INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE DURING TURNING IN CNC...

download INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE DURING TURNING IN CNC LATHE – AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK AND SURFACE RESPONSE METHODOLOGY

of 13

description

Optimization of machining parameters is very valuable to maintain the accuracy of the components andobtain cost effective Machining.MRR (material removal rate) and surface roughness is playing primaryrole in manufacturing using contemporary CNC (computer numerical controlled) machines, in the case ofmass manufacturing. In present study experimental and work is done for optimization of processparameters. In experimental work total 32 experiments are designed according DOE method “Mixedtaguchi”. Three factors are selected for experimental work. Depth of cut, speed and feed rate is selectedfactors for experimental work. All experiments are carried out in CIPET, Jaipur. Two responses are findout in this work and are following: first one is material removal rate (MRR) and second response is surfaceroughness (Ra) measurement. An artificial neural network is ‘Feed Forward Back Propagation’ typemodel of developing the analysis and prediction of surface roughness and MRR with relationship betweenall input process parameters

Transcript of INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE DURING TURNING IN CNC...

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

    DOI : 10.14810/ijmech.2016.5104 47

    INFLUENCE OF PROCESS PARAMETERS ON

    SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND MATERIAL REMOVAL RATE DURING TURNING IN CNC LATHE AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK AND SURFACE

    RESPONSE METHODOLOGY

    Amber Batwara and Prateek Verma

    Department of Mechanical Engineering, RIET, Jaipur, 302033.

    ABSTRACT

    Optimization of machining parameters is very valuable to maintain the accuracy of the components and

    obtain cost effective Machining.MRR (material removal rate) and surface roughness is playing primary

    role in manufacturing using contemporary CNC (computer numerical controlled) machines, in the case of

    mass manufacturing. In present study experimental and work is done for optimization of process

    parameters. In experimental work total 32 experiments are designed according DOE method Mixed taguchi. Three factors are selected for experimental work. Depth of cut, speed and feed rate is selected factors for experimental work. All experiments are carried out in CIPET, Jaipur. Two responses are find

    out in this work and are following: first one is material removal rate (MRR) and second response is surface

    roughness (Ra) measurement. An artificial neural network is Feed Forward Back Propagation type model of developing the analysis and prediction of surface roughness and MRR with relationship between

    all input process parameters.

    KEYWORDS

    Turning CNC, DOE, ANOVA, model equation, ANN

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Today, CNC machining has grown to be an indispensible part of machining industry. CNC

    machines having good accuracy, precision, good surface finishing achieved by compression than

    conventional manufacturing machines. Surface finish plays a significant role during machining of

    any of the component. A highly surface finish improves fatigue strength, creep failure, corrosion

    resistance and better finished components increase also the productivity & economics of any

    industry [9]. CNC machine performance and product characteristics are depends on the process

    parameters. Out of the various parameters we select material removal rate (MRR) and surface

    roughness for study in the present work as considered also the manufacturing goal. These two

    factors directly affect the cost of machining and the machining hour rate. The machining

    parameters namely cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut were considered. The main objective

    is to find the optimized set of values for maximizing the MRR and achieve good surface finish

    [5]. L32 Mixed taguchi was used for experimentation. All the response graph and analysis of

    variance (ANOVA) shows that the feed rate has strongest effect on surface roughness and MRR

    is dependent on RPM and depth of cut. Surface response methodology developed between the

    machining parameters and responses and confirmation experiments reveal that the good

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

    48

    agreement with the regression models. Artificial neutral network is applied to experimental

    results to find prediction results for two response parameters.

    The complexity of the machining process performing optimization of a machining process is very

    difficult. Therefore ANN is use for mapping the input/output relationships and as well as also

    doing computing. To implement the general functions of human brain artificial neural network

    model is developed. Artificial neural network (ANN) is doing works like a human brain for the

    implementation of the functions such as association, self-organization and generalization. It can

    approximate any functions more efficiently, thus it is suitable for modelling of any non-linear

    process. It can capture complex inputoutput relationships and having the good learning ability, generalization ability. [2]

    2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK

    The experiment was carried out in a VX-135 Junior CNC Lathe. The experiments were performed in dry environment without any cutting fluid. CNC control system is Fanuc Oi mate-

    TD.CNC part programs were used for doing the turning operation. Surface roughness measure

    with help of 3D profilometer . In this study effect of process parameters on turning of MS test

    piece is experimentally analysis using design of experiment method. Total 32 experiments are

    designed using surface response special class named mixture DOE method. All experiments are done in CPET, Jaipur CNC lathe centre. Table1 show levels and factors which are used in this

    study. Mixture based surface response method is used for complex experiments results. In figure

    1 shown simple turning operation and figure 2 shown CNC lathe installed at CIEPT, Jaipur.

