ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012

Electric Discharge Machining Of Al 7075/10%Sic Metal Matrix Composite By Applying Response surface Method
S. Gopalakannan, T. Senthilvelan, and K. Kalaichelvan

Abstract The newly engineered metal matrix composite (MMC)

of aluminium 7075 reinforced with 10 wt% of SiC particles were prepared by stir casting method. Electrical discharge machining (EDM) was employed to machine MMC with copper electrode. The experiment plan adopts face centered central composite design of response surface methodology. Analysis of variance was applied to investigate the influence of process parameters and their interactions viz., pulse current, gap voltage, pulse on time and pulse off time on material removal rate (MRR), electrode wear ratio (EWR) and surface roughness (SR). The objective was to identify the significant process parameters that affect the output characteristics. Further a mathematical model has been formulated by applying response surface method in order to estimate the machining characteristics such as MRR, EWR and SR.

Keywords EDM, metal matrix composite, RSM, ANOVA I. INTRODUCTION

LUMINIUM Metal Matrix Composites (MMCs) are one of

the recent advanced materials having the properties of light weight, high specific strength, good wear resistance and a low thermal expansion coefficient. These composite materials are extensively used in structural, aerospace and automotive industries. The applications of existing Aluminium Silicon Carbide MMCs are limited because of their poor machinability which results in poor surface finish and excessive tool wear. MMCs are composed of metallic base material called matrix, which is reinforced with a hard ceramic reinforcement [1] [3]. Due to possession of higher hardness and reinforcement strength, composite materials are difficult to be machined by traditional techniques. Hence Electrical discharge machining (EDM) process becomes viable method to these kinds of composite materials. Since the EDM process does not involve mechanical energy, the material removal rate is not influenced by the material properties like hardness, strength, toughness etc. Materials with poor machinability

such as cemented tungsten carbide and composites can also be processed without much difficulty by the EDM process [4][5]. Several investigations into the machining aspects of EDM on MMCs with only single particulate reinforcement have been carried out and reported. George et. al investigated the carbon- carbon composites considering three parameters at two levels and reported that pulse current and pulse on time are significant for EWR and MRR [6]. The effect of percentage volume of SiC and other machining characteristics were studied while machining Al-SiC, and concluded that increase in SiC decreases the MRR, where as increases EWR and SR [7]-[8].The effect of rotation of electrode on EDM of Al-SiC and Al- Al2O3 composites yielded positive effect on MRR, EWR and SR [9]-[10]. Harmesh Kumar and Paulo Davim have carried out an experimental study on the machining parameters in powder mixed electric discharge machining of Al-10%SiC MMC. They mixed silicon powder into the dielectric fluid and reported that the addition of silicon powder into the dielectric fluid of EDM increases MRR and decreases SR [11]. The present work is envisaged to develop a mathematical model and analyze the effects of EDM parameters on the performance characteristics of MMNC using response surface methodology (RSM). Accordingly, the quantitative mathematical models have been carried out to study influence of pulse current (Ip), voltage (Vg), pulse on time (Ton) and pulse off time (Toff) on the material removal rate (MRR), electrode wear rate (EWR) and surface roughness (SR) by using RSM [12].

II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS A. Work Material and Ceramic Reinforcement The material used in the present investigation consists of Aluminium 7075 (Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy) is used as the base matrix alloy. Its chemical composition (%) is Si = 0.2, Fe = 0.22, Cu = 2.0 max, Mn = 0.1, Mg = 2.1-2.9, Zn = 5.1-6.1, Ti = 0.1 max, Cr = 0.2, and balance as Al. It is a very high strength material used for highly stressed structural parts. The applications of Al 7075 are Aircraft fittings, gears and shafts, fuse parts, meter shafts and gears, missile parts, regulating valve parts, worm gears, keys, aircraft, aerospace and defense applications; bike frames, all terrain vehicle (ATV). 8

S. Gopalakannan is a Full time Research Scholar in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry605014, INDIA (Mobile: 9944949026, fax: 0413-2655101303; e-mail: gopalakannans@yahoo.com). T. Senthilvelan, Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, INDIA (e-mail: tsenthilelan@hotmail.com ). K. Kalaichelvan, Associate Professor, Department of Production Technology, Madras Institute of Technology, Anna University, Chennai, INDIA (e-mail: kkalaimit@yahoo.com ).

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012 Aluminium-zinc-magnesium alloys have a greater response to heat treatment than the binary aluminium-zinc alloys resulting in higher possible strengths. It possesses high heat dissipation capacity due to its high thermal conductivity and is suitable for high strength and high temperature applications. Silicon carbide (SiC) has excellent high-temperature strength, a very high oxidation ability and good chemical resistance. Its thermal conductivity is four times that of steel and it has low thermal expansion co efficient, hence it is preferred for high temperature heat exchangers. B. Preparation of MMC by stir casting method and its Mechanical Properties The aluminium matrix was reinforced with 10wt% of SiCp with an average particle size of 25 microns. The composites were cast using stir casting technique as it ensures uniform distribution of the reinforcements [13]. The SEM micrograph of MMC shows the uniform dispersion of the SiCp particles is given in Fig. 1. C. Design of Experiments Response surface methodology (RSM) is an interaction of mathematical and statistical techniques for modeling and optimizing the response variables which incorporates quantitative independent variables. The behavior of the system is explained by the following second order polynomial regression model also called a quadratic model. The coefficients of regression model can be estimated from the experimental results by Design Expert 8.0.6 software. (1) In the present study the experiments were designed on the basis of the central composite design (CCD) technique. The factorial portion of CCD is a full factorial design with all combination of the factors at two levels (high, +1, and low, -1) and composed of eight star points, and six central points (coded level 0), which is the midpoint between the high and low levels, corresponds to an value of 1. The face-centered CCD involves 30 experimental observations at four independent input variables. The Table 1 shows both the coded and actual values of the four machining parameters and their possible ranges [14]. The experimental layout that was adopted in this study in the actual form is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 1 MACHINING PARAMETERS AND THEIR LEVELS Labels Parameters Voltage(V) volt Pulse current(Ip) Amps Pulse on time(Ton) s Pulse off time(Ton) s -1 40 6 4 5 LEVELS 0 +1 50 10 6 7 60 14 8 9

SiC particles

A B C

Fig. 1 SEM micrograph showing the SiC particle distribution

From the cast MMC the standard tensile specimens were prepared by machining as per dimensions of ASTM E8. To obtain mechanical properties, specimens with overall length 100 mm, thickness of 6 mm and a gauge length of 25 mm were tested in UNITEK - 94100 universal testing machine which gives an ultimate tensile strength of 132 MN/mm2 and yield strength of 114MN/mm2. The hardness of the samples was measured using a UHL Vickers micro hardness measuring machine by applying a load of 0.5kg and this load was applied for 20 seconds yielded 102 HV. In order to eliminate the possibility of error a minimum of five hardness readings were taken for each sample.

D. Experimental Procedure A series of experiments were performed on a die-sinking EDM of type Grace D-6030S based on Table 2. The work materials of size diameter 20mm and thickness 30 mm, and electrolytic copper electrode of 10 mm diameter was used. The circular electrode is preferred over the other shapes of electrodes, provides higher MRR and lower EWR [15]. Commercial grade kerosene was employed as the dielectric fluid and impulse jet flushing system was used to flush away the eroded materials from the sparking zone. The machining is done for 20 minutes for all experiments. The material removal rate and electrode wear values have been calculated by weight difference of the workpiece and electrode material before and after the machining using a digital weighing scale of 0.001 gram precision. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 2 ASTM E8 standard tensile specimen

The machining performance criteria selected for this study were based on performance characteristics such as material 9

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012 removal rate (MRR), electrode wear rate (EWR) and surface roughness (SR) [16]. MRR = (wjb-wja) / t (2) increases [4]. The surface roughness measurements for the machined surface are performed with a Kosaka Surfcoder SE 1200. A. Mathematical model for MRR, EWR and SR. The fit summary recommended that the quadratic model is statistically significant for analysis of MRR and SR and linear model for EWR. The results of quadratic and linear models are given in ANOVA Table 4, TABLE 5 and Table 6 respectively.
Exp. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TABLE 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Response 1 Response 3 Response 3 MRR (g/min) EWR (g/min) SR (m) 0.29 1.047 0.795 0.329 1.046 0.1622 0.484 1.178 0.8175 0.0854 0.3682 0.738 0.3521 0.3621 0.0866 0.342 0.372 0.292 0.598 0.0918 0.361 0.1165 0.478 0.354 0.157 0.369 0.165 0.142 0.376 0.3192 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.013 0.011 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.014 0.008 0.008 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.012 0.004 0.012 0.003 0.010 0.008 0.004 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.006 6.245 14.322 7.545 14.717 9.149 9.577 16.758 10.389 12.196 6.301 18.214 21.324 10.325 13.608 6.753 12.485 14.867 9.04 14.514 7.647 15.845 10.168 11.728 16.243 11.558 15.851 10.008 13.289 12.512 12.629

Where wjb and wja are weights of the work piece before and after machining, and the machining time. Electrode wear (EW) is expressed as the ratio of difference of weight of the tool electrode before and after machining to the machining time. EW = (web-wea) / t (3)

Where web and wea are weights of the tool electrode before and after machining, and the machining time.
TABLE 2 EXPERIMENTAL LAYOUT Current Pulse on (B) Time (C) 6 6 10 10 6 14 14 6 10 6 10 6 10 10 14 10 10 6 14 6 14 14 14 10 6 10 14 6 10 10 4 8 4 6 6 4 8 8 6 4 6 8 6 8 4 6 6 4 8 4 8 4 6 6 8 6 4 8 6 6

Exp. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Voltage (A) 40 60 50 50 50 60 40 40 50 40 60 60 50 50 40 50 50 60 60 60 40 60 50 50 60 50 40 40 50 40

Pulse off Time (D) 9 9 7 7 7 5 9 9 9 5 7 9 7 7 9 7 7 9 5 5 5 9 7 7 5 7 5 5 5 7

The material removal rate and electrode wear values have been calculated by weight difference of the work material and the electrode before and after machining using a digital weighing scale and recorded. The average surface roughness value Ra (m) was chosen to assess the surface finish quality. The surface of material generated using EDM is composed of many microscopic craters associated with random spark discharge between the electrodes. The size of craters produced mainly on the work piece surface depends mainly upon the energy of the discharge. As more energetic pulses usually lead to a higher material removal, so a deeper cavity was formed. As the cavity depth increases the roughness value also

When the R2 approaches unity, the better the response model fits the actual data. It exists the less the difference between the predicted and actual data. Further the value of adequate precision (AP) in this model, which compares the range of the predicted value at the design point to the average prediction error, is well above 4. The values obtained are as follows: R2 = 0.9765and AP= 42.262 for MRR; R2 = 0.9365 and AP= 36.436 for EWR; R2 = 0.8865 and AP= 22.093 for SR. The backward elimination process eliminates the insignificant terms to adjust the fitted quadratic models. These insignificant model terms can be removed and the test of lack of fit displays not significant as it is desired. The final response equations for MRR, EWR and SR are: Material Removal Rate (MRR) In Coded Terms: MRR =+0.46-0.029* B+0.044* C+0.068* D-0.11* B * C(4) 0.17* B * D+0.13* C * D-0.29* B2+0.23 * C2 In Actual Factors: 10

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012 MRR =+0.45604-0.028717* Current+0.044039* Ton+0.068283* Toff-0.10618* Current * Ton-0.17487 * Current * Toff +0.13429* Ton * Toff-0.28971* (5) Current2+0.23379* Ton2
TABLE 4 ANNOVA TABLE FOR MRR SOURCE Model Residual Lack of Fit Pure Error Cor Total Std. Dev. Mean C.V. % PRESS SS 1.39 1.20 0.91 0.28 2.58 0.24 0.42 56.51 2.44 DF 8 21 16 5 29 MS 0.17 0.057 0.057 0.057 F Value 3.04 1.01 0.5461 Not significant Prob

