Multi-Response Optimization of Machining factors in Pocket Milling of AA6082 Using

Grey Relational Analysis

M. Rajyalakshmi1* K. I. V. Vandana2

1,2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, PVP Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Andhra Pradesh,
India.
ABSTRACT

Pocket milling finds applications in industries such as shipbuilding and aerospace, employing various tool
trajectories to shape pockets in materials. Achieving a superior surface quality while minimizing
production time is crucial to meet product standards and reduce costs. Optimal machining parameters play
a key role in balancing these considerations. In this paper, the best combination of process parameters for
AA6082 is determined using Taguchi L9 OA, followed by multi-objective optimization through Grey
Relational Analysis. Experimental factors include Speed (S), Feed (F), and Stepover (SO). Additionally,
the choice of tool path is critical for enhancing both Surface Roughness (SR) and Material Removal Rate
(MRR). Two tool paths, follow periphery and zigzag, are employed in pocket generation. The Grey
Relational Grade is calculated for each tool path based on experimental results, and the optimal
parameters are identified as the combination with the highest Grey Relational Grade.

KEY WORDS: Multi-Objective Optimization, Pocket Milling, AA6082, Taguchi, GRA,

1. INTRODUCTION

In the current scenario, the manufacturing industry is being forced to use advanced technologies in
order to maintain object quality while reducing production costs and increasing production volume.
AA6082 is a commonly used aluminium alloy in industries for many applications like mould making,
The choice of tool trajectory for pocket milling holds significant importance as it directly impacts
machining time and costs. Initially, a rough cut of pocketing is executed with the selected tool
trajectory, followed by a final finish cut to achieve the desired surface finish and accuracy in the
pocket profile. Numerous researchers have delved into identifying the optimal tool path to minimize
machining time. Several algorithms have been developed for selecting the appropriate tool path to
attain minimum surface roughness [1]–[3]. P.E. Romero et al. [4] conducted an investigation on how
pocket shape and tool movement influence surface quality and cutting forces. Based on the study's
findings, it is evident that each tool path has a distinct impact on the outcomes, depending on the
chosen pocket shape. H. Perez et al. [5] devised a novel mathematical model to explore the influence
of the tool path on surface roughness and cutting force. Martin Held et al. [6] utilized an algorithm in
the POWERApx package to create a spiral tool path for high-speed machining. Bouard et al. [7]
employed a constraint-based optimization approach for tool path calculation in pocket milling to
examine its impact on machining time. J Medina et al. [8] utilized simulation to explore alternative
tool motions for determining cutting time, aiming to investigate the effect of interpolation, distance
between points, and toolpath curvature on cutting time in the study. A. Ghani et al. [9] explored the
impact of cutting parameters on surface roughness using Taguchi optimization. Mohamed T. Hayajneh
et al. [10] investigated the effect of cutting factors on surface roughness in end milling, conducting
random tests at all feasible factor level combinations. Milon D. Selvam et al. [11] employed Taguchi
and the Genetic Algorithm to study the influence of process factors on surface roughness in Mild Steel
face milling. B. Jabbaripour et al. [12] studied the impact of four cutter directions and speed changes
on surface polish and cutting force. A. Noorul Haq et al. [13] utilized Taguchi OA with grey relational
analysis for multi-response optimization in drilling Al/SiC metal matrix composite. M. Maiyar et al.
[14] used Taguchi and grey relational analysis to investigate multi-response milling of Inconel 718
Super Alloy, demonstrating improved machining performance through experiments. Santha Kumar et
al. [15] applied the Taguchi method coupled with grey relational analysis to optimize one-directional

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

tool movement in pocketing of Ti-6Al-4V, optimizing MRR, radial tool deflection, and surface
roughness. Rajyalakshmi and Babu [16] optimized surface roughness in pocket milling of SAE304
using Taguchi analysis, comparing two different tool paths. Sukumar et al. [17] used Taguchi and
Artificial Neural Networks techniques to enhance cutting parameters in face milling on Al 6061. They
found that despite different combinations of parameters from both approaches, the experimental
results indicated similar surface roughness values. Malvade et al. [18] employed the Taguchi
technique to study the impact of cutting settings on Material Removal Rate, Surface Integrity, and
Parallelism during end milling operations on OHNS steel, noting that the depth of cut influences
material removal rate, and speed affects surface roughness. Shunyao et al. [19] utilized the Taguchi
Grey Relational Analysis approach to determine the influence of tool geometry on achieving
satisfactory surface quality when milling Titanium alloy TB17. Etyemez [20] used the Grey Taguchi
technique to investigate the influence of cutting parameters and tool routes on milling AA7075. Emel
Kuram and Babur Ozcelik [21] conducted an experimental study to optimize cutting settings for micro
milling of AA7075 using the grey-based Taguchi approach, evaluating surface roughness, cutting
forces, and tool wear. M. Nurhaniza et al. [22] explored the influence of procedures on surface
integrity while milling Al-CFRP composites using a Taguchi orthogonal array, finding good surface
integrity at high speed, low feed, and low DOC within the specified boundaries. Biswajit Das et al.
[23] employed Grey-based fuzzy logic to adjust response parameters during milling Al-4.5%Cu-TiC
metal matrix composites.

Building on prior research, it is apparent that the majority of researchers have concentrated on single-
goal optimization within the realm of pocket milling. While numerous studies have delved into the
complexities of pocket generation, the specific influence of stepover in conjunction with speed and
feed has not been explicitly addressed.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Material: AA6082 grade Aluminium Alloy workpieces of size 80X80X10mm are selected. The
chemical composition of the material by weight percentage is shown in table 1.

Table1: Composition of AA6082

Element Al Si Fe Cu Mn Cr Mg Zn Ti Others
Composition 0.05
97.506 0.903 0.223 0.002 0.411 0.016 0.852 0.071 0.010
(Wt. %) max
2.2 Methodology: Taguchi OA yields effective and efficient outcomes with fewer experiments and at
a lower cost. The choice of an appropriate OA is based on the number of variables and the number of
levels for each component. For surface roughness, a lower Signal-to-Noise ratio, and for MRR, a
greater Signal-to-Noise ratio, are considered a better choice.

The machining parameters considered for this investigation are speed, feed, and stepover. The
parameter levels are determined through a survey of the literature, machine specifications, and
material attributes. Table 2 considered levels and responses.
Table 2: parameters and their Levels
Symbo
Parameters Units Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Responses
l
S Speed RPM 2500 3500 4500
Surface Roughness (SR)
F Feed mm/ 750 1200 1750 (μm)
min Material Removal Rate
SO Step Over % 30 50 70 (MRR) (gm/sec)
Table 3 displays the combinations of experimental runs utilizing the L9 orthogonal array for the
supplied parameters and level combinations.
Table 3: Experimental runs in L9 orthogonal array
Run No. Speed (RPM) Feed (mm/min) Step Over (%)
1 2000 500 20
2 2000 1000 30
3 2000 1500 40
4 3000 500 30
5 3000 1000 40
6 3000 1500 20
7 4000 500 40
8 4000 1000 20
9 4000 1500 30

Several studies have employed Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)[24]–[27] to enhance responses by
effectively combining machining parameters in various production industries. The calculation
procedure for Grey Relational Grade is explained following the method outlined by Rajyalakshmi and
Babu [28].

3. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

3.1 Simulation: Siemens NX 11.0 software is utilized for simulating the shape of the pocket to be formed
on the workpiece. The tool paths, follow periphery and zigzag, are simulated independently on the pocket
shape, as depicted in Fig. 1.

