See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291951596

Modeling and optimization of tool vibration and surface roughness in boring

of steel using RSM, ANN and SVM

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · October 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10845-016-1197-y

CITATIONS READS

75 581

2 authors, including:

K. Venkata Rao
Vignan's Foundation for Science Technology and Research
55 PUBLICATIONS   566 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings View project

Modeling and optimization of tool vibration and surface roughness in boring of steel using RSM, ANN and SVM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Venkata Rao on 26 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Intell Manuf
DOI 10.1007/s10845-016-1197-y
Modeling and optimization of tool vibration and surface
roughness in boring of steel using RSM, ANN and SVM
K. Venkata Rao1 · P. B. G. S. N. Murthy2
Received: 16 October 2015 / Accepted: 13 January 2016
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract In this paper, statistical models were developed
to investigate effect of cutting parameters on surface rough-
ness and root mean square of work piece vibration in boring
of stainless steel. A mixed level design of experiments was
prepared with process variables of nose radius, cutting speed
and feed rate. According to design of experiments, eighteen
experiments were conducted on AISI 316 stainless steel with
PVD coated carbide tools. Surface roughness, tool wear and
vibration of work piece were measured in each experiment.
A laser Doppler vibrometer was used to measure vibration
of work piece in the form of acousto optic emission signals.
These signals were processed and transformed in to different
frequency zones using a fast Fourier transformer. Analysis of
variance was used to identify significant cutting parameters
on surface roughness and root mean square of work piece
vibration. Predictive models like response surface method-
ology, artificial neural network and support vector machine
were used to predict the surface roughness and root mean
square of work piece vibration. Cutting parameters were opti-
mized for minimum surface roughness and root mean square
of work piece vibration using a multi response optimization
technique.
Keywords Surface roughness · Workpiece vibration ·
RSM · ANN · SVM · LDV
B K. Venkata Rao
kvenkat_rama@rediffmail.com
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, PBR VITS, Kavali,
A.P., India
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vignan’s University,
Vadlamudi, A.P., India
Introduction
It is difficult to machine stainless steels due to their harden-
ing tendency during machining process. In boring of stainless
steels, tool wear and surface roughness are affected by vibra-
tion of boring bar (Venkata Rao et al. 2014). In boring
process, boring bars are subjected to deflection or vibration
due to its projected length from tool post. In addition to that,
length of the rotating work piece will also caused for vibra-
tion in machining. Tool wear and surface finish are directly
affected by amplitude of tool vibration in machining process
(Chang 2001). Rapid tool wear leads to excessive tooling cost
and production cost also. Tooling cost can be minimized by
reducing the tool vibration through proper selection of cut-
ting parameters like tool material, tool geometry, speed, feed,
depth of cut, cutting fluids and coated cutting tool inserts
(Moetakef-Imani and Yussefin 2009). Chang (2001) stated
that, tool geometry and tool nose radius are impotent para-
meters that are producing more vibration than other factors.
So that, it is required to control vibration of tool and work
piece especially in boring, drilling and milling operations
through proper selection of cutting parameters.
Dai and Wang (2007) developed a nonlinear dynamic cut-
ting system with factors which are caused for vibration of
workpiece and tool in machining process. A coupled cutting
vibration model was established to investigate effect of work
piece and tool vibration on the machining and influence of
electric motor on the vibration in machining process. A set of
numerical investigations were carried out to implement the
proposed model. Effect of work piece deflection was found
to be significant on the machining.
As said in the first paragraph, length of the boring bar is
kept long, resulting in vibrations leading to tool failure, poor
surface finish and chatter. The chatter must be prevented or
mitigated to achieve closed tolerances, good tool life, sur-
123

face quality, high metal removal rate and less tooling cost
(Ali and Nader 2012). Mourad et al. (2015) stated that detec-
tion of chatter in machining process is crucial step to achieve
machining with required surface quality and tool life. It is
required to select proper size of boring bar to minimize tool
vibration in boring process. Ihsan and Yilmaz (2010) stated
that the boring bar size can be estimated based on length-
diameter ratio (L/D) of boring bar. They have conducted
experiments with different ratios and proved the best length-
diameter ratio as 3, that results in least vibration in boring
process. In this work, the L/D ratio was taken as 3 in order
to minimize vibrations of tool. However size of work piece
cannot be modified, that’s why vibration of work piece was
taken as response to control it.
In conventional vibration measurement, contact sensors
like accelerometers, piezoelectric actuators and radioactive
sensors are used to measure vibration of tool and work pieces.
These contact sensors are placed on vibrating object to mea-
sure vibration of that object. But they cannot be placed on
rotating work pieces and drills and mill cutters. So it is dif-
ficult to measure vibration of work piece in boring process.
In recent applications, laser Doppler vibrometers (LDVs) are
used as non-contact sensors to measure vibration of rotating
cutting tools or work pieces accurately. The LDV is capa-
ble of giving reliable information of tool and work piece
vibration. Yeh and Cummins (1964) developed laser Doppler
velocimetry as the process which involves measuring of the
Doppler shift of the laser radiation that is scattered by the
moving particles. After that the technique was devolved as
LDV. Nakagawa et al. (2008), Prasad et al. (2010), and
Venkata Rao et al. (2013) used the LDV to measure vibrations
of rotating cutters and work pieces. They concluded that the
use of LDV is easy and it takes less time to measure vibration
of work piece. Set up of LDV is easy when compared with
set up of accelerometer. The LDVs are used for online data
acquisition of work piece vibration in the form of acousto-
optic emission (AOE) signals and a high-speed fast Fourier
transform analyzer are used to process and transforms the
AOE signals in to different frequency zones (Prasad et al.
2010).
Optimization of process parameters and development of
mathematical models are important in manufacturing to pro-
duce products in right time at right quality and production
cost. Hosseini et al. (2016) and Hosseini and Al Khaled
(2014) made a review on optimization techniques which
are used in manufacturing to solve optimization problems.
They stated that the optimization techniques are being widely
used by large number of researchers for optimization of
input parameters. Hosseini and Al Khaled (2014) used hybrid
algorithms and optimization techniques effectively to solve
problems in manufacturing plants. They also used Taguchi
technique to and maximize signal factor in signal-to-noise
ratio and to determine optimum levels of the inputs for
123
J Intell Manuf
required output. Khaled and Hosseini (2015) proposed a
fuzzy adaptive controller and Fuzzy imperialist competitive
algorithm to overcome difficulties in solving of complex opti-
mization problems in manufacturing.
Azlan et al. (2012) have combined genetic algorithm and
ANN approaches to find out optimal cutting parameters for
minimum surface roughness. Cutting speed, feed rate and
side rake angle were optimized with integrated approach to
reduce surface roughness. Heuristic optimization techniques
are also used in preparation of optimal schedule of aircraft
landing time to assign the aircrafts to different runways (Vad-
lamani and Hosseini 2014). Mohammadnejad et al. (2012)
have used the SVM methodology to predict blast-induced
ground vibration. They have conducted experiments in two
limestone quarries and the experimental data was used to
train the SVM model. The predicted values were compared
with the experimental data. They found that the SVM is able
to predict the vibration levels with correlation coefficient of
0.944.
In the present work, boring experiments were conducted
on AISI 316 work piece material, LDV was used to measure
vibration of work piece, flank wear was measured on machine
vision system and surface roughness of work piece was mea-
sured with talysurf. Fourier transform analyzer was used to
process and transforms the vibration signals in to different
frequency zones Mathematical models like response surface
methodology (RSM), artificial neural network (ANN) and
support vector machine (SVM) were developed between cut-
ting parameters and responses. These models were used to
optimize cutting parameters, to identify significant cutting
parameter that affects the machining characteristics and to
predict surface roughness and workpiece vibration.
Response surface methodolgy
The RSM is an empirical modeling approach that is used to
find out relationship between input and output parameters
(Rajesh 2013a, b; Adem et al. 2015). This is also used to
find out the effect and contribution of cutting parameters on
surface roughness and work piece vibration. The RSM uses
mathematical and statistical procedures for modeling and
analysis of experimental results to search significant para-
meters and optimizing the response. Bhardwaj et al. (2014)
have used RSM with center composite rotatable design in
turning of AISI 1019 steel to find out influence parameter on
surface roughness. Prediction models were also developed
for accurate prediction of surface roughness. Feed rate was
found as significant parameter on surface roughness while
the depth of cut has no significant effect. In RSM, the quan-
titative relationship between input and output variables is
presented as follows (Montgomery 2001)
y = f (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ) ± er (1)
J Intell Manuf
where ‘y’ is desired response and ‘f’ is the response func-
tion, dependent variable and x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn independent
variables and ‘er ’ is fitting error.
Rajesh (2013a, b) used RSM technique to minimize power
consumption and maximize tool life through optimization of
cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and nose radius. He has
conducted experiments on machining of Al alloy SiC particle
composites and optimized the process parameter. Nilrudra
et al. (2013) and Ashvin and Nanavati (2013) have also used
RSM technique to investigate effect of cutting parameters on
the surface roughness and mathematical models were devel-
oped to predict surface roughness in turning process.
In the present work, according to the Central Composite
Design (CCD), 18 experiments have been performed on AISI
316 steel.
Artificial neural networks
Artificial neural networks are also called as neural nets, artifi-
cial neural system, parallel distributed processing system and
connectionist system (Angelos et al. 2008). Hosseini and Al
Khaled (2014) made a review on optimization techniques in
solving of optimization of problems. They concluded that
the ANN is one of the tools that performs effectively in opti-
mization. Vector x is used to represent inputs and vector w
is used to represent the synapses efficiencies. Therefore the
magnitude of neuron output is calculated with the following
formula (Kishan et al. 1997).
 
