Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515
DOI 10.1007/s00170-009-2118-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gray relational analysis of performance characteristics
in MQL milling of 7075 Al alloy
Nihat Tosun & Hasim Pihtili
Received: 9 December 2008 / Accepted: 18 May 2009 / Published online: 3 June 2009
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009
Abstract This paper presents the optimization of the face
milling process of 7075 aluminum alloy by using the gray
relational analysis for both cooling techniques of conven-
tional cooling and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL),
considering the performance characteristics such as surface
roughness and material removal rate. Experiments were
performed under different cutting conditions, such as
spindle speed, feed rate, cooling technique, and cutting
tool material. The cutting fluid in MQL machining was
supplied to the interface of work piece and cutting tool as
pulverize. An orthogonal array was used for the experi-
mental design. Optimum machining parameters were
determined by the gray relational grade obtained from the
gray relational analysis.
Keywords MQL . Milling . Surface roughness . MRR . Gray
relational analysis . Aluminum
1 Introduction
In a machining process, in order to improve machining
efficiency, reduce the machining cost, and improve the
quality of machined parts, it is necessary to select the most
appropriate machining conditions. The setting of machining
parameters relies strongly on the operator’s experience. It is
difficult to utilize the highest performance of a machine
owing to their being too many adjustable machining
parameters [1]. The higher material removal rate and the
smoother surface are preferred in machining processes.
N. Tosun (*) : H. Pihtili
Mechanical Engineering Department, Firat University,
23119 Elazig, Turkey
e-mail: ntosun@firat.edu.tr
However, the goals of high material removal rate and good
surface finish quality are conflicting. Consequently, no
particular combination of cutting parameters can be
proposed to give simultaneously the best material removal
rate and the best surface roughness. The growing demands
for high productivity of machining require use of high
cutting speed and feed rate. Such machining inherently
produces high cutting temperature, which not only reduces
tool life but also impairs the product quality [2]. Hence, it is
required to develop scientific methods for damage-free and
economic machining of materials. Most of published works
have focused on optimization of parameters for machining
of metals [3–8].
The cost per machined part is a performance measure for
a number of manufacturers. The need to minimize the
manufacturing cost has led to higher demand for increased
manufacturing productivity. Cutting fluids are significant
part of machine operating cost. Cutting fluids are used in
machining to reduce the detrimental effects of heat and
friction on both tool and work piece. Efforts to reduce the
use of cutting fluids in metal cutting are being made from
the viewpoint of cost, ecological and human health [9–14].
Such drawbacks can be reduced or eliminated by
performing the machining operations with minimum quan-
tity lubrication (MQL) or dry cutting (without any cutting
fluid). The MQL technique consists of atomizing a very
small quantity of lubricant in an airflow directed toward the
cutting zone [14]. The minimization of cutting fluid also
leads to economical benefits by the way of saving lubricant
costs and work piece/tool/machine cleaning cycle time [15].
Recently, the application of aluminum and its alloys in
automotive and aerospace industries is widely growing. In
machining of aluminum and its alloys, since they have
highly adhesive characteristics compared with steels, more
effective lubrication is often necessary, though they are not
510 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515

so hard [16]. The cutting fluid for machining aluminum
using traditional coolant-based methods is typically more
costly than for other materials because the coolant must
have a higher concentration of oil in the mixture. Therefore,
MQL would have massive benefits for machining alumi-
num, where dry machining is not appropriate [17]. MQL
machining has caught the attention of researchers and
technicians in the field of machining as an alternative to
traditional fluids [18]. In this study, the gray relational
analysis was used for optimizing the milling process
parameters for the performance characteristics in face
milling by using conventional cooling (CC) and MQL of
7075 aluminum alloy.
2 Experimental studies
2.1 Materials, experiment conditions, and measurements
First, the performance characteristics in the milling process
were considered as surface roughness, material removal rate
(MRR), and burr height. But no burr was formed in the
experiments; thus, the surface roughness and material
removal rate were evaluated throughout this study.
The experimental studies were performed on a vertical
machining center (Lagun Ft-2, Spain), as seen in Fig. 1.
The experiments were conducted under different settings of
spindle speed, feed rate, cooling technique, and cutting tool
material (Table 1). Conventional cooling (flood coolant)
and MQL were used as the cooling technique. MQL was
applied at flow rate of 5 ml/min as CC was applied at flow
rate of 1,000 ml/min. A solution containing boron oil and
water (ratio of boron oil/water=1/10) was used as the
coolant for the both cooling techniques. The cutting fluid in
15 mm
Spindle
Table 1 The machining settings
Level of process Process parameters
parameters
Cooling Tool Spindle Feed rate
type material speed (rpm) (mm/min)
1 MQL HSS 260 20
2 CC TiCN 780 40
3 – Carbide 1,330 80
MQL was pulverized by means of a paint spray gun and
an air compressor at 5 bars and was delivered to the
interface of work piece-cutting tool. One millimeter depth
of cut and 6 mm width of cut were kept constant
throughout the experiments. The cutting process of
experiment specimen is shown in Fig. 2. The study was
carried out on an end mill with 10 mm diameter as cutting
tool and 7075 aluminum alloy with 10 mm thickness as the
work piece material.
The surface roughness (Ra) of the work piece was
measured using a Portable Surface Roughness Tester
(Mitutoyo Surftest SJ-201, Japan). The cutoff length (λc)
of 0.8 mm and the sampling number (λ) of five (traverse
length is 0.8×5=4 mm) were used in the measurements. Ra
measurements were performed in parallel to the cutting
direction of the tool and triplicate from the same surface.
2.2 Design of experiment
A specially designed experimental procedure is required to
evaluate the effects of machining parameters on perfor-
mance characteristics. Conventional experimental design
methods are too complex and difficult to use. Additionally,
large number of experiments has to be carried out when
number of machining parameters increases [7, 19–21].
Normally, the full-factorial design would require 54
experimental runs in this study. However, the effort and
experimental cost for such a design could be prohibitive
and unrealistic. We used Taguchi method, a powerful tool
for parameter design of performance characteristics, to

End mill
Work piece 30

6
1

Paint spray gun

10

120

Fig. 1 Vertical machining center used in the experiments Fig. 2 Milling method of experiment specimen
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515 511

determine optimal machining parameters for minimum
surface roughness and maximum MRR in milling. Taguchi
method proposes to acquire the characteristic data by using
orthogonal arrays and to analyze the performance measure
from the data to decide the optimal process parameters [7,
21, 22]. The method uses a special design of orthogonal
arrays to study the entire parameter space with small
number of experiments only. Four machining parameters
were used as control factors (Table 1). According to the
Taguchi quality design concept, a L18 orthogonal arrays
table with 18 rows (corresponding to the number of
experiments) was chosen for the experiments (Table 2).
required since the range and unit in one data sequence
may differ from the others. In addition, it is a process of
transferring the original sequence to a comparable se-
quence. For data preprocessing in the gray relational
analysis process, “the lower surface roughness and the
higher MRR” are the indication of better performance in
milling process. Then, it has a characteristic of the “higher
is better” if the target value of original sequence is infinite.
The original sequence can be normalized as following [23–
25]:
xoi ðkÞ  min xoi ðkÞ
x
i ðkÞ ¼ ð1Þ
max xoi ðkÞ  min xoi ðkÞ

3 Gray relational analysis and data preprocessing

where i=1,…,m; k=1,…,n. m is the number of experimen-
tal data items and n is the number of parameters. xio(k)
In a complex multivariate system, the relationship among
denotes the original sequence, xi*(k) denotes the sequence
various factors is usually unclear. Such systems are often
after the data preprocessing, max xio(k) denotes the largest
called as “gray” implying poor, incomplete, and uncertain
value of xi(o)(k), min xio(k) denotes the smallest value of
information. Gray relational analysis is an impacting
xio(k), and xo is the desired value.
measurement method in gray system theory that analyzes
When the “lower is better” is a characteristic of the
uncertain relations between one main factor and all the
original sequence, the original sequence should be normal-
other factors in a given system. When experiments are
ized as following [23–25]:
ambiguous or when the experimental method cannot be
carried out exactly, gray analysis helps to compensate for
max xoi ðkÞ  xoi ðkÞ
the shortcomings in statistical regression [22–24]. Data x
i ðkÞ ¼ : ð2Þ
preprocessing in gray relational analysis is normally max xoi ðkÞ  min xoi ðkÞ

In gray relational analysis, the measure of the relevancy

Table 2 Experimental design using L18 orthogonal array between two systems or two sequences is defined as the
gray relational grade. When only one sequence, x0(k), is
Experiment A B C D Ra MRR available as the reference sequence and all other sequences
no. Cooling Tool Spindle Feed (μm) (mm3/min)
type material speed rate
serve as comparison sequences, it is called a local gray
relation measurement. After data preprocessing is carried
1 1 1 1 1 1.12 120 out, the gray relation coefficient ξi(k) for the kth perfor-
2 1 1 2 2 0.95 240 mance characteristics in the ith experiment can be
3 1 1 3 3 0.46 480 expressed as following [23–25]:
4 1 2 1 1 2.25 120
5 1 2 2 2 0.91 240 Δmin þ zΔmax
xi ðkÞ ¼ ð3Þ
6 1 2 3 3 0.83 480 Δ0i ðkÞ þ zΔmax
7 1 3 1 2 1.32 240
8 1 3 2 3 1.05 480 where, ∆0i is the deviation sequence of the reference
9 1 3 3 1 0.31 120 sequence and the comparability sequence.
10 2 1 1 3 1.51 480
11 2 1 2 1 0.42 120


12 2 1 3 2 0.41 240 Δ0i ¼
x
0 ðkÞ  x
i ðkÞ
ð4Þ
13 2 2 1 2 3.09 240
14 2 2 2 3 1.77 480





15 2 2 3 1 0.41 120 Δmin ¼ min min
x
0 ðkÞ  x
j ðkÞ
ð5Þ
8j2i 8k
16 2 3 1 3 1.57 480
17 2 3 2 1 0.27 120





18 2 3 3 2 0.39 240 Δmax ¼ max max
x
0 ðkÞ  x
j ðkÞ
: ð6Þ
8j2i 8k
512 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515

Table 3 The sequences after data preprocessing for performance x0*(k) denotes the reference sequence and xi*(k) denotes
characteristics
the comparability sequence. ζ is distinguishing or identifi-
Experiment no. Comparability sequencea Deviation sequences cation coefficient: ζ ∈ [0,1] (the value may be adjusted
based on the actual system requirements). A value of ζ is
Ra MRR Ra MRR the smaller and the distinguished ability is the larger. ζ=0.5
1 0.6986 0 0.3014 1.0000
is generally used.
2 0.7589 0.3333 0.2411 0.6667
After the gray relational coefficient is derived, it is usual
3 0.9326 1.0000 0.0674 0
to take the average value of the gray relational coefficients
as the gray relational grade [23–25]. The gray relational
4 0.2979 0 0.7021 1.0000
grade is defined as following:
5 0.7730 0.3333 0.2270 0.6667
6 0.8014 1.0000 0.1986 0
1X n
7 0.6277 0.3333 0.3723 0.6667 gi ¼ x ðkÞ ð7Þ
8 0.7234 1.0000 0.2766 0 n k¼1 i
9 0.9858 0 0.0142 1.0000
10 0.5603 1.0000 0.4397 0 However, in a real engineering system, the importance of
11 0.9468 0 0.0532 1.0000 various factors to the system varies. In the real condition of
12 0.9504 0.3333 0.0496 0.6667 unequal weight being carried by the various factors, the
13 0 0.3333 1.0000 0.6667 gray relational grade in Eq. 7 was extended and defined as
14 0.4681 1.0000 0.5319 0 follows [23, 25]:
15 0.9504 0 0.0496 1.0000
1X n X
n
16 0.5390 1.0000 0.4610 0 gi ¼ wk xi ðkÞ wk ¼ 1 ð8Þ
n k¼1 k¼1
17 1.0000 0 0 1.0000
18 0.9574 0.3333 0.0426 0.6667 where wk denotes the normalized weight of factor k.
a
Reference sequence for Ra and MRR=1.0000
The gray relational grade γi represents the level of
correlation between the reference sequence and the compa-
rability sequence. The value of gray relational grade is equal
to 1 if the two sequences are identically coincidence [24].

