DOI 10.

1007/s00170-004-2348-4
ORI GI NAL ARTI CLE
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 28: 221227
R. Venkata Rao
Machinability evaluation of work materials
using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method
Received: 15 July 2004 / Accepted: 22 July 2004 / Published online: 13 April 2005
Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005
Abstract This paper presents a logical procedure to evaluate
the machinability of work materials for a given machining oper-
ation. The procedure is based on a combined TOPSIS and AHP
method. The proposed global machinability index helps to evalu-
ate and rank the work materials for a given machining operation.
Two examples are included to illustrate the approach.
Keywords Machinability evaluation
Multiple attribute decision-making
1 Introduction
Machining operations have been the core of the manufacturing
industry since the industrial revolution. Manufacturing indus-
tries strive to achieve either a minimum cost of production or
a maximum production rate, or an optimum combination of both,
along with better product quality in machining. These goals have
gained importance in the context of economic liberalization and
globalization. In general, a manufacturing process for a product
consists of several phases, such as product design, process plan-
ning, machining operations, and quality control. The machinabil-
ity aspect is related to all phases of manufacturing, especially
to process planning and machining operations. Machinability is
a measure of ease with which a work material can satisfactorily
be machined. The machinability aspect is of considerable im-
portance for production engineers so that the processing can be
planned in an efcient manner. The study can also be a basis
for cutting tool and cutting uid performance evaluation and ma-
chining parameter optimization. In the process of product design,
material selection is important for realizing design objectives and
for reducing the production cost. Due to its inuence on the cost
of production, the machinability of work materials needs to be
taken into account in the product design. But it will not always
R. Venkata Rao
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Kumaraguru College of Technology,
Coimbatore 641 006, India
E-mail: ravipudirao@rediffmail.com
be a top priority-criterion in the process of materials selection. If
there are a nite number of work materials from which the best
is to be chosen, and if each work material satises the required
design and functionality of the product, then the main criterion
to choose the work material is its machinability its operational
performance during machining.
Machinability is inuenced by a number of variables, such as
the inherent properties or characteristics of the work materials,
cutting tool material, tool geometry, the nature of tool engage-
ment with the work, cutting conditions, type of cutting, cutting
uid, and machine tool rigidity and its capacity [14]. These
variables are the machining process input variables and indepen-
dent of the machining process. On the other hand, the machining
process output is marked by dependent process variables, such as
tool life (or tool wear), cutting forces, specic power consump-
tion, processed surface nish, dimensional accuracy, temperature
generated, noise, vibration, and chip characteristics. The depen-
dent process variables are the functions of process input variables
and refer to the performance of work material during machin-
ing operation in terms of technical and economic consequences,
and are directly related to machining operations, and hence to
machinability. Thus, these are considered as the pertinent vari-
ables to represent the machinability of a given work material for
a given machining operation.
The machinability attribute is dened as a machining pro-
cess variable. It can be any machining process input or output
variable. Machinability evaluation can be carried out using both
the types of variables. However, as mentioned above, the ma-
chining process output variables are the pertinent machinability
attributes. In the initial stage, the work materials may be short-
listed on the basis of satisfying the required design and function-
ality of the product. Machining process input variables, such as
work material properties, play an important role in short-listing.
After short-listing the materials, the main criterion to choose
the work material is its operational performance while being
machined, so the focus of decision-making is on the resulting
machining process output variables.
In manufacturing industries, the basis of machinability eval-
uation depends on the manufacturers interests, and many other
222
aspects. For example, some manufacturers consider tool life as
the most important criterion to evaluate the machinability, while
others consider processed surface nish as the dominant fac-
tor. The solution to these difculties has eluded researchers and
practicing engineers for decades. Since there is no universally ac-
cepted methodology for evaluating machinability, and numerous
new materials enter the market every year, many manufactur-
ers are encountering difculties in selecting the most appropriate
material for their products. So far, research has been mainly
based on experimental work to characterize the machinability of
work materials. Some researchers have evaluated the machin-
ability of different work materials, considering any one of the
machining process output variable only [513]. Depending on
the techno-economic needs of a process, a variable may have
a primary or secondary role in the machinability evaluation.
However, a realistic estimation of the machinability can be car-
ried out only by considering all the pertinent machining process
output variables and their interrelations.
The selection procedures suggested by other researchers [14
26] have considered a number of (i.e. more than one) machining
process output variables, with these variables being examined
with respect to the work material properties and characteristics.
Work materials have been evaluated in terms of their perform-
ance with respect to each machining process output variable
separately. Then, the nal decision regarding selection of work
material is made in a subjective manner, in light of the overall
performance.
It is clear that there is a need to develop a scientic/math-
ematical tool for machinability evaluation which is capable of
considering the requirements of a given machining operation.
Work in the direction of the simultaneous consideration of ma-
chining process output variables using mathematical models has
been reported by a few researchers [2730]. However, there
is need for a simple, systematic, logical, easy and convenient
procedure which affords industry with an efcient and effect-
ive means to evaluate the machinability of work materials. This
is considered in this paper using a combined multiple attribute
decision-making method.
2 Multiple attribute decision-making methods
Multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) refers to an ap-
proach of problem solving that addresses problems where the
selection is made from a nite number of alternatives. In this pa-
per, two important multiple attribute decision-making methods,
namely technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal
solution (TOPSIS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP), are
used concurrently for decision-making. Both TOPSIS and AHP
are logical decision-making approaches and deal with the prob-
lem of choosing a solution from a set of candidate alternatives
which are characterized in terms of some attributes [3134].
The AHP can efciently deal with tangible and non-tangible at-
tributes, especially where the subjective judgments of different
individuals constitute an important part of the decision-making
process. However, in some cases, an unmanageable number of
pair-wise comparisons of attributes and alternatives with respect
to each of the attributes may result. TOPSIS is more efcient
in dealing with the tangible attributes and the number of alter-
natives to be assessed. However, the TOPSIS method needs an
efcient procedure to determine the relative importance of differ-
ent attributes with respect to the objective; AHP provides such
a procedure. Hence, to take the advantages of both the methods,
a combined MADM (using TOPSIS and AHP) is developed in
this paper for the machinability-based selection of the proper
work material from a list of available materials.
The main procedure of the combined TOPSIS and AHP
method is as follows:
Step 1: The rst step is to determine the objective and the perti-
nent evaluation attributes.
Step 2: This step involves a matrix based on all the informa-
tion available that describes a materials attributes, and
is called a decision matrix. Each row of this matrix
is allocated to one alternative, and each column to one
attribute. Therefore, an element d
ij
of the decision ma-
trix D gives the value of the jth attribute in original
real values; that is a non-normalized form and units for
the ith alternative. In the case of qualitative attributes,
Table 1 helps the user assign the values of d
ij
. Thus,
if the number of alternatives is M and the number of
attributes is N, then the decision matrix as an MN
matrix can be represented as follows:
D
MN
=
Attribute 1 2 3 N
1
2
3

M
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
11
d
12
d
13
d
1N
d
21
d
22
d
23
d
2N
d
31
d
32
d
33
d
3N



d
M1
d
M2
d
M3
d
MN
_

_
(1)
Step 3: Obtain the normalized decision matrix, R
ij
. This can be
represented as:
R
ij
=
d
ij
_

M
j =1
d
2
ij
_
0.5
(2)
Table 1. Value of the machinability attributes
Qualitative measure of machinability attribute Assigned value
Exceptionally low 0.0
Extremely low 0.1
Very low 0.2
Low 0.3
Below average 0.4
Average 0.5
Above average 0.6
High 0.7
Very high 0.8
Extremely high 0.9
Exceptionally high 1.0
223
Step 4: (a) Determine the relative importance of different at-
tributes with respect to the objective. To do so, one
must construct a pair-wise comparison matrix using
a scale of relative importance. The judgments are en-
tered using the fundamental scale of the analytic hi-
erarchy process [33, 34]. An attribute compared with
itself is always assigned the value 1, so the main
diagonal entries of the pair-wise comparison matrix
are all 1. The numbers 3, 5, 7, and 9 correspond to
the verbal judgments moderate importance, strong
importance, very strong importance, and abso-
lute importance (with 2, 4, 6, and 8 for compro-
mise between the previous values). Assuming N at-
tributes, the pair-wise comparison of attribute i with
attribute j yields a square matrix A1
NN
, where
a
ij
denotes the comparative importance of attribute
i with respect to attribute j. In the matrix, a
ij
= 1
when i = j and a
ji
= 1/a
ij
. This can be described as
follows:
A1
NN
=
Attribute 1 2 3 N
1
2
3

N
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
a
11
a
12
a
13
a
1N
a
21
a
22
a
23
a
2N
a
31
a
32
a
33
a
3N


a
N1
a
N2
a
N3
a
NN
_

_
(3)
The relative normalized weight (W
j
) of each attribute
is calculated by (i) calculating the geometric mean of
ith row, and (ii) normalizing the geometric means of
rows in the comparison matrix. This can be represented
as:
GM
i
=
_
_
_
N

j =1
a
ij
_
_
_
1/N
(4)
and
W
j
=GM
i
/
N

i=1
GM
i
(5)
(b) Calculate matrix A3 and A4 such that A3 = A1
A2 and A4 = A3/A2, where A2 = [W
1
, W
2
, . . ., W
N
]
T
.
(c) Determine the maximum eigenvalue (
max
), which
is the average of matrix A4.
(d) Calculate the consistency index (CI = (
max

N)/(N 1)). The smaller the value of CI, the smaller
the deviation from the consistency.
(e) Obtain the random index (RI) for the number of
attributes used in decision-making [33, 34].
(f) Calculate the consistency ratio (CR = CI/RI).
Usually, a CR of 0.1 or less is considered to be ac-
ceptable, and it reects an informed judgment which
could be attributed to the analysts knowledge of the
problem.
Step 5: Obtain the weighted normalized matrix V
ij
. This is ob-
tained by the multiplication of each element of the
column of the matrix R
ij
with its associated weight W
j
.
Hence, the elements of the weighted normalized matrix
V
ij
are expressed as:
V
ij
= W
j
R
ij
. (6)
Step 6: Obtain the ideal (best) and negative ideal (worst)
solutions in this step. The ideal (best) and negative ideal
(worst) solution can be expressed as:
V
+
=
__
max

i
V
ij
/ j J
_
,
_
min

i
V
ij
/ j J

_
/i = 1, 2, . . ., M
_
,
={V
+
1
, V
+
2
, V
+
3
, . . ., V
+
N
} (7)
V

=
__
min

i
V
ij
/ j J
_
,
_
max

i
V
ij
/ j J

_
/i = 1, 2, . . ., M
_
,
={V

1
, V

2
, V

3
, . . ., V

N
} (8)
where J = ( j = 1, 2, . . ., N)/ j is associated with the
benecial attributes and J

= ( j = 1, 2, . . ., N)/ j is as-
sociated with non-benecial attributes.
Step 7: Obtain the separation measures. The separation of each
alternative from the ideal one is given by Euclidean
distance from the following equations:
S
+
i
=
_
_
_
N

j =1
(V
ij
V
+
j
)
2
_
_
_
0.5
, i = 1, 2, . . ., M (9)
S

i
=
_
_
_
N

j =1
(V
ij
V

j
)
2
_
_
_
0.5
, i = 1, 2, . . ., M (10)
Step 8: The relative closeness of a particular alternative to the
ideal solution is expressed in this step as follows:
C
i
= S

i
/(S
+
i
+S

i
) (11)
Step 9: A set of alternatives is made in descending order ac-
cording to the preference value indicating the most
preferred and least preferred feasible solutions.
Step 10: The nal decision is made in light of practical consider-
ations. All possible constraints likely to be experienced
by the user are considered in this stage, including con-
straints such as availability or assured supply, manage-
ment constraints, political constraints, and economical
constraints.
224
3 Examples
Now, to demonstrate and validate the combined TOPSIS and
AHP method for the machinability evaluation of work ma-
terials for a given machining operation, two examples are
considered.
3.1 Example 1
Enache et al. [28] have conducted turning experiments on tita-
nium alloys using different cutting tools of different geometries.
The work-tool combinations, experimental conditions and test
results are given in Table 2. The various steps of the methodology
are carried out as described below:
Step 1: The objective is to evaluate the machinability of dif-
ferent titanium work materials and work-tool combi-
nations. The attributes considered are the same as of
Enache et al. [28], namely tool wear rate (TW), specic
energy consumed (SE), and processed surface rough-
ness (SR). These three attributes are non-benecial at-
tributes where low values are most desired. In other
words, a work material is said to possess higher machin-
ability if it produces very low values of tool wear
rate, specic energy consumption, and processed sur-
face roughness in turning operation.
Step 2: The next step is to represent all the information avail-
able of attributes in the form of a decision matrix. The
data given in Table 2 is represented as matrix D1
63
,
but not shown here.
Step 3: The quantitative values of the machinability attributes,
given in Table 2, are normalized, as explained in Sect. 2.
R1
ij
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.447574 0.039496 0.386235
0.682409 0.633320 0.419519
0.469615 0.484050 0.452827
0.205444 0.136858 0.3862345
0.249467 0.286396 0.3862345
0.095384 0.512081 0.412864
_

_
Table 2. Quantitative data of the machinability attributes of example 1
Work-tool Tool wear rate Specic energy Surface roughness
combination consumed
(m/min) (N) (m)
Nr1 0.061 219.74 5.8
Nr2 0.093 3523.72 6.3
Nr3 0.064 2693.21 6.8
Nr4 0.028 761.46 5.8
Nr5 0.034 1593.48 5.8
Nr6 0.013 2849.15 6.2
Nr1: TiAl6V4-P20; Nr2: TiMo32-P20; Nr3: TiAl5Fe2.5-P20;
Nr4: TiAl6V4-P20 (TiN); Nr5: TiAl6V4-K20; and Nr6: TiAl6V4-K20

(K20

is a special form of tool without top as compared with other tools).

Cutting conditions: dry, cutting speed 150 m/min, feed 0.15 mm/rev,
and depth of cut 0.5 mm
Step 4: The relative importance of attributes (a
ij
s) is also as-
signed, as per the procedure outlined in Sect. 2. Let the
user makes the following assignments:
B1 =
Attribute TW SE SR
TW
SE
SR
_
_
1 5 7
1/5 1 3
1/7 1/3 1
_
_
However, in actual practice, these values of relative im-
portance can be judiciously decided by the user/experts
depending on the requirements. The assigned values in
this paper are for demonstration purposes only.
The normalized weights of each attribute are: W
TW
=
0.730645; W
SE
= 0.188394, and W
SR
= 0.0809612.
The value of
max
is 3.06489 and CR = 0.0559376,
which is much less than the allowed CR value of 0.1.
Thus, there is good consistency in the judgments made.
Step 5: The weighted normalized matrix V1
ij
is calculated.
V1
ij
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.327018 0.007441 0.031285
0.498568 0.119317 0.033981
0.343101 0.091195 0.036679
0.150107 0.025784 0.031285
0.182272 0.053957 0.031285
0.069692 0.096476 0.033442
_

_
Step 6: The next step is to obtain the ideal (best) and negative
ideal (worst) solutions using Eqs. 7 and 8, respectively.
These are given as:
V
+
1
= 0.069692 V

1
= 0.498568
V
+
2
= 0.007441 V

2
= 0.119317
V
+
3
= 0.031285 V

3
= 0.036679
Step 7: Here, the separation measures are obtained using Eqs. 9
and 10. These are:
S
+
1
= 0.257326 S

1
= 0.204878
S
+
2
= 0.443236 S

2
= 0.002697
S
+
3
= 0.286000 S

3
= 0.157991
S
+
4
= 0.082479 S

4
= 0.360837
S
+
5
= 0.121811 S

5
= 0.089061
S
+
6
= 0.323024 S

6
= 0.429496
Step 8: The relative closeness of a particular alternative to the
ideal solution is calculated using Eq. 11, as follows:
C
1
= 0.443264; C
2
= 0.006048;
C
3
= 0.355842; C
4
= 0.813948;
C
5
= 0.726165; and C
6
= 0.825252.
We call this relative closeness to the ideal solution is
called the global machinability index (GMI).
225
Step 9: The work-tool combinations are arranged in descending
order according to their GMI. This can be arranged as:
645132.
From the above values of GMI for different work-tool
combinations, it can be seen that the work material
TiAl6V4 gives better machinability than TiMo32 and
TiAl5Fe2.5 while turning with a P20 cutting tool. These
results match well with those obtained by Enache et
al. [28]. In comparing the turning of the same material
(TiAl6V4) with different tools, better machinability is
obtained with a special tool (K20

), followed by a P20
(TiN) coated tool, K20 and P20 tools.
It may be noted that the above ranking may change if
the user assigns different relative importance values to
the attributes. The same is true for the approach pro-
posed by Enache et al. [28].
The proposed method the advantage of systematically
determines the attributes weights of relative impor-
tance and checks the consistency made in judgments.
Such a feature is missing in the weighted product model
proposed by Enache et al. [28]. Furthermore, the com-
bined TOPSIS AHP method can consider any number
of quantitative and qualitative machinability attributes
simultaneously, and offers a more objective and logical
machinability approach.
Step 10: A nal decision in light of the practical considerations,
as explained in Sect. 2 may be made. However, compro-
mise may be made in favour of a work-tool combination
having a higher GMI value.
3.2 Example 2
Konig and Erinski [14] have listed and discussed the general ma-
chining characteristics of aluminium pressure die-cast and die-
cast alloys under various machining conditions for turning, face
milling and drilling operations. The authors have used the results
of turning data [15] of non-ferrous and ferrous alloys machined
with HM tools. The results are given in Table 3. This example
is considered to further validate the proposed method, and the
various steps of the methodology are carried out as described
below:
Step 1: The objective is to evaluate the machinability of different
non-ferrous and ferrous alloys. The attributes considered
are as per Bech [15]: 1 h cutting speed (HC), specic cut-
ting force (SF), and cutting power input (CP). A 1 h cut-
ting speed (i.e. the maximum allowed cutting speed for
a tool life of 1 h) is the benecial attribute, and specic
cutting force and cutting power input are non-benecial
attributes.
Step 2: The next step is to represent all the information available
of attributes in the form of a decision matrix. The data
given in Table 3 is represented as matrix D2
63
, but not
shown here for space reasons.
Step 3: The quantitative values of the machinability attributes,
which are given in Table 3, are normalized, as explained
Table 3. Quantitative data of the machinability attributes of example 2
Work One hour Specic cutting Cutting power
material cutting speed force input
(m/min) (N/mm
2
) (kW)
W1 710 400 28
W2 900 415 38
W3 1630 440 59
W4 1720 235 43
W5 120 1150 8
W6 160 1750 19
W1: GK-AlSi10Mg (aluminium-silicon die-cast alloy); W2: GK-AlSi6Cu4
(aluminium-silicon die-cast alloy); W3: GK-AlMg5 (aluminium-magnesium
die-cast alloy); W4: GK-MgAl9Zn (magnesium-aluminium die-cast alloy);
W5: GG26 (grey cast iron with lamellar graphite); and W6: C35 (low car-
bon steel).
Cutting conditions: dry, tool material K10, feed 0.175 mm/rev, and
depth of cut 2 mm
in Sect. 2.
R2
ij
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.457825 0.052087 0.218995
0.698000 0.835219 0.237867
0.480341 0.638365 0.256753
0.210150 0.180488 0.218995
0.255200 0.377699 0.218995
0.097570 0.675332 0.234094
_

_
Step 4: The relative importance of attributes (a
ij
s) are also as-
signed values, as explained in Sect. 2. Let the user makes
the following assignments:
B2 =
Attribute HC SF CP
HC
SF
CP
_
_
1 5 5
1/5 1 1
1/5 1 1
_
_
Once again, it may be added that, in actual practice, these
values of relative importance can be judiciously decided
by the user/experts depending on the requirements. The
assigned values in this paper are for demonstration pur-
pose only.
The normalized weights of each attribute are: W
HC
=
0.714286; W
SF
= 0.142857, and W
CP
= 0.142857. The
value of
max
is 3.0 and CR = 0.0, and there exists abso-
lute consistency in the judgments made.
Step 5: The weighted normalized matrix V2
ij
is calculated but
not shown here for space reasons.
Step 6: The next step is to obtain the ideal (best) and the negative
ideal (worst) solutions using Eqs. 7 and 8, respectively.
These are given as:
V
+
1
= 0.465375 V

