Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Analysis and prediction of cutting force through lathe tool dynamometer

in CNC turning process
T. Niruban Projoth a,⇑, De Poures Melvin Victor b, P. Nanthakumar c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai 602 105, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Sairam Institute of Technology, Chennai 600 044, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The cutting force measurement in the machining process is a complicated one for precise measurement.
Received 20 February 2021 All types of machining process the tool and wok piece interaction create some vibration it causes the tool
Accepted 23 February 2021 failure. For the avert of tool wear or failure based on the estimation of cutting force, the cutting force may
Available online xxxx
not be directly measured with human sensing. This investigation intense to measure and predict the cut-
ting force in CNC turning process by using of lathe tool dynamometer with load cell based and piezoelec-
Keywords: tric sensor based dynamometer, which one is produce accurate result. Apply of these two dynamometers
CNC
the cutting forces are measured and analyzed with influence of turning process factors. The Taguchi route
Piezoelectric sensor
Strain gauge
is execute to analyze the cutting force, the process variables are chuck speed (rpm), feed (mm/rev) and
Taguchi cutting depth (mm). The ANOVA analyze are illustrates the contribution percentage of the each process
ANOVA variables accurately. The measured values through dynamometers and predicted values are accurately
Cemented carbide obtained.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Materials, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering for Sustainable Developments-2020.

1. Introduction cell in the holder of the dynamometer. The dynamometer holder

The machining of the materials are need proper tools to obtain
exact dimensions and the fine surface finish of the finished mate-
rial. In general all machineries are induced vibration in working
condition it affects directly on the tool material and obtain deviated
the cutting force. The cutting force is the deciding authority of
dimensional precision and performance of machining, For all the
traditional machining process, the tool and specimens are inter-
acted effectively with appears cutting force it is measurable one.
The strain gauges are a force measuring element, it can be directly
mounded on the surface of the tool which force can be measured.
The Lathe Tool Dynamometer is a device used to measure a cutting
force for the touching of tool tip on the work material. The lathe tool
dynamometer is a measuring equipment formed by using of load
cell with four strain gauges in a circuit. The measured values are
displayed in the panel for the digital form, the range of strain gauges
are influenced to measure the cutting force directly. The system of
the dynamometer the sensor assembly are rigidity fixed on the load
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: niruban@veltech.edu.in (T.N. Projoth).
assembly directly fixed on the tool post to measure the cutting
forces directly, the single unit of the sensor with supporting of
strain gauge wheatstone bridge are fixed rigidity. In this
experiment carried out to finding the cutting force of the EN8 steel
material using of cemented carbide tool. The cutting force is mea-
sured by the using of Lathe tool dynamometer with load cell and
piezoelectric sensor based dynamometer. Both devices are effec-
tively used to found the cutting forces; the cutting forces are
analyzed and predicted by using of Taguchi approach [1–3].
2. Materials and methods
The EN8 is has moderate tensile strength for an unalloyed aver-
age carbon steel. This material provided the excellent surface hard-
ness and good wear resistance by treatment of hardening process.
EN8 is commonly taken for engineering field applications, the
shafts, bolts, connecting rods, screw pin; rollers are made by EN8
materials [4]. The chemical constituent elements of EN8 materials
are illustrated in the Table 1.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.681
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Materials, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering for
Sustainable Developments-2020.

