Industrial Engineering Journal

ISSN:2581-4915

Industrial Engineering Journal

Volume 13 Issue 6 * June 2020

Selection Of Vegetable Oil For MQL As A Cutting Fluid Through

MADM Methods
1
P. Nageswara Rao, 2Suresh Babu Valeru and 3K.N.S Suman
1
Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, VVIT, Gunter,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
Email:vvitpnr@gmail.com
2
Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering Department, Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam, A.P, India.
Email: valerusureshbabu23@gmail.com
3
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam, A.P, India
Email: sumankoka@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: As a lubricant in machining applications vegetable oils are used widely from 21st
centaury due to their environmental friendliness and good machining response. However, there
are wide variety of oils available in nature consisting of wide variety of fluid properties,
therefore selection of proper oil as a lubricant for the particular machining application is always
been a confusing task. A incorrect selection of lubricant it contributes very high cost as well as
undesirable machining performance. Hence among the variety of vegetable oils picking of proper
oil for the particular application leading to generation of minimum temperature and surface
roughness during machining is of primary importance. Therefore within the present work
selection of best vegetable oil as a lubricant in various situations of the manufacturing
environment and assessment of sustainable alternative a highly promising approach known as
Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) were used due to effectively decision-making.
KEYWORDS: Vegetable oils, Selection, MADM methods, Alternatives.

1. INTRODUCTION

From the last two decades in machining vegetable oils has been widely used as a lubricant due to
their high lubrication performance, low toxicity, biodegradable and harmless nature. However
during the real time applications especially concerned to machining applications performance of
these oils differs one over the other because of variation of wide fluid properties [1-3]. Therefore
Suresh et.al [4] optimized vegetable oil properties optimized by Computational Fluid Dynamics
and found that thermal conductivity and viscosity play a major role to improving the machining

1
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

performance under MQL. Therefore selection of proper base vegetable oil having the thermo
physical properties nearer to the optimized properties is of utmost importance apart from these
issues generally vegetable oils having less oxidation and thermal stability compared to mineral
oils which will lead to decreases the long term utilization therefore many researchers were
improved the oxidation and thermal stability by various improving methods [5-6]. Therefore
long term usage of any vegetable oil is also needed, which can achieve by higher oxidation and
thermal stability. Therefore the present work focuses on selection of proper base vegetable oil
consisting of desirable thermo physical properties, machining performance and chemical
sustainability for long term usage such as oxidation and thermal stability for conventional
machining using MADM methods.

2. COLLECTION AND GENERATION OF DATA

Application of MADM techniques to any practical problem under consideration requires a

collection of significant data related to the various critical parameters involved with in the
process. Since the present problem involves about selection of proper vegetable oil having
favorable fluid characteristics such as specific heat, flash point, thermal conductivity, viscosity
and density apart from significant long term usage chemical sustainability such as oxidation and
thermal stability which can lead to favorable machining outputs. Therefore the present work
initially the thermo physical properties pertaining to various vegetable oils which are extensively
used in machining applications has been collected through literature [5-6].Apart from the data
related to chemical reactions such as oxidation and thermal stability of these oils and also
machining outputs was obtained through the self made experimental investigations which are
tabulated in table1.

Table 1. Vegetable oil properties and performance characteristics.

S.No. Vegetab Data from literature Data from experimental
-le oil investigations

On set Machining outputs

temperature at constant cutting
at 2% loss of conditions under
MQL
mass and at
Speed -370rpm,
heating rate Feed- 0.5
of 10°C/min inch/minute
Depth of cut-2mm
Work piece-
Aluminum
Tool-HSS

Speci Flash Therm Kine Dens Max. temp

fic point al matic ity OS TS during Surfa
heat (°C) conduc viscosi (°C) (°C) Machining ce
(kj/k tivity ty (g/c (At Roug
g.k) At At m3) constant hness

2
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

At 40°C 40°C cutting (µm)

