International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp.

93-105, 2014
Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/ijsrce
ISSN: 2345-6787; 2014; Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrce-2014-p0093-0105

Full Length Research Paper

Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi
Approach
Sameh S. Habib
Mechanical Engineering Department, Shoubra Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, 108 Shoubra Street, Cairo, Egypt
Email: sameh.abadir@feng.bu.edu.eg
Received 28 August 2014; Accepted 06 November 2014

Abstract. Electrochemical Machining is one of the major alternatives to conventional methods of machining difficult to cut
materials and generating complex contours, without inducing residual stress and tool wear. Electrochemical machining process
is a metal machining technology based on electrolysis where the product is processed without both contact with the tool and
thermal influence. The metal workpiece is partially machined through electricity and chemistry i.e. electrochemical until it
reaches the required end shape. The shape accuracy of the end product depends on the size of the gap. In the present study, the
influences of ECM cutting parameters such as supply voltage, tool feed rate, electrolyte concentration and current, keeping
other parameters constant, on the material removal rate and surface roughness were presented. In addition Taguchi approach
and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are used to optimize ECM process. Among the four process parameters, supply voltage
(46%) influences highly the material removal rate, followed by tool feed rate (19%), current (6%) and the electrolyte
concentration by (3%).The contribution that have significant for surface roughness are current (53%) influences highly,
followed by tool feed rate (21%), supply voltage (11.5%) and the electrolyte concentration by (0.2%). A comparative study of
material removal rate and surface roughness mathematically and experimentally basis has been carried out.
Keywords: Electrochemical machining (ECM), material removal rate, surface roughness, Taguchi approach and analysis of
variance (ANOVA)

aerospace, space, defense, nuclear areas. Therefore,

choice of optimum process parameters is necessary to
get the most cost-effective, efficient, and economic
utilization of ECM process potentials (Benedict,
1987).
Generally the optimization of any process
parameters now relies on process analysis to identify
the effect of operating variables on achieving the
desired machining characteristics (Sameh, 2014 and
Krishankant et al. 2012). The optimization of
electrochemical machining process was studied by
many researchers. Senthilkumar et al. (2012), used
Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGAII) approach to maximize metal removal rate and
minimize surface roughness. Rao et al. (2008),
presented a particle swarm optimization algorithm to
find the optimal combination of process parameters
for an electro chemical machining process. Multiple
regression model and artificial neural network (ANN)
model are developed as efficient approaches to
determine the optimal machining parameters in ECM
(Asokan et al., 2008). Acharya et al. (1986), proposed
multi-objective optimization model for the ECM

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in different methods of
machining have significantly increased the potential
for widespread industrial applications of electro
chemical machining (ECM) as a non-traditional
machining process. Although an increase of material
removal arte and a high surface quality has been
achieved in earlier investigations, widespread
industrial application of electrochemical technology
has necessitated a better understanding of the effects
of process parameters on material removal rate and
surface quality (Swift and Booker, 1997).
Electro chemical machining processe has some
unique advantages over other conventional and nontraditional machining processes but its use required
relatively higher initial investment cost, operating
cost, tooling cost, and maintenance costs (McGeough,
1998). When using ECM process parameters
optimally, it can significantly reduce the ECM
operating, tooling, and maintenance costs and thus, it
will increase the accuracy of components produced
which is important in some applications such as

93

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

process by formulating highly linearized equations.

Grey relational analysis was used by chakradhar et al.
(2011) and Dharmalingam et al. (2014) to investigate
the effect and parametric optimization of process
parameter for electro chemical machining of EN31
steel.
Other works have applied the Taguchi approach to
investigate and optimize the application of ECM
process.
Using Taguchis parameter design,
significant machining parameters affecting the
performance measures are identified. The Taguchi
design has been employed to obtain the optimum
factor/level combination of process parameters
(Peace, 1993). Goswami et al. (2013), applied
Taguchi approach to find optimum process parameters
for ECM process. Their work was based on Taguchis
method, analysis of variance and signal to noise ratio
(S/N Ratio) to optimize the electrochemical
machining process parameters for effective machining
and to predict the optimal choice for each ECM
parameter. Bisht et al. (2013), optimize the
electrochemical machining parameters using signal to
noise (S/N) ratio of Taguchi approach. They presented
the influence of each control factor and determine
optimal cutting conditions of control factors from S/N
response graphs.
In the present work, an attempt has been made to
optimize the influence of electro chemical machining
process parameters namely supply voltage, tool feed
rate, electrolyte concentration and current with an
objective to maximize material removal rate and
minimize surface roughness using Taguchi approach.
Orthogonal arrays of Taguchi, the signal-to-noise
(S/N) ratio, the analysis of variance (ANOVA), and
regression analyses are employed to find the optimal
levels and to analyze the effect of the ECM process
parameters on metal removal rate and surface
roughness values. Confirmation test with the optimal
levels of machining parameters was carried out in
order to illustrate the effectiveness of Taguchis
optimization method.

SKD11) with standard name called (GB/ T 12992000). It is cold-working die steel, steel hardenability,
quenching and tempering the hardness, wear
resistance and strength than that of high Cr12. Cross
section used in the manufacture large, complex shape,
with a variety of die and tools, such as die punching,
piping die, deep drawing steel mold, circular saws,
standards, tools and gauges, thread rolling die. Table 2
shows chemical composition of SKD11 alloy tool
steel.
2.2. Laboratory determinations
Experiments were performed using Metatech
(ECMAC) made electrochemical die sinking
machining equipment. The electrochemical machine
setup consists of machining tank, control panel and
electrolyte circulation system. Figure 1 shows
schematically the experimental set-up. A fixture
inside the machining tank fixes the workpiece and the
cathode (tool) is attached to the main screw, which is
driven by a stepper motor. The tool is made up of
copper with diameter of 10 mm. In this work, the
electrolyte used is NaCl with different concentrations.
Based on preliminary experiments conducted by using
one variable at a time approach, the feasible range for
the machining parameters was defined. Table 1 shows
the machining parameters used in the process.
To determine the value of material removal rate the
work piece is weighed before and after each
experiment using an electric balance with a resolution
of 0.01 mg. Material removal rate is calculated as,

Where MRR is the material removal rate

(mm3/min), Wi is the initial average weight of the
workpiece (gm), Wf is the final average weight of the
workpiece (gm), Dw is the density of the workpiece
(gm/cm3), t is the time of machining (min).
The surface roughness (SF) value Ra (m) was
measured using a Mitutoyo Talysurf (SJ-201)
portable surface measuring unit with stylus radius of 5
m. The cutoff length for each measurement was
taken as 0.8 mm. The surface roughness values were
measured for each specimen three times and the
average was calculated.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The concept of the experiments conducted in this
paper is to investigate the influence of cutting
parameters of electro chemical machining process on
material removal rate and surface roughness.
2.1. Workpiece material
Cylindrical block of 30 mm diameter and 25 mm
height made of alloy tool steel (Cr12MoV/ D2/

94

International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

Table 1: ECM machining parameters

Supply voltage (V)
Tool feed rate (mm/min)
Electrolyte concentration (%)
Current (A)
Working fluid
Gap size (mm)
Workpiece material
Tool material

10, 20 and 30
0.2, 0.6 and 1.0
10, 15 and 20
20, 40 and 60
NaCl
0.4
Alloy Tool Steel (Cr12MoV/D2/SKD11)
Copper

Table 2: Chemical composition of SKD11 alloy tool steel.

C
1.6

Si
0.3

Mn
0.3

S
0.02

P
0.02

Cr
12

Ni
0.2

Cu
0.2

V
0.2

Mo
0.5

St
Rem.

Table 3: Design factors and their levels for alloy tool steel SKD11 workpiece
Control parameters

Supply voltage (V) in V

Tool feed rate (F) in mm/min
Electrolyte concentration (E) in %
Current (I) in A

Coding
1
Minimum
10
0.2
10
20

A
B
C
D

Level
2
Intermediate
20
0.6
15
40

3
Maximum
30
1.0
20
60

Table 4: Taguchis L27 OA design

Exp.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Supply Voltage (V)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Tool feed rate

(mm/min)
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

95

Electrolyte
concentration (%)
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2

Current (A)
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

Table 5: Experimental design using L27 orthogonal array

Exp.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

MRR

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0

10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20

20
40
60
40
60
20
60
20
40
40
60
20
60
20
40
20
40
60
60
20
40
20
40
60
40
60
20

0.1782
0.2975
0.3898
0.4269
0.5776
0.5592
0.7105
0.5822
0.6297
0.5587
0.6732
0.6665
0.6923
0.5889
0.6743
0.6822
0.7111
0.7891
0.8051
0.7349
0.7559
0.6733
0.7297
0.7934
0.8289
0.9108
0.7706

S/N
ratio
-14.9818
-10.5303
-8.1832
-7.3935
-4.7675
-5.0487
-2.9687
-4.6986
-4.0173
-5.0564
-3.4371
-3.5240
-3.1941
-4.5992
-3.4229
-3.3218
-2.9614
-2.0574
-1.8830
-2.6754
-2.4307
-3.4358
-2.7371
-2.0102
-1.6300
-0.8115
-2.2634

Ra
5.982
5.157
4.348
4.932
4.678
4.875
3.624
4.822
4.491
5.238
4.371
5.673
3.922
4.7
4.422
4.48
4.212
3.82
3.541
4.992
4.621
4.829
4.313
4.029
4.122
3.34
4.624

S/N
ratio
-15.5369
-14.2479
-12.7658
-13.8605
-13.4012
-13.7595
-11.1838
-13.6645
-13.0469
-14.3833
-12.6895
-15.0763
-11.8702
-13.4420
-12.9124
-13.0256
-12.4898
-11.6413
-10.9825
-13.9655
-13.2947
-13.6771
-12.6956
-12.1039
-12.3022
-10.4749
-13.3004

Table 6: S/N response table for material removal rate

Parameters

S/N ratio (dB)

Supply voltage
Tool feed rate
Electrolyte concentration
Current

Level 1
-6.954
-5.856
-4.874
-4.950

Level 2
-3.508
-4.068
-4.135
-4.464

Level 3
-2.209
-2.748
-3.662
-3.257

Max. Min.

Rank

4.746
3.108
1.212
1.693

1
2
4
3

Max. Min.

Rank

0.96
1.31
0.12
2.04

3
2
4
1

The mean S/N ratio = -4.22375 dB

Table 7: S/N response table for surface roughness

Parameters

Supply voltage
Tool feed rate
Electrolyte concentration
Current

S/N ratio (dB)

Level 1
-13.50
-13.66
-12.89
-13.94

Level 2
-13.06
-13.08
-13.01
-13.25

Level 3
-12.53
-12.35
-13.10
-11.90

The mean S/N ratio = -13.429167 dB

quality assurance of products and processes. The steps

applied for Taguchi optimization in this work are as
follows:
(a) Select noise and control level factors. (b) Select
Taguchi orthogonal array. (c) Analyze results;
(Signal-to-noise ratio). (d) Predict optimum
performance. (e) Confirmation experiment. (f)
Develop mathematical models by linear regression

2.3. Taguchi experiment: design and analysis

Essentially,
traditional
experimental
design
procedures are too complicated and not easy to use. A
large number of experimental works have to be
carried out when the number of process parameters
increases. Taguchis method of experimental design is
one of the widely accepted techniques for offline

96

International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

analysis of the data. (g) Graph computer contour plots

between responses different machining parameters.
(h) Graph surface plots between responses different
machining parameters.
In the present study, four process parameters
namely, supply voltage, tool feed rate, electrolyte
concentration and current are considered, although a
large number of factors could be considered for
controlling the ECM process. Table 3 shows the
design factors along with their levels. Three levels,

having equal spacing, within the operating range of

the parameters are selected for each of the factors.
The orthogonal array chosen to set the control
parameters and evaluate the process performance is
the L27, which has 27 rows corresponding to the
number of experiments at three levels. It considers
four control factors, (A, B, C and D) to be varied in
three discrete levels as shown in Table 4. The Taguchi
analysis was made using the popular software
specifically used for design of experiment applications
known as MINITAB 15.

Fig. 1: Principle of an ECM process

Main Effects Plot for SN ratios

Data Means
Supply voltage (V)

-2

Tool feed rate (mm/min)

M e an o f SN r at io s

-4
-6
10

20

30

0.2

Electrolyte concentration (%)

-2

0.6

1.0

Current

-4
-6
10

15

20

20

40

60

Signal-to-noise: Larger is better

Fig. 2: Main effects plot for S/N ratios of each factor on material removal rate

97

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

are investigated by using the signal-to-noise (S/N) and

analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of
significance of influence of a factor or interaction of
factors on a particular output response could be
revealed by these methods.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The traditional method of looking into the averages of
results to determine the desirable factor levels does
not account the variability of the results within the
trials. In this work the results of the ECM experiments

Fig. 3: Main effects plot for S/N ratios of each factor on surface roughness

Fig. 4: Interaction plot for material removal rate of SN ratios between supply voltage and
(a) tool feed rate, (b) electrolyte concentration and (c) current

98

International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

Table 8: Results of ANOVA for material removal rate

Symbol
A
B
C

Parameters
Supply voltage
Tool feed rate
Electrolyte
concentration
Current
Interaction
Interaction
Interaction
Residual error

D
A*B
A*C
A*D
E
Total

Dof
2
2
2

Seq SS
108.263
43.797
6.715

Adj MS
54.1316
21.8986
3.3575

F
58.89
23.82
3.65

Contribution %
45.91
18.571
2.847

2
4
4
4
6
26

13.678
48.197
5.883
3.783
5.516
235.833

6.8392
12.0492
1.4709
0.9458
0.9193

7.44
13.11
1.60
1.03

5.8
20.437
2.495
1.6
2.34

Table 9: Results of ANOVA for surface roughness

Symbol
A
B
C

Parameters
Supply voltage
Tool feed rate
Electrolyte
concentration
Current
Interaction
Interaction
Interaction
Residual error

D
A*B
A*C
A*D
E
Total

Dof
2
2
2

Seq SS
4.1879
7.7879
0.0709

Adj MS
2.09396
3.89395
0.03547

F
6.95
12.93
0.12

Contribution %
11.46
21.3
0.2

2
4
4
4
6
26

19.3213
1.7402
1.2237
0.4111
1.8066
36.5496

9.66064
0.43504
0.30593
0.10277
0.30109

32.09
1.44
1.02
0.34

52.86
4.76
3.35
1.13
4.94

Table 10: Values of S and R-squared

Response type
Material removal rate
Surface roughness

S
0.075866
0.267350

R-squared
82.2%
83.9%

Table 11: Optimal parameter settings of input factors

Physical
requirement

Supply voltage (V)

Max. MRR
Min. SF

30
30

Optimal combination
Tool feed rate
Electrolyte
(mm/min)
concentration %
1.0
20
1.0
10

Current
(A)
60
60

Table 12: Verification experimental results & calculation of various response factors
Verification exp. for

MRR

SF

Max. MRR
Min. SF

0.992
0.856

3.969
3.218

3.1. Signal-to-noise ratio

The design resulted in total of 27 experiments,
which are performed at 10 -30V supply voltage, 0.2 1.0 mm/min tool feed rate, 10% -20% electrolyte
concentration and 20 -60A current as the values for
the control variables. The experimental layout for the
machining parameters using the L27 orthogonal array
was listed in Table 5.
Tables 6 and 7 list signal-to-noise response table
for material removal rate and surface roughness. It is
clear that the control factors that effects material
removal rate can be ranked as supply voltage is the
most significant and electrolyte concentration is the

In this work, it is planned to study the behavior of four

control factors, (A, B, C and D) and two interactions
to optimize ECM process parameters. As was
discussed in our previous work (Sameh, 2014), the
S/N ratio response parameter can be calculated for
material removal rate (MRR) and surface roughness
(SF) as shown below.

99

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

lowest significant. However, the control factors that

effects surface roughness can be ranked as current are
the most significant and electrolyte concentration is
the lowest significant. Main effect plots for signal to
noise ratio of material removal rate and surface
roughness are plotted with the help of Minitab 15
software as shown in Figs 2 and 3. In the main effects
plot, if the line for a particular parameter is near
horizontal, then the parameter has no significant
effect. On the other hand, a parameter for which the
line has the highest inclination will have the most
significant effect. It is very much clear from the main
effects plot (Fig. 2) that parameter supply voltage (A)

is the most significant parameter for material removal

rate and the parameter current (D) is the most
significant parameter for surface roughness, while
electrolyte concentration (C) has some contribution
for both responses. Thus from the present analysis it is
clear that the supply voltage (A) is the most
influencing parameter when the designer searches for
increasing material removal rate for the multiple
parameters of electro chemical machining process.
However, when the designer searches for improving
surface finish, current (D) is the most influencing
parameter.

