International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 10, Issue 01, January 2019, pp. 707-718, Article ID: IJMET_10_01_072
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
INVESTIGATIONS ON DRILLING OF
UNIDIRECTIONAL HEMP-POLYESTER
COMPOSITES
Urvish Patel
PG Student, MED, C. S. Patel Institute of Technology, CHARUSAT, Anand,
Pin - 388 421, Gujarat-India.
Kundan Patel, *
*Assistant Professor, MED, C. S. Patel Institute of Technology, CHARUSAT, Anand, Pin 388 421, Gujarat-India.
Piyush Gohil
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology and
Engineering, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara-390 001,
Gujarat, India.
Vijay Chaudhary
Professor, MED, C. S. Patel Institute of Technology, CHARUSAT, Anand, Pin - 388 421,
Gujarat-India.
*Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT
The natural fiber reinforced composites are emerging as a potential replacement to
synthetic fiber composite for lowering down the cost of applications and they are used
in interior of automobile, chassis of cellular phone, building construction, etc. Drilling
operation is the most important machining process for assembly of different
components. Delamination phenomenon occurs during drilling operation on
composites which lay-down the structural reliability of component. The present work
focused to carry out experimental studies of thrust force and delamination on drilling
of unidirectional hemp fiber reinforced composite. The drilling was carried out by
varying tool geometry (end mill, Centre drill, parabolic drill), feed rate (0.07, 0.17, 0.27
mm/rev) and spindle speed (800, 2800, 4800 rpm). Digital image analysis was used to
determine the delamination factor. ANOVA has been used to determine the contribution
of factors. Multivariable regression analysis has been also used to determine empirical
model between parameters.
Keywords: Hemp, Drilling, Delamination, Thrust Force, Image Analysis, ANOVA,
Regression
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
707
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
Cite this Article: Urvish Patel, Kundan Patel, Piyush Gohil and Vijay Chaudhary.
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(01), 2019, pp. 707-718
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=1
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the historical time, composites have been used for large range of products like cloths,
house roofing, to the cellular phone chassis, an interior trim panel of automobile (car) [1-2].
Single material cannot give desirable properties, the synergistic effect has been produced by
judiciously combining two or more materials and generally composites are manmade of
reinforcing material (fibers, sheets or particles) and matrix material (polymer, metal or ceramic)
[3]. The matrix material has lower properties as compared to the reinforcement material.
Composites of polymer-based materials are widely used in formula one car, sport goods, cycle
frames, etc and have superior properties like corrosion resistance, high strength to weight ratio,
lighter in weight, appropriate stiffness, lower production cost and lower maintenance cost [45]. The properties of the composite depend not only on reinforcement and matrix material but
also depend on the concentration, constituents, reinforcement geometry and reinforcement
orientation [6]. Generally, composites are of natural fiber or synthetic fiber. The synthetic fibers
are derived from petroleum based and have some advantages like lighter weight, low moisture
absorptive, higher fatigue strength, faster assemble, corrosion resistance but still have serious
disadvantages like non-biodegradable, non-environment friendly, expensive and also have a
serious effect on health [7-8].
Natural fiber has potential approach on environment and alternatives to syntactic fiber
because of the cheaper in cost, more sustainable and recyclable [9]. Natural fibers are derived
from plant (flax, hemp, coconut, jute, sisal, banana, kenaf, coir, bamboo, kapok and henequen)
or animal source and consisting cellulose and proteins respectively. Natural fibers are easily
available, low cost, lighter weight, high toughness, specific strength, bio-degradable,
renewable, non-hazardous and low carbon footprint characteristic also they are used in
automotive industries, construction material, packaging and electronics [10-14]. Because of
these properties, researchers are working on the natural fiber composites.
Moreover, natural fiber composites are made near net shape of the final shape of object at
primary manufacturing by different processes like hand layup, filament winding, vacuum bag
moulding, resin transfer moulding and pultrusion [15-16]. For making the complete component,
assembly of several components requires different secondary operations (drilling, milling,
grinding, trimming, finishing). That’s why to meet their dimensional accuracy and higher
quality for assembly, traditional machining is important [16]. For bonding the composites, there
are two methods: one is adhesive bonding which is permanent and not dissembled and second
is mechanical bonding which is easily fastened and dissembled for replacement or any other
purpose by making hole in composite material [17]. Conventional drilling technique is most
preferable and the drilling mechanism of polymer matrix composite (PMC) is totally different
than drilling of metal, alloys [16-17] reason behind that in composite drill bit cut two phases:
one is reinforced layer and second is matrix layer which generate damage around the drilled
hole. This damage is called delamination of composite and there are two types of delamination:
one is Peel up delamination [Figure 1(a)] caused by cutting edge action and second is push out
delamination [Figure 1(b)] caused by chisel edge action. Generally, delamination is the
separation of the layer from laminates material [18].
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
708
editor@iaeme.com
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites
Figure 1 Types of delamination in composite (a) peel up (b) push out.
Different methods have been used to calculate the delamination like C-scan [11], Scanning
Electron Microscope [3,19] and Shop Microscope [9,18]. Most of the researchers were used
cutting parameters and different tool diameter [2-6,8,10,11,19,20] whereas different tool
geometries like Twist drill [1,8,9,12-14,18], Parabolic drill [8,17], Jo drill [8], Step drill [14,17]
and 4-facet [17] used by few researchers as input parameter.
In the present work, unidirectional hemp fiber reinforced composite was fabricated and
compared thrust force (TF) and delamination during drilling operation using with cutting speed
(800, 2800, 4800 rpm), feed rate (0.07, 0.17, 0.27 mm/rev) and tool geometry (centre drill,
parabolic drill, end mill).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this research, the composite specimen of 12” x 12” inch was prepared by hand layup
technique using with general purpose polyester and pure hemp fiber. Hemp (yarn) (Figure 2) is
supplied by Spinning King Private Limited, Ahmedabad. The prepages are prepared by wound
hemp (yarn) on wooden frame of size 15” x 15” inch and final prepages of size 15” x 14” inch
was prepared as shown in figure 3. The fibers were oriented in unidirectional to accomplish the
desired strength in one direction. Total 12 layers were used to make a specimen of 5 mm
thickness (Figure 4) using with 3 % of methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide (MEKP) as hardener and
1.5 % cobalt as accelerator were used for curing which was carried out under a compressive
pressure at room temperature for one day. The weight fraction of hemp fiber was achieved as
36.03 % for this UD-HFRP material. Test specimens of UD-HFRP from plate as per ASTM
D3039 standard were prepared and they were imperilled to tensile test at a speed of 5mm/min
using with universal testing machine. The average value of the tensile strength of UD-HFRP
was 137.62 MPa.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
709
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
Figure 2 Hemp Yarn
Figure 3 Preparation of Prepages
Figure 4 Prepared Specimen
3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Design of Experiments (DOE) means to planning, designing and analyzing an experiment
which obtained valid, effective and efficient result of objective. For experimental runs, Full
Factorial design was used using several feeds (0.07, 0.17, 0.27 mm/rev), speeds (800, 2800,
4800 rpm) and drill geometries (Centre drill, Parabolic drill, End mill). The drill diameter used
was 4 mm for all drill tools. Drilling operations were carried on a computer numerical control
(CNC) vertical milling centre VMC (Jyoti PX10) as shown in figure 5.
Figure 5 Experimental Set-up
4. DETERMINATION OF DAMAGE AREA
Delamination at entry and exit in UD-HFRP was found using a shop microscope (Mitutoyo QSL 2010 ZB). The images of all drilled holes were captured with same magnification and the
damaged area of drilled hole was calculated by image analysis with help of MATLAB
programming.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
710
editor@iaeme.com
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites
Figure 6 Method for evolution of delamination
Following equation was used to determine the delamination factor (DF):
DF = (Adamage / Ahole)
Where, Adamage is the maximum damage area around the hole periphery with including hole
area and A is the actual area of hole as shown in figure 6.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The experimental results according to full factorial design with total 27 numbers of
investigational runs are shown in table 1.
Table 1 Experimental runs and results
Sr. No.
