You are on page 1of 6

Global Journal of Technology

hnology
of
Tec a
Zhong et al., Global J Technol Optim 2015, 6:3
nd
obal urnal

Op
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2229-8711.1000187
timizatio
Jo

& Optimization
Gl

n

ISSN: 2229-8711

Research Article
Research Article Open
OpenAccess
Access

Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process
Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining
Gaoyan Zhong1*, Jiangyan Xu1, Yuetong Wu2 and Shoufeng Yang3
1
College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210031, China
2
Southampton Management School, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
3
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Abstract
The traditional regression model in machining process neglects nonlinear influence of machining parameters on
process response, which causes the analyses to have a low accuracy. The primary objective of this study is to propose
an optimal regression model to analyze the material removal rate in ultrasonic machining through the experimental
tests, statistical analyses and regression modeling. Three main factors affecting the machining process response,
namely abrasive granularity, feed pressure and feed speed, were selected for this purpose, and the experiments were
performed in accordance with an L16 orthogonal array using Taguchi method. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used
to investigate the statistical significance of the parameters at 95% confidence level and to determine the percentage
contribution of the parameters to the process response. On this basis, the optimal regression model was proposed.
Compared with traditional regression model, the analytical precision of the optimal regression model is quite higher
than that of traditional regression model. The results obtained from the new experimental conditions show that the
optimal regression model can correctly reflect the influence of machining parameters on process response, which can
provide a theoretical basis for selection of machining parameters to improve its machining efficiency.

Keywords: Experimental investigations; Statistical analyses; forms of micro-crack as the loose abrasives indent the workpiece
Regression model; Mathematical modeling surface [6].

Introduction As one of the solution, Taguchi method has been widely utilized
for experiment design, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression
Hard or brittle materials, such as engineering ceramics, glass, quartz analysis. Singh and Khamba [11] proposed a Taguchi method to model
and sintered WC, are attractive for variety of applications in many the material removal rate during ultrasonic machining of titanium
industries due to their superior performance [1-4], for example, high and its alloys, the results demonstrate that ultrasonic power rating
strength and hardness at elevated temperatures, chemical inertness, and significantly improves the material removal rate. Rajabi et al. [12]
high wear resistance, low thermal conductivity, corrosion resistance investigated the influence of process parameters and type of core
and oxidation resistance [5]. Over the last few decades, Ultrasonic materials on deep-drawing of two thermoplastic metal-composites
machining (USM) technique has been successfully applied to many based on Taguchi method to reduce the number of experiments.
conductive and non-conductive hard or brittle materials for obtaining Kasman [13] investigated the influence of process parameters on the
holes, cavities and various 3D complex parts, because the process is performance characteristics of the engraving process using Taguchi
non-chemical and non-thermal, the effects such as metallurgical and method to determine the optimal process conditions, ANOVA and
chemical changes are less [5,6]. linear regression analysis were performed to evaluate the statistical
In the past, many researchers have paid attention to research the significance of each parameter on the performance characteristics.
material removal mechanisms of hard or brittle materials. Nath [6] Kivak et al. [14] and Siddiquee et al. [15] focused on the optimization
through experiments to explore the adverse effects of the inherent of drilling parameters using the Taguchi method to obtain minimum
removal phenomena on the hole integrity such as entrance chipping, surface roughness and thrust force. Prasanna et al. [16] optimized
wall roughness and subsurface damage, and presented the material the process parameters of small hole dry drilling in Ti–6Al–4V using
removal mechanism happened in the gap between the tool periphery Taguchi method to understand the effects, contribution, significance
and the hole wall. Soundararajan and Radhakrishnan [7,8] dealt with and optimal machine settings of process parameters. Gupta et al. [17]
a simple but effective approach using a profile relocation technique to
study the relative role of the material removal mechanisms. Ichida et
al. [9] proposed a non-contact ultrasonic abrasive machining method
using the energy of ultrasonic waves and investigated the fundamental *Corresponding author: Gaoyan Zhong, College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural
University, Nanjing, China, Tel: +862558606580; Fax: +8625 58606580; E-mail:
processing mechanisms. Singh and Khamba [10] studied the ultrasonic gyzhong@njau.edu.cn
machining of tough materials like titanium and its alloys. It is generally
Received July 16, 2015; Accepted August 31, 2015; Published September 10,
believed that the material removal mechanisms in USM are complex 2015
and can be accepted as three actions [6-10]: (1) the direct hammering
Citation: Zhong G, Xu J, Wu Y, Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and
of abrasives by the tool vibration when the tool, abrasive and workpiece
Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal
are in contact, (2) high velocity impact of free moving abrasive particles Rate in Ultrasonic Machining. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. doi:10.4172/2229-
on the workpiece surface, and (3) the cavitation-erosion action as the 8711.1000187
bubble collapses in the working gap by absorbing ultrasonic vibration Copyright: © 2015 Zhong G, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under
energy. The workpiece materials are finally removed through resulting the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
random-shaped micro-chips, which are transformed from various use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.

