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

net/publication/338503765

Optimization of cutting parameters with respect to roughness for machining

of hardened AISI 1040 steel

Article  in  Materials Testing · January 2020

DOI: 10.3139/120.111458

CITATIONS READS

3 143

2 authors:

Abidin Şahinoğlu Mohammad Rafighi

Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Türk Hava Kurumu Üniversitesi
14 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

BAP (07/2017-07) View project

PLC controlled road construction machine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Rafighi on 16 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING 85

Optimization of cutting
parameters with respect to
roughness for machining of
hardened AISI 1040 steel
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

Abidin Şahinoğlu, Çankırı, and
Mohammad Rafighi, Ankara, Turkey
For personal use only.
Today, energy consumption and environmental issues are important
topics in all industries around the globe. However, quality is in direct
proportion with energy consumption, since better surface finish means
more energy consumption. The main objective of this work is minimiz-
ing both surface roughness and power consumption by estimating the
optimum machining parameters. In this study, turning tests were car-
ried out on three different hardened AISI 1040 steels (10, 15, 20 HRC)
at three different depths of cuts (1.2, 2.4, 3.6 mm), feed rates (0.15,

0.25, 0.35 mm × rev-1) and cutting speeds (120, 140, 160 m × min-1)

Article Information
Correspondence Address
Abidin Şahinoğlu
Department of Mechanical and Metal Technology
Çankırı Karatekin University
Çankırı, Turkey
E-mail: abidinsahinoglu@gmail.com
Keywords
AISI 1040, surface roughness, machining,
power consumption, response surface
methodology, analysis of variance
without coolant. The effects of cutting parameters and workpieces hard-
ness on surface roughness, sound level and power consumption were
examined. These analyses were conducted using a full factorial experi-
mental design method. The response surface methodology and analysis
of variance were also used to determine the effects of input parameters
on the response variables. Experimental results showed that an increase
in the feed rate value causes an increase in the surface roughness, the
sound level, and the power consumption values. The results of the pre-
sented work show that feed rate is the most effective machining param-
eter that affects surface roughness and power consumption. Following
feed rate, depth of cut and cutting speed also have an important impact.
Thus, decreasing the value of feed rate and depth of cut will reduce the
amount of power consumption.

In the last few years, numerous studies
have been carried out on the machining of
steel alloys [1-4]. AISI 1040 steel is among
the most widely used materials in manu-
facturing industries. Its hardness can
reach up to 55 HRC by heat treatment. It is
used for making various parts such as die
and mold parts, crankshafts, camshafts,
studs, nuts, and bolts. In this study, AISI
1040 steel alloy was used as a material and
coated carbide was used as a cutting tool.
The response surface methodology (RSM)
and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were
used to optimize the cutting parameters in
order to reduce surface roughness and
power consumption.
Over the past four decades, environmental
issues have been very important matters for
the government and industries. It is obvious
that a healthy environment strictly depends
on healthy industries. Natural resources like
material ores and fossil fuels are extracted to
be used as materials and energy in indus-
tries. About 50 % of the world’s total energy
consumption is used by the industrial sector
and this rate is growing day by day [5].
Steel and aluminum are among the most
widely used materials in the manufacturing
industry. The consumption of these materi-
als for industrial use has increased through-
out the world. Therefore, utilizing a large
amount of material in manufacturing pro-
cesses causes more energy consumption
and this leads to many environmental prob-
lems such as global warming and waste dis-
posal [6]. In order to decrease energy con-
sumption and consequently environmental
pollution, manufacturing performance
should be increased. The main reason for a

