Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-6797-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Parametric modeling and optimization for wire electrical
discharge machining of Inconel 718 using response surface
methodology
Vivek Aggarwal & Sehijpal Singh Khangura & R. K. Garg
Received: 5 March 2014 / Accepted: 11 January 2015 / Published online: 28 January 2015
# Springer-Verlag London 2015
Abstract Inconel 718 is a high-nickel-content superalloy
which possesses excellent strength at elevated temperatures
and resistance to oxidation and corrosion. This alloy has wide
applications in the manufacturing of aircraft engine parts such
as turbine disks, blades, combustors and casings, extrusion
dies and containers, and hot work tools and dies, but the in-
herent problems in machining of superalloys with convention-
al techniques necessitate the use of alternative machining pro-
cesses. The wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) pro-
cess has been recently explored as a good alternative of con-
ventional machining methods, but there is lack of data and
suitable models for predicting the performance of WEDM
process particularly for Inconel 718. In the present work,
empirical modeling of process parameters of the WEDM
has been carried out for Inconel 718 using a well-known
experimental design approach called response surface
methodology. The parameters such as pulse-on time,
pulse-off time, peak current, spark gap voltage, wire feed
rate, and wire tension have been selected as input variables
keeping others constant. The performance has been measured
in terms of cutting rate and surface roughness. The models
developed are found to be reliable representatives of the exper-
imental results with prediction errors less than ±5 %. The opti-
mized values of cutting rate and surface roughness achieved
through multi-response optimization are 2.55 mm/min and
2.54 μm, respectively.
V. Aggarwal (*) : R. K. Garg
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Dr B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology,
Jalandhar 144011, Punjab, India
e-mail: agarwalz_v@yahoo.com
S. S. Khangura
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College, Ludhiana 141006, Punjab, India
Keywords Wire electrical discharge machining . Inconel
718 . Response surface methodology . Cutting rate . Surface
roughness
1 Introduction
The machining of superalloys is an active research area
because of the widespread increase in demand of this
category of materials and characteristic problems related
to their machining. Inconel 718 is a high-strength temper-
ature-resistant (HSTR) nickel-based superalloy which ex-
hibits good resistance to corrosion and oxidation along
with high creep-rupture strength and fatigue endurance
limit [1, 2]. It is extensively used in the aerospace indus-
try for manufacturing of gas turbine engine components
such as turbine disks, blades, combustors and casings,
nuclear power plant components such as reactor and
pump, spacecraft structural components, medical devices,
food processing equipment, extrusion dies and containers,
casting dies, hot work tools and dies, etc. [3, 4]. Machin-
ing of Inconel 718 with conventional techniques is ex-
tremely difficult because of its high toughness, hardness,
work hardening tendency, low thermal conductivity, and
presence of hard abrasive particles [5]. Therefore, non-
conventional machining methods based on chemical,
electro-chemical, thermal, thermoelectric, and mechanical
energy are preferred over traditional methods for the ma-
chining of Inconel 718. Wire electrical discharge machin-
ing (WEDM) is a non-conventional, thermoelectric process
that can be used to cut complex and intricate shapes in all
electrically conductive materials used in tool and die, au-
tomobile, aerospace, dental, nuclear, computer, and elec-
tronic industries with better precision and accuracy [6].
WEDM is a well-established process and its working is
duly described in the literature [7–10]. The most important
32
performance measures in WEDM are material removal rate
(or cutting rate), surface finish, kerf (cutting width), and
wire wear rate. These measures, in turn, are influenced by
numerous machining parameters such as peak current,
pulse-on time, pulse-off time, wire tension, wire feed rate,
spark gap voltage, servo feed setting, average working
voltage, and dielectric flushing condition [11]. Owing to
a large number of process parameters and a complex na-
ture of the process, even a highly skilled operator with a
state-of-the-art WEDM is rarely able to achieve the opti-
mal performance [12]. The improperly selected parameters
may also result in serious consequences like short-
circuiting of wire and wire breakage that in turn reduces
productivity. An effective way to solve this problem is to
determine the relationship between the performance mea-
sures and the controllable input parameters using a suit-
able modeling and optimization technique.
2 Literature review
The available literature on WEDM throws light on its appli-
cation for machining of a vast range of materials such as
steels, composites, titanium alloys, and superalloys, but major
studies are focused on machining of steels. Most of these
studies have been reported on modeling and optimization of
machining parameters like pulse-on time, pulse-off time, peak
current, wire feed rate, wire tension, dielectric flow rate, and
servo feed setting. A brief review of the techniques used by
various researchers is presented in this section. Scott et al. [11]
formulated a mathematical model for predicting the material
removal rate and surface finish while machining D2 tool steel
at different WEDM conditions. To find the optimal machining
parameters, the non-dominated point approach was applied,
using both the explicit enumeration and dynamic program-
ming principles. Tarng et al. [13] utilized a feedforward neural
network model and applied simulated annealing algorithm in
order to predict and optimize the surface roughness and ma-
chining speed during wire electrical discharge machining of
SUS-304 stainless steel materials with brass wire taken as tool
electrode. Spedding and Wang [14, 15] attempted to model
WEDM process through artificial neural networks for
predicting and optimizing the cutting speed, surface rough-
ness, and surface waviness parameters using a constrained
optimization model while machining AISI 420 steel using
brass wire. Huang et al. [16] experimentally investigated the
effect of various machining parameters on the gap width, sur-
face roughness, and the depth of white layer on the machined
workpiece (SKD11 alloy steel) surface with brass wire during
WEDM process. The feasible-direction non-linear program-
ming method was adopted for determination of the optimal
process settings. Tosun et al. [17] used regression analysis and
simulated annealing searching to model and optimize kerf
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
width and material removal rate while machining AISI 4140
steel in WEDM process using CuZn37 brass wire. Han et al.
[18] studied the effect of process parameters on surface rough-
ness during wire electrical discharge machining of Cr12 alloy
steel with brass wire. Mahapatra and Patnaik [19] established
the optimized relationship between machining parameters and
responses like cutting rate, surface roughness, and cutting
width by employing non-linear regression analysis and geo-
metric algorithm in WEDM operations of D2 tool steel with
zinc-coated copper wire. Kondayya and Krishna [20] applied
an integration of two evolutionary approaches namely genetic
programming and non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II
in WEDM process for modeling and optimization of cutting
rate and surface roughness while machining AISI D3 steel
with uncoated brass wire. Kuruvila and Ravindra [21] applied
Taguchi’s technique and genetic algorithm for determining
parametric influence and optimizing dimensional error, sur-
face roughness, and volumetric material removal rate during
WEDM of hot die steel using molybdenum wire. Sadeghi
et al. [22] investigated the influence of various process pa-
rameters on the cutting rate and surface roughness during
WEDM of AISI D5/DIN 1.2601 steel using CuZn37 brass
wire in accordance with Taguchi’s experimental design
method. Kumar and Agarwal [23] optimized the machining
conditions for achieving maximum cutting rate and surface
finish using multi-objective optimization technique based on
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II in WEDM pro-
cess. The high-speed steel (M2, SKH9) work material and
zinc-coated copper wire were used in the research work
for performing experiments. Sharma et al. [24] developed
mathematical models to study the effect of different pro-
cess parameters of WEDM on cutting speed and dimen-
sional deviation while machining high-strength low-alloy
(HSLA) steel using brass wire.
The literature further reveals the use of WEDM for other
materials like titanium alloys, composites, etc. Kuriakose
et al. [25] modeled the WEDM process using a machine
learning-based data mining approach to study the effect of
various process parameters on the cutting speed and surface
finish. The experiments were performed on titanium alloy
(Ti-6Al-4V) using zinc-coated brass wire as tool electrode.
Sarkar et al. [26] formulated mathematical models to pre-
dict the cutting speed, surface finish, and dimensional de-
viation as the function of various process parameters by
applying constrained optimization and Pareto optimization
algorithm in WEDM of γ-titanium aluminide alloy using
brass wire. Chen et al. [27] proposed an optimization approach
that integrated back-propagation neural network and simulat-
ed annealing algorithm to optimize cutting velocity and sur-
face finish in WEDM process during manufacture of pure
tungsten profiles with CuZn35 brass wire. Yu et al. [28] in-
vestigated the effects of different machining parameters on
cutting speed, machining groove width, and surface roughness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
in WEDM process while machining polycrystalline silicon
using brass wire. Chiang and Chang [29] presented the appli-
cation of grey relational analysis for optimizing surface rough-
ness and cutting rate during WEDM of Al2O3 particle-
reinforced material (6061 alloy) with copper wire electrode.
Manna and Bhattacharyya [30] developed mathematical
models for material removal rate, surface roughness, spark
gap, and gap current using the Gauss elimination method in
WEDM for effective machining of aluminum-reinforced
silicon carbide metal matrix composite (Al/SiC-MMC)
using brass as wire material. Patil and Brahmankar [31]
experimentally investigated the effect of different machining
parameters on surface finish, cutting speed, and kerf width
using Taguchi’s method in WEDM of alumina particulate-
reinforced aluminum matrix composites (Al/Al2O3p) with
coated brass wire material.
Very few research results are reported on WEDM of super-
alloys particularly Inconel series. Hewidy et al. [32] devel-
oped mathematical models for correlating the various machin-
ing parameters with volumetric metal removal rate, wear ratio,
and surface roughness based on the response surface method-
ology during WEDM of Inconel 601 using copper wire.
Ramakrishnan and Karunamoorthy [33, 34] developed artifi-
cial neural network models and optimized material removal
rate and surface roughness using multi-response signal-to-
noise ratio. A brass wire was used as tool electrode to cut
Inconel 718 using WEDM process; however, no empirical
models have been reported.
The extensive review of available literature on WEDM
reveals that most of the research work has been carried out
on steels and some other materials/composites. However, as
far as Inconel 718 is concerned, comparatively less research
has been done. Inconel 718 has a vast range of applications,
but despite having such a large application domain, relatively
fewer papers have been reported on the use of WEDM for
machining Inconel 718. This may be due to the reasons
that Inconel 718, a difficult-to-cut material, has typical
characteristics like presence of hard abrasive carbides in
the microstructure, low thermal conductivity and specific
heat, and high cutting temperature. Therefore, the choice
of correct parametric combination of WEDM process for
this material becomes a challenging task. There is no ac-
ceptable analytical model for WEDM process due to the
presence of a large number of variables and complicated
stochastic process mechanism which necessitates the use of
empirical or experimental studies of WEDM process with
the goal of achieving mathematical models to enhance the
process performance.
Table 1 Chemical composition
of Inconel 718 Element Ni Fe
Weight (%) 51.05 19.43
33
It is also observed that the available research work that has
been carried out for WEDM of Inconel 718 investigated the
impact of a limited number of process parameters. The effect
of spark gap voltage on performance is studied by very few
researchers, although it may play an influential role in WEDM
process. Therefore, in this research work, WEDM of Inconel
718 has been carried out in order to develop the empirical
models for investigating the impact of various process param-
eters including spark gap voltage on performance measures to
obtain the optimum machining conditions. The present work
is largely focused on machining of Inconel 718 with reference
to the applications like manufacturing of extrusion dies
and containers, hot work tools and dies, casting dies, food
processing equipment, etc. The actual values of input pro-
cess parameters have been considered to make the models
more realistic and useful.
3 Experimental procedure
A series of experimental trials have been conducted as per
response surface methodology (RSM). The details about the
work material, experimental set-up and measuring apparatus,
selection of process parameters and their range, design of
experiments, and reproducibility have been explained in
the following sections.
3.1 Work material
There is a rising demand for high-strength and high-thermal-
resistant materials which give superior performance under se-
vere conditions. Being a high-strength temperature-resistant
material, Inconel 718 is a popular superalloy used in a wide
range of applications. Thus, in the present study, a commer-
cially available Inconel 718 is selected as work material for
experimentation. In all the experimental trials, the height
of the work material selected is 20 mm and it is cut in a
width of 20 mm in each experiment. The chemical com-
position of the selected work specimen provided by the
supplier and verified by electron probe micro-analyzer (EPMA)
is shown in Table 1.
3.2 Experimental set-up and measuring apparatus
In this research work, all experiments have been carried out on
a WEDM machine tool (Elektra Sprintcut 734). The experi-
ments are aimed at studying the effects of several controllable
process parameters on cutting rate and surface roughness
Cr Nb Mn C Co Al Si Ti Mo Other
18.70 5.7 0.07 0.04 0.2 0.56 0.08 1.01 3.1 0.06
34 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47

