Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Multiresponse optimization of end milling process parameters on ZE41A

Mg alloy using Taguchi and TOPSIS approach
Rajender Kumar a,b,⇑, Puneet Katyal a, Kamal Kumar c, Vijender Singh a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar 125001, India
b
Department of Basic Engineering, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125001, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh 160012, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effects of CNC end-milling process parameters on the machinability of Mg-alloy are discussed in the
Available online xxxx present investigation. The optimization of the process parameters namely cutting speed, feed rate and
depth of cut has been carried out for material removal rate (MRR) and thermal stresses (TS) using
Keywords: Taguchi design of experiment and TOPSIS approach. The milling parameters have shown significant role
Mg-alloy towards the machining attributes. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) used to evaluate and analyse the relative
End-milling importance of milling process parameters. For single response optimization, the most significant factor
MRR
for MRR was feed rate and for thermal stress TS, it was cutting speed. However, feed rate has the greatest
Thermal stress
Taguchi
impact on preference value (PI), accounting for 71.85% of contribution to multi-response optimization.
TOPSIS The recommended milling process parameters have determined to be optimum at cutting speed: 1200
RPM, feed rate: 100 mm/min and depth of cut: 1.25 mm by using the multi-response optimization
technique.
Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
ference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering

1. Introduction poor hardness and material compliance, which can be enhanced

Over the past few years, growing potential of Magnesium and its
alloys as biomaterials has imposed a great challenge upon research-
ers and practitioners around the world. Biomaterials having supe-
rior mechanical, wear, and corrosion resistance, as well as good
biocompatibility and a descent degradation rate consistent with
bone regeneration, are required [1]. Mg and its alloys eliminate
the stress shielding problem due to their low modulus of elasticity
of about 41–45 GPa, density of 1.74–2.0 g/cm3 which is comparable
to bone’s density of 1.8–2.1 g/cm3 and elastic modulus (3–20 GPa)
[2]. Pure Magnesium is extremely susceptible to corrosion, wear,
Abbreviations: CS, cutting speed; MRR, Material removal rate; EDM, Electrical
discharge machining; FR, feed rate; RPM, revolution per minute; ECDM, Electro-
chemical discharge machining; DoC, depth of cut; ANOVA, Analysis of variance;
PSO, particle swarm optimization; TS, Thermal Stress; SAW, Simple Additive
Weighting; CIM, Computer-integrated manufacturing; Pi, preference value; GRA,
Grey relational analysis; TOPSIS, Technique for order performance by similarity to
ideal solution.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rksinghhau1@gmail.com (R. Kumar).
through optimized implant design, mechanical working, surface
treatments and optimized compositions [3,4]. The characteristics
of machining Mg alloys are low power consumption, best tool life,
high surface quality, and small breaking chips [5]. Therefore, it is
critical to machine the material with a high material removal rate
and low surface roughness [6,7]. During machining, magnesium
has the tendency to be flammable, and as a result, chips ignite
and burn, so water and like coolants must be avoided [8].
Few investigations on wire electrical discharge machining
(WEDM) of magnesium alloys have been done [9,10]. Some of
them established a correlation between the surface integrity and
corrosion behaviour of magnesium alloys and their degradation
rate [10,11]. Numerous statistical methods, including the Taguchi
approach, can be used to optimise process parameters in order to
improve the quality of machined components. It is clear that pro-
cess parameter values cannot be determined alone for a certain
process; techniques of optimization must be utilized in order to
find optimal values to certify optimum utilization of attributes
[12]. For this reason, various mathematical approaches are used,
such as GRA, Fuzzy Logic, PSO, SAW, TOPSIS, etc. Sharma et al.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.271
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Please cite this article as: R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al., Multiresponse optimization of end milling process parameters on ZE41A Mg alloy using
Taguchi and TOPSIS approach, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.271
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

[13] optimized the machining characteristics with an approach of (mm/minute), and depth of cut (mm), as shown in Table 2 [24].
Taguchi-Grey for turning SS316L with HSS tool and suggests better As per Taguchi OA design L16, experimentation was performed with
performance in the grey theory. The Taguchi-based GRA technique twice repetitions for each setting, and average data was declared in
was used during turning to optimize surface roughness and cutting Table 3.
forces for Inconel [14]. Many researchers have adopted TOPSIS for
optimization of process parameters of various manufacturing pro- 2.3. Measurement of response parameters
cesses such as Turning [15], CIM technology [16], laser drilling
[17], EDM [18] and ECDM Process [19] etc. Khanna et al., [20] used The MRR has been computed through the material removed
TOPSIS for defining and classifying important rank performance from the workpiece dimension measured by a digital micrometer
factors for TQM. Dewangan et al., [21] used the Multi-criteria deci- (Mitutoyo) and the time taken to perform the process. During
sion modeling (MCDM) based on the Fuzzy-TOPSIS to analyze the experiment, the thermal stress was measured using average
dimensional exactness and surface integrity. Lei et al., [22] imple- surface temperature (Thermal temperature gun, Raytek MT Mini-
mented the TOPSIS method for evaluating the engine using six temp). Fig. 1 presents the experimental setup of the milling and
evaluation parameters. Sakthivel et al., [23] merged GRA with TOP- allied operations of the Mg alloy samples.
SIS to assess fuel blends for the MCDM approach. With large
research on conventional machining with metals and polymers, 2.4. Technique for multi-objective optimization (TOPSIS)
even there is a gap pending on milling of biomaterials especially
biodegradable magnesium alloys. TOPSIS has been successfully applied in the realm of machining
In the present investigation, the process parameters for ZE41A as a method for making multi-criteria decisions (MCDM) [25,26].
magnesium alloy have been optimized using a single response This technique is based on the principle that the preferences for
method and multi-objective criteria TOPSIS after using Taguchi’s solutions are close to the best positive ideal (Si+) and extreme for
L16 orthogonal array approach. The main goal of experimental the best negatives (Si-). The optimum solution is the one that is
work was the maximum MRR and minimum thermal stress by most contingently similar to the ideal solution, as shown by the
using the cutting tool of HSS under end milling for different cutting preference value (Pi) for the closeness coefficient which represents
combinations obtained through Design of Experiments. the best process parameter combination. The entire TOPSIS proce-
dure is summed up as follows also shown through Fig. 2.
2. Experimental setup and methodology Step I: To develop decision matrix (with ‘n’ characteristics and
‘m’ alternatives) declared as:
2.1. Material and experimental setup 2 3
Y11 Y12  Y1c
6 .. .. 7
Magnesium alloy ZE41A has been used as a work material in the 4 . : . 5
present investigation. The ZE41A magnesium alloy of size Yf1 Yf2  Yfc
2 3 ð1Þ
200 mm
26 mm
8 mm has been used to cut for milling sample Y11 Y12  Y1n
sizes of 26 mm
8 mm
8 mm after grinding and polishing the 6 . .. 7
Acf ¼ 4 .. : . 5
plate. The chemical composition of the material is evaluated using
Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (WD-XRF) (Bruker, Ger- Yf 1 Yf 2  Ymn
many) (Table 1). The cutting tool of diameter Ø 8 mm four-flute Where
end mill cutter made of HSS has been used for the milling process. Yij = attainment of ith alternative w.r.t jth attribute. For the cur-
Three axes vertical CNC milling centre ‘Hytech automation, model rent study, ‘n’ characteristics represent response functions as
VMC 480P3, equipped with Siemens 808D advance controller’ has MRR and thermal Stress and ‘m’ alternatives represent 16 experi-
been used to conduct the experiments. mental runs.
Step II: Normalization matrix
2.2. Experimental design A normalized decision matrix is obtained, denoting as element
Tij.
The preference of experimental design depends on the DOF and
!1=2
the number of iterations associated with the process parameters. X
f

Taguchi L16 (43) orthogonal array is being used to conduct with T ij ¼ Y ij = Y 2ij ð2Þ
i¼1
three process parameters: cutting speed CS (RPM), feed rate

Table 1
Chemical composition of Mg ZE41A alloy (wt%).

Zn Ce Mn Zr Mn La Nd Si Al C Na O Pr Cl Mg
4.2 0.58 0.02 0.54 0.02 0.25 0.15 0.06 0.02 5.23 0.26 0.58 0.04 0.03 Bal

Table 2
Process parameters and levels of machining of ZE41A Mg alloy.

Factor/ units Symbol Levels

1 2 3 4
Cutting speed (RPM) CS 1200 1700 2200 2700
Feed rate (mm/min) FR 25 50 75 100
Depth of cut (mm) DOC 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25

2
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Experimental layout with the results of using L16 OA design and S/N ratio.

Exp No Process parameters Response parameters S/N Ratio

3 2
CS (RPM) FR (mm/ min) DOC (mm) MRR (mm / min) Thermal Stress (MN/m ) MRR TS
1 1200 25 0.5 161.022 2.731 44.138 8.728
2 1200 50 0.75 485.902 2.665 53.731 8.513
3 1200 75 1 1008.634 2.465 60.075 7.836
4 1200 100 1.25 1702.565 2.265 64.622 7.102
5 1700 25 0.75 253.476 1.799 48.079 5.099
6 1700 50 0.5 355.115 1.332 51.007 2.493
7 1700 75 1.25 1236.260 2.931 61.842 9.341
8 1700 100 1 1337.825 1.133 62.528 1.081
9 2200 25 1 349.869 2.532 50.878 8.068
10 2200 50 1.25 864.136 2.998 58.732 9.536
11 2200 75 0.5 577.082 1.133 55.225 1.081
12 2200 100 0.75 1115.676 1.332 60.951 2.493
13 2700 25 1.25 445.512 5.863 52.977 15.362
14 2700 50 1 748.084 3.531 57.479 10.958
15 2700 75 0.75 857.699 3.331 58.667 10.452
16 2700 100 0.5 835.263 2.665 58.436 8.513

Fig. 1. CNC Milling experimental process flow.

Step III: Obtaining weighted decision normalized matrix Step V: Calculating the separation among alternatives measure
Let Wj (j = 1, 2. . ., n) be the weight per attribute. The weighted from ideal Si+ and Si-
decision normalized matrix Q = [Qij] is figured as vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n  2
Q ij ¼ W j :T ij ð3Þ Sþi ¼t Q ij  Q þj i ¼ 1; 2; . . . : . . . :m ð6Þ
Pn j¼1
Where j¼1 W j = 1
Step IV: Establishing the positive ideal (Q) and negative ideal vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n  2
(Q) solutions Si ¼t Q ij  Q j i ¼ 1; 2; . . . : . . . :m ð7Þ
X
max Xmin j¼1
Q þ ¼ f ðQ ij jjJjÞ; ðf jjJji ¼ 1; 2    :    :; mÞg
i i Step VI: Calculating the closeness coefficient preference value
¼ ðQ þ1 ; Q þ2 ; Q þ3 Q þn ð4Þ (Pi)
Pi can be expressed as follows; the relative proximity of the
specific alternative to the ideal solution is expressed as
X
min Xmax
Q ¼ f ðQ ij jjJjÞ; ðf jjJji ¼ 1; 2    :    :; mÞg Pi ¼ Si =ðSþi þ Si Þi ¼ 1; 2; . . . : . . . :m ð8Þ
i i

¼ ðQ 1 ; Q 2 ; Q 3 Q n ð5Þ In the decreasing order of Pi values, the preferred and least pre-
ferred solution for a sequence of alternatives should be established.

3
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. TOPSIS procedure.

4
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. (a) MRR and (b) TS varies with Cutting Speed, Feed Rate and Depth of Cut.

Table 4
ANOVA for MRR and TS.

MRR TS
Factor D.F SS Contribution MS F-Value P-Value SS Contribution MS F-Value P-Value
CS 3 0.05095 0.79% 0.01698 18.93 0.002 0.93604 50.37% 0.31201 20.16 0.002
FR 3 4.75126 74.11% 1.58375 1765.24 0.000 0.34947 18.81% 0.11649 7.53 0.019
DOC 3 1.60366 25.01% 0.53455 595.81 0.000 0.47984 25.82% 0.15995 10.33 0.009
Error 6 0.00538 0.08% 0.00090 0.09288 5.00% 0.01548
Total 15 6.41126 100.00% 1.85824 100.00% 0.31201

3. Results and discussions 3.2. Effect of process parameters on thermal stress (TS)

3.1. Milling parametric effect on response variable MRR By increasing the cutting speed, the heat generated on the
workpiece expands the machined surface by producing compres-
The desirability requirement for the process parameter opti- sive residual stresses. Whereas during cooling, the sample has
mization is the maximum MRR induces during machining of Mg- resisted contraction by the lower material layer, thus generating
alloy, which defines the machinability of the material. MRR the effect of tensile residual stresses. Fig. 3 (b) represents the
decreases continuously from 1200 rpm to 2700 rpm due to an milling parameter effects on thermal stresses induced on the sur-
increase in cutting forces and an increase in surface hardness, face of ZE41A Mg alloy. The high level of thermal stresses observed
which is affected by a variety of variables such as strain rate, plas- at 1200 rpm due to rubbing and high cutting forces whereas it
tic deformation, cutting temperature, and so on [27]. It also repre- decreases at 1700 rpm because of (i) vibration signals produced
sents that the MRR continuously increased with the FR and DoC of
25–100 mm/min and 0.5–1.25 mm, respectively, due to greater
cutting force and deformation. It can be inferred from Fig. 3 (a) that
feed rate and depth of cut are the most significant factor for the
MRR, whereas the cutting speed is the least significant factor as
earlier discussed by sunil et al., [28]. Additionally, MRR is highly
dependent on feed rate, which provides for a shorter time period
available for heat transfer to the workpiece so that heat is dissi-
pated mainly by cutting chips instead of a workpiece and hence
did not raise the temperature of the workpiece. In Fig. 3 (a), the
feed rate has the most variability, which makes it the most signif-
icant, and thereafter depth of cut followed the importance.
ANOVA analysis with a significance level of 5% on the response
results was selected to investigate the effect of process attributes.
Table 4, for MRR and thermal stress shows that CS, FR, DoC give
their value to total variability at 95% confidence level. The effect
of Feed rate (74.11%), depth of cut (25.01%), and cutting speed
(0.79%) all are statistically significant factors. Analytically, the
optimized material removal rate seems to have with the
CS1:1200 rpm; FR4:100 mm/min; DoC4: 1.25 mm process parame-
ter combinations. Fig. 4. TOPSIS Analysis Sequence.

5
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Predicted values and experimental results for single response optimization.

Method Response Optimal condition Predicted value Experimental value %age deviation
3
Single response optimization MRR (mm / min) CS1-FR4-DoC 4 1607.72 1702.57 +5.9%
TS (MN/m2) CS2-FR4- DoC1 0.525 0.551 4.95%

Table 6
Data pre-processing and calculation of preference solution (Pi).

Exp. Normalized Normalized Weighted Weighted Normalized Separated Separated Solution Pi (Preference Rank
No. MRR Thermal Stress Normalized MRR Thermal Stress Solution MRR Thermal Stress Value)
1 0.0459 0.2483 0.0229 0.1242 0.2244 0.1195 0.3783 15
2 0.1384 0.1893 0.0692 0.0946 0.1741 0.1561 0.4472 12
3 0.2873 0.1684 0.1437 0.0842 0.0990 0.2001 0.6274 5
4 0.4850 0.1885 0.2425 0.0942 0.0163 0.2656 0.8429 1
5 0.0722 0.2114 0.0361 0.1057 0.2082 0.1387 0.4672 11
6 0.1012 0.2564 0.0506 0.1282 0.1984 0.1188 0.5165 9
7 0.3521 0.1559 0.1761 0.0780 0.0664 0.2257 0.6589 4
8 0.3811 0.2656 0.1905 0.1328 0.0755 0.2010 0.8389 2
9 0.0997 0.2443 0.0498 0.1222 0.1977 0.1245 0.4284 14
10 0.2461 0.1840 0.1231 0.0920 0.1202 0.1818 0.5278 8
11 0.1644 0.2242 0.0822 0.1121 0.1639 0.1443 0.5789 6
12 0.3178 0.2487 0.1589 0.1244 0.0956 0.1809 0.7442 3
13 0.1269 0.2463 0.0635 0.1232 0.1847 0.1272 0.1273 16
14 0.2131 0.2391 0.1065 0.1195 0.1422 0.1497 0.4359 13
15 0.2443 0.2688 0.1222 0.1344 0.1329 0.1476 0.4923 10
16 0.2379 0.4874 0.1190 0.2437 0.2067 0.0960 0.5498 7

by dry machining and (ii) variation in material characterization. mization of single response at optimum MRR values and thermal
Thermal stresses increases with the effect of an increase in cutting stress process settings.
speed from 1700 to 2700 rpm. With feed rate increases from 25 to For material removal rate
100 mm/min, thermal stress decreases because the process is so The overall mean MRRl ¼ 770.88 mm3/min, so the predicted
fast with a minimum time to cut the material so that the temper- value of MRR is computed as
ature gain in the cutting operation increases to minimum. Thermal MRRR ¼ ðCSm I þ F m 4 þ Dm 4Þ  ðq  1ÞMRRl , where q is the total
stress increases with the DoC from 0.5 to 1.25 mm due to an number of process parameter
increase in tool wear rate that is because of increase in the contact
area of tool and chips. As a result, more temperature produced at mm3
¼ ð839:530 þ 1247:83 þ 1062:12Þ  2ð770:88Þ
the interface and more chips are produced from work-sample. min
Because of large heat generation in the shorter time span leads Where,
to an increase in temperature. With an increase in MRR on increas- CSm1 = the mean value of utility at the first stage of cutting
ing depth of cut, the heat removal rate reduced by chips that speed = 839.53
causes hardening effect. Thus, rise in temperature on work piece Fm4 = the mean value of utility at the fourth stage of feed
results in thermal stress gain. Therefore, as a result, work tools rate = 1247.83
and samples may face interaction of high temperature due to fac- Dm4 = the mean value of utility at the fourth stage of depth of
ing thermal changes with the low melting point ZE41A material cut = 1062.12
that results in low surface integrity and tool life. Predicted S/N ratio 64.3982 and Mean 1607.72 obtained from
Table 4 described the ANOVA analysis results for thermal stres- Taguchi method for MRR.
ses and found that all the process parameters are intensely influ- For thermal stress
encing. The effect of cutting speed (50.37%), depth of cut The overall mean TSm = 3.495 MN/m2, so the predicted value of
(25.82%), and feed rate (18.81%) all are statistically significant fac- TS is calculated as
tors. For numeric terms, surface quality became superior at a para-
metric combination of 1700 rpm-100 mm/min  0.5 mm. TSp ¼ ðCSm 2 þ F m 4 þ Dm 1Þ  ðq  1ÞTSl
= (1.7988 + 1.8487 + 1.9653) – 2(2.5441) = 0.52464 MN/m2
Predicted S/N ratio 0.0773058 and Mean 0.52464 attained from
Taguchi method for TS.
3.3. Single response optimization

The response parameter MRR has higher the better characteris- Table 7
tics, and the thermal stress has the characteristics of lower the bet- Response Table for means for preference value (Pi).
ter. Hence, these conditions have been taken for finding optimal Level CS (rpm) FR (mm/min) DOC (mm)
solutions to the process parameters as per Fig. 4 [29]. So the high- 1 0.5739 0.3503 0.5059
est value of MRR is expected at CS:1200 rpm- FR: 100 mm/min- 2 0.6204 0.4818 0.5377
DoC:1.25 mm process parameter combination and for thermal 3 0.5698 0.5894 0.5826
stress, the optimal value has been obtained at a parametric combi- 4 0.4013 0.7440 0.5392
Delta 0.2190 0.3936 0.0768
nation of 2700 rpm-25 mm/min-1.25 mm at its lowest. Table 5 is
Rank 2 1 3
summarizing the experimental confirmatory results for the opti-
6
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5. TOPSIS Preference value Vs with Cutting Speed, Feed Rate and Depth of cut.