Global J Technol Optim
Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187
ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO, an open access journal

Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining. was 6 mm. The experimental abrasive ingredients were silicon carbide. Length of models were also investigated. Table 2: Ultrasonic processing parameters. which considers the nonlinear influence of parameters on process response. and the cavitations-erosion effect [6-10]. feed pressure (P) and feed speed An experimental USM machine with CNC control system was (FS) were selected for this purpose in this study. The levels are given in Table 2. is mainly composed of a machine head. Notation Parameters Levels 1 2 3 4 G Abrasive Granularity (Mesh) 320 240 120 80 P Feed Pressure (N) 20 30 40 50 FS Feed Speed (mm/s) 1. marble according to Taguchi’s design of experiments and ANOVA. In Section 4. 15 mm × 6 mm Reciprocating processing number of tool 20 times Table 1: Experimental conditions.62 Figure 1: Schematic diagram of experimental setup.1000187 Page 2 of 6 investigated kerfs characteristics in abrasive water jet machining of machine. the ultrasonic horn with ladder shape was 150 mm. A CNC control system was connected to the workbench and causes the analyses to have a low accuracy. Summarizing the above literatures. which was installed in the bottom of ultrasonic horn. modified from a commercial ultrasonic Parameters Values Vibration frequency of the ultrasonic generator 20.12 KHz Amplitude of the ultrasonic generator 12 μm Oscillating current 300 mA Workpiece material and thickness soda-lime glass. the percentage contribution of the parameters to the process response. (3) prediction and confirmation experiments and (4) ANOVA abrasive slurry. comparison for optimal and numbers of tool were 20 times. generator. An ultrasonic generator was used to produce ultrasonic and regression analysis.Citation: Zhong G. were described. abrasive slurry feed system. doi:10. Wu Y. of an abrasive pump and an abrasive tube.94 3. consisting compose of four steps: (1) experimental layout and collecting data. Oscillating current was kept at 300 mA. The abrasive slurry feed system.. It is well known that workpiece is processed finish Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the statistical under the common action of ultrasonic vibration.e. The ultrasonic magnetostrictive transducer allowed vibration to be transmitted over a wide frequency band. abrasive mechanical significance of the parameters at 95% confidence level and to determine hammering and impact. was used for transporting the (2) calculation of signal to noise (S/N) ratios and selection of optimal abrasive slurry to the machining area and for achieving the circulation of levels. experimental investigations. For all analyses and discussion were performed using the Taguchi method and USM experiments. mixed with water at ratio 1:3 Length of ultrasonic horn with ladder shape 150 mm Diameter of the tool 6 mm Machining workpiece shape and plane dimension Round head slot. An experimental plan was constituted based on the Taguchi L16 orthogonal array. Diameter of the tool. the previous regression model in machining process the ultrasonic horn was used as an ultrasonic vibration amplification neglects nonlinear influence of parameters on process response. statistical the soda-lime glass sample was fixed on workbench using jig. processing time T(s).4172/2229-8711. i. data recorder. A data recorder was used to record the accordance with an L16 orthogonal array using Taguchi method. Xu J. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2. were finished before conclusions are drawn in Section 5. the experiments were performed in for feed pressure adjustment. In order to analyze the used to control workpiece to move in 2D relative to the tool during the influence of process parameters on material removal rate in ultrasonic USM process. each processing shape was a round head slot. To reduce the measurement error. The reciprocating processing via mathematical modeling method. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. abrasive granularity (G). the The workpiece material used in the experimental studies was soda- experimental setup. Counter weights were connected to USM machine head machining more accurately. Experimental design Experimental Details In order to analyze the influence of process parameters on material Experimental setup removal rate. The selected factor employed to perform a series of experiments in this study. which had ultrasonic machine tool. 10 mm Abrasive slurry ingredients and concentration silicon carbide. experimental setup of USM was shown in Figure 1. During the USM experiments. Furthermore. and However. etc. which device [8]. the Taguchi method can generally an ultrasonic horn and tool. analytical precision comparisons for optimal and traditional regression which were mixed with water with volume ratio of 1:3. vibration from the tool.08 2. Global J Technol Optim Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187 ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO. multi-axis CNC control system. ultrasonic The process response of this study is material removal rate (MRR). an open access journal . which results are given. experimental conditions and experimental design lime glass with thickness of 10 mm. a workbench. the optimal regression model is proposed had plane dimension of 15 mm × 6 mm. three main factors affecting the machining process response.32 2. each experiment Ultrasonic machine tool. traditional models and verified using the new experimental conditions Table 1 lists the experimental conditions. an ultrasonic magnetostrictive transducer. In Section 3. On this basis. an optimal regression model for material removal rate Experimental conditions in ultrasonic machining is developed in this work.

