A Study of The Effects of Machining Parameters On The Surface Roughness in The End-Milling Process
A Study of The Effects of Machining Parameters On The Surface Roughness in The End-Milling Process
A Study of The Effects of Machining Parameters On The Surface Roughness in The End-Milling Process
net/publication/26527438
CITATIONS READS
120 5,783
3 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Hayajneh on 24 January 2016.
Abstract
A set of experiments designed to begin the characterization of surface quality for the end-milling process have been
performed. The objective of this study is to develop a better understanding of the effects of spindle speed, cutting feed rate
and depth of cut on the surface roughness and to build a multiple regression model. Such an understanding can provide
insight into the problems of controlling the finish of machined surfaces when the process parameters are adjusted to obtain a
certain surface finish. The model, which includes the effect of spindle speed, cutting feed rate and depth of cut, and any two-
variable interactions, predicted the surface roughness values with an accuracy of about 12%.
© 2007 Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. All rights reserved
Keywords: Surface Finish; ANOVA; Pareto Chart; Surface Roughness; End milling;
*
Corresponding author. e-mail: hayajneh@just.edu.jo
2 © 2007 Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. All rights reserved - Volume 1, Number 1 (ISSN 1995-6665)
general types [10], namely database system and designs are appropriate when there are no restrictions on
mathematical model system. The database system uses the the order of the testing to avoid systematic biases error due
collection and storage of large quantities of data from to the wear of the cutting tool. The procedure to define a
experiments, and the mathematical models attempt to model of the process includes the following steps:
predict the optimum conditions [10]. 1. Selecting the factors to be involved in the
Among several industrial machining processes, milling process and choosing the levels of these
is a fundamental machining operation. End milling is the factors.
most common metal removal operation encountered. It is 2. Conducting the experimental at all possible
widely used in a variety of manufacturing industries factor level combinations randomly.
including the aerospace and automotive sectors, where 3. Analyzing the collected data using parametric
quality is an important factor in the production of slots and analyses of variance (ANOVA).
dies. The quality of the surface plays a very important role 4. Building the multiple regression model.
in the performance of milling as a good-quality milled 5. Validating of the model.
surface significantly improves fatigue strength, corrosion
resistance, and creep life. Surface roughness also affects 2.2. Experimental Procedure
several functional attributes of parts, such as wearing, heat
transmission, ability of holding a lubricant, coating, or This experiment employed a Bridgeport end-milling
resisting fatigue. Therefore, the desired finish surface is machine. Eight ¾-inch four-flute high-speed steel cutters
usually specified and the appropriate processes are were used. The experiment has been done under dry
selected to reach the required quality. Several factors machining environment. The experimental setup is shown
influence the final surface roughness in end milling in figure. 1. The cutting parameters were set as: four levels
operation [11]. Factors such as spindle speed, feed rate, of spindle speed (750, 1000, 1250, 1500 rpm), seven levels
and depth of cut that control the cutting operation can be of feed rate (150, 225, 300, 375, 450, 525, 600 mm/min),
setup in advance. However, factors such as tool geometry, and three levels of depth of cut (0.25, 0.75, 1.25 mm). The
tool wear, and chip formation, or the material properties of cutters used to execute the experiment were selected
both tool and workpiece are uncontrolled [12]. randomly. Surface roughness Ra measured in micro-meters
One should develop techniques to predict the surface was the response variable. Several variables were put
roughness of a product before milling in order to evaluate under close control including the machine on which
the robustness of machining parameters such as feed rate milling operation was performed (the same machine was
or spindle speed for keeping a desired surface roughness used for all experimental work), and the operator (the same
and increasing product quality. It is also important that the operator machined all specimens). The surface roughness
prediction technique should be accurate and reliable. data were collected randomly for each of the 84 machining
Researchers in this area attempt to develop models conditions defined by the levels of independent variables
which can predict surface finish of a metal for a variety of (4 spindle speeds ×7 cutting feeds × 3 depths of cut). The
machining conditions such as speed, feed, depth of cut, experiment was performed on aluminum workpieces.
etc. Reliable models would not only simplify
manufacturing process planning and control, but would
assist in optimizing machinability of materials. Therefore,
the purpose of this study is (1) to study the effect of
machining parameters on the surface quality of the
machined surfaces, (2) to develop one surface prediction
technique which is termed the multiple regression
prediction model and (3) to evaluate prediction ability of
model.
predict the surface roughness in milling which will then profilometer to obtain the roughness average value Ra. All
enhance product quality. A commercial statistical package original 84 samples were randomly divided into two data
STATISTICA 6.0 was used to do the regression analysis. sets, training set and testing set. The training set contained
In order to judge the accuracy of the multiple regression 60 samples which were used to build the model and the
prediction model, percentage deviation φi and average testing set contained 24 samples which were used to test
percentage deviation φ were used and defined as the flexibility and the validity of the regression model as
Raim − Raip shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The collected data
φi = × 100% (2) were analyzed using parametric analyses of variance
Raim
(ANOVA) with surface finish as the dependent variable
where φi: percentage deviation of single sample data.
and spindle speed N, Cutting feed F and depth of cut D as
Raim: measured Ra .
independent variables. The ANOVA model was modified
Raip: predicted Ra generated by a multiple regression
to include the main effects of the independent variables
equation.
n
and up to two-variable interactions only. The significance
∑φ i
(3)
level was based on the P-value from ANOVA [13] as
φ = i =1
Insignificant if P > 0.10
n
Mildly significant if 0.05 < P < 0.10
where φ : average percentage deviation of all sample data
and
n: the size of sample data
This method would test the average percentage Significant if P < 0.05 (4)
deviation of actual Ra (measured by an off-line stylus type A statistical model was created by regression function
profilometer) and predicted Ra (produced by the multiple in STATISTICA 6.0 from the training data set. The R
regression model). Square was 0.83879, which showed that 83.879 % of the
observed variability in Ra could be explained by the
independent variables. The Multiple R was 0.9158, which
3. Results and Discussion meant that the correlation coefficient between the observed
value of the dependent variable and the predicted value
After 84 specimens were cut for experimental purposes, based on the regression model was high.
they were measured off-line with a stylus type
Table 1 Effect of cutting parameters on the surface finish of the machined surfaces (training data set)
Cutting parameters R a, Cutting parameters Cutting parameters
R a, R a,
No. N F D μm No. N F D No. N F D
μm μm
rpm mm/min mm rpm mm/min mm rpm mm/min mm
1 750 525 1.25 3.7 21 1500 450 1.25 2.6 41 1000 600 0.75 4.0
2 1250 300 1.25 2.4 22 750 600 0.75 4.5 42 1250 150 1.25 1.7
3 1000 375 0.25 2.6 23 1000 525 0.25 3.8 43 1000 375 0.75 2.6
4 750 600 1.25 4.4 24 750 300 1.25 2.4 44 1250 300 0.75 2.5
5 750 300 0.75 2.6 25 1500 225 0.75 1.9 45 1000 225 0.75 2.4
6 1500 375 1.25 2.5 26 1250 150 0.25 1.2 46 1500 300 0.75 2.1
7 1250 450 1.25 2.3 27 1250 525 1.25 2.5 47 1000 525 0.75 3.9
8 1000 300 1.25 2.3 28 1250 375 1.25 2.5 48 1250 225 0.25 2.1
9 750 150 1.25 1.9 29 1000 225 0.25 2.3 49 1000 150 0.75 1.9
10 1500 600 0.75 2.6 30 1000 450 0.75 3.0 50 1250 375 0.75 2.5
11 1500 450 0.25 3.2 31 1000 600 0.25 4.1 51 1000 150 0.25 1.6
12 1000 450 0.25 4.0 32 1500 150 0.25 1.3 52 1000 225 1.25 2.7
13 750 375 0.75 3.1 33 750 375 1.25 2.6 53 750 225 1.25 2.5
14 1250 600 0.25 3.8 34 1500 525 1.25 3.0 54 1250 450 0.75 2.2
15 1250 225 0.75 2.1 35 1250 300 0.25 2.6 55 1500 300 0.25 2.3
16 1000 150 1.25 1.6 36 1000 300 0.25 3.1 56 750 450 0.25 4.8
17 1000 300 0.75 2.1 37 1500 225 0.25 1.4 56 1250 600 0.75 2.6
18 750 450 1.25 3.3 38 750 225 0.75 2.6 58 750 525 0.25 4.5
19 1500 600 0.25 3.2 39 750 150 0.75 1.7 59 1250 225 1.25 2.4
20 1250 525 0.75 2.5 40 750 525 0.75 4.0 60 1250 150 0.75 1.7
Table 2 Effect of cutting parameters on the surface finish of the machined surfaces (testing data set)
Cutting parameters R a, Cutting parameters Cutting parameters
R a, R a,
No. N F D μm No. N F D No. N F D
μm μm
rpm mm/min mm rpm mm/min mm rpm mm/min mm
1 1000 450 1.25 2.1 9 1500 450 0.75 2.3 17 1500 525 0.75 2.6
2 1500 150 1.25 1.5 10 750 600 0.25 4.7 18 1500 525 0.25 3.1
3 750 300 0.25 3.0 11 1500 375 0.75 2.1 19 1500 600 1.25 3.2
4 750 450 0.75 3.7 12 750 375 0.25 3.2 20 750 150 0.25 1.6
5 1000 375 1.25 2.6 13 1250 600 1.25 3.1 21 1250 450 0.25 2.5
6 750 225 0.25 2.1 14 1250 375 0.25 2.7 22 1500 150 0.75 1.4
7 1500 375 0.25 2.7 15 1000 600 1.25 2.1 23 1000 525 1.25 1.5
8 1250 525 0.25 3.1 16 1500 300 1.25 2.4 24 1500 225 1.25 1.8
4 © 2007 Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. All rights reserved - Volume 1, Number 1 (ISSN 1995-6665)
p=.05
6.0
5.5 F 12.82938
5.0
N -7.05602
4.5
4.0
F*D -4.60321
Predicted Values
Factor
3.5
3.0 D -3.90378
2.5
2.0 N*F -3.24292
1.5
N*D 1.920406
1.0
0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Effect Estimate (Absolute Value)