Columbia International Publishing

American Journal of Materials Science and Technology

(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14
doi:10.7726/ajmst.2017.1001
Research Article

AHP-DENG’S Similarity Based Optimization of WEDM

Process Parameters of Al/SiCp Composite

K. Anand Babu1*, P. Venkataramaiah1, and P. Dileep2

Received: 4 April 2016; Published online: 4 February 2017

© Columbia International Publishing 2017. Published at www.uscip.us

Abstract
Aluminium based Metal Matrix Composite material properties such as light weight, high strength and
corrosion resistance etc. makes AMMC as a demanding material in the marine, automobile, aerospace,
defense, and sports industries. However, the presence of abrasive reinforcements in the Aluminium Matrix
causes rapid tool wear or failure and leads to an increase in machining cost, production time and poor quality
of machined components. Hence the Wire Electrical Discharge Machining is the best one to overcome such
drawbacks.

The present paper focused on the optimization of WEDM in machining of (Al6061/2%SiC/3µm) Aluminium
Metal Matrix composite using AHP-DENG’S Method. In this work, Orthogonal Array L18 Taguchi Experimental
design is used by considering the process parameters such as Wire Type, Pulse ON Time, Pulse OFF Time,
Wire Feed, and Sensitivity to perform the WEDM experiments for considered responses such as Cutting
Speed, Material Removal Rate, Surface Roughness and Dimensional Deviation.

Keywords: Aluminium based Metal Matrix Composite; Wire Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM); SEM
analysis; AHP-DENG’S Similarity Based Method

1. Introduction
Wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) is found to be an extremely potential non-traditional
machining process in which the spark is generated between work piece and conductive wire
flushed with de-ionized water. Generally WEDM process is used where difficult to machine complex
shapes with fine precision and surface finish materials such as hardened, low weight-high strength,
temperature and corrosion resistant, particulate - reinforced composites and ceramics etc.

The applications of aluminium based metal matrix composite materials are significantly increased
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding e-mail: kumba.anand@gmail.com
1 Dept. of mechanical Engg., Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineering, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh,
India
2 Dept. of Mech. Engg., Srikalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, Srikalahasti, India
1
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

in many industries and engineering fields, due to their superior physical, mechanical and
tribological properties as compared to unreinforced alloy [Dinesh Kumar Koli et al. 2015]. Stir casting
process was used magnificently to fabricate aluminium based metal matrix composites reinforced
with silicon nitride, flyash, B4C particle, etc and investigated their microstructures and mechanical
properties [Pardeep Sharmaa et al. 2015, Udaya Prakash, J. et al. 2013]. Stir Casting Method was
employed to develop low cost–high performance Aluminium matrix hybrid composites with the use
of reinforcement materials such as bamboo leaf ash and silicon carbide [Alaneme, K., K. et al. 2013].
Grey relational analysis is a feasible approach to obtain the optimal machining parameters setting
for the simultaneous consideration of the maximum MRR and minimum Ra of wire EDM [Huang, J.,
T. et al. 2003]. [Gadakh. V. S. 2012] used three examples which were done by past researchers to
illustrate the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for
solving multiple criteria optimization problem in wire electrical discharge machining and
concluded that TOPSIS is feasible solution method for solving multi criteria optimization problem
in WEDM. For solving multi criteria decision making problems, [Hossein Safari et al. 2013]
proposed a new method i.e. Deng’s similarity based method using the concept of alternative
gradient and magnitude. The proposed method was effectively and feasible capable of addressing
the concern of TOPSIS method for optimizing the multicriteria analysis. [Iraj mahdavi et al. 2008]
Designed a model i.e. TOPSIS for the fuzzy environment to solve the multiple attribute decision
making problems and developed an algorithm to determine the most preferable choice among all
possible alternatives. [Ahmad jafarnejad chaghooshi et. al. 2014] Used integrated method i.e. AHP
and similarity methodologies for personnel selection among in all applied candidates to fill the
defined vacancy in a company. In this AHP-Similarity method, similarity uses the AHP weights as
input weigths. Vikas Sonkar et al. 2014 investigated the optimal drilling parameter settings of GFRP
composites using and Deng’s similarity methods. Optimal parametric combination obtained from
TOPS)S and Deng’s similarity methods had been found similar to each other. Mechanical properties
such as yield strength, ultimate strength, and ductility for different metal matrix composites
fabricated from Al 6061, Al 6063 and Al 7072 matrix alloys reinforced with silicon carbide
particulates using stir casting process have been increased when compared to base matrix
[Chennakesava Reddy, A. et al. 2010]. The research trends in WEDM on related to different process
parameters are reviewed by Denial ghodsiyeh et. al. 2013 that includes pulse on time, pulse off
time, servo voltage, peak current, dielectric flow rate, wire speed, wire tension on different process
responses such as MRR, Ra, Kerf width, wire lag and wire wear ration and surface integrity factors
and highlighted the different modeling and optimization methods with their merits and demerits.
An attempt was made by vamsi krishna pasam et. al. 2010 to determine the optimal parameters for
surface finish using GA under varying conditions through developed mathematical model by means
of linear regression analysis. The WEDM process parameters of Al6061/SiCp composite fabricated
by stir casting process were optimized using AHP-TOPSIS method [Anand Babu, K. et al. 2015]. The
effects of various process parameters of WEDM like pulse on time, pulse off time, gap voltage, peak
current, wire feed and wire tension have been investigated to reveal their impact on material
removal rate of hot die steel [Singh, H. et al. 2009].

