American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2017, Vol. 5, No.

3, 94-109
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/5/3/5
Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajme-5-3-5

Grey Relational Analysis of Chemical Assisted USM

of Polycarbonate Bullet Proof (UL-752) & Acrylic
Heat Resistant (BS-476) Glass
Kanwal Jeet Singh1,*, Inderpreet Singh Ahuja2, Jatinder Kapoor3
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Giani Zail Singh Campus College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda, Punjab, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab, India
3
Department of Production Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
*Corresponding author: khalsa.kanwal@yahoo.com

Abstract This paper is developed an innovative process of chemical assisted ultrasonic machining of
polycarbonate bullet proof UL-752 and acrylic heat resistant BG-476 glass and conduct an investigation for optimize
the machining parameters associated with multiple performance characteristics using Grey relational analysis.
Machining of polycarbonate bullet proof UL-752 and acrylic heat resistant BS-476 glass are difficult process via
conventional machining, however, it can be easily machined by Ultrasonic machining. Carefully selected parameters
gives the optimum results. In this experimental work input parameters abrasive slurry concentration, type of abrasive,
power rate, grit size of abrasive particles, hydro-fluoride acid concentration and tool material are selected. The effect
of input parameters viz material removal rate, tool wear rate and surface roughness are investigate. Grey relational
analysis and analysis of variance are performed to optimize the input parameters and better output results. In PBPG
UL-752, increment in material removal rate by 75.58%, tool wear rate by 45.34% and surface roughness by 34.18%.
In other hand, in AHRG BS-476, increment in material removal rate by 61.24%, tool wear rate by 31.46% and
surface roughness by 23.85%. The surface topography is investigate through SEM images. It also observed that HF
acid have the significant role in surface roughness. It also reduce the micro cracks on machined zone. Harder tool
and harder abrasive slutty gives the higher material removal rate, but it also enhance the tool wear rate.
Keywords: USM, polycarbonate, acrylic, bullet proof, heat resistant, glass, HF acid, grey relational analysis
Cite This Article: Kanwal Jeet Singh, Inderpreet Singh Ahuja, and Jatinder Kapoor, Grey Relational
Analysis of Chemical Assisted USM of Polycarbonate Bullet Proof (UL-752) & Acrylic Heat Resistant (BS-476)
Glass. American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3 (2017): 94-109. doi: 10.12691/ajme-5-3-5.

In USM process, power supply have an important role.

1. Introduction
Ultrasonic machining (USM) is generally preferred for
amorphous, hard and brittle materials. Glass, ceramics,
titanium, titanium alloys and many more materials are
easily machined with USM [1,2,3]. If the hardness of
material is more than 40 HRC then USM is effectively
performed. Micro holes as small as 76 m diameter can be
easily drilled by USM. The ratio of depth to diameter is
limited to 3:1. During USM neither chemical nor thermal
changes occur [5]. Moreover, no any metallurgical
variations arise on work surface [4]. The history of USM
started since 1927 with a research paper reported by A.L.
Loomis and R.W. Wood [8]. American engineer Lewis
Balamuth in 1945 was granted first patent [9]. USM
process have been classified as ultrasonic drilling,
ultrasonic cutting, ultrasonic abrasive and ultrasonic
dimensional machining [10,30]. In early 1950s ultrasonic
grinding was modified into ultrasonic impact machining.
It was significant machining process and capable to
machine toughest materials [11].
It convert low frequency electrical signals into high
frequency electrical signals [11,12]. After that these
signals are transmitted to transducer. Two type of
transducer are generally used, magnetostatic and
piezoelectric transducer [14,31]. The transducer converts
high frequency electrical signals into mechanical
vibrations. Through horn, the effect of vibrations are
amplified and concentrate on tool assembly. USM tool
vibrates along its longitudinal axis with ultrasonic
frequency between 20 kHz to 40 kHz [3,14,15]. The
amplitude of vibrations are measured in few hundredth of
millimeters along longitudinal axis of tool. Horn and tool
must be designed with mass and shape considerations, so
that the resonance effect can be achieved with in the
frequency range [15,16]. Power rating of USM varies in
between 50 W to 4000 W. Along longitudinal axis
controlled static load is applied on the USM tool. Mixture
of abrasive and carrier medium is known as slurry. The
concentration of slurry varies from 30% to 50% by
volume [17,29]. It is pumped in between the gap of tool
and work surface. The optimum pumping speed of slurry
is 30 litter/ min [15,18]. Water is commonly used as a
95 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

carrier medium [13,15,18,19]. Because, it have low
viscosity, low density, high thermal conductivity and high
specific heat characteristics [5,18,20,28]. Most preferable
abrasives are boron carbide, alumina, silicon carbide and
diamond dust [21]. Abrasive particles are forced by tool
vibrations to strike on work surface. The impact of
abrasive particles supports to erode the material in the
form of micro-chips [22,27]. The shape of cavity is similar
to the USM tool [23]. Volumetric material removal rate of
USM is relatively low. Figure 1 shows the schematic
diagram of simple USM [24]. The new approach of USM
is CNC controlled path rotary USM [1,19,20,26].
SONEX300 extrude horn made in France, EROSONIC
US400 and EROSONIC US800 manufactured by Sonic
Mill and made in USA are commonly used on commercial
level [25].
The USM machine is available in small tabletop sized
units. The different type of accessories are used for suitability
of operation. Appropriate type of USM is determined
through capacity of power rating [2,7,10,32,33]. Figure 2
shows the 500 W USM machine manufactured by Sonic
Mill and made in USA, which is used for small operation
[7,12,34]. The horn transfer mechanical vibration energy
from transducer to tool. It also amplify the mechanical
vibration effect. The horn material must have high fatigue,
toughness and elastic properties [1,13,35-40]. Generally
preferred material for horn are silver steel, monal and
tungsten carbide [2,17,41-46]. Copper washer is introduced
in between the transducer-horn and horn-tool fastening, to
prevent unnecessary ultrasonic welding [8,12,47,48].
Figure 3 Shows the cause and effect chat of USM and
CUSM for glass material.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of simple USM

Figure 2. 500 W USM machine manufactured by Sonic Mill and made in USA
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 96

Figure 3. Cause & effect chart of USM and CUSM for glass material

2. Mechanism of Material Removal in characterized by the average grit diameter dg [63,64,65]. It

is further assumed that the local spherical bulges have a
USM & CUSM uniform diameter, db and which is related to the grit
diameter by db= dg2. Thus an abrasive is characterized
2.1. Traditional Ultrasonic Machining by and dg.

Material removal primarily occurs due to the

indentation of the hard abrasive grits on the brittle work
material. As the tool vibrates, it leads to indentation of the
abrasive grits [16,49]. During indentation, due to Hertzian
contact stresses, cracks would develop just below the
contact site, then as indentation progresses the cracks
would propagate due to increase in stress and ultimately
lead to brittle fracture of the work material under each
individual interaction site between the abrasive grits and
the work-piece [50,51]. The tool material should be such
that indentation by the abrasive grits does not lead to
brittle failure. Thus the tools are made of tough, strong
Figure 4. Schematic representation of abrasive grit
and ductile materials like steel, stainless steel and other
ductile metallic alloys [52]. During indentation by the abrasive grit onto the work-
Other than this brittle failure of the work material due piece and the tool, the local spherical bulges contact the
to indentation some material removal may occur due to surfaces and the indentation process is characterized by db
free flowing impact of the abrasives against the work rather than by dg [66,67]. Figure 5 shows the interaction
material and related solid-solid impact erosion, but it is between the abrasive grit and the work-piece and tool.
estimated to be rather insignificant [53-60]. Thus, in the As the indentation proceeds, the contact zone between
current model, material removal would be assumed to take the abrasive grit and work-piece is established and the
place only due to impact of abrasives between tool and same grows [68,69,70]. The contact zone is circular in
workpiece, followed by indentation and brittle fracture of nature and is characterized by its diameter 2x. At full
the workpiece. The model does consider the deformation indentation, the indentation depth in the work material is
of the tool. characterized by w. Due to the indentation, as the work
In the current model, all the abrasives are considered to material is brittle, brittle fracture takes place leading to
be identical in shape and size [61,62]. An abrasive particle hemi-spherical fracture of diameter 2x under the contact
is considered to be spherical but with local spherical zone. Therefore material removal per abrasive grit is given
bulges as shown in Figure 4. The abrasive particles are as.
 97 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Figure 5. Interaction between grit and work-piece and tool

