1.

ABSTRACT
In this investigation, the effect of four controllable input variables of EDM namely: peak current, pulse
on time, pulse off time and gap voltage on surface roughness (Ra), is investigated. A Box-Behnken
design matrix is used to conduct experiments on Mild Steel using Copper electrode. RSM is used on
experimental data to model the response. Analysis of variance at 95% confidence interval is performed
and significant coefficients are obtained. From the ANOVA results it is observed that peak current and
pulse on time are most significant factors. Optimization of input parameters is done to obtain minimum
Surface Roughness (SR).

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Principle of EDM

Electrical Discharge Machining is a non-traditional machining process in which the metal is removing
from the work piece due to erosion case by rapidly recurring spark discharge taking place between the
tool and work piece. There are three phases occurred in electrical discharge machining process. In the
initial phase the ignition breaks down the high voltage to low. Then the peak current increases the
energy and the material is removed from the workpiece. In the last phase, plasma channel collapses and
flushing flushes away the removed particles. In EDM the component produced is the exact replica of
the electrode. Through EDM complex shaped products are manufactured that cannot be produced by
conventional method. In this process both the workpiece and the tool have no physical contact with
each other. Both are immersed in the dielectric liquid which also act as coolant.

2.2 Machining Parameters of EDM

An important consideration in Electrical Discharge machining (EDM), like other machining operations,
is the selection of machining parameters/conditions. The important input parameters that are affecting
performance parameters in EDM are (1) Pulse ON time (2) Pulse OFF time (3) Arc gap (4) Discharge
current (5) Voltage (6) Polarity (7) Duty cycle (8) Diameter of electrode (9) Dielectric fluid

2.3 Performance Parameters of EDM

The performance of the electrical Discharge Machining is measured by the parameters as Overcut (OC),
Material Removal Rate (MRR), Tool Wear Rate (TWR) and Surface Roughness (SR).

3. LITERATURE SURVEY
Balasubramanian and Senthilvelan [1] conducted the experiments on EN8 and D3 steel materials using
Cast Copper and Sintered Powder Metallurgy Copper (P/M Copper) electrodes on EDM. He used the
RSM to analyze and optimize the input parameters. Singh and Singh [2] analysed the effect of different
materials on surface roughness. The result shows that the surface roughness increases with increasing
pulsed current and pulse time. Santoki and Ashwin [3] reviewed the development done in the EDM &
the effects of machining parameters on performance parameters with various DOE & Optimization
Techniques. Kumar, Sivakumar [4] conducted the experiments on AISI D3 steel using Taguchi’s L18
OA on EDM. The effect of input parameters including pulse on time, pulse off time, current and voltage
on the material removal rate (MRR) and surface roughness (Ra) was analysed and then optimized.
Bhaumik and Maity [5] performed the electrode discharge machining of AISI 304 stainless steel by
using the tungsten carbide electrode in order to analyse the effect of peak current, pulse on time, gap
voltage, duty cycle on surface roughness (Ra). The effect of significant process parameters on the
response has been studied. Then regression analysis is done and mathematical model is created to
describe the correlation of parameters. The result shows that the most influential parameter for surface
roughness is peak current. Pradhan and Biswas [6] designed a face centred central composite design
matrix and used it to conduct the experiments on AISI D2 tool steel with copper electrode. RSM is used
on experimental data to make the regression model. It is found that discharge current and pulse duration
are significant factors. Torres, Luis [7] studied the behaviour of input parameters of current intensity
supplied by the generator (I), duty cycle (η), pulse time (ti), and polarity on INCONEL 600 alloy using
electrical discharge machining (EDM). The experimental results confirm that positive polarity leads to
higher MRR whereas negative polarity leads to lower Ra values. Khan, Rahman [8] studied the surface
finish characteristics of the machined surface in EDM on Ti-5Al-2.5Sn titanium alloy. central
composite design is used to analyze the effects of peak current, pulse-on time, pulse-off time, servo
voltage and electrode material. The result shows that surface roughness (SR) increases with peak current
and pulse-on time and decreases with servo voltage. Besides, the effect of the process parameters on
surface roughness depends on electrode material.

4. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

4.1 Procedure
In this work, experiments are performed by electrical discharge machining on the mild steel workpiece
by copper electrode in different machining conditions. Experiments are designed in order to investigate
the effect of different input EDM parameters namely discharge current, pulse ON time, pulse OFF time
and gap voltage on the EDM output parameter of the interest namely surface roughness Ra.

4.2 Machine Tool

A Neu-ar M50 die sinking EDM machine is used. It has Heidenhain EDM controller and 9 sets
coordinate memory. It contains Built-in origin and mold centre setting function. It has the lowest
machining depth display function. And electrode consumption offset function. Also a built-in residue
proofing feature to drive out carbon residue is present. It is equipped with high precision Heidenhain
1μm linear encoder. It has durable wear-resistant Teflon Slippery track in “V shape” and “horizontal
track”. It also contains multiple fire- proof detection system.

Figure 1- Electrical Discharge Machine Model M50

4.3 Material

4.3.1 Workpiece
A square plate of Mild steel having dimensions 20*12*0.5cm was taken. This has 14.30 g/cm3 of
density, 1240 HV10 hardness, 2597°C of melting point and 420 kgf/mm2 of compressive strength.

4.3.2 Electrode
A Copper electrode of cylindrical shape with 10 mm diameter and 100 mm length under negative
polarity was axially mounted within mild steel workpiece. The properties of Cu electrode used in this
work are the following: melting point of 3500°C and density of 12.6 g/cm3.

4.4 DOE
In order to reduce the number of experiments due to limited resources, Box-Behnken design is used.
Four factors each at three levels are taken. One block is made having twenty-four factorial points and
six centre points, so the total number of experiments are 30. Design-Expert 7.0, 2005 is used to make
the randomize design. Machining was carried out to remove approximately 0.5mm from the top surface.
The different levels of factor considered for this study are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 - Factors and Levels

Level
S.No Input parameters Unit
-1 0 1

1 Peak Current 1 5 9 Amp

2 Pulse ON time 50 75 100 Microsec

3 Pulse OFF time 80 100 120 Microsec

4 Gap Voltage 40 50 60 Volts

4.5 Measurement of Response

Ra is a measure of the surface finish quality of a product. It is defined as the arithmetic value of the
profile from the centreline along the length.

After performing the machining operation, the surface roughness of each cut is measured using a
portable stylus type profilometer, Roughness measurement is done in the traverse direction on the
workpiece and the values of Ra parameter are recorded.

Table 2 - Design Matrix

Run Ip Ton Toff V Ra

1 1 50 120 40 2.39
2 1 50 80 40 2.15
 3 9 100 120 60 7.08
4 9 100 80 60 7.64
5 9 100 80 40 7.43
6 5 75 100 50 5.41
7 9 50 80 40 6.23
8 1 100 120 40 2.09
9 1 100 80 40 1.65
10 1 100 80 60 1.74
11 9 100 120 40 8.66
12 9 50 120 40 6.01
13 5 75 100 50 5.22
14 1 50 80 60 2.11
15 9 50 120 60 6.24
16 1 100 120 60 2.15
17 5 75 100 50 5.29
18 1 50 120 60 2.45
19 5 75 100 50 5.36
20 9 50 80 60 5.83
21 9 75 100 50 6.48
22 5 75 100 50 5.6
23 5 100 100 50 5.81
24 5 75 100 50 5.53
25 1 75 100 50 1.98
26 5 75 80 50 5.54
27 5 75 100 40 5.97
28 5 75 100 60 5.52
29 5 50 100 50 4.77
30 5 75 120 50 5.77

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 ANOVA
Experiments are conducted to analyze the effect of machining parameters on surface roughness. Design
Expert Software was used to find out the relationship between the input factors and the response Ra.

To decide the degree of the regression model, the R2 and R2 adjusted values are summarized in Table 3
for various models. The table shows that quadratic model is best with R2 = 99% Therefore, the quadratic
model is considered for regression analysis.

Table 3 - R2 and R2 adj test for surface roughness regression model

Source Std. Dev. R-Squared Adjusted R-
Squared
Linear 0.73 0.89 0.87
2FI 0.69 0.92 0.88
 Quadratic 0.28 0.99 0.98

Table 4 - Result of the ANOVA table for surface roughness (Before elimination)

Source Sum of Df Mean Square F Value p-value

Square
Model 117.06 14.00 8.36 103.65 0.0001
A-Peak Current 102.20 1.00 102.20 1266.89 0.0001
B-Ton 2.05 1.00 2.05 25.37 0.0001
C-Toff 0.35 1.00 0.35 4.37 0.0539
D-Gap Voltage 0.18 1.00 0.18 2.28 0.1517
AB 3.97 1.00 3.97 49.21 0.0001
AC 0.02 1.00 0.02 0.25 0.6231
AD 0.18 1.00 0.18 2.27 0.1530
BC 0.04 1.00 0.04 0.44 0.5192
BD 0.07 1.00 0.07 0.89 0.3612
CD 0.07 1.00 0.07 0.92 0.3526
A^2 3.95 1.00 3.95 48.96 0.0001
B^2 0.08 1.00 0.08 0.98 0.3380
C^2 0.09 1.00 0.09 1.16 0.2977
D^2 0.20 1.00 0.20 2.52 0.1330
Residual 1.21 15.00 0.08
Lack of Fit 1.11 10.00 0.11 5.37 0.0387
Pure Error 0.10 5.00 0.02
Cor Total 118.27 29.00

Table 4 is an ANOVA summary which shows the F and P values for different terms. The results show
that in main effects ‘Voltage’ is insignificant. Also all the quadratic terms except A2 and AB, are
insignificant. Thus, these terms are eliminated for the further analysis.

After elimination of insignificant terms, ANOVA is performed. The result of ANOVA is summarized
in Table 5. After elimination of non-significant terms, the values of R2 and R2adj are 98.1% and 97.8%,
respectively. The main and interaction effects, that are significant, are Ip, Ton, Toff, Ip2, and Ip×Ton.

Table 5 - The ANOVA table for the fitted model

Source Sum of Square Df Mean Square F Value p-value

Model 116.07 5.00 23.21 253.78 0.0001

A-Peak Current 102.20 1.00 102.20 1117.25 0.0001
B-Ton 2.05 1.00 2.05 22.38 0.0001
C- Toff 0.35 1.00 0.35 3.86 0.0612
AB 3.97 1.00 3.97 43.40 0.0001
A^2 7.50 1.00 7.50 82.03 0.0001
Residual 2.20 24.00 0.09
Lack of Fit 2.09 19.00 0.11 5.34 0.0361
 Pure Error 0.10 5.00 0.02
Cor Total 118.27 29.00

From this analysis, the simplest model obtained is stated in the following equation.

Ra = 1.605 + 0.8601*Ip – 0.0114*Ton +0.007*Toff – 0.063Ip2 +0.005*Ip*Ton

Normal probability plot of the residuals is displayed in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the residuals are almost
falling on a straight line, which indicates that the errors are normally distributed.
Design-Expert® Software Normal Plot of Residuals
Surface Roughness

Color points by value of

Surface Roughness: 99
8.66
95
1.65 90
Normal % Probability

80
70

50

30
20

10
5

-2.89 -1.35 0.20 1.74 3.28

Internally Studentized Residuals

Figure 2 - Normal probability plot of residuals

Design-Expert® Software Predicted vs. Actual

Surface Roughness
8.70
Color points by value of
Surface Roughness:
8.66

1.65 6.93
Predicted

5.15

3.38

1.60

1.65 3.40 5.15 6.91 8.66

Actual

Figure 3 - Predicted vs. experimental surface roughness

Fig. 3 depicts the comparison of experimental observations verse the predicted response values. It can
be examined that the regression model likely fits the experimental values.
 5.2 Influence of Input Parameter On Response
Figure 4 - Effect of factors on Ra
Design-Expert® Software Design-Expert® Software One Factor
One Factor
Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
Surface Roughness Warning! Factor involved in an interaction.
Surface Roughness 8.7 8.7

Design Points Design Points

X1 = A: Peak Current X1 = B: Pulse ON time

6.925 6.925

Surface Roughness
Surface Roughness

Actual Factors Actual Factors

B: Pulse ON time = 75.00 A: Peak Current = 5.00
2
C: Pulse OFF time = 100.00 C: Pulse OFF time = 100.00
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00 D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
5.15 5.15

3.375 3.375

1.6 1.6

1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 50.00 62.50 75.00 87.50 100.00

A: Peak Current B: Pulse ON time

Design-Expert® Software One Factor
Surface Roughness 8.7

Design Points

X1 = C: Pulse OFF time

6.925
Surface Roughness

Actual Factors
A: Peak Current = 5.00
B: Pulse ON time = 75.00
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
5.15

3.375

1.6

80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00

C: Pulse OFF time

Fig. 4 depicts the plots of main effects on Ra. The plot shows that peak current is the most influential
factor. As the peak current increases the surface roughness increases rapidly. Also with the increase in
Ton, Ra also increases. Trend for Toff is same i.e. Ra increases with the increase in Toff.

5.3 Model Graph

Fig. 5 represents contour plot and response surface for Surface Roughness in relation to input
parameters of peak current and pulse ON time. It can be concluded that the at any value of Ton, the Ra
increases rapidly with the increase in Ip. Hence, in order to obtain minimum Ra, peak current should be
at low level (1A) and pulse on time on (50μs).

Fig. 6, depicts the contour plot and response surface for Ra in relation to Ip and Toff, where Ton remains
constant at the level of 75μs. It can be seen that, when Ip increases Ra also increases. However, Ra
drops slowly decreases with the increase in Toff at lower Ip, and at higher Ip Ra increases with Toff.
However, the influence of Toff on Ra is very low as compared to Ip and Ton.
 Figure 5 - Contour & Response surface plot depicting the effect of Ip and Ton on Ra
Design-Expert® Software
Design-Expert® Software Surface Roughness
Surface Roughness
100.00
Surface Roughness 8.66
Design Points
8.66 1.65
7.7
1.65 87.50 X1 = A: Peak Current
X2 = B: Pulse ON time
6.71949

Surface Roughness
6.25
B: Pulse ON time

X1 = A: Peak Current Actual Factors

X2 = B: Pulse ON time C: Pulse OFF time = 100.00
2.87829 4.8
3.83859 4.79889
75.00 6 D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
5.75919
Actual Factors
C: Pulse OFF time = 100.00
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00 3.35

62.50 1.9

100.00 9.00

50.00 87.50 7.00

1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 75.00 5.00
62.50 3.00
B: Pulse ON time A: Peak Current
A: Peak Current 50.00 1.00

Figure 6 - Contour & Response surface plot depicting the effect of Ip and Toff on Ra
Design-Expert® Software
Design-Expert® Software Surface Roughness
120.00
Surface Roughness
Surface Roughness
Design Points 8.66
8.66
1.65
1.65 110.00 7
X1 = A: Peak Current
C: Pulse OFF time

X2 = C: Pulse OFF time

Surface Roughness

X1 = A: Peak Current 5.725

X2 = C: Pulse OFF time Actual Factors
2.74419 6.10789
100.00
3.585124.42604 5.26697
6 B: Pulse ON time = 75.00
Actual Factors 4.45
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
B: Pulse ON time = 75.00
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
3.175

90.00
1.9

120.00 9.00
80.00
110.00 7.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
100.00 5.00

A: Peak Current C: Pulse OFF time90.00 3.00

A: Peak Current
80.00 1.00

Figure 7 - Contour & Response surface plot depicting the effect of Ton and Toff on Ra
Design-Expert® Software
Design-Expert® Software Surface Roughness Surface Roughness
120.00
Surface Roughness
8.66
Design Points
8.66 1.65
6.1
5.84752
1.65 110.00 X1 = B: Pulse ON time
X2 = C: Pulse OFF time
Surface Roughness

5.75
C: Pulse OFF time

X1 = B: Pulse ON time Actual Factors

X2 = C: Pulse OFF time 5.68845
A: Peak Current = 5.00 5.4
100.00
5.3703 6 5.52938 D: Gap Voltage = 50.00
Actual Factors
A: Peak Current = 5.00 5.21123
5.05
D: Gap Voltage = 50.00

