Full Article

OPTIMIZING DRILLING INDUCED DELAMINATION IN GFRP

COMPOSITES USING GENETIC ALGORITHM & PARTICLE SWARM
OPTIMISATION

K.Kalita1*, P. K. Mallick2 A.K. Bhoi3, R. K.Ghadai4

1
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering & Applied Mechanics, IIEST Shibpur, India 711103.
2
Dept. of Computer Science, Vignana Bharathi Institute of Technology, India 501301.
3
Dept. of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Sikkim, India 737136.
4
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Sikkim, India 737136.

Received 14 August 2017; Accepted 25 September 2017

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: kanakkalita02@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Composites are widely used in several applications ranging from automotive to aircraft industry due to their
high strength to weight ratio. More often than not drilling on these composite laminates are conducted to serve
some functional or aesthetic requirement. Delamination caused due to drilling pose a severe problem to the
integrity of the structure. It is often not possible to develop an exact mathematical model to predict the delami-
nation associated with such drilling. So, in this paper, an empirical model is developed based on the extensive
experiments performed on polyester composite reinforced with chopped fibreglass. To account for the various
parameters a Box-Behnken design of experiments is conducted for four parameters (material thickness, drill
diameter, spindle speed, and feed rate) each having threedistinct levels. Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) techniques are then used for predicting the global optimum (minimum delamina-
tion factor). The performance of both GA and PSO in terms of predicting the global optimum is found to be
same. However, PSO converged much faster and required far lesser computational time.
Keywords: Box-Behnken design, Drilling, GFRP composite, Response surface methodology (RSM), GA

1. INTRODUCTION tion free drilling of composites [2]. Bagci and Isik

Nowadays, GFRP composites are being preferred
over conventional materials in a variety of engi-
neering applications because of their high strength-
to-weight ratios, thehigh value of stiffness and
excellent corrosion resistance. So, it is essential
to understand the machining behaviour of GFRP
composites. Several hole-making processes, such as
conventional drilling, laser beam drilling, water-jet
drilling, ultrasonic drilling, etc. have been proposed
in industry, but conventional drilling remains most
preferred and adopted technique in the industry even
today because of the greater economy. Thus, funda-
mental understanding on machining of GFRP com-
posites is essential to perform controlled machining
assessments under drilling processes. GFRP drilling
is acritical machining operation for theassembling
of the components in the manufacturing industries,
particularly in automobile and aerospace industries.
Delamination and surface roughness are the ma-
jor problems associated with the drilling of fibre
reinforced composite, which results in failure of
the materials [1]. Singh et al. in an effort tomini-
mize the damage induced in adrilling operation and
concluded that a mathematical model consisting
of thrust force, torque and feed rate coupled with
a suitable control law couldbe used for delamina-
investigated the effect of process parameters such as
cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate in orthogo-
nal cutting tests on unidirectional glass fibre rein-
forced polymers (GFRP), using Cermet tools[3].
Abhishek et al. explored NSGA II for the selection
of optimal process parameters during machining of
GFRP composites and developed a set of optimal
non-dominated solutions which gives the manufac-
turer more flexibility in decision making in machin-
ing process [4]. Rawat and Attia have investigated
the influence of feed rate and speed on the damage
mechanisms like delamination, surface roughness,
thermal damage and hole circularity in thedrilling of
carbon fibre composites using machinability maps.
They observed that the effect of tool wear couldbe
established due to changes in the thrust and cutting
forces using the quality maps [5]. Krishnamoorthy
et al. established a second-order mathematical tech-
nique using response surface methodology (RSM)
for the predictingdelamination in the drilling of
CFRP composites by using carbide tool [6]. Latha
et al. [7] performed multiple regression analysis to
model the drilling parameters involved in thedrill-
ing of GFRP composites. They concluded that feed
rate and drill diameter are the most influential pa-
rameters. Gao et al. developed a [8] (3D) microme-

Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018 1

 K.Kalita, P. K. Mallick, A.K. Bhoi, R. K.Ghadai
chanical finite element model to study the machin- problem and the progress made so faris presented
ing of fibre-reinforced composites. Feito [9] tried to in section 1. Section 2 provides a brief description
optimise the drilling of composites by using a multi- of the methods used namely, response surface meth-
objective optimisation approach. A similar study has odology (RSM),genetic algorithm (GA) and particle
been conducted by Ramprasath et al. [10] to predict swarm optimisation (PSO). Section 3 covers the de-
optimum mechanical properties in composites. Jay- scription regarding the work material and the exper-
abal and Natarajan [11] used an L9 orthogonal ar- iments performed. The statistical analysis of the ex-
ray constituting the effect of drill diameter, spindle periments and formation of the mathematical model
speed and feed rate on thrust force, tool wear etc. is covered in section 4. Section 4 also highlights the
72
while drilling a coir–fibre-reinforced polyester com-
72 presented
use of GA in
presented and
in
section
PSO 1.
section as Section
1. suitable22optimisation
Section
provides a brief
tech-description
provides a brief
of
description of
posite. 73
72 niques forin the
methodology
presented current
section problem.
(RSM),genetic
1. Section Some (GA)
2algorithm
provides aconclusions
briefand particleofswarm
description the m
73 methodology (RSM),genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm
73
74 based on the
methodology study are
(RSM),genetic
description regarding
drawn in the
algorithm
the work
final
(GA)
material
part
and and
of the
particle swarm
the experiments optim
perform
74
To screen and classify the different factors involved description regarding the work material and the experiments perform
manuscript.
74
75 description regarding
and formation of thethemathematical
work materialmodel
and the
is experiments performed.
covered in section Th
4. Sec
in any such process, parameter optimisation is of- 75 and formation of the mathematical model is covered in section 4. Sec
ten carried out. However, before applying any such75
76 and
2. formationoptimisation
asMETHODOLOGY
suitable of the mathematical model
techniques foristhe
covered in problem.
current section 4. Some
Sectionco4
76 as suitable optimisation techniques for the current problem. Some co
technique, rigorous experimentation is needed. Fur-
76
77 2.1 Response
asfinal
suitable theSurface
optimisation
part of Methodology
techniques
manuscript. for the current problem. Some conclusi
ther, to draw meaningful conclusions from these ex-77 final
Response part of the
surfacemanuscript.
methodology (RSM) generates
77 final part of the manuscript.
78
periments, it is necessary that these experiments are
78 an approximate equation relating the independent
78
statistically significant.The design of experiments79
79 (input) 2. parameters
METHODOLOGY to the dependent (output) param-
79 2.2. METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
based on response surface method (RSM) is perhaps 80 eters [14].2.1 The inherent
Response statistical
Surface and mathematical
Methodology
the most favoured ones because often far lesser 80 80
tri- analysis 2.1
2.1fitsResponse
Response Surface
Surface
an equation Methodology
ofMethodology
the following form,
81
81 Response surface methodology (RSM) generates an approximate
als are needed as compared to a full factorial de-81 Responsesurface
Response surfacemethodology
methodology (RSM)
(RSM) generates
generates an approximate
an approximate equa
82
sign. However, developing a statistically significant
82 parameters
y=f (x1,x2,xto3to
parameters
the dependent
,…….x
to
(output) parameters [14].
)+ε (output) (1) The inherent
82 parameters thethedependent
dependent
n (output) parameters
parameters [14].[14]. The inherent
The inherent statis
model is a much easier task as compared to search- 83 equation of the following form,
83
83 equationofofthethe
equation following
following form,
form,
ing a 3 or more-factor domain for maximising or Here, f denotes the approximate response surface
minimising an output response [12]. It is physically and ε is the normally distributed statistical error. x
impossible to perform experiments to determine84 84
an
84 Here, denotes
Here, denotes
represents each
Here, denotes thethe approximate
independent
approximate
the
response
parameter
response
approximate response
surface
and and
while
surface
surface theis
nis is
and
the normall
isnormally distr
the normall
optimum parameter setting. This is where evolution-85
85 the maximum
independent number
independentparameter
parameter of
while independent
whileis the
is the parameters.
maximum
maximum number
number of independe
of independent par
85 independent parameter while is the maximum number of independe
ary algorithms like genetic algorithm (GA) and par- In general, one of the following models may be fit-
86
86 modelsmay
models maybebe fitted,
fitted,
ticle swarm optimisation (PSO) comes handy. GA86 is models may be fitted,
ted,
87
a computer-based search algorithm suitable at opti-87 First-order
First-ordermodel:
model:
87 First-order model:
mising a variety of functions. Compared to GA, the
PSO is arelatively much newer evolutionary algo- (2)
rithm and like GA starts by randomly implementing
88 First-order model with interaction:
a set of possible solution (particles). By encoding88
88
First-order model with interaction:
First-order model with interaction:
the design variables as bits, GA is inherently dis-
crete whereas PSO is inherently continuous [13]. (3)
The fundamental difference in both the algorithms
89
lies in the fact that GA relies on genetic operators Second-order model:
89
89 Second-order model:
Second-order model:
whereas PSO relies on its memory of previous gen-
eration’s velocity and position. (4)
Although there have been some notable contribu-
tions in the field of drilling in FRP composites, 90
there is still some lacuna which presentsan excel- 90
91
90 2.2 Genetic Algorithm
2.2 Genetic Algorithm
lent scope for study. One of the key areas where 91
92
91 GA
GA is isgood
good at taking
2.2 atGenetic substantial
Algorithm
2.2 Genetic substantial
taking Algorithm searchsearch spaces
spaces and and them, looking
navigating
there is still much scope of work to be done is 93the
92 navigating
GApredicting
and them, looking
is good atsolutions.
taking substantialfor optimal
However, itsearch combinations
spaces
is not just and navigating
looking for the ‘best'them, lo
solutio
drilling of chopped GFRP laminates, as very little 92 ofGA is good at and
parameters taking substantial
predicting search
solutions.spaces and navigating
However, it them, lo
93
94 and predicting
rated solutions.
against certain fitness However,
benchmark.itThus,
is notitjust looking
searches forfor the ‘best'
global fitnesss
work has been done on this material amongst all the93 isand
notpredicting
just looking for the
solutions. ‘best’itsolution;
However, is not justitlooking
looks for the ‘best' s
FRP laminates. Hence in this research, an attempt9594
is
94
on
for Darwin's
rated
a against
good principle
andcertain
robustof natural
fitness selection
benchmark.
solution rated [15].The GA
Thus, itcertain
against beginsfor
searches
rated against certain fitness benchmark. Thus, it searches for global f
with a popu
global f
made to select the optimal parametric combination 96
95 fitness
where benchmark.
each
on Darwin's structure
principle Thus,
encodes ita solution
of naturalsearches to for
selection global
specifiedfit-
the[15].The GAoptimisation
begins with prob
95 on Darwin's principle of natural selection [15].The GA begins with
for drilling of polyester composite reinforced with
97 ness
During by circumventing local optima. It works on
96 where each
each generation, the Genetic
structure encodes Algorithm
a solution improves
to the specified the optimisatio
structures i
chopped fibreglass for reducing the delamination. 96 where eachprinciple
Darwin’s structure of encodes
natural a solution
selectionto the specified optimisatio
[15].The
98
97 selection followed by crossover, followed by mutation.
During each generation, the Genetic Algorithm improves the struct
The manuscript is arranged in the following form. 97 GA begins
During with
each a population
generation, of randomly
the Genetic generated
Algorithm improves the struct
A brief overview regarding the motivation of the 99 structures where each structurefollowed
encodesbyamutation.
solution
98
98 selection followed by crossover,
selection followed by crossover, followed by mutation.
100 2.3 Particle Swarm Optimization
99
99
2 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018
100
100 2.3 Particle Swarm Optimization
2.3 Particle Swarm Optimization
3|Page
 122 diameter and D0, 110
nominal diameter at some
occurs for the entrance of the drillnumber
predetermined hole. Aofschematic diagram for calculating th
iterations.
123 delamination factor is shown in Fig. 1. To reduce any experimental error, each reading is repeatedthrice, and th
111
124 average value is considered. The following formula then calculates the delamination factor,
112 3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Optimizing Drilling Induced Delamination in GFRP Composites using GA & PSO (5)
113 3.1 Work material & equipment
to the specified optimisation problem. It proceeds
114to Polyester composite reinforced with chopped fibreglass is taken as the w
evolve generations. During each generation, the115
Ge- The composite laminates are prepared by using the hand layup technique.
netic Algorithm improves the structures in its cur-
rent population by performing selection followed116by hardener in the polyester matrix, which is reinforced by an E-glass, chopp
crossover, followed by mutation. 117 mm X 150 mm are used in the experiment. The laminates had a glass fibr
118 70 MPa and Barcol hardness 40.5. High-speed steel (HSS) taper shank
2.3 Particle Swarm Optimization
119 make with twist drills of diameter 10 mm, 12 mm and 14 mm of G
Another popular heuristic optimiser is Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO). GA is an evolutionary 120 movements of the workpiece are avoided by using a clamping system to p
algorithm whereas PSO is a swarm intelligence121 al- microscope with a 30X magnification of Carl Zeiss Ltd make is used to m
gorithm[16]. PSO is an algorithm that was first used
122 diameter and D0, nominal diameter at the entrance of the drill hole.
to model the social behaviour of birds and fish in
nature [17]. It has since 125 123
developed into a widely delamination factor is shown in Fig. 1. To reduce any experimental erro
researched algorithm to approximate solutions 124to Fig.value
average 1. Schematic of delamination
is considered. factor
The following (Fd) then calculates the del
formula
many kinds of problems. It works 4 | Pby
a gfirst
e assum-