01 12. column 4 and column 5.558 1.726* R 5.28 5.87 3.94 2.538 12.02 9.32 5.001 mm.73 12.03 8.15 4.725* 12.35 15.25 5.55 13. empty column 2.4172/2229-8711.38 4.65 3 320 3 3 40 2.45 14. respectively.80 3.75 5.03 16 80 4 1 40 2.007 11. observed value of MRR was examined.08 4. so two columns remained empty. The Taguchi method uses S/N From Table 4.64 12.19 14. feed ratio from experimental data to determine the optimal combinations pressure (P) and feed speed (FS) are three important factors for USM for process response.Citation: Zhong G.17 3. computation formula is as follow feed pressure (P) and feed speed (FS) were randomly placed in column 1.04 6 240 2 1 50 2. The four levels.017 12.27 14.00 5.86 2.14 14 80 2 3 20 3.36 12. The processing depth D (um) was measured by using Consequently. (1) the higher the better and (2) the lower the better.94 4. column 3 were as empty =R Levelmax − Levelmin (4) column 1.16 9.82 5 240 1 2 40 3.94 6. 1 320 1 1 20 1.83 13. The further for calculations based on the objective function for the response [18]: analysis and discussion will be carried out in the following sections.16 3. feed pressure (P) ηij = S N = −10 log (2) and feed speed (FS) parameters) have almost linear characteristic.440 11.43 13.53 4.62 4.01 3. j=1 to r. ○11 ○22 Ave.132* 11.32 4.524 12.99 11.76 4.08 5.60 9.38 11.03 8.91 15.96 16.88 9.04 5.52 2. the average value of S/N ratio of the ith experiment a digital display depth micrometer with resolution of 0.02 2.62 10 120 2 4 40 1. abrasive granularity (G). yij2 No.22 9. Wu Y. and n is the total number of experiment.05 15. Usually.38 4 320 4 4 50 3.62 6.40 14.19 3.04 9. Due can be calculated as to the plane dimension of machining workpiece is certain in this study.158 1.98 12.14 16.46 7 240 3 4 20 2.91 4.696* 13.28 6.84 12.05 12 120 4 2 20 2. Only three machining parameters were selected in this mean value of S/N for each parameter is listed in Table 4. Here.94 4.041* 11.47 4.11 3. Discussion and analysis Then. i.28 9. The L16 Taguchi orthogonal array contains five columns and sixteen rows with fifteen degrees of freedom to deal with five parameters with Table 3 shows the experimental measurement results for MRR. G Ec1 Ec2 P FS MRR(um/s) S/N(db) ○11 ○22 Ave. calculated as It is observed that the S/N ratio of abrasive granularity (G) has an obvious 1 nonlinear characteristic. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. ηij represents each S/N Data collection and calculation of S/N ratios ratio and yij is the experimentally observed value of the ijth experiment.12 12. 1 r so.95 9.33 4. and other two S/N ratios (i.16 3. respectively). Xu J.11 4. (Ec1 and Ec2 investigation.10 9. and R represents range Table 4: Main effects of S/N.201 1. j represents ith experiment and jth repeated experiment.37 13.838 12.62 4. the MRR values are calculated as follow ηi S= = N ∑ηij r j=1 (3) MRR = D T (um / s) (1) where.17 Table 3: Experimental layout using L16 orthogonal array with responses (MRR).43 13 80 1 4 30 2. Statistical Analysis and Discussion r is the repeated number of each ith experiment. its was set according to the L16 orthogonal array.60 4.26 12.60 11.205 Rank 1 4 5 2 3 where.91 3.30 15.43 11 120 3 1 30 3.e.66 4.081 11.52 2.29 12.71 13. and column 2. In this study.08 2.32 2.051 1.49 13.382 11.10 2 320 2 2 30 2.351 4 10.41 6.99 15 80 3 2 50 1.93 9 120 1 3 50 2. there are two S/N ratios that are used material removal rate. Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining.28 10.57 10. * represents optimal level.32 3.56 15. especially abrasive granularity (G). The experimentally represent empty column 1 and empty column 2. Level G Ec1 Ec2 P FS 1 10. i=1 to n. it is observable that abrasive granularity (G).871 2 13.229 11.239 12. an open access journal .08 9.483 12. n=16. each experimental S/N ratio of the higher the better can be The main influence of each parameter on MRR is shown in Figure 2.03 11.08 2. respectively.62 3. Global J Technol Optim Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187 ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO.28 13. * represents optimal level. and R represents range.13 9. r=2. the experimentally observed value of MRR is “the higher the better”.1000187 Page 3 of 6 was done twice.521 3 15. Each machining parameter level where.52 8.40 14.64 8 240 4 3 30 1.89 2.82 5. doi:10.505 12.

