Advertisement

Multi-objective optimization of surface roughness, thrust force, and torque produced by novel drill geometries using Taguchi-based GRA

  • Güven Meral
  • Murat Sarıkaya
  • Mozammel MiaEmail author
  • Hakan Dilipak
  • Ulvi Şeker
  • Munish K. Gupta
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

A significant part of today’s chip removal processes are drilling holes. Many parameters such as cutting parameters, material, machine tool, and cutting tool, etc., in the hole-drilling process affect performance indicators such as surface roughness, tool wear, force, torque, energy consumption, and costs etc. While cutting parameters are easily planned by the operator during drilling, the selection and planning of the drill geometry are more difficult. In order to design and produce the new drill geometry, a wide time and engineering research are needed. In this study, the design and fabrication of new drill geometry were performed to improve the hole-drilling performance. The performance of the fabricated drills was judged with regard to surface roughness, thrust force, and drilling torque. In the performance tests, four different drill geometries, four different cutting speed levels, and four different feed rate levels were selected. Holes were drilled on AISI 4140 material. In addition, the optimization was performed in two phases. Firstly, the mono-optimization was carried by using Taguchi’s S/N analysis in which each performance output was optimized separately. Secondly, the multi-objective optimization was employed by using Taguchi-based gray relational analysis (GRA). For the purpose of the study, two different drill geometries were designed and fabricated. Experimental results showed that the designed Geometry 4 is superior to other geometries (geometry 1, geometry 2, and geometry 3) in terms of thrust force and surface roughness. However, in terms of drilling torque, geometry 2 gives better results than other drill geometries. It was found that for all geometries, obtained surface roughness values are lower than the surface roughness values expected from a drilling operation and therefore surface qualities (between 1.2 and 2.4 μm) were satisfactory.