    Figure 1. Turning operation

    Figure 2. CNC lathe installed at CIEPT Jaipur

    3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY It was R.A Fisher who at first introduced DOE in 1920 in England. Its a powerful statistical technique which assists in studying multiple variables and in maximization of learning using a

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

    49

    minimum of resources.DOE highlights the important causes and variables with determination of

    main effects reducing the variation and cost reduction for the opening up the tolerance on

    unimportant variables. [6]

    The effects of process parameters were studied by various researchers from last decades. Design

    of experiments is very difficult to for any type of research and for resolving this problem

    researchers use scientific approach, which is known as DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT. With help of D.O.E. techniques any researcher can determine important factors which are responsible for

    output result variation of experiments. DOE can found optimum solution for particular

    experiments. In this study mixture taguchi methods are used for ANOVA analysis. The entire

    task performs in MINITAB software.

    Table 1. Levels and factors

    Level Depth of Cut (mm) RPM Feed Rate (in

    mm)

    Low 0.25 350 0.25

    High 0.50 1400 1.0

    Total 32 experiments are show in table 1. In this method factor 1 is divided in two levels and

    remaining others is divided in 4 levels which are presented in table 2.

    Table 2. Total 32 Experiments according DOE Surface Response

    Experiment No. F1 (Depth of Cut) F2 (RPM) F2 (Feed)

    1 0.25 350 0.25

    2 0.25 350 0.5

    3 0.25 350 0.75

    4 0.25 350 1

    5 0.25 700 0.25

    6 0.25 700 0.5

    7 0.25 700 0.75

    8 0.25 700 1

    9 0.25 1050 0.25

    10 0.25 1050 0.5

    11 0.25 1050 0.75

    12 0.25 1050 1

    13 0.25 1400 0.25

    14 0.25 1400 0.5

    15 0.25 1400 0.75

    16 0.25 1400 1

    17 0.5 350 0.25

    18 0.5 350 0.5

    19 0.5 350 0.75

    20 0.5 350 1

    21 0.5 700 0.25

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

    50

    Experiment No. F1 (Depth of Cut) F2 (RPM) F2 (Feed)

    22 0.5 700 0.5

    23 0.5 700 0.75

    24 0.5 700 1

    25 0.5 1050 0.25

    26 0.5 1050 0.5

    27 0.5 1050 0.75

    28 0.5 1050 1

    29 0.5 1400 0.25

    30 0.5 1400 0.5

    31 0.5 1400 0.75

    32 0.5 1400 1

    All experiments are conducted in CNC lathe turning machine. Tool is made of high carbide steel

    and constant for this study. After all experiments completion recorded data is presented in table 3.

    Table 3. Experimental data record during research work

    Experi

    ment

    No.

    F1

    (Depth

    of Cut)

    F2

    (RP

    M)

    F2

    (Fee

    d)

    Initial

    Weight

    (gm)

    Final

    Weight

    Turning

    Operation

    Time (sec)

    MRR

    (in3/sec)

    Ra

    (um)

    1 0.25 350 0.25 191 180 20 0.07 4.94

    2 0.25 350 0.5 191 180 18 0.08 4.46

    3 0.25 350 0.75 187 175 15 0.11 3.99

    4 0.25 350 1 192 175 12 0.18 3.52

    5 0.25 700 0.25 190 180 23 0.06 3.84

    6 0.25 700 0.5 189 175 12 0.15 3.37

    7 0.25 700 0.75 188 180 8 0.14 2.90

    8 0.25 700 1 192 180 7 0.22 2.43

    9 0.25 1050 0.25 189 180 15 0.08 2.75

    10 0.25 1050 0.5 380 345 8.7 0.51 2.27

    11 0.25 1050 0.75 380 345 7 0.64 1.80

    12 0.25 1050 1 380 340 7.6 0.67 1.33

    13 0.25 1400 0.25 380 345 8.8 0.51 1.65

    14 0.25 1400 0.5 380 345 7.2 0.62 1.18

    15 0.25 1400 0.75 380 345 7.3 0.61 0.71

    16 0.25 1400 1 380 345 8.9 0.50 0.24

    17 0.5 350 0.25 380 350 24.3 0.16 4.59

    18 0.5 350 0.5 380 335 17.9 0.32 4.12

    19 0.5 350 0.75 380 360 14.4 0.18 3.65

    20 0.5 350 1 380 360 12.8 0.20 3.18

    21 0.5 700 0.25 330 300 17 0.22 3.49

    22 0.5 700 0.5 330 305 11 0.29 3.02

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

    51

    Two responses are solved in present study; first one is material removal rate and second is surface

    roughness.

