Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-02518-9

TECHNICAL PAPER

Multi‑objective optimization of drilling EDM process parameters

of LM13 Al alloy–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite using RSM
Arunbharathi Ramaswamy1 · Ashoka Varthanan Perumal1

Received: 11 January 2020 / Accepted: 20 July 2020

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2020

Abstract
In this study, a newly engineered stir-cast LM13 aluminium alloy-based hybrid composite (5 wt% of TiC and 10 wt% of
­ZrB2) is used as workpiece and its machinability investigation is carried out using EDM (electric discharge machining)
drilling route with copper electrode. During experimentation, the process variables, namely current (I), pulse on-time (Ton)
and pulse off-time (Toff), are varied and the output performance characteristics, viz. material removal rate (MRR), electrode
wear rate (EWR) and dimensional accuracy, i.e. overcut (OC), are measured. The series of experiments (20 runs) are for-
mulated through the adoption of response surface methodology (RSM)-based full-factorial central composite design. To
recognize the correlation between the process variables and performance characteristics, a mathematical model is developed
for each response. Subsequently, adequacy of the proposed models is verified using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Moreo-
ver, ANOVA is employed to identify the significantly influencing process parameters over the performance characteristics.
From the analysis of results, it is inferred that the current has the most dominant effect on MRR and EWR, whereas OC is
highly influenced by Ton. Composite desirability function approach of RSM is utilized to find the optimum set of process
parameters in order to satisfy the desired multi-performance characteristics (such as maximizing MRR, minimizing EWR
and OC) for obtaining effective holes on hybrid LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite. Finally, optimized results are validated
with the experimental results to determine the competence of adopted desirability approach.

Keywords  LM13 aluminium alloy · Hybrid composite · Drilling EDM · RSM · Overcut

1 Introduction performances at high temperatures. These excellent proper-

Most of the industries are looking towards new materials
possessing excellent properties such as high strength, tough-
ness, low density, good wear and fatigue resistance. This
elicited the development of conventional single-reinforce-
ment composites to a new class of composite called hybrid
composites in the last decade. In hybrid composites, two or
more reinforcements exist in the base alloy and hence they
are found to have superior mechanical and tribological prop-
erties than single-reinforcement composites [1]. Aluminium
alloy with ceramic reinforcements is highly preferred over
conventional alloys due to its better mechanical and wear
Technical Editor: Lincoln Cardoso Brandao.
* Arunbharathi Ramaswamy
arunpsg09@gmail.com
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Krishna College
of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore 641008, India
ties indeed made them to have extensive applications in the
field of automobile for making components including engine
blocks, disk brakes, pistons, connecting rod, cylinder liner,
drive shaft, etc. [2]. In this work, LM13 aluminium alloy
is selected as matrix material and the major constituent of
10–12% Si in the matrix offers high strength and wear prop-
erties over pure aluminium and it is highly used for making
pistons in automobile sector [3].
Particles-embedded metal matrix composites (MMCs)
strongly rely on the type of reinforcement and its volume
fraction. The most widely used reinforcements such as
SiC, ­B4C, TiC, A­ l2O3 and Z ­ rB2 enhance the properties of
base alloy. Among them, Z ­ rB2 and TiC have received many
researchers’ attention because of their special mechanical
and other properties such as high hardness, low density,
good wear resistance, high electrical conductivity, excellent
wettability and chemical stability. Also, Z
­ rB2 was used as a
promising material in high-temperature applications due to
its high melting point [4, 5]. These benefits of Z
­ rB2 and TiC

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 432   Page 2 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
provoked to consider in this work as suitable reinforcements
for enhancing the properties of LM13 Al alloy. Even though
various fabrication methods are accessible for engineering
particles-reinforced MMCs, there are few limitations such as
high fabrication costs, less production run and poor spread
of strengthening phases in the matrix, in which most eco-
nomical and a suitable method for mass production and near
net-shape components can be obtained through stir casting
technique. Also, good dispersion of reinforcement in the
matrix can be achieved through mechanical stirring action
adopted in stir casting route [6, 7].
The potential applications of MMCs are hindered by their
poor machinability due to the presence of hard and abra-
sive reinforcements. During conventional machining such
as turning, milling and drilling, the hard- and high-strength
reinforcement particle causes high tool wear. This, in turn,
leads to produce components with undesired surface qual-
ity and higher machining cost. Therefore, production of
complex shapes with high-dimensional accuracy is a chal-
lenging task using conventional machining in MMCs [8,
9]. Particularly, when macro- or micro-size holes of high
aspect ratio are machined in aluminium-based composites
using conventional twist drilling method, breakage of drill
bit occurs due to low rigidity. The complexity in evacuating
the broken drill tool from the smaller holes substantially
reduces the machining efficiency. Drilling of holes in any
component is considered as the most significant machining
operation. This is because in various engineering applica-
tions small-size holes are needed for specific functions and
also to reduce the overall weight of the product [10].
Many researchers have used various nonconventional
machining methods by taking into account the preceding
issues in conventional machining, of which EDM is found
as the most promising, efficient, inexpensive and popu-
larly used process for machining any kind of hard-to-cut
materials, irrespective of its strength and hardness. It has a
potential to machine materials such as composites, ceram-
ics, cemented tungsten carbide, steel, and so on [11, 12].
There are three variants of EDM process which are die-
sinking, wire EDM and superdrill or fast hole drilling EDM
(FHDEDM). Among all the EDM processes, fast hole drill-
ing EDM has the capability to produce holes at faster rate
than any other drilling methods and it is utilized as a stand-
ard method in many industries for producing smaller, deeper
and more precise holes [13].
Drilling EDM works on the same principle as conven-
tional EDM, but constantly rotating round hollow elec-
trode and dielectric flushing through the electrode tube at
high pressure (70–100 bar) are the main distinct features
between fast hole drilling EDM and other EDM methods.
In addition, it is utilized in many industrial applications
such as to create cooling holes in turbine blades, injec-
tion nozzles, cutting tool coolant holes, plastic mould vent
13
(2020) 42:432
holes and starter holes in wire EDM [14–18]. It is also
found that increasing MRR with desired geometry and
good dimensional quality is difficult to accomplish during
machinability of harder materials [19]. As the above men-
tioned expected results are conflicting goals, it is essential
to find the optimal machining conditions to satisfy multi-
objectives like increasing the material removal efficiency
and accuracy with reduced machining time and electrode
wear.
Several studies have explored the effects and optimized
EDM process parameters to improve important performance
criteria like MRR, tool wear, surface finish, OC, and so forth
for different advanced materials [20–26]. The impact of pro-
cess parameters such as electrode polarity, current, pulse
interval and pulse duration was investigated during EDM
of Al/B4C composites. The experimental results indicated
that positive polarity of EDM process is suitable for attain-
ing maximum MRR and less tool wear relative to negative
polarity [20]. Investigation on the effect of EDM electri-
cal parameters such as gap voltage, current and pulse dura-
tion was performed during machining of Al7075–TiC–B4C
hybrid composites. It was found that pulse current had sig-
nificantly influenced the performance characteristics like
material removal rate, tool erosion and surface roughness
and all the responses increased linearly with rise in cur-
rent [21]. The quality of holes produced in nimonic alloy
was assessed through hole dilation, circularity and taper.
It was observed that the percentage contribution of Ton and
Toff to hole dilation, circularity and taper was high com-
pared to pulse current and dielectric pressure [22]. Response
surface methodology was applied to study the correlation
between process parameters and the performance character-
istics during EDM drilling of magnesium alloy. Roundness
error and electrode wear were found to increase with rise in
pulse current and discharge time, but they were decreased
with increase in pulse off-time. Besides, vehicle search
algorithm was employed to find optimum combination of
process parameters [23]. Similarly, analysis on overcut of
the produced holes and tool wear was performed for die-
sinking EDM of Inconel 718. The results revealed that pulse
current and discharge duration had a significant effect on
overcut, whereas voltage and duty factor showed meagre
influence [24]. It is clear from the above studies that current,
pulse on-time and pulse off-time are the significant process
parameters to be considered in EDM process, which caused
maximum deviation over the responses. Researchers have
also made an attempt to compare the performance of rotary
EDM and stationary EDM during machining of materials
such as Inconel 718 and aluminium alloy-based composites.
It was found that the enhanced performances, namely better
material removal rate, good surface quality and least tool
wear, were achieved by means of rotary electrode than that
of stationary tool EDM [25, 26].
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
It is noted from the literature survey that studies on sink-
ing and wire EDM of single-particle-reinforced composite
are considerably available, but research work in the field
of drilling EDM (DEDM) on hybrid composites is scarce
in number. In particular, multi-objective optimization of
drilling EDM process parameters for LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC
hybrid composite using RSM is not explored completely so
far. Hence, this research work aims to produce hybrid com-
posites by reinforcing 10 wt% of Z ­ rB2 and 5 wt% of TiC in
LM13 aluminium alloy and the machining investigation is
carried out using drilling EDM by varying electrical process
variables such as current, pulse duration and pulse interval.
The quantitative regression model for MRR, EWR and OC
using RSM is developed and utilized to examine the influ-
ence of process parameters. Finally, the process parameters
are optimized to simultaneously improve the performance
characteristics such as maximizing MRR, minimizing EWR
and OC using RSM desirability function approach.
2 Materials and experimental details
2.1 Method of hybrid composite fabrication
LM13 aluminium alloy is considered as matrix material in
this work, and the chemical composition of matrix is listed
in Table 1. Two particle reinforcement materials such as 5
wt% of TiC having average size of 15–35 µm and 10 wt% of
­ZrB2 having 25–48 µm size are added to the matrix phase to
produce hybrid composite material. Initially, the base metal
LM13 alloy is melted at 800 °C in a heat resistance electric
furnace by using stainless steel crucible. Also, simultane-
ous preheating of intended quantity of Z
­ rB2 and TiC parti-
cles was made in a muffle furnace at 400 °C to remove the
moisture content, which leads to good bonding with LM13
Table 1  Elemental composition Elements Si Cu Mg
of LM13 aluminium alloy
Wt% 11.01 1.37 0.97
Fig. 1  Photograph of LM13–
10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite
sample for DEDM
(2020) 42:432 Page 3 of 18  432
aluminium alloy matrix. Then, the preheated dual reinforce-
ments are fed into the molten metal and the mixture is stirred
at 650 rpm for 10 min duration so as to get better distri-
bution of reinforcement particles in the matrix. Moreover,
hexachloroethane tablets are added to the molten mixture in
order to remove the absorbed gases, which in turn consider-
ably reduces porosity in the castings. Finally, stirred mixture
is poured into preheated rectangular mould and allowed to
solidify. The produced LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid com-
posites are shown in Fig. 1a. Subsequently, the workpiece
for EDM drilling operation is prepared using wire-cut EDM
machine. The workpiece (LM13–10ZrB 2–5TiC hybrid
composite) of rectangular cross section with dimensions
90 mm × 45 mm × 5 mm is presented in Fig. 1b. Besides,
the top and bottom surface of the workpiece is ground prior
to experimentation to get flat and good surface finish.
2.2 Mechanical properties of LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC
hybrid composite
The mechanical characteristics such as hardness, ultimate
tensile strength and ductility are determined for the synthe-
sized LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite. This investi-
gation is carried out to study the effect of reinforced Z
­ rB2
and TiC particulates in LM13 aluminium alloy matrix.
2.2.1 Hardness test
Brinell hardness test is performed for the produced
LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite and unreinforced LM13
aluminium alloy by using optical Brinell hardness tester
(Model OPFB-3000, FTM) as per ASTM E3 standard.
A load of 500 kg is applied for the samples using 5 mm
tungsten ball indenter for a dwell period of 15 s. Moreover,
Ni Fe Mn Zn Pb Cr Ti Sn Al
1.09 0.67 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 Balance
13
 432   Page 4 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
hardness value for each sample is evaluated at four different
locations and the average value of hardness is considered.
2.2.2 Tensile test
Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and ductility (percentage of
elongation) of produced composite and LM13 aluminium
alloy are assessed as per ASTM E8 standard by using uni-
versal testing machine (Model CUTM-50KN, TMC) with a
crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. During testing, two samples
are considered for each composition of the castings and the
average value of ultimate strength is presented.
2.3 Drilling EDM machine setup
EDM hole drilling experiments are carried out in Sparkonix
DSH II EDM machine as shown in Fig. 2. Rotary tubular
copper electrode of diameter 1.5 mm, length 400 mm and
100 rpm speed is used to create series of through holes in
LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite. The machine has six cur-
rent settings from 1 to 25 A (1 A, 2 A, 4 A, 6 A, 6 A, 6 A)
and variable ten settings for Ton and Toff in steps of 1 µs
Fig. 2  Pictorial view of DEDM setup
Table 2  Machining parameters Factors (units)
with actual and coded values
Current, I (A)
Pulse on-time, Ton (µs)
Pulse off-time, Toff (µs)
13
(2020) 42:432
(from 1 to 10 µs). During the machining operation, the work-
piece is connected to positive terminal and the tool electrode
is connected to negative terminal. Deionized water is used as
dielectric agent and flushed through the cavity of electrode
to remove the eroded materials from the machining zone
with a constant flushing pressure of 50 kg/cm2 for stable
machining and cooling the electrodes.
2.3.1 Experimental parameters and their levels
EDM process performance is influenced by various electri-
cal and nonelectrical controllable parameters such as dis-
charge current, flushing pressure, electrode geometry, pulse
on-time, polarity, pulse interval, open discharge voltage, etc.
It is a complex task to show the impact of all process param-
eters on the performance criteria. In this work, the primary
EDM electrical process parameters such as current, pulse
duration/pulse on-time and pulse interval/pulse off-time are
chosen based on their significant influence on machining
performance characteristics [27, 28]. Based on exploratory
trial experiments and capacity of the machine setup, the
appropriate range for process parameters was selected. The
current value of greater than 5 A is selected in this study,
because there is no major change in material removal and it
also takes longer time for machining when the current val-
ues are taken below 5 A. Similarly, higher levels of current,
i.e. greater than 23 A, are not considered due to its erratic
discharge energy which may deteriorate the quality of holes
produced and the electrodes. Based on the available settings
for ­Ton and Toff in the machine, 3–9 µs is selected for main
experimentation in order to get better optimized value of
parameters. Table 2 shows both coded and actual values of
process variables considered in this study for making drills
in LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite.
2.3.2 Experimental design for machining LM13–10ZrB2–
5TiC composites
Full-factorial rotatable central composite design (CCD) of
response surface methodology (RSM) is used to design the
experiments. Based on the number of controllable factors,
20 experimental runs are created with different combinations
of factors (independent variables) at five variation levels.
The design includes eight factorial points having ± 1 levels,
six star points with alpha value of ± 1.682 and six centre
Labels Levels
− 1.682 − 1 0 + 1 + 1.682
A 7 10 15 20 23
B 3 4 6 8 9
C 3 4 6 8 9
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432 Page 5 of 18  432

