JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(21) 26592673
! The Author(s) 2011
Surface roughness analysis in high-speed Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
drilling of unreinforced and reinforced DOI: 10.1177/0021998311431640
jcm.sagepub.com
polyamides

VN Gaitonde1, SR Karnik2, J Campos Rubio3, AM Abrao3,

A Esteves Correia4 and J Paulo Davim5

Abstract
In this work, surface roughness study in high-speed drilling of unreinforced polyamide (PA6) and reinforced polyamide
with 30% of glass fibers (PA66 GF30) using cemented carbide (K20) tool has been carried out. The experiments were
planned as per full factorial design of experiments. The effects of cutting speed and feed rate on centerline average
surface roughness, maximum peak to valley height, and peak counts have been analyzed by developing response surface
methodology based third-order mathematical models. The parametric analysis clearly indicates the influence of rein-
forced fiber on surface finish when high-speed cutting in drilling is used.

Keywords
Polymer composites, surface roughness, high-speed drilling, response surface methodology

Introduction
The polyamides are thermoplastic polymer composites
extensively used in a variety of applications in dierent
elds of engineering such as aircrafts, automobiles,
robots and machines due to excellent property prole
thereby replacing many traditional metallic materials.
The favorable properties include high specic strength
and stiness, wear resistance, dimensional stability,
low weight, and directional properties. The polyam-
ides physically dier in terms of melting point, glas-
s-transition temperature, crystallinity and tensile
modulus, among the other things. The PA66 polyamide
has a melting point of 262 C, which is higher than that
of PA6 at 219 C; its glass-transition temperature is
65 C versus 52 C for PA6; the crystal structure of
PA66 is triclinic, while PA6 has a monoclinic structure
and its tensile modulus is around 2.9 GPa, while it is a
little lower for PA6.
The addition of short bers to polyamides improves
the properties over unreinforced polyamides. The sti-
ness, strength, and hardness of reinforced plastics are
much greater than that of unreinforced thermoplastics.
The inclusion of bers also can often provide a useful
increase in maximum service temperature. The glass
bers are the common reinforcements, which
signicantly reduce the expansion rate and increase
the exural modulus of PA6. On the other hand, glass
ber reinforced polyamide is highly abrasive when
machined and brings out many undesirable results
such as rough surface nish, rapid tool wear and defec-
tive subsurface layer with cracks and delaminations.
Further, the cutting mechanism of unreinforced and
reinforced polyamides is quite dierent from that of
metals and hence the successful performance of
1
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, B. V. B. College of
Engineering and Technology, Karnataka, India
2
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, B. V. B. College of
Engineering and Technology, Karnataka, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Management,
School of Technology, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Viseu, Portugal
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro,
Portugal
Corresponding author:
VN Gaitonde, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
B. V. B. College of Engineering and Technology, Hubli-580 031, Karnataka,
India
Email: gaitondevn@yahoo.co.in
2660
machining operation is greatly aected by work mate-
rial properties. As a result of improved properties and
potential applications of both unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides, there is a need to understand the
manufacturing processes, particularly in machining of
these composites.1
Some researchers have performed experimental
investigations on machining of unreinforced and
reinforced polyamides. Mata et al.2 carried out an
experimental investigation on machining of unrein-
forced polyamide (PA6) and reinforced polyamide
with 30% of glass bers (PA66 GF30) using polycrys-
talline diamond (PCD) tool. The inuence of glass ber
reinforcement on friction angle, shear plane angle,
normal and shear stresses, and chip deformation
under cutting conditions (cutting speed and feed rate)
has been reported. The experimental model has also
been compared with Merchants theoretical model.
Davim and Mata3 also performed experiments on turn-
ing of PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyamides with cemented
carbide (K15) tools. The inuence of glass ber rein-
forcement on friction angle, shear plane angle, normal
and shear stresses, and chip deformation under the cut-
ting conditions was observed. Further, the experimental
physical model was also compared with Merchants
equation. Gaitonde et al.4 used Taguchis quality loss
function for simultaneously minimizing power and spe-
cic cutting force during turning of PA6 and PA66
GF30 polyamides. Gaitonde et al. 1 also applied
response surface methodology (RSM) to analyze some
aspects of machinability, namely, machining force, cut-
ting power, and specic cutting pressure during
machining of PA6 and PA66 GF30 with cemented car-
bide (K10) tool. Recently, the articial neural networks
models were developed by Gaitonde et al.5 to analyze
the eects of work material, tool material, cutting
speed, and feed rate on machining force, power and
specic cutting force during turning of PA6 and PA66
GF30 polyamides. It was revealed that the machinabil-
ity is poor in reinforced polyamide as compared to
unreinforced polyamide.
Several works have also been published to evaluate
the eect of cutting parameters and drill geometry on
machinability of FRPs such as epoxy or polyester
matrices reinforced with aramid, glass or carbon
bers.6,7 Among the damages induced by drilling,
delamination is probably the most severe and therefore,
a number of works have been concentrated on quanti-
fying the damage level at the entrance and exit of the
drill.813. Palanikumar et al.14 used design of experi-
ments (DOE) to investigate the eect of process param-
eters on surface roughness during turning of glass ber
reinforced plastics (GFRP) composites. The research
ndings indicated that feed rate is the principal factor
aecting surface roughness, followed by cutting speed.
Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)
According to Guu et al.15 conventional machining
techniques damage the workpiece through chipping,
cracking, delamination, and high wear on cutting
tool. The structure for aerospace and automotive appli-
cations contains holes for various purposes such as
bolted and riveted joints and these joints are used to
transfer load within the structure. As reported by
Persson et al.,16 the quality and accuracy of the holes
greatly aect the joint strengths.
In the recent past, high-speed cutting (HSC) has
been introduced in advanced manufacturing technology
for achieving high productivity and to save the machin-
ing cost. The HSC leads to lower forces and higher
material removal rate, which in turn minimizes the
energy consumption. Hence, an introduction of
increased cutting speeds along with special geometry
tools utilized in drilling process has stimulated several
researchers to investigate the various aspects of drilling
composite materials. The eect of high speed (9550
38,650 rpm) on average thrust force, torque, tool
wear, and hole quality for multifaceted and twist
drills during drilling of carbon ber reinforced plastic
(CFRP) composites has been investigated by Lin and
Chen.17 It was reported that an increase in cutting
speed decreases the cutting force, which in turn mini-
mizes the delamination thus increasing the production
rate. The relationship between the thrust force and
amount of damage was also established in their study.
Recently, the delamination tendency in high-speed dril-
ling of CFRP composites was studied by Gaitonde
et al.18 and Karnik et al.19 considering the speed,
feed, and point angle as the aecting parameters. It
was reported that the delamination can be minimized
by employing the higher speed with lower values of
both feed rate and point angle.
The components made out of polyamides are usu-
ally near net shaped, thus requiring holes for assem-
bly integration. When holes are produced on
polyamide boards, special attention should be paid,
in particular, for the automotive industry, as the
machining parameters inuence the surface rough-
ness. The surface roughness is the measure of tech-
nological quality of a product and also an index for
evaluating the productivity of machine tools as well
as the machined components. Hence, the desired sur-
face quality is to be achieved for the functional
behavior of mechanical parts.20 The surface rough-
ness has signicant inuence on fatigue strength,
coecient of friction, lubrication, corrosion resis-
tance, and wear resistance of the machined parts.21
Thus, measuring and characterizing the surface nish
has been considered as the predictor of machining
performance. However, it is dicult to predict sur-
face roughness due to anisotropic and heterogeneous
nature of polyamide materials.
Gaitonde et al.
As seen from literature, only limited work has been
carried out on cutting aspects of unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides drilling. Further, the relationship
among the inuencing factors and their eects on sur-
face roughness are also not known. Thus, the main
objective of this article is to investigate the eect of
cutting conditions on surface roughness in high-speed
drilling of polyamide with and without 30% glass bers
reinforcing (unreinforced PA6 and PA66 GF30 rein-
forced) using cemented carbide (K20) tool and compar-
ing with the conventional cutting conditions.
A surface generated by machining is composed of a
large number of length scales of superimposed rough-
ness and is generally characterized by three dierent
types of parameters, namely, amplitude parameters,
spacing parameters, and hybrid parameters.22
The amplitude parameters such as centerline average
surface roughness, root mean square roughness, skew-
ness, kurtosis, maximum peak to valley height are the
measures of vertical characteristics of surface devia-
tions. The spacing parameters such as mean line peak
spacing, high spot count, and peak count are the mea-
sures of horizontal characteristics of surface deviations.
On the other hand, the hybrid parameters such as root
mean square slope of prole, root mean square wave
length, core roughness depth, reduced peak height,
valley depth, peak area, valley area are a combination
of both the vertical and horizontal characteristics of
surface deviations. Thus, considering only centerline
average surface roughness is not sucient to describe
the surface nish, though it is the most commonly used
roughness parameter. Hence, present study aims at con-
sideration of three dierent surface roughness parame-
ters, namely, centerline average surface roughness (Ra),
maximum peak to valley height (Rz), and peak count
(Pc) for the surface texture generated in polyamide
drilling.
The conventional technique involves the variation of
one parameter at a time while keeping the other param-
eters at xed levels and hence, time consuming.
Moreover, the traditional method requires huge
number of experiments to be performed and also does
not include the interactive eects among the parame-
ters. The model development by RSM is a convenient
method, which requires minimum number of experi-
ments to be conducted and thus reducing the cost and
time.23 Hence, an attempt has been made in this study
to develop the RSM-based mathematical models of sur-
face roughness parameters. The experiments have been
planned as per full factorial design (FFD), which allows
the study of interactions among the variables. The
eects of cutting speed and feed rate on centerline aver-
age surface roughness, maximum peak to valley height,
and peak counts have been analyzed by developing
third-order response surface methodology based
2661
mathematical models. The parametric analysis indi-
cates the inuence of reinforced ber on surface quality
when high-speed drilling is employed.
Overview of response surface
methodology
The RSM is a modeling approach for establishing the
relationship between the various process parameters
and the responses with the desired criteria and search-
ing the signicance of these process parameters on the
responses. The RSM is useful for developing, improv-
ing, and optimizing the process, which provides an
overall perspective of the system response within the
design space.23 Using DOE and applying the regression
analysis, the modeling of any desired response to sev-
eral independent process parameters can be obtained.
The RSM is employed to describe and identify the
inuence of interactions of dierent process parameters
on quality characteristic when they are varied simulta-
neously. This type of design is more practical, econom-
ical, and relatively easy to use and is usually chosen
when curvature is suspected in the response surface.23
The RSM design procedure includes the selection of
proper DOE for the adequate and reliable measurement
of response, the development of suitable mathematical
model of response surface with best ttings of the
experimental data and the representation of interaction
eects of process parameters.
Experimental details
Experimental database
In the present investigation, the database required for
the development of RSM-based model was obtained
through FFD of experiments,23 which substantially
reduces the number of experiments as compared to clas-
sical experimental design. Since the parameters identi-
ed in the current study are multilevel variables and
their outcome eects are not linearly related as per
the authors preliminary investigations, it has been
decided to use multi-level tests for the cutting condi-
tions. Two work materials, namely, unreinforced poly-
amide (PA6) and reinforced polyamide with 30% of
glass bers (PA66 GF30), three levels for spindle
speed (N), i.e., 4000 rpm (63 m/min), 8000 rpm (126 m/
min), and 40,000 rpm (630 m/min) and four levels for
feed rate (f), i.e. 1000, 3000, 6000, and 9000 mm/min
were considered as the inputs for the development of
RSM-based model. The tests employing 40,000 rpm
were undertaken using the aerostatic headstock, while
the tests at 4000 and 8000 rpm were carried out con-
necting the tool holder directly to the main spindle of
machining center. The cutting parameters were selected
2662 Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)

aiming to encompass a wide range of applications and Figure 4 and it was observed that higher the feed rate,
covering nish and rough drilling. The experimental shorter the drilling time; however, the chance of
layout plan as per FFD consists of 12 sets of process damage inside holes increases drastically.
parameter combinations for each of the materials The surface roughness was evaluated by three dier-
selected and is shown in Table 1. ent parameters, namely, centerline average (CLA) sur-
face roughness (Ra), maximum peak to valley height
(Rz), and peak count (Pc). Ra is the arithmetic average
Experimentation value of ltered roughness prole determined from
In the present study, unreinforced (PA6) and reinforced deviations about the centerline within the evaluation
with 30% of glass bers (PA66 GF30) polyamides, sup- length and gives general description of surface ampli-
plied by ERTA were used for the drilling tests. The tude, whereas, Rz is the maximum peak to valley height
mechanical and thermal properties of the work mate- of ltered prole over evaluation length, which is very
rials are listed in Table 2. The experiments were per- sensitive to large deviations from mean line and
formed on extruded workpiece (disk form) of 50 mm scratches. On the other hand, Pc is the number of
diameter and 12 mm width.
During machining of reinforced polyamide compos-
ites, hard and abrasive glass bers result in high tool Table 2. Mechanical and thermal properties of PA6 and PA66
wear and hence it is necessary to employ the appropri- GF30 polyamides
ate cutting tool. Thus, cemented carbide tool has been
Mechanical and PA6 PA66 GF30
selected as the cutting tool material. Grade K20 cemen-
thermal properties
ted carbide helical drill of 5 mm diameter with 25o heli-
Tensile modulus (MPa) 1400 3200
cal angle and 115o point angle manufactured by
Rockwell hardness M85 M76
Guhring oHG (DIN 6539 RN) was used throughout
the investigation (Figure 1). Charpy impact Without fract. 50
resistance (kJ/m2)
The drilling experiments were performed as per FFD
on a machining center with 11 kW spindle power and a Tensile strength (MPa) 76 100
maximum spindle speed of 10,000 rpm. An aerostatic Melting temperature ( C) 220 255
headstock (Figure 2) at 40,000 rpm by Air Turbine Density (g/cm3) 1.14 1.29
Tools (Boca Raton, USA) was used for high-speed Coefficient of thermal 90  106 50  106
machining tests. An appropriate clamping system was expansion (<150 C) (m/m.k)
devised to x the polyamide disk in the machining Coefficient of thermal 105  106 60  106
center (Figure 3). The drilled components of PA6 and expansion (>150 C) (m/m.k)
PA66 GF30 at dierent cutting conditions are shown in