Table 4 The calculated gray

relational coefficient and gray Experiment no. A B C D Gray relational coefficient Gray relational grade Orders
relational grade for 18 compa-
rability sequences Ra (μm) MRR (mm3/min)

1 1 1 1 1 0.6239 0.3333 0.2393 16

2 1 1 2 2 0.6746 0.4286 0.2758 14
3 1 1 3 3 0.8813 1.0000 0.4703 1
4 1 2 1 1 0.4159 0.3333 0.1873 18
5 1 2 2 2 0.6878 0.4286 0.2791 13
6 1 2 3 3 0.7157 1.0000 0.4289 2
7 1 3 1 2 0.5732 0.4286 0.2504 15
8 1 3 2 3 0.6438 1.0000 0.4110 3
9 1 3 3 1 0.9724 0.3333 0.3264 10
10 2 1 1 3 0.5321 1.0000 0.3830 4
11 2 1 2 1 0.9038 0.3333 0.3093 12
12 2 1 3 2 0.9097 0.4286 0.3346 8
13 2 2 1 2 0.3333 0.4286 0.1905 17
14 2 2 2 3 0.4845 1.0000 0.3711 6
15 2 2 3 1 0.9097 0.3333 0.3108 11
16 2 3 1 3 0.5203 1.0000 0.3801 5
17 2 3 2 1 1.0000 0.3333 0.3333 9
18 2 3 3 2 0.9216 0.4286 0.3375 7
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515 513

0,5 0,5

Gray relational grade 0,4

Gray relational grade

0,4

0,3
0,3

0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
Experiment number

A1
A2

3
B1
B2

1
2
3

1
2
3
B

C
C
C

D
D
D
Fig. 3 Gray relations grades for the multiperformance Milling parameter level

Fig. 4 Effect of milling parameter levels on the multiperformance

4 Results and discussion
In machining operations, minimum surface roughness and
maximum MRR are an indication of better performance.
For data preprocessing in the gray relational analysis
process, surface roughness and MRR were taken as the
“lower is better” and the “higher is better”, respectively. Let
the results of 18 experiments be the comparability sequen-
ces xio(k), i=1–18, k=1. All the sequences after data
preprocessing using Eqs. 1 and 2 are listed in Table 3 and
denoted as x0*(k) and xi*(k) for reference sequence and
comparability sequence, respectively. Table 3 presents the
same calculation method performed for i=1–18 and the
results of all deviation sequences for i=1–18.
The distinguishing coefficient ζ can be substituted into
Eq. 3 to produce the gray relational coefficient. The gray
relational coefficients and grade values for each experiment
of the L18 orthogonal array were calculated by applying the
Eqs. 3–8 (Table 4). According to the performed experi-
mental design, it is clearly observed from Table 4 and Fig. 3
that the milling parameters’ setting of run 3 has the highest
gray relational grade. Therefore, run 3 is the optimal
machining parameters’ setting for minimum surface rough-
ness and maximum MRR simultaneously (i.e., the best
multiperformance characteristics) among the 18 runs.
In addition to the determination of optimum milling
parameters for surface roughness and MRR, the response
table of Taguchi method was used to calculate the average
gray relational grade for each level of the milling
parameters. The procedure includes the gray relational
grades with factor level for each column in the orthogonal
array and the average of them. The gray relational grade
values for each level of the milling parameters were
calculated using the same method (Table 5). The greater
value of the gray relational grade means that the compara-
bility sequence has a stronger correlation to the reference
sequence [24]. In other words, regardless of category of the
performance characteristics, a greater gray relational grade
value corresponds to better performance [1]. Therefore, the
optimal level of the machining parameters is the level with
the greatest gray relational grade value. The optimal
machining performance for both the minimum surface
roughness and the maximum MRR was obtained for
conventional cooling technique, carbide end mill,
1,330 rpm spindle speed, and 80 mm/min feed rate
combination. The optimal milling parameter levels can be
shortly given as A1, B3, C3, and D3. Figure 4 indicates the
effect of milling parameters on the multiperformance
characteristics (the surface roughness and the MRR) and
the response graph of each level of the milling parameters
for the performance. The greater values in Fig. 4 give the
high MRR and good surface finish quality.
As listed in Table 5, the differences between the
maximum and the minimum value of the gray relational

