| Literature DB >> 32028691 |
Muhammad Aamir1, Shanshan Tu2, Majid Tolouei-Rad1, Khaled Giasin3, Ana Vafadar1.
Abstract
In industries such as aerospace and automotive, drilling many holes is commonly required to assemble different structures where machined holes need to comply with tight geometric tolerances. Multi-spindle drilling using a poly-drill head is an industrial hole-making approach that allows drilling several holes simultaneously. Optimizing process parameters also improves machining processes. This work focuses on the optimization of drilling parameters and two drilling processes-namely, one-shot drilling and multi-hole drilling-using the Taguchi method. Analysis of variance and regression analysis was implemented to indicate the significance of drilling parameters and their impact on the measured responses i.e., surface roughness and hole size. From the Taguchi optimization, optimal drilling parameters were found to occur at a low cutting speed and feed rate using a poly-drill head. Furthermore, a fuzzy logic approach was employed to predict the surface roughness and hole size. It was found that the fuzzy measured values were in good agreement with the experimental values; therefore, the developed models can be effectively used to predict the surface roughness and hole size in multi-hole drilling. Moreover, confirmation tests were performed to validate that the Taguchi optimized levels and fuzzy developed models effectively represent the surface roughness and hole size.Entities:
Keywords: Taguchi method; fuzzy logic; hole quality; multi-hole drilling; one-shot drilling; optimization
Year: 2020 PMID: 32028691 PMCID: PMC7040725 DOI: 10.3390/ma13030680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Summary of different optimization techniques used for predicting process parameters in previous machining studies.
| Process | Material | Considered Process Parameters | Objectives | Optimization/Prediction Technique | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| AISI 4140 steel | DG, CS, and FR | CYL, PER, CON | Taguchi, ANOVA | [ |
|
| CFRP | SS, FR, and D | TF, T, DL | ANOVA analysis, | [ |
|
| Hybrid polymer composites | SS, FR, and D | TF, T, DL | Gray relational analysis, regression, fuzzy logic, and artificial neural network models | [ |
|
| hardened Steel (steel 1.2738) | CS, FR, radial depth, and axial depth | SR | Taguchi optimization technique, ANOVA, | [ |
|
| Al6063/Al2O3/Gr hybrid composite | SS, FR, and wt % of alumina | SR | Taguchi method | [ |
|
| CFRP | SS, FR, and D | TF, T, DL | Taguchi method, | [ |
|
| GFRP | SS, FR, point angle, and chisel edge width | TF, T, SR, C | Taguchi, ANOVA | [ |
|
| Al 7075 | Tool, FR, and CS | TEMP | Taguchi method, ANOVA | [ |
|
| GRFP | SS, FR, and d | TL | Fuzzy logic | [ |
|
| CFRP | CS, feed, and d | SR | Fuzzy rule-based modeling | [ |
|
| Al-7075 | CS, FR, and point angle, | H, SR | Taguchi method and response | [ |
|
| GFRP | SS, FR, and D | SR | Fuzzy logic and ANOVA | [ |
|
| Al 2024 | Drilling depth, FR, CS, and drilling tool | Diametral error, SR | Regression model, Taguchi optimization method, ANOVA | [ |
Cutting speed: CS, Drill geometry: DG, Drill diameter: D, surface roughness: SR, Spindle speed: SS, Feed rate: FR, Depth of cut: d, Thrust force: TF, Torque: T, Delamination: DL, Circularity: C, Burr height: H, Perpendicularity: PER, Temperature: TEMP, Tool Life: TL, Concentricity: CON, Cylindricity: CYL, One-shot drilling: OSD.
Figure 1Layout for experimental procedure.
Figure 2Setup of (a) one-shot drilling and (b) multi-spindle simultaneous drilling using a poly-drill head.
Process parameters and their levels.
| Levels | Process Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | |
| 1 | One-shot drilling | 19 | 0.04 |
| 2 | Multi-spindle drilling | 38 | 0.08 |
| 3 | – | 57 | 0.14 |
Experimental layout with control factors.
| Experiment No. | Control Factors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | |
| 1 | One-shot drilling | 19 | 0.04 |
| 2 | 19 | 0.08 | |
| 3 | 19 | 0.14 | |
| 4 | 38 | 0.04 | |
| 5 | 38 | 0.08 | |
| 6 | 38 | 0.14 | |
| 7 | 57 | 0.04 | |
| 8 | 57 | 0.08 | |
| 9 | 57 | 0.14 | |
| 10 | Multi-spindle drilling | 19 | 0.04 |
| 11 | 19 | 0.08 | |
| 12 | 19 | 0.14 | |
| 13 | 38 | 0.04 | |
| 14 | 38 | 0.08 | |
| 15 | 38 | 0.14 | |
| 16 | 57 | 0.04 | |
| 17 | 57 | 0.08 | |
| 18 | 57 | 0.14 | |
Figure 3Normal probability plots of residuals for (a) surface roughness and (b) hole size.