Experimental setup: Pockets are machined using a vertical machining center equipped with a Fanuc O
controller and a 10mm Carbide coated four-flute cutter. Tests are conducted following the run sequence
generated by Minitab 11.0 software, as outlined in Table 3. Each experiment is repeated five times, and
after ten tests, a new cutter is employed for each tool route.

a) Follow Periphery b) Zigzag

Fig.1: selected Tool Trajectories for Pocket Milling

The weight of the work pieces is noted both before and after cutting, utilizing a precision balance with
a minimum count of 0.01 gm. The machining time for each trial is consistently recorded during the
experimentation. To measure surface roughness (SR), a Mitutoyo SJ201P surftest is employed.
Material Removal Rate (MRR) is calculated using Equation (1).

W 1−W 2
MRR= gm/sec −−−−−−(1)
tm
Where, W 1 , W 2 are the workpiece weights before and after machining respectively and t m is time
taken for generating the pockets in seconds
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experimental tests were carried out following the sequence described in the previous section, and the
surface roughness of each component was measured. Material Removal Rate (MRR) was estimated
using Equation 1. Signal-to-noise ratios for each response in both tool trajectories were then
determined, as presented in Table 4.

Follow periphery Zigzag

Expt.
Run SR S/N MRR S/N SR S/N MRR S/N
(μm) Ratio (g/s) Ratio (μm) Ratio (g/s) Ratio
1 1.850 -5.3493 0.0928 -6.6652 1.9536 -5.8167 0.0689 -9.2592
2 2.132 -6.5794 0.1280 -3.8762 1.8276 -5.2376 0.1638 -1.7239
3 2.892 -9.2261 0.1625 -1.8016 2.3222 -7.3759 0.2019 0.0959
4 2.008 -6.0559 0.1618 -1.8375 1.8448 -5.319 0.0970 -6.2834
5 2.756 -8.8152 0.2025 0.1104 1.9416 -5.7632 0.1775 -1.0359
6 2.766 -8.8429 0.1967 -0.1428 2.8416 -9.0713 0.1679 -1.5144
7 2.148 -6.6805 0.2208 0.8611 2.0608 -6.281 0.0958 -6.378
8 2.152 -6.6573 0.3113 3.8486 2.0236 -6.124 0.1320 -3.6087
9 2.310 -7.2799 0.4170 6.3935 2.9508 -9.3988 0.2362 1.4534
After computing the Signal to Noise (S/N) ratios, Taguchi analysis is performed on the experimental
data. The improved surface roughness and MRR values for both tool trajectories are determined by
calculating the level means. Table 5 shows the level means for both tool paths for surface roughness.

Table 5: Taguchi Method for Surface Roughness for AA6082.

Level Speed (RPM) Feed (mm/Min) Stepover (%)
Tool
Path Raw
Raw Data S/N Ratio Raw Data S/N Ratio S/N Ratio
Data
1 2.29132 -7.05161 2.0021 -6.0283 2.2561 -6.9497
FP 2 2.51001 -7.90466 2.3466 -7.35062 2.1501 -6.6383
3 2.20332 -6.8725 2.65661 -8.44961 2.5986 -8.2405
Delta 0.30665 1.03211 0.6539 2.42106 0.4488 1.6021
Rank 3 1 2
1 3.39077 -6.1435 3.2550 -5.80555 3.78821 -7.0041
ZZ 2 3.68221 -6.71782 3.2181 -5.70825 3.67955 -6.6517
3 3.90843 -7.26792 2.7027 -8.61532 2.10766 -6.4733
Delta 0.51766 1.12452 0.5524 2.90708 1.68055 0.53061
Rank 2 1 3
Table 5 indicates that in the FP tool path, high speed, low feed, and medium stepover contribute to
lower surface roughness
In the zigzag tool trajectory, surface roughness is influenced by speed and feed. Similarly, Taguchi
Analysis applied to MRR also indicates that high speed, high feed, and medium stepover result in a
high value of MRR for both FP and ZZ tool paths. The details of the analysis are shown in Table 6.

a. Follow Periphery b. Zigzag

Figure 2: Level Means graph of S/ N Ratios for Surface Roughness for AA6082

Table 6: Taguchi Method for Material Removal Rate for AA6082.

Tool Level Speed (RPM) Feed (mm/Min) Stepover (%)
Path Raw Data S/N Ratio Raw Data S/N Ratio Raw Data S/N Ratio
1 0.12776 -4.11432 0.158466 -2.5471 0.20026 -0.9864
FP 2 0.18701 -0.62331 0.213932 0.0275 0.23561 0.2265
3 0.31638 3.701066 0.258732 1.4832 0.19526 -0.2766
Delta 0.1886 7.8154 0.10026 4.03024 0.040332 1.2132
Rank
1 0.144866 -3.62907 0.08722 -7.30688 0.12292 -4.7942
ZZ 2 0.147466 -2.94457 0.15777 -2.12281 0.16566 -2.1845
3 0.154666 -2.84443 0.20201 0.01162 0.15841 -2.4394
Delta 0.00981 0.78463 0.11476 7.31851 0.04272 2.609466
Rank 3 1 2

Table 6: Taguchi Method for Material Removal Rate for AA6082.

Tool Level Speed (RPM) Feed (mm/Min) Stepover (%)
Path Raw Data S/N Ratio Raw Data S/N Ratio Raw Data S/N Ratio
1 0.12776 -4.11433 0.15846 -2.5471 0.20028 -0.9864
FP 2 0.18701 -0.62330 0.21393 0.02761 0.23561 0.2265
3 0.31636 3.701067 0.25873 1.4831 0.19528 -0.2766
Delta 0.1887 7.8154 0.10026 4.0302 0.04033 1.2132
Rank 1 2 3
1 0.14486 -3.6290 0.0872 -7.3068 0.12292 -4.7942
ZZ 2 0.14746 -2.9445 0.1577 -2.1228 0.16566 -2.1845
3 0.15466 -2.8444 0.2020 0.01162 0.15841 -2.4392
Delta 0.0098 0.78461 0.11477 7.31850 0.04272 2.609466
Rank 3 1 2
 It is also observed that for FP tool path, Speed is the most influencing factor whereas Feed is
the significant factor for ZZ tool path.

a. Follow Periphery b. Zigzag

Figure 3: Level Means graph of S/ N Ratios for Material Removal rate for AA6082
Figure 3 illustrates the level means of the selected factors for the study. From the figure, it is observed
that higher speed, feed, and medium step-over for both tool trajectories generate the maximum MRR
value. ANOVA applied to the experimental results of AA6082 for both responses indicates that feed is
the influencing factor for both tool trajectories for surface roughness. In the case of MRR, speed is the
influencing factor for the Follow Periphery tool path, and feed is the most effective parameter for the
Zigzag tool path. For both materials, from the Taguchi analysis, it is observed that better results are
obtained for the Follow Periphery tool trajectory compared to the Zigzag tool. This may be because of
the chip remaining between the cutting tool and the pocket's edge, which helped to scratch the surface,
allowing the material to be easily removed.

4.1 Grey Relational Analysis of AA6082

The connection between the anticipated and the actual experimental outcomes is illustrated by grey
relational coefficients. Table 7 presents the GRG value and corresponding ranks.