Tool
Geometry
Speed
(rpm)
Feed
(mm/rev)
Thrust
Force (N)
DFEntry
DFExit
1
End mill
800
0.07
111.28
1.0816
2.0845
2
End mill
800
0.17
219.63
1.1429
2.1282
3
End mill
800
0.27
227.26
1.2271
2.6420
4
End mill
2800
0.07
89.91
1.0587
1.8321
5
End mill
2800
0.17
183.01
1.1221
2.5158
6
End mill
2800
0.27
250.15
1.2049
2.7887
7
End mill
4800
0.07
105.17
1.0657
1.3141
8
End mill
4800
0.17
213.53
1.1271
1.4821
9
End mill
4800
0.27
276.10
1.1713
2.2425
10
Centre
800
0.07
36.50
1.1566
1.2460
11
Centre
800
0.17
60.92
1.1904
1.2309
12
Centre
800
0.27
85.34
1.2361
1.1477
13
Centre
2800
0.07
31.92
1.1015
1.9190
14
Centre
2800
0.17
53.28
1.1547
1.5513
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
711
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
15
Centre
2800
0.27
77.70
1.2392
1.1194
16
Centre
4800
0.07
34.97
1.1175
1.2036
17
Centre
4800
0.17
48.71
1.1428
1.1565
18
Centre
4800
0.27
77.70
1.1756
1.1994
19
Parabolic
800
0.07
48.71
1.1152
1.3349
20
Parabolic
800
0.17
65.49
1.1159
1.3056
21
Parabolic
800
0.27
86.86
1.1162
1.3281
22
Parabolic
2800
0.07
54.81
1.1322
1.4991
23
Parabolic
2800
0.17
76.18
1.1439
1.3905
24
Parabolic
2800
0.27
99.07
1.1477
1.2745
25
Parabolic
4800
0.07
63.97
1.1852
1.6787
26
Parabolic
4800
0.17
85.33
1.1492
1.3386
27
Parabolic
4800
0.27
88.39
1.1618
1.1954
5.1. Effect of Input Parameters on Thrust Force
It is observed from main effect plots for thrust force (TF) as shown in figure 6; the tool geometry
and feed were play maximum role on thrust force. The tool geometry has predominant effect
on thrust force and feed has quite dominant effect on thrust force, but speed has much low effect
on thrust force. Centre drill has good effect on thrust force compared with other two drills and
same observed by [17]. With increasing feed rate, thrust force increase which was also observed
by [1,7,9,18,19,21,22].
Table 2 ANOVA for Thrust Force
Source
DOF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
%
Contribution
TG
2
89159.1
89159.1
44579.5
303.62
0
71.92
S (rpm)
2
349.1
349.1
174.5
1.19
0.353
0.28
F (mm/rev)
2
27064.9
27064.9
13532.4
92.17
0
21.83
TG*Speed (rpm)
4
852.4
852.4
213.1
1.45
0.302
0.34
TG*F (mm/rev)
4
12985.4
12985.4
3246.3
22.11
0.000
5.23
S(rpm)*F(mm/rev)
4
359.9
359.9
90
0.61
0.665
0.14
Error
8
1174.6
1174.6
146.8
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
712
0.23
editor@iaeme.com
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites
Total
26
S = 12.1172
131945.3
61982.6
R-Sq = 99.11%
R-Sq(adj) = 97.11%
The P-value from the ANOVA for thrust force (table 2) depicts that, thrust force is
significantly affected by tool geometry, feed, interaction among tool geometry & feed and
insignificantly affected by speed, interaction among tool geometry & speed, interaction among
speed & feed. Also, it can be found that the thrust force is mainly influenced by tool geometry,
subsequently influenced by feed and interaction between tool geometry & feed. The tool
geometry, feed interaction between tool geometry & feed affect the thrust force by 71.922%,
21.832% and 5.237% respectively. The adjusted R2 value for thrust force (97.11%)
recommends an acceptable fitting of the model.
It is also observed through interaction plot (Figure 7) among tool geometry with feed that,
higher thrust force developed using with end mill. The reasons behind for this variation in thrust
force by affecting the tool geometry profile. With increasing the feed increase the thrust force.
Figure 6 Main Effects Plot for TF (N)
Figure 7 Interaction Plot for TF (N)
5.2. Effect of Input Parameters on DFentry (Delamination Factor at Entry)
It’s observed after experimental runs from main effects on delamination factor at entry (DFEntry)
as shown in figure 8, the feed and tool geometry were play maximum role on delamination
factor at entry. The feed has predominant effect and tool geometry has quite dominant effect on
DFEntry, but speed has low effect on DFEntry. Centre drill has higher effect on DFEntry compared
with other two drills. With increasing feed rate, DFEntry increase which was also observed by
[6,8,11,12,18,21] and increasing speed, DFEntry decrease which was also observed by
[8,9,15,21,23].