62 (2020) 1  © Carl Hanser Verlag, München  Materials Testing

 86 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING
large amount of energy consumption is the
low efficiency of machine tools in the man-
ufacturing process such as milling and
turning [7]. Hence, reducing the energy
consumption of machining is one of the im-
portant aspects to improve sustainability in
manufacturing.
Environmental pollution is reduced if the
energy consumption generated from manu-
facturing process decreases [8]. However,
reducing energy consumption should not
adversely affect surface roughness quality.
Thus, this study was aimed at determining
optimum cutting parameters in order to de-
crease energy consumption and increase
surface quality. Although several studies
have been conducted on the modeling and
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020
optimization of cutting parameters and re-
sponse variables such as surface rough-
ness, cutting forces and tool nose wear,
there has been little attempt to minimize
energy consumption during machining.
Power is an important aspect during ma-
chining to form the workpiece into the de-
sired shape. The modeling and optimization
of cutting parameters to decrease both
power consumption and cost of machining
For personal use only.
are among the biggest concerns of manu-
facturers. The product quality is dependent
on its surface roughness in terms of aes-
thetics, corrosion resistance, fatigue life
improvement, etc. However, a good surface
finish means high power consumption. The
required power during machining depends
on cutting parameters, cutting tools and
workpiece properties. Analyzing the impact
of cutting parameters on surface roughness
and power consumption is very important
in order to reduce energy consumption and
surface roughness. The main aim of this
study is the optimization of cutting param-
eters to reduce surface roughness and
power consumption, simultaneously.
Literature review
Surface quality highly affects the perfor-
mance of manufactured parts. A surface
with high roughness values increases the
friction when the part is in contact with the
other parts. Whenever friction increases,
temperature, corrosion, oxidation and wear
rate also increase. This shortens the ser-
vice life of the manufactured products. In
addition, the temperature caused by fric-
tion prevents the parts from working prop-
erly. One of the main factors to determine
surface roughness is the cutting parameter
employed during machining [9]. Therefore,
much work has been carried out on surface
roughness in machining. The most impor-
tant cutting parameter for the surface
roughness is generally feed rate [10]. The
experimental results of several researchers
showed that the surface roughness value
increases as feed rate increases [11-15].
Another important aspect is energy con-
sumption in machining. Researchers across
the globe have worked from this perspec-
tive and revealed interesting facts. Increas-
ing competition has led to the necessity of
being economical. Therefore, many studies
have been conducted on energy consump-
tion, while scientists also investigated the
relationship between cutting parameters
and energy consumption for economic man-
ufacturing [16-19]. As feed rate, depth of
cut and cutting speed increase, the amount
of energy consumption increases. However,
energy consumption can be reduced by be-
tween 6 and 40 % based on the optimum
machining parameters, cutting tools and
material properties [20].
On the other hand, primarily fossil fuels
are used for energy production. Thus, car-
bon emissions will increase, an ecological
and climatic balance will deteriorate and
global warming will happen. Therefore, the
production of a large number of parts with
little energy consumption is very impor-
tant in terms of social and environmental
problems.
There are various modeling techniques
to determine optimum machining parame-
ters, i. e. the Taguchi method, response sur-
face methodology, analysis of variance, ar-
tificial neural network (ANN) and regres-
sion analysis. Among these modeling
techniques, RSM is widely used due to reli-
able information provided even from a
small number of experiments [21].
Several statistical analyses were per-
formed to determine the optimal cutting
parameters in the complex machining pro-
cesses [22]. In these studies, the RSM
method was used and the effects of the cut-
ting parameters were determined [23-25].
In addition, regression equations were de-
veloped for special machining operations.
Although surface roughness, tool wear,
and cutting forces have been widely stud-
ied in the machining of AISI 1040 steel,
few studies investigated the effects of
sound level and power consumption on the
machining of this material. This study aims
to examine the influences of cutting pa-
rameters on surface roughness, sound
level, and power consumption during the
turning of AISI 1040 steel by using RSM
and ANOVA.
Bagaber and Yusoff [26] used RSM to op-
timize machining parameters, in order to
minimize surface roughness, power con-
sumption, and tool wear. This study was
performed on stainless steel 316 using un-
coated carbide tool under dry condition.
The result of this study shows that cutting
speed has the most significant effect on
power consumption, with its 37.43 % con-
tribution. However, the most significant
factor that affects surface roughness was
found to be feed rate, having a 53.8 % con-
tribution.
Bilga, Singh and Kumar [22] investigated
the effects of input parameters including
feed rate, depth of cut, cutting speed, and
nose radius on energy consumption. The ex-
periments were performed during the turn-
ing of EN 353 alloy steel with coated tung-
sten carbide inserts using Taguchi’s L27 or-
thogonal array. The results reveal that the
optimum machining parameters for energy
consumption are 248.69 m × min-1 cutting
speed, 0.3 m × min-1 feed rate, 1.8  mm
depth of cut and 0.8 mm nose radius. Ac-
cording to the results of the analysis of vari-
ance, depth of cut is the most significant
factor in terms of energy consumption.
Bhushan [23] used the response surface
methodology to determine the optimum
cutting parameters during the machining of
AA7075-15 wt.-% SIC by employing a tung-
sten carbide cutting tool to reduce energy
consumption and increase tool life. Accord-
ing to this study, cutting speed is the most
significant parameter in decreasing energy
consumption followed by the depth of cut,
feed and nose radius. The results of this
study indicate that optimal machining pa-
rameters will reduce power consumption
by 13.55 % and increase tool life by 22.12 %.
Minimizing energy consumption and
surface roughness by applying the Taguchi
method, signal to noise (S/N) ratio, and
ANOVA to determine the optimal cutting
parameters during machining of AISI 6061
T6 under roughing condition is the strat-
egy followed by Camposeco [17]. In this
study, scientists found that the feed rate is
the most significant factor, amounting to a
87.79 % contribution, for minimizing en-
ergy consumption. Furthermore, depth of
cut and cutting speed are other effective
machining parameters with their contribu-
tions of 6.59 % and 5.18 %, respectively.
Aggarwal, Singh and Kumar [27] used
the response surface methodology and Ta-
guchi’s method to determine the effects
feed, cutting speed, nose radius, depth of
cut, and cutting environment during the
turning of AISI P20 tool steel have on
power consumption. The results of this
study indicate that cutting speed is the
62 (2020) 1

Fe Mn P C S Level
98.6-99 0.6-0.9 ≤ 0.04 0.37-0.44 ≤ 0.05
Table 1: Chemical composition of AISI 1040
steel (wt.-%)
most effective factor to reduce energy con-
sumption. The depth of cut and feed rate
values are the next variables that affects
power consumption.
Fratila and Caizar, in their studies [28],
aimed at minimizing energy consumption
and obtaining the best surface qualities.
They employed the Taguchi method to ob-
tain optimal cutting parameters during the
face milling of AlMg3 with an HSS tool. In
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020
addition, ANOVA, signal to noise ratio, and
orthogonal array were used to analyze the
effects of input parameters on surface
roughness. The results show that the opti-
mal machining parameters to reduce en-
ergy consumption are feed rate, depth of
cut, cutting speed and lubricant flow rate.
Reduction of energy consumption was
the target of studies by Abhang and Ha-
meedullah [29]. They developed a new pre-
For personal use only.
dictive model during the turning of EN-31
steel with a tungsten carbide tool, by em-
ploying response surface methodology. The
result of this study indicates that the feed
rate is the most significant parameter to af-
fect power consumption followed by depth
of cut, tool nose radius and cutting speed.
The response surface methodology was
utilized in the study by Campatelli, Loren-
zini and Scippa [30], to evaluate the effect
of feed rate, cutting speed, axial and radial
depth of cut on energy consumption during
the milling of carbon steel. The result of
this study indicates that optimum values
for minimizing energy consumption corre-
spond to radial engagement (1 mm) and
feed rate (0.12 mm × tooth-1).
In another study [31], the Taguchi L16 or-
thogonal array method was used to investi-
gate the performance of four lubricants to
decrease the surface roughness, specific
energy, and cutting force during near dry
grinding of Al2O3 engineering ceramic. The
results of this study show that the feed rate
has the most significant effect on specific
energy. According to the analysis the opti-
mum lubricant and grinding parameters to
minimize surface roughness, specific en-
ergy, and cutting force were obtained.
In this study [32], the researchers re-
ported the effect of machining parameters
on surface finish and energy consumption
during high speed machining of AISI 1045
steel with a coated carbide tool, using the
62 (2020) 1
PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING
Factor Symbol Units
Hardness h HRC
Cutting speed V M × min-1
Feed rate f Mm × rev-1
Depth of cut a mm
Taguchi method and ANOVA. The results
show that cutting speed is the most
significant factor to decrease the power
consumption, followed by the depth of cut.
The researchers [33] investigated the ef-
fects of feed rate, depth of cut, and cutting
speed on the cutting force components, sur-
face roughness, and power consumption
while turning Inconel 718 under dry condi-
tions, using a coated carbide tool. The results
of this study show that the feed rate has the
most significant effect on surface roughness
followed by cutting speed with contributions
of 43.58 % and 23.85 %, respectively. There-
fore, the optimization procedure enabled the
scientists to minimize power consumption,
roughness and cutting forces while maxi-
mizing material removal rate.
A literature survey shows the contrasting
results for optimization of surface rough-
ness and power consumption for different
materials. A high number of researchers re-
vealed that the feed rate is a significant fac-
tor to reduce surface roughness and energy
consumption [17, 28–30, 34, 35].
Some authors indicate that cutting speed
is the most significant parameter to de-
crease energy consumption [23, 26–27,
32]. Other authors observed that depth of
cut is the significant factor to minimize en-
ergy consumption [22, 28, 29].
As a result, researchers obtained differ-
ent values of surface roughness and energy
consumption for different materials, ma-
chines and cutting conditions. In this case,
more studies need to be carried out to in-
vestigate the effects of cutting parameters
on surface roughness and energy consump-
tion. In this study, the effect of cutting pa-
rameters including feed rate, cutting speed,
depth of cut and hardness is investigated
on AISI 1040 using RSM and ANOVA, in
order to minimize power consumption and
surface roughness.
Materials and method
Workpiece material. The turning tests
were carried out on hardened cylindrical
AISI 1040 steel. According to measure-
ments, the hardness of this material was
87
1 2 3
10 15 20 Table 2: Test parameters
120 140 160 and their levels
0.15 0.25 0.35
1.2 2.4 3.6
10, 15 and 20 HRC. The chemical composi-
tion of AISI 1040 steel is given in Table 1.
The diameter of the workpiece was 50 mm
and the cutting length was 100 mm.
Test procedure, test parameters and
tooling. The machining tests were per-
formed on a TAKSAN TTC 630 lathe ma-
chine under dry conditions. The maximum
spindle speed of this machine is 4000 RPM
and its maximum power rating is 20 kW.
The cutting tools used in this experimental
study were made of a commercial grade
TiCN-Al2O3-TiN coated carbide, with the ge-
ometry of WNMG 080408 MT, and manu-
factured by TaequTec. These cutting tools
had TT5100 TaequTec designation, in ac-
cordance with ISO P20-35. The MWLNR
2525 M08 tool holder was used to rigidly
mount the cutting tools. The cutting param-
eters and their levels are given in Table 2.
In order to measure the sound level, a
Lutron SL-401 model sound level meter
was used. This device was located 1 m
away from the chuck and was set to slow
mode for eliminating the possible momen-
tary fluctuations in the sound level. The
current measurements were conducted us-
ing a UNI-T UT201 digital clamp multime-
ter. The current value passing through a
single phase was measured and multiplied
by three to find the total current value.
Then this value was multiplied by the volt-
age in order to obtain power consumption.
Surface roughness (Ra) measurements
were performed using a Mitutoyo SJ 201
portable device with a cut-off length of
0.8 mm and sampling length of 5 mm.
Three measurements were made on each
machined surface and the average value
was considered as the final value. The il-
lustration of the used devices and the sche-
matic presentation of the test setup are
given in Figure 1 and 2, respectively.
Results and discussion
The experimental results of the surface
roughness, the sound level, and the power
consumption for all 81 turning tests are
given in Table 3. The surface roughness Ra
value obtained was in the range of 0.86 and
 88 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING

consumption (W)

consumption (W)

consumption (W)

consumption (W)
Sound level (dB)

Sound level (dB)

Sound level (dB)

Sound level (dB)

Hardness (HRC)

Hardness (HRC)
V (mm × min-1)

V (mm × min-1)
Ra (µm) model

Ra (µm) model
f (mm × rev-1)

f (mm × rev-1)
Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment

Experiment
Ra (µm)

Ra (µm)
a (mm)

a (mm)
Power

Power

Power

Power
model

model

model

model
No.

No.
1 10 1.2 120 0.15 74.3 74.0 1975.05 2064.94 0.86 0.96 42 15 2.4 140 0.35 80.9 82.2 3542.55 3674.70 3.76 3.68
2 10 1.2 120 0.25 74.7 75.8 2125.53 2185.89 2.19 2.25 43 15 2.4 160 0.15 77.4 78.5 3072.30 3109.60 1.32 1.29
3 10 1.2 120 0.35 74.9 77.8 2326.17 2291.80 3.71 3.53 44 15 2.4 160 0.25 79.8 80.6 3636.60 3691.63 2.60 2.49
4 10 1.2 140 0.15 74.4 73.8 2031.48 1968.97 1.03 1.03 45 15 2.4 160 0.35 80.6 82.8 4200.90 4258.63 3.61 3.69
5 10 1.2 140 0.25 74.5 75.6 2263.47 2186.61 2.30 2.30 46 15 3.6 120 0.15 78.4 78.0 3166.35 3175.43 1.36 1.32
6 10 1.2 140 0.35 74.8 77.5 2432.76 2389.22 3.60 3.57 47 15 3.6 120 0.25 79.3 80.6 3774.54 3844.69 2.49 2.54
7 10 1.2 160 0.15 74.2 74.3 2150.61 2040.48 1.06 1.08 48 15 3.6 120 0.35 81.2 83.5 4420.35 4498.93 3.74 3.75
8 10 1.2 160 0.25 74.7 75.9 2338.71 2354.81 2.32 2.33 49 15 3.6 140 0.15 78.3 78.6 3780.81 3721.96 1.35 1.35
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

9 10 1.2 160 0.35 75.1 77.8 2576.97 2654.11 3.65 3.58 50 15 3.6 140 0.25 79.8 81.2 4476.78 4487.91 2.51 2.55
10 10 2.4 120 0.15 75.8 77.3 2545.62 2450.72 1.25 1.15 51 15 3.6 140 0.35 80.4 84.0 5204.10 5238.84 3.72 3.75
11 10 2.4 120 0.25 76.8 79.5 2928.09 2852.28 2.44 2.42 52 15 3.6 160 0.15 79.5 79.8 4357.65 4435.97 1.38 1.35
12 10 2.4 120 0.35 80.3 82.0 3229.05 3238.82 3.65 3.69 53 15 3.6 160 0.25 81.3 82.3 5298.15 5298.62 2.55 2.54
13 10 2.4 140 0.15 76.4 77.5 2595.78 2678.21 1.16 1.19 54 15 3.6 160 0.35 82.3 85.0 6395.40 6146.24 3.78 3.73
14 10 2.4 140 0.25 78.8 79.7 3222.78 3176.46 2.40 2.44 55 20 1.2 120 0.15 74.5 74.5 2056.56 2155.51 0.88 0.91
15 10 2.4 140 0.35 80.6 82.0 3511.20 3659.69 3.57 3.70 56 20 1.2 120 0.25 74.9 76.2 2169.42 2250.62 2.00 2.12
16 10 2.4 160 0.15 77.3 78.3 3047.22 3073.18 1.13 1.20 57 20 1.2 120 0.35 75.2 78.1 2338.71 2330.70 3.25 3.33
For personal use only.