  
y= f wi xi = f (w.x) = f w x
T
(2)
i where, ϕ (x) is the high dimensional feature space, which
Ramesh et al. (2015) have taken amplitude of tool vibra-
tion and tool wear as machining characteristics for tool
condition monitoring in turning process. They have con-
ducted experiments on an all-geared head lathe machine and
they have measured vibration of tool using accelerometer. In
their work, cutting parameters were predicted for minimum
using ANN. A feed forward back propagation algorithm was
used to train the experimental data and predicted values were
found very close to the experimental data.
Yalcin et al. (1980) have conducted experiments on face
milling process to optimize cutting parameters using ANN.
Experimental plan was made according to L8 orthogonal
array with milling parameters. Experimental results of sur-
face roughness and cutting forces were taken as responses.
ANN was trained with the experimental data to predict
and optimize the cutting parameters for required surface
roughness and cutting force. They have compared the pre-
dicted values with experimental values and 5 % of error was
found between them. Ilhan et al. (2012) used ANFIS to pre-
dict surface roughness and vibration in cylindrical grinding.
Piezoelectric accelerometer was used to measure vibration of
tool. High closeness was found between experimental values
and predicted values. Mourad et al. (2015) stated that detec-
tion of chatter in machining process is crucial step to achieve
machining with required surface quality, tool life. They have
developed a methodology included with vibration analysis
and artificial intelligence to detect chatter in CNC milling
machines. Experiments were conducted at different work-
ing conditions and the experimental data was used to train a
neural network. They found that the neural network was able
to predict the chatter accurately.
Support vector machine for regression
Support Vector Machine was introduced by Vapnik (1998)
for the classifying regression problems of good generaliza-
tion. In ANN methodology, large number of samples or data
is required to predict responses accurately. But in the SVM
methodology, less number of samples or data is enough to
predict the responses with less error (Lingxuan et al. 2010;
Ulaş and Sami 2012). They have used the SVM methodol-
ogy to predict processing time and electrode wear with less
number of experimental data. Structure risk minimization
principle is the main advantage of SVM and it is superior
to conventional empirical risk minimization principle. The
linear function is formulated in the high dimensional feature
space, with the form of function given below (Lingxuan et al.
2010).
y (x) = w T ϕ (x) + b (3)
is nonlinearly mapped from the input space x. The weight
vector w and bias b are estimated by minimizing.
1 1 
n
 
R (c) = C L(di , yi ) + w 2  (4)
n 2
i=1
where,

|d − y| − ε, |d − y (x)| ≥ ε
L  (d, y) = (5)
0, other wise
L (d, y) is called the ε-intensive loss function. This function
indicates that errors below ε are not penalized. The term
n
C n1 i=1 L(di , yi ) is the empirical error. 21 w 2 measures the
smoothness of the function. Both C and ε are prescribed
parameters, ε is called the tube size of SVM, and C is the
regularization constant determining the trade-off between the
empirical error and the regularized term.
The SVM approach was also used in face milling process
to predict tool breakage using cutting force data (Yao-Wen
and Chan-Yun 2008). They have conducted experiments on
123
 J Intell Manuf

Table 1 Chemical composition

Elements C Si Mn p S Cr Ni N Fe
of AISI316
Percentage 0.08 % max 0.75 % 2.0 % 0.045 % 0.03 % 17 % 11 % 0.1 % Balance

Table 2 Tool geometry of

Cutting edge length Cutting point angle Thickness Hole smallest dia Side clearance
DNMG150608
15.5 mm 55◦ 6.35 mm 5.16 mm 0◦

the face milling of cast iron work piece. Dynamometers Table 3 Design of experiments
were placed between work piece and table to measure cut- Trial no N (mm) S (m/min) F (mm/rev)
ting force. This cutting force data was used to train the
SVM model in order to predict tool breakage. The SVM 1 0.4 170 0.10
methodology was also used in mining and civil engineer- 2 0.4 170 0.13
ing applications like prediction of ground vibration during 3 0.4 170 0.16
blasting operation. 4 0.4 190 0.10
In the present work, machining characteristics such as sur- 5 0.4 190 0.13
face roughness and root mean square of work piece vibration 6 0.4 190 0.16
velocity are predicted in boring of AISI 316 steels with RSM, 7 0.4 210 0.10
ANN and SVM. Analysis of variance was performed to iden- 8 0.4 210 0.13
tify significant parameters on responses. 9 0.4 210 0.16
10 0.8 170 0.10
11 0.8 170 0.13
Work piece and tools
12 0.8 170 0.16
13 0.8 190 0.10
AISI 316 is a stainless steel, due to its high corrosion
14 0.8 190 0.13
resistance it is graded as marine grade steel. Chemical com-
15 0.8 190 0.16
position of AISI 316 is shown in Table 1 with percentages of
16 0.8 210 0.10
all elements. These stainless steels are used in chemical, fab-
rication, pharmaceutical, petroleum, food processing, heat 17 0.8 210 0.13
exchanger industries and other applications include manu- 18 0.8 210 0.16
facture of pumps, valves, marine fittings, fasteners, paper
and pulp machinery, petro chemical equipment and etc.
PVD coated tungsten carbide tool inserts were used in this up of experiment was shown in the Fig. 1. After each pass,
experiment with two nose radii of 0.8 mm (DNMG150608) tool insert was removed and flank wear on the tool was mea-
and 0.4 mm (DNMG150604). The insert geometry is shown sured with machine vision system. The work piece was also
in the Table 2 removed and its surface roughness was measured on talysurf.
In each trial, 8 passes were carried out on the work piece with
0.4 mm nose radius tool and 10 passes were carried out with
Design of experiments and experimental 0.8 mm nose radius tool. Experimental data of trail 1, sur-
procedure face roughness (Ra), RMS of work piece vibration velocity
(RMS), flank wear (VB) and hardness (H) in each pass were
In this work, nose radius (N), cutting speed (S) and feed rate shown in the Table 4. In each pass, volume of metal removal
(F) were taken as control factors. A mixed level design of was also calculated. At pass 6 (shown in green color) the
experiments was prepared with two levels of nose radius and flank wear reaches to 0.6 mm and it indicates tool failure
three levels of cutting speed and feed rate as shown in the (ISO3685:1993).
Table 3.
Each trial was started with a new cutting edge with one
test condition (trial) and machining was stopped at the end Results and discussion
of each pass. After each pass the depth of cut was increased
by 0.2 mm for the next pass. A LDV was placed in front As per experimental plan, 18 trials were conducted on AISI
of the machine and the LDV produces a laser beam to the 316 steel. In this study, In each trial, surface roughness and
rotating work piece to measure vibration signals and the set- RMS of work piece vibration velocity when tool fails were

