See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261759841

Evaluation of 3- and 5-axis sculptured surface machining in CAM

environment through design of experiments

Article  in  International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · February 2014

DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2013.875627

CITATIONS READS

5 143

4 authors:

N.A. Fountas Nikolaos M. Vaxevanidis

School of Pedagogical & Technological Education (ASPETE) School of Pedagogical & Technological Education
64 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS    165 PUBLICATIONS   1,349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Constantinos I Stergiou Redha Benhadj

University of West Attica Kingston University London
64 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Research Project View project

Additive Manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Redha Benhadj on 09 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [2.25.214.187]
On: 23 April 2014, At: 05:18
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Computer Integrated

Manufacturing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

Evaluation of 3- and 5-axis sculptured surface

machining in CAM environment through design of
experiments
ac a b c
N. Fountas , N. Vaxevanidis , C. Stergiou & R. Benhadj-Djilali
a
Laboratory of Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tools (LMProMaT), Department
of Mechanical Engineering Educators, School of Pedagogical & Technological Education
(ASPETE), Athens, Greece
b
Technological Institute of Piraeus (TEI), Athens, Greece
c
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, London, UK
Published online: 13 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: N. Fountas, N. Vaxevanidis, C. Stergiou & R. Benhadj-Djilali (2014): Evaluation of 3- and 5-axis
sculptured surface machining in CAM environment through design of experiments, International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2013.875627

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2013.875627

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2013.875627

Evaluation of 3- and 5-axis sculptured surface machining in CAM environment through design
of experiments
N. Fountasa,c, N. Vaxevanidisa*, C. Stergioub and R. Benhadj-Djilalic
a
Laboratory of Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tools (LMProMaT), Department of Mechanical Engineering Educators, School of
Pedagogical & Technological Education (ASPETE), Athens, Greece; bTechnological Institute of Piraeus (TEI), Athens, Greece; cFaculty
of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, London, UK
(Received 23 January 2013; accepted 28 October 2013)

Sculptured surface machining (SSM) is an operation widely applied to several industrial fields such as aerospace,
automotive and mould/die. The number of the parameters and strategies involved to program such machining operations
can be enormously large owing to surface complexity and advanced design features. This study focuses on the examination
of machining strategies and related parameters for the assessment of roughing and finishing stages. A fractional factorial
design implementing an L27 Taguchi orthogonal array (OA) was established to conduct machining experiments with the use
of a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software. Fractional factorial design specifics involve the statistical elimination
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

of unimportant parameters, thus reducing experimental runs without the loss of useful information. Two scenarios were
considered to machine a sculptured part; one involving 3-axis roughing/3-axis finish machining experiments and the other
one involving 3-axis roughing/5-axis finish machining experiments. Roughing operation was common for both scenarios.
The problem was subjected to discrete technological constraints to reflect the actual industrial status. For each machining
phase, two quality objectives reflecting productivity and part quality were determined. Roughing experiments were tested to
minimise machining time and remaining volume, whilst finishing experiments were subjected to minimise machining time
and surface deviation between the designed and the machined 3D model. Quality characteristics were properly weighted to
formulate a single objective criterion for both machining phases. Results indicated that DOE applied to CAM software,
enables NC programmers to have a clear understanding about the influence of process parameters for SSM operations, thus
generating efficient toolpaths to improve productivity, part quality and process efficiency. Practically the work contributes to
machining improvement by through the proposition of machining experimentation methods using safe and useful platforms
such as CAM systems; the investigation of approaches to avoid problem oversimplification mainly when large number of
machining parameters should be exploited and the evaluation of quality criteria which allow their assessment directly form
CAM software.
Keywords: CAM systems; design of experiments (DOE); machining parameters; sculptured surface machining

1. Introduction Obviously, such quality objectives are referred to the

The intent of optimising machining operations has become
a wide research issue for both academia and industry. Up
to now, numerous studies can be found in the literature
concerning optimisation methodologies applied to
machining. Common quality objectives for judging optim-
ality may be the machining time, the material removal rate
(MRR), surface roughness, tool wear, cutting force and
manufacturing cost. Usually, quality objectives are treated
simultaneously leading thus to more perplexing problems
due to the contradictory nature when trying to optimise
them as a combination. In the particular field of sculptured
surface machining (SSM) (Choi and Jerard 1998), various
quality objectives have been used as optimisation targets.
Most common quality objectives found in the literature
regarding the concept of optimising SSM are cutting force
reduction (Lamikiz et al. 2005) machining cycle time
improvement, minimisation of production cost and high-
part quality achievement (El-Hossainy et al. 2010).
machining phase from which different optimisation cri-
teria are established. In this context, one can certainly
distinguish between rough (Li, Dong, and Vickers 1994)
and finish machining processes (Wu and Liu 1991).
Quality objectives are optimised by studying the attributes
that affect them. Such attributes involve cutting para-
meters/conditions like feed rate, spindle speed, axial and
radial depth of cut (El-Mounayri, Kishawy, and Tandon
2002) machining strategies (Msaddek et al. 2012), the
milling technology applied (i.e. 3- or 5-axis machining)
(Baptista and Simões 2000) and cutting tools (Bouaziz and
Zghal 2008).
Quality objectives and related parameters which
influence them may be differently optimised, regarding
the methodology used. Some of the optimisation meth-
odologies depend on the principles of artificial intelli-
gence (AI), like genetic and evolutionary algorithms
(GAs–EAs) (Bevilacqua et al. 2012). GAs and EAs

