This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi} On: 7 March 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931793936} Publisher Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3]H, UK

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title-content=t713597284

Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of Titanium. Alloy

s. Ramesh"; 1. Karunamoorthy"; K. Palanikumar'

a Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India b Central Workshop, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India

To cite this Article Ramesh, S. , Karunamoorthy, 1. and Palanikumar, K.(2008) 'Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of Titanium Alloy', Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 23: 2, 174 - 181

To link to this Article: 001: 10.1080/10426910701774700

URL: http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/10426910701774700

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 23: 174-181,2008 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1042-6914 printl1532-2475 online

DOl: 10.1080/10426910701774700

Q Taylor & Francis

~ Taylor&FrancisGroup

Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of Titanium Alloy

S. RAMESH1, L. KARUNAMOORTHy2, AND K. PALANIKUMAR1

1 Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India 2Central Workshop, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India

The use of response surface methodology for minimizing the surface roughness in machining titanium alloy, a topic of current interest, has been discussed in this article. The surface roughness model has been developed in terms of cutting parameters such as cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut. Machining tests have been carried out using CVD (TiN-TiCN-A1203-TiN) coated carbide insert under different cutting conditions using Taguchi's orthogonal array. The experimental results have been investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated that the feed rate is the main influencing factor on surface roughness. Surface roughness increased with increasing feed rate, but decreased with increasing cutting speed and depth of cut. The predicted results are fairly close to experimental values and hence, the developed models can be used for prediction satisfactorily.

::;

o N

Keywords Analysis of variance (ANOVA); Contour plots; CVD-coated carbide inserts; Linear graph; Machining; Metal cutting; Modeling; Orthogonal array; Response surface methodology; Response surface plots; SEM studies; Surface roughness; Titanium alloy; Turning.

1. INTRODUCTION

Titanium and its alloys are considered as important engineering materials for industrial applications, because of excellent combination of properties such as high strength-toweight ratio, good fracture toughness, excellent resistance to corrosion, and good fatigue resistance. They are widely used in various fields such as aerospace, marine, biomedical, chemical, and racing. Even though they are used in a variety of engineering applications, machining for these materials are difficult to find [1-3]. Properties like high thermal conductivity and chemical reactivity of these materials with most cutting tools, make titanium hard to machine. Titanium is quite expensive and widely used for fabrication and manufacturing. N orihiko et al. [4] machined titanium alloys and have stated that the cutting force of the titanium alloy is about one half that of carbon steel. They have used KI0 and natural diamond for machining of titanium alloys. Bhaumik et al. [5] developed a wBN and cBN composite tool obtained by high pressure and high temperature sintering of wurtzite boron nitride powder, for machining Ti-6AI-4V alloys. They have found that the surface roughness increased with increase of cutting time. Nabhani [6] has studied the machinability of aerospace titanium alloys. Many researchers [7-9] investigated various aspects of machining of titanium and its alloys.

Surface finish is an important parameter in manufacturing engineering. It is a characteristic that can influence the performance of mechanical parts and production costs. Various failures, sometimes catastrophic, leading to high costs, have been attributed to the surface finish of the components in question. For these reasons there have been research developments with the objective of optimizing the

Received May 4,2007; Accepted October 10,2007

Address correspondence to K. Palanikumar, Department of Mechanical & Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India; Fax: 91-44-24502344; E-mail: pa1anikumar_k@yahoo.com

cutting conditions to obtain a good surface finish. Surface roughness effect on machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy with 883 inserts at the feed rate of 0.35 mmlrev under dry cutting conditions is evaluated by Haron et al. [10]. They have observed low surface roughness with increase of cutting speed.

Nowadays, response surface methodology is used for modelling and optimization of surface roughness in machining. Response surface methodology is more practical and simple. Optimal machining parameters can be easily observed using response surface methodology. Suresh et al. [11] have used response surface method and genetic algorithm for predicting the surface roughness and optimizing the process parameters. Kwak [12] has applied Taguchi response surface methodologies for optimizing geometric errors in surface grinding process. The response surface method (RSM) is more practical, economical, and relatively easy to use [13]. In the present study, effect of cutting parameters for surface roughness on the machining of titanium alloy by CVD-coated tool is evaluated and a second order model is developed for predicting the surface roughness. The predicted and the measured values are fairly close, which indicates that the developed model can be effectively used to predict the surface roughness in the machining of Titanium alloy.

2. RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

In Response Surface Methodology (RSM), the factors that are considered as most important are used to build a polynomial model in which the independent variable is the experiment's response. The surface finish of machined titanium alloy parts are important in manufacturing engineering applications which have considerable effect on some properties such as wear resistance, light reflection, heat transmission, coating, and resisting fatigue. While machining, quality of the parts can be achieved only through proper cutting conditions. In order to know the surface quality and dimensional properties in advance, it is

174

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

necessary to employ theoretical models, making it feasible to do prediction of operation conditions [13]. RSM is the collection of mathematical and statistical techniques that are useful for the modeling and analysis of problems in which a response of interest is influenced by several variables and the objective is to optimize this response [12].

In many engineering fields, there is a relationship between an output variable 'y' of interest and a set of controllable input variables {Xl' X2' ..• , xn}. In some systems, the nature of the relationship between y and X values may be known. Then, a model can be written in the form

where 8 represents noise or error observed in the response y. If we denote the expected response as

::;

o N

then the surface represented by

is called response surface. In most of the RSM problems, the form of relationship between the response and the independent variable is unknown. Thus the first step in RSM is to find a suitable approximation for the true functional relationship between y and set of independent variables employed. Usually a second order model is utilized in RSM [12, 14, 15]. The {3 coefficients used in the model below can be calculated by means of least square method:

k k

Y = {30 + 'L{3jxj + 'L{3jjX; + 'L'L{3ijxjxj + 8. (3)

j=l

i=l

i j

The second-order model is normally used when the response function is not known or nonlinear.

3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

Experimental design methods are used to conduct experiments with less number of observations. They constitute a systematic method concerning the planning of experiments, collection, and analysis of data with nearoptimum use of available resources. The predominant cutting parameters affecting the machining of titanium alloys has been found out before conducting the experiments such as cutting speed (V), feed rate (I) and depth of cut (d). The level of the factors are decided on the availability of experimental condition and also based on the literature. Initially, trials tests are carried out to determine suitable deEth of cut, feed rate, and cutting speeds. Taguchi's L27 (3 3) orthogonal array is considered for experimentation and input parameters are assigned to columns. To avoid aliasing and overlapping of the interactions with main factors, columns 1, 2, and 5 have been assigned to the main cutting parameters cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut, respectively. The L27 orthogonal array used for experimentation is given in Table 1. The input parameters

TABLE I.-~7 Orthogonal array used for experimentation.

175

Run 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

(1)

(2)

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

1111111111 1111222222 1111333333 1222111222 1222222333 1222333111 1333111333 1333222111 1333333222 2123123123 2123231231 2123312312 2231123231 2231231312 2231312123 2312123312 2312231123 2312312231 3132132132 3132213213 3132321321 3213132213 3213213321 3213321132 3321132321 3321213132 3321321213

1 1 1

2 2 2

333

3 2 3

1 3 1

2 1 2

2 3 2

3 1 3

1 2 1

1 3 1

2 1 2

3 2 3

3 1 3

1 2 1

2 3 2

2 2 2

333

1 1 1

1 2 1

2 3 2

3 1 3

333

1 1 1

2 2 2

2 1 2

3 2 3

1 3 1

are assigned to the columns of orthogonal array based on linear graph. The linear graph used in this work is presented in Fig. 1. All the machining experiments have been carried out on a NAGMATI-175 all geared lathe. The cutting tool used in the present work is CVD-(TiN-TiCN-Al203- TiN) coated carbide tools. All the tools are commercially available inserts, according to ISO code SNMG 120412- MP- TT5030 and have been supplied by TaeguTec. The workpiece materials used in all the experiments are an annealed bar of 38mm diameter and 125mm length. The work material used is alpha-beta titanium alloy (Grade 5). The composition of the material in wt% is 0.022 Mn, 0.01 Cr, 0.02 Mo, 6.18 AI, 0.03 Cu, 0.22 Fe, 3.89 V, 0.01 Zr, 0.05 Sn, and balance 89.58 is titanium. The composition has been measured using spark emission spectrometer. The work material is a widely used titanium alloy that offers high strength, depth hardenability, and elevated temperature

2

• 10

• 9

FIGURE I.-Linea! graph used for the experiments.

