Materials Today: Proceedings 33 (2020) 4431–4435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Response analysis on synthesized aluminium-scandium metal matrix

composite using unconventional machining processes
D. Pritima a,⇑, J. Vairamuthu b, P. Gopi Krishnan c, S. Marichamy d, B. Stalin e, S. Sheeba Rani f
a
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sethu Institute of Technology, Pulloor, Kariapatti 626 115, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dr. N.G.P Institute of Technology, Coimbatore 641 048, India
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Indu College of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, India
e
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Regional Campus Madurai, Madurai 625 019, India
f
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The research work and applications of aluminium based Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) has been
Received 23 July 2020 increased. It has more attractive material properties like strength, ductility, corrosion and wear resis-
Accepted 28 July 2020 tance. The current work reports the Titanium Carbide (TiC) and Vanadium Carbide (VC) reinforced alu-
Available online 20 September 2020
minium scandium MMC is formulated through metallurgy technique. The synthesized MMC is under
various materials testing for evaluating the properties. After addition of TiC and VC, the material proper-
Keywords: ties have been increased. Hence, Unconventional machining techniques such as Spark Erosion or
Metal matrix composite
Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM), Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) and Laser Beam
Titanium carbide
Vanadium carbide
Machining (LBM) have been carried out. In each machining processes, the influential parameter effect
Unconventional machining processes is determined through the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The orthogonal array (L9) based Taguchi
Analysis of variance approach is employed to find the optimal parameter for Material Deletion Rate (MDR).
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Nanotechnology: Ideas, Innovation and Industries.

1. Introduction the desired characteristics [7,8]. Taguchi optimization was used to

The role of the aluminium metal matrix is increased in all kind
of industries. It is used in automobile, aerospace, manufacturing
and marine applications. The material deletion rate and surface
quality were studied in electrical discharge machining of SiC-
based aluminium MMC [1]. The current was the most influential
parameter on material deletion rate which was found out through
analysis of variance in electrical discharge machining of brass [2].
The characterization and defects analysis were studied in abrasive
water jet machining of SiC-based Al MMC [3]. Water jet pressure
provided the maximum effects on material deletion rate during
AWJ machining of TiC and B4C based aluminium MMC [4]. Laser
beam machining was used to cut and drill any hard material with
high quality [5]. Laser cutting speed was the important factor for
laser machining of Al merged with SiC MMC. It has produced high
accuracy and productivity [6]. A few other research studies based
predominantly on TiC reinforcement particles with MMC produced
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pritimad@skcet.ac.in (D. Pritima).
found the optimal turning parameters on aluminium 6061 alloys
with TiC MMC [9]. In Taguchi scheme, the S/N ratio was used to
predict the responses [10–15]. The silicon carbide and titanium
carbide-based aluminium metal matrix was produced through
powder metallurgy route [16,17]. The four parameters such as
peak current, voltage, pulsation time and flushing pressure were
studied in electrical discharge machining of dual-phase brass
[18]. The process parameters and density can be easily controlled
in the powder metallurgy method [19].
In this paper is deeply discussed about the various unconven-
tional machining processes comparisons on TiC and VC reinforced
aluminium MMC. It reports the Taguchi based optimization is used
to analyze the optimal parameters for each process.
2. Material synthesis
The powder metallurgy technique was used to fabricate the TiC
and VC reinforced aluminium composite. The size of the alu-
minium powders was 300–350 mm. The sizes of the reinforcements
were 30 mm. The weight proportions of titanium and vanadium

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.672
2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Nanotechnology: Ideas, Innovation and Industries.
D. Pritima et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 33 (2020) 4431–4435

