Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences

Vol. 13, June 2006, pp. 209-216

Performance parameters optimization (multi-characteristics) of powder

mixed electric discharge machining (PMEDM) through Taguchis
method and utility concept
H K Kansala*, Sehijpal Singhb & Pradeep Kumarc
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SLIET Longowal 148 106, India
b
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, G.N.D.E.C Ludhiana 141 007, India
c
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247 267, India
Received 5 October 2004; accepted 23 March 2006
Electrical discharge machining (EDM) is widely used in the production of dies. This paper describes an investigation
into the optimization of the EDM process when silicon powder is suspended into the dielectric fluid of EDM. Taguchis
method with multiple performance characteristics has been adopted to obtain an overall utility value that represents the
overall performance of powder mixed EDM (PMEDM). The four input process parameters, viz., concentration of silicon
powder added into the dielectric fluid, peak current, pulse duration and duty cycle, are optimized with consideration of
multiple performance characteristics including machining rate (MR), surface roughness (SR) and tool wear rate (TWR).
A modified powder mixed dielectric circulation system has been developed. Experiments have been performed on the
newly designed experimental set-up developed in the laboratory. The obtained experimental results indicate that the peak
current and concentration of the silicon powder suspended into dielectric fluid are most significant parameters. Moreover,
the performance of PMEDM has improved over EDM. The predicted optimal values for MR, SR and TWR obtained for
PMEDM are 1.22 mm3/min, 0.51 m and 0.005 mm3/min respectively. The results are further verified by conducting
confirmation experiments.
IPC Code: B05C, B23H1/00

