Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICAAMM-2016

Experimentation and optimization of process parameters

of abrasive jet drilling by surface response method with
desirability based PSO
B.K.Nandaa*, Ankan Mishrab , D.Dhupalb, Suchismita Swaina
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha, India
b
Department of Production Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla, Sambalpur- 768018, Odisha,
India

Abstract

An indigenously AJM set up has been fabricated by suitably designing the mixing chamber and the
pressurized power feed system. Experiments are conducted according to Box-Behnken Design of Response
Surface Methodology (RSM) to measure the responses such as Material Removal Rate (MRR), Surface
Roughness(Ra) and Flaring Diameter (FD) with the three input parameters i.e. Pressure (P), Nozzle Tip
Distance (NTD) and Abrasive Grain Size (Gs) on borosilicate-glass work piece with zircon abrasives.
Quadratic regression models, desirability function based PSO are defined for the responses and the observed
optimal process parameter settings are achieved for the individual responses. Finally the results are
experimentally validated and SEM micrograph analysis is performed.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Committee Members of International Conference on
Advancements in Aeromechanical Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM -2016).

Keywords: Abrasive Jet Machining (AJM), zircon sand, RSM, Desirability Function, PSO, SEM

1. Introduction

The concept of material removal in the form of chips by utilizing mechanical energy is used in all
the traditional forms of metal cutting as in case of lathe machines, drilling machines, milling
machines, shapers, planers, etc. where the tool makes physical contact with the work piece and the
resulting shear causes the material to flow over the tool. Non-traditional machining covers a broad
range of technologies possessing slower material removal rate with high accuracy and precision
which are impractical and uneconomical in traditional machining methods.

*. B.K. Nanda; Tel.: +91-9437287816;

E-mail address:basantananda_2005@yahoo.co.in

©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Committee Members of International Conference on
Advancements in Aeromechanical Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM -2016).
 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7427

Abrasive Jet Machining (AJM) is considered to be one of the most effective technique that can
precisely machine hard , brittle and heat sensitive materials like glass, quartz, sapphire,
semiconductor materials, super alloys ,mica , refractory materials and ceramics to create slots, thin
sections, contouring, drilling, etching, deburring ,and polishing. The impingement of the fine
abrasive particles on the work surface at a very high velocity causes tiny brittle fractures and the
following carrier gas takes away the dislodged particles. It is inherently free from chatter and
vibration problems and the cutting action occurs in a cool atmosphere because the carrier gas itself
serves as a coolant. Different variables such as carrier gas, pressure of carrier gas, types and grain
sizes of abrasives , velocity of abrasive jet, properties of work piece material, flow rate of abrasives
,mixing ratio of abrasive and carrier gas, nozzle-tip distance, geometry and material of nozzle affect
the performance of abrasive jet machining for which proper selection of machining parameters and
their optimal combinations are important to achieve good machining properties. Researchers and
investigators have proposed different techniques by considering suitable design of experiments
(DOE) or developing some analytical models to obtain the optimal combination of process
parameters for achieving better machining properties. Sooraj V.S. et al. [1] described the use of
elastic abrasives for generating ultra-fine finish on internal surfaces of tubular specimens and
proposed a suitable mathematical model and its validation using a systematic experimentation
procedure according to central composite design of response surface methodology(RSM).
Balasubramaniam et al. [2, 3, 8] carried out the deburring operation of cross-drilled holes,
generated an edge radius at the deburred edges with abrasive jet considering the various input
parameters viz. abrasive grain size, mixing ratio, nozzle diameter, nozzle tip distance and specimen
thickness and conducted experiments using Taguchi orthogonal array. Routara et al. [4] performed
experiments on glass work piece to optimize the process parameters viz. pressure, nozzle-tip-
distance, abrasive grain size for material removal rate and surface roughness by Taguchi orthogonal
array and grey relational analysis. Venkata Rao R. et al. [5] applied the ''teaching–learning-based
optimization (TLBO)'' algorithm for optimization of the process parameters. Wakuda M. et al.[6]
investigated the material response of alumina ceramics with three kinds of abrasive grains such as
aluminium oxide, silicon carbide and synthetic diamond for roughening, smoothing and creating
large-scale fragmentations . Surface evolved models to predict the dependence of erosion rate on jet
inclination angle during abrasive jet machining of metallic substrates like Aluminium 6061-T6 , Ti-
6Al-4V Titanium alloy and 316L stainless steel with 50 microns of Al2O3 was effectively
performed by Ally S. et al. [7]. Experimental observations of post-blasting at shallower angles for
surface roughness on borofloat 33 glass specimens with alumina abrasive were carried out by Haj
Mohammad Jafar R. et al. [9]. Abrasive water jet turning was successfully operated by Liu D. et al.
[10] for machining alumina ceramics to optimize the operating parameters on depth of penetration
and surface roughness (Ra) . El-Domiaty, A. et al. [11] discussed the validity of the developed
mathematical model for abrasive jet drilling of glass sheets with various thicknesses .The
significant improvement in erosion rate during AJM repeatability was obtained by Ghobeity A. et
al. [12] by introducing a mixing device within the pressure reservoir. Barletta M. et al.
[13,14,15,16] developed a hybrid technology to perform some experiments on internal polishing
of circular tubes, internal finishing of tubular components made from high strength aluminium
alloy (AA6082 T6) to study the surface roughness and material removal rate, and investigated on
minimum residual stress on finished inner surfaces to obtain high surface finish. Candioti et al. [18]
performed the simultaneous optimization of several responses and developed Argentinaical
methods for multiple response optimization using the desirability function. Majumdar et al.[17],
Mohanty et al. [19] used RSM to develop empirical models to perform desirability based multi-
objective particle swarm optimization (PSO) to estimate the optimal process parameters in electro
discharge machining process.

