Journal Pre-proof

Optimization of PMEDM Process Parameters for

B4C and B4C+SiC Reinforced AA7075
Composites

Gözde Keskin, Sachin Salunkhe, Gökhan

Küçüktürk, Muharrem Pul, Hakan Gürün, Volkan
Baydaroğlu

PII: S2307-1877(23)00217-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.09.012
Reference: JER100209

To appear in: Journal of Engineering Research

Received date: 28 July 2023
Revised date: 4 September 2023
Accepted date: 10 September 2023
Please cite this article as: Gözde Keskin, Sachin Salunkhe, Gökhan Küçüktürk,
Muharrem Pul, Hakan Gürün and Volkan Baydaroğlu, Optimization of PMEDM
Process Parameters for B4C and B4C+SiC Reinforced AA7075 Composites,
Journal of Engineering Research, (2023)
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.09.012
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance,
such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability,
but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo
additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final
form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2023 Published by Elsevier.
 Optimization of PMEDM Process Parameters for B4C and B4C+SiC
Reinforced AA7075 Composites
Gözde Keskin1, Sachin Salunkhe2, Gökhan Küçüktürk3, Muharrem Pul4*, Hakan Gürün5, Volkan Baydaroğlu6,
1Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey
2Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R & D Institute of Science and Technology, Avadi, Chennai, India.
3Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey
4Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale Vocational School, Department of Electricity and Energy, Kırıkkale, Turkey
5Gazi University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Manufacturing Engineering Ankara, Turkey
6Petroleum Pipeline Company (BOTAS), Ankara, Turkey

Abstract
Materials with sufficient electrical conductivity can be successfully processed by applying the electrical discharge
machining (EDM) method; however, due to the presence of non-conductive particles in composites, which have

of
been produced by adding ceramics particles, problems such as unstable machining, low material removal rate, and
high tool wear are observed during the EDM. This study employed powder-mixed electrical discharge machining
(PMEDM) by adding electrically conductive nano-size graphite powder into the dielectric liquid to minimize these

ro
problems. Moreover, the machinability of AA7075/ B4C and AA7075/ B4C+SiC composites was evaluated using
the Taguchi method. The experimental study used L18 orthogonal array (OA) (21x32). ANOVA was employed to
obtain significant parameters and percent contributions of variable parameters on the material removal rate (MRR).
Reinforcement ratio, current and sintering time applied to the workpiece were chosen as variable parameters. The
-p
optimum parameters for MRR were obtained at A1B3C3 (reinforcement ratio= 10%, current= 8A, sintering
time=150 min). According to S/N ratio graphs, increasing the reinforcement ratio leads to a decreased MRR. On
the contrary, when the applied current increases, MRR increases. Additionally, analysis results show that the
re
discharge current is the most important parameter affecting MRR. In the morphological examinations, it was
understood that the amounts of B4C and SiC particles in the composite structure affect the quality of the machined
surfaces. It was determined that the surface quality deteriorated with the increase in the amount of SiC and B4C in
lP

the composite structure and the increase in the discharge current.

Keywords: Metal matrix composite, SiC, B4C, PMEDM, Material removal rate, Taguchi method, ANOVA,
Surface morphology
a

Introduction
rn

Metal matrix composite (MMC) materials mainly used in the aerospace, automotive, defence,
medical and electronic industries have superior properties such as high modulus of elasticity, high
u

strength, good wear resistance, low density, and thermal expansion coefficient [1, 2]. Powder metallurgy
(PM), pressure infiltration and friction stir process are generally applied to produce MMC materials [2].
Jo

Aluminium is a commonly preferred matrix material due to its low density, corrosion resistance and
high strength [3]. As reinforcement materials, B4C and SiC are the most preferred ceramic particles in
aluminium matrix composite materials. The nonhomogeneous and anisotropic properties of composite
materials containing abrasive reinforcements make the machining process difficult. Nonconventional
manufacturing method such as electro-discharge machining is used to overcome the problems frequently
faced in the processing of composite materials [4].
It has been observed in many experimental and theoretical studies that the effects of EDM
parameters are examined with performance outputs during the machining of MMC materials. Singh et
al. [5, 6] compared the improvement in the PMEDM method, which was achieved by adding tungsten
powder into the dielectric fluid, with the simple EDM for the AA6061/10% SiC composite. Process
outputs such as MRR and surface characteristics were investigated as performance indicators. They
studied the effects of chosen process parameters such as peak current, gap voltage, pulse on-time and
pulse off-time on the performance characteristics (MRR and surface roughness (SR)) and developed
mathematical relationship applying the response surface methodology (RSM) and ANOVA (analysis of
variance) analysis. Also, they observed the interactive effects of machining parameters. The results
revealed that the surface quality improved, MRR performance increased, and the thickness of the recast
layer reduced owing to the tungsten powder additive, which provides stable and regular discharges.