Electrical discharge machining (EDM) is one of the
non-conventional machining processes, which is
widely used to produce intricate shapes on any
conducting metal and alloy irrespective of their
hardness and toughness1. In spite of remarkable
process capabilities, the limitations like low
volumetric material removal rate and poor surface
quality restricted its further applications2. To address
these problems, recently, powder mixed EDM
(PMEDM) has been emerged as one of the advanced
technique in the direction of enhancement of
capabilities of EDM2,3. The investigations show that
when a suitable material in fine powder form is mixed
into the dielectric fluid of EDM, the insulating
strength of the dielectric fluid decreases and
consequently, the spark gap distance between the
electrode and workpiece increases2-6. Enlarged spark
gap distance ensures the uniform flushing of debris.
As a result, the process becomes more stable thereby
improving machining rate (MR) and surface finish.
Further, the glossy and smooth surface finish could be
achieved by mixing the different additives into the
________
*For correspondence (E-mail: shaarut@yahoo.com)
dielectric fluid of EDM2. Mohri et al6. found that an
EDM finishing process using dielectric mixed with
silicon powder produced a mirror surface of up to 500
cm2 area.
The electrical parameters (peak current, pulse
duration and pulse off time) and non-electrical
parameters (gain, electrode lift time and flushing) of
EDM have great effect on process performance7.
Besides theses factors, the addition of suitable powder
into the dielectric fluid significantly affects the
performance characteristics of the PMEDM2. The fine
surfaces are produced by addition of graphite and
silicon powders into the dielectric oil. Because of
significant difference in the thermophysical properties
of different powders, it was experimentally found that
powder characteristics, such as powder concentration,
particle size and particle density, affect the efficiency
of EDM3. The performance of PMEDM also depends
upon the composition of the workpiece material2.
Machining of SKH-54 tool steel in presence of
powder particles produces higher MR and discharge
dispersion than AISI-01 tool steel.
210 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., JUNE 2006
Literature survey indicates that PMEDM involves a
large number of input parameters that affect the
quality of the machined component. Therefore, it
becomes very important to find out their relative
influence on the output characteristics. It is also noted
that the quality of the machined component is defined
by various output characteristics such as MR, surface
roughness (SR), tool wear rate (TWR) and surface
hardness. Therefore, the problem of optimization of
PMEDM can be considered as a multi-objective
optimization problem. The aim of this study is to
obtain a single setting (optimal setting) of various
input parameters of PMEDM to obtain a single output
characteristic as a whole. The multi-criterion
methodology based on Taguchi approach and utility
concept has been used for optimization8-10.
Technology of PMEDM
Powder mixed EDM has a different machining
mechanism from the conventional EDM. In this
process, a suitable material in the powder form was
mixed into the dielectric fluid either in the same tank
or in a separate tank. For better circulation of the
powder mixed dielectric, a stirring system was
employed. For constant reuse of powder in the
dielectric fluid, a special circulation system was used.
The various powders that can be added into the
dielectric fluid include aluminum, chromium,
graphite, copper or silicon carbide. The spark gap was
filled up with additive particles. When a voltage of
80-320 V was applied between the electrode and the
workpiece facing each other with a gap of 25-50 m,
an electric field in the range 105-107 V/m was created.
The powder particles get energized and behave in a
zigzag fashion. Under the sparking area, the particles
come close to each other and arrange themselves in
the form of chain like structures between both the
electrodes. The interlocking between the different
powder particles occurred in the direction of flow of
current. The chain formation helps in bridging the
discharge gap between both the electrodes. Due to
bridging effect, the insulating strength of the
dielectric fluid decreased. The easy short circuit takes
place, which causes early explosion in the gap. As a
result, a series discharge starts under the electrode
area. The faster sparking within a discharge takes
place, which caused faster erosion from the work-
piece surface and hence increased the MR. At the
same time, the added powder modifies the plasma
channel. The plasma channel becomes enlarged and
widened2. The sparking is uniformly distributed
among the powder particles, hence electric density of
the spark decreased. Consequently, uniform erosion
(shallow craters) occurred on the workpiece surface.
This results in improvement in surface finish.
Process parameters of PMEDM
In order to identify the process parameters that
affect the performance of PMEDM, an Ishikawa
cause-effect diagram is constructed as shown in
Fig. 1. The Ishikawa cause-effect diagram (Fig. 1)
shows that the following parameters may affect the
performance of PMEDM: (i) electrical parameters:
peak current, pulse duration, duty cycle and supply
voltage, (ii) non-electrical parameters: electrode lift
time, working time, nozzle flushing and gain,
(iii) powder-based parameters: powder type, powder
concentration, powder shape, powder size, powder
conductivity and powder density, and (iv) electrode
based parameters: electrode material and electrode
size.
The following four parameters were chosen for this
study: (i) concentration of silicon powder, (A);
(ii) peak current, (B); (iii) pulse duration, (C); and
(iv) duty cycle, (D).
The ranges of the selected process parameters were
decided by conducting the experiments using one
variable at a time approach. The selected process
parameters, their designated symbols and levels are
given in Table 1. Each parameter was studied at three
levels.
Performance characteristics of PMEDM
To evaluate the performance of PMEDM, the
following output characteristics were selected:
(i) machining rate (MR), (ii) surface roughness (SR),
and (iii) tool wear rate (TWR)
MR is higher the better type of quality
characteristic, whereas SR and TWR are lower the
better type. It is required to optimize the performance
characteristics of the PMEDM as a whole. A
simplified multi-criterion methodology based on
Taguchis approach and utility concept has been used
to achieve the objective of this study.
Electrical
parameters
Powder
parameters
Pulse on Powder
time Peak Current Type
Supply Powder
Voltage Pulse off
time
Concentration
PMEDM process
Performance
Nozzle
flushing Material
Type
Working Lift
time
Size
time
Non-Electrical
parameters
Electrode
parameters
Fig. 1 The Ishikawa cause-effect diagram for PMEDM
 KANSAL et al.: POWDER MIXED ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE MACHINING 211

n
Table 1 PMEDM process parameters and their levels
U (X1, X1,, Xn ) = U
i =1
i (X i ) (2)
Process parameter Designation Levels
1 2 3 Depending upon the customers requirements, the
attributes might be given priorities. The priorities
Powder concentration (g/L) A 0 1 2
could be adjusted by providing a weight to the
Peak current (A) B 3 6 12 individual utility index. The overall utility function by
Pulse duration (s) C 50 100 150 assigning weights to attributes could be written as:
Duty cycle D 0.7 0.8 0.9 n