As the indentation proceeds, the contact zone between

T T ( w + t
the abrasive grit and work-piece is established and the = = = .
same grows [71,72]. The contact zone is circular in nature a0 T / 4 4a0 4a0
and is characterized by its diameter 2x. At full
indentation, the indentation depth in the work material is
characterized by w. Due to the indentation, as the work
material is brittle, brittle fracture takes place leading to
hemi-spherical fracture of diameter 2x under the contact
zone. Therefore material removal per abrasive grit is given
as equation 1 and 2
2
w = X 3 . (1)
3
Now From Figure 4 AB2= AC2+BC2
2 2
db db 2
2 = 2 x + X

=X 2 db w Negecting . w2 as w << db
Figure 6. Interaction between grit and work-piece and tool to depict the
3 work-piece and tool deformations
2
w = ( d b w )2 . (2) Now during machining, the impulse of force on the tool
3 and work would be balanced. Thus total impulse on the
If at any moment of time, there are an average n of tool can be expressed as equation 4
grits and the tool is vibrating at a frequency f then
1
material removal rate can be expressed as equation 3 lt = n. f . Fmax (4)
2
MRRw = w .n. f
Where Fmax is the maximum indentation force per abrasive.
3 Now in the USM, the tool is fed with an average force F
2
MRRw = (db w ) 2 .n. f . (3) 1
3 F= Fmax .n. f . (5)
2
Now as the tool and workpiece would be pressing
against each other, contact being established via the Again, if the flow strength of work material is taken as
abrasive grit, both of them would deform or wear out. As w, then force is equation 6
the tool vibrates, for some time, it vibrates freely; then it
Fmax = w X 2
comes in contact with the abrasive, which is already in
contact with the job, and then the indentation process 1
starts and finally completes with an indentation of w and F = w X 2 .n. f
2
t on the work and tool respectively. Figure 6
schematically depicts the same assuming the work to be 1 T ( w + t )
rigid for easy depiction. The tool vibrates in a harmonic F = n. f . w X 2 . (6)
2 4a0
motion [73]. Thus only during its first quarter of its cycle
it can derive an abrasive towards interaction with the tool If A is total surface area of the tool facing the
and work-piece as shown in Figure 7 Out of this quarter work-piece, then volume of abrasive slurry of one grit
cycle, some part is used to engage the tool with abrasive thickness is
particle as shown in Figure 6. [74] Thus the time of
Ad g.
indentation can be roughly estimated as
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 98

Figure 7. Change in tool position due to ultrasonic vibration of the tool

If n is the number of grits then the total volume of n 1 1 3 3

grits is c 4 A 4 F 4 a04 d g f
3
MRR 4 (9)
dg3 3 3
n w4 (1 + ) 4
6
Thus the concentration of abrasive grits in the slurry is 1 1 3 3
related as follows shown in equation 7. 3
c 4 A 4 4 a04
.d g . f . 3 4 (10)
d g3
3
n = Ad g C w4 (1 + ) 4
6
Mechanism of material removal or erosion is
dg3 investigated by various researcher [8,9,38,74,75]. Figure 8
n dg3 shows basic mechanism of material removal process in
=C = 6 n USM. For brittle and hard material, fracture effect
Ad g 6A
produced the erosion. Similarly, shearing effect is utilized
6 AC for ductile materials. Erosion effect is produced through
n= n. (7) bombardment of abrasive particles directly against the
d g2 work surface [76,78,79]. Appropriate flow of slurry will
enhanced the material removal rate [80]. Cavitation effect
Now it is expected that indentation would be inversely is also formed by slurry, which reduce the material
proportional to the flow strength then, removal rate. Material is removed in the form of micro-
t w chips and flush out with slurry [20,22,46,65].
= = .
w t
Again combining, F can be written as equation 8
1 T
=F w X 2 .n. f w (1 + ) (8)
2 4a0
1 6 AC T
F f . w db w w (1 + )
2
2 dg 4a0

3 AC w
=F ( f .t ) db w2 (1 + )
d g2 4a0
Figure 8. Basic mechanism of material removal process in simple USM
3 AC w
=F ( f .t ) d g2 w2 (1 + )
d g2 4a0

4a0 F
w2 =
3 AC w (1 + )
2 2 6cA
MRRw =
w .n. f = X 3 n. f = . f .X 3
3 3 d g2
3 3
cA 4cA

4= . f .(d w w ) 2 . f .( .d g2 w ) 2
2 2
dg dg
3 3
4 Fa0
= 4cAd g 2 . f .{ }4
3 Ac w (1 + )
Figure 9. Basic mechanism of material removal process in chemical
99 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
2.2. Chemical-assisted Ultrasonic Machining
In chemical-assisted ultrasonic machining (CUSM),
low concentration of hydrofluoric acid (HF) is used in
slurry. HF acid reaction between Si and F- ions and O and
H+ occur simultaneously. When HF acid react with glass
then the bonding forces between Si molecules on the
surface area become weakened. This mechanism improve
the efficiency of USM [7,11,12,13,14,21]. Figure 9 shows
Basic mechanism of material removal process in chemical.
3. Type of Glass and Application
Glass is non-crystalline or amorphous material. It is
transparent by appearance and used in many appliances
such as window panels, optoelectronics, technological
equipment, optical etc. [65,66,67]. The main ingredient of
glass is silica (sand) [68]. Many silica based glasses are
exist such as container glass and ordinary glass, which are
manufactured by specific type of soda-lime glass. The
main composition of soda-lime glass is approximately
75% SiO2 (silicon dioxide), Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate),
Na2O (Sodium oxide), CaO (calcium oxide or lime) and
some minor other additives [67,68,69]. Window panels are
generally manufactured by silicate glasses. Glass reflect as
well as transfer light from own self. These reflection and
transformation quality is utilized to make prisms, optical
fiber, lenses and fine glasses. Optical fiber are used for
high speed data transmission. The color of the glass is
changed by adding some ingredient like metallic salt, zinc
etc. [68,70,71]. These type of colored glass is used in
manufacturing the art object, stained glass window, color
glass window and many more applications. Glass is easily
formed or molded into any required shape, so it is
traditionally used in the manufacturing of bowls, jars,
vases, bottles and drinking jars. The most hard and solid
form of simple silicate glass used for marbles, beads and
Table 1. Thickness and density of advanced glass material
Threat Stopped Polycarbonate Glass
Protection level Thickness Density
3 short
inch Kg/m2
UL 752 level I 9mm 0.76 22.5
UL 752 Level II .36 Magnum 1.04 31.3
UL 752 Level III .45 Magnum 1.26 37.7
UL 752 .30 Caliber
Level IV 1 short
Figure 10. Plain Glass under impacted by bullet
paperweights [71,72,74,75]. The other modern example of
the glass is glass fiber, the glass is extrude under the high
temperature and converted into the fiber glass or glass
wool. Glass fiber have property of data transferred at the
speed of light. Glass wool is used as the thermal insulating
material [73,76,77,78,79]. The other application of glass
fiber, it is used as the reinforcement material in the
composite material fiber glass. Many thermoplastic and
porcelains material are the closer familiar to the glasses.
The addition of these closer familiar material improve the
properties of the silicate glass. Acrylic glass, polyethylene,
terephthalate and polycarbonate these are the lighter
alternative of the simple silicate glasses [67,71,77,79].
3.1. Polycarbonate Bullet Proof & Acrylic
Heat Resistant Glass
Polycarbonate bullet proof glass, acrylic heat resistant
glass and glass-clad polycarbonate bullet proof glass are
the advanced types of glass [78]. These glasses are
manufactured by affixing two different materials through
epoxy resin liquid [59]. In polycarbonate bullet proof glass,
layers of glass and polycarbonate materials are affixed
with each other. Number of layers are defined according
to the bare load [85]. Elastic effect is produced by
polycarbonate material during impact load [78]. Thickness
of polycarbonate bullet proof glass is varies from 10 mm
to 76 mm [75]. Similarly in acrylic heat resistant glass,
layers of glass and acrylic material are affixed with each
other through epoxy resin [56]. Acrylic glass is also
known as poly (methyl methacrylate) or PMMA material.
It is a transparent thermoplastic often used in sheet form
as a lightweight, shatter resistant and heat resistant material
[71]. Acrylic (PMMA) material of 3 mm thick sheet can
transmits up to 92% of visible light. It have poor thermal
conductivity [72,76]. Thickness of acrylic heat resistant
glass is varies from 85 mm to 150 mm. Table 1 shows
thickness and density of advanced glass material [45].
Acrylic Glass Glass Clad PC Glass
Thickness Density Thickness Density
inch Kg/m2 inch Kg/m2
1.26 37.7 0.81 44.1
1.38 41.6 1.07 57.10
1.28 69.47
1.39 69.47
Figure 11. Polycarbonate bullet proof glass impacted by bullet
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 100

