| Literature DB >> 31635370 |
Navneet Khanna1, Jay Airao2, Munish Kumar Gupta3, Qinghua Song4,5, Zhanqiang Liu6,7, Mozammel Mia8, Radoslaw Maruda9, Grzegorz Krolczyk10.
Abstract
These days, power consumption and energy related issues are very hot topics of research especially for machine tooling process industries because of the strict environmental regulations and policies. Hence, the present paper discusses the application of such an advanced machining process i.e., ultrasonic assisted turning (UAT) process with the collaboration of nature inspired algorithms to determine the ideal solution. The cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and frequency of cutting tool were considered as input variables and the machining performance of Nimonic-90 alloy in terms of surface roughness and power consumption has been investigated. Then, the experimentation was conducted as per the Taguchi L9 orthogonal array and the mono as well as bi-objective optimizations were performed with standard particle swarm and hybrid particle swarm with simplex methods (PSO-SM). Further, the statistical analysis was performed with well-known analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. After that, the regression equation along with selected boundary conditions was used for creation of fitness function in the subjected algorithms. The results showed that the UAT process was more preferable for the Nimconic-90 alloy as compared with conventional turning process. In addition, the hybrid PSO-SM gave the best results for obtaining the minimized values of selected responses.Entities:
Keywords: Nimonic-90; nature inspired hybrid algorithm; optimization; power consumption; surface roughness; ultrasonically assisted turning
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635370 PMCID: PMC6829544 DOI: 10.3390/ma12203418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic of ultrasonically assisted turning set-up.
Chemical composition of Nimonic-90.
| Elements | C | Si | Mg | Cr | Ni | Ti | Al | Co | Fe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Weight | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.018 | 18.1 | 58 | 2.4 | 1.09 | 18.5 | 0.82 |
Cutting insert specifications.
| Insert Part Number | CNMG 120408CQ |
|---|---|
| Rake angle | 5° |
| Relief angle | 0° |
| Nose radius | 0.8 mm |
| Lead angle | 45° |
| Point angle | 80° |
Range and levels of process parameters.
| Parameters | Range | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |
| Cutting speed (m/min) | 27.14 | 40.77 | 61.14 |
| Feed rate (mm/rev) | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.33 |
| Depth of cut (mm) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Frequency (kHz) | 20 | 18 | 0 (conventional) |
| Amplitude (µm) | 10 | ||
Design and experimental results of the L9 orthogonal array.
| Sr. No. | Control Variables | Average Responses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOC (mm) |
| |||||
| 1 | 27.14 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 20 | 0.37 | 288.67 |
| 2 | 27.14 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 18 | 1.56 | 337.33 |
| 3 | 27.14 | 0.33 | 0.3 | 0 | 2.21 | 308.33 |
| 4 | 40.77 | 0.11 | 0.2 | 0 | 1.06 | 302.67 |
| 5 | 40.77 | 0.22 | 0.3 | 20 | 0.9 | 335.67 |
| 6 | 40.77 | 0.33 | 0.1 | 18 | 1.14 | 312.67 |
| 7 | 61.14 | 0.11 | 0.3 | 18 | 0.64 | 413.67 |
| 8 | 61.14 | 0.22 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.67 | 349.67 |
| 9 | 61.14 | 0.33 | 0.2 | 20 | 1.26 | 335.00 |
Figure 2Experimental procedure with complete details.
Analysis of variance of means for surface roughness.
| Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | %C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting speed | 2 | 1.26423 | 0.63211 | 134.6 | 0.001 | 17.051 |
| Feed | 2 | 3.26703 | 1.63351 | 347.83 | 0.002 | 44.065 |
| Depth of cut | 2 | 1.79147 | 0.89574 | 190.73 | 0.002 | 24.163 |
| Frequency | 2 | 1.00732 | 0.50366 | 107.25 | 0.000 | 13.586 |
| Error | 18 | 0.08453 | 0.0047 | |||
| Total | 26 | 7.41459 |
Analysis of variance of means for and power consumption.
| Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | %C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting speed | 2 | 15,407 | 7703.4 | 20.86 | 0.000 | 39.798 |
| Feed | 2 | 2733 | 1366.3 | 3.7 | 0.045 | 7.0596 |
| Depth of cut | 2 | 6445 | 3222.3 | 8.73 | 0.002 | 16.648 |
| Frequency | 2 | 7483 | 3741.6 | 10.13 | 0.001 | 19.32 |
| Error | 18 | 6646 | 369.2 | |||
| Total | 26 | 38,713 |
Figure 3Influence of machining parameters on surface roughness values (a) Cutting speed vs. feed rate, (b) depth of cut vs. feed rate, and (c) frequency vs. feed rate.
Figure 4Macrographs and chip formed during machining of Nimonic-90 alloy under different conditions, (a) smooth and short chips, (b) longer chips.
Figure 5Effect of small () and large ( ) shear angle on chip thickness ( ) and length of shear plane for a given tool and un-deformed chip thickness ( ) [26].
Figure 6Influence of machining parameters on power consumption values (a) Feed rate vs. cutting speed, (b) depth of cut vs. cutting speed and (c) frequency vs. cutting speed.
Initial parameters of PSO.
| Input Parameters | Value of Parameters |
|---|---|
| S, number of agent particles | 50 |
| Number of iterations | 100 |
| Maximum permissible inertia weight | 1.4 |
| Minimum permissible inertia weight | 0.5 |
| Maximum defined learning rate, | 2 |
| Minimum defined learning rate, | 1.5 |
| H | 5 |
Initial parameters of HPSO-SM.
| Input Parameters | Value of Parameters |
|---|---|
| S, number of agent particles | 50 |
| Number of iterations | 100 |
| Maximum permissible inertia weight | 1.156 |
| Minimum permissible inertia weight | 1.143 |
| Maximum defined learning rate, | 1.345 |
| Minimum defined learning rate, | 1.845 |
| H | 5 |
Control variables and their selected values (for optimal response variables).
| Control Variables | Optimal Values for Response Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Roughness (µm) | Power Consumption (Watts) | Combined Values | ||||
| PSO | HPSO-SM | PSO | HPSO-SM | PSO | HPSO-SM | |
| Cutting speed (m/min) | 61.14 | 61.14 | 27.14 | 27.14 | 40.77 | 40.77 |
| Feed (mm/rev) | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Depth of cut (mm) | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Frequency (kHz) | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Best solution | <0.35 | >0.35 | <270 | >270 | <0.8452 | >0.8452 |
| Mean solution | 0.353 | 0.350 | 272.33 | 270.52 | 0.8572 | 0.8456 |
| Standard deviation | 0.458 | 0.352 | 0.583 | 0.383 | 0.522 | 0.324 |
| Average time (s) | 15 | 6 | 15 | 6 | 15 | 6 |
| Success rate | 80 | 90 | 80 | 90 | 80 | 80 |
| Percentage error | 5.34 | 1.24 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 6.34 | 1.4 |
Figure 7Convergence characteristics graphs for mono-objective optimization (a) minimum surface roughness value, (b) minimum power consumption value.
Figure 8Convergence characteristics graphs for bi-objective optimization of combined objective.