• 12

• 13

::;

o N

176

S. RAMESH ET AL.

properties up to 400°C. A turning length of 110 mm has been maintained constant for all the experiments. For optimizing the length of the cut in the workpiece, one end is held with revolving centre and the other end of the workpiece is held in a headstock chuck. All the turning operations are carried out in dry cutting conditions. The surface roughness of the Titanium alloy (Gr 5) has been measured by using Surtronic 3+ stylus type instrument manufactured by Taylor Hobson with a cut-off length of 0.8 mm. The surface roughness used in this study is the arithmetic mean average surface roughness value (Ra), which is mostly used in the industry. The experiments are repeated for three times and the average values are used for the analysis. The condition with real values, coded values of parameters, and experimental results are presented in Table 2.

FIGURE 2.-Microstructure of Ti-6AJ-4V alloy without being cut.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Surface roughness plays an important role in many areas and is a factor of great importance in the evaluation of machining accuracy. Although many factors affect the surface condition of machined part, machining parameters such as cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut have a significant influence on the surface roughness for a given machine tool and work piece set-up [16]. Titanium is a material generally utilized for parts requiring the greatest reliability and therefore the surface roughness and any damage to the subsurface layers must be controlled [17].

Figure 2 shows the Inicrograph of the work piece used for turning operation. The etchant used for the observation is 1-3 ml HF (Hydrofluoric Acid), 2-6 ml HN03 (Nitric Acid), and 100mI H20. Figure 3 shows the Inicrostructure

FIGURE 3.--SEM microstructure of Ti-6AJ-4V alloy before cutting operation.
TABLE 2.-Experimental design and cutting conditions.
Trial Cutting speed Feed! Depth of cut V ! d Ave Rat
number V (mlntin) (mmlrev) d(mm) (mlntin) (mmlrev) (mm) ILm
1 1 1 1 40 0.13 0.50 1.77
2 1 1 2 40 0.13 0.75 1.79
3 1 1 3 40 0.13 1.00 1.78
4 1 2 1 40 0.179 0.50 2.21
5 1 2 2 40 0.179 0.75 2.22
6 1 2 3 40 0.179 1.00 2.23
7 1 3 1 40 0.22 0.50 2.55
8 1 3 2 40 0.22 0.75 2.59
9 1 3 3 40 0.22 1.00 2.61
10 2 1 1 60 0.13 0.50 1.49
11 2 1 2 60 0.13 0.75 1.50
12 2 1 3 60 0.13 1.00 1.52
13 2 2 1 60 0.179 0.50 1.85
14 2 2 2 60 0.179 0.75 1.87
15 2 2 3 60 0.179 1.00 1.91
16 2 3 1 60 0.22 0.50 2.27
17 2 3 2 60 0.22 0.75 2.32
18 2 3 3 60 0.22 1.00 2.33
19 3 1 1 80 0.13 0.50 1.36
20 3 1 2 80 0.13 0.75 1.40
21 3 1 3 80 0.13 1.00 1.41
22 3 2 1 80 0.179 0.50 1.66
23 3 2 2 80 0.179 0.75 1.72
24 3 2 3 80 0.179 1.00 1.72
25 3 3 1 80 0.22 0.50 1.82
26 3 3 2 80 0.22 0.75 1.85
27 3 3 3 80 0.22 1.00 1.86 SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

FIGURE 4.-SEM surface profile in experimental condition (Expt. No. 12).

::;

o N

of titanium alloy. The micrograph is taken using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Figure 4 shows the SEM micrograph of the machined specimen. The surface profile is observed at selected experimental condition. Figure 5 shows the SEM micrograph of surface observed at minimal surface roughness condition (see Table 2, trial No. 19). From the figures, it can be observed that the minimal surface roughness condition produces good surface profile.

Figure 6(a) shows the SEM micrograph of top surface of a chip during the machining of titanium alloy. The micrograph shows voids and deposits on the surface of the chip. The saw tooth type chip formed during the machining of titanium alloy is shown in Fig. 6(b). The results from the machining trials, performed as per the experimental plan, are shown in Table 2. These results are fed into the Design Expert software v7 [18] for analysis. Without performing any transformation on the response, examination of fit summary output revealed that the two-factor interaction (2FI) model is statistically significant for the surface roughness response and therefore, it has been used for further analysis.

