See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257507725

Prediction of Damage Factor in end Milling of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic

Composites Using Artificial Neural Network

Article  in  Applied Composite Materials · August 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10443-012-9286-3

CITATIONS READS

25 556

4 authors:

Omer Erkan Birhan Isik

Duzce University Karabuk University
14 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adem Çiçek Fuat Kara

Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University Duzce University
46 PUBLICATIONS   920 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   383 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation Of Surface Roughness And Cutting Forces In Machining Of AISI 304 Stainless Steel With Cryogenically Treated Uncoated WC-Co Tools View project

Micro machining of Ti6Al4V and Inconel 718 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Omer Erkan on 25 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536
DOI 10.1007/s10443-012-9286-3

Prediction of Damage Factor in end Milling of Glass Fibre

Reinforced Plastic Composites Using Artificial Neural
Network

Ömer Erkan & Birhan Işık & Adem Çiçek & Fuat Kara

Received: 28 May 2012 / Accepted: 25 July 2012 / Published online: 9 August 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) composites are an economic alternative to
engineering materials because of their superior properties. Some damages on the surface
occur due to their complex cutting mechanics in cutting process. Minimisation of the
damages is fairly important in terms of product quality. In this study, a GFRP composite
material was milled to experimentally minimise the damages on the machined surfaces,
using two, three and four flute end mills at different combinations of cutting parameters.
Experimental results showed that the damage factor increased with increasing cutting speed
and feed rate, on the other hand, it was found that the damage factor decreased with
increasing depth of cut and number of the flutes. In addition, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) results clearly revealed that the feed rate was the most influential parameter
affecting the damage factor in end milling of GFRP composites. Also, in present study,
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models with five learning algorithms were used in
predicting the damage factor to reduce number of expensive and time-consuming experi-
ments. The highest performance was obtained by 4-10-1 network structure with LM learning
algorithm. ANN was notably successful in predicting the damage factor due to higher R2 and
lower RMSE and MEP.

Keywords Glass fibre reinforced plastic composites . End milling . Damage factor . ANN

Ö. Erkan : F. Kara
Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Mechanical Education, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey

B. Işık
Faculty of Technology, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey

A. Çiçek (*)
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yıldırım Beyazıt
University, Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: adecicek@yahoo.com
518 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

1 Introduction

Nowadays, glass fibre reinforced plastic composites are widely used in food, automotive and
aviation industry and aerospace applications due to their weightlessness, high specific
hardness, strength and cost characteristics [1]. Machining of composite materials is usually
performed to achieve the required geometrical shapes and dimensional tolerances. However,
machinability evaluation of GFRP composites in end milling has not yet received its due
attention in the research community despite the extensive industrial use of this process [2].
Although they have superior mechanical properties when compared to metallic materials, a
complex cutting mechanics occurrs in cutting process because of their anisotropic structures.
However, the complicated interactions of reinforcing glass fibres with both each other and
with the matrix element during the machining lead to some damages on the surface.
Elimination of the damages is notably important in terms of dimensional accuracy and
surface quality. Davim et al. [3] performed a study with the objective of evaluating the
cutting parameters related to machining force in the workpiece, delamination factor, surface
roughness and international dimensional precision in two GFRP composite materials (Viapal
VUP 9731 and ATLAC 382-05), when milling of them with cemented carbide end mills.
Experimental results showed that the damage was larger for higher cutting speed and feed
rate. In addition, the end mill produced less damage on the Viapal VUP 9731 than the
ATLAC 382-05r. Dawim and Reis [4] conducted a study that evaluated the effects of cutting
parameters on the surface roughness, and damage in milling laminate plates of carbon fibre-
reinforced plastics. The delamination factor increased slightly with the feed rate, for both
end mills. For the six-flute end mill, the increase of cutting velocity leads to an increase as
well on the delamination factor. The two-flute end mill produces less damage on the CFRP
composite material than the six-flute end mill. Feed rate is the cutting parameter that present
the highest statistical and physical influence on surface roughness (94.1 and 77.5 %), and on
delamination factor (83.9 and 85.9 %), for both end mills, respectively. Rubio et al. [5]
experimentally investigated the damage induced after high speed drilling of glass fibre
reinforced laminates using three cemented carbide drills with different geometries. The
experimental results indicated that the use of HSM was suitable for drilling GFRP ensuring
low damage levels. Capello [6] analyzed the differences in delamination mechanisms when
drilling with and without a support placed under the workpiece. Also, this investigation has
led to hypothesize two main differences in the mechanism. On the basis of this analysis, a
new device was designed that counters the hypothesized delamination mechanism. A simple
prototype of this device was built, and its effectiveness verified. The results showed that the
proposed device could drastically reduce delamination.
In the recent literature studies, it is observed that experimental studies are signif-
icantly supported with different modelling, analysis and optimization techniques to
minimise the number of complicated, time-consuming and expensive experiments [7–
9]. One of these modelling techniques is ANN which widely used in scientific studies.
ANN offers a fast, efficient, accurate and cost effective paradigm of process model-
ling [10, 11]. Karnik et al. [12] performed a study on the analysis of delamination
behaviour as a function of drilling parameters at the entrance of the CFRP plates. The
delamination analysis in high speed drilling was performed by developing an ANN
model. The simulation results illustrated the effectiveness of the ANN models to
analyze the effects of drilling parameters on delamination factor. Al-Haik et al. [13]
developed an alternative model based on an ANN to predict the stress relaxation of
the polymer matrix composite. Another study, a new methodology based on artificial
neural networks has been developed to study the high velocity oblique impact of
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 519

spheres into CFRP laminates [14]. Chen et al. [15] implemented the simulation of
temperature and degree of cure of CFRP during pultrusion with finite element method,
finite difference method and indirect decoupling method. According to the simulated
data, an artificial neural network was trained to present the relationship between the
degree of cure of CFRP and the processing parameters, and the genetic algorithm
associated with ANN was adopted to find out the optimal die temperatures and pull
speeds for the multi objective optimization of CFRP pultrusion. Chakraborty devel-
oped an approach in predicting the presence of embedded delaminations in fibre
reinforced plastic composite laminates using natural frequencies as indicative param-
eters and artificial neural network as a learning tool [16]. Altinkok and Koker [17]
predicted the density and tensile strength of Al2O3/SiC particle reinforced metal matrix
composites by designing a back-propagation neural network that uses a gradient descent
learning algorithm. As a result, it was found that the ANN was successful in prediction of
experimental results. Yang et al. [18] analyzed variations in mechanical properties that depend
on the injection molding process during the blending of short glass fibre and polytetrafluoro-
ethylene reinforced polycarbonate composites. Experiments were planned according to a D-
optimal mixture design (DMD) method. A hybrid method integrating back-propagation neural
networking (BPNN), genetic algorithm (GA), and simulated annealing algorithm (SAA) was
used in determining the optimal mixture ratio settings. The results of a DMD experimental run
were used to train the BPNN in predicting mechanical properties and then the GA and SAA
approaches were applied to individual searches to find the optimal mixture ratio settings. Liujie
et al. [19] performed a study on prediction of the tribological behaviour of 30 % wt. carbon-
fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone composite using artificial neural network. The test results
showed that the well-trained back-propagation neural network models could precisely predict
friction coefficient and wear weight loss. Naderpour et al. [20] developed a new approach based
on an intelligent predicting system using experimental data to simulate the behaviour of fibre
reinforced polymers-retrofitted reinforced concrete members. The predicted values were in
good agreement with the results of experimental programs. This indicates that the neural
network is a strong and reliable tool as an alternative for expensive and time-consuming
experimental programs.
The objectives of this study are to determine optimal process parameters to minimise the
surface damage during milling of GFRP composite material using end mills with different
number of the flutes at different combinations of cutting parameters and to predict the
surface damage depending on milling process parameters using a back-propagation neural
network model.

2 Material and Methods

2.1 Experimental Setup

The end milling experiments were performed by slot milling with cemented carbide end
mills at different combinations of process parameters for the GFRP plate. GFRP plates were
supplied from ARMAPLAST Composites and Plastics Corporation.
GFRP plates were prepared by SMC (sheet moulding compound) compression moulding
method and their fibre orientation angles are 0º and 90º. The thickness of the GFRP plates
was 10 mm and GFRP samples were glass (81 % in volume)-polyester resin and plain woven
cloth consisting of 14 plies. Woven ply layers in GFRP plate are shown in Fig. 1 and the
mechanical properties of GFRP material are given in Table 1.
520 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Fig. 1 Fibre orientations for the

GFRP plate [31]

The SECO cutting tools company’s VHM series end mills with diameter of 8 mm were used in
the end milling processes. The cemented carbide end mills had two, three and four flutes. The rake
and helix angles were 10° and 30° respectively. A new end mill was used after nine experiments
to eliminate the adverse effects of tool wear on the experimental results. ATAKSAN TMC 500 V
vertical machining centre with 5 kW spindle power and a maximum speed of 6000 rpm was used
to conduct the end milling experiments. The composite material was clamped on the table of CNC
machine tool. Experimental set up is shown in Fig. 2. The cutting speed, depth of cut, feed rate
and tool geometry were considered in the study. The experiments were performed at feed rates of
0.04, 0.08, 0.12 mm/rev, depths of cut of 1, 2 and 3 mm and cutting speeds of 62, 88 and 113 m/
min. In addition to cutting parameters, two, three and four flute end mill geometry were used in
the experiments. The lower cutting speeds were preferred due to adverse effects (melting of resin

Table 1 Mechanical properties of

GFRP plates Property Value

Specific weight 2.03 g/cm3

Fibre diameter 22 μm
Flexural strength (DIN EN 63) 98 N/mm2
Tensile modulus (DIN 53457) 3450 N/mm2
Tensile strength (DIN EN 61) 48 N/mm2
Tensile elongation (DIN EN 61) 5%
Cure contraction (DIN 16946) 65 %
Temperature of deflection (DIN 53461) 70 °C
Martens temperature (DIN 53458) 50 °C
Thermal conductivity (DIN 52612) 0.15 W/m°C
Heat specific 1.46 kj/kg°C
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 521

Fig. 2 Experimental setup

and so on) of higher cutting temperatures. Figure 3 shows a damaged slot and the parameters
required for calculation of the damage factor in a macro photograph.
wmax
Fd ¼ ð1Þ
w
Where, W is the nominal slot width, Wmax is the maximum damaged slot width. Fd is the
damage factor. Maximum damaged widths of the photographed slots were precisely mea-
sured in a CAD environment and the damage factor for each slot was calculated using the
formula in Eq. 1 [3]. The experimental damage factors calculated depending on the cutting
parameters are shown in Table 2.

2.2 ANN Model Design

ANNs are a logic programming technique developed with the purpose of automatically
performing skills such as learning, remembering, deciding and inference, which are features

Fig. 3 A damaged slot and parameters for the damage factor

522 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Table 2 Experimental results of the damage factor

Test no Number of flutes Cutting speeds (m/min) Depth of cut (mm) Feed rate Damage factor
(mm/rev) (mm)

1 2 62 1 0.04 1.1892
2 2 62 1 0.08 1.5378
3 2 62 1 0.12 1.6996
4 2 62 2 0.04 1.1743
5 2 62 2 0.08 1.2218
6 2 62 2 0.12 1.4655
7 2 62 3 0.04 1.1512
8 2 62 3 0.08 1.2139
9 2 62 3 0.12 1.4299
10 2 88 1 0.04 1.2447
11 2 88 1 0.08 1.5616
12 2 88 1 0.12 1.7886
13 2 88 2 0.04 1.2265
14 2 88 2 0.08 1.3035
15 2 88 2 0.12 1.487
16 2 88 3 0.04 1.2106
17 2 88 3 0.08 1.3107
18 2 88 3 0.12 1.503
19 2 113 1 0.04 1.2743
20 2 113 1 0.08 1.5945
21 2 113 1 0.12 1.7954
22 2 113 2 0.04 1.2554
23 2 113 2 0.08 1.4049
24 2 113 2 0.12 1.5297
25 2 113 3 0.04 1.2222
26 2 113 3 0.08 1.3876
27 2 113 3 0.12 1.5469
28 3 62 1 0.04 1.1765
29 3 62 1 0.08 1.3347
30 3 62 1 0.12 1.5035
31 3 62 2 0.04 1.1513
32 3 62 2 0.08 1.2718
33 3 62 2 0.12 1.4023
34 3 62 3 0.04 1.1498
35 3 62 3 0.08 1.1991
36 3 62 3 0.12 1.4114
37 3 88 1 0.04 1.2058
38 3 88 1 0.08 1.3602
39 3 88 1 0.12 1.5143
40 3 88 2 0.04 1.2101
41 3 88 2 0.08 1.2756
42 3 88 2 0.12 1.4606
43 3 88 3 0.04 1.1942
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 523

Table 2 (continued)

Test no Number of flutes Cutting speeds (m/min) Depth of cut (mm) Feed rate Damage factor
(mm/rev) (mm)

44 3 88 3 0.08 1.2532
45 3 88 3 0.12 1.4334
46 3 113 1 0.04 1.2533
47 3 113 1 0.08 1.4913
48 3 113 1 0.12 1.5509
49 3 113 2 0.04 1.241
50 3 113 2 0.08 1.288
51 3 113 2 0.12 1.506
52 3 113 3 0.04 1.1955
53 3 113 3 0.08 1.2532
54 3 113 3 0.12 1.4256
55 4 62 1 0.04 1.1383
56 4 62 1 0.08 1.1599
57 4 62 1 0.12 1.2097
58 4 62 2 0.04 1.1492
59 4 62 2 0.08 1.1825
60 4 62 2 0.12 1.2348
61 4 62 3 0.04 1.1401
62 4 62 3 0.08 1.1616
63 4 62 3 0.12 1.1831
64 4 88 1 0.04 1.1549
65 4 88 1 0.08 1.1685
66 4 88 1 0.12 1.2315
67 4 88 2 0.04 1.1898
68 4 88 2 0.08 1.1987
69 4 88 2 0.12 1.2495
70 4 88 3 0.04 1.1725
71 4 88 3 0.08 1.2183
72 4 88 3 0.12 1.2531
73 4 113 1 0.04 1.2208
74 4 113 1 0.08 1.4127
75 4 113 1 0.12 1.4388
76 4 113 2 0.04 1.2099
77 4 113 2 0.08 1.2569
78 4 113 2 0.12 1.2773
79 4 113 3 0.04 1.1874
80 4 113 3 0.08 1.2398
81 4 113 3 0.12 1.2818

of the human brain, without receiving any external aid. By simply imitating the working
principal of the human brain, ANNs have various important features, such as learning from
data, generalisation, working with an infinite number of variables, etc. The smallest units of
524 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

ANNs are called artificial neural cells. The simplest artificial neural cells consist of mainly
five elements, namely inputs, weights, summation functions, activation functions and out-
puts (Fig. 4).
ANN consists of three main layers, namely, the input, hidden and output layers.
The inputs are data from the external world. Neurons in the input layer send data
from the external world to the hidden layer. The weights are the numerical values of
connections between cells. The outputs are produced using data from the input and
hidden layers, and the bias, summation and activation functions. The summation
function is a function which calculates the net input of a cell. The summation
function used in this study is given in Eq. 2.
X
n
NET i ¼ wij xj þ wbi ð2Þ
j¼1

Where, NETi is the weighted sum of the input to the ith processing element, i and j are
processing elements, n is number of processing elements in the previous layer, wij is the
weight of the connections between the ith and jth processing elements, xj is the output of the
jth processing element and wbi is the weights of the biases between layers. The activation
function provides a curvilinear match between the input and output layers. In addition, it
determines the output of the cell by processing the net input to the cell. The selection of an
appropriate activation function significantly affects network performance. There are many
ways to define the activation function, such as the threshold function, step activation
function, sigmoid function and hyperbolic tangent function. A logistic sigmoid function is
widely used as the transfer function. Logistic sigmoid function of the ANN model in this
study is given in Eq. 3.
1
f ðNET i Þ ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ eNET i
The significant advantages of artificial neural networks are learning ability and the use of
different learning algorithms. In order to obtain the output values closest to the experimental
values, the best learning algorithm and the optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer
should be determined. Different types of learning algorithms such as gradient descent

Fig. 4 Structure of an artificial neural cell

Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 525

backpropagation (GD), quasi-Newton backpropagation (BFGS), Levenberg-Marquardt

backpropagation (LM), scaled conjugate gradient backpropagation (SCG), Resilient back-
propagation (RP), Conjugate gradient backpropagation with Polak-Ribiére updates (CGP),
Bayesian regulation backpropagation (BR) are used in network training process. The most
important factor which determines its success, in practice, after the construction of ANN
architecture, is the learning algorithm.
In this study, BFGS, CGP, LM, RP and SCG learning algorithms were used to find the
most suitable learning algorithm in predicting the damage factor. As a result of the con-
ducted trials, all learning algorithms were found to be suitable in prediction of the damage
factor, but the best and fastest prediction results were obtained by LM learning algorithm
(Table 3).
In the training stage, to obtain the output precisely, the number of neurons in the
hidden layer was gradually increased (i.e. 5–15). The best network structure for the
damage factor was found to be 4-10-1 (Table 3). In other words, the best network
structure with a hidden layer has four neurons (number of flutes, cutting speed, depth
of cut and feed rate) in the input layer, ten neurons in the hidden layer and one
neuron (damage factor) in the output layer. The best network structure built for the
prediction of damage factor is shown in Fig. 5. Also, the statistical values of damage
factor for five learning algorithms are given in Table 3.
Determination of percentages of training and testing data has an important role for ANNs.
When the studies in literature are analyzed, it is found that different ratios such as 90 %:10 %
[21], 85 %:15 % [22], 80 %:20 % [23], 75 %:25 % [24], 70 %:30 % [25] are used for training
and testing data. In this study, 81 experimental data from end milling experiments were
prepared for training and testing data of ANN. The ratio for training and test sets was
selected as 80 %:20 %. In this context, 16 data for testing set and 65 data for training set
were randomly selected. As mentioned above, logistic sigmoid transfer function was used in
this study. One of the characteristics of this function is that a value between 0 and 1 can be
only produced. Input and output values are normally normalized between (-1 to 1) [26] or (0
to 1) [27] before training and testing process. In this study, the input and output values were
normalized between 0.1 and 0.9 using formula in Eq. 4.
 
vmin  vi
nvi ¼ 0:8  þ 0:1 ð4Þ
vmin  vmax
Where, nvi is the normalization value, vmax is the maximum value of the input/output data,
vmin is the minimum value of the input/output data and vi is the ith value of the input/output
data. In the output layer, the output of network is produced by processing data from hidden
layer and sent to external world. Damage factor values predicted after ANN training were
compared with the experimental values. The root mean square error (RMSE), mean error
percentage (MEP) and coefficient of correlation (R2) values were used for comparison. The
error identified during the learning process is called the root mean squared error and is
defined as follows:
 X !1=2
1  
RMSE ¼ t j  oj 2 ð5Þ
p j

Where t is the target value, o is the output and p is the number of samples. The parameter
tj represents the predicted output from the neural network model for a given input while oj is
the desired output from the same input that was produced by the set-up. The mean error
526 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Table 3 Statistical data for the damage factor using five learning algorithms

Learning algorithm Number of neurons Training data Testing data

RMSE R2 MEP RMSE R2 MEP

SCG 5 0.007569 0.999707 1.415530 0.016013 0.998664 3.045663

SCG 6 0.006802 0.999763 1.128862 0.021934 0.997462 3.179310
SCG 7 0.005513 0.999844 1.032635 0.022020 0.997411 4.111343
SCG 8 0.006341 0.999794 1.109004 0.013661 0.999037 2.359375
SCG 9 0.005431 0.999849 0.886591 0.017374 0.998435 3.040548
SCG 10 0.003922 0.999921 0.675207 0.018653 0.998152 3.237158
SCG 11 0.003922 0.999921 0.736410 0.019276 0.998055 3.517388
SCG 12 0.003911 0.999922 0.706591 0.022122 0.997375 3.029778
SCG 13 0.003920 0.999921 0.686045 0.022165 0.997389 3.144164
SCG 14 0.003915 0.999922 0.666342 0.024497 0.996708 4.634619
SCG 15 0.003922 0.999921 0.633120 0.020562 0.997771 3.579905
LM 5 0.005330 0.999855 1.002904 0.022555 0.997334 3.494021
LM 6 0.004776 0.999883 0.854628 0.019313 0.998026 3.141026
LM 7 0.003913 0.999922 0.699549 0.016454 0.998538 2.983651
LM 8 0.003916 0.999921 0.674892 0.017422 0.998411 2.549956
LM 9 0.003904 0.999922 0.678038 0.015394 0.998773 2.737419
LM 10 0.004208 0.999909 0.688891 0.013627 0.999021 2.182265
LM 11 0.003828 0.999925 0.620929 0.020791 0.997741 3.034763
LM 12 0.003808 0.999926 0.686848 0.017476 0.998425 3.229166
LM 13 0.003921 0.999921 0.703793 0.017255 0.998449 3.131569
LM 14 0.003649 0.999932 0.674407 0.021078 0.997638 3.076617
LM 15 0.003765 0.999927 0.644725 0.018883 0.998119 3.331499
BFGS 5 0.008977 0.999587 1.459495 0.015313 0.998753 3.007799
BFGS 6 0.003921 0.999921 0.688156 0.019937 0.997904 3.495300
BFGS 7 0.007165 0.999737 1.157253 0.020656 0.997717 3.344909
BFGS 8 0.003921 0.999921 0.697049 0.020345 0.997845 3.594528
BFGS 9 0.004156 0.999912 0.692259 0.015470 0.998757 2.731655
BFGS 10 0.003915 0.999922 0.688630 0.014357 0.998898 2.495121
BFGS 11 0.003967 0.999919 0.639902 0.017303 0.998427 3.302629
BFGS 12 0.003915 0.999922 0.685402 0.019817 0.997951 3.087956
BFGS 13 0.003921 0.999921 0.681893 0.019312 0.998036 3.283781
BFGS 14 0.003920 0.999921 0.722932 0.022457 0.997320 3.875345
BFGS 15 0.003922 0.999921 0.647334 0.019123 0.998089 3.100819
RP 5 0.011182 0.999359 1.895144 0.016687 0.998547 3.009041
RP 6 0.007716 0.999695 1.346924 0.020268 0.997834 3.396554
RP 7 0.007521 0.999710 1.329211 0.017660 0.998349 3.155006
RP 8 0.007433 0.999717 1.364265 0.018155 0.998275 3.054632
RP 9 0.007185 0.999736 1.323641 0.018943 0.998128 3.174299
RP 10 0.006452 0.999787 1.153561 0.015262 0.998778 2.738679
RP 11 0.005162 0.999864 0.856306 0.017539 0.998373 3.265478
RP 12 0.006485 0.999785 1.101889 0.019038 0.998114 3.602817
RP 13 0.005696 0.999834 1.034770 0.022393 0.997370 4.141324
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 527

