Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

CERAMICS
INTERNATIONAL
Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
www.elsevier.com/locate/ceramint

Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high

surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide ceramics
Sanjay Agarwaln
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jhansi, India

Received 8 October 2015; received in revised form 3 January 2016; accepted 3 January 2016

Abstract

Advanced ceramics such as silicon carbide offer many desirable characteristics for industrial and commercial use in terms of their high
temperature tolerance, wear and abrasive resistance, and corrosion resistance. However, the machining of ceramics into practical forms presents a
challenge because of the difficulty and cost involved in the material removal process due to their high hardness and high brittleness. In this work,
experiments were conducted to study the effect of various parameters such as depth of cut, table feed, size and density of grit on the metal
removal rate, surface roughness, surface and subsurface damages. Mathematical models were developed using the data obtained experimentally
considering the significant parameters only. Finally, a genetic algorithm (GA) code has been developed to optimize the ceramic grinding process
with multiple objectives. The manufacturer's constraints on the basis of functional requirements of the component were also considered in the GA
code. The study demonstrates that the grinding process parameters can be varied to achieve better metal removal rate, good surface finish and
lower surface and subsurface damages simultaneously.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Grinding; Surface roughness; GA; Surface and subsurface damage

1. Introduction often imparts machining induced surface and sub-surface

In the last two decades, the use of ceramic components in
many engineering applications has grown substantially due to
the advantage of ceramics over other materials which includes
high hardness and strength at elevated temperatures, chemical
stability, attractive high temperature wear resistance and low
density [1]. Advanced ceramics are now being increasingly
used in valves, packing elements, pistons, bearings, rotors and
other applications where close dimensional tolerances and
good surface finish are required. However, the effective use
of these materials in structural applications requires the
machining of ceramic workpiece with good surface finish
and low surface and subsurface damages. Since the cost of
ceramic grinding is high, and the use of higher cutting rates
n
Tel.: þ91 51 0232 0394; fax: þ 91 51 0232 0312.
E-mail address: sanjay72ag@rediffmail.com
damage viz. residual stresses, plastic deformation, micro-
cracks, and subsurface cracks etc, with a negative effect on
performance [1].
In order to meet the demands for higher precision and
productivity in present industry, optimization of grinding processes
is becoming an increasingly important task. However, the optimi-
zation of grinding processes is still the most challenging problems
among the manufacturing processes. While there exists many
analytical and empirical models, the existing models have typically
been developed under a specific set of conditions in terms of
workpiece material, type of grinding wheel and operating condi-
tions, and hence are not readily applicable to a process where
operating conditions or the setup is different from those used for
the model development. Available models also significantly vary in
specific functional form from one to another. Further difficulties in
optimization are associated with the fact that no comprehensive
models exist as yet, which relate the major influential input

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
0272-8842/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
2 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
variables to output process conditions. Hence it is necessary to
model the grinding responses and the process variables, in order to
obtain applicable and practical predictive quantitative relationships.
The ceramic grinding process is highly complex, which
involves many parameters such as wheel speed, depth of cut,
work speed, grit size, grit density, etc. The relationship of grit
depth of cut and grinding direction with strength and surface
characteristics of the ground specimen was investigated
experimentally while grinding hot pressed silicon nitride with
resinoid bonded diamond grinding wheels at different work
speeds [2]. A major impediment to engineering applications of
ceramics is their hardness and brittleness, which often render
them difficult and costly to machine. The cost associated with
ceramic grinding process can be as high as 90% of the total
cost of a ceramic part, and the use of higher machining rates
often imparts machining induced surface and sub-surface
damage viz. residual stresses, plastic deformation, microcracks
(i.e. number of cracks and crack size), and lateral and median
cracks, etc., with a negative impact on performance [3].
Modeling and optimization of the process could have further
strengthened this work. Chen et al. [4] investigated and
analyzed, the factors influencing the surface quality of brittle
materials, during ultra-precision grinding. The results showed
that the abrasive grain size of the diamond wheel had a main
influence on the surface quality, and the influence of the wheel
speed and feed rate were secondary. The relationships of grit
depth of cut and grind direction with strength and surface
characteristics of the ground specimen were investigated
experimentally while grinding hot pressed silicon nitride with
resinoid bonded diamond grinding wheels at different work
speeds [5]. Yina et al. [6] have investigated the grinding of
alumina and alumina–titania with respect to material removal
and basic grinding parameters using a resin-bond 160 mm grit
diamond wheel at the speeds of 40 and 160 m/s, respectively.
The results show that an increase in material removal rate did
not necessarily worsen the surface roughness for the two
materials at both speeds. Also the grinding forces for the two
ceramics demonstrated similar characteristics at any grinding
speeds and specific removal rates. Chen et al. [7] have studied
the influences of the wheel speed on the grinding forces,
specific grinding energy, etc. was analyzed under different
combinations of depth of cut and workpiece velocity. It was
found that an increase in the peripheral wheel speed reduced
grinding force, but increased force ratio and specific grinding
energy. Allor et al. [8] have also investigated the effects of
diamond mesh size and concentration in the grinding wheel,
wheel speed and type of grinding on strength, surface rough-
ness, power consumption, vertical force and wheel wear.
Unfortunately, the ground ceramic components are most
likely to contain a deformed layer, surface/subsurface micro-
cracks, phase transformation, residual stresses and other types
of damage. Malkin and Hwang [9] have studied and analyzed
the mechanism of material removal in the ceramic grinding
with the help of indentation fracture mechanics approach and
the machining approach. However, this approach had not been
successfully applied in a quantitative way to realistic grinding
operations. Xu et al. [10] have demonstrated the role of
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
microstructure in controlling the mechanisms of material
removal in abrasive machining of silicon carbide.
Extensive knowledge of the effect of the grinding process on
the surface integrity provides an opportunity for a better
exploitation of ceramic materials by improved process condi-
tions. Pfeiffer and Hollstein [11] have used the X-ray diffrac-
tion technique for determining the damage induced in the
ground silicon nitride and alumina and thereby established
correlations between micro-plastic deformation and amount of
damage. Zhao et al. [12] used a machine tool featuring high
close-loop stiffness, to conduct the grinding of fused silica and
fused quartz. Experimental results showed that with selected
grinding parameters and a very fine grain-sized diamond-
grinding wheel, nanometric quality surfaces with minimal
subsurface damage depth can be generated. Daniels [13] has
investigated the influence of surface grinding parameters such
as diamond abrasive type, wheel speed and down feed on the
rupture strength of silicon carbide. It was found that more
severe grinding conditions with higher normal forces and
power consumption did not significantly reduce the rupture
strength of the material. Agarwal and Rao [14, 15] conducted
the study for high removal rate grinding of silicon carbide with
respect to material removal and basic grinding parameters
using a diamond grinding wheel. The results showed that the
material removal was primarily due to the microfracture and
grain dislodgement under the grinding conditioned selected.
For grain dislodgement removal mode, the relationship for the
removal rate in scratching based on a simple fracture
mechanics analysis has been established. Agarwal and Rao
[16,17] developed a new analytical model for surface rough-
ness prediction. The model incorporates the overlapping effect
apart from other grinding parameters. By incorporating the
overlapping effect, the model has been made more realistic,
not only to estimate the surface roughness precisely, but also to
make the ceramic grinding reproducible. The model is capable
of handling a wide variety of work and wheel speeds and is
flexible enough to incorporate the effects of other parameters.
Agarwal and Rao [18] developed an analytical model for
surface roughness prediction of ground ceramics, based on the
analysis of the grooves left by the grains that interact with the
workpiece, which is characterized by the undeformed chip
thickness, has been developed. The wheel microstructure, the
kinematic and dynamic grinding conditions, and the material
properties were included in the model through undeformed
chip thickness model. The model incorporates the overlapping
effect of grooves left by the grains, apart from other grinding
parameters. By incorporating the overlapping effect, the model
has been made more realistic, not only to estimate the surface
roughness more precisely, but also to make the ceramic
grinding reproducible. The model is capable of handling a
wide variety of work and wheel speeds and is flexible enough
to incorporate the effects of other parameters. Hence the new
model can be reliably used to predict the surface roughness in
the surface grinding of silicon carbide ceramics.
While there exist many analytical and empirical models as
mentioned above, the existing models have typically been
developed under a particular set of conditions in terms of
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
material of workpiece, type of grinding wheel and other
operating conditions, and hence are not readily applicable to
a process where operating conditions or the setup is different
than those used for the model development. Available models
also significantly vary in specific functional form from one
case to another. Further difficulties in optimization are
associated with the fact that no comprehensive models exist,
as of yet, which relate all the input (independent) variables to
output process conditions. Combining all heterogeneous mod-
els for optimization, even if they are readily available, is a
difficult task for industrial applications. Therefore, in order to
reduce the design lead time and associated cost, a systematic
method for optimizing grinding processes is critically needed.
In the last few years, different strategies have been adopted
for optimization of grinding processes. An on-line optimization
system was developed by Iwata et al. [19] for cylindrical
plunge grinding to minimize production time while ensuring
part quality requirements. The system is capable of optimizing
the grinding and dressing parameters in response to in-process
and post-process measurements which characterize the process
and update the process model. As compared with the previous
system, the present one encompasses a more complete set of
realistic constraints, considers time dependent behavior, and
also optimizes the dressing interval. The system has been
implemented on an instrumented internal grinder in the
laboratory and in actual production. Peters and Aerens [20]
developed a method to minimize the total grinding time when
a series of pieces is ground successively without intermediate
dressing of the wheel. It is assumed that all pieces must be
within the same imposed dimensional tolerance and have the
required surface quality. For the sake of generality, the
grinding cycle is assumed to consist of a roughing phase, a
finishing and a spark out phase. The aim is to compute the
optimal setting of the measuring fork. Amitay et al. [21]
developed a computerized adaptive control grinding system to
optimize both the grinding and dressing conditions for max-
imum removal rate subject to constraints on workpiece burn
and surface finish. The control strategy of the system is based
upon online convergence along a predetermined optimal
trajectory derived from grinding theory. A pilot system was
developed and illustrative results are presented which demon-
strate its performance and the practical feasibility of the
optimization concept. Similarly Xiao et al. [22] presented an
optimization strategy for cylindrical plunge grinding opera-
tions. The optimization strategy is designed to minimize cycle
time while satisfying production constraints. Monotonicity
analysis together with local linearization is used to simplify
the non-linear optimization problem and determine the process
variables for the optimal cycle. At the end of each cycle, the
uncertain parameters of the process are estimated from sensory
data so as to provide a more accurate estimation of the optimal
process variables for the subsequent cycle. The optimization
strategy is validated both in simulation and for actual grinding
tests. Shin et al. [23] designed and implemented an intelligent
grinding process advisory system with fuzzy logic inferencing.
The surface grinding process was automatically optimized
using analytical grinding process models and heuristic
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
3
knowledge without human intervention. Further a computer-
ized system was developed [24] which makes use of knowl-
edge engineering and process modeling for the optimum
selection of grinding parameters. Based on the theoretical
analysis of experimental data on basic grinding parameters,
wheel wear and specific energy, process models have been
developed which are constructed in such a way that they can
be dynamically modified according to user input by a rule
based system. The process models accommodate such grinding
parameters as grinding force, specific energy, temperature,
wheel wear parameters etc. The first stage of the selection
procedure yields specifications of an appropriate wheel and a
set of nominal grinding parameters for a given grinding
situation. These can be evaluated in the second stage for
burn-free grinding and/or grinding with maximum grinding
ratio (‘G’). A repeated use of the evaluation procedure can
yield optimum grinding parameters for a desired criterion, e.g.,
low grinding force, good surface finish.
Wen and Tay [25] developed a micro-computer-based
optimization technique to optimize grinding conditions, viz.
wheel speed, workpiece speed, depth of dressing, and lead of
dressing, using a multi-objective function model with a
weighted approach for surface grinding. The technique eval-
uates the production cost; production rate and surface finish for
the optimum grinding conditions, subject to constraints such as
thermal damage, wheel-wear parameters, machine-tool stiff-
ness, and either surface finish or production rate. A computer
program has been developed for the optimization computa-
tions. The program runs in an interactive mode. The user is
prompted to input all the constants related to the grinding
process, workpiece and grinding wheel for the necessary
computations. The user can also alter specific input values to
perform sensitivity analyses of the relative contributions of the
individual grinding parameters to the weighted objective
function. Furthermore, an initial estimation of grinding condi-
tions, based on experience, can be used to start the optimiza-
tion iterations. Two case studies are presented to illustrate how
the program can be used to give optimum production rate, low
production cost and fine surface quality for the surface
grinding process. Liao and Chen [26] have used back-
propagation neural networks for modeling and optimizing the
creep-feed grinding of alumina with diamond wheels. Then the
back propagation algorithm with Boltzmann factor is used to
find the global optimal settings for the grinding process. From
the simulation results obtained, it is found that the implemen-
ted neural network approach yields a more accurate process
model than the regression method. It is also shown that, unlike
the conventional back propagation network, proper use of the
Boltzmann factor with BP can effectively avoid local minima
and generate the global optimal solution.
Xiao and Malkin [27] developed an on-line optimization
system for cylindrical plunge grinding to minimize production
time while ensuring part quality requirements. The system is
capable of optimizing the grinding and dressing parameters in
response to in-process and post-process measurements
which characterize the process and update the process model.
As compared with the previous system, the present one
4 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
encompasses a more complete set of realistic constraints,
considers time dependent behavior, and also optimizes the
dressing interval. The system has been implemented on an
instrumented internal grinder in the laboratory and in actual
production. In the case of creep-feed grinding wheels, Guo and
Malkin [28] showed that more than 50% of the applied flow
rate may be pumped by the wheel through the grinding arc. In
applications where the effective flow rate is low, a more
efficient application of a much lower flow rate should
theoretically achieve the same grinding performance as a high
flow rate applied poorly. Of course, the bulk cooling and
flushing benefits of the ‘wasted’ flow rate are ignored by this
statement. Rowe et al. [29] applied the AI technologies using
modern computers and controllers as a way forward to produce
higher quality components more efficiently with smaller batch
sizes and more frequent changeovers. Users continue to
demand better accuracy, surface integrity, and shorter cycle
times with reduced operator intervention and increased flex-
ibility. Basic AI concepts are introduced and discussed
particularly in the context of application to grinding. Two
main trends are evidenced in the development of AI technol-
ogies in grinding: desktop systems to assist tool and parameter
selection and self-optimizing systems integrated within the
machine controller. It is predicted mat future developments
will favor increasing communication between these two levels
of control within a CIM environment The development of
modular systems which are sufficiently robust to plan, super-
vise and control abrasive processes requires ongoing research
and development. Venk et al. [30] studied and found that an
expert systems can serve as a powerful tool for problem
formulation that can lead to higher optimization efficiency of
any process. By using expert systems to formulate a problem,
the total lead time to complete optimization is greatly reduced.
In this paper we have presented our approach to develop and
use an expert system to accomplish problem formulation and
aid optimization of the centerless grinding process. A detailed
case study has been presented to illustrate the actual working
of our approach. In one case a productivity improvement of
173% was observed over 40 optimization cycles. And in
another case (presented in a summarized form) an improve-
ment of 540% in the parts variable cost over 42 optimization
cycles was realized. An intelligent data base system was
described by Sakakura and Inasaki [31] which performs an
intelligent task like a skilled operator. The system consists of a
grinding data base, a grinding rule base, a learning module and
a reasoning module. The learning module extracts relationships
between set-up parameters and results from grinding examples
stored in the grinding data base using genetic algorithms.
These relationships are expressed in the form of a fuzzy
production rule and stored in the grinding rule base. The
reasoning module provides suitable dressing and grinding
parameters using those rules. A computer simulation is
performed to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed system.
Sakakura and Inasaki [32] proposed a decision making process
model for grinding operations. It has a multistage structure and
consists of different two types of neural network: the Feed-
Forward network and the Brain-State-in-a-Box network. The
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
relationship between the dressing conditions and the surface
roughness of ground components is simulated. The results
indicate that the proposed model is capable of learning the
stochastic data of surface roughness and recalling the dressing
conditions which attains the required surface roughness. The
simulated process can be considered to be quite similar to the
decision making process of experienced operators. Brinksme-
ier and Popp [33] conducted a study that deals with the
development and use of an adaptive-control-system for the
external grinding process. Because the behavior of the grinding
process is substantially influenced by disturbances a self tuning
controller is employed. A system identification procedure is
used in order to allow a permanent adaption of the controller to
the changing process parameters. The change in the identified
system parameters can also be used GO diagnose process
faults such as grinding wheel wear and to compensate for
dimensional deviations due to elastic deformation of she
workpiece-tool-machine system. Jain and Jain [34] have used
back-propagation neural networks for optimum selection of
machining conditions in abrasive flow machining. The results
have been validated by comparing the optimized machining
conditions obtained using genetic algorithms. Suresh et al. [35]
have developed a surface roughness prediction model for
turning mild steel using response surface methodology to give
the factor effects of the individual process parameters. They
have also attempted to optimize the surface roughness as an
objective function using GA. Gopal and Rao [36] have
conducted experiments to study the effects of wheel para-
meters (mesh size and grain density) and grinding parameters
(depth of cut and feed), on the surface roughness and surface
damage. Optimal grinding conditions were also obtained for
maximization of material removal using surface roughness and
percentage damage as constraints. Agarwal and Rao [37] has
made an attempt to optimize the grinding conditions for
maximum material removal rate using a multi-objective func-
tion model, with surface roughness and tangential grinding
force as user definable constraints. Experiments were carried
out to study the effect of various parameters namely the depth
of cut, table feed, grit size, and grit density on the surface
roughness and tangential grinding force. Mathematical models
were developed using the experimental data considering only
the significant parameters. Optimal grinding conditions were
obtained for maximum material removal rate using genetic
algorithm (GA). The manufacturer’s constraints, based on the
functional requirements of the components for maximum
production rate, have been included in the GA code.
The literature review suggests that although different
technologies have been adopted, but little has been done to
make a selection of optimum machining conditions while
grinding silicon carbide by diamond grinding wheel that
creates not only the best product quality (good surface finish
and low surface and subsurface damages) and also allows for
reduced machining costs. The simple approaches use grinding
models to generate simulated outputs for the optimization,
which can be treated as model-based optimization. Most of
existing optimization schemes have, however, been mainly
developed for a specific process or a specific objective of
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

optimization. Hence, when a different objective of grinding Table 2

process is chosen, many of these techniques must undergo a Process control parameters and their range.
substantial amount of change or restructuring before imple- Variables Units Notation Limits
mentation. Furthermore, the application boundary of traditional
optimization techniques is often limited to the cases when 2 1 0 þ1 þ2
accurate analytical models of grinding processes are easily
Depth of cut μm d 5 15 25 35 45
available. This is due to the fact that some grinding processes Table feed m/min f 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
can be represented only by experimental results or linguistic Grit size μm G 5 34 63 92 121
descriptions; introduction of systems into the optimization of Grit density –– R 25 50 75 100 125
grinding processes seems inevitable.
Hence an attempt is made in the present work to determine
the optimum conditions using genetic algorithms employing a
multi-objective function model. The optimal process condi-
tions determined above are validated by experiments to
demonstrate the efficacy and capability of the methodology
adopted in this work.

2. Methodology
Experiments were performed on hydraulic surface grinding
machine. Special grinding vice has been used for holding SiC
workpiceces. Diamond grinding wheels with a wheel speed of
36.6 m/s is used in the experiments. Sintered SiC pieces of size
20 mm  20 mm  5 mm is considered as a workpiece mate-
rial. The properties of SiC workpiece material used for
experimentation in this work is as given in Table 1. Various
process parameters selected and their levels are presented in
Table 2. The parameter values for different levels have been
set based on the trial experiments conducted using one-factor-
at-a-time approach. The effects of these input parameters are
studied on output responses such as surface roughness,
percentage area of surface damaged and amount of subsurface
damage. A photograph of the experimental set up has been
shown in Fig. 1. The surface roughness was measured with
Talysurf-6 at five different locations (at 0.8 mm cut-off value)
on the 20  5 mm2 section of the workpiece after grinding, as
shown in Table 3.
After the surface roughness measurement, the ground
surfaces were examined for the grinding induced surface
damages using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Prior
to examination, the ground specimens were cleaned with
acetone in an ultrasonic bath for at least 10 min. and then
gold coated for examination. A bonded interface sectioning
technique [14] was used to examine the grinding induced
subsurface damage. The amount of surface damage was
measured with the optical microscope, a Leica TCS SP2
system, at 100 magnifications.
Diamond
grinding wheel
Thermal
workpiece Arraycorder
Charge
Amplifier
Fig. 1. Photograph of experimental setup.
In the present work, the experiments are conducted by
adopting response surface methodology [38]. The functional
relationship or response to represent independent factors in
quantitative form can be expressed as:
Y ¼ ϕðX 1 ; X 2 ::::::::::::::; X k Þ7 er ð1Þ
where Y is the response, ϕ is response function, er is the
experimental error and X1, X2, . . . Xk of k quantitative factors.
The above methodology may be applied to develop the
mathematical models in the form of regression equations
correlating the dependent parameters such as, surface rough-
ness, percentage area of surface damage and subsurface
damage with four independent parameters, viz. depth of cut,
feed, grit size and grit density, in a grinding process. For the
development of regression equations related to various quality
characteristics of turned parts, the second-order response
surface may be assumed as:
X
k X
k X
k

Table 1
Y ¼ b0 þ bi X i þ bii X 2i þ bij X i X j 7 er ð2Þ
Properties of SiC workpiece material used in the experimentation. i¼1 i¼1 i!j ¼ 2

Density (gm/cm3) 3.17 This assumed surface Y contains linear, squared and cross-
Hardness (HV) (kg/mm2) 2700 product terms of variables Xi’s. The parameters i.e. b0, bi, bii,
Fracture toughness (KlC) (MPa m1/2) 4.55
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 410
etc. are to be estimated by the method of least squares. The
Thermal conductivity (W m  1 K  1) 145 calculated value of coefficients of the Eq. (2) need to be tested
for statistical significance.

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
6 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table 3
Design matrix and observed values of surface roughness and percentage area of surface damage and subsurface damage.