*Corresponding author. Email: vaxev@aspete.gr

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 N. Fountas et al.
have been used as stochastic mechanisms to trace opti-
mum solutions among populations (candidate solutions),
regarding quality targets that ensure productivity, quality
and cost. Simulated annealing (SA) (Li and McMahon
2007) is another optimisation approach that has been
applied to handle machining problems. Fuzzy logic has
also been implemented as an optimisation technique
(Achanga et al. 2012). Apart from AI techniques adopted
to optimise SSM, others may implemented as ‘near-opti-
misation’ methodologies to seek for (near-) optimal
results for parameters that affect quality objectives. A
popular methodology that may facilitate such an effort
is design of experiments (DOE) (Montgomery 2001).
Numerous studies have already used this methodology
to investigate the influence of manufacturing parameters
regarding the quality objectives. Common parameters
usually considered for optimisation are cutting speed,
feed rate and depth of cut. Optimisation of these para-
meters refers to machining time minimisation while
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014
simultaneously considering constraints like cutting
forces, tool wear, etc. Khandey (2008) investigated the
optimum process environment that satisfies both quality
and productivity with emphasis on cutting tool flank
wear reduction in turning. Moshat et al. (2010) investi-
gated the influence of main cutting parameters (feed rate,
spindle speed and cutting depth), aiming at predicting the
optimal combination which maintains high MRR while
providing good surface finish in an end milling opera-
tion. Senthilkumaar, Selvarani, and Arunachalam (2010)
utilised DOE technique to perform turning and facing
experiments with Inconel 718 as a work material. The
goal was to select a combination among process para-
meters through the analysis of surface roughness and tool
wear. Kyratsis et al. (2011) determined thrust force in
drilling by conducting machining simulations using a
CAD environment. Their work was based on DOEs.
2. DOEs for SSM in CAM software
Machining optimisation raises the necessity of the full
exploitation of parameters involved. Taguchi’s Design
DOE methodology was implemented to design machin-
ing experiments in CAM software for a test-sculptured
geometry. The major goal was to identify the most
efficient machining program in terms of process produc-
tivity and resulting part quality. For this scope, two sets
of experimental programming scenarios were estab-
lished. The first set involves roughing experiments
assessed by an equally weighted combination among
two quality objectives specified: remained volume
(mm3) and rough-machining time (min). The second
machining set involves finishing experiments based on
3- and 5-axis milling technology and subjected again to
an equally weighted combination among quality objec-
tives namely surface deviation (mm) and finish
machining time (min). Hence, optimum numerical con-
trol (NC) machining programs for the two scenarios
were obtained by coupling each of the best finishing
operations (3- and 5-axis) to the optimum rouging sce-
nario. The purpose of generating NC machining pro-
grams is to perform entire simulations in CAM
software, thus to test roughing and finishing phases in
a common NC machining program. Technological con-
straints were also taken into account so that the problem
can be practically viable and reflect actual industrial
state.
2.1. Identification of machining strategies, parameters
and quality objectives
Sweeping strategies were adopted to model both rough-
ing and finishing processes. During roughing, sweeping
strategies maintain the material’s uniformity so as to
approach the final shape. Sweeping involves machining
by vertical planes, whilst in each vertical plane addi-
tional toolpaths which remove the scallops formulated
by the axial levels are also incorporated. In the case of
finishing operations, sweeping strategies follow the
sculptured part’s curvature to produce a finished surface
according to dimensional specifications and predeter-
mined tolerances.
2.1.1. Sweeping machining strategy for roughing and
related process parameters
To prepare the roughing process for machining experi-
ments, three different toolpath types under sweeping strat-
egy were identified and are explained as follows:
(1) Z-offset: roughing process is achieved by applying
peripheral milling on a sculptured part’s regions,
generated by offsetting the original roughing
‘slice’ (Figure 1(a)).
(2) Z-plane: the part is machined plane-by-plane.
The planes are perpendicular to the tool axis
(Z-axis). The respective toolpath type performs
linear sinuous movements in the X–Y plane
(Figure 1(b)).
(3) Z-progressive: the part is machined by interpolat-
ing the toolpath between the part and the top of a
theoretical rough stock (Figure 1(c)).
The parameters related to sweep roughing strategy are as
follows:
● Radial cutting depth (Stepover): the distance joining
two successive passes in X–Y plane. The parameter
can be adjusted by determining the total number of
paths, specifying a cutting depth ratio related to the
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 3
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 1. Toolpath types for sweep roughing operation. (a) Z-offset, (b) Z-plane, (c) Z-progressive.

tool’s diameter (% Ø), or by defining the maximum
scallop height to be left between passes.
● Axial cutting depth (Stepdown): the distance joining
two successive passes in the Z-level. This parameter
can be adjusted by determining the number of levels
in Z-direction, considering the total depth of cut, or
by calculating cutting passes through the tool height
ratio, or by assigning specific arithmetic values for
the cutting passes.
● Feeds and speeds: feedrate in (mm/rev) and spindle
speed in (rpm). The choice of spindle speed deter-
mines the cutting speed which is equivalent to the
surface speed of the cutting tool. This depends not
only on the spindle speed but also on the cutter
diameter (the higher the spindle speed and the larger
the cutter diameter, the higher the cutting speed).
Feed is the movement of the milling cutter in the
machining direction.
 4 N. Fountas et al.
● Cutting tool: different types of cutting tools are
existed regarding their dimensional and geometrical
configurations. The tools are selected according the
part’s material properties and special features. In the
particular case of roughing operations, flat-end mills
are usually programmed to remove the material
from the raw stock.
2.1.2. Sweeping strategy for finishing and related
process parameters
Sculptured parts are machined on 3-, or 5-axis machine
tools. Should 3-axis machining technology is applied for
finishing operations, ball-end cutters are used, whilst ball-
end, corner radius, or flat-end mills may be selected if 5-
axis machining technology is selected. The machining
strategies and their process parameters are presented in
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014
Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 for the 3-axis milling mode
and the 5-axis milling mode for finishing.
2.1.2.1. 3-Axis finishing. Toolpath strategies selected for
3-axis finishing are as follows:
(1) Zigzag: the toolpath alternates directions during
successive passes (Figure 2(a)).
(2) One-way next: this strategy produces a toolpath
that always follows the same direction during
successive passes and moves diagonally from the
end of a pass to the beginning of the next one
(Figure 2(b)).
Figure 2. Toolpath strategies for finishing operation. (a) Zigzag; (b) one-way next; (c) one-way same.
(3) One-way same: the toolpath always has the same
direction during successive passes and returns to
the first point in each pass before moving on to the
first point in the next pass (Figure 2(c)).
The machining parameters related to the aforementioned
toolpath strategies are as follows:
● Radial cutting depth (stepover): the distance joining
two successive passes in X–Y plane. Similar to
roughing, stepover may be adjusted by determining
the total number of paths, specifying a cutting depth
ratio related to the tool’s diameter (% Ø), or by
defining the maximum scallop height to be left
between passes.
● Feed rate (mm/rev) and spindle speed (rpm) as
described above.
● Cutting tool: in 3-axis finishing, the tool axis is
fixed; thus, possible degrees of freedom are
restricted. Since these limitations are existed, tools
having spherical geometries (ball-end mills) are
used to finish sculptured parts due to their advan-
tage of moving over all surface regions and machin-
ing any point around the curvature.
● Feed direction: the direction the tool follows to cut
the material regarding its feed (see Figure 3).
2.1.2.2. 5-Axis finishing. In 5-axis finishing, the strategy
of tool axis orientation is determined regarding the geo-
metrical features of the tool and the part to be machined.
The tool can be rotated by an angle between its vertical
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 5
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 3. Tested feed directions for finishing. (a) 0°; (b) 45°; and (c) 90°.

axis and the surface (lead angle). This angle is maintained radius. Issues regarding proper tool orientation to prevent
by the tool along the milling direction. In addition, the tool collisions were also taken into account.
can be rotated by a side angle between its vertical axis and
the surface (tilt angle). These angles can be constantly or
variably adjusted to ensure that the tool’s non-cutting tip 2.1.3. Quality objectives and objective function
does not contact the surface. Lead and tilt angles are formulation
computed for each point regarding the normal vector of Three quality objectives were identified to formulate the
the sculptured surface. Toolpath types are in such a way problem’s response and are as follows:
designed to avoid collisions between the tool’s rear side
and machined part. The values of these parameters were (1) Machining time: the time needed to remove the
not considered as an optimisation issue at least for the time material from a part. Its magnitude is automati-
being; these were determined according the literature and cally calculated on computer numerical control
industrial considerations. The toolpath types applied to (CNC) machine controls and CAM systems after
model 5-axis finishing operations for the experiments are the toolpath calculation. Through its calculus, it is
as follows: easy to observe where productivity is decelerated
and how it can be improved.
(1) Fixed lead and tilt angle mode: two constant values
were specified for these angles (Figure 4(a));
(2) Fixed lead and variable tilt milling mode: a value
range for ‘tilt’ angle and a constant value for
‘lead’ angle were determined (Figure 4(b));
(3) Variable lead and fixed tilt milling mode: a value
range for ‘lead’ angle and a constant value for
‘tilt’ angle were determined (Figure 4(c)).

As for the machining parameters, same determinations to

those of 3-axis finishing were applied (speeds and feeds,
feed direction and stepover). Five-axis machining allows
more freedom degrees than 3-axis, hence all types in terms
of tool geometries can be used. To assess the different types
of end mills based on geometrical configurations, three Ø8
end mills were tested: a flat-end, a ball-end and a corner-
Figure 4. The three alternative machining strategies determine
to finish machine the part using the 5-axis finishing UMO. (a)
Fixed lead and tilt; (b) fixed lead and variable tilt; (c) variable
lead and fixed tilt.
 6 N. Fountas et al.
(2) Remaining volume on the model after roughing:
the uncut material of a roughed or semi-finished
part that remains to be removed by applying fin-
ishing. Lower remaining volume amount leads to
quicker finishing operations, lower chip loads and
cutting forces, thus drastically reducing overall
machining time while maintaining high part
quality.
(3) Surface deviation: the maximum allowed devia-
tion from the mean area. Mean area is computed
using Equation (1) as follows:
For roughing operation
QCðRV ; trm ; w1 ; w2 Þ ¼ w1  RV þ w2  tm (2)
where QC: the combination of the measured objectives;
RV: the remained volume (normalised); trm, the normalised
rough-machining time; w1,w2: the weight coefficients of
the above criteria (w1 = 50% for remained volume and w2
= 50% for rough-machining time).
For 3- and 5-axis finishing operations
QCðSD; t3fm ; w3 ; w4 Þ ¼ w3  SD þ w4  tfm (3)
 
AFINISHED  A

SD ¼   (1) where QC: the combination of the measured objectives;
A  SD: the surface deviation (normalised); tfm: the normalised
finish machining time; w3, w4: the weight coefficients of
where SD: the surface deviation in (mm); AFINISHED: the the above criteria (w3 = 50% for surface deviation and w4
area of the finished model’s surface; A: the mean = 50% for finish machining time).
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

area; A ¼ AFINISHED þA
2
DESIGNED
: Equations (2) and (3) actually transform multi-objec-
The objective functions were formulated as follows: tive optimisation into a single-objective one to facilitate

Figure 5. Machining set-up preparation in CAM software. (a) Test-sculptured part; (b) part set-up; (c) machine set-up simulation.

Table 1. Experimental design of rough and finish machining operations.

a/a Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Roughing
1 Machining strategy “Z-offset” “Z-plane” “Z-progressive”
2 Tool diameter (mm) 8 10 12
3 Spindle speed (rpm) 1800 2200 2600
4 Feed rate (mm/min) 300 450 600
5 Stepdown - ap (%Ø) 20 35 50
6 Stepover - ae (%Ø) 35 37.5 40
3-axis finishing
1 Feed direction (°) 0° 45° 90°
2 Machining strategy “Zig-zag” “1-way next” “1-way same”
3 Tool diameter (Ømm) 6 7 8
4 Spindle speed (rpm) 2800 3400 4000
5 Feed rate (mm/min) 150 220 290
6 Stepover - ae (%Ø) 5.625 8.125 10.625
5-axis finishing
1 Feed direction (°) 0° 45° 90°
2 Machining strategy “Fixed L&T” “VL&FT” “FL&VT”
3 Tool type Ball-end Flat-end Corner radius
4 Spindle speed (rpm) 2800 3400 4000
5 Feed rate (mm/min) 150 220 290
6 Stepover - ae (%Ø) 5.625 8.125 10.625
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 7
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 6. Machining simulations in CAM software. (a) Roughing process; and (b) finishing process.

Table 2. Rough machining results for machining time (min) and remained volume (mm3).

