Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

DOI 10.1007/s00170-007-1368-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Application of Taguchi methods in the optimization

of cutting parameters for surface finish and hole
diameter accuracy in dry drilling processes
Mustafa Kurt & Eyup Bagci & Yusuf Kaynak

Received: 17 March 2007 / Accepted: 21 December 2007 / Published online: 29 January 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Abstract The aim of the work reported here was to utilize

Taguchi methods to optimize surface finish and hole
diameter accuracy in the dry drilling of Al 2024 alloy.
The parameters of hole quality are analyzed under varying
cutting speeds (30, 45, and 60 m/min), feed rates (0.15,
0.20, and 0.25 mm/rev), depths of drilling (15 and 25 mm),
and different drilling tools (uncoated and TiN- and TiAlNcoated) with a 118 point angle. This study included dry
drilling with HSS twist drills. The settings of the drilling
parameters were determined by using Taguchis experimental design method. Orthogonal arrays of Taguchi, the
signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, the analysis of variance
(ANOVA), and regression analyses are employed to find
the optimal levels and to analyze the effect of the drilling
parameters on surface finish and hole diameter accuracy
values. Confirmation tests with the optimal levels of
machining parameters are carried out in order to illustrate
the effectiveness of the Taguchi optimization method. The
validity of Taguchis approach to process optimization is
well established.
Keywords Taguchi optimization method .
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) . Drilling . Surface finish .
Hole diameter accuracy

M. Kurt (*) : Y. Kaynak

Faculty of Technical Education, Mechanical Department,
Marmara University,
34722 Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: mkurt@marmara.edu.tr
E. Bagci
TUBITAK-UME, National Metrology Institute,
5441470 Gebze-Kocaeli, Turkey

1 Introduction
Drilling processes are widely used in the aerospace, aircraft,
and automotive industries. Although modern metal-cutting
methods have improved in the manufacturing industry,
including electron beam machining, ultrasonic machining,
electrolytic machining, and abrasive jet machining, conventional drilling still remains one of the most common
machining processes.
On the one hand, in drilling processes, cutting fluids are
used to lubricate the process and alleviate the effects of
high temperatures. However, in the last few years,
regulations concerning the environment have forced the
development of cutting fluids of low environmental impact,
together with the search for machining methods that avoid
or minimize their use [1, 2]. Besides, for many applications,
the manufacturer may have desired to work without any
lubricant because of reasons such as the cost of using it,
supply and maintenance of the lubricant, hazards arising
from the lubricants themselves, and the disposal of used
lubricant. Therefore, some researchers have been investigating alternative methods, like dry machining.
Amongst traditional machining processes, drilling is one
of the most important metal-cutting operations, comprising
approximately 33% of all metal-cutting operations [3, 4]. In
this process, HSS twist drills are used extensively. On the
other hand, aluminum is used in many industries to make
different products and is significant to the world economy.
Structural components made from aluminum and aluminum
alloys are vital to the aerospace industry and are very
important in other areas of transportation and building in
which durability, strength, and light weight are desired.
Although aluminum alloys are relatively soft materials
that can be easily machined, the material temperatures rise
under dry conditions and the aluminum adheres to drill

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Fig. 1 Steps applied in Taguchis
optimization method [18]

459

Select the quality characteristics

Select noise and control factors

Select Taguchi orthogonal array

Conduct Experiments
Surface Roughness measurement

Analyze results; (Signal-to-noise

ratio )

Predict optimum performance

Confirmation experiments

surfaces. An emerging issue, then, is the development of

materials or processes to enable the dry drilling of
aluminum, otherwise, the drill flutes can become clogged
with aluminum, the drilling torque increased, and, finally,
the drill can be fractured [5]. During the dry drilling of steel
materials, this failure can less occur often because of the
properties of steel materials.
In the aerospace industry, depending on the application,
hole quality is very important [6]. The response variables
(outputs) of interest are the important quality characteristics
of holes. These include the hole diameter accuracy and the
surface finish inside the hole (roughness) [7].
In this process, drill performance and hole quality are
mainly dependent on the cutting parameters and drilling tools.
Because of this, many researchers have been focused on
determining the best drilling process. Therefore, many
numerical and experimental techniques have been developed
and used by researchers in the past decade in order to predict
and determine significant parameters which affect the drilling
process and hole accuracy. Other researchers have also been
investigating of the effect of machining parameters and
different coatings on hole quality in the drilling process.
Some of these studies are mentioned below.
Table 1 Process parameters
and their levels for the hole
diametral error