y. linear regression analyses were performed in past literature ηm + ∑ (ηi − ηm ) ηˆ = (5) i =1 [13]. a confirmation experiment was performed in order S/N ratio of abrasive granularity. As seen in Figure 2 and from the data given granularity. Parameters Process parameters G P FS Error Total df 3 3 3 6 15 Seq. It suggests values. 0. This table also shows that the abrasive granularity (G).20 Table 5: Results of ANOVA for S/N. It is apparent that increasing considered that the parameters are statistically significant [13. Wu Y. it is generally increased with increasing feed speed. feed speed could increase the abrasive mechanical hammering and impact efficiency.484 2. b2.1000187 Page 4 of 6 G(Mesh) P(N) FS(mm/s) Figure 2: Main effects plot (data means) for S/N. value in the ANOVA table is less than 0. Sig. Similarly.48 − 2 × 4. the other two parameters are statistically insignificant at in Table 4. and s is the number of the mapping relationship between parameters and response. Eq.e. The analysis and discussion for this phenomenon are as follows: for After this.303 6. b3 are regression coefficients. PC value). It can be seen that the difference between that too small or too big abrasive granularity would not be conducive the predicted and measured values for MRR is negligibly small.18] To establish a mathematical relationship between parameters and s responses. the results of ANOVA were given by particles on the workpiece surface.04 + 12. (i. Xu J. be explained that too small or too big abrasive granularity would reduce the direct hammering of abrasives by the tool vibration and the ANOVA analysis results cavitation-erosion effect or high velocity impact of free moving abrasive According to data of S/N.220 1.98% Prediction of optimal MRR and confirmation experiment and 3. the predictive optimal mean value of MRR is calculated And b0. (i. (6) can be written as MRR pre=. value in Table 5 shows that. Here.001 0.62 mm/s for feed speed.427 PC (%) 80. x2 and x3 represents MRR. the following equation is selected to Using Eq. implying that the parameters have insignificant impact on the granularity. 20 N for feed pressure and 3.042 F 22.55 + 4.SS 70. However. it increased between 80 mesh and 120 to determine the difference between the predicted and measured mesh. G.62% only. b1. According to the S/N ratio analysis of section 3.19 = 6. it using SPSS software in Table 5. respectively. 7. Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining.862 Adj. the significance and importance of the almost decreased with increasing feed pressure. s=3. MRR value.940 3. and the results are presented in Table 4 (marked * in the table).43 um/s.05.18]. the key levels of machining parameters.076 Sig. For S/N ratio of feed pressure (P).4172/2229-8711. Consequently. with to the improvement of material removal rate. in this study.434 2.12= 16. it almost When the Sig.Citation: Zhong G. The reason for this can relative error 0. And for S/N ratio of feed speed (FS). value) the vibration frequency and amplitude of tool would be reduced when and the percentage contribution values. doi:10. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. except for the abrasive maximizes the MRR value. 5. the optimal Optimal Regression Modeling and Verification combination was determined for MRR.66(db) Where. The predictive S/N ratio and optimal Optimal regression modeling mean value for MRR can be calculated as follow [13. feed pressure increasing.94 7.98 3. By using significant parameters. feed pressure (P) and feed speed (FS) affect the MRR value by 80.14 + 13. and then decreased between 120 mesh and 320 mesh.e.87 7.187 0. mathematical modeling method. as follow 68π Given X1 = sin .39(um / s) x1 y=b0 + b1 X1 + b2 x2 + b3 x3 (7) Global J Technol Optim Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187 ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO.87%.73 + 4. η̂ represents predictive S/N ratio for optimal combination parameters have almost linear characteristic.254 86. x1.94%.122 1.313 1. ηi step of optimal regression modeling is to find a function to replace represents mean S/N ratio at the optimal levels.1.MS 23. (5). P and FS. the predictive S/N ratio for optimal combination fit the measurement data levels of machining parameters is calculated as follow 68π y= b0 + b1 sin + b2 x2 + b3 x3 (6) x1 ηˆ= ηG 3 + η P1 + η FS 4 − 2 ×ηm= 15. an open access journal . respectively.72 − 2 × 12. the MRR reaches the maximum at the 120 mesh for abrasive 5% level. The greater value of the mean S/N for each parameter The Sig. which is 6.365 6. respectively. η m represents total mean S/N ratio. It can be explained that parameters were expressed by the probability values. it is observable that the effect of abrasive granularity on MRR has a nonlinear characteristic and the other two where.

389 F 24.18 9.023 -0.394 FS 0. doi:10.52 4.31 1.1000187 Page 5 of 6 Hence. 95% confidence level.86 4. the sixteen model and traditional regression model. an optimal regression model was established using and feed speed.06 4.616 0. It indicates that.88 4.36 4 240 50 2. apart from the coefficients for constant value Parameters optimal variances sources traditional variances sources Regression Error Total Regression Error Total df 3 12 15 3 12 15 Seq. 0.88 38. Wu Y.62 3. Parameters MRR(optimal) Parameters MRR(traditional) Coefficients T Sig.45 4. the optimal regression value and measurement value for MRR in the equations were analyzed by ANOVA and tested by the Sig. Constant 0.02 5.847 2.000 0.38 4.61 18.550 0. a traditional regression model experimental conditions were inserted in two models.041× sin MRR − 0.760 19.68 8 80 20 1.003 × G − 0. while the material removal rate in ultrasonic machining process.32 2. the traditional regression model for MRR is statistically insignificant at a fitting accuracy of traditional regression model is very low.86 3.980 1.023 × P + 0.16 20.705 Sig. the coefficients are statistically = 0. The two regression models were also verified through experiments The results of statistics analysis on significance of each coefficient with new experimental conditions.Citation: Zhong G.969 0.20 4.24 5. the coefficients are statistically significant at a 95% regression methods as following confidence level. As shown in The significance of two regression models and the each coefficient Figure 3.69 2 320 30 2.037 − 0.214 1.4172/2229-8711.132 0. meanwhile.01 3. and the results were given as a graph as in Figure 3.324 0. Test condition and its results were in two equations are shown in Table 7. The results show that the optimal regression model are shown in Table 6. an open access journal .003 -0. while in the traditional regression model. Comparison for two regression models Verification of the regression models In order to compare analytical accuracy between optimal regression To verify the prediction of the regression models.63 2.62 61.000 G -0.25 5.023 × P + 0.904 + 5.352 P -0.214 0.28 6.96 5.12 7. while the traditional regression value and measurement The results of ANOVA of significance test on regression equation value are far apart. Coefficients T Sig.210 Constant 5. G P FS MRR(um/s) (optimal) MRR(um/s) (traditional) MV RV RE (%) MV RV RE (%) 1 320 20 2.540 Table 7: Regression statistics analysis on significance of each coefficient.25 4. Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining.45 3.608 Adj.08 4. value.SS 16.92 3 240 40 1. 7 Measurement value 6 Optimal regression value MRR(um/s) 5 Traditional regression value 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Experiments number Figure 3: Comparing resultsof measurement value and regression value for MRR.62 3.52 3.668 19. It shows that the optimal regression model for for MRR responses can be used for determining and estimating the MRR is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. The data taken was also established using regression methods as following from two regression models were compared with the measurement MRR = 5.88 4.214 × FS (9) value.004 sin (68π/G) 5.567 Table 6: ANOVA for two regression equations.MS 5.32 3.940 16.72 3.904 1.68 20.52 Table 8: Verification results for two regression models.023 -2.566 0.631 0.94 5.62 6.38 5.47 4.52 4.53 28.230 0.051 P -0.413 0.08 3.84 6 120 40 3.83 5 120 50 2. Xu J.214 × FS (8) G insignificant at a 95% confidence level. regression model.883 0. Global J Technol Optim Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187 ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO.32 4.170 0.608 2. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. in the optimal listed in Table 8.94 4. are very close.02 3. No.147 FS 0.62 4.69 10. apart from 68π the coefficients for constant value.18 3.18 4.97 7 80 30 3.81 6.041 8.037 3.