Table 8
Analysis of Variance for Preference value (Pi).

Factor D.F SS Contribution Adj MS F-Value P-Value

CS 3 0.10748 18.93% 0.035826 9.59 0.010
FR 3 0.40788 71.85% 0.135961 36.39 0.000
DoC 3 0.02990 5.27% 0.009967 2.67 0.142
Error 6 0.02242 3.95% 0.003736
Total 15 0.56768 100.00%

Table 5 has presented the estimated values and experimental the optimal performance is identified and best performance is thus
results for the single response optimization. measured by the highest rank assigned.
In this experiment, the highest preference value attained by the
experimental run #4 is the most convenient combination of the
parameters, followed by experimental run #8 with the least pref-
3.4. Multi-objective optimization: TOPSIS with analysis
erence at #13. In this, Depth of cut is less beneficial compared to
feed rate & cutting speed, as shown in Table 7. The parameter com-
In the present work, optimization of process parameters i.e.
bination CS1(1200 rpm)-F4(100 mm/min)-D4(1.25 mm) at experi-
MRR and TS, TOPSIS was applied for multi-parameters as per the
ment run #4 has been found to be an optimal set by taking into
sequence shown in Fig. 4. The preference value was computed
account the highest reaction values of preference (Pi) order for
for each experiment run by using equations (1)-(7) with the fol-
16 experiments as per Table 6. However, an individual higher value
lowing procedure as given in Fig. 2. The relative proximity to eval-
of preference (Pi) for the process parameters was noticed at CS:
uate the optimal solution been calculated by using Eq. (8) at each
1700 rpm; FR: 100 mm/min; DoC: 1.0 mm, as shown in Fig. 5.
alternative preferential value. Multi-process parameters optimiza-
Table 8 shows the Pi attained at 95% confidence level from ANOVA
tion has been transformed into a single-process parameters opti-
and shows the maximum contribution of feed rate (71.85%), cut-
mization by using the TOPSIS technique. TOPSIS method was used
ting speed (18.93%) and depth of cut (5.27%) towards the develop-
at each experimental run to determine the preference values (PI)
ment of preference value. It is noticeable that the Delta value
and rank has been assigned as per Table 6. With maximum PI,
(max–min) in the Mean response table (Table 7) for Pi is the high-
est for the feed rate with the value of 0.3936 mm/min as the most
Table 9 significant factor. Table 9 described the TOPSIS confirmatory exper-
TOPSIS confirmatory experimental findings. imental findings.
Initial position Optimal Setting (experimental)
Level N1-F1-D1 N1-F4-D4 4. Conclusions
Cutting speed (rpm) 1200 1200
Feed rate (mm/min) 25 100
Depth of cut (mm) 0.5 1.25 The present experimentation targets for improving the end
MRR (m3/min) 161.022 1702.565 milling performance of biodegradable ZE41A magnesium alloy by
Thermal stress (MN/m2) 2.731 2.265 concurrently maximizing MRR and minimizing thermal stresses.
Value of Pi 0.3783 0.8429
Taguchi design L16 OA was used to conduct experiments, and TOP-
Increment in Pi for ideal solution : 0.4646 (Improvement in desire grade)
SIS analysis as a multi-attribute optimization technique has been
7
R. Kumar, P. Katyal, K. Kumar et al.
used to achieve the significant results. Observations received from
the present investigation are listed below:
 MRR increases with increasing feed rate and depth of cut, but
decreases with increasing cutting speed. Feed rate is the most
influencing parameter with the maximum contribution in the
rate of removal material (MRR) because of higher cutting forces.
 Thermal stresses increase with cutting speed and depth of cut
and decrease with feed rate. It is due to temperature gradient
carrying maximum heat by chips rather than the work sample.
 For single response optimization, maximum MRR is achieved at
process variable setting: CS 1200 rpm, FR: 100 mm/min, DoC:
1.25 mm; and for minimum thermal stresses: CS: 1700 rpm,
FR: 100 mm/min and DoC: 0.5 mm has been recommended with
the deviation range of 6%.
 For multi-response optimization, optimized process parameter
