Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

5th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016)

Optimization and influence of process parameters on

surface roughness in turning of titanium alloy
M. VenkataRamanaa*, Y. ShanmukaAdityab
a
Associate Professor, Department of Automobile Engg., VNR VJIET, Hyderabad, India.
b
Graduate, Department of Automobile Engineering,VNR VJIET, Hyderabad, India.

Abstract

Surface finish plays vital role in service life of components and it ensures a great reliability of sensitive aerospace
components. Therefore, it is required to optimize process parameters for better surface finish. Titanium alloys have high
strength to weight ratio, high toughness even at extreme temperatures, extraordinary corrosion resistance and ability to
withstand extreme temperatures. However, the high cost of both raw materials and processing limits their use in aircraft,
spacecraft, medical devices and military applications. This paper deals the optimization of process parameters to
minimize surface roughness in turning of Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) under dry machining with different tool materials
using Taguchi's robust design methodology. The results reveal that uncoated tool is suitable at low cutting speeds
whereas PVD coated tools is suitable at high cutting speeds. It is observed from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) that
feed rate is contributed more to minimize surface roughness for both uncoated and PVD coated tools. Interaction plots
are generated to study the influence of process parameters on surface roughness. Mathematical models are developed to
predict the surface roughness using a regression model.

©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of
Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).

Keywords:Ti-6Al-4V alloy; uncoated and PVD coated tools; ANOVA.

1. Introduction

Titanium is a useful material but not commonly used until the late 1940s. It is most often alloyed
with Vanadium, Molybdenum, Manganese and Aluminum. By weight, it’s of the strongest readily available
metal and making it ideal for wide range of practical applications. It is 45% lighter than steel with
comparable strength and twice as strong as aluminum, while being only 60% heavier. Commercially,

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9849768437.

E-mail address: venkataramana_m@vnrvjiet.in

©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials
Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).
1844 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851

titanium alloys are used every where strength and weight is an issue. Bicycle frames, automobile parts,
aerospace parts and structural pieces are some common examples. The knee and hip joints are made from
this metal because of their non-reactive nature with bone and flesh. Many surgical instruments as well as
body piercings are made with titanium and its alloys. Titanium alloys have the potential to be used in
number of manufacturing areas, but difficulties arise during machining due to low thermal conductivity,
change in metallurgical properties and high chemical reactivity with tool materials.
Advances in the engineering materials, their behaviour of during machining at higher machining conditions
machining is reviewed and concluded that the uncoated tungsten carbide tools are able to retain their
superiority in machining of Titanium alloys[1-2].Arrazola et al. [3] carried out the research on Ti-6Al-4V
and Ti5553. It is observed that Ti555.3 alloy has shown less machinability as compared to Ti-6Al-4V alloy.
Jawaid et al. [4] evaluated the potential of coated tools in face milling of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. The CVD coated
tool is shown better performance than the PVD coated tools. The wear behaviour of the coated carbide
inserts under dry and wet machining is studied by Samir et al. [5]. These results have shown that there is no
encouraging effect of coolant on tool life so that dry machining better than flooded machining. Muammer et
al. [6] have used different tools with different feed rates and cutting speeds by keeping depth of cut constant
without using cutting fluids. From these results, the CVD coated tool reduced surface roughness as
compared to PVD and uncoated tools.
Hari et al. [7] optimized the turning parameters in machining of EN 24 Steel. These results indicated that the
selected process parameters as well as the interaction between depth of cut and cutting speed are found to be
significant.Gaitonde et al. [8] found the optimal quantity of cutting fluid for MQL, optimal cutting speed and
feed rate during turning of Brass with uncoated Carbide tool using Taguchi’s Robust Design Methodology
for simultaneous minimization of surface roughness and specific cutting force. Narasimhuluet al. [9] have
carried experimental studies using Response Surface Methodology in turning of Ti-6Al-4V with the PVD
coated tools. The linear models developed were best fitted for prediction of surface roughness and feed
force. The influence of machining parameters on the surface roughness in turning of Titanium alloy using
Response Surface Methodology is carried out by Ramesh et al. [10]. The mathematical models were
developed to predict the surface roughness. The experimental results have shown that the feed rate
contributed more for the minimization of the surface roughness. Therefore, this work aimed to found the
optimum process parameters for uncoated and coated tools and also studies the influence of process
parameters on surface roughness. The effect of uncoated and coated tools on surface roughness is also
studied.

2. Experimental Details

2.1. Workpiece and tool materials

Experiments are carried out under dry condition on ACE Designer Super Jobber 500 CNC Lathe. The
work piece material is an alpha-beta Titanium grade 5 (Ti-6A1-4V) alloy is used. The chemical composition
of this alloy is given in Table 1. It is heat treatable to achieve moderate increase in strength. It offers a
combination of high strength, light weight and corrosion resistance. Some of the applications this alloy has
been used in aircraft turbine engine components, aircraft structural components, aerospace fasteners, high
performance automotive parts, marine applications, medical devices and sports equipment [13]. The
different experimental conditions used for the experimentation is given in Table 2. Surface roughness is
measured using a portable stylus type profilometer, Talysurf (Taylor Hobson, Surtronic 3+, UK). It is a
portable, self-contained instrument for the measurement of surface texture. It is equipped with a diamond
Stylus having a tip radius of 5𝜇𝑚 and cut-off length is up to 8 mm.

Table 1. Composition of Ti-6Al-4V

Component Ti Al V O2 Fe
Weight in % 90 5.5-6.76% 3.5-4.5% Max 0.2 Max 0.25
 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851 1845

Table 2. Experimental conditions

Machine tool ACE Designer Super Jobber 500 CNC Lathe
Work piece material Ti-6Al-4V (φ 30mm)
Cutting speed (m/min) 80(1), 100(2) and 120(3)
Feed rate (mm/rev) 0.05(1), 0.075(2) and 0.15(3)
Depth of cut (mm) 0.1(1), 0.25(2),0.4(3)
Tool materials Uncoated (MR4 883), and PVD coated (TS2000)
Cutting insert CNMG120408 (ISO specification)
Tool holder PCBNL 2525 M12 (ISO specification)

2.2. Experimental design

In the present work, Design of experiments with Taguchi robust design methodology is used to design
the experiments. This methodology is useful to find the optimum process parameters with minimum number
of experiments and it reduces cost of experimentation. These optimum process parameters give the better
surface finish. Analysis of Mean (AoM) is used obtain the optimum process parameters. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) is used to study the influence of process parameters on performance characteristic.
These methodologies are useful for better control of process parameters to achieve required objectives.
Statistical software Minitab 16.0 is used to obtain results for AoM and ANOVA. The mathematical model is
developed to find the relation between input and output parameters using multiple regression analysis. These
models are useful to predict the performance characteristics like surface roughness for different combination
of process parameters that are within the limits as given in Table 2 without performing experiments. This
reduces unnecessary experimentation and also cost of experimentation. A total of three process parameters
with three levels for each are chosen as the control factors. The three control factors chosen are cutting
speed (A), feed rate (B) and depth of cut (C). The control factors and their levels are given in Table 2.
Selection of particular Orthogonal Array (O.A) from the standard O.A. depends on the number of factors,
levels of each factor, interactions and the total degrees of freedom. The three process parameters each at
three levels have six degrees of freedom and three two parameter interactions have 12 degrees of freedom.
Hence the total degrees of freedom are 19 which includes overall mean. The required minimum numbers of
experiments to be conducted are 19. Based on this, the nearest O.A. fulfilling this condition is L27 (313) and
the factors assigned to L27 (313) O.A. is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Standard l27 (313) orthogonal array
Mean, S/N Mean, S/N
Col A B A*B A*B C A*C A*C B*C - - B*C - -
Ra,μm ratio Ra,μm ratio
Tra
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Uncoated tool Coated tool
il
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.455 6.9336 0.515 5.763
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.375 8.6327 0.455 6.839
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.535 5.5129 0.475 6.465
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 0.415 7.7417 0.895 0.963
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 0.375 8.6327 0.995 0.043
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 0.355 9.1151 0.555 5.113
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 0.735 2.7327 1.765 -4.93
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 0.715 2.9739 2.355 -7.43
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0.735 2.7327 2.375 -7.51
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.415 7.7417 0.555 5.113
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.375 8.6327 0.395 8.067
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0.455 6.9336 0.735 2.674
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 0.695 3.2221 0.575 4.806
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 0.775 2.2694 0.915 0.771
15 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 0.875 1.2090 0.935 0.583
16 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1.545 -3.750 1.295 -2.24
17 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1.595 -4.028 1.115 -0.94
18 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 1.535 -3.694 1.325 -2.44
19 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 0.455 6.9336 0.385 8.290
20 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0.395 8.1758 0.445 7.032
21 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 0.735 2.7327 0.345 9.242
22 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 0.415 7.7417 0.645 3.808
23 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 0.535 5.5129 0.725 2.793
24 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 0.835 1.6178 0.565 4.958
25 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 0.755 2.4980 2.045 -6.21
26 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 0.755 2.4980 1.085 -0.70
27 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 0.695 3.2221 0.925 0.677
1846 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851

2.3. Experimental procedure

Titanium specimens are prepared for conduct of the experiments. The specimens are machined on CNC
lathe according experimental design given in Table 3 under dry condition. In this work, dry machining is
used due to non pollution of atmosphere and water which reduces the danger to health, in particular skin and
respiratory damage. No residue of lubricant on machined components which reduces or eliminates cleaning
costs and associated energy consumption. Increase tool life by eliminating thermal shocks created by flood
coolant. For continuous cuts, the high tool tip temperatures that occur in dry turning serve to anneal (soften)
the pre-cut area, which lowers the hardness value and makes the material easier to shear. It is beneficial to
increase the speeds when cutting dry. The PCBNL 2525 M12 tool holder is used for the performing
experiments. This is made by SandvikCoromant. The tool geometry used for machining has an inclination
angle of -6°, orthogonal rake angle of -6°, orthogonal and auxiliary clearance angles of 6°, auxiliary cutting
edge angle of 15°, principal cutting edge angle of 75° and radius of nose is 0.8 mm. The surface roughness is
measured on machined specimens using surface roughness tester for each experiment. The summary of
mean surface roughness and its Signal to Noise(S/N) ratio are given in Table 3. Optimization of process
parameters is carried out using Taguchi’s methodology in Minitab software [11, 12].
In this work uncoated grade 883 insert and Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD) coated TS 2000 insert are
used for turning of specimens. The uncoated grade 883 insert is made of tungsten carbide micro abrasives. It
has good toughness and high hardness. These inserts are primarily intended for machining of super alloys
and titanium alloys as shown in Fig. 1(a). This is designated as SNMG 120408 MR4 883. The PVD coated
TS 2000 insert is made of tungsten carbide hard micro abrasives and coated with (Ti, Al)N + TiN as shown
in Fig. 1(b). The coating thickness is 4 μm. This insert has high resistant to heat. It is primarily used for
machining of super alloys and titanium alloys. This is designated as SNMG 120408 MR3 TS2000.

(a) Uncoated (b) PVD coated

Fig. 1. Carbide tools

3. Results and discussions

In the present work, the performance characteristics namely the surface roughness is to be minimized
and hence “smaller the better” quality characteristic has been selected for each of the response [11]. The
Signal to Noise (S/N ratio) associated with this response is given in equation (1)
1
Smaller the better: S/N ratio = −10log � ∑ni=1 yi2 � (1)
n
Where, y is the observed data.

3.1. Optimization of cutting parameters

Analysis of Mean (AoM) has been successfully implemented to identify the optimum parameters for
selected control parameters in order to improve the surface finish for improved performance. Fig. 2
represents the result of Analysis of Mean (AoM) response plot. The level of parameter with the least mean is
the optimal level. Hence the optimum combination of process parameters for improving the surface
roughness is given in Table 4. These optimum process parameters combinations are validated by conducting
confirmation test, which concluded that the results are within the acceptable limits of predicted value and
can be implemented in the real time applications. It is observed from the Table 4 that, coated tools are best
suitable at high cutting speeds than the uncoated tools to minimize the surface roughness due to high
temperature properties such as high resistance to diffusion wear, superior oxidation wear resistance and high
hot hardness. The good lubricating properties of the coatings minimize friction at the tool-chip and tool-
workpiece interfaces.
 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851 1847

Main Effects Plot for Means Main Effects Plot for Means
Data Means Data Means
V F D V F D
1.75
1.0

0.9 1.50

Mean of Means
Mean of Means

0.8 1.25

0.7
1.00

0.6
0.75

0.5

0.50
0.4
80 100 120 0.050 0.075 0.150 0.10 0.25 0.40 80 100 120 0.050 0.075 0.150 0.10 0.25 0.40