Experimental results according to orthogonal array with signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio.
| Trial No. | Orthogonal Array with Control Factors | Experimental Results | S/N Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Surface Roughness | Hole Size | Surface Roughness | Hole Size | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.561 | 6.040 | −11.030 | −15.620 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.209 | 6.048 | −12.483 | −15.632 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4.657 | 6.056 | −13.362 | −15.644 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4.422 | 6.043 | −12.912 | −15.625 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4.522 | 6.052 | −13.107 | −15.638 |
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4.699 | 6.062 | −13.441 | −15.652 |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4.808 | 6.047 | −13.639 | −15.631 |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5.022 | 6.059 | −14.017 | −15.648 |
| 9 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6.933 | 6.073 | −16.818 | −15.669 |
| 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3.457 | 6.036 | −10.775 | −15.615 |
| 11 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3.718 | 6.044 | −11.405 | −15.627 |
| 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4.344 | 6.054 | −12.757 | −15.641 |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3.676 | 6.039 | −11.307 | −15.620 |
| 14 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4.126 | 6.049 | −12.311 | −15.633 |
| 15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4.626 | 6.059 | −13.304 | −15.648 |
| 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4.566 | 6.048 | −13.191 | −15.632 |
| 17 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4.990 | 6.061 | −13.961 | −15.651 |
| 18 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5.724 | 6.075 | −15.154 | −15.671 |
Cutting speed (m/min), Feed rate (mm/rev), Surface roughness (μm), Hole size (mm).
Average response values and S/N ratios for surface roughness.
| Level | Surface Roughness | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Response Values | S/N Ratio Response Values | |||||
| Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | |
|
| 4.759 |
|
| −13.423 |
|
|
| 2 |
| 4.345 | 4.431 |
| −12.730 | −12.881 |
| 3 | – | 5.340 | 5.164 | – | −14.463 | −14.139 |
a Optimum value.
Figure 4The effect of drilling parameters on (a) surface roughness and (b) hole size.
Average response values and S/N ratios for hole size.
| Level | Hole size | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Response Values | S/N Ratio Response Values | |||||
| Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Drilling Type | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | |
| 1 | 6.053 |
|
| −15.640 |
|
|
| 2 |
| 6.051 | 6.052 |
| −15.636 | −15.638 |
| 3 | – | 6.060 | 6.063 | – | −15.650 | −15.654 |
a Optimum value.
ANOVA for surface roughness.
| Source | Degrees of | Sequential Sum | Contribution | Adjusted Sum | Adjusted | F-Value | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 19 | 36.0261 | 82.08% | 36.0261 | 1.89611 | 8.2 | 0 |
| CS | 2 | 17.6251 | 40.16% | 17.6251 | 8.81254 | 38.09 | 0 |
| FR | 2 | 10.9826 | 25.02% | 10.9826 | 5.49129 | 23.74 | 0 |
| DT | 1 | 2.1673 | 4.94% | 2.1673 | 2.16731 | 9.37 | 0.004 |
| 2-Way Interactions | 8 | 2.4065 | 5.48% | 2.4065 | 0.30081 | 1.3 | 0.276 |
| CS x FR | 4 | 2.2008 | 5.01% | 2.2008 | 0.55019 | 2.38 | 0.071 |
| CS x DT | 2 | 0.0825 | 0.19% | 0.0825 | 0.04126 | 0.18 | 0.837 |
| FR x DT | 2 | 0.1232 | 0.28% | 0.1232 | 0.06159 | 0.27 | 0.768 |
| 3-Way Interactions | 4 | 1.5096 | 3.44% | 1.5096 | 0.3774 | 1.63 | 0.189 |
| CS x FR x DT | 4 | 1.5096 | 3.44% | 1.5096 | 0.3774 | 1.63 | 0.189 |
| Error | 34 | 7.8658 | 17.92% | 7.8658 | 0.23135 | – | – |
| Total | 53 | 43.8919 | 100.00% | – | – | – | – |
ANOVA for hole size.
| Source | Degrees of | Sequential Sum | Contribution | Adjusted Sum | Adjusted | F-Value | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 19 | 0.00622 | 94.34% | 0.00622 | 0.000327 | 29.84 | 0 |
| CS | 2 | 0.001893 | 28.72% | 0.001893 | 0.000947 | 86.31 | 0 |
| FR | 2 | 0.004042 | 61.31% | 0.004042 | 0.002021 | 184.24 | 0 |
| DT | 1 | 0.000037 | 0.57% | 0.000037 | 0.000037 | 3.42 | 0.073 |
| 2-Way Interactions | 8 | 0.000211 | 3.21% | 0.000211 | 0.000026 | 2.41 | 0.035 |
| CS × FR | 4 | 0.000148 | 2.24% | 0.000148 | 0.000037 | 3.37 | 0.02 |
| CS × DT | 2 | 0.000061 | 0.93% | 0.000061 | 0.00003 | 2.78 | 0.076 |
| FR × DT | 2 | 0.000002 | 0.04% | 0.000002 | 0.000001 | 0.11 | 0.896 |
| 3-Way Interactions | 4 | 0.000003 | 0.04% | 0.000003 | 0.000001 | 0.06 | 0.992 |
| CS × FR × DT | 4 | 0.000003 | 0.04% | 0.000003 | 0.000001 | 0.06 | 0.992 |
| Error | 34 | 0.000373 | 5.66% | 0.000373 | 0.000011 | – | – |
| Total | 53 | 0.006593 | 100% | – | - | – | – |
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the developed algorithm.
Figure 6Membership functions: (a) input membership function for cutting speed; (b) input membership function for feed rate; (c) output membership function for surface roughness; (d) output membership function for hole size.
Parameter of fuzzy inference system with membership functions and variables. VVL: very very low, VL: very low, L: low, ML: moderately low, M: medium, MH: moderately high, H: high, VH: very high, VVH: very very high.
| Membership Function Type | Variable | Fuzzy Input | Fuzzy Output | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Surface Roughness | Hole Size | ||||||
| Parameter | Range | Parameter | Range | Parameter | Range | Parameter | Range | ||
|
| VVL | (12 15 18) | (12 66) | (0.01 0.02 0.03) | (0.01 0.19) | (3 3.15 3.3) | (3 6.8) | (6.01 6.015 6.02) | (6.01 6.1) |
| VL | (18 21 24) | (12 66) | (0.03 0.04 0.05) | (0.01 0.19) | (3.3 3.55 3.7) | (3 6.8) | (6.02 6.025 6.03) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| L | (24 27 30) | (12 66) | (0.05 0.06 0.07) | (0.01 0.19) | (3.559 3.783 4.005) | (3 6.8) | (6.03 6.035 6.04) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| ML | (30 33 36] | (12 66) | (0.07 0.08 0.09) | (0.01 0.19) | (3.783 3.95 4.117) | (3 6.8) | (6.04 6.045 6.05) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| M | (36 39 42) | (12 66) | (0.09 0.1 0.11) | (0.01 0.19] | (4.117 4.35 4.5) | (3 6.8] | (6.05 6.055 6.06) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| MH | (42 45 48) | (12 66) | (0.11 0.12 0.13) | (0.01 0.19) | (4.2 4.5 4.6) | (3 6.8) | (6.06 6.065 6.07) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| H | (48 51 54) | (12 66) | (0.13 0.14 0.15) | (0.01 0.19) | (4.5 4.9 5.347) | (3 6.8) | (6.07 6.075 6.08) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| VH | (54 57 60) | (12 66) | (0.15 0.16 0.17) | (0.01 0.19) | (5.2 5.6 5.8) | (3 6.8) | (6.08 6.085 6.09) | (6.01 6.1) | |
| VVH | (60 63 66) | (12 66) | (0.17 0.18 0.19) | (0.01 0.19) | (5.8 6.4 6.8) | (3 6.8) | (6.09 6.095 6.1) | (6.01 6.1) | |
Experimental values and fuzzy results with percentage errors.
| Hole Number | Cutting Speed | Feed Rate | Surface Roughness | Hole Size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental Values | Fuzzy Results | % Error | Experimental Values | Fuzzy Results | % Error | |||
| 1 | 19 | 0.04 | 3.457 | 3.517 | −1.736 | 6.036 | 6.025 | 0.182 |
| 2 | 19 | 0.08 | 3.718 | 3.774 | −1.506 | 6.044 | 6.038 | 0.101 |
| 3 | 19 | 0.14 | 4.344 | 4.622 | −6.400 | 6.055 | 6.057 | −0.035 |
| 4 | 38 | 0.04 | 3.676 | 3.888 | −5.767 | 6.039 | 6.039 | −0.003 |
| 5 | 38 | 0.08 | 4.126 | 4.136 | −0.242 | 6.048 | 6.050 | −0.028 |
| 6 | 38 | 0.14 | 4.626 | 4.745 | −2.572 | 6.060 | 6.066 | −0.092 |
| 7 | 57 | 0.04 | 4.566 | 4.728 | −3.548 | 6.048 | 6.055 | −0.116 |
| 8 | 57 | 0.08 | 4.990 | 4.962 | 0.561 | 6.061 | 6.065 | −0.064 |
| 9 | 57 | 0.14 | 5.724 | 5.170 | 9.679 | 6.075 | 6.080 | −0.082 |
Figure 7Validation of experimental results for surface roughness and hole size.