taken as performance measures. A zinc-coated brass wire Table 3 Constant parameters and their values
with 0.25 mm diameter is used as wire electrode because Parameter Description or value
it gives the best performance in terms of material removal
rate as compared to other wire materials namely plain and Wire material Zinc-coated brass wire
diffused brass wires [35]. The wire is connected to nega- Wire diameter 0.25 mm
tive polarity whereas the workpiece is maintained at pos- Workpiece material Inconel 718
itive polarity. The wire diameter is kept constant during Workpiece hardness 439 HV
the process. A fixture is used to hold the workpiece on Dielectric fluid Deionized water
the machine table to eliminate any possibility of misalign- Conductivity of dielectric fluid 20 mho
ment. The workpiece and the wire electrode are separated Flushing pressure of dielectric fluid 15 kg/cm2
by deionized water which is used as the dielectric medi- Pulse peak voltage 110 V DC
um. The cutting rate is displayed digitally on the control Servo feed 2100 units
panel of the machine in millimeters per minute whereas Machining width 20 mm
Mitutoyo’s surftest instrument SJ-301 has been used to Machining height 20 mm
measure the surface roughness (Ra) of each machined
specimen in micrometers. The surface roughness is measured
in terms of arithmetic mean roughness. A sampling length of
2.5 mm in five steps has been selected for the measurement. design, to develop the mathematical relationship between pro-
cess parameters and each output response (cutting rate and
3.3 Selection of process parameters and their range surface roughness), and to analyze the effects of process pa-
rameters on these responses. Box and Wilson [36] originally
In the present work, the effect of various process parameters developed RSM to explore the potential of statistical design in
(factors) such as pulse-on time (Ton), pulse-off time (Toff), peak industrial experiments. The experimentation along with re-
current (IP), spark gap voltage (SV), wire feed rate (WF), and gression analysis facilitates the modeling of the desired re-
wire tension (WT) on the cutting rate and surface roughness sponse to several input process parameters. The experiment
(response parameters) has been investigated. These process is designed to allow estimation of interaction and even qua-
parameters and their range have been selected on the basis dratic effects and, thus, provides an idea of the local shape of
of the existing literature, pilot experimentation, manufac- the response surface. Hence, it is termed as response surface
turer’s manual, and machine capability. The independent pro- method design [37]. In RSM, a relationship is formed between
cess parameters and their levels in coded and actual values are the desired response and the independent input parameters
shown in Table 2. The constant parameters and their values are which can be represented by Eq. (1):
indicated in Table 3.
yi ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; …::; xk Þ  ε ð1Þ
3.4 Design of experiments
where yi is the desired response, f is the response function and
Response surface methodology’s central composite design ap- x1, x2, …, xk are independent input process parameters. The
proach has been employed to perform the experimental fitting error, ε, also called residual, measures the experimental

