Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
)
n
=1
[
Where n is the number of measurements in a trial and y
i
is the measured value in a trial.
Nominal the best: S/N =10logj
2
c
2
[
Where, p =
i
+.+
n
n
, o
2
=
(
i
-)
2 n
i=1
n-1
Where n is the number of measurements in a trial and y
i
is the measured value in a trial, is the mean and is the
variance.
Larger the best: S/N =-10logj
1
n
[
1
i
2
n
=1
[
Where n is the number of measurements in a trial and y
i
is the measured value in a trial.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -117
Grey Relational Analysis
Grey relational analysis is used for solving interrelationships among the multiple responses. In this approach a grey
relational grade is obtained for analysing the relational degree of the multiple responses.
Optimization Steps in Grey Relational Analysis
Step 1: Transform the original response data into S/N ratio using appropriate formulae depending on the type of
quality characteristic.
Step 2: Normalize Y
ij
as X
ij
(0 X
ij
1) by the following formula to avoid the effect of using different units and to
reduce variability. Normalization is a transformation performed on a single input to distribute the data evenly and scale it
into acceptable range for further analysis.
X
ij
=Normalized value for ith experiment/trial for jth dependant variable/response
Larger the better :
Smaller the better :
Where yij is the ith performance characteristic in the jth experiment .maxi y ij and mini yij are the maximum and
minimum values of ith performance characteristic for alternate j, respectively.
Step 3: Compute grey relational coefficient (GC) for the normalized S/N ratio values.
GC
ij
= (
min
+
max
)/(
ij
+
max
)
Where, GC
ij
=grey relational coefficient for the ith experiment/trial and jth dependant variable/response
= absolute difference between Y
oj
and Y
ij
which is a deviation from target value and can be treated as quality loss.
Y
oj
=optimum performance value or the ideal normalized value of the jth response, Y
ij
=the ith normalized value of
the jth response/dependant variable
min
= minimum value of ,
max
= maximum value of
is the distinguishing coefficient which is defined in the range 0 1 ( the value may be adjusted on the practical
needs of the system)
Step 4: Compute the grey relational grade (G
i
); G
i
= (1/m) GC
ij,
Where m is the number of responses
Step 5: The grey grade is equivalent to MRPI and is treated as single response problem and MRPI data can be
analysed to determine the optimal level for the factors. Also response graph method or ANOVA can be used to select
optimal levels for the factors based on maximum average G
i
value.
Experimental Procedure
3 blocks of SS 440C with dimensions 55mm length, 45mm width and 30mm thickness were selected. In each block 9
holes with 4.5mm holes with diameter and 30 mm height were done with the help of special purpose vertical milling
machine using TiN coated carbide reamer. Identification number starting from A1 to A9, B1 to B9 and C1 to C9 were
engraved on the side of the work piece for tracking.
Output responses
The main output responses considered for optimization of reaming process on SS 440C using TiN coated carbide
reamer are surface finish and cylindricity.
Surface Finish
By definition, surface finish is the allowable deviation from a perfectly flat surface that is made by some
manufacturing process. All machining processes will produces some roughness on the surface. This roughness can be
caused by a cutting tool, cutting rate and environmental conditions and the type of material for working with. Surface
finish is generally broken up into three components such as roughness, waviness, and form. Roughness is generally the
machined marks made on a surface by the cutting tool. Waviness is the result of the vibration of the tool. Form surface
irregularities caused by worn off machine bad, table etc. All three surface finish components exist simultaneously. They
simply overlap one another. We often look at each (roughness, waviness, and form) separately, so we make the
assumption that roughness has a shorter wavelength than waviness, which in turn has a shorter wavelength than form.
The average roughness is the area between the roughness profile and its mean line, or the integral of the absolute value
of the roughness profile height over the evaluation length. Surface roughness average (Ra), also known as arithmetic
average (AA) is rated as the arithmetic average deviation of the surface valleys an peaks expressed in micro inches or
micro meters. ISO standards use the term CLA (Center Line Average). Both are interpreted identical. The equation for
average surface roughness can be calculated using following equation.
R
a
=(h
1
+h
2
+-----+h
n
)/n
Where, n is the number of peaks and valleys and h
i
, the measured value of each peaks and valleys
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -118
Figure 7: Average surface roughness profile
The measurements are usually made along a line, running at right angle to the general direction of tool marks on the
surface.
Actual profile(A
f
) is the profile of the actual surface obtained by finishing operation.