It is clear from the past works that the research area is still in a continuous developing stage for
achieving satisfactory control on AJM process parameters. The effective development of the
abrasive jet machining (AJM) needs the thorough mixing of abrasives and proper impingement on
the work piece. Hence in this paper, the fluidized bed abrasive jet machining (FB-AJM) set up
comprising of abrasive feed chamber, mixing chamber, work holding device etc. are designed to
perform experiments on borosilicate glass with a proper design of experiment (DOE) based on
7428 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437

response surface methodology (RSM). Then generation of the regression models, ANOVA and
optimization of the responses are performed by desirability based Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO).

2. Experimental set up and procedure

All the experiments are conducted on the fluidized bed abrasive jet machine (FB-AJM) set up
which is designed, fabricated and assembled as shown in Fig.1. A multi-stage air compressor of 5
kW power with working pressure of 12kgf/cm2 is used to supply high pressure air as the carrier
medium for the abrasives. The compressed air is then passed through the dehumidifier or FRL
(Filter-Regulator-Lubricator) unit to produce clean and dry air that prevents clogging of abrasives
at nozzle exit. The nozzle is made up D2 steel (high carbon and high chromium steel) material
having high wear and abrasion resistance. Pneumatic pipes are used to carry the compressed air and
abrasives to different units of FB-AJM system. An air tight machining chamber is also fabricated to
conduct the machining process so that the suspended fine abrasive particles can’t leak to the
atmosphere for polluting the surrounding.

Fig.1 Experimental Set Up

2.1 Work Piece Materials and Abrasives:

Borosilicate glass pieces of specimen size 25mm x 25mm x 4mm is used as the work-
piece material and zircon sand abrasives with sizes of 150µm, 300µm and 450µm are taken for
experimentation as shown in Fig.2. and Fig.3.showing the condition of zircon abrasives before and
after machining.
 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7429

Fig.2 Machined Work Piece Materials Fig.3 Zircon Abrasives Before and After Machining

2.2 Input process parameters and responses:

The selection of proper machining input parameters and their combinations are important
in AJM to achieve the good output responses. Therefore pressure (P), nozzle tip distance (NTD)
and grain size (Gs) are selected as input process parameters to measure material removal rate
(MRR), surface roughness (Ra), and flaring diameter (FD) as responses.

2.2.1. Measurement of material removal rate (MRR):

Here material removal rate, MRR (w) is calculated it on mass (g/min) basis using the
formula w =(w1-w2)/ t,where w1 and w2 (in mg) are the weights of the specimen before and after
machining with a time span of ∆t , measured by a weighing machine of least count (LC) 0.0001.

2.2.2. Measurement of surface roughness (Ra):

The surface roughness (Ra) of the secondary etched surface on the specimen under the
same machining conditions is measured with MITUTOYO 400 having least count of 0.001µm.,
sampling length of 0.75mm and an evaluation length of 3mm. Surface roughness of each work
piece is measured thrice at different positions and the average is taken as the final reading for better
accuracy.