S. no. Design matrix Ra (μm) %D Ds (μm)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 0.345 0.348 0.354 0.356 0.352 3.74 3.79 3.78 4.32 4.31 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.4
2 þ1 1 1 1 0.359 0.364 0.373 0.376 0.368 3.41 3.94 3.86 3.78 3.86 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.8
3 1 þ1 1 1 0.455 0.460 0.464 0.470 0.464 4.19 4.14 4.06 4.06 4.06 10.2 10.2 10.6 10.4 10.3
4 þ1 þ1 1 1 0.519 0.524 0.533 0.536 0.528 4.41 4.45 4.66 4.38 4.37 10.9 11 11.7 11.2 11.1
5 1 1 þ1 1 0.423 0.428 0.437 0.440 0.432 3.86 3.90 3.98 3.74 3.82 9.4 9.6 10 9.8 9.7
6 þ1 1 þ1 1 0.503 0.504 0.517 0.512 0.512 4.29 4.34 4.58 4.18 4.26 10.5 10.7 11.5 10.9 10.8
7 1 þ1 þ1 1 0.455 0.460 0.469 0.472 0.464 4.74 4.77 4.77 4.66 4.94 11.7 11.8 12 12 11.9
8 þ1 þ1 þ1 1 0.636 0.636 0.645 0.646 0.640 4.97 5.01 4.93 4.86 4.93 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.5
9 1 1 1 þ1 0.325 0.330 0.339 0.342 0.334 4.08 4.10 4.15 3.94 4.02 9.9 10.1 10.5 10.3 10.2
10 þ1 1 1 þ1 0.347 0.352 0.361 0.364 0.356 4.74 4.77 4.86 4.62 4.94 11.6 11.8 12.2 12 11.9
11 1 þ1 1 þ1 0.416 0.417 0.426 0.429 0.421 5.05 5.09 5.17 4.94 5.02 12.4 12.6 13 12.8 12.7
12 þ1 þ1 1 þ1 0.489 0.496 0.501 0.506 0.498 5.45 5.49 5.57 5.33 5.41 13.4 13.6 14 13.8 13.7
13 1 1 þ1 þ1 0.349 0.348 0.357 0.360 0.352 4.82 4.85 4.94 4.69 4.77 11.8 12 12.4 12.2 12.1
14 þ1 1 þ1 þ1 0.455 0.460 0.469 0.369 0.464 5.41 5.45 5.59 4.89 5.37 12.3 13.5 14 13.7 13.6
15 1 þ1 þ1 þ1 0.426 0.428 0.437 0.440 0.432 5.53 5.57 5.65 5.53 5.49 13.9 13.8 14.2 14 13.9
16 þ1 þ1 þ1 þ1 0.625 0.620 0.629 0.632 0.624 5.81 5.85 5.93 5.69 5.73 14.3 14.5 14.9 14.7 14.6
17 2 0 0 0 0.296 0.304 0.309 0.310 0.304 3.26 3.30 3.39 3.14 3.22 7.9 8.1 8.5 8.3 8.2
18 þ2 0 0 0 0.439 0.444 0.453 0.456 0.448 4.54 4.57 4.66 4.49 4.49 11.3 11.3 11.7 11.5 11.4
19 0 2 0 0 0.280 0.285 0.294 0.297 0.281 3.82 3.85 3.93 4.32 3.78 9.3 9.5 9.9 9.7 9.6
20 0 þ2 0 0 0.511 0.516 0.525 0.527 0.520 5.53 5.57 5.65 5.41 5.49 13.6 13.8 14.2 14 13.9
21 0 0 2 0 0.279 0.284 0.293 0.296 0.288 3.62 3.66 3.74 3.51 3.58 8.8 9 9.4 9.2 9.1
22 0 0 þ2 0 0.503 0.508 0.517 0.520 0.512 5.45 5.49 5.57 5.57 5.41 14 13.6 14 13.8 13.7
23 0 0 0 2 0.540 0.545 0.554 0.557 0.549 3.66 3.70 3.78 3.54 3.62 8.9 9.1 9.5 9.3 9.2
24 0 0 0 þ2 0.389 0.394 0.403 0.406 0.398 4.53 4.57 4.66 4.42 4.49 11.1 11.3 11.7 11.5 11.4
25 0 0 0 0 0.471 0.472 0.481 0.484 0.480 5.21 5.25 5.21 5.09 5.17 12.8 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.1
26 0 0 0 0 0.439 0.444 0.453 0.456 0.448 4.81 4.85 4.94 4.74 4.77 11.9 12.0 12.4 12.2 12.1
27 0 0 0 0 0.455 0.460 0.469 0.472 0.464 4.97 5.01 5.02 4.85 4.93 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.6 12.5
28 0 0 0 0 0.477 0.472 0.501 0.502 0.489 5.33 5.37 5.45 5.37 5.29 13.5 13.3 13.7 13.5 13.4
29 0 0 0 0 0.487 0.482 0.501 0.504 0.491 5.37 5.41 5.33 5.25 5.33 13.2 13.4 13.4 13.6 13.5
30 0 0 0 0 0.465 0.460 0.409 0.482 0.464 5.42 5.29 5.36 5.29 5.37 13.3 13.5 13.5 13.3 13.6
31 0 0 0 0 0.449 0.444 0.453 0.456 0.448 5.25 5.29 5.36 5.13 5.21 12.9 13.1 13.5 13.3 13.2

2.1. Optimization using genetic algorithm 3. Results and discussion

Optimization of machining parameters, not only increases
the utility for machining economics, but also the product
quality to a great extent. In this context, an effort has been
made to estimate optimum parameters to produce the best
possible surface quality within the constraints. It has also been
attempted to optimize the grinding process using GA in order
to achieve good surface finish and less surface and subsurface
damage.
GA is the algorithm based on mechanics of natural selection
and natural genetics, which are more robust and more likely to
locate global optimum [39,40].
2.1.1. Methodology
Firstly, the mathematical models are required to determine
the optimum machining parameters including depth of cut,
feed, grit size and grit density, in order to maximize the metal
removal rate and the minimize the surface roughness, percen-
tage area of surface damage and subsurface damage. For the
optimization of surface roughness, percentage area of surface
damage and subsurface damage, practical constraints which
present the state of machining processes need to be considered.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the some of the typical SEM observa-
tions of the surface and subsurface damage, under different
process variables. The variation of subsurface damages, sur-
face roughness and surface damage, along with the 7 3
standard deviation, with respect to the process variables
selected in the present study is shown graphically in Figs. 4–
6. Figs. 4–6 show situations when the subsurface damages,
surface roughness and surface damage distributions at different
values of process variable are no overlap or partially or totally
overlapped. This leads to significant difficulties in assessing
the variability in the process at different values of process
variables. Assuming the variations of the subsurface damage,
surface roughness and surface damage for the two different
conditions follow normal distributions, the relative position of
their bell curves, at a particular value of process variables, can
be: totally separated; partially or totally overlapped. While the
total separation of the subsurface damage, surface roughness
and surface damage distributions leads to clear assessment of
the process variability, their partial or total overlapping makes
assessment uncertain. The more overlapping exists between the
population distributions of the subsurface damage, surface

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

Fig. 2. Typical SEM micrographs showing the surface damage observed under different grinding variables. (a) d: 5μm; f: 10m/min; G: 63μm; R: 75, (b) d: 15μm; f: 7.5m/
min; G: 34μm; R: 50, (c) d: 35μm; f: 12.5m/min; G: 92μm;R: 50, (d) d: 25μm; f: 10m/min; G: 5μm; R: 75, (e) d: 35μm; f: 7.5m/min; G: 34μm; R: 100, (f) d: 25μm; f: 10m/
min; G:121μm; R: 75, (g) d: 25μm; f: 10m/min; G: 63μm; R: 25, (h) d: 25μm; f: 10m/min; G: 63μm; R: 125, (i) d: 45μm; f: 15m/min;G: 121μm; R: 75.

roughness and surface damage measured values, the less
resolution exists in assessing the process variability. However,
the degree of overlapping between the bell curves of the two
different conditions depends on their relative positions that are
defined by the mean values of the subsurface damage, surface
roughness and surface damage as well as their standard
deviations. Intuitively the overlapping decreases with the
increase of numerical difference between means of the two
different conditions and the decrease of standard deviations of
two different conditions.
Geometrical assessment of the degree of overlapping
between the two populations is difficult since corresponding
probabilities of occurrence have to be taken into account for
each infinitesimal overlapping area. In such situation, a good
indication of the degree of overlapping between the subsurface
damage, surface roughness and surface damage populations is
given by the Hellinger distance [41]. Thus, taking into
consideration the probability density functions of the popula-
tions, the Hellinger distance gives a numerical indication of the
degree of overlapping between the bell curves of the subsur-
face damage, surface roughness and surface damage experi-
mental results obtained during silicon carbide grinding.
Although it is possible to evaluate the resolution (on the basis
of Hellinger distance) given by each subsurface damage,
surface roughness and surface damage experimental results,
on the basis of which it is possible to determine the extent of
overlapping, but it would make modeling of subsurface
damage, surface roughness and surface damage during silicon
carbide grinding difficult. In this situation, it would be better to
express each data point as averaged values over seven repeated
measurements. This will mask some variability associated with
the process. So each data point in Figs. 4–6 is the average of
seven measurements. Since there are significant dispersions in
the measured values of subsurface damage, surface roughness
and surface damage for each set of data points (as shown in
Figs. 4–6), it would be essential to perform the statistical
analysis to establish the statistical differences in their mean
values. For this, the analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) technique
is used. The results of ANOVA for subsurface damage, surface
roughness and surface damage indicated that the calculated
value of F-ratio was more than the tabulated value of F-ratio
for a desired level of confidence (say 90%). So it could be
concluded that the average values of subsurface damage,
surface roughness and surface damage were statistically

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
8 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 3. Typical SEM micrographs showing the subsurface damage observed under different grinding variables. The arrow indicates the machined surface. (a) d:
5μm; f: 10m/min; G: 63μm; R: 75, (b) d: 15μm; f: 7.5m/min; G: 34μm; R: 50, (c) d: 35μm; f: 12.5m/min; G: 92μm; R: 50, (d) d: 25μm; f: 10m/min; G: 5μm; R: 75,
(e) d: 35μm; f: 7.5m/min; G: 34μm; R: 100, (f) d: 25μm; f: 10m/min; G: 121μm; R: 75

different; that is, the process variables significantly affected the
subsurface damage, surface roughness and surface damage.
It can be observed from the results shown in Fig. 4 that the
subsurface damage decreases with the decrease in depth of cut,
table feed, and grit size and increase in the grit density. The
increase in subsurface damage was due to the increase in the
chip thickness with increase in depth of cut. It could also be
seen from Fig. 4 that the subsurface damage decreased with the
decrease in table feed rate. This is as expected since the depth
of engagement would be low at low feed rate and hence the
reduction in subsurface damage could be observed with the
decrease in feed rate. Similar trend had also been observed
with the grit size and grit density. It could be seen from Fig. 4
that this decrease in subsurface damage with the decrease in
grit size was due to reduction in maximum chip thickness at
lower grit size. It could also be observed from Fig. 4 that the
subsurface damage decreased with the increase in grit density.
This decrease in subsurface damage with increase in grit
density was due to the fact that the subsurface damage, in the
grinding of ceramics, the subsurface damage was substantially
influenced by the chip thickness or the grain load. At higher
grit density, there would be a reduction in the chip thickness or
the grain load, causing smaller impacts between the abrasive
grain and the workpiece.
Similarly it could be seen from Fig. 5 that surface roughness
increased with increase in depth of cut. The increase in surface
roughness was due to the increase in the maximum chip
thickness with the increase in depth of cut. It could also be
seen from Fig. 5 that the surface roughness decreased with
decrease in table feed rate. This is as expected since the depth
of engagement would be low at low feed rate and hence the
reduction in surface roughness could be observed with the
decrease in feed rate. Similar trend had also been observed
with the grit size (Fig. 5). This decrease in surface roughness
with the grit size was due to reduction in maximum chip
thickness at lower grit size. It could also be observed from
Fig. 5 that the surface roughness decreased with the increase in
grit density. This decrease in surface roughness with increase
in grit density was due to the fact that more grits would
participate in the material removal, and hence volume of the
material removed per grit would be less, resulting in an
improvement in the surface finish.
Similarly it can be observed from the results shown in Fig. 6
that the percentage area of surface damage decreases with the

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

Fig. 4. Variation of subsurface damage with grinding variables.

Fig. 5. Variation of surface roughness with grinding variables.

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
10 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

G=5µm R=25 G=5µm R=50 G=5µm R=75

1.6 1.4 1.4
1.4 1.2 1.2

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

1.2 1.0 1.0
1.0
0.8 0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.2
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm)
G=34µm R=50 G=34µm R=75 G=34µm R=100
2.0 2.0 1.8
1.8 1.8 1.6
1.6 1.6 1.4
Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

1.4 1.4
1.2
1.2 1.2
1.0
1.0 1.0
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm)

G=63µm R=25 G=63µm R=75 G=63µm R=125

3.1 3.1 2.8

2.8 2.8 2.5

2.5 2.5 2.2
Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

2.2 2.2 1.9

1.9 1.9
1.6
1.6 1.6
1.3
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.4 0.4
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm)

G=92µm R=25 G=92µm R=50 G=92µm R=100

4.2 4.2 4.8
3.8 3.8 4.2
3.4 3.4 3.8
Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

3.0 3.0 3.4

2.6 2.6 3.0
2.2 2.6
2.2
2.2
1.8 1.8
1.8
1.4 1.4
1.4
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.6 0.6 0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm)
G=121µm R=50
4.9 G=121µm R=100 G=121µm R=125
4.9 5.3
4.5 4.5 4.9
4.1 4.1 4.5
Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

Surface damage (%)

3.7 3.7 4.1

3.3 3.3 3.7
3.3
2.9 2.9
2.9
2.5 2.5
2.5
2.1 2.1
2.1
1.7 1.7 1.7
1.3 1.3 1.3
0.9 0.9 0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm) depth of cut (µm)

f=5 m/min f= 7.5 m/min f=10 m/min f=12.5 m/min f=15 m/min

Fig. 6. Variation of surface damage with depth of cut under different grinding conditions for different grinding wheels.

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11

Table 4 Table 6
ANOVA table for second order model of surface roughness ‘Ra’. ANOVA table for second order model of percentage area of surface damage.

Source DF SS MS Fcal F0.01 F0.05 Source DF SS MS Fcal F0.01 F0.05

d 1 0.211260 0.211260 301.54 2.18 1.91 Significant at 99% d 1 17.547 17.547 65.547 2.18 1.91 Significant at
f 1 0.398246 0.398246 568.43 confidence level f 1 38.940 38.940 144.731 99% confidence
G 1 0.219735 0.219735 313.64 G 1 28.653 28.653 106.496 level
R 1 0.075250 0.075250 107.41 R 1 36.394 36.394 135.268
d*d 1 0.036959 0.036959 59.33 d*d 1 18.738 18.738 69.645
f*f 1 0.013431 0.014158 20.21 f*f 1 15.920 15.920 59.171
G*G 1 0.020239 0.020239 24.92 G*G 1 9.245 9.245 34.361
R*R 1 0.000767 0.000767 1.09 Not significant even R*R 1 0.4808 0.4808 1.787 Not significant
at 95% confidence even at 95%
level confidence level
d*f 1 0.027938 0.027938 39.88 Significant at 99% d*f 1 5.3545 5.3545 19.901 Significant at
d*G 1 0.040725 0.040725 58.13 confidence level d*G 1 4.0541 4.0541 15.068 99% confidence
d*R 1 0.000690 0.000690 0.99 Not significant even level
f*G 1 0.000905 0.000905 1.29 at 95% confidence d*R 1 0.2370 0.2370 0.8808 Not significant
f*R 1 0.001015 0.001015 1.45 level even at 95%
G*R 1 0.002703 0.002703 3.98 Significant at 99% confidence level
confidence level f*G 1 8.0684 8.0684 29.988 Significant at
Error 140 0.098085 0.000701 – f*R 1 7.280 7.280 27.058 99% confidence
Total 154 1.155998 – – level
G*R 1 0.3430 0.3430 1.2748 Not significant
even at 95%
confidence level
Table 5
Error 140 37.6673 0.26905 –
ANOVA table for the lack of fit test of the second order model of Ra.
Total 154 228.9221 – –
Source of variation SS DF MS Fcal F0.01

Lack of fit 0.0077847 106 0.000734 1.35 2.15

Pure error 0.016291 30 0.000543
Total error 0.0240757 136 – Table 7
ANOVA table for the lack of fit test of the second order model of percentage
area of surface damage.
decrease in depth of cut, table feed, and grit size and grit
density. The increase in subsurface damage was due to the Source of variation SS DF MS Fcal F0.01
increase in the chip thickness with increase in depth of cut. It Lack of fit 20.701 106 0.19529 1.58 2.15
could also be seen from Fig. 6 that the percentage area of Pure error 3.6996 30 0.12332
surface damage decreased with the decrease in table feed rate. Total error 24.40 136 –
This is as expected since the depth of engagement would be
low at low feed rate and hence the reduction in percentage area
of surface damage could be observed with the decrease in feed
rate. Similar trend had also been observed with the grit size
and grit density. It could be seen from Fig. 6 that this decrease Table 8
in percentage area of surface damage with the decrease in grit ANOVA table for second order model of amount of subsurface damage.
size was due to reduction in maximum chip thickness at lower
Source DF SS MS Fcal F0.01 F0.05
grit size. Further from Fig. 6, it could be observed that the
increase in percentage area of surface damage with increase in d 1 44.044 44.044 88.79 2.18 1.91 Significant at 99%
grit density was due to the reduction in the volume of the f 1 97.741 97.741 197.05 confidence level
material removed by every grit as the number of grits per unit G 1 71.920 71.920 144.99
R 1 91.351 91.351 184.16
area increases, which would lead to increase in specific d*d 1 47.034 47.034 121.28
grinding energy. This increase in specific grinding energy f*f 1 1.207 1.207 7.96
would have contributed to the increase in the percentage area G*G 1 5.636 5.636 18.55
of surface damage with the increase in grit density. The results R*R 1 39.960 39.960 80.56
above comply with the trends available in the literature d*f 1 0.890 0.890 1.79 Not significant even at
d*G 1 0.136 0.136 0.27 95% confidence level
[1,5,8,42,43]. d*R 1 0.595 0.595 1.20
f*G 1 0.171 0.171 0.34
4. ANOVA analysis f*R 1 0.703 0.703 1.42
G*R 1 0.861 0.861 1.74
Error 140 69.445 0.496 –
Based on the model described by Eq. (2), the significant
Total 154 471.794 – –
parameters are found individually for surface roughness,

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
12 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 7. Interaction effect of (a) depth of cut and feed and (b) depth of cut and grit size, on the subsurface damage, for different grinding wheels with varying
densities.