Levels

1
2
3

Pirtini and Lazoglu [8] developed a new mathematical

model based on the mechanics and dynamics of the drilling
process was developed for the prediction of cutting forces
and hole quality.
A statistical analysis of hole quality was performed by
Furness et al. [9]. They investigated the influence of feed
rate and cutting speed on the measured hole quality
specifications during dry drilling of hot rolled steel with
using a full factorial analysis of variance. With the expectations of hole location error, the hole quality is affected by
the cutting parameters.
Kalidas et al. [10] performed an experimental investigation of the role of three types of coating on the hole quality
of the hole produced in the drilling of cast aluminum 356
alloy in dry and wet conditions. Additionally, the influence
of the machining parameters on the hole surface roughness
and holes dimensions for different coated drills have been
examined by Nouari et al. [11].
The effect of cutting fluids on the drilled hole surface is
considerable. Haan et al. [12] investigated the effects of
cutting fluids on hole quality using a small-diameter drill
(less than 6 mm). Their study showed that dry-drilled holes
have a poorer surface finish than holes drilled with cutting
fluid. Their second result was that dry-drilled holes have a
bell shape, with the minimum diameter at the top of the hole.
In dry drilling, the important factor for hole quality is
thermal effects, which are well known. Thereby, the effect of
thermal distortions on the diameter and cylindricity of drydrilled holes have been investigated by Bono and Ni [13].
Their study indicated that thermal distortions of the drill and
workpiece account for only a fraction of the total diametral
errors. Agapiou [14] describes the performance characteristics of a new type of carbide head twist drill with four
flutes, four major cutting edges, and one chisel edge. Their
study showed that this new drill had great potential for
significantly improving drilling accuracy and productivity.
In this study, the settings of drilling parameters were
determined by using Taguchis experimental design method. Orthogonal arrays of Taguchi, the signal-to-noise (S/N)
ratio, the analysis of variance (ANOVA), and regression
analyses are employed to find the optimal levels and to
analyze the effect of the drilling parameters on surface
finish and hole diameter accuracy values. Confirmation
tests with the optimal levels of machining parameters were

Process parameters
(A) Drilling
depth (mm)

(B) Feed rate

(f=mm/rev)

(C) Cutting speed

(Vc=m/min)

(D) Drilling tool

15
25

0.15
0.20
0.25

30
45
60

HSS+TiN
HSS+TiAlN
HSS (uncoated)

460

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Table 2 An orthogonal array L18 (mixed) of Taguchi for the hole diametral error
Trial no.

Designation

(A) Depth of
drilling (mm)

(B) Feed rate

(mm/min)

(C) Cutting speed

(m/min)

(D) Drilling
tool

Diametral
error (m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

A1B1C1D1
A1B1C2D2
A1B1C3D3
A1B2C1D1
A1B2C2D2
A1B2C3D3
A1B3C1D2
A1B3C2D3
A1B3C3D1
A2B1C1D3
A2B1C2D1
A2B1C3D2
A2B2C1D2
A2B2C2D3
A2B2C3D1
A2B3C1D3
A2B3C2D1
A2B3C3D2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2

43.43
54.35
52.51
53.99
69.93
73.59
84.82
81.98
105.83
41.49
38.56
52.15
57.76
60.98
59.46
71.48
81.26
70.31

carried out in order to illustrate the effectiveness of

Taguchis optimization method.

2 Taguchi experiment: design and analysis

2.1 Taguchi methods
Essentially, traditional experimental design procedures are
too complicated and not easy to use. A large number of
experimental works have to be carried out when the number
of process parameters increases. To solve this problem, the
Taguchi method uses a special design of orthogonal arrays
to study the entire parameter space with only a small
number of experiments [15]. Taguchi is the developer of the
Taguchi method [16]. Taguchi methods (orthogonal array)
have been widely utilized in engineering analysis and
consists of a plan of experiments with the objective of
acquiring data in a controlled way, in order to obtain
information about the behavior of a given process. The
greatest advantage of this method is the saving of effort in
conducting experiments; saving experimental time, reducing the cost, and discovering significant factors quickly.
Taguchis robust design method is a powerful tool for the
design of a high-quality system. He considered three steps
in a process and product development: system design,
parameter design, and tolerance design. In system design,
the engineer uses scientific and engineering principles to
determine the fundamental configuration. In the parameter
design step, specific values for the system parameters are
determined. Tolerance design is used to determine the best

tolerances for the parameters [17]. In addition to the S/N

ratio, a statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be
employed to indicate the impact of process parameters on
surface finish values. In this way, the optimal levels of
process parameters can be estimated. The analysis results of
related subjects discussed above are given in the following
sections. The steps applied for Taguchi optimization in this
study are presented in Fig. 1.