Surface Roughness: In Coded Terms: SR =+13.01-0.28* A+0.82* B+1.52 * C+0.59* D-1.21*A* (8) D+1.42* B * C-1.17* B * D+4.55* A2-5.91*D2 In Actual Factors: SR=+13.01098-0.27933*Voltage+0.81656*Current+1.51839* Ton+0.59122* Toff-1.20669* Voltage * Toff +1.42281* Current*Ton-1.17219*Current*Toff+4.54560*Voltage25.90740* Toff2 (9) B. Effect of Process Parameters on MRR The discharge energy was normally smaller when the pulse current was smaller, hence the smaller discharge energy delivered into the machining zone was associated with a lower MRR therefore the machined cavity was shallower and the debris was more easily expelled from the machining zone. In contrast higher the peak current higher the discharge energy, therefore deeper cavity was formed. However the cavity depth increases the debris normally became harder to expel from the machining zone [17]. This disturbs the electrical discharge and causes short-circuit, results in low MRR. Hence optimal value of pulse current is necessary to achieve maximum MRR. The experimental results for MRR, EWR and SR are given in Table 3.

R-Squared Adj R-Squared Pred R-Squared Adeq Precision

0.9765 0.9399 0.8534 42.262

TABLE 5 ANNOVA TABLE FOR EWR SOURCE Model Residual Lack of Fit Pure Error Cor Total Std. Dev. Mean C.V. % PRESS SS 1.39 1.20 0.91 0.28 2.58 DF 8 21 16 5 29 MS 0.17 0.057 0.057 0.057 F Value 3.04 1.01 0.5461 Not significant Prob

1.482E-003 60767E-003 21.91 9.34E-005

R-Squared Adj R-Squared Pred R-Squared Adeq Precision

0.9365 0.8159 0.7634 36.436

TABLE 6 ANNOVA TABLE FOR SR SOURCE Model Residual Lack of Fit Pure Error Cor Total Std. Dev. Mean C.V. % PRESS SS 1.39 1.20 0.91 0.28 2.58 DF 8 21 16 5 29 MS 0.17 0.057 0.057 0.057 F Value 3.04 1.01 0.5461 Not significant Prob

Fig. 3(a)
2.60 1.29 21.32 306.74 R-Squared Adj R-Squared Pred R-Squared Adeq Precision 0.8865 0.8199 0.7253 22.093

Electrode wear rate: In Coded Terms: EWR= + 6.767E-003 + 3.111E-003*B + 1.778E-003*C 1.222E-003*D + 1.062E-003* B*C + 1.188E-003*C*D (6) In Actual Factors: EWR = + 0.018371 - 1.90972E-005*Current - 2.51736E003*Ton-2.39236E-003*Toff+1.32812E004*Current*Ton+2.96875E-004*Ton*Toff (7)

Figure 3 shows the estimated response surface for MRR in relation to the design parameters of pulse current, pulse on time and pulse off time. As can be seen from the Fig. 3(a) the MRR increases considerably with increase in pulse current and pulse on time, similarly for pulse off time as well shown in Fig 3(b). However the MRR increases with respect to pulse current for any value of voltage. This is due to their dominant control over the input energy [18]. Thus the voltage is an insignificant parameter for MRR whereas Ton and Toff are significant parameters.

11

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012

Fig. 4(a) Fig.

Fig. 4(b) 3(b) Fig. 3 (c) Fig. 3 (a), (b) and (c) shows the response of Current, Ton and Toff on MRR

C. Effect of Process Parameters on EWR The wear of tool electrode is a dynamic process which is simultaneously influenced by different parameters with varying input values. While electrical discharges erode materials from both the tool electrode and work piece, the cracked carbon from the dielectric fluid may be deposited on the surface of tool electrode which protects them from further erosion. Generally longer pulse duration, lower pulse current and pulse off time tends to increase the possibility of carbon deposition on the electrode surface, which helps to minimize the electrode wear [19]. The estimated response surface for EWR in relation to the design parameters of pulse current, pulse on time and pulse off time is shown in Figure 5. As can be seen from the Fig. 5(a), the EWR increases considerably with increase in pulse current and pulse on time. The EWR is more at higher value of Ton and T off, whereas the EWR increases with respect to pulse current for any value of voltage. Thus the voltage is an insignificant parameter for EWR whereas Ton and Toff are significant parameters [20].

Fig. 4(c) Fig. 4 (a), (b) and (c) shows the response of Voltage, Current, Ton and Toff on EWR.

D. Effect of Process Parameters on SR In case of surface roughness, the most influencing parameters are pulse current, pulse on time. When any one of

12

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012

and Toff on EWR.

this parameter is increased, it enhances the surface roughness value. The high energy pulse produces crater on the machined surface which leads to poor surface finish quality. The estimated response surface for SR in relation to the design parameters of pulse off time and voltage is shown in Fig. 5 (a), pulse current and pulse on time in Fig. 5(b). As can be seen from this figure, the SR tends to increase as the pulse current increases, where as with voltage it increases up to 50 volt and then decreases. The SR also increases with increase in pulse on time. This is due to their dominant control over the input energy.

IV. MULTI RESPONSE OPTIMIZATION OF THE PROCESS Selection of the optimal machining parameter combination for achieving improved process performance, e.g., material removal rate, electrode wear rate and surface roughness, is a challenging task in EDM operation due to the presence of a large number of process variables and complicated stochastic process mechanism. Derringer and Suich [14] describes a multiple response method called desirability. It is an attractive method for industry for optimization of multiple quality characteristics problems. The method makes use of an objective function D(X), called the desirability function (Utility transfer function) and transform an estimated response into a scale-free value (di) called desirability. The desirable range are from 0 to 1 (least to most desirable, respectively). A value of 1 represents the ideal case; 0 indicates that one or more responses are outside their acceptable limits. Composite desirability is the weighted geometric mean of the individual desirability for the responses. The factor settings with maximum total desirability are considered to be the optimal parameter conditions. The simultaneous objective function is a geometric mean of all transformed responses [21]. This combination has been evaluated with the help of Design Expert Software. Three responses i.e., MRR, EWR, and SR, have been optimized simultaneously using developed models, i.e., Eqs. 4-9, based on composite desirability optimization technique. In multi-response optimization, a measure of how the solution has satisfied the combined goals for all responses must be assured. The optimality solution is to evaluate the input process parameters in experiment range for maximizing MRR and minimizing both EWR and SR. The numeric values of constraints, optimum values of input parameters, and the predicted values of responses under these conditions are presented tables 7 and 8. Once the optimal level of the process parameters is selected, the final step is to predict and verify the improvement of the performance characteristics using the optimal level of the machining parameters. Experiment was performed to machine and verify the EDM at the above optimal input parameter setting for MRR, EWR and SR compared with optimal response value. Table 8 shows the age of error percent for experimental validation of the developed models for the responses with optimal parametric setting during EDM. From the analysis of Table 8, it can be observed that the error

Fig. 5(a)

Fig. 5(b)