Table 7: GRG values for Follow periphery

Expt Normalized Grey
Delta
. SR MRR Coefficient
GRG Rank
No (μm) (g/s) SR MRR SR MRR SR MRR
(μm) (g/s) (μm) (g/s) (μm) (g/s)
1.85 0.333 0.666
1 0.0927 0 1 1 0 1 2
6 2 6
2.13 0.108 0.729 0.891 0.270 0.359 0.504
2 0.1281 0.6489 6
1 7 3 3 5 2 2
2.89 0.215 0.785 0.389 0.361
3 0.1624 0 1 0.3332 9
1 1 1 2 3
2.00 0.212 0.848 0.787 0.151 0.388 0.577
4 0.1617 0.7672 4
7 7 3 1 5 3 9
2.75 0.338 0.130 0.661 0.869 0.430 0.397
5 0.2024 0.3652 7
5 3 4 5 4 3 9
2.76 0.320 0.120 0.679 0.879 0.423 0.393
6 0.1966 0.3625 8
5 3 8 4 2 8 4
2.14 0.394 0.714 0.605 0.286 0.452 0.544
7 0.2207 0.6362 5
7 7 1 1 1 3 4
2.15 0.674 0.710 0.326 0.289 0.605 0.619
8 0.3112 0.6331 3
3 1 1 1 7 2 3
2.31 0.558 0.441 0.765
9 0.4171 1 0 1 0.5312 1
2 4 4 5
 Main Effects Plot for FP GRG
Data Means
Speed Feed SO
0.65

0.60

FP GRG Mean
0.55

0.50

0.45

2000 3000 4000 500 1000 1500 20 30 40

Figure 4: Level Means graph for GRG Value for FP tool path

The means plot indicates that the optimal GRG value is achieved with low speed, high feed, and
medium stepover. The Grey Relational Coefficient attained with 4000RPM speed, 500mm/min feed,
and 30% stepover is 0.8428. Confirmation tests reveal that the surface roughness is 1.98µm, and the
MRR value is 0.396 g/s. The optimal parameter combination results in a 10.08% improvement in the
GRG value. Grey Relational Grade is also calculated for the zigzag tool trajectory and presented in
Table 8, illustrating the grey relational analysis for the zigzag tool path. (Fig.5)

Table 8: Grey Relational values for Zigzag

Normalized
Expt Delta Grey coefficient
SR
. MRR (g/s) GRG Rank
(μm) SR MRR SR MRR SR MRR
No
(μm) (g/s) (μm) (g/s) (μm) (g/s)
1 1.9537 0.0691 0 0.8877 1 0.1121 0.3332 0.8167 0.5752 7
2 1.8277 0.1639 0.5671 1.000 0.4327 0 0.5361 1 0.7681 1
3 2.3223 0.2012 0.7951 0.5597 0.2051 0.4403 0.7091 0.5316 0.6204 5
4 1.8449 0.098 0.1682 0.9845 0.8321 0.0152 0.3753 0.9702 0.6728 3
5 1.9415 0.1774 0.6492 0.8984 0.3509 0.1014 0.5875 0.8314 0.7094 2
6 2.8415 0.1678 0.5919 0.0971 0.4084 0.9027 0.5504 0.3563 0.4534 9
7 2.0607 0.0957 0.1607 0.7923 0.8393 0.2075 0.3733 0.7065 0.5421 8
8 2.0237 0.1321 0.3771 0.8254 0.6227 0.1744 0.4452 0.7412 0.5932 6
9 2.9507 0.2363 1.012 0 0 1 1 0.3332 0.6666 4
Main Effects Plot for ZZ GRG
Data Means
Speed Feed SO
0.700

