Abstract
Glass fiberreinforced plastics are extensively applied in engineering fields as a potential replacement to conventional
steels, owing to its corrosive resistance property and high specific strength. But machining is complicated due to its anisotropic properties and non-homogeneous structure. In machining processes, minimum surface roughness and less tool
wear are important factors influencing the quality of the surface, tool life, and productivity. Thus, the selection of tool
and optimizing machining parameters are essential for perfect finishing. The tool used in this study is TiCN/TiN coated.
The cutting parameters applied are cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut. As a dynamic approach, the multiple response
optimization is carried out using grey relational analysis and desirability function analysis for simultaneous evaluation.
These two methods are considered in optimization, as both are multiple criteria evaluation and not much complicated.
Analysis of variance is employed to classify the significant parameters affecting the response.
Keywords
Machining GFRP composites, surface roughness, tool wear, Taguchi, ANOVA, grey relational analysis, desirability function
analysis
Introduction
In modern-day engineering, high demands are being
placed on components made of fiber-reinforced plastics
(FRP). Fiberglass composites are an economic alternative to stainless steel and other materials in highly corrosive industrial applications. Glass fiberreinforced
composite materials are used in various products
including sporting goods, marine bodies, plastic pipes,
storage containers, and construction works. Glass
fiberreinforced plastics (GFRP) are widely used in the
transport industries. GFRP rods are generally manufactured by pultrusion process and it needs further
machining for dimensional control. The machining of
GFRP composites is dissimilar from conventional
materials and it necessitates special considerations on
wear resistance of the tool. Surface evenness plays an
Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com at PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on January 26, 2016
3
Table 2. Composition and coating specification of the tool
material.
Composition
Grain size
Hardness
Specification of coating
E-glass
7580
Epoxy resin
2025
1.9
1200
50
S=Nratioh = 10 log10
Tool material
Machining studies were carried out in turning operation
of GFRP composite rod using chemical vapor deposition (CVD)-coated carbide tool of CERATIZIT make
of grade CTC 2135 HC-M30 and the type SNMG
120408 EN-TMR. This tool was preferred due to its
excellent toughness and wear resistance. The composition and coating specification of the tool material are
shown in Table 2. The cutting tool geometry is shown
in Figure 3.
n
1X
y2
n i = 1 ij
!
1
GRA
GRA is a measurement technique in grey system theory
that analyzes the degree of relation in a discrete
sequence. GRA had been used for optimization of
g yo k , yi k =
D min + jD max
Doj k + jD max
m
1X
g
k i = 1 ij
Experimental details
Desirability function analysis in the Taguchi method
Desirability function analysis (DFA) is one of the most
extensively used methods for the optimization of multiresponses problems. DFA is used to change the multiresponses problems into single response problems. As a
result, optimization of the complicated multi-response
problems could be converted into optimization of a single response problem termed composite desirability.17
Step 1. Individual desirability function (di) for the
corresponding responses has to be determined. For
the smaller-the-better, the desirability function can be
expressed as in equation (5). The value of ^y is
expected to be the smaller-the-better while ^y is less
than a particular criterion value, the desirability value
will be equal to 1; if the ^y exceeds a particular criterion value, the desirability value will be equal to 0
8
1,
>
r
< ^y y
max
di =
,
>
: ymin ymax
0
if ^y ymin
if ymin ^y ymax , r 0 5
if ^y ymax
The turning experiments on GFRP rods were conducted in dry cutting conditions on KIRLOSKARmake TURNMASTER-35 center lathe with variable
speed and feed drive and 2.2-kW spindle power DC
motor. The turning operation was carried out using
SNMG 120408 EN-TMR, CVD-coated carbide tool
insert of grade CTC 2135. This tool was preferred due
to its excellent toughness and wear resistance.
KISTLER TYPE 9257B multi-component dynamometer, measuring cutting forces, was setup on the
lathe. Figure 4 shows the experimental setup for turning GFRP rod using a lathe.
Measurements of SR were taken at least five times,
and the mean value is recorded as the Ra value. The
Mitutoy- make SR tester of model SJ 210 had been
used to measure the SR as shown in Figure 5. The TW
was measured using optical tool makers microscope as
shown in Figure 6. The image of the TW after turning
GFRP is shown in Figure 7.
