JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
2014, Vol 48(1) 2136
! The Author(s) 2012
Experimental studies on hole quality and Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
machinability characteristics in drilling of DOI: 10.1177/0021998312467552
jcm.sagepub.com
unreinforced and reinforced polyamides

VN Gaitonde1, SR Karnik2, Juan Carlos Campos Rubio3,

Wanderson de Oliveira Leite4 and JP Davim5

Abstract
In this study, experimental studies on hole quality and machinability in drilling of unreinforced polyamide (PA6) and
reinforced polyamide with 30% of glass fibers (PA66-GF30) using cemented carbide (K20) tool have been carried out.
The experiments have been planned as per full factorial design of experiments. The effects of spindle speed, feed rate,
and point angle on hole quality such as hole diameter and circularity error; the machinability characteristics such as
thrust force and specific cutting coefficient have been analyzed by developing response surface methodology based
second-order mathematical models. The parametric analysis shows that the quality of holes can be improved by
proper selection of cutting parameters. The analysis also indicates the influence of reinforced fiber on proposed machin-
ability characteristics during drilling of polyamides.

Keywords
PA6 and PA66-GF30 polyamides, drilling, hole quality, machinability, design of experiments

crystallinity, and tensile modulus, among the other

Introduction
Generally, engineering polymeric materials are used in
making various machine parts because of lightweight
and superior specic strength as compared to metallic
materials. The material cost of engineering plastics is
competitive and the machinability of these materials is
fairly good.1 The polyamide is a polymer-containing
monomers of amides joined by peptide bonds. They
can occur both naturally (i.e. proteins such as wool
and silk) or can be made articially (i.e. nylons, ara-
mids, and sodium polyaspartate). In general, poly-
amides present good compromise between toughness
and strength with low coecient of friction and high
thermal resistance.2
The polyamides are thermoplastic polymer compos-
ites, widely used in numerous engineering elds such as
aircrafts, automobiles, robots, and machines due to
outstanding property prole and hence replaced many
conventional metallic materials. The encouraging prop-
erties include high specic strength and stiness, wear
resistance, dimensional stability, low weight, and direc-
tional properties. The polyamides physically vary in
terms of melting point, glass transition temperature,
things. The PA66 polyamide has a melting point of
262 C, which is higher than that of PA6 at 219 C; its
glass transition temperature is 65 C against 52 C for
PA6; the crystal structure of PA66 is triclinic, whereas
PA6 has a monoclinic structure and its tensile modulus
is 2.9 GPa, while it is a little lower for PA6.
The addition of short bers to polyamides enhances
the properties over unreinforced polyamides. The
1
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, B.V.B. College of
Engineering and Technology, Hubli, Karnataka, India
2
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, B.V.B. College of
Engineering and Technology, Hubli, Karnataka, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Brazil
4
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Brazil
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro,
Portugal
Corresponding author:
VN Gaitonde, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
B.V.B. College of Engineering and Technology, Hubli 580 031,
Karnataka, India.
Email: gaitondevn@yahoo.co.in
22
stiness, strength, hardness, thermal stability, and fric-
tional properties of reinforced plastics are much super-
ior than that of unreinforced thermoplastics.3 The
inclusion of bers can often provide a helpful increase
in service temperature. The glass bers are the common
reinforcements, which appreciably condense the expan-
sion rate and enhance the exural modulus of PA6.
Alternatively, glass ber reinforced polyamide is enor-
mously abrasive when machined and brings out many
undesirable results such as rough surface nish, rapid
tool wear, and faulty subsurface layer with cracks and
delaminations.
Even though the polyamides are produced to near
net shaped, the machining has to be performed during
the nal production stage to get the nished compo-
nents. Further, the mechanism of machining of poly-
amide composites has been recognized as a process
dierent from that of homogeneous metal removal of
conventional materials. Hence, the successful perform-
ance of machining operation is signicantly aected by
work material properties. As a result of superior prop-
erties and potential applications of unreinforced and
reinforced polyamides, there is a need to understand
the manufacturing processes, essentially in machining
of these composites.4
Among the most widely used machining processes,
drilling is perhaps the most important conventional
mechanical process associated with the manufacture
of components made of ber-reinforced plastic (FRP)
composites. Drilling is essential to install the fasteners
for assembly of the composite laminates. Further, in
aircraft industries, the drilling of these composites is
carried out for the purpose of joining using rivets,
bolts, and nuts. Drilling of such materials is a challen-
ging task to manufacturing engineers because of dier-
ential machining properties.
Some researchers have performed experimental
investigations on machining of unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides. Mata et al.5 carried out an experi-
mental study on unreinforced polyamide (PA6) and
reinforced polyamide with 30% of glass bers (PA66-
GF30) turning using polycrystalline diamond tool.
They analyzed the inuence of glass ber reinforcement
on friction angle, shear plane angle, normal and shear
stresses, and chip deformation under cutting condi-
tions. The experimental model has also been compared
with Merchants theoretical model. Davim and Mata6
conducted turning experiments on PA6 and PA66-
GF30 polyamides with cemented carbide (K15) tools.
They observed the eect of glass ber reinforcement on
friction angle, shear plane angle, normal and shear
stresses, and chip deformation under the prexed cut-
ting conditions. The experimental physical model was
also compared with Merchants equation. Gaitonde
et al.4 studied various machinability aspects such as
Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)
machining force, cutting power, and specic cutting
pressure during PA6 and PA66-GF30 turning using
cemented carbide (K10) tool. Gaitonde et al.7 also
used Taguchis quality loss function for minimizing
power and specic cutting force during turning of
PA6 and PA66-GF30 polyamides. The articial
neural networks models were developed by Gaitonde
et al.8 to analyze the inuence of work material, tool
material, cutting speed, and feed rate on machining
force, power, and specic cutting force during turning
of PA6 and PA66-GF30 polyamides. They reported
that the machinability is poor in reinforced polyamide
when compared to unreinforced polyamide turning.
Several papers have been published aiming to evalu-
ate the eect of cutting parameters and drill geometry
on the machinability of FRP composites such as epoxy
or polyester resins reinforced with aramid, glass, or
carbon bers.911 Among the damages induced by dril-
ling, delamination is probably the most severe and
therefore, a number of works has been concentrated
on quantifying the damage level at the entrance and
exit of the drill.1217 Palanikumar et al.18 used design
of experiments (DOE) to examine the eect of process
parameters on surface roughness during turning of
glass ber reinforced plastics composites. The research
ndings indicated that feed rate is the main factor
aecting surface roughness, followed by the cutting
speed.
According to Guu et al.19 conventional machining
techniques damage the workpiece through chipping,
cracking, delamination, and high wear on cutting
tool. The structure for aerospace and automotive appli-
cations contains holes for various purposes such as
bolted and riveted joints and these joints are used to
transfer load within the structure. As reported by
Persson et al.,20 the quality and accuracy of the holes
greatly aect the joint strengths. The inuence of high
speed (955038,650 r/min) on thrust force, torque, tool
wear, and hole quality for multi-faceted and twist drills
during drilling of carbon bre reinforced plastic
(CFRP) composites has been studied by Lin and
Chen.21 An increase in cutting speed decreases the cut-
ting force, which in turn minimizes the delamination
and thus increasing the production rate. The relation-
ship between the thrust force and the amount of
damage was also developed in their experimental inves-
tigations. The delamination study in high-speed drilling
of CFRP composites was performed by Gaitonde
et al.22 and Karnik et al.23 considering the speed,
feed, and point angle as the process parameters. They
proposed that the delamination can be minimized by
employing the higher speed with lower values of both
feed rate and point angle.
Krishnaraj et al.24 carried out an investigative study
on thin CFRP laminates using K20 carbide drill by
Gaitonde et al.
varying the machining parameters to determine the
optimum cutting conditions. The hole diameter, circu-
larity, and delamination tendency were analyzed. Tsao
and Hocheng25 presented an exhaustive study on thrust
force and surface roughness during drilling of compos-
ite material using candlestick drill. The experimental
results showed that the feed rate and the drill diameter
are the major factors aecting the thrust force, while
the feed rate and spindle speed contribute the most to
the surface roughness. An experimental study on dril-
ling of CFRP/aluminum stack with carbide drills (K20)
to analyze the inuence of diameter, spindle speed, and
feed rate on thrust force, torque, surface nish, and
hole diameters was carried out by Zitoune et al.26
Their experimental results revealed that the quality of
holes could be improved by proper selection of cutting
parameters. Campos Rubio et al.11 studied the surface
roughness of the walls of holes generated by drilling
polyamide reinforced with glass whiskers (PA66-
GF30) obtained from extruded bars. They armed
that the temperatures developed during machining
might severely damage the workpiece, leading to melt-
ing near the cutting edge path, damage nish, and dis-
tortion of the component.
As seen from the literature, only few works have
been carried out on cutting aspects of unreinforced
and reinforced polyamides drilling. Further, the rela-
tionship among the inuencing factors and their eects
on hole quality and machinability are not known. Thus,
the current study attempts to ll the gap by reporting
an experimental study on drilling of polyamide with
and without 30% glass bers reinforcing (unreinforced
PA6 and PA66-GF30 reinforced) using cemented car-
bide (K20) drill to study the inuence of spindle speed,
feed rate, and point angle on hole quality such as hole
diameter and circularity error; machinability aspects
such as thrust force and specic cutting coecient.
The traditional method involves the variation of one
parameter at a time, while other parameters are kept at
xed levels and hence, time consuming. Moreover, the
conventional method not only requires huge number of
experiments to be performed but also does not include
the interactive eects among the process parameters.
The mathematical model development by response sur-
face methodology (RSM) is a convenient method,
which requires less number of experiments and thus
reducing the cost and time.27 Hence, an attempt has
been made in this investigation to construct the
RSM-based mathematical models of hole quality and
machinability characteristics with reduced number of
experiments. The experiments have been planned as
per full factorial design (FFD), which allows the
study of interactions among the process parameters.
The eects of spindle speed, feed rate, and point
angle on hole diameter, circularity, thrust, and specic
23
cutting coecient have been analyzed by developing
second-order mathematical models. The parametric
analysis clearly indicates the inuence of reinforced
ber on proposed machinability characteristics during
drilling of polyamides.
Response surface methodology
The RSM is a mathematical modeling tool used for
developing the relationship between the process param-
eters and the desired response(s). The RSM is useful for
developing, improving, and optimizing the process,
which provides an overall perspective of the system
response within the design space.27 Using FFD of
experiments and applying the regression analysis, the
mathematical modeling of any desired criteria to sev-
eral input process parameters can be obtained. The