    Material removal rate is the volume of material removed in per unit time from the surface of work

    piece. We can also calculate material removal rate as the volume of material removed divided by

    the time taken to cut. The volume removed is the initial volume of the work piece minus the final

    volume.

    MRR (in3/sec) = Initial Weight (gm) - Final Weight / 7.85* Turning operation time (sec.)

    Roughness is a measure of the texture of a surface. It is quantified by the vertical deviations of a

    real surface from its ideal form. If these deviations are large, the surface is rough; if they are

    small the surface is smooth. Roughness is typically considered to be the high frequency, short

    wavelength component of a measured surface. Surface measurement is also measured for all 32

    cases using manual surface roughness measurement device, available in local company (Ganesh

    hardware and Sheet Metal Products, Sitapura) in Jaipur. All though surface roughness for all 32

    cases is in good condition because of CNC machine standard accuracy. But some variations are

    seen after results so DOE analysis is done for Ra also. In table 3 MMR and surface roughness is

    presented for all 32 experiments.

    4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

    All experiments were designed according to DOE technique (Mixed taguchi), which were

    presented in table 2 and experimental results in term of MRR and surface roughness is presented

    in table .Main outcomes focused in this study are following: [ Surface response methodology,

    ANOVA Analysis, , Model equations generation and ANN approach ].

    4.1 Surface response methodology for surface roughness

    The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is applied for this study and results are shown in table 4

    respectively. In this analysis F-Test is conduct to compare a residual variance and a model

    variance. F value was calculated from a model mean square divided by residual mean square

    value. If the value of f was approaching to one, its means both variances were same according F

    value highest was best to find critical input parameter.

    23 0.5 700 0.75 330 345 7.5 0.08 2.55

    24 0.5 700 1 330 315 6.8 0.28 2.08

    25 0.5 1050 0.25 330 315 14.3 0.13 2.40

    26 0.5 1050 0.5 330 305 9.8 0.32 1.93

    27 0.5 1050 0.75 330 305 7 0.45 1.46

    28 0.5 1050 1 330 320 6 0.21 0.98

    29 0.5 1400 0.25 330 300 11.3 0.34 1.30

    30 0.5 1400 0.5 350 345 8.9 0.07 0.83

    31 0.5 1400 0.75 330 315 6.4 0.30 0.36

    32 0.5 1400 1 330 315 5.3 0.36 0.02

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

    52

    Table 4. Analysis of Variance for surface roughness

    According to result of Table 4 is list out the F value for regression models are very high and P

    value is very less (approx 0.0000) .It means that all cases were significant. Various researchers

    found that if p value was very small (less than 0.05) then in terms of regression model have a

    significant effect to the response from literature review.

    ANOVA analysis is also tell that all three factor has very low p value three and have acceptable p

    value so it can concluded that surface roughness are affected by mainly three factor, this.

    Analysis of variance is calculated for 95% Confidence interval (CI) for linear, product and square

    analysis using Minitab software. Model equations for surface roughness are presented in below

    Model Equation

    Ra (um) = 6.9681 -1.5558 F1(Depth of cut) -0.003257 F2(RPM) -2.0625 F3(Feed)+0.000000

    F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) +0.0652 F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) +0.000112 F1(Depth of cut)* F2(RPM)

    +0.156 F1(Depth of cut)* F3(Feed) +0.000067 F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)

    Normal probability plot and versus fits and versus order plot for surface response are shown in

    Fig 3, 4. Regression models adequacy shall be inspected to confirm that the all models have

    extracted all relevant information from all simulated cases. If distribution of residuals were

    normal, then the Regression equations results should be adequate

    For normality test, the Hypotheses are listed below -

    Null Hypothesis: the residual data should follow normal distribution

    Alternative Hypothesis: the residual data does not follow a normal distribution

    Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

    Model 8 57.1607 7.1451 17626.73 0.000

    Linear 3 57.1560 19.0520 47000.75 0.000

    F1(Depth of cut) 1 0.9252 0.9252 2282.48 0.000

    F2(RPM) 1 47.5469 47.5469 117296.85 0.000

    F3(Feed) 1 8.6839 8.6839 21422.94 0.000

    Square 2 0.0011 0.0005 1.31 0.289

    F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) 1 0.0005 0.0005 1.31 0.264

    F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) 1 0.0005 0.0005 1.31 0.264

    2-Way Interaction 3 0.0036 0.0012 2.99 0.052

    F1(Depth of cut)*

    F2(RPM) 1 0.0010 0.0010 2.36 0.138

    F1(Depth of cut)*

    F3(Feed) 1 0.0010 0.0010 2.36 0.138

    F2(RPM)* F3(Feed) 1 0.0017 0.0017 4.24 0.051

    Error 23 0.0093 0.0004

    Total 31 57.1700

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

    53

    Figure 3. Normal probability for surface roughness.

    Figure 4. Versus fits and versus order for surface roughness

    4.2 Surface response methodology for MRR

    The analysis of variance is calculated for this study and results are shown in table 5 respectively

    Table 5. Analysis of Variance for MRR

    Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

    Model 8 0.73380 0.091725 5.84 0.000

    Linear 3 0.47635 0.0158783 10.10 0.000

    F1(Depth of cut) 1 0.04685 0.046851 2.98 0.098

    F2(RPM) 1 0.36179 0.361792 23.02 0.000

    F3(Feed) 1 0.06771 0.067706 4.31 0.049

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

    54

    Square 2 0.01517 0.007583 0.48 0.623

    F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) 1 0.00050 0.000502 0.03 0.860

    F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) 1 0.01466 0.014663 0.93 0.344

    2-Way Interaction 3 0.24229 0.080763 5.14 0.007

    F1(Depth of cut)*

    F2(RPM) 1 0.21206 0.027019 13.49 0.001

    F1(Depth of cut)*

    F3(Feed) 1 0.02702 0.003214 1.72 0.203

    F2(RPM)* F3(Feed) 1 0.00321 0.015716 0.20 0.655

    Error 23 0.36146

    Total 31 1.09527

    ANOVA analysis is also tell that RPM and feed factor has very low p value, and has acceptable p

    value in all three factors. So it can conclude that MRR are affected by mainly RPM and feed

    factor. Analysis of variance is calculated for 95% Confidence interval (CI) for linear, product and

    square analysis using Minitab software. Model equations for surface roughness are presented in

    below

    Model Equation -Regression Equation

    MRR =0.720+ 1.670 F1(Depth of cut) +0.000782 F2(RPM) +0.824 F3(Feed)+0.000000

    F2(RPM)* F2(RPM) -0.342 F3(Feed)* F3(Feed) 0.001664 F1(Depth of cut)* F2(RPM) -0.832 F1(Depth of cut)* F3(Feed) +0.000092 F2(RPM)* F3(Feed)

    Normal probability for MRR is shown in Fig 5.

    Figure 5. Normal probability for MRR

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

    55

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

    4.3 Artificial Neural Network for Surface Roughness (Ra)

    In this study ANN method is also used for prediction of outcome data gained by experimental

    work. MATLAB software is used for ANN method. Neural networks (NNs), have been widely

    used many applications include data fitting, clustering, pattern recognition, function

    approximation, optimization, simulation, time series expansion and dynamic system modeling

    and controlling [2]. Neural network also overcome the limitations of the conventional approaches

    by extracting the desired information by using the input data. It can continuously be re-trained, so

    that it can give a new data. An ANN has been deal with the problems involving imprecise or

    incomplete input information. The selection of ANN is most important for good quality

    prediction. As there are 3 input variables with 1 output variable which shown in figure 6. A

    MATLAB R2013 version is used to convert the earlier developed ANN model.

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

    56

    Figure 6. MS error for Surface roughness

    Figure 7. Histogram for Ra

    Figure 7 represent histogram diagram which can give an indication of outliers. Performance

    Epoch diagrams shown in figure 6 which represent that the validation and test curves are very

    similar. Figure 8 represent the training, validation, and testing data. The perfect result outputs = targets represents in each plot with the dashed line.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    10-20

    10-15

    10-10

    10-5

    100

    Best Validation Performance is 0.022513 at epoch 5

    Me

    an

    Sq

    ua

    re

    d E

    rro

    r

    (ms

    e)

    7 Epochs

    Train

    Validation

    Test

    Best

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    Error Histogram with 20 Bins