Table 2 Independent process parameters (factors), their description, units, notations, and levels

Process parameter Description Unit Notation Levels

(symbol)
−1.565 (−α) −1 0 1 1.565 (α)

Pulse-on time (A) It is the duration of time for which the current is flowing μs Ton 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4
in each cycle
Pulse-off time (B) It is the time interval between two simultaneous sparks μs Toff 14 20 30 40 46
Peak current (C) It is the maximum value of current flowing through A IP 70 100 140 180 210
electrodes for a given pulse
Spark gap voltage (D) It indicates the theoretical voltage difference between V SV 16 28 48 68 80
wire electrode and workpiece during erosion
Wire feed rate (E) The rate at which wire moves through the wire guides m/min WF 2 4 7 10 12
and is fed continuously for sparking
Wire tension (F) It is the gram-equivalent load for keeping the g WT 400 600 1000 1400 1600
continuously fed wire under tension
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47 35

Table 4 Experimental design matrix with set of process parameters and corresponding response parameters

Standard order Run order Location Process parameters (actual values) Response parameters

Ton (μs) Toff (μs) IP (A) SV (V) WF (m/min) WT (g) Cutting rate (mm/min) Surface roughness (μm)

1 30 Factorial 0.6 20 100 28 4 600 1.45 2.56

2 6 Factorial 1.2 20 100 28 4 1400 3.01 3.52
3 48 Factorial 0.6 40 100 28 4 1400 0.79 2.36
4 25 Factorial 1.2 40 100 28 4 600 1.70 3.26
5 23 Factorial 0.6 20 180 28 4 1400 1.56 2.57
6 45 Factorial 1.2 20 180 28 4 600 3.67 3.48
7 27 Factorial 0.6 40 180 28 4 600 0.94 2.55
8 35 Factorial 1.2 40 180 28 4 1400 2.15 3.33
9 4 Factorial 0.6 20 100 68 4 1400 0.73 1.50
10 32 Factorial 1.2 20 100 68 4 600 1.52 2.70
11 24 Factorial 0.6 40 100 68 4 600 0.40 1.51
12 28 Factorial 1.2 40 100 68 4 1400 0.83 2.38
13 19 Factorial 0.6 20 180 68 4 600 0.78 1.55
14 26 Factorial 1.2 20 180 68 4 1400 1.88 3.18
15 47 Factorial 0.6 40 180 68 4 1400 0.47 1.63
16 31 Factorial 1.2 40 180 68 4 600 1.14 3.10
17 21 Factorial 0.6 20 100 28 10 1400 1.46 2.54
18 7 Factorial 1.2 20 100 28 10 600 3.09 3.32
19 41 Factorial 0.6 40 100 28 10 600 0.83 2.40
20 44 Factorial 1.2 40 100 28 10 1400 1.70 3.38
21 1 Factorial 0.6 20 180 28 10 600 1.62 2.67
22 51 Factorial 1.2 20 180 28 10 1400 3.75 3.37
23 37 Factorial 0.6 40 180 28 10 1400 0.90 2.47
24 43 Factorial 1.2 40 180 28 10 600 2.21 3.53
25 3 Factorial 0.6 20 100 68 10 600 0.72 1.40
26 16 Factorial 1.2 20 100 68 10 1400 1.51 2.79
27 40 Factorial 0.6 40 100 68 10 1400 0.43 1.56
28 2 Factorial 1.2 40 100 68 10 600 0.88 2.40
29 50 Factorial 0.6 20 180 68 10 1400 0.79 1.57
30 36 Factorial 1.2 20 180 68 10 600 1.95 3.21
31 42 Factorial 0.6 40 180 68 10 600 0.46 1.58
32 20 Factorial 1.2 40 180 68 10 1400 1.12 3.06
33 29 Axial 0.4 30 140 48 7 1000 0.53 1.37
34 49 Axial 1.4 30 140 48 7 1000 2.36 3.61
35 34 Axial 0.9 14 140 48 7 1000 2.63 3.01
36 15 Axial 0.9 46 140 48 7 1000 0.98 2.74
37 8 Axial 0.9 30 70 48 7 1000 0.93 1.72
38 5 Axial 0.9 30 210 48 7 1000 1.53 2.76
39 46 Axial 0.9 30 140 16 7 1000 2.13 3.04
40 38 Axial 0.9 30 140 80 7 1000 0.64 1.80
41 33 Axial 0.9 30 140 48 2 1000 1.35 2.81
42 22 Axial 0.9 30 140 48 12 1000 1.38 2.85
43 9 Axial 0.9 30 140 48 7 450 1.36 2.64
44 12 Axial 0.9 30 140 48 7 1600 1.32 2.71
45 17 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.31 2.89
46 14 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.27 2.66
47 10 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.37 2.98
36 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47

Table 4 (continued)

Standard order Run order Location Process parameters (actual values) Response parameters

Ton (μs) Toff (μs) IP (A) SV (V) WF (m/min) WT (g) Cutting rate (mm/min) Surface roughness (μm)

48 52 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.42 2.88

49 13 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.38 2.82
50 11 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.28 2.93
51 39 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.34 2.78
52 18 Center 0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.41 2.73

errors. The approximation of response function has been points to form a CCD with α=±1.565 for estimation of cur-
proposed using the second-order polynomial regression vature (experimental runs 33 to 44), and eight center points
model, also called quadratic model. The quadratic model (experimental runs 45 to 52) at zero level for replication to
yi for k input process parameters can be expressed by the estimate pure error. The experimental runs are randomized to
following Eq. (2): assure elimination of human biases. The design is generated
and analyzed using Design-Expert software (Stat-Ease, Inc.,
Xk Xk XXk Minneapolis, v 8.0.6.1). The experimental design matrix with
yi ¼ b0 þ bx
i¼1 i i
þ b x2
i¼1 ii i
þ b xx
i< j i j i j
ε ð2Þ a set of process parameters and corresponding response values
(mean) obtained from experimentation are shown in Table 4.