RSM is used to describe and identify the inuence of
interactions of the process parameters on characteristic
when they are varied simultaneously. This type of
design is more practical, economical, and relatively
easy to use when curvature is suspected in the response
surface.27 The RSM design procedure includes the care-
ful selection of DOE for the adequate and reliable
measurement of response.
In several occasions, it is possible to represent the
independent process parameters in quantitative form
and the response in terms of process parameters can
be expressed as27
Y x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xk 1
where Y is the response, x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xk the quantita-
tive factors, and  is the response function. It can be
approximated within the experimental region by a poly-
nomial when the mathematical form of response func-
tion is unknown. Higher the degree of polynomial
better the correlation, but the experimentation costs
will increase.
Experimental details
Planning of experiments
The planning of experiments is crucial for developing
the mathematical models based on RSM. The mathem-
atical modeling provides reliable equations obtained
through DOE. In the current investigation, spindle
speed (N), feed rate (f), and point angle () are identi-
ed as the process parameters to evaluate the hole qual-
ity such as hole diameter (D) and circularity error (")
and two aspects of machinability such as thrust force
(Ft) and specic cutting coecient (Kf ). Since, the par-
ameters identied are multi-level variables and their
outcome eects are not linearly related as per the
24
Table 1. Process parameters and their identified levels for
drilling of polyamide composites
Level
Parameter 1 2
Spindle speed, N (r/min) 1500 3000
Feed rate, f (mm/rev) 0.05 0.10
Point angle,  ( ) 85 115
authors preliminary investigations, it has been decided
to use multi-level tests for the cutting parameters. Three
levels for each of the three parameters were selected and
the eects of process parameters on hole quality and
machinability are tested through a set of planned
experiments based on FFD to explore the quadratic
response surface.27 Thus, 27 trials based on FFD
were planned.27 The process parameters and their
levels are illustrated in Table 1 and the experimental
layout plan as per FFD for the present investigation
is given in Table 2.
Work material and tool material
Unreinforced polyamide (PA6) and polyamide rein-
forced with 30% glass whiskers (PA66-GF30) produced
by extrusion were used as the work materials and these
materials were supplied by ERTA company. The
dimension of the glass whisker is 5 mm in diameter
and 50 mm long, randomly distributed into the poly-
meric matrix. Figure 1 shows a scanning electron
micrograph (SEM) of work material and the procedure
to prepare the machining samples with 20 mm diameter
and 5 mm thickness. Table 3 gives the composition of
PA66-GF30 material and Table 4 lists the mechanical
and thermal properties of tested work materials.
During reinforced polyamide machining, hard and
abrasive glass bers result in high tool wear and
hence it is essential to employ the appropriate cutting
tool. Thus, the carbide tool has been selected as the
cutting tool material. Tungsten carbide twist drills
(ISO grade K20) with 5 mm diameter with 25 helix
angle and dierent point angle values manufactured
by Guhring oHG company were used as cutting
tools. Figure 2 shows the helical point drills of
code WN 11 RN, DIN 6539 RN, and DIN 8038 RN
with 85 , 115 , and 135 point angles used in the
experiments.
Experimentation, hole quality, and
machinability evaluation
The drilling experiments were conducted as per FFD on
a machining center, which is equipped with 7.5 kW
Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)
spindle power and maximum spindle speed of
6000 r/min. Figure 3 shows the experimental setup
and an appropriate clamping system devised to x the
samples in the machining center. A fresh drill was used
3 in every trial for each of the materials tested and hence
tool wear is negligible. The trials were randomized
6000
in order to remove the eects of any factors
0.15 unaccounted for.
135 The coordinate measuring machine (CMM)
(Figure 4) was used for measuring the hole quality,
i.e. hole diameter and circularity error at the middle
of the thickness of the wafers PA6 and PA66-GF30
composites. The circularity is a two-dimensional geo-
metric tolerance that permits how much a feature can
deviate from a perfect circle. Seven points were mea-
sured and the dierence between the maximum diam-
eter of the circle and the minimum diameter of the circle
is determined. The roundness is the condition where all
points are in a circle. To be considered round, the mea-
sured circle must fall within a specied tolerance zone
formed by two concentric circles (circularity error).
Figure 5 shows the deviation from the calculated
circle to each of the measured points for circle diameter
analyzed (mean diameter and circularity error). The
measurement mode in CMM is as follows: unidirec-
tional repeatability0.75 mm; calibration and error
compensation0.001 mm; palpeur tridimensionnel-
bille rubis 2 mm and number of points for circle7.
Figure 6 shows the photographs of the roundness meas-
urement of drilled holes in polyamide composites.
In the present investigation, the machinability was
assessed by two parameters, namely, thrust force and
specic cutting coecient related to thrust. Thrust force
is the reaction force against the advancement of drill
into the workpiece material. The drilling xture was
mounted on the dynamometer and the thrust force
was measured using a strain gage drilling dynamom-
eter. Each trial was repeated twice and the average
was taken as the process response. The specic cutting
coecient related to thrust (Kf) is calculated from the
following equation28
2Ft
Kf 2
fd
where Ft is the thrust force, f the feed rate, and d the
drill diameter. The measured values of hole diameter
(D), circularity error ("), thrust force (Ft), and the com-
puted values of specic cutting coecient related to
thrust (Kf) for each of the materials tested, i.e. unre-
inforced polyamide (PA6) and reinforced polyamide
with 30% of glass bers (PA66-GF30) drilling are sum-
marized in Table 2. This experimental database is then
used to develop the RSM-based mathematical models.
Gaitonde et al. 25

Table 2. Experimental layout plan along with the responses for polyamide composites

Levels of process parameter settings Work material: PA6 Work material: PA66-GF30

Specific Specific
Spindle Point Hole cutting Hole cutting
Trial speed Feed rate angle diameter Circularity Thrust coefficient diameter Circularity Thrust coefficient
no. (r/min) (mm/rev) ( ) (mm) (mm) (N) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (N) (MPa)

1 1500 0.05 85 4.9965 0.0105 108.93 871.44 4.9815 0.0125 23.175 185.4
2 1500 0.1 85 4.9775 0.011 117.765 471.06 4.985 0.022 29.585 118.34
3 1500 0.15 85 4.9675 0.0165 119.815 319.51 4.9905 0.0245 37.345 99.59
4 3000 0.05 85 5.025 0.0125 89.32 714.56 4.9805 0.0175 20.795 166.36
5 3000 0.1 85 5.0275 0.018 93.55 374.2 4.994 0.0195 26.345 105.38
6 3000 0.15 85 4.9725 0.0245 102.55 273.47 4.999 0.0235 31.37 83.65
7 6000 0.05 85 5.064 0.0245 57.33 458.64 4.993 0.008 19.865 158.92
8 6000 0.1 85 5.079 0.073 64.765 259.06 4.997 0.0145 24.7 98.8
9 6000 0.15 85 5.1055 0.121 71.62 190.99 5.012 0.0165 29.405 78.41
10 1500 0.05 115 4.939 0.021 45.67 365.36 4.987 0.0215 19.12 152.96
11 1500 0.1 115 4.966 0.03 45.405 181.62 4.992 0.0225 22.77 91.08
12 1500 0.15 115 4.9955 0.0375 45.425 121.13 4.9945 0.0325 26.165 69.77
13 3000 0.05 115 5.009 0.012 41.25 330 4.9895 0.0205 18.03 144.24
14 3000 0.1 115 4.9585 0.0155 42.85 171.4 4.991 0.025 20.59 82.36
15 3000 0.15 115 4.972 0.0185 46.415 123.77 5.002 0.0205 23.545 62.79
16 6000 0.05 115 5.028 0.0095 31.825 254.6 4.994 0.0155 16.15 129.2
17 6000 0.1 115 4.985 0.016 32.935 131.74 4.9945 0.0245 19.435 77.74
18 6000 0.15 115 4.9735 0.0155 37.575 100.2 4.9925 0.019 21.62 57.65
19 1500 0.05 135 4.9905 0.0355 66.16 529.28 5.057 0.03 29.175 233.4
20 1500 0.1 135 5.04 0.0315 75.64 302.56 5.0665 0.0245 38.515 154.06
21 1500 0.15 135 5.057 0.0275 90.455 241.21 5.0825 0.017 48.53 129.41
22 3000 0.05 135 5.0265 0.035 59.385 475.08 5.0925 0.017 24.01 192.08
23 3000 0.1 135 5.03 0.0225 70.905 283.62 5.0515 0.023 36.99 147.96
24 3000 0.15 135 5.029 0.0145 81.785 218.09 5.047 0.03 46.565 124.17
25 6000 0.05 135 5.032 0.009 54.435 435.48 5.068 0.0165 23.96 191.68
26 6000 0.1 135 5.061 0.015 66.11 264.44 5.0555 0.022 35.83 143.32
27 6000 0.15 135 5.0405 0.012 75.15 200.4 5.037 0.03 44.985 119.96

Drilling
spindle

Extruded blank Wafer

(Polyamide)

Aluminum
support

Figure 1. MEV microstructure of polyamide PA6 holes wall (magnification 15).

26 Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)

Development of RSM-based The mathematical models as determined by regres-

sion analysis to predict hole diameter (D), circularity
mathematical models error ("), thrust force (Ft), and specic cutting coe-
In the present investigation, each parameter was inves- cient related to thrust (Kf) for PA6 and PA66-GF30
tigated at multi-levels to analyze the non-linearity polyamides drilling are given by:
eects of process parameters. Hence, second order
RSM-based mathematical models for hole diameter
(D), circularity error ("), thrust force (Ft), and specic
Hole diameter
cutting coecient related to thrust (Kf) have been devel-
oped with spindle speed (N), feed rate (f), and point DPA6 5:8196644 0:0000557646N  0:521396f
angle () as process parameters. The RSM-based math-
ematical model is of the form27  0:017184  0:0000494444Nf
 0:000000400877N 0:0072588f
Y b0 b1 N b2 f b3  b11 N2 b22 f2 b33 2
0:00000000063786N2  0:5666667f2
b12 Nf b13 N b23 f
3 0:0000821112 5

where Y is the response, i.e. D, ", Ft, and Kf; b0, . . . , b23 DPA66GF30 5:5330742 0:0000197788N
the regression coecients of quadratic models are to be 0:62984649f  0:0126251
determined for each of the responses.
 0:0000350794Nf
The values of regression coecients of the quadratic
model are determined by27  0:000000130618N  0:0062325f
 0:000000000201646N2 1:02222222f2
B XT X1 XT Y 4
0:00006861112 6
where B is the matrix of process parameter estimates; X
the calculation matrix, which includes linear, quadratic,
and interaction terms; XT the transpose of X; and Y the
matrix of response.
Circularity

"PA6 0:024787 0:000023636N 0:94841374f

Table 3. Composition of PA66-GF30 composite laminates
 0:0008434 0:0000748413Nf
Material Type
 0:000000382999N  0:0093465f
Matrix Polyamide 66
Reinforcement E-glass fiber ( 5 mm and length 50 mm) 0:000000000179835N2  0:177778f2
Modulus of elasticity 2.15 GPa 0:0000130742
Yield strength 82.55 MPa
7

Table 4. Mechanical and thermal properties of PA6 and PA66-GF30 polyamides

Properties PA6 PA66-GF30

Tensile modulus (MPa) 1400 3200

Rockwell hardness M85 M76
Charpy impact resistance (kJ/m2) Without fracture 50
Tensile strength (MPa) 76 100
Melting temperature ( C) 220 255
Density (g/cm3) 1.14 1.29
Coefficient of thermal expansion (<150 C) (m/mK) 90  106 50  106
Coefficient of thermal expansion (>150 C) (m/mK) 105  106 60  106
Gaitonde et al.
"PA66GF30 0:021156  0:00000451932N
0:22339181f 0:00060412
0:000010873Nf
0:0000000267544N  0:0009035f
 0:0000000000740741N2  0:5f2
 0:000002240742
Thrust force
FtPA6 959:39844  0:028398613N  78:506433f
 15:250244 0:003688889Nf
0:000180447N 1:5377193f
2 2
0:000000314774N 116:555556f
2
0:06387463
Figure 2. Helical point drills WN 11 RN (85 ) and DIN 8038 RN (135 ) and with thinned web DIN 6539 RN (115 ) used in the
drilling experiments.
Figure 3. Experimental setup and appropriate clamping system mounted inside machining center.
27
FtPA66GF30 250:043  0:003854363N  15:561769f
 4:3434961  0:003293651Nf
0:00000686257N 1:61662281f
0:000000329136N2  126:88889f2
0:0197675932 10
8
Specific cutting coefficient
Kf PA6 5454:9135  0:171586316N  13935:805f
 72:548828 0:310409524Nf
0:000897992N 35:2589474f
0:0000017228N2 29862:4444f2
0:2895274072 11
9
28
Figure 4. CMM used for the measurement of hole diameter
and circularity.
CMM: coordinate measuring machine.
Kf PA66GF30 1172:3785  0:021130428N
 2491:4999f  16:918679
0:032560317Nf 0:000018868N
0:44482456f 0:00000161918N2
7590:22222f2 0:0799581482
12
where N in r/min; f in mm/rev;  in degree; D in mm;
" in mm; Ft in N, and Kf in MPa.
Results and discussion
Adequacy checking of mathematical models
The statistical testing of the proposed quadratic models
was checked through Fishers test (F-test) for the ana-
lysis of variance (ANOVA).27 The ANOVA consists of
sum of squares and degrees of freedom and the funda-
mental technique is a partitioning of total sum of
squares and mean square into components such as
data regression and its error. The mean square is the
ratio of sum of squares to degrees of freedom. As per
ANOVA, the calculated value of F-ratio of the devel-
oped model should be more than F-table for the model
to be adequate. Table 5 presents the summary ANOVA
Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)
Figure 5. Measurement circle in CMM: mean diameter and
circularity error.
CMM: coordinate measuring machine.
results of the proposed models and it is found that the
developed models are signicant at 95% condence
interval as F-ratio of all the models is greater than
2.49 (F-table(9, 17, 0.05)).
The adequacy of the proposed mathematical models
is also veried through the coecient of determination
(R2).27 The R2 quantity provides a measure of variabil-
ity in observed values of response and can be explained
by the controlled process parameters and their inter-
actions. The R2 -values are presented in Table 5,
which show the good correlation between the experi-
mental and the predicted values of the proposed hole
quality and machinability parameters.
The comparison of the predicted and experimental
values for the experimental data of FFD during drilling
of PA6 and PA66-GF30 polyamides is displayed in
Figures 7 and 8, respectively. As seen from these g-
ures, there exists close relationship between the experi-
mental and the predicted values and also found that
there are no abnormal variations between the experi-
mental and the predicted values. Hence, the developed
RSM-based quadratic models can be used for the pre-
diction of the hole quality and machinability
characteristics.
Parametric analysis of cutting parameters
The proposed mathematical models, i.e. equations (5)
to (8) are used to predict the hole quality and equations
(9) to (12) are used to predict the machinability by
substituting the values of spindle speed (N), feed rate
(f), and point angle () within the ranges of the process
parameters selected. The eects of process parameters
on hole quality and machinability for the two materials
tested are shown in Figures 9 to 12. In this analysis, the
responses are plotted as a function of spindle speed
with hold values of three dierent combinations of
feed rate and point angle. It is quite evident from
these gures that there exists signicant interaction
eects between the process parameters, namely, spindle
speed, feed rate, and point angle on hole quality and
machinability (indicated by non-parallelism of response
lines) for both the materials tested.
Gaitonde et al. 29

Figure 6. Roundness measurement of the drilled holes in polyamide materials.

Table 5. Summary of ANOVA and R2 -values for proposed mathematical models

Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square

Response Regression Residual Regression Residual Regression Residual F-ratio R2

Material: PA6
Hole diameter 0.0336768 0.0099809 9 17 0.0037419 0.0005871 6.37 0.7714
Circularity 0.0111683 0.0028386 9 17 0.0012409 0.0001670 7.43 0.7973
Thrust 16,621.6 527.5 9 17 1846.8 31 59.52 0.9692
Specific cutting coefficient 820,612 32,904 9 17 91,179 1936 47.11 0.9615
Material: PA66-GF30
Hole diameter 0.0303974 0.0016757 9 17 0.0033775 0.0000986 34.26 0.9478
Circularity 0.00050464 0.00034303 9 17 0.00005607 0.00002018 2.78 0.5953
Thrust 2001.57 135.52 9 17 222.4 7.97 27.90 0.9368
Specific cutting coefficient 51,890.9 517.2 9 17 5765.7 30.4 189.52 0.9901
ANOVA: analysis of variance.

Hole quality. Figures 9 to 10 show the comparison of Figure 9, an increased spindle speed results in increased
hole quality variations in drilling of unreinforced hole diameter for the combinaions of low feed rate with
(PA6) and reinforced with 30% glass bers (PA66- low point angle (low condition) as well as medium feed
GF30) polyamide materials. As observed from rate with medium pont angle (intermediate condition)
30 Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)

Work material: PA6 Work material: PA6

5.15 0.14
Predicted
Predicted 0.12 Experimental
5.1 Experimental
Hole diameter (mm)

0.1

Circularity (mm)
5.05 0.08

0.06
5
0.04
4.95
0.02

4.9 0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27
Trial number Trial number
Work material: PA6 Work material:PA6
120 1000
Predicted

Specific cutting coefficient (MPa)

Predicted
100 800 Experimental
Experimental
Thrust (N)

80 600

60 400

40 200

20 0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27
Trial number Trial number

Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of hole quality and machinability characteristics for PA6 work material.