123
J Intell Manuf

Fig. 1 Experimental set up for

boring

Table 4 Experimentally
Pass Ra (µm) RMS (mm/s) Y (mm) VB (mm) H (HRB) Vol. (mm3 )
measured values for trial 1
1 1.42 1.031 0.3257 0.1374 101.25 1721.55
2 1.81 1.158 0.3465 0.2049 101.50 3463.20
3 2.43 1.325 0.4183 0.282 101.75 5202.18
4 2.90 1.489 0.5174 0.3176 102.00 6946.92
5 3.73 1.529 0.5286 0.4952 102.50 8697.42
6 4.20 1.698 0.5419 0.6143 102.75 10453.68
7 6.61 1.701 0.6069 0.6721 103.25 12215.70
8 9.22 1.734 0.638 0.9775 103.75 13983.48

taken in the Table 5. These values are used to develop math-
ematical models for to identify significant parameters and to
predict them.
Vibration of work piece was measured with LDV in the
form of acusto optic emission signals. These signal were
transformed into frequency domain using high speed Fast
Fourier Transformer. Frequency domains for 8 passes in trial
1 are presented in the Fig. 2. It was found that at 6th pass
the tool wear reached the value of 0.6 mm and its RMS of
work piece vibration velocity was found as 1.6980 mm/s.
The frequency domains after tool failure were shown in red
color. Surface roughness and RMS of work piece vibration
velocity for 18 trails were shown in the Fig. 3.
The experimental data of surface roughness and RMS of
vibration velocity were analyzed with RSM. Effect of cut-
ting parameters on surface roughness and RMS of vibration
velocity was shown graphically with the help of RSM. In the
Fig. 4a–c, it was found that the surface roughness is minimum
at 0.8 mm nose radius and it is maximum at 0.13 mm/min of
feed rate and 190 m/min of cutting speed. In the Fig. 4d–
f, it was found that the RMS of work piece is minimum at
210 m/min of cutting speed and 0.8 mm of nose radius and
maximum at 0.1 mm/min of feed rate.
ANOVA for surface roughness and RMS of vibration
velocity
In this study, effect of cutting speed, feed rate and nose radius
on the surface roughness and RMS of work piece vibration
velocity were studied. Experimental data of surface rough-
ness was analyzed statistically using Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA).
The ANOVA was performed at the confidence level of
95 %. The sources which are having p value less than 0.05
are considered as significant (Bhardwaj et al. 2014). ANOVA
for surface roughness and RMS of vibration velocity was
shown in the Table 6. In the ANOVA for surface roughness,
it was observed that the nose radius and interaction of nose
radius and feed rate are having p values of 0.004 and 0.047
respectively. Based on the p values, they are said to be sig-
nificant parameters on the surface roughness. Muthukrishnan
and Paulo (2009) and Marimuthu and Chandrasekaran (2011)

123
 J Intell Manuf

Table 5 Experimental results of

Trial no N (mm) S (m/min) F (mm/rev) Vol (mm3 ) Ra (µm) RMS (mm/s)
Ra and RMS
1 0.4 170 0.10 10453 4.20 1.6980
2 0.4 170 0.13 11222 5.90 1.4276
3 0.4 170 0.16 10796 4.55 1.2100
4 0.4 190 0.10 10453 3.38 1.0976
5 0.4 190 0.13 11815 5.44 1.4269
6 0.4 190 0.16 12616 5.87 1.0217
7 0.4 210 0.10 12847 3.80 0.7360
8 0.4 210 0.13 12215 3.90 0.7838
9 0.4 210 0.16 11815 4.20 1.0300
10 0.8 170 0.10 13983 3.20 1.6850
11 0.8 170 0.13 12616 3.87 1.7375
12 0.8 170 0.16 08982 3.42 1.6630
13 0.8 190 0.10 12847 4.09 1.5870
14 0.8 190 0.13 11295 4.27 1.3239
15 0.8 190 0.16 10110 3.09 1.3212
16 0.8 210 0.10 11222 3.20 0.8393
17 0.8 210 0.13 11808 3.28 0.8926
18 0.8 210 0.16 11815 3.21 0.9050