Table 2. Important properties of polycarbonate bullet proof and acrylic heat resistant glass
Properties PBPG (UL-752) AHRG (BS-476)
Physical Properties
Density 7 gm/cm3 8.3 g/cm3
Refractive Index 34.0 29.7
Flammability V0-V2 V0-V4
Limiting Oxygen Index 25-27% 31-34%
Water Absorption 0.16-0.35% 0.12-0.41%
Radiation Resistant Fair Fair
Mechanical Properties
Youngs Modulus 2.0-2.4 GPa 1.8-2.2 GPa
Tensile strength (Depend on thickness) 120-180 MPa 105- 155 MPa
Compressive Strength 1000 MPa ( at 73oF) 1200 MPa (at 73oF)
o -6
Linear expansion (20 to 300 C) 9x10 m/(m-k) 8.23 x10-6 m/(m-k)
o
Thermal Conductivity at 23 C 0.30 W/(m-K) 0.86 W/(m-K)
Reactivity with HF Acid poor poor
Hardness 58 HRC 61 HRC
Thermal Properties
Glass Transition Temperature 147oC 158oC
o
Thermal Conductivity at 23 C 0.19-0.22 W/(m-K) 0.09-0.13 W/(m-K)
Thermal Diffusivity at 23oC 0.114 mm2/s 0.024 mm2/s
-6
Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficient 65-70x10 /K 42-58 x10-6/K
Chemical Resistance Properties
Acids (Concentrated), Halogens, Ketones and Aromatic Hydrocarbons Poor Poor
Acid (Dilute) and Alcohols Good Good
Greases, Oils and Halogenated Fair Poor

Glass have poor elasticity property, mean it cant
deformed when force applied on it [72]. Figure 10 shows
plain glass under impacted by bullet [71]. In which impact
load of bullet break the plain glass. Figure 11 shows
polycarbonate bullet proof glass. First layer of glass may
shatter when the bullet hits it, however the next layer of
polycarbonate is more elastic so it moves when the bullet
strike. Impact energy of bullet is dissipates vertically
[56,69]. This takes the energy away from the bullet and it
slowing down. If the enough energy is taken from the
bullet, it will eventually stop it from passing through [69].
Some important properties of these material make them so
famous and the utility of these materials are increased in
present era [69,70,71]. Table 2 shows some important
properties of polycarbonate bullet proof glass and acrylic
heat resistant glass [54,55,76]. Figure 12 shows the acrylic
heat resistant glass.
4. Experimentation and Data Collection
The experiments were performed on 500 W USM machine
manufactured by Sonic mill and made in USA, which is
used for small operation. The different components of
USM machine and enlarged view of cutting zone are shown
in Figure 13. Input parameters and fixed parameters for
investigation are shown in Table 4. MRR was calculated
by measuring the weight loss after drilling throughout the
work material. Similarly, TWR computed by weight loss
during each experiment. Time duration of experiment was
record by stop watch.
Wi W f
MRR = 1000(mm3 / min). (11)
X t
Ti T f
TWR = 1000(mm3 / min). (12)
X t
Surface roughness is measured is Ra, it is the universally
recognised and most used international parameter of
roughness. It is the arithmetic mean of the absolute
departure of the roughness profile from the mean line.
After machining the MRR and TWR are calculated and
SR is checked, machining data is shown in Table 5. In
which MMR and TWR is calculated in mm3/min and
surface roughness in Ra.

5. Grey Relational Analysis

In grey relation analysis, data pre-processing is
necessary to sequence scatter range. In data pre-processing
Figure 12. Basic fundamental of heat resistant
original sequence is transferred into comparable sequence.
101 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

