Surface Review and Letters, Vol. 24, No.

1 (2017) 1750007 (12 pages)

°c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0218625X1750007X

OPTIMIZATION AND SURFACE MODIFICATION

OF Al-6351 ALLOY USING SiC–Cu GREEN
COMPACT ELECTRODE BY ELECTRO
DISCHARGE COATING PROCESS

SUJOY CHAKRABORTY*,‡, SIDDHARTHA KAR*, VIDYUT DEY*

and SUBRATA KUMAR GHOSH†
*Department of Production Engineering,
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

NIT Agartala, Tripura, India

†Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

NIT Agartala, Tripura, India

‡ersujoymech05@gmail.com

Received 2 February 2016

Revised 18 May 2016
Accepted 20 May 2016
Published 28 June 2016

This paper introduces the surface modi¯cation of Al-6351 alloy by green compact SiC–Cu elec-
trode using electro-discharge coating (EDC) process. A Taguchi L-16 orthogonal array is
employed to investigate the process by varying tool parameters like composition and compaction
load and electro-discharge machining (EDM) parameters like pulse-on time and peak current.
Material deposition rate (MDR), tool wear rate (TWR) and surface roughness (SR) are measured
on the coated specimens. An optimum condition is achieved by formulating overall evaluation
criteria (OEC), which combines multi-objective task into a single index. The signal-to-noise (S/N)
ratio, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is employed to investigate the e®ect of relevant
process parameters. A con¯rmation test is conducted based on optimal process parameters and
experimental results are provided to illustrate the e®ectiveness of this approach. The modi¯ed
surface is characterized by optical microscope and X-ray di®raction (XRD) analysis. XRD analysis
of the deposited layer con¯rmed the transfer of tool materials to the work surface and formation of
inter-metallic phases. The micro-hardness of the resulting composite layer is also measured which
is 1.5–3 times more than work material's one and highest layer thickness (LT) of 83.644
m has
been successfully achieved.

Keywords: Electro discharge coating; powder metallurgy; green compact electrode; overall evaluation
criteria.

1. Introduction equally important to resist surface degradation and to

Strength, hardness and toughness are bulk properties
of any material used in engineering application.
Beside those, surface properties such as corrosion re-
sistance, wear resistance and abrasion resistance are
‡Corresponding author.
sustain in complicated environments and thereby
increase longevity of the materials. This has led to the
rapid progress of various coating techniques in the
industries such as nitriding, carburizing, induction

1750007-1
 S. Chakraborty et al.
hardening, physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemi-
cal vapor deposition (CVD), plasma spraying, etc.
Surface modi¯cation by Electro-discharge machining
(EDM) is a completely new technique which is yet
to be industrialized. EDM is a well-established non-
traditional machining process for machining very
hard materials (like Inconel, Tungsten, etc.) which
are di±cult to machine by conventional machining
processes. It works on the principle of material re-
moval by erosion through a series of sparks between
tool and workpiece material. The whole process of
EDM takes place in the presence of a dielectric me-
dium. In EDM, the workpiece is connected to the
positive terminal and the tool is connected to the
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
negative terminal. This mechanism not only leads to
material removal from the work surface but also
material removal from the tool. It has been observed
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by many researchers that a recast layer forms at the
top of the work surface whose properties coincide
with the tool material properties.1 The recast layer
consists of the tool materials and their carbides
formed by the chemical reaction between the carbon
particles decomposed from hydrocarbon dielectric
and the tool material under immense temperature.2
This concept has led to the technique of surface
modi¯cation by EDM, which is also known as electro-
discharge coating (EDC). It has been observed by
many researchers that by reversing the polarity of
tool and workpiece, the surface modi¯cation mecha-
nism is more prominent and e®ective than by the
normal or positive polarity of EDM.3,4 Mechanism of
EDC is shown in Fig. 1. For proper material transfer,
the tool material must be loosely bonded together to
be able to get eroded su±ciently by thermoelectric
Fig. 1. Mechanism of surface modi¯cation by EDC.
1750007-2
energy of the discharge. This type of special tool can
be made by powder metallurgy (P/M) compact, ei-
ther in green or semi-sintered state. For deposition of
tool material in the workpiece, minimum °ushing
pressure or zero °ushing pressure of the dielectric
medium should be applied on the gap region between
surface of workpiece and tool, otherwise the material
gets deposited on the surface of workpiece will erode
due to the applied °ushing pressure of the dielectric
on the recast layer zone. Surface modi¯cation by
EDM5 has been carried out by several ways such as
EDC with the use of green compact or semi-sintered
electrode, EDC with powder suspended in working
oil, EDC with thin wires and EDC with solid elec-
trode. But the use of conventional electrodes for this
application has not met with much success.6 Various
composition of electrode such as Ti, TiC, TiC/Cu,
WC/Co, Cu–W, Cu–Mn, etc.2,7–11 produced by P/M
method either in green compact or semi-sintered state
has been used for altering surface characteristics of
workpiece material. Considerable modi¯cation of
workpiece surface has been attained by suspending
powders (Ti, TiH2, TiC, WC, Al2O3, SiC) in dielectric
medium.5,12–14 However, keeping the concentration of
such powders around machining area is a grueling
task.
Literature review shows that surface modi¯cation
by EDC is a totally new practice which is yet to be
industrialized. In this study, electrode is prepared by
special process of green compaction P/M method,
which is composed of SiC and Cu of mesh 325 each.
The complete process is intended to bring complete-
ness to the surface of Al-6351 alloy by modifying its
surface to bring a mass change in its surface proper-
ties such as hardness, wear resistance and abrasion
resistance to withstand rigorous working condition
and in process to increase its longevity. Such change
in properties would further enhance the applicability
of aluminium alloys in various engineering services.15
The key process parameters selected in experimen-
tation are compaction load, composition, pulse du-
ration and peak current. The investigated output
parameters are material deposition rate (MDR),
surface roughness (SR) and tool wear rate (TWR).
2. Materials and Methods
The experiments are conducted in die sinking EDM
(model F25, Sparkonix (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune, India) as

(a) Spark EDM
Fig. 2.
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
shown in Fig. 2(a). Silicon carbide and copper pow-
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
ders of mesh 325 is used as tool materials. These
powders are mixed in required proportion by weigh-
ing to match the desired composition. The tool elec-
trode is prepared by P/M process in a pellet press
(Fig. 2(b)) consisting of a die and punch assembly
of 13 mm diameter. The dimension of the pellets are
(a)
(d)
Fig. 3. (a) P/M compacts. (b) P/M compact electrodes. (c)–(e) Three set of modi¯ed work surfaces. (f) Tabular set showing
experiment number.
Optimization and Surface Modi¯cation of Al-6351 Alloy
(b) Pellet Press
Experimental setups.
5 mm in height and 13 mm in diameter (Fig. 3(a)).
The pellets are produced by varying the compaction
load of the pellet press machine to inhibit varying
bonding strength among SiC and Cu powders at
di®erent compositions. The pellets are then glued to
an equivalent diameter of Cu rod with an electrically
conductive paste as shown in Fig. 3(b). Aluminium
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
1750007-3
 S. Chakraborty et al.

6351 is selected as the workpiece material due to its Table 1. Experimental conditions.
wider application in the ¯eld of piping, aerospace
Variable parameters with their levels
industries, etc. The dimension of the workpiece is
25
25
5 mm. Kerosene oil is used as dielectric Parameter Level Values
°uid.
Weight of the workpiece and tool before and after Compaction 4 5, 10, 15, 20
load (ton)
experiments are measured by a precision weight Current (Ampere) 4 2, 4, 6, 8
measuring balance (model-Denver Instrument SI- Pulse duration 4 11, 21, 50, 100
234) for the purpose of calculating MDR and TWR (Ton Þ (
s)
by the following equations: Composition 2 30:70, 50:50
(SiC:Cu)
Weight of workpiece after experiment Fixed parameters
Parameter Values
 Weight of workpiece before experiment Workpiece Aluminium 6351 alloy
MDR ¼ ;
Time of experiment Tool electrode SiC/Cu P/M tool
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

ð1Þ Dielectric °uid Kerosene

Gap voltage 55–60 Volt
Weight of tool before experiment Duty cycle 0.50–0.57
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Time 5 min.
 Weight of tool after experiment
TWR ¼ : ð2Þ
Time of experiment

SR of the deposited layer is measured by Taylor
Hobson 3d Pro¯lometer. The roughness parameter
analyzed is center line average (CLA) or arithmetic
average (AA), which is popularly known as Ra (in

m). Ten readings are taken for each specimen and
averages of them are taken for obtaining average SR.
All experiments are carried out in three sets to
minimize experimental error and attain accuracy.
Three sets of deposited specimens are shown in
Figs. 3(c)–3(e). A tabular set indicating experiment
number of the deposited specimens is shown in
Fig. 3(f).
which evaluates the individual e®ect of each process
parameters on the responses by conducting minimum
number of experiments.19 Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio
¯nds the best level of each parameter for a particular
response based on quality characteristic such as lower
the better, higher the better, and nominal the bet-
ter.20 Taguchi uses the S/N ratio to measure the
quality characteristic deviating from the desired
value. The term signal denotes the mean of the out-
put characteristics and noise denotes standard devi-
ation (SD) from the output characteristics. Thus,
S/N ratio is the ratio of mean to SD of output char-
acteristics. The S/N ratio,  is de¯ned as:

2.1. DOE by Taguchi method  ¼ 10 log10 ðMSDÞ; ð3Þ

Pilot experiments are carried out to determine e®ec- where MSD is the mean-square deviation for the
tive process parameters and their corresponding output characteristic. To obtain optimal deposition,
levels.16 By preliminary experiments, it is observed higher is better quality characteristic for overall
that reverse polarity is more suitable for coating. evaluation criterion (OEC) has been taken. The MSD
The gap sensing knob is adjusted to maintain the for higher is better quality characteristic and smaller
gap voltage in the range of 55–60 Volts throughout is better quality characteristic are expressed as
the experiments. The ¯xed and variable parameters follows:
with their di®erent levels are mentioned in Table 1.
To accommodate this type of unequally distributed 1 Xn
1 1 Xn
MSD ¼ ; MSD ¼ O 2; ð4Þ
level of factors (variable parameters) mixed level de- n i¼1 O 2i n i¼1 i
sign of Taguchi is approached and a modi¯ed L-16
orthogonal array17,18 is selected as given in Table 2. where n is the number of tests and O is the value
Taguchi is an e®ective tool of design of experiment of OEC at the ith test.

1750007-4
 Optimization and Surface Modi¯cation of Al-6351 Alloy

Table 2. L-16 orthogonal array and experimental results for MDR (in mg/min), SR (in
m) and TWR
(in mg/min) with respective OEC's.

Compaction Current Pulse Composition MDR SR TWR

Exp. No. load (ton) (A) duration (
s) (SiC:Cu) (mg/min) (
m) (mg/min) OEC

1 5 2 11 30:70 0.27 2.75 7.8806 62.85

2 5 4 21 30:70 0.31 2.89 8.2944 61.85
3 5 6 50 50:50 0.69 3.47 19.659 60.61
4 5 8 100 50:50 0.81 4.62 24.101 40
5 10 2 21 50:50 0.48 2.70 12.5098 71.12
6 10 4 11 50:50 0.51 2.77 13.508 70.45
7 10 6 100 30:70 0.37 3.61 9.17875 49.86
8 10 8 50 30:70 0.34 2.87 8.5964 63.62
9 15 2 50 30:70 0.15 2.74 3.1384 60.82
10 15 4 100 30:70 0.18 2.86 4.0055 59.26
11 15 6 11 50:50 0.40 2.92 9.8152 64.78
12 15 8 21 50:50 0.46 3.24 11.956 59.68
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

13 20 2 100 50:50 0.24 2.83 6.958 60.44

14 20 4 50 50:50 0.21 2.85 5.785 59.47
15 20 6 21 30:70 0.08 2.73 2.2584 57.99
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

16 20 8 11 30:70 0.10 2.63 2.5924 60.79

3. Results and Discussion ANOVA is a method to ¯nd statistically signi¯cant

process parameters.21 Thus, with the help of S/N
Experimental results are demonstrated in Table 2.
ratio and ANOVA, the optimal combination of pro-
A wide range of MDR (0.08–0.81 mg/min), SR
cess parameters for each response can be determined.
(2.63–4.62
m) and TWR (2.2584–24.101 mg/min)
The Taguchi analysis and ANOVA is carried out by
is achieved with di®erent combinations of process
statistical software MINITAB 16.
parameters. The responses are analyzed by Taguchi
The e®ects of the process parameters on the three
and analysis of variance (ANOVA) as discussed in
responses (MDR, SR and TWR) based on Taguchi
subsequent subsection.
S/N ratios are illustrated below:

3.1. Taguchi analysis and ANOVA 3.1.1. Material deposition rate

In Taguchi analysis, irrespective of the chosen quality Using reverse polarity, the material can be transferred
characteristics for a particular response, the levels from the electrode to workpiece where due to high
with higher S/N ratios of the corresponding factors is energy sparks and heat, some portion of electrode,
deemed to be optimum for that particular response. workpiece and dielectric °uid forms the discharge

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. E®ect of process parameters at di®erent levels on S/N of (a) MDR, (b) SR, (c) TWR, (d) OEC.