Fig. 8. Interaction effect of (a) depth of cut and feed and (b) depth of cut and grit size, on surface roughness, for different grinding wheels with varying densities.

4.9
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.1 4.1
Surface damage (%)
Surface damage (%)

f =15m/min
3.7 G =121µm 3.7 R=125
R=125
3.3 3.3

2.9 2.9

2.5
2.5 G=5µm f =5m/min
R=25 2.1 R=25
2.1
1.7 Contours of % D
Contours of %D (f = 10m/min, R=75)
1.7 G =63 µm, R=75 121
15 92 45
12.5 45 63
10 25 35 grit s 35
ta ble
fee d (
7.5 15 ize ( 34 25
m /min) 5 5 ons) m icr on 15
cu t (micr s ) 5 5 cu t (micr
ons)
de pth of de pth of

Fig. 9. Interaction effect of (a) depth of cut and feed and (b) depth of cut and grit size, on the percentage surface damage, for different grinding wheels with varying
densities.

percentage area of surface damage and amount of subsurface parameters for surface roughness (Table 4). For percentage
damage using ANOVA analysis. It is observed that the d, f, G, area of surface damage, it is observed (Table 6) that the d, f, G,
R, d * f, d * G, G * R, d * d, f * f, and G * G are significant R, d * f, d * G, f * G, f * R, d * d, f * f, and G * G were

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 13

40 significant. Similarly for subsurface damage depth it is

35
observed (Table 8) that the d, f, G, R, d * G, d * d, f * f,
and G * G were significant. Fig. 10 shows the influence of
30 factors and their interactions. Tables 5,7 and 9 show the
analysis of variance table for the lack of fit test for the model
% C o n trib u tio n

25
of the surface roughness, percentage area of surface damage
20 and amount of subsurface damage. It could be seen from this
15
table that the calculated value of F-ratio (Fcal) is less than the
tabulated value of F-ratio (F0.01), the proposed second-order
10 model is correct, accepting that there is no statistical evidence
5
of lack of fit of the model for a confidence level of 99%. So
following equations are the final second-order surface rough-
0 ness, percentage area of surface damage and amount of
d f G R d*d f*f G*G R*R d*f d*G d*R f*G f*R G*R
subsurface damage model considering only the significant
Fig. 10. Relative contribution of factors and their interactions on surface parameters and the interactions?
roughness, percent area of surface damage and amount of subsurface damage.
Ds ¼  9:240689303 þ 3:8772  10  1 d þ 8:950352
10  1 f þ 6:5950009  10  2 G þ 1:63464
Table 9 10  1 R  6:561  10  3 d2  2:658576  10  2 f 2
ANOVA table for the lack of fit test of the second order model of amount of  3:044697094  10  4 G2  8:4976  10  4 dG ð3Þ
subsurface damage.

Source of variation SS DF MS Fcal F0.01 Ra ¼ 5:6917331  10  2 þ 7:93136  10  4 d þ 3:764

10  2 f þ 1:748110485  10  3 G  4:757417
Lack of fit 51.96 106 0.4898 1.58 2.15
Pure error 9.286 30 0.3095 10  4 R  1:72  10  4 d2  1:616  10  3 f 2
Total error 61.246 136 –  1:331534848  10  5 G2 þ 6:96  104 df þ 8:13728
10  5 dG  8:0166  10  6 GR ð4Þ

%D ¼  3:02461525 þ 1:520953  10  1 d þ 3:380294

Table 10
Constraints used in the optimization
10  1 f þ 3:803182  10  1 G þ 4:99718  10  2 R
þ 2:4381  10  3 d2  8:40952  10  3 f 2  1:0253
Variables Unit Limits
10  4 G2  1:50  10  3 df  2:150  10  5 dG
Depth of cut mm 5–45  5:3444  10  4 f G þ 5:611  10  4 f R ð5Þ
Table feed m/min 5–15
Grit size mm 5–121 The models, as given by Eqs. (3)–(5), can be used to obtain
Grit density mm 25–125 the surface roughness, percentage of surface damage and
0
Surface roughness (RaðmaxÞ ) mm 0.345 subsurface damage depth by substituting the values of the
0
% area of surface damage (%Dmax ) % 3.98 grinding parameters. Further the responses calculated from
0
Subsurface damage (DsðmaxÞ ) mm 10 these models can be represented in graphical form and the
0
Material removal rate (M RðminÞ ) mm3/mm width/min 225 effect of the different process variables, on the subsurface
damage, surface roughness and percentage surface damage can

Table 11
Optimum machining conditions for multi-performance with different weighting factors.

Process condition number Weighting factors Optimization results

Cutting conditions Machining performance

CRa C%D CDs CM d (mm) f (m/min) G (mm) R Ra (μm) %D Ds (μm) MR (mm3/mm width/min)

1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 45 7.1 95 25 0.295 2.7 8.2 319.5

2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 45 5.81 63 125 0.240 2.3 7.8 261.45
3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 45 7.86 121 75 0.335 3.5 8.5 353.7
4 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 30 7.85 34 100 0.281 2.1 8.1 235.5
5 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 36 6.4 34 50 0.315 3.1 6.1 230.4

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
14 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Optimum Objective contours

Constraints
45

40 Feasible Ds=10 µm
Region
35 0.7

depth of cut (µm)

0.6
30 0.5
%D=3.98
0.4
25 0.3
0.2M =225 mm3/mm
20 R
0.1 width/min
15

10

5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig.11. Feasible region in optimization for ceramic grinding (CRa ¼ feed (m/min)
C%D ¼CDs ¼ CM ¼ 0.25). Fig.13. Feasible region in optimization for ceramic grinding.
(CRa ¼C%D¼ CDs ¼ 0.1, CM ¼0.7).

Optimum
Objective contours
Constraints
45

40 Ds=10 µm

35
%D=3.98
depth of cut (µm)

30

25
MR=225 mm3/mm
20 width/min

15
Ra=0.345 µm
10

5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
feed(m/min)
Fig.12. Feasible region in optimization
(C%D¼ CDs ¼CM ¼ 0.1, CRa ¼ 0.7).
be interpreted with the help of the graphs. Figs. 7–9 show the
variation of subsurface damage, surface roughness and percen-
tage area of surface damage with respect to different grinding
parameters under consideration. It can be observed from the
models developed above, for subsurface damage, surface
roughness and percentage area of surface damage, given by
Eqs. (3)–(5) (and can be seen from Figs. 7–9) that the
subsurface damage and surface roughness decreases with the
decrease in depth of cut, table feed and grit size and with the
increase in grit density. It can also be observed that the
percentage area of surface damage decreases with the decrease
in depth of cut, table feed, and grit size and grit density. This
means that subsurface damage increases and surface finish
improves with increase in grit density whereas percentage area
12 13 14 15
for ceramic grinding
Fig.14. Feasible region in optimization for ceramic grinding (CRa ¼ CDs ¼CM ¼ 0.1,
C%D ¼0.7).
of surface damage increases. The important consequence of
this study subsurface damage, surface roughness and percen-
tage area of surface damage can be controlled by judicious
selection of the operating parameters within the range con-
sidered. This provides an opportunity to maximize the material
removal by selecting the proper process parameters without
affecting the surface integrity. Hence, in order to achieve better
surface finish and lower subsurface damage and percentage
area of surface damage, with a better material removal rate, a
proper combination of depth of cut, table feed, grit size, and
grit density must be selected within their operating range. So, it
was decided to optimize the grinding process for maximization
of material removal rate with subsurface damage, surface

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 15

roughness and percentage area of surface damage as con- 6. Objective function and constraints
straints, thus forming a multi-objective function (Fig. 10).
The models developed here are now optimized by using GA. The objective of optimization is to find operating conditions
to achieve desirable values of process outputs. In ceramic
grinding, suppose one is interested in achieving desirable metal
5. Material removal rate removal rate, surface roughness and surface and subsurface
damages at the same time. For this problem, the objective
The rate of material removal (MR) can be obtained by the function can be given as the sum of normalized errors as
using the following equation: follows:
M R ¼ f :d  0     0 
Ra  Ra %D0  %D Ds  Ds
U ðd; f ; G; RÞ ¼ þ þ
%D0
0 0
Ra Ds
 0 
MR  MR
þ 0
MR

Fig.15. Feasible region in optimization for ceramic grinding (CRa ¼ Fig.17. Absolute relative error between the measured and the predicted Ra,
C%D ¼CM ¼ 0.1, CDs ¼ 0.7). %D and Ds values.

