Accepted Manuscript

Measurement and optimization of multi-response characteristics in plasma arc

cutting of Monel 400™ using RSM and TOPSIS

K. Ananthakumar, D. Rajamani, E. Balasubramanian, J. Paulo Davim

PII: S0263-2241(18)31155-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.12.010
Reference: MEASUR 6144

To appear in: Measurement

Received Date: 14 May 2018

Revised Date: 30 October 2018
Accepted Date: 1 December 2018

Please cite this article as: K. Ananthakumar, D. Rajamani, E. Balasubramanian, J. Paulo Davim, Measurement and
optimization of multi-response characteristics in plasma arc cutting of Monel 400™ using RSM and TOPSIS,
Measurement (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.12.010

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Measurement and optimization of multi-response characteristics in plasma arc cutting
of Monel 400™ using RSM and TOPSIS
K. Ananthakumar1, D. Rajamani2*, E. Balasubramanian2, J. Paulo Davim3
1Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirappalli- 620015, India
2Centre
for Autonomous System Research, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vel Tech
Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai- 600062,
India
3Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro- 3810 193, Portugal
anander08@gmail.com, rajamanitamil1991@gmail.com, esak.bala@gmail.com,
pdavim@ua.pt
*Corresponding author. Ph: +91 9159150299

Abstract
Plasma arc cutting (PAC) is well recognized non-conventional machining processes widely
used to fabricate intricate part profiles for diverse electrically conductive materials including
superalloys and composites. The dimensional accuracy and surface quality of PAC surface are
critical elements for specific applications especially in aerospace and manufacturing industries.
Material removal rate (MRR), kerf taper (KT) at top and bottom surface and heat affected zone
(HAZ) are very important attributes which influences the quality and performance of plasma
cut surfaces. Present study investigates the effect of PAC parameters such arc current, cutting
speed, stand-off distance and gas pressure on evaluating the part quality characteristics such as
MRR, KT and HAZ of Monel 400 superalloy. Box-behnken design approach is incorporated to
formulate the experiments and rigorous experimental analysis is performed. The quadratic
models are developed and assessed for its performance using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Statistical and response surface analysis are accomplished to identify the most influencing PAC
parameters. Multi-objective optimization studies are carried out using Multi-criteria decision
making methodology (MCDM) to determine the optimal cutting conditions of PAC through
employing technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The
optimal PAC process parameters such as cutting speed of 2400 mm/min, gas pressure of 3 bar,
arc current of 45 A and stand-off distance of 2 mm are determined. Microstructure analysis is
conducted to ascertaining the morphologies of cut surface at various cutting conditions.

Keywords: plasma arc cutting; monel 400; optimization; ANOVA; TOPSIS; response surface
methodology.
ABBREVIATIONS:

AHP Analytic hierarchy process

AP Adequate precision
ANOVA Analysis of variance
BBD Box - behnken design
BKW Bottom kerf width
CNC Computer numerical control
DoF Degree of freedom
EDM Electric discharge machining
EDS Electron dispersive spectroscopy
HAZ Heat affected zone
MCDM Multi criteria decision making
MRR Material removal rate
KT Kerf taper
PAC Plasma arc cutting
RSM Response surface methodology
SEM Scanning electron microscope
TKW Top kerf width
TOPSIS Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
VIKOR Vlsekriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje

1. Introduction
In recent times, usage of nickel superalloys and in particular Monel 400 gained its prominence
in aerospace, marine ship building, chemical, oil and gas refinery and automobile industries [1]
due to its distinct properties such as enhanced corrosive resistance, higher toughness, improved
fatigue strength and capability of operating at elevated temperatures [2]. However, achieving
adequate surface quality through conventional machining of these alloys are tremendously
challenging due to its intrinsic characteristics such as lower thermal conductivity, high
toughness, low creep resistance and less modulus of elasticity [3-4] that leads to higher amount
of heat around the cutting tool edge at high cutting speeds. It subsequently increases cutting
temperature and forces which causes cutting tool failure [5]. Hence, machining of these
difficult-to-cut materials can be accomplished through non-conventional machining processes
such as wire-cut electric discharge machining, laser cutting and abrasive waterjet machining
[6-8].

Among this non-conventional machining processes, plasma arc cutting (PAC) is a far-reaching
thermal energy based machining process commonly used for cutting the metals and superalloys
to a stringent design requirements and complex cutting profiles. The schematic of PAC process
is depicted in Figure 1. During the PAC process, at elevated temperature, high intensity
constricted plasma arc is produced between workpiece material and electrode which melts the
designated part and molten metal is expelled from cutting zone. The generation of plasma
occurs inside the torch and high energy is transferred from the arc which is used to ionize a
portion of cutting gas and forming a plasma state. This high intensity plasma jet deeply
penetrating into the workpiece being melt and ejecting the molten metal along the kerf of
cutting surface [9].

Figure 1. Schematic of PAC system

Being capable of processing wide range of materials, swift cutting and cost efficient, PAC
process is presently regard as the most versatile unconventional machining processes in
manufacturing industries. In spite of its potential benefits, improving the cutting quality in
terms of refining the HAZ, surface quality and kerf characteristics is considered to be tedious
due to the involvement of several process variables in PAC process. In order to enhance the
cutting quality and performance characteristics of PAC, it is vital to select suitable process
variables and need to study their influence in evaluating the part quality. It also provides a
pathway to realize the inadequacies of PAC process to meet the demands of manufacturing
industries.

In recent times, several researchers have investigated the characteristics of PAC process by
considering various process parameters. Adalarasan et al. [10] examined the influence of
various process variables such as arc current, torch stand-off, cutting speed and gas pressure
on multi-response characteristics of PAC process such as surface quality and KT during cutting
of 304L stainless steel using grey taguchi statistical approach. Salonitis et.al [11] explored the
impact of PAC variables on the quality of cut, HAZ and geometrical conicity of S235 mild
steel sheets. Their results revealed that HAZ is restrained by deteriorated arc current whereas,
the quality of cut surface and geometrical conicity is primarily affected with stand-off distance.
Maity et.al [12] studied on PAC of AISI 316 stainless steel consuming grey system theory and
principal component analysis. They found that torch height largely contributing in producing
of enhanced cutting quality whereas the other parameters have no obvious effect. Abdulnasser
et.al [13] conducted experiments to examine the MRR and surface quality of aluminium alloy.
They observed that the supply of arc current, torch height and traverse speed are considered to
be more influencing on PAC process. Abdulkadir et.al [14] considered the structural
modification of high carbon and SS during PAC with various process parameters. They
identified that hardness of outer cut surface decreases with the increases in core of substrate.
They also found that the quantity of removal material is always proportional to the workpiece
thickness and heat affected zone in stainless steel which is superior to carbon steel. Seong-II
et.al [15] investigated heat affected zone, surface roughness and straightness of cut during
cutting of thin sheet plates. They observed that, heat affected zone and straightness of cut
increases with increase in plasma arc current whereas increase in cutting speed diminishes
surface quality. Subbarao et.al [16] utilized DOE to investigate the consequence of PAC
variables on Hardox-400. They have proposed that irregularity in cut surface can be reduced
through decreasing the speed of cutting and other cutting quality is solely depending on arc
voltage. Ramakrishnan et.al [17] examined on HAZ and kerf width using genetic algorithm
during PAC of SS321 steel. Their result shows that stand-off distance, arc current and traverse
speed are considered to be most affecting parameters on surface quality and HAZ, whereas kerf
width is mostly influenced by cutting speed, arc current and gas pressure. Gariboldi et.al [18]
identified that nitrogen gas is improved the cutting quality with less HAZ during high tolerance
PAC of commercial pure titanium alloy. Parthkumar Patel et al. [19] optimized the PAC
parameters during cutting of AISI D2 steel using fuzzy inference system combined with non-
linear regression and an evolutionary algorithm to examine roughness quality and MRR. It is
evident from the review of literature [10-19] that, KT, MRR, HAZ and surface roughness are
considered to be the most significant parameters in evaluating the quality of end user
components.
Optimization of multi-response characteristics in PAC process is extremely difficult due to the
existence of abundant process variables and complex cutting mechanisms. In recent times,
numerous multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches including grey relational
analysis, analytical hierarchy process, VIKOR and Technique for Order Preference by
similarity Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are successfully exploited to solve the multi-response
problems encountered in laser cutting [20], abrasive water jet cutting [21], electrical discharge
machining [22] and ultrasonic machining process [23]. Among these techniques, TOPSIS
approach is found to be appropriate decision making methodology for assortment of the optimal
variables in manufacturing processes due to its simple computational procedure, ability to
consider infinite number of alternatives and criteria in decision making, and ease of
implementation [24].

Akhtar Khan et al. [25, 26] effectively utilized TOPSIS and fuzzy-TOPSIS combined approach
to investigate and optimize the multi-response characteristics of turning on commercial pure
titanium grade II superalloys. Huu-Phan Nguyen et al. [27] exploited taguchi-TOPSIS
combined statistical approach to investigate the influence of EDM parameters on MRR and SR
of machined components. They have confirmed that the suggested methodology can be
efficiently used for solving the multi-criteria optimization problem. Oliver Nesa Raj et al. [28]
employed and ascertained that the TOPSIS approach is efficient in performing optimization
studies on the multi-response characteristics of EDM process. Tripathy et al. [29] investigated
the influence of various powder mixed EDM process parameters on quality characteristics of
machined die steel using grey-TOPSIS combined approach. They have found that the TOPSIS
approach provides superior results than the grey relational approach.

Roy et al. [30] carried out optimization studies through combining the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS
methodology for increasing the MRR of substrate and improving the tool life. It is observed
that the combination of fuzzy TOPSIS approach performs better than taguchi orthogonal array.
Manivannan et al. [31] incorporated TOPSIS technique to optimize micro EDM parameters for
improving the performance characteristics of machined AISI 304 steels. They experienced that
the overall performance of micro EDM can be significantly enhanced through TOPSIS.
Parthiban et al. [32] optimized the laser micro drilling parameters on improving the surface
roughness characteristics and surface crack density of nickel C263 superalloy using TOPSIS
approach. Their results exhibited that the TOPSIS approach provided a satisfactory
improvement in drilled surfaces. Shivakoti et al. [33] adopted fuzzy and TOPSIS combined
approach for the assortment of optimal variables in laser micro marking process. They have
proposed that the fuzzy TOPSIS approach could be efficiently used for optimizing the multi-
response characteristics with suitable selection criteria.

From the available literature, it is evident that many researchers have made attempts in
exploring the various conventional and non-conventional machining characteristics using
TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making approach. However, studies pertaining to investigate
PAC parameters of Monel 400 superalloy using Technique for Order Preference by similarity
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach is not seen in the literature. Hence, this study intended to
focus on the experimental investigation, analysis and multi-response optimization of the PAC
variables such as cutting speed, gas pressure, arc current and stand-off distance to enhance the
quality characteristics such as MRR, KT and HAZ on Monel 400 superalloy. The experiments
are conducted based on box-behnken design methodology and the adequacy of developed
quadratic models are evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The optimized
processing conditions to predict better responses are identified using TOPSIS statistical
approach combined with compromised weighting method. Moreover, scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) analysis was utilized for ascertaining the cutting behaviour of the material
under various cutting conditions.

2. Methodologies
2.1 Response surface methodology
Experimental investigations with adequate planning is essential to obtain desired results.
Therefore, this work incorporates response surface methodology (RSM), a statistical approach
to model and optimize the process parameters [34]. In RSM, box-behnken design (BBD) is
one of the prominent techniques to minimize the number of experiments and obtaining
quadratic interactions between selected factor pairs. BBD technique does not account
embedded factorial or fractional factorial design and treatment combinations of point’s lies at
the mid-point of edges of cube and centre [35]. Thirty experiments are planned which includes
six central points in a block with three-level and four factors. The second-order polynomial
relation evolved through RSM is utilized to express the behaviour of PAC process which is
given by,
k k
y   0   i xi    ii xi2    ij xi x j   (1)
i 1 i 1 i j

Where y is the selected response and xi are the values of ith PAC process parameter;  0 is

model constant;  i represents linear coefficient;  ii denotes quadratic coefficient;  ij is the

interaction coefficient; k corresponds to number of variables; and  indicates statistical

experimental error. The empirical models are developed from experimental analysis data and
subsequently statistical multiple regression investigations are performed. Further, ANOAV is
considered to examine the influence of each PAC process through considering the developed
regression model.

2.2 Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)

TOPSIS is an analytical based multi-criteria decision making approach used for converting
multi-response problems into single-response to identify best optimal solution amid the
greatest number of alternative solutions. The pre-eminent alternatives preferred using TOPSIS
is the shortest and longest distance from the optimistic and negative ideal solutions
respectively. The implementation of TOPSIS approach comprises following steps [36]:

1. The first step involves the construction of evaluation matrix which consisting m alternatives
and n criteria.

 x11 x12  x1n 

 
x x22  x2 n 
Em   21 (2)
    
 
 xm1 xm 2  xmn 

 32.032 6.262 3.862 

 
i.e., Em      
 30.632 7.152 3.952 


where xmn is the performance of mth alternative for the nth attribute.

2. Establishing a normalized performance matrix using following relation.

 xij
 ij  (3)
 i 1 xij
m

32.03
i.e.,  11 
  32.03  .....  30.63
30.63
32.03

where  ij denotes the corresponding normalized value for i and j.

3. The weight for individual responses are calculated using a compromised weighting technique
(combination of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and entropy method). In order to obtain
reasonable weight coefficient for selected responses, the subjective and objective weights are
taken into consideration. The weight for ith criteria is calculated as follows

i  i
wi  n
i  1,..., n (4)
 
i 1
i i

1  hi
i  n
(5)
 1  h 
i 1
i

where the weightiness of ith attribute is denoted as wi , i is the weightiness of ith conditions

attained via entropy method and i is the weightiness of ith conditions attained via AHP

approach [37]. The product of individual response weight and normalized value is denoted as
the weight and normalized decision matrix (ij ) is as follows.

ij   ij  wi (6)

i.e., 11  0.1722  0.1785

 0.0307

4. The positive (S+) and negative (S-) ideal solutions are calculated through considering the
beneficial and non-beneficial response as follows:

  '
 
   1 ,2  ,...n    max ij j  K  , min ij j  K i  1, 2,...n (7)

i.e., max  0.0307 :...0.0294 

   '
 
   1 ,2  ,...n    min ij j  K  , max ij j  K i  1, 2,...n (8)

i.e., min  0.0307 :...0.0294 

where K is the index set for beneficial response index and K’ is the index set for non-beneficial
response.

5. The distance for respective substitute is measured from optimistic and negative ideal
solutions.

   j  
2
Si   ij (9)
j 1

 0.0307  0.0445   0.0196  0.0079    0.0057  0.0037 

2 2 2
i.e.,

S1 = 0.0182

   j  
2
Si   ij (10)
j 1

 0.0307  0.0233   0.0196  0.0268   0.0057  0.0092 

2 2 2
i.e.,

S1 = 0.0109

where Si+ denotes the positive ideal solution whereas Si  indicates the negative ideal solution.

6. Finally the closeness co-efficient ( Ci ) for individual ideal solution is computed using the

following expression

Si 
Ci  (11)
Si   Si 

0.0109
C1 
0.0182  0.0109

C1  0.3743

The higher value of Ci represents the rank is better.

3 Experimentations and measurements
Experiments are conducted on a high precision industrial CNC plasma cutting machine (Pro
arc welding and cutting system Pvt. Ltd., India). The plasma system is equipped with
PlasmaCAM CNC software to ensure the precise movement of nozzle and automated cutting
environment. As a shield gas, compressed air is used to produce high-energy plasma to melt
and eject the molten metal from the workpiece surface. High precision cutting process is
achieved through a servo-operated torch having an air-cooled swirl copper nozzle. Monel
400™ superalloy sheet with a thickness of 3 mm is considered as substrate material. The
chemical composition of Monel 400 is ascertained using EDAX analysis is described in Figure
2. Diameter of the nozzle (1.5 mm), cutting span (25 mm), arc voltage (110 V) and piercing
time (0.3 sec) are set during the course of experiment.

Figure 2. EDAX pattern of as received Monel 400 superalloy

Evaluation on MRR, KT and HAZ with respect to various PAC system variables are accounted
for experimental analysis. In this study, four input variables such as cutting speed (X1), gas
pressure (X2), arc current (X3) and stand-off distance (X4) are considered for regulating the
cutting process. The range of these variables are decided through conducting exhaustive pilot
experiments through varying a single parameter. The numerical values of different process
variables and their levels are revealed in Table 1.
 Table 1. PAC parameters and their ranges
Levels
S.No Control factors Symbol Units
Low Medium High
1 Cutting speed X1 mm/min 2200 2400 2600
2 Gas pressure X2 Bar 3 3.5 4
3 Arc current X3 A 45 50 55
4 Stand-off distance X4 mm 2 2.5 3

MRR during cutting process is measured using Infra IN210 (Infra Instruments Ltd. India)
electronic digitized weight balance with a resolution of 0.0001 gram (gm). The weight balance
is surrounded with an air shield case to avoid the fluctuations during measurement. The top
(TKW) and bottom (BKW) kerf width are measured at three different places along the length of
cut and average of these measurements is accounted. However, kerf width of cutting surface
is measured using an automatic shadowgraph profile projector (Made: Scientico Instruments,
India) with a magnification up to 80X and accuracy of ±0.1%.

Kerf taper is calculated using the following relation,

KT  Degree  
TKW  BKW  180 (12)
Sheet thickness  2

The intensity of plasma expelled from the nozzle produces a HAZ around the cut surface region
which is measured with an aid of a tool makers microscope BX53 (Made: Olympus, USA) with
a magnification of 40X. Morphological characteristics of fabricated parts are examined using
scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the disparity of cutting zone. At different
input PAC parameters, experiments are conducted and the responses such as MRR, KT and
HAZ are determined which are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Experimental design and measured response

Input parameters Responses

Cutting Gas Arc Stand-off Kerf
Trial MRR HAZ
speed pressure current distance taper
(g/min) (mm)
(mm/min) (Bar) (A) (mm) (Degree)
1 2400 3.5 50 2.5 32.03 6.26 3.86
2 2400 3.0 50 3.0 33.84 5.79 4.74
3 2400 3.5 45 2.0 46.37 2.52 6.21
4 2400 3.5 50 2.5 32.55 7.59 4.26
 5 2600 3.5 50 3.0 25.90 7.71 3.05
6 2200 3.5 50 3.0 28.74 7.07 3.84
7 2400 3.0 45 2.5 40.61 4.45 5.70
8 2400 4.0 55 2.5 29.47 4.66 3.81
9 2200 3.0 50 2.5 32.18 4.49 4.44
10 2400 3.5 55 2.0 34.11 6.63 4.56
11 2200 3.5 50 2.0 34.78 5.90 4.26
12 2600 3.0 50 2.5 33.57 8.56 4.50
13 2200 3.5 45 2.5 39.21 3.03 5.25
14 2200 3.5 55 2.5 27.48 5.62 3.68
15 2400 3.5 55 3.0 35.72 3.82 4.79
16 2200 4.0 50 2.5 28.13 6.44 3.45
17 2400 3.5 50 2.5 31.09 7.57 3.96
18 2400 3.5 50 2.5 30.08 7.74 4.01
19 2400 3.0 55 2.5 38.64 4.45 5.07
20 2400 3.5 50 2.5 29.85 7.87 4.42
21 2600 3.5 55 2.5 33.99 5.39 4.38
22 2400 3.0 50 2.0 39.49 6.73 5.15
23 2400 3.5 45 3.0 27.57 7.47 3.69
24 2400 4.0 50 2.0 36.35 4.55 4.34
25 2400 4.0 50 3.0 25.57 7.23 2.88
26 2600 3.5 50 2.0 32.76 7.46 4.38
27 2600 4.0 50 2.5 24.32 4.94 2.48
28 2600 3.5 45 2.5 25.60 6.87 3.42
29 2400 4.0 45 2.5 31.00 2.87 3.89
30 2400 3.5 50 2.5 30.63 7.15 3.95

4. Result and discussions

The analysis (coefficient of determination, sum of square, lack of fit, individual,
interaction and quadratic effects, and F statistics) for selected responses such as MRR, KT and
HAZ of Monel superalloy are executed in three phases. In the first phase, ANOVA is performed
to investigate statistical significance and importance of selected independent variables which
are affecting the quality and performance characteristics of cutting edges. Second phase
comprising of development of second-order polynomial equations for each responses to
accomplish the correlations among selected dependent variables. Optimal parametric
combinations are ascertained using TOPSIS multi criteria decision making approach to
enhance the cutting characteristics [38] are achieved in third phase.
4.1 Statistical analysis of MRR
The ANOVA results for MRR at 95% confidence level is presented in Table 3. Through
performing significance and lack of fit tests, the adequacy of developed quadratic equations
are explored. It is observed from table 3 that F- value = 54.93 and Prob F < 0.05 indicates that
established model is attained 95% confidence level. The multiple regression coefficient (R2)
and adjusted co-efficient of determination (Adj.R2) are 0.975 and 0.957 respectively which
shows that developed response model fairly fits with actual data. The model F-value for the
process parameters considered indicates that stand-off distance and gas pressure are found to
be most influencing parameters on MRR at 95% confidence level with a contribution of 24.34%
and 21.09%, respectively. At the selected design points, adequate precision (AP) is compared
with a specific range of predicted values to estimate the error. The AP value for developed
model is found to be 32.39 which is greater than 4 confirms that developed model can envisage
the MRR with better precision. The above result identifies the competence of developed model
to predict the MRR for a selected ranges of PAC parameters. In the process of developing
regression model, due to “Prob.>F” value which is more than 0.05, certain terms are not taken
into account and they are removed using backward eliminate selection method and important
terms are retained.