points which denote replicated experiments for estimation

of repeatability. Experiments are conducted in randomized
manner, and the effect of selected process parameters on
machining and dimensional characteristics, namely MRR,
EWR and OC, is studied. The designed combination of
parameters for experimentation along with its corresponding
measured response values is presented in Table 3. Moreover,
experimental design and the analysis of results presented in
this work are carried out using Design Expert 10 software.

2.3.3 Evaluation method of machining performances

The performance of hole drilling EDM process in machining Fig. 3  Diameter measurement using CMM Calypso software
of LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite is evaluated by
considering the following response variables in the aspects 𝜋 ∗ t HD2t + HD2b + HDt ∗ HDb
( )
of productivity and hole quality such as MRR, EWR and Material removal rate =
12 ∗ T
,
OC. Material removal rate (MRR) is expressed as volume (
mm3 ∕s
)
of material removed from the workpiece per drilling time, (1)
and it is calculated using Eq. 1. Machined volume from the
workpiece is evaluated through the dimensions of entrance where ­HDt is the entrance diameter of hole produced in mm,
and exit diameter of each hole. The diameter is examined by ­HDb is the exit diameter of hole produced in mm, T is the
tracing eight different nodal locations of a hole by utilizing machining time to make a through hole in seconds and t is
coordinate measuring machine (CMM, Make: Zeiss, Model: the workpiece thickness in mm.
Contora G2) with an accuracy of 2 µm, and the average value Electrode wear rate (EWR) for each through hole drilled
is considered. CMM equipped with calypso 5.8 software is assessed through Eq. 2. It is expressed as the ratio of elec-
during measurement is shown in Fig. 3. Machining time for trode length consumed to the machining time [13]. Length
each test is measured using electronic timer: of the electrode consumed is calculated as shown in Eq. 3.

Table 3  Experimental design layout with measured responses

Standard run Run order Current (I), Pulse on-time Pulse off-time MRR ­(mm3/s) EWR (mm/s) Overcut (mm)
Amps (Ton), µs (Toff), µs

1 19 10 4 4 0.6817 0.1497 0.0396

2 7 20 4 4 1.3583 0.4115 0.0627
3 14 10 8 4 1.2236 0.3641 0.0724
4 6 20 8 4 2.3116 0.6523 0.1063
5 1 10 4 8 0.5466 0.1187 0.0181
6 10 20 4 8 1.0546 0.2772 0.0540
7 13 10 8 8 0.6522 0.2674 0.0512
8 3 20 8 8 1.5960 0.5108 0.0847
9 15 7 6 6 0.5788 0.1714 0.0276
10 8 23 6 6 2.1319 0.5747 0.0843
11 11 15 3 6 0.2966 0.1268 0.0305
12 9 15 9 6 1.0874 0.5122 0.1022
13 18 15 6 3 1.6765 0.5473 0.0928
14 5 15 6 9 1.0036 0.3477 0.0526
15 12 15 6 6 1.1830 0.3376 0.0736
16 16 15 6 6 1.0556 0.3124 0.0696
17 17 15 6 6 1.1213 0.3293 0.0701
18 4 15 6 6 1.0362 0.3347 0.0729
19 2 15 6 6 1.0956 0.2933 0.0658
20 20 15 6 6 1.1481 0.2716 0.0663

13
 432   Page 6 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432

Before drilling, the value of z coordinate axis is set to zero

and after drilling the value of electrode movement in z direc-
tion is measured directly with the aid of digital control panel
in hole drilling EDM machine:
( )
Electrode length consumed Le
Electrode wear rate = , (mm∕s)
Machining Time (T)
(2)
Le = Electrode movement inzdirection−hole depth (3)
Overcut (OC) of drilled holes is measured as the differ-
ence between average diameter of the hole after machining
and the electrode diameter. It is a measure of dimensional
accuracy of the machined holes. Besides, it is also one of
the significant characteristics to be considered for evaluating
Fig. 4  Workpiece after EDM drilling operation
the machining performance of hole drilling EDM process.
Equation 4 as shown below is used to determine the overcut:
n n k
HDa − De
(4)
∑ ∑ ∑
Overcut =
2
, (mm) Yi = c0 + ci xi + cii xi2 + cij xi xj (5)
i=1 i=1 i<j

HDt + HDb where Yi denotes response, c0 constant, xi process variables,

HDa =
2 ci, cii and cij regression coefficients of linear, second-order
where ­HDa is the average diameter of the hole produced in
mm and De is the electrode diameter in mm.
It is also important to note that functionality of the pro-
duced holes in any automobile or aerospace components
depends on its dimensional accuracy. For instance, when
machined drain holes in the piston and cylinder assembly
are larger than the desired one, they lead to permit more
oil into the combustion chamber during cylinder deactiva-
tion condition. This, in turn, affects engine performance
[29]. Moreover, accuracy of the holes produced is greatly
influenced by EDM machining parameters and spark gap
conditions. Therefore, in order to ensure the accuracy of
the machined holes, it is necessary to evaluate overcut
during EDM machining. The hybrid composite specimen
(LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC) after EDM drilling process is shown
in Fig. 4.
2.4 Response surface methodology
RSM is a mathematical and statistical tool used for the
development of predictive model and optimization of mul-
tiple performance characteristics of any process involving
governing parameters and responses. The developed regres-
sion model shows the relationship between the process
parameters and the desired performance characteristics. The
interactive and second-order influence of process parameters
on the performance measures can be studied and plotted
graphically using quadratic response surface equation. A
generalized second-order polynomial expression of RSM
model is shown in Eq. 5:
and interaction terms, respectively.
In this work, the effect of EDM process variables,
namely current, pulse on-time and pulse off-time, on
MRR, EWR and OC is considered during the machining of
LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite. Therefore, by uti-
lizing RSM technique, mathematical model for the above
responses is developed using experimental data and subse-
quently the statistical significance or adequacy of the pro-
posed models is checked using ANOVA.
2.5 Multiple response optimization using
RSM‑based desirability function approach
Selection of optimal combination of process parameters is a
difficult task in order to achieve the required process perfor-
mance characteristics simultaneously. The optimization of
individual responses gives different sets of machining condi-
tions, where the optimized combination of one performance
characteristic will not yield good result to the other char-
acteristic. Therefore, by employing numerical optimization
tool, i.e. desirability function approach, multi-performance
characteristics such as MRR, EWR and OC are optimized
in this study. This method uses desirability function to con-
vert each estimated response into a dimensionless variable
called desirability value, and it ranges from 0 to 1 [30]. The
desirability value will be zero when the response or process
parameter values fail to fall within the desired range. Moreo-
ver, the desirability functions are classified into two goals,
i.e. “maximum” and “minimum,” which are purely based on
the nature of response as presented in Eqs. 6 and 7. Finally,

