Materials & Design

Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014 www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Mathematical model to predict tool wear on the machining of glass bre reinforced plastic composites
K. Palanikumar
a

a,*

, J. Paulo Davim

Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Deemed University, Chennai 600119, India b Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal Received 9 January 2006; accepted 27 June 2006 Available online 7 September 2006

Abstract Glass bre reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite materials are replacing traditional engineering materials owing to its properties. Accordingly, the need for accurate machining of composites has increased enormously. During machining, the reduction of tool wear is an important aspect. In the present work, a mathematical model has been developed to predict the tool wear on the machining of GFRP composites using regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to study the main and interaction eects of machining parameters, viz., cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and work piece bre orientation angle. The adequacy of the developed model is veried by using coecient of determination and residual analysis. This model can be eectively used to predict the tool wear on machining GFRP components within the ranges of variables studied. The inuences of dierent parameters in machining GFRP composite have been analysed in detail. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mathematical model; Turning; Glass bre reinforced polymer composites; Tool wear; Analysis of variance

1. Introduction Glass bre reinforced plastics (GFRP) are increasingly being used for varieties of engineering applications from automotive to aircraft components because of their superior advantages when compared to the other engineering materials. The advantages include high strength to weight ratio, high fracture toughness and excellent corrosion and thermal resistances [1]. Eventhough GFRP parts may be produced by moulding process, they require further machining to facilitate dimensional control for easy assembly and control of surface quality for functional aspects [2]. The rst theoretical work on FRP was presented by Everstine and Rogers [3]. They did the theoretical analysis on plane deformation of incompressible composites reinforced by strong parallel bres. Sakuma et al. [4] and Bhatnagar, et al. [5] studied
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 22273226 (Res.)/24501644/ 24500813 (O.); fax: +91 44 24502344/24503202. E-mail addresses: palanikumar_k@yahoo.com (K. Palanikumar), pdavim@mec.ua.pt (J. Paulo Davim).

how the bre orientation inuenced both quality of the machined surfaces and tool wear. The machinability of composite materials is inuenced by the type of bre embedded in the composite, and more particularly by the mechanical properties. On the other hand, the selection of cutting parameters and the cutting tool are dependent on the type of bre used in composite and which is very important in the machining process [6,7]. Davim and Mata [8] studied the inuence of cutting parameters on surface roughness in turning glass-bre-reinforced plastics using statistical analysis. This technique used orthogonal arrays and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The objective was to obtain the contribution percentages of the cutting parameters (cutting velocity and feed rate) on the surface roughness on the workpiece. Near same time, these authors conducted the new optimization study of surface roughness in turning GFRPs tubes manufactured by lament winding and hand lay-up, using polycrystalline diamond cutting tools. The objective was establishing the optimal cutting parameters to obtain a certain surface roughness in the GFRP workpieces, using multiple analysis regression [9].

0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2006.06.018

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014

2009

When GFRP composites are machined, it is clearly seen that the bres are cut across and along their lay direction, leaving deformed projecting and partially disclosed bres on the machined surface [10,11] and it produces rapid tool wear. Tool wear is an important response in machining process. The tool integrity plays an important role in the form of the machined surface of the work piece and the control of the cutting quality. Conventional machining of bre-reinforced composites is dicult due to diverse bre and matrix properties, bre orientation, inhomogeneous nature of the material and the presence of high-volume fraction (volume of bre over total volume) of hard abrasive bre in the matrix. Most of the studies on GFRP composite machining shows that minimizing the tool wear has been very dicult and is to be controlled [1214]. In the present work a mathematical model has been developed to predict the tool wear on the machining of GFRP composites using statistical analysis in-order-to study the main and interaction eects of machining parameters namely cutting speed, work piece (bre orientation) angle, depth of cut and feed rate. The developed model can be eectively used to predict tool wear in machining of GFRP composites with in the ranges of parameters.
2. Experimental work
From the literature [4,5,10] and the previous work done on this eld by authors [13,14], the independently controllable machining parameters which are having greater inuences on tool wear while machining of GFRP composite work piece have been identied. They are: (i) cutting speed (A), (ii) work piece (bre orientation) angle (B), (iii) depth of cut (C) and (iv) feed rate (D), out of which bre orientation angle has been specially applied to bre reinforced composites. A detailed analysis has been carried out to x the lower and upper limits of the factors. Based on the analysis, the upper and lower limits of the factors are identied and are given below. (i) Previous studies indicated that, the tool wear increases with increase of cutting speed and vice versa. The higher cutting speed was found to cause a large deformation rate of glass bre and severe tool wear [15] and hence the cutting speed has been set at low level and is between 75 and 175 m/min. (ii) The bre orientation angle plays an important role for deciding the tool wear. At larger bre angles, the shear takes place along the bres and it generates compressive stress on the rake face of the tool [10] which leads to high tool wear. For the present study, the bre orientation angle considered is between 30 and 90. (iii) The depth of cut plays only a small role in composite machining process compared to cutting speed and feed rate [16], but the higher depth of cut cause a deleterious eect on surface quality in GFRP machining and it also leads to more tool wear and hence low limits of depth of cut are chosen for the present study. The depth of cut considered in this work is between 0.50 and 1.50 mm. (iv) The increase in feed rate increased the heat generation and hence, tool wear, which resulted in the higher tool wear [13]. The increase in feed rate also increase the chatter and it produces incomplete machining at a faster traverse, which leads to more tool wear and hence low feed rates are selected and is between 0.10 and 0.50 mm/rev. For experimentation, design of experiment in statistics has been used. Due to the narrow ranges of parameters selected, it has been decided to use a two level full factorial design. The notations, units and their levels

chosen are summarized in Table 1. For the convenience of recording and processing the experimental data, the upper and lower levels of the parameters are coded as +1 and 1. The coded value of any intermediate levels can be calculated by using the following expression [17]:

X X max X min X max X 2 Xi min

2

where Xmax is the upper level of the parameter, Xmin is the lower level of the parameter and Xi is the required coded values of the parameter of any value of X from Xmin to Xmax.
The composite pipes used in this experimental study have been produced by lament winding process. The material specication and mechanical properties of bre, resin and composite are given in Tables 2 and 3. In the present investigation, experiments were conducted for turning operation on all geared lathe. The ISO specication of the tool used for the turning operation is a WIDAX tool holder PC LNR 1616 K12. The insert used is a coated carbide tool having Composition: Co 6.0%; composite carbide 8.0%; WC rest. The coating layer system is: CVD- TiC + Ti(C, N) + Al2O3 and layer thickness used was 11 lm.The machining operations were carried out as per the condition given by the design matrix at random to avoid systematic errors. The design matrix [1820] and corresponding response are given in Table 4. During the process of composite machining, the pressure and temperature prevailing over the tool-work interface can result in severe adhesion, abrasion, diusion, mechanical chipping or fracture. There are four general wear zones on a typical cutting tool due to the consequences of the above mechanism, viz. crater wear, ank wear, nose radius wear and notch wear. The tool ank wear (Vb) has been considered in this Table 1 Control parameters and their levels S. No. Parameter Notation Unit Levels Original Low 1 2 Cutting speed Fibre orientation angle Depth of cut Feed rate A B m/min 75 30 High 175 90 Coded Low 1 1 High +1 +1

3 4

C D

mm mm/rev

0.5 0.10

1.5 0.50

1 1

+1 +1

Table 2 Specication of bre and resin Fibre: E Glass- RO99 2400 P566 Manufacturer: Saint Gobain Vetrotex India Ltd. RO99- Multi lament roving 2400- Linear density (Tex) P566- sizing reference for vetrotex Resin: Epoxy Manufacturer: CIBA GEIGY Product: Araldite LY556 (Bisphenol A epoxy resin) Hardener: HT 972 (Aromatic amine hardener)

