Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: N. Muthukrishnan , T.S. Mahesh Babu & R. Ramanujam (2012): Fabrication and turning of Al/SiC/
B4C hybrid metal matrix composites optimization using desirability analysis, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial
Engineers, 29:8, 515-525
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10170669.2012.728540
1. Introduction
Considerable research work in the field of material
science has been progressed toward the development of new light-weight, high performance engineering materials, such as composites. Metallic
matrix hybrid composites are one among them.
Metal matrix composites (MMCs) have become the
necessary materials in various engineering applications like aerospace, marine, and automobile engineering applications, because of their light-weight,
high-strength, stiffness, and resistance to high
temperature [32]. However, the final conversion of
these composites into engineering products is
always associated with machining, either by turning
or by milling. A continuing problem with hybrid
MMCs is that they are difficult to machine, due to
the hardness and abrasive nature of the reinforcing
particles [26,36]. The presence of hard ceramic
particles in the composites makes them extremely
difficult to machine as they lead to rapid tool wear
[2,14]. The hard SiC particles in Al/SiCMMCs
which intermittently come in contact with the tool
surface and acts as small cutting edges like those of
the grinding wheel. These particles act as an
abrasive between cutting tool and work piece and
resulting in formation of high tool wear and poor
surface finish [46,15,16]. Ramulu et al. [24]
*Corresponding author. Email: mk@svce.ac.in
ISSN 10170669 print/ISSN 21517606 online
2012 Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10170669.2012.728540
http://www.tandfonline.com
516
N. Muthukrishnan et al.
2. Taguchi technique
Taguchi technique is a powerful tool for the design
of high quality systems [25,30,31]. It provides a
simple, efficient, and systematic approach to optimize design for performance, quality, and cost. The
methodology is valuable when design parameters
are qualitative and discrete. Taguchi parameter
design can optimize the performance characteristics
through the setting of design parameters and
reduce the sensitivity of the system performance
to the source of variation [25,27]. This technique is
a multi-step process, which follow a certain
sequence for the experiments to yield an improved
understanding of product or process performance.
This design of experiment process made up of three
main phases: the planning, the conducting, and
analysis interpretation. The planning phase is the
most important phase; one must give a maximum
importance to this phase. The data collected from
all the experiments in the set are analyzed to
determine the effect of various design parameters.
This approach is to use a fractional factorial
approach and this may be accomplished with the
aid of orthogonal arrays. ANOVA is a mathematical technique, which is based on least square
approach. The treatment of the experimental
results is based on the analysis of average and
ANOVA [46,35].
Reinforcement
SiC
(%)
B4C
(%)
Si
(%)
Mg
(%)
Fe
(%)
Cu
(%)
Mn
(%)
Zn
(%)
Ti
(%)
Al
(%)
10.00
5.00
7.85
0.68
0.25
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.16
Balance
4. Experimental procedure
Commercially fabricated cylindrical bars having
10% of SiC particles and 5% of B4C on matrix of
Al 356, using stir casting method of diameter 65 mm
and 200 mm long are turned on self-centered three
jaw chuck, medium duty lathe of spindle power
2 kW. Figure 3 shows the experimental setup with
517
518
N. Muthukrishnan et al.
Table 2. Machining parameter and their levels.
Symbol
Machining parameter
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
A
B
C
90
0.1
0.5
140
0.2
0.75
220
0.32
1.0
Table 3. Experimental layout using L27 orthogonal array and corresponding response values.
Machining parameters
Group no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Response
Cutting
speed (A)
Feed
(B)
Depth of
cut (C)
Surface roughness
(Ra) (mm)
Cutting force
in (F) (N)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2.10
2.15
2.02
3.73
3.95
3.37
6.53
6.74
6.76
1.40
2.37
2.29
3.04
4.25
4.06
7.17
6.93
6.90
2.24
4.99
2.38
3.58
3.95
4.95
6.88
7.36
7.22
39.24
49.05
98.10
58.86
60.16
68.86
88.29
98.48
102.29
58.86
65.86
68.86
88.29
98.48
104.48
117.72
127.53
134.72
98.10
103.29
108.10
127.53
137.72
132.72
235.44
246.20
296.20
y^ ymin s
B T ymin ,
B
B
di B y^ ymax t
B
@ T ymax ,
0
ymin y T, s 0
T y^ ymax , t 0
519
y^ ymin
r0
y^ ymax
where the ymin represents the lower tolerance limit
y and r
of b
y, the ymax the upper tolerance limit of b
the weight. The s, t, and r in Equations (1)(3)
indicate the weights and are defined according to
the requirement of the user. If the corresponding
response is expected to be closer to the target, the
weight can be set to the larger value; otherwise, the
weight can be set to the smaller value. In this study,
the smaller-the-better characteristic is applied to
determine the individual desirability values for
surface roughness and cutting force since both are
to be minimized.