17 10 2.4 160 0.25 79.1 80.4 3642.87 3668.13 2.56 2.44 58 20 1.2 140 0.15 74.6 74.4 2075.37 2050.70 1.07 1.03
18 10 2.4 160 0.35 79.4 82.7 4200.90 4248.04 3.64 3.68 59 20 1.2 140 0.25 74.8 76.0 2238.39 2242.50 2.31 2.22
19 10 3.6 120 0.15 78.2 77.8 3141.27 3149.56 1.21 1.24 60 20 1.2 140 0.35 75.3 77.8 2489.19 2419.28 3.48 3.41
20 10 3.6 120 0.25 79.1 80.6 3799.62 3831.74 2.54 2.50 61 20 1.2 160 0.15 74.4 74.9 2188.23 2113.37 1.20 1.12
21 10 3.6 120 0.35 81.5 83.5 4457.97 4498.89 3.73 3.75 62 20 1.2 160 0.25 74.9 76.4 2401.41 2401.87 2.27 2.30
22 10 3.6 140 0.15 77.6 78.4 3768.27 3700.51 1.22 1.25 63 20 1.2 160 0.35 75.3 78.1 2664.75 2675.34 3.48 3.47
23 10 3.6 140 0.25 79.2 81.0 4445.43 4479.38 2.47 2.49 64 20 2.4 120 0.15 76.3 77.7 2614.59 2502.50 1.21 1.18
24 10 3.6 140 0.35 80.4 83.9 5291.88 5243.23 3.74 3.73 65 20 2.4 120 0.25 78.1 79.8 3047.22 2878.24 2.41 2.37
25 10 3.6 160 0.15 79.3 79.6 4332.57 4418.94 1.29 1.23 66 20 2.4 120 0.35 80.1 82.2 3260.63 3238.94 3.64 3.57
26 10 3.6 160 0.25 82 82.2 5332.98 5294.50 2.53 2.46 67 20 2.4 140 0.15 76.5 77.9 2671.02 2721.16 1.30 1.26
27 10 3.6 160 0.35 82.9 84.9 6239.92 6155.04 3.61 3.68 68 20 2.4 140 0.25 79.4 80.0 3172.62 3193.58 2.45 2.44
28 15 1.2 120 0.15 74.2 74.3 2012.67 2129.59 0.96 0.96 69 20 2.4 140 0.35 80.5 82.3 3617.79 3650.97 3.54 3.62
29 15 1.2 120 0.25 74.9 76.0 2163.15 2237.62 2.25 2.21 70 20 2.4 160 0.15 77.4 78.8 3053.49 3107.29 1.32 1.32
30 15 1.2 120 0.35 75.1 78.0 2332.44 2330.62 3.40 3.45 71 20 2.4 160 0.25 80.5 80.8 3642.87 3676.41 2.46 2.48
31 15 1.2 140 0.15 73.6 74.1 2018.94 2029.20 1.05 1.06 72 20 2.4 160 0.35 82 83.0 4200.90 4230.49 3.56 3.64
32 15 1.2 140 0.25 74.2 75.8 2213.31 2233.92 2.32 2.29 73 20 3.6 120 0.15 78.3 78.1 3153.81 3162.56 1.39 1.34
33 15 1.2 140 0.35 74.5 77.7 2514.27 2423.61 3.60 3.51 74 20 3.6 120 0.25 79.4 80.7 3718.11 3818.91 2.55 2.53
34 15 1.2 160 0.15 74.2 74.6 2175.69 2096.29 1.12 1.12 75 20 3.6 120 0.35 80.8 83.6 4407.81 4460.23 3.68 3.70
35 15 1.2 160 0.25 74.7 76.2 2395.14 2397.71 2.26 2.34 76 20 3.6 140 0.15 79.3 78.7 3787.08 3704.68 1.29 1.40
36 15 1.2 160 0.35 75.1 78.0 2671.02 2684.09 3.43 3.55 77 20 3.6 140 0.25 80.2 81.3 4483.05 4457.72 2.48 2.56
37 15 2.4 120 0.15 76.1 77.5 2589.51 2495.98 1.27 1.19 78 20 3.6 140 0.35 80.3 84.0 5172.75 5195.73 3.85 3.72
38 15 2.4 120 0.25 77.9 79.7 3028.41 2884.62 2.40 2.42 79 20 3.6 160 0.15 79.9 80.0 4395.27 4414.27 1.32 1.43
39 15 2.4 120 0.35 81.3 82.1 3435.96 3258.24 3.61 3.65 80 20 3.6 160 0.25 80.1 82.4 5338.44 5264.00 2.57 2.58
40 15 2.4 140 0.15 76.4 77.7 2633.40 2719.05 1.21 1.25 81 20 3.6 160 0.35 82.4 85.1 6056.82 6098.71 3.83 3.72
41 15 2.4 140 0.25 79.6 79.8 3197.70 3204.39 2.47 2.47

Table 3: Estimated and experimental results of surface roughness, sound level, and power consumption

62 (2020) 1
 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING 89

Figure 1: Experimental
set-up
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

3.85 μm, the sound level was in the range
of 73.6 and 82.9 dB, and the power con-
sumption value obtained was in the range
of 1975 and 6395 W.
For personal use only.
uation, if the machine tools are capable of
low stock removal, the high depth of cut
leads to overload on this machine and in-
crease in vibration and this decreases both

Surface roughness. Main effect plots surface quality and tool life. Therefore, the
for the surface roughness values are given relationship between tools, workpieces,
in Figure 3. According to the main effect and cutting parameters in the manufactur-
plot, the most significant cutting parame- ing process may vary depending on the sur-
ter to affect surface roughness is the feed face roughness. In addition, if tooling and
rate followed by the depth of cut. As the cutting parameters are identical, there may
feed rate increased, the surface roughness be significant differences between the out-
Figure 2: Schematic illustration of the
value also increased. The same result was put values between two identical old and experimental set-up
obtained in the studies by Camposeco, new machines.
Fratila, Abhang, and Campatelli [29, 30, The effect of workpiece hardness on sur-
17, 28]. They reported that the feed rate face roughness is insignificant. The reason very large difference between 10 HRC to 20
has a dominant effect on surface rough- for this is the fact the machine tools have HRC hardness. If the hardness of the mate-
ness. Although the depth of cut has a mi- high power and AISI 1040, which is an eas- rial causes an overload in the machine, the
nor effect on surface roughness in this ily processed material, does not have a surface roughness value will increase.
study, however, some studies reported
that it has an important effect on surface
roughness [29, 22, 28].
In some studies, high depth of cut values
provide a good surface quality, while in
some other studies, low depth of cut de-
creases surface roughness. There are sev-
eral causes related to this statement. The
first cause is the effect of the tool nose ra-
dius. If the tool nose radius is lower than
the depth of cut, good quality of the surface
during machining is not possible and this
causes an increase in surface roughness.
The second cause is the capability of ma-
chine tools. If the machine tools that are
capable of high stock removal are not rigid
enough, they cause vibration due to the low
amount of load from the low depth of cut.
This vibration increases surface roughness
and decreases tool life. Contrary to this sit- Figure 3: Effect of cutting parameters on average response characteristics for surface roughness