Please cite this article as: T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar, Analysis and prediction of cutting force through lathe tool
dynamometer in CNC turning process, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.681
T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar
Table 1
Chemical composition of EN8 mild steel.
Elements C p S Mn
Weight% 0.42 0.026 0.015
The using of CNC machine for turning of the EN8 material, tool
material and the various process variables are tabulated in the
Table 2.
3. Experimental procedure
The dimensions of the EN8 shaft as 200 mm length 50 mm
diameter is used as the work material of this investigation is
shown in Fig. 1. The turning operation is performed in the CNC
machine (HMT model) with selected process factors such as chuck
speed, feed and cutting depth [5–8].
The tungsten carbide tool is used for the turning process and
the tool dynamometer specifications are maximum sensing load
500 kg in all direction, tool insert size 30 mm square. The strain
gauge used as 350 X bridge and power 230 V 50 Hz [9,10]. Another
dynamometer as piezoelectric sensor dynamometer, the three
major measuring force sensors are included in between a cover
plate and base plate. This dynamometer has high corrosion resis-
tance against of water circulation and cutting fluid flows.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Investigational result of Lathe tool dynamometer with load cell
The Table 3 presented the process factors of the CNC turning
process and the result of cutting force. The minimum cutting force
was identified as 375.24 N with the influencing of chuck speed
100 rpm, feed 0.4 mm/rev and the cutting depth as 0.4 mm [11–
21].
The Table 4 presented the Experimental Cutting force and Pre-
dicted Cutting force values, using of Lathe tool dynamometer load
cell, the minimum cutting force and predicted cutting force were
measured as 375.24 N and 376.769 N [22–31]. The maximum
experimental and predicted cutting force were 496.51 N and
497.944 N. The experimental cutting force values were close to
the predicted value of the all trials.
The Fig. 2 shows the number of trial runs with output of exper-
imental cutting force, all the trial runs the experimental value and
predicted values are very closeness it indicates that the measured
cutting force are within limit [32–45].
The Fig. 3 illustrates the observation order with residual plot for
the respect of sixteen trials. The points were connected not show-
ing of particular model, the most of the points across the centre
line with positive and negative modes [46–52]. This waviness
shows the selected variables were within the limit and the exe-
cuted model was good one.
The Fig. 4, shows the Normal probability plot for experimental
cutting force, the all points are distributed near to the probability
line since the selected variables were excellent one.
The Table 5 presented the Analysis of variance for the cutting
force, the process factors contribution were clearly illustrated.
Table 2
CNC Machining parameters.
Tool bit material Tungsten Carbide
Chuck speed (rpm) 100, 150, 200, 250
Feed (mm/rev) 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0
Cutting depth (mm) 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Si Cr Ni Fe
0.65 0.20 0.01 0.01 Remaining
Fig. 1. CNC turning (a) EN8 rod before turning (b) after turning.
The factor of the chuck speed was more contribution of this exper-
iment as 63.28%; the cutting depth was another influencing vari-
able for its contribution as 30.73% and the feed contribution as
6.98%. The P-value of these three factors are satisfied the 95% con-
fidence level.
4.2. Regression equation
Cutting force (mm) = 446.632–36.279 chuck speed (rpm)_100
3.682 chuck speed (rpm)_150 + 12.398 chuck speed (rpm)
_200 + 27.563 chuck speed (rpm)_250 6.824 Feed (mm/rev)_0.4
+ 7.883 Feed (mm/rev)_0.6 + 6.638 Feed (mm/rev)_0.8–
7.697 Feed (mm/rev)_1.0 28.024 Cutting depth (mm)
_0.4 + 5.543 Cutting depth (mm)_0.6 + 14.453 Cutting depth
(mm)_0.8 + 8.028 Cutting depth (mm)_1.0.
4.3. Investigational result of piezoelectric sensor based dynamometer
The Table 6 tabulated the process variables of the CNC turning
process and the result of cutting force. The minimum cutting force
was obtained as 387.24 N with the influencing of chuck speed
100 rpm, feed 0.4 mm/rev and the cutting depth as 0.4 mm.
The Table 7 illustrated the experimental Cutting force and Pre-
dicted Cutting force values, using of piezoelectric sensor based
dynamometer, the minimum cutting force and predicted cutting
force were extracted as 387.490 N and 388.357 N. The maximum
experimental and predicted cutting forces were 511.963 N and
512.138 N. The experimental cutting force values were close to
the predicted value of the all trials.
The Fig. 5 illustrates the number of experimental runs with out-
put of experimental cutting force, all the trial runs the experimen-
tal value and predicted values are very nearness, it denied as the
measured cutting force are within limit tp predicted cutting force.
The Fig. 6 demonstrates the observation orders with residual
plot for the all sixteen trials. The points were linked was not view-
ing of exacting model, the majority of the points across the centre
line with positive and negative manner. This waviness confirms the
selected variables were within the limit and the implemented
model was superior one.
The Fig. 7, shows the Normal probability plot for investigational
cutting force, the each and every one points were strewn close to
the probability line as the chosen variables were exceptional one
The Table 8 pointed out the Analysis of variance for the cutting
force, the process parameters contribution was clearly exemplified.
The high contribution percentage of this experiment was observed
the factor of chuck speed as 71.07%; the cutting depth was a
2
T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Summary of CNC turning factors result of cutting force.

