| Literature DB >> 30934735 |
Raneen Abd Ali1, Mozammel Mia2, Aqib Mashood Khan3, Wenliang Chen4, Munish Kumar Gupta5, Catalin Iulian Pruncu6,7.
Abstract
It is hypothesized that the orientation of tool maneuvering in the milling process defines the quality of machining. In that respect, here, the influence of different path strategies of the tool in face milling is investigated, and subsequently, the best strategy is identified following systematic optimization. The surface roughness, material removal rate and cutting time are considered as key responses, whereas the cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut were considered as inputs (quantitative factors) beside the tool path strategy (qualitative factor) for the material Al 2024 with a torus end mill. The experimental plan, i.e., 27 runs were determined by using the Taguchi design approach. In addition, the analysis of variance is conducted to statistically identify the effects of parameters. The optimal values of process parameters have been evaluated based on Taguchi-grey relational analysis, and the reliability of this analysis has been verified with the confirmation test. It was found that the tool path strategy has a significant influence on the end outcomes of face milling. As such, the surface topography respective to different cutter path strategies and the optimal cutting strategy is discussed in detail.Entities:
Keywords: face milling; grey relation analysis; multi-objective optimization; surface roughness; tool path strategy
Year: 2019 PMID: 30934735 PMCID: PMC6479395 DOI: 10.3390/ma12071013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Experimental equipment: (a) 3-axis CNC milling machine with the workpiece and (b) Milling tool used for face milling.
The chemical composition of Al2024-T4 alloy.
| Elements | Si | Fe | Cu | Mn | Mg | Pb | Zn | Ni | Al |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composition (wt.%) | 0.34 | 0.35 | 5.03 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 92.48 |
Mechanical properties of Al2024-T4 alloy.
| Tensile Strength (MPa) | Yield Strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) | Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 469 | 324 | 20% | 73.1 |
Figure 2The proposed methodology.
Factors and levels of the milling process.
| Quantify Input Factors and Qualify | Levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Cutting speed (m/min) |
| 30 | 50 | 70 |
| Feed per tooth (mm/tooth) |
| 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Depth of cut (mm) |
| 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Tool path strategy | TP | Zig | Zig-zag | Contour |
Figure 3Generated tool path strategies with the machined workpiece: (a) Zig, (b) Zig-zag and (c) Contour.
Experimental results.
| Sl. No | Orthogonal Array | Measured Performance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP | MRR(mm3/min) | CT (min) | |||||
| 1 | 30 | 0.02 | 0.2 | zig | 0.12 | 12.8 | 52 |
| 2 | 30 | 0.04 | 0.4 | zig | 0.17 | 50.8 | 26 |
| 3 | 30 | 0.06 | 0.6 | zig | 0.2 | 114.6 | 17 |
| 4 | 50 | 0.02 | 0.2 | zig | 0.11 | 21.2 | 31 |
| 5 | 50 | 0.04 | 0.4 | zig | 0.16 | 84.8 | 15 |
| 6 | 50 | 0.06 | 0.6 | zig | 0.19 | 190.8 | 10 |
| 7 | 70 | 0.02 | 0.2 | zig | 0.1 | 29.6 | 22 |
| 8 | 70 | 0.04 | 0.4 | zig | 0.15 | 118.8 | 11 |
| 9 | 70 | 0.06 | 0.6 | zig | 0.17 | 267 | 8 |
| 10 | 30 | 0.02 | 0.4 | zig-zag | 0.15 | 25.6 | 20 |
| 11 | 30 | 0.04 | 0.6 | zig-zag | 0.19 | 76.2 | 10 |
| 12 | 30 | 0.06 | 0.2 | zig-zag | 0.2 | 38.2 | 7 |
| 13 | 50 | 0.02 | 0.4 | zig-zag | 0.14 | 42.4 | 12 |
| 14 | 50 | 0.04 | 0.6 | zig-zag | 0.17 | 127.2 | 6 |
| 15 | 50 | 0.06 | 0.2 | zig-zag | 0.18 | 63.6 | 4 |
| 16 | 70 | 0.02 | 0.4 | zig-zag | 0.13 | 59.2 | 8 |
| 17 | 70 | 0.04 | 0.6 | zig-zag | 0.16 | 178.2 | 4 |
| 18 | 70 | 0.06 | 0.2 | zig-zag | 0.17 | 89 | 3 |
| 19 | 30 | 0.02 | 0.6 | contour | 0.14 | 38.4 | 20 |
| 20 | 30 | 0.04 | 0.2 | contour | 0.15 | 25.4 | 10 |
| 21 | 30 | 0.06 | 0.4 | contour | 0.18 | 76.4 | 7 |
| 22 | 50 | 0.02 | 0.6 | contour | 0.13 | 63.6 | 12 |
| 23 | 50 | 0.04 | 0.2 | contour | 0.14 | 42.4 | 6 |
| 24 | 50 | 0.06 | 0.4 | contour | 0.17 | 127.2 | 4 |
| 25 | 70 | 0.02 | 0.6 | contour | 0.12 | 88.8 | 9 |
| 26 | 70 | 0.04 | 0.2 | contour | 0.13 | 59.4 | 4 |
| 27 | 70 | 0.06 | 0.4 | contour | 0.16 | 178 | 3 |
Calculated grey relational coefficient with different weights and GRG.