0.675

0.650
ZZ GRG

0.625

0.600

0.575

0.550

2000 3000 4000 500 1000 1500 20 30 40

Figure 5: Level Means graph for GRG Value for FP tool path

CONCLUSIONS
The present study focuses on the multi-response optimization of machining parameters using Taguchi and Grey
Relational Analysis. Two tool trajectories, namely zigzag and follow periphery (one linear and one nonlinear),
are employed for pocket generation. The experimental results for each tool trajectory are subjected to further
analysis using Grey Relational Analysis.
1. Optimal Grey Relational Coefficient for the follow periphery tool path is achieved with 4000 RPM speed, 500
mm/min feed, and 30% stepover. Confirmation tests further support these results, indicating a 10.085% increase
in the Grey Relational Grade (GRG) value.
2. The zigzag tool path's optimal combination, as identified from the mean plot, involves lower speed, medium
feed, and medium stepover. Experimental GRG values confirm this combination as the most effective for
achieving surface roughness close to the minimum and material removal rate close to the maximum values.
3. The integration of Grey Relational Analysis with the Taguchi technique proves effective in obtaining superior
results for identifying the best parameter combination in multi-response optimization. Within the chosen settings,
the follow periphery tool path outperforms zigzag, producing superior surface roughness and material removal
rate.
4. As per the ANOVA results, the influential factor affecting feed in the follow periphery tool path is speed,
while in the zigzag tool path, speed emerges as the most significant influencing factor.

