Predicting the effect of machining parameters on turning characteristics of AA7075/TiB2 in situ aluminum matrix composites using empirical relationships

  • A. Pugazhenthi
  • I. DinaharanEmail author
  • G. Kanagaraj
  • J. David Raja Selvam
Technical Paper


Aluminum matrix composites (AMCs) are difficult to machine due to increased tool wear. AA7075/(0–12 wt%) TiB2 in situ AMCs were prepared and turned in a modified conventional lathe using polycrystalline diamond cutting tool. A central composite rotatable design comprising of four process parameters and five levels was utilized to limit the actual experiments required for prediction. The turning parameters such as cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and TiB2 particulate content were counted as variables for the experiments. Two empirical relationships were formed for the prediction of the outcome of variable parameters on cutting force and surface roughness. The cutting force showed a downward trend with an increase in cutting speed and TiB2 content. The advancement in feed rate and depth of cut increased the requirement of cutting force. The predicted trends were correlated with the morphology of the tool rake face and the turned surface. The development of built-up edge increased the cutting force requirement and reduced the surface finish due to deposition on the newly turned surface.


Aluminum matrix composite Turning Cutting force Surface roughness Empirical relationship 



The authors are grateful to Centre for Research in Design and Manufacturing Engineering (CRDM) at Karunya University and The South India Textile Research Association (SITRA) for providing the facilities to carry out this investigation.


  1. 1.
    Dwivedi SP, Sharma S, Mishra RK (2015) Microstructure and mechanical behavior of A356/SiC/Fly-ash hybrid composites produced by electromagnetic stir casting. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jojith R, Radhika N (2018) Fabrication of LM25/WC functionally graded composite for automotive applications and investigation of its mechanical and wear properties. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basu B, Raju GB, Suri AK (2006) Processing and properties of monolithic TiB2 based materials. Int Mat Rev 51:352–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suresh S, Moorthi NSV, Vettivel SC, Selvakumar N (2014) Mechanical behavior and wear prediction of stir cast Al–TiB2 composites using response surface methodology. Mater Des 59:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajan HM, Ramabalan S, Dinaharan I, Vijay SJ (2014) Effect of TiB2 content and temperature on sliding wear behavior of AA7075/TiB2 in situ aluminum cast composites. Arch Civ Mech Eng 14:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sobhani M, Mirhabibi A, Arabi H, Brydson RMD (2013) Effects of in situ formation of TiB2 particles on age hardening behavior of Cu–1 wt% Ti–1 wt% TiB2. Mater Sci Eng A 577:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sekhar R, Singh TP (2015) Mechanisms in turning of metal matrix composites: a review. J Mater Res Technol 4:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nicholls CJ, Boswell B, Davies IJ, Islam MN (2017) Review of machining metal matrix composites. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90:2429–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basavarajappa S, Chandramohan G, Rao KN, Radhakrishanan R, Krishnaraj V (2006) Turning of particulate metal matrix composites—review and discussion. Proc Int Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 220:1189–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dandekar CR, Shin YC (2012) Modeling of machining of composite materials: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 57:102–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anandakrishnan V, Mahamani A (2011) Investigations of flank wear cutting force and surface roughness in the machining of Al-6061–TiB2 in situ metal matrix composites produced by flux-assisted synthesis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 55:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sahoo AK, Pradhan S, Rout AK (2013) Development and machinability assessment in turning Al/SiCp-metal matrix composite with multilayer coated carbide insert using Taguchi and statistical techniques. Arch Civ Mech Eng 13:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senthil P, Selvaraj T, Sivaprasad K (2013) Influence of turning parameters on the machinability of homogenized Al–Cu/TiB2 in situ metal matrix composites. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67:1589–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shoba C, Ramanaiah N, Rao DN (2015) Effect of reinforcement on the cutting forces while machining metal matrix composites—an experimental approach. Eng Sci Technol Int J 18:658–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joardar H, Das NS, Sutradhar G, Singh S (2014) Application of response surface methodology for determining cutting force model in turning of LM6/SiCp metal matrix composite. Measurement 47:452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suresh P, Marimuthu K, Ranganathan S, Rajmohan T (2014) Optimization of machining parameters in turning of Al–SiC–Gr hybrid metal matrix composites using grey-fuzzy algorithm. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 24:2805–2814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoba C, Ramanaiah N, Rao DN (2015) Influence of dislocation density on the residual stresses induced while machining Al/SiC/RHA hybrid composites. J Mater Res Technol 4:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rui-song J, Wen-hu W, Guo-dong S, Zeng-qiang W (2016) Experimental investigation on machinability of in situ formed TiB2 particles reinforced Al MMCs. J Manuf Process 23:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barzani MM, Farahany S, Songmene V (2017) Machinability characteristics thermal and mechanical properties of Al–Mg2Si in situ composite with bismuth. Measurement 110:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang R, Xinfa C, Renwei GE, Wenhu W, Guodong S (2018) Influence of TiB2 particles on machinability and machining parameter optimization of TiB2/Al MMCs. Chin J Aeronaut 31:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Udayakumar T, Raja K, Abhijit AT, Sathiya P (2013) Experimental investigation on mechanical and metallurgical properties of super duplex stainless steel joints using friction welding process. J Manuf Process 15:558–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu Z (2015) Empirical modeling for processing parameter’s effects on coating properties in plasma spraying process. J Manuf Process 19:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moses JJ, Dinaharan I, Sekhar SJ (2016) Predicting the influence of process parameters on tensile strength of AA6061/TiC aluminum matrix composites produced using stir casting. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 26:1498–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palanivel R, Laubscher RF, Dinaharan I, Murugan N (2016) Tensile strength prediction of dissimilar friction stir-welded AA6351–AA5083 using artificial neural network technique. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38:1647–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arokiadass R, Palaniradja K, Alagumoorthi N (2011) Prediction of flank wear in end milling of particulate metal matrix composite-RSM approach. Int J Appl Eng Res 6:559–569Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lakshmi S, Lu L, Gupta M (1998) In situ preparation of TiB2 reinforced Al based composites. J Mater Process Technol 73:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lu L, Lai MO, Chen FL (1997) Al-4 wt% Cu composite reinforced with in situ TiB2 particles. Acta Mater 45:4297–4309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montgomery DG (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Box GEP, Hunter WH, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for experiments. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kannan S, Kishawy HA, Deiab I (2009) Cutting forces and TEM analysis of the generated surface during machining metal matrix composites. J Mater Process Technol 209:2260–2269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rajan HM, Ramabalan S, Dinaharan I, Vijay SJ (2013) Synthesis and characterization of in situ formed titanium diboride particulate reinforced AA7075 aluminum alloy cast composites. Mater Des 44:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College of Engineering DindigulDindigulIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering ScienceUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of Mechantronics EngineeringThiyagarajar College of EngineeringMaduraiIndia
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKarunya Institute of Technology and SciencesCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations