IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.

www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968

Process Parameters Optimization in Turning of Aluminum

Using a New Hybrid Approach
Vivek Soni 1, Sharifuddin Mondal 2and Bhagat Singh 3
1,2,3
Mechanical Engineering Department, Jaypee University of Engineering and Technology,
Guna-473226, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract optimization of CNC turning operations by Taguchi

In the present work, mathematical models have been developed method with multiple performance characteristics. On the
for the prediction of surface roughness and material removal rate other hand, Lin et al. [9] developed a network model to
in turning of aluminum on CNC lathe. Turning process estimate the surface roughness and cutting forces. Wang et
parameters: cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut are used as
al. [10] investigated the effect of tool nose vibration on
inputs to the developed models. Response surface methodology
approach has been adopted to develop these statistical models.
surface roughness during turning theoretically and
Further, multi-objective genetic algorithm optimization technique experimentally.
is applied to find the optimum values of these parameters. In this paper, the application of RSM on the turning of
Experiments have been conducted to validate the developed aluminum AISI 1040 steel with carbide tool has been
models. carried out to develop the mathematical models of the
Keywords: Surface roughness (Ra), Material removal rate surface roughness (Ra) and material removal rate (MRR)
(MRR), Response surface methodology (RSM), Multi-objective so as to investigate the influences of cutting parameters.
genetic algorithm (MOGA). For finding optimum value of these cutting parameters,
multi-objective genetic algorithm technique has been
utilized.
1. Introduction
Aluminum is widely used to produce the automobile parts 2. Experimental set-up and experimentation
by turning process. It is highly desirable that products with The turning experiments were carried out in dry cutting
good surface quality are manufactured in least time. The conditions on Bench-top CNC Trainer Machine as shown
surface quality of products is generally determined in terms in Fig. 1, which have a maximum spindle speed of 150-
of the measured surface roughness. Surface roughness and 3000 rpm and a maximum spindle power of 2.2 kW.
material removal rate is generally dependent on the cutting Ranges of cutting parameters were selected as given in the
parameters such as: cutting speed, feed rate and depth of tool manufacturer’s catalogue. In this study, three factors
cut. Right selections of these cutting parameters are were studied and their low– middle–high levels are given
essential in order to produce components with good in Table 1. However in all experiments depth of cut (0.6-
surface finish and high tolerance in least time. High 0.8 mm), cutting speed (300-600 m/min), and feed rate
material removal rate is required in order to decrease the (0.2-0.4 mm/rev) were taken as fixed values. Each tool was
machining time. In the last few decades, a lot of work has used for once and turned surface length was in 20 mm
been carried out to improve the product quality and between centers. After the experiments, Surface roughness
efficiency in machining. Still many aspects related to the measurement has been done using a portable stylus-type
domain of this study are yet to be explored. profilometer, Talysurf (Taylor Hobson, Surtronic 3+, UK)
Lalwani et al. [1] studied the effect of cutting parameters in as shown in Fig. 2.
turning on cutting forces and surface roughness. Dickinson
[2], Grieve et al. [3], and Fischer and Elrod [4] developed
a turning model in which tool nose radius and feed rate are
taken into account but cutting speed is ignored. Yang and
Tarng [5] studied on optimal cutting parameters using
Taguchi method in turning. Singh and Rao [6] studied the
effects of cutting conditions and tool geometry on the
surface roughness in the finish hard turning. Choudhury
and El-Baradie [7] used RSM and 23 factorial designs to
estimate the surface roughness during the turning process
Fig. 1 Bench-top CNC Trainer Machine.
of high strength steel. Nian et al. [8] investigated the

418
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968

Table 1: Cutting parameters and their levels experimental runs conducted according to Box-Behnken
Cutting Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Design is presented in Table 2. Then response surface
Parameters analysis has been done to develop the quadratic models of
Speed (N) (m/min) 300 450 600 surface roughness and material removal rate in terms of the
cutting parameters: speed, feed and depth of cut.
Feed (f) (mm/rev) 0.2 0.3 0.4 Table 2: Design of Experimental Runs
Speed Feed Depth Surface MRR
Depth of Cut (d) 0.6 0.7 0.8
(m/min) (mm/rev) of Cut roughness (mm3/sec)
(mm)
(mm) Ra(µm)
300 0.2 0.7 1.746 1.752
600 0.2 0.7 2.263 2.662
300 0.4 0.7 2.011 1.609
600 0.4 0.7 2.062 3.686
300 0.3 0.6 2.569 2.419
Fig. 2 Surface roughness tester. 600 0.3 0.6 2.179 3.696
300 0.3 0.8 3.173 3.227
2.1 Work-piece and tool materials
600 0.3 0.8 3.589 8.091
The sample material was Aluminum (diameter 32mm and
450 0.2 0.6 2.614 5.572
length 60mm) as shown in Fig. 3. The chemical
composition of Aluminum in mass% is as follows: 450 0.4 0.6 1.761 2.023
Aluminum 99.70, Si 0.10, Fe 0.20, Zn 0.03, Ga 0.03 450 0.3 0.8 3.853 5.863
Cu0.01, M0.02, Others Each 0.03, Total of all Impurities
450 0.4 0.8 3.804 6.846
0.30. Pure aluminum is soft, ductile, corrosion resistant
and high electrical conductivity. Alloying with other 450 0.3 0.7 2.338 1.465
elements is necessary to provide the higher strengths 450 0.3 0.7 2.341 1.478
needed for other applications. The cutting tool used for 450 0.3 0.7 2.336 1.462
turning is carbide tools.
3.1 Mathematical models for Ra and MRR
Response surface methodology has been adopted to
develop the quadratic models for surface roughness and
material removal rate as given in equations (1) and (2),
respectively.
=
Ra 39.804 − 0.001 × V − 11.857 × f − 107.493 × d
Fig. 3 Aluminum work-piece −23.796 × f × f + 67.503 × d × d − 0.008 × V × f (1)
+0.013 × V × d + 42.426 × f × d
3. Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
= 179.583 − 0.048 × V − 147.127 × f − 431.148 × d
MRR
Response surface methodology is used to examine the +61.890 × f × f + 266.465 × d × d + 0.019 × V × f (2)
relationship between one or more response variables and a +0.060 × V × d + 143.800 × f × d
set of quantitative experimental variables or factors. It is
clear from the literature that the surface roughness and 3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Ra and MRR
material removal rate equations are not linear and they
could be predicted using the response surface method. The Analysis of variance has been done to check the statistical
important controlling factors and their levels considered in significance of the developed models. This is done by test
the present analysis are presented in Table 1. In the present of hypothesis at 95% significance level using F-test. The
work, Box-Behnken Design has been considered for results of the Analysis of variance for Ra and MRR are
analysis of surface roughness (Ra) and material removal shown in Tables 3 and 4. From these tables it is observed
rate (MRR) in turning of aluminum. The set of that the lack of fit for both surface roughness and material

419
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968

removal rate is 0.000, which establishes that the developed

models are statistically significant.
3.5
Table 3: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Ra
Ra ( µm))
R 3 0
3.0
Source DF Seq Adj Adj F P
SS SS MS 2.5

Regression 9 6.759 6.759 0.7510 30.05 0.001 0.8

2.0
0.7 d ( mm)
Linear 3 3.557 2.050 0.6833 27.34 0.002 00
30
400 06
0.6
500 600
v ( m/min)
Square 3 2.595 2.252 0.7509 30.04 0.001
Interaction 3 0.606 0.606 0.2020 8.09 0.023 Fig. 5 Surface plot of Ra w.r.t. v and d

Residual 5 0.124 0.124 0.0249

Error
2.4
Lack-of- 3 0.124 0.124 0.0416 6577 0.000
Fit 2.2
Ra ( µm)
R )
Pure Error 2 0.000 0.000 0.0000
2.0

Total 14 6.884 0.4

1.8
0.3
30
00 f ( mm/r ev )
400
00 0.2
500 600
v ( m/min)
Table 4: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for MRR
Fig. 6 Surface plot of Ra w.r.t. v and f
Source DF Seq SS Adj Adj F P
SS MS
Regression 9 62.964 62.964 6.996 14.75 0.004
8
Linear 3 23.767 36.242 12.08 25.47 0.002
6
Square 3 31.164 23.795 7.931 16.72 0.005
M RR ( mm3 /sec)
Interaction 3 8.0327 8.032 2.677 5.64 0.046 4

Residual 5 2.3718 2.371 0.474 2 0.8

Error
0.7 d ( mm)
0.
0.2
Lack-of- 3 2.3717 2.371 0.790 1092 0.000 03
0.3 06
0.6
04
0.4
Fit 9 f ( mm/r ev)

Pure Error 2 0.0001 0.000 0.000 Fig. 7 Surface plot of MRR w.r.t. f and d

Total 14 65.336
7.5

3.3 Surface Plots for Ra and MRR 5.0

M RR ( mm3 /sec)

Surface plots for Ra and MRR are plotted to ascertain the 2.5

effect of cutting parameters on these responses. With the 0.8

0.0
0.7
increase in speed, feed and depth of cut both the responses 00
30
400
d ( mm)
500 0.6
600
increases as shown in Figs. 4-9. v ( m/min)

Fig. 8 Surface plot of MRR w.r.t. v and d

3.5 4

3.0 3
Ra ( µm))
R
M RR ( mm3 /sec)
2.5
2

2.0 0.8
1 0.4
0.7 d ( mm)
0.
0.2 0.3
f ( mm/r ev)
03
0.3 06
0.6 00
30
400
00
04
0.4 500 0.2
f ( mm/r ev) 600
v ( m/min)
Fig. 9 Surface plot of MRR w.r.t. v and f
Fig. 4 Surface plot of Ra w.r.t. f and d

420
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968

4. Optimization of Process Parameters = 179.583 − 0.048 × V − 147.127 × f − 431.148 × d

MRR
+61.890 × f × f + 266.465 × d × d + 0.019 × V × f
In the present analysis, response surface methodology has +0.060 × V × d + 143.800 × f × d
been adopted to develop mathematical models for surface
roughness and material removal rate. Moreover, from the with upper and lower bounds given by;
analysis it has been concluded that the parameters affecting 300 ≤ V ≤ 600
these responses are; speed, feed and depth of cut. With the
increase of these parameters, both surface roughness and 0.2 ≤ f ≤ 0.4
material removal rate is enhanced as observed in the Figs.
0.6 ≤ d ≤ 0.8
4-9. However, to have a good surface finish of the turned
jobs, surface roughness should be less. On the other hand 4.2 Optimal Pareto Solutions
in order to improve the productivity and less power
consumption, material removal rate should be high. In the present work, MATLAB software is used to
Therefore, the prime objective is to minimize surface generate codes for the optimization of the process
roughness and maximize material removal rate. So, the parameters. A suitable fitness function is selected.
present work is a multiobjective optimization problem. Following GA parameters has been selected;
Multi-objective formulations are realistic models for many Population size: 200
complex engineering optimization problems. In many real- No. of iterations: 500
life problems, objectives under consideration conflict with Crossover probability: 0.8
each other, and optimizing a particular solution with Mutation probability: 0.8
respect to a single objective can result in unacceptable
results with respect to the other objectives. A reasonable In multiobjective optimization problem single solution
solution to a multi-objective problem is to investigate a set cannot be achieved. In the present study, 32 optimal
of solutions, each of which satisfies the objectives at an solutions have been achieved. The detailed spread and
acceptable level without being dominated by any other contribution of each individual in optimization search
solution. A suitable multiobjective optimization technique space is presented as shown in Figs. 10-16. Out of these 32
has to be adopted in order to minimize one function and solutions best four have been selected, depending on the
simultaneously maximize the other within the same lower compromise for both surface roughness (Ra) and material
and upper bounds for both the responses. Genetic removal rate (MRR). These best four solutions are
algorithm is such optimization technique which is well presented in Table 5.
suited for this purpose. -2

4.1 Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) -2.5

-3
In this paper, surface roughness is minimized and material
removal rate is maximized using genetic algorithms (GA). -3.5

GA is well suited to solve such multi-objective

Objective 2

-4
optimization problems. In the present analysis, expression
-4.5
for surface roughness (Ra) and material removal rate
(MRR) using response surface methodology as developed -5

in equations (1) and (2) are utilized to find the optimum -5.5
solutions.
-6
The multiobjective problem in the present case is;
-6.5
1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Minimize; Objective 1

=
Ra 39.804 − 0.001 × V − 11.857 × f − 107.493 × d Fig. 10 Pareto Frontal Solution
−23.796 × f × f + 67.503 × d × d − 0.008 × V × f
+0.013 × V × d + 42.426 × f × d

and, Maximize;