3 Experimental works
3.1 Plan of experiments
Taguchi methods which combine the experiment design
theory and the quality loss function concept have been used
in developing robust designs of products and processes and
in solving some taxing problems of manufacturing [19].
The ranges of cutting parameters are selected based on
the tool manufacturers recommendation and industrial

Table 3 Process parameters and their levels for the surface finish
Levels

1
2
3

Process parameters
(A) Feed rate
(f=mm/rev)

(B) Cutting speed

(Vc=m/min)

(C) Drilling
tool

0.15
0.20
0.25

30
45
60

HSS+TiN
HSS+TiAlN
HSS (uncoated)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Table 4 An orthogonal array
L9 (33) of Taguchi for the
surface finish

461

Trial no.

Designation

(A) Feed rate

(mm/min)

(B) Cutting speed

(m/min

(C) Drilling
tool

Surface finish
value (m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A1B1C1
A1B2C2
A1B3C3
A2B1C2
A2B2C3
A2B3C1
A3B1C2
A3B2C1
A3B3C2

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2

5.91
5.78
3.95
6.01
5.48
7.68
5.43
7.52
7.9

applications. Firstly, in order to reduce the time and cost, 18

drilling experiments were carried out, which were then used
in the Taguchi optimization method and an L18 mixed
orthogonal array, which has 18 rows corresponding to the
number of tests. The outputs studied were hole diameter
accuracy. The purpose of observing the degree of influence
of cutting conditions (depth of drilling, feed rate, different
drill tools, and cutting speed) in drilling, four factors (depth
of drilling has two levels and the other input parameters
have three levels) are taken into account for hole diameter
accuracy, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Secondly, in order to reduce the time and cost, nine
drilling experiments were then used in the Taguchi
optimization method and an L9 orthogonal array was built,
which has nine rows corresponding to the number of tests,
with three columns at three levels. The outputs studied were
surface roughness (Ra). For the purpose of observing the
degree of influence of the cutting conditions (feed rate,
depth of drilling, and cutting speed) in drilling, three
factors, each at three levels, are taken into account, as
shown in Tables 3 and 4 for the surface finish values.
3.2 Experimental details
Drilling tests in the absence of cutting fluids were
performed on a Johnford VMC model three-axis CNC

Fig. 2 Experimental setup

milling machine equipped with a maximum spindle speed

of 12,000 rpm and a 10-kW drive motor. CNC part
programs are created by employing MasterCam 10 CAD/
CAM software on a personal computer (Intel Pentium IV
2.80 GHz). The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2.
3.3 Drilling tools and workpiece materials
In this study, dry drilling tests were performed using 10.08mm diameter HSS twist uncoated drills, HSS TiAlN-coated
drills, and HSS TiN-coated drills (Fig. 3). Table 5 shows
the dimensional properties of the drilling tools. To
guarantee the initial conditions of each test, a new tool
was used in each experiment. The workpiece material was
Al 2024, which is extensively used in the aerospace
industry. The chemical and mechanical properties of Al
2024 are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
3.4 The measurement of surface roughness (Ra)
The surface roughness values of the machined hole surface
was measured in order to analyze the surface finish quality.
The surface roughness of a machined product could affect
several of the products functional attributes, such as
contact causing surface friction, wearing, light reflection,
heat transmission, the ability for distributing and holding a

462

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Table 6 Chemical composition (wt%) of Al 2024 alloy
Al

Cu

Mg

Mn

Fe

Si

Ti

Zn

Cr

Base

3.8
4.9

1.2
1.8

0.3
0.9

0.5

0.5

Max.
0.15

Max.
0.25

Max.
0.1

three-axis mechanical setup, the probe head, control unit,

and PC. The CMM used here is a vertical-arm CMM, using
a Renishaw PH sensor mount with a touch-trigger probe.
The operating system utilized is Windows for PCs (Fig. 5).

4 Analysis of experimental results and discussion

Fig. 3 Tools used in the experiments and twist drill geometry

4.1 Regression analysis

lubricant, coating, and resisting fatigue [20]. Ra can be
expressed by the following mathematical relationship [21]:
1
Ra
L

ZL
jY xjdx

where:
Ra
Y

The arithmetic average deviation from the mean line

The ordinate of the profile curve

The surface roughness of the job was monitored by

measuring with a contact-type stylus (Mahr Perthometer
Concept) (see Fig. 4). The accuracy of this device is 50 nm.

The cutting speed, feed rate, drilling depth, and drilling tool
were considered in the development of mathematical
models for the hole diameter accuracy. The correlation
between factors (cutting speed, feed rate, drilling depth, and
drilling tool) and hole diameter accuracy for dry drilling
conditions on the Al 2024 alloy were obtained by multiple
linear regression.
A linear polynomial model is developed to control
whether the hole diameter accuracy and surface finish data
represent a fitness characteristic as below:
hole diameter accuracy HDA
b0 b1 drilling depth b2 f b3 Vc
b4 drilling tool "

3.5 The measurement of hole size

In these experiments, the final shape of the hole is
determined using a coordinate measuring machine
(CMM). The measurement of hole diameter is of critical
importance for many applications. One of the most
important fundamental factors for engineering components
is precision assembly. Hence, in this study, the hole
diameter accuracy of a produced hole was measured using
a CMM (five-axis CMM; Brown & Sharpe Global Status
9128 5PDEA CMM). The measurement accuracy of the
CMM is 0.1 m. The major system components are the

surface finish value Ra b0 b1 f b2 Vc

b3 drilling tool "

Drill

Tool diameter
Flute
Point angle (Pa)
Helix angle (Ha)
Flute length (Fl)
Shank type
Coating

10.08 mm
2 flute
118
30
87 mm
Cylindrical
Uncoated

10.08 mm
2 flute
118
30
87 mm
Cylindrical
TiAlN

10.08 mm
2 flute
118
30
87 mm
Cylindrical
TiN

where b1, b2, b3, and b4 are estimates of the process

parameters and is the error. The standard commercial
statistical software package MINITAB was used to derive
the models of the form:

Table 5 Dimensional properties of the cutting tools

For hole diameter accuracy: HDA=f(drilling depth, f,

Vc, drilling tool)
For the surface finish value: Ra=f(f, Vc, drilling tool)

where the drilling depth is in mm, f=feed rate in mm/min,

Vc=cutting speed in rev/min, and the drilling tools are

Table 7 Mechanical properties of Al 2024 alloy

UTS
(MPa)

YS
(MPa)

Density
(kg/m3)

Elongation
(%)

Hardness
(Bhn)

479

330

2,800

17

120

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

463
Table 8 Hole diametral error values and S/N ratio values for the
experiments

Fig. 4 Experimental device for measurement of the surface finish

uncoated, TiAlN, and TiN-coated). The models obtained

are as follows:
HDA 33:0
9:66drilling depth
17:8f 5:07Vc
0:04drilling tool "

R 0:879
2

Ra 5:80 0:868f 0:363Vc
1:04drilling tool "

R2 0:890
5
In multiple linear regression analysis, R2 is the regression
coefficient (R2 >0.80) for the models, which indicate that
the fit of the experimental data is satisfactory.

Trial no.

Hole diametral error

value (m)

S/N ratio (dB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

43.43
54.35
52.51
53.99
69.93
73.59
84.82
81.98
105.83
41.49
38.56
52.15
57.76
60.98
59.46
71.48
81.26
70.31

32.756
34.704
34.405
34.646
36.893
37.336
38.57
38.274
40.492
32.359
31.723
34.345
35.233
35.704
35.485
37.084
38.198
36.94

4.2 Analysis of the S/N ratio

In the Taguchi method, the term signal represents the
desirable value (mean) for the output characteristic and
the term noise represents the undesirable value (standard
deviation, SD) for the output characteristic. Therefore, the
S/N ratio is the ratio of the mean to the SD. Taguchi uses
the S/N ratio to measure the quality characteristic
deviating from the desired value. There are several S/N
ratios available, depending on the type of characteristic;
lower is better (LB), nominal is best (NB), or higher is
better (HB) [22].

Table 9 Diametral error response table for each level of the process
parameters

Fig. 5 Experimental device for measurement of the hole diameter

accuracy

Levels

(A) Depth
of drilling
(mm)

(B) Feed
rate
(mm/min)

(C) Cutting
speed
(m/min)

(D)
Drilling
tool

1
2
3
max-min
Rank

68.9367
59.2722a

47.0817a
62.6183
82.6133
35.5317
1

58.8283a
64.5100
68.9750
10.1467
2

63.7550
64.8867
63.6717a
1.2150
4

9.6644
3

Overall mean=64.10
a
Optimum level
=difference between maximum and minimum Ra response values

464

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Table 10 values for hole

diametral error by factor level
(dB) (S/N)

Overall mean=35.8414 dB
a
Optimum level
=difference between maximum and minimum S/N ratio
response values

Levels

(A) Depth of
drilling (mm)

(B) Feed rate

(mm/min)

(C) Cutting speed

(m/min)