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
the composite desirability (D) for n number of responses is
calculated by combining the desirability value of individual
responses as given in Eq. 8.
For maximization of response, desirability function d­ i is
defined as follows:
)z
ŷ − ymin
(
di = , ymin ≤ ŷ ≤ ymax (6)
ymax − ymin
di = 1, when ŷ > ymax
di = 0, when ŷ > ymin
For minimization of response, desirability function di is
defined as follows:
( )z
ymax − ŷ
di = , ymin ≤ ŷ ≤ ymax (7)
ymax − ymin
di = 1, when ŷ > ymin
di = 0, when ŷ > ymax
where ŷ is predicted response and z weight
)1∕n
(8)
(
Composite desirability, D = d1 ∗ d2 ∗ d3 ∗ … dn
In addition, importance can also be assigned to a particu-
lar response over other responses in this desirability function
method. It varies from least importance of 1 (+) to high
importance of 5 (+++++). If no response is favoured over
the rest, medium setting of 3 (+++) is preferred for all the
responses. The factor settings (level of process parameters)
with maximum composite desirability are considered to be
the optimal parameter condition. At the same time, it is not
required that desirability value should be close to 1 and the
value displayed indicates how far the upper and lower limits
are present from the optimum level [31].
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Hardness and ultimate tensile strength
of LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC
The obtained values of hardness and ultimate tensile strength
of LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid composite and LM13 alu-
minium alloy are shown in Fig. 5. It is observed that hard-
ness value of 114 BHN is obtained for LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC
hybrid composite, which is 63% greater than LM13 alumin-
ium alloy (70 BHN). This enhancement is associated with
the strain fields developed at the vicinity of reinforced con-
stituents during solidification of composite. The generated
(2020) 42:432 Page 7 of 18  432
Fig. 5  Hardness and UTS of LM13 aluminium alloy and LM13–
10ZrB2–5TiC
stain fields are due to a large extent of variation in thermal
contraction of strengthening phases and LM13 aluminium
alloy. Subsequently, these localized strains on relaxation
yield considerable amount of dislocations in the matrix.
During loading, the free movement of dislocations is pinned
by the reinforced Z­ rB2 and TiC particles and renders signifi-
cant resistance to matrix deformation caused by the indenter.
Similar results were reported by earlier researchers that the
hardness of matrix alloy is enhanced by the incorporation of
reinforcing phases [32, 33].
The value of ultimate tensile strength obtained for
LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite is 238 MPa which is higher
by 49% as compared to ultimate tensile strength of nonrein-
forced LM13 aluminium alloy (160 MPa). This improvement
is due to the interactions between reinforced ceramic phases
and matrix deformation. In addition, the induced stresses
in the matrix region while loading have been effectively
transferred to the reinforced ­ZrB2 and TiC particles. Simi-
lar mechanism for composites strengthening with addition
of reinforcements was reported in [34].
Moreover, percentage-of-elongation results of synthe-
sized composite and LM13 aluminium alloy are 9.25% and
18.02%, respectively. The reduced percentage of elonga-
tion in LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC hybrid is due to the resistance
offered by reinforcing phases against matrix deformations
as well as reduction in wt% of ductile phase compared to
nonreinforced LM13 aluminium alloy.
3.2 Mathematical modelling of responses using
RSM and checking its adequacy
The RSM-based regression model for MRR, EWR and OC
has been developed as a function of current, pulse duration
and pulse interval by using experimental data. In sequence,
13
 432   Page 8 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432

the developed models are checked for their significance in
predicting the response using ANOVA and the outcomes are
presented in the following section.
3.2.1 Evaluating adequacy of the developed models
The quadratic model developed using fit summary is used for
the evaluation of MRR, EWR and OC. Moreover, adequacy
test for the proposed models is made by ANOVA through
calculating F ratio, which is the ratio of regression (model)
mean square to the mean square error. The ANOVA results
of MRR, EWR and OC are listed in Tables  4, 5 and 6,
respectively. It is observed that the F values for MRR, EWR
and OC are obtained as 102, 49.31 and 60.50, respectively.
These values imply that the developed response models are
significant and these large values are caused by the noise fac-
tor with a chance of 0.01%. Alternatively, analysis was also
made at 95% confidence level and the terms in the regression
model which have p value less than 0.05 are considered as
statistically significant factors. ANOVA results clearly show
that the probability value of the term “model” falls below
0.05 for all the responses, which confirms that the selected

Table 4  ANOVA results of Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F value p value prob > F
MRR
Model 4.95 9 0.55 102.10 < 0.0001 Significant
A–I 2.66 1 2.66 494.00 < 0.0001
B-Ton 0.99 1 0.99 183.30 < 0.0001
C-Toff 0.52 1 0.52 96.00 < 0.0001
AB 0.14 1 0.14 25.45 0.0005
AC 0.00159 1 0.00159 0.30 0.5988
BC 0.053 1 0.053 9.75 0.0108
A2 0.15 1 0.15 28.52 0.0003
B2 0.25 1 0.25 46.11 < 0.0001
C2 0.14 1 0.14 25.61 0.0005
Residual 0.054 10 0.005387
Lack of fit 0.038 5 0.007683 2.49 0.1701 Not significant
Pure error 0.015 5 0.003091
Cor total 5.00 19
R2 0.9892
Adj R2 0.9795
Adeq precision 39

Table 5  ANOVA results of Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value prob > F
EWR
Model 0.43 9 0.047 49.31 < 0.0001 Significant
A-I 0.19 1 0.19 202.70 < 0.0001
B-Ton 0.16 1 0.16 168.36 < 0.0001
C-Toff 0.040 1 0.040 41.68 < 0.0001
AB 1.548E−003 1 1.548E−003 1.61 0.2328
AC 2.742E−003 1 2.742E−003 2.86 0.1219
BC 6.643E−004 1 6.643E−004 0.69 0.4249
A2 2.329E−003 1 2.329E−003 2.43 0.1504
B2 5.574E−004 1 5.574E−004 0.58 0.4637
C2 0.022 1 0.022 22.88 0.0007
Residual 9.600E−003 10 9.600E−004
Lack of fit 6.156E−003 5 1.231E−003 1.79 0.2697 Not significant
Pure error 3.444E−003 5 6.888E−004
Cor total 0.44 19
R2 0.9780
Adj R2 0.9581
Adeq precision 26.012