Step 2: Compute the composite desirability (dG).
The individual desirability index of all the
responses can be combined to form a single value
called composite desirability (dG) by the following
Equation (4):
1
4
dG dw1 1 dw2 2 . . . dwn n W
where, di is the individual desirability of the
property Yi, wi the weight of the property Yi in
the composite desirability, and W the sum of the
individual weights. In this investigation, weights for
each characteristic (such as surface roughness and
cutting force) are assigned equally as 0.5.
Step 3: Determine the optimal parameter and its
level combination. The higher the composite desirability value implies better product quality.
Therefore, on the basis of the composite desirability
(dG), the parameter effect and the optimum level for
each controllable parameter are estimated.
Step 4: Perform ANOVA for identifying the
significant parameters. ANOVA establishes the
relative significance of parameters. The calculated
total sum of square value is used to measure the
relative influence of the parameters.
Table 4. Evaluated
desirability.
individual
and
composite
Individual
desirability (di)
Exp.
no.
Surface
roughness
(Ra) (mm)
Cutting
force
(N)
Composite
desirability
(dG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.88255
0.874161
0.895973
0.60906
0.572148
0.669463
0.139262
0.104027
0.100671
1
0.837248
0.850671
0.724832
0.521812
0.553691
0.031879
0.072148
0.077181
0.85906
0.397651
0.83557
0.634228
0.572148
0.404362
0.080537
0
0.02349
1
0.961823
0.770937
0.923646
0.918587
0.884729
0.809114
0.769458
0.754631
0.923646
0.896404
0.884729
0.809114
0.769458
0.746108
0.694583
0.656406
0.628425
0.770937
0.750739
0.732021
0.656406
0.61675
0.636208
0.236457
0.194583
0
0.939442
0.916945
0.831107
0.750037
0.72496
0.769606
0.335676
0.282921
0.275626
0.961065
0.866321
0.867533
0.765815
0.63365
0.642739
0.148804
0.217619
0.220233
0.813807
0.546381
0.782084
0.645222
0.59403
0.507207
0.137998
0
0
Table 4 shows the evaluated individual desirability and composite desirability for each experiment using L27 orthogonal array. The higher
composite desirability value represents that the
corresponding experimental result is closer to the
ideally normalized value. Since the experimental
design is orthogonal, it is then possible to separate
out the effect of each machining parameter on the
composite desirability values at different levels. The
response mean of the composite desirability for
each level of the machining parameter is summarized in Table 5. In addition, the total mean of the
composite desirability for 27 trials is also calculated
and listed in Table 5. Figure 4 shows the factor
effects for the composite desirability value for the
levels of the machining parameters.
Basically, the larger the composite desirability,
the better is the multiple performance characteristics. However, relative importance among the
machining parameters for the multiple performance
characteristics is still need to be known so that the
optimal combinations of the machining parameter
levels can be determined more accurately [33].
520
N. Muthukrishnan et al.
Table 5. Response table for the composite desirability.
Average composite desirability
Machining parameter
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Maximum
Minimum
0.6473
0.8360
0.6108
0.5915
0.6703
0.5314
0.4474
0.1798
0.5440
0.1999
0.6562
0.0794
Ma in Effe ct s P lo t fo r Co mp o s it e De s ir a b ilit y
cut t ing spe e d
Fe e d
Me a n o f Co mp o s it e De s ir a b ilit y
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1
2
De pt h of cut
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Step 5: Calculate the predicted optimum condition. Once the optimal level of the design parameters has been selected, the final step is to predict
and verify the quality characteristics using the
optimal level of the design parameters.
