JT 34 24 38

Jurnal Tribologi 34 (2022) 24-38
Optimization of machining parameters values during milling on

carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) using RSM
Siti Fatirah Ramli *, Nor Khairusshima Muhamad Khairussaleh, Suhaily Mokhtar,
Aishah Najiah Dahnel, Natasha A. Raof
Faculty of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia,

MALAYSIA.
*Corresponding author: sitifatirahramli@gmail.com
KEYWORDS ABSTRACT
This paper presents the optimization of machining
parameters, namely cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of
cut during milling on CFRP. The tool life analysis was
developed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and guided
by Box Behnken Design as the Design of Experiment for
this research. The input variables are cutting speed from
50.24 m/min to 218.54 m/min, feed rate from 0.03
mm/tooth to 0.25 mm/tooth and depth of cut from 1.0
mm to 1.5 mm. Optimum machining parameters were
Optimization
obtained based on the value of longest tool life as well as
Milling
the desirability value near to one. As for 0-degree fiber
CFRP
orientation, the optimum machining parameters needed
Tool Life
are cutting speed 218.54 m/min, feed rate of 0.03
ANOVA
mm/tooth and 1.21 mm depth of cut. Meanwhile for 45-
degree fiber orientation, 218.31 m/min cutting speed,
0.05 mm/tooth feed rate, and 1.0 mm of depth of cut were
utilized. The optimum machining parameters for 90-
degree fiber orientation is 214.44 m/min of cutting speed,
0.04 mm/tooth of feed rate, and depth of cut of 1.22 mm.
It was found out from ANOVA Analysis that feed rate was
the most significant factor that affected the tool life during
milling on CFRP.
Received 10 October 2021; received in revised form 6 December 2021; accepted 4 February 2022.
To cite this article: Ramli et al. (2022). Optimization of machining parameters values during milling on Carbon fiber
reinforced plastic (CFRP) using RSM. Jurnal Tribologi 34, pp.24-38.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The machining of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) had come to an extend where several
problems are faced during machining especially when the milling process takes place (Jungrestan
et. al., 2015). The milling process is done to ensure the near-net-shape product is produced with
high quality to meet industry requirements (Bhatnagar et. al., 1995). Tool wear is one of the
problems often encountered while milling the CFRP other than surface integrity (Feng et. al.,
2002).
Tool wear occurs as the cutting tool made of hard and brittle material starts to cut the work
piece. As the sharp edge of the cutting tool rubs over the work piece, it shears off some material
to produce the desired shape of the work piece. This continuous rubbing action causes the cutting
tool to wear out, which is also known as tool wear (Iliesu et. al.,2010). Gradual tool wear cannot
be eliminated in total but can be reduced (Uhlmanna et. al., 2015). One of the ways is to select the
right machining parameters (Dasgupta et. al.,2016).
Cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut are examples of machining parameters associated
with the milling process of CFRP (Dawim et. al., 2004). Optimizing these parameters can enhance
the productivity and product quality of the work piece as well as decrease the gradual process of
tool wear during the milling process (Palanikumar et.al., 2007). The optimization can be achieved
through statistical analysis to find the optimized values of machining parameters within the range
set by researchers based on past experiments (Ribeiro et. al., 2017).
The statistical analysis starts with identifying the machining parameters involved or known as
input variables. The input variables are the variables that can be manipulated during the
machining process through a statistical tool like Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (Aggarwal et. al,
2005). As for milling of CFRP, the targeted output variable is in the form of tool life that presented
the tool wear (Nor Khairusshima et. al., 2017).
Design of Experiment (DOE) is a set of input variables that act as a guide to mill the CFRP
(Aggarwal et. al., 2019). Several types of DOE include Central Composite Design (CCD), Full
Factorial Design (FFD), and Box Behnken Design (BBD) (Tijana et. al., 2014). The difference of
DOE types is based on the targeted output variable range. The output range can be controlled by
the selecting suitable types of DOE(Jenarthana et. al., 2016).
Ahmad (2009) in his book mentioned that the input variables are inserted into the process of
statistical analysis, which then results in output variables. The output variable is in the form of
the desired aim of the experiment. From output variables, the optimization can be done based on
the model generated during statistical analysis (Chittaranjandas, 2016). Optimized machining
parameters during milling of CFRP can target the optimum tool life with the optimized value of
cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of cut (Krishnaraj et. al., 2012). The use of these optimized
machining parameters can reduce the tool wear and prolong the tool life of cutting tools besides
directly decreasing the frequent number of cutting tool change throughout the production cycle
(Durao et. al., 2010). The efficiency of the production cycle is mostly important hence the
production cost should be kept low while producing high quality end products according to
market standard (Palanikumar et. al, 2009).
In this paper. Box Behnken Design was used to design the experiment. Box Behnken design
requires fewer experiments compared to other experimental designs including CCD (Manohar et
al., 2013). One advantages of using Box Behnken is that it could save time economically since only
a small number of experiments needed during the milling processes (Liu et al., 2014). The
combination of this design with statistical analysis tests such as Analysis of Variance transforms
it into a powerful tool for the optimization of machining parameters.
25
The selection of machining parameters which are the interaction of cutting speed, feed rate,
and depth of cut as the input variables with three factors compliments the Box Behnken design.
The objective of the experiment is to develop a model for predicting the optimized tool life with a
combination of an optimum set of machining parameters. Box Behnken design is efficient in fitting
second-order polynomials to response surfaces since it uses a relatively small number of
observations for estimating the parameters. The model was validated with a set of experimental
data and three-dimensional surface plots were generated to explain the trend of achievable tool
life under a specific combination of machining parameters. This is useful to understand the
influence of machining parameters and resulting output responses during the milling of CFRP
using an uncoated carbide cutting tool.
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The full immersion milling process took place inside CNC MAZAK Milling Machine with a
maximum spindle speed of 12,000 rpm. Machining parameters range for cutting speed was 50.24
m/min to 218.54 m/min, feed rate from 0.03 mm/tooth to 0.25 mm/tooth, and depth of cut from
1.0 mm to 1.5 mm. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) with unidirectional fiber orientation
of 0,45 and 90 degrees individually as well as 300 mm x 200 mm x 3 mm in thickness was used as
a work piece while 2 flutes with 8 mm in diameter of uncoated carbide cutting tool were used as
a cutting tool.
The CFRP was milled through 200 mm in distance until the flank wear, VB reached 0.3mm. The
ISO 1989 standard states that for the milling process, once flank wear reaches 0.3 mm, the cutting
tool needs to be discarded and replaced with the new one (ISO , 1989).
Box Behnken Design that proposes three-level designs for fitting the response surfaces is
suitable with three process parameters involved in this experiment. Referring to Figure 1, it was
noticed that Box Behnken Design did not contain any point at the vertices of the cubic region t
created by the upper and lower limits for each variable.
Figure 1: Three factor Box Behnken Design
26
The process parameters were selected as in Table 1 with three factors notified by A: cutting
speed, B: feed rate, and C: depth of cut together with their values. Box Behnken Design under
Response Surface Methodology generated 15 runs of experiment with design matrix as in Table 2
to guide the experiment. Statistical analysis was performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
to determine the optimized machining parameters for all three different fiber orientations by
finding the optimum tool life as an output value. The significant factors that affected the tool life
were analyzed using the ANOVA model from the statistical analysis.
Table 1: Process parameters with their values

Factor Name Unit High Low High Low
Actual Actual Coded Coded
A Cutting Speed m/min 50.24 218.54 -1 1
B Feed Rate mm/tooth 0.03 0.25 -1 1
C Depth of Cut mm 1 1.5 -1 1
Table 2: Box Behnken Design Matrix

Independent Variables Coded
Cutting ϰ1 ϰ2 ϰ3
Feed Rate Depth of
Run Speed
(mm/tooth) Cut (mm)
(m/min)
1 50.24 0.03 1.25 -1 -1 0
2 50.24 0.25 1.25 -1 1 0
3 218.54 0.03 1.25 1 -1 0
4 218.54 0.25 1.25 1 1 0
5 50.24 0.14 1 -1 0 -1
6 50.24 0.14 1.5 -1 0 1
7 218.54 0.14 1 1 0 -1
8 218.54 0.14 1.5 1 0 1
9 134.39 0.03 1 0 -1 -1
10 134.39 0.03 1.5 0 -1 1
11 134.39 0.25 1 0 1 -1
12 134.39 0.25 1.5 0 1 1
13 134.39 0.14 1.25 0 0 0
14 134.39 0.14 1.25 0 0 0
15 134.39 0.14 1.25 0 0 0
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Mathematical Model

Response surface methodology (RSM) is among the methods involving mathematical and
statistical techniques for modeling and analyzing problems. The method analyzes the process
parameters or input variables that influence the response (output variables). Several
combinations of input variables had a great influence on the generated output response to
27
optimize the response. The advantage of using RSM is that it can evaluate the effect of multiple
combinations of process parameters and understand their interactions with one another.
Multiple regression equations were generated from the relationship of the process factors,
which can be used as an estimation of the expected values of the responses for any factor level.
The response surface was expressed as y=f (x1,x2……..,xk) . The ultimate goal is to optimize the
response variable y. The independent variables which are the input variables were assumed to be
continuous and controllable by the experiments where the errors are negligible.
The relationship of independent variables with tool life for this research is as follows:
TL = C ( vl , fm,dn) (1)
Where TL represents tool life, C is model constant and l,m,n are model parameters as the tool life
is in the function of v (cutting speed) , f (feed rate), and d ( depth of cut).
The second-order model is usually used to find a suitable approximation for the functional
relationship between the independent variables and the response surface,
𝑦 = 𝛽0 + ∑𝑘𝑖=1 𝛽0 𝑥𝑖 + ∑𝑘𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑖2 + ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝛽𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑖 𝑥𝑗 + 𝜀 (2)
Where 𝜀 is a random error.
In matrix form,
𝑌 = 𝛽𝑋 + 𝜀 (3)
The relationship between the output parameter which is tool life for each three different fiber
orientations is represented by the second-order RSM as the input process parameters namely
cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of cut were generated using the experimental data values and
given as below.
Tool life 0⸰ = -454.269 + 0.079A – 1200.481B +1122.242C +2627.08B2 -464.796C2

(4)
Tool life 45⸰ = 136.003 +0.104A – 286.409B + 52.704C +2.350E–003 A2 –0.653AC

(5)
Tool life 90⸰ = 513.474 + 0.70387A - 182.229B – 651.113C + 2.098E– 003A2+278.154C2 -

1.007AB – 0.634AC (6)
Where:
A = Cutting speed, B = Feed rate and C = Depth of cut
3.2 ANOVA Analysis

The aim of statistical analysis performed using Analysis of Variable (ANOVA) as statistical tool
is to check the adequacy of the model developed at 95% confidence level and analyze the
optimized machining parameters resulting in optimum tool life of uncoated carbide cutting tool
28
during milling CFRP. The discussion is based on three fiber orientations (0, 45 and 90 degrees).
Throughout ANOVA Analysis, the significant factor affecting tool life the most was identified. A
validation test was done using the optimized machining parameters by practicing the theoretical
value from ANOVA to the real experimental process. The experimental error was calculated to
examine whether or not the theoretical optimized machining parameters are acceptable based on
the value taken by performing the experimental machining.
ANOVA model for 0,45 and 90 degrees is shown from Table 3 to Table 5, which was generated
by a statistical tool. The ANOVA model showed the significance of the model developed for all
three-fiber orientations. From Table 3 to Table 5, the F-value of 16.9, 78.81, and 199.25 indicated
that the model is significant. The significant factor can be notified from this ANOVA model by
comparing the F-value. The highest F-value among the three factors indicates that the factor
significantly affected the tool life. The value of the B-factor, which is the feed rate in all tables was
shown to be the highest. Hence, the feed rate was considered the most significant factor affecting
tool life during milling CFRP which might be due to high chatter that occurred during milling is
from the rapid transverse of the cutting tool (Nor Khairusshima et. al., 2016). Model validity was
shown by an R2 value near to 1, which indicated that the model is valid. The R2 values in all tables
which are 0.9037, 0.9777, and 0.9950 clearly showed that the ANOVA model developed is valid.
Adequate precision measured by the desirable ratio should be greater than 4.0, which indicates
well for the model. The adequate precision values for three different fiber orientations were above
4.0, which are 12.523 (0 degrees), 28.872 (45 degrees), and 45.852 (90 degree).
Table 3: ANOVA Model 0 Degree

Sum of Mean
Source DF F Value Prob > F
Squares Square
Model 29483.65 5 5896.73 16.9 0.0002 Significant
A- Cutting speed 356.85 1 356.85 1.02 0.3383
B-Feed Rate 20921.37 1 20921.37 59.96 < 0.0001
C-Depth of Cut 790.03 1 790.03 2.26 0.1667
B² 3753.13 1 3753.13 10.76 0.0095
C² 3134.45 1 3134.45 8.98 0.015
Residual 3140.37 9 348.93
Lack of Fit 3054.64 7 436.38 10.18 0.0923 Not Significant
Pure Error 85.73 2 42.87
Cor Total 32624.02 14
R2=0.9037 Adj.R2=0.8503 Pred.R2=0.7109 Adeq.Precession=12.523
29

Sum of Mean
Squares Square
Model 10715.00 5 2143.00 78.81 <0.0001 Significant
A-Cutting speed 369.78 1 369.78 13.60 0.0050
B-Feed Rate 7940.52 1 7940.52 292.01 <0.0001
C-Depth of cut 615.48 1 615.48 22.63 0.0010
A² 1033.79 1 1033.79 38.02 0.0002
AC 755.43 1 755.43 27.78 0.0005
Residual 244.73 9 27.19
Pure Error 6.93 2 3.47
Cor Total 10959.73 14

Sum of Mean
Squares Square
Model 19834.24 7 2833.46 199.25 <0.0001 Significant
A-Cutting speed 6361.92 1 6361.92 447.37 <0.0001
B-Feed Rate 9765.03 1 9765.03 686.68 <0.0001
C-Depth of Cut 834.36 1 834.36 58.67 0.0001
A² 820.14 1 820.14 57.67 0.0001
C² 1122.55 1 1122.55 78.94 <0.0001
AB 347.82 1 347.82 24.46 0.0017
AC 710.22 1 710.22 49.94 0.0002
Residual 99.55 7 14.22
Pure Error 3.55 2 1.77
Cor Total 19933.78 14
The normal residual plot is used to evaluate adequacy of the ANOVA model previously
developed. The model is adequate if the residual value is plotted close to the best of fit line. This
best of fit line is the line for a normal probability. According to figures 2 to 4, all the residual values
for 0, 45, and 90 degrees were seen to be properly located along the normal probabilities line
proving that the model developed is adequate.
30
Figure 2: Normal Plot of Residual 0 Degree
31
The three-dimensional (3D) surface plots for tool life shown in figures 5 to 7 illustrate the
relation of machining parameters concerning tool life. As the ANOVA model developed in all three
fiber orientations (0, 45, and 90 degrees) are quadratic, the 3D graph emerged in the form of a
curved shape along with inter-relation between machining parameters with tool life. The fiber
orientation of 0 degrees (Figure 5) and 90 degrees (Figure 7) showed that the tool life is increasing
as the cutting speed increases and the feed rate decreases. According to Nor Khairusshima et. al.
(2016) as well as Rashid et. al. (2020), as the cutting speed increases, more heat will be generated
during the cutting process which helps in softening the CFRP. Therefore, the cutting force needed
to remove the chip becomes less, thus lowering the tool wear rate. During the machining of CFRP,
a lower feed rate decreases the chatter resulting in tower tool wear and higher tool life.
Referring to Figure 6 of 3D surface plots for 45-degree fiber orientation, the graph portrays
the combination of depth of cut and cutting speed that affecting the tool life. The 3D surface graph
observed from Figure 5 showed that as the depth of cut decreases and the cutting speed increases,
the tool life increases. This is because the contact area between the CFRP panel and cutting tool is
small at a lower depth of cut which means less heat is generated to be transferred to the contact
area of the cutting tool and work piece. Thus, less tool wear is generated, giving the cutting tool a
longer tool life (Rashid et. al., 2020). It was then concluded from the 3D surface plots of three
different fiber orientations that minimizing tool wear (tool life longer) during milling CFRP
requires higher cutting speed, lower feed rate, and lower depth of cut. The ANOVA analysis
demonstrated that the depth of cut has a less significant factor contributed to tool wear.
Meanwhile, the feed rate was the primary significant factor affecting tool wear during the milling
of CFRP with fiber orientations of 0,45, and 90 degrees (Dasgupta et.al, 2016).
32
Figure 5: 3D Surface model 0 degree
33
The mathematical modeling behind the three-dimensional tool life graphs obtained in Figure
5 to Figure 7 was developed from Equation (4) to Equation (6).
Optimization study of machining parameters is a major concern in the machining process as it
helps to boost up the productivity of production. Selection suitable machining parameters is
crucial to ensure optimum tool life. The optimization solutions of machining parameters for 0-,
45- and 90-degree fiber orientations are listed in tables 6 to 8. For 0-degree fiber orientation,
there were 8 optimization solutions, whereas there were 9 optimization solutions for 45-degrees
and 90-degrees with 10 optimization solutions. From these solutions, the best machining
parameters were chosen based on the highest tool life and the desirability values near to 1. Thus,
solution number 1 in each table represents the optimized machining parameters leading to an
optimum tool life.
Table 6: Optimization solution model 0 degree

Cutting
No. of Feed Rate Depth of Tool Life
speed Desirability
Solution (mm/tooth) Cut (mm) (seconds)
(m/min)
1 218.54 0.03 1.21 206.83 0.896 Selected
2 218.54 0.03 1.21 206.81 0.896
3 216.83 0.03 1.21 206.70 0.895
4 205.89 0.03 1.21 205.83 0.89
5 218.54 0.03 1.26 205.37 0.887
6 194.3 0.03 1.21 204.91 0.884
7 160.85 0.03 1.19 202.13 0.866
8 218.54 0.03 1.36 196.23 0.828

Cutting
speed Desirability
(m/min)
1 218.31 0.05 1.00 167.42 1.000 Selected
2 50.31 0.03 1.46 167.31 1.000
3 50.79 0.03 1.49 167.27 1.000
4 216.18 0.03 1.00 169.60 1.000
5 210.26 0.03 1.01 167.79 1.000
6 56.81 0.03 1.50 164.30 0.972
7 50.24 0.03 1.19 162.16 0.950
8 50.24 0.03 1.16 161.57 0.944
9 50.24 0.03 1.00 158.46 0.913
34

Cutting
speed Desirability
(m/min)
1 214.44 0.04 1.22 200.96 1.000 Selected
2 211.41 0.03 1.20 200.56 1.000
3 217.39 0.03 1.27 200.80 1.000
4 215.36 0.04 1.22 200.91 1.000
5 218.10 0.04 1.21 204.35 1.000
6 183.74 0.03 1.00 211.12 1.000
7 218.54 0.03 1.29 199.68 0.994
8 218.54 0.03 1.31 198.36 0.983
9 218.54 0.03 1.44 195.32 0.957
10 76.45 0.03 1.50 148.32 0.561
The optimized machining parameters obtained through the optimization solution need to
undergo validation machining to validate the optimization results stated in table 6 until 8. Table
9 illustrates the validation results demonstrating that the error with experimental value was less
than 5% for all fiber orientations which indicates that the optimization machining parameters
obtained by DOE are valid and can be implemented in the industry.
Table 9. Optimization data and validation test

Cutting Depth Tool Life Tool Life Error with
Fibre Feed Rate
speed of Cut Theoretical Experimental experimental
Orientation (mm/tooth)
(m/min) (mm) (seconds) (seconds) value (%)
0 degree 218.54 0.03 1.21 206.83 200.07 3.27
45 Degree 218.31 0.05 1.00 167.42 169.75 1.37
90 Degree 214.44 0.04 1.22 200.96 203.6 1.29
CONCLUSIONS
The Box Behnken Design from RSM has been successfully adopted in this experiment based on
the designed Box Behnken process parameters. The three input variables, namely cutting speed,
feed rate, and depth of cut satisfied the need for three factors in designing the experiment. The
model was developed, and the data were collected with fewer experiments. The technique of
Response Surface Models showed the effects of each input parameter and its interaction with
other parameters to obtain the responses. Analysis of Variance method was utilized to test the
adequacy of the ANOVA model developed based on the Box Behnken Design of the experiment.
Further analysis was done by ANOVA to find the optimized machining parameters based on the
optimum tool life as well as validation of the models done by comparing them with the
experimental data. The validation process demonstrated that the model has high reliability to be
adopted within the chosen specified parameters range for milling three different orientations of
35
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic. The optimized machining parameters have been achieved to mill
CFRP at three different fiber orientations as follow:
0-degree Fiber Orientation

