Prediction of surface roughness of end

milling operation using genetic algorithm

G. Mahesh, S. Muthu & S. R. Devadasan

The International Journal of

Advanced Manufacturing Technology

ISSN 0268-3768
Volume 77
Combined 1-4

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015)

77:369-381
DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6425-z

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag London. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381
DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-6425-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Prediction of surface roughness of end milling operation using
genetic algorithm
G. Mahesh & S. Muthu & S. R. Devadasan
Received: 9 December 2012 / Accepted: 22 September 2014 / Published online: 17 October 2014
# Springer-Verlag London 2014
Abstract In the present study, the predictive model is devel-
oped to observe the effect of radial rake angle on the end
milling cutting tool by considering the following machining
parameters: spindle speed, feed rate, axial depth of cut, and
radial depth of cut. By referring to the real machining case
study, the second-order mathematical models have been de-
veloped using response surface methodology (RSM). A num-
ber of machining experiments based on statistical five-level
full factorial design of experiments are carried out in order to
collect surface roughness values. The direct and interaction
effects of the machining parameter with surface roughness are
analyzed using Design Expert software. The optimal surface
roughness value can be attained within the specified limits by
using RSM. The genetic algorithm (GA) model is trained and
tested in MATLAB to find the optimum cutting parameters
leading to minimum surface roughness. The GA recommends
0.25 μm as the best minimum predicted surface roughness
value. The confirmatory test shows the predicted values which
were found to be in good agreement with observed values.
Keywords Radial rake angle . RSM . GA . DoE . Vertical
milling machine . Surface roughness
G. Mahesh (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sree Sakthi Engineering
College, Karamadai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641104, India
e-mail: msv240606@gmail.com
S. Muthu
Mechanical Department, NGP Institute of Technology, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu 641048, India
e-mail: smuthu231155@gmail.com
S. R. Devadasan
Department of Production Engineering, PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: devadasan_srd@yahoo.com
1 Introduction
End milling is a process of generating a machined surface by
gradually removing a predetermined amount of material from
the work piece with a minimum feed rate of a milling cutter
rotating at a high speed.
While machining, the surface roughness plays a major role
for evaluating the work piece quality. Surface roughness is
influenced by controlled machining parameters, such as feed
rate, spindle speed, depth of cut, as well as by non-controlled
influences such as non-homogeneity of the work piece and the
tool, tool wear, machine-motion errors, formation of chips,
and unpredictable random disturbances [1]. Surface roughness
is most influenced by the feed rate, whereas the vibrations
increase the prediction accuracy [2]. Waviness refers to irreg-
ularities on the surface produced by machine or work piece
deflections, structural reasons, vibrations, and other irregular-
ities in the cutting process [3]. The cutting speed, feed rate,
and depth of cut are the important parameters affecting surface
finish. But these parameters are strongly dependent on the
dynamic properties of the tool as well as spindle [4].
Researchers have proposed several approaches to predict
surface roughness based on theoretical approach [5, 6]. Ana-
lytical models had been created to predict surface roughness
and tool life in terms of cutting speed, feed rate, and axial
depth of cut in milling material [7, 8], experimental investi-
gations [9, 10], design of experiments [11, 12], and optimiza-
tion techniques such as neural network, genetic algorithm,
fuzzy logic, and neural fuzzy approaches to predict surface
roughness [13] [14–18].
The usage of genetic algorithm for the optimization of
cutting conditions to predict surface roughness in end milling
process was very limited [19]. The integrated genetic pro-
gramming and genetic algorithm approach were presented to
predict surface roughness based on cutting parameters (spin-
dle speed, feed rate, and depth of cut) and on vibrations
 Author's personal copy
370
between a cutting tool and work piece [20]. For the cutting
conditions of feed rate, cutting speed, and axial depth of cut,
GA was used to predict surface roughness (Ra) value which is
lower than the values of experimental results [21]. The surface
roughness value predicted in GA optimization technique de-
creases with high cutting speed and very small feed rate [22].
In order to reduce machining time and to achieve better
surface roughness and metal removal rate, a combination of
high speed, low feed, with moderate depth of cut were to be
selected for machining processes. GA approach was used to
find the optimum machining conditions for corresponding
given maximum and minimum values of surface roughness.
The surface roughness increases with an increase in the depth
of cut [23]. Surface roughness is influenced by tool geometry,
feed rate, cutting conditions, and irregularities of machining
operations such as tool wear, chatter, tool deflections, cutting
fluid, and work piece properties. Feed rate has the greatest
influence on surface roughness in the milling process when
evaluated by the application of the GA optimization technique
[24]. The high cutting speed values for the milling process was
preferred for the low surface roughness value by the GA
technique [25]. The effect of cutting conditions like feed rate,
spindle speed, axial–radial depth of cut, and radial rake angle
on surface roughness was discussed. GA reduces the Ra value
in the mould cavity from 0.412 to 0.375 μm [26].
1.1 Influence of radial rake angle in end mill cutter
Rake angle is the angle between the leading edge of a cutting
tool and perpendicular to the surface being cut. Rake angles
for milling cutters are specified in two directions, axial and
radial rake angles. Axial rake is the cutting insert’s angle with
respect to the central axis of the cutter/spindle assembly.
Radial rake is the cutting insert’s angle with respect to the
periphery of the cutter. Common configurations include (a)
positive in both directions, (b) negative in both directions, and
(c) positive in one direction and negative in the other. Exper-
imental studies had been conducted to predict the effects of
rake angle (−4°, 0°, 4°, 8°, 12°, 16°, 20°) and helix angles on
the cutting forces variations during milling of hard materials.
Rake angle becomes higher; the cutting forces components
become lower [27]. An experiment had been conducted by
using an end mill cutter to predict surface roughness by
considering the radial rake angle (6.2°, 7.0°, 9.5°, 13.0°, and
14.8°) combined with cutting speed and feed rate. The authors
also suggested that the optimization of cutting conditions to
predict surface roughness (Ra) in end milling involving radial
rake angle is still lacking [28]. Mathematical models have
been developed to predict surface roughness using regression.
The genetic algorithm was used to predict the optimum pro-
cess parameters [29]. An integrated SA-GA approach was
used to optimize the surface roughness value by considering
the same parameters. The authors also suggested that the rake
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381
angle may affect the quality of the machined surface, and an
increase in the rake angle improves the overall quality of the
machined edge [30]. Rake and clearance angles are the most
important design factors. Particularly, rake angle affects stiff-
ness of the cutting edge and rigidity of the tool. Convention-
ally, an end mill with a positive rake angle improves machin-
ing ability. In case of a negative rake angle, the stiffness of the
cutting edge is increased and chipping is suppressed [31].
Experiments were conducted to observe the effect of tool
geometry on the quality of surface produced by considering
the radial rake angle as 4°,10°, and 16°; nose radius as
0.4°,0.8°, and 1.2°; and cutting conditions (cutting speed
and feed rate) on the machining performance in dry milling.
Mathematical models have been developed for surface rough-
ness prediction using RSM and validated through chi-square
test. Genetic Algorithm is used to find the optimum process
parameters. The authors [32, 33] investigated the effect of
graphite molybdenum disulfide as solid lubricants at the con-
tact surface between tool and work piece during machining by
using end mill cutters of different tool geometries (radial rake
angle and nose radius) under different cutting speeds and feed
rates [34]. Experimental studies have been conducted to ob-
serve the effect of tool geometry (radial rake angle and nose
radius) and cutting conditions (cutting speed and feed rate) on
the quality of surface produced in dry milling with four fluted
solid TiAIN-coated carbide end mill cutters. Mathematical
models have been developed to predict surface roughness by
using RSM. The optimization was carried out by using genetic
algorithm to obtain the best possible tool geometry and cutting
conditions. An attempt has been made to predict the process
parameters such as tool wear and vibration by considering the
significant parameters such as tool diameter, number of flutes,
rake and clearance angles, and work piece material [35].
From the literature sources, it is found that the machining
of Al 6063 metal matrix composite is an important area of
research, but only very few studies have been carried out on
surface roughness in end milling. In the present study, an
attempt is made to investigate the effect of process parameters
such as spindle speed, feed rate, radial depth of cut, axial depth
of cut, and radial rake angle on surface roughness in end
milling using RSM approach. This methodology helps to
obtain best possible cutting conditions and tool geometry for
dry milling of Al-6063 using High-speed steel (HSS) end mill
cutters. The adequacy of the developed mathematical model
has also been tested by the analysis of variance test. Design
Expert 6.0 package is used to analyze the data and develop the
model.
1.2 Optimization by using GA
Genetic algorithm (GA) is a procedure used to find approxi-
mate solutions to search problems through the application of
the principles of evolutionary biology. Genetic algorithms use
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381
biologically inspired techniques such as genetic inheritance,
natural selection, mutation, and sexual reproduction (recom-
bination or crossover). Genetic algorithms are typically im-
plemented using computer simulations in which an optimiza-
tion problem is specified. For this problem, members of a
space of candidate solutions, called individuals, are represent-
ed using abstract representations called chromosomes. The
GA consists of an iterative process that evolves a working
set of individuals called a population toward an objective
function or fitness function [36]. The evolutionary process
of a GA is a highly simplified and stylized simulation of the
biological version. It starts from a population of individuals
randomly generated according to some probability distribu-
tion, usually uniform and updates this population in steps
called generations. In each generation, multiple individuals
are randomly selected from the current population based upon
some application of fitness, bred using crossover, and modi-
fied through mutation to form a new population.
Crossover—exchange of genetic material (substrings)
denoting rules, structural components, features of a ma-
chine learning, search, or optimization problem.
Selection—the application of the fitness criterion to
choose which individuals from a population will go on
to reproduce.
Replication—the propagation of individuals from one
generation to the next.
Mutation—the modification of chromosomes for single
individuals.
The solution of a problem that GA attempts to solve is coded
into a string of binary numbers known as chromosomes. Each
chromosome contains the information of a set of possible
process parameters. Initially, a population of chromosomes is
formed randomly. The fitness of each chromosome is then
evaluated using an objective function after the chromosome
has been decoded. Selected individuals are then reproduced,
usually in pairs, through the application of genetic operators.
The operators are applied to pairs of individuals with a given
probability and result in new offspring. The offspring from
reproduction are then further perturbed by mutation. These
new individuals then make up the next generation. These
processes of selection, reproduction, and evaluation are repeat-
ed until some termination criteria are satisfied.
2 Surface roughness
There are various surface roughness amplitude parameters
such as roughness average (Ra), root–mean–square (RMS),
and maximum peak-to-valley roughness (Rmax), which are
used in industries [37]. Response surface method (RSM)
371
adopts both mathematical and statistical techniques which
are useful for the modeling and analysis of problems in which
a response of interest is influenced by several variables. By
conducting experiments and the posterior application of re-
gression analysis, a model of the response variable of interest
is obtained. The real relationship between the response and the
independent variables is unknown. For that reason, the first
step in RSM is to find an approximation of the true functional
relationship between the response and the independent vari-
ables [38]. The objective is to optimize the response. Similar-
ly, various researches have been done to predict surface
roughness theoretically through the equation
Ra ¼ cN k1 Bk2 C k3 Dk4 γ k5 ð1Þ
where
Ra is the predicted surface roughness (μm).
N is the spindle speed (m/min).
B is the feed rate (mm/rev).
C is the axial depth of cut (mm).
D is the radial depth of cut (mm).
Γ is the radial rake angle (°).
k1, k2, k3, k4, are the model parameters (to be estimated from
k5 experimental data).
c is response error.
Equation (1) may be written as
lnRa ¼ ln C þ k 1 lnN þ k 2 lnB þ k 3 ln C þ k 4 lnD þ k 5 lnγ
ð2Þ
The linear model of Eq. (2) is
y ¼ β 0 x0 þ β 1 N þ β 2 B þ β 3 C þ β 4 D þ β 5 γ ð3Þ
where y is the true response of the surface roughness on a
logarithmic scale x0 =1 (dummy variable) and N, B, C, D, and
γ are the logarithmic transformations of spindle speed, feed
rate, axial depth of cut, radial depth of cut, and radial rake
angle, respectively.
The general second-order model is
0
y ¼ y‐ε ¼ β0 x0 þ β1 x1 þ β2 x2 þ β3 x3 þ β4 x4 þ
β5 x5 þ β11 x1 2 þ β22 x2 2 þ β 33 x3 2 þ β44 x4 2 þ
β 55 x5 2 þ β12 x1 x2 þ β13 x1 x3 þ β14 x1 x4 þ ð4Þ
β15 x1 x5 þ β23 x2 x3 þ β 24 x2 x4 þ β 25 x2 x5 þ
β34 x3 x4 þ β35 x3 x5 þ β 45 x4 x5
where
y′ is the estimated response and y is measured as surface
roughness based on the logarithmic scale, ε is the
 Author's personal copy
372 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381