7. Analysis of variance
ANOVA is a method of apportioning variability of
an output to various inputs. Table 6 presents the
results of ANOVA analysis. The purpose of the
521
Source
Degrees
of freedom
SS
MS
FCAL
P (%)
A
B
C
AB
AC
BC
Error
Total
2
2
2
4
4
4
8
26
0.1916
2.0959
0.0328
0.0136
0.0123
0.0070
0.0426
2.3960
0.0958
1.0479
0.0164
0.0034
0.0030
0.0017
0.0053
17.95
196.40
3.08
0.64
0.58
0.33
7.99
87.48
1.37
0.56
0.53
0.29
1.78
100.00
ANOVA is to investigate which machining parameters significantly affect the performance characteristics. This is accomplished by separating the
total variability of the composite desirability value,
which is measured by the sum of the squared
deviations from the total mean of the composite
desirability value, into contributions by each
machining parameter and the error. First, the
total sum of the squared deviations SST from the
total mean of the composite desirability value
m
can be calculated as:
SST
p
X
j m 2
j1
8. Confirmation experiment
Once the optimal level of machining parameters is
selected the final step is to predict and verify the
9. Tool wear
From the above observations, best machining
parameter was determined as cutting speed
90 m/min, feed rate 0.1 mm/rev, and depth of cut
0.5 mm (experimental reading number 1). Now
522
N. Muthukrishnan et al.
Initial
machining
parameters
Setting level
Surface roughness (Ra) (mm)
Cutting force (N)
A3B3C1
6.88
235.44
0.1379
Improvement in composite desirability value 0.8015
Prediction
Experiment
Percentage
of error
A1B1C1
1.83
28.47
0.9699
A1B1C1
2.10
39.24
0.9394
12.85
27.44
3.24
0.25
y = 0.007x-0.017
R = 0.960
0.2
0.15
0.1
0
0
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
35
250X
setting this cutting condition as a constant parameter and machined the samples for a time duration of
30 min and the tool flank wear study was carried out
(Figure 5).
From Figure 5, it is clearly understood that, the
tool flank wear is increasing linearly and reaches
approximately 0.2 mm after 30 min duration. At
low cutting speed, worn flank encourages the
adhesion of work piece material on the tool insert
and formed BUE [7,8,15,32,35].
At lower cutting speed, formation of BUE
forms a protective cap and protects the cutting edge
from abrading [5,32]. Main wear pattern observed
on the cutting insert was the flank wear in the nose
region [29] two bodies and three body abrasive
wear are also observed. Three body abrasive wear is
caused by the released hard particles, entrapped
between the tool and the work piece [12,18,37]. The
BUE formation in aluminum machining in general
and in machining AlSiCB4C hybrid MMC in
particular adversely affects the surface formation.
Devoid of any fixed geometry, these BUEs result in
unacceptable surface finishes. During experiments,
the BUE formed at the cutting speed of 90 m/min
was dissolved using boiling concentrated NaOH
solution. This was carried out to continue the
machining process and to measure flank wear.
Al
Nose wear
Figure 7. SEM image of worn out insert after 30 min
duration.
523
10. Conclusion
Notes on contributors
N. Muthukrishnan is a Professor and Head of
Automobile Engineering in Sri Venkateswara College
of Engineering, Sriperumbudur, Chennai, India. He has
more than 20 years of experience in academics and 7
years of research experience in Mechanical engineering.
His research interest is in Machining/Manufacturing. He
is acting as reviewer for Springer, Elsevier, Inderscience,
and Taylor & Francis Journals. He has published more
than 15 papers in the National and International peer
reviewed journals and more than 50 papers in National/
International Conference proceedings and has published
a number of papers in the areas of Materials,
manufacturing, and management. He is also acting as
Editorial Board Member of two International Journals.
His biography is listed in Marquis who is who in the
world and also in Marquis who is who in Science and
engineering. He is also listed in top 100 educators for the
biographical
center
References
[1] Chang, H.-H., Dynamic multi-response experiments by back propagation networks and desirability functions, Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Industrial Engineers, 23(4), 280288 (2006).
[2] Ciftci, I., M. Turker and U. Sekar, Evaluation of
tool wear when machining SiC reinforced Al-2014
alloy matrix composites, Materials and Design, 25,
251255 (2004).