The literature review reveals that the many researchers have been carried out their work on
improvement of WEDM accuracy, monitoring and control but not on optimization of WEDM process
parameters using AHP-Deng’s similarity approach. (ence to address the lack of research, the
present work is aimed on optimization of process parameters in Wire Electrical Discharge
Machining of Al6061/2%SiC/3µm composite.
2
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

2. Experimental Procedure
2.1. Work material

In the present work, the base matrix Al 6061 aluminium alloy and 2% vol. fraction of 3µm average
particle size of silicon carbide reinforcement material was used to fabricate Al / % SiCp/ m
aluminium metal matrix composite by stir casting process. Table 1 tabulates the Chemical
composition of Al6061 aluminium alloy.

2.2. Stir casting process

In this process the Al 6061 wrought Aluminum Alloy material is kept in crucible and is completely
melted at 750°C in the stir casting furnace. At this stage, the pre heated reinforcement material i.e.
silicon carbide particles of sized m were manually added to the vortex along along with the
preheated wetting agent particles of 1% magnesium for reducing the surface tension of base
matrix in molten stage. The reinforcement and wetting agent particles are mixed into molten metal
through the stirring mechanism, which is carried out at 750°C temperature with graphite stirrer
arrangement about 10 min at a stirring rate of 600 rpm for getting homogenous mixture of molten
metal.

Finally the Al / %SiCp/ m aluminium metal matrix composite was prepared by pouring the
molten mixture into mould cavity of sized 500 mm x 60 mm x 20 mm and allows it for cooling at
room temperature. Figure 1 (a) and (b) are illustrated the stir casting furnace and mould with
AMMC sample.

After the fabrication, the fabricated AMMC sample is tested for mechanical properties and
compared with base alloy. In Table 2, the mechanical property of Al6061/2%SiCp composite is
tabulated. SEM analysis is also being carried out for testing uniformity of particles and figure 2
illustrates the SiCp particle distribution in aluminium metal matrix composite.