2.2.3Measurement of flaring-diameter (FD):

The machined specimen is kept under the optical microscope having magnification of
10X. Then images are taken to determine the original hole diameter and flaring diameter with the
help of IMAGEJ software as in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Hole diameter and Flaring diameter

 7430 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437

2.3 Experimental Planning:

Design of Experiment (DOE) is a quality assurance technique comprising of design and

conduct of experiments with analysis of data so that best performances of the products and
processes can be obtained. Here, response surface methodology (RSM) is implemented to perform
the experiments. Generally, RSM is used to analyze problems with several variables influencing the
response and the purpose of the experiment is to optimize the response Y with model Y= f (X1, X2),
where f (X1, X2) is the response surface. The contours of the response surface indicate the line of
constant response. The exact nature of the response is unknown and the model is an attempt to
approximate it. Here, Box-Behnken Design (BBD) is used to conduct the non-sequential
experiments in a safe operating limit considering pressure (P), nozzle tip distance (NTD) and grain
size (Gs) as the input variables, each with three levels i.e. Low, Mid and High.

All the fifteen (15) number of experiments have been performed on the indigenously fabricated FB-
AJM set up at the specified input parameters to obtain the responses viz. material removal rate
(MRR or w), surface roughness (Ra) and flaring diameter (FD). Table 1. shows the input
parameters with their codes and values at different levels.

Table 1. Input parameters with their codes and values at different levels :
Sl. Input Parameter Low Level Mid-Level High Level
No. (-1) (0) (+1)
1 Pressure(P),Kg/cm2 2 3 4
2 Nozzle Tip Distance (NTD),mm 3 4.5 6
3 Grain Size(Gs),µm 150 300 450

3. Experimental Results and Discussions

The fifteen (15) number of trial experiments based on Box- Behnken RSM design matrix
are conducted on the fabricated FB-AJM set up to measure the different responses as shown in
Table 2. The input values with their three levels of process parameters and their corresponding
responses are put in the Design Expert software for analysis. Then the microscopic images of the
specimens are taken at 10X for measurement of Flaring Diameter (FD) using IMAGEJ software.

Table 2. Observation:
Specimen Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Response 1 Response Response 3
No. Pressure( Nozzle Tip C:Grain Material 2 Flaring
P) Distance (D) Size (Gs) Removal Surface Diameter
kgf/cm2 mm µm Rate(MRR) Roughness (FD) mm
gm./sec (Ra) µm
1 4 6 300 0.0321 3.04 7.773
2 3 3 150 0.01507 3.6 4.792
3 2 4.5 150 0.02072 6.28 5.806
4 2 6 300 0.0423 4.12 7.101
5 3 3 450 0.0036 2.16 5.133
6 4 3 300 0.02112 2.48 5.158
7 2 3 300 0.01512 2.64 4.902
8 3 6 150 0.0121 3.18 7.602
9 3 4.5 300 0.01513 3.54 6.209
10 3 4.5 300 0.02072 2.48 6.344
11 4 4.5 150 0.01633 2.98 5.944
12 3 4.5 300 0.02108 2.72 6.491
13 3 6 450 0.02115 2.54 7.675
14 4 4.5 450 0.01512 3.7 6.651
15 2 4.5 450 0.01105 3.12 6.161
 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7431

3.1.1. Adequacy test of responses:

The data obtained from the measured specimens are put in Design Expert 8 software and the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) is obtained to find the most significant variables affecting the
responses i.e. Material Removal Rate (w), surface roughness (Ra) and Flaring Diameter (FD) .

Regression analysis:

Regression analysis is also done for each of the responses and the following quadratic models are
developed as given in Eqn. 1,2 and 3 respectively.

MRR = 0 . 05367 − 0 . 02717 P − 6 . 06167 * 10 − 3 D + 8 . 20389 * 10 − 5 G − 2 . 7 * 10 −3

PD
−5 −5 −3 −3
+ 1 . 41 * 10 PG + 2 . 28 * 10 DG + 5 . 7542 * 10 P 2
+ 1 . 3019 * 10 D 2
− 3 . 967 * 10 − 7 G 2
(1)

R a = 12 . 9517 − 5 . 665 P + 2 . 3466 D − 0 . 0393 G − 0 . 1533 PD + 6 . 4667 * 10 − 3 PG

+ 8 . 8889 * 10 − 4 DG + 0 . 6533 P 2 − 0 . 22074 D 2 + 2 . 01481 * 10 − 5 G 2
(2)

FD = 1 . 3338 + 0 . 53 P + 0 . 6375 D + 2 . 6833 * 10 − 3 G + 0 . 06933 PD + 5 . 8667 * 10 − 4 PG

− 2 . 9778 * 10 − 4 DG − 0 . 13725 P 2 + 0 . 01011 D 2 − 3 . 1222 * 10 − 6 G 2
(3)

ANOVA for responses:

The F value obtained from ANOVA is 5.67 which implies a significant model. The p-value of
0.0353 (less than 0.0500) indicates that the terms in this model are significant. The "Lack of Fit p-
value" of 0.3071(greater than 0.0500) implies that it is not significant with respect to the pure error
and “non-significant lack of fit is good” for proper fit of the model. The F value obtained from
ANOVA for Ra is 4.82 which shows that the model is significant. The p-value of 0.0490 (< 0.0500)
implies that the terms in this model are significant. The "Lack of Fit p-value" of 0.5657 (greater
than 0.0500) indicates that it is not significant with respect to the pure error and non-significant
"Lack of Fit p-value" is good for proper fiting of the model. The F value obtained from ANOVA
for FD is 154.63 which shows that the model is significant. The negligible p-value of 0.0002
implies that the terms in this model are significant. The "Lack of Fit p-value" of 0.3951 (greater
than 0.0500) indicates that it is not significant with respect to the pure error and non-significant
"Lack of Fit p-value" is good for proper fiting of the model.
7432 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437

3.1.2. Surface Plot Analysis of Responses :

Fig.5(a) Surface Plot of MRR Fig.5(b) Surface Plot of Ra

The three different surface plots of MRR, Ra and FD are analysed with the surface variables P and
G, D and G, P and D and one of each is given in Fig.5(a), Fig.5(b) and Fig.5(c). It is observed that
MRR is more at high pressure and nozzle tip distance but it is maximum at the mid-value of grain
sizes and then decreases for higher values. Surface roughness (Ra) is minimum at mid values of
pressure, grain size and low value of nozzle tip distance. Again, from the surface plot analysis of
flaring diameter it is observed that FD is more at high pressure and nozzle tip distance but
maximum occurs at the mid-value of grain sizes and then decreased for higher values.

Fig.5( c) Surface Plot of FD

 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7433

4. Optimization using PSO with Desirability Function

Derringer and Suich developed a solutions to optimize multiple responses by developing

the desirability function which has been widely used in industry. This function is based on the idea
that the quality of a product or process that has many features is completely unacceptable if it is
outside the “desirable” limit. Its aim is to find operating conditions that compliance with the criteria
of all the responses and provide the best value of compromise in the desirable joint response. This
is achieved by converting the multiple responses into a single one, combining the individual
responses into a composite function followed by its optimization. First, an individual desirability
function di(ŷi) is created for each response ŷi(k) by using the fitted models and establishing the
optimization criteria. Desirability always takes values between 0 and 1, where di(ŷi)=0 for a
undesirable response and 1 represents a completely desirable value ( i.e. an ideal response). An
intermediate value of di(ŷi) indicates more or less desirable response. Different functions may be
built within the acceptable range of response values given by (Ui–Li), where Ui and Li are the
upper, and lower acceptable values for the given response. Thus the response to be optimized is
described by the following equation:

di(ŷi(x))=
(4)
Where, s and t are the weight factors set by the analyst to determine how important it is for ŷi to
make it closer to optimum. A choice of large or less value of s or t implies that the desirability is
very low unless the response gets very close to the target. The individual desirability functions are
then combined into a unique function known as Global Desirability (D) for finding the best joint
responses by using the following equation:

D = (d1w1. dw2. d3w3... dn wn) 1/ (5)

Where, wj is the importance of each variable relative to the others. Here it varies from 1 (for the
least important variable) to 5 (for the most important one).When D reaches a value different from
zero, all the variables which are being simultaneously optimized can be considered to have a
desirable value. When D=0,then one of the responses is completely undesirable i.e. di(ŷi)
=0.Several optimization procedures have been recently analysed, discussed and evaluated but it
should be kept in mind that the goal of an optimization procedure is to find a good set of conditions
that will meet the goal, but not to get to a D value equal to 1.This value completely depends on how
closely the Li and Ui limits are set relative to the actual optimum and on the different weights or
priorities assigned to each response.