[3] Dabade, U.A., H.A. Sonawane and S. Joshi,
Cutting forces and surface roughness in machining
Al/SICP composites of varying composition,
Machining Science and Technology, 14, 258279
(2010).
[4] Davim, J.P., An experimental study of tribological
behaviour of the brass/steel pair, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 100, 273279
(2000).
[5] Davim, J.P., Design optimization of cutting
parameters for turning metal matrix composites
based on the orthogonal arrays, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 132, 340344
(2003).
[6] Davim, J.P., Study of drilling metal matrix composites based on the taguchi techniques, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 132, 250254
(2003).
[7] Deonath and P.K. Rohatgi, Cast aluminium alloy
composites containing copper-coated ground mica
particles, Journal of Materials Science, 16,
15991606 (1981).
[8] Gallab, M. and M. Sklad, Machining of Al/SiCp
metal matrix composites. Part II: workpiece integrity, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
83, 277283 (1998).
[9] Hsu, C.-M., Solving multi-response problems
through neural networks and principal component
analysis, Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Industrial Engineers, 18, 4754 (2001).
[10] Kremer, A., S. Devillez, D. Dominiak, M.
Dudzinski and E.I. Mansori, Machinability of
Al/Sic particulate metal-matrix composites under
dry conditions with cvd diamond-coated carbide
524
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
N. Muthukrishnan et al.
tools, Machining Science and Technology, 12,
214233 (2010).
Lin, J.T., D. Bhattacharya and V. Kecman,
Multiple regression and network analysis in composite machining, Composites Science and
Technology, 63(34), 539548 (2003).
Lin, J., D. Bhattacharyya and C. Lane,
Machinability of a silicon carbide reinforced aluminium metal matrix composite, Wear, 181182,
883888 (1995).
Manna, A. and B. Bhattacharya, A study of
machinability of Al-SiC-MMC, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 140, 711716
(2003).
Monaghan, J. and P. OReilly, The drilling of an
Al/SiC metal matrix composites, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 33, 469480
(1992).
Morscher, G.N., G. Ojard, R. Miller, Y. Gowayed,
U. Santhosh and J. Ahmad, Tensile creep and
fatigue of Sylramic-iBN melt-infiltrated SiC matrix
composites: retained properties, damage development, and failure mechanisms, Composites Science
and Technology, 68, 33053313 (2008).
Mubaraki, B., S. Bandyopadhyay, R.F. Fowle,
P. Mathew and P.J. Health, Drilling studies of
an Al203Al metal matrix composite. Part I.
Drill wears characteristics, Journal of Materials
Science, 30, 62736280 (1995).
Naveen Sait, A., S. Aravindan and A. Noorul Hag,
Optimisation of machining parameters of glassfibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes by desirability function analysis using Taguchi technique,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 43, 581589 (2009).
Ozben, T., E. Kilickap and O. Cakir, Investigation
of mechanical and machinability properties of SiC
particle reinforced Al-MMC, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 198(13), 220225 (2008).
Palanikumar, K. and R. Karthikeyan, Assessment
of factors influencing surface roughness on the
machining of Al/SiC particulate composites,
Materials and Design, 28, 15841591 (2007).
Palanikumar, K., N. Muthukrishnan and K.S.
Hariprasad, Surface roughness parameters optimization in machining A356/sic/20p metal matrix
composites by PCD tool using response surface
methodology and desirability function, Machining
Science and Technology, 12, 529545 (2008).
Pendse, D.M. and S.S. Joshi, Modeling and
optimization of machining process in discontinuously reinforced aluminium matrix composites,
Machining Science and Technology, 8, 85102 (2004).
Rajmohan, T. and K. Palanikumar, Experimental
investigation and analysis of thrust force in drilling
hybrid metal matrix composites by coated carbide
drills, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 26,
961968 (2011).
525
AL/SIC/B4C
N. Muthukrishnan
Professor and Head, Department of Automobile Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering,
Pennalur, Sriperumbudur 602 105, Tamil Nadu, India
T.S. Mahesh Babu
Associate Professor, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Sathyabama University, Jeppiaar
Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 119, Tamil Nadu, India
R. Ramanujam
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Vellore Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India
10%
5%
Al/SiC/B4C - MMC
65
MMC
200
1600
PCD
ANOVA
30
PCD
*
mk@svce.ac.in
ANOVA