Fig. 2 Frequency domains for 8 passes in trial 1

Fig. 3 Surface roughness and

RMS of vibration velocity for
18 trails

also found similar result on surface roughness. In the ANOVA et al. (2001) also found the same effect of cutting speed on the
for RMS of workpiece vibration velocity, it was observed that tool vibration. The R2 value and predicted R2 value for sur-
the cutting speed has p value of 0.007 then it can be said as face roughness are equal to 0.8774 and 0.8405 respectively.
significant parameter on the work piece vibration. Pettersson The PRESS value is equal to 13.340, which is a ratio of signal

123
J Intell Manuf

Fig. 4 The effects of nose radius, cutting speed and feed rate on Ra and RMS

Table 6 ANOVA for surface

Surface roughness RMS of vibration velocity
roughness and RMS of vibration
velocity Term Coef SE Coef T p Coef S ECoe f T p

Constant 4.75167 0.3059 15.535 0.000 1.15143 0.3164 3.639 0.005

N −0.53389 0.1368 −3.903 0.004 −0.0820 0.1415 −0.580 0.576
S −0.29583 0.1675 −1.766 0.111 −0.6028 0.1733 −3.479 0.007
F 0.20583 0.1675 1.229 0.250 0.2090 0.1733 1.206 0.259
S*S −0.46250 0.2902 −1.594 0.145 0.1709 0.3001 0.570 0.583
F*F −0.59250 0.2902 −2.042 0.072 0.2174 0.3001 0.724 0.487
N*S 0.16250 0.1675 0.970 0.357 0.1947 0.1733 1.124 0.290
N*F −0.33417 0.1675 −1.995 0.047 −0.2460 0.1733 −1.420 0.189
S*F −0.02000 0.2052 −0.097 0.924 −0.2662 0.2122 −1.255 0.241
SD 0.580328 SD 0.15014
PRESS 13.0885 PRESS 14.90123
R2 0.8774 R2 0.9589
R2 (pred) 0.8405 R2 (pred) 0.9507

to noise. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable (Bhardwaj et al.
2014). The R2 value and predicted R2 value RMS of work
piece vibration are equal to 0.9589 and 0.9507 respectively.
The PRESS value is equal to 13.340.
Empirical or regression equations for surface roughness
and RMS of workpiece vibration in terms of nose radius,
cutting speed and feed rate were given below:
With the above regression equations, the RSM had predicted
the surface roughness and RMS of work piece vibration
velocity. The predicted values at tool failure for all trials
were given in the Table 7. The RMS was performed using
MINITAB 16 software.
Prediction of responses with ANN

Ra = −45.13 − 3.15N + 0.4 S + 217.7 F − 0.0011 S2
∗ ∗
− 658.3 F + 0.04 N S − 55.7 N F − 0.033S F
2
RMS = 17.12 − 4.33N − 0.16 S + 53.1 F − 0.0004 S2
+ 241.6 F2 + 0.048 N∗ S − 41.0 N∗ F − 0.44S∗ F
In this study, feed-forward multi-layer perceptron architec-
∗ ture was used to estimate surface roughness and RMS of
(6)
vibration velocity of work piece as shown Fig. 5. The ANN
model was constructed with four layers such as input layer,
output layer and two hidden layers.
The input layer consists of four neurons such as cutting
(7) speed, nose radius, feed and volume of metal removed and

123
 J Intell Manuf

Table 7 Experimental and

Trail no. Design of experiments Ra RMS
predicted values of Ra and RMS
N S F Exp RSM ANN SVM Exp RSM ANN SVM