4.1 Optimization Problem Formulation Using Desirability Function:

There are three responses which are to be optimized simultaneously using multi-objective
optimization techniques. The nature of optimization for each response is defined individually as
represented in the following table:
7434 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437

Table 3. Optimization Objective of Responses

Sl.N Response Optimization Individual Desirability Weight
o Objective Function (Yi) (wi)

1 Material Maximization d1 = 5
Removal Rate
2 Surface Minimization d2 = 5
Roughness
3 Flaring Minimization d3 = 5
Diameter

The individual desirability index (di) of each response are determined as shown in the Table3, then
each response is assigned with some weight according to its importance in the characterization of
the process in a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 implies least importance and 5 is gives the highest
importance). Here equal importance of 5 is considered for each response. Then Global Desirability
Function (DFi) is defined as:

DF = (6)
and Fitness Function, Y = (7)
To obtain the highest quality characteristics the objective is to choose an optimal setting of the FB-
AJM parameters that maximizes the desirability function (DF) or minimizes fitness function (Y).

4.2 Implementation of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO):

The logic of PSO technique is the interaction among the group members or particles to perform
optimization for the group activity where each particle informs about its time duration to complete
a work. Then the particles update their paths with that particle having the least time duration of
completing the work so that the target is achieved in minimum duration of time. Generally PSO
algorithm comprises of the following steps: (i) generating the velocity profiles for the cluster of
particles from their minimum and maximum value of the input factors, (ii) updating velocity of
each particle with respect to its position in each iteration, (iii) evaluating the fitness function value
and (iv) updating the pbest and gbest for the particles. Let Xi and Vi are the initial position and
velocity profile of the ith particle, then the initial cluster of particles are generated by using the
equations:

Xio = Xmin + rand(Xmax – Xmin) (8)

Vi0 = = (9)

Where, Xmax is the upper limit of the input factor, Xmin is the lower limit of the input factor
and Δt is the design space time. The value of the fitness function with the help of generated
particles is used to evaluate the next iteration i.e. the personal best pbest and the global best gbest.
The velocity profile of the particles is given by the equations.

vi (t +1) = w vi (t) + c1rand c2rand (10)

+
Velocity of particle (Current (Particle memory (Swarm influence)
I at time t+1 motion) influence)
 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7435

Xi(t+1) = Xi(t) + Vi(t+1) (11)

and, w(i) = (12)

Where, wmax and wmin are the first and last values of the inertia weight respectively and imax is the
maximum number of iterations used in PSO. Commonly wmax and wmin are taken as 0.9 and 0.4
respectively. Then, pbest and gbest are compared with the particles values at each iteration by
updating the velocity profile and at the end of iterations, the minimal value is selected according to
the desirability function ,and the corresponding input factors as the optimal conditions. Finally,
multi-objective desirability based Particle Swarm Optimization code is developed and run in
MATLAB interface. Here, the initial swarm size is set at 50 with maximum number of iteration of
200. The constants C1 and C2 are taken as 2 with initial inertia weight of 0.4. The iteration is
carried out and the predicted output is given in Table 4.

Table 4. Deviation of the predicted optimal and experimental response values

Type of Process Parameters Response values
Model 2
P (kgf/cm ) NTD (mm) GS (µm) MRR (g/min.) Ra FD (mm)
(µm)
Predicted 4 6 150 0.03645 2.8519 6.8459
Experiment 4 6 150 0.03389 2.6794 6.3667
l
Error % 7 6 7

Fig.6 Graph between Desirability function value vs. Number of iterations

It is clear from Fig.6 that the optimal condition is obtained in lesser number of iterations by
applying desirability based particle swarm optimization method. An experiment is carried out as
per the predicted conditions to validate the predicted responses at optimal experimental conditions.
The deviations among the predicted optimal response values and experimental response values are
shown in Table 4 and it is seen that the error obtained between these two is very less; hence the
optimality of the machining condition can be validated.
7436 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437

4.3. SEM micrograph analysis:

The SEM micrograph analysis of the machined surfaces are performed (one of them is given in
Fig.7) where some craters are visualized just outside the region of erosion to indicate that the
erodent particles have make some loss beyond the limited area so that over cut and flaring diameter
are obviously obtained in AJM. It is also seen that some erodent particles are embedded on the
machined surface of glass and the appearance of white marks shows the direct plastic deformation
of material, and the crack starts at an angle of 450 due to which the materials come out at an angle
of 450 from all the grooves.