Table 3 ANOVA for Delamination Factor at Entry
Adj MS
F
P
%
Contribution
0.006054 0.006054
0.003027
23.25
0
13.74
2
0.000497 0.000497
0.000248
1.91
0.21
1.12
F (mm/rev)
2
0.024878 0.024878
0.012439
95.55
0
56.48
TG*S (rpm)
4
0.008242 0.008242
0.00206
15.83
0.001
9.35
Source
DOF
TG
2
S (rpm)
Seq SS
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
Adj SS
713
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
TG*F (mm/rev)
4
0.014343 0.014343
0.003586
27.55
0.000
16.28
S(rpm)*F(mm/rev)
4
0.002117 0.002117
0.000529
4.07
0.043
2.40
Error
8
0.001041 0.001041
0.00013
Total
26
0.057172
0.02202
S = 0.0114094
R-Sq = 98.18%
0.59
R-Sq(adj) = 94.08%
The P-value from the ANOVA for delamination factor at entry (table 3) depicts that,
delamination at entry is significantly affected by tool geometry, feed, interaction among tool
geometry & speed, interaction among tool geometry & feed, interaction among speed & feed
and insignificantly affected by speed. Also, it can be studied that the delamination at entry is
mainly influenced by feed, subsequently influenced by interaction between tool geometry &
feed, tool geometry and interaction between tool geometry & speed. The feed, interaction
between tool geometry & feed, tool geometry and interaction between tool geometry & speed
affect the delamination at entry by 56.488%, 16.284%, 13.746% and 9.356% respectively. The
adjusted R2 value for delamination at entry (94.08%) recommends an acceptable fitting of the
model.
Figure 8 Main Effects Plot for DFEntry
Figure 9 Interaction (TG & S) for DFEntry
Figure 10 Interaction (TG & F) for DFEntry
Figure 11 Interaction (S & F) for DFEntry
It is also observed through interaction plot (figure 9) among the tool geometry with speed
that, increases speed that decrease delamination using with end mill and centre drill and increase
delamination while using parabolic drill. Interaction Plot (figure 10) among tool geometry with
feed that; increases feed that increase delamination using with end mill and centre drill and
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
714
editor@iaeme.com
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites
almost same delamination while using parabolic drill. Interaction Plot (figure 11) among speed
with feed that, increases delamination with increases both speed and feed [11].
5.3. Effect of Input Parameters on DFexit (Delamination Factor at Exit)
It’s observed after experimental runs from main effects on delamination factor at exit (DFExit)
as shown in figure 12; the speed and tool geometry were play maximum role on DFExit. The
tool geometry has predominant effect and speed has quite dominant effect on DFExit, but feed
has low effect on DFExit. End mill has higher effect on DFExit compared with other two drills.
The DFExit increases with increase in speed from 800 to 2800, but it suddenly decreases with
increase in speed for the speed 2800 to 4800 [18]. It is also observed that, feed from 0.07 to
0.17 did not effect on DFExit, but increases with increase in feed from 0.17 to 0.27.
Table 4 ANOVA for Delamination Factor at Exit
Source
DOF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
% Contribution
Tool Geometry
2
3.61713
3.61713
1.80856
45.45
0
69.59
Speed (rpm)
2
0.52755
0.52755
0.26378
6.63
0.02
10.15
Feed (mm/rev)
2
0.05128
0.05128
0.02564
0.64
0.55
0.98
TG*S(rpm)
4
0.56978
0.56978
0.14245
3.58
0.059
5.48
TG*F(mm/rev)
4
1.1906
1.1906
0.29765
7.48
0.008
11.45
S(rpm)*F(mm/rev)
4
0.08333
0.08333
0.02083
0.52
0.722
0.80
Error
8
0.31835
0.31835
0.03979
Total
26
6.35802
S = 0.199483
1.53
2.5987
R-Sq = 94.99%
R-Sq(adj) = 83.73%
The P-value from the ANOVA for delamination factor at exit (table 4) depicts that,
delamination at exit is significantly affected by tool geometry, speed, interaction among tool
geometry & feed and insignificantly affected by feed, interaction among tool geometry & speed,
interaction among speed & feed. Also, it can be found that the delamination at exit is mainly
influenced by tool geometry, subsequently influenced by interaction between tool geometry &
feed and speed. The tool geometry, interaction between tool geometry & feed and speed affect
the delamination at exit by 69.594%, 11.453% and 10.150% respectively. The adjusted R2 value
for delamination at exit (83.73%) recommends an acceptable fitting of the model.