Prediction Experiment
0.4 10 4
Subsurface damage depth (µm)

0.35 9 3.5
Surface roughness (µm)

% area of surface damage

8
0.3 3
7
0.25 2.5
6
0.2 5 2

0.15 4 1.5
3
0.1 1
2
0.05 0.5
1
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Process condition number
Fig.16. Comparison of surface roughness, amount of subsurface damage and percentage area of surface damage between prediction and experiment.

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
16 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 18. Comparative analysis to select a grinding wheel (C%D ¼ CDs ¼CM ¼ 0.1, CRa ¼ 0.7).

Fig. 19. Process map for ceramic grinding with diamond grinding wheel having different grit density (C%D ¼ CDs ¼CM ¼ 0.1, CRa ¼ 0.7). Figures A to E shows the
SEM micrographs of machined surface and subsurface damages under different grit densities along with the optimization results. Arrow indicate the machined
surface.

0 0 0
where Ra ; %D0 ; Ds and M R are the desirable process output process conditions more than others. This idea can be achieved
values of surface roughness, surface damage, subsurface by employing weighting factors in the objective function as
damage depth and metal removal rate, respectively, where follows:
0 0 0
Ra r Ra ; D r D0 ; Ds r Ds and M R Z M R and xmini r xi r xmax
i  0   
min
(where xi and xi max
are the lower and upper bounds on Ra  Ra %D0  %D
U ðd; f ; G; RÞ ¼ C Ra þ C %D
%D0
0
process variables xi ). In a practical situation, it might not be Ra
possible to simultaneously achieve all the desired process  0   0 
conditions due to the constraints imposed on operating Ds  Ds MR  MR
þ C Ds 0 þ CM 0
conditions. In such a case, one might want to achieve certain Ds MR

Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
where CRa , C%D , CDs, and CM are weighting factors con-
sidered as the contributing coefficients of grinding perfor-
mance measures namely surface roughness, percentage area of
surface damage, subsurface damage depth and metal removal
rate, respectively. By imposing a higher weighting factor on
the process output variable of interest, the desirable value for
that particular process output can be achieved at the expense of
other process outputs.
The genetic algorithm program including the set of constraints
has been written in MATLAB environment. In this case, the
objective function consists of various variables, such as depth of
cut, feed, grit size, etc. It is a multidimensional variable problem
but it is difficult to visualize the results. For simplicity however,
the objective function is reduced to a two-variable problem in
order for it to be presented in two dimensional space, thus
allowing for a graphical illustration of the problem formulation.
Therefore, the depth of cut and feed are the two variables
considered in the objective function since they are the most
important parameters. Further, four criteria are considered in this
case: surface roughness, percentage area of surface damage,
subsurface damage depth and the material removal rate. Since the
objective function involves the conflicting variables; therefore
weighting factors are useful parameter to make a compromise
between them i.e. a weighting factor is used to provide
importance to the performance measures as per requirement of
the decision maker. Table 10 shows the constraints used in the
optimization of ceramic grinding.
Table 11 shows the results after optimization and the weighting
factors for five different combinations. Figs. 11–15 show the
contour plots showing the feasible regions and the optimum values
for all five combinations. Further, by analyzing the results of the
optimization, decisions about the choice of parameters could be
taken, depending upon specific requirements of the grinding
process. For instance, a component can be ground with the best
surface and subsurface quality but with minimum metal removal
rate, as in the of process condition number 2 (Case-2 in Table 11).
On the other hand, i.e. for process condition number 3 (Case-3 in
Table 11), the highest rate of material removal can be achieved but
it will be of the poor surface quality. All the other results are the
cases that lie in-between. It can also be observed that higher grit
density was required when more emphasis is given on value of
surface roughness, leading to an increase in the cost of the ceramic
grinding process. However the selection of one solution over the
other depends on the requirement of the production engineer. It can
also be observed from the results of optimization (Figs. 11–15) that
the material removal rate can be increased by increasing the
roughness constraint for all values of percentage area of surface
damage and subsurface damage depth. Hence, it can be concluded
from the above optimization results that the material removal rate
and the cost of grinding are influenced more by the surface
roughness than by that of surface and subsurface damages. So, the
cost of grinding ceramics can be brought down considerably by
proper selection of grinding parameters with the help of the
optimization procedure developed in this work.
In addition to the above, the large variations in the results
were observed from the feasible regions (Figs. 11–15) and for
grinding conditions, the optimization results were obtained and
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
17
corresponding grinding performance measures indicate the cap-
ability and flexibility of the predictive program for customized
weighing factors which represents the major objectives of the
grinding operations. The robustness and the versatility of the
models for the optimum grinding conditions and grinding
performance measures are clearly demonstrated in this study for
a range of customized weighting factors representing various
objectives of the ceramic grinding operation.
7. Validation of optimization results
In order to validate the optimization results, grinding
experiments were conducted out according to the grinding
parameters that were produced by optimization scheme. There
are a total of five cases considered in this study. The
experiments were carried out thrice and the averages of their
measured values are shown in Fig. 16. The validation results of
all five cases are graphically summarized in Fig. 16. Fig. 16
shows the comparison between predicted values from the
process response models and experimentally measured values
corresponding to each set of the operating parameters for the
five cases of optimization. It can be observed in Fig. 16 that
some predicted values of process responses are inside one
standard deviation from the experimental mean value, which is
considered here a reasonable prediction. Some other experi-
ments need two standard deviations to fit the predicted data
with the experimental data. However, this standard deviation
was calculated from a set of measurements of the surface
roughness, surface and subsurface damages taken in different
positions of the workpiece for a single experiment; therefore, it
does not represent the scattering observed in grinding from one
experiment to another under the same conditions. Excellent
agreement in process conditions confirms that all the optimiza-
tion results produced the correct solutions.
Another useful parameter to evaluate the models is the
absolute value of the relative error between the predicted and
the measured values. The parameters are shown in Fig. 17,
where it can be observed that the maximum error and the
average error are 16.8% and approximately 10% respectively.
This is supposed to be a good prediction of the process
responses, where a typical scattering is present. However, the
errors can be reduced further if the number of measurements is
increased.
8. Process map of ceramic grinding
A process map is an important display of the machining
process that will provide a engineer to have a look into the
behavior of a grinding process within the region of a process
parameter. Fig. 18 shows the feasible solutions for all the five
grit densities. Fig. 19 shows a process map developed for the
grinding of silicon carbide, as a function of two main input
process parameters. Surface roughness, percentage area of
surface damage, subsurface damage depth and material
removal rate indicated the machinablity in this graph. The
process map illustrates the contour of the function with utility
of 70% weight on surface roughness and weight of 10% on the
18 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
other objectives. Feasible region that contains the surface and
subsurface A through E indicate the surface and subsurface
damages within the limit of depth of cut and feed rate. The
process map shows that the highest grindability is with the
grinding wheel having grit density 125. In the case of best
possible selection of grinding wheel (grit density¼ 125), the
optimum region for grinding the workpiece surface is in the
vicinity of depth of cut, 45 μm and table feed, 5.81 m/min.
In this region the silicon carbide has a good grindability.
Reason for an increased or decreased grindability can be
related to the grinding forces in the different region of process
map in Fig. 19. For example, an increase in the grindability
from E to A is due to the decrease in the grinding forces as a
result of decease in the table feed and thereby causing less
amount of surface and subsurface damages incurred in the
material.
9. Conclusion
The investigations of this study indicate that the parameters
depth of cut, feed rate, grit size and grit density are the primary
influencing factors which affect the surface integrity of silicon
carbide during grinding. They also indicate that the subsurface
damage, surface roughness and percentage area of surface damage
decreases with the decrease in depth of cut, table feed. However
the subsurface damage increases and surface finish improves with
increase in grit density whereas percentage area of surface damage
increases, within the range considered. The important consequence
of this study is that the subsurface damage, surface roughness and
percentage area of surface damage can be controlled by judicious
selection of the operating parameters. The approach presented in
this paper provides an impetus to develop analytical models, based
on the experimental results, to predict the general trends of ground
workpiece surface roughness, subsurface damage and surface
damage in terms of the significant parameters under consideration.
Optimal grinding conditions are also obtained for maximi-
zation of material removal using surface roughness, subsurface
damage and percentage damage, computed by the models
developed, as constraints. The results of optimization conclude
that the material removal and the cost of grinding are
influenced more by the constraint on surface roughness than
by subsurface and surface damage. So, the cost of grinding
silicon carbide ceramic can be brought down considerably by
proper selection of grinding parameters with the help of the
optimization procedure used in this work. The important
consequence of this is that the set of optimal solution enables
the working engineer to select a particular set of optimized set
of input variables depending upon his requirements. The
selection of optimum grinding parameters is essential for the
process automation and implementation of a computer-
integrated manufacturing system. Thus, the optimized model
developed offers a solution to reduce the cost of grinding,
thereby making the silicon carbide a more commercially viable
and attractive material for industrial applications.
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
References
[1] B.P. Bandyopadhyay, The effects of grinding parameters on the strength
and surface finish of two silicon nitride ceramics, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 53 (1995) 533–543.
[2] H.K. Tonshoff, J. Peters, I. Inasaki, T. Paul, Modelling and simulation of
grinding processes, Ann. CIRP 41 (2) (1992) 677–688.
[3] S. Jahanmir, L.K. Ives, A.W. Ruff, M.B. Peterson, Ceramic machin-
ing: assessment of current practice and research needs in the U.S., NIST-
SP834, 1992.
[4] M.J. Chen, D. Li, S. Dong, F.H. Zhang, Factors influencing the surface
quality during ultra precision grinding of brittle materials in ductile mode,
Key Eng. Mater. 257–258 (2004) 201–206.
[5] J.E. Mayer, Jr, G.P. Fang, Effect of grinding parameters on surface finish
of ground ceramics, Ann. CIRP 44 (1) (1995) 279–282.
[6] L. Yina, H. Huang, K. Ramesh, T. Huang, High speed versus conven-
tional grinding in high removal rate machining of alumina and alumina–
titania, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 (2005) 897–907.
[7] J. Chen, H. Huang, X. Xu, An experimental study on the grinding of
alumina with a monolayer brazed diamond wheel, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 41 (2009) 16–23.
[8] R.L. Allor, T.J. Whalen, J.R. Baer, K.V. Kumar, Machining of silicon
nitride: experimental determination of process/property relationship, in:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Machining Advanced
Materials. NIST SP847: 1993, 223-234.
[9] S. Malkin, T.W. Hwang, Grinding mechanisms for ceramics, Ann. CIRP
45 (2) (1996) 569–580.
[10] H.H.K. Xu, N.P. Padutre, S. Jahanmir, Effect of microstructure on
material removal mechanisms and damage tolerance in abrasive machin-
ing of silicon carbide, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 78 (9) (1995) 2443–2448.
[11] W. Pfeiffer, T. Hollstein, Damage determination and strength prediction
of machined ceramics by X-ray diffraction techniques, in: Proceedings of
the Conference on Experimental Mechanics, Copenhagen, Denmark,
1990, pp. 235–245.
[12] Q. Zhao, Y. Liang, D. Stephenson, J. Corbett, Surface and subsurface
integrity in diamond grinding of optical glasses on Tetraform ‘C’, Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 47 (14) (2007) 2091–2097.
[13] W.H. Daniels, A.C. Hawkins, Super abrasives for ceramic grinding and
finishing, SME Technical Paper EM89, 1989, p. 125.
[14] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, Experimental investigation of surface/subsurface
damage formation and material removal mechanisms in SiC grinding, Int.
J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 48/6 (2008) 698–710.
[15] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, Grinding characteristics, material removal and
damage formation mechanisms in high removal rate grinding of silicon
carbide, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 50 (2010) 1077–1087.
[16] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, A new surface roughness prediction model for
ceramic grinding, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B: J. Eng. Manuf. 219 (2005)
811–821.
[17] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, Performance improvement of SiC grinding using
solid lubricants, Mach. Sci. Technol. – Int. J. 11 (1) (2007) 61–79.
[18] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in
ceramic grinding, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 50 (12) (2010) 1065–1076.
[19] K. Iwata, K.Takazawa, Y. Yamamotor, M. Horike, Determination of
Optimum Machining Conditions in Cylindrical Plunge Grinding, in:
Proceedings of the 5th North American Metalworking Research Con-
ference, 1977, pp. 284–290.
[20] J. Peters, R. Aerens, Optimization procedure of three phase grinding
cycles of a series without intermediate dressing, Ann. CIRP 29 (1) (1990)
195–199.
[21] G. Amitay, S. Malkin, Y. Koren, Adaptive control optimization of
grinding, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Ind. 103 (1981) 103–108.
[22] G. Xiao, S. Malkin, K. Danai, Autonomous system for multistage
cylindrical grinding, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control., 115, ,
1993, p. 667–672.
[23] Y.T. Chen, Y.C. Shin, A Surface Grinding Process Advisory System with
Fuzzy Logic, Control of Manufacturing Processes, DSC Vol. 28/PED,
1991, Vol. 52, ASME, pp. 67–77.
 S. Agarwal / Ceramics International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
[24] P.S. Midha, C.B. Zhu, G.J. Trmal, Optimum selection of grinding
parameters using process modeling and knowledge based system
approach, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 28 (1991) 189–198.
[25] X.M. Wen, A.A.O. Tay, A.Y.C. Nee, Micro-computer-based optimization
of the surface grinding process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 29 (1992)
75–90.
[26] T.W. Liao, L.J. Chen, A neural network approach for grinding processes:
modeling and optimization, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 34 (7) (1994)
919–937.
[27] G. Xiao, S. Malkin, On-line optimization for internal plunge grinding,
Ann. CIRP 45 (1) (1996) 287–292.
[28] C. Guo, S. Malkin, Cylindrical Grinding Process Simulation, Optimiza-
tion and Control, in: Proceedings of the 4th Machining and Grinding
Conference, 2001, SME MR01-334.
[29] W.B. Rowe, L. Yan, I. Inasaki, S. Malkin, Application of artificial
intelligence in grinding, Ann. CIRP 43 (2) (1994) 521–531.
[30] S. Venk, R. Govind, E. Merchant, An expert system approach to
optimization of the centerless grinding process, Ann. CIRP 39 (1) (1990)
489–492.
[31] M. Sakakura, I. Inasaki, Intelligent data base for grinding operations,
CIRP Ann. 42 (1) (1993) 379–382.
[32] M. Sakakura, I. Inasaki, Neural network approach to the decision-making
process for grinding operations, Ann. CIRP 41 (1) (1992) 353–356.
[33] E. Brinksmeier, C. Popp, A. Self-Tuning, Adaptive control system for
grinding processes, Ann. CIRP 40 (1) (1991) 355–358.
[34] R.K. Jain, V.K. Jain, Optimum selection of machining conditions in
abrasive flow using neural networks, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 108
(2000) 62–67.
Please cite this article as: S. Agarwal, Optimizing machining parameters to combine high productivity with high surface integrity in grinding silicon carbide
ceramics, Ceramics International (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.008
19
[35] P.V.S. Suresh, P.V. Rao, S.G. Deshmukh, A genetic algorithmic
approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 42 (2002) 675–680.
[36] A.V. Gopal, P.V. Rao, Selection of optimum conditions for maximum
material removal rate with surface finish and damage as constraints in SiC
grinding, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 43 (2003) 1327–1336.
[37] S. Agarwal, P.V. Rao, Improvement in productivity in SiC grinding,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B: J. Eng. Manuf. 225 (2011) 811–830.
[38] W.G. Cochran, G.M. Cox, in: Experimental Designs, 2nd ed., John
Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, USA, 1962.
[39] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms, Addison Wesley Longman Inc.,
India, 1999.
[40] K. Deb, in: Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England, 2002.
[41] D.A. Axinte, L. de Chiffre, Effectiveness and resolution of tests for
evaluating the performance of cutting fluids in machining aerospace
alloys, Ann. CIRP–Mfg Technol. 57 (1) (2008) 129–132.
[42] T.M.A. Maksoud, A.A. Maksoud, A.A. Mokbel, J.E. Morgan, Evaluation
of surface and sub-surface cracks of ground ceramic, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 88 (1999) 222–243.
[43] H.H.K. Xu, S. Jahanmir, L.K. Ives, Material removal and damage
formation mechanisms in grinding silicon nitride, J. Mater. Res. 11 (7)
(1996) 1717–1724.