Fixed Parameters U (X1, X1,, Xn ) = W

i =1
i Ui (X i ) (3)
Voltage = 110 V
Discharge voltage = 35 V where, Wi is the weight assigned to the attribute i and
Gain = 0.86 mm/s the sum of the weights for all the attributes is equal to
Electrode lift time = 1.36 s
1. The utility function is of higher the better type. If
Machining time = 45 min
the composite measure (the overall utility) is
maximized, the performance characteristics
Flushing = Nozzle
considered for the evaluation of utility will
Polarity = +ve
automatically be optimized (maximized or minimized
Workpiece material = H-11 die steel whichever the case may be).
Electrode (tool) material = Copper To determine the utility value for a number of
performance characteristics, a preference scale for
each performance characteristic was constructed.
Utility Concept Later these scales were weighted to obtain a
The performance evaluation of any machining composite number (overall utility). The weighting
process or a component depends upon a number of was done to satisfy the test of indifference on the
diverse output characteristics. To able to make a various performance characteristics. The preference
rational choice, these evaluations on different scale may be linear, exponential or logarithmic. The
characteristics should be combined to give a minimum acceptable level for each output
composite index. Such a composite index represents characteristic was set at a preference number of 0 and
the overall utility of a product. The overall utility of a the best available performance was assigned a
process/component measures its usefulness in the eyes preference number of 9 (the preference numbers for
of an evaluator. In this paper, it is assumed that the minimum or best values of characteristics is optimal).
overall utility of a component machined by PMEDM In this study, logarithmic scale was used. Therefore,
is the sum of utilities of each of the performance the preference number (Pi ) is given as11:
characteristics.
Thus, if Xi is the measure of effectiveness of an Xi
Pi = A log (4)
attribute (characteristic) i and there are n attributes X i'
evaluating the outcome space, then the joint function
could be expressed as: where Xi is the value of performance characteristic or
attribute i. X i' is the minimum acceptable value of the
U (X1, X1,, Xn ) = f (U1 (X1), U2 (X2),., Un (Xn ))
performance characteristic or attribute i and A is a
(1) constant. Arbitrarily, A has been chosen such that
th
where Ui (Xi) is the utility of the i attribute. Pi=9 at Xi = X*, where X* is the optimum value of Xi
It was assumed that the attributes (characteristics) with assumption that such a number exists.
are independent and have no interactions between The next step was to assign weights or relative
themselves, and the overall utility function is a linear importance to the performance characteristics. A
sum of individual utilities, the overall utility function number of methods exist for the assessment of
becomes weights (AHP and conjoint analysis12). The weights
should be assigned such that the following conditions
hold:
212 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., JUNE 2006