for both the composites tested. On the other hand,
in case of PA6 polyamide, the hole diameter is
insensitive to spindle speed variations when feed
rate and point angle are kept at higher values
(high condition), while the hole diameter decreases
with increased spindle speed in case of PA66-GF30
polyamide drilling. It is interesting to note that in
case of PA66-GF30 material, there is always a poor
hole quality for any specied combination of spindle
speed, feed rate, and point angle. However, the hole
quality can be improved by utilizing higher spindle
speed values with low values of both feed rate and
point angle in drilling of both unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamide materials.
Figure 10(a) shows the circularity variation of PA6
polyamide drilling, which clearly exhibits highly non-
linear behavior with spindle speed for all values of feed
rate and point angle combinations, while it is linear in
case of PA66-GF30 polyamide drilling (Figure 10(b)).
It is observed that for unreinforced PA6 drilling, a com-
bination of lower values of spindle speed, feed rate, and
point angle will result in minimum circularity error. On
the other hand, in case of reinforced PA66-GF30
drilling, it is desirable to select higher spindle speed
with low feed rate and point angles.
Machinability. The machinability characteristics of unre-
inforced (PA6) and reinforced with 30% glass bers
(PA66-GF30) polyamide drilling is evaluated in terms
of thrust force and specic cutting coecient and are
shown in Figure 11 and 12. It is evident from these
gures that in case of both PA6 and PA66-GF30 poly-
amides drilling, an increased spindle speed results better
machinability (lower values of both thrust force and
specic cutting coecient) under all combinations of
feed rate and point angle. In addition, for both the
materials tested, moderate values of both feed rate
(0.1 mm/rev) and point angle (110 ) along with high
spindle speed value (6000 r/min) are necessary for mini-
mizing both thrust force and specic cutting coecient,
resulting in better machinability.
From the above discussion, it is seen that low to
medium values of both feed rate and point angle is
necessary to improve the hole quality and machinability
of unreinforced PA6 and reinforced PA66-GF30
Gaitonde et al. 31

Work material: PA66-GF30 Work material: PA66-GF30

5.1 0.035
Predicted
5.08 0.03
Experimental
Hole diameter (mm)

5.06

Circularity (mm)
0.025
5.04
0.02
5.02
0.015
5
Predicted
0.01
4.98 Experimental

4.96 0.005
1 4 7 1013 16 19 22 25 27 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27
Trial number Trial number
Work material: PA66-GF30 Work material: PA66-GF30
50 250

Specific cutting coefficient (MPa)

45
Predicted Predicted
40 Experimental 200 Experimental

35
Thrust (N)

30 150

25

20 100

15

10 50
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 27
Trial number Trial number

Figure 8. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of hole quality and machinability characteristics for PA66-GF30 work
material.

Work material: PA6 Work material: PA66-GF30

(a) 5.1 (b) 5.07
Feed =0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg
Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg 5.06
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg

5.05

5.05 5.04

Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg

Hole diameter (mm)

Hole diameter (mm)

5.03
Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg
5.02

5.01
5

4.99

4.98
4.95

4.97
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)

Figure 9. Interaction effects of process parameters on hole diameter.

32 Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)

Work material: PA6 Work material: PA66-GF30

(a) 0.04 (b) 0.03

Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg

0.035
Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg
0.025
0.03

0.025
0.02
Circularity (mm)

Circularity (mm)
Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg
Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
0.02 Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg

0.015
0.015

0.01
0.01

0.005

0 0.005
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)

Figure 10. Interaction effects of process parameters on circularity.

(a) Work material: PA6 (b) Work material: PA66-GF30

110 50

100
45

90

40
80 Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg
Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg
35
70
Thrust (N)

Thrust (N)

Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg

60 Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg 30
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg

50
25

40

20
30

20 15
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)

Figure 11. Interaction effects of process parameters on thrust.

polyamides drilling. Further, it is also noticed that and machinability characteristics indicate that hole
although higher spindle speed values result in better quality in unreinforced PA6 drilling is better as com-
machinability but with increased circulatity error and pared to reinforced PA66-GF30 drilling, even though
hence poor hole quality. A comparison plots of PA6 the machinability is poor. Hence, it can be inferred
and PA66-GF30 polyamides drilling on hole quality from the present analysis that drilling of reinforced
Gaitonde et al. 33

(a) Work material: PA6 (b) Work material: PA66-GF30

800 200

700
180

600
160
Specific cutting coefficient (MPa)

Specific cutting coefficient (MPa)

500
140
Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg
400 Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg
120
300
Feed = 0.05 mm/rev; Point angle = 85 deg
100 Feed = 0.1 mm/rev; Point angle = 110 deg
200 Feed = 0.15 mm/rev; Point angle = 135 deg

80
100

0 60
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed (rpm) Speed (rpm)

Figure 12. Interaction effects of process parameters on specific cutting coefficient.

Figure 13. SEM of work materials: (a) unreinforced PA6 polyamide; (b) PA66-GF30 reinforced polyamide.
SEM: scanning electron micrograph.