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432 Page 9 of 18  432

Table 6  ANOVA results of OC Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value prob > F

Model 0.011 9 1.176E−003 60.50 < 0.0001 Significant

A-I 3.606E−003 1 3.606E−003 185.54 < 0.0001
B-Ton 4.983E−003 1 4.983E−003 256.39 < 0.0001
C-Toff 1.448E−003 1 1.448E−003 74.51 < 0.0001
AB 8.978E−006 1 8.978E−006 0.46 0.5121
AC 1.930E−005 1 1.930E−005 0.99 0.3425
BC 1.961E−005 1 1.961E−005 1.01 0.3388
A2 4.559E−004 1 4.559E−004 23.46 0.0007
B2 5.441E−005 1 5.441E−005 2.80 0.1252
C2 1.276E−006 1 1.276E−006 0.066 0.8030
Residual 1.943E−004 10 1.943E−005
Lack of fit 1.415E−004 5 2.831E−005 2.68 0.1515 Not significant
Pure error 5.280E−005 5 1.056E−005
Cor total 0.011 19
R2 0.9820
Adj R2 0.9657
Adeq precision 29.287

quadratic models for MRR, EWR and OC are adequate for
response prediction.
ANOVA results of MRR reveal that A (I), B (Ton), C
(Toff), AB, BC and second-order term of A, B and C are
significant terms because their p value falls below 0.05.
ANOVA results of EWR show that A, B, C and the second-
order term of C have a significant effect on EWR. Similarly,
ANOVA results of OC depict A, B, C and second-order term
indicates “not significant” for the selected regression model,
as it is desired one for the right model.
3.2.2 Regression model of MRR, EWR and OC
The developed mathematical second-order expression for
MRR, EWR and OC in terms of actual factors is shown in
Eqs. 9–11, respectively:

MRR = −0.17742 − 0.072295 ∗ A + 0.53697 ∗ B − 0.16462 ∗ C

+ 0.010590 ∗ A ∗ B − 3.91000E − 003 ∗ A ∗ C − 0.026506 ∗ B ∗ C (9)
2 2 2
+ 3.91898E − 003 ∗ A − 0.034139 ∗ B + 0.023141 ∗ C

EWR = +0.078726 + 0.011377 ∗ A + 0.065850 ∗ B − 0.10273 ∗ C + 1.39125E

− 003 ∗ A ∗ B − 1.85125E − 003 ∗ A ∗ C − 2.27812E − 003 ∗ B ∗ C (10)
2 2 2
+ 5.08544E − 004 ∗ A − 1.55479E − 003 ∗ B + 9.75891E − 003 ∗ C

OC = −0.061312 + 8.43163E − 003 ∗ A + 0.016139 ∗ B − 6.02244E − 003 ∗ C (11)

+ 1.05938E − 004 ∗ A ∗ B + 1.55312E − 004 ∗ A ∗ C − 3.91406E − 004 ∗ B ∗ C
− 2.24979E − 004 ∗ A2 − 4.85772E − 004 ∗ B2 + 7.43892E − 005 ∗ C2

of A as significantly influencing parameters for the over-
cut. Besides, the term adequate precision (AP) in the model
denotes signal-to-noise ratio. It compares the range of pre-
dicted values at the design points to the average prediction
error. Ratios greater than 4 indicate adequate model discrim-
ination. AP for MRR, EWR and OC is 39, 26 and 29.287,
respectively. Finally, the term lack of fit in the ANOVA table
where A is current, Bis pulse on-time and Cis pulse off-time.
The normality of residuals for the proposed MRR, EWR
and OC models is tested using Anderson–Darling (AD)
normality test, and the corresponding plots are presented
in Figs. 6, 7 and 8, respectively. From the residual plots,
it is noticed that p value calculated based on AD statis-
tic test is greater than the significance level of 0.05. This

13
 432   Page 10 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432

Fig. 6  Normality test plot of Probability Plot of RESI1

MRR residuals Normal
99
Mean -1.29150E-16
StDev 0.04526
95 N 20
AD 0.167
90
P-Value 0.926
80
70

Percent
60
50
40
30
20

10

1
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
RESI1

Fig. 7  Normality test plot of Probability Plot of RESI1

EWR residuals Normal
99
Mean 6.687359E-17
StDev 0.02248
95 N 20
AD 0.450
90
P-Value 0.248
80
70
Percent

60
50
40
30
20

10

1
-0.050 -0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050
RESI1

indicates that the residuals are normally distributed and
it can be inferred that the developed quadratic model for
MRR, EWR and OC is adequate.
In addition, another important statistical metric widely
used to evaluate the model fitness is the term R2 (coeffi-
cient of determination). It is the ratio between explained
variation by the model and total variation in the actual
data. When R2 value approaches unity, it represents that
the predicted response data through the developed model
better fit the experimentally measured data. So, there exists
a good relationship between the response variable and
individual process parameters. The value of R2 for MRR
model is 0.9892, which indicates that the proposed model
for MRR is capable of explaining 98.92% of variation in
the observed response values. The R2 values of 0.9780 and
0.9820 are obtained for EWR and OC, respectively.
3.3 Analysis of the effect of process parameters
on output performances
The influence of process parameters such as I, Ton and Toff
on output characteristics, namely MRR, EWR and OC, is
examined using 3-D response surface plots by varying two
variables and keeping the other parameters constant at the
mid-level. These response surface graphs provide a better
understanding about the relationship between controllable

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432 Page 11 of 18  432

Fig. 8  Normality test plot of OC Probability Plot of RESI1

residuals Normal
99
Mean 1.214306E-18
StDev 0.003188
95 N 20
AD 0.251
90
P-Value 0.706
80
70

Percent
60
50
40
30
20

10

1
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
RESI1

Fig. 9  Surface plots for a MRR versus I and Ton, b MRR versus I and Toff, c MRR versus Ton and Toff