Run Chuck speed (rpm) Feed (mm/rev) Cutting depth (mm) Cutting force (N)
1 100 0.4 0.4 375.24
2 100 0.6 0.6 424.23
3 100 0.8 0.8 431.05
4 100 1.0 1.0 410.89
5 150 0.4 0.6 441.31
6 150 0.6 0.4 422.98
7 150 0.8 1.0 457.78
8 150 1.0 0.8 449.73
9 200 0.4 0.8 467.05
10 200 0.6 1.0 474.34
11 200 0.8 0.4 437.91
12 200 1.0 0.6 456.82
13 250 0.4 1.0 475.63
14 250 0.6 0.8 496.51
15 250 0.8 0.6 486.34
16 250 1.0 0.4 438.30

Table 4
Summary of experimental cutting force and predicted cutting force.

Run Experimental Cutting force Predicted Cutting force Residual

(N) (N)
1 375.24 376.769 1.529
2 424.23 425.349 1.119
3 431.05 432.486 1.436
4 410.89 411.256 0.366
5 441.31 442.694 1.384
6 422.98 423.789 0.809
7 457.78 458.014 0.234
8 449.73 450.094 0.364
9 467.05 467.636 0.586
10 474.34 475.819 1.479
11 437.91 438.139 0.229
12 456.82 457.306 0.486
13 475.63 476.451 0.821
14 496.51 497.944 1.434
15 486.34 487.351 1.011 Fig. 3. Observation order Vs Residual cutting force.
16 438.30 439.034 0.734

Fig. 4. Normal probability plot for cutting force.

4.4. Regression equation

Fig. 2. Trials vs. Experimental cutting force (N). Cutting force (mm) = 462.060 40.20 chuck speed (rpm)_100
5.31 chuck speed (rpm)_150 + 13.92 chuck speed (rpm)
_200 + 31.59 chuck speed (rpm)_250 7.40 Feed (mm/rev)
further influencing variable for its contribution as 22.84% and the _0.4 + 9.81 Feed (mm/rev)_0.6 + 4.82 Feed (mm/rev)_0.8–
last factor of feed contribution as 5.67%. From this investigation 7.22 Feed (mm/rev)_1.0 26.10 Cutting depth (mm)
the P-value of all three factors were obtained as 0.005 so the fac- _0.4 + 7.47 Cutting depth (mm)_0.6 + 8.68 Cutting depth (mm)
tors selection was satisfied the 95% confidence level. _0.8 + 9.95 Cutting depth (mm)_1.0

3
T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
ANOVA for cutting force.

Source DF Seq SS Contribution % Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Chuck speed (rpm) 3 8972.8 63.28 8972.75 2990.92 13490.45 0.000
Feed (mm/rev) 3 848.1 6.98 848.09 282.70 1275.09 0.000
Cutting depth (mm) 3 4357.7 30.73 4357.74 1452.58 6551.83 0.000
Error 6 1.3 0.01 1.33 0.22
Total 15 14179.9 100.00

Table 6
Summary of CNC turning factors result of Cutting force.

Run Chuck speed (rpm) Feed (mm/rev) Cutting depth (mm) Cutting force (N)
1 100 0.4 0.4 387.490
2 100 0.6 0.6 439.480
3 100 0.8 0.8 434.330
4 100 1.0 1.0 423.140
5 150 0.4 0.6 456.560
6 150 0.6 0.4 439.230
7 150 0.8 1.0 470.030
8 150 1.0 0.8 458.183
9 200 0.4 0.8 476.503
10 200 0.6 1.0 494.793
11 200 0.8 0.4 453.363
12 200 1.0 0.6 476.273
13 250 0.4 1.0 495.083
14 250 0.6 0.8 511.963
15 250 0.8 0.6 504.793
16 250 1.0 0.4 459.753

Table 7
Summary of experimental cutting force and predicted cutting force.