Keywords

Drill design Drill production Optimization Thrust force Torque Surface roughness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Karcan Cutting Tool Company due to their contribution during development and production of cutting tools.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuzu AT, Berenji KR, Ekim BC, Bakkal M (2017) The thermal modeling of deep-hole drilling process under MQL condition. J Manuf Process 29:194–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2017.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gökçe H, Yavuz M, Şeker U (2017) Parametric modeling approach in the creation of drill geometry. 8th International Symposium on Machining, 2–4 November, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meral G, Sarıkaya M, Dilipak H, Şeker U (2015) Multi-response optimization of cutting parameters for hole quality in drilling of AISI 1050 steel. Arab J Sci Eng 40(12):3709–3722.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1854-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kıvak T (2014) Optimization of surface roughness and flank wear using the Taguchi method in milling of Hadfield steel with PVD and CVD coated inserts. Measurement 50:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kıvak T, Samtaş G, Cicek A (2012) Taguchi method based optimisation of drilling parameters in drilling of AISI 316 steel with PVD monolayer and multilayer coated HSS drills. Measurement 45(6):1547–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurt M, Bagci E, Kaynak Y (2009) Application of Taguchi methods in the optimization of cutting parameters for surface finish and hole diameter accuracy in dry drilling processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40(5–6):458–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1368-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haq AN, Marimuthu P, Jeyapaul R (2008) Multi response optimization of machining parameters of drilling Al/SiC metal matrix composite using grey relational analysis in the Taguchi method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37(3–4):250–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-0981-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rivero A, Aramendi G, Herranz S, Lacalle LL (2006) An experimental investigation of the effect of coatings and cutting parameters on the dry drilling performance of aluminium alloys. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(1–2):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2349-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pirtini M, Lazoglu I (2005) Forces and hole quality in drilling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(11):1271–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang ZHU (2011) Machining Feature based geometric modeling of twist drills. PhD thesis. Concordia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ren K, Ni J (1999) Analyses of drill flute and cutting angles. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15(8):546–553.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700050100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paul A, Kapoor SG, DeVor RE (2005) Chisel edge and cutting lip shape optimization for improved twist drill point design. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(4–5):421–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Audy J (2008) A study of computer-assisted analysis of effects of drill geometry and surface coating on forces and power in drilling. J Mater Process Technol 204(1–3):130–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.10.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Audy J (2008) A study of computer assisted analysis of effects of drill point Geomerical features on forces and power in drilling with general purpose twist drills. MM (Modern Machinery) Science Journal 4–5Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J, Zhang Q (2008) A study of high-performance plane rake faced twist drills.: part I: geometrical analysis and experimental investigation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(11):1276–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2008.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abele E, Fujara M (2010) Simulation-based twist drill design and geometry optimization. CIRP Ann 59(1):145–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Satoshi EMA (2012) Effects of twist drill point geometry on torque and thrust. Sci Rep Fac Educ Gifu Unive (Nat Sci) 36:165–174Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Armerago EJA, Cheng OY (1972) Drilling with flat face and conventional twist drill experimental investigation. Int J Mach Tool Des Res 12:37–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7357(72)90010-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuji S, DeVries MF, Wu SM (1970) An analysis of drill geometry for optimum drill design by computer. Part I—drill geometry analysis. J Eng Ind 92(3):647–656.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3427827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung J, Mayor R, Ni J (2005) Development of freeform grinding methods for complex drill flank surfaces and cutting edge contours. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(1):93–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vijayaraghavan A (2006) Automated drill design software. Lab Manuf Sustain 1:01–10Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meral G, Sarıkaya M, Mia M, Dilipak H, Şeker U (2018) Optimization of hole quality produced by novel drill geometries using the Taguchi S/N approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2956-z
  23. 23.
    Ernst H, Haggerty WA (1958) The spiral point drill—a new concept in drill point geometry. Trans ASME 80(105971072):173–182Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bangalore HMT (2003) Production technology. Tata McGraw-Hill, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galloway DF (1957) Some experiments on the influence of various factors on drill performance. Trans ASME 79:191Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mia M, Gupta MK, Singh G, Królczyk G, Pimenov DY (2018) An approach to cleaner production for machining hardened steel using different cooling-lubrication conditions. J Clean Prod 187:1069–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh G, Gupta MK, Mia M, Sharma VS (2018) Modeling and optimization of tool wear in MQL-assisted milling of Inconel 718 superalloy using evolutionary techniques. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97(1–14):481–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1911-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V, Güllü A (2016) Analysis of cutting parameters and cooling/lubrication methods for sustainable machining in turning of Haynes 25 superalloy. J Clean Prod 133:172–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yıldırım ÇV, Kıvak T, Sarıkaya M, Erzincanlı F (2017) Determination of MQL parameters contributing to sustainable machining in the milling of nickel-base superalloy waspaloy. Arab J Sci Eng 42:4667–4681.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2594-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gupta MK, Mia M, Singh G, Pimenov DY, Sarikaya M, Sharma VS (2018) Hybrid cooling-lubrication strategies to improve surface topography and tool wear in sustainable turning of Al 7075-T6 alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2870-4
  31. 31.
    Taşkesen A, Kütükde K (2014) Experimental investigation and multi-objective analysis on drilling of boron carbide reinforced metal matrix composites using grey relational analysis. Measurement 47:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun S, Brandt M, Dargusch MS (2010) Thermally enhanced machining of hard-to-machine materials—a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 50(8):663–680.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim D, Ramulu M (2005) Cutting and drilling characteristics of hybrid titanium composite laminate (HTCL). In Proceedings of Materials and Processing Technologies for Revolutionary Applications Fall Technical Conference, U.S.A., 1–8Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramulu M, Branson T, Kim D (2001) A study on the drilling of composite and titanium stacks. Compos Struct 54(1):67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00071-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trent EM (1989) Metal cutting. Butterworths Press, London, pp 1–171Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Williams JE, Smart EF, Milner DR (1970) The metallurgy of machining- part 2″. Metalurgia, February, 51–60Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boothroyd G (1981) Fundamentals of metal machining and machine tools. McGraw-Hill, New York City, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V (2018) Optimization and predictive modeling using S/N, RSM, RA and ANNs for micro-electrical discharge drilling of AISI 304 stainless steel. Neural Comput & Applic 30(5):1503–1517.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2775-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sarıkaya M, Güllü A (2014) Taguchi design and response surface methodology based analysis of machining parameters in CNC turning under MQL. J Clean Prod 65:604–616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mia M (2018) Mathematical modeling and optimization of MQL assisted end milling characteristics based on RSM and Taguchi method. Measurement 121:249–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Balki MK, Sayin C, Sarikaya M (2016) Optimization of the operating parameters based on Taguchi method in an SI engine used pure gasoline, ethanol and methanol. Fuel 180:630–637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sarıkaya M, Dilipak H, Gezgin A (2015) Optimization of the process parameters for surface roughness and tool life in face milling using the Taguchi analysis. Mater Tehnol 49(1):139–147Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sarikaya M (2015) Optimization of the surface roughness by applying the Taguchi technique for the turning of stainless steel under cooling conditions. Mater Tehnol 49(6):941–948.  https://doi.org/10.17222/mit.2014.282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sarıkaya M, Güllü A (2015) Multi-response optimization of minimum quantity lubrication parameters using Taguchi-based grey relational analysis in turning of difficult-to-cut alloy Haynes 25. J Clean Prod 91:347–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V, Dilipak H (2016) Modeling and multi-response optimization of milling characteristics based on Taguchi and gray relational analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 230(6):1049–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405414565136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mia M, Khan MA, Rahman SS, Dhar NR (2017) Mono-objective and multi-objective optimization of performance parameters in high pressure coolant assisted turning of Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(1–4):109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9372-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Güven Meral
    • 1
  • Murat Sarıkaya
    • 2
  • Mozammel Mia
    • 3
    Email author
  • Hakan Dilipak
    • 4
  • Ulvi Şeker
    • 4
  • Munish K. Gupta
    • 5
  1. 1.Vocational School of Technical SciencesGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSinop UniversitySinopTurkey
  3. 3.Mechanical and Production EngineeringAhsanullah University of Science and TechnologyDhakaBangladesh
  4. 4.Manufacturing Engineering Department, Technology FacultyGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical EngineeringChandigarh UniversityMohaliIndia

Personalised recommendations