40°C (w/mk) (mm2/ conditions)
s) (°C)
Attri Attrib Attrib Attrib Attri Attri Attrib Attribute Attri
bute ute ute ute bute bute ute 8 bute
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
1 Palm oil 1.902 252 0.170 39.4 0.919 217 239 38.4 4.98
2 Cotton 2.007 234 0.175 34 0.918 204 229 36.2 3.49
seed
3 castor 1.80 229 0.180 220 0.960 210 223 35.8 3.15
4 sesame 2.131 260 0.145 36 0.918 236 244 34.7 2.88
5 soybean 1.957 254 0.158 27.3 0.914 274 302 32.1 2.57
6 Canola 2.223 246 0.168 45.6 0.912 243 261 32.1 2.33
(Rapese
ed)
7 Neem 1.681 200 0.132 35.8 0.918 183 205 34.7 3.82
8 Sunflow 2.179 274 0.162 40.6 0.916 257 345 35.4 4.23
er
9 Rice 4.140 184 0·158 38.2 0.906 246 282 41.3 5.16
bran
10 Coconut 2.201 266 0.154 27 0.918 241 257 42.5 4.58
oil
11 Mustard 2.217 250 0.156 41.23 0.925 258 276 32.4 2.36
oil

3. METHODOLOGY

Application of MADM methods to any problem involves the following two steps
➢ Weightage was identifying each attribute selected within the process
➢ Estimating the each alternate measure of performance (MOP) of through various
MADM methodologies
From the above steps the following procedure has been adopted for the present work which is
depicted through the flow chart shown in figure1.

Selection of various alternatives among various vegetable oils

Collection and generation of data

Collection of various Generation of data related to

properties of vegetable oil vegetable chemical
significant for a lubricant sustainability and machining
through various literature outputs through experiments

3
 Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

From the obtained beneficiary and non beneficiary

variables normalize the data

Calculation of measure
performance of each alternative Calculation of measure performance Calculation of measure
and ranking the each alternative of each alternative and ranking the performance of each alternative
considering each alternative and ranking the each alternative
Equal weightage Considering Considering
to the attributes Randomized weightage to the Entropy based weigtage to the
attributes attributes

Application of different MADM methods

SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss

Method Method Method AHP Method TOPSIS Function
Method Method Approach

Selection of best alternative from various methods

Fig:1 Flow chart for selection of best vegetable oil as a lubricant

Weightage factor to each attribute plays a major role in deciding the take of each alternative
which is under inspection whether to choose or not chose. Within the present work three
methodologies concerned to weightage i.e. mean, randomized and entropy based were
considered to predict the best alternative.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Based on the flow chart shown in figure1, initially normalization of the data has been carried out
by considering beneficiary and non beneficiary variables the obtained values were tabulated in
table 2.

4
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

Table 2. Attributes normalized values

S.N Vegetab Data from literature Data from experimental

o. le oil investigations

On set Machining
temperature at outputs at
2% loss of mass constant cutting
conditions under
and at heating
MQL
rate of 10°C/min
Speed -370rpm,
Feed- 0.5
inch/minute
Depth of cut-
2mm
Work piece-
Aluminum
Tool-HSS

Specifi Flash Therm Kinema Density Max.

c heat point al tic OS TS temp Surfac
(kj/kg. (°C) conduc viscosit (g/cm3) (°C) (°C) during e
k) tivity y Machi Rough
At 40°C At At 40°C ning ness
40°C (mm2/s) (At (µm)
(w/mk) consta
nt
cutting
conditi
ons)
(°C)
1 Palm oil 0.4594 0.9197 0.9444 0.6853 0.9573 0.7920 0.6928 0.8099 0.4558
2 Cotton 0.4848 0.8540 0.9722 0.7941 0.9563 0.7445 0.6638 0.8591 0.6504
seed
3 Castor 0.4348 0.8358 1.0000 0.1227 1.0000 0.7664 0.6464 0.8687 0.7206
4 Sesame 0.5147 0.9489 0.8056 0.7500 0.9563 0.8613 0.7072 0.8963 0.7882
5 Soybean 0.4727 0.9270 0.8778 0.9310 0.9521 1.0000 0.8754 1.0000 1.0000
6 Canola 0.5370 0.8978 0.9333 0.5921 0.9500 0.8869 0.7565 0.9688 0.9742
(Rapese
ed)
7 Neem 0.4060 0.7299 0.7333 0.7542 0.9563 0.6679 0.5942 0.8963 0.5942
8 Sunflow 0.5263 1.0000 0.9000 0.6650 0.9542 0.9380 1.0000 0.8785 0.5366
er

5
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

9 Rice 1.0000 0.6715 0.8778 0.7068 0.9438 0.8978 0.8174 0.7530 0.4399
bran
10 Coconut 0.5316 0.9708 0.8556 1.0000 0.9563 0.8796 0.7449 0.7318 0.4956
oil
11 Mustard 0.5355 0.9124 0.8667 0.6549 0.9635 0.9416 0.8000 0.9599 0.9619
oil

4.1 Attributes with equal importance - Equal weighting factors - Mean weighting
method

Based on the normalized data generated in table.2 thermo physical properties of vegetable oil
such as specific heat, flash point, thermal conductivity, kinematic viscosity and density apart
from the chemical sustainability factors related to vegetable oil i.e. oxidation, thermal stability
and machining response outputs such as maximum temperature during machining and surface
roughness of machined workpiece are considered as primary attributes for the selection of best
alternative among the vegetable oils. During the implementation of MADM methods to the
normalized data considering the above attributes initially each attribute is considered to be of
equal importance. Since there are nine attributes involved in the generation of data the weightage
of each attribute is considered as 1/9 = 0.11.

Table 3. Generation of weightage considering equal importance

Attributes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Weightage 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

After identification of the suitable weights, each alternative measure of performance was calculated using
the data of table 2 and table 3 through different MADM methods. For example by using simple additive
method calculated measure of performance (mop) for alternate 1 which is shown in below.
m
pi =  w j mij (1)
j =1
Where
Pi is each alternate performance score
wj is the particular attribute weighting factor
mij Normalized value from normalized matrix through table 2.
Alternate 1:
0.11x0.4594+0.11x0.9197+0.11x0.9444+0.11x0.6853+0.11x0.9573+0.11x0.79204+0.11x0.6928
+0.11x0.8099+0.11x0.64558=0.7388.
Likewise, the performance score of each alternate was calculated. The overall
performance score of each alternative by SAW method based on performance their ranks shown
through table 4.

6
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

Table4: Each alternate performance score through SAW method.

S.No Vegetable oil Performance score Ranks

1 Palm 0.7388 9
2 Cotton seed 0.7677 8
3 Castor 0.7035 10
4 Sesame 0.7951 5
5 Soybean 0.8840 1
6 Canola (Rapeseed) 0.8246 3
7 Neem 0.6966 11
8 Sunflower 0.8139 4
9 Rice bran 0.7819 7
10 Coconut 0.7883 6
11 Mustard 0.8356 2

However based on various principles, formulas and loss functions by many MADM and MCDM
methods are used to predict better alternative from various literatures [7-11]. However
calculation of performance scores of each alternate through each MADM or MCDM method are
time consuming and difficult task. So that in this work a program has been developed in
MATLAB by using the different methods formulae to calculate the performance score. For this
initially by the equal weightage of attributes. From the program the obtained output the measure
of performance of each alternate by SAW method, WPM method, AHP method, TOPSIS method
and one of its variants and loss function approach were tabulated in table 5. Based on the scores
from different methods, summarized data of each alternate and its rank is shown in table 6. From
the table among all other alternates soybean oil is a good choice with the given properties to suit
for machining of materials when the weightage of equal was given to all attributes.

