Materials and Manufacturing Processes

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

CNC wire-cut EDM input variables analysis on Ni -

based superalloy (MONEL K-500)

A G Karthikeyan, K Kalaiselvan & N Muralidharan

To cite this article: A G Karthikeyan, K Kalaiselvan & N Muralidharan (2022) CNC wire-cut EDM
input variables analysis on Ni -based superalloy (MONEL K-500), Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 37:9, 1035-1044, DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2021.2001522

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2021.2001522

Published online: 15 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 142

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lmmp20
MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
2022, VOL. 37, NO. 9, 1035–1044
https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2021.2001522

CNC wire-cut EDM input variables analysis on Ni -based superalloy (MONEL K-500)
a a b
A G Karthikeyan , K Kalaiselvan , and N Muralidharan
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dr. N.G.P. Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, India; bDepartment of Mechatronics Engineering, Kongu
Engineering College, Perundurai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Wire-cut Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM) is a notable machining process to produce exact and Received 14 August 2021
accurate complex shape products. As a high corrosion resistance with high hardness and strength, Ni- Accepted 23 September 2021
based superalloy (MONEL K-500) is profoundly used in industries like aerospace, marine services, and keywords
automobile for applications, such as marine propeller and centrifugal pumps shaft. The process of WEDM MONEL K-500; WEDM; hybrid
is influenced by number of input variables. The proper setting of input variables is essential for accom­ T-GRA; Ni Superalloy; MRR;
plishing quality on machined components. In the present investigation, the input variables were pulse on Ra; Kerf Width; Surface
time (Ton), pulse off time (Toff), Gap Voltage (GV), Wire Feed Rate (WFR), and Wire Tension (WT) with five Morphology
levels considered. The response variables such as Kerf Width (k), Material removal Rate (MRR) and Surface
Roughness (Ra) are investigated using Taguchi L25 orthogonal array and machining responses variables
are optimized based on Hybrid Taguchi–Grey Relational Analysis (T-GRA) approach. ANOVA clearly
indicates that the Ton, GV and WFR are the foremost influencing input variables on the k, MRR, and Ra.
The machined surface morphology is investigated through Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) at
optimum conditions.

Introduction
WEDM is the most effective machining processes to develop the
intricate and precise components for aerospace, marine and
nuclear power plants. Recently, an extensive variety of materials
such as powder sintered materials, composites and superalloys are
machined using WEDM process. MONEL K-500 has the high
strength, hardness and corrosive resistance property. Due to its
good mechanical properties, it is highly used in aerospace, marine
and industrial applications. The rapid work hardening of MONEL
K-500 material, it is very difficult to process using conventional
machining techniques. Hence, WEDM process is used to produce
good quality of surface finish. The proper selection of input vari­
ables impacts the production and surface quality. It avoids the
problems such as wire rupture, short circuiting and component
surface damage.[1–3] The surface roughness is affected predomi­
nantly by increasing pulse on time while machining of silicon
carbide aluminum matrix composite using WEDM process.
Also, surface morphology resulted the increase in cracks, craters
and black spots when Ton as well as GV increased.[4] The max­
imum surface roughness developed on DC53 die steel machined
material by increased Ton and peak current in WEDM.[5] The
pulse on and spark cycle time were most significant factors in
improving MRR while machining advanced materials like sintered
Nd-Fe-B, grind wheels, carbon bipolar and metal foams in
WEDM.[6] The better surface finish was achieved by maintaining
average pulse off time while machining titanium aluminide alloy
on Wire EDM process.[7] Ravindranadh et al.[8] reported that Ton,
Toff and GV mainly influenced the MRR and Ra while machining
armor steel in WEDM using Taguchi Techniques. The improve­
ment of cutting rate and SR were found by increasing pulse on
duration and gap voltage while machining of Inconel 718
machined on WEDM.[9] Han et al.[10] reported that the surface
roughness gets affected by decreasing pulse duration and current
rating with change in polarity for irrespective of materials. Nain
et al.[11] used the taguchi gray relational algorithm for optimizing
the process parameters to improve the multiple output responses
on WEDM. Venkata Rao and Murthy[12] used the RSM, ANN and
SVM techniques to optimize the output responses like roughness
and tool vibration on boring of carbide coated on AISI 316 steel
tool in EDM process. Kuram et al.[13] utilized hybrid Taguchi-
Fuzzy optimization technique to improve multiple responses like
cutting force, tool electrode wear ratio and average surface rough­
ness while machining stainless steel (AISI304) on micro milling
operation. The multi objective NSGA-II used to improve the sur­
face finish and MRR in WEDM.[14] The several quality character­
istics were improved by gray relational grade while machining
chromium alloy (D2 steel) in EDM through Taguchi Grey
Relational Analysis approach.[15] Bisari and Shandilya[16] reported
that the average surface roughness and cutting rate of Nimonic
C-263 superalloy increased, when spark energy and peak current
increased. Hence, microstructural analysis resulted that the cracks,
craters and globules presented in machine surface. Chavan et al.[17]
revealed the tool wear and machining force were concentrated
more in good mechanical properties of Nimonic 80A super alloy
material on WEDM for increasing the productivity rate. Dey and
Pandey[18] revealed that multiple responses like kerf width, cutting
rate and Roughness were improved for Aluminum Matrix
Composite (AA6061/cenosphere) in WEDM using Grey-
Response surface methodology hybrid method. Kuar et al.[19]
revealed that improvement of multiple responses in Nd:YAG

CONTACT A G Karthikeyan karthikeyanyasi@gmail.com Dr. N.G.P. Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, 641048, India
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
1036 A G. KARTHIKEYAN. ET AL.
laser cutting process using Taguchi-Grey Relational Analysis.
Amitava et al.[20] revealed that improvement of surface roughness
and reduce recast layer formation by multicut strategy while
machining of Nimonic c-263 superalloy in WEDM. Garg and
Jain[21] investigated that Multi-objective responses like cutting
speed rate and average surface roughness were improved when
machining Ti 6-2-42 aerospace alloy on WEDM using desirability
function technique. Also, interaction effects between wire feed rate
and input current has been influenced the surface roughness
highly. The process parameter of the WEDM influences the output
performances more and ANOVA used to found most significant
factors on output responses.[22] Santhanakumar et al.[23] has found
the Grey-Response Surface Methodology for obtained optimum
process parameters of Abrasive Water Jet Machining of Ceramics
tiles material. Sudhir et al.[24] has revealed that gray grade value has
been improved by TGRA method while AISI420 stainless steel on
die-sinking EDM process. Muralidharan et al.[25] investigated the
machinabilty study of AA2024/ZrB2 on WEDM. The optimum
process parameters for the best MRR and Surface Roughness were
found using desirability function approach. Pramanik et al.[26]
reported that the pulse on time and wire tension affected more
on dimensional accuracy while machining titanium alloy. Aldrin
et al.[27] has revealed that peak current predominantly influenced
the MRR and Ra while machining high strength manganese steel
material in WEDM process. Shihab[28] investigated that desirabil­
ity function approach given better improvement in multiple out­
put responses like k, MRR and Ra while machining Aluminum
alloy in WEDM.
Based on literatures, it is found that few studies on MONEL
K-500 using WEDM are reported. The multiobjective optimi­
zation on responses variables, such as MRR found maximum
and k and Ra found minimum. Hence, in this paper, the
machining of MONEL K-500 is studied using WEDM. The
multiobjective optimization algorithm as T-GRA is used to
find out the optimum input variables levels for k, MRR, and
Ra. The input variables and its levels influencing the k, MRR
and Ra were identified. The SEM morphology analysis also
reported for the machined surface.
Material and methods
The MONEL K-500 of size 100 x 80 x 8 mm workpiece is used
in this present work. The chemical and physical properties of
MONEL K-500 are presented in Table 1. The SPRINTCUT
CNC WEDM and 0.25 mm diameter of brass wire electrode
used to conduct the experiments. The high thermal energies
influenced in between wire electrode and the work material for
Table 1. Chemical Composition and Physical Properties of MONEL K-500.
Chemical Composition Physical Properties
Elements Composition % Density Melting Point
Nickel 63% 8.4 4 g/cm3 1300°C
Copper 27–33%
Aluminum 2.3–3.15%
Titanium 0.35–0.85%
Iron 2%
Manganese 1.5%
Silicon 3.85%
removal of material. Dielectric medium like de-ionized water
was used to remove debris. The photograph of SPRINTCUT
WEDM with MONEL K-500 workpiece setting is presented in
Fig. 1. Based on the trial experiments, the range and input
variables levels, such as Ton (A), Toff (B), GV (C), WFR (D),
and WT (E) utilized are presented in Table 2. L25 Taguchi
orthogonal array design matrix is used to find the multiple
responses variables like k, MRR and Ra. L25 orthogonal array
design matrix is presented in Table 3. The cutting time for the
machining component profile of 5x5x8 mm were taken using
the stop watch. Also, cutting speed of VC ~ mm/min for each
sample with respect to time duration of t ~ min is calculated.
The photograph of machined profile sample is presented in
Fig. 2. The non-contact video measuring system with travel
range of 2” x2” x 4” is used to measure the k. The photograph of
k measurement for the sample is presented in Fig. 3. The MRR
is evaluated using Eq. [1],[9]
MRR ¼ ktVc ρg=min (1)
where k ~ Kerf Width (mm), t ~ thickness of work material
(mm), Vc ~ Cutting Speed (mm/min), ρ ~ Density of the
material (g/mm3).
Mitutoyo roughness tester of SJ-410 utilized to calculate the
Ra values. The standard drive unit of 5.04 × 1.41 × 1.83 inch
with stylus tip radius of 2 µm was adapted. The photograph of
surface roughness measurement for the sample is presented in
Fig. 4. The responses variables of k, MRR and Ra results are
presented in Table 3.
Hybrid Taguchi-Grey Relational Analysis (T-GRA)
The Taguchi technique is the robust parameter design for
statistical quality control. In this method, signal – to – Noise
(S/N) ratio have three categories ie., smaller the better, nominal
the better and larger the better. It is used for finding the better
optimum input variables for single response variable charac­
teristics at a time. Taguchi Grey Relational Analysis multi­
objective optimization technique is implemented in this
present study. The following iterations were used for finding
the gray grade values of multiple responses variables.
Iteration 1: The responses variables, such as k, MRR, and Ra
were converted into S/N ratio values by Taguchi technique. The
following expressions in Eq. [2–3] used to find the S/N ratio for the
responses variables and results are presented in Table 4. The MRR
is the Larger the better response variable characteristics and loga­
rithmic transformation of loss function is expressed as
X
n
S=N ¼ 10log10½1=n� ½1=y2� (2)
i¼1
The kerf width (k) and Surface Roughness (Ra) are smaller the
better response variables characteristics and logarithmic trans­
formation of loss function is expressed as
X
n
S=N ¼ 10log10½1=n� ½y2� (3)
i¼1
 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1037

WIRE DRIVE UNIT

WIRE SPOOL

DIELECTRIC
FLOW CONTROL

CONTROL
PANEL

AUTO WIRE
CONTROL

WORK HEAD
ASSEMBLY

Figure 1. CNC- WEDM (Sprintcut) Machine Setting for Machining.

Table 2. Range and Levels of input variables. yij min½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n�

LEVELS
X ij ¼
max½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n� min½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n�
Input Variables Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 Unit
(4)
Ton A 4 5 6 7 8 µs
Toff B 4 5 6 7 8 µs
GV C 50 55 60 65 70 V The normalization of smaller the better Kerf Width and
WFR D 3 4 5 6 7 mm/min Surface Roughness expressed as
WT E 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 g

max½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n� yij

Iteration 2: In gray relational analysis, normalization of S/N
ratio for the experimental result was executed in the series
between zero and one. The normalization of Larger the better
Material Removal Rate is expressed as
X ij ¼
max½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n� min½yij; i ¼ 1; 2 . . . . . . ::n�
(5)
Equations (4–6) used for finding the normalized and deviation
sequence values of responses variables, such as k, MRR, and Ra
and presented in Table 5.
1038 A G. KARTHIKEYAN. ET AL.

Table 3. Taguchi orthogonal array design matrix with experimental results.

Input Variables Response Variables
MRR
Exp. runs Ton Toff GV WFR WT k (mm) (g/min) Ra (µm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 0.312 0.03160 3.643
2 1 2 2 2 2 0.325 0.03072 3.742
3 1 3 3 3 3 0.342 0.03695 3.986
4 1 4 4 4 4 0.322 0.03044 4.957
5 1 5 5 5 5 0.345 0.02765 4.505
6 2 1 2 3 4 0.356 0.03606 3.755
7 2 2 3 4 5 0.328 0.03986 5.424
8 2 3 4 5 1 0.318 0.04080 4.153
9 2 4 5 1 2 0.348 0.03994 4.459
10 2 5 1 2 3 0.334 0.04510 3.825
11 3 1 3 5 2 0.36 0.04375 4.688
12 3 2 4 1 3 0.315 0.04892 3.683
13 3 3 5 2 4 0.372 0.04521 4.340
14 3 4 1 3 5 0.334 0.04285 4.025
Figure 3. Kerf Width image from VMS.
15 3 5 2 4 1 0.357 0.04821 4.068
16 4 1 4 2 5 0.367 0.04213 4.569
17 4 2 5 3 1 0.349 0.04242 4.589
18 4 3 1 4 2 0.327 0.03533 3.904 � � Δ min þ�Δ max
19 4 4 2 5 3 0.353 0.03337 4.285 λ yo ðkÞ;yi ðkÞ ¼ (7)
ΔojðkÞ þ �Δ max
20 4 5 3 1 4 0.362 0.04400 3.736
21 5 1 5 4 3 0.365 0.03943 5.235
22 5 2 1 5 4 0.32 0.03889 4.114 The WEDM process parameters were evenly weighted. ζ is
23 5 3 2 1 5 0.366 0.04695 3.993 distinctive coefficient (range of 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1) and taken as 0.5.[18]
24 5 4 3 2 1 0.415 0.03362 3.728
25 5 5 4 3 2 0.378 0.03828 4.648 The Grey relational Grade coefficients for responses variables
were estimated by Eq. [7] and presented in Table 6.
Iteration 4: The GRG values for the responses variables
h i
Δoj ¼ k yo ðkÞ yj ð k Þ k (6) found using the below expression Eq. [8] and it is presented
in Table 6.

Iteration 3: The Grey relational grade (GRG) coefficients were X

m
calculated for individual experiments. Grey relational grade βj ¼½1=K � ½λij� (8)
coefficients expressed as i¼1

Figure 2. Work Head Assembly with machined work components.

 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1039

Table 5. Normalized and Deviation Sequence Values for Response Variables.