(D) Drilling
tool

1
2
3
max-min
Rank

36.4530
35.2299a

33.3819a
35.8828
38.2596
4.8778
1

35.1079a
35.9159
36.5006
1.3927
2

35.8603
36.1142
35.5498a
0.5644
4

1.2231
3

The lower is better quality characteristic can be

formulated as [22]:
!
n
1X
2
S=N h
10x log
y
6
n i1 i
where n is the number of measurements in a trial/row, in
this case, n=3 and yi is the ith measured value in a run/row.
The S/N ratio values are calculated by taking into
consideration Eq. 6.
4.2.1 Hole diameter accuracy
The hole diameter accuracy values measured from the
experiments and their corresponding S/N ratio values are
listed in Table 8.
The diameter error response table for the depth of
drilling, feed rate, cutting speed, and drill tools was created
in the integrated manner and the results are given in
Table 9.
Regardless of the category of the performance characteristics, a greater value corresponds to a better performance. Therefore, the optimal level of the machining
parameters is the level with the greatest value. By
applying Eq. 6, the response table for each level of the
process parameters (Table 2) (cutting speed, feed rate, depth
of drilling, and drilling tool) was created in the integrated
manner and the response results are given in Table 10.
Based on the analysis of the S/N ratio, the optimal
machining performance for the hole diametral error was
obtained at 25 mm depth drilling (level 2), 0.15 mm/rev
feed rate (level 1), 30 mm/min cutting speed (level 1), and
uncoated drill (level 3) with point angle settings as shown
in Table 11. Figure 6 shows the effect of the drilling
parameters on the hole diametral error values.
Table 11 Optimal level values for the minimum diametral error
Process
parameters

Levels

A
B
C
D

2
1
1
3

Hole diametral error

response value (m)

S/N response
value (dB)

59.2722
47.0817
58.8283
63.6717

35.2299
33.3819
35.1079
35.5498

4.2.2 Surface finish value

The surface finish values measured from the experiments
and their corresponding S/N ratio values are listed in
Table 12.
The Ra response table for each level of the process
parameters (cutting speed, feed rate, and drill tool) was
created in the integrated manner and the results are given in
Table 13.
By applying Eq. 6, the response table for each level of
the process parameters (Tables 3 and 4) (cutting speed, feed
rate, and drilling tool) was created in the integrated manner
and the results are given in Table 14.
Based on the analysis of the S/N ratio, the optimal
machining performance for the hole diameter accuracy was
obtained with 0.15 mm/rev feed rate (level 1), 30 mm/min
cutting speed (level 1), and uncoated drill (level 3) settings,
as shown in Table 15. Figure 7 shows the effect of the
drilling parameters on the surface finish values.
4.3 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
ANOVA is a statistically based, objective decision-making
tool for detecting any differences in the average performance of groups of items tested [23].
ANOVA helps in formally testing the significance of all
main factors and their interactions by comparing the mean
square against an estimate of the experimental errors at
specific confidence levels. This is accomplished by separating the total variability of the S/N ratios, which is
measured by the sum of the squared deviations from the
total mean S/N ratio, into contributions by each of the
design parameters and the error. First, the total sum of
squared deviations SST from the total mean S/N ratio m
can be calculated as [24]:
SST

n
X

hi
hm 2

i1

where n is the number of experiments in the orthogonal

array and i is the mean S/N ratio for the ith experiment.
The percentage contribution P can be calculated as:
P

SSd
SST

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

465

Fig. 6 Effect of the drilling

parameters on the hole diametral error

where SSd is the sum of the squared deviations. The

ANOVA results are illustrated in Tables 16 and 17.
Statistically, there is a tool called an F test, named after
Fisher [17], to see which design parameters have a
significant effect on the quality characteristic. In the
analysis, the F-ratio is a ratio of the mean square error to
the residual error, and is traditionally used to determine the
significance of a factor.

F0.05, 1, 17 =4.451 for the depth of drilling parameter (A)

and F0.05, 2, 17 =3.592 for the feed rate (B), cutting speed
(C), and drill tools (D). The depth of drilling and feed rate
factors present statistical and physical significance on the
hole diameter accuracy value, because the test F>F =5%,
as shown Table 16.

4.3.1 Hole diameter accuracy

The P-value reports the significance level (suitable and

unsuitable) in Table 17. Percent (%) is defined as the
significance rate of the process parameters on the surface
finish values. The percent numbers depict that the cutting
speed and drill tool factors have significant effects on the
surface finish. It can observed from Table 17 that the feed
rate (A),cutting speed (B), and drill tool (C) affect the
surface finish value by 35.46%, 6.15%, and 53.84% in the
drilling of Al 2024 alloy surfaces, respectively.
The F-ratio corresponding to the 95% confidence level
in the calculation of the process parameters accurately is
F0.05, 2, 8 =4.459. The feed rate and different drill tool factors
present statistical and physical significance on the surface
finish, because the test F>F =5%, as shown in Table 17.

The P-value reports the significance level (suitable and

unsuitable) in Table 16. Percent (%) is defined as the
significance rate of the process parameters on the hole
diameter accuracy. The percent numbers depict that the
depth of drilling, feed rate and cutting speed have
significant effects on the hole diameter accuracy. It can
observed from Table 16 that the depth of drilling (A), feed
rate (B), cutting speed (C), and drill tool affect the hole
diameter accuracy by 8.18%, 74.09%, 6.04%, and 0.10% in
the dry drilling of Al 2024 alloy, respectively.
The F-ratio corresponding to the 95% confidence level
in the calculation of the process parameters accurately is

4.3.2 Surface finish value

Table 12 Surface finish values and S/N ratio values for the
experiments
Trial no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Surface finish
values (m)

S/N ratio (dB)

5.91
5.78
3.95
6.01
5.48
7.68
5.43
7.52
7.9

15.4317
15.239
11.932
15.578
14.776
17.707
14.696
17.524
17.953

Table 13 Ra response table for surface finish

Levels

(A) Feed rate

(mm/min)

(B) Cutting
speed (m/min)

(C) Drilling
tool

1
2
3
max-min
Rank

5.21333a
6.39000
6.95000
1.73667
2

5.78333a
6.26000
6.51000
0.72667
3

7.03667
6.56333
4.95333a
2.08333
1

Overall mean=6.1844
Optimum level
=difference between maximum and minimum Ra response values

466

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

Table 14 values for surface finish value by factor level (dB) (S/N)
Levels

(A) Feed rate

(mm/min)

(B) Cutting speed

(m/min)

(C) Drilling
tool

1
2
3
max-min

14.2007a
16.0201
16.7243
4.8778

15.2351a
15.8462
15.8639
1.3927

16.8878
16.2562
13.8012a
0.5644

Overall mean=15.6483 dB
Optimum level
=difference between maximum and minimum S/N ratio response
values

Table 15 Optimal level values for surface finish

Process
parameters

Levels

Ra response
value

S/N response
value

A
B
C

1
1
3

5. 21333
5. 78333
4. 95333

14.2007
15.2351
13.8012

5 Determination of the minimum Ra and diametral

error
Using the aforementioned data, one can predict the
optimum surface finish and minimum hole diametral error
value performance using the cutting parameters as follows.
For the diametral error:

Also, the maximum S/N ratio for the diametral error varies
in the range (40.492 dB)<(31.7453 dB)<(+ dB). The S/
N ratio could be predicted as:
predicted S=N ratio max:
A2 B1 C1 D3
3

35:229
33:3819

35:1079
35:5498

3
35:8414

31:7453 dB
where is the average value of the hole diametral error or
S/N ratio. With this prediction, one could conclude that the
machine creates the optimal hole diameter accuracy (HDA=
36.5403 m ) within the range of specified cutting
conditions (Table 2). The HDA value of 36.5403 m is the
smallest value involved in the experimental measurements. A
confirmation of the experimental design was necessary in
order to verify the optimum cutting conditions.
For the surface finish:
predicted mean min: Ra
A1 B1 C3
2Y
5:21333 5:78333 4:95333
26:1844
3:581 m
Similarly, the maximum S/N ratio is calculated to determine
whether or not the minimum surface finish is acceptable.
Also, the maximum S/N ratio for the surface finish varies in
the range Ra=((17.953 dB)<(11.9404 dB)<(+ dB). The
S/N ratio could be predicted as:

predicted mean min: diametral error

A2 B1 C1 D3
3Y
59:2722 47:0817 58:8283 63:6717
364:1044
36:5403 m

predicted S=N ratio max:

A1 B1 C3
2

14:2007
15:2351
13:8012

2
15:6483

11:9404 dB

Similarly, the maximum S/N ratio is calculated to determine

whether or not the minimum surface finish is acceptable.

where is the average value of the surface finish or S/N

ratio. With this prediction, one could conclude that the

Fig. 7 Effect of the drilling

parameters on the surface finish
value

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

467

Table 16 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the hole diametral error for the drilling of Al 2024
Source of variation

Degrees of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (S)

Variance (V)

F-ratio (F)

P-value (P)

Percentage (%)

A
B
C
D
Error
Total

1
2
2
2
10
17

420.31
3,807.37
310.34
5.53
595.01
5,138.57

420.31
1,903.69
155.17
2.76
59.50

7.06
31.99
2.61
0.05

0.024
0.000
0.123
0.955

8.18%
74.09%
6.04%
0.10%
11.58%
100%

Table 17 ANOVA results for the surface finish for the drilling of Al 2024
Source of variation

Degree of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (S)

Variance (V)

F-ratio (F)

P-value (P)

Percent (%)

A
B
C
Error
Total

2
2
2
2
8

4.7142
0.8178
7.1564
0.6027
13.2910

2.3571
0.4089
3.5782
0.3013

7.82
1.36
11.87

0.113
0.424
0.078

35.46%
6.15%
53.84%
4.55%
100%

machine creates the best surface finish (Ra=3.581 m)

within the range of specified cutting conditions (Table 4).
The Ra value of 3.581 m is the smallest value involved in
the experimental measurements. A confirmation of the
experimental design was necessary in order to verify the
optimum cutting conditions.

experiment is a crucial step and is highly recommended by

Taguchi to verify the experimental results [17].
In this study, a confirmation experiment was conducted
by utilizing the levels of the optimal process parameters
(A1B1C3) for surface finish and (A2B1C1D3) for the hole
diameter accuracy value in the dry drilling of Al 2024 alloy.
6.1 Surface finish

6 Confirmation tests
The experimental confirmation test is the final step in verifying the results drawn based on Taguchis design
approach. The optimal conditions are set for the significant
factors (the insignificant factors are set at economic levels)
and a selected number of experiments are run under specified
cutting conditions. The average of the results from the confirmation experiment is compared with the predicted average
based on the parameters and levels tested. The confirmation

The purpose of the confirmation experiment in this study

was to validate the optimum cutting conditions (A1B1C3)
that were suggested by the experiment which corresponded
with the predicted value. In this research, the confirmation
runs with the optimum cutting conditions (A1B1C3) resulted
in response values of 3.16, 3.44, and 3.49 m. Each Ra
measurement was repeated at least three times. Therefore,
the optimum surface finish (Ra =3.37 m) can be obtained
under the above-mentioned cutting conditions (Table 18).

Table 18 Results of the confirmation experiment for surface finish

Table 19 Results of the confirmation experiment for hole diameter

accuracy
Optimal machining
parameters

Optimal machining parameters

Prediction

Level
Ra (m)
S/N ratio for Ra

A1B1C3
3.58
11.9404 dB

Confirmation
experiment
A1B1C3
3.37
11.2399 dB

Level
Diametral error (m)
S/N ratio for HDA

Prediction

Confirmation
experiment

A2B1C1D3
36.5403
31.7453 dB

A2B1C1D3
36.44
31.6581 dB

468

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

6.2 Hole diametral error

The purpose of the confirmation experiment in this study
was to validate the optimum cutting conditions (A2B1C1D3)
that were suggested by the experiment which corresponded
with the predicted value. In this research, the confirmation
runs with the optimum cutting conditions (A2B1C1D3)
resulted in response values of 36.46, 36.44, and
36.42 m. Each hole diametral error measurement was
repeated at least three times. Therefore, the optimal hole
diameter accuracy (HDA=36.44 m) can be obtained under
the above-mentioned cutting conditions (Table 19).

7 Conclusions
This study has discussed an application of the Taguchi
method for investigating the effects of cutting parameters
on the surface finish and hole diameter accuracy values in
the dry drilling of Al 2024 alloy. In the drilling process, the
parameters were selected taking into consideration of
manufacturer and industrial requirements. The obtained
optimal parameters have been used in drilling processes by
the manufacturer.
From the analysis of the results in the drilling process
using the conceptual signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio approach,
regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and
Taguchis optimization method, the following can be
concluded from the present study:

Statistically designed experiments based on Taguchi

methods were performed using L9 and L18 orthogonal
arrays to analyze the surface finish and hole diametral
error as response variables, respectively. Conceptual S/
N ratio and ANOVA approaches for data analysis drew
similar conclusions.
Statistical results (at a 95% confidence level) show that
the feed rate (A), cutting speed (B), and differently
coated drills (C) affect surface finish by 35.46%,
6.15%, and 53.84% for the dry drilling of Al 2024
alloy, respectively.
Statistical results (at a 95% confidence level) show that
the depth of drilling (A), feed rate (B), cutting speed
(C), and differently coated drills (D) affect the hole
diametral error by 8.18%, 74.09%, 6.04%, and 0.10%
for the dry drilling of Al 2024 alloy, respectively.
The minimum surface finish and minimum hole
diametral error value is calculated as 3.58 m and
36.5403 m by Taguchis optimization method,
respectively. Additional parameters and cutting conditions may affect these results, but the obtained
results are adequate for satisfying the manufacturers
expectations.

