Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x(Print)/1976-3824(Online)
DOI 10.1007/s12206-016-0340-1

Multiresponse optimization of cryogenic drilling on

Ti-6Al-4V alloy using topsis method†
L. Shakeel Ahmed* and M. Pradeep Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CEGC, Anna University, Chennai - 600 025, India

(Manuscript Received June 9, 2015; Revised November 9, 2015; Accepted November 30, 2015)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

Multiresponse optimization of process parameters in drilling is focused in this article using the TOPSIS technique to obtain minimum
cutting temperature (T), thrust force (Ft), torque (Mt) and surface roughness (Ra), Circularity (Cir), Cylindricity (Cyl). The experiments
were performed on Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V in different cooling environments: Wet cooling and cryogenic cooling conditions. Liquid
nitrogen (LN2) as a coolant is used in cryogenic machining. The control factors selected were machining environments, cutting speed
(Vc) and feed rate (f). Eighteen experiments were conducted in wet and cryogenic LN2 conditions based on L18 orthogonal array, respec-
tively. The optimization results indicate drilling at Vc = 40 m/min and f = 0.02 mm/rev which is of the lowest value in cryogenic LN2
condition. A better performance is achieved too. The optimum multiresponses show that TOPSIS method is the most effective perform-
ance in the drilling process.
Keywords: Drilling; Optimization; Temperature; Thrust force; Hole quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

important in machining of heat resistant and difficult-to-cut

1. Introduction
materials such as nickel and titanium alloys, where the thermal
Drilling of titanium alloy material Ti-6Al-4V Grade 5 is an conductivity is very, low resulting in very high cutting zone
important and current research topic related to manufacturing temperature [2]. Diffusion is known to be one of the dominant
processes. Determination of optimum process parameters is an wear mechanisms in titanium alloy machining, as it is chemi-
important element in the machinability study of titanium alloy. cally reactive to all tool materials [3]. Therefore, the titanium
Optimization of process parameters is highly significant, par- alloy machining is a high-cost process due to longer cycle
ticularly for operating drilling machines. The prediction of time and higher tooling costs. Better cooling methods can
optimal machining conditions for maximizing desired factors significantly contribute to tool life improvement by reducing
and minimizing undesired ones play a vital role in machining. the friction and lowering the cutting zone temperature. On the
Drilling of a titanium alloy naturally generates high cutting other hand, optimizing the machining parameters results in the
temperature (T), which not only reduces tool life but also dete- overall cost minimization through increase in productivity
riorates the surface quality. Cutting fluids (wet) are unfavor- without loss of tool life. Drilling process is involved in almost
able in controlling the high T and rapid tool wear. They also all titanium alloy applications. Reduction in the temperature
cause environmental pollution. Further, wet coolants generally causes reduction in the thermal conductivity of most materials
cause health problems to the machine operators. Recently, including Titanium Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 718 Nickel based
cryogenic machining has become one of the effective alterna- alloys. This could worsen the conductive heat dissipation from
tive cooling approaches, which controls the T and improve- the cutting zone at cryogenic temperatures [4].
ment in tool life. Sun et al. [5] compared the turning of Ti-6Al-4V alloy with
The performance of machining operations improve due to cryo compressed air cooling and dry machining and measured
the usage of metal cutting coolants due to their better cooling, the forces, chip temperature and morphology compared with
lubrication, chip removal and transport functions [1]. A large dry turning alloy. They observe a chip thickness reduction by
proportion of power is consumed for material cutting while 9% and increase in cutting forces by 6% in cryogenic com-
generating heat at the machining zone. This is particularly pressed air compared to that of dry machining. Canteroa et al.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9976070647, Fax.: +91 4422357744 [6] evaluated the tool wear, hole quality and surface integrity
E-mail address: shakeel_mechanical@yahoo.com in drilling of alloy Ti-6Al-4V in dry condition using 6 mm
†
Recommended by Associate Editor Hyung Wook Park diameter split point drill of carbide coated with TiN. They
© KSME & Springer 2016
1836 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841
observed elevation of the burr height and surface roughness
(Ra) near tool failure. Hong et al. [7] investigated the friction
between the tool and workpiece in machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy
using LN2. They found reduction in friction coefficient at the
tool-chip interface and also increase in cutting force in cryo-
genic machining.
Kivak et al. [8] conducted drilling experiments on AISI 316
steel with HSS drills PVD monolayer and multilayer coated.
They optimized the process factors such as cutting tool type,
Vc and f using Taguchi technique. They used ANOVA to
determine the most significant factors affecting Ft and Ra.
They concluded that the most significant factor affecting the
Ra with a percentage of 39.14% was the cutting tool, and that
the most significant factor affecting the Ft with a percentage of
82.77% was the f. The various input factors relating to opti-
mum combination were the type of drill, spindle speed, feed
and mass fraction for minimizing Ra, Ft, burr height and tool
wear in drilling of hybrid Al356/SiC metal matrix composites,
which were determined by application of optimum technique,
i.e., Taguchi- Grey relational analysis [9]. Their results prove
that the most significant factors are the type of drill and f
which affect the drilling process.
Kilickap et al. [10] implemented RSM for optimizing the
drilling of AISI 1045 with multiple performance characteris-
tics. The control factors considered by them are Vc, f and three
different environment conditions (dry, compressed air and
minimum quantity lubrication). Ra model was developed in
terms of Vc, f and environment conditions by using Box-
Behnken design of experiments. They found that Ra is highly
influenced by Vc and MQL condition is better when compared
to dry drilling and compressed air environments. Manimaran
et al. [11] made a study in optimizing the grinding in AISI 316
stainless steel under dry, wet and cryogenic cooling. They
used Taguchi techniques in the cutting parameter optimization
of grinding force, Ra and MRR. The Orthogonal array (OA),
the S/N ratio and the ANOVA were used to determine the
optimum levels and the effect of the grinding parameters.
They proved better effectiveness for the cryogenic cooling
compared to conventional cooling, contributing 45.38% on the
output responses.
Bhol et al. [12] studied the process variables in drilling and
the effect of spindle speed and f in ANN based model for the
prediction of Ft, Mt and flank wear during the drilling of mild
steel, using the back propagation algorithm. Saravanan et al.
[13] in drilling of a composite material optimized the process
parameters. The output characteristics of the process include
material removal rate and the hole eccentricity. Spindle speed
and f are selected as control variables to study the perform-
ance of the process. Optimal process parameters were deter-
mined for any desired output values of machining characteris-
tics through the use of Genetic algorithm (GA). Thirumalai
and Senthilkumaar [14] optimized the selection of process
parameters using TOPSIS method in machining Inconel 718
material.
Literature shows an attempt made by researchers to opti-
Fig. 1. Decision model of the drilling process parameter selection.
mize the various machining process parameters by TOPSIS,
Taguchi method, Grey relational analysis, response surface
methodology, genetic algorithm and artificial neural network
[15-18]. The TOPSIS method for the optimization of the drill-
ing parameters was employed in the present study. The ex-
periment was conducted for drilling Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V
using wet and cryogenic LN2 coolants. Three levels of Vc and
f were used in the experiments. Finally, the ANOVA was
carried out to predict the significance and the contribution of
process parameters.
The decision model of the process parameter selection is
shown in Fig. 1. Each output response is related to three dif-
ferent parameters in the drilling process. The responses are
taken as optimizing the parameters by using the TOPSIS
method.
2. Materials and methods
Cryogenic drilling was carried out by using Liquid nitrogen
(LN2) as the cutting coolant with the help of a cryogenic cool-
ing setup. Cryogenic LN2 cooling experimental setup is shown
in Fig. 2. CNC Vertical machining center (VMC) was used in
which BT40 tool holder assembly was clamped in the spindle.
A carbide drill with the diameter of 16 mm was used for mak-
ing holes with two uncoated WC-Co inserts of ISO designa-
tion KW10. The work piece material was a rectangular block
of Ti-6Al-4V with dimensions of 164 × 80 × 40 mm which
were fastened to the upper side of a piezoelectric transducer-
based dynamometer (Kistler 9257B). The chemical composi-
tion of workpiece material Titanium Ti-6Al-4V alloy Grade 5
is given in Table 1. The drilling experiments were performed
under wet and cryogenic LN2 cooling conditions with three Vc
40, 50 & 60 m/min and three f 0.02, 0.05 & 0.08 mm/rev.
Based on Taguchi method, L18 Orthogonal array was used for
a study of the effect of drilling parameters such as environ-
ment, Vc and f, while the depth was maintained constant. Ex-
perimental process parameters (factors and levels) of Titanium
alloy Ti-6Al-4V are shown in Table 2. The major output re-
sponses such as T, Ft, Mt, Ra, Cir and Cyl were considered for
better hole finish and quality.
Three K type thermocouples of 3 mm diameter were used
for temperature measurement. The thermocouples were placed
on the side of the workpiece at three levels and a distance 0.2
mm was maintained between the tip of the element to the hole
surface.
Zeilmann and Weingaertner [19] used this method to calcu-
 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841 1837