Table 3 Mechanical properties of bre, resin and composite material Material Tensile strength, ru (MPa) 1724 83 930 Tensile modulus, E (GPa) 70 6 E1 = 46 E2 = 13 Shear modulus, G (GPa) 30 2.3 5 Poissons ratio, m 0.25 0.35 m12 = 0.3 m21 = 0.08 Mass density, q (kg/m3) 2500 1200 1876

Fibre Resin Composite

2010

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014

Table 4 Design matrix and corresponding output response Expt. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Coded value A 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 1 +1 B 1 1 +1 +1 1 1 +1 +1 1 1 +1 +1 1 1 +1 +1 C 1 1 1 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 1 1 1 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Original value A 75 175 75 175 75 175 75 175 75 175 75 175 75 175 75 175 B 30 30 90 90 30 30 90 90 30 30 90 90 30 30 90 90 C 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 D 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Average tool ank wear, mm 0.45 0.91 0.81 1.02 0.31 0.67 0.78 0.67 0.72 1.12 0.78 1.21 0.72 0.96 1.02 0.99

In engineering problems, the higher order interactions (three factor interactions and four factor interactions) are practically insignicant and hence not considered. After omitting three factor and four factor interactions, the model is written as Y b0 b1 A b2 B b3 C b4 D b5 AB b6 AC b7 AD b8 BC b9 BD b10 CD: 4 For nding the signicant factors (main and interactions), analysis of variance (ANOVA) [1820] has been used. The Yates algorithm [19] has been applied to nd the sum of squares for main and interaction eects. Table 5 shows the Yates algorithm table for tool wear. In Yates method for a 2kfactorial design, whether working with individual observations or average of observations, k columns (1), (2),. . .,(k) will be generated by adding and subtracting appropriate pairs of numbers. The rst devisor will be 2k and the remaining devisors will be 2k1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test results are presented in Table 6. In the ANOVA table, the eects and their identication are listed in column 1. Their sum of squares is listed in column
Table 5 Yates algorithm for calculating sum of squares S. No. Average (1) tool wear, mm 0.45 0.91 0.81 1.02 0.31 0.67 0.78 0.67 0.72 1.12 0.78 1.21 0.72 0.96 1.02 0.99 (2) (3) (4) Sum of squares

study and was measured at predetermined intervals using radical toolmakers microscope. The experiments were repeated for three times and average tool ank wear was taken-up for analysis. In machining of GFRP composites, the ank wear occur due to abrasion and adhesion. Typical optical micrographs of wear patterns observed on tool are shown in Fig. 1.

3. Mathematical model Representing the tool wear of the GFRP composite Y, the response function can be expressed as Y f A; B; C; D 2 The model chosen includes the eects of main and interaction eect of all factors [18]. The model selected is polynomial and is expressed as follows: Y b0 b1 A b2 B b3 C b4 D b5 AB b6 AC b7 AD b8 BC b9 BD b10 CD b11 ABC b12 ABD b13 ACD b14 BCD b15 ABCD 3 where b0 = average response value and b1, b2, . . . , b15 = co-ecients that depends on main eects and interaction eects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1.360 3.190 5.620 13.140 1.830 2.430 7.520 1.960 0.980 3.830 0.920 1.420 1.450 3.690 1.040 0.960 1.840 0.670 0.940 0.900 1.990 0.250 0.480 1.040 1.680 0.830 0.720 0.180 2.010 0.210 0.240 0.520 0.460 0.470 0.760 1.900 0.210 0.470 0.140 0.120 0.360 0.150 0.420 0.460 0.110 0.330 0.620 0.480 0.400 0.250 0.000 0.620 0.430 0.470 0.180 0.200 0.240 0.030 0.220 0.180 0.030 0.270 0.300 0.080

I 10.791 A 0.240 B 0.126 AB 0.058 C 0.051 AC 0.068 BC 0.002 ABC 0.017 D 0.226 AD 0.001 BD 0.013 ABD 0.014 CD 0.024 ACD 0.003 BCD 0.002 ABCD 0.000

Fig. 1. Tool wear proles observed on the machining of GFRP composites.