Reference profile (R
f
) is the profile to which the irregularities of the surface is referred to. It passes through the
highest point of the actual profile.
Datum profile (D
f
) is the profile, parallel to the reference profile .it passes through the lowest point B of the actual
profile
Actual profile (A
f
) is the profile of the actual surface obtained by finishing operation.
Reference profile (R
f
) is the profile to which the irregularities of the surface is referred to. It passes through the
highest point of the actual profile.
Datum profile (D
f
) is the profile, parallel to the reference profile. It passes through the lowest point B of the actual
profile.
Cylindricity
Cylindricity is a tolerance of form that checks cylindrical features only. All circular and longitudinal elements on the
surface of the cylinder must lie within two concentric cylinders separated by the value of the cylindricity tolerance which
is measured on radius. Cylindricity requires that the entire face of the cylinder be contained between two concentric
cylinders. Cylindricity is represented by .
Figure 8: Cylindricity representation
The cylindricity of the part in this instance affects directly on the efficiency, safety, and life of an assembly.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results were obtained for surface finish and cylindricity for reaming of SS 440C experimental blocks. MINITAB 16
software is used to perform Taguchi design of experiment and ANOVA. Grey Relational Analysis was performed to
found the optimum combination of input parameters.
Analysis of Experimental Data
Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) is done to investigate which design parameter significantly affects the
surface finish and cylindricity. Based on the ANOVA, the relative importance of the reaming parameters with respect to
surface finish and cylindricity were investigated to determine the percentage contribution of each factors. All analysis is
carried out for a significance level of =0.05, i.e., for confidence level of 95%. ANOVA table also has probability level
that is the realized significance level, associated with the F-tests for each source of variation. The sources with a
probability level less than 0.05 are considered to have a statistically significant contribution to the performance measures.
Also the percentage of contribution of each source to the total variation indicates the degree of influence on the result by
each source.
Taguchis method of analyzing means of the S/N ratio using conceptual approach involves graphical method for
studying the effects and visually identifying the factors that appear to be significant. The rank indicates the dominant
machining parameter.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -119
Experimental Combinations
Three blocks of SS 440C where chosen for conducting experiments. In each block, 9 holes were reamed based on
experimental combinations obtained. All the trials where repeated thrice in order to validate the experimental results.
Figure 9 shows the experimental blocks chosen for this work.
Figure 9: Experimental Blocks
Table 4: Reaming experimental combinations
Trial
No.
Bore
No.
Speed
(RPM)
Feed
(mm/min)
Allowance
(mm)
1 A1, B1, C1 600 80 0.2
2 A2, B2, C2 600 120 0.3
3 A3, B3, C3 600 160 0.4
4 A4, B4, C4 800 80 0.3
5 A5, B5, C5 800 120 0.4
6 A6, B6, C6 800 160 0.2
7 A7, B7, C7 1000 80 0.4
8 A8, B8, C8 1000 120 0.2
9 A9, B9, C9 1000 160 0.3
Experimental Results for Different Trials
The experimental results obtained by reaming experiment conducted on three blocks of SS 440C were tabulated below
on table 5. The responses investigate are surface finish and cylindricity. The experiment was conducted three times, in
order to achieve repeatability. The ranges for different parameters are set with reference to Guhrings international manual
for special tools.
Table 5: Experimental results for different trials
Trial No.
Surface Roughness, SR
(m)
Cylinricity, (m)
SR1 SR2 SR3 1 2 3
1 0.59 0.61 0.59 5.3 5.32 5.32
2 0.51 0.53 0.52 6.15 6.21 6.19
3 0.54 0.54 0.55 4.34 4.34 4.35
4 0.57 0.59 0.58 7.3 7.36 7.34
5 0.53 0.53 0.52 4.08 4.08 4.09
6 0.51 0.51 0.5 2.55 2.55 2.5
7 0.69 0.71 0.7 5.06 5.1 5.09
8 0.54 0.54 0.53 4.13 4.13 4.12
9 0.51 0.53 0.51 5.24 5.32 5.31
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -120
Grey Relational Analysis
Table 6: Experimental data for grey relational analysis
Trial
No.