The experiment results are normalized in the range 0 and 1. under selected input parameters [32,38]. To get the
Depending on output parameters, data pre-processing optimum performance the Smaller-the-better characteristic
methodologies are adopted [35,39]. For example, MRR is has been preferred to normalize the original sequence date
the governing output parameter in USM, which decided by equation 14.
the machinability of work material under deliberation.
MaxYr ( N ) Yr ( N )
Larger-the-better characteristics was used for MRR to Yr* ( N ) = (14)
normalize the original sequence by equation 13. MaxYr ( N ) MinYr ( N )
Yr ( N ) MinYr ( N ) Where, Yr*(N) is the sequence after the data processing, Yr
Yr* ( N ) = (13) (N) is the comparability sequence, N=2, N=5 for TWR
MaxYr ( N ) MinYr ( N )
and N=3, N=6 for SR; i= 1,2,327 for experiment
Where, Yr*(N) is the sequence after the data processing, Yr number 1 to 27. Yr*(N) is the value after grey relational
(N) is the comparability sequence, N=1 and N=4 for MRR; generation, Min Yr (N) and Max Yr (N) are the smallest and
r= 1,2,327 for experiment number 1 to 27. largest value of Yr (N). After normalized MRR, TWR and
TWR and SR are the important measure of USM, these SR of PBPG UL-752 and AHRG BS-476 comparable
output parameters are represent the machining accuracy sequence is shown in the Table 6.
Table 3. Summary of selected research papers on USM of glass material
Work Output factors &
Sr. No Author (s) Input factors Results or conclusion
material Optimized Results
Abrasive (Al2O3, SiC, Mixture)
CUSM gives more MRR as compare to
Power rating 60 MRR = 21 mm3/min,
K.Singh et al. USM. Better SR is achieved in CUSM.
1. Glass Grit 280 TWR = 1.02 mm3/min,
2016 [53] High concentration of HF acid increase
Concentration 30% SR = 1.02 micron
the TWR.
HF acid 2%
HF acid in Alumina, SiC and Alumina +
Abrasive (Al2O3, SiC, Mixture) Power SiC abrasive improve the SR 33.86%,
K.Singh et al. SR = 0.98 micron,
2. Glass rating 40 Grit 400 Concentration 30% 22.84% & 55.43%, Similarly Improve
2015 [51] MRR = 28 mm3/min,
HF acid 2% MRR 31.85%, 40.82% & 64.08%
respectively.
Work material (HCS, HSS, Al, Titanium, For tool wear, tool geometry 35.37%,
Carbide, Glass) grit size 20.12% & abrasive 19.95%
Carbide
J.Kumar & J.S Tool material (HCS, Titanium, Titanium were the significant factor. For material
glass, MRR = 21.07 mm3/min,
3. Khamba 2009 alloy) Abrasive (Al2O3, SiC, B4C) removal; work material 79%, tool
HCS, HSS, TWR = 1.9 mm3/min,
[66] Grit size (220, 320, 500) geometry 10.86% and grit size 5.50%
Al and Ti
Tool geometry (Solid 8mm, Solid 4mm, significant factor. For TWR; work
Hollow 8/4) material was most significant factor.
HF acid improve the MRR upto 200%,
Abrasive = SiC
J.P. Choi et al. MRR increased 200%, CUSM gives better SR as compare to
4. Glass Static load = 0.1 gf
2007 [21] SR improved 40%, USM and static load decreased
HF acid = 3-5%, grit,
dramatically.
Soda lime
MRR is inversely proportional to depth
glass,
Thickness of material (0.5 to 1.75 mm) of cut in alumina, zircona and quartz
P.L. Guzzo et Alumina, MRR = 3.4 m/s
5. Grit size (6,15,25,35 & 50 m) material, in other material it may be
al. 2003 [17] Zirconia, SR = 1.2 micron
Abrasive (Al2O3 SiC, B4C) constant. MRR & SR dependent on H/E
LiF Quartz
ratio.
& Ferrite
Decreasing order of tool performance
M. Komaraiah MRR = 1.2 log MRR according to TWR; nimonic-80 A >
& P. Tool material & tool motion (stationary & (mm3/min) thoriated tungsten > sliver steel >
6. Glass
Narasimha rotary) TWR = 0.6 log TWR maraging steel > stainless steel >
1993 [18] (mm3/min) titanium > mild steel. Higher MRR gives
high TWR.
Glass,
Ferrite, MRR = mm3/min 11.48 Higher H/E ratio material gives higher
M. Komaraiah Porcelain, SR = 1.8 Micron MRR & higher out-of roundness. RUSM
7. Work material and tool material
et al. 1988 [33] alumina Out of roundness gives better results as compare to simple
and =0.085 mm USM.
carbide
Tool materal = mild steel, silver steel, Oversize of hole & conicity effects are
M. Adithan &
tungsten carbide & Stainless steel TWR = 0.84 mm3/min increased with higher static load and
V.C.
8. Glass Abrasive = SiC & B4C Out of roundness machining time. It also depends upon the
Venkatesh
Grit Size = 280 & 600 =0.092 mm brittle fracture characteristics and grain
1976 [57]
Static load structure of work material.
Work material = glass & porcelain
Thickness of material = 0.50 to 2.25 mm
Tool wear rate increase with increase in
M. Adithan Glass & Tool material = Mild stel, Silver steel, MRR = 1.54 mm3/min
9. static load. B4C abrasive gives more
1974 [37] porcelain stainless steel & tungsten carbide TWR = 0.2 mm3/min
TWR as compare to Al2O3 & SiC
Abrasive = Al2O3, SiC & B4C
Grit Size = 280 &600
Abrasive = B4C Twisted gouges drill gives better result
MRR (WC) = 0.0149
A.Schorderet et Concentration 10% as compare to plain drill.
10. Glass mm3/min
at 2013 [67] Grit size = 5m High flow rate remove the debris at
TWR (WC) = 5.3 m/s
Tool Material = WC, HSS machining zone.
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 102

Figure 13. Different components of USM and enlarged view of cutting zone

Table 4. Input parameters and output parameters for investigation

Input Parameters
Levels
Factor (Symbols)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Concentration (A) 20% 30% 40%
Abrasive (B) Al2O3+B4C (1:1) SiC+ B4C (1:1) Al2O3+ SiC+ B4C (1:1:1)
Power Rate (C) 20% 40% 60%
Grit Size (D) 280 400 600
HF Acid (E) 0.5% 1% 1.5%
Tool Material (F) D2 High-Carbon Steel High-Speed Tool Steel

Table 5. Design of experimentation (Orthogonal Array L27) and their levels

Polycarbonate Bullet proof (UL-752) glass Acrylic Heat Resistant (BS-476) Glass
Trail MRR TWR (SR) Ra MRR TWR (SR) Ra
( /) ( /) (Micron) ( /) ( /) (Micron)
1. 6.47 0.089209 1.57 4.25 0.088853 1.29
2. 6.42 0.079284 1.86 3.86 0.071071 1.86
3. 6.83 0.038295 1.42 4.32 0.037189 1.42
4. 7.53 0.082232 1.51 4.78 0.084845 1.51
5. 7.77 0.074125 1.68 4.25 0.064513 1.68
6. 6.88 0.036479 1.59 4.35 0.037273 1.59
7. 8.19 0.082788 1.33 4.84 0.080889 1.33
8. 7.48 0.084926 1.43 5.77 0.106384 1.43
9. 7.07 0.029241 1.29 5.48 0.033212 1.29
10. 5.45 0.048754 1.24 4.38 0.057549 1.03
11. 6.29 0.033464 1.34 4.34 0.035739 1.34
12. 5.67 0.072275 1.18 4.60 0.089643 1.18
13. 6.33 0.079673 1.46 5.03 0.098258 1.46
14. 6.95 0.053041 1.77 5.17 0.059348 1.77
15. 6.12 0.106128 1.32 4.63 0.107305 1.32
16. 7.52 0.085062 1.44 5.43 0.099815 1.44
17. 7.64 0.054312 1.59 5.00 0.049939 1.59
18. 6.81 0.095251 1.48 4.74 0.103339 1.48
19. 6.26 0.046235 1.12 3.75 0.042181 0.93
20. 5.63 0.085143 1.27 4.27 0.102664 1.27
21. 6.38 0.084632 1.09 3.89 0.083415 1.09
22. 7.12 0.040692 1.14 4.29 0.036937 1.14
23. 6.26 0.086954 0.97 4.67 0.109564 0.97
24. 6.43 0.069166 1.02 4.16 0.071609 1.02
25. 7.23 0.060492 0.99 5.02 0.063506 0.99
26. 8.75 0.239698 1.06 5.09 0.211508 1.06
27. 8.27 0.111256 1.10 4.59 0.101542 1.1
103 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Table 6. The sequences of each performance characteristic after data processing

Trail Polycarbonate Bullet proof (UL-752) glass Acrylic Heat Resistant (BS-476) Glass
Reference MRR TWR SR MRR TWR SR
Sequence 1 1 1 1 1 1
1. 0.309091 0.715058 0.325843 0.247525 0.687929 0.612903
2. 0.293939 0.762217 0 0.054455 0.787662 0
3. 0.418182 0.956979 0.494382 0.282178 0.977694 0.473118
4. 0.630303 0.74821 0.393258 0.509901 0.710409 0.376344
5. 0.70303 0.786731 0.202247 0.247525 0.824444 0.193548
6. 0.433333 0.965608 0.303371 0.29703 0.977223 0.290323
7. 0.830303 0.745568 0.595506 0.539604 0.732596 0.569892
8. 0.615152 0.735409 0.483146 1 0.589604 0.462366
9. 0.490909 1 0.640449 0.856436 1 0.612903
10. 0 0.907283 0.696629 0.311881 0.863502 0.892473
11. 0.254545 0.979934 0.58427 0.292079 0.985827 0.55914
12. 0.066667 0.795521 0.764045 0.420792 0.683498 0.731183
13. 0.266667 0.760369 0.449438 0.633663 0.63518 0.430108
14. 0.454545 0.886913 0.101124 0.70297 0.853412 0.096774
15. 0.20303 0.634666 0.606742 0.435644 0.584438 0.580645
16. 0.627273 0.734763 0.47191 0.831683 0.626447 0.451613
17. 0.663636 0.880874 0.303371 0.618812 0.906184 0.290323
18. 0.412121 0.686349 0.426966 0.490099 0.606682 0.408602
19. 0.245455 0.919252 0.831461 0 0.949696 1
20. 0.054545 0.734378 0.662921 0.257426 0.610468 0.634409
21. 0.281818 0.736806 0.865169 0.069307 0.718429 0.827957
22. 0.506061 0.94559 0.808989 0.267327 0.979108 0.774194
23. 0.245455 0.725773 1 0.455446 0.571768 0.956989
24. 0.29697 0.810294 0.94382 0.20297 0.784645 0.903226
25. 0.539394 0.851509 0.977528 0.628713 0.830092 0.935484
26. 1 0 0.898876 0.663366 0 0.860215
27. 0.854545 0.6103 0.853933 0.415842 0.616761 0.817204

Table 7. The deviation sequences

Deviation Sequence 0r (1) 0r (2) 0r (3) 0r (4) 0r (5) 0r (6)

1. 0.690909 0.284942 0.674157 0.752475 0.312071 0.387097
2. 0.706061 0.237783 1 0.945545 0.212338 1
3. 0.581818 0.043021 0.505618 0.717822 0.022306 0.526882
4. 0.369697 0.25179 0.606742 0.490099 0.289591 0.623656
5. 0.29697 0.213269 0.797753 0.752475 0.175556 0.806452
6. 0.566667 0.034392 0.696629 0.70297 0.022777 0.709677
7. 0.169697 0.254432 0.404494 0.460396 0.267404 0.430108
8. 0.384848 0.264591 0.516854 0 0.410396 0.537634
9. 0.509091 0 0.359551 0.143564 0 0.387097
10. 1 0.092717 0.303371 0.688119 0.136498 0.107527
11. 0.745455 0.020066 0.41573 0.707921 0.014173 0.44086
12. 0.933333 0.204479 0.235955 0.579208 0.316502 0.268817
13. 0.733333 0.239631 0.550562 0.366337 0.36482 0.569892
14. 0.545455 0.113087 0.898876 0.29703 0.146588 0.903226
15. 0.79697 0.365334 0.393258 0.564356 0.415562 0.419355
16. 0.372727 0.265237 0.52809 0.168317 0.373553 0.548387
17. 0.336364 0.119126 0.696629 0.381188 0.093816 0.709677
18. 0.587879 0.313651 0.573034 0.509901 0.393318 0.591398
19. 0.754545 0.080748 0.168539 1 0.050304 0
20. 0.945455 0.265622 0.337079 0.742574 0.389532 0.365591
21. 0.718182 0.263194 0.134831 0.930693 0.281571 0.172043
22. 0.493939 0.05441 0.191011 0.732673 0.020892 0.225806
23. 0.754545 0.274227 0 0.544554 0.428232 0.043011
24. 0.70303 0.189706 0.05618 0.79703 0.215355 0.096774
25. 0.460606 0.148491 0.022472 0.371287 0.169908 0.064516
26. 0 1 0.101124 0.336634 1 0.139785
27. 0.145455 0.3897 0.146067 0.584158 0.383239 0.182796
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 104

Now 0r(N) is the deviation sequence between After obtaining the Grey relation coefficient, the Grey
reference sequence Yr0(N) and the comparability sequence relation grade r is obtained by averaging the Grey relation
Yr*(N) (Ahmad et al. 2016) [81]. Deviation sequence is coefficient corresponding to each performance characteristic
calculate and maximum and minimum difference is found, and represent by r(1), r(2), r(3), r(4), r(5) and r(6) by
N=1, 2 and 3 and r= 1, 2, 327 by equation 15 equation 17, the general formula of Grey relation grade
and for three output parameters, shown in Table 8.
0r ( N ) = Y0 ( N ) Yr ( N ) (15)
1 n
The deviation sequence table is shown in the Table 6, r= {r ( N )}
n N =1
(17)
Maximum ( Max ) and Minimum ( Min ) are obtained
and shown below. 1
r= { r (1) + r (2) + r (3)}.
10 (1) =
Max = 26 ( 2 ) =
02 ( 3) 3

19 ( 4 ) =
= 26 ( 5 ) =
02 ( 6 ) =
1 The higher value of Grey relation grade is represent that
the corresponding experiment result is much closer to the
26 (1) =
Min = 09 ( 2 ) =
23 ( 3) ideally normalized value. Experiment number 25 get the
08 ( 4 ) =
= 09 ( 5 ) =
19 ( 6 ) =
0. best multiple performance characteristics among the 27
experiment because it have the highest value of grey
After per-processing data, the next step in calculate the relation grade. Now the experimental design is orthogonal,
Grey relational coefficient and Grey relation grade with it is possible to separate out the effect of each parameters
the pre-processed data [38,47]. It define the relationship on the basis of Grey relation grade. Mean of Grey relation
between ideal and actual normalized results. Grey relational grade is calculated for level 1, 2 and 3 by averaging the
coefficient can be expressed by equation 16 [82]. Grey relation grade of the experiment 1to 9, 10 to18 and
19 to 27 are shown in Table 9. The mean of Grey relation
Min + Max
i ( N ) = (16) grade for abrasive, power rate, grit size, HF acid and tool
0r ( N ) + Max material are calculated in same manner. The total mean of
Grey relation grade for 27 experiment is also shown in the
Where, 0r(N) is the deviation sequence of the reference
Table 9. Level for optimum grey relational grade.
sequence Yr0(N) and the comparability sequence, is
Optimum level parameters are find out from response
distinguishing or identification coefficient. In this
table and shown in the Figure14. Larger value of Grey
calculation =0.5, because all parameters are given equal
relation grade is closer to the ideal value. Therefore, the
preference [42,59]. The Grey relation coefficient for each
optimum parameters setting for higher MRR and lower
experiment of the L27 orthogonal array is calculated and
TWR and SR are A3B3C2D3E1F3.
shown in Table 8.
Table 8. The calculated Grey Relational Grade and its order in the optimization process

Grey Relational Coefficient Grey Relation Grade

1
Expt. m= {i (1) + i (2) + i (3) Rank
No. {i (1)} {i (2)} {i (3)} {i (4)} {i (5)} {i (6)} 6
+i (4) + i (5) + i (6)}
1. 0.419847 0.63699 0.425837 0.39921 0.61571 0.563636 0.510205 24
2. 0.414573 0.677706 0.333333 0.34589 0.701914 0.333333 0.467792 26
3. 0.462185 0.920775 0.497207 0.410569 0.957293 0.486911 0.62249 12
4. 0.574913 0.665079 0.451776 0.505 0.633239 0.444976 0.545831 19
5. 0.627376 0.700998 0.385281 0.39921 0.740131 0.382716 0.539285 20
6. 0.46875 0.935643 0.41784 0.415638 0.956431 0.413333 0.601273 14
7. 0.746606 0.66275 0.552795 0.520619 0.651547 0.537572 0.611982 13
8. 0.565069 0.653944 0.491713 1 0.549212 0.481865 0.623634 11
9. 0.495495 1 0.581699 0.776924 1 0.563636 0.736292 2
10. 0.333333 0.843573 0.622377 0.420833 0.785548 0.823009 0.638112 9
11. 0.40146 0.961416 0.546012 0.413934 0.972435 0.531429 0.637781 10
12. 0.348837 0.709744 0.679389 0.463303 0.612368 0.65035 0.577332 17
13. 0.405406 0.676013 0.475936 0.577143 0.578155 0.467337 0.529998 21
14. 0.478261 0.815545 0.35743 0.627329 0.77329 0.356322 0.56803 18
15. 0.385514 0.577812 0.559749 0.469768 0.546113 0.54386 0.513803 23
16. 0.572917 0.653392 0.486339 0.748148 0.572375 0.476923 0.585016 16
17. 0.597826 0.80759 0.41784 0.567416 0.842012 0.413333 0.60767 14
18. 0.45961 0.614514 0.465968 0.495098 0.559711 0.458128 0.508838 25
19. 0.398551 0.860959 0.7479 0.333333 0.908589 1 0.708222 3
20. 0.345912 0.653064 0.597315 0.402391 0.562093 0.57764 0.523069 22
21. 0.410448 0.655141 0.787611 0.349481 0.639737 0.744 0.597736 15
22. 0.503049 0.90186 0.723577 0.405623 0.959892 0.688889 0.697148 4
23. 0.398551 0.645805 1 0.478673 0.538658 0.920792 0.663747 5
24. 0.415617 0.724947 0.89899 0.385496 0.698954 0.837838 0.660307 6
25. 0.520505 0.771021 0.956989 0.573864 0.746371 0.885714 0.742411 1
26. 1 0.333333 0.831775 0.597633 0.333333 0.781513 0.646265 7
27. 0.774647 0.561987 0.773914 0.461187 0.566098 0.732283 0.645019 8
105 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Table 9. Response Table for the Grey Relational Grade