Fig. 5(c) Fig. 5 (a), (b) and (c) shows the response of Voltage, Current, Ton

13

ICAMB 2012, Jan 9-11, 2012 calculated is small. Obviously, this confirms excellent reproducibility of the experiment conclusions.
TABLE 7 CONSTRAINT OF INPUT PARAMETERS AND OPTIMUM VALUES Parameter Voltage (V) Pulse Current (Amps) Pulse on time (Ton) Pulse off time(Toff) Goal In range In range In range In range Optimum value 47.34 6.00 8.00 8.97 [3] Garg RK, Singh KK, Anish Sachdeva., Vishal S. Sharma., Kuldeep Ojha., Sharanjit Singh., (2010) Review of research work in sinking EDM and WEDM on metal matrix composite materials. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(5-8):799-809. [4] Lauwers B, Kruth JP, Liu W, Eeraerts W, Schact B, Bleys P (2004) Investigation of material removal mechanisms in EDM of composite ceramic materials. J Mater Process Technol 149: 347-352. [5] Amir Abdullah, Mohammad R, Shabgard A Ivanov, Mohammad T, Shervanyi Tabar, (2009) Effect of ultrasonic-assisted EDM on the surface integrity of cemented tungsten carbide(WC-Co). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:268-280. [6] George PM, Ragunath BK, Manocha LM, Ashish M Warrier, (2004) EDM machining of carbon-carbon composite-a Taguchi approach. J Mater Process Technol 147: 66-71. [7] Narendar Singh P, Raghukandan K, Rathinasabapathi M, Pai B.C, (2004) Electric discharge machining of Al-10%SiCp as-cast metal matrix composites. J Mater Process Technol 156-157: 1653-1657. [8] Mohan B, Rajadurai A, Satyanarayana KG, (2004) Electric discharge machining of Al-SiC metal matrix composites using rotary tube electrode. J Mater Process Technol 153-154: 978-985. [9] Che Chung Wang, Biing Hwa Yan, (2000) Blind-hole drilling of Al2O3 Al composite using rotary electro-discharge machining. J Mater Process Technol 102: 90-102. [10] Mohan B, Rajadurai A, Satyanarayana K.G, (2002) Effect of SiC and rotation on electric discharge machining of Al-SiC composite. J Mater Process Technol 124: 297-304. [11] Harmesh Kumar, Paulo Davim J, (2011) Role of Powder in the Machining of Al-10% SiCp Metal Matrix Composites by Powder Mixed Electric Discharge Machining. J Comp Mater 45(2):133-151. [12] Kao JY, Tsao CC, Wang SS, Hsu CY, (2010) Optimization of EDM process parameters on machining Ti-6Al-4V with multiple quality characteristics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 47:395-402. [13] Hashim J, Looney L, Hashmi MSJ, (1999) Metal matrix composites: production by stir casting method. J Mater Process Technol 92-93: 1-7. [14] Taweel TA and Gouda SA. Performance analysis of wire electrochemical turning process-RSM approach, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 2010; 46:1035-1042. [15] Sohani MS, Gaitonde VN, Siddeswarappa B, Deshpande AS, (2009) Investigations into the effect of tool shapes with size factor consideration in sink electrical discharge machining (EDM) process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45:1131-1145. [16] Sushant Dhar, Rajesh Purohit, Nishant Saini, Akhil Sharma, Hemath Kumar G, (2007) Mathematical modelling of electric discharge machining of cast Al-4Cu-6Si alloy-10wt% SiCp composites. J Mater Process Technol 194:24-29. [17] Mahdavinejad RA, Mahdavinejad A, (2005) ED machining of WC-Co. J Mater Process Technol 162-163:637-643. [18] Chiang KT. Modelling and analysis of the effects of machining parameters on the performance characteristics in EDM process of Al2O3+TiC mixed ceramic, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 2008; 37:523533. [19] Puertas I, Luis CJ, (2004) A study of electric discharge machining of conductive ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 153-154: 1033-1038. [20] Kansal HK Singh S and Kumar P. Parametric optimization of powder mixed electrical discharge machining by response surface methodology, J Mater Process Technol, 2005; 169: 427-436. [21] Taweel TA. Multi-response optimization of EDM with Al-Cu-Si-TiC P/M composite electrode, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 2009; 44:100-113.

TABLE 8 PREDICTED AND OBSERVED OPTIMUM VALUES OF RESPONSES Response MRR(g/min) EWR(g/min) SR(m) Goal Maximize Minimize Minimize Predicted 1.26554 0.00149949 9.91344 Observed 1.196 0.001575 10.648 Error (%) 5.9 -3.5 -6.9

V. CONCLUSION In this study, the MRR, EWR and SR in EDM process of Al 7075/10% SiC using copper electrode were modeled analyzed and optimized through RSM. Summarizing the main features, the following conclusions could be drawn: 1. The predicted values match the experimental values reasonably well with R2 of MRR, EWR and SR. 2. Pulse current was found to be the most important factor affecting all the tree output parameters MRR, EWR and SR. 3. The main significant factors that affect the MRR are pulse current, pulse on time and pulse off time whereas voltage remains insignificant. The pulse current and pulse on time have statistical significance on both EWR and SR. 4. The higher pulse off time offers lower the EWR value. On contrary, the EWR increases with increase in pulse current and pulse on time for any value of voltage. 5. The value SR increases with increase in pulse current and pulse on time, whereas in voltage is concerned SR increases up to 50 volt and then decreases with a further increase in voltage. 6. The optimum parameter of combination setting is Voltage 47.34 Volt, Pulse current 6.00 Amps, Pulse on time 8.00s and pulse off time 8.97s for maximizing MRR, minimizing EWR and SR. REFERENCES
[1] K. H. Ho, S. T. Newman, State of the art electrical discharge machining (EDM). Int J Mach Tool Manuf, 2003, 43, pp1287-1300. [2] Mohd Abbas N, Solomon DG, Faud Bahari Md, (2006) A review on current research trends in electric discharge machining. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47:1214-1228.

14