A Multi-Response Optimization of Thrust Forces, Torques, and the Power of Tapping Operations by Cooling Air in Reinforced and Unreinforced Polyamide PA66
<p>Tap profiles: (<b>a</b>) Tool T1; (<b>b</b>) Tool T2.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Scheme of experimental setup.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Estimated response surfaces for PA66: (<b>a</b>) forces of tapping with T1; (<b>b</b>) torques of tapping with T2; (<b>c</b>) torques of tapping with T1; (<b>d</b>) torques of tapping with T2; (<b>e</b>) power of tapping with T1; (<b>f</b>) power of tapping with T2.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Estimated response surfaces for PA66-GF30: (<b>a</b>) forces of tapping with T1; (<b>b</b>) torques of tapping with T2; (<b>c</b>) torques of tapping with T1; (<b>d</b>) torques of tapping with T2; (<b>e</b>) power of tapping with T1; (<b>f</b>) power of tapping with T2.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>PA66: contours of the estimated response surface for the TiN coating.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>PA66-GF30: contours of the estimated response surface for the AlCrN coating.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Procedure
2.2. Statistical Procedure
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Factors Affecting Thrust Force, Torque, Power, and Regression Models
3.1.1. Unreinforced Polyamide PA66
3.1.2. Reinforced Polyamide PA66-GF30
3.2. Response Surfaces
3.3. Multi-Response Optimization
3.3.1. Multi-Response Optimization for PA66
3.3.2. Multi-Response Optimization for PA66-GF30
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Modica, F.; Marrocco, V.; Copani, G.; Fassi, I. Sustainable micro-manufacturing of micro-components via micro electrical discharge machining. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2456–2469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Jin, L.; Zhang, C. Mathematical modeling and a hybrid NSGA-II algorithm for process planning problem considering machining cost and carbon emission. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shokrani, A.; Dhokia, V.; Newman, S.T. Environmentally conscious machining of difficult-to-machine materials with regard to cutting fluids. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2012, 57, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boswell, B. Use of Air Cooling and Its Effectiveness in Dry Machining Processes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, Perth, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Nor-Khairusshima, M.K.; Che-Hassan, C.H.; Jaharah, A.G.; Amin, A.K.M.; Md-Idriss, A.N. Effect of chilled air on tool wear and workpiece quality during milling of carbon fibre-reinforced plastic. Wear 2013, 302, 1113–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, P.H.; Lee, S.W. Experimental characterization of micro-grinding process using compressed chilly air. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2011, 51, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; He, N.; Li, L.; Iqbal, A.; Xiao, M.H.; Xu, S.; Qiu, B.G. Refrigerated cooling air cutting of difficult-to-cut materials. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2007, 47, 927–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Chou, Y.K. On temperatures and tool wear in machining hypereutectic Al–Si alloys with vortex-tube cooling. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2007, 47, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.M.; Yan, L.T.; Liu, W.D.; Liu, Q. Effects of cooling air temperature on cryogenic machining of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2011, 211, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Brandt, M.; Dargusch, M.S. Machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy with cryogenic compressed air cooling. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2010, 50, 933–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez, R.; Domingo, R.; Sebastián, M.A. The formation of saw toothed chip in a titanium alloy: Influence of constitutive models. Strojniški Vestnik J. Mech. E. 2011, 57, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; García, M.; Gómez, M.R. Determination of energy during the dry drilling of PEEK GF30 considering the effect of torque. Procedia Eng. 2013, 63, 687–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; Marín, M.M.; Claver, J.; Calvo, R. Selection of cutting inserts in dry machining for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Energies 2015, 18, 13081–13095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalpakjian, S.; Schmid, S.R. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: Singapore, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tsai, S.B.; Xue, Y.Z.; Huang, P.Y.; Zhou, J.; Li, G.D.; Guo, W.F.; Lau, H.; Shang, Z.W. Establishing a criteria system for green production. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B J. Eng. Manuf. 2015, 229, 1395–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nur, D.R.; Noordin, M.Y.; Izman, S.; Kurniawan, D. Machining parameters effect in dry turning of AISI 316L stainless steel using coated carbide tools. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. E J. Proc. Mech. Eng. 2017, 231, 676–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nur, R.; Kurniawan, D.; Noordin, M.Y.; Izman, S. Optimizing power consumption for sustainable dry turning of treated aluminum alloy. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 2, 558–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzun, G.; Korkut, I. The effect of cryogenic treatment on tapping. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 67, 857–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, T.; Sutherland, J.W. Investigation of thread tapping load characteristics through mechanistics modeling and experimentation. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2002, 42, 1527–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, I.C.; Bacci da Silva, M.; Fernandes da Cunha, D.; Falco Sales, W. Analysis of tapping process in three types of cast iron. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 82, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; García, M.; Sánchez, A.; Gómez, R. A sustainable evaluation of drilling parameters for PEEK-GF30. Materials 2013, 6, 5907–5922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davim, J.P.; Silva, L.R.; Festas, A.; Abrão, A.M. Machinability study on precision turning of PA66 polyamide with and without glass fiber reinforcing. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos-Rubio, J.C.; da Silva, L.J.; de Oliveira-Leite, W.; Hallak-Panzera, T.; Ribeiro-Filho, S.L.M.; Davim, J.P. Investigations on the drilling process of unreinforced and reinforced polyamides using Taguchi method. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 55, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quadrini, F.; Squeo, E.A.; Tagliaferri, V. Machining of glass fiber reinforced polyamide. Express Polym. Lett. 2007, 1, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; García, M.; Gómez, R. Analysis of Energy Required During the Dry Drilling of High Performance of Polyamide PA 66 GF30. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering, Logroño, Spain, 17–19 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Armarego, E.J.A.; Chen, M.N.P. Predictive cutting models for the forces and torque in machine tapping with straight flute taps. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2002, 51, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; Calvo, R.; Marín, M.M.; de Agustina, B. Influence of tool cooling on thrust forces in tapping operations of reinforced polyamide. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chim, Y.C.; Ding, X.Z.; Zeng, X.T.; Zhang, S. Oxidation resistance of TiN, CrN, TiAlN and CrAlN coatings deposited by lateral rotating cathode arc. Thin Solid Films 2009, 517, 4845–4849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liew, W.Y.H.; Dayou, S.; Ismail, M.A.B.; Siambun, N.J.; Dayou, J. Dry sliding behaviour of AlCrN and TiN coatings. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 576, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutner, M.H.; Natchtsheim, C.J.; Neter, J.; Li, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Derringer, G.; Suich, R. Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J. Qual. Technol. 1980, 12, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benyounis, K.Y.; Olabi, A.G.; Hashm, M.S.J. Multi-response optimization of CO2 laser-welding process of austenitic stainless steel. Opt. Laser Technol. 2008, 40, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mia, M. Multi-response optimization of end milling parameters under through-tool cryogenic cooling condition. Measurement 2017, 111, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benyounis, K.Y.; Olabi, A.G. Optimization of different welding processes using statistical and numerical approaches—A reference guide. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2008, 39, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ekici, E.; Motorcu, A.R.; Uzun, G. An investigation of the effects of cutting parameters and graphite reinforcement on quality characteristics during the drilling of Al/10B4C composites. Measurement 2017, 95, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, T.S.; Prabu, S.B.; Manivasagam, G.; Padmanabhan, K.A. Comparison of TiAlN, AlCrN, and AlCrN/TiAlN coatings for cutting-tool applications. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2014, 21, 796–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tool T1 | Tool T2 | |
---|---|---|
Tool material | HSS-E | HSS-E |
Coating | TiN | AlCrN |
Number of flutes | 5 | 5 |
Chamfer form | C | C |
Class of fit | 6HX | 6HX |
Properties | PA66 | PA66-GF30 |
---|---|---|
Density (kg/m3) | 1140 | 1350 |
Rockwell hardness M | 88 | 75 |
Tensile strength (MPa) | 93 | 93.1 |
Tensile modulus (GPa) | 3.55 | 4.65 |
Flexural modulus (GPa) | 3.24 | 4.48 |
Compression strength (MPa) | 62 | 124 |
Thermal conductivity (W/m·K) | 0.280 | 0.245 |
Coefficient of thermal expansion, linear (μm/m·°C) | 95 | 36 |
Melting temperature (°C) | 260 | 260 |
Factors Levels | A | B | C |
---|---|---|---|
Environment (°C) | Cutting Speed (m/min) | Coating Tool | |
1 | Cooling at 22 °C | 15 | TiN (−1) |
2 | Cooling at 2 °C | 60 | AlCrN (1) |
3 | Cooling at −18 °C | - |
A | B | C | PA66 | PA66-GF30 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test No. | Environment (°C) | Cutting Speed (m/min) | Coating | F (N) | T (N·m) | P (W) | F (N) | T (N·m) | P (W) |
1 | –18 | 15 | TiN | 23.04 | 1.42 | 59.18 | 32.51 | 1.89 | 78.78 |
2 | –18 | 15 | AlCrN | 27.22 | 1.77 | 73.77 | 22.54 | 1.67 | 69.60 |
3 | –18 | 60 | TiN | 21.72 | 1.23 | 204.93 | 33.32 | 1.01 | 168.27 |
4 | –18 | 60 | AlCrN | 27.47 | 1.72 | 286.57 | 25.77 | 1.77 | 294.90 |
5 | 2 | 15 | TiN | 12.52 | 1.05 | 43.76 | 28.69 | 1.74 | 72.52 |
6 | 2 | 15 | AlCrN | 19.87 | 1.25 | 52.10 | 37.78 | 1.01 | 42.09 |
7 | 2 | 60 | TiN | 14.68 | 1.25 | 208.26 | 39.66 | 1.98 | 329.89 |
8 | 2 | 60 | AlCrN | 22.51 | 2.27 | 378.20 | 26.37 | 1.99 | 331.55 |
9 | 22 | 15 | TiN | 15.69 | 1.92 | 80.02 | 21.06 | 2.57 | 107.11 |
10 | 22 | 15 | AlCrN | 20.76 | 2.38 | 99.19 | 32.56 | 3.10 | 129.20 |
11 | 22 | 60 | TiN | 19.38 | 1.14 | 189.93 | 31.74 | 3.62 | 603.12 |
12 | 22 | 60 | AlCrN | 23.01 | 1.83 | 304.89 | 22.28 | 2.37 | 394.86 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 53.0965 | 1 | 53.0965 | 1849.78 | 0.0148 |
B: cutting speed | 5.76 | 1 | 5.76 | 200.67 | 0.0449 |
C: coating | 57.6081 | 1 | 57.6081 | 2006.96 | 0.0142 |
A2 | 63.7982 | 1 | 63.7982 | 2222.61 | 0.0135 |
AB | 6.14251 | 1 | 6.14251 | 213.99 | 0.0435 |
AC | 0.189112 | 1 | 0.189112 | 6.59 | 0.2365 |
BC | 0.0310083 | 1 | 0.0310083 | 1.08 | 0.4877 |
A2B | 0.932204 | 1 | 0.932204 | 32.48 | 0.1106 |
A2C | 5.73304 | 1 | 5.73304 | 199.73 | 0.0450 |
ABC | 1.13251 | 1 | 1.13251 | 39.45 | 0.1005 |
Residual | 0.0287042 | 1 | 0.0287042 | ||
Total (adj.) | 234.136 | 11 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 0.159613 | 1 | 0.159613 | 7.20 | 0.0550 |
B: cutting speed | 0.3721 | 1 | 0.3721 | 16.79 | 0.0149 |
C: coating | 0.858675 | 1 | 0.858675 | 38.74 | 0.0034 |
A2 | 0.130537 | 1 | 0.130537 | 5.89 | 0.0722 |
AB | 0.148512 | 1 | 0.148512 | 6.70 | 0.0608 |
BC | 0.118008 | 1 | 0.118008 | 5.32 | 0.0823 |
A2B | 0.670004 | 1 | 0.670004 | 30.23 | 0.0053 |
Residual | 0.0886667 | 4 | 0.0221667 | ||
Total (adj.) | 2.18423 | 11 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 307.272 | 1 | 307.272 | 0.78 | 0.4282 |
B: cutting speed | 60172.1 | 1 | 60172.1 | 151.88 | 0.0002 |
C: coating | 7945.94 | 1 | 7945.94 | 20.06 | 0.0110 |
A2 | 182.381 | 1 | 182.381 | 0.46 | 0.5347 |
BC | 8771.78 | 1 | 8771.78 | 22.14 | 0.0093 |
A2B | 3928.07 | 1 | 3928.07 | 9.91 | 0.0346 |
A2C | 663.602 | 1 | 663.602 | 1.67 | 0.2653 |
Residual | 1584.75 | 4 | 396.188 | ||
Total (adj.) | 142409.0 | 11 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 5.28125 | 1 | 5.28125 | 0.760 | 0.4242 |
C: coating | 32.2752 | 1 | 32.2752 | 4.62 | 0.0842 |
A2 | 77.832 | 1 | 77.832 | 11.15 | 0.0206 |
AC | 47.8242 | 1 | 47.8242 | 6.85 | 0.0472 |
BC | 139.537 | 1 | 139.537 | 19.99 | 0.0066 |
ABC | 68.328 | 1 | 68.328 | 9.79 | 0.0260 |
Residual | 34.9027 | 5 | 6.98055 | ||
Total (adj.) | 405.981 | 11 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 3.5378 | 1 | 3.5378 | 35.25 | 0.0019 |
B: cutting speed | 0.3721 | 1 | 0.3721 | 3.71 | 0.1121 |
A2 | 0.8664 | 1 | 0.8664 | 8.63 | 0.0323 |
AC | 0.19845 | 1 | 0.19845 | 1.98 | 0.2187 |
A2B | 0.350417 | 1 | 0.350417 | 3.49 | 0.1206 |
ABC | 0.9522 | 1 | 0.9522 | 9.49 | 0.0275 |
Residual | 0.5018 | 5 | 0.10036 | ||
Total (adj.) | 6.4552 | 11 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A: environment | 48,475.6 | 1 | 48,475.6 | 91.91 | 0.0107 |
B: cutting speed | 74,755.8 | 1 | 74,755.8 | 141.73 | 0.0070 |
C: coating | 798.025 | 1 | 798.025 | 1.50 | 0.3451 |
A2 | 3595.13 | 1 | 3595.13 | 6.82 | 0.1207 |
AB | 24,962.7 | 1 | 24,962.7 | 47.33 | 0.0205 |
AC | 11,523.1 | 1 | 11,523.1 | 21.85 | 0.0429 |
BC | 325.0 | 1 | 325.0 | 0.62 | 0.5147 |
A2B | 12.3267 | 1 | 12.3267 | 0.02 | 0.8925 |
ABC | 16,759.15 | 1 | 16,759.15 | 31.77 | 0.0301 |
Residual | 1054.88 | 2 | 527.438 | ||
Total (adj.) | 337,207.0 | 11 |
Optimal Values | F_PA66 | T_PA66 | P_PA66 | F_PA66-GF30 | T_PA66-GF30 | P_PA66-GF30 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environment (°C) | 6.88 | −2.27 | −5.25 | 22.0 | −18.0 | −5.7 |
Cutting speed (m/min) | 15.1 | 15.01 | 16.98 | 15.0 | 60.0 | 15.0 |
Coating | TiN | TiN | TiN | TiN | TiN | AlCrN |
Optimal value | 11.99 N | 0.99 N·m | 42.62 W | 19.77 N | 1.02 N·m | 48.68 W |
Desirability (d) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Domingo, R.; De Agustina, B.; Marín, M.M. A Multi-Response Optimization of Thrust Forces, Torques, and the Power of Tapping Operations by Cooling Air in Reinforced and Unreinforced Polyamide PA66. Sustainability 2018, 10, 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030889
Domingo R, De Agustina B, Marín MM. A Multi-Response Optimization of Thrust Forces, Torques, and the Power of Tapping Operations by Cooling Air in Reinforced and Unreinforced Polyamide PA66. Sustainability. 2018; 10(3):889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030889
Chicago/Turabian StyleDomingo, Rosario, Beatriz De Agustina, and Marta M. Marín. 2018. "A Multi-Response Optimization of Thrust Forces, Torques, and the Power of Tapping Operations by Cooling Air in Reinforced and Unreinforced Polyamide PA66" Sustainability 10, no. 3: 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030889