Table 1. Chemical composition of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Table 3. Computational steps of SIMOS weighting procedure.

Element Weight % Subset No. of No. of Non - normalized

Total
Aluminium 5.863 criteria criteria position weighted matrix

Iron 0.203 T 1 1 1/21*100 = 4.76 5

Carbon 0.015 Ft 1 2 2/21*100 = 9.5 10

Vanadium 3.97 Mt 1 3 3/21*100 = 14.28 14

Titanium 89.88 Ra 1 4 4/21*100 = 19.04 19

Cir,
2 5,6 11/21*100 = 52.38 52
Cyl
Table 2. Process parameters and their levels. Total 7 21 100

Symbols Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

A Environment Wet cooling LN2 cooling -
solution and the greatest distance from the -ve ideal solution
Cutting speed [20-22]. The +ve ideal solution is the composition of the finest
B 40 50 60
(m/min)
performance values demonstrated (in the decision matrix) by
C Feed rate (mm/rev) 0.02 0.05 0.08
any substitute for each attribute. The -ve ideal solution is the
composition of the poorest performance values.

2.1.1 Steps involved in TOPSIS method

The TOPSIS method applies the priority weight for calcula-
tion of the normalized weighted matrix. The corresponding
weight for each response can be obtained through the use of
the Simos method. The computation steps of the Simos
weighting method are shown in Table 3.
The output responses were arranged from the smallest to the
greatest importance in Simos weighting method [23]. The
weighting of each criterion is calculated as follows:

Definite set of criteria = [T, Ft, Mt, Ra, Cir, Cyl] .

Fig. 2. Experimental setup of cryogenic LN2 cooling. The output responses are arranged in the order of the impor-
tance from the smallest to the greatest, such as Mt, Ft, T, Ra,
Cir, Cyl. In these responses, Cir and Cyl are considered as
late the cutting temperature in the drilling zone at three differ- equal weights. The optimization steps involved in the TOPSIS
ent heights. The temperature variations were observed and the method are [24],
signals sent to the PC based Data acquisition and Control sys- Step 1
tem. A Kistler dynamometer was used to measure Ft and Mt. This method has the best ranking through selection of the
The Ra was measured by Taylor-Hobson contact type experimental runs (alternatives) which eliminates the units of
(Surtronic 3+) with a cutoff length 0.8 mm. Ra value was rep- all output responses (criteria), and a normalized value is taken.
resented by average arithmetic deviation. Ra is a standard cri- Table 4 shows the normalized matrix (rij) obtained by using
terion of surface quality and it’s an arithmetic mean. Meas- the following equation.
urement of circularity and cylindricity was done by Coordi-
nate measuring machine (CMM). Scanning electron micro- X ij
rij = i = 1, 2,¼18; j = 1, 2,¼6, (1)
scope (SEM) images were examined for tool wear of cutting m
X ij2
inserts and chip morphology.
å i =1

where, i = number of experimental runs (alternatives), j =

2.1 Optimization of drilling parameters using TOPSIS
method
Yoon and Hwang implemented the TOPSIS-technique for
order preference through similarity to ideal solution method,
which was developed for the measurement to the extent of
closeness for the ideal solution. In this method the chosen
substitute should have the smallest distance from the +ve ideal
number of output responses (criteria), xij = normalized value of
exp. run i related with output response j.
Step 2
Weighted normalized value matrix (vij) is calculated by the
multiplication of normalized value into weighted value.
vij = wj*rij where, i = 1,2,3…18; j =1,2,3…6. (2)
1838 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841