Surface Roughness, SR
(m)
Cylinricity, (m)
SR1 SR2 SR3 1 2 3
1 0.59 0.61 0.59 5.3 5.32 5.32
2 0.51 0.53 0.52 6.15 6.21 6.19
3 0.54 0.54 0.55 4.34 4.34 4.35
4 0.57 0.59 0.58 7.3 7.36 7.34
5 0.53 0.53 0.52 4.08 4.08 4.09
6 0.51 0.51 0.5 2.55 2.55 2.5
7 0.69 0.71 0.7 5.06 5.1 5.09
8 0.54 0.54 0.53 4.13 4.13 4.12
9 0.51 0.53 0.51 5.24 5.32 5.31
Grey relational analysis is used for solving interrelationships among the multiple responses. In this approach a grey
relational grade is obtained for analysing the relational degree of the multiple responses. The first step is to transform the
original response data into S/N ratio using appropriate formulae depending on the type of quality characteristic given
previously. The next step is to normalize Y
ij
as X
ij
(0 X
ij
1) by the appropriate formula to avoid the effect of using
different units and to reduce variability. Normalization is a transformation performed on a single input to distribute the
data evenly and scale it into acceptable range for further analysis.
Table 7: S/N ratios and Normalized S/N ratios for grey relational analysis
Trial
No.
S/N ratios Normalized S/N ratios
SR SR
1 4.48428026 -14.5073549 0.506066 0.696841
2 5.67886251 -15.8245239 0.080604 0.839517
3 5.2983461 -12.7564683 0.216129 0.507184
4 4.73057954 -17.3060788 0.418344 1
5 5.56893543 -12.2203025 0.119756 0.449106
6 5.9051774 -8.07422268 0 0
7 3.09744836 -14.1230203 1 0.655209
8 5.4055725 -12.3119935 0.177939 0.459038
9 5.73434523 -14.46931 0.060844 0.69272
Table 8: Grey grade calculation for grey relational analysis
Quality Loss Grey relational Coefficient
Grey grade
value
SR /O/ GCSR GC Gi
0.493934 0.303159 0.669374 0.767366 0.71837
0.919396 0.160483 0.520997 0.86171 0.691354
0.783871 0.492816 0.560579 0.669875 0.615227
0.581656 0 0.632249 1 0.816124
0.880244 0.550894 0.531846 0.644789 0.588318
1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0.344791 1 0.74361 0.871805
0.822061 0.540962 0.548829 0.648945 0.598887
0.939156 0.30728 0.515688 0.764947 0.640317
Compute grey relational coefficient (GC) for the normalized S/N ratio values. After normalized S/N ratio found
quality loss. Compute grey relational coefficient and thereafter grey grade as seen from table 14 using appropriate
formula given previous sections.The grey grade is equivalent to Multi Response Performance Index (MRPI) and is
treated as single response problem and MRPI data is analyzed to determine the optimal level for the factors. Mean MRPI
values are tabulated on table 9.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -121
Table 9: Mean MRPI values
Factors
Levels
1 2 3
Speed 0.674983 0.634814 0.70367
Feed 0.8021 0.626186 0.585181
Allowance 0.605752 0.715932 0.691783
Figure 10: Factor effects on mean MRPI
From the table 9, it is found that the optimal levels are A3, B1 and C1
Graphical representation showing the factor effects on mean MRPI are shown in figure 10.
The optimal combination found from effect on mean MRPI are:
Speed =1000 RPM
Feed =80 mm/min
Allowance =0.3 mm
ANOVA for Grey Grade
This is done to find the factors which are significant and to find the percentage contribution of each factors in attaining
the responses surface finish and cylindricity together. The main effects plot for S/N ratio is shown in figure 11.
Table 11: S/N ratio for grey grade value
Trial No. Grey Grade Gi S/N ratio for Gi
1 0.7184 -2.873
2 0.6914 -3.2059
3 0.6152 -4.2193
4 0.8161 -1.7649
5 0.5883 -4.6078
6 0.5 -6.0206
7 0.8718 -1.1916
8 0.5989 -4.4531
9 0.6403 -3.8721
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3
Speed 0.674983415 0.634814005 0.703669891
Feed 0.802099773 0.626186156 0.585181382
Allowance 0.605752312 0.715931903 0.691783096
M
e
a
n
M
R
P
I
Factor Effects on Mean MRPI
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -122
1000 800 600
-2
-3
-4
-5
160 120 80
0.4 0.3 0.2
-2
-3
-4
-5
Speed
M
e
a
n
o
f
S
N
r
a
t
i
o
s
Feed
Allowance
Main Effects Plot for SN ratios
Data Means
Signal-to-noise: Larger is better
Figure 11: Main effects plot for S/N ratio for grey grade
Table 12: Response Table for grey grade S/N ratios (Larger is better)
Level Speed Feed Allowance
1 -3.433 -1.943 -4.449
2 -4.131 -4.089 -2.948
3 -3.172 -4.704 -3.34
Delta 0.959 2.761 1.501
Rank 3 1 2
Table 13: Analysis of Variance for grey grade
Source DOF
Sum of
squares
Mean of
squares
F P
contribution
(%)
Speed 2 1.4748 0.7374 7.75 0.114 8.24
Feed 2 12.605 6.3024 66.25 0.015 70.38
Allowance 2 3.638 1.819 19.12 0.05 20.32
Error 2 0.1903 0.0951 1.06
Total 8 17.908 100
Based on the ANOVA results in Table 13 the percentage contribution of various factors to cylindricity is identifiable.
