Surface quality evaluation in ultrasonic drilling through the Taguchi technique

  • A. DvivediEmail author
  • P. Kumar


Ultrasonic drilling of commercially pure titanium and titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4v) was investigated in this study. During the experiments, process parameters such as work piece, grit size, slurry concentration, power rating and tools were changed to explore their effect on the surface roughness. Taguchi’s technique was applied to obtain an optimal setting of ultrasonic drilling (USD) process parameters. Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured by using the Optical Profiling System. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional contour plots were obtained from the profiling system to quantify and visualize the surface roughness. From the experimental results and further analysis, it is concluded that the effect of slurry concentration and grit size have a significant effect on surface roughness more than other parameters. In addition, the surface roughness is apparently similar in two and three dimensions as visualized from contour plots. Ultrasonic drilling is established as a material removal process with good surface quality.


Ultrasonic drilling Ultrasonic machining Taguchi method Titanium 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Banerjii R, Bhattacharyya BC (1993) Evolutionary operation (EVOP) to optimize three-dimensional biological experiments. Biotechnol Bioeng 41:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bendell JD, Disney J, Pridmore WA (1989) Taguchi methods: applications in world industry. IFS Publications, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne DM, Taguchi S (1987) The Taguchi approach to parameter design. Qual Prog 19–26, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen CY, Ling YC (1992) Optimizing electron-capture detector performance for gas chromatographic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls. Chromatography 33:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cobb BD, Clarkson JM (1994) A simple procedure for optimizing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using modified Taguchi methods. Nucleic Acids Res 22(18):3801–3805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dam H, Schreiber MP, Quist P (1995) Productivity, surface quality and tolerances in ultrasonic machining of ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 51(1–4):358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson EA, Barnes PA (1992) A new approach to the statistical optimization of catalyst preparation. Appl Catal A Gen 90:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guzzo PL, Raslan AA, Demello JDB (2003) Ultrasonic abrasion of quartz crystals. Wear 255:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong SY, Markus I, Jeong W (2001) New cooling approach and tool life improvement in cryogenic machining of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:2245–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishikawa K (1976) Guide to quality control, Chap. 3. Asian Productivity Organization, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito S, Nakamura M, Kanematsu W (1987) Machining of high performance ceramics. Bull Jpn Soc Precis Eng 21(3):167–172Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy DK, Grieve RG (1975) Ultrasonic machining – a review. Prod Eng 54:481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazantsev VF (1973) Ultrasonic cutting. In: Rozenberg LD (ed) Physical principles of ultrasonic technology, vol 1. Plenum Press, New York, pp 3–37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komaraiah M, Narasimha Reddy P (1993) A study on the influence of work piece properties in ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 33(3):495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kremer D, Saleh SM, Ghabrial SR, Moisan A (1981) The state of art of ultrasonic machining. Ann CIRPGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markov AI (1966) Ultrasonic machining of intractable materials. Ilife Books Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGeough JA (1988) Advanced methods of machining. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 170–198Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakai S, Koide K, Eugster K (1984) A new mapping super simplex optimization for food product and process development. J Food Science 49:1143–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross Philip J (1988) Taguchi technique for quality engineering. Ann CIRP 30(1):107–110Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saranya AH (2003) Investigation of the effect of process parameters on the quality of hole drilled by ultrasonic machining. M Tech Dissertation, IIT RoorkeeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sonic-Mill: “User’s Manual,” Sonic-Mill, Albuquerque, NM 87121–1962, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sreekumar O, Chand N, Basappa AC (1999) Optimization and interaction of media components in ethanol production using zymomonas mobilis by response surface methodology. J Biosci Bioeng 88(3):334–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stone RA, Veevers A (1994) The Taguchi influence on designed experiments. J Chemometr 8:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taguchi G (1987) System of experimental design. Engineering methods to optimize quality and minimize costs. Kraus International, White Plains, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tunga R, Banerjii R, Bhattacharyya BC (1999) Optimization of n variable biological experiments by evolutionary operation-fractional design technique. J Biosci Bioeng 87(2):224–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical and Industrial Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations