Advertisement

Experimentation, Modelling, and Analysis of Machining of Hard Material

  • Manjunath Patel G. C.Email author
  • Ganesh R. Chate
  • Mahesh B. Parappagoudar
  • Kapil Gupta
Chapter
  • 12 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)

Abstract

Planning and conducting experiments is the key in effective monitoring of system, which leads to success in manufacturing. The traditional approach of experimental study (i.e. one factor at a time, OFAT) requires more number of experiments and consequently consumes more resources. Moreover, the interpretations and analysis that can be made from the experimental data are also limited. Design of experiments (DOE) is a statistical tool, which uses well-planned set of experiments to collect the input–output data. Further, DOE can be used to analyse the experimental data, establish input–output relations, and optimize the process. Figure 3.1 shows the general steps followed in designing a statistical-based experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    G.C.M. Patel, P. Krishna, M.B. Parappagoudar, Squeeze casting process modeling by a conventional statistical regression analysis approach. Appl. Math. Model. 40(15–16), 6869–6888 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments (Wiley, New York, 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.B. Parappagoudar, D.K. Pratihar, G.L. Datta, Linear and non-linear statistical modelling of green sand mould system. Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 20(1), 1–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.C. Ferreira, R.E. Bruns, H.S. Ferreira, G.D. Matos, J.M. David, G.C. Brandao, E.P. Da Silva, L.A. Portugal, P.S. Dos Reis, A.S. Souza, W.N.L. Dos Santos, Box-Behnken design: an alternative for the optimization of analytical methods. Anal. Chim. Acta 597(2), 179–186 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Mukherjee, P.K. Ray, A review of optimization techniques in metal cutting processes. Comput. Ind. Eng. 50(1–2), 15–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L.B. Abhang, M. Hameedullah, Power prediction model for turning EN-31 steel using response surface methodology. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3(1), 116–122 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H.S. Payal, R. Choudhary, S. Singh, Analysis of electro discharge machined surfaces of EN-31 tool steel. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 67, 1072–1077 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Faisal, K. Kumar, Optimization of machine process parameters in EDM for EN 31 using evolutionary optimization techniques. Technologies 6(2), 54 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Chakradhar, A.V. Gopal, Multi-objective optimization of electrochemical machining of EN31 steel by grey relational analysis. Int. J. Model. Optimization 1(2), 113 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.K. Das, K. Kumar, T.K. Barman, P. Sahoo, Optimization of process parameters in plasma arc cutting of EN 31 steel based on MRR and multiple roughness characteristics using grey relational analysis. Procedia Mater. Sci. 5, 1550–1559 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Bouacha, M.A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki, J.F. Rigal, Statistical analysis of surface roughness and cutting forces using response surface methodology in hard turning of AISI 52100 bearing steel with CBN tool. Int. J. Refract Metal Hard Mater. 28(3), 349–361 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manjunath Patel G. C.
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ganesh R. Chate
    • 2
  • Mahesh B. Parappagoudar
    • 3
  • Kapil Gupta
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPES Institute of Technology and ManagementShivamoggaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKLS Gogte Institute of TechnologyBelgaumIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPadre Conceicao College of EngineeringVernaIndia
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering TechnologyUniversity of JohannesburgDoornfontein, JohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations