
parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic parts using integrated

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]
[30]
[31]

[32]

[33]

1681

response surface method and genetic algorithm, International

Communication on Heat Transfer 32 (2005) 10851094.
P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering Loss Function
Orthogonal Experiments Parameter and Tolerance Design, second
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1996.
V.N. Gained, S.R. Karnik, M. Faustino, J.P. Davim, Machinability
analysis in turning tungstencopper composite for application in
EDM electrodes, International Journal of Refractory Metals Hard
Materials 27 (2009) 754763.
J.P. Davim, A note on the determination of optimal cutting
conditions for surface nish obtained in turning using design of
experiments, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 116 (2001)
305308.
J.G. Lima, R.F. Avila, A.M. Abrao, M. Faustino, J.P. Davim, Hard turning
AISI 4340 high strength low alloyed steel and AISI D2 cold work
steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 388
395.
H. Zarepour, A. Fadaei, D. Karimi, S. Amini, Statistical analysis on
surface roughness in EDM process of tool steel DIN 1.2714 used in
forging dies, in: Proceedings of AMPT, Las Vegas, USA, July 30
August 3, 2006.
D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, fth ed., John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2001.
D.C. Montgomery, G.C. Runger, Applied Statistics and Probability for
Engineers, third ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA, 2003.
L. Huang, J.C. Chen, A multiple regression model to predict inprocess surface roughness in turning operation via accelerometer,
Journal of Industrial Technology 17 (2) (2001) 18.
K. Bouacha, MA Yallese, T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal, Statistical analysis of
surface roughness and cutting forces using response surface
methodology in hard turning of AISI 52000 bearing steel with CBN
Tool, International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials
28 (2010) 349361.
R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology:
Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments,
second ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.