Materials and Manufacturing Processes

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

Estimation of machinability performance in wire-

EDM on titanium alloy using neural networks

Uma Maheshwera Reddy Paturi, Suryapavan Cheruku, Sriteja Salike, Venkat

Phani Kumar Pasunuri & N.S. Reddy

To cite this article: Uma Maheshwera Reddy Paturi, Suryapavan Cheruku, Sriteja Salike, Venkat
Phani Kumar Pasunuri & N.S. Reddy (2022) Estimation of machinability performance in wire-EDM
on titanium alloy using neural networks, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 37:9, 1073-1084,
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2022.2030875

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2022.2030875

Published online: 27 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 111

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, 1073–1084
https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2022.2030875

Estimation of machinability performance in wire-EDM on titanium alloy using neural

networks
a b a a
Uma Maheshwera Reddy Paturi , Suryapavan Cheruku , Sriteja Salike , Venkat Phani Kumar Pasunuri , and N.
S. Reddy c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Hyderabad, India; bMechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University College
Station, College Station, Texas, USA; cSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The impact of process factors on wire-cut electrical discharge machining (WEDM) performance is complex Received 23 October 2021
and nonlinear. In the present work, initially, the WEDM tests were conducted on titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) Accepted 6 January 2022
with eight input factors and four machinability performance parameters. Later, an artificial neural network KEYWORDS
(ANN) model was established to estimate the WEDM performance. The ANN model with 8-5-5-4 archi­ WEDM; Ti-6Al-4V; roughness;
tecture produced a least mean squared error (MSE) and average prediction error (AE) for both training and speed; width; MRR;
test data sets. The precision of the ANN model was assessed by relating model predictions with the experimental; ANN
experimental values. The combined effect of WEDM variables on the machinability performance was
illustrated with the help of visual graphs. The R-value (correlation coefficient) of 0.9995 among WEDM test
values and ANN estimated values shows the robustness of the developed ANN model in establishing the
link between WEDM process factors and machinability parameters. The proposed model helps in mini­
mizing the time for fixing the process parameter values, thereby increasing production and process
efficiency.

Introduction flushing pressure, current, voltage, dielectric medium, wire

Titanium alloy of grade-5 (Ti-6Al-4V) is a predominantly con­
sumed material in the manufacturing sector. The extensive use
of this material largely depends on its superior qualities. Ti-
6Al-4V alloy is characterized by significant qualities like good
strength, resistance to corrosion, chemical stability, fatigue
resistance, excellent weldability, low thermal expansion, etc.
makes it an ideal choice for consumers.[1] These properties
enable its widespread application in the aerospace,[2–4] medical
sector,[5,6] additive manufacturing,[7,8] chemical industries,[9]
turbo machinery,[10] material science,[11] biomedical,[12,13] etc.
But, Ti-6Al-4V alloy is difficult-to-machine with conventional
turning and drilling operations due to high cutting tempera­
tures, the stickiness of the alloy, and work hardening behavior.
In addition, titanium alloys have a low elasticity in nature;
which causes spring back and chatter during machining results
in a deprived surface finish, dimensional imbalance, short
cutting tool life, and elevated heat generation.[14,15] Thus,
unconventional machining methods are the prime choice for
machining of titanium alloys.[16–18]
The WEDM technique is projected as a superior unconven­
tional machining process due to its advantage in generating
good surface quality and a high degree of accuracy in cutting
electrically conductive and high strength materials into geome­
trically complex profiles.[19–22] Considering the stochastic nat­
ure, more control factors, and complexity of the WEDM
process, optimal setting of input conditions (pulse on and off
duration, duty ratio, electrode feed, arc on and off duration,
tension, etc.) is a key step. In succession, they substantially
impact machining costs, productivity, and process
efficacy.[23,24] The machinability performance can be analyzed
effectively by establishing a mathematical model between input
variables and output of the experiment and selecting an appro­
priate optimization method.
Soft computing-based machine learning techniques have
deemed to be more ideal in recent years as they outperform
the conventional statistical tools and have been utilized by
several researchers in WEDM process modeling and to make
efficient process optimization.[25] Among different machine
learning methods, ANNs have been used by many researchers
in various manufacturing applications due to their capability to
establish the link between process variables and
responses.[26,27] Backpropagation-based neural network
(BPNN) approach was utilized to determine the impact of
input factors on the roughness in WEDM of nimonic 263
alloy.[28] The ANN was highly effective in process modeling
and estimated results were 99% in correlation with the practi­
cally measured values. Mangesh et al.[29] applied neural net­
work tool to model and estimate the performance variables in
WEDM of Al/SiCp composites. ANN predictions were found
to be very accurate and results validated output data with a very
high R-value of 0.99. In another study, Yuzliza et al.[30] success­
fully conducted ANN study to estimate the correlation between
machining parameters and responses during WEDM of nickel-
based super alloy. Sarkar et al.[31] implemented ANN approach

CONTACT Uma Maheshwera Reddy Paturi maheshpaturi@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Hyderabad,
Telangana 501510, India
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
1074 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.
to model and predict the performance during WEDM of
gamma titanium aluminide (γ-TiAl). Further, Hsien et al.[32]
planned a BPNN method to analyze and optimize the machin­
ing variables for roughness and cutting speed during WEDM
of pure tungsten. The ANN predictions were very accurate and
the prediction error is within 3% when matched with the
experimental outcome. Rahim et al.[33] applied neural net­
works to establish a correlation among inputs and surface
roughness during WEDM of the copper workpiece. The neural
network model predictions demonstrated a good agreement
with experimental data by giving R-value as high as 0.995.
Recently, Paturi et al.[34] adopted a BPNN to estimate the
machined surface quality during WEDM of Inconel 718. The
BPNN model predictions exhibited a remarkable agreement
with an R-value of 99.997%, signifying a solid fit among model
response and target data. In another work, Titus et al.[35]
applied a feed-forward BPNN approach to model the wire-
EDM of aluminum matrix composites. Based on the outcome
of the study, ANNs are substantial and accurate in estimating
the surface finish and material removal rate (MRR) in the
WEDM process.
From the overview of the literature surveyed, the reviews
reveal that ANNs were capable to model and comprehend the
WEDM of several materials such as TiAl, titanium alloys,
tungsten, copper, nimonic alloys, Inconel 718, Stavax steel,
metal matrix composites, etc. Most of the existing studies on
ANN modeling of WEDM process are restricted to a few input
parameters with a single output. Also, as per the author’s best
knowledge, the combination of ANN, WEDM, and Ti-6Al-4V
alloy involving many control factors with multiple responses of
the WEDM process is not reported. Therefore, the central
objectives of this research were to:
● Analyze the influence of eight inputs on WEDM perfor­
mance parameters.
Figure 1. WEDM experimental set-up along with roughness measurement on fabricated sample.
● Model the four performance criteria using ANN and
compare with the experimental outcome.
● Provide a visual representation of the interaction between
the process variables and their impact on the machinabil­
ity performance.
Materials and methods
Experimental work
WEDM, a non-contact machining process, is widely employed
to cut materials with superior strength and hardness. In the
present study, WEDM tests were conducted on EX 400
machine with a steady supply of dielectric medium. The experi­
mental system contains a workpiece holding table, wireframe
and feed system, dielectric flow system, and a pulse signal
generator power source. A rotating wire drum is used to supply
the wire electrode under constant tension. Deionized water
(dielectric fluid) and brass electrode of 0.25 mm diameter
with strength in tension of 900 N/mm2 and 1% elongation
are used in all the experiments. The dielectric fluid temperature
is kept steady at 27°C. The WEDM experimental set-up along
with fabricated samples are shown in Fig. 1.
Selection of work material and microstructure analysis
The application of titanium and its alloys have been prominent
in various commercial industries due to their distinctive qua­
lities compared to other pure metals and alloys. Numerous
types of titanium alloys like Ti-6Al-4V, Ti-6Al-4VELi, Ti-
5Al-2.5Sn, Ti-5Al-2Sn3Li, etc. are available in the market.
Among them, commercially available Ti-6Al-4 V is a widely
used material. The titanium alloy used in WEDM tests is
procured in the size of 200 mm x 110 mm x 11 mm from
Bharat Aerospace metals, an ISO certified authorized material

Table 1. The major elements of titanium alloy substance (wt.%).
Element C Fe Al V Ti
Composition 0.012 0.257 6.54 4.46 88.717
supplier. The composition of titanium alloy substance is tested
at Jyothi Spectro Analysis, Hyderabad, India. The composition
of the titanium alloy substance presented in Table 1 is con­
firmed to be a Grade 5 of titanium.
To enhance the material’s mechanical properties, titanium
alloys are heat-treated, then quenched and aged during
manufacturing to maintain their β-phase and decrease the
residual stress. It is essential to understand the α-phase and
β-phase transformations; therefore, the microstructure of the
Ti-6Al-4V has been examined. It is known that the titanium
properties are primarily influenced by the α-platelet thick­
ness, β-particle size, and colony size.[36,37] As the α-platelet
thickness increases, the yield strength diminishes continually.
In contrast, the thickness of the α-platelets affects the mate­
rial elongation more complexly. The specimen’s yield
strength and extensibility are also enhanced by reducing
the β-crystal’s particle size and colony size. As a result, β-
grain size and the colony mass have a greater impact on the
tensile characteristics of Ti-6Al-4V alloy than the α-platelets
thickness.[38] Similar observations of α and β-phase transfor­
mations have been observed in the current work. Figure 2
represents the microstructure of the workpiece. The micro­
structure shows the transformed β-phase with α-phase in the
matrix of solid titanium solution.
Figure 2. Microstructure of transformed beta with alpha of Ti-6Al-4V alloy.
MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1075
Selection of WEDM parameters and machinability
Others measures
0.057
Surface roughness is one of the significant machining attri­
butes in any machining process, which substantially
impacts the performance of mechanical parts and affects
the component’s operational life. In WEDM, the surface
finish quality of the machined parts is highly influenced
by the range of process parameters and machining condi­
tions. The occurrence of overcut on the workpiece during
the machining is measured using the kerf width. The varia­
tion in kerf width directly indicates the amount of material
utilization. In general, the larger the value of kerf width, the
greater the possibility of material wastage. Cutting speed
and MRR are the other two primary parameters that influ­
ence determining the work piece’s functional performance.
MRR indicates how quickly the workpiece is being
machined. A high machining rate is usually desirable, clo­
sely connected to productivity and machinability perfor­
mance. Further, machinability performance largely relies
on the choice of WEDM parameters such as pulse on and
off duration, wire feed rate, arc on and off duration, servo
voltage, flushing pressure, and wire tension. Therefore, in
the present study, machinability performance in terms of
surface roughness, cutting speed, kerf width, and MRR were
examined under varying process parameters. A surface pro­
file meter is used to determine the surface finish on fabri­
cated samples. The average of three measurements on each
machined surface sample is recorded.
1076 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.

Design of experiments neuron is transferred to each neuron in the successive layer.

Choosing the right experimental array and selecting process
parameters are the two vital steps for the experimental design.
In this work, Taguchi L27 experimental array was adopted for
planning WEDM experiments, which has 27 rows equivalent to
the number of runs planned. The different levels of each input
parameter and corresponding measured machinability perfor­
mance are presented in Table 2.
Parametric modeling
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical approach applied
to comprehend the associated connection between process
inputs and measured outputs and to interpret the results in
a controlled way after a series of practical runs. In the present
study, ANOVA is applied to quantify the percentage of con­
tribution of each input condition (such as pulse on and off
duration, wire feed rate, arc on and off duration, servo voltage,
flushing pressure, and wire tension) on the WEDM perfor­
mance indicators (surface roughness, cutting speed, kerf width,
and MRR). In addition, 3D surface plots were generated to
present the measured output variation with respect to process
variables.
ANN modeling
ANNs can derive the optimum values from complex and non­
linear data with acceptable efficiency. ANN works on the
principle of transmitting information through the interconnec­
tion of several neurons. They simulate the human nervous
system and function in a way like a brain. Output from one
Required output at each node is calculated using suitable
activation and transfer functions. Depending on the data, an
additional factor known as synaptic weight modifies the output
signal value and helps in the minimization of errors.
Implementing a highly efficient training algorithm directs
a way for obtaining desired weights which ultimately results
in accurate output. Moreover, opting for the required neural
network architecture is critical in ANN modeling, and
a suitable procedure needs to be followed to determine the
optimal topology.
In the present work, ANN modeling has been performed
using MATLAB software. A multi-layered feedforward neural
network with a backpropagation algorithm was chosen to
model wire-EDM of titanium alloy. Initially, the experimental
datasets were distributed into training, testing, and validations
in the proportions of 70%, 15%, and 15%, respectively. To
decrease the complexity of the data and allow smooth compu­
tation, data was normalized. The normalized experimental data
was transferred to the model in terms of input and output
matrices. To establish the nonlinear relationships among
input and output parameters, the trainlm function for training
and the tansig function for activation were used. Independent
WEDM parameters considered are pulse on duration, pulse off
duration, wire feed, arc on duration, arc off duration, voltage,
flushing pressure, and wire tension. The four dependent para­
meters are surface roughness, cutting speed, kerf width, and
MRR. With performance indices such as mean squared error
(MSE) and average prediction error (AE), optimal neural net­
work architecture was determined. Calculation of MSE and AE
between predicted and experimental results was performed
using Eq. (1) and (2), respectively.

Table 2. Experimentally measured WEDM performance characteristics.

Pulse on Pulse off Wire feed, Arc on Arc off Flushing Wire Surface Cutting Kerf MRR
Test duration, duration, C (mm/ duration, duration, Voltage, pressure, tension, roughness, speed, CS width, KW (mm3/
No. A (µs) B (µs) min) D (µs) E (µs) F (V) G (kg/cm2) H (g) SR (µm) (mm/min) (mm) min)
01 16 30 3 3 20 25 4 8 3.205 4.322 0.68 123.28
02 16 30 3 3 30 35 5 10 3.159 5.238 0.66 149.41
03 16 30 3 3 40 45 6 12 3.224 4.238 0.65 120.91
04 16 40 6 4 20 25 4 10 2.793 4.182 0.67 119.30
05 16 40 6 4 30 35 5 12 3.304 4.695 0.65 133.94
06 16 40 6 4 40 45 6 8 3.188 3.675 0.6 104.85
07 16 50 9 5 20 25 4 12 3.265 2.890 0.65 82.46
08 16 50 9 5 30 35 5 8 3.133 4.444 0.62 126.77
09 16 50 9 5 40 45 6 10 3.363 3.259 0.64 92.96
10 20 30 6 5 20 35 6 8 3.372 2.943 0.61 83.95
11 20 30 6 5 30 45 4 10 3.318 3.340 0.64 95.29
12 20 30 6 5 40 25 5 12 3.156 4.583 0.66 130.73
13 20 40 9 3 20 35 6 10 3.263 5.534 0.65 157.87
14 20 40 9 3 30 45 4 12 3.57 4.592 0.62 131.01
15 20 40 9 3 40 25 5 8 3.511 5.641 0.57 160.90
16 20 50 3 4 20 35 6 12 3.300 5.789 0.66 165.14
17 20 50 3 4 30 45 4 8 3.349 4.746 0.65 135.39
18 20 50 3 4 40 25 5 10 3.332 5.605 0.63 159.88
19 24 30 9 4 20 45 5 8 3.526 5.116 0.65 145.93
20 24 30 9 4 30 25 6 10 3.901 5.736 0.65 163.63
21 24 30 9 4 40 35 4 12 3.906 2.811 0.63 80.19
22 24 40 3 5 20 45 5 10 3.756 4.746 0.65 135.39
23 24 40 3 5 30 25 6 12 3.554 4.476 0.62 127.67
24 24 40 3 5 40 35 4 8 3.478 4.782 0.64 136.42
25 24 50 6 3 20 45 5 12 3.610 4.746 0.66 135.391
26 24 50 6 3 30 25 6 8 3.619 5.729 0.65 163.42
27 24 50 6 3 40 35 4 10 4.091 4.798 0.67 136.86
 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1077

1X N �2
MSE ¼ Tip Oip (1)
N i¼1

1X N �
�Tip
��
AE ¼ Oip � (2)
N i¼1

where, Tip is experimental data, Oip is the estimated data, and

N is the available datasets.

Results and discussion

Data normalization
Data mining approaches like ANN require normalization to
avoid ill-conditioning of network and assure steady conver­
gence of synaptic weights and bias. Normalization helps
remove geometrical bias in the given data and distributes
equal importance to all the input values, thereby avoiding
the domination of more significant value over smaller
value. Thus, data normalization is essential to eliminate
anomalies and input the standardized data into the network
model. In the current study, different procedures were used
to normalize independent and dependent values. The inde­
pendent values were normalized to 0 to 1, whereas output
values were normalized using logarithmic transformation.
Functions used for normalizing the independent and
dependent parameters are given in Eq. (3) and (4), respec­
tively. ANN processing with the inclusion of normalization
is presented using the flow chart shown in Fig. 3.
xi xmin
Xi ¼ (3)
xmax xmin

Yi ¼ logð1 þ yi Þ (4) Figure 3. Data normalization procedure used in ANN processing.

where, xi refers to the respective input value, xmin refers to the
minimum input data and xmax refers to the maximum output
data. Yi refers to the transformed output data and yi refers to
the actual output data.
Network optimization
Neural network optimization was performed by developing many
neural network models and assessing their performance-based
statistical errors such as MSE and AE. Several ANN models were
tried by varying neurons in each hidden layer, and the respective
model’s MSE and AE were calculated to know the model with the
least error. MSE and AE variation at each neuron in the single
and double hidden layer are displayed in Fig. 4. From Fig. 4, it is
seen that the model with 2 hidden layers with 5 neurons in each
layer found the least error in both train and test data. Since the
model needs to perform well during both training and testing, the
model with 8-5-5-4 topology has opted, which has very low AE
and MSE of 0.116 and 0.09 for train data, respectively. Therefore,
with 8 input neurons, 2 hidden layers with 5 neurons each, and
the output layer with 4 neurons were finalized to predict the
WEDM responses. Momentum and learning rate values were
fixed as 0.001 and 0.1 respectively. The optimal neural network
architecture of this study is depicted in Fig. 5.
Moreover, the model’s performance on the validation dataset
was evaluated to prevent the overtraining of data. The developed
model was trained with several epochs and, MSE and AE of
train, test, and validation data were calculated at each epoch to
examine the model efficiency. Variation of MSE and AE of train,
test, and validation datasets is presented in Fig. 6. It is noticed
from Fig. 6 that the best validation performance is at epoch four
i.e., MSE of 0.008156. Hence, the model’s training was termi­
nated at epoch 4, and the corresponding trained model was used
in predictions. Also, the error histogram shown in Fig. 7 depicts
the number of instances the type of error has occurred for train,
test, and validation data. It can be noticed from Fig. 7 that the
least error of 0.007992 has occurred more significant number of
times, whereas the high value of errors appeared at
a significantly smaller number of instances. Thus, the model
has predicted values with minimum error and high precision.
Model accuracy
The precision of the neural network was judged with the
R-value between experimental results and ANN estimates.
Higher the R-value, the greater the efficiency of the model.
1078 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.

Figure 4. MSE and AE variation corresponding to single and double hidden layer with different neurons.

Figure 5. Schematic view of ANN model with 8-5-5-4 architecture.

A measure of linear association between observed and pre­
dicted values can be observed through R-value. An R-value of
1 indicates an ideal fit for the model data. The model needs to
perform well on all the datasets, i.e., train, test, and validation.
Hence, R-value was calculated for train, test, and validation
datasets to observe the model’s overall accuracy. Figure 8
demonstrates the correlation graph obtained for train, test,
validation, and all data. R-values of 0.99985 for train data,
0.99898 for test data, and 0.99861 for validation data in Fig. 8
indicate the proposed neural network model’s good prediction
 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1079

Figure 6. Validation performance of the developed ANN model. Figure 7. The histogram for calculated errors between targets and outputs.

Figure 8. ANN model prediction efficacy with training, validation, test, and all datasets.
1080 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.

Table 3. Comparison between WEDM test results and ANN model estimated between many input and output parameters. Evaluating the
values.
model’s performance only on a single parameter does not
Test WEDM test results ANN model estimates Absolute provide enough evidence to clarify its high accuracy. Hence,
No. SR CS KW MRR SR CS KW MRR error (%) in the present study, absolute error in percentage (Δ) is also
01 3.205 4.322 0.68 123.28 3.167 4.064 0.674 115.92 3.489385 considered to observe the prediction error at each value in the
02 3.159 5.238 0.66 149.41 3.197 5.496 0.665 156.77 2.978015
03 3.224 4.238 0.65 120.91 3.224 4.240 0.65 120.91 3.71E-14 data set and the model’s overall efficiency. The absolute error in
04 2.793 4.182 0.67 119.30 2.832 4.440 0.675 126.66 3.636366 percentage between experimental values and ANN model pre­
05 3.304 4.695 0.65 133.94 3.304 4.695 0.65 133.94 1.97E-14 dictions is estimated based on Eq. (5).
06 3.188 3.675 0.6 104.85 3.150 3.417 0.594 97.49 4.043123
07 3.265 2.890 0.65 82.46 3.265 2.890 0.65 82.46 2.31E-14 � �
�Exp Pred�
08 3.133 4.444 0.62 126.77 3.094 4.1863 0.614 119.41 3.433983 Δ¼� � � � 100 (5)
09 3.363 3.259 0.64 92.96 3.401 3.517 0.645 100.32 4.461653 Exp �
10 3.372 2.943 0.61 83.95 3.410 3.201 0.615 91.31 4.896787
11 3.318 3.340 0.64 95.29 3.318 3.340 0.64 95.29 2.14E-14 Calculated absolute error in percentage between experimental
12 3.156 4.583 0.66 130.73 3.118 4.325 0.654 123.37 3.330149 values and ANN model predictions is presented in Table 3. The
13 3.263 5.534 0.65 157.87 3.263 5.534 0.65 157.87 1.08E-14
14 3.57 4.592 0.62 131.01 3.540 4.334 0.614 123.64 3.301964 last column of Table 3 indicates the average absolute error in
15 3.511 5.641 0.57 160.90 3.549 5.899 0.575 168.26 2.804787 percentage for all the machinability measures. From Table 3, it
16 3.300 5.789 0.66 165.14 3.262 5.531 0.654 157.78 2.730374 is perceived that WEDM test results and ANN estimated values
17 3.349 4.746 0.65 135.39 3.387 5.004 0.655 142.75 3.219132
18 3.332 5.605 0.63 159.88 3.332 5.605 0.63 159.88 1.57E-14 are observed to be in a significant harmony with each other.
19 3.526 5.116 0.65 145.93 3.526 5.116 0.65 145.93 1.37E-14 The peak absolute percentage error has been recorded as
20 3.901 5.736 0.65 163.63 3.863 5.478 0.644 156.27 2.709271 5.05%, indicating the high prediction capability of the ANN
21 3.906 2.811 0.63 80.19 3.944 3.069 0.635 87.55 5.055854
22 3.756 4.746 0.65 135.39 3.717 4.488 0.644 128.03 3.188023 model. Moreover, the mean absolute error in percentage of the
23 3.554 4.476 0.62 127.67 3.593 4.734 0.625 135.03 3.37707 developed ANN model is 2.332%, which validates the precision
24 3.478 4.782 0.64 136.42 3.478 4.782 0.64 136.42 2.64E-14 of the model. High R-value and very less absolute percentage
25 3.610 4.746 0.66 135.391 3.648 5.004 0.665 142.75 3.195119
26 3.619 5.729 0.65 163.42 3.619 5.729 0.65 163.42 1.31E-14 error contribute to the ANN’s applicability in modeling non­
27 4.091 4.798 0.67 136.86 4.052 4.540 0.664 129.50 3.131359 linear complex processes, especially in problems involving
more than one output parameter.

Effect of input parameters on the machinability measures

capability. Specifically, an R-value of 0.99898 for the test sam­
ple justifies the model’s high accuracy as it was performed on
unseen data. However, the R-value of 0.9995 for all datasets
demonstrates that the model has successfully predicted the
WEDM performance and establishes nonlinear relationships
Along with modeling the process parameters, finding the influ­
ence of each parameter on the output value is also essential to
understand the process. In the present work, to know the most
influencing WEDM process parameter, the percentage contri­
bution of each parameter on the measured machinability

Table 4. ANOVA for different machinability performances.

Sum of squares Test F Test P PC (%)
Factors DF SR CS KW MRR SR CS KW MRR SR CS KW MRR SR CS KW MRR
A 1 1.28374 1.9980 0.000000 1624.9 49.53 1.67 0.00 1.67 0.090 0.419 1.000 0.420 67.702 11.137 0 11.133
B 1 0.00483 0.7519 0.000000 611.9 0.19 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.740 0.573 1.000 0.574 0.2547 4.1912 0 4.1924
C 1 0.06492 0.8533 0.001422 694.0 2.51 0.71 2.56 0.71 0.359 0.554 0.356 0.554 3.4237 4.7564 10.261 4.7549
D 1 0.04080 4.8828 0.000356 3972.7 1.57 4.08 0.64 4.07 0.428 0.293 0.570 0.293 2.1517 27.217 2.5689 27.218
E 1 0.07934 0.0001 0.002336 0.1 3.06 0.00 4.20 0.00 0.331 0.995 0.289 0.995 4.1842 0.0005 16.856 0.0006
F 1 0.01385 0.6719 0.000044 546.3 0.53 0.56 0.08 0.56 0.598 0.591 0.825 0.591 0.7304 3.7453 0.3175 3.7429
G 1 0.00769 0.0349 0.000803 28.4 0.30 0.03 1.44 0.03 0.683 0.892 0.442 0.892 0.4055 0.1945 5.7944 0.1945
H 1 0.06505 0.3264 0.000141 265.4 2.51 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.358 0.694 0.703 0.694 3.4306 1.8194 1.0174 1.8183
2
A 1 0.05562 0.5939 0.001252 483.2 2.15 0.50 2.25 0.50 0.381 0.609 0.374 0.610 2.9333 3.3105 9.0344 3.3106
B2 1 0.01833 0.3445 0.001896 280.7 0.71 0.29 3.41 0.29 0.555 0.687 0.316 0.687 0.9666 1.9203 13.681 1.9232
C2 1 0.01477 0.8025 0.000185 652.8 0.57 0.67 0.33 0.67 0.588 0.563 0.667 0.563 0.7789 4.4733 1.3349 4.4726
D2 1 0.00373 0.3600 0.000030 293.1 0.14 0.30 0.05 0.30 0.769 0.681 0.856 0.681 0.1967 2.0067 0.2164 2.0081
2
E 1 0.01406 0.7112 0.000313 579.0 0.54 0.59 0.56 0.59 0.596 0.582 0.590 0.582 0.7415 3.9643 2.2586 3.967
F2 1 0.01150 0.0008 0.000139 0.6 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.626 0.984 0.705 0.984 0.6064 0.0044 1.0030 0.0041
G2 1 0.00006 0.8869 0.000235 721.2 0.00 0.74 0.42 0.74 0.968 0.548 0.633 0.548 0.0031 4.9437 1.6957 4.9412
H2 1 0.01893 0.4440 0.000328 361.2 0.73 0.37 0.59 0.37 0.550 0.652 0.583 0.652 0.9983 2.4749 2.3668 2.4747
A*H 1 0.01650 1.0354 0.000800 842.3 0.64 0.86 1.44 0.86 0.571 0.523 0.442 0.523 0.8701 5.7715 5.7728 5.771
B*E 1 0.05163 0.1431 0.000001 116.4 1.99 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.392 0.788 0.976 0.788 2.7228 0.7976 0.0072 0.7975
B*F 1 0.01608 0.9679 0.001800 787.4 0.62 0.81 3.24 0.81 0.575 0.534 0.323 0.534 0.8480 5.3952 12.988 5.3948
B*G 1 0.00017 0.0072 0.000073 5.9 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.948 0.951 0.779 0.951 0.0089 0.0401 0.5267 0.0404
B*H 1 0.01566 0.0377 0.000556 30.7 0.60 0.03 1.00 0.03 0.579 0.888 0.500 0.888 0.8258 0.2101 4.0121 0.2103
C*E 1 0.00783 0.0409 0.000244 33.4 0.30 0.03 0.44 0.03 0.680 0.884 0.627 0.884 0.4129 0.2279 1.7607 0.2288
C*F 1 0.03552 0.0442 0.000009 35.9 1.37 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.450 0.879 0.921 0.879 1.8732 0.2463 0.0649 0.2459
C*H 1 0.02856 0.8001 0.000139 650.5 1.10 0.67 0.25 0.67 0.485 0.564 0.705 0.564 1.5062 4.4599 1.0030 4.4568
D*H 1 0.00106 0.0025 0.000200 2.1 0.04 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.873 0.971 0.656 0.971 0.0559 0.0139 1.4432 0.0143
Residual 1 0.02592 1.1976 0.000556 975.3 - - - - - - - - 1.3669 6.6756 4.0121 6.6822
Total 26 1.89615 17.9397 0.13858 14595.4 - - - - - - - - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Figure 9. Percentage contribution of each input on machinability performances.
performance is calculated using ANOVA (Table 4). The results
determined from ANOVA for measured surface roughness,
cutting speed, kerf width, and MRR and corresponding weigh­
tage of each input parameter is shown in Fig. 9. From Fig. 9, it
can be noticed that pulse on duration is the utmost steering
variable on the surface finish with percentage contributions of
67.70%, while other parameters do not have a great influence
on surface roughness. As pulse on time increases, the average
discharge energy per pulse on time also increases, resulting in
globules of debris formation, wide and overlapping craters.
Their presence affects the surface topography thereby, increas­
ing the surface roughness. Therefore, less pulse on duration
can result in low surface roughness. A similar trend has been
observed in the study.[39] For cutting speed, arc on duration is
the key influencing variable with percentage contributions of
27%, while the other inputs influence is not as effective as arc
on. More spark duration results in high discharge energy that
causes the material to melt and vaporize, thus making the
material easy to cut. This results in an increase in cutting
speed. Therefore, a high arc on duration is preferable for high
cutting speed. Similarly, the significant variable affecting the
MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1081
MRR is arc on duration with 27.21%, while the influence of
other parameters is not very dominant as arc on. It is because
of the high discharge energy at high arc on duration value that
allows more time to draw the current. As a result, the spark
energy increases, due to which more work material is melted
and eliminated by flushing, thereby yielding high MRR.
Therefore, to achieve high MRR, arc on duration must be
high.[40] With a percentage contribution of 16.85%, arc off
duration is the dominant variable on kerf width. During high
arc off duration, the time interval between two consecutive
discharges increases, as a result, flushing of molten material
increases significantly, leaving less debris in the working
gap.[41] This results in an increase in kerf width. Therefore,
arc off duration must be lowered to have low kerf width.
Thus, the parameters with a high impact on output response
variation have been identified. Also, 3D surface plots were
developed to relate the variation of output response concerning
different input parameters. 3D surface plots are shown in
Fig. 10 present each output response’s interpretation against
the most and least influencing input parameters. From Fig. 10,
it can be noticed that the variation of all the responses has
1082 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.

Figure 10. 3D surface plots for machinability performances against input parameters.

followed the same trend that is observed from the percentage
contribution. Surface roughness, cutting speed, kerf width, and
MRR have shown higher variation concerning the highest
influencing parameters, whereas they have shown lesser varia­
tion against least affecting parameters. Therefore, from the
percentage contribution and 3D surface plots, pulse on dura­
tion in surface roughness variation, arc on duration in cutting
speed variation and MRR, and arc off duration in kerf width
variation are the most significant parameters affecting the out­
put response.

Conclusion
The work presented in this study outlines the applicability of
the ANN approach to model the surface roughness, cutting
speed, kerf width, and MRR of WEDM on titanium alloy from
their input factors such as pulse on duration, pulse off dura­
tion, wire feed, arc on duration, arc off duration, voltage,
flushing pressure, and wire tension. This study includes both
experimentation and WEDM process modeling with
a backpropagation neural network algorithm. The ANN
model estimates were demonstrated to be in decent agreement
when compared to the WEDM test data. The proposed ANN
approach has yielded a good fit for the model data with an
R-value of above 0.99 for all datasets. The maximum and mean
absolute error in percentage of the ANN model are 5.05% and
2.332%, respectively, demonstrating ANN’s ability to compre­
hend the nonlinear relationship in the process. Moreover, from
the parametric modeling and ANOVA, the significant para­
meters affecting each output response have been established,
and their mechanism affecting the performance variables is
presented. The variation against highly and least influencing
input parameters is envisaged using 3D surface plots and the
optimal working conditions according to the results are
reported. The proposed ANN technique is adept in augment­
ing productivity and process efficiency by making minimal use
of time.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Uma Maheshwera Reddy Paturi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-
466X
Suryapavan Cheruku http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1213-057X
Sriteja Salike http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4513-0370
Venkat Phani Kumar Pasunuri http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8597-7934
N.S. Reddy http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4206-4515
References
[1] Rubino, F.; Canale, G.; Sathujoda, P. The Efffects of Manufacturing
Defects on the High-Cycle Fatigue of Electron-Beam-Welded
Ti6Al4V Titanium Alloy: Experimental and Numerical Analysis.
Multi. Model. Mater. Struc. 2017, 17, 796–813. DOI: 10.1108/
MMMS-09-2020-0230.
[2] Gockel, B. T.; Kolesar, R. S.; Rollett, A. D. Experimental Study of an
Aerospace Titanium Alloy under Various Thermal and Tensile
Loading Rate Conditions. Integr. Mater. Manuf. Innov. 2016, 5,
245–258. DOI: 10.1186/s40192-016-0057-0.
[3] Jha, A. K.; Singh, S. K.; Swathi Kiranmayee, M.; Sreekumar, K.;
Sinha, P. P. Failure Analysis of Titanium Alloy (Ti6al4v) Fastener
Used in Aerospace Application. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2010, 17,
1457–1465. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2010.05.007.
[4] Prisco, U.; Impero, F.; Rubino, F. Peck Drilling of CFRP/Titanium
Stacks: Effect of Tool Wear on Hole Dimensional and Geometrical
Accuracy. Prod. Eng. 2019, 13, 529–538. DOI: 10.1007/s11740-019-
00915-1.
[5] Du Preez, W. B. Towards Qualification of Additively
Manufactured Ti6Al4V (ELI) Medical Implants. JOM. 2019, 71,
655–661. DOI: 10.1007/s11837-018-3266-5.
MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 1083
[6] Singh, P.; Pungotra, H.; Kalsi, N. S. Optimization of Deep
Cryogenic Treatment Conditions for the Wear Rate of UNS
R56400 (Ti6al4v) Medical Titanium Alloy Using Taguchi’s
Method. Mater. Technol. 2019, 34, 84–91. DOI: 10.1080/
10667857.2018.1523099.
[7] Ding, D.; Wu, B.; Pan, Z.; Qiu, Z.; Li, H. Wire Arc Additive
Manufacturing of Ti6AL4V Using Active Interpass Cooling.
Mater. Manuf. Process. 2020, 35, 845–851. DOI: 10.1080/
10426914.2020.1732414.
[8] Keles, O.; Abdelmagid, G.; Adesina, A. Y.; Anand, A. R. B.;
Khaled, M.; Al-Sharafi, A.; Yilbas, B. S. Additive Manufacturing
of Layer of Ti6Al4V Alloy: Morphology and Metallurgical
Properties. Adv. Mater. Process. Technol. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/
2374068X.2020.1835009.
[9] Ramamurthy, A.; Sivaramakrishnan, R.; Muthuramalingam, T.;