(a)Uncoated tool (b) Coated tool

Fig. 2. Main effect plots for surface roughness

Table 4. Optimum process parameters for surface roughness

Tool material Uncoated Coated
Cutting speed (V), m/min 80 (A1) 120(A3)
Feed (F), mm/rev 0.050 (B1) 0.050 (B1)
Depth of cut (D), mm 0.25 (C2) 0.40 (C3)

3.2. Effect of cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut on surface roughness for uncoated tool

The two factor interaction effect of process parameters on surface roughness is analyzed to determine
the relative importance of the parameters on surface roughness. Fig. 3(a) shows the interaction plots between
cutting speed and feed rate. It is observed that as the feed rate change from 0.05 mm/rev to 0.075 mm/rev,
the change in surface roughness is minimum and as the feed rate change from 0.075 mm/rev to 0.15 mm/rev,
the change in surface roughness is maximum. Fig. 3(b) shows the interaction between cutting speed and
depth of cut. It is observed that, the effect of change of depth of cut from one level to other level the change
in surface roughness is less due to the thermal softening effect. Fig. 3(c) shows interaction between feed rate
and depth of cut. It is observed that as the feed rate increases the surface roughness increases because of
more contact length between tool and workpiece resulted into high friction. The change in depth of cut from
one level to other level, the change in surface roughness is less.
Interaction Plot for Means Interaction Plot for Means Interaction Plot for Means
Data Means Data Means Data Means
1.0 1.1
F D D
1.50 0.050 0.10 0.10
0.075 0.25 1.0 0.25
0.150 0.9 0.40 0.40
0.9
1.25

0.8 0.8
Means
Means
Means

1.00 0.7
0.7
0.6
0.75
0.6 0.5

0.50 0.4
0.5
0.3
80 100 120 0.050 0.075 0.150
80 100 120
V V F

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Interaction plots for uncoated tool

3.3. Effect of cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut on surface roughness for coated tool

The two factor interaction effect of process parameters on surface roughness is analyzed to determine
the relative importance of the parameters on surface roughness. Fig. 4(a) shows the interaction plot between
 1848 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851

cutting speed and feed rate. It is observed that as the feed rate change from one level to another level, the
change in surface roughness is high because of more contact length between tool and workpiece resulted into
high friction. Fig. 4(b) shows the interaction between cutting speed and depth of cut. It is observed that, the
effect of change of depth of cut from one level to other level, the change in surface roughness is high. Fig.
4(c) shows interaction between feed rate and depth of cut. It is observed that as the feed rate increases, the
surface roughness increases and also change in depth of cut from one level to other level, the change in
surface roughness is less due to the thermal softening effect.

Interaction Plot for Means Interaction Plot for Means Interaction Plot for Means
Data Means Data Means Data Means
2.25 1.3 D 1.75 D
F
0.050 0.10 0.10
2.00 0.075 1.2 0.25 0.25
0.150 0.40 1.50 0.40

1.75 1.1

1.25
1.50 1.0

Means

Means
Means

1.25 0.9 1.00

1.00
0.8
0.75
0.75
0.7

0.50 0.50
0.6
80 100 120
80 100 120 0.050 0.075 0.150
V F
V

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. Interaction plots for coated too

3.4. Influence of Process Parameters

Analysis of Variance is performed to find out the influence of process parameters on surface roughness.
Table 5 presents the results of ANOVA on performance characteristic on surface roughness for uncoated
tool. If the P-Value is less than 0.05 and calculated F – Ratio greater than standard F – Ratio, the factors
andinteraction of factors are said to be significant. Therefore from Table 5, it is observed that, individual and
interaction between factors are found to be significant.To minimize the surface roughness, feed rate has
major contribution (44.29%) for optimizing the performance characteristics followed by cutting speed and
depth of cut. It is also observed that ANOVA has resulted in (1.48%) of error contribution. The S/N ratios
of optimum conditions are used to develop predictive or additive model to predict the S/N ratio with
optimum condition using equation (2).

ηpredicted= Y + (AX-Y) + (BX - Y) + (CX-Y) (2)

Where Y is average S/N ratio, x is optimum level; AX, BX and CX are optimum parameters in
machining. The predicted S/N ratio is 9.3581dB. Conducting a verification experiment is essential and final
step of the robust design methodology. The predicted results must be confirmed to the verification test.
Hence, the verification experiment is conducted with the optimum conditions and its S/N ratio is (ηexpt)
9.153dB.

Table 5. Summary of ANOVA on surface roughness for uncoated tool

Factors S.S D.O.F M.S.S SS1 F-Ratio$ P-Value ρ*
Cutting speed (A) 1.53744 2 0.76872 1.53744 275.63 0.000 23.4256
Feed rate (B) (m/min) 2.90721 2 1.45361 2.90721 521.19 0.000 44.2965
Depth of cut (C)
0.11086 2 0.05543 0.11086 19.87 0.000 1.68914
(mm/rev)
A*B 1.71656 4 0.42914 1.71656 153.87 0.000 26.1548
A*C 0.08065 4 0.02016 0.08065 7.23 0.000 1.22884
B*C 0.11274 4 0.02819 0.11274 10.11 0.000 1.71779
Error 0.09761 35 0.00279 0.09761 1.48726
Lack of fit 0.09241 8 0.01155 0.09241 59.98 0.000
Pure error 0.00520 27 0.00019 0.00520
Total 6.56308 53 100

*Percentage Contribution; SS - Sum of Squares; MSS – Mean Sum of Squares;

SS’ – Pure Sum of Squares; D.O.F. – Degrees of Freedom
$
F - Standard Value for individual factors – 3.35 and interactions 2.73
 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851 1849

Table 6 presents the results of ANOVA on performance characteristic on surface roughness for
coated tool. To minimize the surface roughness, feed rate has major contribution (67.50%) in optimizing the
performance characteristics followed by cutting speed and depth of cut. It is also observed that ANOVA has
resulted in (8.25%) of error contribution. Using equation (2) predicted S/N ratio is calculated and its value is
8.3057dB. The verification experiment is conducted with the optimum conditions and its S/N ratio is (ηexpt)
8. 452 dB. It is found that the S/N ratio of the verification test is within the limits of the predicted value at
95% confidence level and significance level of 5% for both uncoated and coated tools, hence the objective is
fulfilled. These suggested optimum conditions can be adopted [11].
Table 6. Summary of ANOVA on surface roughness for coated tool
Factors S.S D.O.F M.S.S SS1 F-Ratio$ P-Value ρ*
Cutting speed (A) 1.2802 2 0.64009 1.2802 15.28 0.000 7.21052
Feed rate (B) (m/min) 11.9852 2 5.99262 11.9852 143.06 0.000 67.5047
Depth of cut (C)
0.0216 2 0.01082 0.0216 0.26 0.774 0.12165
(mm/rev)
A*B 1.9564 4 0.48911 1.9564 11.68 0.000 11.0191
A*C 0.7886 4 0.19714 0.7886 4.71 0.004 4.44166
B*C 0.2564 4 0.06411 0.2564 1.53 0.215 1.44413
Error 1.4662 35 0.04189 1.4662 8.25814
Lack of fit 1.4648 8 0.18310 1.4648 3662.00 0.000
Pure error 0.0013 27 0.00005 0.0013
Total 17.7547 53 100

3.5. Comparison of surface roughness between uncoated and PVD coated tools

The comparison of surface roughness between uncoated and PVD coated tools is shown in Fig. 5. It is
observed that, in the most of the experimental conditions uncoated tools has produced less surface roughness
as compared to PVD coated tools due its high hardness, resistance to wear offered by micro abrasives of WC
and titanium has a tendency to react with coated tools. [1,2]. The surface roughness produced under
experimental conditions 3, 13, 16,17,18, 19, 21 and 24 is less for PVD coated tool compared to uncoated due
to TiAlN/TiN coating. This coating is capable of withstanding high temperature and stresses produced
during machining. They have excellent high temperature properties such as high resistance to diffusion wear,
superior oxidation wear resistance and high hot hardness. The good lubricating properties of the coatings
minimize friction at the tool-chip and tool-workpiece interfaces, thus in some cases, reduce cutting
temperature. Coating material also lower forces generated during machining relative to uncoated tools.

Surface roughness Vs Experimental order

2.5
Uncoated tool
Coated tool
2
Surface roughness, μm

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Experimental order

Fig. 5.Comparison of surface roughness between uncoated and PVD coated tools
1850 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851

3.6. Mathematical Models

The relationship between input and output process parameter are developed using regression models.
The developed regression models are given in equation (3) and (4) for uncoated and coated tools
respectively.

Ra = -8.41 + 0.1747 V + 8.18 F - 1.89 D - 0.0287 V*F - 6.10 F*D + 0.0172 V*D - 0.000869 V*V + 8.1 F*F
+ 2.10 D*D (3)

Ra = 0.47 - 0.0331 V + 31.6 F + 4.58 D - 0.1886 V*F - 6.39 F*D - 0.0408 V*D + 0.000258 V*V - 0.3 F*F -
0.15 D*D (4)

Actual Vs Prediction
2
Surface roughness, μm

1.5
1
Actual
0.5
Prediction
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Experimental order

Fig. 6. Comparison between actual and predicted surface roughness for uncoated tool

Actual Vs Prediction
2.5
Surface roughness, μm

2
1.5
1 Actual
0.5 Prediction
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Experimental order

Fig. 7.Comparison between actual and predicted surface roughness for coated tool

These regression models are useful to predict the surface roughness for any combination of process
parameters chosen that are within the ranges given in Table 2. The variation between the actual and
predicted surface roughness are shown in Fig. 6 and 7 for uncoated and coated tool respectively. The
comparison between predicted the values of surface roughness are close to experimental values and are
within a confidence interval.

4. Conclusions

Based on results of the present experimental investigation the following conclusions are drawn
• The optimum condition obtained for uncoated tool are cutting speed at low level, feed at low level and
depth of cut at medium level. Similarly the optimum conditions for coated tool are cutting speed at
 M. Venkata Ramana, Y. Shanmuka Aditya / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1843–1851 1851

high level, feed at low level and depth of cut at high level.
• From the ANOVA the effect of individual factors and factors of interactions on surface roughness
found to be significant for uncoated tool.
• It is observed that feed rate is contributed more as compared to cutting speed and depth of cut to
minimize surface roughness for both uncoated and coated tools.
• The predicted regression models show fairly good agreement with actual experimental results.
• It is also observed that uncoated tool outperformed at lower cutting speeds and PVD coated tool
outperformed at high cutting speeds.
• In general, optimization techniques and mathematical models reduce the cost of experimentation.
These optimum process parameters results into better surface finish.

References
[1] E.O. Ezugwu., Key improvements in the machining of difficult-to-cut aerospace super alloys, International Journal of Machine
Tools & Manufacture, 45, (2005) 1353–1367.
[2] E.O. Ezugwu, Z.M.Wang, Titanium alloys and their machinability- a review, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 68,
(1997) 262-274.
[3] P.J. Arrazola, A. Garay, L.M. Iriarte, M. Armendia, S. Marya, F. Le. Maitre, Machinability of Titanium alloys(Ti-6Al-4V and
Ti555.3), Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 209, (2009) 2223–2230.
[4] A. Jawaid, S. Sharif, Koksal, Evaluation of wear mechanisms of coated carbide tools when face milling Titanium alloy, Journal
of Materials Processing Technology, 99, (2006) 266 – 274.
[5] Samir K Khrais, Y.J. Lin, Wear mechanisms and tool performance of TiAlN PVD coated inserts during machining of AISI 4140
Steel, Wear, 262, (2007) 64–69.
[6] MuammerNalbant, Hasan Gokkaya, IhsanTokta, Gokhan Sur, The experimental investigation of the effects of uncoated, PVD
and CVD coated cemented carbide inserts and cutting parameters on surface roughness in CNC turning and its prediction using
artificial neural networks, Robotics and Computer – Integrated Manufacturing, 25, (2009) 211 – 223.
[7] Hari singh, Pradeep kumar, Optimizing cutting force for turned parts by Taguchi’s parameter design approach, Indian Journal of
Engineering and Materials Sciences, 12, (2005) 97 – 103.
[8] V.N. Gaitonde, S.R. Karnik, J. Paulo Davim,Selection of optimal MQL and cutting conditions for enhancing machinability in
turning of Brass, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 204, (2008) 459–464.
[9] NarasimhuluAndriya, Venkateswara Rao P., Sudarsan Ghosh, Dry machining of Ti-6Al-4V using PVD coated TiAlN tools,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol III, WCE, London, U.K., July 4 – 6, (2012).
[10] S. Ramesh, L. Karunamoorthy, K. Palanikumar, Measurement and analysis of surface roughness in turning of aerospace
Titanium alloy (gr5), Measurement, Vol. 45, (2012) 1266–1276.
[11] P. J. Ross., Taguchi techniques for quality engineering, II Edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, (2005).
[12] Minitab Statistical Software Features – Minitab. Software for statistics, process improvement, Six Sigma, Quality – Minitab,
(2011).
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/titanium_alloy