Here, feed and allowance are the most influencing factor followed by speed. The percentage contribution of allowance
and feed towards grey grade are 70.38% and 20.32% respectively.
The optimal combinations found from main effects plot for S/N ratio are:
Speed =1000 RPM
Feed =80 mm/min
Allowance =0.3 mm
Regression equation
The regression equation is
Grey Grade =0.810 +0.000072xSpeed 0.00271xFeed +0.430xAllowance
Confirmation Test
The confirmation test is the final step in verifying the results obtained from Taguchis design approach. The optimal
conditions are set for the significant factors and experiments are run under specified reaming conditions. The results from
the confirmation experiment are compared with the predicted average based on the parameters and levels tested. The
confirmation experiment is a crucial step and is highly recommended by Taguchi to verify the experimental results.
The purpose of the confirmation experiment is to validate the conclusions drawn from the experiment. Confirmation
experiment is conducted using the optimal levels of the significant factors. For the insignificant factors, although any
level can be selected, but I selected according to the optimum combination obtained using grey relational analysis. The
confirmation test block is shown in figure 12.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -123
Figure 12: Confirmation test block
The confirmation test is conducted on SS 440C test block with TiN coated carbide reamer with the optimum level of
combinations found using grey relational analysis. The confirmation test results were tabulated in table 14. In the
confirmation test, the responses for which data collected are for surface roughness and cylindricity. Comparison with the
existing process was also done.
Table 14: Confirmation test results
Bore No. Surface Roughness, SR (m)
Cylindricity, (m)
1 0.26 2.47
2 0.32 2.55
3 0.27 3.03
4 0.28 2.85
5 0.23 2.48
Validating Confirmation Test
It is important to validate the experimentally confirmed results with the statistically obtained results. For that the
regression equation obtained for grey grade is used.
Regression equation obtained for grey grade is;
Grey Grade =0.810 +0.000072xSpeed 0.00271xFeed +0.430xAllowance
It is used optimum combination that is speed (1000 RPM), feed (80 mm/min) and allowance (0.3 mm) for the
confirmation experiment. That is; Grey grade =0.810 +(0.000072 x 1000) (0.00271 x 80) +(0.430 x 0.3) =0.7942
Table 15: S/N ratio and Normalized S/N ratio for confirmation test
Bore
No.
Surface
Roughnes, SR
(m)
Cylindricity,
(m)
S/N ratio
for SR
S/N ratio
for
Normal-
ized SR
Normal-
ized
1 0.26 2.42 11.7005 -7.6763 1 0
2 0.24 2.44 12.3958 -7.7478 0.3471 1
3 0.26 2.43 11.7005 -7.7121 1 0.501
4 0.25 2.44 12.0412 -7.7478 0.6801 1
5 0.23 2.43 12.7654 -7.7121 0 0.501
Grey grade calculation for confirmation test results: Grey grade calculation for the confirmation test was done for
comparing it with the value obtained by substituting the optimum combinations of parameters obtained. For that, the
same procedure that explained in chapter 3 need to be done. First find out the S/N ratio, normalized S/N ratio, grey grade
coefficient and grey grade.
Table 16: Grey grade calculation for confirmation test results
Bore No.
Quality Loss
Grey relational
Coefficient
Grey grade value
SR GCSR GC Gi
1 0 1 1 0.5 0.75
2 0.6529 0 0.605 1 0.8025
3 0 0.499 1 0.6671 0.8336
4 0.3199 0 0.7576 1 0.8788
5 1 0.499 0.5 0.6671 0.5836
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -124
The grey grade obtained for different bores done for confirmation test are tabulated on table 16. This value can be
compared with the value obtained when optimum values of parameters when applied on regression equation. The
graphical representation for this comparison is shown in figure 13.