62 (2020) 1
 90 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING

Figure 4: Surface roughness versus a) feed rate and cutting speed, b) feed rate and depth of cut, c) depth of cut and cutting speed

Sequential Adjusted Adjusted Analysis of variance was used to analyze

Source DF sum of sum of mean F P Value Contr. (%) the experimental surface roughness re-
squares squares squares sults. ANOVA determined significant pa-
Regression 14 81.0557 81.0557 5.7897 1158.00 0.000 99.59 rameters that affected surface roughness.
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

Linear 4 80.8257 80.8257 20.2064 4041.50 0.000 99.31 The level of confidence for the analysis is
95 %. The ANOVA results are given in Ta-
h 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.02 0.878 0.00
ble 4. A P-value lower than 0.05 indicates a
a 1 0.9432 0.9432 0.9432 188.65 0.000 1.16 statistically significant level of the source
V 1 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 12.18 0.001 0.07 for the corresponding response. The last
f 1 79.8215 79.8215 79.8215 15965.13 0.000 98.08 column of the following table indicates the
contribution percentage of the significant
Square 4 0.0574 0.0574 0.0144 2.87 0.030 0.07
source. It is clearly seen that the feed rate
h2 1 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 2.42 0.125 0.01
has the most significant effect on the sur-
a2 1 0.0427 0.0427 0.0427 8.54 0.005 0.05 face roughness, i. e. 98.08 % contribution.
For personal use only.

V2 1 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.51 0.480 0.00 However, the depth of cut has a minor ef-
f2 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.02 0.877 0.00 fect on surface roughness. The contribution
of the depth of cut on surface roughness is
Interaction 6 0.1726 0.1726 0.0288 5.75 0.000 0.21
1.16 %. The effect of cutting speed on sur-
h × a 1 0.0534 0.0534 0.0534 10.68 0.002 0.07 face quality is not significant. In some stud-
h × V 1 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 3.41 0.069 0.02 ies, these contribution rates were different,
h × f 1 0.0516 0.0516 0.0516 10.33 0.002 0.06 because the interval of lower and upper
values of the cutting parameters are very
a × V 1 0.0344 0.0344 0.0344 6.89 0.011 0.04
close or far from each other.
a × f 1 0.0070 0.0070 0.0070 1.41 0.240 0.01
Figure 4 shows the effects of cutting pa-
V × f 1 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 1.81 0.184 0.01 rameters on the surface roughness. Ac-
Error 66 0.3300 0.3300 0.0050 0.41 cording to these plots, the feed rate is the
Total 80 81.3857 100.00 most important factor to affect surface
roughness.
Table 4: ANOVA results for surface roughness Sound level. Figure 5 shows that the
sound level varies subject to the cutting pa-
rameters. According to the main effect plot,
the cutting parameter mainly affecting the
sound level is depth of cut. This is followed
by the feed rate and cutting speed. As
depth of cut and feed rate increase, the
sound level is also increased.
The effect of depth of cut and feed rate on
sound intensity is dominant; however, the
effect of cutting speed is insignificant. This
effect is lower for the cutting speed because
the increase in cutting speed can reduce the
cutting forces and consequently decrease
the amount of load. By increasing cutting
speed, cutting forces and consequently ma-
chine load decrease. The decrease in ma-
chine load will decrease the sound level.
The ANOVA results for sound level are
Figure 5: Effect of cutting parameters on average response characteristics for sound level given in Table 5. According to this analy-

62 (2020) 1
 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING 91

Figure 6: Sound level versus a) feed rate and cutting speed, b) feed rate and depth of cut, c) depth of cut and cutting speed

sis, the depth of cut has the most signifi- Sequential Adjusted Adjusted
cant effect on the sound level, i. e. 68.71 % Source DF sum of sum of mean F P Value Contr. (%)
contribution. The feed rate is the next ef- squares squares squares
fective parameter on sound level, i. e. Regression 14 533.638 533.638 38.117 69.53 0.000 93.65
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

14.33 % contribution. Cutting speed has a Linear 4 485.529 485.529 121.382 221.42 0.000 85.21
minor effect on the sound level, with its
h 1 1.534 1.534 1.534 2.80 0.099 0.27
1.90 % contribution. The effect of hardness
on the sound level is negligible. The con- a 1 391.503 391.503 391.503 714.15 0.000 68.71
tribution of a2 product on the sound level V 1 10.845 10.845 10.845 19.78 0.000 1.90
is 5.8 %. The effects of cutting parameter f 1 81.647 81.647 81.647 148.93 0.000 14.33
interaction on the sound level are ne- Square 4 34.998 34.998 8.750 15.96 0.000 6.14
glectable.
h2 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.975 0.00
Figure 6 shows the effect of cutting pa-
rameter on the sound level. According to a2 1 33.076 33.076 33.076 60.33 0.000 5.80
For personal use only.