In this study, the analysis of the confirmation experiments for surface finish has shown that Taguchi
parameter design can successfully verify the optimum
cutting parameters (A1B1C3), which are feed rate=
0.15 mm/rev (A1), cutting speed=30 m/min (B1), and
different drill tools (C3 =uncoated). It can be observed
that the difference between the value of the minimum
predicted surface finish and the actual surface finish
values from confirmation experiments is 5.9%.
In this study, the analysis of the confirmation experiments for surface finish has shown that Taguchi
parameter design can successfully verify the optimum
cutting parameters (A2B1C1D3), which are depth of
drilling=25 mm (A2), feed rate=0.25 (B1), cutting
speed=30 m/min (C1), and different drill tools (D3 =
uncoated). It can be observed that the difference
between the value of the minimum predicted diametral
error and the actual diametral error values from
confirmation experiments is 2.8%.
Further study could consider more factors (different
drill properties [point angles, helix angle, flute number]
and run-out of the drill, thrust force, torques, etc.) in the
research to see how these factors would affect hole
quality.

References
1. Kelly JF, Cotterell MG (2002) Minimal lubrication machining of
aluminium alloys. J Mater Process Technol 120:327334
2. Nouari M, List G, Girot F, Coupard D (2003) Experimental
analysis and optimisation of tool wear in dry machining of
aluminium alloys. Wear 255:13591368
3. Chen WC, Tsao CC (1999) Cutting performance of different
coated twist drills. J Mater Process Technol 88:203207
4. Zhao H (1994) Predictive models for forces, power and hole
oversize in drilling operations. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia
5. Dasch JM, Ang CC, Wong CA, Cheng YT, Weiner AM, Lev LC
(2006) A comparison of five categories of carbon-based tool
coatings for dry drilling of aluminum. Surf Coat Technol
200:29702977
6. Basile SA (1993) Modeling transverse motions of a drill bit for
process understanding. Precis Eng 15:258265
7. Roger MS, Russell VL (1998) Experimental design for process
settings in aircraft manufacturing. In: Statistical case studies: a
collaboration between academe and industry. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), pp 235247
8. Pirtini M, Lazoglu I (2005) Forces and hole quality in drilling. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 45:12711281
9. Furness RJ, Wu CL, Ulsoy AG (1996) Statistical analysis of the
effects of feed, speed, and wear on hole quality in drilling. J
Manuf Sci Eng 118:367375
10. Kalidas S, DeVor RE, Kapoor SG (2001) Experimental investigation of the effect of drill coatings on hole quality under dry and
wet drilling conditions. Surf Coat Technol 148:117128
11. Nouari M, List G, Girot F, Gehin D (2005) Effect of machining parameters and coating on wear mechanisms in dry

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 40:458469

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

drilling of aluminium alloys. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1436

1442
Haan DM, Batzer SA, Olson WW, Sutherland JW (1997) An
experimental study of cutting fluid effects in drilling. J Mater
Process Technol 71:305313
Bono M, Ni J (2001) The effects of thermal distortions on the
diameter and cylindricity of dry drilled holes. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 41:22612270
Agapiou JS (1993) Design characteristics of new types of drill and
evaluation of their performance drilling cast iron. I. Drill with four
major cutting edges. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 33:321341
Yang WH, Tarng YS (1998) Design optimization of cutting
parameters for turning operations based on the Taguchi method. J
Mater Process Technol 84:122129
Taguchi G (1990) Introduction to quality engineering. Asian
Productivity Organization, Tokyo
Ross PJ (1996) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering.
McGraw-Hill International Editions, Singapore

469
18. Bagci E, Aykut (2006) A study of Taguchi optimization method
for identifying optimum surface roughness in CNC face milling of
cobalt-based alloy (stellite 6). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:940
947
19. Tsao CC, Hocheng H (2004) Taguchi analysis of delamination
associated with various drill bits in drilling of composite material.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:10851090
20. Lou MS, Chen JC, Li CM (1998) Surface roughness prediction
technique for CNC end-milling. J Ind Technol 15:16
21. Yang JL, Chen JC (2001) A systematic approach for identifying
optimum surface roughness performance in end-milling operations. J Ind Technol 17:18
22. Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering using robust design.
Prentice-Hill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
23. Minitab User Manual Release 13.2 (2001) Making data analysis
easier. MINITAB Inc., State College, PA
24. Lindman HR (1992) Analysis of variance in experimental design.
Springer-Verlag, New York