ing a swarm of ‘n’ particles. In the beginning, these (5)
particles are semi-randomly distributed throughout
the search space. Each particle starts off with a ran- 3.2 Experimental planning
dom velocity. After a pre-set amount of time, every In this paper, the Box-Behnken method of RSM
particle in the swarm notes its current position and design is used. These designs are far more compe-
measures the fitness. If it is lower than any fitness,126
it Fig. 1. Schematic of delamination
tent than the conventional 3k factorial designs. Four
has personally seen before, it will remember. At this 127 parameters namely, material thickness (t), drill di-
point every particle gets to decide if it wants to ex-128 ameter (D), 3.2 spindle speedplanning
Experimental (N) and feed rate (f) are
plore more, to head toward either the personal best studied to find their effect on delamination in GFRP
or the global best. Their velocity is adjusted accord-129 In this paper, the Box-Behnken method of RSM design is used. These de
composite. Each parameter is coded into three lev-
ingly. This occurs for some predetermined number 130 conventional 3k factorial designs. Four parameters namely, material thickne
els -1, 0 and 1. Table 1 shows the input parameters
of iterations. 131 and(N)their
and feed rateconsidered.
levels (f) are studied to find
The their effect on
experimental rundelamination in GFR
132 sequence based
into three levelson
-1,the Box-Behnken
0 and RSM
1. Table 1 shows thedesign is
input parameters and their l
3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS shown in Table 2.
133 sequence based on the Box-Behnken RSM design is shown in Table 2.
3.1 Work material & equipment
Polyester composite reinforced with chopped fibre- 134 Table 1. Process parameters and levels considered
125 Table 1: Process parameters and levels considered
glass is taken as the work material in the current in-
Factors Levels
vestigation. The composite laminates are prepared
by using the hand layup technique. Methyl ethyl ke- 4 |Symbol
Page Unit -1 0 1
tone peroxide is used as a hardener in the polyester Material thickness (t) mm 8 12 16
matrix, which is reinforced by an E-glass, chopped Drill diameter (D) mm 10 12 14
strand mat. Square samples of size 150 mm X 150
mm are used in the experiment. The laminates had a Spindle speed (N) rpm 400 800 1100
glass fibre volume fraction of 0.33, tensile strength Feed rate (f) mm/rev 0.1 0.175 0.275
70 MPa and Barcol hardness 40.5. High-speed steel 135
(HSS) taper shank twist drills of Addison & Co. Ltd.,
136 Table 2. Design matrix and experimental values
India make with twist drills of diameter 10 mm, 12 4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
mm and 14 mm of Grade M2 are used. The vibra- 4.1 RSMTrial No. mathematical
based t (mm) model D (mm) N (rpm)
tions/axial movements of the workpiece are avoided The performed
1 experiments8 based on the 10 RSM de- 800
by using a clamping system to perform the drillings. sign are used
2 for fitting a mathematical
16 model
10 to de- 800
A make toolmakers’ microscope with a 30X mag- scribe the delamination factor in GFRP composites
3 8 14 800
nification of Carl Zeiss Ltd make is used to mea- approximately. A standard statistical software pack-
sure the parameters Dmax, i.e. maximum diameter 4
age DESIGN-EXPERT TM 16 14
is used for performing the 800
and D0, nominal diameter at the entrance of the drill regression5analysis. 12 12 400
hole. A schematic diagram for calculating the de- 6 12 12 1100
lamination factor is shown in Fig. 1. To reduce any For the sake of brevity, the ANOVA for the full qua-
7 12 12 400
experimental error, each reading is repeated thrice, dratic delamination factor model is not presented
and the average value is considered. The following 8 3 presents the12ANOVA results
here. Table 12 for re- 1100
formula then calculates the delamination factor, duced quadratic
9 response surface
8 model for
12delami- 800
10 16 12 800
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018 3
11 8 12 800
12 16 12 800
13 12 10 400
 Drill diameter (D) mm 10 12 14
Spindle speed (N) rpm 400 800 1100
Feed rate (f) mm/rev 0.1 0.175 0.275
K.Kalita, P. K. Mallick, A.K. Bhoi, R. K.Ghadai
135
Table 2: Design matrix and experimental values
136 Table 2. Design matrix and experimental values
Trial No. t (mm) D (mm) N (rpm) f (mm/rev) Fd
1 8 10 800 0.175 1.2622
2 16 10 800 0.175 1.1768
3 8 14 800 0.175 1.2762
4 16 14 800 0.175 1.1867
5 12 12 400 0.1 1.1527
6 12 12 1100 0.1 1.1643
7 12 12 400 0.275 1.2503
8 12 12 1100 0.275 1.2934
9 8 12 800 0.1 1.2789
10 16 12 800 0.1 1.1324
11 8 12 800 0.275 1.3643
12 16 12 800 0.275 1.2530
13 12 10 400 0.175 1.2264