where b0 is a constant and bi, bii, and bij represent the
coefficients of linear, quadratic, and cross product terms,
respectively [37]. The variable xi corresponds to the pro-
cess parameter under study. The response surface, yi, may
contain linear terms, squared terms, and interaction terms.
3.4.1 Central composite design
Box and Hunter [38] proposed that the scheme based on
central composite design (CCD) fits the second-order re-
sponse surfaces quite accurately. Also, CCD is the most
popular among the various classes of RSM designs due to
its flexibility, ability to run sequentially, and efficiency in
providing the overall experimental error in a minimum
number of runs. Therefore, it has been selected in the
present work. In CCD, each factor is varied at five levels
(−α, −1, 0, 1, α) for developing a second-order model as
given in Eq. (2). When the number of factors (k) is five
or greater, it is not necessary to run all combinations of
factors. The factorial part of the design can be run using a
fraction of the total number of available combinations. The
possible designs options can either be regular fractional
factorials or a minimum run resolution of five.
Fifty-two sets of experiments have been conducted accord-
ing to the CCD of response surface methods using half repli-
cation for six factors with α=1.565 (α=k1/4). This is known as
practical α and is beneficial when the number of factors is
larger than five [39]. The resolution of this design allows
estimating all the main effects, two-factor interactions, and
quadratic effects. The present design of 52 experiments con-
sists of 32 factorial points (experimental runs 1 to 32), 12 axial
3.5 Reproducibility
The reproducibility of the process is verified by performing
eight experiments at the center point of the input variables
using CCD technique. The results of experimental runs
(45 to 52) depicted in Table 4 are also shown independently
in Table 5. The percentage error mentioned in Table 5 shows
the variability of the response parameters with reference to its
average value (sum of all terms divided by the number of
terms) and is calculated by the following Eq. (3):
 
Average value − Experimental value
Percentage error ¼  100
Average value
ð3Þ
The results shown in Table 5 indicate that the cutting rate
and surface roughness are reproduced within the acceptable
range of ±5 % [37]. In addition, the values of experimental
standard deviation and standard uncertainty have been calcu-
lated for response parameters to depict their variability over a
repeated set of experiments [40]. The values of standard un-
certainty for cutting rate and surface roughness are calculated
as 1.87 and 3.54 %, respectively (Appendix), which are well
within the acceptable range.
4 Development of empirical models for response
parameters
The complex and stochastic nature of the WEDM process
makes it difficult to obtain an analytical model based on the
physics of the process. Therefore, a multi-variable regression
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47 37

Table 5 Reproducibility and percentage (%) error for cutting rate and surface roughness

Ton (μs) Toff (μs) IP (A) SV (V) WF (m/min) WT (g) Cutting rate (mm/min) Surface roughness (μm)

Experimental value % Error Experimental value % Error

0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.31 2.78 2.89 −1.98

0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.27 5.75 2.66 6.13
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.37 −1.67 2.98 −5.16
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.42 −5.38 2.88 −1.63
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.38 −2.41 2.82 0.48
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.28 5.01 2.93 −3.40
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.34 0.56 2.78 1.90
0.9 30 140 48 7 1000 1.41 −4.64 2.73 3.66

model using response surface methodology has been devel-
oped for each response which finds out the mathematical rela-
tionship between process parameters and performance measure
based on the experimental results. Then, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) is performed in order to statistically analyze the
results of the selected model. Significant process parameters
are identified and interaction effects of these process parame-
ters on response parameters are studied with the help of re-
sponse surface graphs.
4.1 Analysis of variance for cutting rate
The experimental results for cutting rate shown in Table 4
have been analyzed using Design-Expert software. To check
the adequacy of the model, three different tests, sequential
model sum of squares, lack-of-fit test, and model summary
statistics, have been performed. The fit summary of these tests
recommends the adequacy of the quadratic model. The results
of the quadratic model analyzed using ANOVA reveal that
there are many insignificant terms in the model. Therefore,
model reduction using the backward elimination process has
been performed to improve the model. It eliminates the insig-
nificant terms in order to adjust the fitted quadratic model
while maintaining the hierarchy of the model. Table 6 gives
the results of pooled ANOVA after backward elimination.
The normal probability plot of the residuals (Fig. 1a) shows
that 98 % of residuals are falling within three sigma limits and
are lying on a straight line. This means that the errors are
normally distributed [37]. Further, it can be seen in Fig. 1b
that the actual values are following the predicted ones calcu-
lated from the model. As both the plots (Fig. 1a, b) satisfy the
error normality and prediction capability criteria, it is inferred
that ANOVA results listed in Table 6 are reliable.
The model F value is calculated as “model” mean square
divided by the “residual” mean square. Similarly, an F value
on any individual factor term is calculated as the term mean
square divided by the residual mean square. The F value test
compares the model (or term) variance with the residual
variance. If the variances are nearly same, the ratio will be
close to 1 and it is less likely that model (or any of factor
terms) has a significant effect on the response. A particular
source of variation may be significant if the calculated F value
at a certain confidence level is greater than the tabulated F
value at the same confidence level. Confidence level is chosen
to be 95 % in this study. If Prob>F value of the model is
considerably less than 0.05 (i.e., at 95 % confidence level),
then the terms in the model have a significant effect on the
response [37].
The model F value of 432.86 with its Prob>F value less
than 0.0001 as shown in Table 6 indicates that the model is
significant for cutting rate as it demonstrates that the terms in
the model have a significant effect on the response. There is
only a 0.01 % chance that such a large model F value could
occur due to noise. Since values of Prob>F less than 0.0500
indicate the significance of model terms, therefore A, B, C, D,
AB, AC, AD, BD, CD, B2, and C2 are significant model terms
for cutting rate with their contribution percentages of 38.64,
20.78, 2.54, 27.93, 2.37, 0.9, 3.38, 1.87, 0.15, 1.4, and 0.23 %,
respectively. These percentage contributions have been com-
puted from Table 6 by dividing the “individual (model) term”
sum of squares by “model” sum of squares. Results also show
that A, B, and D are the most significant model terms affecting
the cutting rate. Values of Prob>F greater than 0.1000 indicate
the non-significance of model terms.
The lack-of-fit F value of 2.13 (Table 6) implies that it is
not significant relative to pure error. A non-significant lack of
fit is good as it allows the model to fit the experimental data
and suggests that there may be very less systematic variation
that remains unaccounted for a particular model. In the present
case, there is a 15.06 % chance that a lack-of-fit F value this
large could occur due to noise. Hence, the developed model
can be accepted.
To check further whether the fitted models actually de-
scribe the experimental data, determination coefficient (R2)
is computed. The determination coefficient is defined as the
ratio of explained variation to the total variation and is a
38 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47

Table 6 Pooled ANOVA results

for cutting rate after backward Source Sum of Degree of Mean square F value Prob>F
elimination squares freedom

Model 29.89 11 2.72 432.86 <0.0001 Significant

A 11.55 1 11.55 1840.27 <0.0001
B 6.21 1 6.21 988.81 <0.0001
C 0.76 1 0.76 121.38 <0.0001
D 8.35 1 8.35 1329.82 <0.0001
AB 0.71 1 0.71 112.78 <0.0001
AC 0.27 1 0.27 42.44 <0.0001
AD 1.01 1 1.01 160.59 <0.0001
BD 0.56 1 0.56 89.49 <0.0001
CD 0.045 91 0.045 7.17 0.0107
B2 0.42 1 0.42 66.66 <0.0001
C2 0.068 1 0.068 10.87 0.0021
Residual 0.25 40 0.006278
Lack of fit 0.23 33 0.006920 2.13 0.1506 Not significant
Pure error 0.023 7 0.003250
Cor total 30.14 51
Standard deviation 0.079 R2 0.9917
Mean 1.43 Adj R2 0.9894
CV % 5.54 Pred R2 0.9837
PRESS 0.49 Adeq Precision 83.784

measure of the degree of fit. When it approaches unity,
the response model fits better to the actual data and shows
less difference between the predicted and actual values.
The determination coefficient for cutting rate is found to
be 0.9917 (Table 6) which shows that the quadratic model
can explain the variation in the cutting rate up to the
extent of 99.17 %. On the basis of the high values of
the determination coefficient, it can be said that the pro-
posed model is adequate in representing the process. The
other R2 statistics, the Pred R2 (0.9837), is in good agreement
with the Adj R2 (0.9894). The coefficient of variation (CV) of
the model is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation
to the mean. The lower value (5.54) of CV % given in
Table 6 indicates improved precision and reliability of the
conducted experiments [41]. Further, the Adeq Precision
measures the signal-to-noise ratio. Generally, a ratio greater
than 4 is desirable [42]. The Adeq Precision obtained for
the model is 83.784, which is well above the desired value
and thus indicates an adequate signal for the model. Hence,
this model can be used to navigate the design space and
predict the values of the cutting rate within the limits of the
factors studied.