Table 4. Design of experiment and normalized values of output re- Table 5. Closeness coefficient values and ranking of alternatives.
sponse parameter.
Exp. No Di+ Di- Ci Rank
Normalized matrix values (rij) 1 0.0401 0.383381 0.905 6
Exp. A B C
T Ft Mt Ra Cir Cyl 2 0.0645 0.505106 0.887 8
1 1 1 1 0.340 0.167 0.159 0.174 0.028 0.044 3 0.0698 0.509687 0.879 11
2 1 1 2 0.274 0.230 0.289 0.183 0.096 0.082 4 0.0957 0.487779 0.836 12
3 1 1 3 0.183 0.252 0.312 0.253 0.119 0.050 5 0.1880 0.391431 0.676 16
4 1 2 1 0.386 0.174 0.119 0.290 0.062 0.164 6 0.3060 0.258116 0.458 18
5 1 2 2 0.305 0.250 0.160 0.297 0.164 0.334 7 0.1470 0.432245 0.746 15
6 1 2 3 0.270 0.285 0.338 0.305 0.425 0.425 8 0.5600 0.037904 0.634 17
7 1 3 1 0.467 0.201 0.168 0.227 0.238 0.141 9 0.1080 0.462368 0.810 14
8 1 3 2 0.210 0.269 0.282 0.257 0.771 0.777 10 0.0081 0.562059 0.986 1
9 1 3 3 0.150 0.319 0.384 0.296 0.153 0.144 11 0.0502 0.517038 0.912 4
10 2 1 1 0.156 0.163 0.130 0.099 0.006 0.023 12 0.0640 0.518203 0.890 7
11 2 1 2 0.101 0.199 0.198 0.157 0.091 0.062 13 0.0253 0.548171 0.956 2
12 2 1 3 0.115 0.246 0.277 0.242 0.113 0.035 14 0.0649 0.506023 0.886 9
13 2 2 1 0.193 0.168 0.077 0.189 0.028 0.035 15 0.1010 0.489079 0.829 13
14 2 2 2 0.123 0.215 0.149 0.217 0.113 0.068 16 0.0316 0.53682 0.944 3
15 2 2 3 0.106 0.257 0.260 0.256 0.187 0.047 17 0.0522 0.519632 0.909 5
16 2 3 1 0.184 0.182 0.133 0.169 0.051 0.044 18 0.0688 0.510258 0.881 10
17 2 3 2 0.136 0.265 0.199 0.251 0.068 0.073
18 2 3 3 0.108 0.312 0.315 0.261 0.113 0.056
Step 5
For each experimental run, the closeness coefficient (Ci)
Step 3 values are determined by using the following equation.
For every response that is considered to be the ideal ex-
perimental run (alternative), the best (S+) and the worst (S -) Di-
Ci = i = 1, 2,¼¼.18; 0 £ Ci £ 1 . (6)
experimental run performance were identified. D + Di+
i
-

{
S + = é max Sij
ë ( ) j Î J ù or é min Sij
û ë ( ) }
j Î J ¢ù , i = 1, 2, ¼18
û The best experimental run was chosen on the basis of high
value of closeness coefficient, which is close to the ideal solu-
(3)
tion.
where S+ denotes +ve ideal solution.
3. Results and discussion
S+ = [0.014102, 0.016304, 0.003866, 0.018715, 0.002947,
0.012205] The closeness coefficient of all 18 experimental runs is
where, S- represents a -ve ideal solution. shown in Table 5 which is based on L18 orthogonal array.
S- = [0.065439, 0.031881, 0.019184, 0.058022, 0.400844, Among the 18 closeness coefficient values, experiment num-
0.404292]. ber 10 has the greatest multi response characteristic. The other
Step 4 closeness coefficient values of each experiment are shown in
In this step, the performance of the output response has Fig. 3. In this experimental work, the tenth experimental run
been measured as the best experimental run distance (D+ij) has the maximum closeness coefficient which shows the cor-
from the S+ values, and worst experimental run distance (D-ij) responding tenth experiment number is nearer to the ideal
from the S- values. The D+ij and D-ij values are determined value. The optimum levels for all the factors are always se-
using the following equation. Table 5 shows the performance lected on the basis of maximum average value irrespective of
of each experimental run under the best and worst conditions. the objective (maximization and minimization) of the problem.
Accordingly, the mean response shown in Fig. 4 shows that
18 the lower Vc = 40 m/min and f = 0.02 mm/rev under cryogenic
Di+ = å(J ij - S +j ) 2 , (4) LN2 cooling condition are the optimum levels for Ti-6Al-4V
i =0