1
= 0.032468
V
+
2
= 0.015065 V

2
= 0.112185
V
+
3
= 0.012791 V

3
= 0.094335
226
Step 7: Here, the separation measures are obtained using Eqs. 9
and 10:
S
+
1
= 0.275340 S

1
= 0.188227
S
+
2
= 0.227284 S

2
= 0.230196
S
+
3
= 0.086111 S

3
= 0.417097
S
+
4
= 0.055961 S

4
= 0.4444044
S
+
5
= 0.436862 S

5
= 0.0901599
S
+
6
= 0.433470 S

6
= 0.0648649
Step 8: The relative closeness of particular alternative to the ideal
solution (called the global machinability index) is calcu-
lated using Eq. 11 and these are:
C
1
= 0.406041; C
2
= 0.503183;
C
3
= 0.828877; C
4
= 0.888159;
C
5
= 0.171074; and C
6
= 0.130163.
Step 9: The work materials are arranged in the descending order
of their MI. This can be arranged as: 432156.
From the above values of GMI for different non-ferrous
and ferrous alloys, it can be seen that the work material W4
(GK-MgAl9Zn, magnesium-aluminium die-cast alloy) is the rst
choice for the turning operation under the given conditions, and
the last choice is W6. The above results match well with the
experimental results and observations presented by Konig and
Erinski [14].
It may be noted that the above two examples are considered
to demonstrate and validate the proposed procedure of machin-
ability evaluation of work materials using a combined multiple
attribute decision-making method using TOPSIS and AHP. This
is a general procedure that is applicable to any type of machin-
ing operation involving any number of machinability attributes.
This method is superior to previous methods, including one pre-
sented by one of the authors [30]. Unlike the approximate nor-
malization procedure used in the previous work [30], the actual
values of the attributes are used and normalized for machinabil-
ity evaluation in this work. Also, assigning 0 to a particular work
material within the given data of a particular attribute, cancels
many of the terms of the permanent function proposed in [30],
even though that work material is better within the given data of
other pertinent attributes. Furthermore, the proposed method has
the advantage of systematically deciding the weights of relative
importance of attributes and checking the consistency made in
judgments. Such a feature is missing in the method proposed by
Rao and Gandhi [30].
4 Conclusions
We draw the following conclusions:
1. A methodology based on a combined TOPSIS and AHP
method is suggested which helps in machinability evaluation
of work materials for a given machining operation.
2. The proposed method identies and considers machinabil-
ity attributes and their interrelations for a given machining
operation.
3. The proposed global machinability index evaluates and ranks
work materials for a given machining operation. Also, the
proposed method helps in selecting the best work-tool com-
bination for a given machining operation. The proposed
method can also be used for machinability evaluation of dif-
ferent work materials under given cutting conditions, or for
the machinability evaluation of given work material under
different cutting conditions so as to nd out the proper cut-
ting conditions for machining the given work material.
4. The proposed method is applicable to any type of machin-
ing operation and can consider any number of quantita-
tive and qualitative machinability attributes simultaneously.
Thus, it offers a more objective, logical, simple and consis-
tent machinability approach.
References
1. Hindustan Machine Tools (1980) Production technology. Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi
2. Mills B, Redford AH (1983) Machinability of engineering materials.
Applied Science, London
3. Trent EM (1991) Metal cutting. Butterworth-Heinemann, London
4. Rao RV (2002) Machinability evaluation, cutting uid selection and
failure analysis of machine tools using a unied graph theory and ma-
trix approach. Dissertation, BITS Pilani, Rajasthan, India
5. Ostafev VA, Mirzaev AA, Kokarovtsev VV (1989) Fast method for
determining machinability of materials. Soviet Eng Res 9(8):113114
6. Notoya H, Yamada S, Yoshikawa K, Takatsuji Y (1990) Effects of tool
materials on machinability of commercially pure titanium. J Japan Inst
