You are on page 1of 13

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.

1, February 2016

INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS ON


SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND MATERIAL REMOVAL
RATE DURING TURNING IN CNC LATHE AN
ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK AND SURFACE
RESPONSE METHODOLOGY
Amber Batwara and Prateek Verma
Department of Mechanical Engineering, RIET, Jaipur, 302033.

ABSTRACT
Optimization of machining parameters is very valuable to maintain the accuracy of the components and
obtain cost effective Machining.MRR (material removal rate) and surface roughness is playing primary
role in manufacturing using contemporary CNC (computer numerical controlled) machines, in the case of
mass manufacturing. In present study experimental and work is done for optimization of process
parameters. In experimental work total 32 experiments are designed according DOE method Mixed
taguchi. Three factors are selected for experimental work. Depth of cut, speed and feed rate is selected
factors for experimental work. All experiments are carried out in CIPET, Jaipur. Two responses are find
out in this work and are following: first one is material removal rate (MRR) and second response is surface
roughness (Ra) measurement. An artificial neural network is Feed Forward Back Propagation type
model of developing the analysis and prediction of surface roughness and MRR with relationship between
all input process parameters.

KEYWORDS
Turning CNC, DOE, ANOVA, model equation, ANN

1. INTRODUCTION
Today, CNC machining has grown to be an indispensible part of machining industry. CNC
machines having good accuracy, precision, good surface finishing achieved by compression than
conventional manufacturing machines. Surface finish plays a significant role during machining of
any of the component. A highly surface finish improves fatigue strength, creep failure, corrosion
resistance and better finished components increase also the productivity & economics of any
industry [9]. CNC machine performance and product characteristics are depends on the process
parameters. Out of the various parameters we select material removal rate (MRR) and surface
roughness for study in the present work as considered also the manufacturing goal. These two
factors directly affect the cost of machining and the machining hour rate. The machining
parameters namely cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut were considered. The main objective
is to find the optimized set of values for maximizing the MRR and achieve good surface finish
[5]. L32 Mixed taguchi was used for experimentation. All the response graph and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) shows that the feed rate has strongest effect on surface roughness and MRR
is dependent on RPM and depth of cut. Surface response methodology developed between the
machining parameters and responses and confirmation experiments reveal that the good

DOI : 10.14810/ijmech.2016.5104

47

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

agreement with the regression models. Artificial neutral network is applied to experimental
results to find prediction results for two response parameters.
The complexity of the machining process performing optimization of a machining process is very
difficult. Therefore ANN is use for mapping the input/output relationships and as well as also
doing computing. To implement the general functions of human brain artificial neural network
model is developed. Artificial neural network (ANN) is doing works like a human brain for the
implementation of the functions such as association, self-organization and generalization. It can
approximate any functions more efficiently, thus it is suitable for modelling of any non-linear
process. It can capture complex inputoutput relationships and having the good learning ability,
generalization ability. [2]

2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The experiment was carried out in a VX-135 Junior CNC Lathe. The experiments
were
performed in dry environment without any cutting fluid. CNC control system is Fanuc Oi mateTD.CNC part programs were used for doing the turning operation. Surface roughness measure
with help of 3D profilometer . In this study effect of process parameters on turning of MS test
piece is experimentally analysis using design of experiment method. Total 32 experiments are
designed using surface response special class named mixture DOE method. All experiments are
done in CPET, Jaipur CNC lathe centre. Table1 show levels and factors which are used in this
study. Mixture based surface response method is used for complex experiments results. In figure
1 shown simple turning operation and figure 2 shown CNC lathe installed at CIEPT, Jaipur.

Figure 1. Turning operation

Figure 2. CNC lathe installed at CIEPT Jaipur

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY


It was R.A Fisher who at first introduced DOE in 1920 in England. Its a powerful statistical
technique which assists in studying multiple variables and in maximization of learning using a
48

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

minimum of resources.DOE highlights the important causes and variables with determination of
main effects reducing the variation and cost reduction for the opening up the tolerance on
unimportant variables. [6]
The effects of process parameters were studied by various researchers from last decades. Design
of experiments is very difficult to for any type of research and for resolving this problem
researchers use scientific approach, which is known as DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT. With help
of D.O.E. techniques any researcher can determine important factors which are responsible for
output result variation of experiments. DOE can found optimum solution for particular
experiments. In this study mixture taguchi methods are used for ANOVA analysis. The entire
task performs in MINITAB software.
Table 1. Levels and factors

Level

Depth of Cut (mm)

RPM

Low
High

0.25
0.50

350
1400

Feed Rate (in


mm)
0.25
1.0

Total 32 experiments are show in table 1. In this method factor 1 is divided in two levels and
remaining others is divided in 4 levels which are presented in table 2.
Table 2. Total 32 Experiments according DOE Surface Response

Experiment No.

F1 (Depth of Cut)

F2 (RPM)

F2 (Feed)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

350
350
350
350
700
700
700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400
350
350
350
350
700

0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
49

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Experiment No.

F1 (Depth of Cut)

F2 (RPM)

F2 (Feed)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

700
700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400

0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

All experiments are conducted in CNC lathe turning machine. Tool is made of high carbide steel
and constant for this study. After all experiments completion recorded data is presented in table 3.
Table 3. Experimental data record during research work

Experi
ment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

F1
(Depth
of Cut)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

F2
(RP
M)
350
350
350
350
700
700
700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400
350
350
350
350
700
700

F2
(Fee
d)
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5

Initial
Weight
(gm)
191
191
187
192
190
189
188
192
189
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
380
330
330

Final
Weight
180
180
175
175
180
175
180
180
180
345
345
340
345
345
345
345
350
335
360
360
300
305

Turning
Operation
Time (sec)
20
18
15
12
23
12
8
7
15
8.7
7
7.6
8.8
7.2
7.3
8.9
24.3
17.9
14.4
12.8
17
11

MRR
(in3/sec)

Ra
(um)

0.07
0.08
0.11
0.18
0.06
0.15
0.14
0.22
0.08
0.51
0.64
0.67
0.51
0.62
0.61
0.50
0.16
0.32
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.29

4.94
4.46
3.99
3.52
3.84
3.37
2.90
2.43
2.75
2.27
1.80
1.33
1.65
1.18
0.71
0.24
4.59
4.12
3.65
3.18
3.49
3.02

50

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400

0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

330
330
330
330
330
330
330
350
330
330

345
315
315
305
305
320
300
345
315
315

7.5
6.8
14.3
9.8
7
6
11.3
8.9
6.4
5.3

0.08
0.28
0.13
0.32
0.45
0.21
0.34
0.07
0.30
0.36

2.55
2.08
2.40
1.93
1.46
0.98
1.30
0.83
0.36
0.02

Two responses are solved in present study; first one is material removal rate and second is surface
roughness.
Material removal rate is the volume of material removed in per unit time from the surface of work
piece. We can also calculate material removal rate as the volume of material removed divided by
the time taken to cut. The volume removed is the initial volume of the work piece minus the final
volume.
MRR (in3/sec) = Initial Weight (gm) - Final Weight / 7.85* Turning operation time (sec.)
Roughness is a measure of the texture of a surface. It is quantified by the vertical deviations of a
real surface from its ideal form. If these deviations are large, the surface is rough; if they are
small the surface is smooth. Roughness is typically considered to be the high frequency, short
wavelength component of a measured surface. Surface measurement is also measured for all 32
cases using manual surface roughness measurement device, available in local company (Ganesh
hardware and Sheet Metal Products, Sitapura) in Jaipur. All though surface roughness for all 32
cases is in good condition because of CNC machine standard accuracy. But some variations are
seen after results so DOE analysis is done for Ra also. In table 3 MMR and surface roughness is
presented for all 32 experiments.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION


All experiments were designed according to DOE technique (Mixed taguchi), which were
presented in table 2 and experimental results in term of MRR and surface roughness is presented
in table .Main outcomes focused in this study are following: [ Surface response methodology,
ANOVA Analysis, , Model equations generation and ANN approach ].

4.1 Surface response methodology for surface roughness


The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is applied for this study and results are shown in table 4
respectively. In this analysis F-Test is conduct to compare a residual variance and a model
variance. F value was calculated from a model mean square divided by residual mean square
value. If the value of f was approaching to one, its means both variances were same according F
value highest was best to find critical input parameter.

51

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Table 4. Analysis of Variance for surface roughness

Source

DF

Adj SS

Adj MS

F-Value

P-Value

Model
Linear

8
3

57.1607
57.1560

7.1451
19.0520

17626.73
47000.75

0.000
0.000

F1(Depth of cut)

0.9252

0.9252

2282.48

0.000

F2(RPM)

47.5469

47.5469

117296.85

0.000

F3(Feed)

8.6839

8.6839

21422.94

0.000

Square

0.0011

0.0005

1.31

0.289

F2(RPM)* F2(RPM)

0.0005

0.0005

1.31

0.264

F3(Feed)* F3(Feed)

0.0005

0.0005

1.31

0.264

2-Way Interaction
F1(Depth of cut)*
F2(RPM)
F1(Depth of cut)*
F3(Feed)
F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)

0.0036

0.0012

2.99

0.052

0.0010

0.0010

2.36

0.138

0.0010

0.0010

2.36

0.138

0.0017

0.0017

4.24

0.051

Error

23

0.0093

0.0004

Total

31

57.1700

According to result of Table 4 is list out the F value for regression models are very high and P
value is very less (approx 0.0000) .It means that all cases were significant. Various researchers
found that if p value was very small (less than 0.05) then in terms of regression model have a
significant effect to the response from literature review.
ANOVA analysis is also tell that all three factor has very low p value three and have acceptable p
value so it can concluded that surface roughness are affected by mainly three factor, this.
Analysis of variance is calculated for 95% Confidence interval (CI) for linear, product and square
analysis using Minitab software. Model equations for surface roughness are presented in below
Model Equation
Ra (um) = 6.9681 -1.5558 F1(Depth of cut) -0.003257 F2(RPM) -2.0625 F3(Feed)+0.000000
F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) +0.0652 F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) +0.000112 F1(Depth of cut)* F2(RPM)
+0.156 F1(Depth of cut)* F3(Feed) +0.000067 F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)
Normal probability plot and versus fits and versus order plot for surface response are shown in
Fig 3, 4. Regression models adequacy shall be inspected to confirm that the all models have
extracted all relevant information from all simulated cases. If distribution of residuals were
normal, then the Regression equations results should be adequate
For normality test, the Hypotheses are listed below Null Hypothesis: the residual data should follow normal distribution
Alternative Hypothesis: the residual data does not follow a normal distribution

52

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Figure 3. Normal probability for surface roughness.

Figure 4. Versus fits and versus order for surface roughness

4.2 Surface response methodology for MRR


The analysis of variance is calculated for this study and results are shown in table 5 respectively
Table 5. Analysis of Variance for MRR

Source
Model
Linear
F1(Depth of cut)
F2(RPM)
F3(Feed)

DF
8
3
1
1
1

Adj SS
0.73380
0.47635
0.04685
0.36179
0.06771

Adj MS
0.091725
0.0158783
0.046851
0.361792
0.067706

F-Value
5.84
10.10
2.98
23.02
4.31

P-Value
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.000
0.049
53

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Square

0.01517

0.007583

0.48

0.623

F2(RPM)* F2(RPM)

0.00050

0.000502

0.03

0.860

F3(Feed)* F3(Feed)

0.01466

0.014663

0.93

0.344

2-Way Interaction

0.24229

0.080763

5.14

0.007

F1(Depth of cut)*
F2(RPM)

0.21206

0.027019

13.49

0.001

F1(Depth of cut)*
F3(Feed)

0.02702

0.003214

1.72

0.203

F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)

0.00321

0.015716

0.20

0.655

Error

23

0.36146

Total

31

1.09527

ANOVA analysis is also tell that RPM and feed factor has very low p value, and has acceptable p
value in all three factors. So it can conclude that MRR are affected by mainly RPM and feed
factor. Analysis of variance is calculated for 95% Confidence interval (CI) for linear, product and
square analysis using Minitab software. Model equations for surface roughness are presented in
below
Model Equation -Regression Equation
MRR =0.720+ 1.670 F1(Depth of cut) +0.000782 F2(RPM) +0.824 F3(Feed)+0.000000
F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) -0.342 F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) 0.001664 F1(Depth of cut)* F2(RPM) -0.832
F1(Depth of cut)* F3(Feed) +0.000092 F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)
Normal probability for MRR is shown in Fig 5.

Figure 5. Normal probability for MRR

54

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Table 6.Regression Prediction results for Ra (um) and MRR (in3/sec) for all experiments

4.3 Artificial Neural Network for Surface Roughness (Ra)


In this study ANN method is also used for prediction of outcome data gained by experimental
work. MATLAB software is used for ANN method. Neural networks (NNs), have been widely
used many applications include data fitting, clustering, pattern recognition, function
approximation, optimization, simulation, time series expansion and dynamic system modeling
and controlling [2]. Neural network also overcome the limitations of the conventional approaches
by extracting the desired information by using the input data. It can continuously be re-trained, so
that it can give a new data. An ANN has been deal with the problems involving imprecise or
incomplete input information. The selection of ANN is most important for good quality
prediction. As there are 3 input variables with 1 output variable which shown in figure 6. A
MATLAB R2013 version is used to convert the earlier developed ANN model.