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014 Table 6 ANOVA test results Factors Sum of squares (SS) 0.240 0.126 0.051 0.226 0.058 0.068 0.001 0.002 0.013 0.024 0.036 Degrees of freedom (DOF) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Mean square (MS) 0.240 0.126 0.051 0.226 0.058 0.068 0.001 0.002 0.013 0.024 0.007 Fratio

2011

R2 1

SSError SStotal

A B C D AB AC AD BC BD CD Error

33.14 17.395 6.988 31.142 7.950 9.331 0.124 0.280 1.825 3.316

The coecient of determination is calculated using the above expression and is 95.71% for the present investigation, which shows the high correlation that, existing between the experimental and predicted values. Further, Fig. 2 shows the comparisons of values of tool wear obtained from prediction and from actual experiment. 4. Diagnostic checking of the developed model The diagnostic checking of the developed model has been performed using residual analysis. The regression model was used to determine the residuals of each individual experimental run. The dierence between the observed values and predicted or tted values is called residuals. The residuals are calculated and ranked in ascending order. The normal probabilities of residuals are shown in Fig. 3. The normal probability plot is used to verify the normality assumption. As shown in gure, the data are spread roughly along the straight line. Hence, it can be concluded that the data are normally distributed [21]. Fig. 4 shows the residuals against the observation order. Fig. 4 is used to show the correlation between the residuals. The plot is useful when the order of the observations may inuence the results, which can occur when data are collected in a time sequence or in some other sequence,
1.4
Experimental Data, mm

F(1,5,0.95) = 6.61. Therefore, AD, BC, BD and CD are having insignicant eects at 95% condence level.

2. The degrees of freedom for the corresponding eects are listed in column 3. The mean square value for each factors are calculated by dividing the sum of squares by degree of freedom and nally the F values are calculated. After determining the signicant factors, the nal model was developed including only those factors are signicant. The general model is given as in Eq. (4). Consequently, taking cognizance of the ndings from the ANOVA analysis, the above model was modied by deleting the factors, which have no eect on the response function. Since the factors AD, BC, BD and CD have no eect on tool wear, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as Y b0 b1 A b2 B b3 C b4 D b5 AB b6 AC 5 where b0 is the average of response Y and b1, b 2 . . . ., bi are calculated using the following equation [18]: X X i Y i  bi 6 N where i varies from 1 to N and Xi is the corresponding coded value of the parameters considered in the experiment and Yi is the corresponding response output obtained from the experiment and N is the total number of treatment combinations considered. The nal mathematical model developed was represented in coded unit is as below Tool wear;V b 0:82125 0:1225A 0:08875B 0:0600AB 0:0650AC 7 0:05625C 0:11875D

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Predicted Data, mm
Fig. 2. Correlation graph.

1.2

1.4

99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1

The adequacy of the developed model can be veried by using R2 value after estimating sum of squares (SS) and mean square (MS). The quantity R2 called as coecient of determination is used to judge the adequacy of regression models developed. 0 6 R2 6 1. The R2 value is the variability in the data accounted for by the model in percentage [18].

Percent

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

Residual

Fig. 3. Normal probability plot of residuals.

2012
0. 10

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014

0. 05

0. 00

-0.05

-0.10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Observation Order

Fig. 4. Residuals against the observed order of data.

such as geographic area. From gure it is asserted that a tendency to have runs of positive and negative residuals indicates the existence of a certain correlation. Also the plot shows that the residuals are distributed evenly in both positive and negative along the run. Hence, the data can be said to be independent. Fig. 5 indicates the residual versus tted values, which shows only the maximum variation of 0.10 to 0.10 mm in tool wear between observed and tted values. This plot does not reveal any obvious pattern and hence the tted model is adequate. 5. Discussions Tool wear plays an important in the evaluation of machining accuracy. Exact data for the new, advanced tools, edge performance and their life is an essential condition for their application. Although many factors aect tool wear, machining parameters such as cutting speed, feed rate depth of cut and work piece properties have a signicant inuence for a given machine tool and work piece set-up. The techniques and methodologies required for processing composite materials are substantially dierent from those for metals. The mechanism of cutting in GFRP composites is due to the combination of plastic deformation, shearing and bending rupture. The occurrence of
0.10

the above mechanisms depends on the exibility, orientation and toughness of the bers, bond strength between ber and matrix, and the type of weave [12,22]. The eects of dierent parameters can be analysed by using standardized Pareto chart and normal probability plot. Fig. 6 shows the Pareto chart of the standardized eects. The Pareto chart shows both the magnitude and the importance of an eect. This chart displays the absolute value of the eects, and draws a reference line on the chart. Any eect that extends past this line is potentially important. Fig. 7 shows the normal probability plot of the standardized eects. The eects that are negligible are normally distributed, with a mean zero and a variance r2. Normal plot is a graphical technique based on Central limit theorem. The procedure for constructing the normal probability plot is given elsewhere [23]. As per the normal probability plot, points which are close to a line tted to the middle group of points represent estimated factors which do not demonstrate any signicant eect on the response variable. On the other hand, the points appear to be far away from the straight line are likely to represent the real factor eects on the tool wear. Based on Figs. 6 and 7, it can be concluded that the factors A, B, C, D and their interactions AB, AC are considered to be signicant at 95% condence level.
2. 571 A D B AC

Residual

Term

AB C CD BD BC AD 0 1 2 3

Factor A B C D

Name Cutting speed Orientation angle Depth of cut Feed rate

Standardized Effect

Fig. 6. Pareto chart of the standardized eects (a = 0.05).

99 95

A D B

0.05

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Residual

0.00

Percent

C AB AC

Effect Type Not Significant Significant Fact or A B C D Name Cutting speed Orientationangle Depth of cut Feed rate

-0.05

10 5

-0.10 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 1. 0 1. 1 1. 2

1 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Fitted Value

Standardized Effect

Fig. 5. Residuals against the tted values.

Fig. 7. Normal probability plot of the standardized eects (a = 0.05).

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014

2013

1.2 1.1
AxC A B C D AxB

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Levels
Fig. 8. Response graph for signicant factors and its interactions.

1. A model is developed to predict the tool wear for turning GFRP composites. This technique is convenient to predict the eects of dierent inuential combinations of machining parameters by conducting minimum number of experiments. 2. The developed models can be used to predict the tool wear for turning of GFRP composites at 95% condence level. But the validity of the model is limited to the range of parameters considered for the investigation. 3. Cutting speed was the factor, which has great inuence on tool wear, followed by feed rate. 4. The accuracy of the developed model can be improved by including more number of parameters and levels.

Fig. 8 shows the response graph for signicant parameters. From the graph, one can asserted that the tool wear increases with respect to cutting speed. The ank wear observed on the tool is more at 175 m/min than the lower cutting speed. The work piece bre orientation angle also shows the same tendency as that of cutting speed. The tool ank wear observed is minimum at 30 bre orientation angle. The tool ank wear is more at 90 bre orientation angle than 30 bre orientation angle. The tool ank wear increased more rapidly after 30 bre orientation. At larger bre angles, compressive strain is generated within the work material. This resulted in larger tool ank wear. This nding has close relationship with the results presented by Takeyama and Lijima [10]. The increase in feed rate produces heat generation in between the tool and work piece which in-turn produces more tool wear. The increase in feed rate during machining also increases the chatter and it produces incomplete machining at a faster traverse, which led to higher tool ank wear. The results shown prove that the wear on the tool was highly inuenced by the cutting speed. The depth of cut plays only a small role on composite machining process. From the experimental results, it is observed that the tool ank wear at a depth of cut 0.5 mm is higher than that at a depth of cut of 1.5 mm. In machining composites, interaction also plays a role in deciding the wear of cutting tools. The results indicated that only two interactions namely AB and AC have significant eect on tool wear. Out of four factors and interactions considered cutting speed is the most signicant factor which aecting the tool wear; whilst depth of cut is the least signicant parameter. Further more, the tool ank wear increases as the cutting speed increases or work piece bre orientation increases or feed rate increases. The tool ank wear produced on the GFRP work piece is mainly due to the cutting speed and feed rate. 6. Conclusion Using design of experiment, the machining parameters which are inuencing the tool wear on the machining of GFRP composites has been modeled.