421
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968
110
0.7

100
0.6

90
0.5
Avergae Distance

80
0.4

Distance
70
0.3

60
0.2
50

0.1
40
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Generation 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fig. 11 Average distance between individuals Individuals
g Fig. 14 Distance of individuals
25
fun1 [1.80022 3.19075] 35
fun2 [-6.00301 -2.34831]

20 30
Number of individuals

25
15
Number of individuals

20
10
15

5
10

0 5
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score (range)
0
Fig. 12 Score histogram 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rank
25 Fig. 15 Rank histogram

0.9
20
0.8
Number of children

15 0.7

0.6
Average Spread

10
0.5

5 0.4

0.3

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.2
Individual
Fig. 13 Selection function
0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Generation

Fig. 16 Average spread search space

422
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 3, May 2014.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 - 7968

[5] W. H. Yang, and Y. S. Tarng, “Design optimization of

Table 5: Best four optimal solution cutting parameters for turning operations based on Taguchi
Ra MRR V f d method”, J. Mater. Process Technol., Vol. 84, 1998, pp. 112–
Sl No.
(µm) 3
(mm /sec) (m/min) (mm/rev) (mm)
129.
[6] D. Singh, and P. V. Rao, “A surface roughness prediction
1 1.881 3.416 300.05 0.40 0.60 model for hard turning process”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
2 2.833 4.738 443.48 0.21 0.77 Technol., Vol. 32, 2007, pp. 1115–1124.
[7] I. A. Choudhury, and M. A. El-Baradie, “Surface roughness
3 2.982 5.318 437.07 0.2 0.78 prediction in the turning of high-strength steel by factorial
4 1.846 3.094 300.13 0.39 0.60 design of experiments”, J. Mater. Process Technol., Vol. 67,
1997, pp. 55–61.
[8] C. Y. Nian, W. H. Yang, and Y. S. Tarng, “Optimization of
turning operations with multiple performance
5. Conclusions characteristics”, J. Mater. Process Technol., Vol. 95, 1999,
pp. 90–96.
This paper presents the findings of an experimental [9] W. S. Lin, B. Y. Lee, and C. L. Wu, “Modeling the surface
investigation into the effects of speed, feed and depth of roughness and cutting force for turning”, J. Mater. Process
cut on the surface roughness and material removal rate Technol., Vol. 108, 2001, pp. 286– 293.
while turning aluminum bars. Genetic Algorithm is best [10]H. Wang, S. To, C. Y. Chan, C. F. Cheung, and W. B. Lee,
“A theoretical and experimental investigation of the tool-tip
multiobjective optimization technique as it learns the best
vibration and its influence upon surface generation in single-
fit of multiple models. It unveils better performance in point diamond turning”, Int. J. Mach. Tools & Manuf., Vol.
enhancement of surface finish and material removal rate 50, 2010, pp. 241–252.
while turning operation. The optimal values of surface
roughness and material removal rate obtained from GA are
presented in Table 5. The Optimal cutting conditions
obtained from GA are also obtained as shown in Table 5.
The present analysis provides the production engineers an
insight view into the factors affecting the surface finish and
material removal rate. Aforesaid principle can be utilized
for the better productivity in modern industries and also
improving the tool life. This work can be further extended
by considering other parameters such as tool geometry,
flank wear, tool life, other tool and workpiece materials
and also cutting fluid etc. Moreover, other multiobjective
optimization techniques can be invoked for further
improvement of the optimal solutions.

References
[1] D. I. Lalwani, N. K. Mehta, and P. K. Jain, “Experimental
investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting
forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of
MDN250 steel”, J. Mater. Process Technol., Vol. 206, 2008,
pp. 167–179.
[2] G. R. Dickinson, “A survey of factors affecting surface
finish”, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Properties and
Metrology of Surfaces, Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
(UK), 3K, 1968, pp. 135–147.
[3] D. J. Grieve, H. Kaliszer, and G. W. Rowe, “The effects of
cutting conditions on bearing area parameters”, in:
Proceedings of the 9th International Machine Tool Design
and Research Conference, 2, 1968, pp. 989–1004.
[4] H. L. Fischer, and J. T. Elrod, “Surface finish as a function of
tool geometry and feed: a theoretical approach”,
Microtechnic, Vol. 25, 1971, pp. 175–178.

423