55

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Best Validation Performance is 0.022513 at epoch 5


Train
Validation
Test
Best

10

Mean Squared Error (mse)

-5

10

-10

10

-15

10

-20

10

7 Epochs

Figure 6. MS error for Surface roughness


Error Histogram with 20 Bins
Training
Validation
Test
Zero Error

Instances

20

15

10

0.1143

0.0699

0.09212

0.04769

0.02547

-0.01896

0.003257

-0.04117

-0.06339

-0.08561

-0.13

-0.1078

-0.1523

-0.1745

-0.1967

-0.2189

-0.2411

-0.2633

-0.2855

-0.3078

Errors = Targets - Outputs

Figure 7. Histogram for Ra

Figure 7 represent histogram diagram which can give an indication of outliers. Performance
Epoch diagrams shown in figure 6 which represent that the validation and test curves are very
similar. Figure 8 represent the training, validation, and testing data. The perfect result outputs =
targets represents in each plot with the dashed line.

56

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Output ~= 0.88*Target + 0.49

Data
Fit
Y = T

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1

Output ~= 0.96*Target + 0.18

Validation: R=0.99337

Data
Fit
Y = T

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

Target

Target

Test: R=0.98701

All: R=0.99753

Output ~= 0.98*Target + 0.079

Output ~= 1*Target + -0.0003

Training: R=1

Data
Fit
Y = T

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1

Data
Fit
Y = T

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

Target

Target

Figure 8 Regression Results for Ra(um)

4.4 Artificial Neural Network for MRR

Figure 9. Function Fitting Neural Network Diagram


Error Histogram with 20 Bins

Best Validation Performance is 0.0026086 at epoch 5

Training
Validation
Test
Zero Error

Instances

6
5
4
3
2

Errors = Targets - Outputs

Train
Validation
Test
Best

-5

10

-10

10

-15

10

0.4348

0.4043

0.3739

0.3434

0.3129

0.252

0.2824

0.191

0.2215

0.1606

0.1301

0.09962

0.06915

0.03868

-0.02226

0.008214

-0.0832

-0.05273

-0.1137

-0.1441

Mean Squared Error (mse)

10

9 Epochs

Figure 10. Histogram for MRR

Figure 11. MS error for MRR

Figure 10 represent histogram diagram which can give an indication of outliers. The data points
where the fit is significantly worse than the majority of data. Performance Epoch diagrams
shown in figure 11 which represent that the validation and test curves are very similar.
57

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

Figure 12 represent the training, validation, and testing data. The meaning of dashed line in each
plot is the targets = perfect result outputs
.
Validation: R=0.92845

Output ~= 0.81*Target + 0.067

Output ~= 0.98*Target + 0.019

Training: R=0.98748
0.6

Data
Fit
Y = T

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

Data
Fit
Y = T

0.4

0.2

-0.2

0.6

-0.2

Target

Data
Fit
Y = T

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

All: R=0.8884

Output ~= 1.2*Target + -0.059

Output ~= 2.1*Target + -0.34

Test: R=0.89148
0.6

0.2

Target

0.4

0.6

Data
Fit
Y = T

0.4

0.2

-0.2

0.6

-0.2

Target

0.2

Target

Figure 12. Regression Results for Ra( um)


Table 7. ANN Prediction results for Ra (um) and MRR (in3/sec) for all experiments

Experiment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

F1
(Depth
of Cut)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

F2
(RPM)

F2
(Feed)

Ra
(um)

350
350
350
350
700
700
700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400
350
350
350
350
700

0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25

4.94
4.46
3.99
3.52
3.84
3.37
2.90
2.43
2.75
2.27
1.80
1.33
1.65
1.18
0.71
0.24
4.59
4.12
3.65
3.18
3.49

Ra
(Predica
ted)
4.94
4.40
3.97
3.51
3.83
3.36
2.90
2.52
2.97
2.26
1.80
1.33
1.65
1.18
0.70
0.55
4.58
4.11
3.64
3.40
3.48