Run Experimental Cutting force (N) Predicted Cutting force (N) Residual
1 387.490 388.357 0.867
2 439.480 439.132 0.348
3 434.330 435.363 1.033
4 423.140 424.588 1.448
5 456.560 456.815 0.255
6 439.230 440.455 1.225
7 470.030 471.520 1.49
8 458.183 458.212 0.029
9 476.503 477.266 0.763
10 494.793 495.740 0.947
11 453.363 454.700 1.337
12 476.273 476.226 0.047
13 495.083 496.197 1.114
14 511.963 512.138 0.175
15 504.793 505.932 1.139
16 459.753 460.323 0.57

The Table 9 presented the comparative statement for the exper-

imented result of cutting forces with influencing of dynamometers
such as Lathe tool dynamometer with load cell and piezoelectric
sensor based dynamometer. The measurement of cutting force
from the involvement of two dynamometers, the lowest cutting
force was observed by the influence of Lathe tool dynamometer
with load cell was good one for this experiment.

5. Conclusion

The cutting force for the EN8 mild steel was measured while in
CNC turning of the materials by the influencing of two dynamome-
ters. The two dynamometers such as Lathe tool dynamometer with
load cell and piezoelectric sensor based dynamometer and the
effect of Tungsten carbide tool was analyzed. The results of these
Fig. 5. Trials vs. Experimental cutting force (N). experimental investigations are:
4
T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

5.1. Investigational result of Lathe tool dynamometer with load cell

The minimum cutting force was identified as 375.24 N with the

influencing of chuck speed 100 rpm, feed 0.4 mm/rev and the cut-
ting depth as 0.4 mm. Consideration of Lathe tool dynamometer
load cell, the minimum cutting force and predicted cutting force
were measured as 375.24 N and 376.769 N. The maximum exper-
imental and predicted cutting forces were 496.51 N and 497.944 N.
The experimental cutting force values were close to the predicted
value of the all trials. The factor of the chuck speed was more con-
tribution of this experiment as 63.28%; the cutting depth was
another influencing variable for its contribution as 30.73% and
the feed contribution as 6.98%. The P-value of these three factors
are satisfied the 95% confidence level.

Fig. 6. Observation order Vs Residual cutting force. 5.2. Investigational result of piezoelectric sensor based dynamometer

The minimum cutting force was obtained as 387.24 N with the

influencing of chuck speed 100 rpm, feed 0.4 mm/rev and the cut-
ting depth as 0.4 mm. Involving of piezoelectric sensor based
dynamometer, the minimum cutting force and predicted cutting
force were extracted as 387.490 N and 388.357 N. The maximum
experimental and predicted cutting forces were 511.963 N and
512.138 N. The high contribution percentage of this experiment
was observed the factor of chuck speed as 71.07%; the cutting depth
was a further influencing variable for its contribution as 22.84% and
the last factor of feed contribution as 5.67%. The measurement of
cutting force from the involvement of two dynamometers, the low-
est cutting force was observed by the influence of Lathe tool
dynamometer with load cell was good one for this experiment.

Declaration of Competing Interest

Fig. 7. Normal probability plot for cutting force. The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Table 8
ANOVA for cutting force.

Source DF Seq SS Contribution % Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Chuck speed (rpm) 3 11343.4 71.07 11343.4 3781.14 246.12 0.000
Feed (mm/rev) 3 905.3 5.67 905.3 301.78 27.62 0.001
Cutting depth (mm) 3 3645.9 22.84 3645.9 1215.29 111.25 0.000
Error 6 65.5 0.41 65.5 10.92
Total 15 15960.2 100.00

Table 9
Comparison of the cutting forces result.