Machining Tool Spindle Feed rate Stepdown Stepover Machining Remained

No strategy diameter (Ø) speed (rpm) (mm/min) (% Ø = mm) (% Ø = m) time (min) volume (mm3)

1 Z-offset 8 1800 300 20 35 455 61,941.792

2 Z-offset 8 2200 450 35 37.5 166.23 63,161.373
3 Z-offset 8 2600 600 50 40 76.35 64,501.283
4 Z-offset 10 1800 450 35 40 98.55 69,966.775
5 Z-offset 10 2200 600 50 35 57.53 66,447.247
6 Z-offset 10 2600 300 20 37.5 254.2 68,213.631
7 Z-offset 12 1800 600 50% 37.5 50.18 73,376.137
8 Z-offset 12 2200 300 20 40 189.33 75,966.469
9 Z-offset 12 2600 450 35 35 92.6 71,028.856
10 Z-plane 8 1800 450 50 37.5 141.06 63,200.537
11 Z-plane 8 2200 600 20 40 199.06 64,603.863
12 Z-plane 8 2600 300 35 35 288.25 61,992.238
13 Z-plane 10 1800 600 20 35 153.01 66,569.789
14 Z-plane 10 2200 300 35 37.5 185.43 68,329.643
15 Z-plane 10 2600 450 50 40 87.22 70,030.827
16 Z-plane 12 1800 300 35 40 125.43 76,171.811
17 Z-plane 12 2200 450 50 35 73.43 71,077.830
18 Z-plane 12 2600 600 20 37.5 102.33 73,564.057
19 Z-progressive 8 1800 600 35 40 568.23 64,488.924
20 Z-progressive 8 2200 300 50 35 895.38 61,927.185
21 Z-progressive 8 2600 450 20 37.5 1440.31 63,137.108
22 Z-progressive 10 1800 300 50 37.5 550.05 68,200.859
23 Z-progressive 10 2200 450 20 40 851.9 69,922.149
24 Z-progressive 10 2600 600 35 35 423.06 66,416.966
25 Z-progressive 12 1800 450 20 35 687.3 71,015.700
26 Z-progressive 12 2200 600 35 37.5 287.03 73,336.818
27 Z-progressive 12 2600 300 50 40 380.15 75,936.300
 8 N. Fountas et al.

Table 3. 3-Axis finish machining results for machining time (min) and surface deviation (mm) based on optimum roughing as the first
process.

Machining Tool Spindle Feed rate Feed Stepover Machining Surface

No strategy diameter (Ø) speed (rpm) (mm/min) direction (°) (% Ø = mm) time (min) deviation (mm)

1 Zigzag 6 2800 150 0 5.625% Ø 729.32 0.00065

2 Zigzag 6 3400 220 45 8.125% Ø 374.38 0.00044
3 Zigzag 6 4000 290 90 10.625% Ø 233.18 0.00036
4 Zigzag 7 2800 220 45 10.625% Ø 247.25 0.00045
5 Zigzag 7 3400 290 90 5.625%Ø 375.21 0.00036
6 Zigzag 7 4000 150 0 8.125%Ø 435.01 0.00069
7 Zigzag 8 2800 290 90 8.125%Ø 228.23 0.00040
8 Zigzag 8 3400 150 0 10.625%Ø 293.13 0.00076
9 Zigzag 8 4000 220 45 5.625%Ø 409.13 0.00035
10 One-Way Next 6 2800 220 90 8.125%Ø 397.25 0.00042
11 One-Way Next 6 3400 290 0 10.625%Ø 199.4 0.00087
12 One-Way Next 6 4000 150 45 5.625%Ø 792.4 0.00040
13 One-Way Next 7 2800 290 0 5.625%Ø 325.23 0.00062
14 One-Way Next 7 3400 150 45 8.125%Ø 472.31 0.00044
15 One-Way Next 7 4000 220 90 10.625%Ø 262.13 0.00050
16 One-Way Next 8 2800 150 45 10.625%Ø 317.36 0.00052
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

17 One-Way Next 8 3400 220 90 5.625%Ø 434.26 0.00035

18 One-Way Next 8 4000 290 0 8.125%Ø 198.16 0.00069
19 One-Way Same 6 2800 290 45 10.625%Ø 217.33 0.00055
20 One-Way Same 6 3400 150 90 5.625%Ø 842.5 0.00038
21 One-Way Same 6 4000 220 0 8.125%Ø 343.5 0.00075
22 One-Way Same 7 2800 150 90 8.125%Ø 502.11 0.00039
23 One-Way Same 7 3400 220 0 10.625%Ø 227.26 0.00078
24 One-Way Same 7 4000 290 45 5.625%Ø 353.23 0.00036
25 One-Way Same 8 2800 220 0 5.625%Ø 376.28 0.00062
26 One-Way Same 8 3400 290 45 8.125%Ø 215.04 0.00041
27 One-Way Same 8 4000 150 90 10.625%Ø 337.5 0.00040

computations and simplify the problem’s perplexity. It is
essential to say that weight coefficients define the
importance of quality objectives and are specified
regarding industrial demands. Note that regardless of
their settings, weight coefficients should always be
appeared in mathematical relations as they play a vital
role when transforming multi-objective problems to sin-
gle-objective ones. Equality (w1 = w2 and w3 = w4) was
selected in order to have a more ‘pure’ and clear char-
acter about quality objectives, while in practice their
importance differs. Since quality objectives are of dif-
ferent magnitudes, an inherent bias may appear owing
to objective values’ order and results can be quite dis-
orienting to the problem’s response. Thereby, given that
the volume is in mm3, machining time in min and
surface deviation in mm, a proper normalisation of the
results was conducted.
2.1.4. Technological constraints
In order to select proper and meaningful machining
parameter ranges, the configurations and properties of
the CNC machine tool were taken into account as tech-
nological constraints. To give an example, a specific
CNC machine tool selected to simulate the experiments
in the CAM environment, having the following
configurations:
● Maximum available motor power: P = 18 kW
● Maximum available spindle speed: n = 10,000 rpm
● Maximum available feed rate velocity: Vf = 4000
mm/min (40 m/min)
● Machine tool rapid traverses: Vr = 4000 mm/min
The power demand was used as the major constraint and is
defined via Equation (4):
ap  ae  v f
Pc ¼  kc ; (4)
60  106  η
where Pc: the demanded cutting power from the machine
tool in kW; ap: cutting depth (in mm); ae: radial cutting
depth (in mm); vf : cutting speed (m/min); η: spindle motor
efficiency; kc: cutting force/mm2 depending on the mate-
rial type.
As a matter of fact, every experimental run formulated
according to L27 was tested whether or not Equation (4)
was satisfied. The testing was referred mainly to the
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 9

Table 4. 5-Axis finish machining results for machining time (min) and surface deviation (mm) based on optimum roughing as the first
process.

