Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robust modeling and optimization of borehole enlarging by helical milling of aluminum alloy Al7075

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

Abstract

The paper aims to analyze the use of helical milling in hole enlargement in aluminum alloys, considering the effects of the input variables (tool overhang, cutting speed, axial and tangential feed per tooth) on the output ones related to the hole quality such as radial force, circularity and roughness. Additionally, the robust optimization is developed through the combination of robust parameter design, mean square error, and normal boundary intersection through responses modeled by response surface methodology. The results show that hole enlargement by helical milling is feasible and could achieve good values of radial forces, circularities, and specially roughness, which presented average roughness values under 0.2 μm for all experiments. The observed relationship between input and outputs shows that the axial and tangential feed are significant for all responses in linear, quadratic, and interaction terms, and cutting speed and tool overhang have at least significant terms in linear, quadratic, or interaction models. Low values of axial feed per tooth reduce radial force and circularity. Tool overhang is a noise variable and is directly connected to the shape error, since high values increase circularity deviations. Since significant noise terms exist, the robust optimization was able to reduce the variability of tool overhang in the responses and achieve mean values of circularity, radial forces, average and total roughness of about 7 μm, 20 N, 0.1 μm, and 1.7 μm, respectively.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Chiffre L, Tosello G, Píška M, Müller P (2009) Investigation on capability of the reaming process using minimal quantity lubrication. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2009.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ASM International (1989) ASM handbook volume 16: machining. USA

  3. Bhattacharyya O, Kapoor SG, DeVor RE (2006) Mechanistic model for the reaming process with emphasis on process faults. Int J Mach Tool Manu 46:836–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhattacharyya O, Jun MB, Kapoor SG, DeVor RE (2006) The effects of process faults and misalignments on the cutting force system and hole quality in reaming. Int J Mach Tool Manu 46:1281–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pereira RBD, Leite RR, Alvim AC, Paiva AP, Balestrassi PP, Ferreira JR, Davim JP (2018) Multivariate robust modeling and optimization of cutting forces of the helical milling process of the aluminum alloy Al 7075. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:2691–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1398-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bezerra AA, Machado AR, Junior AMS, Ezugwu EO (2001) Effects of machining parameters when reaming aluminium-silicon (SAE 322). J Mater Process Technol 112:185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang H, Qin X, Ren C, Wang Q (2012) Prediction of cutting forces in helical milling process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58:849–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3435-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Qin X et al (2012) Comparative study on helical milling and drilling of Ti-6Al-4V. Key Eng Mater 499:200–204. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.499.200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brinksmeier E, Fangmann S, Meyer I (2008) Orbital drilling kinematics. Prod Eng Res Devel 2:277–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-008-0111-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haiyan W, Xuda Q (2016) A mechanistic model for cutting force in helical milling of carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 82:1485–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7460-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pereira RBD, Brandão LC, Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Davim JP (2017) A review of helical milling process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 120:27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Iyer R, Koshy P, Ng E (2007) Helical milling: an enabling technology for hard machining precision holes in AISI D2 tool steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:205–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ishida T, Noma K, Kakinuma Y, Aoyama T, Hamada S, Ogawa H, Higaino T (2007) Helical milling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics using ultrasonic vibration and liquid nitrogen. Procedia CIRP 24:13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fang Q, Pan Z, Fei S, Xie X, Ke Y (2015) A novel helical milling end-effector and its application. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 20:3112–3122. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2015.2409986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li Z, Liu Q (2013) Surface topography and roughness in hole-making by helical milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66:1415–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4419-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sasahara H, Kawasaki M, Tsutsumi M (2008) Helical feed milling with MQL for boring of aluminum alloy. J Adv Mech Des Syst Manuf 2:1030–1040. https://doi.org/10.1299/jamdsm.2.1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Voss R, Henerichs M, Kuster F (2016) Comparison of conventional drilling and orbital drilling in machining carbon fibre reinforced plastics (CFRP). CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 65:137–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang H, Qin X, Li H (2015) Machinability analysis on helical milling of carbon fiber reinforced polymer. J Adv Mech Design, Systems, Manuf 9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1299/jamdsm.2015jamdsm0057

    Google Scholar 

  19. Denkena B, Boehnke D, Dege JH (2008) Helical milling of CFRP-titanium layer compounds. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 1:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2008.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tönshoff T, Friemuth GM (2001) High efficient circular milling: a solution for economical machining of bore holes in composite materials. Proceedings of the third international conference on high speed machining. Metz, France, pp 287–296