14 12 14 400 0.175 1.2157
15 12 10 1100 0.175 1.2202
16 12 14 1100 0.175 1.2406
17 8 12 400 0.175 1.2868
18 16 12 400 0.175 1.1523
19 8 12 1100 0.175 1.2536
5 | P a g20e 16 12 1100 0.175 1.1660
21 12 10 800 0.1 1.1617
22 12 14 800 0.1 1.1956
23 12 10 800 0.275 1.2647
24 12 14 800 0.275 1.2908
25 12 12 800 0.175 1.2099
26 12 12 800 0.175 1.2099
27 12 12 800 0.175 1.2099
28 12 12 800 0.175 1.2099
29 12 12 800 0.175 1.2099
137
145138 For the4.sake
RESULTS & the
of brevity, DISCUSSION
ANOVA for the full quadratic delamination factor model is not presented here. Table 3
146139 presents 3.1theRSM
ANOVAbased results
mathematical modelquadratic response surface model for delamination factor. It is seen that the
for reduced
nation factor. It is seen that the model has high R2 terms are significant. Also, the signal to noise ratio,
147140and The has
adj. performed
model R2.high Rexperiments
A rule
2
and adj. R2based
of thumb .A ruleonof
is that the
the RSMisdesign
thumb
adjusted R2theare
that used forRfitting
adjusted
i.e.
2 a mathematical
and predicted
the adequate precision model
R2isvalues to describe
should
stronger be within
in the the20%
reduced
148141and
of delamination
predicted
each Rfactor
2
other, which is in
values well GFRP
should composites
beinwithin
satisfied approximately.
20%
this case. TheofModel A standard
quadratic
F-value model. statistical
of 32.17 Thus, software
the
implies package
reduced
the model DESIGN-
quadratic
is model
significant. There
142eachEXPERT
other, which
TM
is for
is used well satisfiedtheinregression
performing this case.analysis.
The is accepted and yield the following empirical equa-
149 is only a 0.01% chance that an F-value this large could occur due to noise. Values of Prob > F is less than 0.0500
143Model F-value
Table 3. ANOVA of 32.17
table implies the surface
for response model reduced
is signifi- tiondelamination
quadratic to measurefactor
delamination
model factor,
150 cant.
signifying
There that the model
is only a 0.01% terms are significant.
chance Also, the signal to noise ratio, i.e. the adequate precision is stronger
that an F-value
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Prob > F
151 thisin large could quadratic
the reduced occur duemodel.to noise.
Thus,Values of Prob
the reduced Fig. 2model
quadratic shows is aaccepted
normal and probability
yield theplot of externally
following empirical
> F Model
is less than 0.0500 signifying 0.0745
that the 9
model 0.0083
studentized 32.1683 for delamination
residuals 0.0000 significant
factor. It is
152 equation to measure delamination factor,
Material thickness (t) 0.0362 1 0.0362 140.8423 0.0000
(6)
Drill diameter (D) 0.0007 1 0.0007 2.8380 0.1084
Spindle speed (N) 0.0004 1 0.0004 1.4548 0.2426
153 Fig. 2 shows a normal probability plot of externally studentized residuals for delamination factor. It is seen that most
4 Feed rate (f) 0.0313 1 0.0313Advanced121.7635 0.0000Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018
Composites Letters,
154 of the residual data points lie on a line or very close to it which means that the errors are normally distributed.
tN 0.0006 1 0.0006 2.1584 0.0158
155 Further, there is no cluster of residuals at one place which means that there are no ties in the data, thus implying that
Nf 0.0003 1 0.0003 1.1594 0.0295
156 the2measuring resolution is adequate. Also, no significant outliers are seen in the plot. Fig. 3 shows the variation of
 138 4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
139 3.1 RSM based mathematical model
140 The performed experiments based on the RSM design are used for fitting a mathematical model to describe the
141 Optimizing
delamination Drilling
factor Induced
in GFRP Delamination
composites approximately.inAGFRP
standardComposites usingpackage
statistical software GA & PSO
DESIGN-
142 EXPERTTMis used for performing the regression analysis.
Table 3: ANOVA table for response surface reduced quadratic delamination factor model
143 Table 3. ANOVA table for response surface reduced quadratic delamination factor model
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Prob > F
Model 0.0745 9 0.0083 32.1683 0.0000 significant
Material thickness (t) 0.0362 1 0.0362 140.8423 0.0000
Drill diameter (D) 0.0007 1 0.0007 2.8380 0.1084
Spindle speed (N) 0.0004 1 0.0004 1.4548 0.2426
Feed rate (f) 0.0313 1 0.0313 121.7635 0.0000
tN 0.0006 1 0.0006 2.1584 0.0158
Nf 0.0003 1 0.0003 1.1594 0.0295
2
t 0.0019 1 0.0019 7.3195 0.0140
D2 0.0004 1 0.0004 1.5837 0.0223
f2 0.0008 1 0.0008 3.0506 0.0969
145 For the sake of brevity, the ANOVA for
Residual the full quadratic
0.0049 19 delamination factor model is not presented here. Table 3
0.0003

146 presents the ANOVA

Lack of Fit results for reduced quadratic15response
0.0049 surface model for delamination factor. It is seen that the
0.0003
Std. Dev. 0.0160 R2 93.84%
147 model has high R2 and adj. R2.A rule of thumb is that the adjusted R2 and predicted R22 values should be within 20%
Mean 1.2247 Adj. R 90.92%
148 of each other,C.V.
which
% is well satisfied in1.3097
this case. The Model F-value of 32.17 implies
Pred. R2the model is significant. There
82.70%
149 is only a 0.01% chance that an F-value
PRESS this large could occur due to noise. Values
0.0137 of Prob >22.72
Adeq. Precision F is less than 0.0500
144
150 signifying that the model terms are significant. Also, the signal to noise ratio, i.e. the adequate precision is stronger
151 seen thatreduced
in the most ofquadratic
the residual
model.data
Thus,points lie on aquadratic
the reduced Fig. 4model
showsisthe interaction
accepted effect
and yield theoffollowing
material empirical
thick-
line or very close6 | P to
a g it
e which means that the errors ness and spindle speed on delamination factor at
152 areequation
normally to measure delamination
distributed. Further, factor,
there is no cluster various levels of feed rate and drill diameter. In gen-
of residuals at one place which means that there are eral, delamination factor increases with increase (6) in
no ties in the data, thus implying that the measuring feed rate. Behera et al. [18] and Rubio et al. [19] has
resolution is adequate. Also, no significant outliers also reported a similar trend. This isbecause higher
153 areFig. 2 shows
seen in thea plot.
normalFig.probability
3 shows plot
theof variation
externally of
studentized residuals for delamination factor. It is seen that most
feed rate induces higher thrust forces, thereby caus-
154 predicted response
of the residual dataversus theonexternally
points lie studen-
a line or very close toing
it more
which delamination.
means that the Also,
errors the
are material
normally removal
distributed.
155 tized residuals
Further, there for
is nodelamination factor.atThe
cluster of residuals one random
place whichrate andthat
means thethere
contact surface
are no ties in increases at the
the data, thus higherthat
implying
scatter of the data points in Fig 3 suggest that the feed which is responsible for the additional delami-
156 the measuring resolution is adequate. Also, no significant outliers are seen in the plot. Fig. 3 shows the variation of
assumption of constant variance is not violated in nation. It is also seen that the delamination increas-
157 thepredicted
present response versusthe
model. Thus, the proposed
externally model
studentized residuals
is ad- es asfor
thedelamination factor.
drill diameter areThe random scatter
increased, given of theall
that data
158 equate.
pointsUsing
in Fig the reduced
3 suggest thatquadratic response
the assumption sur- other
of constant parameters
variance are keptinsame.
is not violated The greater
the present model.contact
Thus, the
face model, the effect of the process parameters on and larger thrust force due to larger drill diameter
159 proposed model is adequate. Using the reduced quadratic response surface model, the effect of the process
delamination factor is investigated. are responsible for this.
160 parameters on delamination factor is investigated.

Fig.
Fig.2: Normal probability
2. Normal plot of plot
probability residuals for delami-for Fig.
of residuals Fig.3: Residuals vs predicted
3. Residuals response forresponse
vs predicted delamination
for
nation factor factor
delamination factor delamination factor
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018 5
 181 contradiction is perhaps the fact that the +1 level, i.e. the higher level considered by Srinivasan et al.[22] is 5000

K.Kalita,
182P. K.
rpmMallick, A.K.
whereas in the Bhoi,
current study R.
the K.Ghadai
upper level is at merely 1100 rpm. Also, it is worth mentioning here that
183 Srinivasan et al.[22] had used a polypropylene matrix as compared to thepolyester matrix utilized in this study.

Fig. 4. Interaction effect of spindle speed (N) and material thickness (t) on delamination factor
Fig. at5.different drilleffect
Interaction diameters
of spindle speed (N) and feed rate (f) on delamination factor at different drill diameters and material
and feed rates.
Fig. 4: Interaction effect of spindle speed (N) and mate-
thickness.
Fig. 5: Interaction effect of spindle speed (N) and feed
161 rial thickness (t) on delamination factor at different
Fig. 4show the interaction effect of material thickness and spindle speed on delamination
184 factor at3.2drill
various levels of of (f)
Performance
rate on delamination factor at different drill diameters
the mathematical model
162 diameters
feed rate and drill diameter. In general, delamination and
factor feedwith
increases rates.
increase185
in feed rate. Behera et al. [18] and material
Before proceeding to optimise the process parameters involved thickness.
in the drilling of GFRP composites by a genetic
163 and Rubio et al. [19] has also reported a similar trend. This isbecause higher feed rate
186induces higher thrust
algorithm forces,
or particle swarm optimisation, it is essential to verify the performance of the selected RSM model. Fig. 6
164 thereby causing more delamination. Also, the material removal rate and the contact187 surface shows
increases
theatcomparison
the higher of the predicted delamination factor calculated using Eqn. 15 and the experimental output. It
165
Fig. 5 show that the effect of feed rate and spindle 4.2 Performance of the mathematical model
feed which is responsible for the additional delamination. It is also seen that the delamination
188 is increases
seen that as
thethe drill model predicts the delamination factor in the drilling of GFRP composites with very high
present
166 speed at different levels of material thickness and Before proceeding to optimise the process param-
diameter are increased, given that all other parameters are kept same. The greater contact
189 and accuracy. The mostdue
larger thrust force variation (2.5%) in the predicted and the measured values is seen in the trial no. 9. Other than
167 drillarediameter.
to larger drill diameter In general, delamination
responsible for this. this particular caseeters
190 decreases the modelinvolved
is quiteaccurate,in
andthe drilling
an overall of GFRP
average variation composites
of only 0.86% is seen.
168
with increase in material thickness. At lower spindle by a genetic algorithm or particle swarm optimisa-
Fig. 5 show that the effect of feed rate and spindle speed at different levels of material thickness and drill diameter.
169 In general, delamination decreases with increase in material thickness. At lower spindle speeds, the change in drill
170
speeds, the change in drill diameter has anegligible tion, it is essential to verify the performance of the
diameter has anegligible effect on the delamination factor. However, as the spindle speed is increased, the increase
171 in drill diametereffect ondelamination
enhances the the delamination factor.
in the composite. Overall from allHowever, is evident selected
asit the
the interaction plots, that RSM model. Fig. 6 shows the comparison
172 at alow feed rate spindle speed
and low spindle speed,is increased,
delamination is lesser.the increase
This is in drill
in direct agreement di-
with the of the predicted delamination factor calculated using
conclusions
173 ameter enhances the delamination in the composite. Eqn.
ofBehera et al. [18]; Vankanti and Ganta [20]; and Hansda and Banerjee [21]. Vankanti and Ganta [20]have used an 15 and the experimental output. It is seen that
174
Overall from all the interaction plots, it is evident the present model predicts the delamination factor
L9 orthogonal array for thedesign of the experiments and used an ANOVA test to determine the significance of the
175 parameters. Hansda and Banerjee [21] had also used a similar L9 orthogonal array to arrive at the same conclusion.
176 thatalsoatreported
Latha et al. [7]have alow feed rate
that combination andspeed
of spindle lowand spindle
feed rate also speed, de- inin the drilling of GFRP composites with very high
affects the delamination
177 drilling of GFRP lamination is lesser. This is in direct agreement with
composites.The delamination can be further reduced by combining the low feed rate and accuracy.
low The most variation (2.5%) in the predicted
178 the conclusions of Behera et al. [18]; Vankanti and and the measured values is seen in the trial no. 9.
spindle speed settings with a higher laminate thickness. Srinivasan et al.[22]have reported that a higher spindle
179 speed is beneficial in reducing the delamination as it softens the polymer due to high tool traverse. However, in the
Ganta [20]; and Hansda and Banerjee [21]. Vankanti 9|Page Other than this particular case the model is quite-
180 current study delamination is found to be less at a lower spindle speed. One of the possible reason for this
and Ganta [20] have used an L9 orthogonal array for accurate, and an overall average variation of only
8 | P a g e thedesign of the experiments and used an ANOVA
0.86% is seen.
test to determine the significance of the parameters.
Hansda and Banerjee [21] had also used a similar
L9 orthogonal array to arrive at the same conclu-
sion. Latha et al. [7] have also reported that com-
bination of spindle speed and feed rate also affects
the delamination in drilling of GFRP composites.
The delamination can be further reduced by com-
bining the low feed rate and low spindle speed set-
tings with a higher laminate thickness. Srinivasan et
al.[22] have reported that a higher spindle speed is
beneficial in reducing the delamination as it softens
the polymer due to high tool traverse. However, in
the current study delamination is found to be less at
a lower spindle speed. One of the possible reason for
this contradiction is perhaps the fact that the +1 lev-
el, i.e. the higher level considered by Srinivasan et Fig. 6. Comparison of the experimental and predicted results
al.[22] is 5000 rpm whereas in the current study the Fig. 6: Comparison of the experimental and predicted
upper level is at merely 1100 rpm. Also, it is worth results
mentioning here that Srinivasan et al.[22] had used
a polypropylene matrix as compared to thepolyester 4.3 Predicting optimal process parameters by GA
matrix utilized in this study. The mathematical model for delamination factor in
the drilling of GFRP composites formed using the

6 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018

 Optimizing
Fig. 6. Comparison Drillingand
of the experimental Induced Delamination
predicted results in GFRP Composites using GA & PSO

Fig. 7. Performance of the GA across 100 generations Fig.8. Performance of the PSO vs GA across 100 generations
Fig. 7: Performance of the GA across 100 generations Fig.8: Performance of the PSO vs GA across 100 gen-
191 3.3 Predicting the optimal process parameters by GA
erations
Box-Behnken RSM method is192 used asThethe objective
mathematical modelthe two. In here
for delamination factorthe best
in the solution
drilling of GFRP from 1st genera-
composites formed using the Box-Behnk
function for optimisation using a genetic
193 algorithm.
RSM method is used astion is replaced
the objective functionby for a better solution
optimisation using found
a geneticinalgorithm.
the 2nd A FORTRAN code
A FORTRAN code is compiled 194 forcompiled
executing the generation,
for executing the GA. The problemand the process as
is formulated goes on until a optimisation
an unconstrained global problem where t
GA. The problem is formulated 195as anobjective
unconstrained best is achieved
is to minimise delamination factor. in the 23 rd
generation. The optimum
optimisation problem where the 196 objective
i.e. minimiseto
is mi- combinations
delamination factor, with the of parameters predicted by the GA are
limits,
nimise delamination factor. reported in Table 4 along with the predicted mini-
i.e. minimise delamination factor, with the limits, mum delamination factor.
8 ≤ t ≤16
10 ≤ D ≤14 4.4 Predicting optimal process parameters by PSO
400 ≤ N ≤1100 Another FORTRAN code iscompiled to implement
Page 197 The various GA parameters considered in the runSwarm are-chromosome length 16, Population
0.1 ≤ f ≤0.275 the PSO technique. size plays a crucial role 100, Generations 10
The various GA parameters considered in the run in PSO, and robustness and computation cost of the
198 Crossover rate 0.90 and Mutation rate 0.02. For the current problem, several combinations of crossover an
are-chromo some length 16, 199 Population
mutation100, Gen- were
probabilities algorithm
tried andisthis also affected
particular by it. was
combination Small foundpopulation
to be the best in augmenting th
erations 100, Crossover rate 0.90 and Mutation rate
200 explorative and size
exploitative may
traits of result
the GA. in
The local
high convergence;
crossover allows thelarge
GA to size in- the ‘good structures’
maintain
0.02. For the current problem,201 several‘fitcombinations
individuals’ while the creases computational
low mutation ensures that keyefforts and are
genetic traits may make
not lost whileslow
flipping a bit randomly. Fi
of crossover and mutation probabilities
202 were tried convergence [23]. Thus, in the present study, a par-
7illustrates the performance of the GA across the generations. Though at the end of generation 1 the average fitne
and this particular combination 203was isfound
seen totobebe ticlethan
the higher
a little sizetheof
best100,
fitnessinertia weight
in the same linearly
generation, the decreasing
average fitness sharply drops till 2
best in augmenting the explorative
204 and exploitative from 0.90 to 0.40
generation, after which it zig-zags around the best fitness
and c =c
1 line.
2
=2 is considered. The
This is because since the GA randomly creates
traits of the GA. The high crossover
205 allows the GA PSO is allowed to run for 100 generations to make
population of 100 individuals, it is quitepossible to have some individuals much superior to the rest of t
a
to maintain the ‘good structures’ in ‘fit individu- meaningful comparison with the GA in terms of ac-
206 population. As the generations progress, the GA compares ‘the best so far’ individual to the best of the curre
als’ while the low mutation ensures that key genetic curacy and computational speed. It is seen from Fig.
207 generation and continue to carry forward the better of the two. In here the best solution from 1st generation
traits are not lost while flipping a bit randomly. Fig. 8 that the PSOnd algorithm rapidly converges to the
208 replaced by a better solution found in the 2 generation, and the process goes on until a global best is achieved in t
7 illustrates the performance of the GA across the global optimum in this case. Though the same glob-
209 23rd generation. The optimum combinations i.e.oftheparameters predicted by the GA arefactor
reportedisin Table4 along with t
generations. Though at the end of generation 1 the al optimum, minimum delamination
210
average fitness is seen to be a little higher than the predicted by both the GA and the PSO algorithm, it
predicted maximum delamination factor.

best fitness in the same generation, the average fit- is seen that the PSO issomewhat faster in locating
ness sharply drops till 25 generation,11after | P a which
ge it the optimum. The GA located the global optimum
zig-zags around the best fitness line. This is because in the 23rd generation whereas the PSO was able to
since the GA randomly creates a population of 100 attain this in its 16th solution. Moreover, the compu-
individuals, it is quite possible to have some indi- tational time for optimised response in case of PSO
viduals much superior to the rest of the population. (0.72 s) was found to be lesser than the GA (3.25
As the generations progress, the GA compares ‘the s). Confirmation experiments are also carried out to
best so far’ individual to the best of the current gen- validate the GA & PSO predictions and are reported
eration and continue to carry forward the better of in Table 4.
Table 4: Optimum parameters predicted by GA and PSO

t (mm) D (mm) N (rpm) f (mm/rev) GA/PSO Predicted Fd Confirmation Experiment Fd

16 11 400 0.1 1.1213 1.1319

Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018 7

 K.Kalita, P. K. Mallick, A.K. Bhoi, R. K.Ghadai
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the experimentation and the statistical in-
vestigation the following conclusions are drawn-
1. In general, delamination reduces with increase
in material thickness and decrease in in feed rate.
2. Feed rate is themost importantfactor while the
spindle speed has negligible effect. The output re-
sponse is also highly dependent on the material
thickness and drill diameter.
3. The experimental results are in proximity (over-
all variation less than 1%) with the RSM predictions,
which indicate that the generated empirical equation
can be used efficiently for predicting the response.
4. Both the GA and the PSO aresuccessful in lo-
cating the global optimum. However, the PSO con-
verged much faster and took lesser computation
time.
5. The optimum settings predicted by the GA and
the PSO are t=16 mm, D=11 mm, N=400 rpm, f=0.1
mm/rev. The confirmation experiment verified the
same.
As a result, to select the level of machining param-
eters this model can be utilized. A noticeable saving
in time and cost can be obtained using this model.
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Dr. P. P. Raichurkar and
Prof. M. Ramachandran, NMIMS University for
their valuable suggestions and simulating discus-
sions.
References:
1. M. R. Vaziri Sereshk and H. M. Bidhendi, “Evalu-
ation of revealing and quantifying techniques avail-
able for drilling delamination in woven carbon
fibre-reinforced composite laminates,” Journal of
Composite Materials, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1377-1385,
2016.
2. A. P. Singh, M. Sharma and I. Singh, “A review
of modeling and control during drilling of fiber re-
inforced plastic composites,” Composites Part B:
Engineering, vol. 47, pp. 118-125, 2013.
3. E. Bagci and B. Isik, “Investigation of surface
roughness in turning unidirectional GFRP compos-
ites by using RS methodology and ANN,” The Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-
nology, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 10-17, 2006.
4. K. Abhishek, S. Chatterjee, S. Datta and S. S.
Mahapatra, “Application of NSGA II for Optimi-
zation of Multi-performance Characteristics During
Machining of GFRP (epoxy) Composites,” Materi-
als Today: Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 2353-2358,
2015.
8 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018
5. S. Rawat and H. Attia, “Wear mechanisms and tool
life management of WC--Co drills during dry high
speed drilling of woven carbon fibre composites,”
Wear, vol. 267, no. 5, pp. 1022-1030, 2009.
6. A. Krishnamoorthy, S. R. Boopathy and K.
Palanikumar, “Delamination analysis in drilling of
CFRP composites using response surface methodol-
ogy,” Journal of composite materials, vol. 43, no. 24,
pp. 2885-2902, 2009.
7. B. Latha, V. S. Senthilkumar and K. Palanikumar,
“Modeling and optimization of process parameters
for delamination in drilling glass fiber reinforced
plastic (GFRP) composites,” Machining Science and
Technology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 172-191, 2011.
8. C. Gao, J. Xiao, J. Xu and Y. Ke, “Factor analysis
of machining parameters of fiber-reinforced polymer
composites based on finite element simulation with
experimental investigation,” The International Jour-
nal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 83,
no. 5-8, pp. 1113-1125, 2016.
9. N. Feito, A. S. Milani and M.-S. Ana, “Drilling
optimization of woven CFRP laminates under dif-
ferent tool wear conditions: a multi-objective design
of experiments approach,” Structural and Multidis-
ciplinary Optimization, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 239-251,
2016.
10. R. Ramprasath, S. Jayabal and S. Sathiyamurthy,
“Optimization of Mechanical Behaviors of Red Mud
Particulated Coir--Vinyl Ester Composites Using In-
tuitive Analysis Based on Response Surface Meth-
odology and Simulated Annealing,” Transactions of
the Indian Institute of Metals, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 971-
977, 2014.
11. S. Jayabal and U. Natarajan, “Drilling analysis of
coir-fibre-reinforced polyester composites,” Bulletin
of Materials Science, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1563-1567,
2011.
12. K. Kalita, I. Shivakoti and R. K. Ghadai, “Opti-
mizing Process Parameters for Laser Beam Micro-
Marking Using a Genetic Algorithm and Particle
Swarm Optimization,” Materials and Manufactur-
ing Processes, vol.32 no.10 (2017), pp 1101-1108..
13. R. Hassan, B. Cohanim, O. De Weck and G. Ven-
ter, “A comparison of particle swarm optimization
and the genetic algorithm,” in Proceedings of the 1st
AIAA multidisciplinary design optimization special-
ist conference, 2005.
14. R. H. Myers, D. C. Montgomery and C. M. An-
derson-Cook, Response surface methodology: pro-
cess and product optimization using designed experi-
ments, John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
15. D. E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms, Pearson Edu-
cation India, 2006.
16. R. Eberhart and J. Kennedy, “A new optimizer us-
ing particle swarm theory,” in Micro Machine and
Human Science, 1995. MHS’95., Proceedings of the
 Optimizing Drilling Induced Delamination in GFRP Composites using GA & PSO

Sixth International Symposium on, 1995.

17. M. K. Gupta, P. K. Sood and V. S. Sharma, “Ma-
chining Parameters Optimization of Titanium Alloy
Using Response Surface Methodology and Particle
Swarm Optimization Under Minimum Quantity Lu-
brication Environment,” Materials and Manufactur-
ing Processes, 31(13), 2016, pp. 1671-1682.
18. R. R. Behera, R. K. Ghadai, K. Kalita and S. Ba-
nerjee, “Simultaneous prediction of delamination
and surface roughness in drilling GFRP composite
using ANN,” International Journal of Plastics Tech-
nology, pp. 1-27, 2016.
19. J. C. Rubio, A. M. Abrao, P. E. Faria, A. E. Cor-
reia and J. P. Davim, “Effects of high speed in the
drilling of glass fibre reinforced plastic: evaluation
of the delamination factor,” International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 48, no. 6, pp.
715-720, 2008.
20. V. K. Vankanti and V. Ganta, “Optimization of pro-
cess parameters in drilling of GFRP composite us-
ing Taguchi method,” Journal of Materials Research
and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 35-41, 2014.
21. S. Hansda and S. Banerjee, “Optimizing Multi
Characteristics in Drilling of GFRP Composite Using
Utility Concept with Taguchi’s Approach,” Procedia
Materials Science, vol. 6, pp. 1476-1488, 2014.
22. T. Srinivasan, K. Palanikumar, K. Rajagopal and
B. Latha, “Optimization of Delamination Factor in
Drilling GFR-Polypropylene Composites,” Materi-
als and Manufacturing Processes, 32(2), 2017, pp.
226-233.
23. V. K. Garlapati, P. R. Vundavilli and R. Baner-
jee, “Evaluation of lipase production by genetic al-
gorithm and particle swarm optimization and their
comparative study,” Applied biochemistry and bio-
technology, vol. 162, no. 5, pp. 1350-1361, 2010.

Advanced Composites Letters, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2018 9