The final quadratic response surface model for MRR in the form of actual terms is given by,

MRR  g min   846.203  0.077  X 1 +11.503  X 2 -29.269  X 3 -129.95  X 4

-0.013  X 1  X 2  5.028 103  X 1  X 3  5.125  X 2  X 4  2.041 X 3  X 4 (13)
5
6.027 10  X  3.611 X 2  0.119  X 3  7.618  X 4
1
2 2 2 2

Table 3. ANOVA for MRR

Source of Sum of Mean %
DoF F-Value P- Value
variance Square Square Contribution
Model 727.62 12 60.63 54.93 < 0.0001
X1-Cutting 17.23 17.23 15.61 0.0010
1 2.13
speed
X2-Gas pressure 157.60 1 157.60 142.77 < 0.0001 21.09
X3-Arc current 10.02 1 10.02 9.07 0.0078 1.46
X4-Stand-off 180.29 180.29 163.32 < 0.0001
1 24.34
distance
X1X2 6.77 1 6.77 6.13 0.0241 0.76
X1X3 101.14 1 101.14 91.63 < 0.0001 13.2
X2X3 6.57 1 6.57 5.95 0.0260 0.62
X3X4 104.14 1 104.14 94.34 < 0.0001 13.2
X12 39.85 1 39.85 36.10 < 0.0001 4.78
 X22 5.59 1 5.59 5.06 0.0380 0.93
X32 60.80 1 60.80 55.08 < 0.0001 8.4
X42 24.88 1 24.88 22.54 0.0002 4.16
Residual 18.77 17 1.10 2.31
Lack of Fit 12.98 12 1.08 0.93 0.5761 1.52
Pure Error 5.78 5 1.16 0.82
Cor. Total 746.38 29 100
R2 0.975 Adj. R2 0.957 AP 32.39

4.2 Statistical analysis of Kerf taper

Evaluating the developed mathematical model on KT is performed using ANOVA. It is
observed from Table 4 that, 95% confidence is achieved with model F- value (42.48) and Prob
F < 0.05, which shows that terms are substantial. Also, the developed model provided higher
values of determination co-efficient (R2= 0.963) and adjusted co-efficient of determination
(Adj.R2= 0.94) are approaches to unity that describes better coherence between developed
model and actual data [39]. The model F-value for accounted process parameters show that
cutting speed and stand-off distance has substantial influence on KT at 95% confidence level
with a contribution of 6.06% and 2.37%, respectively. In addition, AP is calculated as 23.427
which is greater than 4 that represents the adequate model discrimination. These results
suggested that the developed model is of high integrity of fit and it can provide accurate
experimental results. In the process of developing regression model, due to “Prob.>F” value
which is more than 0.05, certain terms are not taken into account and they are removed using
backward eliminate selection method and important terms are retained.

The established quadratic model for KT in actual terms is given as,

Kerf taper  Degree   535.21  0.103  X 1  45.959  X 2  11.953  X 3  27.061 X 4

0.0139  X 1  X 2  1.018 103  X 1  X 3  0.1779  X 2  X 3  3.619  X 2  X 4 (14)
0.777  X 3  X 4  4.445  X 2 2  0.0813  X 32

Table 4. ANOVA for KT

Source of Sum of Mean F- %
DoF P-Value
variance Square Square Value Contribution
Model 76.44 11 6.95 42.48 < 0.0001
X1-Cutting 5.85 5.85 35.78 < 0.0001
1 6.06
speed
 X2-Gas pressure 1.20 1 1.20 7.35 0.0143 1.13
X3-Arc current 0.94 1 0.94 5.72 0.0279 0.92
X4-Stand-off 2.34 2.34 14.28 0.0014
1 2.37
distance
X1X2 7.75 1 7.75 47.40 < 0.0001 10.63
X1X3 4.15 1 4.15 25.34 < 0.0001 4.82
X2X3 0.79 1 0.79 4.84 0.0412 1.22
X2X4 3.27 1 3.27 20.02 0.0003 4.59
X3X4 15.09 1 15.09 92.25 < 0.0001 17.58
X22 8.78 1 8.78 53.71 < 0.0001 9.73
X32 29.41 1 29.41 179.83 < 0.0001 36.83
Residual 2.94 18 0.16 2.07
Lack of Fit 1.19 13 0.091 0.26 0.9765 1.37
Pure Error 1.75 5 0.35 0.68
Cor. Total 79.38 29 100
R2 0.963 Adj. R2 0.94 AP 23.427

4.3 Statistical analysis of HAZ

ANOVA studies on examining individual, interaction and quadratic influence of process

variables on HAZ and adequacy measures of developed model such as model F-values, R2,
Adj.R2 and adequate precision are presented in Table 5. It is observed that, the model F-value
for selected process parameters has a substantial influence on HAZ at 95% confidence level.
From the sum of square values in ANOVA table, it is found that, gas pressure (38.69%) has
significant influence on HAZ followed by stand-off distance (16.16%). The associated F- value
(62.45) and Prob F < 0.05 signifies that proposed model is of at 95% confidence level on
evaluating HAZ. The values of R2 = 0.977, Adj.R2 = 0.962 and AP = 35.793 indicates the
competence of model and adequate model discrimination. The final second order quadratic
model is obtained through eliminating the insignificant terms through backward elimination
technique is as follows:

HAZ  mm   80.778  0.0298  X 1  7.372  X 2  4.304  X 3  9.462  X 4  2.587 103

 X 1  X 2  6.337 104  X 1  X 3  2.287 103  X 1  X 4  1.049  X 2  X 4  0.274 (15)
 X 3  X 4  0.0996 106  X 12  0.0206  X 32  0.783  X 4 2
 Table 5. ANOVA for HAZ
Source of Sum of Mean F- %
DoF P-Value
variance Square Square Value Contribution
Model 18.09 12 1.51 62.45 < 0.0001
X1-Cutting 0.61 0.61 25.44 < 0.0001
1 2.6
speed
X2-Gas pressure 6.40 1 6.40 264.99 < 0.0001 38.69
X3-Arc current 0.29 1 0.29 12.12 0.0029 1.08
X4-Stand-off 2.91 2.91 120.60 < 0.0001
1 16.16
distance
X1X2 0.27 1 0.27 11.09 0.0040 0.81
X1X3 1.61 1 1.61 66.54 < 0.0001 8.2
X1X4 0.21 1 0.21 8.67 0.0091 1.07
X2X4 0.28 1 0.28 11.39 0.0036 0.81
X3X4 1.88 1 1.88 78.02 < 0.0001 9.61
X12 1.11 1 1.11 46.10 < 0.0001 7.28
X22 1.87 1 1.87 77.31 < 0.0001 10
X32 0.27 1 0.27 11.11 0.0039 1.5
Residual 0.41 17 0.024 1.11
Lack of Fit 0.18 12 0.015 0.32 0.9525 0.71
Pure Error 0.23 5 0.047 0.4
Cor. Total 18.50 29 100
R2 0.977 Adj. R2 0.962 AP 35.793

4.4 Influence of PAC process parameters on MRR

MRR is one of the substantial performance characteristics of PAC process that greatly impacts
rate of production and its cost. Normally, higher MRR is always preferred in machining
processes to improve productivity besides to simultaneously reduce the cost of operation. From
the ANOVA Table 3, it is perceived that stand-off distance and gas pressure are most
significant process variables that influences the MRR whereas arc current and cutting speed are
substandard effect. Consequence of PAC variables on MRR is presented in Figure 3 (a-c)
describes the relationship between any two parameters are established while keeping other two
parameters at mid-level. The impression of arc current and cutting speed on MRR illustrated
in Figure 3a designates that, MRR declines with an increase in arc current and cutting speed as
of low to high level. During high cutting speed the interaction time is very minimal which
causes insuffircient plasma energy transfer to the workpiece resuting in decrease in MRR.
Figure 6 (a-b) shows the typical SEM micrograph of cut surface at cutting speed of 2600
mm/min, gas pressure of 3.5 bar, arc current of 50 A and stand-off distance of 3 mm. As can
be seen from the Figure 6a, an inappropriate cutting zone with amended dross formation due
to deficient heat energy transferred to the substrate surface during high speed of cutting is
observed. It reduces the removal of material at cutting zone. The side view of kerf surface is
shown in Figure 6b indicates the adherance of molten metal at kerf wall and formation of micro
voids. This can be attributed due to poor interaction of plasma jet to the workpiece at higher
cutting speed. However, maximum MRR is obtained at a combination of high arc current 55A
and cutting speed 2600mm/min. As arc current increases with cutting speed, high concentration
of plasma energy is transferred to the workpiece that leads to rapid melting and vapouraization
of metal susequently increases MRR.

Figure 3b exposes the fluctuation in MRR as a function of arc current and gas pressure. It is
observed that MRR decreases with increase in gas pressure, whereas increase of arc current up
to 50A resulting in reduction of MRR and further increase in arc current upsurges the MRR
gradually. As arc current increases to a certain level (45 A to 50 A), intense of thermal energy
transferred to the material increases and large portion of material seems to be ejected due to
melting and also formation of vapourization at the bottom of interaction zone causes increase
of MRR.

The impact of arc current and stand-off distance on MRR has depicted in Figure 3c reveals that,
MRR is maximum at low values of these parameters whereas MRR decreases with the increase
of these parameters. This is because of the fact that, higher stand-off distance fascinates an
absence of arc coherence leading to swerving of plasma arc which may intensifies vulnerability
to peripheral drag from the adjacent surroundings. Hence, increase in stand-off distance
resulted in reduction of kinetic energy of plasma at obtrusion, thus MRR decreases.
 Figure 3. Influence of PAC parameters on MRR

4.5 Influence of PAC process parameters on Kerf taper

Kerf taper (KT) is one of the imperative quality criteria’s that decisive the dimensional accuracy
of final work part in metal cutting operations. Appropriate selection of process parameters is
desirable to reduce the angel of KT for better positioning of parts and exclusion of post-
processing [40]. The ANOVA result shows that KT is mostly influenced through the speed of
cutting and the stand-off distance followed by gas pressure and arc current. The impact of
selected PAC parameters on KT is depicted in response surface plots (Figure 4(a-c)).

The influence of cutting speed and gas pressure on KT depicted in Figure 4a demonstrates that,
KT increases up to maximum with an increase in cutting speed and gas pressure from lower to
higher values. At higher gas pressure and cutting speed, plasma jet expelled from the nozzle
leads to intense melting and vaporization combined with exothermic reaction resulting in
irregular KT. At lower cutting speed and gas pressure, the cut surface is more consistent and
resulting in accurate kerf.

The influence of cutting speed and arc current on KT depicted in Figure 4b demonstrates that
KT has increase in trend with arc current from low to high value (45A to 55A) and then
decreases. However, increase of cutting speed is achieved linear phenomenon with KT. It is
due to the fact that, an erratic arc is produced at high cutting speed that leads to deviation of
plasma arc from the axis of torch with respect to cutting edge that resulted in wider KT. Figure
6c shows SEM microstructure of top kerf surface at a cutting speed of 2600 mm/min, gas
pressure of 3 bar, arc current of 50 A and stand-off distance of 2.5 mm. A wide angle of taper
between top and bottom kerf surfaces are apparent at high cutting speed and low gas pressure.
The erratic arc produced at higher cutting speed results in wider kerf until the loss of arc occurs.
Moreover, an enlarged piercing hole is evident at the cutting zone due to the delay of movement
of nozzle after completing the piercing.

The collective impact of arc current and stand-off distance on KT (Figure 4c) describes that KT
increased to maximum level with increase in arc current and then decreases. In contrast,
increase in stand-off distance causes increase in KT. At higher arc current delivered by
possession of more stand-off distance, uncertainty of plasma arc transpires, which primes a
lack of energy input from the plasma arc. Therefore, an indiscriminate melting and eradication
of molten material transpires, besides the plasma arc cannot extent bottom of sheet metal with
necessary energy density and arc coherence [41]. Additionally, an increased arc current will
result in widen kerf until the nozzle is damaged, whereas lower arc current provides narrow
kerf and more positive angle of cut until penetration is lost.
Figure 4. Influence of PAC parameters on kerf taper
4.6 Influence of PAC process parameters on HAZ
HAZ is an adverse geometrical deficiency in PAC process that primes to spare residual stresses
and reduction in corrosive resistance and mechanical strength as a result of exposure to high
operating temperatures and localized melting of material. The depth of HAZ in PAC process is
associated with base material properties and selection of appropriate cutting parameters.
Generally, lower HAZ is preferred in metal cutting operations to improve the lifespan and
endurance of the parts. It is perceived from ANOVA results that, gas pressure and stand-off
distance are substantial affecting HAZ followed by cutting speed and arc current. The deviation
in HAZ as a function of selected process variables are shown in response surface plots (Figure
5(a-c)).

It is seen from Fig. 5a, increase of cutting speed is having substantial increase of HAZ and
negative effect is observed during increase of gas pressure. The molten materials are removed
from plasma-material interaction zone thus providing a swift cooling effect which helps to
reduce HAZ at higher gas pressure.

It is also observed from Figure 5b that, HAZ has diminishing effect with increase in arc current
and cutting speed whereas lower HAZ is experienced at higher cutting speed and lower arc
current and vice versa. The cutting speed in PAC is inversely proportional to the energy density
of plasma jet resulted in low heat transfer to the workpiece surface thus reduces thickness of
HAZ. The interaction of stand-off distance and gas pressure on HAZ depicted in Figure 5c
describes that, HAZ has minimally affected with increase in stand-off distance, whereas gas
pressure has negligible effect on HAZ. As stand-off distance increases, the plasma jet expends
before impingement of workpiece that leads to increase in HAZ. The SEM image of cutting
zone at high stand-off distance (3 mm) presented in Figure 6d signifies an augmented heat
affected region with oxide inclusions due to higher jet diameter. Increasing the distance
between nozzle and substrate material eventually leads to loss of cut quality, whereas lower
stand-off distance leads to narrow region of HAZ. Hence, it is desirable to decrease the stand-
off distance to improve the quality of cut through decreasing HAZ.
Figure 5. Influence of PAC parameters on HAZ
Figure 6. The SEM morphology shows the characteristics of machined surfaces at different
cutting conditions: (a-b) Cutting speed = 2600 mm/min, Gas pressure = 3.5 bar, Arc current =
50 A and Stand-off distance = 3 mm, (c) Cutting speed = 2600 mm/min, Gas pressure = 3 bar,
Arc current = 50 A and Stand-off distance = 2.5 mm, and (d) Cutting speed = 2600 mm/min,
Gas pressure = 3 bar, Arc current = 50 A and Stand-off distance = 2.5 mm.

Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of cut surface for the 1st experimental
run is shown in Figure 7 depicts spectra of nickel, copper, iron and manganese at the cutting
zone. In additon to the base composition of substrate material, a prominent weight percentage
of oxygen (13.85%) is observed in the cut surface. This can be attributed due to the formation
of oxide layer at the machined surface and the constitutional elements such as nickel, copper,
iron and manganese mass percentage are spattered from the initial existence of 61.64 %, 31.9
%, 2.3% and 2 % to 50.64 %, 30.19 %, 1.44% and 1.84%, respectively. The mass percentage
of oxygen element observed at the machined surface is about 13.85% designates the formation
of oxides with each constitutional elements at the machined surface.
 Figure 7. EDS image of plasma cut surface at 1st experimental run

4.7 Multi-response optimization using TOPSIS

The objective of present investigation is to determine optimal PAC variables for maximizing
MRR and to minimize KT and HAZ using TOPSIS approach. The relative weights for each
response is assigned by means of a compromised weighting method. By utilizing equation 4,
the relative weight of MRR, KT and HAZ is computed as 0.1722, 0.5617, and 0.2661 and they
are assigned for calculating weight normalized values.

The weight normalized matrix separation measures (Si+, Si-), closeness coefficient (Ci) and rank
for each alternative are calculated using equations 6-11 which are given in Table 6. They are
further ranked based on closeness coefficient values. The higher Ci indicates that the particular
experiment is nearby to an ideal solution and also for each experimental run is shown in Figure
8. It is found that the experimental number 3 has highest Ci of 0.8344, hence it is graded as
best alternative for multi criteria response of PAC process. The mean Ci for each process
parameter at the factor level is provided in Table 7 and also represented in Figure 9 signifies
the optimal parameter settings for each level. It is observed that 2400 mm/min cutting speed, 3
bar gas pressure, 45 A arc current and 2 mm stand-off distance are obtained as optimal PAC
process parameters to improve the cutting quality characteristics. Arc current partakes higher
delta (difference between maximum and minimum Ci) among the selected parameters,
therefore it significantly influences the quality characteristics of PAC process.
 Table 6. Weight normalized matrix, separation measures and rank

Weight normalized values

Ex.No Kerf Si+ Si- Ci Rank

MRR HAZ
taper
(g/min) (mm)
(Degree)
1 0.0307 0.0196 0.0057 0.0182 0.0109 0.3743 17
2 0.0325 0.0181 0.0070 0.0149 0.0138 0.4806 13
3 0.0445 0.0079 0.0092 0.0058 0.0294 0.8344 1
4 0.0312 0.0238 0.0063 0.0197 0.0099 0.3331 19
5 0.0248 0.0241 0.0045 0.0242 0.0061 0.2006 30
6 0.0276 0.0221 0.0057 0.0209 0.0080 0.2781 24
7 0.0390 0.0139 0.0085 0.0085 0.0213 0.7135 3
8 0.0283 0.0146 0.0056 0.0161 0.0145 0.4731 12
9 0.0309 0.0141 0.0066 0.0137 0.0159 0.5372 8
10 0.0327 0.0208 0.0068 0.0166 0.0124 0.4284 14
11 0.0334 0.0185 0.0063 0.0143 0.0143 0.5000 11
12 0.0322 0.0268 0.0067 0.0218 0.0100 0.3153 20
13 0.0376 0.0095 0.0078 0.0069 0.0235 0.7738 2
14 0.0264 0.0176 0.0054 0.0191 0.0112 0.3682 16
15 0.0343 0.0119 0.0071 0.0101 0.0195 0.6599 5
16 0.0270 0.0201 0.0051 0.0200 0.0094 0.3194 22
17 0.0298 0.0237 0.0059 0.0205 0.0088 0.3004 25
18 0.0289 0.0242 0.0059 0.0215 0.0078 0.2649 26
19 0.0371 0.0139 0.0075 0.0091 0.0199 0.6854 4
20 0.0286 0.0246 0.0066 0.0220 0.0072 0.2456 23
21 0.0326 0.0169 0.0065 0.0138 0.0148 0.5173 10
22 0.0379 0.0211 0.0076 0.0145 0.0167 0.5352 9
23 0.0264 0.0234 0.0055 0.0225 0.0067 0.2284 29
24 0.0349 0.0142 0.0064 0.0105 0.0183 0.6349 6
25 0.0245 0.0226 0.0043 0.0234 0.0071 0.2314 28
26 0.0314 0.0233 0.0065 0.0193 0.0101 0.3447 18
27 0.0233 0.0154 0.0037 0.0209 0.0131 0.3859 15
28 0.0246 0.0215 0.0051 0.0228 0.0074 0.2451 27
29 0.0297 0.0090 0.0058 0.0133 0.0201 0.6007 7
30 0.0294 0.0224 0.0058 0.0198 0.0091 0.3154 21
 Figure 8. Closeness coefficient for each experimental runs

Table 7. Mean CC for process variables

S.No Process variables Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank
1 Cutting speed (X1) 0.4628 0.4633 0.3348 0.1285 3

2 Gas pressure (X2) 0.4550 0.4007 0.4409 0.0543 4

3 Arc current (X3) 0.5660 0.3665 0.5220 0.1995 2

4 Stand-off distance (X4) 0.5463 0.4316 0.3465 0.1998 1

0.6000
Closeness coefficient

0.5000

0.4000

0.2000
CS1CS2CS3 GP1GP2GP3 AC1AC2AC3 SD1SD2SD3
Process parameters

Figure 9. Mean Ci for PAC parameters

The ANOVA for closeness coefficient is developed to validate the proposed TOPSIS approach
through calculating the coefficient of determinations (R2 and Adj. R2), adequate precision,
model F-values and significance of each parameters. Table 8 shows the ANOVA for closeness
coefficient obtained 95% confidence interval. It is evident from the table that the F- value =
23.01 and Prob F < 0.05 confirms the established model is of 95% confidence level. The AP
value for the developed model is found to be 26.21 which is greater than 4 signifies that this
model can be used for predicting the selected responses with better precision. The contribution
of each process parameter associated with closeness coefficient is determined using sum of
square values. It is found that the contribution by the stand-off distance and cutting speed on
CC is about 10.75% and 4.1%, respectively, which is higher than other two parameters. The
multiple regression coefficient (R2 = 0.9654) and adjusted co-efficient of determination
(Adj.R2 = 0.9442) are closer to unity confirms the established model is suitable for predicting
the desired responses.