Fig. 1. (a) Stir Casting Furnace; (b) Mould with AMMC sample

3
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Fig. 2. SiCp Particle Distributions in Aluminium Metal Matrix Composite

Table 1 Chemical Composition of Al 6061

Aluminium Constituents in weight percentage (%)

Alloy Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Zn Ti
Al 6061 0.62 0.23 0.22 0.03 0.84 0.22 0.10 0.1

Table 2 Mechanical Properties of Al 6061/2%SiCp Composite

Material σTS (MPa) σIS (MPa) BHN ρ gm/cm3)
Al6061/2%SiCp/3µm 158.34 632.9 229.5 3.1323

*Note: σTS – Tensile Strength of AMMC in terms of Mega Pascal’s MPa

σIS – )mpact Strength of AMMC in terms of Mega Pascal’s MPa
BHN – Hardness of AMMC in terms of Brinel Hardness Number
ρ – Density of AMMC in terms of gram per cubic centimeter (gm/cm3)

3. WEDM Experimentation of Al/SiCp Composite

Wire cut electrical discharge machining have been performed on Al / %SiCp/ m composite
using EZECUT NXG CNC WEDM machine manufactured by Electronica Corporation (Figure 3) with a
electrode material of 0.25mm diameter. The size of the work material considered for this
experimentation is 10mm x 10mm x 20mm size and is cut with Brass and Zinc coated brass
electrode wires. The control factors considered for this study are Wire type, Pulse-on time, Pulse-off
time, Wire feed and Sensitivity. The control factor, wire type is considered as two levels only and
apart from that factor all control factors are considered as three levels each. According to the
Taguchi orthogonal array design, L18 (21 x 34) mixed orthogonal array was used to perform the

4
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

WEDM experimentation. Table 3 shows the influential factors and their levels and Figure 4
illustrated the WEDM Work piece after wire electrical discharge machining.

4. Results and Discussion

In this paper, the AHP-Deng’s Similarity based approach is applied to optimize the WEDM
responses which are optimized with AHP-TOPSIS in [Anand Babu, K et al. 2015]. The WEDM
responses for this work are tabulated in Table 4. Usually the best machining responses are obtained
by solving the machining process parameters with optimization methods.

4.1. Optimization of process parameters using AHP-Deng’s Similarity methods

The AHP-Deng’s similarity based Method is a multicriteria decision making approach obtained by
integrating the A(P with Deng’s technique. )n Deng’s similarity approach, weightages are required
to optimize or to ranking the best process parameters of WEDM. Hence the required weightages
were obtained using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach which is developed by Saaty, T., L.
(1990). The main advantage with AHP over other methods is that AHP is designed to incorporate
tangible as well as non-tangible factors especially where the subjective judgments of different
individuals constitute an important part of the decision process [Ahmad Jafarnejad chaghooshi et al.
2014].

4.2. Weightages for WEDM responses by using AHP

In this process, the weightages are determined by formulating the pair wise comparison matrix, in
order to decide the relative importance of one criterion versus another using Saaty’s scale Table
. (ence the pair wise comparison matrix with four criteria’s is formed i.e. CS, MRR, SR and DD and
as per experts judgment in linguistic variables, pair wise comparison matrix is formulated and is
tabulated in Table 6. The detailed procedure is given in following steps for determining the
weightages:

Step 1: Formulation of pair wise comparison matrix for each responses.

Step 2: Determination of Eigen vectors (EV), which is calculated using geometric mean method for
formulated matrix to obtain good priorities. Eigen vectors for WEDM responses are tabulated in
Table 7. The following are Eigen vectors for WEDM responses i.e. CS, MRR, SR and DD:

4
EVCS =√ ∗ ∗ ∗ = . ;
9 9
4
EVMRR =√ ∗ ∗ 5 ∗ 7 = . ;
4
EVSR = √ ∗ ∗ ∗ = 1.9680;
4
EVDD =√ ∗ ∗ ∗ = . .

5
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Step 3: Calculation of Priority Weightages (PW) which is calculated by normalizing the Eigen vector
column by total sum of column elements and Priority weightages for WEDM responses are as
follows and is depicted in Table 7:

PVCS = 0.2533/6.4701= 0.0391;

PVMRR = 0.5411/6.4701 = 0.0836;
PVSR = 1.9680/6.4701 = 0.3042;
PVDD = 3.7078/6.4701 = 0.5731.

Table 3 Influential factors and their levels for WEDM

S. No. Factor Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1 A Wire Type (WT) Brass Zinc coated ---
2 B Pulse ON Time (T ON), µs 32 Brass
55 78
3 C Pulse OFF Time (T OFF), µs 4 6 8
4 D Wire Feed rate (WF), 60 70 80
5 E mm/min
Sensitivity (S), µ 4 6 9

Fig. 3. WEDM Machine Fig. 4. AMMC Specimen after WEDM

Step 4: Calculation of Principal Eigen value

Principal Eigen value is the product of sum of the each column with corresponding Priority vector.
In other words, multiplying the column totals with the respective Priority weightages of each row
and then adding the results, to obtain Principal Eigen value PEV, max and the eq. i gives the
principal Eigen value.

max = ∑ = i * PVi (i)

max = (22*0.0391+13.33*0.0836+4.31*0.3042 +1.58*0.5731) = 4.1972

Step 5: Calculation of consistency index (CI)

Using the eq. (ii), the consistency index is calculated and as follows:

C.) = max-n)/ (n-1) (ii)

C.I = (4.1972-4)/ (4-1) = 0.0657

6
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Table 4 Experimental Layout using an L18 Orthogonal Array and Experimental Results
CS MRR SR DD
Exp. No. WT T ON T OFF WF S
(mm/min) (mm3/min) (µm) (mm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 2.75 551.25 8.4863 0.045
2 1 1 2 2 2 3.30 660.6 6.5596 0.03
3 1 1 3 3 3 5.55 1110.75 7.1222 0.04
4 1 2 1 1 2 3.66 733.25 8.6137 0.025
5 1 2 2 2 3 3.50 700.75 10.8934 0.045
6 1 2 3 3 1 2.55 511.73 8.4331 0.03
7 1 3 1 2 1 2.68 536.85 9.5444 0.06
8 1 3 2 3 2 3.59 718.5 10.8564 0.15
9 1 3 3 1 3 9.68 1936.5 9.9293 0.068
10 2 1 1 3 3 9.37 1875.5 9.9131 0.072
11 2 1 2 1 1 9.64 1929 9.0576 0.025
12 2 1 3 2 2 3.81 762.75 7.5803 0.035
13 2 2 1 2 3 7.2 1440 7.5798 0.045
14 2 2 2 3 1 2.61 523.9615385 7.9455 0.05
15 2 2 3 1 2 3.76 753.5 9.7602 0.025
16 2 3 1 3 2 3.60 721.8333333 10.4489 0.035
17 2 3 2 1 3 9.08 1817 7.8801 0.025
18 2 3 3 2 1 2.64 529.8 11.477 0.045

Step 6: Calculation of consistency ratio (CR)

The consistency ratio, CR is obtained by dividing CI with random consistency number for the same
size of matrix and the random consistency number is chosen from Table 8. In this case RI is 0.9 as
the size of matrix is four. The value of CR should be around 10% to be acceptable; in some cases up
to 20% may be tolerated [Brunelli Matteo et al. 2015].

C.R = (C.I/R.I) = (0.0657/0.9) = 0.0730

Table 5 AHP measurement scale for pair wise comparison

Rating Preferential judgment/explanation
1 Equally preferred
3 Moderately preferred
5 Strongly preferred
7 very strongly preferred
9 extremely preferred
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate preferred judgment
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5,
Reciprocal of the preferential judgment. For example not
1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/9
moderately preferred is rated as 1/3, like this so on.

7
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Table 6 Pair wise comparison matrix in linguistic variables

Criteria CS MRR SR DD
CS 1 1/3 1/9 1/9
MRR 3 1 1/5 1/7
SR 9 5 1 1/3
DD 9 7 3 1
Table 7 Eigen Vectors with Weightages for WEDM responses
Criteria CS MRR SR DD EV PW
CS 1 1/3 1/9 1/9 0.25 0.039
MRR 3 1 1/5 1/7 0.54 0.083
SR 9 5 1 1/3 1.96 0.304
DD 9 7 3 1 3.70 0.573
Total,
22 13.3 4.3 1.58 6.47
Ti
max ∑= i * PVi = 4.197

Hence the C.R is less than 10%; therefore the pair wise comparison matrix is acceptable and the
required weightages for output responses as follows.
WCS = 0.0391; WMRR = 0.0836; WSR = 0.3042; WDD = 0.5731.
Table 8 Random Index table for different matrix order (n)

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

. . Optimization of WEDM responses using DENG’S Similarity Based approach

This method was introduced by Deng [Deng, H.18] and this method is explained in the following
steps [Hossein Safari et al. 2013]:

Step1: Determination of decision matrix

The decision matrix is formulated with m attributes and n alternatives and is shown in Table 9.

Step 2: Determine the weightages for WEDM responses

This weightages are obtained by AHP method for each individual response.
WCS = 0.0391; WMRR = 0.0836; WSR = 0.3042; WDD = 0.5731.

Step 3: Normalize the decision matrix

The normalized matrix is obtained by using eq. (iii) (Table 9).
X
rij = (iii)
√∑m
= X

Step 4: Calculate the performance matrix

8
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Performance matrix (Table 10) is obtained by using eq. (iv) i.e. multiplying the normalized decision
matrix with its associated weightages.
Aij = Wij x rij (iv)

Step 5: Determine the PIS and NIS

After performance matrix the Positive ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal solution (NIS) are
calculated using eq. (v) and eq. (vi).

 Positive ideal solution (PIS):

A+ = (� + , � + , � + , … … , � + ) (v)
A+ = 0.015915, 0.033878, 0.051627, 0.061172
 Negative ideal solution (NIS):
A- = (� − , � − , � − , … … , � − ) (vi)
A- = 0.004192, 0.009202, 0.090329, 0.176174
Where
yj+ = {maxj= , , ….n, y‫׳‬m}
yj- = {minj= , , …. n, y‫׳‬j}
and
Ai = � ′ , � ′ , … … . . , � ′

Step 6: Calculate the degree of conflict between each alternative

The degree of conflict between each alternative Ai and the positive ideal solution and the negative
ideal solution can be calculated using eq. (vii) and eq. (viii) and this degree of conflict are shown in
Table 11.
− − −
Ai, �+ = |� ||�+ | cos � +
−
Ai, �+ = ∑ = � ′ � − +
|� | = ( ∑ = � ′ ) 0.5
−
�+ = ( ∑ = � ∓ ) 0.5
Conflict between the alternatives and positive ideal solution is determined as follows:
∑�= � � +
Cos� + = (vii)
√[∑�= � ][∑�= � + ]

Conflict between the alternatives and negative ideal solution is determined as follows:
∑�= � � −
Cos� − = (viii)
√[∑�= � ][∑�= � − ]

Where, θ value lies between 0 - 900.

Step 7: Calculate the degree of similarity between alternatives and the Positive and Negative Ideal
Solutions.
The degree of similarity and conflict between the alternatives and positive ideal solution and
negative ideal solution can be determined using the eq. (ix) eq. (x).
|� | = cos � −+ ∗ |� | (ix)
Degree of Similarity:
9
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

−+ |� | � ��− + ∗|� |
= |�− +| = |�− + |
(x)
Larger the Degree of similarity (Si) is the higher the degree of similarity between the alternatives Ai
and Aj. This Degree of similarities is shown in Table 12.

Step 8: Calculate the overall performance index

The overall performance index can be determined for each alternatives based on the degree of
similarity using eq. (xi).
�+
Pi = +
� +� −
i= , …n (xi)
The larger the index value is more preferred the alternatives. The Table 12 shows the overall
Performance index.

Step 9: Ranking according to Deng’s similarity based method.

After analyzing the WEDM responses, it is observed from Table 12 that the most optimum WEDM
parameters for obtaining the WEDM responses is the higher overall performance index i.e. Pi =
0.716203. So the 11th WEDM experimental run shows the higher performance index value.

Table 9 Decision and Normalize Matrix with m’ attributes and n’alternatives

m’ Attributes
WEDM Responses Normalized responses
CS MRR SR DD CS MRR SR DD
(mm/min) (mm3/min) (µm) (mm) (mm/min) (mm3/min) (µm) (mm)
2.75 551.25 8.4863 0.045 0.115634 0.115806 0.219561 0.192129
3.3 660.6 6.5596 0.03 0.13876 0.138779 0.169713 0.128086
5.55 1110.75 7.1222 0.04 0.23337 0.233346 0.184269 0.170781
3.66 733.25 8.6137 0.025 0.153898 0.154041 0.222857 0.106738
3.5 700.75 10.8934 0.045 0.14717 0.147213 0.281839 0.192129
2.55 511.73 8.4331 0.03 0.107224 0.107504 0.218185 0.128086
2.68 536.85 9.5444 0.06 0.11269 0.112781 0.246937 0.256172
n' Alternatives

3.59 718.5 10.8564 0.15 0.150954 0.150942 0.280882 0.640429

9.68 1936.5 9.9293 0.068 0.40703 0.406819 0.256895 0.290328
9.37 1875.5 9.9131 0.072 0.393995 0.394004 0.256476 0.307406
9.64 1929 9.0576 0.025 0.405348 0.405244 0.234342 0.106738
3.81 762.75 7.5803 0.035 0.160205 0.160238 0.196121 0.149434
7.2 1440 7.5798 0.045 0.30275 0.302515 0.196108 0.192129
2.61 523.9615 7.9455 0.05 0.109747 0.110074 0.20557 0.213476
3.76 753.5 9.7602 0.025 0.158103 0.158295 0.25252 0.106738
3.6 721.8333 10.4489 0.035 0.151375 0.151643 0.270339 0.149434
9.08 1817 7.8801 0.025 0.381801 0.381715 0.203877 0.106738
2.64 529.8 11.477 0.045 0.111008 0.1113 0.296938 0.192129

10
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Table 10 Weighted Performance Matrix

Exp. No. CS MRR SR DD
1 0.004521 0.009681 0.066791 0.110109
2 0.005426 0.011602 0.051627 0.073406
3 0.009125 0.019508 0.056055 0.097875
4 0.006017 0.012878 0.067793 0.061172
5 0.005754 0.012307 0.085735 0.110109
6 0.004192 0.008987 0.066372 0.073406
7 0.004406 0.009429 0.075118 0.146812
8 0.005902 0.012619 0.085444 0.36703
9 0.015915 0.03401 0.078148 0.166387
10 0.015405 0.032939 0.07802 0.176174
11 0.015849 0.033878 0.071287 0.061172
12 0.006264 0.013396 0.05966 0.08564
13 0.011838 0.02529 0.059656 0.110109
14 0.004291 0.009202 0.062534 0.122343
15 0.006182 0.013233 0.076817 0.061172
16 0.005919 0.012677 0.082237 0.08564
17 0.014928 0.031911 0.06202 0.061172
18 0.00434 0.009305 0.090329 0.110109

Table 11: Degree of conflicts between alternatives

Exp. No. Cos� + Cos� − C+ C-
1 0.926854 0.996955 0.119773 0.128832
2 0.953143 0.986328 0.086404 0.089413
3 0.954713 0.989489 0.109627 0.113621
4 0.952 0.930382 0.087976 0.085978
5 0.941938 0.981463 0.13207 0.137612
6 0.943053 0.965065 0.093795 0.095984
7 0.90733 0.999928 0.149929 0.16523
8 0.821803 0.970085 0.309904 0.365821
9 0.942042 0.988112 0.176747 0.185391
10 0.93302 0.989246 0.182945 0.19397
11 0.987456 0.877807 0.099839 0.088753
12 0.952486 0.987022 0.100406 0.104047
13 0.957913 0.985609 0.122907 0.12646
14 0.911136 0.999741 0.12553 0.137738
15 0.940933 0.907652 0.093414 0.09011
16 0.947353 0.956006 0.113259 0.114293
17 0.995094 0.898405 0.093505 0.084419
18 0.933882 0.977216 0.133348 0.139536
11
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Table 12 Degree of Similarity and overall performance values for all alternatives
Exp. No. S+ S- Pi Ranking
1 1.355434 0.649879 0.675921 15
2 0.977813 0.451034 0.684337 8
3 1.240621 0.573149 0.684001 10
4 0.995598 0.433709 0.69656 4
5 1.494598 0.694171 0.682849 11
6 1.061447 0.484182 0.686741 6
7 1.6967 0.833486 0.670583 17
8 3.507088 1.845349 0.655232 18
9 2.000191 0.935186 0.681409 13
10 2.070338 0.978464 0.679066 14
11 1.129851 0.447706 0.716203 1
12 1.136265 0.524854 0.684036 9
13 1.390896 0.637916 0.685572 7
14 1.42059 0.694805 0.671548 16
15 1.057137 0.454551 0.699309 3
16 1.281718 0.576542 0.689741 5
17 1.058167 0.425846 0.713044 2
18 1.509059 0.703874 0.681927 12

5. Conclusion
This Paper presents a new method i.e. AHP-DENG’S Similarity based approach for optimizing the
WEDM process Parameters to obtain a feasible or best responses on Al / % SiCp/ m
composite and the following conclusions have been drawn:
i. The Stir casting method is well suitable process to fabricate the aluminium based metal matrix
composite.
ii. The SEM analysis shows that Reinforced SiCp particulates are uniformly distributed in matrix
material.
iii. Al / % SiCp/ m composite shows the superior mechanical properties than unreinforced
alloy.
iv. AHP-DENG’S Similarity based approach is most preferable technique for multicriteria decision
making method in WEDM of AMMC.
v. To obtain feasible WEDM responses, the required input parameters are as follows and is
obtained from AHP-DENG’S Similarity based approach:
Wire Type: Zinc coated Brass wire
Pulse ON Time: 32 s
Pulse OFF Time: s
Wire feed: 60 mm/min
Sensitivity:

Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge Dr. G. RAJYALAKSHMI, Associate Professor, VIT University, Vellore, Tamil
Nadu and Mr. Sudhakar and Mr. Murali, Technical staff, Sri Venkateswara University College of
12
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Engineering, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India for their support and help to carry out this research
work.

Funding Source
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, has supported financially to carry
out this research work at Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineering, Tirupati, India with
UGC Sanction No. F1-17.1/ 2016-17/ NFST-2015-17-ST-AND-102.