Run Lathe tool dynamometer with load cell measured force (N) Piezoelectric sensor based dynamometer measured force (N) Residual
1 375.24 387.490 12.25
2 424.23 439.480 15.25
3 431.05 434.330 3.28
4 410.89 423.140 12.25
5 441.31 456.560 15.25
6 422.98 439.230 16.25
7 457.78 470.030 12.25
8 449.73 458.183 8.453
9 467.05 476.503 9.453
10 474.34 494.793 20.453
11 437.91 453.363 15.453
12 456.82 476.273 19.453
13 475.63 495.083 19.453
14 496.51 511.963 15.453
15 486.34 504.793 18.453
16 438.30 459.753 21.453

5
T. Niruban Projoth, De Poures Melvin Victor and P. Nanthakumar Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

References [29] V. Mohanavel, K.S. Ashraff Ali, S. Prasath, T. Sathish, J. Mater. Res. Technol.
Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.09.128.
[30] T. Sathish, Dinesh Kumar Singaravelu, J. Sci. Ind. Res. NISCAIR Publisher 79 (9)
[1] S.K. Thangarasu, S. Shankar, A. Tony Thomas, G. Sridhar, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater.
(2020) 843–845.
Sci. Eng. (310) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/310/1/012119.
[31] T. Sathish, J. Sci. Ind. Res. NISCAIR Publisher 79 (8) (2020) 750–752.
[2] Singhvi Saurabh, M.S. Khidiya, S. Jindal, M.A. Saloda, Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Dev. 3
[32] S. Rajesh, D. Chandramohan, T. Sathish, Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher
(2016) 434–439.
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.296.
[3] B. Tulasiramarao, K. Srinivas, P. Ram Reddy, Raveendra, B.V.R. Ravi Kumar, Int.
[33] K. Gurusami, S. Shalini, T. Sathish, Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020),
J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 3 (2014) 16866–16872, https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.302.
10.15680/IJIRSET.2014.0310065.
[34] D. Logendran, D. Chandramohan, T. Sathish, Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier
[4] M. Rizal, J.A. Ghani, Husni, Husaini, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 12 (2018) 4072–4087,
Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.310.
https://doi.org/10.15282/jmes.12.4.2018.07.0353.
[35] D. Madhesh, K. Jagatheesan, T. Sathish, K. Balamanikandasuthan, Mater. Today
[5] Bahattin Yılmaz, Sener Karabulut, Abdulkadir Gullu, J. Manuf. Processes 32
Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.600.
(2018) 553–563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.03.025.
[36] D. Chandramohan, M. Dhanashekar, T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar, Mater.
[6] T. Sathish, Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher 05 (6) (2018) 14416–14422.
Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[7] T. Sathish, Int. J. Vehicle Struct. Syst. 11 (4) (2019) 417–421.
j.matpr.2020.07.657.
[8] T. Sathish, J. Mater. Res. Technol. Elsevier Publisher 8 (5) (2019) 4354–4363.
[37] G. Muthu, T. Sathish, V. Dhinakaran, M.D. Vijayakumar, K.P. Vignesh, Mater.
[9] Sathish, International Journal of Mechanical, Eng. Technol. 10 (01) (2019)
Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
984–992.
j.matpr.2020.073.379.
[10] Sathish, Appl. Mech. Mater. 852 (2016) 324–330.
[38] T. Sathish, G. Muthu, M.D. Vijayakumar, V. Dhinakaran, P.M. Bupathi Ram,
[11] T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (Special Issue) (2018) 705–710.
Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[12] T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 09 (11) (2018) 2263–2271.
j.matpr.2020.07.395.
[13] T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 8 (Special Issue 7) (2018) 1515–
[39] V. Dhinakaran, M.D. Vijayakumar, G. Muthu, T. Sathish, P.M. Bupathi Ram,
1535.
Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[14] T. Sathish, Mater. Today Proc. Elsevier Publisher 05 (6) (2018) 14545–14552.