Grey Relation Grade Main Effect (Max-
Symbol Machining Parameters Rank
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Min)
A Concentration 0.5843 0.5741 0.6538 0.0797 2
B Abrasive 0.5870 0.5910 0.6341 0.0471 4
C Power Rate 0.5915 0.6193 0.6014 0.0278 6
D Grit Size 0.5829 0.5797 0.6496 0.0699 3
E HF Acid 0.6188 0.5864 0.6070 0.0324 5
F Tool Material 0.5668 0.5874 0.6579 0.0911 1
Total men value of the Grey relational Grade m = 0.6040

Grey Relational Grade Graph (Grey Relational Grade Vs Level)

Concentration Abrasive Power Rate Grit Size HF Acid Tool Material
0.66
Grey Relational Grade

0.64

0.62

0.60

0.58

0.56

20 30 40 B2
C
B2
C
B2
C 20 40 60 28
0
40
0
60
0
5% 1% 5% D2 CS ST
S
0. 1. H
3+ i C+ i C+ H
2O S S
Al 3+
2O
Al

Figure 14. Effect of USM parameters on the multiple performance characteristics

Table 10. ANOVA of Grey relation grade

Parameter Degree of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ration Percentage Contribution
Concentration (A) 2 0.033848 0.016924 36.98 24.87%
Abrasive (B) 2 0.012288 0.006144 13.42 9.03%
Power Rate (C) 2 0.003568 0.001784 3.90 2.62%
Grit Size (D) 2 0.028051 0.014025 30.64 20.61%
HF Acid (E) 2 0.004844 0.002422 5.29 3.56%
Tool Material (F) 2 0.041104 0.020552 44.90 30.20%
Error 6 0.002746 0.000458 2.41 2.01%
Total 18 0.136067

Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is Figure 15 show the Scanning electron microscope (SEM)
performed on Grey relation grade to achieve contribution images of PBPG UL-752 machining setting A1B1C1D1E1F1,
of each input parameter affecting the output parameters. In which, some crack are also found on the work surface.
ANOVA for Grey relational grade is shown in Table 10. In other hand in Figure 16 the USM machining of PBPG
In addition, F-test is also used to find out the percentage UL-752 is performed by optimum parameters which are
contribution of each parameters. From Table 10 it is clear found by Grey relational analysis A3B3C2D3E1F3, there is
that material of tool have the significant role in the smoother and crack free surface. Similarly, in Figure 17
machining which have 30% contribution, 25% show the Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of
contribution of concentration, 21% contribution of grit AHRG BS-476 machining setting A1B1C1D1E1F1, in which
size, 9% contribution of abrasive, 4% contribution of HF machining by USM is performed and some crack are also
acid and 3% contribution of power rate in the machining found on the work surface. In other hand in Figure 18 the
of PBPG UL-752 and AHRG BS-476. USM machining AHRG BS-476 is performed by optimum
After getting the optimum parameters, the experiment parameters which are found by Grey relational analysis
was performed by GRA input setting (A3B3C2D3E1F3). A3B3C2D3E1F3, there is smoother and crack free surface.
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 106

Figure 15. SEM image of PBPG UL-752 A1B1C1D1E1F1 experiment

Figure 16. SEM image of PBPG UL-752 A3B3C2D3E1F3 optimum Grey relational analysis

Figure 17. SEM image of AHRG BS-476A1B1C1D1E1F1 experiment

Figure 18. SEM image of AHRG BS-476A3B3C2D3E1F3 optimum Grey relational analysis
107 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Figure 19. Percentage contribution of factor on Grey Relational Grade

Table 11. Improvement in Grey relational grade with optimized USM machining parameters
Optimal Machining Parameters
Condition Description Machining Parameters in First trail Grey Theory Prediction Grey Theory Prediction
of OA Design PBPG UL-752 Design AHRG BS-476
Level A1B1C1D1E1F1 A3B3C2D3E1F3 A3B3C2D3E1F3
MRR (mm3/min) 5.36 9.41 8.64
TWR (mm3/min) 0.089031 0.04866 0.06102
SR (micron) 1.43 0.94 1.08
Grey Relational Grade 0.5642 0.6751
` Improvement in Grey relational grade =0.1109