It is also observed through interaction plot (Figure 13) among tool geometry with feed that,
increases delamination with increase feed using with end mill. Decreases delamination with
increases feed using with centre drill and parabolic drill. The reasons behind for this variation
in delamination by affecting the tool geometry profile.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
715
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
Figure 12 Main Effects Plot for DFExit
Figure 13 Interaction Plot for DFExi
6. REGRESSION ANALYSIS
In regression analysis, observed data used by a way of successive approximations are embodied
by a function. Aim of this to found out intend mathematical representations for thrust force,
delamination at entry and exit using with polynomial regression. The correlations between
drilling parameters with responses were achieved by multivariable regression analysis using
MINITAB software and empirical models found by multiple regression analysis (MRA) to
forecast thrust force (N) and delamination for drilling in HFRP after neglecting the irrelevant
parameters are given below:
Regression equation for Thrust Force (N) using with End mill, Centre drill and Parabolic
drill respectively,
𝑇𝐹 (𝑁) = 57.945 + (0.000566667 × 𝑆) + (704.308 × 𝐹) + (0.014625 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝑇𝐹 (𝑁) = 29.3676 − (0.00426708 × 𝑆) + (187.967 × 𝐹) + (0.014625 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝑇𝐹 (𝑁) = 42.4566 + (0.000565833 × 𝑆) + (137.1 × 𝐹) + (0.014625 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝑅 2 = 97.13%, 𝑅 2 (𝑎𝑑𝑗) = 95.61%, 𝑆 = 14.93 𝑅 2 (𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑) = 92.44%
Regression equation for Delamination Factor at Entry using with End mill, Centre drill and
Parabolic drill respectively,
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 = 1.0243 − (1.22396 × 10−6 × 𝑆) + (0.762158 × 𝐹) − (3.56875 × 10−5 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 = 1.10765 − (6.21312 × 10−6 × 𝑆) + (0.558758 × 𝐹) − (3.56875 × 10−5 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 = 1.09103 + (1.84677 × 10−5 × 𝑆) + (0.088541 × 𝐹) − (3.56875 × 10−5 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝑅 2 = 94.81%, 𝑅 2 (𝑎𝑑𝑗) = 92.06%, 𝑆 = 0.0132139 𝑅 2 (𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑) = 86.15%
Regression equation for Delamination Factor at Exit using with End mill, Centre drill and
Parabolic drill respectively,
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 1.84388 − (0.00015053 × 𝑆) + (4.08397 × 𝐹) − (4.75 × 10−6 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 1.57667 − (4.62167 × 10−6 × 𝑆) + (1.49003 × 𝐹) − (4.75 × 10−6 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 1.51495 + (2.11533 × 10−5 × 𝑆) − (1.17787 × 𝐹) − (4.75 × 10−6 × 𝑆𝐹)
𝑅 2 = 84.81%, 𝑅 2 (𝑎𝑑𝑗) = 76.77%, 𝑆 = 0.238329 𝑅 2 (𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑) = 64.33%
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
716
editor@iaeme.com
Investigations on Drilling of Unidirectional Hemp-Polyester Composites
7. CONCLUSIONS
The effect of tool geometry, feed and speed resulting on machining characteristics (thrust force,
DFEntry and DFExit), were analysed during drilling on HFRP using full factors, ANOVA and
regression analysis. Chief decisions from researches on drilling on HFRP are as follows:
• Tool geometry and feed are the major components of the trust force. The interaction
between tool geometry and feed, the lower feed rate (0.07mm/rev) and either centre drill
or parabolic drill tool are recommended to minimize the thrust force.
• Feed and tool geometry are major components of the delamination at exit. Interaction
among tool geometry, feed and speed, parabolic drill tool with higher speed (4800 rpm)
and medium feed (0.17 mm/rev) are suitable for lower delamination at entry.
• Tool geometry is major component for delamination at exit. Either centre drill or
parabolic drill with higher feed (0.27 mm/rev) gives lower delamination at exit.
• End mill is not suitable to drilling on HFRP because of higher thrust force and higher
delamination obtained.
• Using regression analysis in drilling of HFRP, developed empirical models are
convincingly accurate for forecasting factors examined within the limits.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Mizobuchi, A., Takagi, H., Sato, T. and Hino, J., 2008, May. Drilling machinability of resinless green composites reinforced by bamboo fiber. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on High Performance Structures and Materials (HPSM’08) (pp. 185-194).
Jayabal, S. and Natarajan, U., 2011. Drilling analysis of coir-fibre-reinforced polyester
composites. Bulletin of Materials Science, 34(7), pp.1563-1567.
Chandramohan, D. and Marimuthu, K., 2011. Drilling of natural fiber particle reinforced
polymer composite material. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and
Studies, 1(1), pp.134-145.
Naveen, P.N.E., Yasaswi, M. and Prasad, R.V., 2012. Experimental investigation of drilling
parameters on composite materials. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, 2(3), pp.30-37.
Sridharan, V. and Muthukrishnan, N., 2013. Optimization of machinability of
polyester/modified jute fabric composite using grey relational analysis (GRA). Procedia
Engineering, 64, pp.1003-1012.
Abilash, N. and Sivapragash, M., 2016. Optimizing the delamination failure in bamboo fiber
reinforced polyester composite. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering
Sciences, 28(1), pp.92-102.
Bajpai, P.K. and Singh, I., 2013. Drilling behavior of sisal fiber-reinforced polypropylene
composite laminates. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 32(20), pp.15691576.
Bajpai, P.K., Debnath, K. and Singh, I., 2017. Hole making in natural fiber-reinforced
polylactic acid laminates: an experimental investigation. Journal of Thermoplastic
Composite Materials, 30(1), pp.30-46.
Chaudhary, V. and Gohil, P.P., 2016. Investigations on drilling of bidirectional cotton
polyester composite. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 31(7), pp.960-968.
Jayabal, S., Velumani, S., Navaneethakrishnan, P. and Palanikumar, K., 2013. Mechanical
and machinability behaviors of woven coir fiber-reinforced polyester composite. Fibers and
Polymers, 14(9), pp.1505-1514.
Durão, L.M.P., Gonçalves, D.J., Tavares, J.M.R., de Albuquerque, V.H.C., Panzera, T.H.,
Silva, L.J., Vieira, A.A. and Baptista, A.P.M., 2013. Drilling delamination outcomes on
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
717
editor@iaeme.com
Patel, U., Patel, K., Gohil, P., and Chaudhary, V.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
glass and sisal reinforced plastics. In Materials Science Forum (Vol. 730, pp. 301-306).
Trans Tech Publications.
Aiman Akmal, A.N., Azmi, A.I. and Khalil, A.N.M., Investigating the Effect of Machining
Parameters on Mechanical Performance of Flax Natural Fibre Composites with Circular
Holes.
Patel, K., Chaudhary, V., Gohil, P.P. and Patel, K., 2015, April. Investigation on drilling of
banana fibre reinforced composites. In International Conference on Civil, Materials and
Environmental Sciences (CMES 2015) (Vol. 1, pp. 201-205).
Sasikumar, K.S.K., (2015). Optimization of drilling parameter on delamination based on
taguchi method in drilling of natural fiber reinforced (Agave) composite. International
Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 4, (pp.53-55).
Yallew, T.B., Kumar, P. and Singh, I., (2016). A study about hole making in woven jute
fabric-reinforced polymer composites. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 230(4), (pp.888-898).
Nasir, A.A., Azmi, A.I. and Khalil, A.N.M., (2015). Measurement and optimisation of
residual tensile strength and delamination damage of drilled flax fibre reinforced
composites. Measurement, 75, (pp.298-307).
Venkateshwaran, N. and ElayaPerumal, A., 2013. Hole quality evaluation of natural fiber
composite using image analysis technique. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, 32(16), pp.1188-1197
Azuan, S.S., 2013. Effects of drilling parameters on delamination of coconut meat husk
reinforced polyester composites. Advances in Environmental Biology, pp.1097-1101.
Babu, G.D., Babu, K.S. and Gowd, B., 2013. Optimization of machining parameters in
drilling hemp fiber reinforced composites to maximize the tensile strength using design
experiments.
Kumar, V.V., Shirisha, A. and Praveen, T., Optimization of Process Parameters in Drilling
of Natural Fibre Composite (YEPI) Materials.
Debnath, K., Singh, I. and Dvivedi, A., 2014. Drilling characteristics of sisal fiberreinforced epoxy and polypropylene composites. Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 29(11-12), pp.1401-1409.
Ramesh, M., Palanikumar, K. and Reddy, K.H., 2014. Influence of tool materials on thrust
force and delamination in drilling sisal-glass fiber reinforced polymer (S-GFRP)
composites. Procedia Materials Science, 5, pp.1915-1921.
Balaji, N.S., Jayabal, S., Kalyana Sundaram, S., Rajamuneeswaran, S. and Suresh, P.,
(2014). Delamination analysis in drilling of coir-polyester composites using design of
experiments. In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 984, pp. 185-193). Trans Tech
Publications.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
718
editor@iaeme.com