1 0.4 170 0.10 4.20 4.12 4.51 4.22 1.6980 1.5731 1.5560 1.5954
2 0.4 170 0.13 5.90 5.28 6.27 4.45 1.4276 1.4520 1.3011 1.4988
3 0.4 170 0.16 4.55 5.24 4.86 4.57 1.2100 1.2657 1.6186 1.4023
4 0.4 190 0.10 3.38 4.15 3.52 3.95 1.0976 1.2459 1.1431 1.0894
5 0.4 190 0.13 5.44 5.28 5.44 4.30 1.4269 1.2334 1.3272 0.9929
6 0.4 190 0.16 5.87 5.23 6.06 4.60 1.0217 1.1559 0.9643 0.8963
7 0.4 210 0.10 3.80 3.25 3.57 4.05 0.7360 0.7604 0.7679 0.5834
8 0.4 210 0.13 3.90 4.36 4.15 4.12 0.7838 0.8567 0.7761 0.4869
9 0.4 210 0.16 4.20 4.29 4.07 4.17 1.0300 0.8879 0.9673 0.3903
10 0.8 170 0.10 3.20 3.40 3.30 3.95 1.6850 1.8449 1.7167 1.7850
11 0.8 170 0.13 3.87 3.88 3.86 3.88 1.7375 1.7317 1.6195 1.6884
12 0.8 170 0.16 3.42 3.18 3.55 3.43 1.6630 1.5534 1.5857 1.5919
13 0.8 190 0.10 4.09 3.75 3.77 3.48 1.5870 1.4071 1.4880 1.2790
14 0.8 190 0.13 4.27 4.21 3.91 3.42 1.3239 1.4027 1.2827 1.1824
15 0.8 190 0.16 3.09 3.49 2.98 3.33 1.3212 1.3331 1.2165 1.0854
16 0.8 210 0.10 3.20 3.17 3.04 2.96 0.8393 0.8112 0.8117 0.7730
17 0.8 210 0.13 3.28 3.62 3.53 3.26 0.8926 0.9155 0.8085 0.6764
18 0.8 210 0.16 3.21 2.88 3.39 3.34 0.9050 0.9546 0.8789 0.5799

represent maximum example error, minimum example error,

Fig. 5 Neural network architecture (4-14-8-2)
output layer consists of two neurons like surface roughness
and RMS of work piece vibration velocity. The input layer
is also called as buffer layer that performs no information
processing. The network was trained with experimental data
through feed forward back propagation algorithm. The input
information was transmitted to output layer through the neu-
rons of hidden layers. Number of hidden layers and neurons
in each hidden layer are determined by examining different
neural networks on trial and error method.
Learning or training of network is a process which consists
of adapting weights to the connections between neurons in
each layer. The learning of neural network is done with feed
forward back propagation algorithm as shown in Fig. 6. The
red line, blue line, green line and orange lines in the graph
average example error and average validating error respec-
tively. The learning graph (Fig. 6) is constructed between
target error and learning cycles, with learning cycles on X
axis and target error on Y axis. The neural network was
trained with 80 samples and validated with 20 samples. The
process of learning was stopped after 10700 cycles when the
average training error is less than target error which was set as
0.01. Here, the average training error and average validating
are found to be 0.003067 and 0.00944205 respectively and
are less than target error of 0.01. As shown in the Fig. 6, the
blue line, yellow and green lines are found to be below 0.01.
The network is trained at 0.6 learning rate and at the momen-
tum of 0.8. Easy NN plus software was used to construct the
ANN model and it has taken weights for the connection as 56
for the connections between input layers and hidden layer1,
98 for the connections between hidden layer1 and hidden
layer 2, and 28 for the connections between hidden layer 2 and
output layer. After training the network, surface roughness
and RMS work piece vibration were predicted at required
cutting speed, nose radius, feed rate and volume of metal
removed. Predicted values of surface roughness and RMS of
work piece vibration velocity were given in the Table 7.
Prediction of responses with SVM
In this study, SVM regression model was executed using
Rapidminer 5.0 software. Two individual SVM models were

123
J Intell Manuf
Fig. 6 Learning progress graph with maximum, average and minimum training error
established for surface roughness and RMS of work piece
vibration velocity. For better performance of SVM model, a
non linear kernel was chosen because the machining process
is non linear (Lingxuan et al. 2010). Then dot function ker-
nel was selected as kernel function for the two models. SVM
factors or coefficients such as C and ε are optimized using
optimization of SVM parameters in the Rapidminer 5.0 soft-
ware. The optimized values of C and ε are 5000 and 0.02
for surface roughness model, while 3000 and 0.01 for RMS
of work piece vibration velocity. Then the SVM models are
trained using the experimental data separately. Predicted val-
ues of surface roughness and RMS of work piece vibration
velocity were given in the Table 7. It was observed that there
is no significant difference between predicted responses of
ANN and SVM. Both the methods predicted the responses
close to the experimental values. But, large amount of sam-
ples or data are required for training of ANN model, where
as the SVM model requires less number of samples for train-
ing. Amit Kumar (2010) also developed empirical models
to predict surface roughness, tool wear and power required
in turning operations. RSM, ANN and SVR were used to
develop the empirical models. ANN and SVR were found
to be better than RSM model in the prediction of cutting
parameters.
Optimization of cutting parameters
A multi response optimization technique was used to opti-
mize process parameters for minimum surface roughness
and RMS of work piece vibration velocity. The optimiza-
tion was performed using RSM technique using MINITAB
16 software. Derringer and Suich (1980) and Del Castillo and
Montgomery (1993) stated that the application of desirabil-
ity function which is determined by the gradient algorithm
leads to a better solution than most other techniques for
multi response optimization. The gradient algorithm was
used to calculate the desirability function between 0 and
1. Acceptance of optimization is estimated with desirability
function (Murath and Abdulkadir 2014). If the desirability
value closes to 0 then the response is completely unaccepted
and if the desirability value is 1 or close to 1 then the response
is accepted. In the present study, cutting parameters were
optimized for minimization of surface roughness and RMS
of work piece vibration velocity. According to Fig. 7, opti-
mum cutting parameters were found as 0.6828 mm of nose
radius, 210 m/min of cutting speed and 0.10 mm/min of feeed
rate. Desirability values were found to be 1 for surface rough-
ness and RMS of work piece vibration velocity. Composite
desirability was also found as 1.
123

