Int. J. Mach. Tools Manulact. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 297-305, 1993. 0890-6955/9356.00+ .

00
Printed in Great Britain © 1993PergamonPress Ltd

DETERMINATION OF OPTIMAL CUTTING CONDITIONS

USING DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS A N D OPTIMIZATION
TECHNIQUES
M. S. C H U A , t M. RAHMAN,t Y. S. WONGt and H. T. LOHt
(Received in final form 6 November 1991)

Abstract--In process planning or NC part programming, optimal cutting conditions are to be determined
using reliable mathematical models representing the machining conditions of a particular work-tool
combination. The development of such mathematical models requires detailed planning and proper analysis
of experiments. In this paper, the mathematical models for TiN-coated carbide tools and RSchling T4 medium
carbon steel were developed based on the design and analysis of machining experiments. The models
developed were then used in the formulation of objective and constraint functions for the optimization of a
multipass turning operation with such work-tool combinations.

NOMENCLATURE
C constant in mathematical model
c, constant in tool life model
G constant in cutting force model
c3 constant in power consumption model
d depth of cut (ram)
d, depth of cut for ith pass (mm)
dmax maximum depth of cut (mm)
dmin minimum depth of cut (mm)
dx total depth of cut to be removed from the stock (mm)
D workpiece diameter (mm)
O,_, workpiece diameter during ith pass (mm)
Do initial workpiece diameter (mm)
f feed rate (mm r e v - ' )
L feed rate for ith pass (mm rev ')
fro.,, maximum feed rate (mm rev 1)
minimum feed rate (mm rev - t )
F~x maximum cutting force (kN)
Ftotal resultant cutting force (kN)
F. longitudinal force (kN)
Fy radial force (kN)
F~ tangential force (kN)
i pass number
L cutting length (ram)
m number of passes
mmax maximum number of passes
mmin minimum number of passes
mo continuous number of passes
P power consumption (kW)
emax maximum power consumption (kW)
T tool life (min)
L tool life for ith pass (min)
TL loading and unloading time (min)
TM machining time (min)
TM, machining time for ith pass (min)
TR tool changing time (min)
Ts tool reset time (rain)
TT total production time (min)
V cutting speed (m min -1)
Vi cutting speed for ith pass (m min -~)
Vmax maximum cutting speed (m min -1)

]Department of Mec.hanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge
Crescent, Singapore 0511.

33:2-M 297
298 M . S . CHUA et al.

Vmin minimum cutting speed (m min - t )

cutting speed exponent in mathematical model
cutting speed exponent in tool life model
c~2 cutting speed exponent in cutting force model
ix3 cutting speed exponent in power consumption model
13 feed rate exponent in mathematical model
131 feed rate exponent in tool life model
132 feed rate exponent in cutting force model
133 feed rate exponent in power consumption model
-y depth of cut exponent in mathematical model
71 depth of cut exponent in tool life model
72 depth of cut exponent in cutting force model
~3 depth of cut exponent in power consumption model

1. INTRODUCTION

IN A MACHINING process, roughing operation plays an important role in reducing a

particular workpiece from the original stock to the desired shape and size. In order to
achieve the economic objective of this process, optimal cutting conditions have to be
determined. Although one can determine the desirable cutting conditions for roughing
based on experience or handbook data, it does not ensure that the data obtained will
be optimal or near optimal for that particular machine setting and environment. In
order to determine the optimal cutting conditions, reliable mathematical models need
to be established. To ensure the effectiveness of the models, the design of experimental
technique should be used to plan the machining experiments efficiently and multiple
regression methods can then be used for the particular work-tool combination based on
the machining data collected on a specific machine. After developing the mathematical
models, the analysis of variance will then be applied to check the adequacy of each
mathematical model and their respective parameters. One can then use the mathemat-
ical models developed to formulate the objective function and the process constraints
for optimization based on a certain preselected economic criterion.
The main objectives of this work are: (a) to study the effects of depth of cut, feed
rate and cutting speed on the tool life, cutting forces and power consumption for TiN-
coated carbide tools and R6chling T4 medium carbon steel using design of experimental
technique; (b) to develop mathematical models to predict tool life, cutting forces and
power consumption as a function of depth of cut, feed rate and cutting speed within
the operating region; and (c) to demonstrate the use of mathematical models in the
determination of optimal cutting conditions using an optimization technique.
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

The experiment was performed on an OKUMA LH35-N CNC lathe equipped with
a 22 kW motor. The cutting tool used was a SANDVIK 425 P25 TiN-coated carbide
insert (SNUN120408) together with Widia tool holder 71-HCN-3225 with an overhang
of 45 mm. The workpiece material was R6chling T4 (C 0.45%, Si 0.25%, Mn 0.70%).
The cutting forces were measured with a KISTLER piezoelectric dynamometer (type
9441). The force signals were amplified by a KISTLER 3-channel charge amplifier
(type 5806A) and then recorded on a GRAPHTEC multicorder (MC6625). The tool
wear was measured using a toolmaker's microscope. Flank wear land width of 0.4 mm
was chosen as the tool life criterion in the measurement.
3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

The mathematical modelling of tool life, cutting force and power consumption models
for a particular work and tool material involved lots of other factors, such as ways of
holding the workpiece, the geometry of the cutting tool, etc. However, to facilitate the
experimental data collection, only three dominant factors were considered in the
planning of the experiment. The experimental programme was planned using a complete
33 factorial design [1, 2]. The factors considered were depth of cut, feed rate and
cutting speed. The range of values of each factor was set at three levels, namely low,
medium, and high, as shown in Table 1. Based on this setting, a total of 27 experiments,
 D e t e r m i n a t i o n of Optimal Cutting Conditions 299

TABLE 1. VALUES OF TEST VARIABLES

Variables V a l u e s o f d i f f e r e n t levels

Designatiola Description Low ( - ) Medium (0) High ( + )

d D e p t h of cut ( m m ) 1.00 1.41 2.00

f F e e d r a t e ( m m r e v ]) 0.20 0.26 0.35
v C u t t i n g s p e e d ( m m i n 1) 150 178 212

each having a corabination of different levels of factors as shown in Table 2, were carried
out. The responses measured were tool life, cutting forces and power consumption.
4. P O S T U L A T I O N OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS

The purpose o1! developing the mathematical models relating the machining responses
and their machining factors was to facilitate the optimization of the machining process.
Using these mathematical models, the objective function and process constraints were
formulated, and the optimization problem was then solved by using an optimization
technique [3-6].
The mathematical models commonly used are represented by:

Y = ~(v,f, d) (1)

where Y is the machining response, ~b is the response function, and v , f , d are machining
variables. Expressed in the non-linear form, equation (1) becomes

Y = C v ~ ' f ~ ,i v . (2)

In this work, the following mathematical models were formulated:

tool life model:

T = C 1 I"al f 13'1d v' (3)

cutting force model:

Ftota I = C 2 veL2f 1~2d r 2 (4)

power consumption model:

TABLE 2. DESIGN MATRIX OF 3 3 FACTORIALDESIGN

T e s t no. d f v E x p . no. T e s t no. d f v E x p . no.

1 - - - 1 15 + 0 0 17
2 0 - - 9 16 - + 0 7
3 + - - 11 17 0 + 0 13
4 - 0 - 19 18 + + 0 23
5 0 0 - 26 19 - - + 21
6 + 0 - 14 20 0 - + 27
7 - + - 6 21 + - + 4
8 0 + - 24 22 - 0 + 16
9 + + - 20 23 0 0 + 8
10 - - 0 25 24 + 0 + 10
11 0 - 0 22 25 - + + 3
12 + - 0 15 26 0 + + 18
13 - 0 0 5 27 + + + 2
14 0 0 0 12
300 M . S . CttUA et al.