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yicai S, Ning H E, Liang L I, Xiaojie Q I N, Wei Z (2011) Orbital milling hole of aerospace Al-alloy with big pitch. Transactions of Tianjin University, 329–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12209

  22. Wang H, Qin X, Ren C, Wang Q (2011) Prediction of cutting forces in helical milling process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58:849–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3435-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu C, Wang G, Dargusch MS (2012) Modelling, simulation and experimental investigation of cutting forces during helical milling operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63:839–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-3951-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li Z, Liu Q, Peng C, Sun X (2010) Cutting force modeling and simulation for hole-making process by helical milling. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 7997. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.883034

  25. Liu H, Zhu W, Dong H, Ke Y (2017) A helical milling and oval countersinking end-effector for aircraft assembly. Mechatronics 46:101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2017.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Costa DD, Marques A, Amorin FL (2015) Hole quality and cutting time evaluation in the interpolated helical milling. Int J Manuf Res 10:313–327. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2015.074820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Myers RH, Yoon K, Griffiths KL (1997) Response surface methods and the use of noise variables. J Qual Technol 29:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1997.11979794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kovach J, Cho BR (2005) Development of product family-based robust design: a case study. Int J Six Sigma Competit Adv 1:403–419. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2005.008506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chumpol Y, Nembhard H, Hayes G, Adair J (2012) Robust parameter design for multiple-stage nanomanufacturing. IIE Trans 44:580–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2011.635176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Welch W, Yu T, Kang SM, Sacks J (1990) Computer experiments for quality control by parameter design. J Qual Technol 22:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1990.11979201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shoemaker AC, Tsui KL, Wu CFJ (1991) Economical experimentation methods for robust design. Technometrics 33:415–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Montgomery DC (2013) Design and analysis of experiments, 8th edn. John Wiley & Sons, United States of America

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rencher AC (2002) Methods of multivariate analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Balestrassi PP (2007) A multivariate hybrid approach applied to AISI 52100 hardened steel turning optimization. J Mater Process Technol 189:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.12.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2007) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Busacca GP, Marseguerra M, Zio E (2001) Multiobjective optimization by genetic algorithms: application to safety systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 72:59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00109-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lin DKJ, Tu W (1995) Dual response surface optimization. J Qual Technol 27(1):34–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1995.11979556

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Berezkin VE, Lotov AV (2014) Comparison of two Pareto frontier approximations. Comput Math Math Phys 54:1455–1464. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542514090048

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Martínez M, García-Nieto S, Sanchis J, Blasco X (2009) Genetic algorithms optimization for normalized normal constraint method under Pareto construction. Adv Eng Softw 40:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.04.004

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Das I, Dennis JE (1997) A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Struct Optim 14:63–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01197559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vahidinasab V, Jadid S (2010) Normal boundary intersection method for suppliers’ strategic bidding in electricity markets: an environmental/economic approach. Energy Convers Manag 51:1111–1119, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the Pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 8:631–657. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623496307510

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Ganesan T, Vasant P, Elamvazuthi I (2013) Normal-boundary intersection based parametric multi-objective optimization of green sand mould system. J Manuf Syst 32:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Utyuzhnikov SV, Fantini P, Guenov MD (2009) A method for generating a well-distributed Pareto set in nonlinear multiobjective optimization. J Comput Appl Math 223:820–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2008.03.011

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Jia Z, Ierapetritou G (2007) Generate Pareto optimal solutions of scheduling problems using normal boundary intersection technique. Comput Chem Eng 31:268–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2006.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge CNPq, CAPES, FAPEMIG, and DEMEC/UFSJ for supporting this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management, Federal University of Itajubá, 1303 BPS Avenue, Itajubá, MG, 37500-903, Brazil

    Vanessa Flavianne Santana Rodrigues, João Roberto Ferreira, Anderson Paulo de Paiva & Luiz Gustavo Paes de Souza

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of São João Del-Rei, 170 Frei Orlando Square, São João del Rei, MG, 36880-000, Brazil

    Robson Bruno Dutra Pereira & Lincoln Cardoso Brandrão

Authors
  1. Vanessa Flavianne Santana Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Roberto Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anderson Paulo de Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luiz Gustavo Paes de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robson Bruno Dutra Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lincoln Cardoso Brandrão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Flavianne Santana Rodrigues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, V.F.S., Ferreira, J.R., de Paiva, A.P. et al. Robust modeling and optimization of borehole enlarging by helical milling of aluminum alloy Al7075. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100, 2583–2599 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2832-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2832-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation