Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICAAMM-2016 Comment [S1]: Elsevier to

and page numbers.

Multi Objective Optimization of Process Parameters in Abrasive

Flow Machining of Launch Vehicle Fluid Control Component
Deepak Devassiaa*, Dr. Shajan Kuriakoseb, George Oommenc
b
Professor , a PG Scholar, Department of M E , MACE, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam Dist.,Kerala,India
c
SCI/Engr “SF‟ Manager, CS&SC-CF, CSC/LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala, Trivandrum Dist.,India

Abstract

Abrasive flow machining (AFM) is an advanced machining process which eases the machining of highly complex
structures or complicated internal geometries. This paper highlights the parametric assessment for surface roughness
(Ra) and edge radius on cross drilled holes in abrasive flow machining on launch vehicle fluid control component
made of Z30C13 SS. AFM is an ideal solution for precise deburring, polishing and edge radiusing of internal and
external surfaces of machined components. In the present work, AFM parameters such as particle size, abrasive
concentration and number of cycles are optimized for output responses such as surface roughness (Ra) and edge
radius by Taguchi’s L9 orthogonal array method. Using the experimental data a regression model is developed and
later formulated as a multi objective optimization problem and solved for pareto set using Non Dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the Committee Members of International Conference on Advancements in
Aeromechanical Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016).

Keywords: Z30C13,AFM, Orthogonal array,Surface roughness,Edge rdius,Multi -objective optimization,NSGA

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 894307480.

E-mail address: deepakdevassia@gmail.com

2214-7853 © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the Committee Members of International Conference on Advancements in Aeromechanical
Materials for Manufacturing (ICAAMM-2016).
2 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000

1. Introduction

Abrasive flow machining is a non-conventional machining process which can machine surfaces with intricate
geometries, internal passages/cross holes and complex features where the accessibility of conventional machines
miss the mark. In this machining process an abrasive media is used which is chemically inactive and non-corrosive,
similar to soft clay, is used to improve surface finish and edge conditions. The abrasive particles embedded in the
media grind away, rather than shear off, the material, imparting texture and smoothing the edges. The abrasive
media is in semi-solid form which facilitates unrestricted flow through inaccessible loop and corners of complex
geometries and internal passages. These advantages can be exploited extensively in machining launch vehicle fluid
control components which comprise copious internal features. The launch vehicle fluid control components are
equipped with cross holes, micro slots, convex & concave edge blending and internal passageways. Polishing and
deburring of these complex features are difficult because of the inaccessibility of tools. The risk of damaging
finished surfaces increases with manual deburring. Many of the recent anomalies in control components have been
endorsed to loose metal particles getting entrapped on the seating surfaces which can even damage the entire system.
More often these particles are found to be engendered from cross holes or internal passageways which are unnoticed
by the normal vision while manual deburring. Hence there is a need for a machining process which can eradicate the
problem without sacrificing any of the attributes of the material. The aim of this work is to find the optimum set of
parameters for machining launch vehicle fluid control components made of Z30C13 SS. Extensive literature survey
was done to identify the important process parameters for abrasive flow machining and the methodology . Jain [1]
analyzed the effects of different process parameters, such as number of cycles, concentration of abrasive, abrasive
mesh size and media flow speed, on material removal and surface finish on brass. Chouhan [2] investigated the
surface finishing of die steel with the use of abrasive flow machining. Grinding medium is pressed along the
contours at a defined pressure and temperature. Depending on the respective machining task, different specifications
of media are used. Siddiqui [3] studied the effect of different type of passages for the laden medium outflow and
Ithe process parameters in the abrasive flow machining. Cylindrical workpiece made of brass with different cross
sections of internal passages and length have been micro machined by abrasive flow machining technique and the
output responses material removal and surface roughnes value are measured. Guptha [4] analyzed the the key
parameters abrasive concentration, abrasive mesh size, diameter of rod and rotational speed of tooling rod were
varied to see their effects on material removal. In this study a hybrid machining process has been developed to
enhance the material removal rate. Li [5] studied the performance of abrasive flow machining on nonlinear tubes
and the quality of the surface after machining. It is found experimentally that the abrasive flow machining can
significantly improve the surface quality of objects with cross holes and also can remove the burrs and recast layers
of the cross holes. From the literature survey and other references the parameters for machining and methodology
are found and the experiment was conducted. The effects of output response on various process parameters are
studied and plotted. Regression model for Ra and edge radius were formed from experimental data and adequacy is
tested by statistical analysis using Minitab 17 software. Multi objective optimization using NSGA is done to find the
optimal solution set and pareto front is ploted. Gowd [6] and other researchers [7-11] explained the advantage of
using NSGA.

2. Experimental Details

Experiments were carried out at Liquid Propulsion System Centre of ISRO, Trivandrum. A two way pneumatic
abrasive flow machine were developed. The machine is automated with a timer circuit to regulate the flow speed
and number of cycles. Launch vehicle fluid control valve made of Z30C13 SS is used as work material. The
abrasive media used is a combination of silicon carbide particle with a polymer base. The input parameters selected
are abrasive particle size, abrasive concentration and number of cycles and the output responses are surface
roughness and edge radius. The experiments were designed using Taguchi’s L9 (3 3) orthogonal array. Nine
experiments were conducted with different combinations of parameters. The surface roughness and edge radius are
measured by TALYSURF roughness and roundness testing machine. The machining parameters and their levels are
shown in table 1. The experimental design and the observed values are shown in table 2.
 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000 3

Table 1. Machining parameters with their levels

Particle size Concentration No. of cycles

Level
(µm) (% by wt.) (cycles/min)

1 8 30 100

2 63 40 200
3 150 50 300

Table 2 Taguchi’s orthogonal array with observed value

Particle size Concentration No. of cycles Edge

Sl. No. Ra(µm)
(µm) (% by wt.) (cycles/min) radius(mm)

1 8 30 100 0.61 0.048

2 8 40 200 0.57 0.063

3 8 50 300 0.49 0.089

4 63 30 200 0.65 0.072

5 63 40 300 0.58 0.093

6 63 50 100 0.57 0.074

7 150 30 300 0.68 0.099

8 150 40 100 0.7 0.086

9 150 50 200 0.67 0.108

3.Result and Discussion

3.1 Surface roughness

The response table and analysis of variance for surface roughness are shown in table 3and 4 respectively.

Table 3. Response table for surface roughness

Level Particle size Concentration No. of cycles

(μm) ( % by weight) (cycles/min)
1 0.5566 0.6466 0.6266

2 0.6 0.6166 0.63

3 0.6833 0.5766 0.5833

Optimum 1 3 3

Delta 0.1266 0.07 0.0466

Rank 1 2 3

Based on the values in response table, the optimal machining performance for the surface roughness is obtained at
particle size 8 µm (level 1), abrasive concentration 50 % by weight (level 3) and number of cycles 300 cycles/min
(level 3). In the analysis, particle size is found as the most influencing parameter followed by abrasive concentration
and number of cycle.
4 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000

Table 4. Analysis of variance for surface roughness

Degrees of Sum of Mean of %

Source F ratio P
Freedom squares Squares contribution

Particle size 2 0.024867 0.012433 93.25 0.011 68.41

Concentration 2 0.007400 0.003700 27.75 0.035 20.35

No. of cycles 2 0.004067 0.002033 15.25 0.062 11.10

Error 2 0.000267 0.000133 0.14

Total 8 0.036600

The percentage contribution of particle size and abrasive concentration towards surface roughness is 68.41% and
20.35% respectively

3.2 Edge radius

The response table and analysis of variance for edge radius are shown in table 5 and 6 respectively.

Table 5. Response table for edge radius

Particle size Concentration No. of cycles

Level (μm) ( % by weight) (cycles/min)

1 0.0667 0.073 0.0693

2 0.0797 0.0807 0.081

3 0.0977 0.0903 0.0937

Optimum 3 3 3

Delta 0.031 0.017333 0.0243

Rank 1 3 2

The optimal machining performance for edge radius is obtained at, particle size 150µm (level 3), concentration 50 %
by weight (level 3) and number of cycles 300 cycles/min (level 3). In the analysis, particle size is the most
influencing parameter followed by number of cycles and concentration.
Table 6. Analysis of variance for edge radius

Degrees of Sum of Mean of %

Source F ratio P
Freedom squares squares contribution

Particle size 2 0.001454 0.000727 44.51 0.022 52.01

Concentration 2 0.000453 0.000226 13.86 0.067 16.18

No. of cycles 2 0.000889 0.000444 27.20 0.035 31.77

Error 2 0.000033 0.000016 0.04

Total 8 0.002828
 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000 5

The percentage contribution of particle size and number of cycles towards edge radius is 52.01 % and 31.77 %
respectively

3.3 Multiple regression models

The experiments were conducted by using the parametric approach of the Taguchi’s method. Regression analysis
has been performed to find out the relationship between input factors and responses using Minitab 17 statistical
software. During regression analysis it was assumed that the factors and the responses are linearly related to each
other. General first order model was developed to predict the surface roughness over the experimental region
(equation 1). For this experiment the R2 value indicates that the predictors explain 83.44% of the response variation.
Adjusted R2 for the number of predictors in the model 92.87% values shows that the data are fitted well.

Surface roughness ,Ra (µm) = 0.7305 + 0.000898* (Particle size) - 0.003500* (Concentration ) -
0.000217 * (No. of cycles) (1)
Edge radius (mm) = 0.00633 + 0.000217 * (Particle size) + 0.000867 * (Concentration) +
0.000122 * ( No. of cycles) (2)

The positive value of particle size, concentration and number of cycles is indicative that increase in process
parameters increases the edge radius. General first order model was developed to predict the surface roughness over
the experimental region (equation 2).Adjusted R2 for the number of predictors in the model 95.59 % values shows
that the data are fitted well.

3.4 Multi – objective optimization

A conflicting objective problem cannot be solved easily by any of the classical method of optimization. Such
problems can be solved by certain evolutionary algorithms like genetic algorithm (GA),simulated annealing (SA)
andgoal programming (GP). In this study surface roughness (Ra) and edge radius are the output responses, surface
roughness need to be minimized and edge radius maximized. Higher value of edge radius is obtained at the cost of
Ra and better surface quality in expense of edge radius. As the objectives are conflicting in nature, the value for Ra
and edge radius should be compromised and hence this problem is formulated to a multi objective optimization
problem. Genetic algorithm is used to solve this problem. The objective function is the regression model developed,
the model is converted into MATLAB (R2014a) function and input to the GA toolbox of MATLAB. As per the
levels of machining parameters lower and upper bounds are set. The number of variables was set to 3. An initial
population size of 60 is taken and optimization is carried out by simple crossover and bitwise mutation with a pareto
fraction of 0.7, crossover probability, Pc =0.8, migration interval and fraction of 20 and0.2 respectively. Ranking
and sorting are done as per algorithm. Table 7 show the pareto optimal solutions along with corresponding
parameters and level. Figure 1 shows the pareto optimal front that is the set of final solution. Objective 1 and
objective 2 are edge radius and surface roughness respectively. The shape of the Pareto optimal front is a
consequence of the continuous nature of the optimization problem posed. The results reported in table 7 clearly
show that in 42 pareto-optimal solutions, the whole given range of input parameters is reflected and no bias towards
higher side or lower side of the parameters is seen. This may be attributed to the controlled NSGA that forcible
allows the solutions from all non-dominated fronts to co-exist in the population. Since the performance measures are
conflicting in nature, surface quality decreases as edge radius increases and the same behavior of performance
measures is observed in the solutions obtained.
6 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000

Table 7. Pareto optimal solutions

Edge radius Particle size Concentration No. of Cycles
Sr. No Ra(µm)
(mm) (µm) (% bwt.) (cycles/min)
1 0.61 0.05 8 30 100
2 0.61 0.05 8 50 250
3 0.53 0.07 8 41 101
4 0.55 0.06 8 50 232
5 0.52 0.08 8 50 264
6 0.53 0.07 8 43 104
7 0.60 0.05 8 30 100
8 0.60 0.05 8 35 100
9 0.53 0.07 8 50 206
10 0.56 0.06 8 37 101
11 0.61 0.05 8 33 104
12 0.58 0.05 8 50 113
13 0.52 0.08 8 50 185
14 0.54 0.06 8 38 101
15 0.61 0.05 8 36 100
16 0.60 0.05 8 49 108
17 0.51 0.08 8 42 101
18 0.59 0.05 8 50 224
19 0.53 0.07 8 44 106
20 0.57 0.06 8 46 103
21 0.54 0.06 8 49 103
22 0.59 0.05 8 49 135
23 0.58 0.05 8 50 253
24 0.51 0.08 8 39 106
25 0.54 0.07 8 48 103
26 0.56 0.06 8 50 198
27 0.51 0.08 8 50 216
28 0.51 0.08 8 49 147
29 0.57 0.06 8 50 241
30 0.51 0.08 8 50 230
31 0.50 0.08 8 50 152
32 0.55 0.06 8 49 171
33 0.56 0.06 8 42 102
34 0.57 0.06 8 49 138
35 0.52 0.07 8 46 104
36 0.53 0.07 8 31 100
37 0.56 0.06 8 45 103
38 0.53 0.07 8 40 103
39 0.54 0.06 8 35 100
40 0.58 0.05 8 39 101
41 0.55 0.06 8 50 264
42 0.60 0.05 8 47 105
 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000 7

Pareto front
0.62

0.6

0.58
Objective 2

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5
0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.065 0.07 0.075 0.08 0.085
Objective 1

Fig. 1 .Pareto optimal front

3. Conclusion

In this study parametric approach of the Taguchi method is used to conduct the experiments. The relationship
between input factor and responses has been found out by regression analysis using Minitab 17 statistical software.
To predict the surface roughness and edge radius general first order model was developed over the experimental
region. Adjusted (R2) for surface roughness and edge radius were found to be 92.87 % and 95.59 % respectively.
Non dominated sorted genetic algorithm is used to solve the multi objective optimization problem. Pareto optimal
solutions are found and plotted. Since none of the solutions in the Pareto optimal set is absolutely better than any
other, any one of them is an acceptable solution. The choice of one solution over the other depends on the
requirement of the process engineer. It should be noted that all the solutions are equally good and any set of input
parameters can be taken to achieve the corresponding response values depending upon manufacturer’s requirement.
8 Author name / Materials Today: Proceedings 00 (2015) 000–000

Reference

[1] V.K. Jain and S.G. Adsul, “Experimental investigations into abrasive flow machining,” International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture 40 (2000) 1003–1021
[2] S.Chouhan and S. Mittal, “Abrasive flow machining: major research areas &analysis,” International Journal of Research In Aeronautical And
Mechanical Engineering,vol.1,issue.1,January 2014,pgs:77-83
[3]S.Siddiqui and M.Hameedullah,“Abrasive flow machining performance measures on work-piece surfaces having different vent/passage
considerations for media outflow,” International Journal of Computer Communication and Information System ( IJCCIS), Vol2. No1.
ISSN: 0976–1349 ,July – Dec 2010
[4] Ravi Guptha, Rahul Vaishya ,Dr. R.S Walia and Dr. P.K Kalra , “Experimental study of process parameters on material removal mechanism
in hybrid abrasive flow machining process (AFM),” International Journal Of Scientific Research,Vol 2, Issue 6 , June 2013, ISSN No
2277 – 8179
[5] Junye Li, and Fengyu Sun,“ Experimental Research into Technology of Abrasive Flow Machining Nonlinear Tube Runner,” Hindawi
Publishing Corporationm Advances in Mechanical Engineering Volume 2014, Article ID 752353, 9 pages
[6] G.H.Gowd, M.G.Reddy,B.Sreenivaulu,M Ravuri, “ Multi-Objective Optimization of Process Parameters in WDEM During Machining of
SS304”,ICAMME,AMME 2014
[7] R. Dhabale, V.K. S. Jatti,, T.P.Singh, “Multi-Objective Optimization of Turning Process during Machining of AlMg1SiCu Using Non-
Dominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm”, 3rd International Conference on Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2014)
[8] S. Chatterjeea, K. Abhisheka, S.S.Mahapatrab, S. Dattac, R. K. Yadava, “NSGA-II Approach of Optimization to Study the Effects of Drilling
Parameters in AISI-304 Stainless Steel,” 12th Global Congress On Manufacturing And Management, GCMM 2014
[9] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A Fast and Elitist Multi Objective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II, Evolutionary
Computation,” 6(2) (2002) 182-197.
[10] S.H. Yang, and U. Natarajan,” Multi-Objective Optimization of Cutting Parameters in turning Process Using Differential Evolution
and Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II Approaches”, IJAMT. 49(5-8) (2010) 773-784.
[11] S.P. Kodali, R. Kudikala and K. Deb, “Multi-Objective Optimization of Surface Grinding Process Using NSGA II”, First International
Conference in Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology, (2008) 763-767.