Spindle Feed rate Feed Stepover Machining Surface

No Machining strategy Tool type speed (rpm) (mm/min) direction (°) (% Ø = mm) time (min) deviation (mm)

1 Fixed lead and tilt Ball-End 2800 150 0 5.625 619 0.00084
2 Fixed lead and tilt Ball-End 3400 220 45 8.125 348.45 0.00039
3 Fixed lead and tilt Ball-End 4000 290 90 10.625 327.7 0.00077
4 Fixed lead and Tilt Flat-End 2800 220 45 10.625 270.08 0.00043
5 Fixed lead and Tilt Flat-End 3400 290 90 5.625 330.8 0.00021
6 Fixed lead and tilt Flat-End 4000 150 0 8.125 430.26 0.00091
7 Fixed lead and tilt Radius 2800 290 90 8.125 226.13 0.00040
8 Fixed lead and tilt Radius 3400 150 0 10.625 328.28 0.00019
9 Fixed lead and tilt Radius 4000 220 45 5.625 507.31 0.00040
10 Var. lead and fix. tilt Ball-End 2800 220 90 8.125 320.16 0.00015
11 Var. lead and fix. tilt Ball-End 3400 290 0 10.625 230.11 0.00066
12 Var. lead and fix. tilt Ball-End 4000 150 45 5.625 738.16 0.00087
13 Var. lead and fix. tilt Flat-End 2800 290 0 5.625 324.48 0.00085
14 Var. lead and fix. tilt Flat-End 3400 150 45 8.125 517.18 0.00036
15 Var. lead and fix. tilt Flat-End 4000 220 90 10.625 230.11 0.00031
16 Var. lead and fix. tilt Radius 2800 150 45 10.625 333.56 0.00031
Var. lead and fix. tilt
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

17 Radius 3400 220 90 5.625 430.26 0.00058

18 Var. lead and fix. tilt Radius 4000 290 0 8.125 222.55 0.00039
19 Fix. lead and var. tilt Ball-End 2800 290 45 10.625 202.05 0.00097
20 Fix. lead and var. tilt Ball-End 3400 150 90 5.625 295.26 0.00018
21 Fix. lead and var. tilt Ball-End 4000 220 0 8.125 293.35 0.00017
22 Fix. lead and var. tilt Flat-End 2800 150 90 8.125 447.3 0.00036
23 Fix. lead and var. tilt Flat-End 3400 220 0 10.625 223.56 0.00104
24 Fix. lead and var. tilt Flat-End 4000 290 45 5.625 386.41 0.00132
25 Fix. lead and var. tilt Radius 2800 220 0 5.625 422.03 0.00030
26 Fix. lead and var. tilt Radius 3400 290 45 8.125 266.3 0.00013
27 Fix. lead and var. Tilt Radius 4000 150 90 10.625 344.26 0.00023

selections of ap, ae and vf since the rest of parameters are
taken from machine tool specifications.
3. Experimental conduction
3.1. Machining set-up preparation with CAM software
A machining set-up for a test-sculptured part was pre-
pared in CAM software. Figure 5 illustrates the stages
involved to the initial part set-up and its machining
processes.
3.2. Experimental design – DOE
Taguchi’s DOE approach was implemented in this paper.
‘Fractional factorial’ approach was adopted to design the
machining experiments since this approach investigates
only the fraction that combines all possible repetitions
without losing important information. The machining
parameters involved to machining operations were
assigned to an L27 OA. The factors and factor levels for
roughing, 3-axis finishing and 5-axis finishing are illu-
strated in Table 1.
3.3. Machining simulation and experimental data
collection
3.3.1. Roughing and finishing experiments
Roughing and finishing experiments were performed in
CAM software. The results obtained were then utilised to
compute the combinatorial objective function by applying
the formulas presented above (Equations (2) and (3)).
Typical machining simulations for roughing (Figure 6(a))
and finishing operations (Figure 6(b)) are illustrated below.
3.3.2. Experimental results
The results obtained after the machining simulations are
presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4 for roughing, 3-axis finish-
ing and 5-axis finishing, respectively.
3.3.3. Experimental analysis of results for machining
experiments
3.3.3.1. Roughing operation. Analysis for roughing
operation indicated that unlike Z-progressive strategy
which is time-consuming in its attempt to maintain volume
uniformity, Z-offset and Z-plane strategies produce
 10 N. Fountas et al.
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 7. Results analysis for roughing. (a) Machining time; (b) remained volume and (c) both quality objectives.

toolpaths that tend to shorten cycle times. As for the
remaining volume, the rest of the parameters are responsi-
ble for its variations. However, variations concerning
remaining volume are quite uniform for all three machining
strategies. Figure 7(a) illustrates the variations of rough-
machining time which rough-machining experiments
yielded. Figure 7(b) illustrates the variations of remained
volume which rough-machining experiments yielded,
whilst Figure 7(c) depicts the efficiency of these experi-
ments to both quality objectives. The closest are the dots in
the diagram’s axes origin, the greater the efficiency is. More
detailed analysis is given from further statistical analysis
followed.
3.3.3.2. 3-Axis finishing operation. Analysis for 3-axis
finishing operation indicated that those machining experi-
ments having the lowest feed rate levels resulted in longer
machining times than the rest of the experiments (Figure 8
(a)). A first assumption is that feedrate is the dominant
parameter affecting machining time. Resulting values for
surface deviation tend to follow a uniform distribution;
however, reduction of this objective is appeared to some
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 11
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 8. Results analysis for 3-axis finishing. (a) Machining time; (b) surface deviation and (c) both quality objectives.

experimental runs (Figure 8(b)). Figure 8(c) depicts the
efficiency of 3-axis finishing experiments to both quality
objectives. Most of the experimental runs tend to approach
the axes origin, indicating hence a good efficiency.
3.3.3.3. 5-Axis finishing operation. Analysis for 5-axis
finishing operation indicated that variations of machining
time are as uniform as those observed to 3-axis finishing
experiments with the difference that lower values were
reached (Figure 9(a)). Resulting values for surface deviation
do not produce a distribution as uniform as the one noticed in
3-axis finishing experiments (Figure 9(b)), yet achieving finer
surface finish (lower surface deviation). Figure 9(c) depicts
the efficiency of 5-axis finishing experiments to both quality
objectives. It is clearly observed that the solution range occurs
more beneficial than the one obtained from 3-axis finishing
since more solutions tend to cluster to the axes origin.
3.3.4. Statistical analysis of results for machining
experiments
Further statistical analysis was conducted to study the
influence of machining parameters to quality objectives.
 12 N. Fountas et al.
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 9. Results analysis for 5-axis finishing. (a) Machining time; (b) surface deviation and (c) both quality objectives.