Table 1. Experimental layout plan as per FFD and the measured values of surface roughness parameters for drilling experiments

Cutting conditions Material: PA6 Material: PA66 GF30

Trial No. N (rpm) f (mm/min) Ra (mm) RZ (mm) Pc (peaks) Ra (mm) RZ (mm) Pc (peaks)

1 4000 1000 10 50.27 76 1.3 10.62 102

2 4000 3000 8.72 46.18 72 1.94 14.02 63
3 4000 6000 4.27 25.88 108 1.56 11.05 63
4 4000 9000 3.76 22.44 110 2.03 13.58 57
5 8000 1000 3.79 22.31 98 0.99 7.28 100
6 8000 3000 4.73 26.5 89 0.93 6.14 70
7 8000 6000 5.5 32.21 97 1.63 12.76 71
8 8000 9000 5.96 33.51 86 1.94 14.14 61
9 40,000 1000 10.36 56.18 64 2.28 14.04 63
10 40,000 3000 7.41 45.18 72 4.16 24.24 64
11 40,000 6000 5.96 35.62 76 1.88 12.49 75
12 40,000 9000 5.48 32.74 86 1.81 12.79 82
*Average of six measurements.
Gaitonde et al.
prole peaks per unit length. The surface roughness
measurement was done according to ISO 4287/1 and
DIN 4762 using a Hommeltester T1000 prolometer
(Figure 5). Each trial was repeated six times and aver-
age of the six measurements of surface roughness
parameter values was recorded. The average values of
surface roughness parameters for 12 sets of process
parameter combinations are given in Table 1. The
experimental database is then used to develop the
RSM-based surface roughness models.
Figure 1. Helical point drill with thinned web DIN 6539 RN
used in the drilling experiments.
Figure 2. Aerostatic headstock for high speed machining tests
(40,000 rpm).
2663
Development of RSM-based mathematical
models
In order to understand the eects of process parameters
on surface roughness, it is necessary to develop the
mathematical models. In the present investigation,
each parameter was investigated at multi-levels in
order to study the nonlinearity eect of the process
parameters. Hence, third-order RSM-based mathemat-
ical models for centerline average surface roughness
(Ra), maximum peak to valley height (Rz), and peak
count (Pc) have been developed with cutting speed (v)
Figure 3. Clamping system of workpiece in the machining
center.
(a)
40000 rpm
4000 rpm 8000 rpm
(b)
Figure 4. Drilled components of: (a) Unreinforced polyamides
(PA6); (b) Reinforced polyamides with 30% of glass fibers
(PA66 GF30).
2664
and feed rate (f) as the process parameters. The RSM-
based mathematical model is of the form:
Y b1 b2 v b3 f b4 vf b5 v2 b6 f2
b7 v3 b8 f3 b9 v2 f b10 vf2 1
where, Y is the response, i.e., Ra, Rz, and Pc; b1,. . .,b10:
regression coecients of polynomial equations are to
be determined for each of the surface roughness
parameters.
The values of regression coecients of the mathe-
matical model are determined by:23
T 1 T
B X X X Y
where, B is the matrix of parameter estimates, X, the
calculation matrix, which includes linear, quadratic,
cubic, and interaction terms, XT, the transpose of X,
and Y, the matrix of response.
The mathematical models as determined by regres-
sion analysis to predict centerline average surface
roughness (Ra), maximum peak to valley height (Rz),
and peak count (Pc) for PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyam-
ides drilling are given by:
Centerline average surface roughness
Ra PA6 18:19515  0:12741 v  1:70535f
0:022854 vf 0:0000705v2  0:15429149 f2
0:00000018v3 0:01119f3  0:000034v2 f
0:000139vf2
Ra PA66GF30 0:921186  0:00913 v 1:199911f
0:002651vf  0:000026v2
 0:31879018 f2 0:0000000658v3
0:021875f3  0:000003v2 f
 0:000093vf2
Maximum peak to valley height
Rz PA6 87:8253  0:61022 v  6:29508f
0:108452 vf 0:000429v2  1:00299695 f2
0:000000739v3 0:065949f3  0:00016v2 f
0:000623vf2
Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)
Rz PA66GF30 12:85267  0:10622 v 4:856366f
0:023728 vf  0:00005v2
 1:49324098f2 0:000000334v3
0:102912f3  0:000029v2 f
 0:00048vf2 6
Peak count
Pc PA6 46:31089 0:52674 v  1:52615f  0:13626 vf
 0:000038v2 3:792306555f2  0:0000011v3
 0:26296f3 0:000186v2 f 0:000259vf2 7
2
Pc PA66GF30 134:9847  0:10334v  39:3317f
0:02614 vf 0:000661v2
6:666605844f2  0:000001v3
 0:36528f3 0:00000624v2 f
 0:00176vf2 8
where, v and f is in m/min; Ra and Rz is in microns, and
Pc is in peaks.
Results and discussion
Adequacy checking of surface roughness models
The adequacy of the developed models is veried
through the coecient of determination (R2) value
after estimating the sum of squares (SS). The R2 quan-
tity is used to test the goodness of t of the developed
RSM-based mathematical models, which provides a
3 measure of variability in observed values of response
and can be explained by the controlled process param-
eters and their interactions23 and is given by
4
Figure 5. Profilometer used in the measurements of surface
5 roughness parameters.
Gaitonde et al. 2665