MRR and TWR are also compared between optimum
Grey relational analysis A3B3C2D3E1F3 and A1B1C1D1E1F1
input parameters. It observed that optimum parameters
(A3B3C3D3E1F3) gives 73.02% improved MRR with
comparison of A1B1C1D1E1F1 USM experiment setting.
TWR is decreased by 37.25%. It is evident from SEM
image, optimum parameters setting also give the better
surface roughness which is 43.33% improved. Fig 19
shown the percentage contribution of optimum Grey
relational analysis parameters.
Confirmation test is carried out to verify the
improvement of performance characteristics in machining
of PBPG UL-752 and AHRG BS-476 by USM. The
optimum parameters are shown in the Table 11. The
estimated Grey relational grade using the optimal level
of machining parameters can be calculated by equation 18
[15,19,43,59]
n
m + i =1{ i m }
= (18)
Where, m is the total mean of Grey relational grade, i is
mean of the Grey relational grade at optimum level and n
is the number of parameters that significantly affect
multiple-performance characteristics. It is clearly show
that the multiple-performance characteristics in USM
process is greatly improved through this study.
6. Conclusion
The optimum machining parameters are identify by
Grey relational grade for multiple performance characteristics
that is MRR, TWR and SR. This experimental research
paper presented the multi-objective optimization of USM
machining parameters of polycarbonate bullet proof
UL-752 and acrylic heat resistant BS-476 glass for drilling
application by Grey relational analysis method. Following
conclusion are conclude from the experimentation analysis.
1. It conclude that, harder material like HSS gives the
better material removal rate and lower tool wear
rate. In USM, concentration of abrasive slurry,
concentration and grit size of abrasive play the
significant role for optimum output performance
parameters.
2. Harder abrasive particles increase the material
removal rate, but it also enhanced the tool rear rate.
3. HF acid have the significant role play in the
material removal rate as well as surface roughness.
High concentration of HF acid will damage the
work piece as well USM apparatus. It is also harm
full for the operator.
4. Through mathematically modelling it conclude that
shape of abrasive particles have the major role in
material removal and tool wear rate. MRR affect is
further encourage by the concentration of slurry.
5. Higher concentration of abrasive slurry gives
higher material removal rate, but it decrease the
flow rate of slurry.
6. ANOVA of Grey relational grade for multiple
performance characteristics reveals that the
concentration have the significant role in the
MRR.
7. Based on SEM images, it is evident that optimum
parameter improve the surface roughness and give
better smooth surface and it also reduce the cracks
formation.
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
8. PBPG UL-752 have improvement in MRR, TWR
and SR is 75.58%, 45.34% and 34.18%
respectively, based on confirmation test.
9. AHRG BS-476 have improvement in MRR, TWR
and SR is 61.24%, 31.46% and 23.85%
respectively, based on confirmation test.
10. It prove that, the performance characteristic of
USM process like MRR, TWR and SR are
improved together by using the Grey relational
study and the effectiveness of this method is
effectively recognised by authentication experiment.
References
[1] Kumar, J. (2013). Ultrasonic machining- a comprehensive review.
Machining Science and Technology, 17(3), 325-379.
[2] Azarhoushang, B.; Akbari, J. (2007). Ultrasonic assisted drilling
of Inconel 738-LC. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 47, 1027-1033.
[3] Dvivedi, A.; Kumar, P. (2007). Surface quality evaluation in
ultrasonic drilling through the taguchi technique. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 34(1-2),
131-140.
[4] Gauri, S.K.; Chakravorty, R.; Chakraborty, S. (2011).
Optimization of correlated multiple responses of ultrasonic
machining (USM) process. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 53, 1115-1127.
[5] Gilmore, R. (1991). Ultrasonic machining- a case study. Journal
of Materials Processing Technology 28(1-2), 139-148.
[6] Ghahramani, B.; Wang, Z.Y. (2001) Precision ultrasonic
machining process: A case study of stress analysis of ceramic
(Al2O3). International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 41(8), 1189-1208.
[7] Goetze, D. (1956). Effect of vibration amplitude, frequency, and
composition of the abrasive slurry on the rate of ultrasonic
machining in ketos tool steel. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 28(6), 1033-1045.
[8] Kennedy, D.C.; Grieve R.J. (1975)/ Ultrasonic machining- a
review. The Production Engineer, 54(9), 481-486.
[9] Rao, R.V.; Pawar, P.J.; Davim, J.P. (2010). Parameter
optimization of ultrasonic machining process using nontraditional
optimization algorithms. Materials and Manufacturing Processes,
25(10), 1120-1130.
[10] Nair, E.V.; Ghosh, A. (1985). A fundamental approach to the
study of mechanics of ultrasonic machining. International Journal
of Production Research, 23, 731-753.
[11] Sahay, C.; Ghosh, S.; Kammila, H.K. (2011). Analysis of
ultrasonic machining using monte carlo simulation. Proceedings
of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress & Exposition, Denver: USA.
[12] Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K. (1999). Combined ultrasonic and
electric discharge machining of ceramic coated nickel alloy.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 92-93, 323-328.
[13] Wiercigroch, M.; Neilson, R.D.; Player, M.A. (1999). Material
removal rate prediction for ultrasonic drilling of hard materials
using an impact oscillator approach. Physics Letters, 259, 91-96.
[14] Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K.; Wise, M.L.H. (1998). Review on
ultrasonic machining. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 38(4), 239-255.
[15] Guzzo, P.L.; Raslan, A.A.; DeMello, J.D.B. (2003). Ultrasonic
abrasion of quartz crystals. Wear, 255, 67-77.
[16] Komaraiah, M; Narasimha Reddy,P.N, (1993). A study on the
influence of work-piece properties in ultrasonic machining,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 33 (3),
495-505.
[17] Choi, J.P.; Jeon, B.H.; Kim, B.H. (2007). Chemical-assisted
ultrasonic machining of glass. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 191, 153-156.
[18] Morteza, A.S; Maohammad, N.R, (2014). Development of design
& manufacturing support tool for optimization of ultrasonic
machining (USM) and Rotary USM, Journal of Modern processes
in manufacturing and production, 3 (2), 59-74.
108
[19] Vinod, Y; Aniruddha, D. (2008). Design of horn for rotary
ultrasonic machining using the finite element method,
International journal of advanced manufacturing technology, 39
(1), 9-20.
[20] H.Hong, T.Y. Hung, (1956). Advanced analysis of Nontraditional
machining, Springer, pp. 325-339.
[21] Soundararajan, V; Radhakrishnan, V. (1986). An experimental
investigation on the basic mechanisms involved in ultrasonic
machining, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and
Research, 26 (3), 307-321.
[22] Weller, E.J. (1984). Non-traditional Machining Processes, 2nd
edition, American Society of tool & Manufacturing Engineers, pp.
15-71.
[23] Guzzo, P.L.; Shinohara, A.H.; Raslan, A.A. (2004). A
comparative study on ultrasonic machining of hard and brittle
materials, Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Science
& Engineering, 26 (1), 56-61.
[24] M.A. Moreland, (1989). Ultrasonic Machining and Finishing,
ASM Handbook, Ceramics and Glasses, 16, 359-362.
[25] Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K.; Wise, M.L.H., (1998). Review on
ultrasonic machining, International journal of machine tools and
manufacture, 38 (4), 239-255.
[26] T.J. Drozda, C. Wick, (1983). Non-traditional machining, Tool
and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, Vol.1, Dearborn, MI, pp. 1-23.
[27] Neppiras, E.A. (1972) Macrosonics in industry 1. Introduction,
Ultrasonics, 10 (1), 9-13.
[28] Seah, K.H.W.; Wong, Y.S. Lee, L.C. (1993). Design of tool
holders for ultra-sonic machining using FEM, Journal of Material
Processing Technology, 37 (1-4), 801-816.
[29] Komaraiah, M.; Manan, M.A.;. Reddy, P. N.; Victor, S. (1988).
Investigation of surface roughness and accuracy in ultrasonic
machining, Precision Engineering, 10 (2), 59-65.
[30] Neppiras, E.A. (1964). Ultrasonic machining and forming,
Ultrasonics, 2 (4), 167-173.
[31] Prewo, K.M.; Brennan, J.J. (1980). High Strength silicon carbide
fiber-reinforced glass-matrix composites, Journal of material
science, 15 (2), 463-468.
[32] Thoe, T.B.; Aspinwall, D.K.; Wise, M.L.H. (1995). The effect of
operating parameters when ultrasonic contour machining, in:
Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Irish
Manufacturing Committee (IMC-12), Cork, Ireland, September,
pp. 305-312.
[33] Adithan, M. (1974) Tool wear studies in ultrasonic drilling, Wear,
29, 81-93.
[34] Kainth, G.S.; Nandy, A.; Singh, K. (1979). On the mechanics of
