International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)

ISSN (P): 2249–6890; ISSN (E): 2249–8001
Vol. 10, Issue 3, Jun 2020, 173–182
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF OPTIMAL 2D SURFACE TEXTURE

PARAMETERS USING GRA WHEN MACHINING UNDER DRY AND AEROSOL-
MIST CONDITIONS IN TURN-MILL OPERATION

A. M. VENKATA PRAVEEN1, K. ARUN VIKRAM2 & K. SURESH3

1
Research Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, GITAM (Deemed to be University), Andhra Pradesh, India
2,3
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, GITAM (Deemed to be University), Andhra Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT

Improvement in surface texture which replicates the surface finish of a machined product has demanded improved
modern technology for proper functioning, aesthetics and longer life of the product. This research studies on
experimental 2-dimensional surface roughness textures (like average surface roughness-Ra, root mean square deviation
of profile-Rq and maximum height of profile-RZ) as responses for optimal determination of machining parameters using
Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). Study of machined 2D surface texture parameters is carried on AISI 304 stainless steel
material under dry and aerosol-mist conditions. Multi-axis with C-axis rotational operation such as orthogonal turn-mill
machining operation is carried on a CNC Turn-mill machine with a constant C-axis rotation. Tool spindle speed, tool

Original Article
feed rate and depth of cut are taken as machining parameters, while Taguchi L16 design of experiments is considered for
experimentation with Analysis of variance for predicting significance of machining parameters. In this paper, the
novelty of machining and analyzing the machined surface texture parameters over AISI 304 in orthogonal turn-mill
operation on C-axis machining center where both workpiece and tool rotates simultaneously is done. The application for
attempting multi-surface texture parameters optimization using GRA is also shown.

KEYWORDS: ANOVA, C-Axis, GRA, Roughness, Surface Texture & Turn-Mill

Received: Mar 12, 2020; Accepted: Apr 02, 2020; Published: Apr 29, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN202016

1. INTRODUCTION

The fluctuations between the tool and workpiece in metal machining generate varying amplitudes of asperities and
surface valleys with varying spacing. Surface texture which occurs due to material removal processes, indicate the
surface finish patterns produced by deviations of asperities and valleys. Surface texture profiles which indicates the
surface roughness which are generated after machining of material comprise the error of form, waviness, lay, flows
and roughness, Researcher like Prasanta Sahoo et al, (2012) focused study on fractal dimension generations in
various machining processes on AISI 1040 mild steel. They have tabulated surface roughness in end milling,
turning, grinding and Electron Discharge machining and used artificial neural network for predicting fractal
dimension models.

Surface texture which is the characteristics of machined material surface is the random and repetitive
deviations from the nominal surface showing waviness, roughness and lays. These characteristics are important
requirements for proper geometrical drawing and tolerance of machined parts assembly and to control friction
between surfaces. Surface irregularities with larger wavelength are known to be called as “waviness” is a result of
deflections, vibrations etc between machine-tool-workpiece, while Lay represents the principal direction of surface
pattern which is predominant due to the tool-workpiece contact motion mechanism. On the other hand, surface

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

174 A. M. Venkata Praveen, K. Arun Vikram & K. Suresh

roughness which is known to be the primary texture is the result of inherent actions between cutting tool and work material
machining mechanism thereby causing irregularities on the machined material surface. It can be recorded and analyzed
using non-contact 3-dimensional (3D) profile meters (like couple charged device-CCD) or 2dimensional (2D)-contact
profile meters (like roughness testers). Over decades engineers and researchers have been using 2D measuring devices for
measuring the roughness of a surface with various parameters among which, the most common used are arithmetic mean
roughness (Ra). Ramaswamy, (2001) compared and presented 2D and 3D roughness parameters and concludes the 3D
parameters are of more much use for dynamic analysis like spatial, and volume parameters. Similarly, Tao Wang et al.
(2015) presented a study on surface roughness generated and evaluation on aluminium alloy while machining with high
speed milling using typical 2D (Ra and Rz) and 3D (Sa and Sq) surface roughness parameters and they indicated 3D
parameters to be more capable.

The 3D profiles representing Skew and kurtosis parameters are very useful and easy made for machine learning
but has a deficiency in high cost investment and skills requirement. On the other hand, surface roughness in 2D
representation using roughness parameters (like average surface roughness-Ra, root mean square deviation of profile-Rq
and maximum height of profile-RZ) is less costly and minimal skill requirement is sufficient and so, in this work 2D
roughness parameters are attempted for study and optimization. The roughness parameter ‘Rq’ which represents the
standard deviation of the height distribution over the taken sampling length provides the same information as Ra, on the
other side, ‘Rz’ corresponds to frequent checking of the profile to know its inclusion of protruding peaks that might affect
static or sliding contact function. Leandro Tonietto et al, (2019) performed quality evaluation of a material’s surface
through analysis of roughness. They proposed a new method to evaluate surface roughness by combining qualitative and
quantitative assessment of surface roughness. They reported the relations between 2D and 3D roughness parameters.

Manufacturing mostly involves in indentifying the optimal combination of machining parameters to increase
surface finish for greater aesthetics, life and contact between parts, so in the present work numerical methods like Grey
Relational Analysis (GRA) which normalize and gives weightage to each response for the combination of qualitative and
quantitative criteria is adopted for multi-response optimality determination. Taguchi’s concept which is frequently used as
a method for design of experiments lags in carrying multi-response optimization and so method such as Grey Relational
Analysis (GRA) can be integrated (Khalilpourazary et al, 2014; Lal S et al, 2013; Ahilan, C et al. 2010). Experimental
investigation of surface finish/roughness 2D parameters like average surface roughness (Ra- µm), root mean square
deviation of profile (Rq-µm) and maximum height of profile (RZ- µm) are considered for study while machining AISI 304
stainless steel cylindrical workpiece for multi-response optimal studies using GRA. Taguchi Design of experiments with
orthogonal array concept with L16 combination of experiments is taken as experimental design while plain turning under
dry and aerosol-mist conditions with coated carbide end mill cutters and constant workpiece rotation as C-axis.

2. MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT UTILIZED

Stainless steels have corrosion resistance and contain minimum of 0.10% chromium. Stainless steels with austenitic
structures have hardness not a guide for speeds. American Iron and Steel Institute- AISI 304 has high domestic applications
and the chemical composition of AISI 304 includes C 0.10%, Mn 1.5%, Ni 9.5%, Cr 19.0% and remaining Fe with 36 mm
diameter and 80 mm long are used. MITUTOYO surface roughness tester (model: SJ 301) was used to measure surface
roughness parameters. Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD) TiAlN coated carbide solid end mill cutters of Kennametal
make with 4CH1000ML032A KC633M grade are used for orthogonal turn-mill operation. C-axis Turn-mill machine of

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Experimental investigations of optimal 2D surface texture parameters using GRA when 175
machining under dry and aerosol-mist conditions in Turn-mill operation

PMK make with model-TMC-XL-200 with Fanuc 0i control system, shown in figure 1 is utilized for experimentation.

Figure 1: CNC Turn-Mill Center and Aerosol-Mmst Setup.

Machining was carried under dry and aerosol-mist water soluble oil (1:20 with 1litre of oil and 20 liters of water)
cutting fluid with an air pressure of 5.5 bar and 30 ml/min condition. Compressor with 24 liter capacity was used for
aerosol-mist environment and connected to a nozzle having an air and cutting fluid mixture vortex tube.

3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Experimental design of 16 experiments (L16) using Taguchi method with three machining parameters having four levels
each, as shown in Table 1 is used for machining in orthogonal turn-mill operation on AISI 304 stainless steel workpiece.
Each new combination of experiment was done using a new coated carbide four flute end mill cutter tips.

Table 1: Machining Parameters and their Levels

Machining Parameter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
A: Tool speed (rpm) 1300 1500 1700 1900
B: Tool Feed (mm/min) 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.22
C: Depth of cut (mm) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2

Table 2a: Experiment Design and Measured Responses in dry Orthogonal Turn-Mill Machining
Exp Tool Speed Tool Feed Depth of cut Ra Rq Rz
No (rpm) (mm/min) (mm) (µm) (µm) (µm)
1 1300 0.10 0.3 1.28 1.56 7.46
2 1300 0.14 0.6 1.41 1.75 8.24
3 1300 0.18 0.9 1.60 1.91 8.54
4 1300 0.22 1.2 1.71 2.07 8.64
5 1500 0.10 0.6 1.16 1.45 6.68
6 1500 0.14 0.3 1.29 1.63 8.45
7 1500 0.18 1.2 1.38 1.51 5.10
8 1500 0.22 0.9 1.54 1.94 9.70
9 1700 0.10 0.9 1.27 1.55 7.19
10 1700 0.14 1.2 1.20 1.58 7.87
11 1700 0.18 0.3 1.34 1.70 8.46
12 1700 0.22 0.6 1.44 1.71 7.54
13 1900 0.10 1.2 1.10 1.35 6.44
14 1900 0.14 0.9 1.18 1.46 7.29
15 1900 0.18 0.6 1.27 1.55 7.19
16 1900 0.22 0.3 1.49 1.86 8.83
Average surface roughness (Ra); Root mean square deviation of profile (Rq);
Maximum height of profile (RZ)

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

176 A. M. Venkata Praveen, K. Arun Vikram & K. Suresh

Surface texture parameters are taken as responses (like average surface roughness (Ra- µm), root mean square
deviation of profile (Rq-µm) and maximum height of profile (RZ- µm) are measured using surface roughness tester and are
given in Table 2a and Table 2b for dry and aerosol-mist condition machining respectively. The surface R-profile with
Gauss filtered, ISO 1997 standard and cut of length of 0.8 mm are shown in figure 2a and figure 2b for dry and aerosol-
mist conditions respectively.

Figure 2a: Surface Roughness Profile of Experiment-1 under Dry Machining.

Responses thus obtained are used for machining parameter significances using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
In addition, they are also used to evaluate multi-response optimality using Gray relational analysis. In the last, a sensitive
analysis of GRA concept is carried by varying the weightage of the responses.

Table 2b: Experiment Design and Responses in Aerosol-Mist Machining

Exp Tool Speed Tool feed Depth of cut Ra Rq Rz
No (rpm) (mm/min) (mm) (µm) (µm) (µm)
1 1300 0.10 0.3 1.20 1.55 7.87
2 1300 0.14 0.6 1.40 1.72 8.14
3 1300 0.18 0.9 1.56 1.92 9.76
4 1300 0.22 1.2 1.68 2.10 10.10
5 1500 0.10 0.6 0.99 1.25 6.59
6 1500 0.14 0.3 1.11 1.31 5.35
7 1500 0.18 1.2 1.14 1.41 7.37
8 1500 0.22 0.9 1.29 1.49 6.40
9 1700 0.10 0.9 0.92 1.12 5.11
10 1700 0.14 1.2 0.97 1.18 5.39
11 1700 0.18 0.3 1.22 1.49 7.62
12 1700 0.22 0.6 1.40 1.72 8.14
13 1900 0.10 1.2 0.73 0.88 4.22
14 1900 0.14 0.9 1.02 1.25 5.55
15 1900 0.18 0.6 1.10 1.32 5.73
16 1900 0.22 0.3 1.48 1.86 9.71

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Experimental investigations of optimal 2D surface texture parameters using GRA when 177
machining under dry and aerosol-mist conditions in Turn-mill operation

Figure 2b: Surface Roughness Profile of Experiment-1 under Aerosol-Mist

Machining.

3.1. Analysis of Variance

Statistical models are primarily based on hypothesis of accepting or rejecting, such as in case of Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA). ANOVA uses analysis of the variance between groups and in-between groups and accepts or reject the
hypothesis based on statistical value like Fisher’s value (F-value). It treats the hypothesis confirmation or rejection based
on comparing the F-value with the critical values. The tabulation and equations used in ANOVA are shown in Table 3.
ANOVA with significance level of 95% is carried in both conditions of machining and is given in Table 4a and Table 4b.

Table 3: ANOVA format for Tabulation and Formulae

Source DF Sum of Squares (SS) Mean Square (MS) Feval Remarks
Among or
MSG = Significant
Between DFG = (n-1) SSBetween (MSG/MSE)
(SSgroup)/DFgroup) or not
“Groups”
DFE =
Within groups MSE =
(DFT-DFG- SSwithin
or “Error” (SSError)/DFError)
total)
Total DFT = (N-1) SSTotal

(1)

(2)

(3)

