Optimal machining conditions for turning Ti-6Al-4V using response surface methodology

doi:10.1007/s40436-013-0047-9

Abstract

Abstract: Machining titanium is one of ever-increasing magnitude problems due to its characteristics such as low thermal conductivity, modulus of elasticity and work
hardening. The efficient titanium alloy machining involves a proper selection of process parameters to minimize the tangential force (F_z) and surface roughness (R_a). In the present work, the performance of PVD/TiAlN coated carbide inserts was investigated using response surface methodology (RSM) for turning Ti-6Al-4V. The effects of process parameters such as speed (v), feed (f), depth of cut (d) and back rake angle (γ_y) on F_zand R_awere investigated.
The experimental plan used for four factors and three levels was designed based on face centered, central composite design (CCD). The experimental results indicated that F_z increased with the increase in d, f and decreased with the increase in v and γ_y, whereas Ra decreased with the increase in v and γ_y, and increased with d and v. The goodness of fit of the regression equations and model fits (R²) for F_zand R_awere found to be 0.968 and 0.970, which demonstrated that it was an effective model. A confirmation test was also conducted in order to verify the correctness of the model.

Key words: Ti-6Al-4V , Response surfacemethodology , Cutting force , Surface roughness

Satyanarayana Kosaraju Venu Gopal Anne. Optimal machining conditions for turning Ti-6Al-4V using response surface methodology[J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2013, 1(4): 329-339.

TrendMD

References

1. Donachie MJ Jr, ASM International (2000) Titanium: a technical guide, 2nd edn. Material Information Society, Materials Park,pp 79–84

2. Ezugwu EO, Wang ZM (1997) Titanium alloys and their machinability—a review. J Mater Process Technol 68(3):262–274

3. Komanduri R, Von Turkovich BF (1981) New observations on the mechanism of chip formation when machining titanium alloys. Wear 69(2):179–188

4. Hong HATJM, Riga AT, Gahoon JM, Scott CG (1993) Machinability of steels and titanium alloys under lubrication.Wear 162:34–39

5. Kramer BM, Hartung PD (1981) Theoretical considerations in the machining of nickel-based alloys. In: Cutting Tool Materials.ASM, Materials Park, Ohio, pp 57–74

6. Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004) Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J Mater Process Technol 145(1):46–58

7. Montgomery DC (1997) Design and analysis of experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

8. Thiele JD, Melkote S (1999) Effect of cutting edge geometry and workpiece hardness on surface generation in the finish hard turning of AISI 52100 steel. J Mater Process Technol 94(2):216–226

9. Nes¸eli S, Yald?z S, Tu¨rkes¸ E (2011) Optimization of tool geometry parameters for turning operations based on the response surface methodology. Measurement 44(3):580–587

10. Masounave J, Youssef YA, Beauchamp Y, Thomas M (1997) An experimental design for surface roughness and built-up edge formation in lathe dry turning. Int J Qual Sci 2(3):167–180

11. Makadia AJ, Nanavati JI (2013) Optimization of machining parameters for turning operations based on response surface methodology. Measurement 46(6):1521–1529

12. Choudhury IA, El-Baradie MA (1997) Surface roughness prediction in the turning of high-strength steel by factorial design of experiments. J Mater Process Technol 67(1):55–61

13. Fnides B, Yallese MA, Mabrouki T, Rigal JF (2011) Application of response surface methodology for determining cutting force model in turning hardened AISI H11 hot work tool steel. Sadhana 36(1):109–123

14. Saini S, Ahuja IS, Sharma VS (2012) Influence of cutting parameters on tool wear and surface roughness in hard turning of AISI H11 tool steel using ceramic tools. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 13(8):1295–1302

15. Mandal N, Doloi B, Mondal B (2012) Force prediction model of zirconia toughened alumina (ZTA) inserts in hard turning of AISI 4340 steel using response surface methodology. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 13(9):1589–1599

16. Tsourveloudis NC (2010) Predictive modelling of the Ti6Al4V alloy surface roughness. J Intell Robot Syst 60(3–4):513–530

17. Ramesh S, Karunamoorthy L, Palanikumar K (2008) Surface roughness analysis in machining of titanium alloy. Mater Manuf Process 23(2):174–181