MRR
(in3/se
c)
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.18
0.06
0.15
0.14
0.22
0.08
0.51
0.64
0.67
0.51
0.62
0.61
0.50
0.16
0.32
0.18
0.20
0.22

Predicated
MRR
-0.1363
-0.3700
-0.2168
0.1405
0.0350
0.1138
0.1447
0.2319
0.1305
0.4704
0.6309
0.6309
0.5486
0.6436
0.6579
0.6574
0.2959
0.3238
0.2688
0.1934
0.2192
58

International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical Engineering (IJMECH) Vol.5, No.1, February 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

700
700
700
1050
1050
1050
1050
1400
1400
1400
1400

0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

3.02
2.55
2.08
2.40
1.93
1.46
0.98
1.30
0.83
0.36
0.02

3.01
2.54
2.30
2.47
1.92
1.45
0.97
1.29
0.70
0.35
0.23

0.29
0.08
0.28
0.13
0.32
0.45
0.21
0.34
0.07
0.30
0.36

0.3097
0.1201
0.2982
0.1977
0.3387
0.4205
0.2480
0.3742
0.1263
0.2456
0.3669

5. CONCLUSIONS
1.Model equations for response MRR and surface roughness was predict accurately with Minitab
software and show 90% good prediction for responses and can be used by any cutting based
machining process manufacture.
2.MRR and surface roughness also was predicted by ANN approach. This paper has successfully
established the new process model to predict the surface roughness and MRR in different
practical applications. Model equations gives values of the process parameters for controlled
process models in better way if they are employed in different industrial applications.

REFERENCES
[1]

Doriana M.,Roberto Teti, (2013) Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Of Cutting Parameters In


Turning Processes, Forty Sixth CIRP Conference On Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7, Pp- 323-328.
[2 ] Biswajit Das , Susmita Roy, R.N.Rai, S.C. Saha, (2015), Studies On Effect Of Cutting Parameters On
Surface Roughness Of Al- Cu-Tic Mmcs : An Artificial Neural Network Approach, International
Conference On Advanced Computing Technologies And Applications, Pp- 745-752.
[3] Garca-Plazaa,, P.J. Neza, D.R. Salgadob, I. Camberob, ( 2013), Surface Finish Monitoring In
Taper Turning CNC Using Artificial Neural Network And Multiple Regression Methods , Procedia
Engineering , Vol 63, Pp599 607.
[4 ] Sayak Mukherjeea, Anurag Kamala, Kaushik Kumarb, (2014), Optimization Of Material Removal
Rate During Turning Of SAE 1020 Material In CNC Lathe Using Taguchi Technique, Procedia
Engineering Vol 97, Pp 29 35.
[5] A Mahamani, (2014), Influence Of Process Parameters On Cutting Force And Surfaceroughness
During Turning Of AA2219-Tib2/Zrb2 In-Situ Metal Matrix Composites, Procedia Materials Science
Voi 6, Pp- 1178 1186
[6] Arshad Noor Siddiqueea,, Zahid A. Khana, Pankul Goel, Mukesh Kumar, Gaurav Agarwal,(2014),
Optimization Of Deep Drilling Process Parameters Of AISI 321 Steel Using Taguchi Method,
Procedia Materials Science Vol 6 Pp-1217 1225 .
[7] Mathias Agmell,, Aylin Ahadia, Jan-Eric Sthl, (2013), The Link Between Plasticity Parameters And
Process Parameters In Orthogonal Cutting, Procedia CIRP Vol8 , Pp 224 229
[8] J Frederik Zanger, Nikolay Boev, Volker Schulze, 2015, Novel Approach For 3D Simulation Of A
Cutting Process With Adaptive Remeshing Technique, Procedia CIRP Vol 31, Pp-88 93
[9] T.Senthil Kumar1, G.Mahadevan2, T.R.Vikraman, 2014, Evalution Of Surface Finish On Machining
Of Mild Steel Using High Speed Steel Tool In Lathe With Normal Coolant (Or) Nano Material
Added Coolant, Journal Of Mechanical And Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Vol 11, Issue 3 Ver.
V (May- Jun. 2014), Pp 01-09.
[10] Puneet Saini *, Shanti Parkash**, Devender Choudhary, 2014 Experimental Investigation Of
Machining Parameters For Surface Roughness In High Speed CNC Turning Of EN-24 Alloy Steel
Using Response Surface Journal Of Mechanical And Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Vol 5, Issue 5
Ver.7 (May- Jun. 2014), Pp 153-160
59