Conflict of Interest
None

References
Ahmad Jafarnejad Chaghooshi, Hossein Janatifar and Maedeh Dehghan. (2014). An Application of AHP and
Similarity-Based Approach to Personnel Selection, International Journal of Business Management and
Economics, 1(1), 24-32.
Ahmad Jafarnejad Chaghooshi, Hossein Janatifar and Maedeh Dehghan. (2014). An Application of AHP and
Similarity-Based Approach to Personnel Selection. International Journal of Business Management and
Economics, 1(1), pp. 24-32.
Alaneme, K., K., Ademilua, B., O., & Bodunrin, M., O. (2013). Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behaviour
of Aluminium Hybrid Composites Reinforced with Silicon Carbide and Bamboo Leaf Ash, Tribology in
)ndustry, Vol. , No. , ‐ .
Anand Babu, K., and Venkataramaiah, P. (2015). Multi-response Optimization in Wire Electrical Discharge
Machining (WEDM) of Al6061/SiCp Composite Using Hybrid Approach. J. Manuf. Sci. Prod., Vol. 15, issue
4, 327-338.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jmsp-2015-0010
Brunelli, Matteo. (2015). Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer Briefs in Operations
Research, P. 83.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2
Chennakesava Reddy, A., & Essa Zitoun. (2010). Matrix Al-alloys for silicon carbide particle reinforced metal
matrix composites, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 12, 1184-1187.
Danial Ghodsiyeh, Abolfazl Golshan and Jamal Azimi Shirvanehdeh. (2013). Review on Current Research
Trends in Wire Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM), Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol:
6 Issue: 2, 4128-4140.
Deng, H. A similarity-Based Approach to Ranking Multicriteria Alternatives. International conference on
intelligent computing, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 4682: 253-262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74205-0_28
Dinesh Kumar Koli, Geeta Agnihotri and Rajesh Purohit. (2015). Advanced Aluminium Matrix Composites:
The Critical Need of Automotive and Aerospace Engineering Fields. Materials Today: Proceedings 2,
3032 – 3041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.290
Gadakh. V., S. (2012). Parametric Optimization of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining using TOPSIS Method,
Advances in Production Engineering & Management 7, 3, 157-164.
https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2012.3.138
13
 K. Anand Babu, P. Venkataramaiah, and P. Dileep / American Journal of Materials Science and Technology
(2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 1-14

Hossein Safari, Ehsan Khanmohammadi, Alireza Hafezamini and Saiedeh Sadat Ahangari. (2013). A New
Technique for Multi Criteria Decision Making Based on Modified Similarity Method, Middle-East Journal
of Scientific Research 14 (5): 712-719.
Hossein Safari, Ehsan Khanmohammadi, Alireza Hafezamini and Saiedeh Sadat Ahangari. (2013). A New
Technique for Multi Criteria Decision Making Based on Modified Similarity Method, Middle-East Journal
of Scientific Research 14 (5): 712-719.
Huang, J., T., & Liao, Y., S. (2003). Optimization of machining parameters of Wire-EDM based on Grey
relational and statistical analyses, International Journal of Production Research, 41:8, 1707-1720.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1352816031000074973
Iraj Mahdavi, Nezam Mahdavi-Amiri, Armaghan Heidarzade and Rahele Nourifar. (2008). Designing a model
of fuzzy TOPSIS in multiple criteria decision making, Applied Mathematics and Computation 206, 607–
617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2008.05.047
Pardeep Sharmaa, Satpal Sharma and Dinesh Khanduja.(2015). Production and some properties of Si3N4
reinforced aluminium alloy composites. Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies 3, 352–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jascer.2015.07.002
Saaty, T., L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res, 48: 9–26. North
Holland.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Singh, H., and Garg, R. (2009). Effects of process parameters on material removal rate in WEDM. Journal of
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 32 Issue 1, 70-74.
Udaya Prakash, J., Moorthy, T., V., & Milton Peter, J. (2013). Experimental Investigation on Machinability of
Aluminium Alloy (A413)/Flyash/B4C Hybrid Composites using Wire EDM. Procedia Engineering 64,
1344-1353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.216
Vamsi Krishna Pasam, Surendra Babu Battula, Madar Valli, P., and Swapna M. (2010). Optimizing Surface
inish in WEDM Using the Taguchi Parameter Design Method, J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng., Vol.
XXXII, No. 2, 107-113.
Vikas Sonkar, Kumar Abhishek, Saurav Datta and Siba Sankar Mahapatra. (2014). Multi-Objective
Optimization in Drilling of GFRP Composites: A Degree of Similarity Approach, Procedia Materials
Science, 6 538 – 543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.068

14