Table 1 Factor and their levels

Parameter (input variables) Units Factor level

−2 −1 0 1 2

Spindle speed (N) RPM 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Feed rate (B) mm/rev 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Axial depth of cut (C) mm 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Radial depth of cut (D) mm 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Radial rake angle (γ) Degree 12 15 18 21 24

experimental error, and β0 is the free term of the regression
equation. The coefficients β1, β2, β3, β4, and β5 are linear
terms. The coefficients β11, β22, β33, β44, and β55 are quadratic
terms, and the coefficients β12, β13, β14, β15, β23, β24, β25, β34,
β35, and β45 are interaction terms [39].
2.1 Experimental procedure
4. The objective function of GA leads to the minimum value
of surface roughness (Ra). MAT LAB software with GA
tool box is used to optimize the minimum value of surface
roughness.
5. GA optimization solution is evaluated. The optimum
cutting condition which leads to achieve minimum sur-
face roughness values generated from GA are compared
with experimented value and RSM result.

Five phases involved in the end milling operation are as

follows: 2.2 Identification of process parameter

1. The experiments are conducted on a vertical machining
center with high-speed steel end mill cutter under dry
condition by considering the process parameters such as
spindle speed, feed rate, radial depth of cut, axial depth of
cut, and radial rake angle. The surface roughness is mea-
sured by using a surface roughness tester.
2. The design matrix is selected for conducting the experi-
ment at five levels, five factor central composite rotatable
designs. Thus, the 32 experimental runs allow the estima-
tion of the linear, quadratic, and two-way interactive
effects of the process parameters.
3. A second-order quadratic model is developed for the
prediction of surface roughness. The model is checked
for its adequacy using ANOVA.
The independently controllable process parameters af-
fecting the surface roughness were identified to carrying
out the experimental work. The parameters and its
ranges, spindle speed, feed rate, radial depth of cut,
and axial depth of cut are selected based on suggestion
given by [40, 41]. The ranges of machining conditions
and tool radial rake angle were selected as recommend-
ed by the tool manufacturer and machining data hand-
book [42]. The surface roughness is the output
response.
The cutting parameters selected for minimizing the surface
roughness
Minimize : Ra ðN ; B; C; D; γ Þ ð5Þ

Table 2 Chemical composition

and mechanical properties Chemical composition of Al 6063 alloy Mechanical properties of Al 6063 alloy

Chemical Element % Present Brinell hardness 73

Si 0.2–0.6 Vickers hardness 83
Fe 0.35 Ultimate tensile strength 241 MPa
Cu 0.10 Tensile yield strength 214 MPa
Mg 0.45–0.9 Modulus of elasticity 68.9 GPa
Mn 0.10 Ultimate bearing strength 434 Mpa
Cr Max 0.1 Bearing yield strength 276 Mpa
Zn Max 0.1 Poission’s ratio 0.33
Ti Max 0.1 Shear strength 152 MPa
Others Total Max 0.15
Al Bal
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381 373

Table 3 Design matrix and response

Run Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Response 1

N/spindle speed B/feed rate C/axial depth D/radial depth γ/Radial rake angle Surface roughness (Ra)

rpm mm/rev mm mm Degree μm

1 1 (3000) −1 (0.06) −1 (0.6) −1 (0.6) −1 (15) 0.43
2 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.45
3 1 (3000) 1 (0.10) −1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) −1 (15) 0.49
4 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.48
5 −1 (2000) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) −1 (15) 0.51
6 0 (2500) 2 (0.12) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.58
7 −1 (2000) −1 (0.06) −1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) −1 (15) 0.53
8 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 2 (0.9) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.45
9 1 (3000) −1 (0.06) 1 (0.8) −1 (0.6) 1 (21) 0.46
10 1 (3000) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 1 (21) 0.50
11 1 (3000) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.8) −1 (0.6) −1 (15) 0.53
12 1 (3000) 1 (0.10) −1 (0.6) −1 (0.6) 0 (18) 0.50
13 1 (2000) 1 (0.10) −1 (0.6) −1 (0.6) −1 (15) 0.52
14 1 (3000) −1 (0.06) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) −1 (15) 0.48
15 −1 (2000) −1 (0.06) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 1 (21) 0.60
16 1 (3000) −1 (0.06) −1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 1 (21) 0.51
17 0 (2500) −2 (0.04) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.55
18 −1 (2000) 1 (0.10) −1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 1 (21) 0.61
19 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 2 (24) 0.65
20 −1 (2000) −1 (0.06) 1 (0.8) −1 (0.6) −1 (15) 0.58
21 2 (3500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.41
22 −1 (2000) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.8) 0 (0.6) 1 (21) 0.53
23 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) −2 (12) 0.58
24 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.49
25 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) −2 (0.5) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.46
26 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 2 (0.9) 0 (18) 0.51
27 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.52
28 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) −2 (0.5) 0 (18) 0.46
29 −1 (2000) −1 (0.06) −1 (0.6) −1 (0.6) 1 (21) 0.53
30 −2 (1500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.53
31 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.52
32 0 (2500) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (18) 0.45

2.3 Finding the limits of the process parameters

The working ranges of all selected factors were fixed by

conducting trial runs. This was carried out by varying one of
the factors while keeping the rest of them as constant values.
The upper limit of a given factor was coded as (+2) and the
lower limit was coded as (−2). The coded values for interme-
diate values were calculated using Eq. (1) [43]

X i ¼ 2f2X −ðX max þ X min Þg X max −X min ð6Þ

where Xi is the required coded value of a variable X and is

Fig. 1 Surface roughness tester (SURFTEST SJ-201) any value of the variable from Xmax and Xmin. The selected
 Author's personal copy
374 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381

Table 4 ANOVA table for the

prediction of Ra Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value P value
Prob>F

Model 0.088224 20 0.0044112 9.02604 0.0003 Significant

N-spindle speed 0.019824 1 0.01982351 40.5621 <0.0001
B-feed rate 0.001336 1 0.001336 2.73443 0.1264
C-axial depth 7.83E-08 1 7.82755E-08 0.00016 0.9901
D-radial depth 0.001602 1 0.0016022 3.27837 0.0976
γ-Radial rake angle 0.004862 1 0.0048621 9.94880 0.092
NB 0.004111 1 0.0041108 8.41155 0.0144
NC 0.000103 1 0.0001030 0.21089 0.655
ND 0.000399 1 0.0003985 0.81550 0.3858
Nγ 7.34E-05 1 7.3396E-05 0.15018 0.7058
BC 0.002949 1 0.0029489 6.03411 0.0319
BD 0.001203 1 0.0012027 2.46110 0.145
Bγ 0.000206 1 0.00020587 0.42125 0.5296
CD 0.000846 1 0.0008464 1.732048 0.2149
Cγ 0.003091 1 0.0030909 6.324573 0.0287
Dγ 0.002046 1 0.0020459 4.186304 0.0654
N^2 0.000568 1 0.0005684 1.163054 0.3039
B^2 0.010916 1 0.0109163 22.33658 0.0006
C^2 0.001945 1 0.0019450 3.979895 0.0714
D^2 1.28E-05 1 1.28153E-05 0.026222 0.8743
γ^2 0.029088 1 0.0290878 59.51844 <0.0001
Residual 0.005376 11 0.0004887
Lack of fit 0.000426 6 7.09857E-05 0.071702 0.997 Not significant
Pure error 0.00495 5 0.00099
Cor total 0.0936 31
Std. dev. 0.02210 R2 0.94256
2
Mean 0.5125 Adj R 0.83813

process parameter with their limits and notations are given in
Table 1.
2.4 Development of design matrix
The design matrix chosen to conduct the experiments was a
five-factor central composite rotatable design (CCD)
consisting of 32 sets of coded conditions and comprising
a half replication 24 = 16 factorial design plus 6 center
points and 10 star points. The upper (+2) and lower (−2)
levels of all the five variables as shown in Tables 1 and 2
are established by trial runs prior to the actual predefined
parameters to establish the exact predicted values. The
intermediate levels of −1, 0, +1 of all the variables had
been calculated by interpolation. The selected design ma-
trix is shown in Table 3.

Fig. 2 Direct effect of radial rake angle over surface roughness Fig. 3 Direct effect of spindle speed over surface roughness
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381 375

Fig. 4 Direct effect of axial depth of cut over surface roughness

Fig. 6 Direct effect of feed rate over surface roughness
2.5 Experimentation
of determinant R2 indicate the goodness of fit for the models
The test plates of size 50 mm×50 mm×50 mm are prepared and are nearer to 1. The regression equation obtained from the
from aluminum alloy (Al 6063) square block. The chemical Design Expert software in terms of actual factors is given
composition and mechanical properties of the base material below.
are presented in Table 2. The experiment was conducted on
MAKINO CNC Vertical Machining Center (Model-S33) with 2.6.1 Surface roughness (Ra)
high-speed steel end mill cutter under dry condition. The
surface roughness is measured by using a surface roughness
tester (SURFTEST SJ-201) as shown in Fig. 1.
¼ 0:33209 þ 3:48082E−005  N − 4:67956  D
þ 3:25372  B þ 0:56205  −C − 0:11719  γ
2.6 Response surface model for the prediction of surface
þ 1:63368E−003  N  D − 5:17353E−005  N  B
roughness
– 1:01735E−004  N  C − 1:55774E−006  N  γ
A rigorous analysis is carried out with the experimental data − 6:91838  D  B − 4:41838  D  C þ 0:065223  D  γ
using DESIGN EXPERT V7 software of state case. A second-
order quadratic model is developed for the prediction of − 0:74132  B  C − 0:050545  B  γ þ 0:041122  C  γ
surface roughness. The model is checked for its adequacy
−1:76502E−008  N 2 þ 48:34360  D2 − 0:81626  B2
using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 4 is the ANOVA table for the prediction of Ra. In −0:066256  C 2 þ 3:54175E−003  γ 2 ð7Þ
Table 4, a “model F value” of 9.02604 with a “model P value”
less than 0.0003 implies that the selected model is significant
and values greater than 0.10 indicate the model terms are not
significant. The P value <0.0001 represents that there is only a
0.01 % chance that such model could occur due to noise. To
illustrate the relationship between the response and the pro-
cess parameters, the fitted polynomial equations are expressed
in the form of surface plots. Table 4 also shows the other
adequacy measures R2, Adj R2, and Pred R2. The coefficients

Fig. 7 Surface interaction plot of spindle speed and feed rate over surface
Fig. 5 Direct effect of radial depth of cut over surface roughness roughness
 Author's personal copy
376 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381

Fig. 8 Surface interaction plot of spindle speed and axial depth over
surface roughness Fig. 10 Surface interaction plot of spindle speed and radial rake angle
over surface roughness

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Direct effect of variables
In this work, the effects of radial rake angle, spindle speed,
feed rate, axial depth of cut, and radial depth of cut were
experimentally investigated. From Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, it
is clear that the radial rake angle and spindle speed have a
significant effect on the surface roughness. The effect of
process parameters on the surface roughness is discussed
below. Figure 2 shows that the increase in radial rake angle
resulted in an increase in the surface roughness. This is due to
the fact that the surface roughness increases. Figure 3 shows

Fig. 9 Surface interaction plot of spindle speed and radial depth over Fig. 11 Surface interaction plot of feed rate and axial depth over surface
surface roughness roughness
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381 377

Fig. 12 Surface interaction plot of feed rate and radial depth of cut

that if the spindle speed increases, the surface roughness Fig. 14 Surface interaction plot of axial depth and radial depth over
surface roughness
decreases and vice versa. It is evident that the spindle speed
is between 3000 and 3500 RPM resulted in better surface
roughness. Figures 4, 5, and 6 clearly indicate that the increase
in radial and axial depths of cut and feed rate increases the
surface roughness. This is due to the contact area, metal being
cut, and the cutting force increases; this makes the tool and
work piece unstable which results in the increase in the surface
roughness.