Fig.7 Formation of craters and plastic deformations in glass

5. Conclusions

The following outcomes can be drawn from the above experimental analysis:
(i) Better material removal rate (MRR) is achieved at parametric combinations of high pressure,
nozzle tip distance and the mid-value of grain sizes. Surface roughness (Ra) is minimum at mid
values of pressure, grain size and low value of nozzle tip distance. Flaring diameter is more at high
pressure, nozzle tip distance and mid-value of grain sizes.
(ii) The predicted optimal combination of parameter setting are pressure of 4 kgf/cm2, stand-off
distance of 6 mm and grain size of 150µm for achieving the optimal output i.e. MRR of
0.03645gm/sec, surface roughness having 2.8519µm and flaring diameter of 6.8459 mm.
(iii) Experiment is performed at predicted optimal conditions to validate the optimality of the model
and the measured experimental responses values obtained are MRR of 0.03389 gm/sec, Ra of
2.6794µm and flaring diameter of 6.3667mm. The percentage of errors between the predicted
models and experimental validated models are very less and within the specified range.

The present research work of FB-AJM on rectangular work piece of borosilicate glass
material will be useful for the modern engineering industries those are working in the field of
machining and fabrication of glass, ceramic and other precious brittle materials.
 B.K.Nanda/Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 7426–7437 7437

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the authority of KIIT, University and VSSUT, Burla for
providing all the assistances to carry out the research work inside their Non-Traditional Machining
Laboratories.

References

[1].V.S. Sooraj, V. Radhakrishnan. Int. J. Mach. Tools and Manuf.78 (2014)30-40.

[2]. R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, and N. Ramakrishnan. J. Mater. Proce. Tech. 91(1999) 178-182.
[3]. R.Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, and N. Ramakrishnan. J. Mater. Proce. Tech. 79, no. 1 (1998): 52-58.
[4]. B. C. Routara, B. K. Nanda, Ashok Kumar Sahoo, D. N. Thatoi, and B. B. Nayak. Int. J. of Manu. Tech. and Mgmt. 24,
no. 1-4 (2011): 4-22.
[5]. R. Venkata Rao, and V. D. Kalyankar. Engg. Appln. Arti. Inte. 26, no. 1 (2013): 524-531.
[6]. W.Manabu, Y. Yukihiko, and K. Shuzo. J. Mater. Proce. Tech. 157 (2003): 177-183.
[7]. S. Ally, J. K. Spelt, and M. Papini. wear 292 (2012): 89-99.
[8]. R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, and N. Ramakrishnan J. of Mater. Proces. Tech. 99, no. 1 (2000): 49-53.
[9]. R. Jafar, Haj Mohammad, J. K. Spelt, and M. Papini. Wear 303, no. 1 (2013): 138-145.
[10]. Liu, Dun, Chuanzhen Huang, Jun Wang, Hongtao Zhu, Peng Yao, and ZengWen Liu. Ceramics Int. 40, no. 6 (2014):
7899-7908.
[11].A. El-Domiaty, H M Abd El-Hafez, and M. A. Shaker.World Aca. Sci., Engg.Techn. 56 (2009).
[12]. A Ghobeity, H. Getu, T. Krajac, J. K. Spelt, and M. Papini. J. of Mater. Processing Technology 190, no. 1 (2007): 51-
60.
[13]. M. Barletta, J.Mater. Proce. Tech.173.2 (2006): 157-165.
[14]. M Barletta, D. Ceccarelli, S. Guarino, and V. Tagliaferri J. Manufac. Sci. and Engineering129, no. 6 (2007): 1045-
1059.
[15]. M. Barletta J. Manufac. Sci Engg. 135.1 (2013): 011003.
[16]. Massimiliano Barletta, Surface Coatings Tech. 203.5 (2008): 855-861.
[17]. Majumder, Arindam, Pankaj Kumar Das, Abhishek Majumder, and Moutushee Debnath. Prod. Manufac. Research 2,
no. 1 (2014): 228-240.
[18] Candioti, Luciana Vera, Maria M., De Zan, Maria S. Camara, and Hector C. Goicoechea. Talanta 124 (2014): 123-138.
[19]. Chinmaya Mohanty, Siba Sankar Mahapatra, and Manas Ranjan Singh J. Inte. Manufac. (2014): 1-20.
[20]. Amitabha Ghosh and Ashok Kumar Mallik., Manufac. Sci. Second Edition, 2010, Affiliated East West Press.
[21]. V.K.Jain, Intro. to Micro-Mach., 2010, Narosa Publication.
[22]. Douglas C. Montgomery, Design and Ana. of Expt.: International Student Version, 2013, Willey Publication.