Table 1 like as sintering temperature (600–700℃), sintering time (100–

Result of material properties. 150 min) and compaction pressure (200–300 MPa).
S.no. Material properties Values
1 Hardness 450 BHN 3. Material properties
2 Tensile strength 680 MPa
3 Impact strength 14 J
Three specimens were prepared for measuring the material
4 Density 7.76 g/cc
properties such as hardness, density, tensile and shock strength.
The universal testing apparatus (AYS-50 Ton) was to measure the
tensile strength. The Izod test was used to evaluate the impact
carbides were 0.5 to 1.5. The uniform mixing of the powders was strength. Archimede’s principle was used for the measurement of
achieved by a ball mill. The standard specimens were prepared density. The material properties were revealed in Table 1.
as per machining requirements. The plate size of
70  40  10 mm was maintained for unconventional machining 4. Experimental results and discussions
processes. The diameter 6 mm holes were produced on the work-
piece. The various powder metallurgy parameters were considered 4.1. Electrical discharge machining process

The machinability characteristics were analyzed through vari-

Table 2
ous unconventional machining processes. The aluminium metal
EDM experimental results.
matrix was placed under the electrical discharge machining pro-
Ex. Peak current Pulsation time Voltage MDR (mm3/ cess (EDM model: KEB 606 N). During machining, peak current
no. (A) (ms) (V) min)
(5–15 A), pulsation time (80–150 ms) and voltage (30–550 V) was
1 5 80 30 1.320 considered as input process parameters. The material deletion rate
2 5 120 40 2.341
and tool wear rate was measured as the output parameters. The
3 5 150 50 3.321
4 10 80 40 2.567 experimental outcomes were shown in Table 2.
5 10 120 50 4.356 In Taguchi approach, larger the better criterion was selected to
6 10 150 30 6.896 maximize the material removal rate. Based on this condition, the
7 15 80 50 7.666 signal to noise ratio was calculated and it’s exposed in Table 3.
8 15 120 30 10.435
9 15 150 40 16.357
The main effects of S/N ratio plot were drawn and shown in
Fig. 1. The optimal parameters were found from the plot at 15A,
150 ms and 50 V. The analysis of variance is revealed in Table 4.
The current was providing maximum effects (72.83%) on material
deletion rate. The next influential parameter was pulsation time
Table 3
Signal to noise ratios- EDM.
(20.52%).

Level Peak current Pulsation time Voltage

4.2. Metal removal through AWJM
1 6.742 9.430 13.184
2 12.581 13.513 13.284
The machinability characteristics were analyzed through AWJM
3 20.778 17.157 13.633
Delta 14.037 7.727 0.448 (Model: ACCURL). During machining, water pressure (1500–
Rank 1 2 3 2500 bar), traverse speed (40–120 mm/min) and abrasive flow rate
(100–300 gm/mm) were considered as input process parameters.

Main Effects Plot for SN ratios

Data Means
Current (A) Pulse ON Time (µs) Voltage (V)
22.5

20.0
Mean of SN ratios

1 7.5

1 5.0

1 2.5

1 0.0

7.5

5.0
5 10 15 80 1 20 1 50 30 40 50

Signal-to-noise: Larger is better

Fig. 1. S/N ratio graph for MDR–EDM process.

4432
D. Pritima et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 33 (2020) 4431–4435

Table 4
Analysis of parameter role- EDM.

Constraints DF Adjusted SS Adjusted MS F-value P-value % of role

Peak Current (A) 2 136.405 68.202 20.72 0.046 72.83
Pulsation time (ms) 2 38.434 19.217 5.84 0.146 20.52
Voltage (V) 2 5.872 2.936 0.89 0.529 03.14
Error 2 6.584 3.292 – – 03.51
Total 8 187.295 – – – 100

Table 5
Result of AWJM observations.

Ex. no. Water pressure (bar) Traverse speed (mm/min) Abrasive Flow rate (gm/mm) MDR (gm/min)
1 1500 40 100 7.652
2 1500 80 200 9.321
3 1500 120 300 20.543
4 2000 40 200 17.652
5 2000 80 300 16.232
6 2000 120 100 15.232
7 2500 40 300 20.124
8 2500 80 100 17.278
9 2500 120 200 18.567

