6th International DAAAM Baltic Conference
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
24-26 April 2008, Tallinn, Estonia
3D SURFACE ROUGHNESS PREDICTION TECHNIQUE IN END-
MILLING USING REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Kromanis, A.; Krizbergs, J.
Abstract: Purpose of the study is to
develop a technique to predict a surface
roughness of part to be machined
according to technological parameters.
Such technique could be achieved by
making mathematical model of machining.
In this study as machining process a
milling process is chosen, especially end-
milling. Additionally to the study, one of
the key factors, which differ from similar
studies, is that as surface parameters the
3D surface parameters are used. In this
study all the surface parameters are
expressed as 3D parameters. 3D surface
parameters give more precise picture of
the surface; therefore it is possible more
precisely to evaluate the surface
parameters according to technological
parameters. In result of the study, the
mathematical model of end-milling is
achieved and qualitative analysis is
maintained. Achieved model could help
technologists to understand more
completely the process of forming surface
roughness.
Key words: 3D surface roughness;
prediction; milling; regression.
1. INTRODUCTION
The quality of surface plays a very
important role in functionality of produced
part. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
methods, which can be used for the
prediction of the surface roughness
according to technological parameters.
There is known some surface roughness
models, mainly based on tools geometrical
properties and basic technological
parameters, mainly feed (f). Theses models
are not so accurate for surface roughness
prediction because they do not count many
other very important technological
parameters. One of the means to build a
more precise prediction model is to use
regression analysis. In this study regression
analysis is used to predict the surface
roughness according to technological
parameters in end milling. Experiment is
conducted to acquire necessary data and
regression analysis is used to reach the
credible surface roughness prediction
model. According to this model
manufacturing engineers could set cutting
machines without any long-term adjusting.
Material and time economy could be
reached and also quality maintained.
Further to describe the machined surface
3D parameters are introduced. In this paper
a 3D surface roughness parameter like Sa
(average absolute deviation of the surface)
is used. 3D surface roughness parameters
give more precise picture of the surface,
because it shows the real environment of
the surface.
2. MATERIAL PROCESSING USING
END MILL – SEQUENCE OF
EXPERIMENT
Aim of the experiment is to find
relationships between surface roughness
(Average absolute deviation of the surface
– Sa) of machined workpiece and used
technological parameters (cutting speed –
v; feed – f; cutting depth – a). Workpiece
was machined by using end mill in
predetermined cutting conditions. After
machining a workpiece surface is measured
and 3D surface roughness values are
obtained. The next step is to process There is known some publications where to
mathematical statistic analysis, after which existing parameters, some additional
it is possible to evaluate the influence of parameters are put, like material of
technological parameters on forming machined workpiece and geometry of end-
surface roughness. mill [1]. Machined workpiece material and
tool geometry is counted so far as correct
2.1 Initial data of the experiment technological parameters to be chosen. In
Machined workpiece material is stainless real life material to be machined is chosen
steel (Stainless steel EN 1.4301 – by designer neither by technologists nor
X5CrNi18-10). 12 end-milling cuts are CNC operator. It means that this parameter
made on workpiece. Every cut is made is hard to control in process. Tool
with different technological parameters geometry could be better controlled as a
(See table 2). Machining was made by material of workpiece to be machined.
using carbide end mill, which diameter is Nevertheless, tool geometry can not be
10 mm and it has 4 teeth. changed during the cutting process. The
only really changeable parameters in
process are cutting speed (v), cutting depth
(a) and feed (f). These parameters were
chosen to control the cutting process and to
make evaluation of the machined
workpiece’s 3D surface roughness
according to technological parameters.
Fig. 1. Drawing of machined workpiece Referring to the Table 2, limits for the
technological parameters are chosen
Simultaneously with choosing material of accordingly:
workpiece, a table (See table 1) with - cutting speed (v): 120≤v≤190 m/min;
technological parameters was made. As - feed (f): 0.1≤s≤0.25 mm/rev.;
technological parameters the following - cutting depth (a): 0.5≤t≤1.5 mm.
parameters were chosen: v – cutting speed Designation of parameter limits is
(m/min); s – feed (mm/rev.) and a – cutting essential, because choosing parameters
depth (mm). outside designated range can result in
appropriate results of experiment. Out of
Table 1. Listing of technological this range it is almost impossible to get
parameters satisfied results to analyze the influences of
No. f a v technological parameters to 3D surface
(mm) (mm) (m/min) roughness parameters. Parameters in
1. 0,25 1,5 190 positions from 9 to 12 are control
parameters.
2. 0,25 0,5 190
3. 0,1 0,5 190 2.2 Mathematical formulation or
4. 0,1 1,5 190 regression analysis
5. 0,1 1,5 120 The main task for regression analysis is to
6. 0,25 1,5 120 show relationship between result (3D
7. 0,25 0,5 120 surface roughness) and factors (v, f, a) and
8. 0,1 0,5 120 to evaluate a function of this relationship:
9. 0,21 1 210
10. 0,13 1 210 Sa = f (v, f , a ) + ε (1)
11. 0,21 1 100
In the equation (1) Sa is average absolute
12. 0,13 1 100
deviation of the 3D surface roughness, f is
response function and v, f, a are variables
of milling, and E is error, which is
distributed on Sa average value.
Concerning previous equation (1),
relationship between the surface roughness
(Sa) and technological parameters (v, f, a)
can be written into following style: Fig. 2. Representation of 3D surface
roughness of machined workpiece: on the
Sa = C ⋅ f a1 ⋅ a a 2 ⋅ v a3 , (2)
left side –surface roughness before
levelling; on the right side –surface
roughness after levelling
where C is constant and a1, a2, a3 are
exponents. When results of 3D surface roughness (Sa)
To maintain defining of constant and was obtained, then they were written in
exponents, a mathematical model has to be MiniTab program for processing. Table 4
linearized, using following logarithmic shows the data, which were used for
transformation: processing in MiniTab.
ln Sa = ln C + a1 ln f + a2 ln a + a3 ln v (3) 2.4 Results of experiment
The final data for processing are shown in
Further this equation (3) is simplified (4), table 2. Showed Sa values are average
for using it in statistical analysis program from 3 measurement samples.
called MiniTab. lnSa is replaced by y, lnC
by b0, a1lnf by b1x1, a2lna by b2x2 and a3lnv Table 2. Chosen technological parameters
by b3x3: and obtained Sa (average absolute
deviation of the surface)
y = b0 + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + b3 x3 (4) No. f a v Sa
(mm) (mm) (m/min) (µm)
2.3 3D surface roughness measurements 1. 0.25 1.5 190 1.37
When the machining of workpiece is 2. 0.25 0.5 190 0.631
finished a surface roughness measurement 3. 0.1 0.5 190 0.388
is performed. For measurements Taylor 4. 0.1 1.5 190 0.988
Hobson Form Talysurf Intra 50 5. 0.1 1.5 120 0.635
profilometer – profilograph was used. On 6. 0.25 1.5 120 1.37
every machined groove a 3x3 mm 7. 0.25 0.5 120 1.09
measurement field was chosen. Every field
8. 0.1 0.5 120 0.472
was scanned by 15 strokes and every stroke
included 100 measurement points. 9. 0.21 1 210 1.02
Obtained results were processed in 10 0.13 1 210 0.871
TalySurf Intra program. Further the 11. 0.21 1 100 0.805
measured examples were levelled (Fig. 2) 12. 0.13 1 100 0.47
to eliminate form defects. Only surface
roughness data were processed for 3D As seen form Table 2, measurements in
surface roughness measurement. positions 9 to 12 are control measurements
(marked in grey). Technological
parameters in these positions were taken
with offset. All these data were put into
MiniTab program and following regression
equation was reached:
Sa = −0,403 + 3,33 s + 0,446 t + 0,00140 v (5)
Also regression analysis showed that
cutting speed (v) had little influence on
formation of surface roughness. Therefore,
to simplify further calculations the cutting
speed (v) is omitted.
Sa = −0,403 + 3,33 f + 0,446a (6)
Such optimized equation (6) ease further
calculations. There is no further need to
calculate values, which do not influence
overall result. It is quite important that we
consider that the time is one of the most
important indicators of productivity.
3. ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGIGAL
PARAMETERS INFLUENCE ON
SURFACE ROUGHNESS
Considering above mentioned workpiece
machining and data processing, using
regression analysis, and quality analysis of
table 2, we can conclude that surface
roughness is more influenced by cutting
depth (a) and feed (f). In this case cutting
speed (v) has minimal influence. There
raises a question, why cutting depth (a) and
feed (f) have such a big influence on
surface roughness, but cutting speed (v)
does not? From practice it is known that in
most cases the biggest influence come
from cutting speed (v). One of possible
explanations could be the range of
parameter’s change. For example, cutting
depth (a) range is from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
It means that change from 0.5 mm to 1.5
mm in relative percents is 200 %. For feed
(f) it is 150 %, but for cutting speed (v) it is
58 %. Remarkably less than for cutting
depth (a) and feed (f). For example, if
cutting depth (a) changed from 8 to 9 mm,
the actual range of change in percents
would be 12.5 %. Considering previous
conclusion, it could result that in this case
cutting depth (a) would have considerable
less influence on surface roughness (Sa).