e = C3 v'~3f f~3 d v3 . (5)

To facilitate the determination of constants and parameters, these mathematical

models were linearized by performing a logarithm transformation. The logarithmic
transformed mathematical models are given by:

lnY = lnC + alnv + 131nf+ ~/lnd. (6)

The constants and parameters C, a, 13 and 7 can then be solved by using multiple
regression analysis [7].
5. E X P E R I M E N T A L R E S U L T S A N D A N A L Y S I S

The experimental results are presented in Table 3. For the purpose of developing
the mathematical model, both the data for the machining responses and factors were
logarithmically transformed. Using these sets of data, the parameters for the mathemat-
ical models were determined using the multiple regression method and the significance
of the models and the parameters were then analysed using analysis of variance [2]. In
this work, a commercially available statistical software package SAS [8] was used for
the computation of regression and statistical analysis of the constants and parameters.
The procedure PROC REG from this package was used to compute values of the
mathematical models and to carry out the analysis of variance for the models developed.
In the following sections, the significance of each model developed will be discussed.

5.1. Tool life model

The data of analysis of variance of the tool life model are shown in Table 4. The
tool life model developed was given by:

In(T) = 18.293 - 2.891 In(v) - 0.4331n(f) (7)

or
TABLE 3. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS

d f v r Fx F~ F~ F~o~, P
S/n (mm) (mm rev ~) (m min -1) (min) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kW)

1 1.00 0.20 150 111.4 0.75 0.66 1.16 1.54 3.98

2 2.00 0.35 212 24.0 1.57 1.42 3.73 3.76 13.18
3 1.00 0.35 212 25.5 0.80 0.81 1.72 2.06 7.28
4 2.00 0.20 212 33.1 1.23 0.88 2.05 2.55 8.99
5 1.00 0.26 178 53.2 0.74 0.70 1.38 1.72 5.08
6 1.00 0.35 150 59.0 0.86 0.90 1.76 2.15 5.38
7 1.00 0.35 178 42.6 0.85 0.86 1.77 2.14 6.35
8 1.41 0.26 212 28.3 1.00 0.85 1.88 2.31 8.16
9 1.41 0.20 150 99.4 1.05 0.83 1.62 2.10 5.25
10 2.00 0.26 212 27.0 1.32 1.00 2.53 3.04 10.73
11 2.00 0.20 150 70.7 1.40 1.00 2.14 2.75 6.86
12 1.41 0.26 178 58.8 1.05 0.85 1.92 2.35 6.97
13 1.41 0.35 178 38.6 1.22 1.02 2.37 2.83 8.40
14 2.00 0.26 150 70.2 1.51 1.14 2.60 3.21 8.04
15 2.00 0.20 178 42.7 1.28 0.95 2.11 2.65 7.86
16 1.00 0.26 212 35.5 0.73 0.68 1.38 1.71 6.04
17 2.00 0.26 178 59.4 1.43 1.08 2.53 3.10 9.20
18 1.41 0.35 212 23.3 1.09 0.98 2.28 2.71 9.57
19 1.00 0.26 150 73.7 0.81 0.75 1.45 1.82 4.54
20 2.00 0.35 150 70.6 1.69 1.30 3.33 3.87 9.67
21 1.00 0.20 212 25.5 0.60 0.58 1.12 1.39 4.92
22 1.41 0.20 178 55.8 0.96 0.75 1.58 2.00 5.92
23 2.00 0.35 178 46.0 1.77 1.39 3.24 3.95 11.71
24 1.41 0.35 150 77.6 1.21 1.05 2.37 2.86 7.16
25 1.00 0.20 178 58.9 0.65 0.63 1.15 1.46 4.35
26 1.41 0.26 150 65.8 1.12 0.88 1.92 2.39 5.98
27 1.41 0.20 212 32.7 0.90 0.73 1.55 1.94 6.85
 Determination of Optimal Cutting Conditions 301

TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TOOL LIFE MODEL

Source df Sum of squares M e a n square F value Prob > F

Model 3 4.78125407 1.59375136 75.963 0.0001

Error 23 0.48255334 0.02098058
C Total 26 5.26380741

Root MSE 0.1448467 R-Square 0.9083

Dep/dean 3.8597 Adj R-Sq. 0.8964
C.V. 3.752798

Parameter estimates

Parameter Standard t for Ho:

Variable df estimate error Parameter = 0 Prob. > It]

Intercept 1 18.29364243 1.03677952 17.645 0.0001

In(d) 1 -0.08544223 0.09850804 -0.867 0.3947
In(f) 1 -0.43313732 0.12193585 -3.552 0.0017
In(v) 1 -2.89076629 0.19736941 -14.646 0.0001

T = 8.801 "< 107 V - 2 " S 9 1 f -0"433 . (8)

The R-square wtlue of 0.9083 indicated that 90.83% of the variability in tool life was
explained by the model with factors d, f, and v. However, the parameter of In(d) was
insignificant as indicated by its t value of the hypothesis testing. Based on the mathemat-
ical model, it can be concluded that the depth of cut has no significant effect on the
tool life, and both feed rate and cutting speed affect the tool life with the cutting speed
as the dominant factor.

5.2. Cutting force model

The data of analysis of variance of the cutting force model are shown in Table 5.
The cutting force model developed was given by:

ln(Ftota,) = 2.309 - 0.171In(v) + 0.641In(f) + 0.852In(d) (9)

or

f t o t a I = 1 0 . 0 6 v - ° - 1 7 1 f °'641 d 0"852 . (10)

TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CUXTING FORCE MODEL

Source df S u m of squares Mean square F value Prob > F

Model 3 2.16658991 0.72219664 2577.566 0.0001

Error 23 0.006444268 0.000280186
Total 26 2.17303418

Root M S E 0.01673874 R-Square 0.9970

Dep M e a n 0.8591891 Adj R-Sq. 0.9966
C.V. 1.948203

P a r a m e t e r estimates

Parameter Standard t for Ho:

Variable df estimates error Parameter = 0 Prob. > I tl
Intercept 1 2.30941718 0.11981206 19.275 0.0001
In(d) 1 0.85227167 0.01138376 74.867 0.0001
In(f) 1 0.64127915 0.01409112 45.509 0.0001
In(v) 1 -0.17139923 0.02280836 -7.515 0.0001
302 M . S . CHUA et al.

The R-square value of the model was 0.9970, which indicates that 99.7% of the
variability in cutting force was explained by the model with depth of cut, feed rate and
cutting speed as factors. The parameters of this model were highly significant (more
than 99% level of significance) as indicated in Table 5. Based on the model, one can
then observe that the depth of cut is a dominant factor in the cutting force model.

5.3. P o w e r m o d e l
The data of analysis of variance of the power model are shown in Table 6. The
power model is given by:

In(P) = -1.718 + 0.814In(v) + 0.634In(f) + 0.845In(d) (11)

or

P = O. 179v°814f °'634 d °'845 . (12)

The R-square value of this model was 0.9969 and the factors were also highly significant
(more than 99% level of significance). The predominant factors in the power model
were both the depth of cut and cutting speed.
6. APPLICATION OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS

In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the mathematical models in the determi-

nation of optimal cutting conditions for a multipass turning operation. The mathematical
models developed in this paper were used in the formulation of a multipass turning
operation problem with the production time as the objective function subject to process
constraints and solved using the sequential quadratic programming technique as pre-
sented by the authors in a previous work [9].
The problem here was formulated as:
to minimize:

