Skip to main content
Log in

Optimization of correlated multiple responses of ultrasonic machining (USM) process

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ultrasonic machining (USM) process has several important performance measures (responses), some of which are correlated. For example, material removal rate and tool wear rate are highly correlated. Although in the recent past several methods have been proposed in the literature to resolve the multi-response optimization problems, only a few of them take care of the possible correlation between the responses. All these methods primarily make use of principal component analysis (PCA) to consider the possible correlation between the responses. Process engineers may face the difficulty of selecting the appropriate method because the relative optimization performances of these methods are unknown. In this paper, two sets of past experimental data on USM process are analysed using three methods dealing with the multiple correlated responses, and the optimization performances of these three methods are subsequently compared. It is observed that both the weighted principal component (WPC) and PCA-based TOPSIS methods result in a better optimization performance than the PCA-based grey relational analysis method. However, the WPC method is preferable because of its simpler computational procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rozenberg LD, Kazantsev VF (1964) Ultrasonic cutting. Consultants Bureau, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pandey PC, Shan HS (1981) Modern machining processes. McGraw-Hill, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ghosh A, Mallik AK (1985) Manufacturing science. Affiliated East West, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jain VK (2005) Advanced machining processes. Allied Publishers, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thoe TB, Aspinwall DK, Wise MLH (1998) Review on ultrasonic machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38:239–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh R, Khamba JS (2006) Ultrasonic machining of titanium and its alloys: a review. J Mater Process Technol 173:125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dam H, Quist P, Schreiber MP (1995) Productivity, surface quality and tolerances in ultrasonic machining of ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 51:358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Benkirane Y, Kremer D, Moisan A (1999) Ultrasonic machining: an analytical and experimental study on contour machining based on neural network. Ann CIPR 48:135–138

    Google Scholar 

  9. Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  10. Singh R, Khamba JS (2007) Taguchi technique for modelling material removal rate in ultrasonic machining of titanium. Mater Sci Eng A 460–461:365–369

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dvivedi A, Kumar P (2007) Surface quality evaluation in ultrasonic drilling through the Taguchi technique. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 34:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar J, Khamba JS, Mohapatra SK (2009) Investigating and modelling tool-wear rate in the ultrasonic machining of titanium. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 41:1107–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar J, Khamba JS (2010) Modeling the material removal rate in ultrasonic machining of titanium using dimensional analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 48:103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cong WL, Pei ZJ, Deines T, Wang QG, Treadwell C (2010) Rotary ultrasonic machining of stainless steels: empirical study of machining variables. Int J Manuf Res 5:370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maghsoodloo S, Ozdemir G, Jordan V, Huang CH (2004) Strengths and limitations of Taguchi’s contributions to quality, manufacturing and process engineering. J Manuf Syst 23:73–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar J, Khamba JS, Mohapatra SK (2008) An investigation into the machining characteristics of titanium using ultrasonic machining. Int J Machining Machinability Mater 3:143–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liao HC (2006) Multi-response optimization using weighted principal component. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 27:720–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tong L-I, Wang C-H (2002) Multi-response optimization using principal component analysis and grey relational analysis. Int J Ind Eng 9:343–350

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tong L-I, Wang C-H, Chen H-C (2005) Optimization of multiple responses using principal component analysis and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 27:407–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219

    Google Scholar 

  21. Castillo ED, Montgomery DC, McCarville D (1996) Modified desirability functions for multiple response optimization. J Qual Technol 28:337–345

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kim K, Lin D (2000) Simultaneous optimization of multiple responses by maximizing exponential desirability functions. J R Stat Soc C Appl Stat 43:311–325

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Khuri AI, Conlon M (1981) Simultaneous optimization of multiple responses represented by polynomial regression functions. Technometrics 23:363–375

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Castillo E, Montgomery DC (1993) A nonlinear programming solution to the dual response problem. J Qual Technol 25:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  25. Boyle CR, Shin WS (1996) An interactive multiple response simulation optimization method. IIE Trans 14:453–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pignatiello JR, Joseph J (1993) Strategies for robust multi-response quality engineering. IIE Trans 25:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsui K (1999) Robust design optimization for multiple characteristic problems. Int J Prod Res 37:433–445

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Su CT, Hsieh KL (1998) Applying neural networks to achieve robust design for dynamic quality characteristic. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 15:509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsieh KL, Tong LI (2001) Optimization of multiple quality responses involving qualitative and quantitative characteristics in IC manufacturing using neural networks. Comp Ind 46:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsi HM, Tsai SP, Wu MC, Tzuang CK (1999) A genetic algorithm for the optimal design of microwave filters. Int J Ind Eng 6:282–288

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng BC, Cheng CJ, Lee ES (2002) Neuro-fuzzy and genetic algorithm in multiple response optimization. Comput Math Appl 44:1503–1514

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Pasandideh SHR, Niaki STA (2006) Multi-response simulation optimization using genetic algorithm within desirability function framework. Appl Math Comput 175:366–382

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Chiang TL, Su CT (2003) Optimization of TQFP modelling process using neuro-fuzzy-GA approach. Eur J Oper Res 147:156–164

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Tai CY, Chen TS, Wu MC (1992) An enhanced Taguchi method for optimising SMT processes. J Electron Manuf 2:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ramakrishnan R, Karunamoorthy L (2006) Multi response optimization of wire EDM operations using robust design of experiments. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pan LK, Wang CC, Wei SL, Sher HF (2007) Optimizing multiple quality characteristics via Taguchi method-based grey analysis. J Mater Process Technol 182:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tong LI, Chen CC, Wang CH (2007) Optimization of multi-response processes using the VIKOR method. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 31:1049–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Montgomery DC (1984) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shankar Chakraborty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gauri, S.K., Chakravorty, R. & Chakraborty, S. Optimization of correlated multiple responses of ultrasonic machining (USM) process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53, 1115–1127 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2905-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2905-y

Keywords

Navigation