Corresponding Author: muharrrempul@hotmail.com

 Anuarag and Reddy [7] studied Al-SiC composites' machinability using the PMEDM method.
Regression analysis and ANOVA were performed to evaluate MRR and determine the role of variable
process parameters such as pulse on time, peak current and reinforcement ratio of SiC in the workpiece.
Talla et al. [8] studied the machining parameters of aluminium/alumina MMC using the powder-mixed
EDM method. They observed that MRR improved and SR reduced compared to the simple EDM
method. They applied dimensional and regression analysis as a hybrid approach to developing semi-
empirical models for MRR and SR, which are associated with machining parameters like pulse on time,
peak current, powder concentration, duty cycle, gap voltage and material properties such as density,
thermal conductivity, coefficient of thermal expansion and examined their influences on the
performance outputs (MRR and SR). They also used the PCA-based grey relational analysis technique
to determine optimum machining parameters. Kumar and Parkash [9] machined boron carbide
reinforced Al6061 composite and analyzed the influence of process parameters, namely current, pulse-
on time, pulse-off time and electrode material. They concentrated on identifying the optimized process
parameters to maximize MRR and minimize tool wear rate (TWR), SR employing Taguchi’s L9 OA
and ANOVA. They also observed the per cent contributions of process variables through ANOVA. The
findings reveal that the current has a major effect on MRR and SR, while the type of electrode materials

of
greatly affects TWR. Dubey and Singh [10] evaluated the effects of machining parameters of powder-
mixed EDM on 5% B4C reinforced AA7075 composite. They obtained the mathematical model between
machining parameters and MRR using RSM and examined the interactive influence on MRR with the

ro
help of 3D graphs. The results of ANOVA show that current and pulse on time are the main factors. In
the validation tests, the deviation between the experimental results and the predicted value for the
optimum parameters was 8.65 %. Kumar and Davim [11] applied the Taguchi method for observing the
-p
powder-mixed EDM parameters during the machining of Al composites with 10 % SiC reinforcement.
Tests were conducted on L9 OA and optimized the process variables. The results obtained using signal-
to-noise (S/N) ratio, and ANOVA revealed that powder concentration and peak current were the factors
re
that had the primary role in machining rate and SR. It has been determined that the Si powder additive
in dielectric at the optimum level improves the machining rate by 3 times and reduces the SR value by
33%. In addition, confirmatory test results for optimal process parameters were evaluated using
lP

predicted and experimental test values. Using the EDM method, Kumar et al. [12] machined Al2618
alloy hybrid MMCs reinforced with AlN&Si3N4&ZrB2 hybrid MMCs. Taguchi’s L25 OA was applied
to determine the optimum process parameters, and ANOVA results were interpreted. The effect of
variable reinforcement ratio on composite materials in terms of MRR was analyzed, and the findings
a

show that increasing the reinforcement ratio reduced MRR value. Hourmand et al. [13] applied the
response surface methodology to evaluate the machinability of Al-Mg2Si composites using EDM. Singh
rn

et al. [14] obtained the mathematical relation between machining parameters (pulse on time, discharge
current, voltage and pulse off time) and TWR using the RSM. The fact that there are various factors
affecting the processing performance in the EDM method and their simultaneous effect makes it difficult
u

to determine the optimum processing parameters. However, determining optimum process parameters
Jo

is extremely important to achieve performance outputs such as MRR, TWR, and surface quality.
This study investigated the machinability of AA7075/ B4C and AA7075/ B4C+SiC composites with
PMEDM by applying the Taguchi method and ANOVA to determine optimum process parameters. The
machinability of MMC materials with high reinforcement-to-volume ratios (up to 20%), which has yet
to be worked on in the literature, with PMEDM was investigated. In addition, investigating the
machinability of composite materials containing B4C+SiC mixed reinforcement material highlights the
unique aspect of the study. Experimental studies were carried out as full factorial. Taguchi and ANOVA
were applied to determine the efficiency levels of the experimental parameters. This study aims to
overcome the unstable discharges encountered while processing ceramic-reinforced composites, which
have high electrical resistance particles, with the addition of nano-size graphite powder.

Experimental study

Production of composite materials

Composite workpieces having AA7075 reinforced with different ratios of boron carbide (B4C) and
boron carbide + silicon carbide (B4C+SiC) particles employing the PM method were used in this study
[15].
Composite workpieces fabricated diameter of 35 mm and length of 15 mm. The average particle size
and chemical composition of matrix material and reinforcements are given in Table 1. Table 2 shows
the physically properties of matrix material and reinforcement materials [15, 16]. The composite
workpieces were fabricated at three different sintering times of 90, 120, and 150 min under 700 MPa
pressure at a constant temperature of 550 °C. The reinforcement ratios of the composites used in this
study are summarized in Table 3 [15].
Table 1 .Chemical composition of AA7075 and reinforcement materials
Chemical composition of AA7075 Alloy powder
Fe % Si % Cu % Mn % Mg % Zn % Ti % Cr % Al Size, µm
0.50 0.40 1.21-2.0 0.30 2.1-2.9 5.1-6.1 0.2 0.18-0.28 87.62-90,31 74
Chemical composition of B4C powder
Boron % Carbon % Size, µm
78.28 21.72 44
Chemical composition of SiC powder
Si % Al2O3 % Fe2O3 % SiO2 % P2O5 % SO3 % C% Size, µm
61-66 0.7-1.2 0.6-1.1 0.02 0.07 0.3 22-26 63

of
Table 2. Physical properties of matrix material and reinforcement materials
Density Melting point Thermal conductivity Electrical resistivity
(g/cm3) (°C ) (W/mK 20ºC) (Ω-cm 25ºC)

ro
AA7075 2.81 635 130 5.15e-006
B4C 2.52 2760 30-90 0.1-10
SiC 3.21 2730 90-160 103-105
-p
Table 3. Reinforcement ratio of composite samples by weight (wt%)
re
Sample - I 10% B4C + 90% AA7075
Type-1
Sample - II 20% B4C + 80% AA7075
Sample - III 5% B4C + 5% SiC + 90% AA7075
Type-2
Sample - IV 10% B4C + 10% SiC + 80% AA7075
lP

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images showed the microstructure of the machined surfaces of
B4C and SiC reinforced AA7075 composites. In addition, Energy Distribution Spectrometer (EDAX)
analyzes were carried out to determine the elements in the composite structure.
a

Machining process
rn

An efficient PMEDM system developed by Kucukturk and Cogun [17, 18] was used to machine the
AA7075 specimens reinforced B4C and B4C+SiC particles. A new apparatus was designed and
u

manufactured in order to apply this technique. The schematic of the PMEDM apparatus is shown in Fig.
Jo

1. The workpieces were machined using the PMEDM, which was performed with Charmilles
D20 model die sinking electrical discharge machine. Graphite electrode with a working surface diameter
of 6 mm was used as a tool. Same length and diameter were obtained with the turning operation of
graphite rods, and these dimensions were determined to provide easy and practical mounting to the tool
holder. Nano-graphite powder mixed with kerosene dielectric fluid with a mean particle size of less than
50 nm was used, and powder concentration was determined as 15 grams per litre. As shown in Table
4, pulse on time, the pulse off time, type of dielectric fluid, powder type and size, powder concentration,
polarity, machining tool, and machining depth were identified as fixed experimental conditions, and
three variable parameters were selected, namely current, reinforcement ratio and sintering time applied
to the workpiece.
 Fig. 1 Schematic of the experimental set-up for PMEDM (a. Tool electrode, b. Tool-holder, c. Specimen, d.
Mesh table, e. Kerosene reservoir, f. Inclined base, g. Mesh table height adjustment lever, h. Pump to suck and
flush the powder mixed kerosene, i. Specimen mounting fixture, j. Graphite powder mixed kerosene, k. Kerosene
flushing nozzle)

of
Table 4. PMEDM process parameters
Fixed Parameters

ro
Pulse on time 8 μs
Pulse of time 1 μs
Voltage 60-80 V
Machining depth
Polarity
Electrode (Tool)
Powder concentration
-p 2 mm
Workpiece (-), Tool (+)
Graphite, Diameter: 6 mm
15 g/L
re
Powder type and size Graphite powder , < 50 nm
Variable parameters
Reinforcement ratio 10%, 20%
lP

Current 2A - 4A - 8A
Sintering time applied to the workpiece 90 min, 120 min, 150 min

The MRR was calculated using the below Equation 1.

a

MRR= (wi-wf)/t (1)

rn

Where wi is the initial weight of specimen (g), wf is the final weight of specimen (g), and t is the
machining time (min). In order to determine the values of the material removal rate, the initial weight
u

of workpieces was measured with a precision laboratory scale before starting each experiment. After
each experiment, workpieces were subjected to cleaning and drying operations and reweighed. The
Jo

working depth of the workpiece has been determined as a fixed 2 mm. When the target machining depth
is reached, machining is automatically terminated. Meanwhile, the processing time was kept with a
stopwatch. Before starting the machining process, the first weight of the samples was weighed with a
precision scale. After machining, the sample was cleaned and reweighed. This procedure was applied to
each workpiece.

Experimental design and optimization

The experimental study was carried out by applying the Taguchi method. Taguchi technique was
widely used for the optimization of process parameters. Many experiments are required to be performed
as the number of process parameters increases. Taguchi method provides a decreasing number of
experiments with the design of OAs of combinations of parameters and their levels. Taguchi method
proposes using the loss function to calculate the performance characteristics deviating from the desired
value. The value of the loss function is converted into a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. There are three
performance characteristics in the analysis of the S/N ratio: the smaller-the-better, the nominal-the-
better, and the larger-the-better [19]. Our study aimed to maximize the material removal rate, so a larger-
the-better approach was used to determine optimum performance characteristics, as shown in Equation
2.
 1 1
S⁄NLB = −10log ( ∑ni=1 ) (2)
n yi 2

Where n is the number of values of each experiment, is the observed value. This study selected
reinforcement ratio, current and sintering time applied to the workpiece as the control factors. L18
(21×32) OA was used to analyse the effects of parameters and determine the optimum machining
parameters. Control factors and their levels are represented in Table 5. The experimental design is given
in Table 6.

Table 5. Control factors and their levels

Control factors (symbols) Unit Level-1 Level -2 Level -3
Reinforcement ratio (A) % 10 20 -
Current (B) A 2 4 8
Sintering time (C) min 90 120 150

Table 6. Experimental design according to OA of Taguchi L18 (21×32)

of
Experiment Control factors
no. Coded variables Reinforcement ratio % * Current (A) Sintering time (min)
1 A1B1C1 10 2 90

ro
2 A1B1C2 10 2 120
3 A1B1C3 10 2 150
4 A1B2C1 10 4 90
5
6
7
A1B2C2
A1B2C3
A1B3C1
10
10
10
-p 4
4
8
120
150
90
re
8 A1B3C2 10 8 120
9 A1B3C3 10 8 150
10 A2B1C1 20 2 90
lP

11 A2B1C2 20 2 120
12 A2B1C3 20 2 150
13 A2B2C1 20 4 90
14 A2B2C2 20 4 120
a

15 A2B2C3 20 4 150
16 A2B3C1 20 8 90
rn

17 A2B3C2 20 8 120
18 A2B3C3 20 8 150
*For “5% B4C +5% SiC” and “10% B4C +10% SiC” reinforced samples, this ratio was considered 10% and
u

20% in total and the order in the relevant experiment design was taken into consideration.
Jo

Each experiment was repeated twice to eliminate testing errors and ensure repeatability. A total of
72 experiments were accomplished. This experimental process can be identified as AA7075/ B4C
composites with graphite electrodes in different control factors (reinforcement ratio, discharge current
and sintering time), a total of 36 tests. AA7075/ B4C+SiC composites with graphite electrodes in
different control factors (reinforcement ratio, discharge current and sintering time), a total of 36 tests.
The images of composite samples after PMEDM processing denier are given in Fig. 2. In the images
given in Figure 4, composite samples produced at 20% reinforcement rate and 150 min sintering time
were selected as examples.
 90 min sintering time 120 min sintering time 150 min sintering time

10% B4C
20% B4C
5% B4C +
5% SiC

of
10% B4C +
%10 SiC

ro
-p
Fig. 2 Images of SiC and B4C reinforced AA7075 composites after PMEDM treatment
re
Surface morphology SEM analysis

Surface roughness measurements were made using a PGI brand measuring device. Microstructure
lP

analysis was done using a scanning hand-held Form Talysurf ktron microscope in Gazi University
Faculty of Technology, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Department SEM Laboratory.
a

Results and discussion

rn

Analysis of the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio and evaluation of experimental results

In experiments, the signal/noise (S/N) ratios were calculated using the Minitab software by choosing the
u

"larger-the-better" approach in dB regarding Equation (2) since it aimed to obtain high MRR values.
Jo

Effect of parameters on MRR of AA7075/ B4C composites

Average MRR results and the values of S/N ratios are given in Table 7. At the end of the PMEDM
process, the average values of the MRR and S/N ratio are 0.01081 g/min and -40.7887 dB, respectively.

Table 7. Experimental results and S/N ratios of AA7075/ B4C composites

Experiment Reinforcem Discharge Sintering Average MRR S/N ratio
No ent ratio (%) current (A) time (min) (g/min) (dB)
1 10 2 90 0.00330 -49.6418
2 10 2 120 0.00794 -42.0075
3 10 2 150 0.00666 -43.5315
4 10 4 90 0.01739 -35.1945
5 10 4 120 0.01174 -38.6075
6 10 4 150 0.01201 -38.4116
7 10 8 90 0.01758 -35.0995
8 10 8 120 0.01429 -36.8998
9 10 8 150 0.02052 -33.7576
 10 20 2 90 0.00216 -53.3
11 20 2 120 0.00343 -49.3066
12 20 2 150 0.00509 -45.8614
13 20 4 90 0.01258 -38.0081
14 20 4 120 0.00617 -44.1928
15 20 4 150 0.01036 -39.6921
16 20 8 90 0.01317 -37.609
17 20 8 120 0.01279 -37.8642
18 20 8 150 0.01735 -35.212