The most important cutting parameters affecting
surface finish are cutting speed, feed, depth of cut, and
wet and dry cutting conditions. The main objective of
this study is to establish a relation among cutting speed,
feed, and depth of cut responds on SR and TW. The
range of cutting parameter values is chosen based on
tool manufactures recommendation. In this study,
Designation
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
v
f
a
50
0.08
0.5
75
0.12
1
100
0.16
1.5
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
Experimental
S/N ratios
SR (mm)
TW (mm)
SR
2.942
3.047
4.079
3.062
2.779
3.433
3.304
2.686
4.129
3.052
3.242
3.058
2.864
3.126
4.385
2.806
3.306
3.411
2.342
2.565
3.58
3.297
3.434
3.967
3.694
4.07
4.185
0.01
0.02
0.025
0.015
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.025
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.025
0.0375
0.0425
29.3729
29.6774
212.211
29.7201
28.8778
210.714
210.381
28.5821
212.317
29.6917
210.216
29.7087
29.1395
29.8998
212.839
28.9618
210.386
210.658
27.3917
28.1817
211.078
210.362
210.716
211.969
211.35
212.192
212.434
TW
SR
TW
SR
TW
40
33.9794
32.0412
36.4782
33.9794
27.9588
33.9794
32.0412
26.0206
33.9794
30.4576
29.1186
32.0412
30.4576
29.1186
32.0412
30.4576
29.1186
32.0412
30.4576
29.1186
32.0412
30.4576
29.1186
32.0412
28.5194
27.4322
0.393
0.453
0.956
0.462
0.295
0.659
0.593
0.236
0.977
0.456
0.560
0.460
0.347
0.497
1.080
0.311
0.594
0.648
0.000
0.157
0.731
0.589
0.659
0.908
0.785
0.952
1.000
0.000
0.431
0.569
0.252
0.431
0.861
0.431
0.569
1.000
0.431
0.683
0.778
0.569
0.683
0.778
0.569
0.683
0.778
0.569
0.683
0.778
0.569
0.683
0.778
0.569
0.821
0.899
0.560
0.524
0.343
0.520
0.629
0.431
0.458
0.679
0.339
0.523
0.472
0.521
0.591
0.501
0.316
0.616
0.457
0.436
1.000
0.761
0.406
0.459
0.431
0.355
0.389
0.344
0.333
1.000
0.537
0.468
0.665
0.537
0.367
0.537
0.468
0.333
0.537
0.423
0.391
0.468
0.423
0.391
0.468
0.423
0.391
0.468
0.423
0.391
0.468
0.423
0.391
0.468
0.378
0.357
Grey grade
0.780
0.531
0.406
0.592
0.583
0.399
0.497
0.573
0.336
0.530
0.447
0.456
0.529
0.462
0.354
0.542
0.440
0.413
0.734
0.592
0.399
0.463
0.427
0.373
0.428
0.361
0.345
GFRP: glass fiberreinforced plastics; S/N: signal to noise; SR: surface roughness; TW: tool wear.
Level
v
f
a
0.522
0.542
0.566
0.464
0.465
0.491
0.458
0.437
0.387
Confirmation test
DF
SS
MS
v
f
a
Error
Total
2
2
2
20
26
0.2368
0.7805
3.0954
3.3839
7.4965
0.1184
0.3902
1.5477
0.1692
0.70
2.31
9.15
0.508
0.126
0.002
SR: surface roughness; DF: degrees of freedom; SS: sum square; MS: mean square.
DF
SS
MS
v
f
a
Error
Total
2
2
2
20
26
0.00020741
0.00020185
0.00113380
0.00044907
0.00199213
0.00010370
0.00010093
0.00056690
0.00002245
4.62
4.49
25.25
0.022
0.024
0.000
TW: tool wear; DF: degrees of freedom; SS: sum square; MS: mean square.
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
TW
SR
1.000
0.750
0.625
0.875
0.750
0.250
0.750
0.625
0.000
0.750
0.500
0.375
0.625
0.500
0.375
0.625
0.500
0.375
0.625
0.500
0.375
0.625
0.500
0.375
0.625
0.313
0.188
0.706
0.655
0.150
0.648
0.786
0.466
0.529
0.832
0.125
0.652
0.559
0.650
0.744
0.616
0.000
0.773
0.528
0.477
1.000
0.891
0.394
0.533
0.465
0.205
0.338
0.154
0.098
0.957
0.915
0.744
0.931
0.936
0.764
0.891
0.921
0.000
0.915
0.853
0.838
0.909
0.863
0.000
0.913
0.847
0.806
0.943
0.904
0.787
0.872
0.833
0.725
0.823
0.684
0.607
v
f
a
Levels
1
0.784
0.873
0.906
0.772
0.759
0.862
0.798
0.721
0.586
13
14
10
Therefore, the 95% CI must be given by
hRa CI hRa hRa + CI
12
11
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conclusion
References
This present investigation is focused on effective turning of GFRP using TiCN/TiN-coated tool with multiresponse optimization of cutting parameters. From this
study, using GRA, DFA, and ANOVA, the following
results can be concluded:
1.
2.
3.
4.
From the results of using ANOVA, the significant cutting parameters affecting the SR is
found as depth of cut followed by feed, and the
significant cutting parameters affecting the TW
is found as depth of cut followed by cutting
speed.
Multi-response optimization using the GRA
was performed for turning GFRP and found
the optimum setting of cutting speed at 50 m/
min, feed at 0.08 mm/rev, and depth of cut as
0.5 mm for minimization of SR and TW.
For the optimization of multi-response problems in turning GFRP, DFA is a very useful
tool, and the optimal setting parameters for
minimization of SR and TW are found as cutting speed set at 100 m/min, feed set at 0.08 mm/
rev, and depth of cut set as 0.5 mm.
The most optimal among these two methods in
this study could be found by equation (15)
ma mc + mb md
m c + m d
15
10