n (viii) After considering the optimal significant

W i =1
i individual characteristic values have been
The overall utility can be calculated as:
n conducted at the optimal setting and results are
U = Wi Pi
i =1
The multi-characteristic optimization algorithm
The following step-by-step procedure using
Taguchi approach and utility concept was used to
obtain the multi-characteristic optimization of
PMEDM:
(i) The optimal values of the selected performance
characteristics have been found separately by
using Taguchis experimental design and
analysis (parameter design).
(ii) Using the optimal values and the minimum
levels, preference scales for each performance
characteristic have been constructed.
(iii) Weights Wi, i = 1, 2,.., n, were assigned to
various output characteristics based on
experience and the application of the component
such that the sum of weights is equal to 1.
(iv) Using Eq. (5), the utility values for each
experiment against each trial condition of the
experiment have been found.
(v) The obtained utility values in step 4 were used
as a response of the trial conditions of the
selected experimental plan.
(vi) The results were analyzed using procedure
suggested by Taguchi8-10.
(vii) The optimal settings of the process parameters
for optimum utility (mean and minimum
deviation around the mean) have been found.
parameters as determined in step 7, the
predicted.
(ix) Number of confirmation experiments has been
(5) compared with the predicted optimal values.
Phase-I: Optimization of an individual performance
characteristic
Taguchis method was applied to identify the
optimum levels of process parameters for each
performance characteristic individually. The selection
of an appropriate orthogonal array (OA) is a critical
step in Taguchis experimental design. The OA
selected should satisfy the following criterion7:
Degrees of freedom (DOF) of OA Total DOF
required
Therefore, L9 (34) Taguchi orthogonal array was
selected to assign various columns. The experiments
were conducted according to the trial conditions
specified in L9 (34) OA (Table 2). A total of 27
(= 3 9) experiments (three repetitions at each trial
condition) were conducted. The observed values of
MR, SR and TWR are mentioned in Table 3.
Analysis and optimal results
Using Taguchis analysis and analysis of variance
(ANOVA), the optimal settings for MR, SR and TWR
were determined separately and the optimal values
were predicted. The average values of performance
characteristics at each level and against each
parameter were calculated and are given in Table 4.
Table 5 displays the individual optimal values and
corresponding optimal setting of the process
parameters for MR, SR and TWR for the experiments
performed by PMEDM.

Table 2 The L9 (34) Taguchi orthogonal array layout

Trial No. Process Parameters Response
Powder concentration (g/L) Peak current (A) Pulse duration (s) Duty cycle R1 R2 R3
1 1 1 1 1 -- -- --
2 1 2 2 2 -- -- --
3 1 3 3 3 -- -- --
4 2 1 2 3 -- -- --
5 2 2 3 1 -- -- --
6 2 3 1 2 -- -- --
7 3 1 3 2 -- -- --
8 3 2 1 3 -- -- --
9 3 3 2 1 -- -- --
R1, R2 and R3 represent repetitions
 KANSAL et al.: POWDER MIXED ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE MACHINING 213

Table 3 Observed values for the PMEDM performance characteristics

Trial No. MR SR TWR
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
1 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.86 0.93 1.00 0.012 0.010 0.008
2 0.63 0.60 0.57 1.53 1.40 1.66 0.015 0.025 0.020
3 1.07 1.15 0.99 2.24 1.72 1.98 0.085 0.095 0.060
4 0.85 0.78 0.71 0.89 0.96 0.82 0.008 0.010 0.012
5 1.10 0.88 0.99 1.80 1.56 1.32 0.015 0.025 0.020
6 2.50 2.08 2.29 2.44 1.48 1.96 0.055 0.045 0.035
7 0.88 0.96 1.04 0.51 0.66 0.81 0.013 0.005 0.009
8 1.40 1.20 1.60 1.16 1.22 1.10 0.012 0.010 0.008
9 3.24 2.90 3.07 1.42 1.22 1.02 0.035 0.015 0.025
Table 4 Average values of performance characteristics at different levels
Process parameter Average values, MR Average values, SR Average values, TWR
designation L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
A 0.66 1.35 1.81 1.48 1.47 1.01 0.037 0.025 0.020
B 0.68 0.99 2.14 0.82 1.41 1.72 0.010 0.017 0.050
C 1.33 1.48 1.00 1.35 1.21 1.40 0.022 0.020 0.036
D 1.46 1.28 1.08 1.24 1.38 1.34 0.018 0.025 0.033
L2 and L3 represent levels 1, 2 and 3 respectively

Phase-II: Preference scale construction X = minimum acceptable value of TWR = 0.10