Fig. 13 Surface interaction plot of feed rate and radial rake angle over Fig. 15 Surface interaction plot of axial depth and radial rake angle over
surface roughness surface roughness
 Author's personal copy
378 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381

depth on surface roughness. At a lower spindle speed, the

increase in axial depth has a significant influence on surface
roughness whereas at a higher spindle speed, the variation in
axial depth does not significantly affect the surface roughness.
This is due to the fact that the higher torque produced at a lower
spindle speed has distorted the material surface with axial
loading. Figure 9 shows the interaction effect of spindle speed
and radial depth on surface roughness. From the figure, it is
seen that both spindle speed and radial depth are influencing on
the effect of the surface roughness. However, it is found that the
interaction effect between spindle speed and radial depth has
not played a significant role. Figure 10 shows the interaction
effect of spindle speed and radial rake angle on surface rough-
ness. The surface roughness is significantly higher at rake angle
between 18° and 24°. The similar trend is observed at all
spindle speeds. The result showed that the industry preferring
a good surface roughness has to fix the radial rake angle
between 13 and 18.
Figure 11 shows the interaction effect of feed rate and axial
depth on surface roughness. It is evidenced that the interaction
effect between axial depth and feed rate has a greater influence
on surface roughness. It is noticed that at a higher feed rate
Fig. 16 Surface interaction plot of radial depth and radial rake angle over
along with axial depth of cut between 0.7 and 0.9 mm, the
surface roughness
surface of the material is distorted and produced higher surface
roughness. Interaction effect of feed rate and radial depth on
3.2 Interaction effect surface roughness is shown in Fig. 12; higher feed rate and
radial depth increase the surface roughness whereas lower feed
The interaction effect of process parameters on the surface rate and radial depth decrease the surface roughness. To obtain
roughness is discussed below. Figure 7 shows the interaction the quality surface of Ra between 0.37 and 0.28, feed rate less
plot between surface roughness and spindle speed with respect than 0.09 and radial depth less than 0.7 should be preferred.
to feed rate. If the feed rate increases gradually toward the Interaction effect of feed rate and radial rake angle on the
speed, the surface roughness value decreases proportionately. surface roughness are depicted in Fig. 13. The surface rough-
As the spindle speed increases from 1500 to 3500 RPM, the ness “Ra” is converged in all means from the maximum to a
surface roughness value is reduced. From the result, it is evi- minimum value at the region of feed rate (0.07–0.05) and radial
denced that at a lower spindle speed, the change in feed rate rake angle (18–15). Interaction effects of axial depth and radial
does not affect the roughness of the milling surface. But at a depth on the surface roughness are depicted in Fig. 14. In order
higher spindle speed, the change in feed rate has a significant to get a better surface finish, axial depth of cut and radial depth
effect. Hence, it can be concluded that at a higher spindle speed, of cut should be minimum as far as possible. Comparing the
a lower feed rate has to be chosen for quality surface finish. The factor axial and radial depth of cut, the axial depth of cut has an
inference can also be verified from the ANOVA (Table 4). exponential trend on the surface roughness.
Figure 8 shows the interaction effect of spindle speed and axial Interaction effects of axial depth and radial rake angle on
the surface roughness are depicted in Fig. 15. It is interesting
Table 5 GA parameters to observe that if the radial rake angle was in the region
Parameters Setting values
between 13 and 18, the milling process will produce a good
Population size 100 surface roughness even at all axial depth of cut. The higher as
Scaling function Rank well as lower radial rake angle produced maximum surface
Function Stochastic uniform roughness. Thus, the result showed an optimum rake angle
Mutation function Gaussian should be preferred for a good quality finish in end milling
Mutation rate 0.1 process. Interaction effects of radial depth and radial rake
Crossover function Scattered angle on the surface roughness are depicted in Fig. 16; as
Crossover rate 1.0 observed from the trend of axial and radial rake angles, the
Generations 1000 similar trend is also noticed between radial depth and radial
rake angle on surface roughness.
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381 379

Table 6 Optimized process parameter predicted by GA

Sl. no A/spindle speed B/feed rate C/axial depth D/radial E/radial rake Confirmatory test % Error
(RPM) (mm/rev) (mm) depth (mm) angle (°)
Optimum value Experimental
(GA) (μm) value (μm)

1 2266 0.10 0.9 0.8 21 0.3231 0.3224 0.2

2 2296 0.10 0.9 0.9 18 0.3707 0.3710 −0.08
3 2058 0.09 0.8 0.7 18 0.2536 0.2533 0.1
4 2821 0.07 0.8 0.5 21 0.3625 0.3620 0.13

4 Evaluation of GA optimization results
The selection of cutting parameters for optimization mini-
mizes the surface roughness. In this present study, an effort
has been made to determine the optimum values of cutting
parameters to obtain the best possible surface quality within
the specified range. The minimization of surface roughness by
using GA can be expressed as
followed to recommend the correct combination of the para-
meters for the best optimal result. By solving the optimization
problem, GA predicted the optimum roughness as 0.25 μm for
the machining of Aluminum 6063 in the selected cutting
condition range. The GA-predicted surface roughness value
(best fitness function) is expected to be lower than the mini-
mum (smallest) Ra value of the experimental and regression
models.