Figure 13: Grey grade comparison
From this comparison it is seen that the grey grade obtained by the experimental results and the value obtained by
regression equation. The average value for the confirmation tests is 0.7697, whereas grey grade obtained by regression
equation is 0.7942.
Surface topography of Bore Wire EDM & Reaming
Taylor Hobson digital surface profilometer images are taken to analyze the roughness and other surface characteristics
to compare different surface topography obtained by the existing wire edm process and reaming process.
Scanned surface gave a rough idea about the surface characteristics. Figure 14a shows the scanned image of Wire
EDMed surface and figure 14b shows the scanned image of reamed surface where TiN coated carbide reamer was used
as the reaming tool. From these images, the surface integrity of WEDM surface can be easily identified.
White layers occurred on the WEDMed surface can be seen on the scanned image.
Figure 14: Scanned surface a) WEDMed surface, b) Reamed surface
Figure 15: 2D view of a) WEDMed surface b) Reamed surface,
0
0.5
1
0 5 10
G
r
e
y
G
r
a
d
e
Bore Number
Grey Grade Comparison
Series1
Series2
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -125
3D view of c) WEDM surface, d) Reamed surface
Figure 16: Flattened 3D view of a) WEDMed surface, b) Reamed surface
The parallel swatches obtained by the reaming process can also be seen from the scanned images. These images are
taken with the help of Taylor Hobson digital surface profilometer for the further investigation on the surface
characteristics of the surfaces. Figure 15 shows the 2D and 3D representation of bore manufactured by WEDM and
reaming process. Flattened 3D images of bore surface to get the overall idea about the surface texture are shown in the
figure 16.
Comparison of Cylindricity
Figure 17: a) Cylindricity of WEDMed surface with 1m/div, b) Cylindricity of reamed surface with 1m/div, c) Cylindricity of WEDMed surface
with 5m/div, d) Cylindricity of reamed surface with 5m/div
Cylindricity of the existing WEDM process and reaming process where compared with the help of TAYLOR
HOBSON TALYROND 365. The images obtained are shown in figure 17.From the figure 17, it is easy to compare the
cylindricity obtained by the existing WEDM process and reaming process. While considering the manufacturing by
WEDM process, honing and lapping is essential to attain the required cylindricity, but by using reaming process, at least
one process that is honing can be avoided because of lower cylindricity value obtained.
Data Comparison for Existing and Proposed Process
While we comparing the existing and proposed operation cycles in the manufacturing the spool bore of valve body, the
main difference is by the replacing currently using WEDM process with reaming process.
Table 17: Responses for bore manufacturing using existing operation cycle
Compt. ID
No.
Cylindricity Value Surface Roughness Value
After Wire
EDM (m)
After
Honing (m)
After
Lapping
(m)
After Wire
EDM (m)
After
Honing (m)
After
Lapping
(m)
A 1 7.19 3.52 2.08 0.84 0.35 0.2
A 2 8.17 3.49 2.23 0.86 0.42 0.22
A 3 9.27 3.46 2.14 0.68 0.34 0.18
A 4 7.31 3.28 2.01 0.76 0.37 0.2
A 5 8.81 3.08 1.72 0.68 0.3 0.08
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -126
The responses taken are obtained by each operation cycle are cylindricity and surface roughness. The response values
obtained while the spool bore manufactured by the existing operation cycle are as tabulated on table 4.19
The tabulated values are obtained by analyzing a batch of EHSV. After WEDM, after honing and after lapping
processes are tabulated on the table 17
For comparing these values with proposed operation cycle, the response values obtained while the spool bore
manufactured by the proposed operation cycle are as tabulated on table 4.20.
The tabulated values are obtained by analyzing the results obtained from the confirmation test. After reaming and after
lapping processes are tabulated on the table 18.
Table 18: Responses for bore manufacturing using proposed operation cycle
Bore No.
Cylindricity Value Roughness Value
After
Reaming (m)
After Lapping
(m)
After
Reaming (m)
After
Lapping (m)
1 2.47 1.81 0.26 0.12
2 2.55 1.68 0.32 0.22
3 3.03 2.01 0.27 0.11
4 2.85 1.89 0.28 0.13
5 2.48 2.03 0.23 0.08
By comparing the values obtained by existing operation cycle and proposed operation cycle, it is seen that by
implementing the reaming process to the existing operation cycle by replacing WEDM. It is found that by adopting
reaming process instead of WEDM will help to avoid at least one process that is honing.
IV. CONCLUSION
From the experiments, it was found that the surface finish was significantly influenced by feed; however speed and
allowance has very less effect while machining SS 440C using TiN coated carbie reamer. Using Grey Relational
Analysis, the optimal combination was obtained at speed (1000 RPM), feed (80 mm/min), and allowance (0.3mm). This
optimum combination is used for confirmation experiment. This confirmation experiment was validated by analyzing the
regression equations developed with the confirmation test results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and the foremost, I thank God, the Almighty who gave me the inner strength, resource and ability to complete the
work successfully without which all the efforts would have been in vain. I express my heartfelt thanks to the Head and
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and my internal guide, Prof. Dr. Josephkunju Paul C from Mar
Athanasius College of Engineering, Kothamangalam, Kerala, Inia for his support, valuable advice and helpful feedback
for the successful completion of my work. I express my sincere gratitude and I am highly grateful to my external guide
Dr. S. Karunanidhi, Scientist G and Deputy Director, Control Systems Laboratory, Research Centre Imarat, Defense
Research and Development Organization (RCI DRDO), Hyderabad for giving me this golden opportunity to be a part of
the organization, encouraging supervision, valuable discussions, never failing kindness and inspiring guidance
throughout the work.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Klocke, M. Zeis, A. Klink, D. Veselovac, 2013, Technological and economical comparison of roughing
strategies via milling, sinking-EDM, wire-EDM and ECM for titanium and nickel based blisks, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 198-203.
[2] D. Welling, 2014, Results of surface integrity and fatigue study of Wire-EDM compared to broanching and
grinding for demanding jet engine components made of Inconel 718, Procedia CIRP, 339-344.
[3] L. Li, Y.B. Guo, X.T. Wei, W. Li, 2013, Surface integrity characteristics in wire-EDM of inconel 718 at different
discharge energy, Procedia CIRP, 220-225.
[4] F. Klocke, D. Welling, J. Dieckmann, 2011, Comparison of grinding and Wire EDM concerning fatigue strength an
surface integrity of machined Ti6Al4V components, Procedia Engineering, 184-189.
[5] S. Karunanidhi, M. Singaperumal, 2010, Design, analysis and simulation of magnetostrictive actuator and its
application to high dynamic servo valve, Sensors and Actuators, 185-197.
[6] Fuzhu Han, Jie Zhang, Isago Soichiro, 2007, Corner error simulation of rough cutting in wire EDM, Precision
Engineering, 331-336.
[7] D.K. Aspinwall, S.L. Soo, A.E. Berrisford, G. Walder, 2008, Workpiece Surface roughness and integrity after
WEDM of Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 718 using minimum damage generator technology, CIRP Annals
Manufacturing Technology, 187-190.
[8] Haruki Obara, Harutoshi Satou, Masatoshi Hatano, 2004, Fundamental study on corrosion of cemented carbide
during wire EDM, Journals of Material Processing Technology, 370-375.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Volume 1 Issue 8 (September 2014) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -127
[9] K.H. Ho, S.T. Newman, S. Rahimifard, R.D. Allen, 2004, State of the art in wire electric discharge machining
(WEDM), International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 1247-1259
[10] B. Bojorquez, R.T. Marloth, O.S. Es-Said, 2002, Formation of a crater in the workpiece on an electric discharge
machine, Engineering failure Analysis, 93-97.
[11] P. Muller, G. Genta, G. Barbato, L. De Chiffre, R. Levi, 2012, Reaming process improvement and control: An
application of statistical engineering, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 196-201
[12] J. Pradeep Kumar, P. Packiaraj, 2012, Effect of drilling parameters on the surface roughness, tool wear, material
removal rate and hole diameter error in drilling of OHN, International Journal of Avanced Engineering Research
and Studies, 150-154
[13] Leonardo De Chiffre, Guide Tosello, Miroslav Piska,Pavel Muller, 2009, Investigation on capability of the reaming
process using minimal quantity lubrication, CIRP journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 47-54.
[14] GUHRING International Manual on advanced machine tools, 9
th
edition, 2006.
[15] K. Krishnaiah, P. Shahabudeen, 2012, Applied design of experiments and Taguchi methods, PHI learning Private
Limited,
[16] H. Dagnall M.A., 1996, Lets Talk Roundness, Taylor Hobson Limited.
[17] Papers on Precision engineering, SERC School on Precision Engineering, 2001, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai, December 4-14
[18] R. Paneerselvam, 2013, Research Methodology, PHI Learning Private Limited.
[19] R. Paneerselvam, 2012, Production and Operations Management, PHI Learning Private Limited.