Table 5. Each alternate performance score by various MADM methods with equal weightage.
S.No. Vegetable SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss
oil AHP TOPSIS Function
approach
1 Palm 0.7388 0.7239 0.0838 0.0860 0.6471 0.6471 0.2747

2 Cotton seed 0.7677 0.7619 0.0878 0.0905 0.6908 0.6908 0.3195

3 Castor 0.7035 0.6244 0.0790 0.0742 0.1959 0.1959 0.3604

4 Sesame 0.7951 0.7930 0.0913 0.0942 0.7169 0.7169 0.3747

5 Soybean 0.8840 0.8755 0.1018 0.1040 0.7386 0.7386 0.5772

6 Canola 0.8246 0.8176 0.0947 0.0972 0.7270 0.7270 0.4960

(Rapeseed)

7
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

7 Neem 0.6966 0.6874 0.0795 0.0817 0.6405 0.6405 0.1956

8 Sunflower 0.8139 0.8009 0.0929 0.0952 0.7101 0.7101 0.5021

9 Rice bran 0.7819 0.7724 0.0925 0.0918 0.7341 0.7341 0.3273

10 Coconut 0.7883 0.7765 0.0906 0.0923 0.6931 0.6931 0.2992

11 Mustard 0.8356 0.8310 0.0961 0.0988 0.7377 0.7377 0.5143

Table 6. Each alternate rank based on performance score.

Ranking
S.No. Vegetable
SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss
oil
AHP TOPSIS Function
approach
1 Palm 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 Cotton seed 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
3 Castor 10 11 11 11 11 11 11
4 Sesame 5 5 6 5 5 5 5
5 Soybean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 Canola 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
(Rapeseed)
7 Neem 11 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 Sunflower 4 4 4 4 6 6 6
9 Rice bran 7 7 5 7 3 3 3
10 Coconut 6 6 7 6 7 7 7
11 Mustard 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

4.2 Attributes with randomized weightage

All the the attributes with the equal importance is not always preferable because in the group of
weightage factors are given to indicate the impact of that alternate or relative importance.
Generally the measuring of accurate overall performance rating assigning the weightage factors.
Therefore the decision maker has to replicate various experiments and test its validity. Hence,
further study has been made vegetable oil properties and their influence on the proposed
problem with the variation of weightage factors.

8
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

The major importance of coolant is to improve the machining performance, which depends on
generated temperatures and surface roughness of machined surface. Based on this different
weighatge factors were considered within which machining responses were given top priority
compared remaining other attributes. The detailed factors of weightage tabulated in table 7.

Table 7. Generation of weightage by random procedure

On set Machining outputs at
temperature constant cutting
at 2% loss of conditions under MQL
mass and at
heating rate of Speed -370rpm,
100c/min Feed- 0.5 inch/minute
Depth of cut-2mm
Work piece-Aluminum
Tool-HSS
Specific Flash Thermal Kinematic Density Max. temp
heat point conductivity viscosity OS TS during Surface
(kj/kg.k) (°C) At 40°C At 40°C (g/cm3) (°C) (°C) Machining Roughness
At 400c (w/mk) (mm2/s) (At (µm)
constant
cutting
conditions)
(°C)
0.066 0.066 0.14 0.14 0.066 0.10 0.10 0.161 0.161

Similar to the procedure adopted in earlier section, the performance scores of each alternate were
calculated by different methods and given in Table 8, while the ranks given to the materials are
shown in Table 9.

Table 8. Each alternate performance score by various MADM methods with randmoized
weightage.

S.No. Material SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss

AHP TOPSIS Function
Approach
1 Palm oil 0.8669 0.6688 0.0985 0.0527 0.7248 0.6998 0.2978