settings suggested by TOPSIS: CS 1200 rpm, FR: 100 mm/min,
DoC: 1.25 mm. ANOVA verified the main influencing factors for
multi-response optimization on preference value are FR
(71.85%), CS (18.93%), and DoC (5.27%).
 Future work can be expanded for in-vitro degradation analysis
of end milled ZE41A alloy samples to evaluate the influence of
surface morphology on corrosion rate, degradation study and
mechanical integrity loss in order to establish the end milling
process for the manufacturing of biodegradable Mg alloy
implants.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rajender Kumar: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft.
Puneet Katyal: Resources, Visualization. Kamal Kumar: Visualiza-
tion. Vijender Singh: Methodology, Formal analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S.V. Muley, A.N. Vidvans, G.P. Chaudhari, S. Udainiya, An assessment of ultra
fine grained 316L stainless steel for implant applications, Acta Biomater. 30
(2016) 408–419.
[2] K. Radhika, A. Lakshminarayanan, An insight into the stress corrosion cracking
resistance of friction stir processed and micro arc oxidation coated ZE41 grade
magnesium alloy, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci., p.
0954406220920315, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0954406220920315.
[3] N. Dinodi, A. Nityananda Shetty, Electrochemical investigations on the
corrosion behaviour of magnesium alloy ZE41 in a combined medium of
chloride and sulphate, J. Magnes. Alloys, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 201–209, Sep. 2013,
doi: 10.1016/j.jma.2013.08.003.
[4] S. Keim, J.G. Brunner, B. Fabry, S. Virtanen, Control of magnesium corrosion and
biocompatibility with biomimetic coatings, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl.
Biomater. 96B (1) (2011) 84–90, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.v96b.110.1002/
jbm.b.31742.
[5] G. Byrne, D. Dornfeld, B. Denkena, Advancing cutting technology, CIRP Ann. 52
(2) (2003) 483–507, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60200-5.
[6] A. Soltan et al., Corrosion of Mg alloys EV31A, WE43B, and ZE41A in chloride-
and sulfate-containing solutions saturated with magnesium hydroxide, Mater.
Corros., p. maco.201911375, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1002/maco.201911375.
[7] G. Selvakumar, S.R. Prakash, E.C. Kovilpillai, Machining of ZE41 magnesium
alloy in WEDM using taguchi approach, Trends Manuf. Eng. Manag. (2021)
747–753.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[8] B. Eker, B. Ekici, M. Kurt, B. Bakır, Sustainable machining of the magnesium
alloy materials in the CNC lathe machine and optimization of the cutting
conditions, Mechanics, vol. 20, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.5755/j01.
mech.20.3.4702.
[9] R.S. Gill, K. Kumar, U. Batra, Surface characteristics and corrosion behavior of
wire electrical discharge machining processed Mg-4Zn alloy, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 30 (4) (2021) 2955–2966.
[10] N. Ahuja, U. Batra, K. Kumar, Experimental investigation and optimization of
wire electrical discharge machining for surface characteristics and corrosion
rate of biodegradable Mg alloy, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 29 (6) (Jun. 2020) 4117–
4129, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-04905-8.
[11] G. Sharma, K. Kumar, P.S. Satsangi, N. Sharma, Surface modification of
biodegradable Mg-4Zn alloy using PMEDM: an experimental investigation,
optimization and corrosion analysis, IRBM (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
irbm.2021.02.003.
[12] R.V. Rao, V.D. Kalyankar, Optimization of modern machining processes using
advanced optimization techniques: a review, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73
(5–8) (Jul. 2014) 1159–1188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5894-4.
[13] R.C. Sharma, V. Dabra, G. Singh, R. Kumar, R.P. Singh, S. Sharma, Multi-response
optimization while machining of stainless steel 316L using intelligent
approach of grey theory and grey-TLBO, World J. Eng. ahead-of-print (ahead-
of-print) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-06-2020-0226.
[14] R.S. Pawade, S.S. Joshi, Multi-objective optimization of surface roughness and
cutting forces in high-speed turning of Inconel 718 using Taguchi grey
relational analysis (TGRA), Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 56 (1-4) (2011) 47–62.
[15] P. Umamaheswarrao, D.R. Raju, K.N.S. Suman, B.R. Sankar, Topsis based
optimization of process parameters while hard turning of Aisi 52100 steel,
Acta Mech. Malays. AMM 2 (2) (2019) 28–31.
_ An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the
[16] Y.T. Iç,
selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies, Robot.
Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 28 (2) (2012) 245–256.
[17] M. Priyadarshini, P.P. Tripathy, D. Mishra, S. Panda, Multi Characteristics
optimization of laser drilling process parameter using Fuzzy-TOPSIS method,
Mater. Today Proc. 4 (8) (2017) 8538–8547.
[18] S. Arooj, M. Shah, S. Sadiq, S.H.I. Jaffery, S. Khushnood, Effect of current in the
EDM machining of aluminum 6061 T6 and its effect on the surface
morphology, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39 (5) (May 2014) 4187–4199, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13369-014-1020-z.
[19] M. Singh, S. Singh, Micro-machining and process optimization of
electrochemical discharge machining (ECDM) process by TOPSIS method, in:
in International Scientific-Technical Conference Manufacturing, 2019, pp.
206–215.
[20] H.K. Khanna, D.D. Sharma, S.C. Laroiya, Identifying and ranking critical success
factors for implementation of total quality management in the Indian
manufacturing industry using TOPSIS, Asian J. Qual. 12 (1) (2011) 124–138.
[21] S. Dewangan, S. Gangopadhyay, C.K. Biswas, Study of surface integrity and
dimensional accuracy in EDM using Fuzzy TOPSIS and sensitivity analysis,
Measurement 63 (Mar. 2015) 364–376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2014.11.025.
[22] J. Lei, W. Chang, S. Zhou, X. Li, F. Wei, Study on the quality evaluation model of
diesel engine with ANP and TOPSIS method, Annual Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium (RAMS) 2018 (2018) 1–6.
[23] G. Sakthivel, M. Ilangkumaran, G. Nagarajan, G.V. Priyadharshini, S. Dinesh
Kumar, S. Satish Kumar, K.S. Suresh, G. Thirumalai Selvan, T. Thilakavel, Multi-
criteria decision modelling approach for biodiesel blend selection based on
GRA–TOPSIS analysis, Int. J. Ambient Energy 35 (3) (2014) 139–154.
[24] M. Mia, M.A. Bashir, M.A. Khan, N.R. Dhar, Optimization of MQL flow rate for
minimum cutting force and surface roughness in end milling of hardened steel
(HRC 40), Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89 (1–4) (Mar. 2017) 675–690, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9080-8.
[25] H.-P. Nguyen, V.-D. Pham, N.-V. Ngo, Application of TOPSIS to Taguchi method
for multi-characteristic optimization of electrical discharge machining with
titanium powder mixed into dielectric fluid, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 98 (5–
8) (Sep. 2018) 1179–1198, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2321-2.
[26] S. Tripathy, D.K. Tripathy, Multi-attribute optimization of machining process
parameters in powder mixed electro-discharge machining using TOPSIS and
grey relational analysis, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 19 (1) (Mar. 2016) 62–70,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2015.07.010.
[27] W. Akhtar, J. Sun, W. Chen, Effect of machining parameters on surface integrity
in high speed milling of super alloy GH4169/Inconel 718, Mater. Manuf.
Process. 31 (5) (2016) 620–627.
[28] S. Kumar, I. Saravanan, L. Patnaik, Optimization of surface roughness and
material removal rate in milling of AISI 1005 carbon steel using Taguchi
approach, Mater. Today Proc. 22 (2020) 654–658.
[29] A. Goswami, J. Kumar, Trim cut machining and surface integrity analysis of
Nimonic 80A alloy using wire cut EDM, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 20 (1) (2017)
175–186.