International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

Hybrid Electric Discharge Machining Process with Continuous and Discontinuous Ultrasonic Vibrations on Workpiece
Jujhar Singh1, R.S. Walia2, P.S. Satsangi1*, V.P. Singh1*
1 2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, India Department of Production Engineering, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, India jujharsingh2085@gmail.com; waliaravinder@yahoo.com; 1*pssatsangi@yahoo.com

Abstract-To enhance the flushing of debris particles, an attempt is made to give continuous and discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations to work-piece in EDM process. The effects are explored using high Carbon high Chromium steel as work-piece and Copper as tool electrode. In this work L18 orthogonal array based on Taguchi design is used to conduct a series of experiments and the experimental data is statistically evaluated by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The main machining parameters such as type of vibration, amplitude of vibration, peak current, no-load voltage, pulse-on time and duty factor are chosen to determine the EDM process response parameters such as material removal rate, tool wear rate and micro cracks. The significant process parameters and the optimal combination levels of machining parameters associated with higher Material Removal Rate (MRR) and lower Tool Wear Rate (TWR) are also drawn. The experimental results show that the discontinuous ultrasonic assisted EDM has higher MRR, higher TWR with more number of micro cracks as compared to continuous ultrasonic vibrations. Keywords-Ultrasonic Assisted Electrical Discharge Machining (UEDM); Material Removal Rate (MRR); Tool Wear rate (TWR); Taguchi method; Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

I. INTRODUCTION EDM is able to create wide variety of difficult shapes; it has become popular for many different applications. It has found widespread use not only in the manufacture of punches and dies, but also in mould making, aerospace applications, making extrusion dies and the production of small micro holes (0.381 mm and smaller). Creating small and deep slots is another important EDM application. The EDM process is commonly used in the tool and die industry for mould-making, however in recent years EDM has become an integral part of aerospace and electronics industries for making prototypes and production parts where production quantities remain low (Singh et al. 2009). In EDM process, oxides (or debris) are created and accumulated in the sparkling gap between an electrode and a work-piece. If the debris density becomes too great in certain points in the gap, there is a reduction in the resistance, which encourages the formation of abnormal discharges, results in a significant electrode wear or damage and slows down the material removal rate [Takashi et al. (2008)]. Several researchers have reported studies to improve the process productivity of EDM. Masuzawa et al. (1983, 1990)

introduced tool withdrawal and 2D vibration (sinusoidal motion of tool) to an EDM process for machining deep holes to increase the flushing effect. Murthi and Philip (1987) have identified cavitation (nucleation, growth, and burst of gaseous bubbles), ultrasonic field forces (radiation force, Stokes force, Bernoullis attraction), and acoustic streaming as the factors having pronounced effects in ultrasonic assisted EDM. Their finding was that the debris formed in ultrasonic assisted EDM was solid (rather than hollow) with higher spherodicity. It is reported that there was evidence of collision of particles in the form of dents, splats, attached satellites and cracks. Kremer et al. (1989, 1991) applied ultrasonic vibrations (20 kHz) to the tool to achieve process improvements. They have reported that the process stability improved due to better slurry circulation caused by the pumping action of the electrode. Moreover, the pressure variation in the gap, caused by the ultrasonic vibration, improved the MRR as larger pressure drop causes lesser re-solidification of molten metal. A pronounced effect of applied ultrasonic vibrations was seen for high value of amplitude. At 8m amplitude an increase in both Ra and Rmax was noticed. Zhang et al. (1997) utilized the combined effect of EDM and ultrasonic machining to machine conductive ceramics by replacing the pulse generator in EDM by a constant DC source and ultrasonic tool vibration. Guo et al. (1997) applied ultrasonic vibration in wire EDM. They reported an increase in cutting efficiency, decrease in surface residual stress and reduced probability of rupture of wire. Ghoreishi and Atkinson (2002) compared the effects of high-or-low frequency axial vibration of electrode, rotation of electrode, and combinations of these methods in respect of material removal rate, tool wear rate and surface roughness in die-sinking EDM. It was found that the combination of highfrequency vibration and rotation of electrode was more effective and gave the best results in comparison with pure EDM, rotary EDM and vibratory EDM. Zhang et al. (2002) introduced UEDM in gas and concluded that MRR in UEDM was much higher compared with EDM with gas and conventional EDM in dielectric liquid. Increase in open voltage, pulse duration, amplitude of ultrasonic vibration and decrease of wall thickness of pipe electrode results in an increase in MRR. As a medium, oxygen gas can produce a greater MRR than air. Walia (2003) concluded that the pumping action created by the vibrating tool electrode gives a higher material removal rate, particularly for finishing operation. Material removal gain ranges from 30% (for

