This article was downloaded by: [American Public University System]

On: 23 April 2013, At: 22:02

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of Titanium

Alloy
a

S. Ramesh , L. Karunamoorthy & K. Palanikumar

Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai,

India
b

Central Workshop, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India

Version of record first published: 23 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: S. Ramesh , L. Karunamoorthy & K. Palanikumar (2008): Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of
Titanium Alloy, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 23:2, 174-181
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10426910701774700

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 23: 174181, 2008

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1042-6914 print/1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426910701774700

Surface Roughness Analysis in Machining of Titanium Alloy

S. Ramesh1 , L. Karunamoorthy2 , and K. Palanikumar1

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India

2
Central Workshop, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India

The use of response surface methodology for minimizing the surface roughness in machining titanium alloy, a topic of current interest, has
been discussed in this article. The surface roughness model has been developed in terms of cutting parameters such as cutting speed, feed, and
depth of cut. Machining tests have been carried out using CVD (TiNTiCNAl2 O3 TiN) coated carbide insert under different cutting conditions
using Taguchis orthogonal array. The experimental results have been investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated
that the feed rate is the main inuencing factor on surface roughness. Surface roughness increased with increasing feed rate, but decreased with
increasing cutting speed and depth of cut. The predicted results are fairly close to experimental values and hence, the developed models can be
used for prediction satisfactorily.
Keywords Analysis of variance (ANOVA); Contour plots; CVD-coated carbide inserts; Linear graph; Machining; Metal cutting; Modeling;
Orthogonal array; Response surface methodology; Response surface plots; SEM studies; Surface roughness; Titanium alloy; Turning.

cutting conditions to obtain a good surface nish. Surface

roughness effect on machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy with 883
inserts at the feed rate of 0.35 mm/rev under dry cutting
conditions is evaluated by Haron et al. [10]. They have
observed low surface roughness with increase of cutting
speed.
Nowadays, response surface methodology is used for
modelling and optimization of surface roughness in
machining. Response surface methodology is more practical
and simple. Optimal machining parameters can be easily
observed using response surface methodology. Suresh
et al. [11] have used response surface method and
genetic algorithm for predicting the surface roughness and
optimizing the process parameters. Kwak [12] has applied
Taguchi response surface methodologies for optimizing
geometric errors in surface grinding process. The response
surface method (RSM) is more practical, economical, and
relatively easy to use [13]. In the present study, effect of
cutting parameters for surface roughness on the machining
of titanium alloy by CVD-coated tool is evaluated and a
second order model is developed for predicting the surface
roughness. The predicted and the measured values are fairly
close, which indicates that the developed model can be
effectively used to predict the surface roughness in the
machining of Titanium alloy.

1. Introduction
Titanium and its alloys are considered as important
engineering materials for industrial applications, because of
excellent combination of properties such as high strength-toweight ratio, good fracture toughness, excellent resistance
to corrosion, and good fatigue resistance. They are widely
used in various elds such as aerospace, marine, biomedical, chemical, and racing. Even though they are used
in a variety of engineering applications, machining for
these materials are difcult to nd [13]. Properties like
high thermal conductivity and chemical reactivity of these
materials with most cutting tools, make titanium hard to
machine. Titanium is quite expensive and widely used for
fabrication and manufacturing. Norihiko et al. [4] machined
titanium alloys and have stated that the cutting force of
the titanium alloy is about one half that of carbon steel.
They have used K10 and natural diamond for machining
of titanium alloys. Bhaumik et al. [5] developed a wBN
and cBN composite tool obtained by high pressure and
high temperature sintering of wurtzite boron nitride powder,
for machining Ti-6Al-4V alloys. They have found that the
surface roughness increased with increase of cutting time.
Nabhani [6] has studied the machinability of aerospace
titanium alloys. Many researchers [79] investigated various
aspects of machining of titanium and its alloys.
Surface nish is an important parameter in manufacturing
engineering. It is a characteristic that can inuence the
performance of mechanical parts and production costs.
Various failures, sometimes catastrophic, leading to high
costs, have been attributed to the surface nish of the
components in question. For these reasons there have been
research developments with the objective of optimizing the

2. Response surface methodology

In Response Surface Methodology (RSM), the factors
that are considered as most important are used to build
a polynomial model in which the independent variable is
the experiments response. The surface nish of machined
titanium alloy parts are important in manufacturing
engineering applications which have considerable effect on
some properties such as wear resistance, light reection,
heat transmission, coating, and resisting fatigue. While
machining, quality of the parts can be achieved only
through proper cutting conditions. In order to know the
surface quality and dimensional properties in advance, it is

Received May 4, 2007; Accepted October 10, 2007

Address correspondence to K. Palanikumar, Department of Mechanical
& Production Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India;
Fax: 91-44-24502344; E-mail: palanikumar_k@yahoo.com

174

175

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

necessary to employ theoretical models, making it feasible

to do prediction of operation conditions [13]. RSM is the
collection of mathematical and statistical techniques that are
useful for the modeling and analysis of problems in which
a response of interest is inuenced by several variables and
the objective is to optimize this response [12].
In many engineering elds, there is a relationship between
an output variable y of interest and a set of controllable
input variables
x1  x2      xn . In some systems, the nature
of the relationship between y and x values may be known.
Then, a model can be written in the form

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

y = f x1  x2      xn  + 

(1)

where  represents noise or error observed in the response

y. If we denote the expected response as

Ey = f x1  x2      xn  = y
then the surface represented by
y = f x1 x2      xn 

(2)

is called response surface. In most of the RSM problems,

the form of relationship between the response and the
independent variable is unknown. Thus the rst step in RSM
is to nd a suitable approximation for the true functional
relationship between y and set of independent variables
employed. Usually a second order model is utilized in
RSM [12, 14, 15]. The  coefcients used in the model
below can be calculated by means of least square method:
y = 0 +

k


i=1

i xi +

k


i=1

ii xi2 +

i

ij xi xj + 

(3)

The second-order model is normally used when the response

function is not known or nonlinear.
3. Experimental details
Experimental design methods are used to conduct
experiments with less number of observations. They
constitute a systematic method concerning the planning of
experiments, collection, and analysis of data with nearoptimum use of available resources. The predominant
cutting parameters affecting the machining of titanium
alloys has been found out before conducting the experiments
such as cutting speed (V ), feed rate (f ) and depth of cut
(d). The level of the factors are decided on the availability
of experimental condition and also based on the literature.
Initially, trials tests are carried out to determine suitable
depth of cut, feed rate, and cutting speeds. Taguchis L27
313  orthogonal array is considered for experimentation
and input parameters are assigned to columns. To avoid
aliasing and overlapping of the interactions with main
factors, columns 1, 2, and 5 have been assigned to the
main cutting parameters cutting speed, feed, and depth
of cut, respectively. The L27 orthogonal array used for
experimentation is given in Table 1. The input parameters

Table 1.L27 Orthogonal array used for experimentation.

L27 313 
Run

10

11

12

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1

are assigned to the columns of orthogonal array based on

linear graph. The linear graph used in this work is presented
in Fig. 1. All the machining experiments have been carried
out on a NAGMATI-175 all geared lathe. The cutting
tool used in the present work is CVD(TiN-TiCN-Al2 O3 TiN) coated carbide tools. All the tools are commercially
available inserts, according to ISO code SNMG 120412MP-TT5030 and have been supplied by TaeguTec. The
workpiece materials used in all the experiments are an
annealed bar of 38 mm diameter and 125 mm length. The
work material used is alpha-beta titanium alloy (Grade 5).
The composition of the material in wt% is 0.022 Mn, 0.01
Cr, 0.02 Mo, 6.18 Al, 0.03 Cu, 0.22 Fe, 3.89 V, 0.01 Zr,
0.05 Sn, and balance 89.58 is titanium. The composition
has been measured using spark emission spectrometer. The
work material is a widely used titanium alloy that offers
high strength, depth hardenability, and elevated temperature

Figure 1.Linear graph used for the experiments.

176

S. RAMESH ET AL.

properties up to 400
C. A turning length of 110 mm has been

maintained constant for all the experiments. For optimizing
the length of the cut in the workpiece, one end is held with
revolving centre and the other end of the workpiece is held
in a headstock chuck. All the turning operations are carried
out in dry cutting conditions. The surface roughness of the
Titanium alloy (Gr 5) has been measured by using Surtronic
3+ stylus type instrument manufactured by Taylor Hobson
with a cut-off length of 0.8 mm. The surface roughness
used in this study is the arithmetic mean average surface
roughness value (Ra), which is mostly used in the industry.
The experiments are repeated for three times and the average
values are used for the analysis. The condition with real
values, coded values of parameters, and experimental results
are presented in Table 2.
Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

Figure 2.Microstructure of Ti-6Al-4V alloy without being cut.

4. Results and discussion

Surface roughness plays an important role in many areas
and is a factor of great importance in the evaluation
of machining accuracy. Although many factors affect the
surface condition of machined part, machining parameters
such as cutting speed, feed, and depth of cut have a
signicant inuence on the surface roughness for a given
machine tool and work piece set-up [16]. Titanium is a
material generally utilized for parts requiring the greatest
reliability and therefore the surface roughness and any
damage to the subsurface layers must be controlled [17].
Figure 2 shows the micrograph of the work piece used
for turning operation. The etchant used for the observation
is 13 ml HF (Hydrouoric Acid), 26 ml HNO3 (Nitric
Acid), and 100 ml H2 O. Figure 3 shows the microstructure
Figure 3.SEM microstructure of Ti-6Al-4V alloy before cutting operation.
Table 2.Experimental design and cutting conditions.
Trial
number

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Cutting speed
V (m/min)

Feed f
(mm/rev)

Depth of cut
d (mm)

V
(m/min)

f
(mm/rev)

d
(mm)

Ave Ra ,
m

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

0.13
0.13
0.13
0.179
0.179
0.179
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.179
0.179
0.179
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.179
0.179
0.179
0.22
0.22
0.22

0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00

1.77
1.79
1.78
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.55
2.59
2.61
1.49
1.50
1.52
1.85
1.87
1.91
2.27
2.32
2.33
1.36
1.40
1.41
1.66
1.72
1.72
1.82
1.85
1.86

177

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

Figure 4.SEM surface prole in experimental condition (Expt. No. 12).

of titanium alloy. The micrograph is taken using scanning

electron microscope (SEM). Figure 4 shows the SEM
micrograph of the machined specimen. The surface prole
is observed at selected experimental condition. Figure 5
shows the SEM micrograph of surface observed at minimal
surface roughness condition (see Table 2, trial No. 19).
From the gures, it can be observed that the minimal surface
roughness condition produces good surface prole.
Figure 6(a) shows the SEM micrograph of top surface of a
chip during the machining of titanium alloy. The micrograph
shows voids and deposits on the surface of the chip. The saw
tooth type chip formed during the machining of titanium
alloy is shown in Fig. 6(b). The results from the machining
trials, performed as per the experimental plan, are shown
in Table 2. These results are fed into the Design Expert
software v7 [18] for analysis. Without performing any
transformation on the response, examination of t summary
output revealed that the two-factor interaction (2FI) model
is statistically signicant for the surface roughness response
and therefore, it has been used for further analysis.
4.1. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to check the
adequacy of the proposed quadratic model. Table 3 shows

Figure 5.SEM surface prole observed at minimal surfacecondition (Expt

No. 19).

the ANOVA table for response surface quadratic model for

surface roughness.
The value of Prob>F in Table 3 for model is less than
0.05 which indicates that the model is adequately signicant
at 95% condence level, which is desirable as it indicates
that the terms in the model have a signicant effect on the
response. Similarly, the main effect of feed f , cutting
speed V , and two-level interaction of cutting speed and
feed Vf  are signicant model terms. Other model terms
are not signicant. The main effect of feed is the most
signicant factor associated with surface roughness. This
is expected because it is well known that for a given tool
nose radius, the classical surface roughness is primarily a
function of the feed [19].
The effectiveness of the model has been checked by
using the R2 value. In the present work, the R2 value is
0.98 which is very close to 1 and hence the model is very
effective. The Pred-R2 is in reasonable agreement with
the Adj R2 . The Adj R2 value is particularly useful
when comparing models with different number of term.
However, this comparison is done in the background when
the model reduction is taking place. Adequate precision
(Adeq Precision) measures the signal-to-noise ratio.
Adeq Precision compares the range of the predicted values
at the design points to the average prediction error. Ratios
greater than 4 indicate adequate model discrimination. In
this particular case, the value is well above 4.
4.2. Response Surface Model
The empirical two factor interaction model developed for
surface roughness (Ra  during the machining of titanium
alloy (Grade 5) is given below:
Ra = 04258 + 00025 V  + 130647 f 
00645 d 00970 V f 
+ 0001 V d + 05201 f d