Minimize : Ra ðA; B; C; D; γ Þ ð8Þ 4.1 Validation of the model

Within ranges of cutting parameters,
1500 RPM≤A≤3500 RPM
0.04 mm/rev≤B≤0.12 mm/rev
0.5 mm≤C≤0.9 mm
0.5 mm≤D≤0.9 mm
12°≤γ≤24°
To obtain the best optimal results, the major consideration
must be given to the number of the initial population size, the
type of selection function, the crossover rate, and the mutation
rate (Table 5). The author suggested [28] that no proper
guidelines are given by the researchers, which could be
Table 3 shows that a regression model developed using
CCD by the RSM of DoE. Table 6 shows the compar-
ison of predicted vs experimental value of surface
roughness.
The GA-predicted optimum conditions were further vali-
dated with physical measurements. The percentage of error is
found to be within ±2 % which shows the validity of the
model. The experimental results of surface roughness with
the optimum cutting parameters (as predicted by GA) show
good agreement.
Figure 17 shows the performance of fitness value with
generation and the best individual performances of variables
in coded form.

Fig. 17 The performance of fitness value with generation and the best individual performances of variables in coded form
 Author's personal copy
380
5 Conclusion
The central composite designs are employed for developing
second-order mathematical models for predicting surface
roughness parameter of end milling of Aluminum 6063 using
HSS end mill cutter with varying radial rake angles and
process parameters viz. spindle speed, feed rate, axial depth
of cut, and radial depth of cut. The two-stage effort, obtaining
a surface roughness model by surface response methodology
and optimization of this model by genetic algorithms, has
resulted in a fairly useful method of obtaining process param-
eters in order to attain the required surface quality.
– The CCD model developed by RSM using the Design
Expert package is able to provide accurately the predicted
values of surface roughness close to actual values found
in the experiments. The equations are checked for their
adequacy with a confidence level of 95 %.
– Feed rate has the greatest influence on surface roughness.
– An increase in either the feed or the axial depth of cut
increases the surface roughness, while an increase in the
spindle speed decreases the surface roughness.
– The higher as well as lower radial rake angle produced
maximum surface roughness.
– An issue which can also be highlighted is related to the
radial rake angle of the cutting tool used in the actual
experiment. The best minimum value of Ra is recom-
mended by the GA. It is clear from this study that the
best minimum Ra values came from 15° to 18° of radial
rake angle in cutting tool.
– The GA recommends 0.25 μm as the best minimum
predicted surface roughness value. The confirmatory test
showing the predicted values was found to be in good
agreement with observed values.
References
1. Jang DY, Choi Y-G, Kim H-G, Hsiao A (1996) Study of the corre-
lation between surface roughness and cutting vibrations to develop an
on-line roughness measuring technique in hard turning. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 36(4):453–464. doi:10.1016/0890-6955(95)00074-7
2. Ming-Yung W, Chang H -Y (2004) Experimental study of surface
roughness in slot end milling AL2014-T6. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
44:51–57. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2003.08.011
3. Arias ER, Mecanico (1983) Analysis of surface roughness for end
milling operations. M.S thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas, United States
4. Palanisamy P, Rajendran I, Shanmugasundaram S (2007)
Optimization of machining parameters using genetic algorithm and
experimental validation for end-milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 32:644–655. doi:10.1007/s00170-005-0384-3
5. Martellotti ME (1941) An analysis of the milling process. Trans
ASME 63:667
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381
6. Quintana G, Ciurana J, Ribatallada J (2010) Surface roughness
generation and material removal rate in ball end milling operations.
Mater Manuf Process 25(6):386–398. doi:10.1080/
15394450902996601
7. Mansour A, Abdalla H (2002) Surface roughness model for end
milling: a semi-free cutting carbon casehardening steel (EN 32) in
dry condition. J Mater Process Technol 124(1–2):183–191. doi:10.
1016/S0924-0136(02)00135-8
8. Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MSJ (1997) Prediction of tool
life in end milling by response surface methodology. J Mater Process
Technol 71(3):456–465. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(97)00111-8
9. Chang H, Kim J, Kim IH, Jang DY, Han DC (2007) In-process
surface roughness prediction using displacement signals from spindle
motion. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(6):1021–1026. doi:10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2006.07.004
10. Coker SA, Shin YC (1996) In-process control of surface roughness
due to tool wear using a new ultrasonic system. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 36(3):411–422. doi:10.1016/0890-6955(95)00057-7
11. Gologlu C, Sakarya N (2008) The effects of cutter path strategies on
surface roughness of pocket milling of 1.2738 steel based on Taguchi
method. J Mater Process Technol; 206(1–3):7–15. doi:10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2007.11.300
12. Dhokia VG, Kumar S, Vichare P, Newman ST (2008) An intelligent
approach for the prediction of surface roughness in ball-end machin-
ing of polypropylene. Robot Comput Integr Manuf; 24(6):835–842.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2008.03.019
13. Lou SJ, Chen JC (1999) In-process surface roughness recognition
(ISRR) system in end-milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
15(3):200–209. doi:10.1007/s001700050057
14. Tsai Y, Chen JC, Lou S (1999) An in-process surface recognition
system based on neural networks in end milling cutting operations.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39(4):583–605. doi:10.1016/S0890-