Table 3 (continued)

Learning algorithm Number of neurons Training data Testing data

RMSE R2 MEP RMSE R2 MEP

RP 14 0.005521 0.999844 1.009320 0.020024 0.997883 3.660073

RP 15 0.006122 0.999808 0.949984 0.020695 0.997729 3.497515
CGP 5 0.009896 0.999498 1.741703 0.019162 0.998063 3.492449
CGP 6 0.009344 0.999553 1.764086 0.017956 0.998308 3.039496
CGP 7 0.009851 0.999503 1.662596 0.017095 0.998461 2.917549
CGP 8 0.007771 0.999691 1.315692 0.020798 0.997714 3.354991
CGP 9 0.008444 0.999635 1.474330 0.017652 0.998360 3.317919
CGP 10 0.006457 0.999787 1.220823 0.014212 0.998955 2.914712
CGP 11 0.007633 0.999702 1.368645 0.019788 0.997951 3.078689
CGP 12 0.007916 0.999679 1.471407 0.017647 0.998368 3.605539
CGP 13 0.006840 0.999760 1.177587 0.019697 0.997956 3.341794
CGP 14 0.006460 0.999786 1.155837 0.021635 0.997509 3.781791
CGP 15 0.007520 0.999710 1.354983 0.021286 0.997591 3.907260

percentage, which shows the mean ratio between the error and the experimental values, is
determined from:
P   
j t j  oj =tj  100
MEPð%Þ ¼ ð6Þ
p
The coefficient of correlation ranges between -1 and +1. R values closer to +1 indicate a
strong positive linear relationship, while R values closer to -1 indicate a strong negative
relationship [28]. This value is calculated with the following formula:
P  2 !
j t j  oj
R ¼1
2
P  2 ð7Þ
j oj

3 Discussion and Results

3.1 Experimental Results

Although woven composite materials have high strength, they are very sensitive to stress
concentrations due to their anisotropic structures. Various damage forms occur according to
loading conditions in composite structures. Fibre breakage, matrix cracking and delamina-
tion can be given as examples [29]. During the milling of the woven GFRP plates, the
cutting tool forces to break off the fibres and some damages on surfaces occur.
The effects of cutting speed, feed rate, depth of cut and number of flutes on the damage
factor are shown in Fig. 6. It was observed that the damage factor increased with increasing
cutting speed. This can be attributed to increasing plastic deformation rate at higher cutting
speed. As the increase in the feed rate caused an increase in the chip section and interlaminar
shear stresses, the damage factor significantly increased (Fig. 7). Razfar et al. [30] and
528 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Fig. 5 ANN architecture with a single hidden layer

Davim et al. [3] confirmed that damage factor increases when the cutting speed and feed rate
increases. The feed rate was more effective on the damage factor than the cutting speed.

ap=1 mm ap=2 mm

ap=3 mm

Fig. 6 The effects of number of flutes and cutting parameters on damage factor
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 529

Fig. 7 The damages at different feed rates, a feed rate of 0.04 mm/rev, b feed rate of 0.08 mm/rev, c feed rate
of 0.12 mm/rev

The damages in GFRP plates milled using two flute end mill at the same cutting speed
and feed rate, and different depths of cut are demonstrated in Fig. 8. As can be seen clearly
from the Fig. 8, maximum damage on surface milled at depth of cut of 3 mm are smaller than
ones milled at depths of cut of 1 and 2 mm. Namely, the damage factor decreased with
increasing depth of cut. This can be attributed to minimal vibrations absorbed by the resin

Fig. 8 Maximum damage at different depth of cut, a 1 mm, b 2 mm, c 3 mm

530 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Fig. 9 Schematic views of cutting process a two flute end mill b four flute end mill

during milling due to an increase in contact area between cutting tool and the resin. The
vibrations occurring at the shallow depths of cut cause to the damages by means of the
reinforcing glass fibres in the material during milling. Vibrations lead to the damages in
especially top surface by increasing the interlaminar shear stresses of laminated GFRP
material.
It was reported in literature studies that the damage factor increased with an increase in
number of flutes [3, 30]. In both studies, satisfactory explanations were not made about the
reasons of an increase in damage factor with increasing number of flutes. In contrast to
literature studies, in present study, number of flutes has significant influences on cutting
process and damage factor decreased with increasing number of flutes. Since the angle
between cutting edges of four flute end mills is 90˚, they cut four times a revolution.
Similarly, since angles between cutting edges of two and three flute end mills are also
180˚ and 120˚, they cut twice and three times a revolution respectively (Fig. 9). Since more
flutes participated to cutting process, GFRP plates were more easily and smoothly milled by

Fig. 10 The effects of different number of flutes on damage factor, a two flutes, b three flutes, c four flutes
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 531

Table 4 Analysis of variance for damage factor (Fd)

Source of variance Degrees of Sum of Mean F value Pr>F Percentage

freedom (DF) square (SS) square (MS) contribution

Model 4 1.4967305 0.374183 63.9995 <.0001 –

Number of flutes 1 0.43644652 0.21597 74.6490 <.0001 29.16 %
Cutting speed 1 0.11670461 0.05795 19.9609 <.0001 7.8 %
Depth of cut 1 0.15876267 0.08797 27.1545 <.0001 10.61 %
Feed rate 1 0.78481667 0.39518 134.2336 <.0001 52.43 %
Error 76 0.4443451 0.005847 <.0001 – –
C. Total 80 1.9410756 – – – 100 %

four flute end mill according to the two and three flute end mills. Thus, the damage factor
decreased with increasing number of flutes.
Shematic views of cutting processes for two and four flute end mills are shown in Fig. 9.
As shown in Fig. 9, feed per tooth (ft) for two flute end mill is twice grater than one for four
flute end mill. ANOVA results show that the greater feed rates have negative effects on the
damage factor. Therefore, the best damage factor values were obtained by four flute end
mills. Reductions in the maximum damages depending on increasing number of flutes are
shown in Fig. 10.

3.2 ANOVA Results

The purpose of ANOVA is to analyse machining parameters which significantly affect

the performance characteristics. In this study, ANOVA was performed to determine the
effects of process parameters on the damage factor in end milling of GFRP compo-
sites. The ANOVA results are given in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the effects of
all cutting parameters (Pr<.0001, Pr<.0001, Pr<.0001, Pr<.0001) on damage factor
are statistically significant.
Percentage contributions of number of flutes, cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate are
29.16 %, 7.8 %, 10.61 % and 52.43 %, respectively. Based on the results of analysis of
variance (Table 4), it has been understood that feed rate is the main influential parameter on
damage factor in end milling of GFRP composites. After feed rate, the number of flutes is
next influential parameter on the damage factor because its percentage contribution is

Table 5 The best results for five different learning algorithms

Goal Sequence Learning Network Training set Testing set

algorithm structure
RMSE R2 MEP RMSE R2 MEP

Fd 1 LM 4-10-1 0.004208 0.999909 0.688891 0.013627 0.999021 2.182265

Fd 2 SCG 4-8-1 0.006341 0.999794 1.109004 0.013661 0.999037 2.359375
Fd 3 BFGS 4-10-1 0.003915 0.999922 0.688630 0.014357 0.998898 2.495121
Fd 4 RP 4-10-1 0.006452 0.999787 1.153561 0.015262 0.998778 2.738679
Fd 5 CGP 4-10-1 0.006457 0.999787 1.220823 0.014212 0.998955 2.914712
532 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

Fig. 11 Regression graphics for ANN-predicted and experimental values

29.16 %. The percentage contributions of cutting speed and depth of cut were found to be
7.8 % and 10.61 %, respectively,

3.3 Prediction of the Damage Factor with ANN

In this study, a computer program has been developed in MATLAB platform to

predict the damage factor. The input parameters of the network are number of flutes,
the cutting speed, depth of cut and feed rate and its output parameters also is damage
factor. The network structures and statistical parameters of ANN models for five
learning algorithms are given in Tables 5. It is apparent from Tables 5, the prediction
performances for both training and testing sets of the damage factor showed that all
the approaches provide a quite satisfactory accuracy. The R2 values of all learning
algorithms for both training and testing sets are higher than 0.99. The SCG learning
algorithm reached to optimal solutions with smaller number of neurons in hidden
layer when compared to other learning algorithms. But, LM learning algorithm gave
the optimal results for the damage factor. Another remarkable point in Table 5, the
best results were obtained with 4-10-1 network structure in all learning algorithms
except SCG learning algorithm. This means that it is optimal network structure for
predicting the damage factor.
As shown in Table 5, the R2 values were close to 1 for both the training and testing sets.
In addition, RMSE and MEP were fairly low. In the training period, for damage factor, the

Fig. 12 Matching of the experimental and training ANN model values for damage factor
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 533

Fig. 13 Matching of the experimental and testing ANN model values for damage factor

mean relative error was found to be less than 5 % and this demonstrated that MEP results for
the training and testing sets were within acceptable error limits (±5 %).
In Fig. 11, regression graphics between ANN-predicted values and experimental values
are given. The correlation coefficients of testing and training sets for the damage factor were
0.999020 and 0.999909 respectively. It was found that the RMSE values were 0.013627 and
0.004208 for the testing and training sets respectively. The MEP values also were 2.182265
and 0.688891 for the testing and training sets respectively.
Comparisons of the ANN predictions and experimental results for training and testing
sets of output parameters are demonstrated in Figs. 12 and 13 respectively. The most striking
point here is that the prediction values are very close to the experimental values for both
training and testing sets. As shown in Figs. 12 and 13, the predictive ability of the network
for damage factor was notably satisfactory. This means that the selection of four input
parameters as influencing factors for predictions of damage factor provides satisfactory

Table 6 Weights between input layer and hidden layer

 
Ei ¼ w1  ðNf =10Þ þ w2  ðv=150Þ þ w3  ap =4 þ w4  ðf  6Þ þ θi

i w1 w2 w3 w4 θi

1 7.9098 −5.8912 −4.7182 0.3581 −2.5007

2 −6.6813 0.8209 19.4918 −11.1780 3.5462
3 −6.7953 −2.9210 10.2737 −2.0377 4.4140
4 10.8982 0.5334 −0.6008 5.6123 −10.4246
5 −5.8727 4.7958 −1.4126 8.8636 −1.8581
6 12.2558 8.3657 0.7033 −1.8764 −2.3848
7 6.8256 1.6780 −11.4864 −6.3875 −1.3991
8 13.1205 −5.5470 1.1766 −20.5622 10.9572
9 6.4397 −0.8428 7.6456 5.0793 2.3565
10 −6.9427 −3.5984 −19.7865 10.5049 2.0436
534 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

results. The equation of damage factor is given in Eq. 8. Also, the damage factor can be
accurately calculated by this formula.
 
1
Fd ¼ 3
1 þ eð1:8894F1þ1:7800F28:8229F38:0969F4þ0:2287F5þ1:7168F68:6659F70:8972F8þ0:3607F9þ1:6062F100:6779Þ

ð8Þ
Where Fi (i01, 2, 3,…, 6 or 7) can be calculated according to Eq. 9.
1
Fi ¼ ð9Þ
1 þ eEi
Where Ei is the weighted sum of the input, and is calculated by the equation in Table 6.
The data flow is completed with the weights between the layers. The weight values between
input and hidden layers of the network are given in the Table 6.
In Table 7, percentage errors of each testing data are given. It was found that the most
convergent and divergent testing data are 99.90 % and 91.76 % respectively between
experimental results and ANN predictions. The developed ANN model was very successful
in predicting the damage factor of GFRP composites due to lower percentage errors of
training and testing data.

4 Conclusions

In this study, the damages in end milling of GFRP composite material using two, three and
four flute end mills were experimentally investigated at different combinations of cutting
parameters. In consequence of experimental studies, it was found that the damage factor
increased with increasing cutting speed and feed rate due to increases in plastic deformation
rate depending on increasing cutting speed and in interlaminar shear stresses depending on

Table 7 Percentage errors for

each testing data Test pattern Errors (%)

1 0.9633
2 0.4242
3 2.7202
4 1.4055
5 1.3378
6 0.0944
7 1.3010
8 0.3289
9 0.8539
10 2.3750
11 0.7467
12 4.0379
13 5.8460
14 1.3083
15 8.2339
16 2.9392
Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536 535

increasing feed rate. In addition, the damage factor decreased with increasing depth of cut
due to decreases in vibrations absorbed by the resin in deeper depths of cut. In contrast to in
the literature studies, it was observed that the smoother slot surfaces were machined with
increasing number of flutes This is attributed to decreasing feed per tooth due to participa-
tion of more cutting edges in a revolution to four flute end milling process. ANOVA results
clearly revealed that feed rate is the most influential parameter affecting the damage factor in
end milling of GFRP composites. This result confirmed an increase in damage factor with
decreasing number of flutes.
This study also deals with ANN modeling of a cutting process to predict the damage
factor. An ANN model for predicting the damage factor was developed using some exper-
imental values for training. Then, the performance of the ANN model were evaluated by
comparing the ANN predictions with the experimental results that were not used in the
training stage. After training stage, five learning algorithms were very successful in predict-
ing the damage factor, but the best and fastest ANN results were obtained by the LM
learning algorithm. It was found that the R2 values are more than 0.999 for both training and
testing data. RMSE and MEP values are smaller than 0.014 and 2.19 % for the testing data.
The results is very satisfactory. Therefore, instead of expensive and time-consuming experi-
ments, it is highly recommended the usage of ANN in predicting the damage factor in end
milling of GFRP composite materials.

References

1. Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R., Campos Rubio, J., Esteves Correia, A., Abrão, A.M., Paulo Davim, J.: A study
aimed at minimizing delamination during drilling of CFRP composites. J. Compos. Mater. 45, 2359–2368 (2011)
2. Azmi, A.I., Lin, R.J.T., Bhattacharyya, D.: Machinability study of glass fibre-reinforced polymer com-
posites during end milling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2012). doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4006-6
3. Davim, J.P., Reis, P., Antonio, C.C.: A study on milling of glass fiber reinforced plastics manufactured by
hand-lay up using statistical analysis (ANOVA). Compos. Struct. 64, 493–500 (2004)
4. Davim, J.P., Reis, P.: Damage and dimensional precision on milling carbon fiber-reinforced plastics using
design experiments. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 160, 160–167 (2005)
5. Rubio, J.C., Abroa, A.M., Correia, A.E., Davim, J.P.: Effect of high speed in the drilling of glass fiber
reinforced plastic: Evaluation of the delamination factor. Int. J. Mach. Tools. Manuf. 48, 715–720 (2008)
6. Capello, E.: Work piece damping and its effect on delamination damage in drilling thin composite
laminates. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 148, 186–195 (2004)
7. Göloglu, C., Arslan, Y.: Zigzag machining surface roughness modelling using evolutionary approach. J.
Intell. Manuf. 20, 203–210 (2009)
8. Fernandez-Abia, A.I., Barreiro, J., Lopez de Lacalle, L.N., Martinez, S.: Effect of very high cutting speeds
on shearing, cutting forces and roughness in dry turning of austenitic stainless steels. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 57, 61–71 (2011)
9. Senthil Kumar, K.L., Sivasubramanian, R.: Modeling of metal removal rate in machining of aluminum
matrix composite using artificial neural network. J. Compos. Mater. 45, 2309–2316 (2011)
10. Bhat, C., Bhat, M.R., Murthy, C.R.L.: Characterization of failure modes in CFRP composites-An ANN
approach. J. Compos. Mater. 42(3), 257–276 (2008)
11. De Albuquerque, V.H.C., Tavares, J.M.R.S., Durao, L.M.P.: Evaluation of delamination damage on
composite plates using an artificial neural network for the radiographic image analysis. J. Compos. Mater.
44(9), 1139–1159 (2009)
12. Karnik, S.R., Gaitonde, V.N., Campos Rubio, J., Esteves Correia, A., Abrão, A.M., Paulo Davim, J.:
Delamination analysis in high speed drilling of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) using artificial
neural network model. Mater. Des. 29, 1768–1776 (2008)
13. Al-Haik, M.S., Hussaini, M.Y., Garmestani, H.: Prediction of nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of poly-
meric composites using an artificial neural network. Int. J. Plast. 22, 1367–1392 (2006)
14. Fernández-Fdz, D., López-Puente, J., Zaera, R.: Prediction of the behaviour of CFRPs against high-
velocity impact of solids employing an artificial neural network methodology. Compos. Part A 39, 989–
996 (2008)
536 Appl Compos Mater (2013) 20:517–536

15. Chen, X., Xie, H., Chen, H., Zhang, F.: Optimization for CFRP pultrusion process based on genetic
algorithm-neural network. Int. J. Mater. Form. 3(Suppl 2), 1391–1399 (2010)
16. Chakraborty, D.: Artificial neural network based delamination prediction in laminated composites. Mater.
Des. 26, 1–7 (2005)
17. Altinkok, N., Koker, R.: Modelling of the prediction of tensile and density properties in particle reinforced
metal matrix composites by using neural networks. Mater. Des. 27, 625–631 (2006)
18. Yang, Y.K., Yang, R.T., Tzeng, C.J.: Optimization of mechanical characteristics of short glass fiber and
polytetrafluoroethylene reinforced polycarbonate composites using the neural network approach. Expert
Syst. Appl. 39, 3783–3792 (2012)
19. LiuJie, X., Davim, J.P., Cardoso, R.: Prediction on tribological behaviour of composite PEEK-CF30 using
artificial neural networks. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 189, 374–378 (2007)
20. Naderpour, H., Kheyroddin, A., Ghodrati Amiri, G., Hoseini Vaez, S.R.: Estimating the behavior of FRP-
strengthened RC structural members using artificial neural networks. Procedia Eng. 14, 3183–3190
(2011)
21. El-Mounayri, H., Kishawy, H., Briceno, J.: Optimization of CNC ball end milling: a neural network-based
model. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 166, 50–62 (2005)
22. Aykut, S., Golcu, M., Semiz, S., Ergur, H.S.: Modeling of cutting forces as function of cutting parameters
for face milling of satellite 6 using an artificial neural network. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 190, 199–203
(2007)
23. Cay, Y., Cicek, A., Kara, F., Sagiroglu, S.: Prediction of engine performance for an alternative fuel using
artificial neural network. Appl. Therm. Eng. 37, 217–225 (2012)
24. Huang, B.P., Chen, J.C., Ye, L.: Artificial-neural-networks-based surface roughness Pokayoke system for
end-milling operations. Neurocomputing 71, 544–549 (2008)
25. Nasiri, M.R., Mahjoob, M.J., Aghakasiri, A.: Damage detection in a composite plate using modal analysis
and artificial intelligence. Appl. Compos. Mater. 18, 513–520 (2011)
26. Al-Assadi, M., El Kadi, H.A., Deiab, I.M.: Using artificial neural networks to predict the fatigue life of
different composite materials including the stress ratio effect. Appl. Compos. Mater. 18, 297–309 (2011)
27. Al-Assadi, M., El Kadi, H., Deiab, I.M.: Predicting the fatigue life of different composite materials using
artificial neural networks. Appl. Compos. Mater. 17, 1–14 (2010)
28. Sayin, C., Ertunc, H.M., Hosoz, M., Kilicaslan, I., Canakci, M.: Performance and exhaust emissions of a
gasoline engine using artificial neural network. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 46–54 (2007)
29. Turan, M.: The high velocity impact damage in layered composite materials. Eng. Mech. 48(575), 1–
8 (2000)
30. Razfar, M.R., Zanjani Zadeh, M.R.: Optimum damage and surface roughness prediction in end milling
glass fibre-reinforced plastics, using neural network and genetic algorithm. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B:
J. Eng. Manuf. 223, 653–664 (2009)
31. Liu, D.F., Tang, Y.J., Cong, W.L.: A review of mechanical drilling for composite laminates. Compos.
Struct. 94, 1265–1279 (2012)

View publication stats