Deviation Sequence of Response
Normalized Response Variables Variables
Exp. No. k (mm) MRR (g/min) Ra (µm) k (mm) MRR (g/min) Ra (µm)
1 1.000 0.186 1.000 0.000 0.814 0.000
2 0.874 0.144 0.944 0.126 0.856 0.056
3 0.709 0.437 0.807 0.291 0.563 0.193
4 0.903 0.131 0.262 0.097 0.869 0.738
5 0.680 0.000 0.516 0.320 1.000 0.484
6 0.573 0.395 0.937 0.427 0.605 0.063
7 0.845 0.574 0.000 0.155 0.426 1.000
8 0.942 0.618 0.714 0.058 0.382 0.286
9 0.650 0.578 0.542 0.350 0.422 0.458
10 0.786 0.821 0.898 0.214 0.179 0.102
11 0.534 0.757 0.413 0.466 0.243 0.587
12 0.971 1.000 0.978 0.029 0.000 0.022
13 0.417 0.826 0.629 0.583 0.174 0.371
14 0.786 0.715 0.786 0.214 0.285 0.214
15 0.563 0.967 0.761 0.437 0.033 0.239
16 0.466 0.681 0.480 0.534 0.319 0.520
17 0.641 0.694 0.469 0.359 0.306 0.531
18 0.854 0.361 0.853 0.146 0.639 0.147
19 0.602 0.269 0.640 0.398 0.731 0.360
20 0.515 0.769 0.948 0.485 0.231 0.052
21 0.485 0.554 0.106 0.515 0.446 0.894
22 0.922 0.529 0.736 0.078 0.471 0.264
23 0.476 0.908 0.803 0.524 0.092 0.197
24 0.000 0.281 0.952 1.000 0.719 0.048
25 0.359 0.500 0.436 0.641 0.500 0.564

Table 6. GRG coefficients, GRG and Grey Grade Rank of Response Variables.
Coefficient of GRG
Exp. MRR (g/ Surface Grey Relational Grey Grade
No. k (mm) min) Roughness (µm) Grade (GRG) Rank
1 1.000 0.380 1.000 0.793 2
2 0.798 0.369 0.900 0.689 7
Figure 4. Surface Roughness experimental setup with result. 3 0.632 0.470 0.722 0.608 13
4 0.837 0.365 0.404 0.536 20
5 0.609 0.333 0.508 0.484 23
6 0.539 0.453 0.888 0.627 12
7 0.763 0.540 0.333 0.545 19
Table 4. S/N ratios for Responses Variables. 8 0.896 0.567 0.636 0.699 5
9 0.589 0.542 0.522 0.551 17
Input Variables Response Variables
10 0.701 0.736 0.830 0.756 3
Exp. runs Ton Toff GV WFR WT k (mm) MRR (g/min) Ra (µm) 11 0.518 0.673 0.460 0.550 18
1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5891 −30.0064 −12.6754 12 0.945 1.000 0.957 0.967 1
2 1 2 2 2 2 9.7623 −30.2511 −11.4621 13 0.462 0.742 0.574 0.593 14
3 1 3 3 3 3 9.3195 −28.6484 −12.0107 14 0.701 0.637 0.700 0.679 9
4 1 4 4 4 4 9.8429 −30.3317 −13.9044 15 0.534 0.938 0.677 0.716 4
5 1 5 5 5 5 10.1169 −31.1663 −13.0739 16 0.484 0.610 0.490 0.528 21
6 2 1 2 3 4 8.971 −28.8605 −11.4922 17 0.582 0.621 0.485 0.562 15
7 2 2 3 4 5 9.5251 −27.9884 −12.0953 18 0.774 0.439 0.773 0.662 11
8 2 3 4 5 1 9.6825 −27.7877 −14.6864 19 0.557 0.406 0.581 0.515 22
9 2 4 5 1 2 9.9515 −27.9708 −12.3672 20 0.507 0.684 0.905 0.699 6
10 2 5 1 2 3 9.2436 −26.9158 −11.324 21 0.493 0.529 0.359 0.460 25
11 3 1 3 5 2 9.1684 −27.1799 −12.9847 22 0.866 0.515 0.654 0.678 10
12 3 2 4 1 3 10.0338 −26.2106 −11.2292 23 0.488 0.844 0.718 0.683 8
13 3 3 5 2 4 8.7067 −26.8950 −13.1964 24 0.333 0.410 0.913 0.552 16
14 3 4 1 3 5 9.5251 −27.3613 −11.6526 25 0.438 0.500 0.470 0.469 24
15 3 5 2 4 1 8.9466 −26.3374 −12.1876
16 4 1 4 2 5 8.8739 −27.5091 −13.4198
17 4 2 5 3 1 9.1435 −27.4494 −13.2344
18 4 3 1 4 2 9.709 −29.0380 −11.8302
The Grey grade rank for the GRG values were ranked and
19 4 4 2 5 3 9.0445 −29.5333 −12.639 presented in Table 6. The highest rank for an experiment is
20 4 5 3 1 4 8.8258 −27.1317 −11.4481 shown in Fig. 5. The average of GRG for five input variables at
21 5 1 5 4 3 8.7541 −28.0831 −14.3783
22 5 2 1 5 4 9.897 −28.2029 −12.2853
five levels has been found using Minitab 16 software and
23 5 3 2 1 5 8.7304 −26.5667 −12.026 presented in Table 7 and Fig. 6. The Highest rank for the
24 5 4 3 2 1 7.639 −29.4668 −11.4295 GRG values reveals that closest optimum input variables levels
25 5 5 4 3 2 8.4502 −28.3397 −13.3453
for the responses variables.
1040 A G. KARTHIKEYAN. ET AL.