material removal in ultrasonic machining, International Journal of
Machine Toll Design And Research, 19 (1), 33-41.
[35] Miller, G.E. (1957). Special Theory of Ultrasonic Machining,
Journal of applied physics, 28 (2) 149-156.
[36] Neppiras, E.A.; Foskett, R.D. (1957). Ultrasonic machining,
Phillips Technical Review, 18 (11), 325-368.
[37] Amin, S.G.; Ahmed, M.H.M.; Youssef, H.A. (1995). Computer
aided design of acoustic horns for ultrasonic machining using
finite element analysis, Journal of material processing technology,
55, 254-260.
[38] Kremer, D. (1981). The state of the art of ultrasonic machining,
Ann. CIRP, 30 (1), 107-110.
[39] Khairy, A.B.E. (1990). Assessment of some dynamic parameters
for the ultra-sonic machining process, Wear, 137, 187-198.
[40] Singh, K.; Ahuja, I.P.S. (2014). Ultrasonic machining processes-
review paper, International Journal for multi-disciplinary
Engineering and Business Management, 2 (3) 57-66.
[41] Singh, K.; Kumar, V. (2014). A Study on the Tool Geometry and
Stresses Induced in Tool in Ultrasonic Machining Process Applied
for the Tough and Brittle Materials, International Journal for
multi-disciplinary Engineering and Business Management, 2014, 2
(3), 67-71.
[42] Singh, K.; Kumar, V.S. (2014) Finite Element Analysis of
Ultrasonic Machine Tool, International journal of engineering
research and technology, 3 (7), 1647-1650.
[43] Singh, K., Ahuja, I.P.S.; Kapoor. J. Study the effect of abrasive
and hydrofluoric acid in ultrasonic machining of plain glass
material, In proceeding, National Conference Latest Development
in Materials, Manufacturing and Quality Control, 19th-20th
February, 2015, GZSCCET, BTI, India.
109 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
[44] Singh, K., Ahuja, I.P.S. and Kapoor. J. Ultrasonic machining of
glass brittle material, In proceeding, National Conference Latest
Development in Materials, Manufacturing and Quality Control,
19th-20th February, 2015, GZSCCET, BTI, India.
[45] Singh, K., Ahuja, I.P.S. and Kapoor. J. Comparative study
between conventional machining, chemical ultrasonic machining
(CUSM) and ultrasonic machining (USM) of plain glass,
polycarbonate, acrylic, bullet proof and heat resistant glass, In
proceeding, International conference in latest development in
materials, manufacturing and quality control, 12th -13th Feb-2016,
GZSCCET BTI India.
[46] Adithan, M. Tool wear characteristics in ultrasonic drilling,
Tribology International, 1981, 14 (6), 351-356.
[47] Goetze, D. (1956). Effect of vibration amplitude, frequency and
composition of the abrasive slurry on the rate of ultrasonic
machining in Ketos tool steel, Journal of acoustical society of
America, 28 (6), 1033-1037.
[48] Adithan, M. (1983). Abrasive wear in ultrasonic drilling,
Tribology International, 16 (5), 253-255.
[49] Adithan, M.; Venkatesh, V.C. (1974). Parameter influence on tool
wear in ultra-sonic drilling, Tribolology International, 7 (6),
260-264.
[50] Babitsky, V.I.; Astashev, V.K. (2007) Ultrasonic processes and
machine, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York.
[51] Jain, N.K.; Jain, V.K. (2001) Modeling of material removal in
mechanical type advanced machining processes: a state of art
review, International journal of machine tools & manufacture, 41
(11) 1573-1635.
[52] Jain, V., Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, P. (2012). Investigations on tool
wear in micro Ultrasonic machining, Applied Mechanics and
Material, Tranc Tech Publication Switzerland, pp.1561-1566.
[53] I. Kaczmarek, (1976). Impact Grinding (Ultrasonic machining)--
Book Chapter: 21 Principles of Machining by Cutting Abrasion
and Erosion, Peter Peregrinus Ltd, Stevenage, pp. 448-462.
[54] Dharmadhikari, S.W.; Sharma, C.S. (1985). Optimization of
abrasive life in Ultrasonic Machining, Journal of Manufacturing
Science & Engineering, 107 (4), 361-364.
[55] Bekrenev, N.V.; Muldasheve, G.K.; Petrovskii, A.P. Tsvetkova,
O.A. (2015). Influence of the thermal effect on the cutting forces
in the ultrasonic machining of high strength material, Russian
Engineering Research, 35 (10) pp. 758-759.
[56] Chang, S.; Bone, G.M. (2005). Burr size reduction in drilling by
ultrasonic assistance. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 120, 442-450.
[57] Fan, W.H.; Chao, C.L.; Chou, W.C.; Chen, T.T; Chao, C.W.
(2009). Study on the Surface Integrity of Micro-Ultrasonic
Machined Glass-Ceramic Material, Key Engineering Materials,
407-408, 731-734.
[58] Kumar, J.; Khamba, J.S. (2009) An Investigation into the effect of
work material properties, tool geometry and abrasive properties on
performance indices of ultrasonic machining. International Journal
of Machining and Machinability of Materials, 5(2/3): 347-365.
[59] Schorderet,A. ; Deghilage, E.; Agbeviade, K. (2013) tool type and
hole diameters influence in deep ultrasonic drilling of micro holes
in glass, Procedia CIRP, 565-570.
[60] Scholze, H. (1991) Glass Nature, Structure, and Properties.
Springer, Verlag, New York.
[61] Phillips, J.C. (1979). Topology of covalent non-crystalline solids I:
Short-range order in chalcogenide alloys, Journal of Non-
Crystalline Solids 34 (2), pp.153-181.
[62] Folmer , J. C. W., Franzen, S. (2003) Study of polymer glasses by
modulated differential scanning calorimetry in the undergraduate
physical chemistry laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education , 80
(7), 813-818.
[63] Phillips D.C, Sambell R.A.J, Bowen D.H. (1972) The mechanical
properties of carbon fiber reinforced pyrex glass, Journal of
Material Science, 7 (12), 1454-1464.
[64] Dr Karl's Homework: Glass Flows Australia: ABC. 26 January
2000. Retrieved 24 October 2009.
[65] Vogel, W.; Kreidl, N. (1985) Chemistry of Glass, Wiley.
[66] Stookey, S.D.; Beall, G.H. (2000). Explorations in Glass: An
Autobiography, Wiley.
[67] Noel C. (1998). Stokes, The Glass and Glazing Handbook,
Standards Association of Australia.
[68] Kuo, K.L. (2007). Experimental investigation of brittle material
milling using rotary ultrasonic machining. Proceedings of the 35th
International MATADOR Conference, Springer: London, 195-198.
[69] Hasani, H., Tabatabaei., S.A. & Amiri, G. (2012). Grey relational
analysis to determine the optimum process parameters for open
end sprnning yarns. Journal of engineering fibers and fabrics. 7
(2), 81-86.
[70] Hasiao, Y.F., Tarng, Y.S. & Huang, W.J. (2008) Optimization of
plasma are welding parameters by using the Taguchi method with
the Grey relational analysis. Materials and manufacturing
processes, 23, 51-58.
[71] Lin, C.L., Lin, J.L. & Ko, T.C. (2002) Optimisation of EDM
process based on the orthogonal array with fuzzy logic and grey
relational analysis method. International journal of advanced
manufacturing technology, 19, 271-277.
[72] You, M.L., Shu, C.M., Chen, W.T., Shyu, M.L. (2017)
Analysis of cardinal grey relational grade and grey entropy on
achievement of air pollution reduction by evaluating air
quality trend in Japan. Journal of cleaner production, 142 (4),
3883-3889.
[73] Patil, P.J., Patil, C.R. (2016) Analysis of process parameters
in surface grinding using single objective Taguchi and
multi-objective grey relational grade. Perspective in Science, 8,
367-369.
[74] Ahmad, N., Kamal, S., Raza, Z.A. Hussain, T. (2016). Multi-
response optimization in the development of oleo-hydrophobic
cotton fabric using Taguchi based grey relational analysis. Applied
surface science, 367, 370-381.
[75] Lin, Y.H., Lee, P.C. & Chang, T.P. (2009) Practical expert
diagnosis modal based on the grey relational analysis technique.
Expert system with applications, 36, 1523-1528.
[76] Lin, H.L. (2012) The use of the Taguchi method with grey
relational analysis and a neural network to optimize a novel GMA
welding process. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 23(5),
1671-1680.
[77] Manivannan, S., Prasanna, S. & Aramugam, R. (2011) Multi-
objective optimization of flat plate heat sink using Taguchi based
grey relational analysis. International journal of advanced
manufacturing technology, 52, 739-749.
[78] Meena, V.K., Azad, M.S. (2012). Grey relational analysis of micro
EDM machining of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Material and manufacturing
processes 2012, 27, 973-977.
[79] Singh, P.N., Raghukandan, K., Pai, B.C. (2004) Optimization
by grey relational analysis of EDM parameters on machining
Al-10%SiCp composites. Journal of material processing
technology, 155-156, 1658-1661.
[80] Sreenivasulu, R., Srinivasarao, C. (2012). Application of Grey
relational analysis for surface roughness and roundness error in
drilling of AL 6061 alloy. International journal of lean thinking,
3(2), 68-78.
[81] Kkl, U. (2013). Optimisation of machining parameters in
interrupted cylindrical grinding using the Grey-based Taguchi
method. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 26(8), 696-702.
[82] Karabatak Mustafa, Kara Fuat (2016). Experimental optimization
of surface roughness in hard turning of AISI D2 cold work tool
steel. Journal of Polytechnic, 19(3), 349-355.