The effects of each control factor (reinforcement ratio, discharge current and sintering time) on the MRR
were analyzed using the average “S/N response table”, as shown in Table 8. The rank of influence of
each control factor at different levels is obtained by calculating the difference between the highest and
lowest MMR values. As can be seen from Table 8, the most effective factors on MRR were determined
as discharge current, reinforcement ratio and sintering time, respectively. The optimum levels of control
factors, in order to obtain the highest MRR values, were found as reinforcement ratio (level 1), discharge

of
current (level 3) and sintering time (level 3), as shown in Table 9.
Table 8. S/N response table for MRR of AA7075/ B4C composites
Reinforcement ratio (%) Discharge current (A) Sintering time (min)

ro
1 -39.24* -47.27 -41.48
2 -42.34 -39.02 -41.48
3 - -36.07* -39.41*
Delta
Rank
3.10
2
* Optimal levels
11.20
1 -p 2.07
3
re
Table 9. Optimum results of control factors for MRR of AA7075/ B4C composites
lP

Control factors Reinforcement ratio (%) Discharge current (A) Sintering time (min)
Optimal levels A1 B3 C3
Optimal values 10 8 150

In addition, a significant inference could be obtained from the mean of S/N ratios and mean of MRR
a

values vs process parameters plot as shown in Fig. 3. Because S/N values increase significantly with the
rn

increase of the discharge current. In contrast, S/N values decrease significantly with the increase of the
reinforcement ratio. On the other hand, it is observed that there is no meaningful difference between
samples sintered for 90 and 120 min, but there is a significant increase in samples sintered for 150 min.
u
Jo

Fig. 3. Effect of process parameters on mean of S/N ratio for MRR

The microstructure of the produced material is one of the most important parameters affecting the
machinability of metallic composite materials produced by the PM technique. With the sintering
temperature applied in the sintering process, the sintering time is an important factor in forming the
material's microstructure. More sintering time is needed for the reinforcement and matrix material in
powder form to bond to each other at the desired level. This creates undesirable pores (voids) in the
composite structure. However, the increased sintering time reduces the surface energies of aluminium
atoms. It pushes the atoms towards the regions where there are voids with the effect of the mass transfer
mechanism, thereby reducing porosity. As a result, the bond formation on the interfaces of the matrix
material AA7075 particles is positively affected, the homogeneity of the composite structure increases,
and the structure becomes more stable in the present. It is known that material homogeneity is important
for stable processing in the PMEDM method as in the conventional EDM method. In composite
materials, voids and agglomerated powder regions in the structure, compared to bulk materials, will
increase unstable discharges and energy consumption. It will also cause an increase in the heat-affected
area of the material. When the optimum pulse time is exceeded, the MRR will tend to decrease because
of unstable discharge. Since the discharge current, the most important processing parameter in the
PMEDM method is directly related to the pulse duration, the porosity amount and bonding between the
reinforcement matrix become important. As a result, in this study, materials sintered in 150 min, which
minimizes the porosity ratio and increases bonding between reinforcement matrix in the composite
structure, are evaluated as the optimum processing parameter because of stable discharge in terms of
sintering time. When looking at the graph in Fig. 3, the values that support this evaluation are seen.

of
Effect of parameters on MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites

ro
Table 10 shows mean MRR results and the values of S/N ratios, 0.01363 g/min and -39.5785 dB,
respectively.

Exp. Reinforcement Discharge

-p
Table 10. Experimental results and S/N ratios of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites
Sintering time Average MRR S/N ratio
re
No ratio (%) current (A) (min) (g/min) (dB)
1 10 2 90 0.00587 -44.6272
2 10 2 120 0.00620 -44.1522
lP

3 10 2 150 0.00511 -45.8316

4 10 4 90 0.01900 -34.4249
5 10 4 120 0.01546 -36.2158
6 10 4 150 0.01943 -34.2305
a

7 10 8 90 0.02809 -31.029
8 10 8 120 0.02924 -30.6805
rn

9 10 8 150 0.02724 -31.2959

10 20 2 90 0.00274 -51.245
11 20 2 120 0.00371 -48.6125
u

12 20 2 150 0.00417 -47.5973

13 20 4 90 0.00523 -45.63
Jo

14 20 4 120 0.01160 -38.7108

15 20 4 150 0.01540 -36.2496
16 20 8 90 0.00633 -43.9719
17 20 8 120 0.02311 -32.724
18 20 8 150 0.01741 -35.184

The S/N response table for MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites was given in Table 11. The most
effective factors on MRR were determined as reinforcement ratio and sintering time, respectively. The
optimum levels of control factors in order to obtain the highest MRR values were found as discharge
current (level 3), reinforcement ratio (level 1) and sintering time (level 3), as shown in Table 12.

Table 11. S/N response table for MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites
Reinforcement ratio (%) Discharge current (A) Sintering time (min)
1 -36.94* -47.01 -41.82
2 -42.21 -37.58 -38.52
3 - -34.15* -38.40*
Delta 5.27 12.86 3.42
Rank 2 1 3
* Optimal levels
 Table 12. Optimum results of control factors for MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites
Control factors Reinforcement ratio Discharge current Sintering time
(%) (A) (min)
Optimal levels A1 B3 C3
Optimal values %10 8 150

The mean of S/N ratios vs process parameters plot is shown in Fig. 4. S/N values increase meaning with
the increase of the discharge current, while S/N values decrease significantly with the increase of the
reinforcement ratio. In addition, while an increase is observed between 90-120 min, there is a slight
increase in S/N values between 120-150 min.

of
ro
-p
re
Fig. 4. Effect of process parameters on mean of S/N ratio for MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites
lP

ANOVA method and regression analysis

The ANOVA results for the MRR of AA7075/ B4C and AA7075/ B4C +SiC at the confidence level
of 95% are given in Table 13 and Table 14, respectively. The per cent contributions of the discharge
a

current, reinforcement ratio, and sintering time factors on the MRR were obtained as 73.80 %, 8.67%,
and 4.05%, respectively (Table 13). The per cent contributions of the discharge current, reinforcement
rn

ratio, and sintering time factors on MRR for B4C +SiC/AA7075 composites were found to be 62,99%,
16.88% and 3.70 %, respectively (Table 14). The most important parameter affecting the MRR of
AA7075/ B4C and B4C +SiC/AA7075 was the discharge current, with 73.80% and 62.99%, respectively.
u

Table 13. ANOVA results for MRR of B4C / AA7075 composites

Jo

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution %

Reinforcement ratio 1 0.000045 0.000045 7.5598 0.0176 8.67
Discharge current 2 0.000383 0.000191 32.4923 0.0000 73.80
Sintering time 2 0.000021 0.000010 1.7686 0.2122 4.05
Error 12 0.000071 0.000006 - - 13.68
Total 17 0.000519 - - - 100

Table 14. ANOVA results for MRR of B4C +SiC / AA7075 composites
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution %
Reinforcement ratio 1 0.000242 0.000242 12.09 0.005 16.88
Discharge current 2 0.000899 0.000450 22.50 0.000 62.69
Sintering time 2 0.000053 0.000026 1.32 0.303 3.70
Error 12 0.000240 0.000020 - - 16.74
Total 17 0.001434 - - 100 100

The linear equation obtained via Minitab as a result of the regression analysis for MRR of AA7075/
B4C and AA7075/ B4C +SiC are given below;
MRR (AA7075/ B4C ) = 0.00542 - 0.000315 [reinforcement ratio] + 0.001750 [discharge current] + 0.
000016 [sintering time], R-sq = 75.21%, R-sq (adj) = 75.21%, R-sq (pred) = 59.65%

MRR (AA7075/ B4C +SiC) =0.00468- 0.000733 [reinforcement ratio] + 0.002737 [discharge current]
+ 0.000060 [sintering time], R-sq = 78.05%, R-sq(adj)= 73.35%, R-sq(pred)= 60.58%

Estimation of optimum characteristics and confirmation analysis

The mean response table for MRR of AA7075/ B4C +SiC composites and AA7075/ B4C +SiC was
given in Table 15 and Table 16. As a result, optimum levels of two composite materials have been found
as reinforcement ratio level 1, current discharge level 3 and sintering time level 3.

Table 15. Mean response table for MRR of B4C / AA7075

Reinforcement ratio (%) Discharge current (A) Sintering time (min)
1 0.012379 0.004762 0.011029

of
2 0.009233 0.011707 0.009391
3 - 0.015950 0.011998
Delta 0.003146 0.011188 0.002607

ro
̅̅̅̅̅̅
(A1) = 0.012379, ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(B3) = 0.015950, ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(C3) = 0.011998

1 0.017293
-p
Table 16. Mean response table for MRR of AA7075 + B4C + SiC
Reinforcement ratio (%) Discharge current (A)
0.004633
Sintering time (min)
0.011210
re
2 0.009967 0.014353 0.014887
3 - 0.021903 0.014793
Delta 0.007327 0.017270 0.003677
lP

̅̅̅̅̅̅
(A1) = 0.017293, ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(B3) =0.021903, ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(C3) = 0.014793

From the formula of optimum value estimated for MRR;

MRRopt (B4C / AA7075 ) = ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(𝐴1) + ̅̅̅̅̅̅
(𝐵3) + ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ =0.01871
(𝐶3) − 2𝑇(MRR)
a

̅̅̅̅̅̅ + (B3)
MRRopt (B4C +SiC /AA7075) = (A1) ̅̅̅̅̅̅ + (C3) ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ =0.026729
̅̅̅̅̅̅ − 2T(MRR)
rn

Confirmation tests were conducted for optimum control factors and randomly selected control factors.
The results are given in Table 17.
u

Table 17. Confirmation tests results by Taguchi method and linear regression equation
Jo