these plots, the depth of cut has the most V2 1 1.742 1.742 1.742 3.18 0.079 0.31
significant effect on sound level followed f2 1 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.33 0.569 0.03
by feed rate and cutting speed.
Interaction 6 13.111 13.111 2.185 3.99 0.002 2.30
Power consumption. Determination of
the cutting forces that exist in a machin- h × a 1 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.16 0.687 0.02
ing operation is important. This is due to h × V 1 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.04 0.840 0.00
the fact that cutting forces have a direct h × f 1 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.15 0.703 0.01
influence on the generation of heat, and a × V 1 5.138 5.138 5.138 9.37 0.003 0.90
thus on tool wear, quality of machined
a × f 1 7.563 7.563 7.563 13.79 0.000 1.33
surface and accuracy of the workpiece.
They are also applied in the design of ma- V × f 1 0.218 0.218 0.218 0.40 0.531 0.04
chine tools, cutting tools and fixtures. Error 66 0.3300 0.3300 0.0050 0.41
Cutting forces are generally measured us- Total 80 81.3857 100.00
ing dynamometers which are expensive
devices and not easy to use. There are Table 5: ANOVA results for sound level
some indirect methods to determine cut-
ting forces. These methods are generally
practical and inexpensive. Motor current
is one of these ways to determine the cut-
ting forces.
Figure 7 shows the main effect plot for
machine current in this study. As feed rate,
depth of cut and cutting speed increase, the
motor current value generally increases.
These increases in motor current cause an
increase in power consumption.
The ANOVA results for power consump-
tion are given in Table 6. According to
these results, the depth of cut has a domi-
nant effect on power consumption, with its
contribution amounting to 70.21  %, fol-
lowed by feed rate and cutting speed, i. e.
12.62 % and 9 % contribution, respectively.
Also, the interaction between (a × V) and Figure 7: Effect of cutting parameters on average response characteristics for power consumption

62 (2020) 1
 92 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING

Figure 8: Power consumption versus a) feed rate and cutting speed, b) feed rate and depth of cut, c) depth of cut and cutting speed

Sequential Adjusted Adjusted

Source DF sum of sum of mean F P Value Contr. (%)
squares squares squares (a × f) are important in terms of power con-
sumption. Their contributions amount to
Regression 14 97244753 97244753 6946054 1045.68 0.000 99.55
3.86 % and 2.90 %, respectively.
Linear 4 89711505 89711505 22427876 3376.35 0.000 91.84
According to Figure 8, as the value of
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020

h 1 3955 3955 3955 0.60 0.443 0.00 depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed
a 1 68586448 68586448 68586448 10325.17 0.000 70.21 increase, power consumption also in-
V 1 8791999 8791999 8791999 1323.57 0.000 9.00 creases. Power consumption is in direct
f 1 12329103 12329103 12329103 1856.05 0.000 12.62
proportion with machine current. The
amount of power consumption is calcu-
Square 4 575027 575027 143757 21.64 0.000 0.59
lated through the multiplication of current
h2 1 6750 6750 6750 1.02 0.317 0.01 by voltage.
a2 1 441033 441033 441033 66.39 0.000 0.45 Correlation between power consump-
V2 1 126228 126228 126228 19.00 0.000 0.13 tion and sound level. Correlations between
power consumption and sound level are
For personal use only.

f2 1 1017 1017 1017 0.15 0.697 0.00

given in Figure 9. According to this plot,
Interaction 6 6958222 6958222 1159704 174.58 0.000 7.12
any increase in sound level causes an in-
h × a 1 13535 13535 13535 2.04 0.158 0.01 crease in power consumption.
h × V 1 703 703 703 0.11 0.746 0.00 The fitted equation for the cubic model that
h × f 1 6007 6007 6007 0.90 0.345 0.01 describes the relationship between sound
a × V 1 3766536 3766536 3766536 567.02 0.000 3.86 level (SL) and power consumption (PC) is:
a × f 1 2834868 2834868 2834868 426.77 0.000 2.90
SL = 52.66 + 0.01552 × PC –
V × f 1 336572 336572 336572 50.67 0.000 0.34 0.000003 × PC2 +0.000000 × PC3
Error 66 438414 438414 6643 0.45
Total 80 97683168 100.00 The relationship between sound level (dB)
and power consumption (W) is statistically
Table 6: ANOVA results for power consumption
significant (p < 0.05).
According to the mathematical model ob-
tained, it is possible to estimate the sound
level through power consumption or to es-
timate power consumption through the
sound level.
Figure 9: Fitted line plot Regression for sound level vs power con-
for cubic model sumption (W) diagnostic report shows
large residuals (marked in red) and pat-
terns, as shown in Figure 10.
Optimum cutting parameters. In par-
ticular, it is difficult to determine the opti-
mum cutting parameters in a machining
operation as there are many input factors.
Table 7 shows the effects of optimum ma-
chining parameters on the output factors.
Figure 10: Sound level The lowest values of output factors were
versus power consump- defined as the optimum levels and these
tion diagnostic report are shown in boldface type.
The statistical validity of the models was
proved by performing diagnostic checking of
the models. The Anderson-Darling test and

62 (2020) 1
 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING 93

Ra (µm) Sound level (dB) Power consumption (W)

No
h a V f h a V f h a V f
1 2.402 2.261 2.372 1.193 77.641 74.667 77.467 76.548 3331.636 2271.830 2971.060 2866.319
2 2.427 2.442 2.417 2.411 77.815 78.715 77.604 77.878 3359.559 3359.559 3290.821 3351.659
3 2.399 2.474 2.439 3.624 77.978 79.912 78.363 79.007 3348.752 4420.145 3778.066 3821.969
D 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 7: Optimum values of cutting parameters for surface roughness, sound level and power consumption

normal probability plots of the residuals ver-
sus the predicted response for surface
roughness, sound level, and power con-
sumption are given in Figures 11 to 13, re-
spectively. According to these figures, the
residuals closely follow the straight line.
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020
PC = 8731,46 + (h × 45,35) –
(a × 2005,6) – (v × 82,2136) –
(f × 6839,24) + (h2 × 0,7746) +
(a2*108,702) + (v2 × 0,209354) – (6)
(f2 × 751,5) – (h × a × 3,23171) –
(h × v × 0,0441833) – (h × f × 25,8344) +
R2 = 99.55 %. R2 (pred) =  (7)
99.33 %. R2 (adj) = 99.46 %
Conclusions
• The surface roughness, sound level, and

Thus, good agreement between the predicted (a × v × 13,4775) + (a × f × 2338,48) + motor current values varied depending
and experimental results was obtained. As a (v × f × 48,3457) on the employed cutting speed, feed rate
result, the significant effect of the terms
mentioned in the model was proven.
Regression equations. R2 was obtained
using Equation (1). Regression was ob-
tained for surface roughness using Equa-
tions (2, 3), sound level using Equations (4,
5) and power consumption using Equations
(6, 7) using Minitab 16 software. These
For personal use only.

equations are given below.