Wang AC. regression value 6. Brahmankar PK (2014) Effect of Process Parameters Figure 4: Test resultsof regression models for MRR. It indicates that the optimal regression 14. Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc Citation: Zhong G. respectively.187 and 0. Cao X (2014) Study on the system matching of 7 ultrasonic vibration assisted grinding for hard and brittle materials processing. Nguyen TT (2015) Pseudo-gradient Based Particle Swarm 5 Optimization with Constriction Factor for Multi Objective Optimal Power Flow. The future research directions will be to improve energy efficiency Taguchi Method. Rentsch R. Based on above analyses. References 18. the following conclusions were drawn: 11.Citation: Zhong G. Materials Science and Engineering A nonlinear characteristic. Global J Technol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Optim 6: 1-7. doi:10. on MRR TWR and Surface Topography in Ultrasonic Machining of Alumina Zirconia Ceramic Composite. Pandey PM. Raman MV. Xu J. Mungra C. Singh R. Int indicates that the optimal regression model for MRR can predict the J Mach Tools Manufact 38: 239-255. Ceramics International 40: 12831-12836. respectively. doi:10. Bhosale SB. process for the actual ultrasonic machining condition. The actual MRR values are very close to the MRR value calculated from the optimal regression equation. Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and • Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal • Authors. Khamba JS (2007) Taguchi technique for modeling material removal 1.Morimoto Y. an open access journal . et al. Batra NK (2014) Minimization Nanjing Agricultural University of China (No: 2011G02). Gaurav A. and its machining precision. Zhang C. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 24: 667-674. RV and RE represent measurement value. Khan ZA. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. Brinksmeier E (2005) Advances in micro ultrasonic Optimizing Machining Parameters of Al2O3 TiC Ceramics Using EDM Based assisted lapping of microstructures in hard brittle materials: a brief review and on the Taguchi Method. Wu Y. Pawade RS. Prashanth S. review and publication processing • Indexing at PubMed (partial). 3. Procedia Materials Science 6: 140-149. Procedia Materials Science 6: 1217-1225. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 183: 363-367. Radhakrishnan V (1986) An Experimental Investigation on Table 8. the optimal regression value. 7. Technology 215: 159-170. Experiments number 5. Singh R.428. Chordia DR (2014) Optimization of Process Parameters of small hole dry drilling in Ti-6Al-4V using Acknowledgment Taguchi and grey relational analysis.98% and 3. Lin YC. Ultrasonics 52: 605-613. Manoochehri M.1000187 Submit your manuscript at: http://www.editorialmanager. Wang S. Farjadfar R (2015) Deep-drawing of thermoplastic metal-composite structures: Experimental investigations. 