Analysis involved the computation of mean and standard
deviation of resulted signals (useful information) and
noise (random errors that reduce accuracy of results),
referring to the experimental values obtained. Thereby,
main effects plots for signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios and
interaction plots among parameters were generated to the
equally weighted expression using a typical statistical soft-
ware (Figure 10(a–f)).
To ensure whether or not the means for values are
equal, a comparison of results needs to be done for these
means from which the statistical significance will derive.
This comparison is performed by conducting analysis of
variance (ANOVA). Even though ANOVA process para-
meters related to each of quality objectives was conducted,
only results referred to the combinatorial expression of
quality objectives are presented in the work since this
was of main interest. ANOVA results are illustrated in
Table 5 for roughing, 3-axis and 5-axis finishing para-
meters, respectively.
4. Results and discussion
According to ANOVA results (see Table 5), machining
strategy is the most important aspect to consider when
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 13
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 10. (a) Main effects plot for rough-machining parameters; (b) interaction plot for rough-machining parameters; (c) main effects
plot for 3-axis finish machining parameters; (d) interaction plot for 3-axis finish machining parameters; (e) main effects plot for 5-axis
finish machining parameters; and (f) interaction plot for 5-axis finish machining parameters.

modelling rough-machining operations. Besides, proper
rough-machining strategy leads to shorter cycle times
itself. Machining strategy’s significance is verified by its
F and P values in the ANOVA table (33.23 and 0.010,
respectively). Since P-value is less that α (0.010 < 0.05)
for a 5% significance level with high F-value, the respec-
tive regression model is capable of predicting meaningful
outputs. It is mentioned that several toolpath strategies
may be available for their applications to sculptured
parts but each of these may yield different variations to
responses. Stepdown and feedrate are also of great impor-
tance to minimise overall response. Feedrate does not
influence remaining volume, however, as a dominant para-
meter to machining time seems to affect also their relation.
Based on ANOVA analysis, P-values for stepdown and
feedrate are 0.024 and 0.045, respectively. As an outcome,
these parameters greatly affect the combinational relation
among remaining volume and rough machining time, and
their corresponding predictive model would be trust-
worthy enough to compute reliable outputs (R2 =
86.84%). S/N ratios generated for rough machining para-
meters (Figure 10(a)) also validate their significance.
Cutting tool’s nominal diameter plays an important role
to the resulting remained volume on the part’s surface.
Smaller tools facilitate remaining volume minimisation
since they can successfully penetrate to the work material,
thus leaving a uniformly roughed surface that will main-
tain constant chip-loads and produce relatively low cutting
forces during finishing. On the other hand, smaller tools in
diameter result in longer cycle times. The combinatorial
criterion formulated for this process indicated that a small
cutter (see Table 6) under the proper roughing strategy
may satisfy both criteria. Strong interactions were noticed
between to almost all machining parameters. Spindle
speed with feedrate yielded strong interaction effects to
rough machining response (Figure 10(b)).
For 3-axis finishing operations results indicated that
feed direction greatly affects the combinational response
among machining time and surface deviation (P-value =
0.018 – see Table 5). However, this parameter may be
constrained in advance regarding the part’s geometrical
features. Should this parameter has to be adjusted, one
has to check the appropriate angle for guiding feed; other-
wise, the cutter may be subjected to large trajectory varia-
tions regarding the sculptured contour, thus increasing
cycle times. Feedrate and tool diameter (P = 0.023 and
P = 0.037, respectively) follow next in terms of influence.
As for rough machining, feedrate significantly affects also
finish machining time. Low feedrate values increase
machining time whilst the opposite occurs when higher
values are determined. As for tool diameter, smaller cut-
ters produce finer surface finish and are generally pre-
ferred. The strategies applied along with proper stepover
values relative to the tool’s nominal diameter may reduce
surface deviation in 3-axis finishing (Table 3). Concerning
interactions for 3-axis finishing, noticeable ones were
observed between machining strategy and tool diameter
(Figure 10(d)). The resulting R2 value of 90.03% shows
that a high correlation existed among experimental and
predicted values.
For 5-axis finishing, the type of the cutter was found
to be the most influential to the outcome of both
 14 N. Fountas et al.

Table 5. ANOVA results for Equation (2) (roughing operation).

Machining operation Roughing

Source

Parameter DF Seq. SS Adj. SS Seq. MS F P

Machining strategy 2 405,491 405,491 202,745 33.23 0.010

Tool diameter 2 27,988 27,988 13,994 2.29 0.138
Spindle speed 2 1500 1500 750 1.12 0.885
Feed rate 2 47,547 47,547 23,774 3.90 0.045
Stepdown 2 78,719 78,719 39,360 6.45 0.024
Stepover 2 2567 2567 1284 1.21 0.813
Error 14 85,414 85,414 6101
Total 26 649226
S = 78.1088 R2 = 86.84% R2 (adj) = 75.57%

Machining operation Finishing (3-axis)

Source
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Parameter DF Seq. SS Adj. SS Seq. MS F P

Machining strategy 2 8562 8562 4281 2.43 0.124

Tool diameter 2 45,416 45,416 22,708 12.88 0.037
Spindle speed 2 6516 6516 3258 1.85 0.194
Feed rate 2 60,638 60,638 30,319 17.20 0.023
Feed direction 2 73,771 73,771 36,885 20.93 0.018
Stepover 2 27,926 27,926 13,963 7.92 0.046
Error 14 24,677 24,677 1763
Total 26 247,507
S = 41.9842 R2 = 90.03% R2 (adj) = 81.48%

Machining operation Finishing (5-axis)

Source

Parameter DF Seq. SS Adj. SS Seq. MS F P

Machining strategy 2 9734 9734 4867 0.19 0.832

Tool type 2 214,105 214,105 107,052 4.10 0.040
Spindle speed 2 57,186 57,186 28,593 1.10 0.361
Feed rate 2 14,813 14,813 7407 1.28 0.757
Feed direction 2 51,486 51,486 25,743 1.99 0.397
Stepover 2 32,379 32,379 16,190 1.62 0.552
Error 14 365,196 365,196 26,085
Total 26 744,898
S = 161.510 R2 = 50.97% R2 (adj) = 8.95%

Table 6. Best machining program’s results for program scenario-1.

