See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320253101

Optimization of EDM Process Parameters with Fuzzy Logic for Stainless Steel
304 (ASTM A 240)

Article  in  Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · October 2017

DOI: 10.1115/1.4038139

CITATIONS READS

2 273

4 authors, including:

Alaa Ubaid Shukry Hammed

University of Sharjah University of Technology, Iraq
6 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of CNC Turning for Aluminum Alloy Using Simulated Annealing Method View project

Prediction of MRR in EDM process Using Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alaa Ubaid on 11 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of Electro
Alaa M. Ubaid
College of Engineering,
University of Sharjah,
Discharge Machining Process
P. O. Box 27272,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Parameters With Fuzzy Logic
e-mail: aubaid@sharjah.ac.ae

Fikri T. Dweiri
College of Engineering,
University of Sharjah,
P. O. Box 27272,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
e-mail: fdweiri@sharjah.ac.ae
Shukry H. Aghdeab
Department of Production
Engineering & Metallurgy,
University of Technology,
P. O. Box 35010,
Baghdad, Iraq
e-mail: shukry_hammed@yahoo.com
Laith Abdullah Al-Juboori
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Higher Colleges of Technology,
P.O. Box 4114,
Fujairah, United Arab Emirates
e-mail: laljuboori@hct.ac.ae
for Stainless Steel 304
(ASTM A240)
Electro discharge machining (EDM) process need to be optimized when a new material
invented or even if some process variables changed. This process has many variables and
it is always difficult to get the optimum set of variables by chance. Therefore, an optimi-
zation process need to be conducted considering different combinations of machining
parameters as well as other variables even if the process were optimized for a certain set
of variables. Optimization of the EDM process for machining stainless steel 304 (SS304)
(ASTM A240) was studied in this paper. Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) was calculated for
each performance measures, and multi response performance index (MRPI) was gener-
ated using fuzzy logic inference system. Optimal machining parameters for machining
SS304 materials were identified, namely current 10, pulse on time 60 ls, and pulse off
time 35 ls. Analyses of variances (ANOVA) method was used as well to see which
machining parameter has significant effect on the performance measures. The result of
ANOVA indicates that pulse off time and current are the most significant machining
parameters in affecting the performance measures, with the pulse off time being the most
significant parameter. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4038139]
Keywords: EDM, fuzzy logic, optimization, EDM machining, cutting parameters, signal
to noise, ANOVA, multi response performance index

1 Introduction and workpiece is filled with dielectric solution, the spark will
occur. The significant feature of EDM process is that no mechani-
Electro discharge machining (EDM) history can be traced back
cal contact occurs between tool and the workpiece, which means
to World Wars I and II. This fact was stated by El-Hofy [1] and
eliminating all negative effects coming from mechanical contacts
he mentioned in his study that relaxation circuit was invented by
such as chatter, vibration, and stresses [3]. In the rest of this paper,
B. R. Butinzky and N. I. Lazarenko. However, Ho and Newman
authors introduced the topic through introductory theoretical
[2] stated that the basis of EDM traced back to 1770, as it seen
background section and then presented the problem statement and
from the reviewed literature, when English chemist Joseph
research objectives in one section. Literature review will be
Priestly discovered the phenomena of erosion on the conductive
materials due to the effect of the sparks by electrical discharge
process. However, it was exploited only in 1943 at the Moscow
University, Moskva, Russia, by Lazarenko, as he developed a con-
trolled machining process to cut those metals difficult to be
machined by conventional machining process, see references there
in Ref. [2]. EDM process depends on the conductive properties of
materials to vaporize it and create targeted shapes. Also, Ho and
Newman [2] stated that almost in same period, three American
inventers removed the broken taps or drills during drilling process
by using the electrical charges; this work became the starting
point to develop the vacuum tube EDM machine and an electronic
circuit servo system.
Electric discharge machining is a nonconventional machining
process, and it depends on generating high thermal heat by electri-
cal discharge process generated by controlled spark generation
between a two electrodes which are submerged in a dielectric
medium; this process leads to material removal from the targeted
area, see Fig. 1 [1]. EDM is now considered a well-established
process, and it is used with machining processes characterized by
its high precision shapes complexity, e.g., free form surfaces
machining. Generating electrical spark and the occurrence of ther-
mal erosion, which vaporize materials, are considered the core of
the EDM process. Electrical conductivity of both tool (electrode)
and workpiece is mandatory. Only if the gap between electrode

Manuscript received March 23, 2017; final manuscript received September 9,

2017; published online November 17, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Hongqiang Chen. Fig. 1 EDM components [1]

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-1
C 2018 by ASME
Copyright V
 Fig. 2 EDM schematic [1]
Fig. 3 EDM system components [1]
conducted after that to prove research approach feasibility. After
literature review, research methodology will be discussed in new
section. Experimental work details as well as other parts of the
work will be discussed in the results’ discussion section. Then, at
the end of this paper, authors presented the conclusions derived
from this paper and suggested the future research directions.
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Electro Discharge Machining (EDM)
2.1.1 EDM Machine Components. EDM first component is
the tool feeder which should be servo-controlled in order to main-
tain a controlled gap (see Figs. 2 and 3). Controlled gap is a
Fig. 4 Classification of the spark erosion machining processes [3]
011013-2 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018
Fig. 5 Important input and output parameters for EDM process
[5]
significant factor for active discharges occurrence between the
two electrodes. Power supply is the second component; this unit
supplies voltage and current in the form of pulses with specific
On/Off time. Third component is the circulation unit; this unit fil-
ters the dielectric from the debris and then flush it to the gap
again. However, machine component can be different due to the
differences on the spark erosion machining process [3] (see
Fig. 4).
2.1.2 EDM Process Parameters and Performance Measures.
The variety of the machining parameters of EDM process makes
it difficult task to optimize. Even a change in single parameter can
lead to many changes in EDM process performance. Thus, it is
mandatory to understand all process variables to control the pro-
cess variation [4]. In the literature review section, it could be seen
that many parameters are included in the EDM process. Those
parameters were classified into significant and insignificant
parameters on the basis of their effect on the performance meas-
ures, but summary can be made of the main parameters and per-
formance measures in Fig. 5.
It could be concluded that in EDM process, the process factors
were categorize into two main parts, which are performance meas-
ures and process parameters. Process parameters are classified to
Transactions of the ASME
electrical and nonelectrical parameters [2,5]. In all viewed litera-
ture, the researchers try to optimize the EDM process by studying
the effect of process parameters on the performance measures but
in different approaches. Optimization approaches could be but not
limited to statistical approach [5,6], modeling approach with
mathematical models [7], finite element method (FEM) [8], or
they used optimization methods like genetic algorithm (GA) and
artificial neural networks (ANN) [4], and fuzzy logic [9–14].
2.1.3 Mechanism of Material Removal in EDM Process. The
machining EDM process is highly depended on the generation of
high temperature in the area between electrodes (tool and work-
piece) in order to evaporate and before melting the tool and work-
piece, which lead to material removal by pressure of the dielectric
flow. Such temperature is generated only by high-intensity dis-
charges. Such discharges happen only when an electrical spark
happens between the tool and workpiece electrodes, while both of
them separated by a dielectric liquid as shown in Fig. 1. The gap
between electrodes is usually very small, 0.01–0.5 mm. maintain-
ing such a small gap, and control is very important for machining
process success. Other important part for process success is gener-
ating a pulse in a series form with value between 20 and 120 V,
and 5 kHz frequency between the tool and workpiece electrodes
[1]. According to Ref. [15], electrical breakdown happened in a
10 lm radius channel, which appears in the dielectric due to volt-
age pulses generated between two electrodes, which leads to the
acceleration of the electrons (emitted from the cathode, and the
stray electrons present in the gap) toward the anode of both. A
collision between the electrons and neutral atoms of the dielectric
leads to the creation of a positive ions and additional electrons.
The generated electrons and ions accelerated, respectively toward
the cathode and anode and once it reached the anode and cathode,
they generate a heat due to the transformation the kinetic energy
to the heat. Over 8000–12,000 C is the temperature of this gener-
ated heat with fluxes up to 1017 W m2 (watt per meter, heat flow
measurement unit). Sparks duration is usually very short, between
0.1 and 2000 ls, but still the electrodes temperature can be raised
to a temperature higher than the electrodes’ boiling points, which
evaporates the dielectric. However, despite the fact that dielectric
and electrode were superheated, and evaporated, but the plasma
channel pressure reaches to values as high as 200 atm (atmos-
phere), which prevent the evaporation process until the end of the
pulse. When the pulse ended, a sudden drop in the aforementioned
pressure happens, which leads to the explosive evaporation. The
above-described process is shown in Fig. 6. A new cycle will start
again by flow of the fluids of dielectric to the gap area between
electrodes in order flush the debris and workpiece surface quench-
ing, and a new spark will start [1,2].
2.2 Fuzzy Logic. Usually, we have a gray area between a big
and small, hot and cold, and tall and short. It is not an easy job to
give values for such areas. Fuzzy logic is a method used to give
values for areas of such variables and solve problems related to
them. The fuzzy logic was first introduced by Zadeh [16]. More-
over, later it is used widely in the inference systems. Such systems
Fig. 6 EDM spark description [1]
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
have been widely used in the manufacturing system and processes
parameters optimization. The basic steps of this fuzzy inference
system consists of five steps, which are listed as follows [17]:
2.2.1 Fuzzification. Fuzzification is the first step in any fuzzy
model or system; the purpose of this step is to fuzzify the real-life
input (Crisp) parameters. During fuzzification, a degree of mem-
bership is given to each crisp inputs after defining the fuzzy set
and membership function. Generally, this membership value
ranges from 0 to 1.
2.2.2 Fuzzy IF-THEN Rules. After getting the relation
between all variables for any process clear, a decision taken about
the process inputs by generating set fuzzy rules considering the
relations between all variables created. The fuzzified inputs were
used as an input to those rules. “And” and “Or” “Fuzzy operators”
were used when multiple rules exist to determine the result of the
fuzzy rules evaluation in a form a single number. This number is
then used in the resultant membership function.
2.2.3 Aggregation. Outputs of all rules were amalgamated in
this stage to generate a single fuzzy number (output).
2.2.4 Defuzzification. It is a process of transforming the fuzzy
output aggregated from the previous step to a single crisp output.
3 Problem Statement and Research Objectives
The performance of EDM process is not affected by material
hardness and strength. However, still EDM process is slower than
conventional processes such as milling and turning. To speed up
the process, large current discharge is usually used, but this will
lead to bad dimensions quality of the machined product. On the
other hand, it has been proved that EDM process is unstable due to
arcing when too much debris exists inside the gap. Therefore, it is
very important to develop EDM process to achieve highest machin-
ing rate, maximum precision, and accuracy without making major
modification in the EDM system, which represent a main challenge
[18]. The selection of EDM parameters relies mainly on the special-
ists’ experience, and it is not easy to model. Fuzzy set theory was
applied to processes like EDM in which the experiences of experts
play important roles. Actually, fuzzy logic uses the specialists’
experiences to create decision-making capabilities in the presence
of uncertainty [11]. Stainless steel 304 (SS304), ASTM A240,
material has many industrial applications, e.g., pressure vessels and
other general applications [19]. However, as it will be proved in the
literature review section, the literature lack of a fuzzy model to
identify the optimal machining parameters for the EDM process on
the aforementioned material. Thus, the objective of this work is to
optimize the EDM process machining parameters for machining
SS304, ASTM A240 material. For this purpose, experimental work
will be performed and fuzzy logic model will be developed to select
the optimal EDM machining parameter on the basis of the process
performance measures.
4 Literature Review
Literature review section will be divided into four subsections,
namely literature review objectives, literature review methodol-
ogy, descriptive analysis on the selected publications, and in the
last subsection, the selected publication will be reviewed and
review results will be discussed as well.
4.1 Literature Review Objectives. The objective of this lit-
erature review is to provide the feasibility of this paper’s research
approach. This paper’s research approach can be summarized by
optimizing EDM machining parameters, for machining SS304,
ASTM A240 material namely; pulse on time (TON), pulse off time
(TOFF), and peak current (A), through measuring machining
parameters’ effect on the performance measures, namely metal
removal rate (MRR), and electrode wear ratio (EWR), and by
JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-3
 Fig. 7 Publications’ distribution over the years
using design of experiments, fuzzy logic, and analyses of varian-
ces (ANOVA) methods.
4.2 Literature Review Methodology. The methodology
used for literature review consist of three stages. In the first stage,
by analyzing the highly cited papers, e.g., but not limited to Refs.
[12], [20], and [21], as well as the nature of optimization approach
targeted to be used, authors were able to identify the relevant
search’s keywords, which includes EDM, fuzzy logic, optimiza-
tion, EDM machining, cutting parameters, signal-to-noise (S/N),
ANOVA, and multi-response performance index (MRPI). In the
second stage, authors exclude irrelevant publications by conduct-
ing a screening process on the collected publications. It is worth
to say that Google scholar database can be used as a search engine
due to the wide spectrum of the connections to the scientific jour-
nals, ability to access other papers which are cited by or cites the
selected paper, and the availability of many citations’ formats that
can facilitate authors citation work in this paper. In the final stage,
a detailed review was conducted on the selected papers to validate
the feasibility of research approach of the current paper.
4.3 Descriptive Analysis. A total of 44 publications passed
the screening process; if the publications were used in the intro-
duction, theoretical background, and the experimental work sec-
tions, they were excluded from the descriptive analysis.
Aforementioned publications distributed between 1993 and 2017,
with majority of publications, i.e., 79%, after 2009. The distribu-
tion of the selected publications over the years indicates a growing