SSregression SSR value of roughness parameter corresponding to i-th

R2
SSresidual error SSregression SSyy
Here, sum of squares due to regression is given by:
X
N imental data of FFD during drilling of PA6 and PA66
SSR yi, pred  y i, exp t 2
i
where, yi,exp t is the measured response corresponding to
data set i; yi,pred , the predicted response corresponding
to data set i; yi, exp t , the overall average of yi,exp t ; N, the
number of data sets in the experimental design matrix.
The sum of squares about the mean is given by:
9
trial; and N, the number of trials in FFD.
The percentage prediction error of the models is
given in Table 4 and the comparison of the predicted
and experimental values of Ra, Rz, and Pc for the exper-
10 GF30 polyamides is exhibited in Figures 6, 7, and 8,
respectively. As seen from these gures, there exists a
close relationship between the experimental and the
predicted values and it has been also found that there
are no abnormal variations between the experimental
and the predicted values. Hence, the developed RSM-
based third-order models can be used for the prediction
of surface roughness parameters.

2
P
N
Parametric analysis on surface roughness
X
N yi,exp t
2 i
SSyy yi,exp t  11 Equations (3) to (8) are used to predict the surface
i
N
roughness parameters, namely, centerline average sur-
face roughness (Ra), maximum peak to valley height
The R2 values are presented in Table 3, which indi- (Rz), and peak count (Pc) by substituting the values
cate the correlation between the experimental and the of cutting speed (v) and feed rate (f) within the ranges
predicted values of surface roughness parameters. of the process parameters selected.
Equations (3) to (8) are used to test the accuracy of A comparison of the estimated centerline average
the developed models using the experimental data of surface roughness (Ra) against the dierent cutting con-
FFD. The percentage prediction error of the model ditions for PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyamides drilling
for the experimental data set of FFD is given by: with K20 cemented carbide drilling is depicted in
Figure 9(a)(c). It is clear from the gure that the Ra
N  
100 X yi,exp t  yi,pred  values for PA66 GF30 is quite low when compared to
 12
N i1  yi,pred  PA6 material under all values of feed rate and speed.
Moreover, in the case of PA66 GF30, the variation of
Ra with respect to feed rate is same for all values of
where, yi,expt is the measured value of roughness param- speed considered. On the other hand, for PA6 material,
eter corresponding to i-th trial; yi,pred, the predicted Ra shows decreasing tendency with the increase in feed
rate when the speed is at 4000 rpm and 40,000 rpm,
while Ra shows an increasing tendency when the
Table 3. R2values for mathematical models of surface rough-
speed is at 8000 rpm. A similar behavior of Rz can be
ness parameters seen in Figure 10(a)(c).
Figure 11(a)(c) illustrates the comparison of Pc for
Sum of squares PA6 and PA66 GF30 materials. It is seen that PA66
Surface roughness
GF30 outperforms the PA6 under almost all the cutting
parameter Regression Residual error R2
conditions except at lower values of feed rate and
Material: PA6
Centerline average 55.4343 2.6993 0.9536
surface roughness
Table 4. Percent prediction error for mathematical models of
Maximum peak to 1345.78 47.54 0.9659 surface roughness parameters
valley height
Peak count 2243.26 166.41 0.9309 Surface roughness PA6 PA66 GF30
parameter
Material: PA66 GF30
Centerline average 8.31 16.63
Centerline average 6.0073 1.5807 0.7917
surface roughness
surface roughness
Maximum peak to 8.51 15.01
Maximum peak to 160.06 58.97 0.7307
valley height
valley height
Peak count 5.99 3.28
Peak count 2363.94 82.98 0.9661
2666 Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)