18. Makadia AJ, Nanavati JI (2013) Optimization of machining parameters for turning operations based on response surface methodology. Measurement 46(1):1521–1529

[1]	Zhen-Jing Duan, Shuai-Shuai Wang, Shu-Yan Shi, Ji-Yu Liu, Yu-Heng Li, Zi-Heng Wang, Chang-He Li, Yu-Yang Zhou, Jin-Long Song, Xin Liu. Surface quality evaluation of cold plasma and NMQL multi-field coupling eco-friendly micro-milling 7075-T6 aluminum alloy [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2025, 13(1): 69-87.
[2]	Xiao-Fei Lei, Wen-Feng Ding, Biao Zhao, Dao-Hui Xiang, Zi-Ang Liu, Chuan Qian, Qi Liu, Dong-Dong Xu, Yan-Jun Zhao, Jian-Hui Zhu. Surface roughness model of ultrasonic vibration-assisted grinding GCr15SiMn bearing steel and surface topography evaluation [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2025, 13(1): 88-104.
[3]	Jin Zhang, Li Ling, Qian-Yue Wang, Xue-Feng Huang, Xin-Zhen Kang, Gui-Bao Tao, Hua-Jun Cao. Surface quality investigation in high-speed dry milling of Ti-6Al-4V by using 2D ultrasonic-vibration-assisted milling platform [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2024, 12(2): 349-364.
[4]	Xue-hong Shen, Chang-Feng Yao, Liang Tan, Ding-Hua Zhang. Prediction model of surface integrity characteristics in ball end milling TC17 titanium alloy [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2023, 11(3): 541-565.
[5]	Vitor F. C. Sousa, Francisco J. G. Silva, Ricardo Alexandre, José S. Fecheira, Gustavo Pinto, Andresa Baptista. Experimental study on the wear evolution of different PVD coated tools under milling operations of LDX2101 duplex stainless steel [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2023, 11(1): 158-179.
[6]	Chang-Yong Yang, Zhi Wang, Hao Su, Yu-Can Fu, Nian-Hui Zhang, Wen-Feng Ding. Numerical analysis and experimental validation of surface roughness and morphology in honing of Inconel 718 nickel-based superalloy [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2023, 11(1): 130-142.
[7]	Long-Hua Xu, Chuan-Zhen Huang, Jia-Hui Niu, Jun Wang, Han-Lian Liu, Xiao-Dan Wang. Prediction of cutting power and surface quality, and optimization of cutting parameters using new inference system in high-speed milling process [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2021, 9(3): 388-402.
[8]	Guo Zhou, Chao Xu, Yuan Ma, Xiao-Hao Wang, Ping-Fa Feng, Min Zhang. Prediction and control of surface roughness for the milling of Al/SiC metal matrix composites based on neural networks [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2020, 8(4): 486-507.
[9]	Peng Lyu, Min Lai, Feng-Zhou Fang. Nanometric polishing of lutetium oxide by plasma-assisted etching [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2020, 8(4): 440-446.
[10]	Mirsadegh Seyedzavvar, Hossein Abbasi, Mehdi Kiyasatfar, Reza Najati Ilkhchi. Investigation on tribological performance of CuO vegetable-oil based nanofluids for grinding operations [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2020, 8(3): 344-360.
[11]	Wei Han, Feng-Zhou Fang. Investigation of electropolishing characteristics of tungsten in ecofriendly sodium hydroxide aqueous solution [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2020, 8(3): 265-278.
[12]	Wei Zhao, Asif Iqbal, Ding Fang, Ning He, Qi Yang. Experimental study on the meso-scale milling of tungsten carbide WC-17.5Co with PCD end mills [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2020, 8(2): 230-241.
[13]	Ramanuj Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Purna Chandra Mishra, Rabin Kumar Das. Comparative investigation towards machinability improvement in hard turning using coated and uncoated carbide inserts: part I experimental investigation [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2018, 6(1): 52-70.
[14]	Ravindra Nath Yadav. Development and experimental investigation of duplex turning process [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2017, 5(2): 149-157.
[15]	A. Pramanik, A. R. Dixit, S. Chattopadhyaya, M. S. Uddin, Yu Dong, A. K. Basak, G. Littlefair. Fatigue life of machined components [J]. Advances in Manufacturing, 2017, 5(1): 59-76.