4.1. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

The analysis of variance (ANOV A) is used to check the adequacy of the proposed quadratic model. Table 3 shows

FIGURE 5.-SEM surface profile observed at minimal surfacecondition (Expt No. 19).

177

the ANOV A table for response surface quadratic model for surface roughness.

The value of "Probc-F" in Table 3 for model is less than 0.05 which indicates that the model is adequately significant at 95% confidence level, which is desirable as it indicates that the terms in the model have a significant effect on the response. Similarly, the main effect of feed (I), cutting speed (V), and two-level interaction of cutting speed and feed (Vf) are significant model terms. Other model terms are not significant. The main effect of feed is the most significant factor associated with surface roughness. This is expected because it is well known that for a given tool nose radius, the classical surface roughness is primarily a function of the feed [19].

The effectiveness of the model has been checked by using the 'R2' value. In the present work, the R2 value is 0.98 which is very close to 1 and hence the model is very effective. The "Pred-R2" is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj R2". The "Adj R2" value is particularly useful when comparing models with different number of term. However, this comparison is done in the background when the model reduction is taking place. Adequate precision ("Adeq Precision") measures the signal-to-noise ratio. "Adeq Precision" compares the range of the predicted values at the design points to the average prediction error. Ratios greater than 4 indicate adequate model discrimination. In this particular case, the value is well above 4.

4.2. Response Surface Model

The empirical two factor interaction model developed for surface roughness (Ra) during the machining of titanium alloy (Grade 5) is given below:

Ra = 0.4258 + (0.0025 x V) + (13.0647 x f) - (0.0645 x d) - (0.0970 x V x f)

+ (0.001 x V x d) + (0.5201 x f x d). (4)

The diagnostic checking of the model has been carried out using residual analysis and the results are presented in Figs. 7-9. In the figures, the color point indicates the value of Surface Roughness. The normal probability plot is presented in Fig. 7. The figure revealed that the residuals fallon a straight line implying that the errors are distributed normally. Figure 8 shows the standardized residuals with respect to the predicted values. The residuals do not show any obvious pattern and are distributed in both positive and negative directions. This implies that the model is adequate and there is no reason to suspect any violation of the independence or constant variance assumption. The relation between the experimental and the predicted values are shown in Fig. 9. The experimental values are very close to the predicted values. From the figure, it has been seen that most of the points are close to the center line and hence this empirical model provides reliable prediction.

The analysis of response variable surface roughness can be explained through contour and surface plots. The typical three-dimensional (3D) surface plots and two-dimensional (2D) contour plots for surface roughness in terms of the process variable are shown in Figs. 10-15. Equation (4) is

178

S. RAMESH ET AL.

-

5703 20KU XG0 t00~1 WDt6

(a)

(b)

::;

o N

FIGURE 6.-Chip observed during machining.
TABLE 3.-Results of the analysis of variance for surface finish.
ANOV A for Response Sorface 2FI Model
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p-value prob > F
Model 3.5862 6 0.5977 227.6101 <0.0001
V -Cutting speed 1.3547 1 1.3547 515.8965 <0.0001
I-Feed rate 2.1243 1 2.1243 808.9498 <0.0001
d -Depth of cut 0.0084 1 0.0084 3.2047 0.0886
VI 0.0915 1 0.0915 34.8478 <0.0001
Vd 0.0003 1 0.0003 0.1142 0.7389
Id 0.0004 1 0.0004 0.1565 0.6966
Residual 0.0525 20 0.0026
Cor total 3.6387 26
SD 0.051 R-Squared 0.98
Mean 1.91 Adj R-Squared 0.98
C.V.% 2.68 Pred R-Squared 0.97
PRESS 0.093 Adeq Precision 49.01 plotted in Figs. 10-12 as contours for each of the response surfaces at different depth of cuts. These response contours can help in the prediction of surface roughness at any zone of the experimental domain [14, 15]. It is clear from these figures that the surface roughness reduces with the increase

of cutting speed. However, it increases with the increase of feed and depth of cut. The surface plot shows the influence of different machining variables, keeping the other variables at constant levels [20].