1750007-5
 S. Chakraborty et al.
(c)
Fig. 4.
channel between the gap of workpiece and electrode.
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
Due to these, some portion of electrode and workpiece
melts which helps to deposit some amount of molten
material on the workpiece when voltage drops to its
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
minimum value. During this process, reactions be-
tween SiC, Cu, Al and carbon from kerosene dielec-
tric °uid take place. E®ect of process parameters on
S/N ratio of MDR is shown in Fig. 4(a). MDR is higher
in lower compaction load due to lower binding
strength between powder materials and it decreases
as compaction load increases. MDR is low at lower
current and pulse duration and it increases with in-
crease in current and pulse duration due to higher
energy associated at higher magnitude of current and
the same heating energy is applied for longer duration
at higher magnitude of pulse duration. Copper inhi-
bits higher binding strength and higher thermal
conductivity. So, higher ratio of copper (70%)
restricts faster deposition of tool materials over work
surface. Optimum level of process parameters are
compaction load of 5 Ton, current of 8 A, pulse du-
ration of 100
s and composition of SiC50:Cu50.
3.1.2. Surface roughness
E®ect of process parameters on S/N ratio of SR is
shown in Fig. 4(b). With the increase of compaction
load, the density of compact tool increases22 leading
to less number of pores. Thus, with increasing com-
paction load, the average SR value decreases. With
the increase of current, the usable energy increases
leading to increase in formation of crater on the work
piece surface resulting in increasing average SR.23
Increase in pulse duration enhances the duty cycle of
operation, resulting in higher deposition of tool elec-
trode material on the substrate which may be due to
1750007-6
(d)
(Continued )
heating of the outer layer of electrode to about
10,000  C.24–26 This erodes more materials from the
electrode which gets deposited over the top surface of
the workpiece. This leads to higher deposition rate
and formation of deep craters on the surface of the
workpiece.23 It is obvious that SR will be higher with
the formation of deep craters. SR increases with in-
creasing percentage of SiC in tool electrode material
due to higher deposition of tool electrode material
and formation of more craters on the work piece.
Optimum level of process parameters are compaction
load of 20 Ton, current of 2 A, pulse duration of 11
s
and composition of SiC30:Cu70.
3.1.3. Tool wear rate
E®ect of process parameters on S/N ratio of TWR is
shown in Fig. 4(c). TWR decreases with increase in
compaction load of tool electrode due to higher
binding strength incorporated by higher load. As
current increases, the energy associated with spark
also increases leading to higher tool wear. TWR also
increases with increase in pulse duration due to pro-
long persistence of the heat energy. As the percentage
of SiC increases in the SiC:Cu mixture, the com-
pactness of the tool electrode reduces and the tool
electrode material is more ready to being deposited on
workpiece surface. Optimum level of process para-
meters are compaction load of 20 Ton, current of 2 A,
pulse duration of 11
s and composition of SiC30:
Cu70.
The results of the ANOVA for MDR, SR and
TWR are given in Table 3. In case of MDR, the
highest contributing factor is a compaction load fol-
lowed by composition, current and pulse duration.
In case of TWR also, the highest contributing factor
 Optimization and Surface Modi¯cation of Al-6351 Alloy

Table 3. ANOVA for responses.

Source Degree of freedom Sum of square Mean square F-ratio Prob> F Contribution (%)

(a) MDR
Compaction load 3 0.29735 0.099117 42.18 0.001 47.29
Current 3 0.05485 0.018283 7.78 0.025 8.72
Pulse duration 3 0.01485 0.00495 2.11 0.218 2.36
Composition 1 0.25 0.25 106.38 0.000 39.76
Error 5 0.01175 0.00235 1.87
Total 15 0.6288 100
R 2 ¼ 98:13 %, R 2 (adj) ¼ 94.39%
(b) SR
Compaction load 3 0.97925 0.32642 3.70 0.096 25.44
Current 3 0.92055 0.30685 3.48 0.106 23.91
Pulse duration 3 1.17305 1.17305 4.44 0.071 30.47
Composition 1 0.33640 0.33640 3.82 0.108 8.74
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

Error 5 0.44055 0.08811 11.44

Total 15 3.8498 100
R 2 ¼ 88.56 %, R 2 (adj) ¼ 65.67%
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

(c) TWR
Compaction load 3 253.218 84.406 31.25 0.001 46.59
Current 3 47.671 15.890 5.88 0.043 8.77
Pulse duration 3 16.359 5.453 2.02 0.230 3.01
Composition 1 212.774 212.774 78.77 0.000 39.15
Error 5 13.506 2.701 2.48
Total 15 543.528 100
R 2 ¼ 97.52%, R 2 (adj) ¼ 92.55%

is compaction load followed by composition, current
and pulse duration. But in case of SR, the highest
contributing factor is pulse duration followed by
compaction load, current and composition.
Based on Taguchi S/N analysis and ANOVA, it is
observed that the optimum levels and the contribu-
tion of process parameters to the responses are not
same. To conform to an optimum condition combin-
ing all the responses, the concept of OEC is attempted.
3.2. Formulation of OEC
A good deposition requires higher MDR with mini-
mum SR and less TWR. A single index named OEC17
is formulated (Eq. (5)) to accomplish this multi-ob-
jective task of di®erent quality characteristics (QC).
QC such as larger is better (L), smaller is better (S)
and nominal is best (N) is assigned to the responses
according to the desired quality. The output respon-
ses are normalized and weights and QC are assigned
to conform to a common goal of the OEC, which
is of the maximization type. Weights and QC type is
assigned to the response parameters owing to the
following reasons:
1. High weight (40%) is assigned to MDR due to the
fact that the intended work is to alter the surface
quality of workpiece by deposition of tool material
and quality of deposition will be better if net ma-
terial transferred to the base material is higher.
QC ¼ L has been chosen for MDR.
2. Surface quality in terms of surface ¯nish (or SR) is
an uncompromising demand for any material from
ancient time, so SR is assigned high weight of 40%.
Lower the surface SR, higher is the surface ¯nish,
so QC ¼ S is chosen for SR.
3. TWR is assigned comparatively lower weight of
20% as the main focus is laid onto workpiece
surface. QC ¼ S is selected for TWR owing to the
desire of getting good deposition at the cost of
minimum tool wear.
The calculation of OEC for three output measures X,
Y and Z with weight percentages Wx , Wy and Wz ,
respectively, are as given in Eq. (5).

1750007-7
 S. Chakraborty et al.

Table 4. Overall evaluation criterion.

(a) Assigned weights and QC

Response Best Worst QC Weight

MDR 0.62 17.9 L 40

SR 1.98 6.02 S 40
TWR 1.28 193.25 S 20

(b) ANOVA for OEC

Source Degree of freedom Sum of square Mean square F-ratio Prob> F Contribution (%)

Compaction load 3 115.35 38.45 1.26 0.382 14.62

Current 3 162.30 54.10 1.77 0.269 20.56
Pulse duration 3 353.27 117.76 3.86 0.090 44.76
Composition 1 5.65 5.65 0.19 0.685 0.72
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

Error 5 152.62 30.52 — — 19.34

Total 15 789.19 — — — 100
R 2 ¼ 80.66 %, R 2 (adj) ¼ 41.98%
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

 OEC model is pulse duration followed by current,

X  Xmin
OEC ¼
Wx
Xmax  Xmin


Y  Ymin
þ 1
Wy
Ymax  Ymin


Z  Zmin
þ 1
Wz ;
Zmax  Zmin
where X is QC ¼ L type, Y and Z are of QC ¼ S type
and Wx , Wy and Wz are relative weights of MTR, SR
and TWR, respectively.
The OEC table along with assigned weights and
QC's are given in Table 4(a). E®ect of process para-
meters at di®erent levels on S/N of OEC is shown in
Fig. 4(d). The optimum level of process parameters
are compaction load of 10 Ton, current of 2 A, pulse
duration of 11
s and composition of SiC50:Cu50.
The ANOVA result of OEC is demonstrated in
Table 4(b). The highest contributing factor of the
compaction load and composition.
3.3. Con¯rmation test
Con¯rmation test is carried out in three sets based on
ð5Þ
the predicted optimum level of input parameters (2-1-
1-2). The responses of con¯rmation tests are shown in
Table 5. The S/N ratio obtained from average of OEC
is 39.6484, while the predicted value of S/N ratio was
43.4658. It can be clearly seen that the optimum
results yielded very less SR and TWR. MDR was also
less due to high bonding strength among SiC and Cu
powders inhibited by 20 Ton of compaction pressure.
3.4. Analysis of the deposited particles
The deposited layer of the work piece's surface is
analyzed by optical microscope and X-ray di®raction

Table 5. Responses of con¯rmation test.

MDR SR TWR Expected Deviation

Experiment condition Sr. No (mg/min) (
m) (mg/min) OEC Avg. OEC OEC (%)

Compaction load: 10 Ton 1 0.37 2.52 7.3527 68.61

Current: 2 A Pulse duration: 11
s 2 0.35 2.51 7.2235 67.84 68.99 72.43 4.99
Composition: 50:50 3 0.38 2.57 7.4012 70.52

1750007-8

(a)
Fig. 5. (Color online) Optical microscopic images of (a) deposited layer using 20 Ton SiC30:Cu70 compact tool; (b) de-
posited layer using 15 Ton SiC50:Cu50 compact tool; (c) parent material, interface and deposited layer.
(XRD) technique to validate the presence of any
foreign particle other than the workpiece.
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
3.5. Microscopic image analysis
Microscopic images of deposited layer using di®erent
compaction loads and composition of compact tools
are shown in Figs. 5(a)–5(b). From these images, the
presence of foreign material on the top surface of
workpiece is con¯rmed. It is also noted that at lower
current and pulse duration, a very uniform deposition
can be observed with low deep craters and at high
current and pulse duration, deep craters with uniform
deposition can be observed. Increase in pulse duration
and current results in more sparks, more craters, more
deposition of tool electrode material and increase in
SR but decreases with increase of compaction load
due to the density of compact tool increases which
results in less number of pores. Increase in percentage
of Cu in the pellets increases the bonding strength
which results in less erosion of tool and formation of
less craters on the workpiece. The partial magni¯ed
image near the interface of the parent material and
deposited layer is shown in Fig. 5(c). The tool elec-
trode material and parent material melts and soli-
di¯es repeatedly by the discharge energy, due to
which elements di®use each other and make the de-
posited material bond closely to the parent material.
It is by and largely considered that the metallurgical
bonding has happened in the interface.27
3.6. XRD analysis
XRD analysis was carried on the top surface of de-
posited layer of substrate to con¯rm the transfer of
tool material on the work surface and also to identify
1750007-9
Optimization and Surface Modi¯cation of Al-6351 Alloy
Deposited layer
Interface
Workpiece
(b) (c)
the phases of any compound formed during the EDC
process.28 The XRD plot of two samples deposited
with composition of SiC50–Cu50 and SiC30–Cu70
are shown in Figs. 6(a)–6(b). The peaks of Si, SiC,
Cu, Al are clearly visible along with peaks of inter-
metallic phases Al2 Cu and Al2CuMg. This shows that
material is transferred from the tool in elemental
state as well as in the form of carbides (SiC)3,29 and
gets deposited over the work surface forming a hard
layer of composite comprising of Si, SiC, Cu, Al,
Al2Cu and Al2CuMg.
3.7. Layer thickness (LT)
A ¯ne layer of deposition consists of an appreciable
amount of material transfer in to the substrate. To
¯nd the thickness of deposited layer, deposited
samples are sectioned with wire EDM and then the
sectioned samples are mounted, polished and also
etched to get a perfect depiction of the deposited
layer. The deposited LT has been measured using
optical microscope and is given in Table 6. The LT of
some deposited samples is shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7,
the deposited layer is the dark strip above the bright
looking narrow line. It is clearly seen from the ¯gure
that a uniform layer of SiC has been formed over the
base metal, which also proves the materials transfer
from electrode to substrate. A bright looking narrow
line on the very edge is also seen from the ¯gure
which is a recast layer. The recast layer is taking
place in the machined samples due to sectioning
them by wire EDM to ¯nd the LT, of those samples.
It is noted that for all levels of current, pulse dura-
tion and compaction load, LT value varies but LT
is directly proportional in all levels of composition.
The highest LT is achieved at 10 Ton compaction
 S. Chakraborty et al.

60 70
5 Ton SiC30:Cu70 10 Ton SiC50:Cu50
1,4
1 - Al; 2 - Si; 3 - SiC; 1 - Al; 2 - Si; 3 - SiC;
50 60
4 - Cu; 5 - Al2Cu; 4 - Cu; 5 - Al2Cu;
Intensity (arbitrary unit)→

Intensity (arbitrary unit)→

6 - Al2CuMg 50 1 6 - Al2CuMg
40
1
40 3
1,4
30
30
20 1 3
20 1
2
10 6
10
6 4 3 5 5 5 2 3 5 5 5
24 6 2 6 4 2
0 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2θ angle (degree)→ 2θ angle (degree)→
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. XRD plots of deposited samples using (a) 5 Ton SiC30:Cu70 compact tool and (b) 10 Ton SiC50:Cu50 compact tool.
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Table 6. LT and micro-hardness. load, 4 (A) current, 11 (
s) pulse duration and
SiC50:Cu50 composition.
Exp No. LT (
m) MH (HV)

1 51.872 149.029
2 67.868 296.14 3.8. Micro-hardness test
3 64.868 188.72
4 66.776 191.433 The main objective is to deposit a hard layer of SiC
5 75.22 229.056 and Cu on the upper surface of the substrate. So, it is
6 83.644 259.3 very much essential to check the hardness of the de-
7 43.016 197.95 posited layer. Micro-hardness of the deposited layer
8 56.48 193.25
(in HV) is measured by a micro-hardness tester
9 45.932 209.24
10 46.604 235.06 (Model: MMT-X series, Matsuzawa Co. Ltd., Japan)
11 53.82 194.843 by applying 50 gm load and 10 s of dwell time.
12 41.828 284.11 The output value is given in the form of Vickers
13 41.01 190.1 hardness and also given in Table 6. The micro-hard-
14 43.03 264.2 ness values of deposited layers ranged from 149.02 HV
15 52.1 301.05
to 301.05 HV, whereas micro-hardness of parent ma-
16 41.98 180.32
terial is 95 HV. The rise in micro-hardness is due

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Micrograph showing uniformly deposited layer of SiC/Cu over base metal of some samples.

1750007-10

to the transfer of hard tool material (SiC) over the
workpiece surface and it is directly proportional in
all levels of composition.
4. Conclusion
The present investigation illustrated the use of EDC
process in surface modi¯cation of Al-6351 alloy by
special green compact tool of SiC/Cu produced by
P/M. Addition of Cu powder increases the process
capability due to its high conductivity. An OEC was
formulated combining all responses by assigning
weights and QC to the responses according to prefer-
ence. Taguchi analysis and ANOVA was used to ¯nd
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
optimum process parameters and percentage contri-
bution of each input parameter on OEC. The depos-
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
ited layer was characterized by optical microscopy and
XRD analysis and increase in micro-hardness of the
foreign layer was observed compared to the parent
material. The results are summarized as follows:
. A wide range of MDR (0.08–0.81 mg/min), SR
(2.63–4.62
m) and TWR (2.2584–24.101 mg/min)
is observed in di®erent parametric combinations
of compaction load, current, pulse duration and
composition.
. In simultaneous optimization of MDR, SR and
TWR by formulating OEC, optimal level of para-
meters is achieved at compaction load of 10 Ton,
current of 2 A, pulse duration of 11
s and tool
composition of 50:50 by % weight of SiC and Cu.
. MDR, SR and TWR decreases with increase
in compaction load and composition of Cu as the
material becomes denser and less porous.
. MDR, SR and TWR increases with increase in
current and pulse duration as the intensity of spark
increases leading to more number of craters.
. Pulse duration emerged as the most signi¯cant
parameter (44.76%) e®ecting the OEC, followed by
current (20.56%), compaction load (14.62%) and
tool composition (0.72%).
. The deviation between actual and predicted values
of OEC at optimum condition was small 4.99%,
which justi¯es the experimentation process.
. Microscopic images and XRD analysis evidenced
the presence of a hard composite layer comprising
of Si, SiC, Cu, Al, Al2 Cu, and Al2 CuMg.
1750007-11
Optimization and Surface Modi¯cation of Al-6351 Alloy
. Micro-hardness of the deposited layer ranged from
149.02 HV to 301.05 HV while the parent material's
hardness is 95 HV and highest LT of 83.644(
m)
was measured which proved the transfer of foreign
particle in to the parent material.
Thus, it was possible to alter the surface properties
of Al-6351 alloy with the use of P/M green compact
tool (SiC/Cu). This process could be applicable in
industries as an alternative for surface modi¯cation
technique.
Acknowledgments
The authors are very much grateful to the ME De-
partment NIT Silchar for extending the facilities and
specially Dr. Promod Kumar Patowari, Associate
Professor ME Department NIT Silchar for his kind
cooperation. Authors are also very much grateful to
the editors and reviewers for their valuable advices
for signi¯cant modi¯cation and better presentation
of this paper.
References
1. J. W. Murray, M. W. Fay, M. Kunieda and A. T.
Clare, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213 (2013) 801.
2. Z. L. Wang, Y. Fang, P. N. Wu, W. S. Zhao and
K. Cheng, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 129 (2002) 139.
3. P. K. Patowari, U. K. Mishra and P. Saha, Int. J.
Manuf. Technol. Manag. 21 (2010) 83.
4. P. K. Patowari, P. Saha and P. K. Mishra, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 54 (2011) 593.
5. K. Furutania, A. Saneto, H. Takezawa, N. Mohri and
H. Miyake, J. Int. Soc. Precis. Eng. Nanotechnol. 25
(2001) 138.
6. S. Kumar, R. Singh, T. P. Singh and B. L. Sethi,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009) 3675.
7. J. Simao, H. G. Lee, D. K. Aspinwall, R. C. Dewes and
E. M. Aspinwall, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 43 (2003)
121.
8. Y. F. Chen, H. M. Chow, Y. C. Lin and C. T. Lin, Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 36 (2008) 490.
9. A. Das, N. K. Jain, A. Wanner and V. Schulze, in
Proc. the 3rd Int. and 24th AIMTDR Conf. 13–15
December 2010, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam,
India, pp. 527.
10. A. S. Gill and S. Kumar, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31
(2016) 514.
11. M. E. Krishna and P. K. Patowari, Mater. Manuf.
Process. 29 (2014) 1131.
 S. Chakraborty et al.
12. P. Janmanee and A. Muttamara, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258
(2012) 7255.
13. A. A. Khan, M. B. Ndaliman, A. M. Zain, M. F.
Jamaludin and U. Patthi, Appl. Mech. Mater. 110–
116 (2012) 725.
14. M. A. Razak, A. M. Abdul-Rani and A. M. Nanimina,
Int. J. Mater. Mech. Manuf. 3 (2015) 40.
15. A. Ahmed, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (2016) 467.
16. M. Rahang and P. K. Patowari, Mater. Manuf. Pro-
cess. 31 (2016) 422.
17. R. K. Roy, Design of Experiments using the Taguchi
Approach: 16 Steps to Product and Process Improve-
ment. (Wiley, New York, 2001).
18. K. Krishnaiah and P. Shahabudeen, Applied Design of
Experiments and Taguchi Methods, (PHI, India, 2012),
p. 368.
19. W. H. Yang and Y. S. Tarng, J. Mater. Process.
by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 06/29/16. For personal use only.
Technol. 84 (2007) 122.
20. M. Nalbant, H. Gokkaya and G. Sur, Mater. Des. 28
(2007) 1379.
Surf. Rev. Lett. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
1750007-12
21. S. Mukherjee, A. Kamal and K. Kumar, Procedia Eng.
97 (2014) 29.
22. A. Das and J. P. Misra, Mach. Sci. Technol. 16 (2012)
601.
23. M. E. Krishna and P. K. Patowari, Mater. Manuf.
Process. 29 (2014) 1131.
24. Y. Chen and S. M. Mahdavian, Wear 236 (1999)
350.


25. I. Puertas, C. J. Luis and L. Alvarez, J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol. 153–154 (2004) 1026.
26. I. Puertas, C. J. Luis and G. Villa, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 164–165 (2005) 1590.
27. P. Zilong, W. Zhenlong, D. Yinghuai and C. Hui,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2010) 129.
28. P. K. Patowari, U. K. Mishra, P. Saha and P. K.
Mishra, Mater. Manuf. Process. 26 (2011) 668.
29. P. K. Patowari, P. Saha and P. K. Mishra, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 80 (2015) 343.