(4)

The diagnostic checking of the model has been carried

out using residual analysis and the results are presented
in Figs. 79. In the gures, the color point indicates the
value of Surface Roughness. The normal probability plot is
presented in Fig. 7. The gure revealed that the residuals
fall on a straight line implying that the errors are distributed
normally. Figure 8 shows the standardized residuals with
respect to the predicted values. The residuals do not show
any obvious pattern and are distributed in both positive
and negative directions. This implies that the model is
adequate and there is no reason to suspect any violation
of the independence or constant variance assumption. The
relation between the experimental and the predicted values
are shown in Fig. 9. The experimental values are very close
to the predicted values. From the gure, it has been seen
that most of the points are close to the center line and hence
this empirical model provides reliable prediction.
The analysis of response variable surface roughness can
be explained through contour and surface plots. The typical
three-dimensional (3D) surface plots and two-dimensional
(2D) contour plots for surface roughness in terms of the
process variable are shown in Figs. 1015. Equation (4) is

178

S. RAMESH ET AL.

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

Figure 6.Chip observed during machining.

Table 3.Results of the analysis of variance for surface nish.
ANOVA for Response Surface 2FI Model
Source

Model
V -Cutting speed
f -Feed rate
d-Depth of cut
Vf
Vd
fd
Residual
Cor total
SD
Mean
C.V. %
PRESS

Sum of squares

3.5862
1.3547
2.1243
0.0084
0.0915
0.0003
0.0004
0.0525
3.6387
0.051
1.91
2.68
0.093

df

Mean square

6
0.5977
1
1.3547
1
2.1243
1
0.0084
1
0.0915
1
0.0003
1
0.0004
20
0.0026
26
R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
Adeq Precision

F value

p-value prob > F

227.6101
515.8965
808.9498
3.2047
34.8478
0.1142
0.1565

<00001
<00001
<00001
0.0886
<00001
0.7389
0.6966

0.98
0.98
0.97
49.01

plotted in Figs. 1012 as contours for each of the response

surfaces at different depth of cuts. These response contours
can help in the prediction of surface roughness at any zone
of the experimental domain [14, 15]. It is clear from these
gures that the surface roughness reduces with the increase

of cutting speed. However, it increases with the increase of

feed and depth of cut. The surface plot shows the inuence
of different machining variables, keeping the other variables
at constant levels [20].

Figure 7.Normal probability plot of residuals.

Figure 8.Plot of residuals vs. predicted response.

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Figure 9.Predicted and experimental values for surface roughness.

179

Figure 11.Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-0.75 mm).

Figure 13 illustrates the surface model for surface

roughness by varying the two variables cutting speed,
and feed and keeping the third parameter depth of cut
at constant level. The gure indicates that the surface
roughness increases with increase of feed. Contrary to
the feed, the surface roughness increases with decrease of
cutting speed. Figure 14 shows the effect of cutting speed
with respect to depth of cut on surface roughness. From the
gure, it has been asserted that the increase of cutting speed
reduces the surface roughness, whereas the increase of depth
of cut increases the surface roughness. Figure 15 shows the
inuence of feed and depth of cut on surface roughness by
keeping the cutting speed at middle level. From the gure,
it can be asserted that the increases in feed and depth of
cut increase the surface roughness. This is attributed to the
increases in the thermal load and vibration on the machine
tool.
Figure 12.Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-1.00 mm).

Figure 10.Estimated contour plots for surface roughness (DOC-0.5 mm).

Figure 13.Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness

(Ra vs. V and f ).

180

S. RAMESH ET AL.

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

The effectiveness of the model has been checked by

validation with experimental results. In order to verify the
adequacy of the model developed, ve conrmation run
experiments have been performed (Fig. 16) at different
cutting conditions. The test condition for the rst three
validation run experiments are among the cutting conditions
that are performed previously while the remaining two
validation run experiments are the conditions that have not
been used previously.
The experimental results have been validated by asserting
that the predicted values are very close to each other and
hence, the developed models are suitable for predicting the
surface roughness in machining of titanium alloy.

Figure 14.Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness

(Ra vs. V and d).

Figure 15.Estimated 3D response surface plot for surface roughness

(Ra vs. f and d).

5. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the
experimental results during the machining of titanium alloy
using CVD (TiNTiCNAl2 O3 TiN)-coated carbide inserts
under different cutting conditions:
1. The two-factor interaction model for surface roughness
has been developed using response surface methodology.
2. The established equations clearly show that the feed is
the factor which inuences surface roughness followed
by cutting speed.
3. The surface roughness increases with increasing feed but
decreased with increasing cutting speed.
4. The variance analysis for the two factor interaction
model shows that the depth of cut is the least signicant
parameter.
5. The predicted and the measured values are satisfactorily
close to each other which indicates that the developed
surface roughness prediction model can be effectively
used for predicting the surface roughness during the
machining of titanium alloy with 95% condent level.
6. Using such models, a remarkable savings in time and
cost can be achieved.

Figure 16.Comparison of the experimental and the predicted values for surface roughness.

181

SURFACE ROUGHNESS ANALYSIS

Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 22:02 23 April 2013

References
1. Komanduri, R. Some clarications on the mechanics of chip
formation when machining titanium alloys. Wear 1982; 76,
1534.
2. Komanduri, R.; Reed, W.R., Jr. Evaluation of carbide grades
and a new cutting geometry for machining titanium alloys. Wear
1983, 92, 113123.
3. Komanduri, R.; Von Turkovich, B.F. New observations on the
mechanism of chip formation when machining titanium alloys.
Wear 1981, 69, 179188.
4. Narutaki, N.; Murakoshi, A.; Motonishi, S. Study on machining
of titanium alloys. Annals of the CIRP 1983, 32 (1), 6569.
5. Bhaumik, S.K.; Divakar, C.; Singh, A.K. Machining Ti-6Al-4V
alloy with a wBN-cBN composite tool. Materials & Design 1995,
16 (4), 221226.
6. Farhad, N. Machining of aerospace titanium alloys. Robotics and
CIM 2001, 17, 99106.
7. Hartung, P.D.; Kramer, B.M.; Von Turkovich, B.F. Tool wear in
titanium machining. Annals of the CIRP 1982, 31 (1), 7580.
8. Che-Haron, C.H. Tool life and surface integrity in turning
titanium alloy. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2001,
118, 231237.
9. Rahman, M.; Wong, Y.S.; Rahmath Zareena, A. Machining of
Titanium Alloys; Proceedings of ICM-2002, Dhaka, BUET, 1,
pp. 2232.
10. Che-Haron, C.H.; Jawaid, A. The effect of machining on surface
integrity of titanium alloy Ti6% Al4% V. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 2005, 166, 188192.
11. Suresh, P.V.S.; Venkateswara Rao, P.; Deshmukh, S.G. A genetic
algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.

prediction model. International Journal of Machine Tools &

Manufacture 2002, 42, 675680.
Kwak, J.-S. Application of Taguchi and response surface
methodologies for geometric error in surface grinding process.
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2005, 45,
327334.
Sahin, Y.; Motorcu, A.R. Surface roughness model for
machining mild steel. Materials and Design. In Press.
doi:10.1016/s.matdes2004.05.008.
Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments; 4th Ed.
John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1997.
Palanikumar, K. Application of Taguchi and response surface
methodologies for surface roughness in machining glass ber
reinforced plastics by PCD tooling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
In Press. doi 10.1007/s00170-006-0811-0.
Palanikumar, K.; Karthikeyan, R. Assessment of factors inuencing surface roughness on the machining of Al/Sic particulate
composites. Material and Design 2007, 28, 15841591.
Ezugwu, E.O.; Wang, Z.M. Titanium alloys and their
machinabilitya review. J. Materials Processing Tech. 1997, 68,
262274.
Design-Expert Software. Trial Version 7, Users Technical
Manual, Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 2006.
Shaw, M.C. Metal Cutting Principles; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, 1984.
Ramesh, S.; Karunamoorthy, L.; Ramakrishnan, R. Modeling for
Prediction of Surface Roughness in Machining of Ti64 Alloy by
CVD Coated Inserts; Proceedings of International Conference
on Advances in Materials Processing and Characterisation
(AMPC2006), Anna University, Chennai, India, Aug. 2830,
2006, pp. 253261.