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) roughing operation) to 300% (for finishing operation). Huang et al. (2003) established a one-dimensional fluid dynamics model by super imposing an ultrasonic vibration on normal electrode movement. In their study, the machining efficiency of fabricating micro-holes increased more than 60 times, and their numerical simulation revealed that the efficiency improvement was attributed to the strong stirring effect caused by the ultrasonic vibration. It was also found that higher vibration amplitude resulted in higher machining efficiency, but this conclusion was only based on the experimental study of a small vibration amplitudes range from 5m to 8m. Besides, it was also concluded that further increase of vibration amplitude might cause a collision between the electrode and the work-piece to terminate the machining process, and larger vibration amplitude would result in larger horizontal vibrations which affects the dimensional accuracy adversely. Changshui and Zhengxun (2003) found that ultrasonically aided EDM by the application of work-piece vibration is a very efficient method to use for micro-EDM. The efficiency of the ultrasonically aided microEDM is eight times greater than that of micro-EDM when the work-piece thickness was 0.5 mm, the material was stainless steel, and the tungsten tool diameter was 43 m. Zhang et al. (2006) studied the ultrasonic EDM in gas. The gas was applied through the internal hole of a thin-walled pipe electrode. The result shows that the MRR increased with respect to the increase of open voltage, pulse duration, amplitude of ultrasonic actuation, discharge current and the decrease of the wall thickness of electrode pipe while the surface roughness is increased with respect to the increase of open voltage, pulse duration and the discharge current. The surface roughness value of the ultrasonic assisted EDM was slightly higher than the surface roughness value for pure EDM. Amir (2008, 2009) summarised that the material removal rate of the ultrasonic assisted electro-discharge machining was shown to be up to four times higher than the material removal rate of the conventional EDM for small pulse durations and low discharge currents. The general increase in MRR is explained by the gain in better flushing, ease of ionization, high rate of pressure drop at the end of the discharge which causes more violent bulk boiling of the molten crater and also erosion of the work-piece due to cavitations. Takashi et al. (2008) indicated that vibration assisted micro-EDM improves the machining stability and results in an extreme reduction of the machining time. Ultrasonic vibration plays dual role in EDM such as direct contribution to the material removal and facilitates better machining conditions for material removal. Murali et al. (2008) showed Taguchi experiment design based on ANOVA and concluded that ultrasonic vibration at 60% of the peak power with capacitance of 3300 PF was found to be significant for best MRR. The machining time plays a significant role in the tool wear. Shabgard et al. (2009) pointed out the effect of work piece vibration in electric discharge machining of AISI H13 tool steel with graphite tool and concluded that the material removal rate of the ultrasonic assisted EDM can be up to three times higher than EDM for small pulse durations and low currents. Ultrasonic vibration of work piece gives pressure variation all along the gap, results in better flushing and increases the process stability. Almost all previous studies focused mainly on the effects of single or a small range of vibration amplitude with continuous vibrations only. In this paper, the method of assisting EDM process with continuous and discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations is introduced on High Carbon High Chromium Steel. This steel is one of the materials which is widely used in die and punch manufacturing with expected application growth in the rapidly developing micro world. It is also considered as one of the most suitable electrode materials for micro EDM process. With its exceptional hardness, wear resistance and high mechanical strength are becoming very desirable for a number of applications. An orthogonal array (L18) based on the Taguchi experimental design (Excel based) is utilized to plan the experiments. In addition, the experimental data is transferred to signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios and assessed by the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine the significant machining parameters for higher MRR and lower TWR. The optimal machining parameters of the ultrasonic assisted EDM are established to achieve the process with high efficiency to evolve the EDM applications for modern industrial requirements. The schematic diagram of the developed UEDM process is shown in Fig 1.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of Ultrasonic assisted EDM

II. EXPERIMENTATION The work-piece used for study is high Carbon high Chromium steel with cylindrical shape (Diameter 24mm and Height 25.4mm). Table 1 shows the chemical composition of work-piece used for study. The raw material is machined using several conventional methods such as turning, parting and grinding. These specimens are ground to achieve parallel faces by diamond-grain resin-bond grinding wheel. It is fastened tightly with fixture specially made for attaching it with ultrasonic transducer. For the each experiment a separate Copper electrode (Diameter 18mm and Height 28mm) is used. The front face of the electrode against the work-piece is ground using emery paper to achieve better surface finish and the flatness of each electrode at the same level. The experiments are conducted using the commercial Elektra EMS 5535 model die sinking Ram EDM as shown in Fig 2. A piezo-electric transducer (Fig. 3) is attached with EDM machine to give continuous and discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations to work-piece at frequency of 25000 Hz with amplitude range of 1 m to 10 m. An ultrasonic panel is

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 23

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) used to control the amplitude and mode (continuous and discontinuous) of vibration. Fig.4 shows the principle of ultrasonic peizo-electric transducer in which continuous and discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations are provided through the control of oscillator. The Amplitude control and Amplifier unit is provided to control the amplitude of vibration and Selector is provided to change the mode of vibration. The continuous vibrations are attained in default case, as and when discontinuous vibration is needed the selector will control the same through relay. In case of discontinuous vibrations, the high frequency electrical impulse from the generator to the transducer is discontinuous but interval time is adjusted in terms of make and break frequency of the relay which is adjustable by electronic circuit with the gap of half second. However the frequency of energizing the ultrasonic transducer has to be maintained at 25000 Hz, being the resonant frequency of the transducer. This frequency remains the same in both of the modes.
TABLE 1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS OF HIGH CARBON HIGH CHROMIUM STEEL (WORK-PIECE)

Element Percentage

C 1.46

Cr 11.08

Mn 0.4

Si 0.4

The following response parameters are investigated. MRR: Volumetric material removal rate (mm3/min) is calculated by using the relation:
MRR = (M 1 M 2 ) X 103 t

(1)

Where M1 and M2 are the work-piece weight (gm) before and after machining respectively, is the density of High Carbon high Chromium steel (gm/cm3), and t is the machining time (min.). TWR: Volumetric tool wear rate (mm3/min) is calculated by using the relation:
TWR = (M 1 M 2 ) X 10 3 t

(2)

Where M1 and M2 are the tool weight (gm) before and after machining respectively, is the density of copper (gm/cm3), and t is the machining time (min). MICRO-CRACKS: Scanning Electron Microscope (JEOL JSM-6610LV) is used to take microphotographs from the machined surface. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Taguchi recommends the use of S/N ratio to measure the quality characteristics deviating from the desired values. The quality characteristic for MRR is taken higher the better and for TWR it is taken as lower-the better. The S/N ratio for the higher-the-better and lower-the-better of response can be computed (Ross, 1988; Roy, 1990) as:
1 R 2 ( S / N ) HB = 10 log (Y j ) R j =1
1 ( S / N ) LB = 10 log R

Fig. 2 UEDM set-up

(3) (4 )

(Y j
j =1

Fig. 3 EDM Set-up

Where, Yj (j= 1, 2, 3.n) is the response value under the trail condition repeated R times. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is performed to identify the process parameters that are statistically significant. With the S/N and ANOVA analyses, the optimal combination of the process parameters is predicted. The design parameters as well as their chosen levels considered for Taguchi experiments are listed in Table 2. A. Material Removal Rate (MRR) The optimal combination levels of the machining parameters correlated with the ultrasonic (continuous and discontinuous) assisted EDM that yielded high MRR are determined by analyzing the S/N ratios and raw data values. Table 3 shows the experimental conditions using Taguchi L18 orthogonal array and measured values of MRR for three different trial runs along with corresponding S/N ratio. The

Fig. 4 Principle of UEDM Process

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 24

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) effect of process parameters on MRR for both the raw data and S/N ratio are analysed using ANOVA. The optimum combination levels of process parameters are determined from the raw data and S/N ratio response graphs plotted in Fig. 4 to 9. The average value of the raw data and S/N ratio for parameter at level L1, L2 and L3 are calculated and are given in Table 4 and 5 respectively. The pooled versions of ANOVA of the raw data and S/N ratios for MRR are also shown in Table 6 and 7 respectively. Fig. 4 shows that type of vibration is a significant parameter affecting the MRR of ultrasonic assisted EDM. High MRR is observed in case of discontinuous vibrations, the reason for this may be that the aggressive action of compressive wave front, generated by discontinuous ultrasonic vibration within the plasma channel. These waves have more impact force on the molten puddle on the surface of work-piece as compared with continuous vibration, which pushes and disperses molten material out of the puddle.

TABLE 2 PROCESS PARAMETERS AND THEIR VALUES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.

Symbol A B C D E F

Machining Parameter Type of vibration Amplitude of Vibration(m) Peak Current(A) No-Load Voltage(V) Pulse-on Time(s) Duty Factor (%)

Range C/D 1-10 0-50 0-250 10-250 0-100

Level 1 C 2 5 50 50 66.6

Level 2 D 6 20 150 100 57.1

Level 3 10 35 250 150 47.6

Machining Time: 20 min., Dielectric Fluid: EDM Oil. Temperature 352C, C-Continuous , D- Discontinuous
TABLE 3 ORTHOGONAL ARRAYS FOR L18 WITH RESPONSES (RAW DATA AND S/N RATIOS)

Input parameters A Exp. No Cont./ Discon t. B Amplit ude (m) C Curr ent (A) D No-Load Voltage (V) E Pulse On Time (s) 50 100 150 100 150 50 50 100 150 150 50 100 150 50 100 100 150 50 F Duty Factor (%)

Responses Raw Data Material Removal Rate (mm/min) R1 66.6 57.1 47.6 57.1 47.6 66.6 47.6 66.6 57.1 57.1 47.6 66.6 66.6 57.1 47.6 47.6 66.6 57.1 15.44 25.65 15.98 17.84 21.83 60.73 14.60 32.56 40.12 10.98 35.23 73.40 16.76 40.87 70.55 17.39 36.11 81.16 R2 15.77 25.11 15.98 17.40 21.39 60.37 14.48 32.87 40.45 10.87 34.80 73.88 16.48 40.56 69.77 17.94 35.50 81.76 R3 15.11 25.40 15.00 17.12 21.11 60.55 15.54 32.66 40.34 10.98 34.01 74.64 16.44 40.76 69.66 17.66 35.80 81.96 23.77 28.09 23.88 24.83 26.62 35.64 23.43 30.29 32.10 20.78 30.79 37.38 24.38 32.19 36.90 24.94 31.07 38.23 S/N Ratio(d B) Raw Data Tool Wear Rate (TWR) (mm/min) R1 0.174 0.143 0.179 0.129 0.127 0.182 0.156 0.172 0.146 0.164 0.169 0.189 0.154 0.178 0.173 0.165 0.165 0.183 R2 0.173 0.141 0.174 0.128 0.127 0.183 0.157 0.179 0.148 0.165 0.173 0.187 0.151 0.179 0.172 0.168 0.162 0.189 R3 0.175 0.146 0.177 0.127 0.126 0.185 0.159 0.178 0.142 0.169 0.171 0.188 0.151 0.163 0.17 0.164 0.169 0.188 7.569 8.356 7.520 8.961 8.996 7.328 7.986 7.495 8.477 7.721 7.670 7.258 8.210 7.878 7.695 7.851 7.721 7.258 S/N Ratio(d B)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

C C C C C C C C C D D D D D D D D D

2 2 2 6 6 6 10 10 10 2 2 2 6 6 6 10 10 10

5 20 35 5 20 35 5 20 35 5 20 35 5 20 35 5 20 35

50 150 250 50 150 250 150 250 50 250 50 150 150 250 50 250 50 150

C- Continuous Vibrations, D-Discontinuous Vibrations, R1, R2, R3 represent MRR value for three repetitions of each trail.