    Ins

    tan

    ce

    s

    Errors = Targets - Outputs

    -0.3

    07

    8

    -0.2

    85

    5

    -0.2

    63

    3

    -0.2

    41

    1

    -0.2

    18

    9

    -0.1

    96

    7

    -0.1

    74

    5

    -0.1

    52

    3

    -0.1

    3

    -0.1

    07

    8

    -0.0

    85

    61

    -0.0

    63

    39

    -0.0

    41

    17

    -0.0

    18

    96

    0.0

    03

    25

    7

    0.0

    25

    47

    0.0

    47

    69

    0.0

    69

    9

    0.0

    92

    12

    0.1

    14

    3

    Training

    Validation

    Test

    Zero Error

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

    57

    Figure 8 Regression Results for Ra(um)

    4.4 Artificial Neural Network for MRR

    Figure 9. Function Fitting Neural Network Diagram

    Figure 10. Histogram for MRR Figure 11. MS error for MRR

    Figure 10 represent histogram diagram which can give an indication of outliers. The data points

    where the fit is significantly worse than the majority of data. Performance Epoch diagrams

    shown in figure 11 which represent that the validation and test curves are very similar.

    1 2 3 4

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    4.5

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 1*

    Targ

    et + -0

    .000

    3Training: R=1

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    1 2 3 4

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    4.5

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 0.88

    *Tar

    get +

    0.49

    Validation: R=0.99337

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    1 2 3 4

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    4.5

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 0.96

    *Tar

    get +

    0.18

    Test: R=0.98701

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    1 2 3 4

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    4.5

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 0.98

    *Tar

    get +

    0.079

    All: R=0.99753

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    Error Histogram with 20 Bins

    Insta

    nces

    Errors = Targets - Outputs

    -0.1

    441

    -0.1

    137

    -0.0

    832

    -0.0

    5273

    -0.0

    2226

    0.0

    08214

    0.0

    3868

    0.0

    6915

    0.0

    9962

    0.1

    301

    0.1

    606

    0.1

    91

    0.2

    215

    0.2

    52

    0.2

    824

    0.3

    129

    0.3

    434

    0.3

    739

    0.4

    043

    0.4

    348

    Training

    Validation

    Test

    Zero Error

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

    10-15

    10-10

    10-5

    100

    Best Validation Performance is 0.0026086 at epoch 5

    Me

    an

    Sq

    ua

    red

    Err

    or

    (m

    se

    )

    9 Epochs

    Train

    Validation

    Test

    Best

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

    58

    Figure 12 represent the training, validation, and testing data. The meaning of dashed line in each

    plot is the targets = perfect result outputs .

    Figure 12. Regression Results for Ra( um)

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

    Experiment

    No.

    F1

    (Depth

    of Cut)

    F2

    (RPM)

    F2

    (Feed)

    Ra

    (um)

    Ra

    (Predica

    ted)

    MRR

    (in3/se

    c)