Manufacturing program – 1

Phase Parameters and settings Quality objectives

Roughing Machining strategy Tool Ø (mm) ap (mm-% Ø) ae (mm-% Ø) f (mm/min) n (rpm) RV (mm3) trm (min)

Z-offset 8 4 (50%) 3.2 (40%) 600 2600 64501.28 76.35

Finishing Machining strategy Tool Ø (mm) Feed direction (°) ae (mm-% Ø) f (mm/min) n (rpm) SD (mm) tfm (min)

Sweeping zigzag 6 90 0.64 (10.625%) 290 4000 0.00036 233.18

 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 15

Figure 11. Efficiency of machining programs (Category-1) in terms of the total weighted sum calculated (third experiment indicated as
best).
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 12. Efficiency of machining programs (Category-2) in terms of the total weighted sum calculated (26th experiment indicated as
best).

Table 7. Best machining program’s results for program scenario-2.

Manufacturing program – 2

Phase Parameters and settings Quality objectives

Roughing Machining strategy Tool Ø (mm) ap (mm-% Ø) ae (mm-% Ø) f (mm/min) n (rpm) RV (mm3) trm (min)

Z-offset 8 4 (50%) 3.2 (40%) 600 2600 64501.28 76.35

Finishing Machining strategy Tool type Feed direction (°) ae (mm- % Ø) f (mm/min) n (rpm) SD (mm) tfm (min)

Fixed lead and Corner radius 45 0.65 (8.125%) 290 3400 0.00031 266.3
variable tilt angles

Figure 13. Comparison among machining programs formulated for both categories.
 16 N. Fountas et al.

machining time and surface deviation (P-value = 0.040
– see Table 5). Results indicated that corner radius and
flat-end cutters produce finer surfaces than ball-end
mills. Machining strategy’s contribution to quality
objectives occurred low (P-value = 0.832 > 0.05), yet
is known to be of major importance in terms of surface
texture and machining time regarding the literature.
Note that F-value for machining strategy is 0.19 < 1,
presenting that the variance due to error might be higher
than the variance due to source. Since F distribution is
two-tailed, it is also very unlikely to have low F-values
owing to chance. Nevertheless, a machining strategy
with suitable lead and tilt angles along with tool type
(mainly flat-end or corner radius) is also responsible for
a good surface finish. In general, different resulting
outputs in terms of quality objectives may be obtained
from process parameters’ settings determined under dif-
ferent machining strategies. Especially for 5-axis
machining operations, optimum regions to determine
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014
terms of process efficiency for 3- and 5-axis machining
programs is illustrated in Figure 13.
Optimum NC machining programs from each category
were used to virtually machine the test-sculptured model in
VERICUT® (CG-Tech® 2007) so as to verify their
efficiency. AutoDIFF® (http://www.cgtech.com/products/
about-vericut/auto-diff/) and X-Caliper® (http://www.
cgtech.com/products/about-vericut/verification/) were uti-
lised to conduct a comprehensive NC code error analysis
through examining excess errors and their locations on the
part’s surface regions. Excess error reflects a virtual surface
texture indicator showing the material which a toolpath may
leave uncut due to programming inconsistencies. For the
model machined using 5-axis, excess error indicator
occurred lower than the excess error measured on the 3-
axis machined model’s surface. Figure 14(a) illustrates the
resulting model machined in 3-axis, whereas Figure 14(b)
depicts the resulting model machined in 5-axis mode.

lead and tilt angles should be found to obtain more

clear and concise results in terms of 5-axis machining
strategies influence when using CAM systems. Based on
the fact that three different end mill types were tested
under three different 5-axis ‘lead and tilt’ toolpaths, one
comes to support that specifications for lead/tilt angles
are adjusted mainly with the tool’s type as a reference.
This is verified also from the interactions among
machining strategy and tool type (Figure 10(f)). It is
of great importance to mention that specifications for
lead/tilt angle values should satisfy issues deal with
collisions detection to machining set-ups. Spindle
speed, stepover and feedrate are also of major impor-
tance to surface deviation and machining time, whilst
feed direction does not significantly affect the responses
at least as strongly as in 3-axis finish machining. The
overall conclusion drawn for 5-axis machining is that a
regression equation would not be quite capable of pre-
dicting outputs owing to the complexity of this machin-
ing process. R2 coefficient was calculated equal to
50.97% and R2 (adj) equal to 8.95% – see Table 5.
This implies that the variation may be partially esti-
mated by regression and responses are uncorrelated to
independent variables at least through the current
experimental design. On the contrary, interactions
among parameters verify null hypothesis (H0) ensuring
important influence to outputs.

4.1. Formulation of optimum NC machining programs

Machining programs were formulated for the two scenar-
ios and optimum ones were highlighted. Figures 11 and 12
depict these machining programs for 3- and 5-axis
machining scenarios, respectively, whilst Tables 6 and 7
illustrate their parameter values. A comparison diagram in
Figure 14. Comparison analysis for the test-sculptured part for:
(a) 3-axis machining technology and (b) 5-axis finishing technol-
ogy, performed in VERICUT®.
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 17
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014

Figure 15. Machining process of the Al-6061 T6 block: (a) roughing simulation in VERICUT; (b) VERICUT machine tool set-up; (c)
finishing simulation in VERICUT; (d) machine tool simulation; (e) actual roughing operation; (f) running of finishing process; (g)
resulted rough part; (h) resulted finish part.