Fig. 7 Multi response
optimization of Ra and RMS
Conclusions
The experiments were carried out on AISI 316 stainless
steel, to estimate surface roughness and RMS of work piece
vibration. Statistical models like RSM, ANN and SVM were
developed to predict surface roughness and RMS of work
piece vibration. ANOVA was used to study effect of nose
radius, cutting speed and feed rate on the responses. The
following conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1. Vibration of rotating work piece was measured with LDV
easily in setup with less time.
2. In the analysis of surface roughness, it was found that the
surface roughness is minimum at 0.8 mm nose radius and
it is found to be maximum at 0.13 mm/min of feed rate
and 190 m/min of cutting speed.
3. In the analysis of RMS of work piece vibration velocity, it
was found that the RMS of vibration velocity is minimum
at 210 m/min of cutting speed and 0.8 mm of nose radius
and it was found to be maximum at 0.1 mm/min of feed
rate.
4. In the ANOVA for surface roughness, it was observed that
the nose radius and interaction of nose radius and feed
rate are found to be significant parameters. In the ANOVA
for RMS of workpiece vibration velocity, cutting speed
was found to be significant parameter on the work piece
vibration.
5. Surface roughness and RMS of work piece vibration
velocity were predicted with RSM, ANN and SVM meth-
ods. ANN and SVR were found to be better than RSM
model in the prediction of cutting parameters.
6. A multi response optimization technique was used to
optimize the cutting parameters for minimum surface
123
J Intell Manuf
roughness and RMS of work piece vibration velocity.
Optimum cutting parameters were found as 0.6828 mm of
nose radius, 210 m/min of cutting speed and 0.10 mm/min
of feed rate.
References
Adem, Ç., Turgay, K., & Ergün, E. (2015). Optimization of drilling para-
meters using Taguchi technique and response surface methodology
(RSM) in drilling of AISI 304 steel with cryogenically treated HSS
drills. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(2), 295–305.
Ali, H. N., & Nader, A. N. (2012). Time-delay feedback control of lathe
cutting tools. Journal of Vibration and Control, 18, 1106–1115.
Amit Kumar, G. (2010). Predictive modelling of turning operations
using response surface methodology, artificial neural networks
and support vector regression. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 48(3), 763–778.
Angelos, P. M., Dimitrios, E. M., & Nikolaos, M. V. (2008). Artificial
neural network models for the prediction of surface roughness in
electrical discharge machining. Journal of Intelligent Manufactur-
ing, 19(3), 283–292.
Ashvin, J. M., & Nanavati, J. I. (2013). Optimisation of machin-
ing parameters for turning operations based on response surface
methodology. Measurement, 46(4), 1521–1529.
Azlan, M. Z., Habibollah, H., & Safian, S. (2012). Integrated ANN-GA
for estimating the minimum value for machining performance.
International Journal of Production Research, 50(1), 191–213.
Bhardwaj, B., Kumar, R., & Singh, P. K. (2014). Surface roughness (Ra)
prediction model for turning of AISI 1019 steel using response
surface methodology and Box-Cox transformation. Proceedings
of Institute of Mechanical Engineering Part B: Journal of Engi-
neering Manufacture, 228(2), 223–232.
Chang, F. X. (2001). An experimental study of the impact of turning
parameters on surface roughness. In Proceedings of the industrial
engineering research conference, Paper no. 2036, GA.
Dai, L., & Wang, J. (2007). The effects of workpiece deflection and
motor features on quality of machining process—nonlinear vibra-
tions analysis. Journal of Vibration and Control, 13, 557–582.
J Intell Manuf
Del Castillo, E., & Montgomery, D. C. (1993). A nonlinear program-
ming solution to the dual response problem. Journal of Quality
Technology, 25, 199–204.
Derringer, G., & Suich, R. (1980). Simultaneous optimization of several
response variables. Journal of Quality Technology, 12, 214–219.
Hosseini, S., & Al Khaled, A. (2014). A survey on the imperialist com-
petitive algorithm metaheuristic: Implementation in engineering
domain and directions for future research. Applied Soft Comput-
ing, 24, 1078–1094.
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review
of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliability Engi-
neering and System Safety, 145, 47–61.
Ihsan, K., & Yilmaz, K. (2010). Experimental analysis of the devia-
tion from circularity of bored hole based on the Taguchi method.
Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 56(5), 340–346.
Ilhan, A., Mustafa, T., Hazim, E. M., & Levent, Ç. (2012). An intelligent
system approach for surface roughness and vibrations prediction in
cylindrical grinding. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 25(8), 750–759.
Khaled, A. A., & Hosseini, S. (2015). Fuzzy adaptive imperialist com-
petitive algorithm for global optimization. Neural Computing and
Applications, 26(4), 813–825.