with 30% glass bers (PA66-GF30) polyamide material shearing, and bending rupture and depends on exibil-
results in better machinbility as compared to unre- ity, orientation, and toughness of the bers, which in
inforced (PA6) polyamide but at the cost of inferior turn constitute surface texture on the workpiece.29 The
hole quality. presence of glass bers in the polymer matrix increases
hardness as well as strength. The drilling process of
brittle thermosets and bers results in a series of
Discussion mini-ber fractures, ber pullouts, and matrix cracking
The polyamides play crucial role in modern industries into pieces.30 Due to anisotropic and heterogeneous
as well as in wide variety of engineering applications. nature of polyamides, it is very dicult to predict
The bers carry bulk of load and matrix serves as a hole quality and machinability.
medium for transfer of load to the bers in ber com- Figure 13 shows the SEM of the drilled unreinforced
posites. The cutting mechanism in ber composites is PA6 and PA66-GF30 reinforced polyamides for the
due to the combination of plastic deformation, cutting conditions of 3000 r/min, 0.1 mm/rev with
34
115 point angle drill. The heat generation due to fric-
tion between the cutting edges and the work material
leads to the softening of the polymeric matrix, thus
impairing surface nish. Figure 13(a) clearly indicates
the inuence of cutting temperature in the unreiforced
PA6 polyamide drilling. In case of PA66-GF30 poly-
amides drilling, the glass ber reinforcement provides a
better surface nish and the observation of the bers
after cutting without great inuence of cutting tempera-
ture in the matrix is evident in Figure 13(b).
In the current investigation, it is observed from
Figures 11 and 12 that in case of both PA6 and
PA66-GF30 polyamide drilling, machinability (i.e.
thrust force and specic cutting coecient) is better at
low to medium values of both feed rate and point angle
along with high spindle speed value. As reported by
Basavarajappa et al.,31 in general, at low feed rate
there is a smaller resistance to drill in the feed direction,
resulting in less vibration and hence reduced thrust
force. On the other hand, at larger feed rates, the
work material oers more resistance in the direction
of drilling there by increase in friction leading to
higher thrust forces. Also, with increased feed rate,
the contact area between the work material and drill
increases, which in turn increases the thrust force. The
decrease in thrust force with increased spindle speed is
attributed to reduced worktool contact length.31
Further, at high-speed values, thermal softening of
tool material occurs,32 which in turn remove the built-
up edge formed on the drill and hence chips form rap-
idly. As a result, the chips easily leave the material and
subsequently reduce the thrust force. Mohan et al.9 and
Palanikumar et al.18 also noticed that an increase in
spindle speed and decrease in feed rate promote lower
thrust force in drilling of composites. Our investigation
on polyamides drilling also support this nding. At
lower point angle, the thrust force decreases due to
lower stresses and lower shear area.11 Also, at lower
feed rates with lower point angles, the thrust force
decreases mainly due to decrease in cross-sectional
area of undeformed chip.22,23,33 Hence, due to the com-
bined eect of all three, i.e. increased spindle speed with
reduced feed rate and point angle, the thrust force nat-
urally decreases.
The low value of feed rate indicates that shear model
could not t adequately the chip formation process as
the material is subjected to lower strain rates and hence
the specic cutting coecient increases.31 Further at
higher feed rates, the number of bers to be sheared
will be reduced and hence reduced specic cutting coef-
cient.28 As can be observed from Figure 9, under the
similar cutting conditions, machinability of reinforced
PA66-GF30 polyamide drilling is found to be better
when compared to unreinforced PA6 polyamide. The
reason might be at higher spindle speed with lower feed
Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)
rates, the chips consist of less deformed matrix material
and cut bers in reinforced polyamide, which results in
reduced thrust when compared to unreinforced poly-
amide. On the other hand, at low spindle speeds and
high feed rates, there is an increase in self-generated
feed angle which signicantly reduces the working
clearance angle of the drill resulting in rubbing against
the work material causing higher thrust force.26,34,35
From Figure 9, it is observed that for unreinforced
PA6 polyamide drilling, at high spindle speed with low
feed rate and point angle, the hole diameter is more
than the nominal diameter of 5 mm. This is because
at high spindle speed with low feed rate, the cutting
temperature goes up because of frictional heating,
which results in higher hole diameter.24 Krishnaraj
et al.24 also reported that the specic cutting resistance
increases at lower feeds due to smaller uncut chip thick-
ness resulting in higher shear forces, which in turn
increase the vibration. It also results in larger hole
size at lower feeds and decreases at higher feeds.
From our investigation, as displayed in Figure 10,
the circularity error can be minimized by employing
lower feed rate with low point angle. The possible
reason might be at low feed, the contact time of drill
with the workpiece is less and the related heat generated
is sucient for the penetration of the tool with less
thrust force. Krishnaraj et al.24 reported that a high
spindle speed creates less circularity error in high-
speed drilling of CFRP laminates, which is also true
in our case of reinforced PA66-GF30 polyamide dril-
ling. This is because the rotational stability of the drill
is better at high speeds when compared to low speeds.
Because of the stability of the drill at higher speed, the
matrix and glass bers are pushed out easily for easy
penetration of the tool, thereby producing roundness
with minimum circularity error. However, Krishnaraj
et al.24 also reported that a low feed rate creates greater
circularity in high-speed drilling of CFRP laminates,
which does not support our ndings on unreinforced
and reinforced polyamide drilling.
Conclusions
The eects of speed, feed rate, and point angle on hole
quality such as hole diameter and circularity error,
machinability aspects, namely, thrust force and specic
cutting coecient have been analyzed during drilling of
unreinforced polyamide (PA6) and reinforced poly-
amide with 30% of glass bers (PA66-GF30) with
cemented carbide (K20) tool using RSM-based
second-order mathematical models. Based on the
parametric analysis, the following conclusions are
drawn within the ranges of the process parameters
selected.
Gaitonde et al.
1. For the combinations of low feed rate with low point
angle and medium feed rate with medium point
angle, the hole diameter increases with increase in
spindle speed for both unreinforced and reinforced
polyamides drilling.
2. A combination of lower values of spindle speed, feed
rate, and point angle results in minimum circularity
error for unreinforced PA6 drilling, while it is bene-
cial to select higher spindle speed with low feed rate
and point angles in case of reinforced PA66-GF30
polyamide drilling.
3. The hole quality could be improved by employing