of the attention paid to this research area, i.e., EDM process opti-
mization (see Fig. 7).
Moreover, out of 44 publications, 16 publications used fuzzy
logic approach for optimizing EDM process, i.e., 36% of the pub-
lications, which indicates the importance of this approach in the
area of EDM optimization. Furthermore, 56% of the publications
that used fuzzy logic approach were published after 2007, which
enhances authors’ view of the feasibility of this approach to be
used for current paper. Taguchi method, i.e., design of experi-
ment, was used in the most of the 44 publications, which indicates
as well the importance of this method for designing the experi-
mental work part of the research papers. In the following literature
review details section, authors will further enhance their view
regarding the feasibility of this paper research approach.
4.4 Literature Review Details. In this literature review,
authors will review the approaches, machining parameters, and
011013-4 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018
the performance measures used for optimizing EDM process as
well as the materials subjected to study in the reviewed literature.
The review process will start by reviewing the literature related to
optimization of EDM process in general, then it will be narrowed
down to focus on the review of the literature related to the optimi-
zation of EDM process by using fuzzy logic approach. The
expected outcome of this literature review, as it was stated in the
previous sections, is to provide the feasibility and newness of the
research approach used in this paper.
4.4.1 EDM Optimization and Artificial Intelligence Tools. As
it was stated in the previous sections, EDM process is well-
established process and there are extensive researches on the
EDM process optimization. Many researchers were focused on the
optimization of EDM process parameters by analyzing parame-
ters’ effect on the performance measures either by using experi-
mental approach [22–24] or by using artificial intelligence tools
approaches. For example, Habib [7] used response surface meth-
odology (RSM) to study the EDM process parameters. In this
work, author developed a mathematical model for correlating the
various machining parameters (mainly pulse on time, peak cur-
rent, average gap voltage, and the percentage volume fraction of
silicon carbide (SIC) percentage in the aluminum matrix) on the
most dominant performance measures, i.e., MRR, EWR, gap size,
and surface finish. Almost same approach was used by Shashikant
et al. [25] to study the effect of same parameters on the surface
roughness (SR) of the EN19 material in die-sinking EDM process.
It was observed that for surface roughness (Ra), the peak current,
and pulse on time are the most significant factors. Moreover, it
was observed that Ra decreases with a decrease in peak current as
well as pulse on time. Again the same approach, parameters, and
performance measures were used by Assarzadeh and Ghoreishi
[6] to study the EDM process performance on the machining of
cobalt-bonded tungsten carbide by using cylindrical copper tool
electrode. It has been mainly proved that all the responses are
affected by the rate and extent of discharge energy. Gopalakannan
et al. [26] uses the RSM method and ANOVA to study the EDM
process optimization with (Al7075-B4C MMC) material. This
work resulted in obtaining the optimal machining parameters for
the aforementioned materials. Gopalakannan and Senthilvelan
[27] also used the RSM method with design for experiment (Tagu-
chi method) and ANOVA method to study the EDM process in
order to get an optimized result for machining AL-SIC nanocom-
posites material.
Artificial neural network and GA also used to study EDM pro-
cess by Krishna Mohana Rao et al. [4] in order to optimize Ra
Transactions of the ASME
considering the simultaneous effect of various parameters. This
work resulted in developing a model that can predict the behavior
of Ti6Al4V, HE15, 15CDV6, and M-250 materials when
machined on EDM. Moreover, authors concluded that material
type will effectively influence the performance measures. Taguchi
method and gray rational analysis (GRA) were used to study the
micro milling EDM process for machining Inconel 718 materials.
Authors in this work concluded that optimum conditions for
obtaining higher multiple performance characteristics are as fol-
lows: peak current 0.5 A, pulse on-time 3 ls, pulse off-time 3ls,
and spark gap 60 V [28].
Joshi and Pande [8] used a different approach for optimization.
In this paper, the authors used the FEM to develop a thermo-
physical model for die-sinking EDM process. In the stated model,
the authors predicted the shape of crater cavity and the MRR.
Moreover, they found discharge current, discharge duration, dis-
charge voltage, and duty cycle were the main parameters affecting
the process performance optimization. Same researchers extended
their effort of the optimization by integrating the FEM model with
the soft computing techniques like ANN and GA to improve the
prediction accuracy of the developed model with less dependency
on the experimental data [29].
SS304 material also were studied to find the best parameters com-
bination by using Taguchi methodology and ANOVA by Rajmohan
et al. [30]. However, only one performance measure was used to
optimized machining parameters namely MRR. Optimum machining
parameters identified as well for material SICp/6061 Al MMC by
using RSM technique to optimize wire electrical discharge machin-
ing (wire-EDM) process [31]. Actually, many researchers contrib-
uted on the study of the new materials’ machining parameters with
EDM process, especially those materials difficult to be machined,
e.g., GRA method was used to study and optimize machining param-
eters of AISI202 Stainless steel by Jegan et al. [32]. RSM technique
was again used for optimizing the EDM process, but this time con-
nected with the GA method by Rajesh and Anand [3]. In this study,
authors determined the optimal machining parameters considering
the effect of parameters such as working current, working voltage,
oil pressure, spark gap, pulse on time, and pulse off time on the per-
formance measures, i.e., MRR and surface finish (Ra).
Das et al. [21] used a new method in approaching the optimiza-
tion dilemma; weighted principal components analysis method
was used along with regular Taguchi method. In this study, rough-
ness parameters, i.e., center line average roughness, root-mean-
square roughness, mean line peak spacing, skewness, and kurtosis
along with MRR, have been considered. FEM was proved as an
efficient tool for optimizing EDM process and predicting machin-
ing time without the need of real-time experimentation [33].
Continuing with EDM process optimization approaches review,
artificial bee colony algorithm was used by Das et al. [34] to opti-
mize EDM process parameters considering their effect on the sur-
face roughness and MRR in the EDM machining of EN31 tool
steel. EDM process parameters optimized as well for EN8 and D3
materials by using RSM and ANOVA methods [35]. Moreover,
EDM process parameters were optimized also for AISI P20 tool
steel by Dewangan et al. [36] as they combine GRA and principal
component analysis methods to achieve reasonably low values of
surface crack density, white layer thickness, and Ra by using
graphite electrode. Multiple regression analysis, group method
data handling technique and ANN methods also used by Ugrasen
et al. [37] for developing a model and its application to estimate
the optimal process parameters for wire EDM for EN-31 materi-
als. Furthermore, simulated annealing algorithm was used for
EDM process optimization by AzadiMoghaddam and Kolahan
[5]. The input parameters were peak current (I); pulse on time
(Ton), pulse off time (Toff), duty factor (g), and the voltage (V),
whereas performance measures namely MRR, tool wear rate
(TWR), and roughness (Ra) were used for modeling and optimiza-
tion of EDM process parameters.
Chandramouli and Eswaraiah [38] optimize EDM process for
machining precipitation hardening stainless steel (PH Steel).
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Process parameters optimized were peak current, pulse on time,
pulse off time, and tool lift time, whereas output responses were
MRR and SR. The methods used for this optimization process
includes Taguchi experimental design and ANOVA method.
Gangil and Pradhan [39] conducted an extended literature review
on the variety of EDM processes as well as optimization
approaches used for optimizing machining parameters of those
processes. The results of this review showed the importance of
EDM process for industry and the complexity of optimization for
such processes. Moreover, Ref. [39] explained that optimization
of EDM processes rely on experimental work as well as other
optimization approaches, and EDM optimization is still an open
research area depending on the research aspects.
Taguchi method, utility concept, quantum behaved particle
swarm optimization algorithms, and particle swarm optimization
algorithms have been used by Mohanty et al. [40] to optimize
EDM process. In this work, machinability of copper, graphite, and
brass electrodes were checked while machining Inconel 718 super
alloy. Moreover, the effect of the machining parameters, i.e., open
circuit voltage, discharge current, pulse on time, duty factor, and
flushing pressure, on the performance measures namely material
removal rate, tool wear rate, surface roughness, and radial overcut
was studied. The results of this showed that electrode material,
discharge current, and pulse on time were the most dominant
parameters in terms of effect on the performance measures.
Mohanty et al. [40] proposed to conduct an additional numerical
analysis on the experiments results for future work. Furthermore,
for quantum behaved particle swarm optimization algorithms,
they suggested to add more constraints in future. ANSYS finite
element software, experimental correction, and AEN-XRD
method for numerical fitting were used to find a functional rela-
tion formula between machining parameters and machining indi-
cators, i.e., performance measures. The developed formula was
used for the enhancement of simulation models and EDM process
optimization [41].
4.4.2 EDM Optimization and Fuzzy Logic. Machining proc-
esses’ systems are complex and highly dynamic. Therefore,
many variables may affect the desired results. Fuzzy modeling
was proved to be effective in modeling such complex systems
[42]. For example, fuzzy modeling was used for predicting the
machining performance of Al–Si–Cu–Fe die casting alloy to
improve surface roughness and to obtain the optimum parameter
conditions for machining process on the computer numerical
control turning process [10]. Another good example is using
fuzzy logic modeling to determine the machining performance
while milling Al-6061-T6 alloy using SiO2 nanoparticles added
to the lubricant [43].
Efforts in modeling EDM process and prediction of the machin-
ing parameters or optimization of the process are many, and yet
researchers keep sustain efforts to analyze and optimize EDM pro-
cess, e.g., Conţiu et al. [44] used fuzzy analytical hierarchy pro-
cess to obtain the materials machinability in EDM process.
Criteria used to evaluate the machinability were crater volume,