5. Verification experiment – actual machining process
of an industrial part
The methodology presented was implemented to estab-
lish a manufacturing program for the machining process
of a sculptured part found in automotive industry. The
part was machined in a 3-axis CNC machine tool to give
a general view in terms of machining efficiency and
surface quality when the proposed approach is utilised.
As a work material, Al 6061-T6 alloy was used, whilst
TiAlN coated solid carbide end mills were selected (trea-
ted coating thickness 3 μm, surface hardness 2800 HV
and friction coefficient 0.3). Both machining time and
surface quality improved in comparison to ordinary prac-
tices. Figure 15(a–d) depicts the machining process of
the part simulated in VERICUT® whilst Figure 15(e–h)
depicts the actual machining operation along with the
resulted parts.
6. Conclusions
This work implemented the DOE Methodology to conduct
machining experiments and evaluate the influence of
 18 N. Fountas et al.
CAM process parameters involved to SSM. Two program-
ming scenarios were established; one formulated by
roughing and 3-axis finishing machining runs and the
other formulated by roughing and 5-axis finishing runs.
Resulting part programs were formulated after attaching
finishing operations to the best roughing operation.
Finally, the two bests were distinguished (one roughing/
3-axis finishing and one roughing/5-axis finishing).
Machining strategies along with process parameters
involved were subjected to improve quality criteria reflect-
ing both productivity and quality. The quality criteria
specified to assess roughing were the remaining volume
and the rough-machining time, whilst the surface devia-
tion and the finish-machining time were the quality criteria
for the finishing process assessment. Even though quality
objectives studied separately for both cases, a combinator-
ial mathematical relation including quality criteria and
their weights was formulated by proper mathematical
modelling. Technological constraints were also taken into
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014
consideration to approach actual industrial status. To vali-
date the methodology presented, virtual machining opera-
tions were performed on a verification software, and
resulting parts were compared to the ideally designed
model with special analysis tools (Auto-DIFF® and X-
Calliper® of VERICUT-7®). To verify the results obtained
by software, the proposed method was used for the
machining process of an actual industrial model represent-
ing an automotive component in order to study whether
the proposed approach is applicable to more complex
SSM operations. The component was machined on a 3-
Axis CNC machine tool using the optimum machining
program from the first scenario obtained. It is important
to mention that the major disadvantage of this approach is
the inability to estimate noise factors related to machining
processes such as machine tool stability, thermal phenom-
ena, tool wear and cutting forces. This shortcoming comes
along with the usage of computer-aided systems that act as
‘black-boxes’ to such cases.
7. Future perspectives
The future perspectives for the authors are to:
● provide optimum region to specify weight coeffi-
cients when combining quality criteria to a single-
objective function (unless other method to treat
multi-objective problem solving as a single-objec-
tive one is used);
● exploit the application of other experimental design
methodologies such as response surface methodol-
ogy (RSM), mainly to generate meta-models and
optimise manufacturing parameters selections;
● use the resulting outputs to train optimisation mod-
ules like neural networks (NNs) and compare their
efficiency to other approaches;
● prepare an environment to optimise machining pro-
cesses through AI techniques.
References
Achanga, P., E. Shehab, R. Roy, and G. Nelder. 2012. “A Fuzzy-
Logic Advisory System for Lean Manufacturing Within
SMEs.” International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 25 (9): 839–852. doi:10.1080/
0951192X.2012.665180.
Baptista, R., and J. F. A. Simões. 2000. “Three- and Five-Axes
Milling of Sculptured Surfaces.” International Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 103: 398–403. doi:10.1016/
S0924-0136(99)00479-3.
Bevilacqua, V., N. Costantino, M. Dotoli, M. Falagario, and F.
Sciancalepore. 2012. “Strategic Design and Multi-Objective
Optimisation of Distribution Networks Based on Genetic
Algorithms.” International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 25 (12): 1139–1150. doi:10.1080/
0951192X.2012.684719.
Bouaziz, Z., and A. Zghal. 2008. “Optimization and Selection of
Cutters for 3D Pocket Machining.” International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing 21 (1): 73–88.
doi:10.1080/09511920601164132.
CG-TECH VERICUT-7.1®. 2007. “User Documentation.”
Accessed January 20, 2013. http://communities.ptc.com/
servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/1936-102-1-1942/project_
tree.pdf
Choi, B. K., and R. B. Jerard. 1998. Sculptured Surface Machining:
Theory and Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
El-Hossainy, T. M., A. A. El-Zoghby, M. A. Badr, K. Y.
Maalawi, and M. F. Nasr. 2010. “Cutting Parameter
Optimization When Machining Different Materials.”
Materials and Manufacturing Processes 25 (10): 1101–
1114. doi:10.1080/10426914.2010.480998.
El-Mounayri, H., H. Kishawy, and V. Tandon. 2002. “Optimized
CNC End-Milling: A Practical Approach.” International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 15 (5):
453–470. doi:10.1080/09511920110118803.
Khandey, U. 2008. “Optimization of Surface Roughness,
Material Removal Rate and Cutting Tool Flank Wear in
Turning Using Extended Taguchi Approach.” MSc diss.,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.
Kyratsis, P., N. Bilalis, and A. Antoniadis. 2011. “Cad-Based
Simulations and Design of Experiments for Determining
Thrust Force in Drilling Operations.” Computer Aided
Design 43: 1879–1890. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2011.06.002.
Kyratsis, P., N. Tapoglou, N. Bilalis, and A. Antoniadis. 2011.
“Thrust Force Prediction of Twist Drill Tools Using a 3D
CAD System Application Programming Interface.”
International Journal of Machining and Machinability of
Materials 10 (1–2): 18–33. doi:10.1115/1.2951932.
Lamikiz, A., L. N. De Lacalle, J. A. Sánchez, and M. A. Salgado.
2005. “Cutting Force Integration at the CAM Stage in the
High-Speed Milling of Complex Surfaces.” International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 18 (7): 586–
600. doi:10.1080/09511920500069309.
Li, H., Z. Dong, and G. W. Vickers. 1994. “Optimal Toolpath
Pattern Identification for Single Island, Sculptured Part
Rough Machining Using Fuzzy Pattern Analysis.”
Computer-Aided Design 26 (11): 787–795. doi:10.1016/
0010-4485(94)90092-2.
Li, W. D., and C. A. McMahon. 2007. “A Simulated Annealing-
Based Optimization Approach for Integrated Process
Planning and Scheduling.” International Journal of
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Computer Integrated Manufacturing 20 (1): 80–95.
doi:10.1080/09511920600667366.
Montgomery, D. C. 2001. Design and Analysis of Experiments.
6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Moshat, S., S. Datta, A. Bandyopadhyay, and P. P. Kumar. 2010.
“Optimization of CNC End Milling Process Parameters Using
PCA-Based Taguchi Method.” International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology 2 (1): 92–102. http://
www.doaj.org/doaj?func=openurl&genre=article&issn=214128
20&date=2010&volume=2&issue=1&spage=92.
Msaddek, E.-B., Z. Bouaziz, G. Dessein, and M. Baili. 2012.
“Optimization of Pocket Machining Strategy in HSM.”
Downloaded by [2.25.214.187] at 05:18 23 April 2014
View publication stats
19
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 62: 69–81. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3801-9.
Senthilkumaar, J. S., P. Selvarani, and R. M. Arunachalam.
2010. “Selection of Machining Parameters Based on the
Analysis of Surface Roughness and Flank Wear in Finish
Turning and Facing of INCONEL 718 Using Taguchi
Technique.” Emirates Journal of Engineering Research
15 (2): 7–14.
Wu, M. C., and C. R. Liu. 1991. “Flexible Process Planning for
Finish Machining Based on Process Requirements Modelling.”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 4
(2): 121–132. doi:10.1080/09511929108944487.