0. Meanwhile. Measurement value International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 77: 66-73. Garg MP. Journal of Materials Processing on MRR is 80. Webb JF (2015) Free Vibration Analysis of Single-Walled Carbon 2 Nanotubes Based on the Continuum Finite Element Method. Kivak T. too small or too big abrasive granularity 460-461: 365-369. Global J Technol Optim 6: 187. which can provide a theoretical basis for selection of machining parameters to improve its machining efficiency. Lin B. OMICS International: Publication Benefits & Features Unique features: • Increased global visibility of articles through worldwide distribution and indexing • Showcasing recent research output in a timely and updated manner • Special issues on the current trends of scientific research Special features: • 700 Open Access Journals • 60. feed pressure and feed speed statistical analyses and finiteelement modeling. The analytical precision of optimal model is quite higher than that of traditional model. Gupta V. 12. Cicek A (2012) Taguchi method based optimisation of drilling parameters in drilling of AISI 316 steel with PVD monolayer and model can correctly reflect the influence of machining parameters on multilayer coated HSS drills. value of them is 0. • Better discount for your subsequent articles 8711.1000187 Page 6 of 6 2. Khamba JS (2007) Investigation for Ultrasonic Machining of Titanium and its Alloys. Samtas G. Soundararajan V.000 editorial team • Rapid review process • Quality and quick editorial. 6 Optimal regression value MRR(um/s) Traditional regression value 3. Tran TT. of kerf taper angle and kerf width using Taguchi’s method in abrasive water jet machining of marble.4172/2229-8711. MV.4172/2229. This 8. Wang DA. Measurement 45: 1547-1557. Scopus. As seen in Figure 4 and 7. 9. Karunamoorthy L. Siddiquee AN. 13. Goel P. Nath C. Kasman S (2013) Impact of parameters on the process response: A Taguchi orthogonal analysis for laser engraving. Dieu NV.001. Kobayashi K (2005) Material removal mechanisms in non-contact ultrasonic abrasive machining Wear 258: 107-114. Measurement 46: 2577-2584. Conclusions 10. 16. respectively.com/biochem Global J Technol Optim Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000187 ISSN: 2229-8711 GJTO.94%. Wu Y. Measurement 48: 346-354. where. Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientific Credits Rate in Ultrasonic Machining. Chen CC (2009) Machining Performance and 1. 4 Global J Technol Optim 6: 1-7. 2. Mukesh K. Thoe TB. Ichida Y. Khanna R. there is a high correlation between the measurement value and the Basic Mechanisms Involved in Ultrasonic Machining. process response.87%. 3 4. the Sig. Wise MLH (1998) Review on ultrasonic machining. Sato R . This paper was supported by the research projects: the Research Plan of 17. Lim GC. Zheng HY (2012) Influence of the material removal mechanisms on hole integrity in ultrasonic machining of structural ceramics and relative error. The results were also presented in Figure 4. Yang S (2015) Statistical Analyses and Regression Modeling for Influence of Process Parameters on Material Removal Rate in Ultrasonic Machining. 15. EBSCO. Wang Y. would not be conducive to the improvement of material removal rate. Aspinwall DK. Rajabi A. Xu J. The effect of abrasive granularity. outlook. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 45: 881-890. The effect of abrasive granularity on MRR has an obvious rate in ultrasonic machining of titanium. Prasanna J. (2014) Optimization of Deep Drilling Process Parameters of AISI 321 Steel using 4. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research 26: 307-321. Kadkhodayan M.