removed material, and adhered materials on the workpiece. Mach-
inability was studied for CBN 10229, CBN 10660, PKD 30221,
PKD 30662, PKD 40664, PKD50664, ceramic material, and steel
material. The researchers proved, by using fuzzy analytical hier-
archy process, that steel material presents the highest machinabil-
ity by EDM process [45]. They also used fuzzy logic to improve
the machining accuracy up to 50% better than normal machining,
especially in rough cutting, in wire-EDM process mainly at corner
parts, with keeping cutting parameters at fair values.
In the reviewed literature, fuzzy logic modeling was integrated
with other optimization tools to improve the results and increase
the accuracy of prediction and optimization. For example, Lin
et al. [12] used Taguchi method with fuzzy logic to optimize the
EDM machining parameters, i.e., the workpiece polarity, pulse on
time, duty factor, open discharge voltage, discharge current, and
dielectric fluid, with multiple performance characteristics, i.e.,
JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-5
electrode wear rate and material removal rate. Tzeng and Chen [18]
used Taguchi method with fuzzy logic to optimize the precision
and accuracy of the high-speed EDM process. From the fuzzy
inference process, the optimal process conditions for the high-
speed EDM process were determined; in addition, the ANOVA is
also employed to identify pulse time, duty cycle, and peak value
of discharge current as the most important parameters, which
account for about 81.5% of the variance. Desirability approach
with fuzzy modeling was used to investigate the effects of various
EDM input parameters as well as the influence of different tool
geometry on MRR, TWR, and SR on machining of Inconel 718
material by using copper electrode. Five EDM parameters namely,
pulse on time (TON), pulse off time (TOFF), peak current (A), flush-
ing pressure (P), and electrode tool geometry (Geo), were opti-
mized by using this approach [46]. Yilmaz et al. [11] developed a
user-friendly fuzzy-based system suitable for small and middle
size workshops (or SMEs) that have conventional EDM machine
tools, for the selection of electro discharge machining process
parameters. Input parameters to the system were discharge cur-
rent, pulse duration and pulse interval, whereas the outputs are
electrode wear, surface roughness, and erosion rate.
Fuzzy logic was adapted not only for software systems creation,
but also to build a hardware fuzzy controllers in order to increase
the autonomy of machines, e.g., see Ref. [47] shows the beauty of
this notion as they developed the self-adjusting fuzzy control to
calculate machining stability with frequency of short circuit and
arcing as an input value. Fuzzy controllers were developed as well
by Yan [48] as he developed an adaptive control system for pro-
cess monitoring, identification, and control in micro wire-EDM.
Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system is another approach used
for the prediction of EDM process parameters. The approach com-
bines modeling function of fuzzy inference, with the learning abil-
ity of artificial neural network. This approach, see Fig. 8, was
used by Çaydaş et al. [50] to predict the white layer thickness and
the average surface roughness in wire-EDM process as a function
of the process parameters, i.e., pulse duration, open circuit volt-
age, and dielectric flushing pressure and wire feed rate. Same
approach was used by Suganthi et al. [51] in micro-EDM to mini-
mize inaccuracies due to clamping and damage during transfer of
electrodes.
Fig. 8 (a) Fuzzy reasoning and (b) equivalent ANFIS [49]
011013-6 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018
Fuzzy modeling showed its effectiveness not only for predict-
ing and optimizing the regular EDM process parameters, but also
for hybrid EDM. Shabgard et al. [52] used fuzzy approach for pre-
dicting the MRR, TWR, and surface roughness (Rz, Rk) in the
EDM and ultrasonic-assisted EDM processes form the input varia-
bles, i.e., discharge current, pulse duration, and ultrasonic vibra-
tion of tool with prediction accuracy more than 90%.
Electro discharge machining process optimized as well for AISI
H13 steel, Pratiwi and Yudo [53] used Taguchi method and fuzzy
logic for this optimization. Current, on time, off time, and machin-
ing voltage were the machining parameters used in the optimiza-
tion of the performance measures, i.e., end cutting depth, the
maximum rate of erosion material, rate of electrode wear, and
minimal SR. Optimal machining parameters were found to be 15
A the energy on time 300 ls, off time 5 ls, and machining voltage
of 12 V.
4.4.3 Literature Review Outcomes. Avoiding the abnormality
in the EDM process and achieving sustained quality of EDM pro-
cess are still major difficulties in process improvement [1]. When
new and advanced materials appear in the field, it is not possible
to use existing models, and hence, experimental investigations are
always required [4]. As it was proved through the reviewed litera-
ture, many approaches were used for optimizing EDM process.
However, this research area is still an active research area, and it
is open for further contributions. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy modeling
were proved to be effective tools for predicting and optimizing
EDM process parameters and improve the process performance by
controlling performance measures either online by developing a
fuzzy controllers or offline by developing fuzzy models for such pur-
poses. However, fuzzy logic optimization approach is still feasible
and active approach, and it was used in many recent publications as
it was proved in the descriptive analysis section. Literature review
showed as well the importance of using Taguchi method and
ANOVA analysis and how it is mandatory for optimization process.
On the other hand, in the EDM process, steel showed a highest
machinability compared to the other materials [44]. However, the
reviewed literature is lacking of a fuzzy model to predict and opti-
mize EDM process parameters for SS304, ASTM A240 material,
with a set of machining parameters and performance measures
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 9 Classification of the various research areas, and possible future research directions [3]
targeted in this paper. Regarding the performance measures, MRR
and EWR were considered as a most significant performance mea-
sure in the EDM process in most of literature, whereas current,
pulse on time, and pulse off time were considered the most impor-
tant machining parameters for process optimization. Some of future
research suggested in the literature can be summarized in Fig. 9.
5 Research Methodology
As it was stated in the objective section, the objective of this
work is to optimize the machining parameters for machining
SS304, ASTM A240 material by EDM process. To achieve the
stated objective, the research methodology used in this work was
the same methodology used by Lin et al. [12]. The work started
by selecting the machining parameters, and performance meas-
ures, i.e., response for optimization process. Then the levels of
each parameters will be set, i.e., set the experimental values of
parameters. Next step is preparing the theoretical formulas to cal-
culate the responses from the experiments conducted. The number
of experiments and parameters combination decided by using
orthogonal array for designing experiments in order to ensure that
number of experiments balanced. Next steps in the optimization
methodology are defining the loss functions for the performance
measures extracted from the experiments and calculating the
signal-to-noise ratios for those measures; these ratios were then
used as crisp input to the fuzzy unit and the crisp output will be
MRPI. Finally, ANOVA was conducted to identify the most sig-
nificant machining parameters affecting performance measures
and then selecting the optimal machining parameters, see Fig. 10.
6 Experimental Work and Results Discussions
6.1 Material Specifications. Stainless steel 304, ASTM
A240 was used in the this work, the percentages of chemical com-
position is given in Table 1, and the mechanical and physical
properties of the workpiece are shown in Table 2.
6.2 Machining Parameters and Performance Measures
Selection. In this study, experimental investigation was conducted
on a CHEMER EDM machine type (CM 323C), as shown in
Fig. 11. The workpiece with dimensions (40  30  1.7 mm) was
used in the experiments. The tool was made of copper with
99.74% Cu purity and diameter 5 mm. The dielectric solution was
gas oil. In this study, three-three levels factors were selected. It is
worth here to highlight that inputs and outputs of optimization
process, i.e., machining parameters and the performance meas-
ures, were selected on the basis of literature review outcomes.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Moreover, the selection of the inputs, outputs, numbers of levels,
and values of levels were supported by the experts’ experiences
regarding the logical values of levels as well as inputs and outputs
importance, and it is further supported by work of Asal et al. [54],
and Prajapati et al. [55]. However, the aforementioned literature
characteristics were different from the current work characteris-
tics, in term of workpiece material’s chemical composition,
machine used, and the research approach. Therefore, the main
judgment point for values of levels selection was the experts’
experience, which should be further optimized to get the optimal
machining parameters from scientific point of view. The selected
machining parameters were pulse on time (TON), pulse off time
(TOFF), and peak current (A), while the performance measures
(responses) is MRR and EWR. The levels of the discharge current
was 10, 20, and 30 A, while the pulse on time was chosen as 50,
60, and 70 ls and pulse off time was chosen as 35, 45 and 55 ls
(see Table 3), The rest of the parameters were held constant,
according to the manufactures’ recommendations (open gap volt-
age 140 V and negative tool electrode polarity).
6.3 Performance Measures Calculation Formulas. Mate-
rial removal rate and EWR used as a performance measures in
this study. The MRR is expressed as the workpiece removal
weight over a period of machining time (T) in minute, as follows
[9]:
  WRW
MRR g min1 ¼ (1)
T
And EWR was also calculated as per Eq. (3) after calculating the
volumetric electrode wear by Eq. (2), which depends on the elec-
trode weight loss in g (We), machining time in min (T), and the
density of electrode (q), as follows [7]:
VEW ¼ We=q:T ðmm3 =minÞ (2)
EWR ¼ ðVEW=MRRÞ  100 ð%Þ (3)
The higher the material removal rate in the EDM process, the bet-
ter is the machining performance. However, the smaller the elec-
trode wear ratio in the EDM process, the better is the machining
performance. Therefore, the material removal rate is the higher-
the-better performance characteristic and the electrode wear ratio
is the lower-the-better performance characteristic.
6.4 Design of Experiments. The experimental design pro-
posed by Taguchi involves using orthogonal arrays to organize
JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-7
 Table 2 Mechanical and physical properties of the of stainless
steel 304

Hardness (Brinell) 170

Elongation (Percent in 50 mm) 60
Tensile strength (MPa) 621
Density (g/cm3) 8.03
Melting point ( C) 1400–1450

Fig. 11 EDM machine model (CM 323C)

Table 3 Machining parameters and their levels

Symbol Machining parameters Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

TON Pulse on time ls 50 60 70

TOFF Pulse off time ls 35 45 55
A Peak current A 10 20 30

The orthogonal array is represented by La (bc), where the subscript

a represents the number of experimental combinations, b repre-
sents the number of control factor levels, and c represents the
number of control factors. The control factors are the parameters
which may influence the quality characteristics, i.e., performance
measures, and the quality characteristics are the goal of the
experiment [57]. If a process is identified which consists of three
variables and each variable has to be run at three different levels,
then the actual number of experiments to be conducted will be 27
experiments for optimizing a process [56]. Hence, considering the
number of factors and levels stated in Sec. 6.2, the orthogonal
array used in this study will be L27 (33) array, which means we
Fig. 10 Research methodology will have 27 combinations of the machining parameters and 27
experiments will be conducted. Machining parameters combina-
Table 1 Chemical composition properties of stainless steel tions and the calculated MRR and EWR from the experiments are
304 presented in Table 4.
Material C Si Mn P S V Cr Mo Ni Fe
6.5 Signal-to-Noise Ratio. Loss function and signal-to-noise
Weight (%) 0.055 0.58 1.08 0.03 0.02 0.142 19.4 0.24 8.95 Balance ratio are used in Taguchi method to calculate the deviation
between the performance measures experimental value and the
desired value [12]. In general, there are three types of perform-
the parameters affecting the process and the levels at which they ance measures in the signal-to-noise ratio analysis, which include
vary. This allows for the collection of the necessary data to deter- nominal-the-best, small-the-best, and large-the-best characteristic
mine which factors mostly affect product’s quality with a minimum [57]. In this experiment, performance measures are MRR and
amount of experimentation, which saves time and resources [56]. EWR; the higher value for MRR is the better for machining

011013-8 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 4 Orthogonal array of the experiments

MRR (g/min) EWR (%)

Experiment Current Pulse on time, Pulse off time, Test Test Test Test Test Test
No. (A) TON (ls) TOFF (ls) 1 2 3 Average 1 2 3 Average

1 10 50 35 0.025 0.023 0.024 0.024 29.15 27.23 27.71 28.03

2 10 50 45 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.018 26.11 29.13 28.49 27.91
3 10 50 55 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.013 26.73 26.7 29.16 27.53
4 10 60 35 0.027 0.024 0.025 0.025 31.27 28.95 29.03 29.75
5 10 60 45 0.024 0.027 0.020 0.024 29.8 26.83 31.36 29.33
6 10 60 55 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.018 29.87 30.13 24.42 28.14
7 10 70 35 0.026 0.026 0.023 0.025 32.42 29.62 33.39 31.81
8 10 70 45 0.026 0.023 0.023 0.024 28.72 32.53 30.73 30.66
9 10 70 55 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.021 27.6 29.96 32.56 30.04
10 20 50 35 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.028 33.37 37.21 35.05 35.21
11 20 50 45 0.024 0.028 0.023 0.025 30.82 35.34 34.94 33.7
12 20 50 55 0.020 0.016 0.017 0.018 35.5 30.62 33.21 33.11
13 20 60 35 0.032 0.033 0.030 0.032 40.12 36.95 38.64 38.57
14 20 60 45 0.026 0.028 0.030 0.028 35.76 39.21 36.75 37.24
15 20 60 55 0.025 0.026 0.022 0.024 33.2 36.15 38.5 35.95
16 20 70 35 0.037 0.034 0.034 0.035 39.59 43.12 41.85 41.52
17 20 70 45 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.032 38.21 39.86 42.05 40.04
18 20 70 55 0.028 0.028 0.030 0.029 41.95 37.89 39.32 39.72
19 30 50 35 0.035 0.034 0.031 0.033 50.53 46.96 48.82 48.77
20 30 50 45 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.028 48.01 44.82 45.92 46.25
21 30 50 55 0.022 0.021 0.027 0.023 45.12 41.93 44.8 43.95
22 30 60 35 0.037 0.038 0.038 0.038 51.87 55.04 54.91 53.94
23 30 60 45 0.034 0.037 0.036 0.036 53.3 49.77 50.98 51.35
24 30 60 55 0.033 0.032 0.029 0.032 47.11 51.36 50.99 49.82
25 30 70 35 0.038 0.040 0.038 0.039 60.19 64.29 62.48 62.32
26 30 70 45 0.038 0.036 0.037 0.037 62.73 59.63 57.76 60.04
27 30 70 55 0.035 0.036 0.032 0.035 57.22 61.43 60.54 59.73

process performance, and the lower value for EWR is the better
Table 5 MRR tests experiments, MRR average value, and S/N
for machining process performance; therefore, MRR signal-to-
ratio
noise ratio will be calculated by the large-the-best function which
is as follows [57]: Experiment No. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 MRR (g/min) S/N ratio (dB)
Xn
1 1 0.025 0.023 0.024 0.024 32.430
y 2 2 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.018 35.188
S i¼1 i
¼ 10 log (4) 3 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.013 37.877
N n 4 0.027 0.024 0.025 0.025 31.958
5 0.024 0.027 0.020 0.024 32.780
And EWR signal-to-noise ratio will be calculated by the small- 6 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.018 34.906
the-best function which is as follows [57]: 7 0.026 0.026 0.023 0.025 32.072
8 0.026 0.023 0.023 0.024 32.492
X
n 9 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.021 33.437
y2i 10 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.028 30.958
S i¼1 11 0.024 0.028 0.023 0.025 32.162
¼ 10 log (5)
N n 12 0.020 0.016 0.017 0.018 35.177
13 0.032 0.033 0.030 0.032 29.981
where S/N is signal-to-noise ratio, n is the total number of meas- 14 0.026 0.028 0.030 0.028 31.159
urements, i.e., tests value calculated during experiments which we 15 0.025 0.026 0.022 0.024 32.431
used to get MRR and EWR average value represented in Table 4, 16 0.037 0.034 0.034 0.035 29.195
17 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.032 29.874
yi are the tests experimental values. The calculated signal-to-noise
18 0.028 0.028 0.030 0.029 30.870
ratio for MRR with MRR tests values available in Table 5 and the 19 0.035 0.034 0.031 0.033 29.602
calculated signal-to-noise ratio for EWR with EWR tests values 20 0.027 0.026 0.030 0.028 31.180
available in Table 6, on the basis of the parameters combinations 21 0.022 0.021 0.027 0.023 32.915
given in Table 4 for 27 experiments designed by orthogonal array. 22 0.037 0.038 0.038 0.038 28.422
In this section, signal-to-noise ratio was calculated for the per- 23 0.034 0.037 0.036 0.036 28.952
formance measures, i.e., MRR and EWR in order to avoid the dif- 24 0.033 0.032 0.029 0.032 30.066
ferences in the engineering units between the MRR and EWR, 25 0.038 0.040 0.038 0.039 28.236
and was used as an input value to fuzzy logic inference system to 26 0.038 0.036 0.037 0.037 28.593
27 0.035 0.036 0.032 0.035 29.279
generate MRPI and complete the optimization process by Taguchi
method.

6.6 Fuzzy Logic Inference System. In this work, the logic ratios are used as a crisp input values to the fuzzifier. Membership
used for fuzzification, i.e., input membership functions presented functions convert crisp values of the S/N ratios to fuzzy values;
in Figs. 12 and 13. If-then rules are presented in Table 7, and the fuzzified S/N ratios were used as an input to the inference
defuzzification membership function is presented in Fig. 14. S/N engine and the output of this system will be MRPI crisp values.

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-9
Table 6 EWR tests experiments, EWR average value, and S/N Table 7 Fuzzy rule table [12]
ratio
S/N for EWR
Experiment No. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 EWR (%) S/N ratio (dB)
MRPI Small Middle Large
1 29.15 27.23 27.71 28.03 28.956
2 26.11 29.13 28.49 27.91 28.925 S/N for MRR Small Very small Small Middle
3 26.73 26.7 29.16 27.53 28.804 Middle Small Middle Large
4 31.27 28.95 29.03 29.75 29.475 Large Middle Large Very large
5 29.8 26.83 31.36 29.33 29.364
6 29.87 30.13 24.42 28.14 29.024
7 32.42 29.62 33.39 31.81 30.062
8 28.72 32.53 30.73 30.66 29.743 Table 8 shows the experimental results for the MRPI using the
9 27.6 29.96 32.56 30.04 29.574 treatment conditions given in Table 4.
10 33.37 37.21 35.05 35.21 30.942 Since the experimental design is orthogonal, the effect of
11 30.82 35.34 34.94 33.70 30.569 machining parameters at each level can be separated. For exam-
12 35.5 30.62 33.21 33.11 30.415 ple, the mean of the MRPI for the current at levels 1 and 2, i.e., 10
13 40.12 36.95 38.64 38.57 31.730 Amp and 20 Amp, calculated by averaging the MRPIs for the
14 35.76 39.21 36.75 37.24 31.427 experiments 1–9 and 10–18, respectively (see Table 4). The mean
15 33.2 36.15 38.5 35.95 31.130
16 39.59 43.12 41.85 41.52 32.371
of the MRPIs for each level of other machining parameters can be
17 38.21 39.86 42.05 40.04 32.057 computed in same way; in addition, the total mean of the MRPIs
18 41.95 37.89 39.32 39.72 31.988 for the 27 experiments is also calculated (see Table 9).
19 50.53 46.96 48.82 48.77 33.767 Graphical representation of Table 9 data are shown in Fig. 15,
20 48.01 44.82 45.92 46.25 33.306 where dashed line indicates in this figure the value of the total
21 45.12 41.93 44.8 43.95 32.864 mean value of MRPI. The larger value of MRPI means smaller
22 51.87 55.04 54.91 53.94 34.641 variances around the desired value of the performance measures.
23 53.3 49.77 50.98 51.35 34.214 On the basis of the MRPIs values for each machining parameter
24 47.11 51.36 50.99 49.82 33.955 level in Table 9 and Fig. 15, it could be concluded that optimal
25 60.19 64.29 62.48 62.32 35.896
26 62.73 59.63 57.76 60.04 35.574
cutting parameters will be A1B2C1, which is experiment No# 4 in
27 57.22 61.43 60.54 59.73 35.528 Table 4. However, the relative importance of the machining
parameters for MRPI was identified by using ANOVA method.

Fig. 12 S/N Ratio membership function for the EWR

Fig. 13 S/N Ratio membership function for the MRR

011013-10 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 14 Membership functions for the MRPI

6.7 Analysis of Variances (ANOVA). Analysis of variances X

a X
ni
T2
is a “technique to determine significant factors, usually different SST ¼ y2ij  (6)
factors has different effect on the performance measures.” This i¼1 j¼1
N
effect was obtained by separating the total variability of the
MRPIs; variability is usually measured by the sum of the squared X
a
A2 T2
i
deviations (SST) from the total mean of the MRPI into variability SSF ¼  (7)
i¼1
ni N
of the process parameters (SSF) and the error (SSE). The formulas
used to calculate SST, SSF, and SSE are as follows [58]:
SSE ¼ SST  SSF (8)

where a is the number of factor levels, ni is the number of obser-

vations, MRPI value, at each factor level(i ¼ 1 …. a), yij is the jth
Table 8 MRPI experimental results observation at the ith factor level, Ai is the total of observations
under the ith factor level, T is the total of observations under all
Experiment No. MRR S/N ratio (dB) EWR S/N ratio (dB) MRPI
factor levels, and N is the total number of observations
1 32.430 28.956 0.570
2 35.188 28.925 0.481 SSF
MSF ¼ (9)
3 37.877 28.804 0.405 VF
4 31.958 29.475 0.572
5 32.780 29.364 0.540 SSE
6 34.906 29.024 0.484 MSE ¼ (10)
VE
7 32.072 30.062 0.544
8 32.492 29.743 0.537
9 33.437 29.574 0.507
MSF
F¼ (11)
10 30.958 30.942 0.504 MSE
11 32.162 30.569 0.515
12 35.177 30.415 0.419 where MSF is the mean squares of the factor, MSE is the mean
13 29.981 31.730 0.551 squares of the error, VF is the degree-of-freedom of the factor, VE
14 31.159 31.427 0.500 is the degree-of-freedom of the error, and F is the F test that is
15 32.431 31.130 0.480 used to compare ratio of factor variances with error variances.
16 29.195 32.371 0.564
The percentage contribution by each of the machining parame-
17 29.874 32.057 0.552
18 30.870 31.988 0.507 ter in the total sum of the squared deviations (SST) was used to
19 29.602 33.767 0.496 evaluate the importance of the machining parameter change on
20 31.180 33.306 0.445 the performance measures. In addition, F-test was also used to
21 32.915 32.864 0.451 determine which machining parameters have a significant effect
22 28.422 34.641 0.509 on the performance measures. Usually, the change of the process
23 28.952 34.214 0.505 parameters has a significant effect on the performance measures
24 30.066 33.955 0.471 when F value is large [12]. The result of ANOVA indicates that
25 28.236 35.896 0.485 pulse off time and current are the significant machining parame-
26 28.593 35.574 0.482
ters in affecting the performance measures, with the pulse off time
27 29.279 35.528 0.403
being the most significant parameter (see Table 10). The optimal
machining parameters were identified as a result of the conducted
analysis shown in Table 11.
Table 9 MRPI table for machining parameters’ levels

MRPI 7 Conclusions and Future Work

Optimization of the EDM process for machining SS304
Machining parameters Symbol Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
(ASTM A 240) was studied in this paper. Signal-to-noise ratio
Current (A) A 0.516 0.510 0.472 was calculated for each one of performance measures, and then
Pulse on time, TON (ls) B 0.476 0.512 0.509 multiresponse performance index was generated using fuzzy logic
Pulse off time, TOFF (ls) C 0.533 0.506 0.459 inference system. As a result, optimal machining parameters for
Mean value of MRPI 0.499 machining SS304 materials were identified, namely current 10,
pulse on time 60 ls, and pulse off time 35 ls. ANOVA method

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-11
 Fig. 15 MRPI Graph for machining parameters levels
Table 10 Results of ANOVA
Symbol Machining parameter VF SSF
A Current 2 0.01021
B Pulse on time 2 0.00720
C Pulse off time 2 0.02547
Table 11 Optimal machining parameters
Current Pulse on time, Pulse off time,
(A) TON (ls) TOFF (ls)
10 60 35
was used as well to see which machining parameter has significant
on the performance measure. The result of ANOVA indicates that
pulse off time and current are the significant machining parame-
ters in affecting the performance measures, with the pulse off time
being the most significant parameter. Future work could be
extended this work by considering other machining parameters
and studying the effect of some variables those held constant in
this study, i.e., open gap voltage and negative tool electrode polar-
ity. Studying the effect of changing electrode geometry on the per-
formance measures could be a future work as well, and also
studying the possibility of making EDM process more sustainable
by finding an alternative of process elements that are not friendly
to environment.
References
[1] El-Hofy, H. A.-G., 2005, Advanced Machining Processes; Non Traditional and
Hybrid Machining Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[2] Ho, K. H., and Newman, S. T., 2003, “State of the Art Electrical Discharge
Machining (EDM),” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 43(13), pp. 1287–1300.
[3] Rajesh, R., and Anand, M. D., 2012, “The Optimization of the Electro-
Discharge Machining Process Using Response Surface Methodology and
Genetic Algorithms,” Procedia Eng., 38, pp. 3941–3950.
[4] Krishna Mohana Rao, G., Rangajanardhaa, G., Hanumantha Rao, D., and Sree-
nivasa Rao, M., 2009, “Development of Hybrid Model and Optimization of
Surface Roughness in Electric Discharge Machining Using Artificial Neural
Networks and Genetic Algorithm,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(3), pp.
1512–1520.
[5] AzadiMoghaddam, M., and Kolahan, F., 2015, “Optimization of EDM Process
Parameters Using Statistical Analysis and Simulated Annealing Algorithm,”
Int. J. Eng. (IJE), Trans. A Basics, 28(1), pp. 154–163.
011013-12 / Vol. 140, JANUARY 2018
MSF F Fa,V1,V2 Contribution (%)
0.00511 2.58 3.40 17.71
0.00360 1.71 3.40 12.48
0.01274 9.50 3.40 44.18
[6] Assarzadeh, S., and Ghoreishi, M., 2013, “Statistical Modeling and Optimiza-
tion of Process Parameters in Electro-Discharge Machining of Cobalt-
Bonded Tungsten Carbide Composite (WC/6%Co),” Procedia CIRP, 6, pp.
463–468.
[7] Habib, S. S., 2009, “Study of the Parameters in Electrical Discharge Machining
Through Response Surface Methodology Approach,” Appl. Math. Model.,
33(12), pp. 4397–4407.
[8] Joshi, S. N., and Pande, S. S., 2010, “Thermo-Physical Modeling of Die-
Sinking EDM Process,” J. Manuf. Process., 12(1), pp. 45–56.
[9] Lin, C. L., Lin, J. L., and Ko, T. C., 2002, “Optimisation of the EDM Process
Based on the Orthogonal Array With Fuzzy Logic and Grey Relational Analysis
Method,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 19(4), pp. 271–277.
[10] Marani Barzani, M., Zalnezhad, E., Sarhan, A. A. D., Farahany, S., and
Ramesh, S., 2015, “Fuzzy Logic Based Model for Predicting Surface Rough-
ness of Machined Al–Si–Cu–Fe Die Casting Alloy Using Different Additives-
Turning,” Measurement, 61, pp. 150–161.
[11] Yilmaz, O., Eyercioglu, O., and Gindy, N. N. Z., 2006, “A User-Friendly
Fuzzy-Based System for the Selection of Electro Discharge Machining Process
Parameters,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 172(3), pp. 363–371.
[12] Lin, J. L., Wang, K. S., Yan, B. H., and Tarng, Y. S., 2000, “Optimization of
the Electrical Discharge Machining Process Based on the Taguchi Method
With Fuzzy Logics,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 102(1–3), pp. 48–55.
[13] Biswas, C. K., and Dewangan, S., 2012, “Optimisation of EDM Process With
Fuzzy Logic Technique,” International Conference on Metallurgical, Manufac-
turing and Mechanical Engineering (ICMMME), Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
Dec. 26–27, pp. 346–349.
[14] Tarng, Y. S., Tseng, C. M., and Chung, L. K., 1997, “A Fuzzy Pulse Discrimi-
nating System for Electrical Discharge Machining,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.,
37(4), pp. 511–522.
[15] McGeough, J. A., 1988, Advanced Methods of Machining, 1st ed., Chapman
and Hall Ltd, London.
[16] Zadeh, L. A., 1976, “A Fuzzy-Algorithm Approach to the
Definition of Complex or Imprecise Concepts,” Int. J. Man Mach. Stud., 8(3),
pp. 249–291.
[17] Jiang, B. C., and Hsu, C. H., 2003, “Development of a Fuzzy Decision Model
for Manufacturability Evaluation,” J. Intell. Manuf., 14(2), pp. 169–181.
[18] Tzeng, Y., and Chen, F., 2007, “Multi-Objective Optimisation of High-Speed
Electrical Discharge Machining Process Using a Taguchi Fuzzy-Based
Approach,” Mater. Des., 28(4), pp. 1159–1168.
[19] ASTM, 2016, “Standard Specification for Chromium and Chromium-Nickel
Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels and for General
Applications,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No.
ASTM A240/A240M-16a.
[20] Majumder, A., 2013, “Process Parameter Optimization During EDM of AISI
316 LN Stainless Steel by Using Fuzzy Based Multi-Objective PSO,” J. Mech.
Sci. Technol., 27(7), pp. 2143–2151.
Transactions of the ASME
 [21] Das, M. K., Kumar, K., Barman, T. K., and Sahoo, P., 2013, “Optimization of
Surface Roughness and MRR in EDM Using WPCA,” Procedia Eng., 64, pp.
446–455.
[22] Sharma, P., Singh, S., and Mishra, D. R., 2014, “Electrical Discharge Machin-
ing of AISI 329 Stainless Steel Using Copper and Brass Rotary Tubular Elec-
trode,” Procedia Mater. Sci., 5, pp. 1771–1780.
[23] Kolli, M., and Kumar, A., 2014, “Effect of Boron Carbide Powder Mixed Into
Dielectric Fluid on Electrical Discharge Machining of Titanium Alloy,” Proce-
dia Mater. Sci., 5, pp. 1957–1965.
[24] Dastagiri, M., and Kumar, A. H., 2014, “Experimental Investigation of EDM
Parameters on Stainless Steel & En41b,” Procedia Eng., 97, pp. 1551–1564.
[25] Shashikant, Roy, A. K., and Kumar, K., 2014, “Effect and Optimization of
Various Machine Process Parameters on the Surface Roughness in EDM for
an EN41 Material Using Grey-Taguchi,” Procedia Mater. Sci., 5, pp. 1702–1709.
[26] Gopalakannan, S., Senthilvelan, T., and Ranganathan, S., 2012, “Modeling and
Optimization of EDM Process Parameters on Machining of Al 7075-B4C
MMC Using RSM,” Procedia Eng., 38, pp. 685–690.
[27] Gopalakannan, S., and Senthilvelan, T., 2013, “Application of Response Sur-
face Method on Machining of Al–SiC Nano-Composites,” Measurement, 46(8),
pp. 2705–2715.
[28] Lin, M., Tsao, C., Hsu, C., Chiou, A., Huang, P., and Lin, Y., 2013,
“Optimization of Micro Milling Electrical Discharge Machining of Inconel 718
by Grey-Taguchi Method,” Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 23(3), pp.
661–666.
[29] Joshi, S. N., and Pande, S. S., 2011, “Intelligent Process Modeling and Optimi-
zation of Die-Sinking Electric Discharge Machining,” Appl. Soft Comput.,
11(2), pp. 2743–2755.
[30] Rajmohan, T., Prabhu, R., Rao, G. S., and Palanikumar, K., 2012,
“Optimization of Machining Parameters in Electrical Discharge Machining
(EDM) of 304 Stainless Steel,” Procedia Eng., 38, pp. 1030–1036.
[31] Shandilya, P., Jain, P. K., and Jain, N. K., 2012, “Parametric Optimization Dur-
ing Wire Electrical Discharge Machining Using Response Surface Method-
ology,” Procedia Eng., 38, pp. 2371–2377.
[32] Jegan, T. M. C., Anand, M. D., and Ravindran, D., 2012, “Determination of
Electro Discharge Machining Parameters in AISI202 Stainless Steel Using
Grey Relational Analysis,” Procedia Eng., 38, pp. 4005–4012.
[33] Shanmugam, S. V., Krishnaraj, V., Jagdeesh, K. A., Kumar, S. V., and Subash,
S., 2013, “Numerical Modelling of Electro-Discharge Machining Process Using
Moving Mesh Feature,” Procedia Eng., 64, pp. 747–756.
[34] Das, M. K., Kumar, K., Barman, T. K., and Sahoo, P., 2014, “Optimization of
MRR and Surface Roughness in PAC of EN 31 Steel Using Weighted Principal
Component Analysis,” Procedia Technol., 14, pp. 211–218.
[35] Balasubramanian, P., and Senthilvelan, T., 2014, “Optimization of Machining
Parameters in EDM Process Using Cast and Sintered Copper Electrodes,” Pro-
cedia Mater. Sci., 6, pp. 1292–1302.
[36] Dewangan, S., Biswas, C. K., and Gangopadhyay, S., 2014, “Optimization of
the Surface Integrity Characteristics of EDM Process Using PCA Based Grey
Relation Investigation,” Procedia Mater. Sci., 6, pp. 1091–1096.
[37] Ugrasen, G., Ravindra, H. V., Prakash, G. V. N., and Keshavamurthy, R., 2014,
“Process Optimization and Estimation of Machining Performances Using
Artificial Neural Network in Wire EDM,” Procedia Mater. Sci., 6, pp.
1752–1760.
[38] Chandramouli, S., and Eswaraiah, K., 2017, “Optimization of EDM Process
Parameters in Machining of 17-4 PH Steel Using Taguchi Method,” Mater.
Today Proc., 4(2), pp. 2040–2047.
[39] Gangil, M., and Pradhan, M. K., 2017, “Review on Modelling and Optimization
of Electrical Discharge Machining Process Using Modern Techniques,” Mater.
Today Proc., 4(2), pp. 2048–2057.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
View publication stats
[40] Mohanty, C. P., Mahapatra, S. S., and Singh, M. R., 2017, “An Intelligent
Approach to Optimize the EDM Process Parameters Using Utility Concept and
QPSO Algorithm,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., 20(2), pp. 552–562.
[41] Hanjie, X., Dalin, R., and Shibo, W., 2017, “EDM Machining Quality Control
and Parameters Optimization,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 89(5–8), pp.
1307–1315.
[42] Dweiri, F., Al-Jarrah, M., and Al-Wedyan, H., 2003, “Fuzzy Surface Roughness
Modeling of CNC Down Milling of Alumic-79,” J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
133(3), pp. 266–275.
[43] Ooi, M. E., Sayuti, M., and Sarhan, A. A. D., 2015, “Fuzzy Logic-Based
Approach to Investigate the Novel Uses of Nano Suspended Lubrication in Pre-
cise Machining of Aerospace AL Tempered Grade 6061,” J. Clean. Prod., 89,
pp. 286–295.
[44] Conţiu, G., Popa, M. S., Socaciu, L., and Pop, G., 2015, “Fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process Applied to Determine the Material Machinability in EDM
Process,” Appl. Math. Mech. Eng., 58(2), pp. 385–394.
[45] Lin, C.-T., Chung, I.-F., and Huang, S.-Y., 2001, “Improvement of Machining
Accuracy by Fuzzy Logic at Corner Parts for Wire-EDM,” Fuzzy Sets Syst.,
122(3), pp. 499–511.
[46] Sengottuvel, P., Satishkumar, S., and Dinakaran, D., 2013, “Optimization of
Multiple Characteristics of EDM Parameters Based on Desirability Approach
and Fuzzy Modeling,” Procedia Eng., 64, pp. 1069–1078.
[47] Kaneko, T., and Onodera, T., 2004, “Improvement in Machining Performance
of Die-Sinking EDM by Using Self-Adjusting Fuzzy Control,” J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol., 149(1–3), pp. 204–211.
[48] Yan, M.-T., 2010, “An Adaptive Control System With Self-Organizing Fuzzy
Sliding Mode Control Strategy for Micro Wire-EDM Machines,” Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol., 50(1–4), pp. 315–328.
[49] Shing Roger Jang, J. Y. H., 1993, “ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy
Inference System,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Cybern., 23(3), pp. 665–685.
[50] Çaydaş, U., Hasçalık, A., and Ekici, S., 2009, “An Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Infer-
ence System (ANFIS) Model for Wire-EDM,” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(3), pp.
6135–6139.
[51] Suganthi, X. H., Natarajan, U., Sathiyamurthy, S., and Chidambaram, K., 2013,
“Prediction of Quality Responses in Micro-EDM Process Using an Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) Model,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
68(1–4), pp. 339–347.
[52] Shabgard, M. R., Badamchizadeh, M. A., Ranjbary, G., and Amini, K., 2013,
“Fuzzy Approach to Select Machining Parameters in Electrical Discharge
Machining (EDM) and Ultrasonic-Assisted EDM Processes,” J. Manuf. Syst.,
32(1), pp. 32–39.
[53] Pratiwi, D. K., and Yudo, E., 2017, “The Effect of Sinking Parameters to Opti-
mize Response at Edm of Aisi H13 Using Taguchi–Fuzzy Method,” J. Mech.
Sci. Eng., 4(1), pp. 11–15.
[54] Asal, V. D., and Patel, R. I., and Choudhary, A. B., 2013, “Optimization of Pro-
cess Parameters of EDM Using ANOVA Method,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl., 3(2),
pp. 1119–1125.
[55] Prajapati, U., Prajapati, J., Modi, P., and Banker, K., 2014, “A Review of
Parameter Optimization of Electro Discharge Machine by Using Taguchi Meth-
od,” Int. J. Appl. Innovation Eng. Manage., 3(8), pp. 20–24.
[56] Patel, D., Deshpande, V., Jha, E., Patel, V., Desai, S., and Patel, J., 2015,
“Study of Sand Composition on Mould Properties and Selection of Taguchi
Orthogonal Array,” Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res., 2(3), p. 31.
[57] Kuo, C.-F. J., and Lin, W.-T., 2017, “A Study of Multi-Quality Processing
Parameter Optimization for Sueded Fabric,” Text. Res. J., 87(4), pp. 389–398.
[58] BesterField, D. H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield-scare, M., Besterfield,
G. H., Undhwareshe, H., and Undhwareshe, R., 2015, Total Quality Manage-
ment, 4th ed., Pearson, Noida, India.
JANUARY 2018, Vol. 140 / 011013-13