speed. Further, it can be observed that the behavior of
Pc is dierent for dierent materials for the speed range
below 8000 rpm. On the other hand, at 40,000 rpm, the
behavior of Pc with respect to feed rate variation is
similar for both the materials tested.
From the above discussions, it can be concluded that
PA66 GF30 material shows a better performance with
respect to Ra, Rz, and Pc when compared to PA6 work
material. Moreover, from the above graphs, it is
observed that there is no substantial improvement in
the behaviors of Ra, Rz, and Pc during high-speed dril-
ling (40,000 rpm) as compared to low speed drilling
(8000 rpm) for both the materials. In this case, the sur-
face roughness is dictated by the cutting temperature,
i.e., with the softening of the matrix. At high spindle
speed of 40,000 rpm, the heat generated by friction
between major and minor cutting edges and work
material promotes softening of matrix and hence the
surface roughness is not drastically aected by speed-
feed combination. However, the earlier investiga-
tions18,19 suggested that high-speed drilling in CFRPs
is benecial in minimizing the delamination tendency.
But it is not true in our investigations on surface rough-
ness in high-speed drilling of both unreinforced and
reinforced polyamides.
The present investigations revealed that better sur-
face quality can be achieved for PA66 GF30 material
by employing low feed rate with low to medium speed
as compared to PA6 material. This is mainly because of
the ductile behaviour of PA66 GF30 material, which
causes softening and adhesion of work mateial as com-
pared to PA6. As reported by Davim et al.,24 the pres-
ence of glass bers is also responsible for more brittle
behavior of the reinforced polyamide, thus reducing the

Material: PA6
12

10

8
Ra (microns)

Experimental
6
Predicted

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Trial No.
Material: PA66 GF30
12

10

8
Ra (microns)

Experimental
6
Predicted

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Trial No.

Figure 6. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of Ra.

Gaitonde et al. 2667

contact area and promoting lower forces. The lower
forces in turn reduces the surface roughness. One
more possible reason for the reduction of surface
roughness is the lower glass transition temperature of
PA66 GF30 polyamide. Figure 12 shows scanning elec-
tron micrographs (SEM) of the drilled PA6 polyamide
and PA66 GF30 reinforced polyamide work materials.
The heat generation due to friction between the cutting
edges and the work material leads to the softening of
the polymeric matrix, thus impairing surface nish.
This eect is clearer in PA6 polyamide; however, in
case of the PA66GF30 the glass ber reinforcement
provides a better surface nish.
Discussion
The polyamides play an important role in modern
industries and also in a wide variety of engineering
applications. The bers carry bulk of load and matrix
serves as a medium for tranfer of load to bers in ber
composites. The cutting mechanism in ber composites
is mainly due to the combination of plastic deforma-
tion, shearing, and bending rupture and this mechanism
depends on exibility, orientation and toughness of the
bers, which in turn constitute surface texture on the
work piece.25 The presence of glass bers in the poly-
mer matrix increases hardness as well as strength.
Due to anisotropic and heterogeneous nature of poly-
amides, it is very dicult to predict the surface
roughness.
The drilling process of brittle thermosets and bers
results in a series of mini-ber fractures, ber pullouts
and matrix cracking into pieces.26 During drilling of
composites, multilayers are cut with a single cutter
and hence dierent mechanisms can be found in the
chip formation. At low feed rate values, the chip for-
mation is the continuous-shear type, which is similar to
that produced in machining of metals. During drilling

Material: PA6
60

50

40
Rz (microns)

Experimental
30
Predicted

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Trial No.
Material: PA66 GF30
60

50

40
Rz (microns)

Experimental
30
Predicted

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Trial No.

Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of Rz..

2668 Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)

Material: PA6
120

100

80
Pc (Peaks)

Experimental
60
Predicted

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Trial No.

Material: PA66 GF30

120

100

80
Pc (Peaks)

Experimental
60
Predicted

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Trial No.

Figure 8. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of Pc.

at low feed rate, the matrix is sheared continuously and
smeared into the gaps among the bers. The ber cut-
ting mechanism is composed of ber cutting, which is
microfracture from compression induced shear across
the ber axis and interfacial shearing along the ber
direction. On the other hand, at higher feed rates, the
chips produced are discontinuous. At higher feed rates,
the cutting mechanism is characterized by compression-
induced fracture perpendicular to the bers and inter-
laminar shear fracture along the bermatrix interface
due to bending. Figure 13 presents the forms of the
chips obtained after drilling PA66 polyamide at a spin-
dle speed of 4000 rpm (63 m/min) operating at two feed
rates, namely, 9000 and 1000 mm/min. The change in
the chip form is clearly evidenced in this gure as feed
rate is reduced.
In the present investigation, it is observed that in
case of PA66 GF30 drilling, better surface nish was
obtained at lower feed rates with low to medium speed
range. In general, the reduced surface roughness is
mainly due to less fracture and less strain generation
in the work materials. The lower feed rates always gen-
erate lower cutting forces, which in turn cause less
vibration and hence provide better surface nish.
The increased feed rate generates more heat between
the drill and workpiece and hence tool wear increases,
which in turn tend to produce higher surface roughness
values. The increase in feed rate usually increases the
chatter, which results in incomplete machining at a
faster traverse speed, which led to higher surface rough-
ness.14 Furthermore, due to deep-ber pullouts, higher
feed rate produces larger surface roughness.
As seen from Figures 9 and 10, it is observed that, in
case of PA6 drilling, a combination of low speed
(4000 rpm) and high feed rate (9000 mm/min) resulted
in better surface nish. In general, surface roughness
increases as feed rate is reduced due to large material
ow with cut bers, whereas, at high speed the chips
Gaitonde et al. 2669

(a) Speed: 4000 rpm

12

10

Ra (microns)
8
PA6
6
PA66 GF30
4

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)
(b) Speed: 8000 rpm
12

10
Ra (microns)

8
PA6
6
PA66 GF30
4

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)
(c) Speed: 40000 rpm
12

10
Ra (microns)

8
PA6
6
PA66 GF30
4

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)

Figure 9. Effect cutting speed and feed rate on Ra.

consist of less deformed matrix material and cut bers.
In addition, higher speeds reduce the cutting forces
together with the eect of natural frequency and vibra-
tion, thus providing better surface nish. This physical
explanation does not agree with the results observed for
PA6 material, probably because when cutting speed is
elevated to 40,000 rpm associated with high feed rate
values, the increase in temperature may cause the melt-
ing of material on the machined surface (Figure 12(a)),
thus impairing surface nish. As far as the feed rate is
concerned, its eect on surface roughness is not as evi-
dent in drilling as in the case of cutting with single point
tools. When drilling, the contact area between the hole
wall and the secondary cutting edge plays a signicant
role on the surface texture owing to the fact that the
marks left by the nose radius are subsequently altered
in the contact region. Therefore, a straightforward rela-
tionship between feed rate and surface roughness
cannot be easily drawn under these circumstances.
Conclusions
In order to analyze the eects of cutting speed and feed
rate on surface roughness parameters, namely, center-
line average surface roughnes (Ra), maximum peak to
valley height (Rz), and peak count (Pc), the RSM-based
third-order models were developed. The database
required for the development of models were
obtained through the drilling experiments planned as
per FFD. An experimental study on surface roughness
2670 Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)

in high-speed drilling of unreinforced polyamide (PA6)
and reinforced polyamide with 30% of glass bers
(PA66 GF30) using cemented carbide (K20) tool has
been carried out and compared with the conventional
cutting conditions. Based on the parametric analysis,
the following conclusions are drawn within the ranges
of the process parameters selected.
. There exist nonlinear relationships between the sur-
face roughness and the cutting conditions and
hence justifying the use of third-order RSM-based
model.
. The Ra and Rz values for PA66 GF30 is low as com-
pared to PA6 material for all values of feed rate and
speed.
. The Ra and Rz decrease with increase in feed rate
when the speed is held at 4000 rpm and 40,000 rpm,
whereas they show decreasing tendency when the
speed is at 8000 rpm.
. With reference to Pc, except at lower values of feed
rate and speed, PA66 GF30 material provides better
surface nish as compared to PA6 material for all
the values of cutting conditions tested.
. At high spindle speed of 40,000 rpm, the behavior
of Pc with respect to feed rate variation is similar
for both the materials tested. On the other hand,
the behavior of Pc is dierent for dierent mate-
rials for the speed range below 8000 rpm.
. As compared to PA6 material, PA66 GF30 material
provides better surface nish by employing low feed

(a) Speed: 4000 rpm

60

50
Rz (microns)

40
PA6
30
PA66 GF30
20

10

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)
(b) Speed: 8000 rpm
60

50
Rz (microns)

40
PA6
30
PA66 GF30
20

10

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)
(c) Speed: 40000 rpm
60

50
Rz (microns)

40
PA6
30
PA66 GF30
20

10

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)

Figure 10. Effect cutting speed and feed rate on Rz.

Gaitonde et al. 2671

(a) Speed: 4000 rpm

160
140
120

Pc (peaks)
100
PA6
80
PA66 GF30
60
40
20
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)

(b) Speed: 8000 rpm

160
140
120
Pc (peaks)

100
PA6
80
PA66 GF30
60
40
20
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)

(c) Speed: 40000 rpm

160
140
120
Pc (peaks)

100
PA6
80
PA66 GF30
60
40
20
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Feed rate (mm/min)

Figure 11. Effect cutting speed and feed rate on Pc.

Figure 12. Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of the work materials (350  magnification): (a) PA6 polyamide, (b) PA66 GF30
reinforced polyamide.
2672
Figure 13. Forms of the chips obtained after drilling PA66 polyamide at a spindle speed of 4000 rpm (63 m/min) at two feed rates:
(a) 9000 mm/min, (b) 1000 mm/min.
rate with low to medium speed for all the surface
parameters tested.
. Under high-speed drilling of 40,000 rpm, the surface
roughness seems to be less sensitive to feed-speed
mainly due to the softening of the matrix.
. The developed third-order RSM based models can
be used to predict the surface roughness parameters
in drilling of unreinforced and reinforced polyam-
ides. However, the validity of the models is limited
to range of variables consdered for the investigation.
The accuracy of the models can be improved by
including additional drilling variables and levels
and also by employing higher order models.
Funding
This research received no specic grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Polytechnic Institute of
Viseu for supporting the experimental work. Part of the work
reported here is sponsored by CAPES/FCT Research Program.
Conflict of interests
None declared.
References
1. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP. Study on
some aspects of machinability in unreinforced and rein-
forced polyamides. J Compos Mater 2009; 43(7): 725739.
2. Mata F, Reis P and Davim JP. Physical cutting model of
polyamide composites (PA66 GF30). Mater Sci For 2006;
514516: 643647.
Journal of Composite Materials 46(21)
3. Davim JP and Mata F. Comparative evaluation of the
turning of reinforced and unreinforced polyamide. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 2007; 33: 911914.
4. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP.
Taguchi approach for achieving better machinability in
unreinforced and reinforced polyamides. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2008; 27: 909924.
5. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Mata F and Davim JP.
Modeling and analysis of machinability characteristics
in PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyamides through artificial
neural network. J Thermplast Compos Mater 2010; 23:
313336.
6. Mohan NS, Ramachandra A and Kulkarni SM.
Influence of process parameters on cutting force and
torque during drilling of glassfiber polyester reinforced
composites. Compos Struct 2005; 71: 407413.
7. Clark RL, Craven MD and Kander RG. Nylon 66/poly
(vinyl pyrrolidone) reinforced composites: 2- Bulk
mechanical properties and moisture effects. Composites
Part A 1999; 30(1): 3748.
8. Bhattacharya D and Horrigan DPW. A study of hole
drilling in Kelvar composites. Compos Sci Technol 1998;
58: 267283.
9. Khashaba UA. Delamination in drilling GFR thermoset
composites. Compos Struct 2004; 63: 313327.
10. Tsao CC and Hocheng H. Effects of special drill bits on
drilling-induced delamination of composite materials. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 2006; 46(1213): 14031416.
11. Davim JP, Rubio JC and Abrao AM. A novel approach
based on digital image analysis to evaluate the delamina-
tion factor after drilling composite laminates. Compos Sci
Technol 2007; 67: 19391945.
12. Davim JP, Reis P, Lapa V and Antonio CC.
Machinability study on polyetheretherketone (PEEK)
unreinforced and reinforced (GF30) for application in
structural components. Compos Struct 2003; 62: 6773.
Gaitonde et al.
13. Aoyama E, Nobe H and Hirogaki T. Drilled hole damage
of small diameter in printed wiring board. J Mater
Process Technol 2001; 118: 436441.
14. Palanikumar K, Karunamoorthy L and Manoharan N.
Mathematical model to predict the surface roughness on
the machining of glass fiber reinforced polymer compos-
ites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2006; 25: 407417.
15. Guu H, Hocheng H, Tai NH and Liu SY. Effect of elec-
trical discharge machining on the characteristics of
carbon fiber reinforced carbon composites. J Mater Sci
2001; 36: 20372043.
16. Persson E, Eriksson I and Zackrisson L. Effect of hole
machining defects on strength and fatigue life of compos-
ite laminates. Composites Part A 1997; 28(2): 141151.
17. Lin SC and Chen IK. Drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced
composite material at high speed. Wear 1996; 194:
156162.
18. Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Rubio JC, Correia AE, Abrao
AM and Davim JP. Analysis of parametric influence on
delamination in high-speed drilling of carbon fiber rein-
forced plastic composites. J Mater Process Technol 2008;
203: 431438.
19. Karnik SR, Gaitonde VN, Rubio JC, Correia AE, Abrao
AM and Davim JP. Delamination analysis in high-speed
2673
drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) using
artificial neural network model. Mater Des 2008; 29:
17681776.
20. Benardos PG and Vosniakos GC. Predicting surface
roughness in machining: A review. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 2003; 43: 833844.
21. Feng CXJ and Wang X. Development of empirical
models for surface roughness prediction in finish turning.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2002; 20: 348356.
22. Thomas TR. Rough surfaces, 2nd ed. London: Imperial
College Press, 1999.
23. Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
24. Davim JP, Silva LR, Festas A and Abrao AM.
Machinability Study on precision turning of PA66 poly-
amide with and without glass fiber reinforcing. Mater Des
2009; 30: 228234.
25. Tondon S, Jain VK, Kumar P and Rajurkar P.
Investigations into machining of composites. Prec Eng
1990; 12(4): 227238.
26. Rahman M, Ramakrishnan S, Prakash JRS and Ten
DCG. Machinability study of carbon fiber reinforced
composite. J Mater Process Technol 1999; 8990:
292297.