Improving accuracy of surface roughness model while turning 9XC steel using a Titanium Nitride-coated cutting tool with Johnson and Box-Cox transformation

Vo Thi Nhu Uyen; Nguyen Hong Son; Vo Thi Nhu Uyen; Nguyen Hong Son

doi:10.3934/matersci.2021001

AIMS Materials Science

2021, Volume 8, Issue 1: 1-17. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021001

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Improving accuracy of surface roughness model while turning 9XC steel using a Titanium Nitride-coated cutting tool with Johnson and Box-Cox transformation

Vo Thi Nhu Uyen ¹,
Nguyen Hong Son ^{2
,
,}

1.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi City, 100000, Vietnam
2.
Center for Mechanical Engineering, Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi City, 100000, Vietnam

Received: 25 October 2020 Accepted: 28 December 2020 Published: 18 January 2021

The surface roughness model for predicting surface roughness during machining is built in order to deal with time constraints of adjusting and testing. This study aims to achieve this purpose. The 9XC steel turning experiment is performed on a CNC lathe with the cutting tool is Titanium Nitride-coated. The input parameters selected for the test matrix include cutting velocity, feed rate, depth of cut and tool nose radius. The experiments were carried out based on Central Composite Design (CCD) with 29 trials. The analysis of results using Minitab software reveals that feed rate is the most influential parameter, while the others have a negligible impact on surface roughness. The response surface method (RSM) is applied for modeling surface roughness. Johnson and Box-cox transformations are also used to develop two new models of surface roughness. The comparison of predicted results from these three models with experimental results shows that the Box-Cox-based model has the highest accuracy, followed by the Johnson while the model not using these transformation is the least. Mean absolute error and mean square error of the RSM-based model are 17.264% and 2.712% respectively; while they are 10.373% and 1.280% in the Johnson-based and 10.208% and 1.284% when using the Box-Cox transformation.
- 9XC steel,
- surface roughness model,
- Titanium Nitride-coated cutting tool,
- John transformation,
- Box-Cox transformation
Citation: Vo Thi Nhu Uyen, Nguyen Hong Son. Improving accuracy of surface roughness model while turning 9XC steel using a Titanium Nitride-coated cutting tool with Johnson and Box-Cox transformation[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(1): 1-17. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021001

Related Papers:

Abstract

The surface roughness model for predicting surface roughness during machining is built in order to deal with time constraints of adjusting and testing. This study aims to achieve this purpose. The 9XC steel turning experiment is performed on a CNC lathe with the cutting tool is Titanium Nitride-coated. The input parameters selected for the test matrix include cutting velocity, feed rate, depth of cut and tool nose radius. The experiments were carried out based on Central Composite Design (CCD) with 29 trials. The analysis of results using Minitab software reveals that feed rate is the most influential parameter, while the others have a negligible impact on surface roughness. The response surface method (RSM) is applied for modeling surface roughness. Johnson and Box-cox transformations are also used to develop two new models of surface roughness. The comparison of predicted results from these three models with experimental results shows that the Box-Cox-based model has the highest accuracy, followed by the Johnson while the model not using these transformation is the least. Mean absolute error and mean square error of the RSM-based model are 17.264% and 2.712% respectively; while they are 10.373% and 1.280% in the Johnson-based and 10.208% and 1.284% when using the Box-Cox transformation.

