of abrasive water jet machining of die steel

Guided by Dr. D. I. Lalwani Asso.Prof., MED Presented by Ankush Sharma P11CC044 M.Tech.(CAD/CAM)

A DISSERTATION PRELIMINARIES PRESENTATION Experimental investigation on

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering

Overview
Introduction of Nonconventional Machining Classification of nonconventional machining process Introduction of AWJM Working principle Process Parameters Advantages of AWJM Literature Review Outcome of Literature review Objective Work done in the present semester Work plan for the next semester Resources available

References

Introduction of Nonconventional Machining

Conventional machining processes, such as turning, grinding,
drilling, milling, etc., remove material by chip formation, abrasion, or micro-chipping. However, there are situations,

where these processes are not satisfactory, economical, or even

possible, for the following reasons Difficult to cut new material shape complexity of workpiece surface integrity requirement

precision required and

miniaturization of parts
3

These

requirements

have

led

to

the

development

Cont..

of

nonconventional machining processes.

Nonconventional machining process may be defined as A

group of processes that remove excess material in order to obtain desired shape, size and surface integrity by various

techniques

involving

mechanical,

thermal,

electrical,

or

chemical energy (or combinations of these energies) but do not use a sharp cutting tool in the conventional sense.(Groover, 2010)

Classification of nonconventional machining process

According to nature of energy employed in machining, Nonconventional machining processes are classified into the following groups:

Figure : Non-traditional machining processes (El-Hofy, 2005).

Introduction of AWJM
Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) is a new nonconventional material removal technology, which is

increasingly used in industry .

AWJM use the principles of both abrasive jet machining and water jet machining.

In AWJM material is removed by impact erosion of high

pressure high velocity of water and entrained high velocity of grit abrasives on a workpiece. The AWJM process is a high-potential process applicable to both metals as well as non-metals .
6

Cont..
AWJ offers a productive alternative to conventional techniques.

Figure: Injection abrasive water jet cutting head and relevant parameters (Momber and Kovacevic, 1997)

Working principle

8 Figure: Schematic of an AWJM system (Shanmugama and Masood,

Process Parameters
The performance of AWJM depends upon number of process parameters and can be classified into two categories: the input parameters and output parameters.

Figure: Process parameters influencing the AWJ machining process

Advantages of AWJM
High machining versatility Simple holding fixture No thermal distortions (No heat generated during machining) Environmentally Friendly

Good surface quality

Extremely fast setup and programming No tool changing Availability

10

Literature Review
In order to understand the current state and development in AWJ machining, an extensive literature review is carried out.

Organization of literature review is based on

Literature review surface character istics kerf character istics effect of process parameters

enhanceme nt of performanc e

Modeling

Grid embedme nt

11

Cont..
Surface characteristics
Abrasive waterjet cutting is a novel machining process capable
of processing wide range of hard-to-cut materials. Surface roughness of machined parts is one of the major machining characteristics that play an important role in determining the quality of engineering components. Surface roughness is one of the most important criteria, which help us determine how rough a workpiece material is machined.

12

Cont..
Pon selvan et al. (2012) measured the influence of process parameters on surface roughness (Ra) which is a important cutting performance in abrasive water jet cutting of aluminium. Taguchis design of experiments was carried out in order to

collect surface roughness values.

Experiments were conducted for cutting aluminium using abrasive water jet cutting process and the effects of different

operational parameters, such as: pressure, abrasive flow rate,

traverse speed and nozzle SOD on surface roughness have been investigated.
13

Cont..
As a result of this study, it is observed that these operational

parameters have direct effect on surface roughness and

following result has been made as shown in graphs.

(a): Water pressure versus surface roughness

(b): Abrasive mass flow rate 14 versus surface roughness.

Cont..

(c): Traverse speed versus surface roughness

(d): Standoff distance versus surface roughness.

15

 Azmir et al. (2009) had done study on the effect of AWJM process parameters on surface roughness (Ra) and kerf taper ratio (TR) of aramid fibre reinforced plastics (AFRP) composite.

effects of different operational parameters, such as: pressure, abrasive

flow rate, traverse speed and nozzle SOD on surface roughness have been investigated.

Taguchis design of experiment was used as the experimental approach.

The effect of machining parameters investigated through the analysis of variance (ANOVA).

They have been studied that increasing the kinetic energy of water jet
may produce a better quality of cuts.
16

Effect of machining parameters on Surface roughness (Ra)

17

Effect of machining parameters on kerf taper ration (TR)

18

Cont..
Material and Sr.no. Author (s) abrasive used 1 Arola and Al 7075-T6, AISI Ramulu, 4340, 1970 molybdenum, Mone1400, AIS1304, Ti6Ai4V Abrasive: Garnet 2 Chen and Alumina ceramic, Siores, 2003 perpex, mild steel, aluminium Abrasive: Garnet #60 Parameters depth of plastic deformation, surface texture Aim Determine the influence of material properties on the surface integrity and texture. Relationship between striation formation and abrasive particle kinetic energy distribution related to the cut surface 19 is investigated.

Depth of cut, stand-off distance, pressure, jet diameter.

Cont..
3 Akkurt et al. ,2004 Pure aluminium, Surface roughness, feed Effects of cutting Al-6061, brass-353 rate speed on the (+ brass), AISI roughness of cut 1030 and AISI 304 surface were steel. experimentally investigated. pure titanium Jet pressure, standoff The surface (cpTi) distance, traverse texture and Abrasive: speed, abrasive size, material removal Aluminium oxide, abrasive hardness, rate were garnet, and abrasive flow rate, and Analyzed. crushed glass angle of incidence. abrasives Aluminium Cutting parameters: Effect of cutting Abrasive: Garnet SOD, work feed rate variables on the #80 and jet pressure. quality of surface evaluating parameter: produced has surface roughness, been investigated 20 width of cut, taper of cut

Arola and Hall, 2004

Khan et al., 2005

Cont..
6 Shipway et al., 2005 Variable parameters: Traverse speed, size of the garnet abrasive particles, water jet pressure, and jet impingement angle. Constant parameters: abrasive flow rate, SOD Output parameters: surface roughness, waviness and level of grit embedment. Azmir and glass fibre Input parameters: Ahsan, 2008 reinforced abrasive materials, epoxy composites hydraulic pressure, Abrasive: Garnet standoff distance, and Aluminium abrasive mass flow rate oxide and traverse rate Ti6Al4V Abrasive: Garnet Abrasive water jet milling behaviour of Ti6Al4V investigated.

Influence of AWJM process parameters on surface roughness investigated. Taguchis DOE 21

Cont..
8 Azmir et al., 2009 Input parameters: Investigated the Pressure, Abrasive flow effect of AWJM rate, SOD, traverse rate. process Output parameters: parameters on surface roughness and surface roughness kerf taper ratio. and kerf taper ratio. Taguchis DOE was used. Hlavc et al., Various samples of Constant : Pressure, Cut quality 2009 materials with orifice diameter, SOD, investigated. known and focusing tube diameter, unknown focusing tube length, properties (copper, abrasive mass flow rate, steel, marble, etc.). angle of impact Abrasive: Garnet# Variable: material 80 thickness, traverse 22 Aramid fibre reinforced plastics (AFRP) composite Abrasive: Garnet# 80

Cont..
10 Akkurt, 2010 Brass-353 Abrasive: Garnet# 80 depth of cut, feed rate, Effects of deflection of cutting material edge geometry thickness on the AWJ cut surface roughness were investigated. Pressure, abrasive Influence of flow rate, traverse process speed, SOD parameter on Constant variable: jet surface impact angle, orifice roughness has diameter, nozzle been length, nozzle investigated. diameter.
23

11

Pon selvan et al., 2012

Aluminium Abrasive: Garnet# 80

Cont..
As AISI H13 is a special alloy steel and categorized as

chromium tool steel. It possesses good resistance to thermal

softening, high hardenability, high strength and high

toughness; therefore, it is well suited for hot work applications

involving very high loads. AISI H13 has been applied widely to
produce many kinds of hot work dies, such as forging dies, extrusion dies and die-casting dies. Therefore, AISI H13 is selected for the further research work.
24

Kerf Characteristics
Kerf geometry is a characteristic of major interest in abrasive water jet cutting. Abrasive water jets generally open a tapered slot with the top being wider than the bottom. Kerf taper is defined as a half of the kerf width variation per millimetre of depth of cut (or penetration).

Figure: Schematic representation of kerf geometry (Wang and Wong, 25 1999)

Cont..
Sr.no. 1 Author (s) Hocheng and Cheng, 1994 Material and abrasive used Ceramicaluminium oxide and silicon nitride Abrasive: Garnet# 80,100 Parameters Input parameters: Pressure, abrasive flow rate, traverse speed, abrasive size Output parameters: kerf width , taper ratio, MRR Input parameters: pressure, traverse speed, flow rate, SOD Output parameters: kerf depth, kerf quality and kerf width Aim Machinability of ceramic plates investigated.

Chen et Alumina ceramic al., 1996 Abrasive: Idaho Garnet# 80

Investigated the cutting quality of specimen.

26

Cont..
3 Wang and metallic coated Wong, sheet steels 1999 (Zincalume G300) Abrasive: Almandite garnet# 80 water pressure, traverse speed, abrasive flow rate and SOD Cutting performance of specimen investigated. Formed an empirical relationship using regression analysis. Kerf characteristic investigated.

Gudimetla Alumina ceramics et al., 2002

Ma and Deam, 2006

Acrylic Plastic Abrasive: Garnet# 100

Water pressure; abrasive flow rate, traverse speed and the jet impingement angle. Variable parameter: Traverse speed. Constant parameters: water jet pressure,

Optimum speed for achieving the straightest cutting edge was found. 27

Cont..

Chatterje Aluminum, marble e et al., Stainless steel, 2011 sand stone Abrasive: SiC# 80 Maros, AlMgSi0.5 2012 aluminium Alloy Abrasive: Garnet# 80

Variable parameter : Kept other Traverse speed parameters constant.

Variable parameters: Kept other water pressure, parameters abrasive mass flow constant. rate, feed rate.

28

Methods enhancing performance of AWJM.

Sr.no Material and Author (s) Parameters . abrasive used 1 Siores et Ceramic Variable parameters: al., 1996 Abrasive: pressure, flow rate Garnet# 80 ,traverse speed, SOD 2 Deam et al., Pressure, flow rate, 2004 Travers speed Aim Cutting head oscillation technique has been applied. Developed a model for predicting the shape of cut profile.

29

Hlav, 2009

Output parameter: Cut quality

Rahman, Ceramic Abrasive flow rate, 2010 Abrasive: Garnet# Traverse speed. 80 Output parameters: Depth of cut Srinivas et al., 2012 Aluminium-silicon pressure, jet traverse carbide particulate speed, abrasive mass metal flow rate matrix composites Abrasive: Garnet and SiC# 80

Theoretical model has been developed also performed experiments. developed an abrasive water jet model for cutting brittle materials Combined effects of process parameters on penetration ability was analyzed by means of analysis of variance., Kept other 30

FE modelling
Sr. no. Author (s) Material and abrasive used Parameters Aim

EI-Domiaty and Rahman. 1997

Guo et al., 2000

Ceramic Abrasive: Garnet# 80

Jet Pressure, Traverse speed, flow rate, jet dia. Predicted maximum depth of cut

Developed a model for cutting brittle material and validate result from previous work.
FEA modelling has been done and compare result with experiment.

Polycarbonate and alumina

31

Cont..
3 Hassan and Kosmol, 2001 Low carbon steel Travers rate, St3S pressure, abrasive Abrasive: flow rate Garnet# 80 Developed FE model to predict depth of cut without any cutting experiment. CFD analysis has been done

Liu et al., 2004

Different boundary conditions were provided. Junkar et al., Stainless steel Particle velocity at Shape of carter on 2006 1.4301(AISI 304) impact , impact angle workpiece material Abrasive: were observed. Garnet# 80 FEA has been done. Kumar and Titanium alloy Ti- Velocity, impact FEA has been done Shukla, 2012 6Al-4V angle to identify the behaviour of 32

Grit embedment
Sr.no Author (s) . 1 Chen et al., 1996 2 Fowler et al., 2005 Material and abrasive used Mild steel Parameters Aim Depth of cut, traverse speed, pump pressure Titanium alloy traverse speed, jet (Ti6Al4V) impingement angle, Abrasive: Garnet milling direction and grit size

Boud et al., 2005

Titanium alloy, Ti6Al4V Abrasive: Garnet# 80

variable traverse speed Kept other parameters contant.

Surface morphology and degree of grit embedment investigated for the milling. Kept other parameters constant. Two traverse speed used for cutting.
33

Outcome of Literature review

The influence of process parameters on surface

characteristics and material removal rate AWJM is still in at

experimental stage. A number of research studies have been carried out and feasibility of the process is well established. From the literature review, it was seen that many work has been carried out on ferrous and non ferrous materials such as

ceramics, composites, titanium and its alloy, aluminium and its

alloy, glass, steel and its alloy using abrasive water jet machining but very less work has been carried out on surface

characteristics of die steel (AISI H13).

34

Objective
To study and investigate the effect of process parameters such as water pressure, nozzle traverse speed, abrasive mass flow rates, stand-off distance on the surface

characteristics. A suitable Design of Experiment (DoE) will be selected to conduct the experiments and relative significance of all

selected parameters and their interaction will be determined.

Regression models of surface characteristics will be

developed using response surface method.

35

Work done in the present semester

Detailed literature review was carried out to study, understand and find the gaps in the area of AWJM. Affecting process parameters of AWJM (water pressure, nozzle traverse speed, abrasive mass flow rates, stand-off distance ) were identified to conduct the experiments. AISI H13 (die steel) material is chosen based on the literature review. Further, the supplier of AISI H13 steel is also finalized. Practice on available AWJ machine is completed for conducting the experiments in the next semester.

36

Work plan for the next semester

Material will be procured and the size of specimen will be decided.

Design of experiment will be studied and suitable design for

conducting the experiments will be finalized. Lower and upper bound of process parameter will be decided. The experimental and theoretical studies will be carried out to investigate the effects of process parameters on the surface

characteristic.
37

Cont
A suitable Design of Experiment (DoE) will be selected and

relative significance of all selected parameters and their

interaction will be determined. Regression models of surface characteristics will be

developed using response surface method and significance of each parameter and their interaction will be studied.

Two papers will be published.

38

Resources available

Abrasive water jet machine (Ainnovative International Ltd.)

Surface roughness
tester (Mitutoyo)

39

References
Akkurt,A., Kulekci, M.K., Seker, U., and Ercan, F., 2004. Effect of feed rate on surface roughness in abrasive waterjet cutting applications. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 147, 389396. Akkurt, A., 2010 . Cut Front Geometry Characterization in Cutting Applications of Brass with Abrasive Water Jet. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 19(4), 599 606

Arola, D., Ramulu, M., 1997. Material removal in abrasive water jet machining of metals Surface integrity and texture. Wear 210, 50-58.
Arola, D., Hall, C.L., 2004. Parametric effects on particle deposition in abrasive waterjet Surface Treatments. Machining Science and Technology 8 (2), 171192. Azaad, S.G., 2006. Abrasive Water Jet Machining on Aluminium and Copper . M.E. thesis, Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi. Azmir, M.A., Ahsan, A.K., 2008. Investigation on glass/epoxy composite surfaces machined by abrasive water jet machining. Journal of materials processing technology 198, 122128.

Azmir, M.A., Ahsan, A.K., Rahmah, A., 2009. Effect of abrasive water jet machining parameters on aramid fibre reinforced plastics composite. International Journal of Material 40 Forming 2, 3744.

Birtu, C., Avramescu, V., 2012. Abrasive Water Jet Cutting - Technique, Equipment, Performances. Nonconventional Technologies Review Romanian, Association of Nonconventional Technologies, 40-46. Boothroyd, G., Knight, W.A., 2011. Fundamentals of machining and machine tools. third edition, Taylor & Francis, CRC press. Boud, F., Carpenter, C., Folkes, J., Shipway, P.H., 2010. Abrasive waterjet cutting of a titanium alloy: The influence of abrasive morphology and mechanical properties on workpiece grit embedment and cut quality. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210, 21972205. Chatterjee, M.M., Modi, B.A., Hansaliya, A., 2011. Effects of traverse speed on the kerf characteristics in ductile and brittle material in abrasive water jet machining. International Conference on current trend in technology, NUICONE 2011, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, 08-10 December, 1-6.

Chen, L., Siores, E., Wong, W.C.K., 1996. Kerf characteristics in abrasive waterjet cutting of ceramic materials. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 36 (11), 1201-1206.
Chen, F.L., Siores, E., Patel, K., Momber, A.W., 2002. Minimising particle contamination at abrasive waterjet machined surfaces by a nozzle oscillation technique. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42, 13851390.
41

Chen, F.L., Siores, E., 2003. The effect of cutting jet variation on surface striation formation in abrasive water jet cutting. Journal of Material Processing Technology 135, 1-5. Ciglar, D., Udiljak, T., kori, S., Staroveki, T., Mulc, T., 2009. Influence of abrasive flow Rate on surface quality in abrasive water jet cutting. 13th International Research/Expert Conference, Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology, Hammamet, 16-21 October, Tunisia, 793-796. Deam, R.T., Lemma, E., Ahmed, D.H., 2004. Modelling of the abrasive water jet cutting process. Wear 257, 877891. EI-Domiaty, A. A., Rahman, A.A.A., 1997. Fracture Mechanics-Based Model of Abrasive Waterjet Cutting for Brittle Materials. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 13, 172-181. El-Hofy, H., 2005. Advanced machining processes. McGraw-Hill publisher. Fowler, G., Shipway, P.H., Pashby, I.R., 2005. A technical note on grit embedment following abrasive water-jet milling of a titanium alloy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 159, 356368. Groover, M.P., 2010. Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing, Update: Materials, Processes, and Systems .Edition 2, Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, 628. Gudimetla, P., Wang, J., Wong, W., 2002. Kerf formation analysis in the abrasive waterjet cutting of industrial ceramics. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 128, 123129.
42

Guo,Z., Ramulu,M., Jenkins, M.G., 2000. Analysis of the waterjet contact/impact on target material. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 33, 121-139. Hascalik, A., Caydas, U., Gr, H., 2007. Effect of traverse speed on abrasive waterjet machining of Ti6Al4V alloy. Materials and Design 28, 19531957. Hassan, A.I., Kosmol, J., 2001. Dynamic elasticplastic analysis of 3D deformation in abrasive waterjet machining. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 113, 337341.

Hocheng, H., Chang, K.R., 1994. Material removal analysis in abrasive water jet cutting of ceramic plates. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 40, 287-304.
Hlav, L.M., Hlavov, I.M., Gembalov, L., Kaliinsk, J., Fabian, S., Mnek, J., Kmec, J., Mdr, V., 2009. Experimental method for the investigation of the abrasive water jet cutting quality. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209, 61906195. Hlav, L.M., 2009. Investigation of the abrasive water jet trajectory curvature inside the kerf. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209, 41544161. Jain, V.K., 2008. Machining Advanced (Non-traditional) Machining Processes. IN: J. Paulo Davim, Machining: fundamentals and recent advances, Springer-Verlag London Limited, London, 299-327 Jankovi, P., Radovanovi, M., 2008. Correlation of cutting data by abrasive water jet. Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, annals of the Oradea University VII (XVII), 1528-1533. Jankovi, P., Radovanovi, M., Barali, J., 2011. Cut quality in abrasive water jet cutting.
43

Jegaraj, J.J.R., Babu, N.R., 2005. A strategy for efficient and quality cutting of materials with abrasive waterjets considering the variation in orifice and focusing nozzle diameter. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45, 14431450.
Junkar, M., Jurisevic, B., Fajdiga, M., Grah, M., 2006. Finite element analysis of singleparticle impact in abrasive water jet machining. International Journal of Impact Engineering 32, 10951112. Khan, A.A., Haque, M.M., 2007. Performance of different abrasive materials during abrasive water jet machining of glass. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 191, 404-407. Khan,A.A., Noraziaty,B.M., Tajudin,B.H., 2005. A study on abrasive water jet machining of Aluminium with garnet abrasives. Journal of applied sciences 5(9), 1650-1654. Kovacevic, R., Hashish, M., Mohan, R., Ramulu, M., Kim, T. J., Geskin, E. S., 1997. State of the Art of Research and Development in Abrasive Water jet Machining. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 119, 776-785.

Krar, S., Gill,A., 2003. Exploring advanced manufacturing Technologies. Industrial press, 6-3-5.
Kumar, N., Shukla, M., 2012. Finite element analysis of multi-particle impact on erosion in abrasive water jet machining of titanium alloy. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 236, 46004610.
44

Kun-Bodnar, K., Maros, Zs, 2011. Cutting of Aluminium Alloy by Abrasive Water Jet.

Liu, H., Wang, J., Kelson, N., Brown, R.J., 2004. A study of abrasive waterjet characteristics by CFD simulation. Journal of Material Processing Technology 153-154, 488-493. Ma, C., Deam, R.T., 2006. A correlation for predicting the kerf profile from abrasive water jet cutting. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 30, 337343. Maros, Z., 2012. Taper of cut at abrasive water jet cutting of an aluminium alloy. Production Processes and Systems 5(1), 55-60. Momber, A.W., Kovacevic, R., 1997. Test Parameter Analysis in Abrasive Jet Cutting of Rocklike Materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 34 (1), 17-25.

Nagdeve, L.,Chaturvedi, V., Vimal, J., 2012. Parametric optimization of abrasive water jet machining using Taguchi methodology. International Journal of Research in Engineering & Applied Sciences 2 (6), 23-32.
Pon selvan, M.C., Raju, N.M.S., Sachidananda, H.K., 2012. Effects of process parameters on surface roughness in abrasive waterjet cutting of aluminium. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 1-6. Rahman, A.A.A., 2010. An Abrasive Waterjet Model for Cutting Ceramics. IN: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Mathematical models for engineering science, MMES10, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 68-72. Ramulu, M., Arola, D., 1994. The Influence of Abrasive Waterjet Cutting Conditions on the
45

Rao, R.V., 2011. Advanced Modeling and Optimization of Manufacturing Processes. Springer-Verlag London Limited. Rao, P.N., 2011. Manufacturing Technology volume-2 Metal cutting and Machine tools. Second edition, Tata McGraw Hill. Shanmugam, D.K., Masood, S.H., 2009. An investigation on kerf characteristics in abrasive waterjet cutting of layered composites. Journal of materials processing technology 209, 38873893. Shipway, P.H., Fowler, G., Pashby, I.R., 2005. Characteristics of the surface of a titanium alloy following milling with abrasive waterjets. Wear 258, 123132. Siores, E., Wong, W.C.K., Chen, L., Wager, J.G., 1996. Enhancing Abrasive Waterjet Cutting of Ceramics by Head Oscillation Techniques. Annals of the ClRP 45, 327-330. Srinivas, S., Babu, N.R., 2012. Penetration Ability of Abrasive Waterjets In Cutting of Aluminum-Silicon Carbide Particulate Metal Matrix Composites. Machining Science and Technology 16, 337354. Volpe,T., Cutting Precious Metals with Abrasive Waterjet. TIFFANY & CO., pp.8-12, http://www.platinumguild.com/files/pdf/V10N3_cutting_precious.pdf. Wang, J., Wong, W.C.K., 1999. A study of abrasive waterjet cutting of metallic coated sheet Steels. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 39, 855870. http://lyle.smu.edu/rcam/research/waterjet/int2.html
46

Thank you

47

Supplier of material
Hindustan Steel Corporation 2,Anil Ind. Estate, Ajod Dairy Road, Nr. Gravity House,Rakhial

Ahmedabad- 380023

48

Composition of AISI H13 (die steel)

Mn

Si

Cr

Mo

0.32-0.45 0.20-0.50 0.80-1.20 4.75-5.00 1.10-1.75 0.80-1.20

Hardness range : 45-52 RC

49

Response surface Method

RSM is a collection of statistical and mathematical methods that are useful for

modeling and analyzing engineering problems. In this technique, the main

objective is to optimize the response surface that is influenced by various process parameters. RSM also quantifies the relationship between the controllable input parameters and the obtained response surfaces. The design procedure of RSM is as follows. 1. Designing a series of experiments for adequate and reliable

measurements of the response of interest.

2. Developing a mathematical model of the response surface with the best fittings. 3. Finding the optimal set of experimental parameters that produce a maximum or minimum value of response. 4. Representing the direct and interactive effects of the process
50

51