Color points by value of H.: ~2.61

~1.36

Cl Color points by value of R.:

Cl 2.61'

99
95
90
~ 80
0 70
"iii 50 '
8
I- 30 I
Q
Z. 20
10
5 [J c

o D

1 .. 36

•

D [J

• •

D

c D c::J

•

c::J

-0.07

~ •

-0.07

-0.03

0.01 Residual

0 .. 04

0.08

1.36

1.68

200 Predicted

2.32

264

FIGURE 7.-Norma1 probability plot of residuals.

FIGURE 8.-Plot of residuals vs. predicted response.

179

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

2.70

5
::!.
--
r:t.' 2.35
---
'"
;
=
... ,
OIl
:~
Q
~ 2.00
~
v
c!!
, ... ,
'=
<n
~ 1.65
'"
t;:
:a
'"
... ,
/:0.,
1.30
1.30 0.197
t
.!::
5
E 0.175
C
~
OJ
~
0.1:53 D/J

1:l!EI Color points by value of R.::

~ 2,61

1,36

40

50

60

70

80

1.65

2.00

2.35

2,,70

Cutling Speed{V), m1mln

Experimental Surface Roughness (R.), um

;:;

o N

FIGURE 11.-Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-O.75mm).

FIGURE 9.-Predicted and experimental values for surface roughness.

0.2,20

Figure 13 illustrates the surface model for surface roughness by varying the two variables cutting speed, and feed and keeping the third parameter depth of cut at constant level. The figure indicates that the surface roughness increases with increase of feed. Contrary to the feed, the surface roughness increases with decrease of cutting speed. Figure 14 shows the effect of cutting speed with respect to depth of cut on surface roughness. From the figure, it has been asserted that the increase of cutting speed reduces the surface roughness, whereas the increase of depth of cut increases the surface roughness. Figure 15 shows the influence of feed and depth of cut on surface roughness by keeping the cutting speed at middle level. From the figure, it can be asserted that the increases in feed and depth of cut increase the surface roughness. This is attributed to the increases in the thermal load and vibration on the machine tool.

0,197
t
..
e
E 0,175
C
~
.,
.,
~
0,153 0,130

40

50

60

70

80

Culti!!g Spo.led(V), mimi!!

FIGURE l2.-Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-l.OOmm).

0.197 St:Ifa:;lellWuglYl~
" • Oe>lgo """',."""" i:<eOk:O""","",
S
""" c 0e>Ig0".,.-., __',,- "'"'"
> .. 12£1
i:, E!>
'"
is: ..
., i.as
S 0.175 E
S 'g
'"
'C .. Ad~foL'!lC't«
" .... ~hOfO.Jt.'iJ1:S
" ~
'"
'"
0.153 0.130 +---~---",""",""'- 40

50

60

70

80

Cutting Speed{V), m/min

FIGURE l3.-Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness (Ra vs. V and f).

FIGURE IO.-Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-O.5mm).

::;

o N

180

8urfoce~:s

12.61

1.36

~U"IF8CIor Feed Role .0.115

Cutting Speed, m'l1Iin

FIGURE 14.-Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness (Ra vs. V and d).

SurlI!ol!Roo~i!s$

• ~itn !XIi'fjs ebortef)'ledded vtlk.te o Oesg,~.s:~FJI"~'I;I''''1Ue

1,£1

1,3;;

MualF6e'tor CUt~$_·OO'

o.se 0.1)0

FIGURE IS.-Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness (Ra vs. f and d).

S. RAMESH ET AL.

The effectiveness of the model has been checked by validation with experimental results. In order to verify the adequacy of the model developed, five confirmation run experiments have been performed (Fig. 16) at different cutting conditions. The test condition for the first three validation run experiments are among the cutting conditions that are performed previously while the remaining two validation run experiments are the conditions that have not been used previously.

The experimental results have been validated by asserting that the predicted values are very close to each other and hence, the developed models are suitable for predicting the surface roughness in machining of titanium alloy.

S. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are drawn from the experimental results during the machining of titanium alloy using CVD (TiN- TiCN-AI203- TiN)-coated carbide inserts under different cutting conditions:

1. The two-factor interaction model for surface roughness has been developed using response surface methodology .

2. The established equations clearly show that the feed is the factor which influences surface roughness followed by cutting speed.

3. The surface roughness increases with increasing feed but decreased with increasing cutting speed.

4. The variance analysis for the two factor interaction model shows that the depth of cut is the least significant parameter.

S. The predicted and the measured values are satisfactorily close to each other which indicates that the developed surface roughness prediction model can be effectively used for predicting the surface roughness during the machining of titanium alloy with 9S% confident level.

6. Using such models, a remarkable savings in time and cost can be achieved.

3.00-~----------------------------------------~

'"'

~ 2.50

~ 2.00

I:: ~

gp 1.50

o

0::: 1.00

II.> <.)

<t

::I 0.50

IZI

0.00

o Experimental Value

2.56

• Predicted Value

2.61

Test Runs

1.9

1.59

1.41

1.42

1.36

1.49

1.67

1.94

FIGURE 16.-Comparison of the experimental and the predicted values for surface roughness.

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

::;

o N

REFERENCES

1. Komandurl, R. Some clarifications on the mechanics of chip formation when machining titanium alloys. Wear 1982; 76, 15-34.

2. Komandurl, R; Reed, W.R, Jr. Evaluation of carbide grades and a new cutting geometry for machining titanium alloys. Wear 1983,92, 113-123.

3. Komandurl, R.; Von Turkovich, B.F. New observations on the mechanism of chip formation when machining titanium alloys. Wear 1981, 69, 179-188.

4. Narutaki, N.; Murakoshi, A; Motonishi, S. Study on machining of titanium alloys. Annals of the CIRP 1983, 32 (1), 65--69.

5. Bhaumik, S.K; Divakar, C.; Singh, AK Machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy with a wBN-cBN composite tool. Materials & Design 1995, 16 (4), 221-226.

6. Farhad, N. Machining of aerospace titanium alloys. Robotics and CIM 2001, 17, 99-106.

7. Hartung, P.D.; Kramer, B.M.; Von Turkovich, B.F. Tool wear in titanium machining. Annals of the CIRP 1982,31 (1),75-80.

8. Che-Haron, C.H. Tool life and surface integrity in turning titanium alloy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2001, 118, 231-237.

9. Rahman, M.; Wong, Y.S.; Rahmath Zareena, A Machining of Titanium Alloys; Proceedings of ICM-2002, Dhaka, BUET, 1, pp.22-32.

10. Che-Haron, C.H.; Jawaid, A The effect of machining on surface integrity of titanium alloy Ti--6% Al-4% V. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2005, 166, 188-192.

11. Suresh, P.V.S.; Venkateswara Rao, P.; Deshmukh, S.G. A genetic algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness

181

prediction model. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2002, 42, 675--680.

12. Kwak, J.-S. Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for geometric error in surface grinding process. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2005, 45, 327-334.

13. Sahin, Y.; Motorcu, AR. Surface roughness model for machining mild steel. Materials and Design. In Press. doi: 1O.1016/s.matdes2004.05.008.

14. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments; 4th Ed.

John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1997.

15. Palanikumar, K Application of Taguchi and response surface methodologies for surface roughness in machining glass fiber reinforced plastics by PCD tooling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. In Press. doi 1O.1007/s00170-006-0811-0.

16. Palanikumar, K; Karthikeyan, R Assessment of factors influencing surface roughness on the machining of AUSic particulate composites. Material and Design 2007,28, 1584-1591.

17. Ezugwu, E.O.; Wang, Z.M. Titanium alloys and their machinability-a review. J. Materials Processing Tech. 1997,68, 262-274.

18. Design-Expert Software. Trial Version 7, User's Technical Manual, Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 2006.

19. Shaw, M.C. Metal Cutting Principles; Oxford University Press:

Oxford, 1984.

20. Ramesh, S.; Karunamoorthy, L.; Ramakrishnan, R. Modeling for Prediction of Surface Roughness in Machining of Ti64 Alloy by CVD Coated Inserts; Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Materials Processing and Characterisation (AMPC2006), Anna University, Chennai, India, Aug. 28-30, 2006, pp. 253-261.