Table 4a: ANOVA of Generated Responses in Dry Machining

Source DF SS MS F Remarks
Surface roughness (Ra) (F-Critical of 3,6 is 4.757)
A 3 0.128 0.043 12.5 Significant (S)
B 3 0.274 0.091 26.4 Highly significant (HS)
C 3 0.012 0.004 1.15 Not significant (NS)
Error 6 0.0207 0.003
Root mean deviation (Rq)
A 3 0.155 0.052 5.7 NS
B 3 0.366 0.122 13.5 HS
C 3 0.027 0.009 0.96 NS
Error 6 0.056 0.009
Maximum profile height (Rz)
A 3 1.551 0.521 0.68 NS
B 3 6.952 2.317 3.04 NS

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

178 A. M. Venkata Praveen, K. Arun Vikram & K. Suresh

C 3 4.572 1.52 1.99 NS

Error 6 5.408 0.762

Table 4b: ANOVA of Generated Responses in Aerosol-Mist Machining

Source DF SS MS F Remarks
Surface roughness (Ra) (F-Critical of 3,6 is 4.757)
A 3 0.364 0.121 20.1 HS
B 3 0.541 0.180 30.2 HS
C 3 0.033 0.011 1.83 NS
Error 6 0.04 0.006
Root mean deviation (Rq)
A 3 0.656 0.218 12.8 S
B 3 0.768 0.256 15.1 HS
C 3 0.058 0.019 1.11 NS
Error 6 0.104 0.017
Maximum profile height (Rz)
A 3 19.43 6.48 4.59 NS
B 3 19.17 6.39 4.53 NS
C 3 2.21 0.74 0.52 NS
Error 6 8.43 1.41

3.2. Grey Relational Analysis

Taguchi’s concept stands as a base for optimization in manufacturing but need to coupled with another analytical method
for multi-response optimization, as Taguchi concept suffers in doing it (Arun et al. (2018)). So, in this research, method
like Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) is being coupled for the response to multi-optimize the responses.

GRA developed by Deng, adopt normalizing the responses for compatibility of comparison using lower-the-better
and higher-the-better concept of signal-to-noise ratio, as given in equation-4a and 4b.

For Lower-is-Better (LB): (4a)

For Higher-is-Better (HB): (4b)

where Xi(j) is value of response of ith experiment, max(xi(j)) and min(xi(j)) are the smallest and largest values of
Xi(j) respectively.

Note: In this work, the surface roughness parameters need to have low noise, thereby leading to use lower-is-
better equation. A sample calculation of experiment-1 of dry condition is shown:

For Lower-is-Better (LB): = [(1.71-1.28/(1.71-1.10)] = 0.7049

Later, the deviation in sequence Δoi(k) of each response is determined using equation-5

(5)

Sample calculation: the deviation sequence = |0.7049-1|=0.2951

Later, the deviation which are determined is used for calculating Grey relational coefficient correlation between
responses by giving equal weight age (distinguishable coefficient) as given in equation-6.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Experimental investigations of optimal 2D surface texture parameters using GRA when 179
machining under dry and aerosol-mist conditions in Turn-mill operation

(6)

where Δmin is smallest value of the normalized values, Δmax is maximum value of the normalized values, ζ is
distinguishing coefficient and ranges from 0 to 1 and had been assumed as 0.5 (Khalilpourazary et al, 2014).

Sample calculation of Grey relational coefficient:

γi = ((0+0.5*1)/((0.2951+(0.5*1))) = 0.629

Lastly, the grey relational coefficients of all the responses in an experiment is averaged and graded for ranking
using Eq-7.

(7)

where “nr” is total number of responses.

Sample calculation of Grey relational grade:

= (0.629+0.632+0.494)/3 = 0.585

The grade which gets highest rank is taken as optimal combination for multi-response optimization and is
tabulated in Table 5a and Table 5b for dry and aerosol-mist conditions respectively.

Table 5a: Normalization, Grey Relational Coefficient and Grade for Ranking in Dry Machining
Normalization based on LB/HB Grey Relational Coefficients
Grey Relational
Exp. No. Ra Rq Rz Rq Rz Rank
Ra (µm) Grade
(µm) (µm) (µm) (µm) (µm)
1 0.7049 0.7083 0.4870 0.629 0.632 0.494 0.585
2 0.4918 0.4444 0.3174 0.496 0.474 0.423 0.464
3 0.1803 0.2222 0.2522 0.379 0.391 0.401 0.390
4 0.0000 0.0000 0.2304 0.333 0.333 0.394 0.354
5 0.9016 0.8611 0.6565 0.836 0.783 0.593 0.737
6 0.6885 0.6111 0.2717 0.616 0.563 0.407 0.529
7 0.5410 0.7778 1.0000 0.521 0.692 1.000 0.738
8 0.2787 0.1806 0.0000 0.409 0.379 0.333 0.374
9 0.7213 0.7222 0.5457 0.642 0.643 0.524 0.603
10 0.8361 0.6806 0.3978 0.753 0.610 0.454 0.606
11 0.6066 0.5139 0.2696 0.560 0.507 0.406 0.491
12 0.4426 0.5000 0.4696 0.473 0.500 0.485 0.486
13 1.0000 1.0000 0.7087 1.000 1.000 0.632 0.877 1
14 0.8689 0.8472 0.5239 0.792 0.766 0.512 0.690
15 0.7213 0.7222 0.5457 0.642 0.643 0.524 0.603
16 0.3607 0.2917 0.1891 0.439 0.414 0.381 0.411

Table 5b: Normalization, Grey Relational Coefficient and Grade for Ranking in Aerosol-Mist Machining
Normalization based on LB/HB Grey Relational Coefficients
Grey Relational
Exp. No. Ra Rq Rz Rq Rz Rank
Ra (µm) Grade
(µm) (µm) (µm) (µm) (µm)
1 0.5053 0.4508 0.3793 0.503 0.477 0.446 0.475
2 0.2947 0.3115 0.3333 0.415 0.421 0.429 0.421
3 0.1263 0.1475 0.0578 0.364 0.370 0.347 0.360
4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333
5 0.7263 0.6967 0.5969 0.646 0.622 0.554 0.607

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

180 A. M. Venkata Praveen, K. Arun Vikram & K. Suresh

6 0.6000 0.6475 0.8078 0.556 0.587 0.722 0.621

7 0.5684 0.5656 0.4643 0.537 0.535 0.483 0.518
8 0.4105 0.5000 0.6293 0.459 0.500 0.574 0.511
9 0.8000 0.8033 0.8486 0.714 0.718 0.768 0.733
10 0.7474 0.7541 0.8010 0.664 0.670 0.715 0.683
11 0.4842 0.5000 0.4218 0.492 0.500 0.464 0.485
12 0.2947 0.3115 0.3333 0.415 0.421 0.429 0.421
13 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1
14 0.6947 0.6967 0.7738 0.621 0.622 0.689 0.644
15 0.6105 0.6393 0.7432 0.562 0.581 0.661 0.601
16 0.2105 0.1967 0.0663 0.388 0.384 0.349 0.373

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Basing on ANOVA for finding significance of machining parameters, the results predict tool feed to be more predominant
in generating surface roughness and later followed by tool speed. The depth of cut for material removal is having less
impact in generating roughness.

Maximum height (micron)

1.80 11.00
Roughness (micron)

1.60 10.00
1.40 9.00
8.00
1.20
7.00
1.00
6.00
0.80 5.00
0.60 4.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Experiment number Experiment number

Roughness-Ra in dry condition Roughness -Ra in mist condition Maximum height-Rz in mist condition Maximum height-Rz in dry condition

Figure 3a: Comparison Plots of Roughness Values in dry Figure 3b: Comparison Plots of Maximum
and Mist Conditions. Valley Heights in dry and Mist Conditions.

Observing graph plot 3a, it depicts that the aerosol-mist condition machining is much more efficient in generating
a better surface finish due to the presence of the cutting fluid acting as lubricant, but graph plot 3b determines that the
roughness texture maximum peak heights do not depend on the cutting conditions.

Observing Table 5a and Table 5b, which details the GRA optimal determination in dry and aerosol-mist
machining gives the optimal combination as high tool speed in combination with low tool feed irrespective of depth of cut.
i.e. using GRA, the optimality obtained is tool speed: 1900 rpm, tool feed: 0.10 mm/min and depth of cut: 1.2 mm which
generates surface roughness parameters (Ra = 1.10 µm, Rq = 1.35 µm and Rz = 6.44 µm) in dry machining condition and
surface roughness parameters (Ra = 0.73 µm, Rq = 0.88 µm and Rz = 4.22 µm) in dry machining condition.

5. CONCLUSIONS

 The chips generated in machining are found to be of small helical powder in nature, due to relative motion
between tool and workpiece. Moreover, the mechanism of machining is intermittent in nature breaking the chips
into small portions.

 The powder like chip generated are not easy to be disposed while machining in aerosol-mist condition rather than
dry condition, due to fact that the chips may be blown away and be mixed with cutting fluid spray.

 The multi-objective optimal combination showed using GRA defines that, the cutting fluid application in metal

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Experimental investigations of optimal 2D surface texture parameters using GRA when 181
machining under dry and aerosol-mist conditions in Turn-mill operation

machining do increase surface finish but not the optimal machining combination. GRA depends on simple and
vague weightage of responses under consideration, hence sensitive analysis of due weightage is also carried in this
research work and reflected the same results for every change in weightage.

 Analyzing ANOVA of the machining parameters on the generated surface texture responses, the tool feed and tool
speed together reflects their belonging in generating surface roughness in dry and aerosol-mist machining
conditions. On the other hand, irrespective of condition of machining the peak deviation in surface texture (Rz)
cannot be predicted because the occurrence of maximum deviation can be due to other factors like misalignment,
forces, vibrations, eccentricity etc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The corresponding author would like to thank Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) under Department of
Science and Technology (DST) with File no: EEQ/2016/000395 for providing financial support for procuring tools to carry
out the experiments.

REFERENCES

1. Prasanta Sahoo., Tapan Kr. Barman. (2012). ANN modelling of fractal dimension in machining. Mechatronics and
Manufacturing Engineering, Research and Development, Woodhead Publishing Reviews: Mechanical Engineering Series,
159-226. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857095893.159

2. Ramasawmy, H. (2001). Comparison Between 2D And 3D Surface Roughness Parameters For EDM Surfaces. University of
Mauritius Research Journal, 7

3. Tao WANG., Li-jing XIE., Xi-bin WANG., Teng-yi SHANG. (2015). 2D and 3D milled surface roughness of high volume
fraction SiCp/Al composites. Defence Technology, 11. 104-109.

4. Mehetre, Chandrakant U., et al. "Comparative study of properties of self-compacting concrete with metakaolin and cement
kiln dust as mineral admixtures." IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Engineering & Technology 2.4 (2014): 37-
52.

5. Leandro Tonietto., LuizGonzaga Jr., Mauricio Roberto Veronez., Claudio de Souza Kazmierczak., Daiana Cristina Metz
Arnold., CristianoAndré da Costa. (2019). New Method for Evaluating Surface Roughness Parameters Acquired by Laser
Scanning. Scientific Reports, 9, 15038. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51545-7

6. Manjusha, S., and Newlin Raj. "Content based image retrieval using wavelet transform and feedback algorithm." International
Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 3.5 (2014): 54-60.

7. Khalilpourazary, S., Kashtiban, P. M., and Payam, N. (2014). Optimizing turning operation of St37 steel using grey relational
analysis. J. Computational and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering, 3(2), 135-144.

8. Shyam Lal., Sudhir Kumar., Zahid, A Khan., Arshad Noor, Siddiquee. (2014). Multi-response optimization of wire electrical
discharge machining process parameters for Al7075/Al2O3/SiC hybrid composite using Taguchi-based grey relational
analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 229(2), 229-
237.

9. Alhamdan, Abdullah M., et al. "Texture profile analysis of date flesh for some Saudi date cultivars." International Journal of
General Engineering 3.3 (2014): 1-10.

10. Ahilan, C., Kumanan, S., Sivakumaran, N. (2010). Application of grey based Taguchi method in multi-response optimization of

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

182 A. M. Venkata Praveen, K. Arun Vikram & K. Suresh

turning process. Advances in Production Engineering and Management, 5(3), 171-180.

11. Arun Vikram, K., Krishna Kanth, TV., Shabana., Suresh, K. (2018). Experimental evaluation for multi-response optimality on
AISI 316L materials with coated carbide inserts using GRA and VIKOR methods. Int. J of Mechanical & Production Engg.
Research & Development, 8(2), 1197-1206

12. Saleh, Kifah Q., et al. "The Effect Study of Ge Concentration on FTIR Spectra and Surface Texture of 10-Period Multiple
Quantum wells of Si0. 4Ge0. 6, Si0. 8Ge0. 2 with 5nm well Width." International Journal of Physics and Research (IJPR) 3.4
(2013): 1-4.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11