SSresidual
R2 = 1− (1)
SSmodel + SSresidual

Regression equations for surface rough-

ness Ra:
Ra = -2.46682 + (h × 0.00387963) +
(a × 0.385712) + (v × 0.0117832) +
(f × 14.8117) – (h2 × 0.00103704) –
(a2 × 0.033822) – (v2 × 0.0000296296) – (2)
(f2 × 0.259259) + (h × a × 0.00641975) +
(h × v × 0.000217593) – (h × f × 0.0757407) –
Figure 11: Residual plots for surface roughness
(a × v × 0.00128858) – (a × f × 0.116512) –
(v × f × 0.00791667)

R2 = 99.59 % R2 (pred) =  (3)

99.36 % R2 (adj) = 99.51 %

Regression equations for sound level SL:

SL = 81.7134 + (h × 0.0489815) +
(a × 3.72878) – (v × 0.227176) +
(f × 14.9907) – (h2*0.000222222) –
(a2 × 0.941358) + (v2 × 0.000777778) + (4)
(f2 × 10) – (h × a × 0.00833333) +
(h × v × 0.00025) – (h × f × 0.0944444) +
(a × v × 0.0157407) + (a × f × 3.81944) –
(v × f × 0.0388889)

R2 = 93.65 % R2 (pred) =  (5)

90.64 % R2 (adj) = 92.30 %

Regression equation for power consump-

tion PC: Figure 12: Residual plots for sound level

62 (2020) 1
 94 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020
Figure 13: Residual plots for power consumption
and depth of cut in the machining of
AISI 1040 steel.
 
• Based on the ANOVA analysis results, it
was clearly seen that the feed rate has
the most significant effect on surface
For personal use only.
roughness, contributing by 98.08 %. The
cutting speed and depth of cut were un-  
important. The surface roughness was
modeled with 99.6 % accuracy.
• The cutting parameter most effective re-
garding the sound level was the depth of
cut, with its 68.71 % contribution. It was  
followed by the feed rate, with a 14.33 %
contribution. Increasing depth of cut and
feed rate will increase the sound level.
Cutting speed has a minor effect on the
 
sound level, with a 1.9 % contribution.
The sound level was modeled with
93.65 % accuracy.
• The most significant cutting parameter
affecting motor current was the depth
of cut, contributing by 70.21 %. Feed
 
rate and cutting speed were the next
important machining parameters af-
fecting the motor current, with their
12.62 % and 9 % contribution, respec-
tively. Increase in all three cutting pa-
rameters will increase motor current.  
Thus, power consumption also in-
creases as a result of an increase in mo-
tor current. Motor current was modeled
with 99.55 % accuracy.  
• Strong correlations were found between
power consumption and sound level. As
the sound level increases, power con-
sumption also increases.
• According to the results of ANOVA, the  
hardness of the workpiece has an insig-
nificant effect on response variables.
References
1 V. Bedekar, P. Pauskar, R. Shivpuri, J. Howe:
Microstructure and texture evolutions in AISI
1050 steel by flow forming, Procedia Engi-
neering 81 (2014), pp. 2355-2360
DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.333
2 A. Khalil, M. Ali, A. Azmi: Effect of Al2O3
nanolubricant with SDBS on tool wear during
turning process of AISI 1050 with minimal
quantity lubricant, Procedia Manufacturing 2
(2015), pp. 130-134
DOI:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.023
3 S. Murugappan, S. Arul: Effect of cryogenic
precooling on chip reduction co-efficient dur-
ing turning of EN8 steel rod, Materials Today:
Proceedings 4 (2017), No. 8, pp. 8848-8855
DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.235
4 A. K. Sharma, R. K. Singh, A. R. Dixit, A. K. Tiwari:
Characterization and experimental investiga-
tion of Al2O3 nanoparticle based cutting fluid
in turning of AISI 1040 steel under minimum
quantity lubrication (MQL), Materials Today:
Proceedings 3 (2016), No. 6, pp. 1899-1906
DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2016.04.090
5 K. Fang, N. Uhan, F. Zhao, J. W. Sutherland:
A new approach to scheduling in manufacturing
for power consumption and carbon footprint
reduction, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 30
(2011), No. 4, pp. 234-240
DOI:10.1016/j.jmsy.2011.08.004
6 K. S. Sangwan: Development of a multi criteria
decision model for justification of green manu-
facturing systems, International Journal of
Green Economics 5 (2011), No. 3, pp. 285-305
DOI:10.1504/IJGE.2011.044239
7 Y. He, B. Liu, X. Zhang, H. Gao, X. Liu: A mode-
ling method of task-oriented energy consump-
tion for machining manufacturing system,
Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012),
No. 1, pp. 167-174
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.033
8 F. Pusavec, P. Krajnik, J. Kopac: Transitioning
to sustainable production–Part I: application
on machining technologies, Journal of Cleaner
Production 18 (2010), No. 2, pp. 174-184
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.08.010
 9 C. Moganapriya, R. Rajasekar, K. Ponappa,
R. Venkatesh, S. Jerome: Influence of coating
material and cutting parameters on surface
roughness and material removal rate in turning
process using Taguchi method, Materials Today:
Proceedings 5 (2018), No. 2, pp. 8532-8538
DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.550
10 Z. Hessainia, A. Belbah, M. A. Yallese,
T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal: On the prediction of
surface roughness in the hard turning based
on cutting parameters and tool vibrations,
Measurement 46 (2013), No. 5, pp. 1671-1681
DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.12.016
11 H. Aouici, M. A. Yallese, K. Chaoui,
T. Mabrouki, J.-F. Rigal: Analysis of surface
roughness and cutting force components in
hard turning with CBN tool: Prediction model
and cutting conditions optimization, Measure-
ment 45 (2012), No. 3, pp. 344-353
DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2011.11.011
12 G. C. Benga, A. M. Abrao: Turning of hardened
100Cr6 bearing steel with ceramic and PCBN
cutting tools, Journal of materials processing
technology 143 (2003), pp. 237-241
DOI:10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00346-7
13 P. V. Krishna, R. Srikant, D. N. Rao: Experi-
mental investigation on the performance of
nanoboric acid suspensions in SAE-40 and
coconut oil during turning of AISI 1040 steel,
International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 50 (2010), No. 10, pp. 911-916
DOI:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.06.001
14 R. Padmini, P. V. Krishna, G. K. M. Rao: Effec-
tiveness of vegetable oil based nanofluids as
potential cutting fluids in turning AISI 1040
steel, Tribology International 94 (2016),
pp. 490-501
DOI:10.1016/j.triboint.2015.10.006
15 M. A. Yallese, K. Chaoui, N. Zeghib,
L. Boulanouar, J.-F. Rigal: Hard machining of
hardened bearing steel using cubic boron
nitride tool, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 209 (2009), No. 2, pp. 1092-1104
DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.03.014
16 Q. Zhong, R. Tang, T. Peng: Decision rules for
energy consumption minimization during
material removal process in turning, Journal
of Cleaner Production 140 (2017),
pp. 1819-1827
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.084
17 C. Camposeco-Negrete: Optimization of cutting
parameters for minimizing energy consump-
tion in turning of AISI 6061 T6 using Taguchi
methodology and ANOVA, Journal of Cleaner
Production 53 (2013), pp. 195-203
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.049
18 D. Salgado, F. Alonso: An approach based on
current and sound signals for in-process tool
wear monitoring, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture 47 (2007),
No. 14, pp. 2140-2152
DOI:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2007.04.013
19 L. Zhou, J. Li, F. Li, Q. Meng, J. Li, X. Xu:
Energy consumption model and energy efficiency
of machine tools: a comprehensive literature
review, Journal of Cleaner Production 112
(2016), pp. 3721-3734
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.093
62 (2020) 1