13
 432   Page 12 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
process parameters and the responses during EDM drilling
of LM13–10ZrB2–5TiC composite.
3.3.1 Effect of independent process variables on MRR
The interaction graph of I and Ton on MRR is presented
in Fig. 9a. It is evident that material removal rate shows a
linearly increasing trend with increase in pulse current for
all levels of Ton. This is due to the rapid increase in energy
intensity of a spark which produces high thermal energy,
resulting in the melting and vaporization of materials from
the workpiece. Moreover, the effect of pulse on-time on
material removal rate shows an increasing trend of up to
Ton of 7 µs and after that it starts to decrease slightly. This is
because when the pulse on-time is increased, the amount of
material removal also increases from the workpiece due to
high penetration time for thermal energy into the workpiece
which causes melting and enhances material removal. On
Fig. 10  Surface plots for a EWR versus I and Ton, b EWR versus I and Toff, c EWR versus Ton and Toff
13
(2020) 42:432
the other hand, due to inadequate flushing time, the coarse
debris between the electrodes obstructs the effective dis-
charge energy released from the electrode to contact the
work material which in turn reduces MRR after 7 µs of Ton.
Similar kind of observation at high levels of Ton with con-
stant Toff for MRR was reported in [20, 35]. In contrast, at
lower level of Ton, heat energy conducted into the workpiece
was trivial due to less machining time. As a result, slight
increase in MRR was witnessed with increase in current
relative to other levels of Ton.
Figure 9b shows the interaction effect of I and Toff on
MRR. It is observed that the increase in current shows a
significant rise in MRR at low level of Toff and it gradu-
ally reduces with increase in Toff. This phenomenon may be
attributed to decrease in spark frequency, higher machining
time and heat dissipation as Toff increases [8, 36]. All these
factors combined together lead to the reduction in mate-
rial removal rate. The pulse off-time is found to be the least
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
significant factor having only 11% contribution for MRR,
whereas I and Ton have 53.2% and 19.8%, respectively. Fig-
ure 9c shows the interaction effect of Ton and Toff on MRR. It
is clear that increase in Ton increases the MRR considerably
at low level of Toff, relative to other levels of Toff.
3.3.2 Effect of independent process variables on EWR
The interaction graph of I and Ton on EWR is presented
in Fig. 10a. It is observed from the figure that the value of
electrode wear rate increases proportionally with increase
in current for all the levels of Ton. This trend is attributed to
the release of higher number of charged particles (electrons
and ions) at the interface between workpiece and tool elec-
trode with increase in current. The movement of high-energy
charges in the plasma channel generates a substantial amount
of heat around the electrode surface, resulting in high elec-
trode wear at high levels of current. It is also observed from
Fig. 10a that there is a gradual increase in the electrode wear
Fig. 11  Surface plots for a OC versus I and Ton, b OC versus I and Toff, c OC versus Ton and Toff
(2020) 42:432 Page 13 of 18  432
rate with an increase in pulse on-time. This may be due to
the action of longer sparking time, which eventually results
in high heat energy and softening of the electrode mate-
rial. Moreover, the produced coarse debris between tool and
workpiece at higher levels of pulse on-time may also tend to
increase electrode wear due to arcing [21, 25].
Figure 10b shows the interaction effect of I and Toff on
EWR. It is observed that EWR increases with increase
in current for all the levels of Toff. In addition, it is also
observed that EWR gradually reduced with increase in Toff
and it is due to sufficient cooling time around the electrode
and less sparking energy. On the other hand, a slight increase
in EWR is also noticed at higher levels of Toff (i.e. greater
than 7 µs). This may be due to the greater degree of fluc-
tuation in thermal and spark energy at higher levels of Toff.
Therefore, more energy is required to establish the plasma
channel, which in turn leads to increase in the electrode wear
[19]. The pulse off-time is found to be least significant fac-
tor having only 9% contribution for EWR, whereas I and
13
 432   Page 14 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
Ton have 43% and 36%, respectively. Figure 10c shows the
interaction effect of Ton and Toff on EWR. It is clear that
increase in Ton increases the EWR considerably at low level
of Toff, relative to other levels of Toff.
3.3.3 Effect of independent process variables on OC
Overcut of the hole produced mainly depends on the mag-
nitude of material removed by electric spark energy. Fig-
ure 11a shows the interaction graph of I and Ton on OC. It
is noticed that the overcut of drilled holes increases with
respect to gradual increase in current for all levels of Ton.
This effect is mainly attributed to higher concentration of
bombarding forces and thermal energy created at large cur-
rent values, which in turn causes more melt ejections from
the workpiece surface resulting in more material removal.
As a consequence, wider cavity is obtained. Same trend is
attained for overcut by increasing pulse on-time. This is
because of the greater ionization effect created at higher
levels of Ton. The ionization makes plasma channel wider,
and the area affected by heat becomes considerably high
resulting in higher overcut at high level of current (20 A)
and Ton (8 µs). The narrow plasma channel was produced at
low level of Ton causing lesser overcut [28]. Moreover, the
influence of current on overcut is found to be slightly low
relative to pulse discharging time.
Figure 11b depicts the interaction effect of I and Toff
on OC. It is observed that the overcut of holes produced
decreases with increase in pulse off-time for all levels of
current. It is attributed to effective removal of debris in the
machining zone which in turn avoids arcing at the interface
of debris and hole surface during evacuation of removed par-
ticles by pressurized dielectric medium. Also, the number of
sparks produced for machining reduces with increase in Toff
resulting in reduced discharge energy. This leads to reduced
Fig. 12  Ramp chart of multi-objective optimized parameters with equal importance
13
(2020) 42:432
overcut at high level of Toff. In contrary, at low level of Toff
and high level of I, larger overcut is produced and it may
be due to side sparks or arcing [16, 22]. Moreover, Toff is
found to be least significant contribution factor for OC hav-
ing only 13% contribution and the other process variables,
namely I and Ton, have percentage contribution of 32% and
45%, respectively, on OC. Figure 11c shows the interaction
graph of Toff and Ton on OC. It is evident that increase in Ton
increases the OC considerably at low level of Toff, relative
to other levels of Toff.
3.4 Desirability function‑based multi‑response
optimization result
The developed mathematical model in Eqs. 9–11 is uti-
lized for multi-response optimization by desirability func-
tion approach. In this investigation, conflicting responses,
namely MRR, EWR and OC, are optimized simultane-
ously by applying equal weight of 1 with different level of
importance. Maximization condition is chosen for MRR,
and minimization criteria are selected for EWR and OC.
The factor settings (level of process parameters) with max-
imum composite desirability are considered to be the opti-
mal parameter condition. Hence, the maximum composite
desirability obtained for the condition of equal importance
(+++) for MRR, EWR and OC is 0.527 and it is shown
in Fig. 12. In addition, an attempt is also made to provide
more importance to MRR over EWR and OC by giving
high importance (+++++) to MRR and least importance
(+) to EWR and OC. Similarly, more emphasize is given
for EWR (+++++) and least for MRR and OC. Moreover,
high importance is also assigned for OC over MRR and
EWR and the obtained results are presented in Table 7 and
in Fig. 13a–c, respectively.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
Table 7  Multi-response optimization of process parameters for different machining criteria
Machining performances with importance level Input factors
I (A) Ton (µs)
MRR, EWR and OC (Equal) 19.99 4.85
MRR (high), EWR (least) and OC (least) 20 5.40
MRR (least), EWR (high) and OC (least) 10 4.36
MRR (least), EWR (least) and OC (high) 10 4.25
Confirmatory experiments are carried out to verify the
predicted values obtained for the optimal combination of
process parameters of different machining criteria, and it
is presented in Table 8. The errors for MRR, EWR and
OC are ± 8%, ± 4.21% and ± 6.3%, respectively, and the
value of error percentage is found to be within the permis-
sible limit. This implies the effectiveness of the developed
MRR, EWR and OC regression models with minimum
number of experimental efforts.
4 Conclusion
In this study, hybrid composite was successfully fabricated
by embedding 10 wt% of Z ­ rB2 and 5 wt% of TiC particles
in LM13 aluminium alloy through stir casting route. The
machining analysis of the produced composite was carried
out using drilling EDM by varying process variables, and
the degree of its influence on individual performances,
i.e. MRR, EWR and OC, was studied. Finally, the pro-
cess parameters were optimized using RSM approach to
satisfy the desired responses such as maximizing MRR,
minimizing EWR and OC. The key observations from the
experimental study are presented as follows.
1. The developed quadratic regression model of MRR,
EWR and OC showed good competence in the aspect
of response prediction through ANOVA results. The R2
values of 0.9892, 0.9780 and 0.9820 are obtained for
MRR, EWR and OC, respectively.
2. MRR is highly influenced by current, followed by pulse
duration and pulse interval with percentage contribution
of 53.2%, 19.8% and 11%, respectively.
3. Similarly, EWR is highly influenced by current, followed
by pulse duration and pulse interval with percentage
contribution of 43%, 36% and 9%, respectively.
4. Pulse on-time apparently showed major effect on OC
relative to current and pulse off-time. The percentage
(2020) 42:432 Page 15 of 18  432
Responses Composite
3 desirability
Toff (µs) MRR ­(mm /s) EWR (mm/s) OC (mm)
7.99 1.2830 0.3441 0.0607 0.527
4.24 1.7719 0.5016 0.0817 0.556
7.16 0.5467 0.1237 0.0259 0.728
7.99 0.5579 0.1329 0.0205 0.729
contribution of parameters on OC is obtained as follows:
current (I)—32%, pulse on-time (Ton)—45% and pulse
off-time (Toff)—13%.
5. Response surface plots of MRR showed directly propor-
tional relationship with current for all levels of Ton and
Toff, whereas pulse off-time exhibited inversely propor-
tional relationship with MRR. Moreover, the interaction
graph of I and Ton showed slight decrease in MRR above
Ton level of 7 µs accompanied by pulse interval of 6 µs.
6. EWR increased with increase in current and pulse on-
time. In addition, the interaction graph of I and Toff
exhibited decreasing trend for EWR with increase in
Toff up to 7 µs and after that it showed a slight increase
in EWR.
7. The increasing trend is obtained for OC with gradual
increase in I and Ton. In contrast, the OC of produced
holes reduced with increase in Toff.
8. The conflicting performances such as MRR, EWR and
OC are optimized simultaneously by assigning differ-
ent levels of importance for the responses. For equal
importance of MRR, EWR and OC, the obtained values
are 1.2830 mm3/s, 0.3441 mm/s and 0.0607 mm, respec-
tively, for the parameters setting of I (19.99 A), Ton
(4.85 µs) and Toff (7.99 µs). High MRR of 1.7719 mm3/s
resulted for the optimum process variables combination
of I (20 A), Ton (5.40 µs) and Toff (4.25 µs). Minimum
EWR of 0.1237  mm/s is obtained for I (10 A), Ton
(4.36 µs) and Toff (7.16 µs). Moreover, minimum OC
(0.0205 mm) with high priority over MRR and EWR
resulted at the combination of I (10 A), Ton (4.25 µs) and
Toff (7.99 µs).
9. The results obtained from this study would be useful
and provided as a technical database for automobile and
aerospace industries in the aspect of EDM drilling of
hybrid LM13 aluminium alloy-based composites with
conflicting objectives such as maximum MRR, mini-
mum EWR and OC.
13
 432   Page 16 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432