    Predicated

    MRR

    1 0.25 350 0.25 4.94 4.94 0.07 -0.1363

    2 0.25 350 0.5 4.46 4.40 0.08 -0.3700

    3 0.25 350 0.75 3.99 3.97 0.11 -0.2168

    4 0.25 350 1 3.52 3.51 0.18 0.1405

    5 0.25 700 0.25 3.84 3.83 0.06 0.0350

    6 0.25 700 0.5 3.37 3.36 0.15 0.1138

    7 0.25 700 0.75 2.90 2.90 0.14 0.1447

    8 0.25 700 1 2.43 2.52 0.22 0.2319

    9 0.25 1050 0.25 2.75 2.97 0.08 0.1305

    10 0.25 1050 0.5 2.27 2.26 0.51 0.4704

    11 0.25 1050 0.75 1.80 1.80 0.64 0.6309

    12 0.25 1050 1 1.33 1.33 0.67 0.6309

    13 0.25 1400 0.25 1.65 1.65 0.51 0.5486

    14 0.25 1400 0.5 1.18 1.18 0.62 0.6436

    15 0.25 1400 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.61 0.6579

    16 0.25 1400 1 0.24 0.55 0.50 0.6574

    17 0.5 350 0.25 4.59 4.58 0.16 0.2959

    18 0.5 350 0.5 4.12 4.11 0.32 0.3238

    19 0.5 350 0.75 3.65 3.64 0.18 0.2688

    20 0.5 350 1 3.18 3.40 0.20 0.1934

    21 0.5 700 0.25 3.49 3.48 0.22 0.2192

    -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 0.98

    *Tar

    get +

    0.019

    Training: R=0.98748

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 0.81

    *Tar

    get +

    0.067

    Validation: R=0.92845

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 2.1*

    Targ

    et + -0

    .34

    Test: R=0.89148

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

    -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

    -0.2

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    Target

    Outp

    ut ~= 1.2*

    Targ

    et + -0

    .059

    All: R=0.8884

    Data

    Fit

    Y = T

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

    59

    22 0.5 700 0.5 3.02 3.01 0.29 0.3097

    23 0.5 700 0.75 2.55 2.54 0.08 0.1201

    24 0.5 700 1 2.08 2.30 0.28 0.2982

    25 0.5 1050 0.25 2.40 2.47 0.13 0.1977

    26 0.5 1050 0.5 1.93 1.92 0.32 0.3387

    27 0.5 1050 0.75 1.46 1.45 0.45 0.4205

    28 0.5 1050 1 0.98 0.97 0.21 0.2480

    29 0.5 1400 0.25 1.30 1.29 0.34 0.3742

    30 0.5 1400 0.5 0.83 0.70 0.07 0.1263

    31 0.5 1400 0.75 0.36 0.35 0.30 0.2456

    32 0.5 1400 1 0.02 0.23 0.36 0.3669

    5. CONCLUSIONS

    1.Model equations for response MRR and surface roughness was predict accurately with Minitab

    software and show 90% good prediction for responses and can be used by any cutting based

    machining process manufacture.

    2.MRR and surface roughness also was predicted by ANN approach. This paper has successfully

    established the new process model to predict the surface roughness and MRR in different

    practical applications. Model equations gives values of the process parameters for controlled

    process models in better way if they are employed in different industrial applications.

    REFERENCES [1] Doriana M.,Roberto Teti, (2013) Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Of Cutting Parameters In

    Turning Processes, Forty Sixth CIRP Conference On Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7, Pp- 323-328.

    [2 ] Biswajit Das , Susmita Roy, R.N.Rai, S.C. Saha, (2015), Studies On Effect Of Cutting Parameters On

    Surface Roughness Of Al- Cu-Tic Mmcs : An Artificial Neural Network Approach, International

    Conference On Advanced Computing Technologies And Applications, Pp- 745-752.

    [3] Garca-Plazaa,, P.J. Neza, D.R. Salgadob, I. Camberob, ( 2013), Surface Finish Monitoring In

    Taper Turning CNC Using Artificial Neural Network And Multiple Regression Methods , Procedia

    Engineering , Vol 63, Pp599 607. [4 ] Sayak Mukherjeea, Anurag Kamala, Kaushik Kumarb, (2014), Optimization Of Material Removal

    Rate During Turning Of SAE 1020 Material In CNC Lathe Using Taguchi Technique, Procedia

    Engineering Vol 97, Pp 29 35. [5] A Mahamani, (2014), Influence Of Process Parameters On Cutting Force And Surfaceroughness

    During Turning Of AA2219-Tib2/Zrb2 In-Situ Metal Matrix Composites, Procedia Materials Science

    Voi 6, Pp- 1178 1186 [6] Arshad Noor Siddiqueea,, Zahid A. Khana, Pankul Goel, Mukesh Kumar, Gaurav Agarwal,(2014),

    Optimization Of Deep Drilling Process Parameters Of AISI 321 Steel Using Taguchi Method,

    Procedia Materials Science Vol 6 Pp-1217 1225 . [7] Mathias Agmell,, Aylin Ahadia, Jan-Eric Sthl, (2013), The Link Between Plasticity Parameters And

    Process Parameters In Orthogonal Cutting, Procedia CIRP Vol8 , Pp 224 229 [8] J Frederik Zanger, Nikolay Boev, Volker Schulze, 2015, Novel Approach For 3D Simulation Of A

    Cutting Process With Adaptive Remeshing Technique, Procedia CIRP Vol 31, Pp-88 93 [9] T.Senthil Kumar1, G.Mahadevan2, T.R.Vikraman, 2014, Evalution Of Surface Finish On Machining

    Of Mild Steel Using High Speed Steel Tool In Lathe With Normal Coolant (Or) Nano Material

    Added Coolant, Journal Of Mechanical And Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Vol 11, Issue 3 Ver.

    V (May- Jun. 2014), Pp 01-09.

    [10] Puneet Saini *, Shanti Parkash**, Devender Choudhary, 2014 Experimental Investigation Of

    Machining Parameters For Surface Roughness In High Speed CNC Turning Of EN-24 Alloy Steel

    Using Response Surface Journal Of Mechanical And Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Vol 5, Issue 5

    Ver.7 (May- Jun. 2014), Pp 153-160