Estimation of surface roughness using cutting parameters, force, sound, and vibration in turning of Inconel 718

  • Yogesh Deshpande
  • Atul AndhareEmail author
  • Neelesh Kumar Sahu
Technical Paper


The present work is aimed at in-process estimation of surface roughness using cutting parameters along with cutting force, sound, and vibration in turning of Inconel 718 with cryogenically treated and untreated carbide inserts. Initially, prediction models are developed by regression analysis using only cutting parameters and then using only force, sound, and vibration. Later on, these models are modified to include all the parameters after performing correlation analysis for determining significant parameters. The modified models are developed using only significant parameters from the cutting parameters and measured responses. The prediction results of modified regression models are compared with experimental results and fine association of fit between measured and estimated surface roughness is confirmed. Based on coefficient of determination (R 2) values, the regression models are found to be better for estimating surface roughness. Finally, it is found that modified regression models are estimating surface roughness with more than 90% accuracy which can be said as acceptable for the two types of inserts used. Use of sound emitted while machining along with values of cutting parameters, force, and vibration to predict surface roughness has not been reported earlier particularly for Inconel 718. As cutting force, sound, and vibration can be measured during the turning process, this method can be useful for real-time control of the process to get the desired surface roughness for machining of difficult to cut material like Inconel 718.


Surface roughness Inconel 718 Regression analysis Cryogenic treatment 



Computer numerical control


Central composite design


Multiple regression analysis


Response surface methodology


First-order equation using cutting parameters


First-order equation using response parameters


Modified first-order equation


Pearson correlation analysis

List of symbols


Cutting speed (m/min)


Feed rate (mm/rev)


Depth of cut (mm)


Cutting force (N)


Sound pressure level (Pa)


Vibration velocity (m/s)


Number of experiments


Average of measured surface roughness in μm


Estimated surface roughness


Coefficient of determination


Absolute error (%)


Mean absolute error (%)


Mean square error (%)



This research work was carried out with assistance from the Technical Education Quality Improvement Program, Phase II (TEQIP-II), Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, New Delhi.


  1. 1.
    Blau PJ (2008) Friction science and technology: from concepts to applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benardos PG, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness in machining: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 43(8):833–844. doi: 10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00059-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitehouse DJ (1994) Handbook of surface metrology. Inst. Physics publishing, Bristol and PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fang XD, Safi-Jahanshahi H (1997) A new algorithm for developing a reference-based model for predicting surface roughness in finish machining of steels. Int J Prod Res 35(1):179–199CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang H, Li D (2002) Surface roughness prediction model for ultraprecision turning aluminium alloy with a single crystal diamond tool. Chin J Mech Eng (Engl Ed) 15(2):153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krolczyk GM, Legutko S (2014) Experimental analysis by measurement of surface roughness variations in turning process of duplex stainless steel. Metrol Meas Syst 21(4):759–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pusavec F, Deshpande A, Yang S, M’Saoubi R, Kopac J, Dillon OW Jr, Jawahir IS (2014) Sustainable machining of high temperature Nickel alloy—Inconel 718: part 1—predictive performance models. J Clean Prod 81:255–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davoodi B, Tazehkandi AH (2014) Cutting forces and surface roughness in wet machining of Inconel alloy 738 with coated carbide tool. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf. 230(2):215–226. doi: 10.1177/0954405414542990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhardwaj B, Kumar R, Singh PK (2014) Prediction of surface roughness in turning of EN 353 using response surface methodology. Trans Indian Inst Met 67(3):305–313. doi: 10.1007/s12666-013-0346-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ezilarasan C, Kumar VSS, Velayudham A, Palanikumar K (2011) Modeling and analysis of surface roughness on machining of Nimonic C-263 alloy by PVD coated carbide insert. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 21(9):1986–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santhanakumar M, Adalarasan R, Siddharth S, Velayudham A (2017) An investigation on surface finish and flank wear in hard machining of solution treated and aged 18% Ni maraging steel. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39(6):2071–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yahya E, Ding G, Qin S (2016) Prediction of cutting force and surface roughness using Taguchi technique for aluminum alloy AA6061. Aust J Mech Eng 14(3):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ezugwu EO, Fadare DA, Bonney J, Da Silva RB, Sales WF (2005) Modelling the correlation between cutting and process parameters in high-speed machining of Inconel 718 alloy using an artificial neural network. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(12–13):1375–1385. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asiltürk I, Çunkaş M (2011) Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in turning operations using artificial neural network and multiple regression method. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5826–5832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Homami RM, Tehrani AF, Mirzadeh H, Movahedi B, Azimifar F (2014) Optimization of turning process using artificial intelligence technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(5–8):1205–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamang SK, Chandrasekaran M (2016) Integrated optimization methodology for intelligent machining of Inconel 825 and its shop-floor application. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng :1–13Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahu NK, Andhare AB (2015) Optimization of surface roughness in turning of Ti-6Al-4V using response surface methodology and TLBO. In: 2015 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp V004T005A020–V004T005A020Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Özel T, Karpat Y (2005) Predictive modeling of surface roughness and tool wear in hard turning using regression and neural networks. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(4):467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Risbood KA, Dixit US, Sahasrabudhe AD (2003) Prediction of surface roughness and dimensional deviation by measuring cutting forces and vibrations in turning process. J Mater Process Technol 132(1):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Upadhyay V, Jain PK, Mehta NK (2013) In-process prediction of surface roughness in turning of Ti–6Al–4V alloy using cutting parameters and vibration signals. Measurement 46(1):154–160. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2012.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirby ED, Zhang Z, Chen JC (2004) Development of an accelerometer-based surface roughness prediction system in turning operations using multiple regression techniques. J Ind Technol 20(4):1–8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang ZY, Rajurkar KP (2000) Cryogenic machining of hard-to-cut materials. Wear 239(2):168–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pawade RS, Joshi SS, Brahmankar PK (2008) Effect of machining parameters and cutting edge geometry on surface integrity of high-speed turned Inconel 718. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(1):15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thakur DG, Ramamoorthy B, Vijayaraghavan L (2012) Effect of cutting parameters on the degree of work hardening and tool life during high-speed machining of Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59(5–8):483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ezugwu EO, Bonney J, Yamane Y (2003) An overview of the machinability of aeroengine alloys. J Mater Process Technol 134(2):233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ezugwu EO (2004) High speed machining of aero-engine alloys. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 26(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ezugwu EO (2005) Key improvements in the machining of difficult-to-cut aerospace superalloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(12):1353–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    WIDIA (2015) Turning catalogue. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
  29. 29.
    Babu GP, Murthy B, Venkatarao K. Ratnam C (2016) Multi-response optimization in orthogonal turn milling by analyzing tool vibration and surface roughness using response surface methodology. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf. doi: 10.1177/0954405415624349
  30. 30.
    Rao KV, Murthy P (2016) Modeling and optimization of tool vibration and surface roughness in boring of steel using RSM, ANN and SVM. J Intell Manuf 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10845-016-1197-y
  31. 31.
    Prasad BS, Babu MP (2017) Correlation between vibration amplitude and tool wear in turning: numerical and experimental analysis. Eng Sci Technol Int J 20(1):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    El-Tayeb NSM, Yap TC, Venkatesh VC, Brevern PV (2009) Modeling of cryogenic frictional behaviour of titanium alloys using response surface methodology approach. Mater Des 30(10):4023–4034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montgomery DC (2012) Design and analysis of experiments, 8th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringVisvesvaraya National Institute of TechnologyNagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations