International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)

Prediction of Surface Roughness Responses in Turning on Cu

Graphite MMC Fabricated Through Stir Casting Method
Samuel.M1, K.Chandrasekaran2, C. Parthasarathy3, B. Sivapragash4, D. Kamalakkannan5
1,2,3,4
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PRIST University, Trichy Campus, Tamilnadu, India.
5
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PRIST University, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India.
Abstract-- Cu Graphite Metal Matrix Composite is
fabricated through stir casting process. It is very important
to know what will be the surface roughness (SR) of the
MMC when its subjected to various cutting conditions.
Usually three factors have a profound effect on the SR and
also on the Force (F) required in preparing the final
product. There is a probability of achieving various results
for various inputs. Doing this experimentation manually
and identifying an optimum value for the factors that affect
F as well the SR is not an easy job. So in this paper an
attempt has been made to identify the parameters that will
have an determining effect on SR and the force that will be
required to achieve the SR through mathematical modelling
of the experiments and determining the optimum value of
force required to get the required SR.
Keywords-- Cu Graphite MMC, Surface roughness,
MRR, Box- Bhenken Design, ANOVA, Response Surface
method
I. INTRODUCTION
Coppergraphite metal matrix composites possess the
properties of copper, i.e. excellent thermal and electrical
conductivities, and properties of graphite, i.e. solid
lubricating and small thermal expansion coefficient. The
addition of solid lubricant particles into a metal matrix
improves not only the anti-friction properties, but also
wear and friction properties. The surface roughness of
machined components is an important design
specification which has greater influence on materials
properties such as wear resistance and fatigue strength
(1). As per the investigations of (2,3), when cutting speed
increases the surface quality and productivity is
maximised. (4) has analysed the surface roughness in
machining and indicated that the surface roughness is a
critical parameter to the functionality of machined
components and this will affect the quality of the product
(5). As per the results of experiments conducted by (6)
using Response Surface Method (RSM) on various
materials with CBN tool, the depth of cut exhibits
maximum influence on cutting forces as compared to the
feed rate and cutting speed. Surface roughness is a
measure of the irregularities on the surface of a
component resulting from machining operations. It is
denoted by Ra namely, average roughness.
Ra is theoretically derived as the arithmetic average
value of departure of the profile from the mean line along
a sampling length. On the other hand, surface roughness
depends on process parameters and machining
irregularities, such as, chatter, wear, material properties,
and cutting fluid.
Turning is the most widely used material removing
processes. In the present industrial age, turning operation
gains new importance and the parts are to be
manufactured in most economical way possible. One
important character that is being considered is the surface
finish. In a machining operation, selection of cutting
parameters is the most critical job (7). CNC turning is
one of the most popular and efficient machining
operations, with which, the high surfaces finish of work-
pieces can be easily obtained. To achieve an economical
process, the surface design has to be an optimum one. To
achieve the optimum surface value various parameters
are to be considered which are to be at an optimum level.
In determining the optimum cutting parameters lots of
experiments may have to be considered. This may be
uneconomical or practically impossible. In this work, an
alternative method using Box Bhenken Design is used to
simulate the experiments and determine the optimum
parameters involved in the machining process. Box-
Behnken Design is normally used when performing non-
sequential experiments. That is, performing the
experiment only once (8). In this paper the Box Behnken
(BBD) has been utilized for the designing and analysis of
the experiment.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Cu- Graphite MMC was prepared by stir casting
method using copper as the metal matrix and graphite as
the particulate dispersed in the matrix. The percentage of
graphite in the specimen taken for experimentation work
is 5% of the total volume of the MMC. The length of the
composite rod taken is 100mm long and of 50 mm
diameter. The casting was done at a temperature of
800oC and it was stirred at a rate of 700rpm in a stir
casting furnace and was cooled in atmospheric condition.

281
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
2.1. BoX Behnken Design
RSM is a collection of mathematical and statistical
techniques that are useful for modelling and analysis of
problems in which output or response is influenced by
several input variables and the objective is to find the
correlation between the response and the variables
investigated (9).
Choudhury and El-Baradie used RSM and 23 factorial
designs for predicting surface roughness when turning
high-strength steel. Box and Wilson, proposed the RSM
for determining the operating conditions of any l process
with optimization of a specific response (10). In order to
develop the response surface model, firstly the function
must be assumed as a mathematical polynomial form
having coefficients that should be determined. And then
these coefficients are determined with applying the set of
the experimental results. RSM is one of the Design of
Experiments (DOE) methods used to approximate an
unknown function for which only a few values are
computed. These relations are then modelled by using
least square error fitting of the response surface. Two
types of RSM is available for experimentation and they
are Rotational Central Composite Design (RCCD) and
Box-Behnken Design (BBD). A RCCD can be used when
a comparatively accurate prediction of all response
variable averages related to quantities measured during
experimentation (11). Box-Behnken Design is normally
used when performing non-sequential experiments. That
is, performing the experiment only once (8). Both of
these methodologies require a quadratic relationship
between the experimental factor and the responses. These
designs allow efficient estimation of the first and second
order coefficients. Box-Behnken design involves fewer
design points; they are less expensive to run than central
composite designs with the same number of factors.
Box-Behnken Design do not have axial points, thus we
can be sure that all design points fall within the safe
operating limits.
III. EXPERIMENTS DETAILS
An important stage of RS model generation by RSM is
the planning of experiments. There are a large number of
parameters that could be considere0d for machining of a
particular material in Turning.
282
However, the review of literature shows that the
following three machining parameters are the most
widespread among the researchers and machinists to
control the turning process. When factors that affect the
outcome of a process (independent variables) satisfy a
condition that they are measurable, continuous, and
controllable by experiments, with negligible errors, the
RSM procedure can be carried out as follows:
1) A series of experiments are performed for adequate
and reliable measurement of the response or result for the
various factors.
2) A mathematical model of the second-order response
surface with the best fit is developed.
3) The optimal set of experimental parameters or factors
which result in optimum response value was determined.
The first requirement of the RSM, as mentioned
above, involves the design of experiments to achieve
adequate and reliable measurements of the response of
interest. In the present study three factors are selected as
design factors while other parameters have been assumed
to be constant over the process or they have no effect on
the outcome of the experiment. Thee cutting parameters
selected for the design of experiments are the cutting
speed (Vc-m/min), feed (f- mm/rev), and depth of cut (d-
mm) were raised to three level as per BBD. All the
experiments were carried out randomly to minimize the
effect of unexplained variability in the observed
responses due to extraneous factors. Experiments were
carried out on a Turnmaster-35 Kirloskar lathe machine.
Commercial High Speed Steel with square was used
as cutting tool. The diameter and the length of the work
piece were maintained as 50mm and 100mm
respectively.
TABLE 1
CUTTING PARAMETERS AND LEVELS
Notation Parameter Level Level Level
1 2 3
A Cutting speed 100 150 200
B Feed 0.1 0.15 0.2
C Depth of cut 1 1.5 2
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
TABLE 2 Basically, cutting force and surface roughness
EXPERIMENTAL RESULT TABULATION correlated strongly with cutting parameters, such as,
Speed Feed Depth Force Surface cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut. Proper
of Cut Roughne selection of the cutting parameters can result in lower
ss cutting force and better surface finish or lower surface
m/min mm/rev mm N m roughness. In this work, experiments are conducted to
100.000 0.100 1.000 463.700 2.900 find out the effect of different factors and their levels on
surface roughness and force. The tool used was cemented
100.000 0.100 1.500 532.300 2.450 carbide insert type. The tool has a rake angle of 6 O,
100.000 0.100 2.000 542.200 2.640 clearance angle of 5O. The cutting edge is at 60O and the
100.000 0.150 1.000 492.800 3.050 included angle is at 60O. The cutting edge is at an
inclination of 0O.
100.000 0.150 1.500 557.120 3.200 In these experiments, to measure the surface roughness
100.000 0.150 2.000 559.500 2.400 (SR) direct measurement method has been used, ie, stylus
100.000 0.200 1.000 577.100 5.300 type surface roughness meter was used. The two main
reasons behind selecting stylus type surface roughness
100.000 0.200 1.500 580.000 4.450
measurement meter are its easy availability and the ease
100.000 0.200 2.000 594.000 4.900 with which it can be operated. The force exerted is
150.000 0.100 1.000 392.400 2.320 measured by using a system comprising of dynamometer
150.000 0.100 1.500 547.500 1.940 and amplifier. The experiment was conducted in dry
conditions. These measured forces for various
150.000 0.100 2.000 566.900 2.050 experiments were used for doing the analysis work along
150.000 0.150 1.000 417.500 1.900 with SR. MINITAB statistical software has been used for
150.000 0.150 1.500 542.800 1.850 the analysis of the experimental work. This software
studies the experimental data and then provides the
150.000 0.150 2.000 651.800 1.670 calculated results of signal-to-noise ratio. In this work,
150.000 0.200 1.000 525.700 2.600 the software has given the signal-to-noise ratio for both
150.000 0.200 1.500 663.900 2.350 the surface roughness and cutting force. The effect of
different process parameters on force and roughness are
150.000 0.200 2.000 744.500 2.200
calculated and plotted as the process parameters changes
200.000 0.100 1.000 345.500 0.850 from one level to another. The average value of S/N
200.000 0.100 1.500 420.000 0.800 ratios has been calculated to find out the effects of
different parameters and as well as their levels. The
200.000 0.100 2.000 501.000 0.760
resulting force and surface roughness for the experiments
200.000 0.150 1.000 367.200 1.300 conducted are tabulated below in Table 2.
200.000 0.150 1.500 452.800 0.800
200.000 0.150 2.000 595.300 1.360 IV. RESULT AND D ISCUSSION
200.000 0.200 1.000 460.800 2.920 1.1 Validation for Force
200.000 0.200 1.500 622.500 2.440 Before doing any analysis, it is very important to
200.000 0.200 2.000 671.800 2.620 check the fitted model by Minitab R14 is in proper
approximation with the real system. If the fit is not
The machining parameters were limited to cutting with adequate, proceeding with the investigation and
three levels (100,150,200 m/min), depth of cut with three optimization will yield poor result or wrong result. To
levels (0.1, 0.15, 0.2 mm), feed rate with three levels (1, validate the model for proper fit, both graphical and
1.5 and 2 mm/rev). The main cutting force forms an numerical methods were used. The graphical method
important index of cutting performance in turning characterizes the residual models nature. A Residual is
operation. In addition, surface roughness is another defined as the difference between as observed value and
important index to evaluate cutting performance. its fitted value.

283
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
TABLE 4
Residuals Versus the Fitted Values ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FORCE.
(response is F)

20
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F p

10
Regression 9 120875 120875 13430.6 39 0
Linear 3 101723 101723 33907.8 98.4 0
Residual

0 Square 3 6158 6158 2052.7 5.96 0.04

Interaction 3 12994 12994 4331.9 12.6 0.01
-10
Residual
Error 5 1723 1723 344.7
-20
Lack of fit 3 1723 1723 574.4 * *
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Fitted Value Pure error 2 0 0 0
FIG 1 RESIDUALS VS FITTED VALUES FOR FORCE Total 14 122599
The graphical method characterizes the nature of The Normal probability plot for Force is constructed
residuals of the models. The first plot, residuals versus by plotting force points against a theoretical normal
the fitted values, as shown in Fig 1 was used to exam the distribution. The forces calculated must form an
sufficiency of the functional part of the model. On approximate straight line and should not depart from the
examining the plot it is clearly seen that the model has no theoretical plotted values which form a straight line. Such
noticeable pattern which means the models are deviations will mean that there is a departure from
independently distributed and is not influenced by any normal distribution. In the normal probability plot for
factors. Then the second plot, a plot between the force, shown is in Fig. 3. , the points form a rough
residuals and the order is plotted as in Fig 2. This is straight line and hence we can say that the assumptions
plotted by having the residuals against an index of of normality are satisfied for the data.
observation orders. Then the plot is checked for any
variation or drift. From the plots, it is clearly seen that Residuals Versus the Order of the Data
(response is F)
there is no obvious shift and the residuals are randomly
20
distributed.
TABLE 3 10
ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
Residual

0
Term Co Eff SE Coef T P
-10
Constant 542.8 10.719 50.641 0
A -19.95 6.564 -3.039 0.029 -20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
B 70.14 6.564 10.685 0 Observation Order

C 86.01 6.564 13.104 0

FIG 2 RESIDUALS VS THE ORDER OF DATA FOR FORCE
A*A -28.89 9.662 -2.99 0.03
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
B*B 24.79 9.662 2.566 0.05 (response is F)
99
C*C -10.21 9.662 -1.057 0.339
95
A*B 38.7 9.383 4.169 0.009 90

80
A*B 40.35 9.383 4.437 0.007 70
Percent

60
50
B*C 11.07 9.383 1.193 0.286 40
30
S = 28.57 R-Sq = 98.6% R-Sq(adj) = 96.1% 20