B4C /AA7075 MRR Experimental Predictive Error %

Taguchi method A1B3C3 (optimum) 0.02052 0.01871 8.82
Linear regression A1B3C3 (optimum) 0.02052 0.01845 10.08
B4C +SiC/AA7075 MRR Experimental Predictive Error %
Taguchi method A1B3C3(optimum) 0.02724 0.026729 1.87
Linear regression A1B3C3(optimum) 0.026124 0.026729 4.08

Surface morphology

After the PMEDM process, scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the treated surfaces of the
composite materials were taken and the effects of the discharge current on the surface were investigated.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show SEM images taken at 100x magnification on the treated surfaces of B4C, SiC and
B4C+SiC reinforced AA7075 composites, respectively.
 20% B4C, 20% B4C, 20% B4C, 10% B4C, 10% B4C, 10% B4C,
150 min sintering 120 min sintering 90 min sintering 150 min sintering 120 min sintering 90 min sintering

Jo
u rn
a lP
re

(b) 4A , (c) 8A (100)

-p
ro
of

Fig. 5. Effect of discharge current on machining surface in 20% B4C reinforced composites (a) 2A ,
 5% SiC+5% B4C,
90 min sintering
5% SiC+5% B4C,
120 min sintering

of
5% SiC+5% B4C,
150 min sintering

ro
-p
re
10% SiC+10% B4C,
90 min sintering

a lP
rn
10% SiC+10% B4C,
120 min sintering

u
Jo
10% SiC+10% B4C,
150 min sintering

Fig. 6. Effect of discharge current on machining surface in 5% SiC+5% B4C and 10% SiC+10% B4C
reinforced composites (a) 2A , (b) 4A , (c) 8A (100)

It is understood that the surface damage increases as the discharge current increases. As a result of more
intense energy discharge to the workpiece surface, more chips were removed from the surface. Since
the increase in the current density causes a more intense energy discharge to the workpiece surface,
more chip is separated from the surface. Increasing the amount of chips moving away from the surface
also increased the surface roughness [20]. With the increase in the current value, it is understood that
the craters formed on the surface cover a wider area. When the surface images are carefully examined,
it can be said that the B4C and SiC particles in the structure affect the quality of the surfaces negatively.
These ceramic-based reinforcement particles in the very hard phase increased the roughness of the
surfaces. When the SEM images in Figure 5 and Figure 6 are examined, it is seen that there are
reinforcement particles that are partially broken off from the structure and remain on the surfaces. This
situation draws more attention, especially on the surfaces of SiC-reinforced composites. It can be said
that the SiC particle size is larger than the B4C particle size also has an effect. The least amount of
roughness was determined as 5.0598 μm in a 10% B4C reinforced composite. It was determined that the
sintering time did not significantly affect the quality of the machined surfaces. However, it can be said
that the reinforcement ratios in the AA7075 matrix directly affect the surface quality because the highest
roughness amounts were measured at 20% in both B4C and SiC-reinforced composites. It is understood
from the SEM images in Fig. 6 that the surface morphology of the composites where SiC and B4C
reinforcement materials are used together is similar to the morphologies of only SiC and only B4C
reinforced surfaces. In addition, it can be said that the matrix material aluminium melts more with the
increase of the discharge current and the reinforcement particles in the composite structure are more

of
easily separated from the structure.

Conclusion

ro
- The optimum levels of control factors to obtain the highest MRR values were found using the S/N
response table. The optimum process parameters for MRR of AA7075/ B4C and of AA7075/ B4C

150 min).
-p
+SiC composites were obtained at A1B3C3 (reinforcement ratio= 10%, current= 8A, sintering time=

- Percentage of reinforcement in composites has a significant influence on MRR. According to S/N

re
ratio graphs, increasing the reinforcement ratio leads to a decrease in MRR.
- As the applied current increases, the MRR increases according to S/N ratio graphs.
- The effect of the sintering time on the MRR could not be observed as meaningful.
lP

- The most important parameter affecting the MRR of AA7075/ B4C and B4C +SiC/AA7075 was the
discharge current, with 73.80% and 62.99%, respectively.
- The percent contributions of the discharge current, reinforcement ratio, and sintering time factors on
the MRR were obtained, respectively.
a

- The sintering time did not significantly affect the quality of the surfaces. However, it was determined
that the composite structure's SiC and B4C reinforcement ratios directly affect the surface quality.
rn

The highest roughness amounts were measured at 20% SiC and B4C ratios.
- It has been determined that the machined surface roughness of SiC-reinforced composites is higher
than B4C -reinforced composites.
u
Jo

Acknowledgement
This study was supported by Kırıkkale University, BAP Unit with project number 2017/005.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