Fig. 13  Ramp chart of multi-objective optimized parameters: a high importance to MRR, b high importance to EWR and c high importance to OC

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2020) 42:432 Page 17 of 18  432

Table 8  Confirmatory test for optimized process parameters

S. no. Input factors Experimental responses Predicted responses Error %

3 3
I (A) Ton (µs) Toff (µs) MRR ­(mm /s) EWR (mm/s) OC (mm) MRR ­(mm /s) EWR (mm/s) OC (mm) MRR EWR OC

1. 19.9 4.85 7.99 1.1815 0.3533 0.0638 1.2830 0.3441 0.0607 − 7.9 2.67 5.1
2. 20 5.40 4.25 1.7367 0.4956 0.0828 1.7719 0.5016 0.0817 − 1.98 − 1.19 1.3
3. 10 4.36 7.16 0.5699 0.1254 0.0244 0.5467 0.1237 0.0259 4.24 1.37 − 5.7
4. 10 4.25 7.99 0.5382 0.1273 0.0192 0.5579 0.1329 0.0205 − 3.53 − 4.21 − 6.3

References the properties of silicon carbide composites. Ceram Int 39:9567–

9574. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceram​int.2013.05.075
13. Yilmaz O, Bozdana AT, Okka MA (2014) An intelligent and
1. Bodunrin MO, Alaneme KK, Chown LH (2015) Aluminium
automated system for electrical discharge drilling of aerospace
matrix hybrid composites: a review of reinforcement philoso-
alloys: Inconel 718 and Ti–6Al–4V. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
phies; Mechanical, corrosion and tribological characteristics.
74:1323–1336. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0017​0-014-6059-1
J Mater Res Technol 4:434–445. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
14. Suresh P, Venkatesan R, Sekar T, Elango N, Sathiyamoorthy V
jmrt.2015.05.003
(2014) Optimization of intervening variables in MicroEDM of
2. Senthilkumar TS, Muralikannan R (2019) Enhancing the geomet-
SS 316L using a genetic algorithm and response-surface meth-
ric tolerance of aluminium hybrid metal matrix composite using
odology. J Mech Eng 60:656–664. https​ : //doi.org/10.5545/
EDM process. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
sv-jme.2014.1665
s4043​0-018-1553-2
15. Kuppan P, Narayanan S, Rajadurai A, Adithan M (2015) Effect
3. Samson Jerold Samuel C, Ramesh A, Arunprasad N, Thangaraj
of EDM parameters on hole quality characteristics in deep hole
AN, Harishankar S (2017) Dry sliding wear characterization of
drilling of Inconel 718 superalloy. Int J Manuf Res 10:45–63. https​
squeeze cast LM13/FeCu composite using response surface meth-
://doi.org/10.1504/IJMR.2015.06761​7
odology. China Foundry 14:525–533. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
16. Eyercioglu O, Cakir MV, Gov K (2014) Influence of machin-
s4123​0-017-7101-3
ing parameters on the surface integrity in small-hole electrical
4. Kumar NM, Senthil Kumaran S, Kumaraswamidhas LA (2016)
discharge machining. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf
High temperature investigation on EDM process of Al 2618
228:51–61. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09544​05413​49873​0
alloy reinforced with S­ i3N4, ALN and Z­ rB2 in-situ composites.
17. Selvarajan L, Narayanan CS, Jeyapaul R (2015) Optimization of
J Alloys Compd 663:755–768. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallc​
EDM hole drilling parameters in machining of M ­ oSi2–SiC inter-
om.2015.12.175
metallic/composites for improving geometrical tolerances. J Adv
5. Mazaheri Y, Meratian M, Emadi R, Najarian AR (2013) Com-
Manuf Syst 14:259–272. https​://doi.org/10.1142/S0219​68671​
parison of microstructural and mechanical properties of Al–TiC,
55001​71
Al–B4C and Al–TiC–B4C composites prepared by casting tech-
18. Bassoli E, Denti L, Gatto A, Iuliano L (2016) Influence of elec-
niques. Mater Sci Eng A 560:278–287. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trode size and geometry in electro-discharge drilling of Inconel
msea.2012.09.068
718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86:2329–2337. https ​ : //doi.
6. Moses JJ, Dinaharan I, Sekhar SJ (2016) Prediction of influence of
org/10.1007/s0017​0-016-8339-4
process parameters on tensile strength of AA6061/TiC aluminum
19. Guu YH, Chou CY, Chiou ST (2005) Study of the effect of
matrix composites produced using stir casting. Trans Nonferrous
machining parameters on the machining characteristics in electri-
Met Soc China 26:1498–1511. https​://doi.org/10.1016/s1003​
cal discharge machining of Fe–Mn–Al alloy. Mater Manuf Process
-6326(16)64256​-5
20:905–916. https​://doi.org/10.1081/AMP-20006​0412
7. Pridhar T, Sankaran R, Ravikumar K, Boopathi C (2016) The
20. Kumar P, Parkash R (2016) Experimental investigation and opti-
effect of particle hybridization on micro structure analysis and
mization of EDM process parameters for machining of aluminum
mechanical behavior of metal matrix composites: an experimental
boron carbide (Al–B4C) composite. Mach Sci Technol 20:330–
approach. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 11:845–852
348. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10910​344.2016.11689​31
8. Daneshmand S, Masoudi B, Monfared V (2017) Electrical dis-
21. Ponappa K, Sasikumar KSK, Sambathkumar M, Udhayakumar
charge machining of Al/7.5% A ­ l2O3 MMCs using rotary tool and
M (2019) Multi-objective optimization of edm process param-
­Al2O3 powder. Surf Rev Lett 24:1–17. https​://doi.org/10.1142/
eters for machining of hybrid aluminum metal matrix composites
s0218​625x1​75001​84
(Al7075/TiC/B4C) using genetic algorithm. Surf Rev Lett. https​
9. Chiang KT (2008) Modeling and analysis of the effects of machin-
://doi.org/10.1142/s0218​625x1​95007​19
ing parameters on the performance characteristics in the EDM
22. Pandey AK, Gautam GD (2018) Grey relational analysis-based
process of A
­ l2O3 + TiC mixed ceramic. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
genetic algorithm optimization of electrical discharge drilling of
37:523–533. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0017​0-007-1002-3
Nimonic-90 superalloy. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng. https​://doi.
10. Ponappa K, Aravindan S, Rao PV, Ramkumar J, Gupta M (2010)
org/10.1007/s4043​0-018-1045-4
The effect of process parameters on machining of magnesium
23. Parsana S, Radadia N, Sheth M, Sheth N, Savsani V, Prasad NE,
nano alumina composites through EDM. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Ramprabhu T (2018) Machining parameter optimization for EDM
46:1035–1042. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0017​0-009-2158-9
machining of Mg–RE–Zn–Zr alloy using multi-objective passing
11. Lin YC, Wang AC, Wang DA, Chen CC (2009) Machining perfor-
vehicle search algorithm. Arch Civ Mech Eng 18:799–817. https​
mance and optimizing machining parameters of A ­ l2O3-tic ceram-
://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.12.007
ics using edm based on the taguchi method. Mater Manuf Process
24. Mohanty CP, Mahapatra SS, Singh MR (2016) A particle swarm
24:667–674. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10426​91090​27692​85
approach for multi-objective optimization of electrical discharge
12. Sai Krupa M, Dileep Kumar N, Suresh Kumar R, Chakravarthy P,
Venkateswarlu K (2013) Effect of zirconium diboride addition on

13
 432   Page 18 of 18 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering
machining process. J Intell Manuf 27:1171–1190. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1084​5-014-0942-3
25. Kumar R, Chattopadhyaya S, Singh GK, Vates UK (2019) Mod-
eling and spark erosion drilling process optimization of Inconel
718 using RSM technique. J Adv Manuf Syst 18:57–83. https​://
doi.org/10.1142/S0219​68671​95000​33
26. Mohan B, Rajadurai A, Satyanarayana KG (2002) Effect of SiC
and rotation of electrode on electric discharge machining of Al–
SiC composite. J Mater Process Technol 124:297–304. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/S0924​-0136(02)00202​-9
27. Kumar NM, Senthil Kumaran S, Kumaraswamidhas LA (2015)
An investigation of mechanical properties and material removal
rate, tool wear rate in EDM machining process of AL2618 alloy
reinforced with S­ i3N4, AlN and Z­ rB2 composites. J Alloys Compd
650:318–327. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallc​om.2015.07.292
28. Suresh Kumar S, Uthayakumar M, Thirumalai Kumaran S, Para-
meswaran P, Mohandas E (2016) Electrical discharge machining
of Al (6351) alloy: role of electrode shape. Int J Mater Prod Tech-
nol 53:86–97. https​://doi.org/10.1504/ijmpt​.2016.07637​8
29. Ma Z (2010) Oil transport analysis of a cylinder deactivation
engine. SAE Tech Pap. https​://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-1098
30. Natarajan U, Suganthi XH, Periyanan PR (2016) Modeling and
multiresponse optimization of quality characteristics for the
micro-EDM drilling process. Trans Indian Inst Met 69:1675–
1686. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1266​6-016-0828-5
31. Kumar R, Chauhan S (2015) Study on surface roughness measure-
ment for turning of Al 7075/10/SiCp and Al 7075 hybrid compos-
ites by using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial
13
(2020) 42:432
neural networking (ANN). Meas J Int Meas Confed 65:166–180.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.measu​remen​t.2015.01.003
32. Arif S, Alam MT, Ansari AH, Siddiqui MA, Mohsin M (2017)
Study of mechanical and tribological behaviour of Al/SiC/ZrO2
hybrid composites fabricated through powder metallurgy tech-
nique. Mater Res Express 4:076511. https:​ //doi.org/10.1088/2053-
1591/aa7b5​f
33. Prasat SV, Subramanian R (2013) Tribological properties
of ­A lSi 10Mg/fly ash/graphite hybrid metal matrix compos-
ites. Ind Lubr Tribol 65:399–408. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1108/
ILT-05-2011-0031
34. Singh G, Goyal S (2018) Microstructure and mechanical behav-
ior of AA6082–T6/SiC/B4C-based aluminum hybrid composites.
Part Sci Technol 36:154–161. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02726​
351.2016.12274​10
35. Ranjith R, Tamilselvam P, Prakash T, Chinnasamy C (2019)
Examinations concerning the electric discharge machining
of AZ91/5B4CP composites utilizing distinctive electrode
materials. Mater Manuf Process 34:1120–1128. https​: //doi.
org/10.1080/10426​914.2019.16282​58
36. Sreebalaji VS, Ravi Kumar K (2016) Artificial neural networks
and multi response optimisation on EDM of aluminium (A380)/
fly ash composites. Int J Comput Mater Sci Surf Eng 6:244–262.
https​://doi.org/10.1504/ijcms​se.2016.08169​0
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.