Table 8. Analysis of variance for CC

%
Sum of Mean F-
Source DF Prob > F Contributi
Squares Square Value
on
X1-Cutting speed 0.042 1 0.042 23.01 0.0001 4.10
X2-Gas pressure 0.029 1 0.029 16.17 0.0008 2.83
X3-Arc current 0.009 1 0.009 4.91 0.0397 0.87
X4-Stand-off distance 0.110 1 0.110 63.48 < 0.0001 10.75
X1X2 0.029 1 0.029 16.09 0.0008 2.83
X1X3 0.110 1 0.110 58.71 < 0.0001 10.75
X2X4 0.029 1 0.029 15.77 0.0009 2.83
X3X4 0.190 1 0.190 105.42 < 0.0001 18.57
X22 0.099 1 0.099 54.87 < 0.0001 9.68
X32 0.290 1 0.290 162.67 < 0.0001 28.35
X42 0.021 1 0.021 11.57 0.0032 2.05
Residual 0.033 18 0.002 3.22
Lack of Fit 0.026 13 0.002 1.58 0.3212 2.54
Pure Error 0.006 5 0.001 0.58
Cor. Total 0.940 29 100

R-squared 0.9654 Adj. R- 0.9442 AP 26.214

squared
4.8 Comparison between predicted and experimental results
Comparative evaluation between experiments and quadratic regression models for MRR, KT
and HAZ are depicted in Figures 10-12. A minimal average error of 0.35% for MRR, 4.98%
for KT and 6.49% for HAZ is observed. The comparison results shows better closeness between
the experimental and predicted response values, hence the developed approach can suitable for
assessing the cutting characteristics in PAC of Monel 400 superalloy.

Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and predicted MRR

Figure 11. Comparison between experimental and predicted KT

 Figure 12. Comparison between experimental and predicted HAZ

Conclusion
Measurement and analyses are performed to examine the PAC quality characteristics of Monel
400 superalloy sheet of 3 mm thickness through RSM based experimental design and optimal
PAC process variables are obtained using TOPSIS approach. The inferences found from this
study is as follows:

 From ANOVA analysis, stand-off distance and gas pressure are found to be the most
influencing parameters on MRR and HAZ, whereas KT primarily affected with cutting
speed.
 The proposed quadratic regression models for MRR, KT and HAZ are achieved 95% of
confidence level to predict the responses accurately within prescribed limits of process
variables considered for this study.
 Based on TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making approach, optimal PAC parameters such
as cutting speed: 2400 mm/min, gas pressure: 3 bar, arc current: 45A and stand-off distance:
2 mm are determined to obtain superior part quality.
 Microstructural observation revealed the dross formation, improved HAZ, recast layer,
presence of micro striation patterns and micro voids at various cutting conditions.
 The proposed combination of RSM and TOPSIS approach can be effectively utilized to
support the decision makers to determine the best parameter combinations for machining
of superalloys using PAC process under multi-response criteria.
 Present study focused on few responses within specific range of process variables.
However, in future, surface integrity characteristics such as sub surface damage, recast
layer and residual stress of PAC processed parts can be evaluated and diverse workpiece
materials can be assessed with varied thickness.

References

1. A. Thakur, S. Gangopadhyay, Dry machining of nickel-based super alloy as a sustainable

alternative using TiN/TiAlN coated tool, J. Clean. Prod.. 129 (2016) 256-268. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.074.
2. Salman Pervaiz, Amir Rashid, Ibrahim Deiab, Mihai Nicolescu, Influence of Tool
Materials on Machinability of Titanium- and Nickel-Based Alloys: A Review, Mater.
Manuf. Process. 29 (3) (2014) 219-252. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2014.880460.
3. G. Selvakumar, Soumya Sarkar, Souren Mitra, Experimental investigation on die corner
accuracy for wire electrical discharge machining of Monel 400 alloy, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. B. J. Eng. Manuf. 226 (10) (2012) 1694-1704. doi: 10.1177/0954405412456660.
4. B. Kuriachen, J. Mathew, Experimental Investigations into the Effects of Microelectric-
Discharge Milling Process Parameters on Processing Ti–6Al–4V, Mater. Manuf. Process.
30 (8) (2015) 983-990. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2014.984206.
5. L. Shakeel Ahmed, M. Pradeep Kumar, Cryogenic Drilling of Ti–6Al–4V Alloy Under
Liquid Nitrogen Cooling, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (7) (2016) 951-959. doi:
10.1080/10426914.2015.1048475.
6. Vinod Kumar, Vikas Kumar, K.K. Jangra, An experimental analysis and optimization of
machining rate and surface characteristics in WEDM of Monel-400 using RSM and
desirability approach, J. Ind. Eng. Int. 11(3) (2015) 297-307. doi: 10.1007/s40092-015-
0103-0.
7. Tae - Woo Kim, Choon - Man Lee, Determination of the machining parameters of nickel-
based alloys by high-power diode laser, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Man. 16(2) (2015) 309-314.
doi: 10.1007/s12541-015-0041-1.
8. M. Udhayakumar, M. Adam Khan, S. Thirumalai Kumaran, Adam Slota, Jerzy Zajac,
Machinability of nickel-based superalloy by abrasive water jet machining, Mater. Manuf.
Proces. 31(13) (2016) 1733-1739. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1103859.
9. R. Bini, B.M. Colosimo, A.E. Kutlu, M. Monno, Experimental study of the features of the
kerf generated by a 200 A high tolerance plasma arc cutting system, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 196 (1-3) (2008) 345-355. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.05.061.
10. R. Adalarasan, M. Santhanakumar, M. Rajmohan, Application of Grey Taguchi-based
response surface methodology (GT-RSM) for optimizing the plasma arc cutting parameters
of 304L stainless steel, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 78(5-8) (2015) 1161-1170. doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2005.02.014.
11. K. Salonitis, S. Vatousianos, Experimental investigation of the plasma arc cutting process,
Procedia CIRP. 3 (2012) 287-292. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.050.
12. K.P. Maity, Bagal Dilip Kumar, Effect of process parameters on cut quality of stainless
steel of plasma arc cutting using hybrid approach, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 78(1-4)
(2015) 161-175. doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6552-6.
13. B. Abdulnasser, R. Bhuvenesh, Plasma arc cutting optimization parameters for aluminum
alloy with two thickness by using Taguchi method, AIP Conf. Proc. 1756, 060002 (2016).
doi: 10.1063/1.4958776.
14. G. Abdulkadir, U. Atici, Investigation of the effects of plasma arc parameters on the
structure variation of AISI 304 and St 52 steels, Mater. Des. 27(10) (2006) 1157-1162. doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2005.02.014.
15. S. Kim, Min- Ho Kim, Evaluation of cutting characterization in plasma cutting of thick
steel ship plates, Int. J. of Precis. Eng. Manuf. 14 (9) (2013) 1571-1575. doi:
10.1007/s12541-013-0212-x.
16. S. Chamarthi, N.Sinivasa Reddy, E. Manoj Kumar, D.V. Ramana Reddy, Investigation
analysis of plasma arc cutting parameters on the unevenness surface of Hardox-400
material, Procedia Eng. 64 (2013) 854-861. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.161.
17. H. Ramakrishnan, R. Balasundaram, N. Ganesh, N. Karthikeyan, Experimental
investigation of cut quality characteristics on SS321 using plasma arc cutting, J. Braz. Soc.
Mech. Sci. & Eng. 40(2) (2018) 60. doi: 10.1007/s40430-018-0997-8.
18. E. Gariboldi, B. Previtali, High tolerance plasma arc cutting of commercially pure titanium,
J. Mater. Proces. Technol. 160 (1) (2005) 77-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.366.
19. P. Parthkumar, B. Nakum, K. Abhishek, Machining performance optimization during
plasma arc cutting of AISI D2 steel: application of FIS, nonlinear regression and JAYA
 optimization algorithm, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. & Eng. 40 (2018) 240. doi:
10.1007/s40430-018-1087-7.
20. R. Rao, V. Yadava, Multi-objective optimization of Nd:YAG laser cutting of thin
superalloy sheet using grey relational analysis with entropy measurement, Opt. Laser
Technol. 41 (2009) 922-930. doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2009.03.008.
21. N. Yuvaraj, M. Pradeep Kumar, Multi response optimization of abrasive water jet cutting
process parameters using TOPSIS approach, Mater. Manuf. Process. 30 (7) (2015) 882-
889. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2014.994763.
22. P.M. Gopal, K. Soorya Prakash, Minimization of Cutting Force, Temperature and Surface
Roughness through GRA, TOPSIS and Taguchi techniques in End Milling of Mg Hybrid
MMC, Measurement. 116 (2018) 178-192. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.11.011.
23. S. K. Gauri, R. Chakravorty, S. Chakraborty, Optimization of correlated multiple responses
of ultrasonic machining (USM) process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 53 (9-12) (2011)
1115-1127. doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2905-y.
24. F.R. Lima Junior, L. Osiro, L.C.R. Carpinetti, A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
TOPSIS methods to supplier selection, Appl. Soft Comput. 21 (2014) 194-209. doi:
10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014.
25. A. Khan, K. Maity, Application potential of combined fuzzy-TOPSIS approach in
minimization of surface roughness, cutting force and tool wear during machining of CP-Ti
grade II, Soft Comput. (2018). doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3322-7.
26. A. Khan, K. Maity, Application of MCDM-based TOPSIS method for the selection of
optimal process parameter in turning of pure titanium, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 24(7) (2017) 2009-2021. doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0004.
27. H. P. Nguyen, V. D. Pham, Ngoc-Vu Ngo, Application of TOPSIS to Taguchi method for
multi-characteristic optimization of electrical discharge machining with titanium powder
mixed into dielectric fluid, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 98(5-8) (2018) 1179–1198. doi:
10.1007/s00170-018-2321-2.
28. S. Oliver Nesa Raj, S. Prabhu, Analysis of multi objective optimisation using TOPSIS
method in EDM process with CNT infused copper electrode, Int. J. Mach. Mach. Mater.
19(1) (2017) 76–94. doi: 10.1504/IJMMM.2017.081190.
29. S. Tripathy, D. K. Tripathy, Multi-response optimization of machining process parameters
for powder mixed electro-discharge machining of H-11 die steel using grey relational
analysis and TOPSIS, Mach. Sci. Technol. 21(3) (2017) 362-384. doi:
10.1080/10910344.2017.1283957.
30. T. Roy, R. K. Dutta, Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for multi-objective
optimization of electro discharge machining process, Soft Computing. 2018. doi:
10.1007/s00500-018-3173-2.
31. R. Manivannan, M. Pradeep Kumar, Multi-response optimization of Micro-EDM process
parameters on AISI304 steel using TOPSIS, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 30 (1) (2016) 137-144.
doi: 10.1007/s12206-015-1217-4.
32. K. Parthiban, M. Duraiselvam, R. Manivannan, TOPSIS based parametric optimization of
laser micro-drilling of TBC coated nickel based superalloy, Opt. Laser Technol.102 (2018)
32-39. doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2017.12.012.
33. I. Shivakoti, B.B. Pradhan, S. Diyaley, R.K. Ghadai, K. Kalita, Fuzzy TOPSIS-based
selection of laser beam micro-marking process parameters, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 42 (11)
(2017) 4825–4831. doi: 10.1007/s13369-017-2673-1.
34. M. Mia, Mathematical modeling and optimization of MQL assisted end milling
characteristics based on RSM and taguchi method, Measurement. 121 (2018) 249-260. doi:
10.1016/j.measurement.2018.02.017.
35. N.E. Karkalos, N.I. Galanis, A.P. Markopoulos, Surface roughness prediction for the
milling of Ti–6Al–4V ELI alloy with the use of statistical and soft computing techniques,
Measurement. 90 (2016) 25-35. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.04.039.
36. S. Sudhagar, M. Sakthivel, Prince J. Mathew, S. Ajith Arul Daniel, A multi criteria decision
making approach for process improvement in friction stir welding of aluminium alloy,
Measurement. 108 (2017) 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.05.023.
37. P.K. Mishra, R. Nadda, R. Kumar, A. Rana, M. Sethi, A. Ekileski, Optimization of multiple
arcs protrusion obstacle parameters using AHP-TOPSIS approach in an impingement jet
solar air passage, Heat Mass Transf. (2018) doi: 10.1007/s00231-018-2405-4.
38. A. J. Makadia, J. I. Nanavati, Optimization of machining parameters for turning operations
based on response surface methodology, Measurement. 46 (4) (2013) 1521-1529. doi:
10.1016/j.measurement.2012.11.026.
39. A. Tamilarasan, D. Rajamani, Multi-response optimization of Nd:YAG laser cutting
parameters of Ti-6Al-4V superalloy sheet, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 31 (2) (2017) 813-821.
doi: 10.1007/s12206-017-0133-1.
40. M. Madic, M. Radovanovic, D. Petkovic, Non-conventional machining processes selection
using multi-objective optimisation on the basis of ratio analysis method, J. Eng. Sci.
Technol. 10 (11) (2015) 1441-1452.
41. A. Iosub, Gh Nagit, F. Negoescu, Plasma Cutting of Composite Materials, Int. J. Mater.
Form. 1(1) (2008) 1347-1350. doi:: 10.1007/s12289-008-0113-1.
Highlights
 PAC of Nickel superalloy (Monel 400) was accomplished based on RSM-BBD
approach.
 Material removal rate, kerf taper and heat affected zone were measured and analyzed.
 Effect of arc current, cutting speed, gas pressure and stand-off distance of PAC process
is expounded.
 Multi-response optimization was performed through TOPSIS.
 Microstructure of cut surface was investigated and micro striation, dross formation and
recast layer was found.
Graphical abstract