| Literature DB >> 30917617 |
Gurraj Singh1, Catalin Iulian Pruncu2,3, Munish Kumar Gupta4, Mozammel Mia5, Aqib Mashood Khan6, Muhammad Jamil7, Danil Yurievich Pimenov8, Binayak Sen9, Vishal S Sharma10.
Abstract
Environmental protection is the major concern of any form of manufacturing industry today. As focus has shifted towards sustainable cooling strategies, minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) has proven its usefulness. The current survey intends to make the MQL strategy more effective while improving its performance. A Ranque⁻Hilsch vortex tube (RHVT) was implemented into the MQL process in order to enhance the performance of the manufacturing process. The RHVT is a device that allows for separating the hot and cold air within the compressed air flows that come tangentially into the vortex chamber through the inlet nozzles. Turning tests with a unique combination of cooling technique were performed on titanium (Grade 2), where the effectiveness of the RHVT was evaluated. The surface quality measurements, forces values, and tool wear were carefully investigated. A combination of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and evolutionary techniques (particle swarm optimization (PSO), bacteria foraging optimization (BFO), and teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO)) was brought into use in order to analyze the influence of the process parameters. In the end, an appropriate correlation between PSO, BFO, and TLBO was investigated. It was shown that RHVT improved the results by nearly 15% for all of the responses, while the TLBO technique was found to be the best optimization technique, with an average time of 1.09 s and a success rate of 90%.Entities:
Keywords: MQL; RHVT; evolutionary algorithm; optimization; titanium; turning
Year: 2019 PMID: 30917617 PMCID: PMC6470875 DOI: 10.3390/ma12060999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Composition and properties (provided by: Maharaja Associates, Mumbai, India).
| Composition or Properties | Data |
|---|---|
| C | <0.12% |
| Fe | <0.33% |
| H | <0.015% |
| N | <0.034% |
| O | <0.24% |
| Ti (balance) (%) | 98.8% |
| Density | 4500 Kg/m3 |
| Specific heat | 520 J/(Kg·K) |
| Thermal conductivity | 16 W/(m·K) |
Figure 1Experimental setup. MQL—minimum quantity lubrication.
Experimental results [47]. MQL—minimum quantity lubrication; VMQL—vortex tube-assisted MQL.
| Serial Number | Cutting | Feed Rate, | Depth of Cut, | Cooling | Surface | Cutting | Power | Tool wear, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | MQL | 0.49 | 156 | 716 | 221.82 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | MQL | 0.34 | 94 | 390 | 134.39 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 0 | MQL | 0.75 | 165 | 825 | 224.11 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | MQL | 1.13 | 154 | 704 | 177.86 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | MQL | 0.42 | 80 | 399 | 160.95 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | MQL | 0.44 | 102 | 467 | 176 |
| 7 | 1 | −1 | 0 | MQL | 0.46 | 94 | 468 | 175.82 |
| 8 | 0 | −1 | 1 | MQL | 0.27 | 68 | 344 | 157.57 |
| 9 | 1 | 0 | −1 | MQL | 0.47 | 85 | 354 | 175.17 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | MQL | 0.7 | 115 | 528 | 208.71 |
| 11 | 0 | −1 | −1 | MQL | 0.45 | 115 | 526 | 179.64 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | MQL | 0.58 | 126 | 525 | 180.25 |
| 13 | −1 | 0 | −1 | MQL | 0.9 | 150 | 683 | 197.4 |
| 14 | 0 | 1 | −1 | VMQL | 0.35 | 121 | 504 | 147.54 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | VMQL | 0.52 | 140 | 699 | 189.14 |
| 16 | −1 | 0 | 1 | VMQL | 0.42 | 95 | 435 | 168.06 |
| 17 | −1 | 1 | 0 | VMQL | 0.35 | 74 | 372 | 148 |
| 18 | −1 | 0 | 1 | VMQL | 0.6 | 135 | 610 | 176.17 |
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | VMQL | 0.4 | 110 | 506 | 140.24 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | VMQL | 0.5 | 135 | 675 | 179.24 |
| 21 | 0 | −1 | 1 | VMQL | 0.38 | 104 | 479 | 142.65 |
| 22 | 1 | −1 | 0 | VMQL | 0.35 | 97 | 404 | 145.74 |
| 23 | −1 | 1 | 0 | VMQL | 0.28 | 96 | 402 | 81.86 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | VMQL | 0.55 | 121 | 604 | 133.32 |
| 25 | 0 | 1 | 1 | VMQL | 0.22 | 58 | 265 | 170.84 |
| 26 | 0 | 1 | −1 | VMQL | 0.42 | 89 | 444 | 150.41 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table.