Fig. 1 a Normal probability plot of residuals for cutting rate. b Plot of predicted vs. actual response for cutting rate
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47 39

As the obtained model presents higher value of R2 (0.9917)
and Adeq Precision (83.784) for the cutting rate, therefore,
this mathematical model can be regarded as significant for
fitting and predicting the experimental results.
4.1.1 Regression equation for cutting rate
In terms of actual factors, the final empirical relationship
between cutting rate (response characteristic) and input
process parameters can be expressed by the following
second-order polynomial Eq. (4):
Cutting rate ¼ 1:24642 þ 3:69173  T on −0:12058  T off þ 0:00878
 IP−0:01040  SV−0:04958  T on  T off þ 0:00760
 T on  IP−0:02958  T on  SV þ 0:00066  T off  SV
−0:00005  IP  SV þ 0:00154  T 2off −0:00004  IP2
ð4Þ
The coefficients of the process parameters in Eq. (4) have
been computed by Design-Expert software after analysis of
the data shown in Table 4.
4.2 Analysis of variance for surface roughness
In this section, the experimental results depicted in Table 4 for
surface roughness have been analyzed. On the basis of fit
summary, the adequacy of the quadratic model has been
recommended by Design-Expert software. In order to sta-
tistically analyze the results of recommended quadratic
model, ANOVA is performed. Table 7 shows the results
of pooled ANOVA after backward elimination of non-
significant terms.
The normal probability plot of the residuals for the surface
roughness is shown in Fig. 2a. A check on this plot re-
veals that 98 % of residuals are falling within three sigma
limits. Further, it can be seen in Fig. 2b that the actual
values are following the predicted values calculated from
the model, therefore confirming the reliability of ANOVA
results (Table 7).
A model F value of 83.46 as shown in Table 7 implies that
the model is significant. There is only a 0.01 % chance that a
model F value this large could occur due to noise. Values of
Prob>F less than 0.0500 indicate that the model terms are
significant. In the present case, the model terms A, B, C, D,
AC, AD, CD, B2, C2, and D2 are significant for surface rough-
ness with their contribution of 61.22, 0.47, 3.44, 27.35, 0.48,
1.87, 6.61, 0.56, 2.17, and 0.76 %, respectively. These
percentage contributions have been computed from Table 7
by dividing the “individual (model) term” sum of squares
by “model” sum of squares. Results clearly show that A
and D are the most significant factors affecting the surface
roughness.
The lack-of-fit F value of 2.07 implies that it is not signif-
icant relative to pure error. There is 15.95 % chance that a

Table 7 Pooled ANOVA results

for surface roughness after Source Sum of Degree of Mean square F value Prob>F
backward elimination squares freedom

Model 19.78 11 1.80 83.46 <0.0001 Significant

A 12.11 1 12.11 561.86 <0.0001
B 0.093 1 0.093 4.33 0.0438
C 0.68 1 0.68 31.54 <0.0001
D 5.41 1 5.41 251.17 <0.0001
AC 0.096 1 0.096 4.44 0.0414
AD 0.37 1 0.37 17.26 0.0002
CD 0.13 1 0.13 5.86 0.0201
A2 0.079 1 0.079 3.66 0.0629
B2 0.11 1 0.11 4.94 0.0320
C2 0.43 1 0.43 20.17 <0.0001
D2 0.15 1 0.15 6.80 0.0127
Residual 0.86 40 0.022
Lack of fit 0.78 33 0.024 2.07 0.1595 Not significant
Pure error 0.080 7 0.011
Cor total 20.64 51
Standard deviation 0.15 R2 0.9583
Mean 2.62 Adj R2 0.9468
CV % 5.61 Pred R2 0.9002
PRESS 2.06 Adeq Precision 32.143
40 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47

Fig. 2 a Normal probability plot of residuals for surface roughness. b Plot of predicted vs. actual response for surface roughness

lack-of-fit F value this large could occur due to noise.
Non-significant lack of fit is good because it allows the
model to fit the experimental data. The value of determi-
nation coefficient (R2) is 0.9583. It depicts that the qua-
dratic model can explain up to 95.83 % variation in the
surface roughness. The Pred R2 value of 0.9002 is in
reasonable agreement with the Adj R2 of 0.9468. The
lower value (5.61) of the coefficient of variation reveals
improved precision and reliability of the performed exper-
iments. Adeq Precision measures the signal-to-noise ratio.
A value of 32.143 for Adeq Precision specifies an ade-
quate signal for the model as a ratio greater than 4 is
desirable. Hence, this quadratic model can be used to
navigate the design space and considered significant for
fitting and predicting the experimental results.
in terms of input process parameters can be expressed by the
following Eq. (5):
Surface roughness ¼ 1:36163 þ 1:72341  T on −0:05407  T off
þ 0:02089  IP−0:02322  SV þ 0:00456
 T on  IP þ 0:01797  T on  SV þ 0:00008
 IP  SV−0:73962  T 2on þ 0:00082  T 2off
−0:00009  IP2 −0:00024  SV2 ð5Þ
The coefficients of the process parameters in Eq. (5) have
been computed by Design-Expert software after analysis of
the data shown in Table 4.
4.3 Validation of models

4.2.1 Regression equation for surface roughness In order to validate the cutting rate and surface roughness
models, seven additional experiments have been conducted
In terms of actual factors, the final second-order regression using different parameter settings within the range of selected
equation for the surface roughness (response characteristic) parameters. The set of input parameter combinations used for

Table 8 Results of validation experiments for cutting rate and surface roughness

Experiment Ton (μs) Toff (μs) IP (A) SV (V) WF (m/min) WT (g) Cutting rate (mm/min) Surface roughness (μm)
number
Experimental Predicted Prediction Experimental Predicted Prediction
value value error (%) value value error (%)

1 0.9 28 170 60 7 1200 1.16 1.20 −3.45 2.66 2.58 3.01

2 1.3 24 90 40 6 600 2.45 2.40 2.04 3.05 3.11 −1.97
3 1.0 22 180 20 3 500 2.99 3.07 −2.67 3.20 3.27 −2.19
4 0.5 36 150 50 5 1000 0.55 0.53 3.64 1.94 1.86 4.12
5 0.6 18 190 25 10 700 1.81 1.89 −4.42 2.51 2.54 −1.19
6 1.1 42 140 75 4 1000 0.78 0.76 2.56 2.56 2.60 −1.56
7 0.8 30 120 35 8 1400 1.39 1.36 2.16 2.81 2.74 2.49
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47 41

this purpose are different from the one used for developing the
regression models. The results of validation experiments are
shown in Table 8. The prediction error (%) listed in Table 8 is
calculated by the following Eq. (6):
 
Experimental result−Predicted result
Prediction error ð%Þ ¼  100
Experimental result
ð6Þ

As the predicted results obtained from regression equations

are found to be in good agreement with the experimental
findings and also the prediction errors are less than ±5 %,
therefore, the developed models can be regarded as a reliable
representative of the experimental results.
Fig. 4 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-on
time and pulse-off time on cutting rate at peak current=140.00 A,
spark gap voltage=48.00 V, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire
tension=1000.00 g
5 Results and discussion

In a WEDM process, cutting rate and surface roughness of the
generated surface are important performance measures be-
cause of their crucial effect on industrial economy and surface
integrity. In this section, the effects of individual process pa-
rameters as well as their interactions on the performance mea-
sures have been discussed with the help of perturbation plot
and three-dimensional (3D) response curves.
5.1 Influence of process parameters on cutting rate
The perturbation plot (Fig. 3a) shows the comparative effects
of significant process parameters on the cutting rate of Inconel
718 cut by WEDM. By default, Design-Expert software sets
the reference point at the midpoint (coded value 0) of all
factors. A steep slope for pulse-on time (A), pulse-off time
(B), and spark gap voltage (D) shows that the cutting rate is
highly sensitive to these factors while a relatively flat line for
peak current (C) shows that it is less sensitive to cutting rate.
The reasons for these trends have been discussed while
explaining the interaction effects.
5.1.1 Interactive effect of process parameters on cutting rate
It is clear from Table 6 that the interactions which contribute
significantly to the model are those between the pulse-on time
and pulse-off time (AB), pulse-on time and peak current (AC),
pulse-on time and spark gap voltage (AD), pulse-off time and
spark gap voltage (BD), and peak current and spark gap volt-
age (CD). The interaction plots corresponding to these are
shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
The response curves in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 depict the interac-
tive effects of pulse-on time with pulse-off time, peak current,
and spark gap voltage, respectively. Figure 4 shows the effect
of pulse-on time and pulse-off time on cutting rate while

Fig. 3 Perturbation plots for a cutting rate and b surface roughness

42
Fig. 5 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-on
time and peak current on cutting rate at pulse-off time=30.00 μs,
spark gap voltage=48.00 V, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire
tension=1000.00 g
keeping all other input parameters at middle values. It illus-
trates that the cutting rate increases with an increase in pulse-
on time. The reason can be attributed to the fact that the
amount of material removed from the work specimen highly
depends on the discharge energy (the energy content of a
single spark discharge), which is the product of pulse-on
time and peak current. Figure 4 further indicates that the
cutting rate decreases with the increase in pulse-off time.
The reason is that the higher the value of pulse-off time,
the lesser is the number of discharges within a specific
period of time which leads to reduced number of particles
dislodged near the surface of work material. It is impor-
tant to note that the pulse-on time has a larger effect on
the cutting rate at low pulse-off time than at high pulse-
off time. The cutting rate is the maximum at 1.20 μs
pulse-on time and 20 μs pulse-off time.
Fig. 6 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-on
time and spark gap voltage on cutting rate at pulse-off time=
30.00 μs, peak current=140.00 A, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and
wire tension=1000.00 g
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
Fig. 7 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-off
time and spark gap voltage on cutting rate at pulse-on time=0.90 μs,
peak current = 140.00 A, wire feed rate = 7.00 m/min, and wire
tension=1000.00 g
The effect of peak current on cutting rate is more promi-
nently visible at higher values of pulse-on time (Fig. 5). At
low values of pulse-on time, the peak current has less impact
on the cutting rate. The increase in peak current produces
higher energy pulses at the discharge spot but the effect is
visible only at higher values of pulse-on time. This may be
due to the inherent characteristics of Inconel 718 such as pres-
ence of hard abrasive carbides in the microstructure, low ther-
mal conductivity and specific heat, and high cutting tempera-
ture, which necessitate the application of peak current at high
pulse-on time for melting and vaporizing the material in order
to achieve higher cutting rate. The peak current of 170–180 A
and pulse-on time of 1.10–1.20 μs seem to be suitable for
obtaining maximum cutting rate. Sharma et al. [24] also re-
ported similar findings for WEDM of high-strength materials
Fig. 8 Response surface showing the interactive effect of peak current and
spark gap voltage on cutting rate at pulse-on time=0.90 μs, pulse-off time=
30.00 μs, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire tension=1000.00 g
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
such as HSLA where pulse-on time was the most prominent
factor for the responses. However, this justification may not be
applicable for other materials like steels where peak current
also plays a significant role apart from pulse-on time.
The response surface in Fig. 6 illustrates that the increase in
spark gap voltage leads to the decrease in cutting rate but the
decrease is steeper at higher value of pulse-on time. The spark
gap voltage determines the gap between the workpiece and the
wire electrode. The higher the spark gap voltage, the higher
will be the gap between wire and workpiece. This increases
the dielectric strength of the medium and as the open circuit
voltage of the machine is fixed, the discharge current during
machining decreases, resulting in less melting and evaporation
of the work material. As a result, the cutting rate is decreased.
The spark gap voltage in the range of 28–36 V is suitable
for obtaining maximum cutting rate at higher values of
pulse-on time (1.10–1.20 μs) in the present case. The
interaction plot of spark gap voltage with pulse-off time
(Fig. 7) and peak current (Fig. 8) corroborates the infer-
ences already drawn from Figs. 4, 5, and 6.
5.2 Influence of process parameters on surface roughness
The perturbation plot for surface roughness is shown in
Fig. 3b. A steep slope for pulse-on time (A) and spark gap
voltage (D) shows that the surface roughness is very sensitive
to these factors while relatively flat lines for pulse-off time (B)
and peak current (C) show comparatively less sensitivity to
surface roughness.
5.2.1 Interactive effect of process parameters on surface
roughness
The ANOVA results (Table 7) reveal that the interactions
which contribute significantly to the model are those between
Fig. 9 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-on time
and peak current on surface roughness at pulse-off time=30.00 μs, spark
gap voltage=48.00 V, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire tension=
1000.00 g
43
Fig. 10 Response surface showing the interactive effect of peak current
and spark gap voltage on surface roughness at pulse-on time=0.90 μs,
pulse-off time=30.00 μs, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire tension=
1000.00 g
pulse-on time and peak current (AC), peak current and spark
gap voltage (CD), and pulse-on time and spark gap voltage
(AD). The interaction plots corresponding to these are shown
in Figs. 9, 10, and 11, respectively.
It can be seen in Fig. 9 that the combination of low values
of pulse-on time (0.60–0.70 μs) and peak current (100–110 A)
causes minimum surface roughness. It can be argued that
when pulse-on time and peak current are high, the bigger
craters might be generated on the surface of the workpiece
due to an increase in melting and evaporation rate.
Figure 10 shows the nature of interaction between peak
current and spark gap voltage while affecting surface
roughness. It is clear from Fig. 10 that low values of peak
current (100–110 A) and higher values of spark gap voltage
(60–68 V) give rise to minimum surface roughness. It is con-
sidered that at the higher spark gap voltage, the gap between
the wire and workpiece will be higher. The discharge current
Fig. 11 Response surface showing the interactive effect of pulse-on time
and spark gap voltage on surface roughness at pulse-off time=30.00 μs,
peak current=140.00 A, wire feed rate=7.00 m/min, and wire tension=
1000.00 g
44 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47