18
alloy drilling. Additionally, the tenth experimental number
Di- = å(J ij - S -j ) 2 where, i = 1, 2, 3….18 . (5) from the multi criteria output response has better optimal drill-
i =0 ing parameter.
The corresponding output values of experiment number 10
 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841
Fig. 3. Effect of process parameters on each experiment.
Fig. 4. Mean response values of drilling process parameters.
are cutting temperature (T) 52.76oC, thrust force (Ft) 1032 N,
torque (Mt) 3.124 Nm, surface roughness (Ra) 1.19 µm, circu-
larity (Cir) 0.001 mm and cylindricity (Cyl) 0.008 mm, re-
spectively.
A reduction of 54.4% T was observed in cryogenic LN2
cooling over wet cooling for a similar condition. The reduc-
tion in T due to heat generated can dissipate quickly from the
cutting zone by supplying LN2 cooling. Ft of 2.46% reduction
and a 18.48% of reduction in Mt were observed over wet cool-
ing. This was due to cryogenic LN2 cooling at the tool - chip
interface produces a better lubrication and penetration effect.
The advantage of cryogenic LN2 cooling lies in the reduc-
tion of the friction between chip - tool interface resulting in
better cushioning effect. About 43.48% reduction in Ra due to
cryogenic LN2 cooling has a direct effect on tool life im-
provement and minimizes manufacturing cost.
Cir reduction of 80% in cryogenic LN2 cooling provides a
better hole quality with a minimum variation of deviation
when compared to wet cooling. A reduction of 46.66% in Cyl
shows better cylindrical surface and minimizes the hole
enlargement compared with wet cooling.
The lower Ft under cryogenic LN2 cooling condition is at-
tributed to the low frictional force at the cutting zone inter-
faces and relatively less nose wear due to its better perform-
ance in penetration and lubrication. A comparison of tool wear
study shows an improved tool life in cryogenic LN2 cooling
1839
Wet cooling
Cryogenic LN2 cooling
Fig. 5. SEM images of the tool wear at Vc = 40 m/min, f = 0.02
mm/rev.
over wet cooling as shown in Fig. 5.
In wet cooling condition, adhesive wear occurs due to high
cutting temperature that was developed at the tool - work ma-
terial interface region. This higher cutting temperature allows
the cutting tool to stick with the work material, causing a high
tool wear, and softening the work material.
In cryogenic cooling condition, the tool wear is slight. Cool-
ing effect is distinct due to sufficient penetration of LN2 cool-
ing into the in-depth of the drilled hole during the process. As
a result, friction is developed at the in-depth region of the
work material. It also happens due to the abrasion at the inter-
face region, where the work material hardness is increased due
to improper cooling by the LN2. As a result, the tool under-
goes abrasive wear and causes removal of a portion of the
particles from the cutting tool material despite the employ-
ment of LN2.
In cryogenic LN2 cooling, chip breakability is found to be
better. The penetration is better in the gaseous form in the
chip-tool interface area which reduces the friction, and the
chips breaking easily. These are shown in Fig. 6.
The variation between the maximum and minimum values
of the closeness coefficient is shown in Table 6. The maxi-
mum-minimum values of the drilling parameters were 0.151
for the environment, 0.136 for Vc and 0.104 for f. The maxi-
mum value of the maximum-minimum is the best effective
1840 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841

Table 6. Mean response table for closeness coefficient. Table 7. Confirmation test results.

Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Max-Min Rank Initial setting Optimal process
Conditions
Environment 0.759 0.910333 - 0.151333 1 parameters parameters

Speed 0.909833 0.7735 0.820667 0.136333 2 Setting level A1B2C3 A2B1C1

O
Feed 0.8955 0.817333 0.791167 0.104333 3 T ( C) 91.6 52.8
Ft (N) 1805 1032
Overall mean response grade: 0.834667
Mt (Nm) 8.120 3.124
Ra (µm) 3.680 1.190
Cir (mm) 0.075 0.001
Cyl (mm) 0.145 0.008
Ci 0.458 0.986

Improvement in TOPSIS grade: 0.528

ing process. The confirmation result of the process parameters

indicates the Ci value of the optimal process condition
(A2B1C1) as higher than initial process condition (A1B2C3).

Wet cooling 4. Conclusions

Cryogenic LN2 cooling
Fig. 6. SEM images of the chip morphology at Vc = 40 m/min, f = 0.02
mm/rev.
factor affecting the multi- response characteristic of the drill-
ing process. The maximum value of the maximum-minimum
is 0.151, which corresponds to machining environments (con-
trol factor). The hierarchy of the important control factors in
machining can be listed as environments, Vc and f. The output
results obviously indicate that the drilling performance was
influenced more by controllable factor, specifically the LN2
cooling environment. Application of cryogenic LN2 cooling
results in the reduction of T, Ft, Mt, Ra, Cir and Cyl. Based on
the results obtained from the mean response table for close-
ness coefficient results, cryogenic LN2 cooling is found to be
economical and the best alternative approach for a wet coolant
in drilling process.
Table 7 shows the comparative test results of the initial set-
ting parameters and optimal process parameters in drilling.
Once, the optimal level of the drilling process parameters are
found, confirmation test results are carried out to confirm the
enhancement in the multi response characteristics of the drill-
The effects of drilling parameters such as environments, Vc
and f were studied based on TOPSIS method with L18 or-
thogonal array. The Simos procedure was used to position the
output responses based on their significance in drilling of Ti-
tanium Ti-6Al-4V Grade 5 alloy.
On the basis of rank obtained from the closeness coefficient
values, the tenth experimental run gives the highest closeness
value of 0.986 to obtain minimum T, Ft, Mt, Ra, Cir and Cyl,
respectively. Better chip breakability and improved tool life
are observed in cryogenic LN2 condition. No damage to the
cutting edge insert is observed in cryogenic LN2 coolant con-
dition. The predicted optimum input parameter combinations
are Cryogenic LN2 cooling, Vc = 40 m/min, f = 0.02 mm/rev
for drilling of Ti-6Al-4V alloy.
Optimal results propose employment of the TOPSIS ap-
proach for improving the drilling performance and the appli-
cation of cryogenic cooling in the manufacturing industries.
The projected process parameter TOPSIS combination was
observed as more effective in solving multiresponse problems
in drilling process. On the experimental basis and optimization
results, cryogenic LN2 cooling is a better alternative coolant
compared to wet cooling in the drilling process.
References
[1] N. R. Dhar, S. Islam and M. Kamruzzaman, Effect of mini-
mum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear, surface
roughness and dimensional deviation in turning AISI4340
steel, G.U. J. of Sci., 20 (2) (2007) 23-32.
[2] H. Hong, A. T. Riga, J. M. Cahoon and C. G. Scott, Ma-
chinability of steels and titanium alloys under lubrication,
Wear, 162-164 (1993) 34-39.
[3] S. Y. Hong, Y. Ding and W. Jeong, Friction and cutting
forces in cryogenic machining of Ti-6Al-4V, Int. J. Mach.
 L. Shakeel Ahmed and M. Pradeep Kumar / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30 (4) (2016) 1835~1841
Tools and Manuf., 41 (15) (2001) 2271-2285.
[4] E. D. Marquardt, J. P. Le and R. Radebaugh, Cryogenic
material properties database, Cryocoolers, 11 (2002) 681-
687.
[5] S. Sun, M. Brandt and M. S. Dargusch, Machining Ti-6Al-
4V alloy with cryogenic compressed air cooling, Int. J.
Mach. Tools and Manuf., 50 (2002) 933-942.
[6] J. L. Cantero, M. M. Tardiob, J. A. Cantelia, M. Marcosc
and M. H. Miguelez, Dry drilling of alloy Ti-6Al-4V, Int. J.