Venugopal, S. Performance Analysis of Wire Electrodes on
Machining of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy Using Electrical Discharge
Machining Process. Mach. Sci. Technol. 2015, 19(4), 577–592.
DOI: 10.1080/10910344.2015.1085314.
[10] Kahya, M.; Ozbayoglu, M.; Unver, H. O. Precision and
Energy-Efficient Ball-End Milling of Ti6Al4V Turbine Blades
Using Particle Swarm Optimization. Int. J. Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 2021, 34, 110–133. DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2020.1858504.
[11] Chen, G.; Zhai, Q.; Ma, Z.; Yin, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhou, H.; Meng, L.;
Wang, K.; Wang, S.; Wang, L. Effect of Cr Content on
Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behavior
of Ti6Al4V Alloy Produced by Selective Laser Melting. Mater.
Technol. 2021. DOI: 10.1080/10667857.2021.1921098.
[12] Ghate, N. D.; Shrivastava, A. Laser Processing of Multiple Surface
Characteristics for Ti6Al4V Biomedical Implants. Mater. Manuf.
Process. 2021, 36, 308–315. DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2020.1832686.
[13] Srinivasan, D.; Singh, A.; Reddy, A. S.; Chatterjee, K.
Microstructural Study and Mechanical Characterisation of
Heat-Treated Direct Metal Laser Sintered Ti6Al4V for
Biomedical Applications. Mater. Technol. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/
10667857.2020.1830566.
[14] Pradhan, S.; Singh, S.; Prakash, C.; Królczyk, G.; Pramanik, A.;
Pruncu, C. I. Investigation of Machining Characteristics of
Hard-to-Machine Ti-6Al-4V-ELI Alloy for Biomedical
Applications. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 4849–4862. DOI:
10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.08.033.
[15] 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.
[16] Nourbakhsha, F.; Rajurkarb, K. P.; Malshec, A. P.; Cao, J. Wire
Electro-Discharge Machining of Titanium Alloy.Proc. Cirp. 2013,
5, 13–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2013.01.003.
[17] Kolli, M.; Kumar, A. Surfactant and Graphite Powder-assisted
Electrical Discharge Machining of Titanium Alloy. Proc IMechE
part B: J Eng. Manuf. 2015, 231 (4), 641–657. DOI: 10.1177/
0954405415579019.
[18] Devarasiddappa, D.; Chandrasekaran, M. Experimental
Investigation and Optimization of Sustainable Performance
Measures during Wire-Cut EDM of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy Employing
Preference Based TLBO Algorithm. Mater. Manuf. Processes. 2019,
35(11), 1204–1213. DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2020.1762211.
[19] Maher, I.; Sarhan, A. A. D.; Hamdi, M. Review of Improvements in
Wire Electrode Properties for Longer Working Time and
Utilization in Wire EDM Machining. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
2015, 76, 329–351. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-6243-3.
[20] Devarasiddappa, D.; Chandrasekaran, M.; Arunachalam, R.
Experimental Investigation and Parametric Optimization for
Minimizing Surface Roughness during WEDM of Ti6Al4V Alloy
Using Modified TLBO Algorithm. J. Brazilian Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
2020, 42, 1–18. DOI: 10.1007/s40430-020-2224-7.
[21] Li, L.; Wei, X. T.; Guo, Y. B.; Li, W.; Liu, J. F. Surface Integrity of
Inconel 718 by Wire-EDM at Different Energy Modes. J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 2014, 23(8), 3051–3057. DOI: 10.1007/s11665-014-1048-y.
1084 U. M. R. PATURI ET AL.
[22] Gohli, V.; Puri, Y. M. Turning by Electrical Discharge Machining:
A Review. Proc IMechE part B: J Eng. Manuf. 2017, 231 (2),
195–208. DOI: 10.1177/0954405415590560.
[23] Ramakrishnan, R.; Karunamoorthy, L. Modeling and
Multi-Response Optimization of Inconel 718 on Machining of
CNC WEDM Process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2008, 207,
343–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.06.040.
[24] Yeganefar, A.; Niknam, S. A.; Asadi, R. The Use of Support Vector
Machine, Neural Network, and Regression Analysis to Predict and
Optimize Surface Roughness and Cutting Forces in Milling. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 105, 951–965. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-
019-04227-7.
[25] Paturi, U. M. R.; Cheruku, S.; Pasunuri, V. P. K.; Salike, S.;
Reddy, N. S.; Cheruku, S. Machine Learning and Statistical
Approach in Modeling and Optimization of Surface Roughness
in Wire Electrical Discharge Machining. Mach. Learn. Appl. 2021,
6, 100099. DOI: 10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100099.
[26] Paturi, U. M. R.; Cheruku, S. Application and Performance of
Machine Learning Techniques in Manufacturing Sector from the
past Two Decades: A Review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 38,
2392–2401. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.209.
[27] Carlone, P.; Aleksendrić, D.; Rubino, F.; Ćirović, V. Artificial Neural
Networks in Advanced Thermoset Matrix Composite Manufacturing.
Springer Int. Publ. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89563-5_5.
[28] Singh, B.; Misra, J. P. Surface Finish Analysis of Wire Electric
Discharge Machined Specimens by RSM and ANN Modelling.
Measurement. 2019, 137, 225–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.
measurement.2019.01.044.
[29] Phate, M. R.; Toney, S. B. Modeling and Prediction of WEDM
Performance Parameters for Al/SiCp MMC Using Dimensional
Analysis and Artificial Neural Network. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J.
2019, 22, 468–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2018.12.002.
[30] Yusoff, Y.; Mohd Zain, A.; Sharif, S.; Sallehuddin, R.;
Ngadiman, M. S. Potential ANN Prediction Model for
Multiperformance WEDM on Inconel 718. Neural Comput. Appl.
2018, 30, 2113–2127. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-016-2796-4.
[31] Sarkar, S.; Ghosh, K.; Mitra, S.; Bhattacharyya, B. An Integrated
Approach to Optimization of WEDM Combining Single-Pass and
Multipass Cutting Operation. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2010, 25,
799–807. DOI: 10.1080/10426910903575848.
[32] Chen, H. C.; Lin, J. C.; Yang, Y. K.; Tsai, C. H. Optimization of Wire
Electrical Discharge Machining for Pure Tungsten Using A Neural
Network Integrated Simulated Annealing Approach. Expert Syst.
Appl. 2010, 37, 7147–7153. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.020.
[33] Jafari, R.; Kahya, M.; Oliaei, S. N. B.; Ünver, H. O.; Özyurt, T. O.
Modeling and Analysis of Surface Roughness of Microchannels
Produced by μ-WEDM Using an ANN and Taguchi Method.
J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2017, 31, 5447–5457. DOI: 10.1007/s12206-
017-1039-7.
[34] Paturi, U. M. R.; Devarasetti, H.; Reddy, N. S.; Kotkunde, N.;
Patle, B. K. Modeling of Surface Roughness in Wire Electrical
Discharge Machining of Inconel 718 Using Artificial Neural
Network. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 38, 3142–3148. DOI: 10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.09.503.
[35] Thankachan, T.; Soorya Prakash, K.; Malini, R.; Ramu, S.;
Sundararaj, P.; Rajandran, S.; Rammasamy, D.; Jothi, S.
Prediction of Surface Roughness and Material Removal Rate in
Wire Electrical Discharge Machining on Aluminum Based Alloys/
Composites Using Taguchi Coupled Grey Relational Analysis and
Artificial Neural Networks. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 472, 22–35. DOI:
10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.06.117.
[36] Yi, H. J.; Kim, J. W.; Kim, Y. L.; Shin, S. Effects of Cooling Rate on
the Microstructure and Tensile Properties of Wire-Arc Additive
Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V Alloy. Met. Mater. Int. 2020, 26,
1235–1246. DOI: 10.1007/s12540-019-00563-1.
[37] Ji, H.; Peng, Z.; Huang, X.; Wang, B.; Xiao, W.; Wang, S.
Characterization of the Microstructures and Dynamic
Recrystallization Behavior of Ti-6Al-4V Titanium Alloy through
Experiments and Simulations. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2021. DOI:
10.1007/s11665-021-06044-0.
[38] Shi, X.; Zeng, W.; Sun, Y.; Han, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Guo, P.
Properties Correlation for the Ti-6Al-4V Titanium Alloy.
J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2015, 24, 1754–1762. DOI: 10.1007/
s11665-015-1437-x.
[39] Chalisgaonkar, R.; Kumar, J.; Pant, P. Prediction of Machining
Characteristics of Finish Cut WEDM Process for Pure
Titanium Using Feed Forward Back Propogation Neural
Network. Mater. Today. Proc. 2019, 25, 592–601. DOI:
10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.260.
[40] Rehman, M.; Khan, S. A.; Naveed, R. Parametric Optimization in
Wire Electric Discharge Machining of DC53 Steel Using Gamma
Phase Coated Wire. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2020, 34, 2767–2773.
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-020-0609-2.
[41] Lalwani, V.; Sharma, P.; Pruncu, C. I.; Unune, D. R. Response
Surface Methodology and Artificial Neural Network-Based
Models for Predicting Performance of Wire Electrical Discharge
Machining of Inconel 718 Alloy. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2020, 4.
DOI: 10.3390/jmmp4020044.