Micromachining of Ceramics by Electrochemical Discharge Process

considering stagnant and electrolyte flow method

Authors: M. R. Dhanvijay, B. B. Ahuja

Name of the Journal: Procedia Technology
Year: 2014
Volume: 14
Pages: 165-172
Objective: To study the effect of Voltage, Duty Factor, Concentration
of Electrolyte and Pulse on Time on the Material Removal
Rate(MRR) and diametric overcut.
Experimental Setup: A cuboid experimental setup
(130mmx130mmx45mm) of acrylic was prepared as shown. It had two
pumps for inlet and outlet to maintain the electrolyte flow. Alumina
ceramics were machined. NaOH electrolyte was used. Two different tools
were used: copper tool and stainless steel tool.
Selection of process factors and level of selection: total degrees of
freedom=9. Also each parameter has three levels indicated by +1, 0,-1. So
a L9 orthogonal array is used.

Variable levels

Voltage(v)

Duty Factor
(%)

Conc. By Wt.
(%)

high
medium
low

65
60
55

.80
.72
.64

50
40
30

Pulse on
time(microsec)
1500
1000
500

So 9 experiments were carried on with stagnant electrolyte. Then another 9

experiments were carried out with the same values but with flowing electrolyte.

Results: It was seen that for both the tools i.e. stainless steel tool and
copper tool higher MRR was obtained in the electrolyte flow
method as compared to the stagnant electrolyte method. The
diametric overcut for the stagnant method was higher. For the
copper tool:
1) DOC without electrolyte flow is higher for lower voltages.
2) The DOC increases and then stabilises at a value.
3) The DOC without electrolyte Flow is lower for higher voltages.

However for stainless steel the pattern of DOC is just the reverse. For DOC
without electrolyte flow, it is stable at lower voltages but it increases at
higher values. Also at any given time the DOC mentioned is higher than
DOC with electrolyte flow.