+ m Ts (13)
i=1 v//ft- 1 nt- E l vt~lfifl 1 d71

where
TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR POWER MODEL

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F value Prob. > F

Model 3 2.46741433 0.82247144 2453.988 0.0001

Error 23 0.007708612 0.000335157
Total 26 2.47512295

Root M S E 0.01830729 R-Square 0.9969

D e p Mean 1.948578 Adj R-Sq. 0.9965
C.V. 0.9395208

Parameter estimates

Parameter Standard t for Ho:

Variable df estimate error Parameter = 0 Prob. > It]

Intercept 1 - 1.71773990 0.13103938 - 13.109 0.0001

In(d) 1 0.84486964 0.01245051 67.858 0.0001
In(f) 1 0.63384692 0.01541157 41.128 0.0001
In(v) 1 0.81435747 0.02494568 32.645 0.0001
 D e t e r m i n a t i o n of O p t i m a l Cutting C o n d i t i o n s 303

i--1
Di_l= D o - 2 ~, dj, i= 2,...,m (14)
j=l

subject to:
m
d T = Z di (15)
i--1

Vmi n "~ Vi ---~ Vma x (16)

fmin ~ f/ ~ fmax (17)

d m i n ~< d i 5; d m a x (18)

C 2 V~'2fi~2 , t 7 2 ~ Fma x (19)

C3 v?3fif33 d 7 3 ~-~ P m a x . (20)

6.1. Numerical results and discussion

For illustration purposes, the constants and parameters of the mathematical models
developed in the previous section and related process data listed in Table 7 were used
as the input data for solving the multipass optimization problem. In this work, a
workpiece of diameter 200 mm, cutting length 400 mm, with a total depth of 4 mm to
be removed was considered. Using the approach used in solving the multipass turning
operations optimization presented in a previous work [9], the numerical results obtained
from the optimization program for this example are summarized in Table 8. In Part
(a), the intermediate continuous solution for multipass turning was first determined by
assuming that (i) the cutting conditions for all passes are the same and (ii) the workpiece
diameter does not change during each pass of cut. For this stage, cutting conditions of
mo = 2, v = 1"78 m min -1, f = 0.25 mm rev -~ and d = 2.00 mm, were used as the
feasible starting: point. The optimization program computed an intermediate optimal
solution with cutting conditions, m0 = 2.58, v = 212 m min -1, f = 0.35 mm rev -~ and
d = 1.553 mm. Based on too, the lower and upper integers, m = 2 and m = 3,
respectively, were chosen as the number of passes of cut for the integer part of the
multipass optimization. The two-pass and three-pass turning optimization problems for
the same workpiece were automatically formulated and then solved by using the
intermediate optimal cutting conditions from Table 8(a) as the starting points. The
respective optimal cutting conditions for two-pass and three-pass turning operations
obtained from the program are given in Table 8(b) and (c). By comparing the

TABLE 7. INPUT DATA FOR THE MULTIPASS TURNING OPERATION PROBLEM

Too1 material: T i N - c o a t e d carbide P25 W o r k material: R6chling T 4

C~ = 8.81 x 107 L = 400.00 mm

cd = -2.891 TL = 1.0 min
131 = -0.493 TR = 1.0 min
~/1 = 0 Ts = 1.0 min
C2 = 10.1 Fm.~ = 3.0 k N
a2 = -0.171 Pm.x = 12.0 k W
132 = 0.641 Vmin = 150 m min -1
~/2 = 0.852 Vm.x = 212 m m i n
Ca = 0.179 fmin = 0 . 2 0 m m rev -1
c~3 = 0.814 fmax = 0 . 3 5 m m rev
133 = 0.634 dm~° = 1.00 m m
"y3 = 0.845 dmax = 2 . 0 0 m m
Do = 200.00 mm rnmi. = 1
dT = 4.00 mm mma x = 10
304 M. S. CHUAet al.