| Run No. | GRC | GRG | Rank | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| MRR | CT | |||
|
| 0.7143 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.4715 | 26 |
| 2 | 0.4167 | 0.3702 | 0.5158 | 0.4372 | 27 |
| 3 | 0.3333 | 0.4547 | 0.6364 | 0.4733 | 25 |
| 4 | 0.8333 | 0.3408 | 0.4667 | 0.5628 | 16 |
| 5 | 0.4545 | 0.4109 | 0.6712 | 0.5164 | 21 |
| 6 | 0.3571 | 0.6252 | 0.7778 | 0.5806 | 14 |
| 7 | 1.0000 | 0.3487 | 0.5632 | 0.6588 | 5 |
| 8 | 0.5000 | 0.4617 | 0.7538 | 0.5762 | 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 | 0.5000 | 0.3449 | 0.5904 | 0.4857 | 24 |
| 11 | 0.3571 | 0.3998 | 0.7778 | 0.5146 | 22 |
| 12 | 0.3333 | 0.3571 | 0.8596 | 0.5216 | 20 |
| 13 | 0.5556 | 0.3614 | 0.7313 | 0.5593 | 17 |
| 14 | 0.4167 | 0.4762 | 0.8909 | 0.5975 | 11 |
| 15 | 0.3846 | 0.3846 | 0.9608 | 0.5831 | 13 |
| 16 | 0.6250 | 0.3795 | 0.8305 | 0.6239 | 7 |
| 17 | 0.4545 | 0.5887 | 0.9608 | 0.6683 | 4 |
| 18 | 0.4167 | 0.4166 | 1.0000 | 0.6176 | 9 |
| 19 | 0.5556 | 0.3573 | 0.5904 | 0.5095 | 23 |
| 20 | 0.5000 | 0.3447 | 0.7778 | 0.5502 | 19 |
| 21 | 0.3846 | 0.4001 | 0.8596 | 0.5528 | 18 |
| 22 | 0.6250 | 0.3846 | 0.7313 | 0.5912 | 12 |
| 23 | 0.5556 | 0.3614 | 0.8909 | 0.6142 | 10 |
| 24 | 0.4167 | 0.4762 | 0.9608 | 0.6216 | 8 |
| 25 | 0.7143 | 0.4163 | 0.8033 | 0.6577 | 6 |
| 26 | 0.6250 | 0.3797 | 0.9608 | 0.6689 | 3 |
| 27 | 0.4545 | 0.5882 | 1.0000 | 0.6816 | 2 |
Regression models for experimental response.
| Response | Path | Model |
|---|---|---|
|
| Zig |
|
| Zig-zag |
| |
| Contour |
| |
| MRR | Zig |
|
| Zig-zag |
| |
| Contour |
| |
| CT | Zig |
|
| Zig-zag |
| |
| Contour |
|
Average values of GRG at different levels of machining parameters.
| Identification | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Depth of Cut | Tool Path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 0.50183 | 0.56893 | 0.5832 | 0.55631 |
| Level 2 | 0.58074 | 0.57151 | 0.56164 | 0.57462 |
| Level 3 | 0.65367 | 0.59581 | 0.59141 | 0.60531 |
| Difference | 0.15184 | 0.02688 | 0.02976 | 0.04899 |
| Rank | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Optimised factor | 70 | 0.06 | 0.6 | Contour |
ANOVA with GRG.
| Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | P% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2 | 0.103812 | 0.051906 | 58.87 | 0.000 | 74.72 |
|
| 2 | 0.003961 | 0.001980 | 2.25 | 0.135 | 2.85 |
|
| 2 | 0.004254 | 0.002127 | 2.41 | 0.118 | 3.06 |
| Path | 2 | 0.011031 | 0.005515 | 6.26 | 0.009 | 7.94 |
| Error | 18 | 0.015871 | 0.000882 | – | – | – |
| Total | 26 | 0.138927 | – | – | – | – |
Confirmation results for the response.
| Initial Cutting Conditions | Optimal Milling Conditions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted Results | Experimental Results | ||
| Levels |
| A3B3C3D3 | A3B3C3D3 |
| Surface roughness (µm) | 0.17 | – | 0.14 |
| MRR(mm3/min) | 267 | – | 267 |
| Milling time, CT(min) | 8 | – | 7.8 |
| GRG | 0.7301 | 0.7099 | 0.7824 |
| The % improvement in GRG = 7.162 | |||
Figure 4Surface topography for different tool path strategies: (a) zig, (b) zig-zag and (c) contour.
Figure 5Graphical analysis of Ra: (a) Interaction plot and (b) Main effects plot.
Figure 6Productivity (MRR) analysis of milling: (a) Interaction plot and (b) Main effects plot.
Figure 7Time analysis for milling process: (a) Interaction plot and (b) Main effects plot.
Figure 8Grey relational grade: (a) Interaction plot and (b) Main effects plot.