Table 5 The response table for

gray relational grade Milling parameters Average gray relational grade by factor level Max-Min

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

A 0.3187 0.3277a – 0.0090

B 0.3353 0.2946 0.3397a 0.0451
C 0.2717 0.3299 0.3680a 0.0963
a
D 0.2844 0.2779 0.4074a 0.1295
Optimum level
514
grade of the milling parameters were as follows: 0.0090 for
cooling technique, 0.0451 for tool material, 0.0963 for
speed, and 0.1295 for feed rate. The most effective factor
on performance characteristics was determined by compar-
ing these values. This comparison presents the level of
significance of the controllable factors over the multi-
performance characteristics. The most effective controllable
factor was the maximum of these values. Here, the
maximum value among the max–min values is 0.1295.
The value demonstrated that the feed rate has the strongest
effect on the multiperformance characteristics among the
other milling parameters. On the other hand, the role that
every controllable factor plays over the multiperformance
characteristics can be obtained by examining these values.
The order of importance of the controllable factors on the
multiperformance characteristics in the milling operation
can be listed as factors D (feed rate), C (spindle speed), B
(tool material), and A (cooling technique; i.e., 0.1295>
0.0963>0.0451>0.0090). As factor D (feed rate) was the
most effective factor on the multiperformance, factor A
(cooling technique) was less effective on the multiperform-
ance. This indicates that the milling performance was
strongly affected by the feed rate. The drawbacks from
the viewpoint of cost, ecological and human health can be
reduced or eliminated by performing the machining
operations with MQL instead of conventional cooling since
factor A (cooling technique) is less effective on the
multiperformance.
5 Conclusion
The gray relational analysis based on the Taguchi method's
response table was conducted as a way of studying the
optimization of milling process factor level. The minimum
surface roughness and the maximum MRR were selected to
be the quality targets. From the response table of the average
gray relational grade, the largest value of gray relational
grade for the milling parameters was found. The feed rate
was the strongest factor among the other milling parameters
used on the multiperformance characteristics. The impor-
tance of the controllable factors on the multiperformance
characteristics was in order of feed rate > cutting speed >
tool material > cooling technique. The study indicated
clearly that the gray relational analysis accomplished
effectively the optimization of surface roughness and MRR
in the milling operation at multiple quality requests.
References
1. Tosun N (2006) Determination of optimum parameters for multi
performance characteristics in drilling by using grey relational
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515
analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(5–6):450–455. doi:10.1007/
s00170-004-2386-y
2. Dhar NR, Kamruzzaman M, Ahmed M (2006) Effect of minimum
quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear and surface roughness in
turning AISI-4340 steel. J Mater Process Technol 172:299–304.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.09.022
3. Taylor FW (1907) On the art of cutting metals. Trans ASME
28:31–58
4. Bhattacharyya A, Faria-Gonzalez R, Ham I (1970) Regression
analysis for predicting surface finish and its application in the
determination of optimum machining conditions. J Eng Ind 92
(3):711–714
5. Ermer DS (1971) Optimization of the constrained machining
economics problem by geometric programming. J Eng Ind
93:1067–1072
6. Davim JP, Antonio CAC (2001) Optimal drilling of particulate
metal matrix composites based on experimental and numerical
procedures. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41(1):21–31. doi:10.1016/
S0890-6955(00)00071-7
7. Tosun N, Cogun C, Tosun G (2004) A study on kerf and material
removal rate in wire electrical discharge machining based on