Kishan, M., Chilukuri, K. M., & Sanjay, R. (1997). Elements of artificial
neural networks. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Lingxuan, Z., Zhenyuan, J., Fuji, W., & Wei, L. (2010). A hybrid model
using supporting vector machine and multi-objective genetic algo-
rithm for processing parameters optimization in micro-EDM.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 51,
575–586.
Marimuthu, P., & Chandrasekaran, K. (2011). Experimental study on
stainless steel for optimal setting of machining parameters using
Taguchi and neural network. ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, 6(10), 119–127.
Moetakef-Imani, B., & Yussefin, N. Z. (2009). Dynamic simulation
of boring process. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 49, 1096–1103.
Mohammadnejad, M., Gholami, R., Ramezanzadeh, A., & Jalali, M.
E. (2012). Prediction of blast-induced vibrations in limestone
quarries using support vector machine. Journal of Vibration and
Control, 18, 1322–1329.
Montgomery, D. C. (2001). Design and analysis of experiments (5th
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Mourad, L., Mustapha, B., Marc, T., & Mohamed, E. B. (2015). Chat-
ter detection in milling machines by neural network classification
and feature selection. Journal of Vibration and Control, 21, 1251–
1266.
Murath, S., & Abdulkadir, G. (2014). Taguchi design and response
surface methodology based analysis of machining parameters in
CNC turning under MQL. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 604–
616.
Muthukrishnan, N., & Paulo, D. J. (2009). Optimization of machin-
ing parameters of Al/SiC-MMC with ANOVA and ANN analysis.
Journal of Material Processing Technology, 209(1), 225–232.
Nakagawa, H., Kurita, Y., Ogawa, K., Sugiyama, Y., & Hasegawa, H.
(2008). Experimental analysis of chatter vibration in end-milling
using laser Doppler vibrometers. International Journal of Automa-
tion Technology, 2(6), 431–438.
View publication stats
Nilrudra, M., Doloi, B., & Mondal, B. (2013). Predictive modeling of
surface roughness in high speed machining of AISI 4340 steel
using yttria stabilized zirconia toughened alumina turning insert.
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials,
38, 40–46.
Pettersson, L., Hakansson, L., & Claessonans Sven Olsson, I. (2001).
Active control of machine-tool vibration in a CNC lathe based on
an active tool holder shank with embedded piezo ceramic actuators.
In The 8thInternational congress on sound and vibration, Hong
Kong SAR, China, 2–6 July 2001.
Prasad, B. S., Sarcar, M. M. M., & Satish, B. B. (2010). Development of
a system for monitoring tool conditionusing acousto-optic emis-
sion signal in face turning-an experimental approach. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 51, 57–67.
Rajesh, K. B. (2013a). Optimization of cutting parameters for minimiz-
ing power consumption and maximizing tool life during machining
of Al alloy SiC particle composites. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 39, 242–254.
Rajesh, K. B. (2013b). Multiresponse optimization of al alloy-SiC
composite machining parameters for minimum tool wear and
maximum metal removal rate. ASME, Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering,. doi:10.1115/1.4023454.
Ramesh, K., Alwarsamy, T., & Jayabal, S. (2015). Prediction of cut-
ting process parameters in boring operations using artificial neural
networks. Journal of Vibration and Control, 21, 1043–1054.
Ulaş, Ç., & Sami, E. (2012). Support vector machines models for sur-
face roughness prediction in CNC turning of AISI 304 austenitic
stainless steel. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(3), 639–
650.
Vadlamani, S., & Hosseini, S. (2014). A novel heuristic approach for
solving aircraft landing problem with single runway. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 40, 144–148.
Vapnik, V. (1998). Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley Inter-
science.
Venkata Rao, K., Murthy, B. S. N., & Mohan Rao, N. (2013). Cutting
tool condition monitoring by analyzing surface roughness, work
piece vibration and volume of metal removed for AISI 1040 steel
in boring. Measurement, 46, 4075–4084.
Venkata Rao, K., Murthy, B. S. N., & Mohan Rao, N. (2014). Predic-
tion of cutting tool wear, surface roughness and vibration of work
piece in boring of AISI 316 steel with artificial neural network.
Measurement, 51, 63–70.
Yalcin, U., Aslan, D. K., & Ihsan, K. (1980). Optimization of cut-
ting parameters in face milling with neural networks and Taguchi
based on cutting force, surface roughness and temperatures. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 18(5), 559–569.
Yao-Wen, H., & Chan-Yun, Y. (2008). Prediction of tool breakage in
face milling using support vector machine. International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37, 872–880.
Yeh, Y., & Cummins, H. Z. (1964). Localized fluid flow measurements
with a He–Ne laser spectrometer. Applied Physics Letters, 4, 176.
123