Mach. Tools and Manuf., 45 (2005) 1246-1255.
[7] Y. Hong, Y. Ding and W.-C. Jeong, Friction and cutting
forces in cryogenic machining of Ti-6Al-4V, Int. J. Mach.
Tools and Manuf., 41 (2001) 2271-2285.
[8] T. Kivak, G. Samtas and A. Cicek, Taguchi method based
optimisation of drilling parameters in drilling of AISI 316
steel with PVD monolayer and multilayer coated HSS drills,
Measurement, 45 (2012) 1547-1557.
[9] T. Rajmohan, K. Palanikumar and M. Kathirvel, Optimiza-
tion of machining parameters in drilling hybrid aluminium
metal matrix composites, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Society
of China, 22 (2012) 1286-1297.
[10] E. Kilickap, M. Huseyinoglu and A. Yardimeden, Optimi-
zation of drilling parameters on surface roughness in drilling
of AISI 1045 using response surface methodology and ge-
netic algorithm, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 52 (2011) 79-88.
[11] G. Manimaran and M. P. Kumar, Multiresponse Optimiza-
tion of grinding AISI 316 stainless steel using grey relational
analysis, Mat. and Manuf. Proc., 28 (2013) 418-423.
[12] B. Jyotiprakash, N. Bhattacharya and K. Mandal, A neuro-
genetic approach for multi-objective optimization of process
variables in drilling, Int. J. Tech. and Engg. Sys., 2 (1)
(2011) 89-94.
[13] M. Saravanan, D. Ramalingam, G. Manikandan and R. R.
Karthikeyen, Multi objective optimization of drilling pa-
rameters using genetic algorithm, Procedia Engg., 38 (2012)
197-207.
[14] R. Thirumalai and J. S. Senthilkumaar, Multi-criteria deci-
sion making in the selection of machining parameters for In-
conel 718, J. Mech. Sci. Tech., 27 (4) (2013) 1109-1116.
[15] F. Jafarian, M. Taghipour and H. Amirabadi, Application
of artificial neural network and optimization algorithms for
optimizing surface roughness, tool life and cutting forces in
turning operation, J. Mech. Sci. Tech., 27 (5) (2013) 1469-
1477.
[16] S. Neşeli, İ. Asiltürk and L. Çelik, Determining the opti-
mum process parameter for grinding operations using robust
process, J. Mech. Sci. Tech., 26 (11) (2012) 3587-3595.
1841
[17] R. A. Mahdavinejad, N. Khani and M. M. S. Fakhrabadi,
Optimization of milling parameters using artificial neural
network and artificial immune system, J. Mech. Sci. Tech.,
26 (12) (2012) 4097-4104.
[18] M. W. Azizi, S. Belhadi, M. A. Yallese, T. Mabrouki and
J.-F. Rigal, Surface roughness and cutting forces modeling
for optimization of machining condition in finish hard turn-
ing of AISI 52100 steel, JMST, 26 (12) (2012) 4105-4114.
[19] R. P. Zeilmann and W. L. Weingaertner, Analysis of tem-
perature during drilling of Ti6Al4V with minimal quantity of
lubricant, J. Mat. Proc. Tech., 179 (1-3) (2006) 124-127.
[20] S. J. Chen and C. L. Hwang, Fuzzy multiple attribute deci-
sion making methods and applications, Springer - Verlag,
New York (1992).
[21] C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision mak-
ing methods and applications, Springer - Verlag, Berlin
(1981).
[22] M. Behzadian, S. K. Otaghsara, M. Yazdani and J. Ignatius,
A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Sys.
with App., 39 (2012) 13051-13069.
[23] J. Figueira and B. Roy, Determining the weights of criteria
in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ proce-
dure, Euro. J. Oper. Research, 139 (2002) 317-326.
[24] D. L. Olson, Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models,
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40 (2004) 721-727.
L. Shakeel Ahmed is doing Ph.D. in
the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at Anna University,
Chennai. He received his B.E. in
Mechanical Engi- neering from Anna
University and M.E. in Manufacturing
Systems and Management at Anna
University, India. His research interests
are metal cutting, manufacturing, computer integrated manu-
facturing and optimization techniques.
M. Pradeep Kumar completed his
Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and is
working as Associate Professor in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering
at Anna University Chennai, India. His
research interests are cryogenic machi-
ning, application of FEM in machining
and micromachining.