| Literature DB >> 35888232 |
Layatitdev Das1, Rakesh Nayak1, Kuldeep K Saxena2, Jajneswar Nanda3, Shakti Prasad Jena4, Ajit Behera5, Shankar Sehgal6, Chander Prakash7,8, Saurav Dixit9,10, Dalael Saad Abdul-Zahra11.
Abstract
This paper shows the novel approach of Taguchi-Based Grey Relational Analysis of Ti6Al4V Machining parameter. Ti6Al4V metal matrix composite has been fabricated using the powder metallurgy route. Here, all the components of TI6Al4V machining forces, including longitudinal force (Fx), radial force (Fy), tangential force (Fz), surface roughness and material removal rate (MRR) are measured during the facing operation. The effect of three process parameters, cutting speed, tool feed and cutting depth, is being studied on the matching responses. Orthogonal design of experiment (Taguchi L9) has been adopted to execute the process parameters in each level. To validate the process output parameters, the Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) optimization approach was applied. The percentage contribution of machining parameters to the parameter of response performance was interpreted through variance analysis (ANOVA). Through the GRA process, the emphasis was on the fact that for TI6Al4V metal matrix composite among all machining parameters, tool feed serves as the highest contribution to the output responses accompanied by the cutting depth with the cutting speed in addition. From optimal testing, it is found that for minimization of machining forces, maximization of MRR and minimization of Ra, the best combinations of input parameters are the 2nd stage of cutting speed (175 m/min), the 3rd stage of feed (0.25 mm/edge) as well as the 2nd stage of cutting depth (1.2 mm). It is also found that hardness of Ti6Al4V MMC is 59.4 HRA and composition of that material remain the same after milling operation.Entities:
Keywords: ANOVA; Taguchi method; Ti6Al4V; facing operation; grey relational analysis; optimization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888232 PMCID: PMC9324345 DOI: 10.3390/ma15144765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Sample preparation using different loads.
| Load Variations in Kgf (N) | Dimension of Sample | No. of Sample Made | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length in mm | Diameter in mm | ||
| 4000 Kgf (39,226.6 N) | 15 | 10 | 1 |
| 6000 Kgf (58,839.9 N) | 15 | 10 | 4 |
| 10,000 Kgf (98,066.5 N) | 15 | 10 | 1 |
Figure 1Schematics of specimen preparation.
Composition in wt. %.
| Elements | Ti | Al | V | Fe | O | C | N | H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight Percentage | Bal. | 6.75 | 4.50 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.015 |
Figure 2X-ray Diffraction of Ti-6Al-4V MMC.
Mechanical properties of prepared Ti-6Al-4V MMC.
| Density | Young’s Modulus | Shear Modulus | Bulk Modulus | Poisson’s Ratio | Yield Strength | Ultimate Strength | Uniform Elongation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | 4.429 | 104 | 40 | 96.8 | 0.31 | 880 | 900 | 5 |
| Max | 4.512 | 113 | 45 | 153 | 0.37 | 920 | 950 | 18 |
Figure 3Surface morphology of the (a) MMC and (b) the fracture surface MMC.
Figure 4(a) CNC milling machine, (b) Tool Dynamometer in CNC milling m/c.
Input-machining parameters with their levels.
| Input Machining Parameters | Level 001 | Level 002 | Level 003 |
|---|---|---|---|
| V (m/min) | 150 | 175 | 200 |
| F (mm/edge) | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.25 |
| D (mm) | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.40 |
Figure 5Reading obtained using tool dynamometer for various components of forces.
Resulted values using Taguchi L9 array.
| Sl. No. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5494.9095 | −6.00 | 5.00 | 2.37 | 5.88 |
| 2 | 8165.0226 | −4.25 | 6.50 | 5.40 | 4.92 |
| 3 | 12,038.8386 | −6.90 | 2.74 | 4.75 | 4.58 |
| 4 | 10,396.7194 | 3.70 | 22.5 | −13.00 | 5.06 |
| 5 | 10,063.401 | −1.75 | 2.75 | 3.40 | 4.84 |
| 6 | 9147.9444 | −10.50 | 10.90 | 3.70 | 4.72 |
| 7 | 12,051.4479 | −5.00 | 4.50 | 2.19 | 5.56 |
| 8 | 11,318.707 | −2.60 | 4.00 | 2.70 | 4.98 |
| 9 | 16,390.8962 | −8.00 | 10.00 | 12.50 | 5.08 |
Quality Loss ().
| Sl. No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.3119 × 10−8 | 36 | 25 | 5.6169 | 34.5744 |
| 2 | 1.5 × 10−8 | 18.0625 | 42.25 | 29.16 | 24.2064 |
| 3 | 6.8997 × 10−9 | 47.61 | 7.5076 | 22.5625 | 20.9764 |
| 4 | 9.2514 × 10−9 | 13.69 | 506.25 | 169 | 25.6036 |
| 5 | 9.8744 × 10−9 | 3.0625 | 7.5625 | 11.56 | 23.4256 |
| 6 | 1.195 × 10−8 | 110.25 | 118.81 | 13.69 | 22.2784 |
| 7 | 6.8853 × 10−9 | 25 | 20.25 | 4.7961 | 30.9136 |
| 8 | 7.8056 × 10−9 | 6.76 | 16 | 7.29 | 24.8004 |
| 9 | 3.7222 × 10−9 | 64 | 100 | 156.25 | 25.8064 |
Evaluation of S/N ratio ().
| Sl. No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 74.79921 | −15.563 | −13.9794 | −7.49497 | −15.3875 |
| 2 | 78.23915 | −12.5678 | −16.2583 | −14.6479 | −13.8393 |
| 3 | 81.61169 | −16.777 | −8.75501 | −13.5339 | −13.2173 |
| 4 | 80.33793 | −11.364 | −27.0437 | −22.2789 | −14.083 |
| 5 | 80.0549 | −4.86076 | −8.78665 | −10.6296 | −13.6969 |
| 6 | 79.22647 | −20.4238 | −20.7485 | −11.364 | −13.4788 |
| 7 | 81.62078 | −13.9794 | −13.0643 | −6.80888 | −14.9015 |
| 8 | 81.07594 | −8.29947 | −12.0412 | −8.62728 | −13.9446 |
| 9 | 84.29205 | −18.0618 | −20 | −21.9382 | −14.1173 |
Scaled ratio of S/N.
| Sl. No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0.313 | 0.715 | 0.956 | 0 |
| 2 | 0.66 | 0.505 | 0.59 | 0.494 | 0.714 |
| 3 | 0.327 | 0.235 | 1 | 0.566 | 1 |
| 4 | 0.453 | 0.583 | 0 | 0 | 0.601 |
| 5 | 0.481 | 1 | 0.998305 | 0.764 | 0.738 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0.345 | 0.706 | 0.88 |
| 7 | 0.326 | 0.415 | 0.765 | 1 | 0.224 |
| 8 | 0.38 | 0.779 | 0.821 | 0.883 | 0.665 |
| 9 | 0.062 | 0.152 | 0.386 | 0.926 | 0.586 |
Values of GRC and GRG.
| Sl. No. |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 0.333333 | 0.615006 | 0.411523 | 0.343407 | 1 | 0.540653742 |
| 2 | 0.431034 | 0.497512 | 0.458716 | 0.503018 | 0.411862 | 0.460428448 |
| 3 | 0.604595 | 0.680272 | 0.333333 | 0.469043 | 0.333333 | 0.48411537 |
| 4 | 0.524659 | 0.461681 | 1 | 1 | 0.454133 | 0.688094419 |
| 5 | 0.509684 | 0.333333 | 0.33371 | 0.39557 | 0.403877 | 0.395234919 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 0.591716 | 0.414594 | 0.362319 | 0.673725703 |
| 7 | 0.605327 | 0.546448 | 0.395257 | 0.333333 | 0.690608 | 0.51419459 |
| 8 | 0.568182 | 0.39093 | 0.378501 | 0.361533 | 0.429185 | 0.425666163 |
| 9 | 0.88968 | 0.766871 | 0.564334 | 0.350631 | 0.460405 | 0.606384252 |
Level mean of GRG values.
| Level | Speed (A) | Feed (B) | Depth of Cut (C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.4951 | 0.5810 | 0.5467 |
| 2 | 0.5857 | 0.4271 | 0.5850 |
| 3 | 0.5154 | 0.5881 | 0.4645 |
| Delta | 0.0906 | 0.1610 | 0.1610 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 2 |
Figure 6Graph for level mean of GRG values.
Figure 7Graph for percentage of contribution of inputs for GRA technique.
Analysis of Variance for GRG values.
| Source | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F | P | % of Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | 2 | 0.013564 | 0.013564 | 0.006782 | 7.23 | 0.122 | 15.45 |
| F | 2 | 0.049636 | 0.049636 | 0.024818 | 26.45 | 0.036 | 56.53 |
| D | 2 | 0.022726 | 0.022726 | 0.011363 | 12.11 | 0.076 | 25.88 |
| Error | 2 | 0.001877 | 0.001877 | 0.000938 | -- | -- | 2.13 |
| Total | 8 | 0.087804 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 100 |