2 Cotton seed 0.9312 0.7425 0.1069 0.0585 0.8138 0.7662 0.3905

3 Castor 0.8237 0.5326 0.0924 0.0420 0.2059 0.2016 0.3811

4 Sesame 0.9505 0.7668 0.1097 0.0605 0.8376 0.7904 0.4267

5 Soybean 1.0878 0.8959 0.1262 0.0706 0.8796 0.8215 0.6667

6 Canola 1.0016 0.8056 0.1154 0.0635 0.8520 0.8024 0.6098

9
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

(Rapeseed)
7 Neem 0.8463 0.6604 0.0971 0.0521 0.7660 0.7179 0.2595

8 Sunflower 0.9394 0.7407 0.1073 0.0584 0.7827 0.7598 0.5051

9 Rice bran 0.8854 0.6887 0.1031 0.0543 0.7288 0.7321 0.3116

10 Coconut oil 0.9242 0.7248 0.1068 0.0571 0.7569 0.7373 0.2915

11 Mustard oil 1.0082 0.8170 0.1164 0.0644 0.8614 0.8125 0.6050

Table 9. Each alternate rank based on performance score with different MADM methods.

S.No. Material Ranking

SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss
AHP TOPSIS Function
Approach
1 Palm oil 9 9 9 9 10 10 10
2 Cotton seed 6 5 6 5 5 5 5
3 Castor 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
4 Sesame 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 Soybean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 Canola 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(Rapeseed)
7 Neem 10 10 10 10 7 9 9
8 Sunflower 5 6 5 6 6 6 6
9 Rice bran 8 8 8 8 9 8 8
10 Coconut oil 7 7 7 7 8 7 7
11 Mustard oil 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

4.3 Entropy based weightage method

Repeatedly to do the experiment till the decision maker has satisfied therefore it is not always the
case to go for randomized weights. Among all other methods highly reliable information
measurement method to achieving the weights with accuracy is called entropy method [12]. By
reducing decision makers experiments as much as possible of different MADM problems
entropy methods are popular in obtaining the weights and also helpful to identify the weights to
attributes in a lesser amount of time.

Performance rating with attributes differs with each other in entropy method and within this
method if all the other materials have similar performance rating to the particular attribute the
attribute with high importance is considered with lower preference. In decision making route the
bigger the value of the entropy corresponding to the particular attribute implies the smaller
attribute’s weight and the less power of that attribute. To evaluate the weightage of each attribute
by entropy method consisting of the following steps based on various literatures [12-13]. By

10
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

using the formulae the weighting factors were calculated which shown in below and the obtained
weightage factors were tabulated in table 10.

1. Decision Matrix is normalized to eliminate anomalies with different measurement units

and scales by using equation.
2. xij is the original decision matrix.

xij
Pij = m

x i =1
ij (2)

3. After normalizing the decision matrix, entropy values ej are calculated using equation.3
n
e j = −k  pij ln pij (3)
j =1

Where k is a constant,
Let k = (ln(m))-1 (4)
4. The degree of divergence d of each criterion can be calculated as
dj=1-ej (5)
The value dj represents the inherent contrast intensity of Cj.
Table 10. Generation of weightage of each attribute by entropy method.

On set Machining outputs at

temperature at constant cutting
2% loss of conditions under MQL
mass and at
heating rate of
Speed -370rpm,
100c/min
Feed- 0.5 inch/minute
Depth of cut-2mm
Work piece-Aluminum
Tool-HSS
Specific Flash Thermal Kinematic Density Max. temp
heat point conductivity viscosity OS TS during Surface
(kj/kg.k) (°C) At 40°C At 40°C (g/cm3) (°C) (°C) Machining Roughness
At 400c (w/mk) (mm2/s) (At (µm)
constant
cutting
conditions)
(°C)
0.0827 0.0151 0.0082 0.7422 0.0003 0.0152 0.0252 0.0112 0.0999
The each alternate performance score was calculated by entropy proposed weightage method
which are tabulated in table 11 and the ranks based on performance score tabulated in table 12.

11
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

Table 11. Each alternate performance score by various MADM methods with entropy based
weightage.

S.No. Vegetable SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss

oil AHP TOPSIS Function
Approach
1 Palm oil 0.6527 0.6439 0.0854 0.0848 0.9158 0.8395 0.6700

2 Cotton seed 0.7533 0.7460 0.0987 0.0983 0.9441 0.8742 0.7424

3 Castor 0.2579 0.1868 0.0338 0.0246 0.0278 0.0736 0.0692

4 Sesame 0.7401 0.7357 0.0970 0.0969 0.9400 0.8819 0.7670

5 Soybean 0.9000 0.8864 0.1177 0.1168 0.9590 0.8893 0.8746

6 Canola 0.6461 0.6348 0.0848 0.0836 0.8978 0.8612 0.7435

(Rapeseed)
7 Neem 0.7052 0.6951 0.0923 0.0916 0.9326 0.8529 0.7052

8 Sunflower 0.6628 0.6562 0.0868 0.0865 0.9170 0.8603 0.7142

9 Rice bran 0.7115 0.7001 0.0949 0.0922 0.9299 0.8804 0.7587

10 Coconut oil 0.8980 0.8720 0.1176 0.1149 0.9532 0.8743 0.7740

11 Mustard oil 0.6928 0.6844 0.0909 0.0902 0.9186 0.8756 0.7760

Table 12.Each alternate rank based on performance score with different MADM methods
S.N0. Material Ranking

SAW WPM AHP Multiplicative TOPSIS Modified Loss

AHP TOPSIS Function
Approach
1 Palm oil 9 9 9 9 9 10 10

2 Cotton seed 3 3 3 3 3 6 6

3 Castor 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

4 Sesame 4 4 4 4 4 2 2

12
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

5 Soybean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 Canola 10 10 10 10 10 7 7
(Rapeseed)
7 Neem 6 6 6 6 5 9 9
8 Sunflower 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
9 Rice bran 5 5 5 5 6 3 3
10 Coconut oil 2 2 2 2 2 5 5
11 Mustard oil 7 7 7 7 7 4 4

From the obtained ranking structure of different vegetable oils, Figure 2, 3 and 4 were plotted by
different weightage of attributes for the selection of best alternate. From the obtained ranking
structure it has been cleared that proposed all the methods to the alternates is not same. From the
different ranking scenarios it is observed that each method having its own criterion and also the
different weightage factors to attributes. Among other alternates Soybean oil is superior to the
other vegetable oil considered and ranked one in all conditions discussed.

Fig.2: Ranking to materials with same weights

Fig.3: Ranking to materials with randomized weights

13
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

Fig.4: Ranking to materials with entropy based weights

5. CONCLUSIONS

In machining process selection of better vegetable oil as a lubricant based on their individual
properties, chemical sustainability’s and desirable machining response through various MADM
methods was proposed in this work. Execution of these MADM methods given a methodical and
logical solution for the selection of the oil based on selected conditions. The selection of
vegetable oil has been done by the considering different weightges to the attributes involved
within the problem. From the obtained results it is observed that order of preference has been
found to be changed when the weight factors were changed in some cases. However each method
suggests its own selection criterion, but during the current analysis soybean oil has been emerged
as a unanimous alternate among the various alternates. From the various observations, choice of
soybean oil is emerging as better cutting fluid among all the alternates considered. It is well
supported by the various experimental investigations carried out by many researchers [14-16].
During the machining in the present work viscosity and thermal conductivity vegetable oil are
found to be major responsible parameters and soybean oil is found to be better between these
parameters compared to any other selected oils is considered within the present study. Apart
from this cutting fluid should posses high oxidation and thermal stability for long term usage and
soybean oil posses both these in an encouraging manner which can lead to wide spread usage of
it in wide variety of machining applications.

REFERENCES

(Conference paper from the internet :)

[1] Medarametla Susmitha, P Sharan, and Pathipati Naga Jyothi, “Influence of non-edible vegetable based
oil as cutting fluid on chip, surface roughness and cutting force during drilling operation of Mild Steel”
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 149, doi:10.1088/1757-899X/149/1/012037, 2016.