Table 8. ANOVA Results.

Input Percentage Contribution
Variables DF Seq. SS Adj. MS F-ratio (%) Ranking
Ton 4 0.06327 0.01192 0.75 22% 2
Toff 4 0.03515 0.00951 0.60 13% 4
GV 4 0.08403 0.01524 0.96 29% 1
WFR 4 0.05437 0.00916 0.58 19% 3
WT 4 0.03285 0.00382 0.24 12% 5
Error 4 0.01529 0.01582 5%
Total 24 0.28496
95% confidence level, DF-Degree of Freedom, MS-Mean Squares and SS- Sum of
Squares

5% for the 95% confidence level. The validation test was suc­
Figure 5. Highest Grey Grade Rank. cessfully conducted for optimum input variables setting for the
responses variables in WEDM.
Table 7. Grey relational Grade response table.
LEVELS Rank
Input (Max –
Mathematical model development
Symbol Variables 1 2 3 4 5 Min)
Mathematical relationships between response variables with
A Ton 0.6220 0.5917 0.7388* 0.7137 0.6647 0.1549(2)
B Toff 0.6356 0.6885* 0.6460 0.6235 0.5844 0.1220(4)
respect to the input variables were obtained using regres­
C GV 0.7010* 0.6491 0.5909 0.5891 0.6611 0.1838(1) sion analysis in Design Expert 13 software. Multiple-
D WFR 0.6399* 0.5665 0.5932 0.5839 0.6263 0.1325(3) response regression technique was utilized to found the
E WT 0.6247* 0.5686 0.5299 0.5852 0.5839 0.0808(5)
coefficients to develop mathematical models. Multiple out­
*Optimum Levels Average Value of GRG = 0.6242 put responses regression coefficient value (r2 ~ 1) model
selected among tested models. ANOVA significance of
input variables coefficient and mathematical model for k,
MRR, Ra and GRG were calculated and tested. Quadratic
model were developed for individual response variable and
GRG as expressed as
k ¼ 0:629322 þ 0:0191098Ton þ 0:00968487Toff 0:00706315GVþ
0:00648885WFR 0:0050696WT 0:0200504Ton Toff þ 0:0604541Ton GV
0:0565108Ton WFR þ 0:00673282Ton WT þ 0:026753Toff GV
0:0111414Toff WFR 0:00342632Toff WT 0:0374658GV WFRþ
0:0105125GV WT þ 0:0125925WFR WT þ 0:00343807Ton 2 0:00307611Toff 2
(9)

MRR ¼ 0:206794 þ 0:00419379Ton þ 0:00100133Toff

þ 0:00161559GV þ 0:00484943WFR 0:000459709WT
0:00280582Ton Toff n0:00163988Ton GV 0:00206124Ton WFR
Figure 6. GRG Main Effects Plot.
þ 0:00863927Ton WT 0:00457757Toff GV 0:00355337Toff WFR
0:00453473Toff WT þ 0:00304338GV WFR 0:0039960GV WT
Results and discussion
0:00199559WFR WT 0:0177563Ton 2 þ 0:00222539Toff 2
The wire-cut Electrical Discharge Machining of MONEL (10)
K-500 is conducted successfully. The optimum input variables
were calculated using the multi-objective optimization algo­ Ra ¼ 4:54839 þ 0:125994Ton þ 0:196913Toff þ 0:177226GVþ
rithm. The cause of the input variables on the responses vari­ 0:755974WFR þ 0:144887WT 0:470693Ton Toff þ
ables were detailed below. 1:47061Ton GV 1:07541Ton WFR þ 0:762693Ton WTþ
(11)
0:415038Toff GV 0:31609Toff WFR 0:135013Toff WT
0:612018GV WFR þ 0:105106GV WT þ 0:849038WFR WT
Analysis of variances (ANOVA) 0:202229Ton 2 0:4132Toff 2
ANOVA is formulated for finding the important input vari­
ables using GRG values significant model. The results are GRG ¼ 0:813501 0:071925Ton 0:152265Toff þ 0:119582GV
presented in Table 8. It clearly represented that among the 0:264631WFR 0:00207745WT þ 0:40757Ton Toff
five input variables, the GV was most significant input variable 0:907292Ton GV þ 0:593811Ton WFR 0:230301Ton WT
influenced the responses variables that contributed 29% and 0:476651Toff GV þ 0:103717Toff WFR 0:0127117Toff WTþ
ranking first followed by Ton contributed 22% as second rank, 0:472998GV WFR 0:0493046GV WT 0:198719WFR WTþ
WFR contributed 19% as third rank, Toff contributed 13% as 0:00618926Ton 2 þ 0:202541Toff 2
fourth rank and WT contributed 12% as fifth rank and error (12)
 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1041

Table 9. Confirmation Test results.

Levels setting k (mm) MRR (g/ min) Ra (μm) GRG Improvement in GRG
Initial Input Variables conditions A2B1C2D3E4 0.356 0.03606 3.755 0.627
Optimum Input Variables Prediction A3B2C1D1E1 0.252 0.05250 3.488 0.857
Experiment A3B2C1D1E1 0.298 0.05532 3.596 0.989 0.362

Figure 7. Contour Plots of k vs input variables.

Figure 8. Contour Plots of MRR vs input variables.

1042 A G. KARTHIKEYAN. ET AL.
The regression values of r2 = 0.958 for k, r2 = 0.988 for MRR,
r2 = 0.996 for Ra and r2 = 0.894 for GRG indicate that the model
is significant. Predicted responses variables values were calcu­
lated through the above Eq. [9–11] and its corresponding GRG
was calculated using Eq. [12] and presented in Table 9.
Input Variables interactions on k, MRR and Ra
The significant effect of input variables on response variables
areis presented in Fig. (7–9) contour plots. Figure 7(a) shows
that k decreases with lower the Ton and GV and vice versa.
Figure 7(b) shows that k is decreased, when increasing GV and
WFR. Figure 7(c) depicts that k gets decreased irrespective of
Toff and WT input variables levels. Figure 7(d) clearly indicates
that increasing of WFR and WT input variables decreased the
k. From the results, the response variables of k affected more by
Ton and GV. Higher the GV and Ton created more spark
around the wire electrode that affects the k more.
Figure 8(a) shows that MRR increases with higher the input
variables of Ton and GV and vice versa. Figure 8(b) indicates
that average levels of Toff and WFR gave nominal MRR value. If
both were increased, MRR increased. Figure 8(c) depicts that
MRR increases with higher the GV and WT. Figure 8(d) shows
that MRR increases with lower the WFR and higher the GV.
Also, MRR increased when WT increased gradually. As
a result, input variables, such as Ton, GV and WFR influenced
more MRR. From the contours plots, Ton, GV and WFR
influenced more on surface finish and resulted that created
more cracks, globules, and craters.
From the contour plot Fig. 9(a) observed that Ra is
reduced, when Ton and GV were minimum and vice
versa. Figure 9(b) shows that increase in Toff and WFR,
Figure 9. Contour Plots of Ra vs input variables.
average value of surface roughness obtained. Also,
decreasing in Toff and WFR decreased the surface rough­
ness. Figure 9(c) depicts that surface roughness decreases
with lower the Toff and WT. Figure 9(d) shows that max­
imum surface roughness obtained, when GV and WFR
were in average. As a result, more thermal energy due to
increase in Ton, GV and WT affected the surface rough­
ness more. The optimal setting input variables levels cre­
ated good surface finish and quality. It was clearly shown
from the SEM analysis of machined component surface in
WEDM.
Confirmation test
The optimum input variables values, such as Ton of A3 ~ 6 µs,
Toff of B2 ~ 5 µs, GV of C1 ~ 50 V, WFR of D1 ~ 3 mm/min and
WT of E1 ~ 1400 g from Table 7 were used to conduct the
conformity tests. The optimum input variables levels
(A3B2C1D1E1) and initial condition (A2B1C2D3E4) com­
parative investigational results were represented in Table 9.
The photograph of confirmation test experiment image
shown in Fig. 2. The mean response variables found from the
confirmation tests were k ~ 0.298 mm, MRR~0.05532 g/min
and Ra~3.596 μm and presented in Table 9. The improvement
of response variables of k as 0.298 mm from 0.312 mm, MRR as
0.05532 g/min from 0.04892 g/min and Ra as 3.596 μm from
3.643 μm were found. Also, the improvement of GRG value as
0.359 as mentioned in Table 9. The correlation between the
GRG response table and ANOVA were found similar, the most
influencing input variables from higher order were GV as Rank

Figure 10. SEM Micrograph (a) effect of Ton and GV, (b) effect of Toff, WFR and WT, (c) effect of optimum input variables levels.
1, Ton as Rank 2, WFR as Rank 3, Toff as Rank 4 and WT as
rank 5 shown similar. T-GRA technique is used for better
machinability on Wire-cut EDM process of MONELK-500.
Surface morphology analysis
The SEM morphology of WEDM processed specimen is
studied. Figure 10(a) shows that increases in Ton and GV,
more cracks, globules, and craters occurred. Spark gap and
pulse on time duration increases more thermal energy that
produced more cracks and large craters on machined sur­
face. Figure 8(a-d) indicates that increases in pulse on
time and gap voltage lead to rough surface finish.
Figure 10(b) shows that micro globules and holes were
found when Toff, WFR and WT were minimum. Hence,
average surface roughness (Ra) produced. Figure 9(a-d),
average value of surface roughness on workpiece by main­
taining medium levels of WFR, Ton and WT. Figure 10(c)
shows that the optimum input variables level setting pro­
duced better and smooth quality of machined component
surface. The specimen prepared for the optimum-level
setting of input variables were Ton of A3 ~ 6 µs, Toff of
B2 ~ 5 µs, GV of C1 ~ 50 V, WFR of D1 ~ 3 mm/min and
WT of E1 ~ 1400 g resulted the even distribution of
microstructure, minimum craters, cracks globules and
holes and it is shown Fig. 10(c).
Conclusions
The machinability study of MONEL K-500 on WEDM was
studied successfully. The impact of input variables on multiple
response variables like k, MRR, and Ra by T-GRA were
summarized.
MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1043
● The optimum input variables, such as Ton of A3 ~ 6 µs,
Toff of B2 ~ 5 µs, GV of C1 ~ 50 V, WFR of D1 ~ 3 mm/
min and WT of E1 ~ 1400 g resulted the response vari­
ables of MRR ~ 0.05532 g/min, Kerf Width ~ 0.298 mm
and Ra ~ 3.596 μm while using T-GRA technique
● ANOVA clearly indicated the GV followed by Ton is the
most predominant input variables affecting the k, MRR, and
Ra while machining of MONEL K-500 on WEDM process
● Contour plots witnessed that the GV, Ton and WFR have the
most significant effect on response variables. The Toff and
WT have less significant effect on the better response vari­
ables on k, MRR, and Ra. The mathematical models devel­
oped to predict the responses variables, such as k, MRR, and
Ra accurately for the precise range of machining input
variables
● The confirmation tests show that the improvement of kerf
width as 0.298 mm from 0.312 mm, MRR as 0.05532 g/min
from 0.04892 g/min and surface roughness as 3.596 μm from
3.643 μm. Hence, T-GRA approach proved the valuable
methodology for best combination of input variables of
WEDM
● Better surface quality is obtained for WEDM machined sur­
face observed and recorded using Scanning Electron
Microscope
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
A G Karthikeyan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9868-1099
K Kalaiselvan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3194-6619
1044 A G. KARTHIKEYAN. ET AL.
N Muralidharan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6106-9242
References
[1] Ho, K. H.; Newman, S. T.; Rahimifard, S.; Allen, R. D.;
Rahimifard, S.; Allen, R. D.; Rahimifard, S.; Allen, R. D.;
Rahimifard, S.; Allen, R. D. State of the Art in Wire Electrical
Discharge Machining (WEDM). Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2004,
44(12–13), 1247–1259. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.04.017.
[2] Jangali Satish, G.; Gaitonde, V. N.; Kulkarni, V. N. Traditional and
Non-traditional Machining of Nickel-based Superalloys: A Brief
Review. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 44, 12–16.
[3] Ezugwu, E. O. Key Improvements in the Machining of Difficult-to-
Cut Aerospace Superalloys. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2005, 45(12–
13), 1353–1367. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.02.003.
[4] Kumar, H.; Manna, A.; Kumar, R. Modeling of Process Parameters
for Surface Roughness and Analysis of Machined Surface in
WEDM of Al/SiC-MMC. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 2018, 71(1),
231–244. DOI: 10.1007/s12666-017-1159-x.
[5] Kanlayasiri, K.; Boonmung, S. Effects of Wire-EDM Machining
Variables on Surface Roughness of Newly Developed DC 53 Die
Steel: Design of Experiments and Regression Model. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 2007, 193, 459–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2007.04.085.
[6] Miller, S. F.; Shih, A. J.; Qu, J. Investigation of the Spark Cycle on
Material Removal Rate in Wire Electrical Discharge Machining of
Advanced Materials. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2004, 44(4),
391–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2003.10.005.
[7] Sarkar, S.; Mitra, S.; Bhattacharyya, B. Parametric Analysis and
Optimization of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining of γ-
Titanium Aluminide Alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005, 159
(3), 286–294. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.10.009.
[8] Ravindranadh, B.; Madhu, V.; Gogia, A. K. Effect of Wire EDM
Machining Parameters on Surface Roughness and Material
Removal Rate of High Strength Armor Steel. Mater. Manuf.
Process. 2013, 28(4), 364–368. DOI: 10.1080/