higher spindle speed values with low values of feed
rate and point angle during drilling of both unre-
inforced and reinforced polyamides.
4. An increased spindle speed results better machinabil-
ity under all combinations of feed rate and point
angle during drilling of both unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides.
5. The feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev and point angle of 110
along with high spindle speed of 6000 r/min are
essential for minimizing both thrust force and spe-
cic cutting coecient during drilling of both unre-
inforced and reinforced polyamide.
Funding
The authors thank CNPq and Fapemig (Brazil) and FCT
(Portugal) for sponsoring this research study.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Machining and Automation Laboratory
at Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil) for the experi-
mental setup and assisting in the experimental work.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
1. Endo H and Marui E. Small-hole drilling in engineering
plastics sheet and its accuracy estimation. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 2006; 46: 575579.
2. McCrum NG and Buckley CP. Principles of polymer engin-
eering. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
3. Li J and Xia YC. The friction and wear properties of
thermoplastic PA6 composites filled with carbon fiber.
J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2010; 23: 337349.
4. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP. Study
on some aspects of machinability in unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides. J Compos Mater 2009; 43(7): 725739.
5. Mata F, Reis P and Davim JP. Physical cutting model of
polyamide composites (PA66 GF30). Mater Sci Forum
2006; 514516: 643647.
6. Davim JP and Mata F. Comparative evaluation of the
turning of reinforced and unreinforced polyamide. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 2007; 33: 911914.
35
7. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP.
Taguchi approach for achieving better machinability in
unreinforced and reinforced polyamides. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2008; 27: 909924.
8. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP.
Modeling and analysis of machinability characteristics
in PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyamides through artificial
neural network. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2010; 23:
313336.
9. Mohan NS, Ramachandra A and Kulkarni SM.
Influence of process parameters on cutting force and
torque during drilling of glassfiber polyester reinforced
composites. Compos Struct 2005; 71: 407413.
10. Clark RL, Craven MD and Kander RG. Nylon 66/poly
(vinyl pyrrolidone) reinforced composites: 2-bulk mech-
anical properties and moisture effects. Composites Part A
1999; 30(1): 3748.
11. Campos Rubio J, Panzera TH, Abrao AM, Faria PE and
Davim JP. Effects of high speed in the drilling of glass
whisker-reinforced polyamide composites (PA66 GF30):
statistical analysis of the roughness parameters. J Compos
Mater 2011; 45: 13951402.
12. Bhattacharya D and Horrigan DPW. A study of hole
drilling in Kelvar composites. Compos Sci Technol 1998;
58: 267283.
13. Khashaba UA. Delamination in drilling GFR thermoset
composites. Compos Struct 2004; 63: 313327.
14. Tsao CC and Hocheng H. Effects of special drill bits on
drilling-induced delamination of composite materials. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 2006; 46(1213): 14031416.
15. Davim JP, Rubio JC and Abrao AM. A novel approach
based on digital image analysis to evaluate the delamin-
ation factor after drilling composite laminates. Compos
Sci Technol 2007; 67: 19391945.
16. Davim JP, Reis P, Lapa V and Antonio CC.
Machinability study on polyetheretherketone (PEEK)
unreinforced and reinforced (GF30) for application in
structural components. Compos Struct 2003; 62: 6773.
17. Aoyama E, Nobe H and Hirogaki T. Drilled hole damage
of small diameter in printed wiring board. J Mater
Process Technol 2001; 118: 436441.
18. Palanikumar K, Karunamoorthy L and Manoharan N.
Mathematical model to predict the surface roughness on
the machining of glass fiber reinforced polymer compos-
ites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2006; 25: 407417.
19. Guu H, Hocheng H, Tai NH and Liu SY. Effect of elec-
trical discharge machining on the characteristics of
carbon fiber reinforced carbon composites. J Mater Sci
2001; 36: 20372043.
20. Persson E, Eriksson I and Zackrisson L. Effect of hole
machining defects on strength and fatigue life of compos-
ite laminates. Composites Part A 1997; 28(2): 141151.
21. Lin SC and Chen IK. Drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced
composite material at high speed. Wear 1996; 194:
156162.
22. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Rubio JC, Correia AE,
Abrao AM and Davim JP. Analysis of parametric influ-
ence on delamination in high-speed drilling of carbon
fiber reinforced plastic composites. J Mater Process
Technol 2008; 203: 431438.
36
23. Karnik SR, Gaitonde VN, Rubio JC, Correia AE,
Abrao AM and Davim JP. Delamination analysis in
high-speed drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics
(CFRP) using artificial neural network model. Mater
Des 2008; 29: 17681776.
24. Krishnaraj V, Prabhukarthi A, Ramanathan A, et al.
Optimisation of machining parameters at high speed dril-
ling of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates.
Composites Part B 2012; 43: 17911799.
25. Tsao CC and Hocheng H. Evaluation of thrust force and
surface roughness in drilling composite material using
Taguchi analysis and neural network. J Mater Process
Technol 2008; 203: 342348.
26. Zitoune R, Krishnaraj V and Collombet F. Study of dril-
ling of composite material and aluminium stack. Compos
Struct 2010; 92(5): 12461255.
27. Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
28. Abrao AM, Faria PE, Campos Rubio JC, Reis P and
Davim JP. Drilling of fiber reinforced plastics: a review.
J Mater Process Technol 2007; 186: 17.
29. Tondon S, Jain VK, Kumar P and Rajurkar P.
Investigations into machining of composites. Precis Eng
1990; 12(4): 227238.
Journal of Composite Materials 48(1)
30. Rahman M, Ramakrishnan S, Prakash JRS and
Ten DCG. Machinability study of carbon fiber reinforced
composite. J Mater Process Technol 1999; 8990:
292297.
31. Basavarajappa S, Venkatesh A, Gaitonde VN and
Karnik SR. Experimental investigations on some aspects
of machinability in drilling of glass epoxy polymer com-
posites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2012; 25(3):
63387.
32. Velayudham A, Krishnamurthy R and
Soundarapandian T. Evaluation of drilling characteristics
of high volume fraction fiber glass reinforced polymeric
composite. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2005; 45: 399406.
33. Langella A, Nele L and Maio A. A torque and thrust
prediction model for drilling of composite materials.
Composites Part A 2005; 36: 8393.
34. Velayudham A and Krishnamurthy R. Effect of point
geometry and their influence on thrust and delamination
in drilling of polymeric composites. J Mater Process
Technol 2007; 185: 204209.
35. Campos Rubio J, Abrao AM, Faria PE, Esteves
Correia A and Davim JP. Effects of high speed in the
drilling of GFRP: evaluation of the delamination
factor. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2008; 48: 715720.