References

[1]	Nguyen NT, Trung DD (2020) Modeling and improvement of the surface roughness model in hole turning process 3X13 stainless steel by Johnson transformation. IJMPERD 10: 12097-12110. doi: 10.24247/ijmperdjun20201157
[2]	Zahia H, Athmane Y, Lakhdar B, et al. (2015) On the application of response surface methodology for predicting and optimizing surface roughness and cutting forces in hard turning by PVD coated insert. IJIEC 6: 267-284 doi: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2014.10.003
[3]	Kuntoglu M, Aslan A, Pimenov DY, et al. (2020) Modeling of cutting parameters and tool geometry for multi-criteria optimization of surface roughness and vibration via response surface methodology in turning of AISI 5140 steel. Materials 13: 4242. doi: 10.3390/ma13194242
[4]	Kuntoglu M, Aslan A, Saglam H, et al. (2020) Optimization and analysis of surface roughness, flank wear and 5 different sensorial data via tool condition monitoring system in turning of AISI 5140. Sensors 20: 4377. doi: 10.3390/s20164377
[5]	Meddour I, Yallese MA, Bensouilah H, et al. (2018) Prediction of surface roughness and cutting forces using RSM, ANN, and NSGA-Ⅱ in finish turning of AISI 4140 hardened steel with mixed ceramic tool. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 97: 1931-1949. doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-2026-6
[6]	Bhardwaj B, Kumar R, Singh PK (2013) Prediction of surface roughness in turning of EN 353 using response surface methodology. T Indian I Metals 67: 305-313. doi: 10.1007/s12666-013-0346-7
[7]	Yang A, Han Y, Pan Y, et al. (2017) Optimum surface roughness prediction for titanium alloy by adopting response surface methodology. Results Phys 7: 1046-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2017.02.027
[8]	Xiao M, Shen X, Ma Y, et al. (2018) Prediction of surface roughness and optimization of cutting parameters of stainless steel turning based on RSM. Math Probl Eng 2018: 9051084.
[9]	Routara BC, Sahoo AK, Parida AK, et al. (2012) Response surface methodology and genetic algorithm used to optimize the cutting condition for surface roughness parameters in CNC turning. Procedia Eng 38: 1893-1904. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.232
[10]	Yang C, Zheng Q, Hu Y (2016) The prediction model of surface roughness based on experiments of turning titanium alloy. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation 1776-1780. doi: 10.1109/ICMA.2016.7558833
[11]	Singh D, Chadha V, Singari RM (2016) Effect of nose radius on surface roughness during CNC turning using response surface methodology. IJMECH 5: 31-45. doi: 10.14810/ijmech.2016.5203
[12]	Tebassi H, Yallese MA, Meddour I, et al. (2017) On the modeling of surface roughness and cutting force when turning of inconel 718 using artificial neural network and response surface methodology: Accuracy and benefit. Period Polytech Mech Eng 61: 1-11. doi: 10.3311/PPme.8742
[13]	Patole PB, Kulkarni VV (2018) Prediction of surface roughness and cutting force under MQL turning of AISI 4340 with nano fluid by using response surface methodology. Manuf Rev 5: 5.
[14]	Sahu NK, Andhare AB, Andhale S, et al. (2018) Prediction of surface roughness in turning of Ti-6Al-4V using cutting parameters, forces and tool vibration. IOP Conf Series Mater Sci Eng 346: 012037. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/346/1/012037
[15]	Sahu NK, Andhare AB (2015) Optimization of surface roughness in turning of Ti-6Al-4V using response surface methodology and TLBO, ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 4: V004T05A020.
[16]	Khidhir BA, Al-Oqaiel W, Kareem PM (2015) Prediction models by response surface methodology for turning operation. Am J Model Optim 3: 1-6.
[17]	Makadia AJ, Nanavati JI (2013) Optimisation of machining parameters for turning operationsbased on response surface methodology. Measurement 46: 1521-1529. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2012.11.026
[18]	Karthik MS, Raju VR, Reddy KN, et al. (2020) Cutting parameters optimization for surface roughness during dry hard turning of EN 31 bearing steel using CBN insert. Mater Today Proc 26: 1119-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.224
[19]	Davis R, Madhukar JS, Rana VS, et al. (2012) Optimization of cutting parameters in dry turning operation of EN24 steel. IJETAE 2: 559-563.
[20]	Das SR, Nayak RP, Dhupal D, et al. (2014) Surface roughness, machining force and flank wear in turning of hardened AISI 4340 steel with coated carbide insert: Cutting parameters effects. ASE 4: 758-768.
[21]	Lima JG, Avila RF, Abrao AM, et al. (2005) Hard turning: AISI 4340 high strength low alloy steel and AISI D2 cold work tool steel. J Mater Process Tech 169: 388-395. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.082
[22]	Klocke F, Krieg T (1999) Coated tools for metal cutting - features and applications. CIRP Annals 48: 515-525. doi: 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)63231-4
[23]	Prengel HG, Pfouts WR, Santhanam AT (1998) State of the art in hard coatings for carbide cutting tools. Surf Coat Tech 102: 183-190. doi: 10.1016/S0257-8972(96)03061-7
[24]	Dean A, Voss D, Draguljić D (2017) Design and Analysis of Experiments Design of experiment techniques, Springer.
[25]	Trung DD (2020) Influence of cutting parameters on surface roughness during milling AISI 1045 steel. Tribol Ind 42: 568-665.
[26]	Trung DD, Ngoc ND, Hong TT, et al. (2020) Influences of cutting parameters on surface roughness during milling and development of roughness model using Johnson transformation, In: Sattler KU, Nguyen DC, Vu NP, et al., Advances in Engineering Research and Application, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Switzerland: Springer, Cham, 178: 491-450.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)