To confirm correctives of such approach,
more experiments should be done. Taking
account such a feature of analysis could
improve existing prediction models and
improve algorithms for choosing effective
technological parameters. This approach
still needs some more experimental data to
improve its credentials.
From further analyzing of experimental
data we can obtain two extreme values (the
smallest and the biggest 3D surface
roughness):
The smallest Sa = 0.338 micrometers:
f = 0.1 mm.;
t = 0.5 mm;
v = 190 m/min.
The biggest Sa = 1.37 micrometers:
f = 0.1 mm/rev.;
t = 0.5 mm;
v = 190 m/min.
From these data we can conclude that the
smallest surface roughness (Sa) is reached
by using the smallest feed (f) and cutting
depth (a) and the biggest cutting speed (v).
But once again analyzing technological
parameters, which were used to reach the
biggest possible surface roughness (Sa), we
conclude that it is necessary to use opposite
technological parameter values: the biggest
feed (f) and cutting depth (a); but cutting
speed (v) played small influence and
stayed on the top of its value. Once again it
is possible to confirm that the biggest
influence on surface roughness was made
by such technological parameters like
cutting depth (a) and feed (f), but cutting
speed (v) has considerable small influence.
4. OTHER PREDICTION METHODS
Here are described other methods, which
could be useful for making surface
roughness prediction models.
4.1 Fuzzy logic
The most recent method for analyzing
cutting factors influence on surface
roughness is the Fuzzy logic or Fuzzy
system. Fuzzy logic is concerned with the
continuous transition from truth to false
states, as opposed to the discrete true/false
transition in binary logic. Fuzzy logic is
particularly attractive due too its ability to
solve problems in the absence of accurate
mathematical models. Computational
neural networks give a number of attractive
properties for modeling complex
manufacturing process or systems:
universal function approximation
capability, resistance to noisy or missing
data.
Instead of operating with numeric values of
variables and using mathematical functions
to describe relationships, fuzzy logic uses
common everyday language to describe
variables and uses fuzzy linguistic rules to
define relationships. The fuzzy logic is
quite a new method for building
mathematical models and its still needs
development.
4.2 Other methods
The next type of analysis, which can be
used is Analysis of Variance also known as
ANOVA. Some steps in this analysis are
similar to Regression analysis.
Another method is Response Surface
Methodology, which is also known from
some publications. The next method, which
can be used, is Taguchi Method Analysis.
The Taguchi method is used to identify
impact of various parameters on an output
and figure out how to control them to
reduce the variability in that output. These
types of methods can be combined to
compare the effectiveness of each other.
5. CONCLUSION
From this experiment we can conclude that
regression analysis can be used trusty to
find relationships between surface
roughness parameters (Sa) and
technological parameters (v, a, f). This
study has a different approach on
evaluation of machined surface roughness.
3D surface roughness parameters, mainly
Sa - average absolute deviation of the
surface, were used, which give more
realistic view of surface roughness. The
study showed that technological parameter
range also plays a very important role on
forming surface roughness. Study results
can be used by technologists and other
manufacturing specialists to set up cutting
parameters in end-milling. Further research
could be concentrate on development of
knowledge data base. This data base could
contain information about surface
roughness values according to used
technological parameters. Further research
should be done to confirm, that the range
of variation of technological parameters
influences its performance on forming
surface roughness.
11. REFERENCES
1. N. Suresh Kumar Reddy, P.
Venkateswara Rao. Selection of optimal
tool geometry and cutting conditions using
a surface roughness prediction model for
end milling. – International Journal of
Advanced manufacturing Technologies,
2005, 1202 – 1210.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been partly supported by the
European Social Fund within National
Program “Support for carrying out doctoral
study program’s and post-doctoral
researches” project “Support for
development of doctoral studies in Riga
Technical University”.
7. CORRESPONDING ADDRESS
MSc. Artis Kromanis
Riga Technical University, Department of
Mechanical Engineering
Ezermalas St. 6, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia
Phone: +37126779672,
E-mail: artis.kromanis@gmail.com