Metals 54(5):596602
7. Eyada OK (1992) Reliability of cutting forces in machinability evalua-
tion. Flexible Automat Inf Manage 20:937946
8. Hung NP, Boey FYC, Khor KA, Oh CA, Lee HF (1995) Machinabil-
ity of cast and powder-formed aluminium alloys reinforced with SiC
particles. J Mater Process Technol 48(1):291297
9. Dravid SV, Utpat LS (2001) Machinability evaluation based on the sur-
face nish criterion. J Inst Eng (India) Product Eng Division 81(2):47
51
10. Jin LZ, Sandstrom R (1994) Evaluation of machinability data. J Testing
Eval 22:204210
11. Yoshikawa T, Miyazawa S, Mori K (1994) Machinability of Ni3Al-
based intermetallic compounds. J Mech Eng Lab 48(4):190196
12. Hartung PD, Kramer BM (1982) Tool wear in titanium machining. Ann
CIRP 31(1):7580
13. Strafford KN, Audy J (1997) Indirect monitoring of machinability in
carbon steels by measurement of cutting forces. J Mater Process Tech-
nol 67(13):150156
14. Konig W, Erinski D (1983) Machining and machinability of aluminium
cast alloys. Ann CIRP 32(2):535540
15. Bech HG (1963) Untersuchung der Zerspanbarkeit von Leichtmetall-
gulegierungen. Dissertation, RWTH, Aachen
16. Ezugwu EO, Wang ZM, Machado AR (1999) The machinability of
nickel based alloys: a review. J Mater Process Technol 86:116
17. Choudhury A, El Baradie MA (1998) Machinability of nickel based su-
per alloys: a general review. J Mater Process Technol 77(13):278284
18. Ezugwu EO, Bonney J, Yamane Y (2003) An overview of the machin-
ability of aeroengine alloys. J Mater Process Technol 134:233253
19. Gupta SK, Dana SN (1995) Systematic approach to analyzing the man-
ufacturability of machined parts. Comput Aided Des J 27:323342
20. Sandstrom R, Grahn B (1986) The assessment and evaluation of prop-
erty data for materials selection purposes. Mater Des J 7:198204
227
21. Leisk G, Saigal A (1992) Machinabiliy of alumina/aluminum metal
matrix composites. In: Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Advances in Production and Fabrication of Light Metals
and Metal Matrix Composites, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp
673687
22. Hamann JC, Grolleau V, Maitre FL (1996) Machinability improvement
of steels at high cutting speeds study of tool/work material interac-
tion. Ann CIRP 45:8792
23. Hong H, Riga AT, Cahoon JM, Scott CG (1993) Machinability of steels
and titanium alloys under lubrication. Wear 162:3439
24. Carpenter ID (1996) Machinability assessment and tool selection for
milling. Dissertation, University of Durham, Durham
25. Seo Y, Ramulu M, Kim D (2003) Machinability of Ti alloys on the
abrasive waterjet machining process. In: Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B J Eng Manuf 217:17091721
26. Davim JP, Reis P (2004) Machinability study on composite (poly-
etheretherketone reinforced with 30% glass bre-PEEK OKGF 30)
using polycrystalline diamond (PCD) and cemented carbide (K20)
tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(56):412418
27. Malakooti B, Wang J, Tandler EC (1990) Sensor based accelerated ap-
proach for multi-attribute machinability and tool life evaluation. Int J
Prod Res 28:23732392
28. Enache S, Strajescu E, Opran C, Minciu C, Zamrache M (1995) Math-
ematical model for the establishment of the materials machinability.
Ann CIRP 44:7982
29. Ong SK, Chew LC (2000) Evaluating the manufacturability of ma-
chined parts and their setup plans. Int J Prod Res 38(11):23972415
30. Rao RV, Gandhi OP (2002) Digraph and matrix methods for the
machinability evaluation of work materials. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
42(3):320330
31. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1982) Multiple attribute decision-making
methods and applications a state of art survey. Springer, Berlin Hei-
delberg New York
32. Yoon YP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision-making. SAGE
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA
33. Saaty TL (1980) Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
34. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision-making and priority theory
with AHP. RWS, Pittsburgh, PA