Table 9 The constraints for input and response parameters responses and process parameters. The optimization process
Parameter Goal Lower limit Upper limit searches the optimum values of cutting rate and surface rough-
ness by maximizing cutting rate while minimizing surface
Pulse-on time (μs) In range 0.4 1.4 roughness taken simultaneously as well as individually. The
Pulse-off time (μs) In range 14 46 constraints for input and response parameters are given in
Peak Current (A) In range 70 210 Table 9.
Spark gap voltage (V) In range 16 80 The optimum operating conditions for input process pa-
Wire feed rate (m/min) In range 2 12 rameters and the corresponding responses have been comput-
Wire tension (g) In range 400 1600 ed with the help of software and are recorded in Table 10.
Cutting rate (mm/min) Maximize 0.4 3.75 While carrying out single response optimization, the other
Surface roughness (μm) Minimize 1.37 3.61 response has been ignored but for multi-response optimiza-
tion, both the responses have been considered and given equal
importance. The results given in Table 10 indicate remarkable
gets decreased which leads to lower melting of work material. improvement in cutting rate and surface roughness for Inconel
This causes decrease in surface roughness. Figure 11 indicates 718 cut by WEDM in comparison with the results available in
that the pulse-on time and spark gap voltage interact with literature [33, 34]. In order to validate the optimum results,
each other, and the results are similar to those observed from confirmatory experiments have been performed. It has been
Figs. 9 and 10. found that the values of response parameters obtained through
experimental procedures (Table 10) are in close agreement
with the predicted values.

6 Parametric optimization
Desirability function approach is one of the common ap-
proaches used for optimization of single and multiple quality
characteristic problems [43]. In this approach, an estimated
response is transformed into a scale-free value called de-
sirability. The desirable range varies from zero to one
(least to most desirable, respectively). The input process
parameter settings with maximum desirability are consid-
ered to be the optimal parameter conditions. The approach
has been used by some authors for manufacturing appli-
cations, and the detailed procedure has been duly docu-
mented and described [40, 44, 45].
In the present work, the optimization module in the Design-
Expert software has been used to find out the combination of
input process parameters, i.e., pulse-on time, pulse-off time,
peak current, spark gap voltage, wire feed rate, and wire ten-
sion, which satisfy the requirements imposed on each of the
7 Conclusions
On the basis of experimental study for machining of Inconel
718 with WEDM, the following conclusions have been
drawn:
1. The empirical models for cutting rate and surface rough-
ness of Inconel 718 machined by WEDM process have
been developed using response surface methodology and
are given below:
Cutting rate ¼ 1:24642 þ 3:69173  T on −0:12058  T off
þ 0:00878  IP−0:01040  SV−0:04958  T on
 T off þ 0:00760  T on  IP−0:02958  T on
 SV þ 0:00066  T off  SV−0:00005  IP
 SV þ 0:00154  T 2off −0:00004  IP2

Table 10 Optimal combinations of input process parameters for single and multi-response optimization and comparison with experimental results

Type of Objective Optimum parameters Response (predicted) Response Desirability

optimization (experimental)
Ton (μs) Toff (μs) IP (A) SV (V) WF WT (g)
(m/min)

Single response To maximize cutting 1.40 14.00 95.05 38.33 11.95 1599.11 3.78 mm/min 3.69 mm/min 1
rate
Single response To minimize surface 0.60 40.00 100.00 68.00 10.00 1400.00 1.31 μm 1.36 μm 1
roughness
Multi-response To maximize cutting 0.62 14.00 210.00 16.00 5.97 691.78 2.55 mm/min and 2.49 mm/min 0.553
rate and minimize 2.54 μm and 2.58 μm
surface roughness
simultaneously
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47 45

Surface roughness ¼ 1:36163 þ 1:72341  T on −0:05407  T off with the increase in pulse-on time while it decreases with
þ 0:02089  IP−0:02322  SV þ 0:00456 the increase in spark gap voltage and pulse-off time. The
 T on  IP þ 0:01797  T on  SV þ 0:00008 highest cutting rate for Inconel 718 that has been achieved
is 3.78 mm/min.
 IP  SV−0:73962  T 2on þ 0:00082  T 2off
5. The pulse-on time and spark gap voltage are the major
−0:00009  IP2 −0:00024  SV2
contributors for affecting surface roughness with percent-
age contribution of 61.22 and 27.35 %, respectively. For
2. The models developed are considered reliable representa- surface roughness, the pulse-on time significantly inter-
tives of the experimental results with prediction errors less acts with peak current and spark gap voltage. The peak
than ±5 %. The standard uncertainty for cutting rate and current further interacts significantly with spark gap volt-
surface roughness is estimated to be 1.87 and 3.54 %, age. Surface roughness increases with the increase in
respectively. pulse-on time and decreases with the increase in spark
3. The pulse-on time is the most influencing factor for cut- gap voltage. The lowest surface roughness that has been
ting rate and surface roughness of Inconel 718. However, achieved is 1.31 μm.
the peak current does not play a significant role for 6. The multi-response optimization by providing equal im-
WEDM of Inconel 718. portance to both the responses achieved the highest cut-
4. Pulse-on time shows the highest percentage contribution ting rate as 2.55 mm/min and lowest surface roughness as
(38.64 %), followed by spark gap voltage (27.93 %) and 2.54 μm.
pulse-off time (20.78 %), to affect the cutting rate. The 7. Wire feed rate and wire tension have been found to be
pulse-on time significantly interacts with pulse-off time, insignificant factors for both the responses.
peak current, and spark gap voltage for cutting rate. The
spark voltage gap further interacts significantly with
pulse-off time and peak current. The cutting rate increases 8 Appendix

1:31 þ 1:27 þ 1:37 þ 1:42 þ 1:38 þ 1:28 þ 1:34 þ 1:41

Arithmetic mean f or cutting rate ¼ ¼ 1:347
8

Experimental standard deviation f or cutting rate

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1:31−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:27−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:37−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:42−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:38−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:28−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:34−1:347Þ2 þ ð1:41−1:347Þ2
¼ ¼ 0:053
8

0:053
Standard uncertainty f or cutting rate ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 0:0187 ¼ 1:87%
8

2:89 þ 2:66 þ 2:98 þ 2:88 þ 2:82 þ 2:93 þ 2:78 þ 2:73

Arithmetic mean f or surface roughness ¼ ¼ 2:834
8

Experimental standard deviation f or surface roughness

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð2:89−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:66−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:98−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:88−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:82−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:93−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:78−2:834Þ2 þ ð2:73−2:834Þ2
¼ ¼ 0:1
8