10426914.2012.736661.
[9] Aggarwal, V.; Khangura, S. S.; Garg, R. K. Parametric Modeling and
Optimization for Wire Electrical Discharge Machining of Inconel
718 Using Response Surface Methodology. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2015, 79(1–4), 31–47. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-015-6797-8.
[10] Han, F.; Jiang, J.; Yu, D. Influence of Machining Parameters on
Surface Roughness in Finish Cut of WEDM. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2007, 34(5–6), 538–546. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-006-0629-9.
[11] Nain, S. S.; Garg, D.; Kumar, S. Modeling and Optimization of
Process Variables of Wire-Cut Electric Discharge Machining of
Super Alloy Udimet-L605. Eng. Sci. Technol. An Int. J. 2017, 20
(1), 247–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2016.09.023.
[12] Venkata Rao, K.; Murthy, P. B. G. S. N. Modeling and
Optimization of Tool Vibration and Surface Roughness in Boring
of Steel Using RSM, ANN and SVM. J. Intell. Manuf. 2018, 29(7),
1533–1543. DOI: 10.1007/s10845-016-1197-y.
[13] Kuram, E.; Ozcelik, B. Micro-Milling Performance of AISI 304
Stainless Steel Using Taguchi Method and Fuzzy Logic
Modelling. J. Intell. Manuf. 2016, 27(4), 817–830. DOI: 10.1007/
s10845-014-0916-5.
[14] Kumar, K.; Agarwal, S. Multi-objective Parametric Optimization
on Machining with Wire Electric Discharge Machining. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2012, 62(5–8), 617–633. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-
011-3833-1.
[15] Singh, K. J. Optimization of Process Parameters of Powder Mixed
EDM for High Carbon High Chromium Alloy Steel (D2 Steel)
through GRA Approach. Grey Syst. Theory Appl. 2018, 8(4),
388–398. DOI: 10.1108/GS-01-2018-0001.
[16] Bisaria, H.; Shandilya, P. Experimental Investigation on Wire
Electric Discharge Machining (WEDM) of Nimonic C-263
Superalloy. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2019, 34(34), 83–92. DOI:
10.1080/10426914.2018.1532589.
[17] Chavan, V.; Kadam, S.; Sadaiah, M. Performance of
Alumina-Based Ceramic Inserts in High-Speed Machining of
Nimonic 80A. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2019, 34(1), 8–17. DOI:
10.1080/10426914.2018.1532084.
[18] Dey, A.;, and Pandey, K. M. Selection of Optimal Processing
Condition during WEDM of Compocasted AA6061/
Cenosphere AMCs Based on Grey-Based Hybrid Approach.
Mater. Manuf. Process. 2019, 33(14), 1549–1558 doi:10.1080/
10426914.2018.1453154.
[19] Kuar, A. S.; Acherjee, B.; Ganguly, D.; Mitra, S. Optimization of
Nd: YAGLaser Parameters for Microdrilling of Alumina with
Multiquality Characteristics via Grey–Taguchi Method, Materials
and Manufacturing Processes. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2012, 27(3),
329–336. DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2011.585493.
[20] Amitava, M.; Amit, R. D.; Alok, K. D.; Niladri, M. Modeling and
Optimization of Machining Nimonic C-263 Superalloy Using
Multicut Strategy in WEDM. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2016, 31(7),
860–868. DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1048462.
[21] Garg, M. P.; Jain, A.; Bhushan, G. Multi-objective Optimization of
Process Parameters in Wire Electric Discharge Machining of
Ti-6-2-4-2 Alloy. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39(2), 1465–1476. DOI:
10.1007/s13369-013-0715-x.
[22] Ghodsiyeh, D.; Golshan, A.; Izman, S. Multi-objective Process
Optimization of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining Based on
Response Surface Methodology. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2014,
36(2), 301–313. DOI: 10.1007/s40430-013-0079-x.
[23] Santhanakumar, M.; Adalarasan, R.; Rajmohan, M. Experimental
Modelling and Analysis in Abrasive Waterjet Cutting of Ceramic
Tiles Using Grey-Based Response Surface Methodology. Arab.
J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40(11), 3299–3311. DOI: 10.1007/s13369-015-
1775-x.
[24] Sudhir, K.; Sanjo, K. G.; Pawan, K. A.; Leeladhar, N. Multi-variable
Optimization in Die-sinking EDM Process of AISI420 Stainless
Steel. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2021, 36(5), 572–582.
[25] Muralidharan, N.; Chockalingam, K.; Parameshwaran, R.;
Kalaiselvan, K.; Nithyavathy, N. Optimization of CNC-WEDM
Parameters for AA2024/ZrB2 in Situ Stir Cast Composites Using
Response Surface Methodology with Desirability Function
Technique. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45(7), 5563–5579. DOI:
10.1007/s13369-020-04490-x.
[26] Pramanik, A.; Islam, M. N.; Basak, A. K.; Dong, Y.; Littlefair, G.;
Prakash, C. Optimizing Dimensional Accuracy of Titanium Alloy
Features Produced by Wire Electrical Discharge Machining. Mater.
Manuf. Process. 2019, 34(10), 1083–1090. DOI: 10.1080/
10426914.2019.1628259.
[27] Aldrin, R. J.; Balasubramanian, K.; Palanisamy, D.;
Emmanuel, A. G. S. Experimental Investigations on WEDM Process
for Machining High Manganese Steel. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2020, 35
(14), 1612–1621. DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2020.1779941.
[28] Shihab, S. K. Optimization of WEDM Process Parameters for
Machining of Friction-Stir-Welded 5754 Aluminum Alloy Using
Box–Behnken Design of RSM. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2018, 43(9),
5017–5027. DOI: 10.1007/s13369-018-3238-7.