6955(98)00053-4
15. Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2002) Prediction of surface roughness
in CNC face milling using neural networks and Taguchi’s design of
experiments. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 18(5–6):343–354. doi:10.
1016/S0736-5845(02)00005–4
16. Brecher C, Quintana G, Rudolf T, Ciurana J (2011) Use of NC kernel
data for surface roughness monitoring in milling operations. Inter J
Adv Manuf, Technol 53(9–12):953–962
17. Chen JC, Lou MS (2000) Fuzzy-nets based approach using an
accelerometer for in-process surface roughness prediction system in
milling operations. J Comput Integr Manuf Syst 13(4):358–368. doi:
10.1080/095119200407714
18. Ali Y, Zhang L (1999) Surface roughness prediction of ground
components using a fuzzy logic approach. J Mater Process Technol
89–90:561–568. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00022–9
19. Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2008). An overview of GA technique
for surface roughness optimization in milling process. In IEEE proc
inter symp on infor technol, IT Sim, 4: 1–6 doi: 10.1109/ITSIM.
2008.4631925
20. Brezocnik M, Kovacic M (2003) Integrated genetic programming
and genetic algorithm approach to predict surface roughness. Mater
Manuf Process 18(3):475–491. doi:10.1081/AMP-120022023
21. Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Erzincanli F (2006) Prediction of minimum
surface roughness in end milling mold parts using neutral network
and genetic algorithm. J Mater Des 27(9):735–744. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2005.01.010
22. Tansel IN, Ozcelik B, Bao WY, Chen P, Rincon D, Yang SY
(2006) Selection of optimal cutting conditions by using
GONNS. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(1):26–35. doi:10.1016/
j.ijmachtools.2005.04.012
23. Suresh PVS, VenkateswaraRao P, Deshmukh SG (2002) A genetic
algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness predic-
tion model. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42(6):675–680. doi:10.1016/
S0890-6955(02)00005-6
 Author's personal copy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 77:369–381
24. Brezonick M, Kovavic M, Ficko M (2004) Prediction of surface
roughness with genetic programming. J Mater Process Technol
157–158:28–36. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.09.004
25. Colak O, Kurbanoglu C, Kayacan MC (2007) Milling surface rough-
ness prediction using evolutionary programming methods. J Mater
Des 28(2):657–666. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2005.07.004
26. Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Kurtaran H (2005) Application of response
surface methodology in the optimization of cutting conditions for
surface roughness. J Mater Process Technol 170(1–2):11–16. doi:10.
1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.096
27. Bissey S, Poulachon G, Lapujoulade F (2007) Modelling of tool
geometry in prediction of cutting force during milling of hard materials.
Mach Sci Technol Int J 9(1):101–115. doi:10.1081/MST-200051376
28. Zain AM, Haron H, Sharif S (2010) Application of GA to optimize
cutting conditions for minimizing surface roughness in end milling
machining process. Expert Syst Appl 37(6):4650–4659. doi:10.1016/
j.eswa.2009.12.043
29. AzlanMohdZain HH, Sharif S (2011) Integration of simulated an-
nealing and genetic algorithm to estimate optimal solutions for min-
imizing surface roughness in end milling Ti-6AL-4 V. Int J Comput
Int Manuf 24(6):574–592. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2011.566629
30. Kaneeda (1991) TCFRP cutting mechanism. Trans N Am Manuf Res
Inst SME 19:216–221
31. Kim Y-H, Ko S-L (2002) Development of design and manufacturing
technology for end mill in machining hardened steel. J Mater Process
Technol 130–131:653–661. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00728-8
32. Suresh Kumar Reddy N, Venkateswara Rao P (2005) Selection of
optimum tool geometry and cutting conditions using a surface rough-
ness prediction model for end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
26(11–12):1202–1210. doi:10.1007/s00170-004-2110-y
33. Suresh Kumar Reddy N, Venkateswara Rao P (2006) Experimental
investigation to study the effect of solid lubricants on cutting forces
381
and surface quality in end milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:189–
198. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.04.008
34. Suresh Kumar Reddy N, Venkateswara Rao P (2007) A genetic
algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness predic-
tion model in dry milling. Mach Sci Technol Int J 9(1):63–84. doi:10.
1081/MST-200051263
35. Yesilyurt I (2006) End mill breakage detection using mean frequency
analysis of scalogram. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(3–4):450–458.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.03.014
36. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Inc,
Boston
37. Bernardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness in
machining: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43(8):833–844. doi:10.
1016/S0890-6955(03)00059-2
38. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley,
New York
39. Cochran WG, Cox GM (1957) Experimental designs. Wiley, New
York
40. Sivasakthivel PS, VelMurugan V, Sudhakaran R (2011) Prediction of
vibration amplitude from machining parameters by response surface
methodology in end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53(5–8):453–
461. doi:10.1007/s00170-010-2872-3
41. Sivasakthivel PS, Sudhakaran R (2013) Optimization of machining
parameters on temperature rise in end milling of Al 6063 using
response surface methodology and genetic algorithm. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 67(9–12):2313–2323. doi:10.1007/s00170-012-
4652-8
42. Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) (2001) Production technology,
Tata McGraw-Hill Education
43. Kannan T, Murugan N (2006) Prediction of ferrite number of duplex
stainless steel clad metals using RSM. Weld J (AWS) 85(5):91–100