Development of a Prediction Model for Surface Roughness in Finish Turning of Aluminium

*Salah Gasim Ahmed

ABSTRACT Prediction of the surface quality and selection of the appropriate machining parameters would be useful for both the costumer and the producer. Machining parameters directly affect product geometric quality and system productivity. This paper presents a methodology for selecting optimal machining process parameters to obtain the required surface roughness. Nonlinear regression analysis, with logarithmic data transformation was applied in developing the empirical model. Metal cutting experiments and statistical tests have demonstrated that the model developed in this research produces smaller errors and has a satisfactory result. Keywords: Surface Roughness, Turning, Aluminium 1. INTRODUCTION considered the effect of feed rate and nose radius based on the motion geometry in a turning process, which provided the base for Equation (1). These models concluded that the effect of cutting speed is insignificant. However, different conclusions were presented in Shaw (1966), Hasegawa et al. (1976), Sundaram and Lambert (1979), Boothroyd and Knight (1989), Feng (2001), and Feng and Hu (2001). They demonstrated that cutting speed had a significant impact on surface roughness. The depth of cut was considered into their mathematical models by Karmakar (1970), and Sundaram and Lambert (1981). Miller et al. (1983) considered the effect of cutting fluid on surface roughness. Although a qualitative analysis of machining variables of speed, feed and depth of cut on the surface roughness has been widely available in the literature, very few comprehensive predictive models have been developed. In this paper, an empirical surface roughness model, for commercial aluminum, was developed based on metal cutting results from factorial experiments. The model includes the feed, depth of cut, and spindle speed. Regression analysis was applied to develop the model, and hypothesis testing was conducted to validate the model.

Surface roughness has received serious attentions for many years. It has formulated an important design feature in many situations such as parts subject to fatigue loads, precision fits, fastener holes and esthetic requirements. In addition to tolerances, surface roughness imposes one of the most critical constraints for selection of machines and cutting parameters in process planning. A considerable number of studies have investigated the general effects of the speed, feed, depth of cut, nose radius and others on the surface roughness. A popularly used model to estimating the surface roughness value is as follows (Groover 1996)and (Boothroyd and Knight 1989):

Ri =

f2 32r

(1)

where, Ri : ideal arithmetic average (AA) surface roughness (in. or mm), f: feed (in./rev or mm/rev ), r: cutter nose radius (in. or mm). This model assumed a none zero nose radius. The surface roughness models developed by Dickinson (1968), Fischer and Elrod (1971)

* Dept. of Mech. Eng, Engineering College, Karary Academy of Technology, Sudan

Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 2006, Volume 52 No.45

2. SURFACE ROUGHNESS MODELS L. Huang and J. Chen, 2001, applied a multiple regression modeling to express the surface roughness in the following form:
R = 0 + SS + FF + DD + VV + SFSF+ SDSD + SVSV + DFDF+ DVDV+ FVFV+ SDF SDF (2) + SDVSDV+ SFVSFV+ DFV DFV+ SDFV SDFV

in surface roughness between various runs were statistically significant. Table (2) presents ANOVA results for experimental data generating during turning the high carbon steel work piece. The Model Fvalue of 5.59 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.50% chance that a "Model FValue" this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In this case A (speed), B (feed) are significant model terms. Values greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant. Accordingly, the exponential model coefficients for surface roughness were given and the mathematical model will be as follows:

This formula is very complicated and cumbersome. In this work a simpler polynomial model is proposed in the form:

SR = S F D
where: SR, surface roughness (micron). , , , : constants. S : spindle speed (rpm). F : feed rate (mm/rpm). D : depth of cut (mm).

(3)

SR = 15.8 S 1.155 F 1.125 D 0.125

Figure 1 shows how the prediction model match up to the actual experiments data. 4. CONCLUSION 1. The smallest values of surface roughness were produced when the material was machined with a smaller feed.. 2. All cases showed that a higher speed would smooth the surface within the range of experiments. 3. A logarithmic transformation can be applied to convert the nonlinear form of Equation (2) into the additive (linear) form. This is one of the most popularly used data transformation methods in empirical model building, Box and Draper (1987). 4. The model developed in this research produces smaller errors and has a satisfactory result. REFERENCES: 1. Boothroyd, G. and Knight, W. A. (1989) Fundamentals of Machining and Machine Tool. Marcel Dekker, New York. 2. Box, G. E. P. and Draper, N. R. (1987) Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 3. Dikinson, G. R. (1967/1968) Survey of factors affecting surface finish. Proceedings of Conference on Properties