10

1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Residual

FIG 3 NORMAL PROBABILITY PLOT FOR FORCE

284
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
The model that has satisfied the graphical analysis TABLE 5
conditions is further checked using numerical methods ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFF FOR SR
employing the coefficient of determination, adjusted Term Co Eff SE Coef T P
coefficient. The response surface models were developed
in the study with highest value of R2.This can be seen in Constant 1.85 0.3037 6.092 0.002
Table 3 and it can be clearly noted that how much the A -0.8063 0.186 -4.335 0.007
variability in the model is accounted for. From Table 3 it B 0.50875 0.186 2.736 0.041
can be clearly seen that the second order quadratic
solution of the square of depth of cut has the maximum C -0.1575 0.186 -0.847 0.436
effect on determining the force and whereas the feed rate A*A 0.21 0.2737 0.767 0.478
has no effect on the process. Moreover, the ANOVA on B*B 0.475 0.2737 1.735 0.143
these models, as shown in Table 4, demonstrates that the
models were highly significant, as seen from the value C*C -0.0325 0.2737 -0.119 0.91
where the probability is less than F and is about 0.02. The A*B -0.09 0.263 -0.342 0.746
ANOVA table also shows the result of lack of fit of the
A*B 0.1775 0.263 0.675 0.53
models used for the analysis. This test describes the
variation in the data around the fitted model. If the model B*C -0.0325 0.263 -0.124 0.906
does not fit the data, the lack of fit will be significant.
The values of lack of fit for the force is not available and TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SR
this means the fit is proper and the lack of fit is not
significant and the model is significantly described by the Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F p
data generated.
Regression 9 120875 120875 13430.6 39 0
4.2 Validation for SR
Linear 3 101723 101723 33907.8 98.4 0
Similarly the surface roughness is also to be
optimized. As done for the force the plots, namely Square 3 6158 6158 2052.7 5.96 0.04
Residuals vs fitted values which is shown in Fig 4, Interaction 3 12994 12994 4331.9 12.6 0.01
Residuals vs order of data shown in Fig 5 and the normal Residual
probability plot Fig 6 are plotted. Then the plot is Error 5 1723 1723 344.7
checked for any variation or drift as shown in Fig 4 and
Lack of fit 3 1723 1723 574.4 * *
Fig 5. From the two plots, it is clearly seen that there is
no obvious shift and the residuals are randomly Pure error 2 0 0 0
distributed. Total 14 122599
Residuals Versus the Fitted Values
(response is SR) Residuals Versus the Order of the Data
(response is SR)
0.50
0.50

0.25
0.25
Residual

Residual

0.00
0.00

-0.25 -0.25

-0.50 -0.50

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fitted Value Observation Order

FIG 4 RESIDUALS VS FITTED VALUES FOR SURFACE FIG 5 RESIDUALS VS ORDER FOR SR
ROUGHNESS

285
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
REFERANCES
(response is SR)
[1 ] Onwubolu G.C. 2005. A note on surface roughness prediction
99
model in machining of carbon steel by PVD coated cutting tools,
95 American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 1109-
90 1112.
80
[2 ] El-Baradie. 1993. Surface roughness model for turning grey cast
70
iron (154 BHN). Proc. IMechE, 207, pp. 43-54.
Percent

60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
Residual
FIG 6 NORMAL PROBABILITY PLOT FOR SR
V. CONCLUSIONS
This work has demonstrated the application of RSM in
seeking optimal conditions for Force and surface
roughness. Simultaneously the force required to do the
turning process and the resulting surface roughness were
investigated. In order to gain a better understanding of
the two factors for obtaining optimal cost and time in
cutting operation. From the conducted examinations
following conclusions are derived:
1) From the statistical analyses, the maximum effect
on the force required is based on the cutting speed
that is being used. This is clearly seen from the
table 3 which shows the value of A. against a 0.029
which corresponds to the factor namely cutting
speed.
2) Similarly for SR., the second order quadratic of
product of depth of cut has the most effect on the
surface roughness of the MMC that is undergoing
the turning process.
3) The results obtained in the experiment were found
to be in proper agreement with the values predicted
in the model. This demonstrates that to obtain a
maximum amount of information with the least
number of experiments, RSM and BBD can be
successfully applied for modelling and optimizing
the machining process.
[3 ] Bandyopadhyay. B.P. and Teo E.H. 1990. Application of factorial
design of experiment in high speed turning. Proc. Manuf. Int. Part
4,Advances in Materials & Automation, Atlanta, GA,USA,
ASME, NY, pp. 3-8.
[4 ] Palanikumar, L, Karunamoorthy.R, Karthikeyan.I. 2006.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Assessment of factors influencing surface roughness on the
machining of glass-reinforced polymer composites, Journal of
Materials and Design, Vol. 27, pp. 862-871.S.
[5 ] Thamizhmanii, B. Omar B., Saparudin S. and Hasan S. 2008.
Surface roughness analyses on hard martensitic stainless steel by
turning, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing,
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 139-142.
[6 ] Bouacha K., Yallese M.A., Mabrouki T., Rigal J.-F., 2010,
Statistical analysis of surface roughness and cutting forces using
response surface methodology in hard turning of AISI 52100
bearing steel with CBN tool, International Journal of Refractory
Metals & Hard Materials 28, pp.349361.
[7 ] W H Yang and Y S Tarng. Design Optimisation of Cutting
Parameters for Turning Operations based on the Taguchi
Method. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol 84,
1998, p 122.
[8 ] Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL. Statistical design and analysis of
experiments with applications to engineering and science. 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2003.
[9 ] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 5th ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001. p. 427-510.
[10 ] Box GEP, Hunter JS. Multi-factor experimental designs for
exploring response surfaces. Ann. Math. Statist. 1957;28:195241.
[11 ] Kwak J.-S., Sim S.-B., Jeong Y.-D., 2006. An analysis of grinding
power and surface roughness in external cylindrical grinding of
hardened SCM440 steel using the response surface method,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture Vol. 46,
pp.304312.

286