Tool wear, mm

References
[1] Piping manual, Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai; 2002. [2] Santhanakrishnan G, Krishnamoorthy R, Malhotra SK. High speed steel tool wear studies in machining of glass bre reinforced plastics. Wear 1989;132:32736. [3] Everstine GC, Rogers TG. A theory of machining of bre- reinforced materials. J Compos Mater 1971;5:94105. [4] Sakuma K, Seto M. Tool wear in cutting glass-bre-reinforcedplastics (the relation between bre orientation and tool wear). Bull JSME 1983;26(218):14207. [5] Bhatnagar N, Ramakrishnan N, Naik NK, Komanduri R. On the machining of bre reinforced plastic (FRP) composite laminates. Int J Machine Tool Manuf 1995;35(5):70116. [6] Jahanmir S, Ramulu M, Koshy P, editors. Machining of ceramics and composites. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000. p. 24965. [7] Rahman M, Ramakrishnan S, Prakash S, Tan DCG. Machinability study of carbon bre reinforced composite. J Mater Process Technol 1999;8990:2927. [8] Davim JP, Mata F. Inuence of cutting parameters on surface roughness in turning glass-bre-reinforced plastics using statistical analysis. Indus Lubrication Tribol 2004;56(5):2704. [9] Davim JP, Mata F. Optimization of surface roughness on turning bre-reinforced plastics (FRPs) with diamond cutting tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2004;26(4):31923. [10] Takeyama H, Lijima N. Machinability of glass bre reinforced plastics and application of ultrasonic machining. Annal CIRP 1988; 37/1:936. [11] Konig W, Grab P. Quality denition and assessment in drilling of bre reinforced thermosets. Annal CIRP 1989;38/1:11924. [12] Santhanakrishnan G. Investigations on machining of FRP composites and their tribological behaviour. Ph.D. thesis, IIT Madras, Chennai, India, 1990. [13] Palanikumar K. Studies on machining characteristics of glass bre reinforced polymer composites. Ph.D. thesis, Anna University, Chennai, India, 2004. [14] Palanikumar K, Karunamoorthy L, Karthikeyan R. Optimal Machining parameters for Achieving Minimal Tool Wear in Turning of GFRP Composites. Int J Manuf Sci Prod 2004;6(3): 11928. [15] Hasegawa Y, Hanasaki S, Satanaka S. Characteristics of Tool Wear in Cutting of GFRP. In: Proceedings of the fth international conference on production engineering, Tokyo, Japan; 1984. p. 185 90. [16] An Sang-Ook, Lee Eun-Sang, Noh Sang-Lai. A study on the cutting characteristics of glass bre reinforced plastics with respect to tool materials and geometries. J Mater Process Technol 1997;68: 607. [17] Raveendra J, Parmer RS. Mathematical model to predict weld beed geometry for ux cored arc welding. Metal construct 1987;19: 4552.

2014

K. Palanikumar, J. Paulo Davim / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 20082014 [21] Shew YW, Kwong CK. Optimisation of the plated through hole process using experimental design and response surface methodology. Int Adv Manuf Technol 2002;20:75864. [22] Tondon S, Jain VK, Kumar P, Rajurkar P. Investigations in to machining of composites. Precis Eng 1989;12(4):22738. [23] Lochner RH, Mater JE. Designing for quality. London: Chapman & Hall; 1990.

[18] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1991. [19] Miller I, Freund JE. Probability and statistics for engineers. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India; 1985. [20] Box GEP, Hunder WH, Hunder JS. Statistics for experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.