14
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

(Journal article from the internet:)

[2] Sunday Albert Lawal, Imtiaz Ahmed Choudhury, Ibrahim Ogu Sadiq, and Adedipe Oyewole
“Vegetable-oil based metalworking fluids research developments for machining processes: survey,
applications and challenges” Manufacturing Rev., Volume 1, 2014.
[3] Ravindra, Surase, and Ramkisan Shrirang Pawar, “Performance of vegetable oil based cutting fluid in
machining of steel by using MQL-A review” Lubricants, Volume 5, Issue 44
doi:10.3390/lubricants5040044, 2016.
[4] Suresh Babu Valeru, Putta Nageswara rao, and Koka Naga Sai Suman “Optimization of vegetable oil
properties in machining environment through CFD” International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue-12, 2019.
[5] Karmakar Gobinda, Ghosh Pranab, and Brajendra K. Sharma, “Chemically modifying vegetable oils
to prepare green lubricants” Lubricants. 5. 44. 10.3390/lubricants5040044, 2017.
[6] Shrikant Madiwale and Virendra Bhojwani, “An overview on production, properties, performance and
emission analysis of blends of biodiesel”, RAEREST 2016, Procedia Technology 25, pp.963 – 973, 2016.
[7] Vijaya Babu Vommi and Sravya Roy Kakollu, “A simple approach to multiple attribute decision
making using loss functions”, Ind Eng Int, DOI 10.1007/s40092-016-0174-6, 2016.
[8] Raut, Rakesh D. Gardas, Bhaskar B. Kharat, Manoj Narkhede, Balkrishna, “Modeling the drivers of
post-harvest losses-MCDM approach”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 154, pp.426-
433, 2018.
[9] Vaijayanti Raut, Bhaskar B. Gardas, Rakesh D. Raut, Balkrishna E. Narkhede, “Multi-criteria decision
making approach: a sustainable ware house location selection problem”, International Journal of
Management Concepts and Philosophy, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.260-281, 2017.
[10] Rao and Ravipudi Venkata, “Decision making in the manufacturing environment using graph theory
and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods”, Springer – Verlag London Limited, 2007.
[11] Sameer Kumar Deverakonda, Radhika sajja, and Koka Naga Sai Suman, “MADM methods for
finding the right personnel in academic institutions” International Journal of u- and e- Service, Science
and Technology, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp.133-144, http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2013.6.5.12, 2013.
[12] Kshitij Dashore, Shashank Singh Pawar, Nagendra Sohani, and Devendra Singh Verma, “Product
evaluation using entropy and multi criteria decision making methods”, International Journal of
Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), Volume 4, Issue 5, pp.2183-2187, 2013.
[13] Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi and Reza Fallahnejad, “Imprecise shannon’s entropy and multi attribute
decision making”, Entropy 12, pp.53-62, doi:10.3390/e12010053, 2010.
[14] Ekundayo, Ogundare, Ajayi, Adepo, Afolayan, and Afofu, “Experimental integration of soybean oil
for machining operation” The Journal of Engineering Innovations and Sustainable Technology (JEIST)
Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2016.
[15] Adejuyigbe and Ayodeji, “Soybean oil as an alternative to soluble oil in machining mild steel
materials”, Nigeria Journal of Pure and Applied Physics, Volume 1, doi:10.4314/njpap.v1i1.21445, 2000.

(Conference paper from the internet :)

[16] Sravanam Sushma,Dipankar Saha, and Dr.K Leo Dev Wins, “Formulation of soya oil based cutting
fluid and parametric optimization during hard turning of ohns steel with minimal cutting fluid
application” International conference on emerging trends in engineering, science and management, March
2017.

15
Industrial Engineering Journal
ISSN:2581-4915

AUTHORS
First Author – P. Nageswara Rao, M.Tech, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Department, VVIT, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522508, India.
Email: vvitpnr@gmail.com

Second Author – Suresh Babu Valeru, M.Tech, Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering
Department, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, A.P, India.,
Email: valerusureshbabu23@gmail.com

Third Author – Dr. KNS Suman, Ph.D, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, A.P, India
Email: sumankoka@yahoo.com

Correspondence Author – P. Nageswara Rao, M.Tech, Associate Professor, Mechanical

Engineering Department, VVIT, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522508, India.
Email: vvitpnr@gmail.com

16