90.00 4.7

120.00 100.00
110.00 87.50
80.00
100.00 75.00
50.00 62.50 75.00 87.50 100.00

C: Pulse OFF time90.00 62.50

B: Pulse ON time
80.00 50.00
B: Pulse ON time
Finally, Fig.7 depicts the contour plot and response surface for Ra in relation to Ton and Toff, where
Ip remains constant at the level of 5 A. From these plots, it can be concluded for the given range of
experiments conducted for this test, that peak current and pulse ON time are directly proportional to the
Ra and for pulse OFF time the effect is very less as compared to the other parameters.

6. OPTIMIZATION
EDM is a useful and valuable tool tom make complex shape parts that cannot be machined by traditional
machining processes. In order to increase the quality and rate of production, the process parameters
have to be optimised. Also, especially in case of EDM, it is very essential to optimize the input
parameters to yield minimum SR. In single objective optimization only one solution has been obtained.
it has been observed that low Peak current, low Pulse on time, low pulse off time and marginal Voltage
gives minimum Surface roughness.

Table 6 - Optimization Table

S. No Input /output Optimized Units

Parameters value

1 Peak current 1 Amps

2 Pulse on time 100 Microsec

3 Pulse off time 80 Kg/Cm2

4 Voltage 56 V

5 Surface Roughness 1.77801 μm

7. CONCLUSION
In this study the effect of most significant input parameters of EDM on the surface roughness has been
studied for Mild steel. A Box-Behnken design with factors of discharge current, pulse on time pulse off
time and gape voltage, is used for experimentation. The ranges of these parameters are chose from the
literature review. Using the Response Surface Methodology (RSM), the regression mode (quadratic) is
formed using the Design-Expert 7.0 software.

The analysis shows that the output response is significantly affected by the input parameters of
discharge current, pulse on time, pulse off time and gap voltage with 95% confidence interval. The
results also reveal that the value of discharge current, pulse on time and pulse off time should be set as
low as possible, in order to get a good surface finish on mild steel. For the best setting of Ra, the
discharge current of 1 A, pulse on time of 100μs and off time should be 50μs, which yields the best
value Ra of 1.778μm. The regression model developed for surface roughness can be effectively used
for the optimal selection of input parameters in EDM to achieve good surface finish for Mild steel
workpiece. These findings will be helpful to manufacturing engineers in selecting the appropriate
parametric combinations for EDM processes to accomplish desired levels of Ra.
REFERENCES

1. Balasubramanian, P. and T. Senthilvelan, Optimization of machining parameters in

EDM process using cast and sintered copper electrodes. Procedia Materials Science,
2014. 6: p. 1292-1302.
2. Singh, H. and E. Singh, Examination of Surface Roughness Using Different Machining
Parameter in EDM. 2012.
3. Santoki, P.N. and P. Ashwin, A review–status of recent developments and effect of
machining parameters on performance parameters in EDM. Int. J. Innov. Emerg. Res.
Eng, 2015. 2(1): p. 32-41.
4. Kumar, M.S., et al., ’Parameters Optimisation of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining
on AISI D3 Steel with Different Thickness’. International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, 2015. 10(62): p. 2015.
5. Bhaumik, M. and K. Maity, Effect of machining parameter on the surface roughness of
AISI 304 in silicon carbide powder mixed EDM. Decision Science Letters, 2017. 6(3):
p. 261-268.
6. Pradhan, M. and C. Biswas, Effect of process parameters on surface roughness in EDM
of tool steel by response surface methodology. International Journal of Precision
Technology, 2011. 2(1): p. 64-80.
7. Torres, A., C. Luis, and I. Puertas, Analysis of the influence of EDM parameters on
surface finish, material removal rate, and electrode wear of an INCONEL 600 alloy.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2015. 80(1-4): p.
123-140.
8. Khan, M.A.R., M. Rahman, and K. Kadirgama, An experimental investigation on
surface finish in die-sinking EDM of Ti-5Al-2.5 Sn. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2015. 77(9-12): p. 1727-1740.