j.matpr.2020.07.394.
[15] T. Sathish, J. Int. Recent Technol. Eng. Blue Eyes Intell. Eng. Sci. Publ. 7 (6)
[40] M.D. Vijayakumar, V. Dhinakaran, T. Sathish, G. Muthu, P.M. Bupathi Ram,
(2019) 281–286.
Mater. Today Proc., Elsevier Publisher (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[16] V. Vijayan, T. Sathish, R. Saravanan, I.J.I. Premkumar, S. Basker, A. Parthiban,
j.matpr.2020.07.391.
AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1) (2020) 020066.
[41] T. Sathish, J. New Mater, Electrochem. Syst. IIETA Publisher 23 (4) (2020) 235–
[17] T. Sathish, D.B. Subramanian, R. Saravanan, V. Dhinakaran, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283
243.
(1) (2020) 020125.
[42] Yogesh Palani, Chandramohan Devarajan, Dhanashekar Manickam, Sathish
[18] G. Raja, D. Chandramohan, B.K. Gnanavel, T. Sathish, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1)
Thanikodi, Environ Eng. Res. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng. (KSEE) (2020), https://
(2020) 020081.
doi.org/10.4491/eer.2020.338.
[19] I.J.I. Premkumar, S. Basker, R. Saravanan, V. Vijayan, A. Parthiban, T. Sathish,
[43] K.Yoganandam,Raja.K, Ganeshan.P, Mohanavel.V 2016, International Journal of
AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1) (2020) 020068.
Printing, Packaging & Allied Sciences, (ISSN:2320-4387),vol.4,no.5, pp. 3669-
[20] T. Sathish, K. Muthukumar, R. Saravanan, V. Dhinakaran, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283
3673.
(1) (2020) 020126.
[44] K. Yoganandam, P. Ramshankar, P. Ganeshan, K. Raja, Int. J. Ambient Energy
[21] S. Basker, A. Parthiban, R. Saravanan, V. Vijayan, T. Sathish, I.J.I. Premkumar,
(2018) 2162–8246, ISSN: 0143-0750.
AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1) (2020) 020065.
[45] K. Yoganandam, P. Ganeshan, B. Nagaraja Ganesh, K. Raja, J. Nat. Fibers Taylor
[22] A. Parthiban, V. Vijayan, R. Saravanan, T. Sathish, I.J.I. Premkumar, S. Basker,
& Francis (2019).
AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1) (2020) 020064.
[46] K. Yoganandam, B. NagarajaGanesh, P. Ganeshan, K. Raja, Mater. Res. Express
[23] T. Sathish, S. Arunkumar, R. Saravanan, V. Dhinakaran, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1)
10 (6) (2019).
(2020) 020124.
[47] K. Yoganandam, Raja, K. Lingadurai, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 9 (41) (2016) 1–4.
[24] G. Raja, D. Chandramohan, B.K. Gnanavel, T. Sathish, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1)
[48] V. Mohanavel, K. Rajan, S. Karthikeyan, M. Naveen Kumar, K. Yoganandam,
(2020) 020085.
Appl. Mech. Mater. 852 (2016) 422–427.
[25] T. Sathish, D.B. Subramanian, R. Saravanan, V. Dhinakaran, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283
[49] N. Karunagaran, G. Bharathiraja, A. Muniappan, K. Yoganandam, Mater. Today:
(1) (2020) 020122.
Proc. 22 (2020) 1078–1084.
[26] T. Sathish, K. Muthukumar, R. Saravanan, V. Dhinakaran, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283
[50] K. Siva Nagu, K. Yoganandam, V. Mohanavel, R. Deepak Joel Johnson, Mater.
(1) (2020) 020123.
Today Proc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.511.
[27] T. Sathish, I.J.I. Premkumar, R. Saravanan, S. Basker, A. Parthiban, V. Vijayan,
[51] Rajala Ashok Reddy, K. Yoganandam, V. Mohanavel, Mater. Today: Proc.
AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1) (2020) 020067.
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.511.
[28] D. Chandramohan, T. Sathish, S.D. Kumar, M. Sudhakar, AIP Conf. Proc. 2283 (1)
[52] K. Yoganandam, V. Mohanavel, J. Vairamuthu, V. Kannadhasan, Mater. Today:
(2020) 020084.
Proc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.569.