Table 6
Signal to noise ratios- AWJM.
120 mm/min and 300 gm/mm. The analysis of variance is exposed
in Table 7. The water pressure was produced maximum effects
Level Water pressure Traverse speed Abrasive flow rate
(35.51%) on material removal rate. The next influential parameter
1 21.11 22.90 22.03 was the abrasive flow rate (29.81%).
2 24.27 22.78 23.23
3 25.40 25.09 25.51
Delta 4.29 2.31 3.48 4.3. Laser beam machining process
Rank 1 3 2

The machinability performances were investigated through the

The material deletion rate and surface roughness were measured
as the output parameters. The AWJM experimental results were
shown in Table 5.
Similarly, larger the better criterion was selected to maximize
the material deletion rate for Taguchi design. Based on it, the signal
to noise ratio was premeditated and it’s listed in Table 6. The main
effects of S/N ratio plot were drawn and shown in Fig. 2. The
optimal parameters were found from the plot at 2500 bar,
laser beam machining process (Model: MMAN-3000). The various
parameters such as cutting speed (2–6 m/min), laser power
(600–100 W) and gas pressure (10–30 bar) were considered as
input process parameters. The material deletion rate in terms of
gram per minute and surface roughness in terms of micrometre
was measured as the output parameters. The LBM experimental
results were exposed in Table 8.
To achieve maximize the material removal rate, larger the bet-
ter criterion was favored for the Taguchi approach. The signal to

Fig. 2. S/N ratio graph for MDR– AWJM process.

4433
D. Pritima et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 33 (2020) 4431–4435

Table 7
Analysis of parameter contribution- AWJM.

Parameter DF Adjusted SS Adjusted MS F-Value P-Value % of involvement

Waterpressure 2 58.00 29.00 1.79 0.358 35.51
Traversespeed 2 24.30 12.15 0.75 0.571 14.88
Abrasiveflow rate 2 48.68 24.34 1.50 0.399 29.81
Error 2 32.34 16.17 – – 19.80
Total 8 163.32 – – – 100

Table 8
LBM experimental results.

Ex. No. Cutting speed (m/min) Laser power (W) Gas pressure (bar) MDR (gm/min)
1 2 600 10 6.433
2 2 800 20 7.334
3 2 1000 30 10.121
4 4 600 20 8.211
5 4 800 30 7.764
6 4 1000 10 11.232
7 6 600 30 5.432
8 6 800 10 9.213
9 6 1000 20 13.243

Table 9
5. Conclusions
Signal to noise ratios- LBM.

Level Cutting speed Laser power Gas pressure The titanium carbide and vanadium carbide-based aluminium
1 17.86 16.39 18.82 metal matrix composite were produced through powder metal-
2 19.03 18.13 19.34 lurgy method.
3 18.81 21.18 17.54
Delta 1.17 4.80 1.81
Rank 3 1 2
 The material properties such as hardness (450 BHN), tensile
strength (680 MPa), impact strength (14 J) and density
(7.76 g/cc) were measured.
 After fabrication and material testing, an aluminium metal
noise ratio was calculated as per condition and it’s revealed in matrix was machined by EDM, AWJM and LBM processes.
Table 9. The main effects of S/N ratio plot were drawn and  In EDM process, optimal parameters were achieved at 15A,
shown in Fig. 3. The optimal parameters were found from the plot 150 ms and 50 V. The current was providing maximum effects
at 4 m/min, 1000 W and 20 bars. The analysis of variance is (72.83%) on material deletion rate followed by pulsation time
exposed in Table 10. The laser power was the most inflectional (20.52%).
effects (77.31%) on material deletion rate followed by gas pressure  In AWJM process, optimal parameters were achieved at
(10.69%). 2500 bar, 120 mm/min and 300 gm/mm. The water pressure

Main Effects Plot for SN ratios

Data Means
Cutting speed Laser power Gas pressure

21

20
Mean of SN ratios

19

18

17

16
2 4 6 600 800 1 000 10 20 30

Signal-to-noise: Larger is better

Fig. 3. S/N ratio graph for MDR–LBM process.

4434
D. Pritima et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 33 (2020) 4431–4435

Table 10
Analysis of constraints role- LBM.

LBM constraints DF Adjusted SS Adjusted MS F-value P-Value % of role

Cutting speed 2 3.053 1.527 1.12 0.471 06.35
Laser power 2 37.172 18.586 13.69 0.068 77.31
Gas pressure 2 5.140 2.570 1.89 0.346 10.69
Error 2 2.716 1.358 – – 05.65
Total 8 48.081 – – – 100

was the given more effects (35.51%) on material deletion rate
followed by abrasive flow rate (29.81%).
 In LBM process, optimal parameters were obtained at 4 m/min,
1000 W and 20 bars. The laser power was the produced more
effects (77.31%) on material deletion rate followed by gas pres-
sure (10.69%).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Subhashree Naik, Sudhansu Ranjan Das, Debabrata Dhupal, Manuf. Rev. 7 (20)
(2020) 1-28.
[2] S. Marichamy, M. Saravanan, M. Ravichandran, G. Veerappan, J. Mater. Res. 31
(16) (2016) 2531–2537.
[3] Pedro F. Mayuet Ares, Lucia rodriguez parade, Álvaro Gómez-Parra, Moises
Batista Ponce, Appl. Sci. 10 (4) (2020) 1512.
[4] K.S.K. Sasikumar, K.P. Arulshri, K. Ponappa, M. Uthayakumar, Proceed. Instit.
Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 232 (4) 690-704 (2018).
[5] S. Marimuthu, M. Antar, J. Dunleavey, D. Chantzis, W. Darlington, P. Hayward,
Opt. Laser Technol. 94 (2017) 119–127.
[6] C. Wei, W. Guo, E.S. Pratomo, Q. Li, D. Wang, D. White head, L. Li, J. Mater.
Process Technol. 285 (2020) 116784
[7] S. Saravanan, M. Ravichandran, B. Stalin, S. Saravanavel, S. Sukumar,
Optimization of Process Parameters of Electrochemical Machining of TiC-
Reinforced AA6063 Composites, in: S. Hiremath, N. Shanmugam, B. Bapu
(Eds.), Advances in Manufacturing Technology, Lecture Notes in Mechanical
Engineering, Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 281–287.
[8] G. Baskaran, I. Daniel Lawrence, C. Ramesh Kannan, B. Stalin, Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res. 10 (51) (2015) 682–687
[9] D. Sai Chaitanya Kishore, K. Prahlada Rao, A. Ramesh, Mater. Today Proceed. 2
(4–5) (2015) 3075-3083
[10] Raviraj Shetty, Raghuvir B. Pai, Shrikanth S. Rao, Rajesh Nayak, J. Braz. Soc.
Mech. Sci. Eng. 31 (1) (2009) 12–20.
[11] G.T. Sudha, B. Stalin, M. Ravichandran, Mater. Res. Express 6 (9) (2019)
096520.
[12] S. Marichamy, M. Ravichandran, B. Stalin, B. Sridhar Babu, FME Trans. 47
(2019) 116-112
[13] J. Rajaparthiban, S. Saravanavel, M. Ravichandran, K. Vijayakumar, B. Stalin,
Mater. Today. Proc. 24 (2020) 1282–1291.
[14] B. Stalin, P. Ramesh Kumar, M. Ravichandran, S. Saravanan, Mater. Res. Exp. 5
(10) (2018) 106502.
[15] J. Rajaparthiban, M. Ravichandran, B. Stalin, P. Ramesh Kumar, V. Mohanavel,
Mater. Today:. Proc. 22 (2020) 2559–2564.
[16] S. Pradeep Devaneyan, R. Ganesh, T. Senthilvelan, Indian J. Mater. Sci. 2017
(2017) 3067257.
[17] B. Stalin, S. Arivukkarasan, G. Ashwin Prabhu, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.10 (55)
(2015) 3994–3999
[18] S. Marichamy, B. Stalin, M. Ravichandran, G.T. Sudha, Mater. Today. Proc. 24
(2020) 1400–1409.
[19] R. Chandramouli, T.K. Kandavel, D. Shanmugasundaram, T.A. Kumar, Mater.
Des. 28 (7) (2007) 2260–2264.

4435