20 S. T. Newman, A. Nassehi, R. Imani-Asrai,
V. Dhokia: Energy efficient process planning
for CNC machining, CIRP Journal of Manufac-
turing Science and Technology 5 (2012),
No. 2, pp. 127-136
DOI:10.1016/j.cirpj.2012.03.007
21 M. K. Pradhan: Estimating the effect of process
parameters on MRR, TWR and radial overcut
of EDMed AISI D2 tool steel by RSM and GRA
coupled with PCA, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68
(2013), No. 1-4, pp. 591-605
DOI:10.1007/s00170-013-4780-9
22 P. S. Bilga, S. Singh, R. Kumar: Optimization of
energy consumption response parameters
for turning operation using Taguchi method,
Journal of cleaner production 137 (2016),
pp. 1406-1417
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.220
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Hanser - Library on January 15, 2020
23 R. K. Bhushan: Optimization of cutting param-
eters for minimizing power consumption and
maximizing tool life during machining of Al
alloy SiC particle composites, Journal of
Cleaner Production 39 (2013), pp. 242-254
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.008
24 S. Chinchanikar, S. Choudhury: Effect of work
material hardness and cutting parameters on
performance of coated carbide tool when turn-
ing hardened steel: an optimization approach,
Measurement 46 (2013), No. 4, pp. 1572-1584
DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.11.032
For personal use only.
25 A. Pathak, R. Warghane, S. Deokar: Optimiza-
tion of cutting parameters in dry turning of
AISI A2 tool steel using carbide tool by
Taguchi based fuzzy logics, Materials Today:
Proceedings 5 (2018), No. 2, pp. 5082-5090
DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.12.087
26 S. A. Bagaber, A. R. Yusoff: Multi-objective op-
timization of cutting parameters to minimize
power consumption in dry turning of stainless
steel 316, Journal of Cleaner Production 157
(2017), pp. 30-46
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.231
27 A. Aggarwal, H. Singh, P. Kumar, M. Singh:
Optimizing power consumption for CNC
turned parts using response surface methodol-
ogy and Taguchi’s technique – a comparative
62 (2020) 1
View publication stats
PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING
analysis, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 200 (2008), No.1-3, pp. 373-384
DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.09.041
28 D. Fratila, C. Caizar: Application of Taguchi
method to selection of optimal lubrication and
cutting conditions in face milling of AlMg3,
Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011),
No. 6-7, pp. 640-645
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.007
29 L. Abhang, M. Hameedullah: Power prediction
model for turning EN-31 steel using response
surface methodology, Journal of Engineering
Science & Technology Review 3 (2010), No. 1,
pp. 116-122
DOI:10.25103/jestr.031.20
30 G. Campatelli, L. Lorenzini, A. Scippa:
Optimization of process parameters using a re-
sponse surface method for minimizing power
consumption in the milling of carbon steel,
Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014),
pp. 309-316
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.025
31 M. Emami, M. H. Sadeghi, A. A. D. Sarhan,
F. Hasani: Investigating the minimum quantity
lubrication in grinding of Al2O3 engineering
ceramic, Journal of Cleaner Production 66
(2014), pp. 632-643
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.018
32 A. Bhattacharya, S. Das, P. Majumder,
A. Batish: Estimating the effect of cutting
parameters on surface finish and power
consumption during high speed machining of
AISI 1045 steel using Taguchi design and
ANOVA, Production Engineering 3 (2009),
No. 1, pp. 31-40
DOI:10.1007/s11740-008-0132-2
33 H. Tebassi, M. Yallese, R. Khettabi, S. Belhadi,
I. Meddour, F. Girardin: Multi-objective optimi-
zation of surface roughness, cutting forces,
productivity and power consumption when
turning of Inconel 718, International Journal
of Industrial Engineering Computations 7
(2016), No. 1, pp. 111-134
DOI:10.5267/j.ijiec.2015.7.003
34 D. Murat, C. Ensarioglu, N. Gursakal, A. Oral,
M. C. Cakir: Surface roughness analysis of
greater cutting depths during hard turning,
95
Materials Testing 59 (2017), No. 9, pp. 795-802
DOI:10.3139/120.111074
35 K. Aldaş, I. Özkul, M. Eskil: Prediction of sur-
face roughness in longitudinal turning process
by a genetic learning algorithm, Materials
Testing 56 (2014), No. 5, pp. 375-380
DOI:10.3139/120.110570
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/120.111458
Materials Testing
62 (2020) 1, pages 85-95
© Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 0025-5300
The authors of this contribution
Dr. Şahinoğlu, born in 1981, completed his under-
graduate and graduate education in manufacturing
engineering at Gazi University. He works in the
field of machine manufacturing and design. He has
three patents in machine design and manufacture.
One of them is the “intelligent tool machining de-
sign” which determines the cutting parameters ac-
cording to sound and vibration analysis. He has
published some papers related to machining opera-
tion. He has been working as instructor at Çankırı
Karatekin University, department of mechanical
and metal technology since 2012.
Dr. Rafighi, born in 1988, received his BSc de-
gree in mechanical engineering from Islamic
Azad University of Tabriz in 2010. He got his MS.
and PhD degrees in manufacturing engineering
from Gazi University in 2013, and 2018, respec-
tively. He has been honored as a first ranked
student of the term, with PhD CGPA (4.00). Gazi
University Projects of Scientific Investigation
(BAP) supported both of his graduate thesis stud-
ies. Dr. Rafighi has attended the Rolls-Royce the
Jet Engine Design Project at Brandenburg Univer-
sity of Technology, Cottbus, Germany, as a re-
searcher. He has published some papers related
to machining operation. Since September 2018,
he has been working as an assistant professor at
the University of Turkish Aeronautical Associa-
tion department of mechanical engineering.