0:1
Standard uncertainty f or surface roughness ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 0:0354 ¼ 3:54%
8
46
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known actual
or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal, or other
relationships with other people or organizations within 3 years of begin-
ning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be per-
ceived to influence, this publication.
References
1. Wang ZY, Rajurkar KP, Fan J, Lei S, Shin YC, Petrescu G (2003)
Hybrid machining of Inconel 718. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 43:
1391–1396
2. Thakur DG, Ramamoorthy B, Vijayaraghavan L (2009) Study on the
machinability characteristics of superalloy Inconel 718 during high
speed turning. Mater Des 30:1718–1725
3. Sharman ARC, Hughes JI, Ridgway K (2006) An analysis of the
residual stresses generated in Inconel 718TM when turning. J Mater
Process Technol 173:359–367
4. Thomas A, El-Wahabi M, Cabrera JM, Prado JM (2006) High tem-
perature deformation of Inconel 718. J Mater Process Technol 177:
469–472
5. Shaw MC, Nakayama K (1967) Machining high strength materials.
CIRP Ann 15:45–59
6. Kinoshita N, Fukui M, Gamo G (1982) Control of wire-EDM
preventing electrode from breaking. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 31:
111–114
7. Benedict GF (1987) Electrical discharge wire cutting (EDWC). In:
Nontraditional manufacturing processes. Marcel Dekker, New York,
pp 231–246
8. Kalpakjian S, Schmid SR (2008) Material-removal processes: abra-
sive, chemical, electrical, and high-energy beams. In: Manufacturing
processes for engineering materials, 5th edn. Pearson Education, pp
561–565
9. Pandey PC, Shan HS (2010) Thermal metal removal processes.
In: Modern machining processes. Tata McGraw-Hill Education,
pp 84–113
10. Ho KH, Newman ST, Rahimifard S, Allen RD (2004) State of the art
in wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM). Int J Mach Tool
Manuf 44:1247–1259
11. Scott D, Boyina S, Rajurkar KP (1991) Analysis and optimization of
parameter combinations in wire electrical discharge machining. Int J
Prod Res 29:2189–2207
12. Williams RE, Rajurkar KP (1991) Study of wire electrical discharge
machined surface characteristics. J Mater Process Technol 28:
127–138
13. Tarng YS, Ma SC, Chung LK (1995) Determination of optimal cut-
ting parameters in wire electrical discharge machining. Int J Mach
Tool Manuf 35:1693–1701
14. Spedding TA, Wang ZQ (1997) Parametric optimization and surface
characterization of wire electrical discharge machining process.
Precis Eng 20:5–15
15. Spedding TA, Wang ZQ (1997) Study on modeling of wire EDM
process. J Mater Process Technol 69:18–28
16. Huang JT, Liao YS, Hsue WJ (1999) Determination of finish-cutting
operation number and machining-parameters setting in wire electrical
discharge machining. J Mater Process Technol 87:69–81
17. Tosun N, Cogun C, Tosun G (2004) A study on kerf and material
removal rate in wire electrical discharge machining based on Taguchi
method. J Mater Process Technol 152:316–322
18. Han F, Jiang J, Yu D (2007) Influence of machining parameters on
surface roughness in finish cut of WEDM. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
34:538–546
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
19. Mahapatra SS, Patnaik A (2007) Optimization of wire electrical dis-
charge machining (WEDM) process parameters using Taguchi meth-
od. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:911–925
20. Kondayya D, Krishna AG (2011) An integrated evolutionary
approach for modelling and optimization of wire electrical
discharge machining. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf
225:549–567
21. Kuruvila N, Ravindra HV (2011) Parametric influence and opti-
mization of wire EDM of hot die steel. Int J Mach Sci Technol
15:47–75
22. Sadeghi M, Razavi H, Esmaeilzadeh A, Kolahan F (2011)
Optimization of cutting conditions in WEDM process using regres-
sion modelling and Tabu-search algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J
Eng Manuf 225:1825–1834
23. Kumar K, Agarwal S (2012) Multi-objective parametric optimization
on machining with wire electric discharge machining. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 62:617–633
24. Sharma N, Khanna R, Gupta RD, Sharma R (2013) Modeling and
multiresponse optimization on WEDM for HSLA by RSM. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 67:2269–2281
25. Kuriakose S, Mohan K, Shunmugam MS (2003) Data mining applied
to wire-EDM process. J Mater Process Technol 142:182–189
26. Sarkar S, Mitra S, Bhattacharyya B (2005) Parametric analysis and
optimization of wire electrical discharge machining of γ-titanium
aluminide alloy. J Mater Process Technol 159:286–294
27. Chen HC, Lin JC, Yang YK, Tsai CH (2010) Optimization of wire
electrical discharge machining for pure tungsten using a neural net-
work integrated simulated annealing approach. Expert Syst Appl 37:
7147–7153
28. Yu PH, Lee HK, Lin YX, Qin SJ, Yan BH, Huang FY (2011)
Machining characteristics of polycrystalline silicon by wire electrical
discharge machining. Mater Manuf Process 26:1443–1450
29. Chiang KT, Chang FP (2006) Optimization of the WEDM process
of particle-reinforced material with multiple performance charac-
teristics using grey relational analysis. J Mater Process Technol
180:96–101
30. Manna A, Bhattacharyya B (2006) Taguchi and Gauss elimination
method: a dual response approach for parametric optimization of
CNC wire cut EDM of PRAISiCMMC. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
28:67–75
31. Patil NG, Brahmankar PK (2010) Some studies into wire electro-
discharge machining of alumina particulate-reinforced aluminum
matrix composites. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 48:537–555
32. Hewidy MS, El-Taweel TA, El-Safty MF (2005) Modeling the ma-
chining parameters of wire electrical discharge machining of Inconel
601 using RSM. J Mater Process Technol 169:328–336
33. Ramakrishnan R, Karunamoorthy L (2008) Modeling and multi-
response optimization of Inconel 718 on machining of CNC
WEDM process. J Mater Process Technol 207:343–349
34. Ramakrishnan R, Karunamoorthy L (2009) Performance studies of
wire electro discharge machining (WEDM) of Inconel 718. Int J
Mater Prod Technol 35:199–215
35. Garg RK, Aggarwal V, Singh S (2014) Effect of wire materials on
cutting performance of WEDM for machining of Inconel superalloy.
Appl Mech Mater 624:124–128
36. Box GE, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of opti-
mum conditions. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 13:1–45
37. Montgomery DC (2009) Design and analysis of experiments, 7th
edn. Wiley, New York
38. Box GE, Hunter JS (1957) Multi-factor experimental designs for
exploring response surfaces. Ann Math Stat 28:195–241
39. Anderson MJ, Whitcomb PJ (2005) RSM simplified: optimizing pro-
cesses using response surface methods for design of experiments.
Productivity Press, New York
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2015) 79:31–47
40. Bhushan RK (2012) Optimization of cutting parameters for minimiz-
ing power consumption and maximizing tool life during machining of
Al alloy SiC particle composites. J Clean Prod 39:242–254
41. Kuehl RO (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research
design and analysis, 2nd edn. Duxbury/Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove
42. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology:
process and product optimization using designed experiments, 2nd
edn. Wiley, New York
47
43. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several
response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219
44. Kuppan P, Rajadurai A, Narayanan S (2008) Influence of EDM pro-
cess parameters in deep hole drilling of Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 38:74–84
45. Sachdeva A, Singh S, Sharma VS (2013) Investigating surface
roughness of parts produced by SLS process. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 64:1505–1516