1 Garg, R.K.; Singh, K.K.; Sachdeva, A.; Sharma, V.S.; Ojha, K.; Singh, S.,2010, Review of research work in
sinking EDM and WEDM on metal matrix composite materials, Int J Adv Manuf Technol., 50, pp.611-624.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2534-5
2 Mardi, K.B.; Dixit, A.R.; Mallick, A., 2017, Studies on non-traditional machining of metal matrix composites.
Materials Today: Proceedings, 4, pp. 8226-8239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.165
3 Torralba, J.M.; Da Costa, C.E.; Velasco, F., 2003, P/M Aluminum Matrix Composites: An Overview, Journal
of Materials Processing Tech., 133, pp. 203-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00234-0
4 Ahamed, A.R.; Asokan, P.; Aravindan, S., 2009, EDM of hybrid Al-SiC-B4C and Al-SiC-Glassp MMCs, Int J
Adv Manuf Technol., 44, pp. 520-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1839-0
5 Singh, B.; Kumar, J.; Kumar, S., 2015, Influences of process parameters on MRR improvement in simple and
powder-mixed EDM of AA6061/10%SiCp composite, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 30, pp. 303-
312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.930888
6 Singh, B.; Kumar, J.; Kumar, S., 2014, Experimental investigation on surface characteristics in powder-mixed
electrodischarge machining of AA6061/10%SiCp composite, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 29, pp.
287-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.880463
7 Anuraag, G.P.; Reddy, M.V.K., 2016, Studies on the material removal rate of Al-SiCp composites machined
by powder-mixed EDM technique, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(2), pp. 829-836.
8 Talla, G.; Sahoo, D.K.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Biswas, C.K., 2015, Modeling and multi-objective optimization of
powder mixed electric discharge machining process of aluminum/alumina metal matrix composite.
Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 18, pp. 369-373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2015.01.007
9 Kumar, P.; Parkash, R., 2016, Experimental investigation and optimization of EDM process parameters for
machining of aluminum boron carbide (Al-B4CP) composite, Machining Science and Technology, 20(2), pp.
330-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2016.1168931
10 Dubey, V.; Singh, B., 2018, Study of material removal rate in powder mixed EDM of AA7075/B4CP
composite, Materials Today: Proceedings, 5, pp. 7466-7475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.418
11 Kumar, H.; Davim, J.P., 2011, Role of powder in the machining of Al-10%SiC metal matrix composites by

of
powder mixed dielectric discharge machining, Journal of Composite Materials, 45(2), pp. 133-151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998310371543
12 Kumar, N.M., Kumaran, S.S.; Kumaraswamidhas, L.A., 2015, An investigation of mechanical properties and

ro
material removal rate, tool wear rate in EDM machining process of Al2618 alloy reinforced with Si3N4, AlN
and ZrB2, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 650, pp. 318-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.07.292
13 Hourmand, M.; Farahany, S., Sarhan, A.A.D., Noordin, M.Y., 2015, Investigating the electrical discharge
-p
machining (EDM), parameter effects on Al-Mg2Si metal matrix composite (MMC) for high material removal
rate (MRR) and less EWR-RSM approach, Int J Adv Manuf Technol., 77, pp. 831-838.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6491-2
re
14 Singh, B.; Kumar, J.; Kumar, S., 2016, Investigation of tool wear rate in tungsten powder-mixed electric
discharge machining of AA6061/10%SiC composite, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 31, pp. 456-466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1025965
lP

15 Baydaroğlu, V., 2018, Determination Of Optimum Additive Ratio In The B4CP + SiCp Reinforced Al 7075
Composites For Ballistic Material Production, M.Sc. Thesis, Kırıkkale Üniversity, Turkey.
16 Everitt, P., Doggett,I. Ceramic Carbides: The Tough Guys of the Materials World.
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodfellowusa.com%2Fwhite-
a

papers%2Fceramic-carbides-tough-guys-of-the-materials-world-wp-en-us.pdf&date=2019-05-26
17 Kucukturk, G.; Cogun, C., A technique for the machining of electrically nonconductive workpieces by using
rn

electric discharge machining, Turkish Patent Institute, Patent number: TR 2008 02934 B.
18 Kucukturk, G.; Cogun, C., 2010, A new method for machining of electrically nonconductive workpieces using
electric discharge machining technique, Machining Sci Tech., 14, pp. 189-207.
u

https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2010.500497
19 Çaydaş, U., 2008, Investigation of the Machinability of Ti 6Al 4V Alloy by Electrical Discharge and
Electrochemical Machining Processes, Ph.D. Thesis, Fırat University,Turkey.
Jo

20 Keskin, G., Küçüktürk, G., Pul, M., Gürün, H., Baydaroğlu, V., 2021, The Effect of Discharge Current and
Reinforcement Ratio on the Microstructure and Roughness of the Machined Surface in the Machining of
AA7075 Matrix B4CP+SiCp Reinforced Hybrid Composites by Powder Reinforced EDM Method,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 13(2), pp. 489-495.
https://doi.org/10.29137/umagd.885976
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
a lP
u rn
Jo