REFERENCES

[1] M. B. Bieterman and D. R. Sandstrom, “A curvilinear tool-path method for pocket machining,” J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
Trans. ASME, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 709–715, 2003, doi: 10.1115/1.1596579.
[2] C. K. Toh, “A study of the effects of cutter path strategies and orientations in milling,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol.
152, no. 3, pp. 346–356, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.382.
[3] C. Gologlu and N. Sakarya, “The effects of cutter path strategies on surface roughness of pocket milling of 1.2738 steel
based on Taguchi method,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 206, no. 1–3, pp. 7–15, 2008, doi:
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.300.
[4] P. E. Romero, R. Dorado, F. A. Díaz, and E. M. Rubio, “Influence of pocket geometry and tool path strategy in pocket
milling of UNS A96063 alloy,” Procedia Eng., vol. 63, no. 1998, pp. 523–531, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.194.
[5] H. Perez, E. Diez, J. Perez, and A. Vizan, “Analysis of machining strategies for peripheral milling,” Procedia Eng., vol.
63, pp. 573–581, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.193.
[6] M. Held and C. Spielberger, “A smooth spiral tool path for high speed machining of 2D pockets,” CAD Comput. Aided
Des., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 539–550, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2009.04.002.
[7] M. Bouard, V. Pateloup, and P. Armand, “Pocketing toolpath computation using an optimization method,” CAD
Comput. Aided Des., vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1099–1109, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2011.05.008.
[8] G. Medina-Sánchez, E. Torres-Jimenez, R. Lopez-Garcia, and R. Dorado-Vicente, “Cutting time in pocket machining
for different tool-path approximation segments,” Procedia Manuf., vol. 13, pp. 59–66, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.009.
[9] J. A. Ghani, I. A. Choudhury, and H. H. Hassan, “Application of Taguchi method in the optimization of end milling
parameters,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 84–92, 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00865-3.
[10] M. S. T. J. B. Mohammed T. Hayajneh, “A Study of the Effects of Machining Parameters on the Surface Roughness in
the End-Milling Process,” Jordan J. Mech. Ind. Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2007.
[11] M. D. Selvam, G. Karuppusami, and A. K. S. Dawood, “Optimization of Machining Parameters for Face Milling
Operation in a Vertical Cnc Milling Machine Using Genetic Algorithm,” An Int. J. (ESTIJ, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 2250–
3498, 2012.
[12] B. Jabbaripour, M. H. Sadeghi, and S. Faridvand, “a Study of the Effects of Cutter Path Strategies and Cutting Speed
Variations in Milling of Thin Walled Parts,” 7th Jordanian Int. Mech. Eng. Conf., no. September, pp. 27–29, 2010.
[13] A. N. Haq, P. Marimuthu, and R. Jeyapaul, “Multi response optimization of machining parameters of drilling Al/SiC
metal matrix composite using grey relational analysis in the Taguchi method,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 37,
no. 3–4, pp. 250–255, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s00170-007-0981-4.
[14] L. M. Maiyar, R. Ramanujam, K. Venkatesan, and J. Jerald, “Optimization of machining parameters for end milling of
Inconel 718 super alloy using Taguchi based grey relational analysis,” Procedia Eng., vol. 64, pp. 1276–1282, 2013,
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.208.
[15] J. Santhakumar, U. M. Iqbal, and M. Prakash, “Optimization of one direction tool path orientation for pocket milling of
Ti-6Al-4V using taguchi based grey relational analysis,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 402, no. 1, 2018, doi:
10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012166.
[16] M. Rajyalakshmi and P. S. Babu, “Optimization of Process Parameters in Pocket Milling of SAE304 Based on Tool
Path Strategies using Taguchi Method,” vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 49–56, 2018.
[17] M. S. Sukumar, P. Venkata Ramaiah, and A. Nagarjuna, “Optimization and prediction of parameters in face milling of
Al-6061 using taguchi and ANN approach,” Procedia Eng., vol. 97, pp. 365–371, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.260.
[18] N. V Malvade and S. R. Nipanikar, “Optimization of Cutting Parameters of End,” J. Eng. Res. Stud., vol. v, no. ii, pp.
14–17, 2014, [Online]. Available: http://www.technicaljournalsonline.com.
[19] S. Du, M. Chen, L. Xie, Z. Zhu, and X. Wang, “Optimization of process parameters in the high-speed milling of
titanium alloy TB17 for surface integrity by the Taguchi-Grey relational analysis method,” Adv. Mech. Eng., vol. 8, no.
10, pp. 1–12, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1687814016671442.
[20] M. Ay and A. Etyemez, “Optimization of effects of cutting parameters and cutting tool path by using grey based
taguchi method,” Acta Phys. Pol. A, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 125–128, 2018, doi: 10.12693/APhysPolA.134.125.
[21] E. Kuram and B. Ozcelik, “Multi-objective optimization using Taguchi based grey relational analysis for micro-milling
of Al 7075 material with ball nose end mill,” Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1849–1864, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.measurement.2013.02.002.
[22] M. Nurhaniza, M. K. A. M. Ariffin, F. Mustapha, and B. T. H. T. Baharudin, “Analyzing the Effect of Machining
Parameters Setting to the Surface Roughness during End Milling of CFRP-Aluminium Composite Laminates,” Int. J.
Manuf. Eng., vol. 2016, pp. 1–9, 2016, doi: 10.1155/2016/4680380.
[23] B. Das, S. Roy, R. N. Rai, and S. C. Saha, “Application of grey fuzzy logic for the optimization of CNC milling
parameters for Al–4.5%Cu–TiC MMCs with multi-performance characteristics,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 19,
no. 2, pp. 857–865, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2015.12.002.
[24] K. Gajalakshmi, N. Senthilkumar, and B. Prabu, “Multi-response optimization of dry sliding wear parameters of
AA6026 using hybrid gray relational analysis coupled with response surface method,” Meas. Control (United
Kingdom), vol. 52, no. 5–6, pp. 540–553, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0020294019842603.
[25] G. Kibria, B. Doloi, and B. Bhattacharyya, “Experimental investigation and multi-objective optimization of Nd:YAG
laser micro-turning process of alumina ceramic using orthogonal array and grey relational analysis,” Opt. Laser
Technol., vol. 48, pp. 16–27, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2012.09.036.
[26] M. K. Pradhan, “Estimating the effect of process parameters on surface integrity of EDMed AISI D2 tool steel by
response surface methodology coupled with grey relational analysis,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 67, no. 9–12,
pp. 2051–2062, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00170-012-4630-1.
[27] M. K. Mallik, C. Srinivasa Rao, V. V. S. Kesava Rao, and S. K. Abdul Munaf, “Effect of heat treatment on corrosion
behavior of weld deposited co-cr-mo alloy,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 11, no. 20, pp. 12188–12191, 2016.
[28] M. Rajyalakshmi and P. Suresh Babu, “Influence of cutting parameters and tool path strategies on surface roughness in
pocket milling of UNS a96082 alloy,” Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6241–6245, 2019, doi:
10.35940/ijeat.A1995.109119.