Taguchi method. J Mater Process Technol 152:316–322.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.373
8. Iqbal A, Ning H, Khan I, Liang L, Dar NU (2008) Modeling the
effects of cutting parameters in MQL-employed finish hard-
milling process using D-optimal method. J Mater Process Technol
199(1–3):379–390. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.08.029
9. Klocke F, Eisenblatter G (1997) Dry cutting. Ann CIRP 46
(2):519–526. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60877-4
10. De Lacalle LNL, Lamikiz A, Sanchez JA, Cabanes I (2001)
Cutting conditions and tool optimization in the high-speed milling
of aluminium alloys. Proc IMechE Part B 215:1257–1269.
doi:10.1243/0954405011519312
11. Rahman M, Kumar SA, Salam MU (2002) Experimental
evaluation on the effect of minimal quantities of lubricant in
milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:539–547. doi:10.1016/S0890-
6955(01)00160-2
12. Itoigawa F, Childs THC, Nakamura T, Belluco W (2006) Effects and
mechanisms in minimal quantity lubrication machining of an
a l u m i n u m a l l o y. Wea r 2 6 0 : 3 3 9 – 34 4 . d o i :1 0 . 1 01 6 / j .
wear.2005.03.035
13. Braga DU, Diniz AE, Miranda GWA, Coppini NL (2002)
Using a minimum quantity of lubricant (MQL) and a diamond
coated tool in the drilling of aluminum–silicon alloys. J Mater
Process Technol 122:127–138. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(01)
01249-3
14. Bruni C, Forcellese A, Gabrielli F, Simoncini M (2006) Effect of
the lubrication-cooling technique, insert technology and machine
bed material on the workpart surface finish and tool wear in finish
turning of AISI 420B. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:1547–1554.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.09.007
15. Dhar NR, Ahmed MT, Islam S (2007) An experimental
investigation on effect of minimum quantity lubrication in
machining AISI 1040 steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:748–
753. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.09.017
16. Wakabayashi T, Suda S, Inasaki I, Terasaka K, Musha Y, Toda Y
(2007) Tribological action and cutting performance of MQL
media in machining of aluminum. Ann CIRP 56(1):97–100.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.05.025
17. Fielding Z (2004) Minimum quantity lubrication. www.ferret.com.au
18. Da Silva LR, Bianchi EC, Fusse RY, Catai RE, França TV, Aguiar
PR (2007) Analysis of surface integrity for minimum quantity
lubricant-MQL in grinding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(2):412–
418. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.03.015
19. Chua MS, Rahman M, Wong YS, Loh HT (1993) Determination
of optimal cutting conditions using design of experiments and
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 46:509–515
optimization techniques. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 33(2):297–305.
doi:10.1016/0890-6955(93)90081-5
20. Lin TR (2002) Optimization technique for face milling
stainless steel with multiple performance characteristics. Int
J A d v M a n u f Te c h n o l 1 9 : 3 3 0 – 3 3 5 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 /
s001700200021
21. Lee SH, Lee SH (2003) Optimization of cutting parameters for
burr minimization in face-milling operations. Int J Prod Res 41
(3):497–511. doi:10.1080/0020754021000042382
22. Ross PJ (1996) Taquchi techniques for quality engineering, 3rd
edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
515
23. Lin ZC, Ho CY (2003) Analysis and application of grey relation
and ANOVA in chemical–mechanical polishing process parame-
ters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21:10–14. doi:10.1007/
s001700300001
24. Fung CP (2003) Manufacturing process optimization for wear
property of fiber-reinforced polybutylene terephthalate composites
with grey relational analysis. Wear 254:298–306. doi:10.1016/
S0043-1648(03)00013-9
25. Lo SP (2002) The application of an ANFIS and grey system
method in turning tool-failure detection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
19:564–572. doi:10.1007/s001700200061