| Factors | Responses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting Force, | Tool Wear, | Surface Roughness, | Power | |
| R-square | 0.8867 | 0.6362 | 0.56 | 0.8957 |
| Adjusted R-Square | 0.8651 | 0.5669 | 0.4762 | 0.8758 |
| Predicted R-Square | 0.8225 | 0.4312 | 0.3148 | 0.8364 |
| Adequate Decision | 22.129 | 10.164 | 8.97 | 22.089 |
| Model F-Value | 41.08 | 9.18 | 6.68 | 45.07 |
Figure 2Results (a) MQL and vortex tube-assisted MQL(VMQL) comparisons of R, (b) MQL, and VMQL comparisons of F, (c) MQL and VMQL comparisons of VBmax, and (d) MQL and VMQL comparisons of cutting power (P).
Figure 3(a) Perturbation analysis for R under the MQL technique; (b) perturbation analysis for R under the VMQL technique; (c) perturbation analysis for F under the MQL technique; (d) perturbation analysis for F under the VMQL technique; (e) perturbation analysis for VBmax under MQL cooling; (f) perturbation analysis for VBmax under the VMQL technique; (g) perturbation analysis for P under thermal technique; (h) perturbation analysis for P under the VMQL technique at v = 275 m/min, f = 0.09 mm/rev, and a = 0.4 mm. (A = cutting speed; B = feed; C = depth of cut, where the X-axis represents the coded values and the Y-axis represents the selected responses) [47].
Figure 4Comparison of VBmax for the tools found under MQL and VMQL [47]. (a) Condition: MQL, v = 275 m/min, f = 0.13 mm/rev, a = 0.30 mm; (b) Condition: MQL, v = 250 m/min, f = 0.05 mm/rev and a = 0.40 mm; (c) Condition: VMQL, v = 275 m/min, f = 0.13 mm/rev, a = 0.30 mm; (d) Condition: MQL, v = 250 m/min, f = 0.05 mm/rev and a = 0.40 mm.
Optimized results (desirability approach).
| Cutting Speed (m/min) | Feed Rate (mm/rev) | Depth of Cut (mm) | Cooling Condition | Combined Objective | Desirability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.26708 | 0.906 |
| 250 | 0.05 | 0.40 | VMQL | 1.27166 | 0.906 |
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) parameters.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of variates | 5 |
| Number of particles | 55 |
| Number of iterations | 120 |
| Inertial weight (W) | 0.7 |
| Rate of learning | - |
| C1max = C2max | 1.7 |
| C1min = C2min | 0.5 |
| C1 = C2 = Cmin + R × (Cmax − Cmin) | Where R = current iterations/total iterations |
| Xmin | [250 0.05 0.3 MQL] |
| Xmax | [300 0.13 0.5 VRHVT] |
Figure 5Convergence graph comparisons.
Parameters of bacteria foraging optimization (BFO).
| Input Parameters | Value of Parameters |
|---|---|
| p, search area dimension | 4 |
| S, number of bacteria | 55 |
| Nc, number of chemotactic steps | 120 |
| Nre, number of reproduction steps | 5 |
| Ned, number of elimination-dispersal events | 5 |
| Ns, maximum swim steps | 4 |
| Ped, probability of elimination and dispersal | 0.1 |
| Cmax, run length (maximum) | 0.2 |
| Cmin, run length (minimum) | 0.01 |
| [250 0.05 0.3 MQL] | |
| [300 0.13 0.5 RHVT] | |
| dattract = drepellent, depth of attractant and repellent signals | 0.1 |
| wattract, attractant signal width | 0.1 |
| wrepellent, repellent signal width | 0.1 |
Comparison of combined objective values by PSO, BFO, teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO), and desirability function approach.
| Technique | Best Case | Worst Case | Average Reading | Time Taken | Success (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO | 1.049 | 1.056 | 1.053 | 6.40 | 60 |
| BFO | 1.056 | 1.057 | 1.058 | 14.70 | 50 |
| TLBO | 1.042 | 1.049 | 1.045 | 1.09 | 90 |
| Desirability Function | 1.267 | ||||
Optimal parameter settings.
| Parameters | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Depth of Cut | Cooling Mode | CO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO | 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.053 |
| BFO | 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.058 |
| TLBO | 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.044 |
| Desirability | 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.267 |
| Experimental | 255 | 0.07 | 0.31 | VMQL | 1.042 |