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 25

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

TABLE 4 MAIN EFFECTS OF MRR (RAW DATA)

Level L1 L2 L3 L2-L1 L3-L2

Type of vibration 27.09 42.45 * 15.35 *

Amplitude 29.35 37.79 37.17 8.44 -0.63

Peak Current 15.49 31.79 57.02 16.30 25.23

No Load Voltage 35.62 38.98 29.71 3.36 -9.27

Pulse On Time 41.32 39.53 23.46 -1.79 -16.08

Duty Factor 39.18 36.08 29.05 -3.10 -7.03

L1, L2 and L3 represent levels 1,2 and 3 respectively of parameters., L2-L1 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 1 to level 2. L3-L2 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 2 to level 3

TABLE 5 MAIN EFFECTS OF MRR (S/N RATIO)

Level L1 L2 L3 L2-L1 L3-L2

Type of vibration 27.63 30.74 * 3.11 *

Amplitude 27.45 30.09 30.01 2.64 -0.08

Peak Current 23.69 29.84 34.02 6.15 4.17

No Load Voltage 29.91 29.69 27.95 -0.22 -1.73

Pulse On Time 30.68 30.40 26.47 -0.27 -3.92

Duty Cycle 30.42 29.37 27.76 -1.04 -1.61

L1,L2 and L3 represent levels 1,2 and 3 respectively of parameters. L2-L1 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 1 to level 2. L3-L2 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 2 to level 3
TABLE 6 POOLED ANOVA (RAW DATA)

Source Type of vibration Amplitude Peak Current No load Voltage Pulse On Time Duty Factor Error Total

SS 3181.91 796.39 15759.66 792.81 1095.83 968.15 3214.66 25809.44

DOF 1 2 2 2 2 2 42 53

V 3181.91 398.19 7879.82 396.40 547.91 484.07 76.53 ---

F-Ratio 41.57* 5.20* 41.57* 5.17* 7.15* 6.32* -----

SS 3105.37 643.31 15606.58 639.73 639.73 815.07 4056.60 25809.44

P% 12.03 2.50 60.47 2.48 3.65 3.16 15.71 100

TABLE 7 POOLED ANOVA (S/N RATIO)

Source Type of vibration Amplitude Peak Current No load Voltage Pulse On Time Duty Factor Error Total

SS 43.619 27.140 324.20 13.78 66.37 21.55 7.40 504.07

DOF 1 2 2 2 2 2 6 17

V 43.61 13.57 162.10 6.89 33.18 10.77 1.23 *

F-Ratio 35.35* 11.00* 131.40* 5.58* 26.90* 8.73*

SS 42.38 24.67 321.73 11.32 63.90 19.08 20.97 504.07

P% 8.41 4.90 63.82 2.25 12.68 3.78 4.16 100

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 26

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

Fig. 4 Effect of type of Vibration on S/N ratio and MRR

Fig. 6 Effect of peak current on S/N ratio and MRR

Fig. 5 Effect of amplitude of vibration on S/N ratio and MRR

Fig. 7 Effect of no-load voltage on S/N ratio and MRR

Therefore, the pumping action made by the working end of the electrode gives a higher material removal rate which avoids the accumulation of debris. Fig. 5 shows that MRR increases for amplitude of vibration from 2m to 6 m and it declines from 6m to 10 m. This happens due to the difference in amplitude of longitudinal ultrasonic vibration of work-piece which creates longitudinal compressive and rarefaction wave front, micro bubbles and intensive ejecting of micro streams which in turn aids very violent and accelerative mass transfer across the spark gap. At small amplitude of vibrations, vibration reduces adhesion and increases machining stability. This is attributed to the fact that the flow of debris and the recovery from the adhesion are more efficient in the high-speed expansion and contraction of the piezo-electric transducer. In Fig. 6, MRR increases with peak current. The reason for this is as more electrical energy is conducted into the machining zone within a single pulse and more work-piece material is removed. In Fig. 7 shows that MRR increases from 50V to 150V and falls from 150V to 200V. With the increase in 50V to 150V, energy is available in the working zone to melt and vaporize the working material and with further increase it may reduce due to poor flushing.. According to Amir (2009) low pulse duration leads to better MRR. Fig. 8 shows the MRR is high at 50 s, less at 100 s and decline at 150 s. The MRR value decreases due to lesser time available to eject the eroded material from working zone. Fig. 9 shows that the MRR is higher when duty factor is 66.6%, moderate at 57.1% and less at 47.6%. The difference of change in MRR is due to the more machining time in the process.

Fig. 8 Effect of pulse-on time on S/N ratio and MRR

Fig. 9 Effect of duty factor on S/N ratio and MRR

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 27

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) Fig. 4 to 9 reveals that the optimum levels of machining Where F(1,fe): The F ratio at the confidence level of (1-) parameters for MRR of the ultrasonic assisted are: against DOF 53 and error DOF fe=42, N: Total number of Discontinuous vibration (level 2), 6m amplitude (level 2), results = 54 (Treatment=18, Repetition=3), R : Sample size 35A peak current (level 3), 150V No-load voltage (level 2), for confirmation experiments =3 Ve: Error variance = 1.06, fe 50s Pulse on time (level 1), 66.6% duty factor (level 1). It is error DOF = 42. clear that parameter A, B, C, D, E and F significantly affect N both the mean and the variation= = 4.5 (6) in the MRR values. The neff percentage contribution of peak current is high (60.47%) and 1+[ DOF associated in the estimate of mean response ) for type of vibration (12.03%), pulse on time (3.65%), duty F0.05(1, 42)= 4.076 (tabulated F value) , So CICE= 13.63, factor (3.16%), amplitude of vibration (2.50%), no-load CIPOP= 8.66 voltage (2.48%). 1) Estimation of Optimum Performance Characteristics for MRR. The optimum value of MRR (mm3/min.) is predicted at the selected levels of significant parameters A2B2C3D2E1F1. The estimated mean of the response characteristic MRR is determined (Ross 1988; Roy 1990) as MRR= The predicted optimal range ( for a confirmation runs of three experiments) is : MRR - CICE < MRR < MRR + CICE ; 69.26 < MRR < 96.52 (7) The 95% conformation interval of the predicted mean is as follows: MRR -CIPOP < MRR < MRR + CIPOP; 74.22 < MRR < 91.55(8) The optimal value of process parameters for the predicted range of optimal MRR are as follows: Type of Vibration ( A, 2nd level), Amplitude of Vibration (B, 2nd level) = 6m , Peak current (C, 3rd level) = 35 A, No-load voltage (D, 2nd level) = 150 V, Pulse on time (E, 1st level) = 50s, Duty Factor (F, 1st level) = 66.6%. 2) Confirmation Experiment for MRR The purpose of confirmation experiment is to validate the conclusions drawn during the analysis phase. The three confirmation experiments for MRR are conducted at the optimum setting of the process parameters. The type of vibration is set at 2nd level, amplitude of vibration at 2nd level, peak current at 3rd level, No-load voltage at 2nd level, pulse-on time at 1st level, duty factor at 1st level. The Confirmation experimental value of average MRR is found to be 75.21mm3/min, which fall within the 95% confidence interval of the predicted optimum parameters. Tool Wear Rate Table 3 lists the trial run followed using Taguchi orthogonal L18 array and response for TWR for both the raw data and S/N ratio. B.

A2 + B 2 + C 3 + D 2 + E 1 + F 1 5 T

(3)

Where T: Overall mean of MRR = 34.769, A2: Average MRR at the second level of type of vibration = 42.45 B2: Average MRR at the second level of amplitude of vibration = 37.792, C3: Average MRR at the third level of peak current = 57.021, D2: Average MRR at the second level of No-load voltage = 38.98, E1: Average MRR at the first level of pulse on time = 41.321, F1: Average MRR at the first level of duty factor = 39.175 ( Ref. to Table 4 and Fig. 4 to 9) Substituting the values of various terms in the above equation MRR =42.45+ 37.792+ 57.021+ 38.98+41.321+39.175- 5 34.769= 82.893 The 95% confidence interval of confirmation experiments (CICE) and of population (CIpop) is calculated by using the following equations:
CI CE = 1 1 F (1, f e )Ve + R neff

(4)

and
CI POP = F (1, f e )Ve neff

(5)

TABLE 8 MAIN EFFECTS OF TWR (RAW DATA)

Level L1 L2 L3 L2-L1 L3-L2

Type of vibration 0.157 0.171 * 0.014

Amplitude 0.170 0.156 0.166 -0.014 0.010

Peak Current 0.157 0.159 0.175 0.002 0.016

No Load Voltage 0.159 0.159 0.174 0.000 0.015

Pulse On Time 0.174 0.162 0.155 -0.012 -0.007

Duty Factor 0.173 0.157 0.162 -0.016 0.004

L1,L2 and L3 represent levels 1,2 and 3 respectively of parameters. L2-L1 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 1 to level 2. L3-L2 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 2 to level 3

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 28

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

TABLE 9 MAIN EFFECTS OF TWR (S/N RATIO)

Level L1 L2 L3 L2-L1 L3-L2 Difference

Type of vibration 16.171 15.351 * -0.820 * -0.820

Amplitude 15.428 16.236 15.618 0.808 -0.618 -1.426

Peak Current 16.113 16.012 15.157 -0.100 -0.855 -0.754

No-Load Voltage 16.012 16.056 15.214 0.044 -0.841 -0.886

Pulse-On Time 15.186 15.876 16.224 0.686 0.351 -0.335

Duty Cycle 15.251 16.144 15.887 0.893 -0.256 -1.150

L1,L2 and L3 represent levels 1,2 and 3 respectively of parameters. L2-L1 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 1 to level 2. L3-L2 is the average main effect when the corresponding parameter changes from level 2 to level 3

TABLE 10 ANOVA RAW DATA (TWR)

Source Type of vibration Amplitude Peak Current No load Voltage Pulse On Time Duty Factor Error Total

SS 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.0007 0.017

DOF 1 2 2 2 2 2 42 53

V 0.002 0.0002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.8E-05 ----

F-Ratio 153.570* 52.678* 98.002* 69.687* 100.860* 68.985* -------

SS 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.0009 0.017

P% 15.63 10.59 19.88 14.08 20.46 13.93 5.43 100

TABLE 11 ANOVA S/N RATIO (TWR)

Source Type of vibration Amplitude Peak Current No load Voltage Pulse On Time Duty Factor Error Total

SS 3.026 2.143 3.314 2.691 3.342 2.539 0.822 17.881

DOF 1 2 2 2 2 2 6 17

V 3.026 1.071 1.657 1.345 1.671 1.269 0.137 *

F-Ratio 22.064* 7.814* 12.083* 9.813* 12.187* 9.260*

SS 2.888 1.869 3.039 2.417 3.068 2.265 2.331 17.881

P% 16.16 10.45 17.00 13.52 17.16 12.67 13.04 100

The S/N ratio calculation is decided as lower the better. The analysis of raw data and S/N ratios are considered to evaluate the effects of machining parameters on TWR by performing statistical analysis using ANOVA. The average value of the raw data and S/N ratio for TWR for each parameter at level L1, L2 and L3 are calculated and are given in Table 8 and Table 9. These values have been plotted in Fig. 10 to 15. The pooled versions of ANOVA of the raw data and S/N ratio for TWR are given in Table 10 and 11. Fig. 10 shows that high TWR is observed in case of discontinuous vibrations, the possible reason for that is more erosion of the tool front surface whilst under presence of compressive wave front, generated by discontinuous ultrasonic vibration within the plasma channel of tool. Fig. 11 shows that TWR significantly decreases from 2m to 6m, and increases from 6m to 10m. The longitudinal ultrasonic

vibration of work-piece creates different compressive and rarefaction wave front.

longitudinal

Fig. 10 Effect of type of vibration on S/N ratio and TWR.

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 29

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

Fig. 11 Effect of amplitude of vibration on S/N ratio and TWR

Fig. 15 Effect of duty factor on S/N ratio and TWR

Fig. 12 shows that TWR is lesser at 5A, slightly more at 20A and maximum at 35A. This happened due to more electrical energy is conducted into the machining zone within a single pulse on increasing the peak current therefore; more tool materials are removed within the single pulse. Fig. 13 shows that TWR is equal at 50V and 150V but more at 200V. At higher voltage, copper is not melted with electrical spark but directly vaporized. Fig. 14 shows that TWR is more at 50 pulse-on time, less at 100 s and least at 150 s. The TWR value decreases due to lesser time available to eject the eroded material from working zone. Fig. 15 shows that TWR is more at 66.6% duty factor, less at 57.1% duty factor and slightly increase at 47.6% duty factor. The variation of change in TWR is due to the more machining time in the process. Fig. 10 to 15 reveal that the optimum levels of machining parameters for TWR are: Continuous vibration (level 1), 6m amplitude (level 2), 5A peak current (level 1), 50V No load voltage (level 1), 150s Pulse on-time (level 3), 57.1% duty factor (level 2). It is clear that parameter A, B, C, D, E and F significantly affect both the mean and the variation in the TWR values. The percentage contribution of pulse-on time is high (20.46%) and peak current (19.88%), type of vibration (15.63%), no-load voltage (14.08%), and duty factor (13.93%), amplitude of vibration (10.59%).
Fig. 13 Effect of no-load voltage on S/N ratio and TWR.

Fig. 12 Effect of peak current on S/N ratio and TWR.

1) Estimation of Optimum Performance Characteristics for TWR. The optimum value of TWR is predicted at the selected levels of significant parameters A1B2C1D2E3F2 (Table 3.2.2 and Table 3.2.3).The estimated mean of the response characteristic TWR is determined (Ross 1988; Roy 1990) as TWR= A1 + B 2 + C 1 + D1 + E 3 + F 2 5T (9)

Fig. 14 Effect of pulse-on time on S/N ratio and TWR

Where T: Overall mean of TWR = 0.165, A1: Average TWR at the first level of type of vibration = 0.157, B2: Average TWR at the second level of amplitude of vibration = 0.156, C1: Average TWR at the first level of peak current = 0.157, D2: Average TWR at the first level of No-load voltage = 0.159, E3: Average TWR at the third level of pulse on time = 0.155. F2: Average TWR at the second level of duty factor = 0.157. (Ref. to Table 8 and Fig. 10 to 15)

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 30

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) Substituting the values of various terms in the above equation TWR=0.157+0.156+0.157+0.159+0.155+0.157-50.165= 0.116 The 95% confidence interval of confirmation experiments (CICE) and of population (CIpop) is calculated by using the following equations:
1 1 CI CE = F (1, f e )Ve + neff R

(10)
Fig. 16 SEM of EDMed surface under the conditions: Cont. Vibration, Amplitude of vibration 2m, peak current 5A, No load Voltage 50V, Pulse on time 50s, Duty factor 66.6%., Magnification -X500.

and
CI POP = F (1, f e )Ve neff

(11)

Where F(1,fe): The F ratio at the confidence level of (1-) against DOF 53 and error DOF fe=42, N: Total number of results = 54 (Treatment=18, Repetition=3), R : Sample size for confirmation experiments =3, Ve: Error variance = 1.8105 , fe error DOF = 42.
neff N = 4.5
1+[ DOF associated in the estimate of mean response )

(12)

F0.05(1, 42)= 4.076 (tabulated F value) So CICE= 0.0063, CIPOP= 0.00403 The predicted optimal range ( for a confirmation runs of three experiments) is : TWR - CICE < TWR < TWR + CICE ; 0.109 <TWR < 0.1223 (13) The 95% conformation interval of the predicted mean is as follows: TWR -CIPOP < TWR < TWR + CIPOP; 0.112 <TWR < 0.12 (14) The optimal value of process parameters for the predicted range of optimal TWR are as follows: Type of Vibration ( A, 1st level ) = Continous vibration, Amplitude of Vibration (B, 2nd level) = 6m, Peak current (C, 1st level) = 5A, No-load voltage (D, 1st level) = 50 V, Pulse on time (E, 3rd level) = 150s, Duty Factor (F, 2nd level) = 57.1%. 2) Confirmation Experiment for TWR The three confirmation experiments for TWR are conducted at the optimum setting of the process parameters. The type of vibration is set at 1st level, amplitude of vibration at 2nd level, peak current at 1st level, No-load voltage at 1st level, pulse-on time at 3rd level, duty factor at 2nd level. The Confirmation experimental of average TWR is found to be 0.117mm3/min, which fall within the 95% confidence interval of the predicted optimum parameter. Effect of Ultrasonic Vibration of Surface Topography Figs. 16, 17 and 18 show SEM photographs of work-piece by continuous ultrasonic vibrations and Figs. 19, 20 and 21 show SEM photographs of work-piece by ultrasonic discontinuous vibrations under different settings of process parameters. C.
Fig. 17 SEM EDMed surface under the conditions: Cont. Vibration, Amplitude of vibration 6m, peak current 20A, No load Voltage 150V, Pulse on time 150s, Duty factor 47.6% ,Magnification-X500.

Fig. 18 SEM of EDMed surface under the conditions: Cont. Vibration, Amplitude of vibration 10m, peak current 35A, No load Voltage 50V, Pulse on time 150s, Duty factor 57.1%,, Magnification-X500.

Fig. 19 SEM of EDMed surface under the conditions: Discont. Vibration, Amplitude of vibration 6m, peak current 5A, No load Voltage 150V, Pulse on time 150s, Duty factor 66.6%,, Magnification- X500.

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 31

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE) quenched with surrounding dielectric leaving a rougher surface with small micro cracks. The optimal value of process parameters for the predicted range of optimal MRR are as follows: Type of Vibration ( A, 2nd level), Amplitude of Vibration (B, 2nd level) = 6m , Peak current (C, 3rd level) = 35 A, No-load voltage (D, 2nd level) = 150 V, Pulse on time (E, 1st level) = 50s, Duty Factor (F, 1st level) = 66.6%. In case of MRR, the percentage contribution of peak current is high (60.47%) and for type of vibration (12.03%), pulse on time (3.65%), duty factor (3.16%), amplitude of vibration (2.50%), no-load voltage (2.48%). The predicted optimal range for MRR is CIpop : 74.225 MRR 91.55. The 95% confidence interval of the predicted mean for MRR is CICE : 69.260 MRR 96.520 The Confirmation optimum experimental value is found as 75.21 mm3/min. The optimal value of process parameters for the predicted range of optimal TWR are as follows: Type of Vibration ( A, 1st level ) = Continous vibration, Amplitude of Vibration (B, 2nd level) = 6m, Peak current (C, 1st level) = 5A, No-load voltage (D, 1st level) = 50 V, Pulse on time (E, 3rd level) = 150s, Duty Factor (F, 2nd level) = 57.1%.
Fig. 21 SEM of EDMed surface under the conditions: Discont. Vibrations, Amplitude of vibration 10m, peak current 20A, No load Voltage 50V, Pulse on time 150s, Duty factor 66.6%, Magnification-X500.

Fig. 20 SEM of EDMed surface under the conditions: Discont. Vibration, Amplitude of vibration 6m, peak current 35A, No load Voltage 50V, Pulse on time 100s, Duty factor 47.6%,, Magnification-X500.

The major difference between continuous and discontinuous vibrations assisted EDM are the size and the number of micro-cracks appearing on the machined surface. In discontinuous vibrations assisted EDM, small cracks are observed. Some of the cracks even may extend into the base material. Continuous vibrations exhibited a relative fine structure and smooth surface. Irregularities produced by fracture damage cannot be clearly observed, and there is no distinct crack on the machined surface. The discontinuous vibrations leave less volume of re-solidified material in each crater which gets quenched with surrounding dielectric leaving a rough surface with small micro cracks. Another possible explanation for the cracks, when high current and long duration discharge settings are used, can be melting of steel grains in later stages of the discharge duration and higher contamination of the spark gap (by carbon content). IV. CONCLUSIONS Discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations improve the MRR by improving the dielectric flushing to a greater extent. The reason for different machining performance is due to the difference in pumping action created by different types of ultrasonic vibrations. The average length, width and number of microcracks increase with the peak current and pulse duration. The micro-cracks seem to reduce when the peak current and pulse duration are set at very low levels. The discontinuous ultrasonic vibrations leave less volume of re-solidified material in each crater which gets

In case of TWR, the percentage contribution of pulse-on time is high high (20.46%) and peak current (19.88%), type of vibration (15.63%), no-load voltage (14.08%), and duty factor (13.93%), amplitude of vibration (10.59%). The predicted optimal range for TWR is CIpop: 0.112 TWR 0.12. The 95% confidence interval of the predicted mean for TWR is CICE: 0.109 TWR 0.1223. The Confirmation optimum experimental is found as 0.117mm3/min.
REFERENCES [1] Amir Abdullah & Mohammad R. Shabgard, Ivanov A.,Mohammad T., Shervanyi Tabar, 2008. Effect of ultrasonic vibration of tool on electrical discharge machining of cemented tungsten carbide (WC-Co). International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 38, 1137 1147. Amir Abdullah & Mohammad R. Shabgard, Ivanov A.,Mohammad T., Shervanyi Tabar 2009. Effect of ultrasonic assisted EDM on the surface integrity of cemented tungsten carbide (WC-Co), International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 41, 268-280. Changshui Gao, Zhengxun Liu, 2003. A study of ultrasonically aided micro-electrical-discharge machining by the application of work-piece vibration. Journal of Materials Processing Technology139, 226228. Ghoreishi M., Atkinson J., 2002. A comparative experimental study of machining characteristics in vibratory, rotary and vibro-rotary electrodischarge machining. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120, 374-384. Guo Z.N., Lee T.C., Yue T.M., and Lau W.S. 1997. A Study of Ultrasonic- Aided Wire Electrical Discharge Machining, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 63, 823828. Huang H, Zhang H, Zhou L, and Zheng H Y., 2003. Ultrasonic vibration assisted electro-discharge machining of microholes in Nitinol. Journal of micromechanics and microengineering 13, 693700. Kremer D., Lebrun J. L., Hosari B., Moisan A., 1989. Effects of Ultrasonic Vibrations on the Performances in EDM. Annals of the ClRP38(1), 199-202.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 32

International Journal of Mechanic Systems Engineering (IJMSE)

[8] Kremer D., Lhiaubet C., and Moisan A. 1991, Study of the Effect of Synchronizing Ultrasonic Vibrations With Pulses in EDM, Annals of the CIRP 40, 211214. Masuzawa T. and Heuvelman C.J. 1983. Self Flushing Method with Spark- Erosion Machining, Annals of the CIRP 32, 109111. Masuzawa T., Cui X.X., and Fujino M. 1990. A New Flushing Method for EDM Die-sinkingEffect of 2D Small Vibration of the Electrode, Bulletin of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering 24, 223224. Murti V.S.R. and Philip P.K. 1987. An Analysis of the Debris in Ultrasonic-Assisted Electrical Discharge Machining, Wear, 117, 241 250. Ross P.J., 1988. Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering. McGrawHills Book Company, New York. Roy R. K. 1990. A Primer on Taguchi Method, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Shabgard M.R., Sadizadeh B., Kakoulvand H., 2009. The Effect of Ultrasonic Vibration of Work-piece in Electrical Discharge Machining of AISIH13 Tool Steel. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 52, 392-396. Singh Jujhar, Satsangi P.S., Walia R.S., Singh V.P., 2009. A review of research on response parameters in electric discharge machining Proc. of the International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India. August 3-5, 859-863. Takashi Endo, Takayuki Tsujimoto, Kimiyuki Mitsui., 2008. Study of vibration-assisted micro-EDMThe effect of vibration on machining time and stability of discharge. Precision Engineering 32, 269277. Walia R.S, Shan H.S, Kumar P., 2003. Enhancing material removal in EDM by applying ultrasonic vibrations. 13th National conference of Indian society of Mechanical Engineers, IIT Roorkee-India paper Number:PE-084. Xu M.G., Zhang J.H., Li Y., Zhang Q.H., Ren S.F., 2009. Material removal mechanisms of cemented carbides machined by ultrasonic vibration assisted EDM in gas medium. Journal of materials processing technology 209(4), 1742-1746. Yeo S H and Tan L K., 1999.Effects of ultrasonic vibrations in micro electro-discharge machining of microholes. Journal of micromechanics and microengineering 9, 345-352. Zhang J.H., Lee T.C., Lau W.S., and Ai X. 1997, Spark Erosion With Ultrasonic Frequency, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 68, 8388. Zhang Q.H., Zhang J. H., Deng J. X., Qin Y, Niu Z.W., 2002. Ultrasonic Vibration Electric Discharge Machining in Gas. Journal of Material Processing Technology 129, 135-138. Zhang Q.H., Du R., Zhang J.H, Zhang Q.B., 2006. An investigation of ultrasonic-assisted electrical discharge machining in gas. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46, 15821588. Mr Jujhar Singh is a research Scholar (part-time) at PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, he received his B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) in 2000 from Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, India and M.E. (Rotodynamic Machines) in 2004 from PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, India. He has 10 years of experience in teaching and research. His area of research interest includes modeling and analysis and optimization of manufacturing processes. He has published more than 6 research papers in international Journal/Conferences. He is life member of ISTE. Currently he is working as an Assistant Professor and Vice-Principal with Rayat and Bahra Institute of Engineering and BioTechnology, Kharar, Punjab, India. Dr Ravinderjit Singh Walia get his doctorate from IIT, Roorkee. He received his B. Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) in 2000 from Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, India and M.E. in 2004 from Thapar University, Patiala, Chandigarh, India. He has 8 years of experience in teaching and research. He is having more than 50 research papers to his credit in National and International Journals of repute. He is working with PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for the last more than 5 years. Dr. P. S. Satsangi, the co-author is working as Head Aerospace Engineering Department and a teaching faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, PEC University of Technology (formerly Punjab Engineering College), Chandigarh, India. He has an experience of more than 25 years of working in PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh as well as at National Teachers Training Institute, Chandigarh, India. He is actively engaged in guiding research in the areas such as advanced manufacturing processes, production and operations management. He has published several research papers in international and national journals of repute and in the proceedings of the conferences. He has presented his research papers in various international conferences in India and abroad. He has organized many training programmes both in technical areas as well as on design and preparation of audiovisual aids for effective instructions. He has also scripted two educational video films. He has been a reviewer of several journals and Technical expert of NRDC, DRDO, CSIO etc. in India. He is also guiding research at postgraduate and doctorate level and a member of RDC of Panjab University, Chandigarh. He has been a recipient of Anita memorial award of Institution of Engineers India. Dr V P Singh is Associate Professor at PEC University of Technology. He received his B.E. from IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India. He received his M.Tech. and Ph.D. from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshtra, India. He has an experience of more than 30 years. He is actively engaged in guiding research in the areas such as advanced manufacturing processes and machine design. He has published 20 national/international Journals and 8 national /international conferences. He is author of books such as Mechanical Vibrations, Theory of Machines, Kinematics of Machines and Dynamics of Machines.

[9] [10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

IJMSE Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, PP. 22-33 www.jomse.org World Academic Publishing 33