Multiple linear regression model for surface roughness can be obtained by applying a logarithmic transformation that converts the non-linear form of equation (3) into the following linear mathematical form: Ln SR = ln + lnS + lnF + lnD. The above equation can be rewritten as: Y = + X1 + X2 + X3 (5) Where, Y is the logarithmic value of the measured surface roughness, , , and are regression coefficients to be estimated and X1 , X2 , X3 are the logarithmic values of speed, feed and depth of cut. 3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Factorial experiments were carried out to estimate the values of the regression coefficients. A 3 factors full factorial experiment design was utilized to investigate the significance of the turning parameter and estimation of mathematical model coefficients. A carbide tool was used to machine a commercial aluminium workpiece on a AmcoTurn120P CNC lathe without any coolant. Table (1) shows the factorial design of the experimentation. After completing the experiments an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to discern whether differences 2 (4)

Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, August 2005, Volume 51 No.44

and Metrology of Surfaces, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain), Vol. 182, Part 3K, pp. 135-147. 4. Feng, C-X. (2001) An experimental study of the impact of turning parameters on surface roughness. Proceedings of the 2001 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Paper #2036, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA. 5. Feng, C-X. and Hu, Z-J. (2001) A comparative study of the ideal and actual surface roughness in finish turning. Working Paper, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, College of Engineering, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois 61625. 6. Fischer, H. L. and J. T. Elrod (1971) Surface finish as a function of tool geometry and feed a theoretical approach. Microtecnic, 25(3): 175-178. 7. Groover, M. P. (1996) Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (now published John Wiley & Sons, New York).

8. Hasegawa, H., Seireg, A., and Lindberg, R. A. (1976) Surface roughness model for Turning. Tribology, December, 285-289. 9. Karmakar, A. (1970) Factors influencing surface finish during fine turning. Proceedings of the 4th All India Machine Tool Design and Research Conference, India, 123-128. 10. Miller, J. C., De Vor, R. E., and Southerland, J. W. (1983) Surface roughness characteristics for turning 380 and 390 aluminum casting alloys. Proceedings of North American Manufacturing Research Conference: 282288. 11. Sundaram, R. M., and Lambert, B. K. (1981) Mathematical models to predict surface finish in fine turning of steel, Parts I and II, International Journal of Production Research, 19: 547-564. 12. Sundaram, R. M. and B. K. Lambert (1979) Surface roughness variability of ANSI 4140 steel in fine turning using carbide tools. International Journal of Production Research, 17(3): 249-258

Actual SR
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Predicted SR

SR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Run
Figure 1: predicted versus actual surface

Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 2006, Volume 52 No.45

Table 1: Experimental Factors and levels Run

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Speed (rpm)
600 1000 800 800 800 1000 1000 1000 800 600 600 600 1000 800 600 800 800 600 800 600 1000 600 800 1000 1000 600 1000

Feed Depth of cut (mm/min) (mm)

80 160 80 160 120 160 120 80 160 120 120 160 120 161 80 80 120 160 80 80 120 160 120 80 80 120 160 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00

Actual surface Roughness ( m)

1.26 1.48 0.86 2.64 1.34 1.58 0.86 0.40 2.64 2.59 2.29 2.56 0.68 2.39 1.22 0.53 4.22 1.62 1.11 0.64 1.11 1.35 3.94 0.51 1.70 2.72 0.66

Predicted surface roughness ( m)

1.13 1.50 0.97 1.79 1.41 1.38 0.99 0.63 2.14 1.79 1.95 2.71 1.08 1.96 1.34 0.82 1.54 2.95 0.89 1.23 1.18 2.48 1.30 0.68 0.74 2.13 1.64

Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, August 2005, Volume 51 No.44

Table 2: Analysis of variance (Partial sum of squares) Source Model A B C Residual Cor Total Sum of Squares 4.52 1.57 2.82 0.14 6.21 10.73 DF Mean Square 3 1 1 1 23 26 1.51 1.57 2.82 0.14 0.27 F Value 5.59 5.81 10.45 0.50 Prob > F 0.0050 0.0244 0.0037 0.4854 significant

Sudan Engineering Society JOURNAL, January 2006, Volume 52 No.45