| Literature DB >> 35160823 |
Rongrong Li1, Qian Yao1, Wei Xu1, Jingya Li2, Xiaodong Alice Wang3.
Abstract
The cutting power consumption of milling has direct influence on the economic benefits of manufacturing particle boards. The influence of the milling parameters on the cutting power were investigated in this study. Experiments and data analyses were conducted based on the response surface methodology. The results show that the input parameters had significant effects on the cutting power. The high rake angle reduced the cutting force. Thus, the cutting power decreased with the increase in the rake angle and the cutting energy consumption was also reduced. The cutting power increased with the rotation speed of the main shaft and the depth of milling induced the impact resistance between the milling tool and particle board and the material removal rate. The p-values of the created models and input parameters were less than 0.05, which meant they were significant for cutting power and power efficiency. The depth of milling was the most important factor, followed by the rotation speed of the main shaft and then the rake angle. Due to the high values of R2 of 0.9926 and 0.9946, the quadratic models were chosen for creating the relationship between the input parameters and response parameters. The predicted values of cutting power and power efficiency were close to the actual values, which meant the models could perform good predictions. To minimize the cutting power and maximize the power efficiency for the particle board, the optimized parameters obtained via the response surface methodology were 2°, 6991.7 rpm, 1.36 mm for rake angle, rotation speed of the main shaft and depth of milling, respectively. The model further predicted that the optimized parameters combination would achieve cutting power and power efficiency values of 52.4 W and 11.9%, respectively, with the desirability of 0.732. In this study, the influence of the input parameters on the cutting power and power efficiency are revealed and the created models were useful for selecting the milling parameters for particle boards, to reduce the cutting power.Entities:
Keywords: cutting power; milling; particle board; power efficiency; response surface methodology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160823 PMCID: PMC8836962 DOI: 10.3390/ma15030879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The schematic diagram of experimental setup.
The input parameters and their ranges.
| Parameters | Codes | Ranges | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Rake angle (°) | A | 2 | 6 | 10 |
| Rotation speed of main shaft (rpm) | B | 6000 | 8000 | 10,000 |
| Depth of milling (mm) | C | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
Figure 2Spindle power plot for a single experiment.
The results of cutting power and power efficiency during the PB milling process.
| Standard | Run | Factors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rake Angle (°) | Rotation Speed of Main Shaft (rpm) | Depth of Milling (mm) | ||||
| 1 | 6 | 2 | 6000 | 1.0 | 41.5 | 10.2 |
| 2 | 16 | 10 | 6000 | 1.0 | 36.0 | 8.7 |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 10,000 | 1.0 | 57.1 | 10.8 |
| 4 | 14 | 10 | 10,000 | 1.0 | 52.7 | 10.5 |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | 8000 | 0.5 | 37.1 | 8.0 |
| 6 | 5 | 10 | 8000 | 0.5 | 27.1 | 6.5 |
| 7 | 11 | 2 | 8000 | 1.5 | 59.2 | 12.5 |
| 8 | 2 | 10 | 8000 | 1.5 | 56.9 | 12.8 |
| 9 | 17 | 6 | 6000 | 0.5 | 27.5 | 6.8 |
| 10 | 12 | 6 | 10,000 | 0.5 | 38.7 | 6.9 |
| 11 | 7 | 6 | 6000 | 1.5 | 56.5 | 12.1 |
| 12 | 9 | 6 | 10,000 | 1.5 | 71.5 | 13.5 |
| 13 | 10 | 6 | 8000 | 1.0 | 39.2 | 10.1 |
| 14 | 8 | 6 | 8000 | 1.0 | 39.1 | 10.3 |
| 15 | 3 | 6 | 8000 | 1.0 | 39.2 | 10.5 |
| 16 | 13 | 6 | 8000 | 1.0 | 39.2 | 10.3 |
| 17 | 15 | 6 | 8000 | 1.0 | 39.3 | 10.4 |
Figure 3The plot of impact trend for cutting power and power efficiency.
Figure 4The plot of interaction impact trend for cutting power.
Figure 5The plot of interaction impact trend for power efficiency.
ANOVA results for Pc.
| Source | SS | % Cont. | df | MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 2352.99 | 99.26 | 9 | 261.44 | 103.73 | <0.0001 |
| A—Rake angle | 61.61 | 2.60 | 1 | 61.61 | 24.44 | 0.0017 |
| B—Rotation speed of main shaft | 427.78 | 18.04 | 1 | 427.78 | 169.73 | <0.0001 |
| C—Depth of milling | 1615.96 | 68.17 | 1 | 1615.96 | 641.16 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 0.3025 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.3025 | 0.1200 | 0.7392 |
| AC | 14.82 | 0.63 | 1 | 14.82 | 5.88 | 0.0457 |
| BC | 3.61 | 0.15 | 1 | 3.61 | 1.43 | 0.2703 |
| A2 | 18.13 | 0.76 | 1 | 18.13 | 7.19 | 0.0314 |
| B2 | 129.69 | 5.47 | 1 | 129.69 | 51.46 | 0.0002 |
| C2 | 60.80 | 2.56 | 1 | 60.80 | 24.12 | 0.0017 |
| Error | 37.93 | 1.60 | 7 | |||
| Cor Total | 2370.63 | 100 | 16 |
SS—Sum of squares MS—Mean square.
ANOVA results for η.
| Source | SS | % Cont. | df | MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 69.59 | 99.46 | 9 | 7.73 | 142.02 | <0.0001 |
| A—Rake angle | 1.15 | 1.64 | 1 | 1.15 | 21.14 | 0.0025 |
| B—Rotation speed of main shaft | 1.85 | 2.64 | 1 | 1.85 | 34.04 | 0.0006 |
| C—Depth of milling | 64.32 | 91.93 | 1 | 64.32 | 1181.49 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 0.3809 | 0.54 | 1 | 0.3809 | 7.00 | 0.0332 |
| AC | 0.8100 | 1.16 | 1 | 0.8100 | 14.88 | 0.0062 |
| BC | 0.4325 | 0.62 | 1 | 0.4325 | 7.94 | 0.0258 |
| A2 | 0.0251 | 0.04 | 1 | 0.0251 | 0.4602 | 0.5193 |
| B2 | 0.1656 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.1656 | 3.04 | 0.1247 |
| C2 | 0.3965 | 0.57 | 1 | 0.3965 | 7.28 | 0.0307 |
| Error | 0.4394 | 1.60 | 7 | |||
| Cor Total | 69.97 | 100 | 16 |
SS—Sum of squares MS—Mean square.
Results of ANOVA for different models.
| Response Parameters | Models | SD | R2 | Adj. R2 | Pred. R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Linear | 4.52 | 0.8881 | 0.8623 | 0.8246 | |
| 2FI | 4.97 | 0.8960 | 0.8336 | 0.7101 | ||
| Quadratic | 1.59 | 0.9926 | 0.9830 | 0.8810 | Suggested | |
|
| Linear | 0.4508 | 0.9622 | 0.9535 | 0.9273 | |
| 2FI | 0.3192 | 0.9854 | 0.9767 | 0.9517 | ||
| Quadratic | 0.2333 | 0.9946 | 0.9876 | 0.9307 | Suggested |
Figure 6The plot of predicted vs. actual for (a) Pc and (b) η.
Goals and parameter range for optimization of PB milling process.
| Conditions | Goal | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | minimize | 2 | 10 |
| B | in range | 6000 | 10,000 |
| C | maximize | 0.5 | 1.5 |
|
| minimize | 27.1 | 71.5 |
|
| maximize | 6.5 | 13.5 |