Cutting speed : 218.54 m/min
Feed Rate : 0.03 mm/tooth
Depth of Cut : 1.21 mm
45-degree Fiber Orientation

90-degree Fibre Orientation

Feed rate was identified as the significant factor that influence tool life through ANOVA
Analysis with the highest F-Value. The optimum tool life can be achieved at a higher cutting speed,
lower feed rate, and depth of cut. Hence, the optimized machining parameters obtained can be
adapted to the actual milling process of CFRP to save time and cost.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper was presented during MITC2020ne Conference. The funding for the research is
from the financial support of Government of Malaysia and International Islamic University
Malaysia under grant number: FRGS/1/2018/TK03/UIAM/03/1
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, A., & Singh, H. (2005). Optimization of machining techniques — A retrospective and
literature review. Sadhana, 30(6), 699-711.
Agrawal, A., Kaur, R., & Walia, R. (2019). Engineering optimization of process parameters for
polymers: an overview. International Journal of Experimental Design and Process
Optimization, 6(2), 89.
Bhatnagar, N., Ramakrishnan, N., Naik, N., & Komanduri, R. (1995). On the machining of fiber
reinforced plastic (FRP) composite laminates. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 35(5), 701-716.
Chittaranjandas, V., (2016). Response surface methodology and desirability approach to optimize
edm parameters. International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, 9(4), 393-406.
Dasgupta, S., & Mukherjee, S. (2016). Effects of machining parameters on tool life and its
optimization in turning mild steel with brazed carbide cutting tool. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 149, 012005.
36
Durão, L. M., Gonçalves, D. J., Tavares, J. M., De Albuquerque, V. H., Aguiar Vieira, A., & Torres
Marques, A. (2010). Drilling tool geometry evaluation for reinforced composite laminates.
Composite Structures, 92(7), 1545-1550.
International organization for standardization, ISO 1989 (2020, January 09). Retrieved August 10,
2021, from https://www.iso.org/home.html
Iliescu, D., Gehin, D., Gutierrez, M., & Girot, F. (2010). Modeling and tool wear in drilling of
CFRP. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 50(2), 204-213. doi:
10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.10.004
Jenarthanan, M., Subramanian, A., & Jeyapaul, R. (2016). Comparative analysis of surface
roughness prediction using DOE and ANN techniques during end milling of glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites. Pigment & Resin Technology, 45(2), 126-139
Jugrestan, C., Popa, M., Sattel, S., Preja, D., Vereș, O., & Cotargă, E. (2015). Evaluation of the
Problems that Arise during CFRP Drilling. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 809-810, 111-116.
Krishnaraj, V., Prabukarthi, A., Ramanathan, A., Elanghovan, N., Senthil Kumar, M., Zitoune, R., &
Davim, J. (2012). Optimization of machining parameters at high-speed drilling of carbon fiber
reinforced PLASTIC (CFRP) laminates. Composites Part B: Engineering, 43(4), 1791-1799.
Liu,D., Huang,C., Wang,J., Zhu,H., Yao,P., & Liu,Z. (2014). Modelling and optimization of operating
parameters for abrasive waterjet turning alumina ceramics using response surface
methodology with Box Behnken design. Ceramics International, 40(6), 7899-7908
Manohar, M., Joseph, J., Selvaraj,T., & Sivakumar,D. (2013). Application of Box Behnken design to
optimize the parameters for turning Inconel 718 using coated carbide tools. International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(4), 620-642
Nor Khairusshima, M., & Sharifah, I. (2017). Study on Tool Wear during Milling CFRP under Dry
and Chilled Air Machining. Procedia Engineering, 184, 506-517.
Nor Khairusshima, M.K., Che Hasan, C. H., & Ghani, A. (2016). Study on wear mechanism of solid
carbide cutting tool in milling CFRP. Journal of Materials Research, 31(13), 1893-1899.
Palanikumar, K., & Paulo Davim, J. (2007). Mathematical model to predict tool wear on the
machining of glass fibre reinforced plastic composites. Materials & Design, 28(7), 2008-2014.
Palanikumar, K., &Paulo Davim, J. (2009). Assessment of some factors influencing tool wear on
the machining of glass fibre-reinforced plastics by coated cemented carbide tools. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 209(1), 511-519.
Paulo Davim, J., & Mata, F. (2004). Influence of cutting parameters on surface roughness in turning
glass‐fibre‐reinforced plastics using statistical analysis. Industrial Lubrication and
Tribology, 56(5), 270-274
Rashid, M.A.N., Zakaria, M.Z., Wazed,I.B. & Momin, M. (2020). Machinability effect DURING milling
on different composition OF JFRP using uncoated Carbide cutting tool. International Journal of
Engineering Research and, V9(03).
Rakić, T., Kasagić-Vujanović, I., Jovanović, M., Jančić-Stojanović, B., & Ivanović, D. (2014).
Comparison of Full Factorial Design, Central Composite Design, and Box-Behnken Design in
Chromatographic Method Development for the Determination of Fluconazole and Its
Impurities. Analytical Letters, 47(8), 1334-1347.
Ribeiro, J., Lopes, H., Queijo, L., & Figueiredo, D. (2017). Optimization of Cutting Parameters to
Minimize the Surface Roughness in the End Milling Process Using the Taguchi
Method. Periodica Polytechnica Mechanical Engineering, 61(1), 30-35.
Sheikh Ahmad, Y., Machining of Polymer Composites, Springer,1st edn Springer, Boston (2009)
37
Uhlmann, E., Sammler, F., Richarz, S., Reucher, G., Hufschmied, R., & Frank, A. et al. (2016).
Machining of Carbon and Glass Fibre Reinforced Composites. Procedia CIRP, 46, 63-66. doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.197
Wang, X., & Feng, C. (2002). Development of Empirical Models for Surface Roughness Prediction
in Finish Turning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 20(5),
348-356.
38

JT 34 24 38

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JT 34 24 38

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Tribologi 34 (2022) 24-38

Optimization of machining parameters values during milling on

Faculty of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia,

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Figure 1: Three factor Box Behnken Design

Table 1: Process parameters with their values

Table 2: Box Behnken Design Matrix

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Mathematical Model

𝑦 = 𝛽0 + ∑𝑘𝑖=1 𝛽0 𝑥𝑖 + ∑𝑘𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑖2 + ∑𝑖 ∑𝑗 𝛽𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑖 𝑥𝑗 + 𝜀 (2)

Where 𝜀 is a random error.

Tool life 0⸰ = -454.269 + 0.079A – 1200.481B +1122.242C +2627.08B2 -464.796C2

Tool life 45⸰ = 136.003 +0.104A – 286.409B + 52.704C +2.350E–003 A2 –0.653AC

Tool life 90⸰ = 513.474 + 0.70387A - 182.229B – 651.113C + 2.098E– 003A2+278.154C2 -

3.2 ANOVA Analysis

Table 3: ANOVA Model 0 Degree

Table 4: ANOVA Model 45 Degree

Table 5: ANOVA Model 90 Degree

Figure 2: Normal Plot of Residual 0 Degree

Figure 3: Normal Plot of Residual 45 Degree

Figure 4: Normal Plot of Residual 90 Degree

Figure 5: 3D Surface model 0 degree

Figure 6: 3D Surface model 45 degree

Figure 7: 3D Surface model 90 degree

Table 6: Optimization solution model 0 degree

Table 7: Optimization solution model 45 degree

Table 8: Optimization solution model 90 degree

Table 9. Optimization data and validation test

0-degree Fiber Orientation

45-degree Fiber Orientation

90-degree Fibre Orientation

You might also like