TABLE8. RESULTSOF MULTIPASSTURNINGOPTIMIZATION

(a) The intermediate continuous solution for multipass turning

Feasible starting point Optimal cutting conditions

m,, v(m min -1) f(mm rev -l) d(mm) mo v(m min ') f(mm rev 1) d(mm)

2.00 178 0.25 2.00 2.58 212 0.35 1.553

Production time = 12.62 min

(b) Cutting conditions for 2 passes

Starting point for 2 passes Optimal cutting conditions

i v(m min -I) f(mm rev 1) d(mm) i v(m min ') f(mm rev-') d(mm)

1 212 0.35 2.00 1 212 0.25 2.00

2 212 0.35 2.00 2 212 0.25 2.00

Production time = 12.68 min

(c) Cutting conditions for 3 passes

Starting point for 3 passes Optimal cutting conditions

i v(m min-') f(mm rev 1) d(mm) i v(m min-') f(mm rev -1) d(mm)

1 212 0.25 1.33 1 212 0.35 1.55

2 212 0.25 1.33 1 212 0.35 1.45
3 212 0.25 1.33 1 212 0.35 1.00

Production time = 14.37 min

(d) Optimal cutting conditions for multipass turning: number of passes required = 2

i v(m min 1) f(mm rev ') d(mm)

1 212 0.25 2.00

2 212 0.25 2.00

Production time = 12.68 min

p r o d u c t i o n times, the cutting conditions for the two-pass was chosen to be optimal for
turning this workpiece. Using this set of numerical results, which is s u m m a r i z e d in
Table 8 ( d ) , a machining test for this workpiece was carried out on the p r o d u c t i o n floor.
T h e actual p r o d u c t i o n time for the test was f o u n d to be in accordance with the c o m p u t e d
p r o d u c t i o n time.

7. CONCLUSION
In this w o r k , the tool life, cutting force and p o w e r c o n s u m p t i o n models relating the
cutting conditions for T i N - c o a t e d carbide tools and R6chling T4 m e d i u m c a r b o n steel
were d e v e l o p e d using multiple regression analysis t h r o u g h a c o m p l e t e 33 factorial design
experiment. Based on the analysis of variance of each model, it was f o u n d that the
tool life m o d e l was i n d e p e n d e n t of the depth of cut as c o m p a r e d with the cutting force
and p o w e r c o n s u m p t i o n models, which were d e p e n d e n t on the depth of cut, the feed
rate and the cutting speed. It was also f o u n d that the models d e v e l o p e d were approxi-
mately 95% representative of this cutting process and the estimated p a r a m e t e r s of each
of the models were highly significant at the 99% level of significance within the
operating range. B a s e d on the models developed, a multipass optimization p r o b l e m was
 Determination of Optimal Cutting Conditions 305

formulated to determine optimal cutting conditions for a given workpiece profile so as

to produce the part at the minimum production time required.
Acknowledgement--The work reported here was financially supported by the National University of Singapore
Research Grant RP603/86.

REFERENCES
[1] G. E. P. Box and N. R. DRAPER, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley, New York
(1987).
[2] D. C. MONTGOMERY,Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2nd Edn. Wiley, New York (1984).
[3] E. J. A. ARMAREGOand R. H. BROWN, The Machining of Metals, pp. 254-291. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
(1969).
[4] T. H. CHIA, Optimization analysis and strategies for the selection of cutting conditions for turning
operations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne (1985).
[5] M. S. BAZARAAand C. M. SHErrY, Nonlinear Programming. Wiley, New York (1979).
[6] D. G. LUENaERGER,Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming, 2rid Edn. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts (1984).
[7] S. H. YEO, ~[. RAHMAN and Y. S. WONG, Towards enhancement of machinability data by multiple
regression, J. Mech. Working Tech. 19, 85-100 (1989).
[8] SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edn, SAS Institute Inc., NC (1985).
[9] M. S. CHUA, H. T. LOll, Y. S. WONG and M. RAHMAN, Optimization of cutting conditions for multi-
pass turning operations using sequential quadratic programming, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Computer-Aided
Prod. Engng, pp. 305-314. Cookeville, TN, U.S.A. (1991).