Machining rate (MR) mm3/min (assumed that observed values of TWR are
X* = optimal value of MR = 2.89 mm3/min. (ref. less than 0.10 mm3/min (Table 3).
Table 5) The preference scale for TWR was
X = minimum acceptable value of MR = 0.25
mm3/min (assumed that observed values of MR are X TWR
PTWR = -7.36 log (8)
greater than 0.25 mm3/min (Table 3). 0.10
Using these values in Eq. (4), the preference scale Weights
for MR was constructed as: The weights to the selected performance
characteristics were assigned as given below:
X MR WMR = weight assigned to the MR = 0.4
PMR = 8.46 log (6)
0.25
WSR = weight assigned to the SR = 0.4
Surface roughness (SR) WTWR = weight assigned to the TWR = 0.2
X* = optimal value of SR = 0.4 m (refer Table 5) The customers requirements and priorities were
X = minimum acceptable value of SR = 2.5 m taken into consideration while deciding the weights of
(assumed that observed values of SR are less than 2.5 performance characteristics. Here, the finishing
m (Table 3). condition (represented by SR) as well as the
efficiency (represented by MR) requirements of the
The preference scale for SR was
components machined by PMEDM was considered
equally important. Therefore, equal weightage was
X SR assigned to MR and SR.
PSR = -11.30 log (7)
2 .5 Calculation of Utility Value
Tool wear rate (TWR) The following relation (overall utility function)
X* = optimal value of TWR = 0.006 mm3/min (refer was used to calculate the utility values for each trial
Table 5) condition and for each repetition:
214 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., JUNE 2006

Table 5 Optimal setting of process parameters (phase-I) and Table 7 (a) Average values and main effects (raw data). (b)
optimal values of individual response Pooled ANOVA (raw data)
Performance Optimal settings Significant Predicted optimal Process Average utility values Main effects
characteristics of process process value of perform- parameter
parameters parameters ance characteristics designation L1 L2 L3 L2-L1 L3-L2
Machining rate A3, B3, C2, D1 A, B, C 2.89 mm3/min A 3.25 4.48 5.90 1.23 1.42
(MR)
B 5.03 4.25 4.35 -0.78 0.10
Surface A3, B1, C2, D1 A, B, C 0.4 m
roughness (SR) C 4.50 4.82 4.31 0.32 -0.51
Tool wear rate A3, B1, C2, D1 A, B, C 3
0.006 mm /min D 4.57 4.58 4.47 0.01 -0.11
(TWR) L1, L2 and L3 represent levels 1, 2 and 3 respectively
Table 6 Utility data based on performance characteristics (MR, Table 7 (b) Average values and main effects (raw data). (b)
SR, TWR) Pooled ANOVA (raw data)
Trial No. Utility value Source D.O.F SS V SS F ratio P (%)
*
R1 R2 R3 A 2 10.60 5.31 10.17 448.99 84.01
1 3.61 3.67 3.90 B 2 1.07 0.53 0.65 45.26* 8.84
2 3.52 3.30 3.03 C (2) (0.40) - - Pooled -
3 2.45 3.00 2.80 D (2) (0.024) - - Pooled -
4 5.43 5.02 5.07 Error 4 0.424 0.10 7.01
5 4.03 3.65 4.30 Total 8 12.10 1.51 100
6 3.81 4.65 4.40 * Significant at 95% confidence level.
7 6.27 6.50 5.84 SS = Sum of squares due to the sole factor eliminating the effect
of error;
8 5.38 5.18 5.95
V = Variance; P = Percentage contribution; F = Fisher test
9 5.54 6.22 6.32 factor.

U (n, R) = PMR (n, R) WMR + PSR (n, R) WSR +

PTWR (n, R) WTWR (9)

where, n is the trial number, n = 1, 2, , 9, and R

is the repetition number, R = 1, 2, 3. The calculated
utility values are mentioned in Table 6.
Analysis of data and determination of the optimal setting of
the process parameters
The mean responses and main effects in terms of
utility values were calculated and are reported in
Table 7a. These results are plotted in Fig. 2. It is clear
from Fig. 2 that the third level of concentration of
added silicon powder (A3), the first level of peak
current (B1), the second level of pulse duration (C2)
and the first level of duty cycle (D1) yields a
maximum value of the overall utility function for the
PMEDM performance.
The pooled version of ANOVA for raw data
(Table 7 b) indicate that the process parameters such
as concentration of added silicon powder (A) and
peak current (B) are significant at a 95% confidence
level. Since the pulse duration (C) and duty cycle (D)
are insignificant, any level of these factors may be
chosen. However, the second level of pulse duration
Fig. 2 Effect of process parameters on mean utility value
(MR, SR, TWR)
(C = 100 s) and first level of duty cycle (D = 0.7) are
the best setting from the process stability point of
view. The optimal setting of the PMEDM parameters
for optimization of MR, SR and TWR is given in
Table 8.
Predicted means (optimal values of performance
characteristics)
Machining rate (MR)
After utilizing the estimation model of Taguchi
approach based on the average values, the
performance at the optimum conditions is achieved by
using the following equation8-10:
Yopt = Average performance + Contribution of
significant factors at optimum level
 KANSAL et al.: POWDER MIXED ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE MACHINING 215

3
Yopt = A3 + B1 T = 1.22 mm /min (using Table 9) N (total number of trials) = 27, R (number of
repetitions) = 3, neff = 5.4 (calculated), and F0.05 (1, 4)
The 95% confidence interval of confirmation = 7.71 (tabulated f-value) and Ve = error variance =
experiments (CICE) was calculated by using the 0.015.
following expression8-10: Therefore, CICE = 0.14
The predicted optimal range is
1 0.36 m < SR < 0.66 m
CICE = F (1, fe ) Ve (10)
neff Tool wear rate

The predicted mean of the TWR (using Table 9) is
where, F (1, f e ) is the F-ratio at a confidence level Yopt = A3 + B1 T = 0.005 mm3/min.
of (1-) against DOF one and error degree of freedom
The 95% confidence interval of confirmation
fe N
experiments (CICE) was calculated by using the
neff =
d .o . f . of all factors used following values in Eq. (10):
1 +
in the estimate of mean N (total number of trials) = 27, R (number of
repetitions) = 3, neff = 5.4 (calculated), and F0.05 (1, 4)
For MR: = 7.71 (tabulated f-value) and Ve = error variance =
N (total number of trials) = 27, R (number of 0.00017.
repetitions) = 3, neff = 5.4 (calculated), and F0.05 (1, 4)
= 7.71 (tabulated f-value) and Ve = error variance = Therefore, CICE = 0.01
0.10. The predicted optimal range is
Therefore, CICE = 0.37 0 mm3/min. < TWR < 0.015 mm3/min.
The predicted optimal range is
Confirmation Experiments
0.84 mm3/min. < MR < 1.60 mm3/min. Three confirmation experiments were conducted at
Surface roughness (SR) the optimum setting of the process parameters. The
The predicted mean of the SR (using Table 9) is values of the performance characteristics, viz., MR,
SR and TWR were recorded and are given in
Yopt = A3 + B1 T = 0.51 m Table 10. However, the overall average values are
reported here:
The 95% confidence interval of confirmation
experiments (CICE) was calculated by using the MR = 1.06 mm3/min; SR = 0.40 m; TWR = 0.007
following values in Eq. (10): mm3/min.
Table 8 Optimal setting of process parameters
Powder concentration* 2g/L
(A3, third level) Table 9 Average values of performance characteristics at
Peak current* (B1, first level) 3A optimum level
Pulse duration (C2, second level) Any level as its effect is Levels Machining rate Surface roughness Tool wear rate
insignificant (mm3/min.)* (m)* (mm3/min.)*
Duty cycle (D1, first level) Any level as its effect is A3 1.81 1.01 0.020
insignificant B1 0.68 0.82 0.010
* Significant at 95% confidence level. *The above average values are taken from the Table 4.

Table 10 Observed values of performance characteristics (confirmation experiments)

Trial No. Machining rate Average Surface roughness Average Tool wear rate Average
(MR) (SR) (TWR)
R1 R2 R3 MR R1 R2 R3 SR R1 R2 R3 TWR
1 1.10 1.05 1.15 1.10 0.41 0.25 0.38 0.34 0.005 0.013 0.009 0.009
2 0.99 1.10 1.02 1.03 0.39 0.45 0.35 0.40 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.006
3 1.10 0.88 1.19 1.06 0.45 0.54 0.40 0.46 0.004 0.010 0.005 0.006
Overall average 1.06 0.40 0.007
216 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., JUNE 2006
Table 11 Summary and comparison of results
Performance characteristics: machining rate (MR), surface roughness (SR), tool wear rate (TWR)
Weights: WMR = 0.40, WSR = 0.40, WTWR = 0.20, Type: HB, LB, LB respectively
Method Characteristics
Single Characteristics optimization MR
SR
TWR
Multi-Characteristics optimization MR, SR, TWR
*Significant at 95% confidence level.
It is clear from Table 10 that the average as well as
individual characteristic values are well within the
95% CICE of the optimal range. The summary results
and comparison with the single characteristic
optimization are given in Table 11.
Conclusions
Based on the experiments performed on a newly
developed experimental set-up developed for
PMEDM, the following conclusions have been drawn:
(i) A simplified model based on Taguchis
approach and utility concept was used to
determine the optimal setting of the parameters
for a multi-characteristic process. The model
was used to predict an optimal setting of the
parameters of PMEDM to achieve its optimum
performance.
(ii) The optimal setting of input process parameters
for individual characteristic is:
MR = A3, B3, C2, D1, SR = A3, B1, C2, D1,
TWR = A3, B1, C2, D1
(iii) The optimal settings of input process parameters
for overall utility is A3, B1, C2, D1.
(iv) The percentage contributions of each parameter
to the overall utility index for PMEDM is given
as follows:
Parameter % Contribution on overall
utility value
Powder concentration 84.01
Peak current 8.84
Pulse duration 4.20
Duty cycle 2.95
(v) The concentration of added silicon powder and
peak current are the most influential parameters
on overall utility value.
Optimal condition Optimal value
A3*, B3*, C2*, D1 2.89 mm3/min
* * *
A3 , B1 , C2 , D1 0.4 m
A3*, B1*, C2*, D1 0.006 mm3/min
A3*, B1*, C2, D1 MR = 1.22 mm3/min
SR = 0.51 m
TWR = 0.005 mm3/min
(vi) With a different set of weights, a different set of
optimal parameters for the output characteristics
will be obtained. The optimal set of process
parameters predicted would be closer to the
optimal set predicted for that characteristic
which has been assigned the largest weight.
(vii) The model could be extended to any number of
performance characteristics provided preference
scales for the characteristics are available.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the support of M/s
Electronica Machine Tools Ltd., Pune, India. We are
also grateful to Prof. P.L. Bali, CIET, Rajpura and Er.
Baljit Singh, PSEB for their guidance and expert
comments in response to our queries and problems.
References
1 Zhao W S, Meng Q G & Wang Z L, J Mater Process
Technol, 129 (2002) 30-33.
2 Wong Y S, Lim L C, Rahuman I & Tee W M, J Mater
Process Technol, 79 (1998) 30-40.
3 Tzeng Y F & Lee C Y, Int J Adv Manufact Technol, 17
(2001) 586-592.
4 Uno Y & Okada A, Int J Electro Machine, 2 (1997) 13-18.
5 Erden A & Bilgin S, Role of impurities in electric discharge
machining, Proc of 21st Int. Machine Tool Design and
Research Conf, Macmillan, London, 1980, 345-350.
6 Mohri N, Saito N & Higashi M, Annals CIRP, 40 (1) (1991)
207-210.
7 Yan B H & Chen S L, J Chinese Soc Mech Eng, 14(3)
(1993) 307-312.
8 Taguchi G, Introduction to quality engineering (Asian
Productivity Organization Tokyo), 1990.
9 Ross P J, Taguchi techniques for quality engineering
(McGraw-Hill, New York), 1988.
10 Roy R K, A primer on Taguchi methods (Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York), 1990.
11 Gupta V & Murthy P N, An introduction to engineering
design methods (Tata McGraw, New Delhi), 1982.
12 Bosser J L, Quality function development A practitioner
approach (Marcel Dekker New York), 1991.