Fig. 5: Interaction plot for surface roughness of SN ratios between supply voltage and
(a) tool feed rate, (b) electrolyte concentration and (c) current

Regardless of the category of the performance

characteristics, a greater S/N value corresponds to a
better performance. Therefore, the optimal level of the
machining parameters is the level with the greatest
value. Thus, the maximum point on the each graph
means the optimum condition for each factor affected
material removal rate such as A3 (30V), B3 (1.0
mm/min), C3 (20%), D3 (60A) as shown in Fig. 2.
The optimal process parameter combination for
maximum metal removing rate is found to be at
highest level of control parameters supply voltage (A),
pulse off time (B), discharge current (C) and current
(D). Figure 3 indicates the optimum condition for
each factor affecting surface roughness is A1 (30V),
B1 (1.0 mm/min), C3 (10%), D1 (60A).
Interaction plots for material removal rate and
surface roughness of SN ratios for supply voltage with
(a) tool feed rate, (b) electrolyte concentration and (c)

current are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. An

interaction plot is a simple line graph for examining
interactions between variables. The cell means on the
response variable for each level of one factor are
plotted over all the levels of the second. The resulting
profiles are parallel when there is no interaction and
nonparallel when interaction is present. It can be
noticed from Fig. 4 that extremely there is no
interaction between variables for material removal
rate. In addition, supply voltage is best parameter
when it used with 1.0 mm/min tool feed rate, 15%
electrolyte concentration and 60A current. However,
there is interaction between supply voltage and
electrolyte concentration for surface roughness as
shown in Fig. 5. Supply voltage is best parameter
when it used with 1.0 mm/min tool feed rate, 10%
electrolyte concentration and 60A current.

100

Vc f hg..hgInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

Fig. 6: Contour plot of material removal rate versus (a) supply voltage and tool feed rate
(b) electrolyte concentration and current

Fig. 7: Contour plot of surface roughness versus (a) supply voltage and tool feed rate
(b) electrolyte concentration and current

Fig. 8: Surface plot of material removal rate versus supply

voltage and tool feed rate

Fig. 9: Surface plot of material removal rate versus current and

electrolyte concentration

101

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

Fig. 10: Surface plot of surface roughness versus supply

voltage and tool feed rate

Fig. 11: Surface plot of surface roughness versus current

and electrolyte concentration

the error associated to the ANOVA for material

removal rate is 2.3%. The contribution that have
significant for surface roughness are supply voltage
(11.5%), feed rate of electrode (21.3%), electrolyte
concentration
(0.2%)
and
current
(52.9%)
respectively, the error associated with surface
roughness is 4.9%.

3.2. Analysis of variance

ANOVA is performed to identify the parameters and
interactions that influence the output variable. Tables
8 and 9 show the ANOVA result for the material
removal rate and surface roughness. The F-ratio,
which is used to measure the significance of factor at
the desired significance level, is the ratio between
variance due to the effect of a factor and variance due
to error term.
From the ANOVA tables it is clearly observed that
the supply voltage (46%), feed rate of electrode
(18.5%), electrolyte concentration (2.8%) and current
(5.8%), have significant and physical influence on the
material removal rate. In addition, it is observed that

3.3. Mathematical models

To develop a mathematical model of the data
collected for material removal rate and surface
roughness, the linear regression analysis of the data is
done using the software Minitab 15. The equations
obtained are:

Material removal rate (mm3/min) = 0.040551 + 0.014728 Supply voltage (V) + 0.216014 Tool feed rate (mm/min)
+ 0.005249 Electrolyte concentration (%) + 0.002516 Current (A)
(4)
Surface roughness (m) = 6.55086 - 0.02499 Supply voltage (V) - 0.87875 Tool feed rate (mm/min)
+ 0.00259 Electrolyte concentration (%) - 0.02601 Current (A)

In general, a model fits the data well if the

differences between the observed values and the
model's predicted values are small and unbiased. In
the regression output for Minitab statistical software,
you can find S in the Summary of Model section, right
next to R-squared. Both statistics provide an overall
measure of how well the model fits the data. S is
known both as the standard error of the regression and
as the standard error of the estimate. R-squared
indicates that the model explains most of the
variability of the response data around its mean. Table
10 represents the values of S and R-squared for the
developed equations 4 and 5.

(5)

3.4. Experimental Verification

After performing the statistical analysis on the
experimental data, it has been observed that there is
one particular level for each factor for which the
responses are either maximum (in case of material
removal rate) or minimum (in case of surface
roughness and gap size). The signal to noise ratio (S/N
ratio) of each responses corresponding to each factor
level also has a maximum and a minimum value. The
optimal parameter setting have been evaluated from
the Figs. 2 and 3 for material removal rate and surface
roughness. The optimal setting comes as shown in

102

International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

table 11. The optimal process parameters that have

been identified to yield the best combination of
process variables are A3B3C3D3 and A3B3C1D3 for
material removal rate and surface roughness
respectively. Using these optimum parameter settings,
verification experiments have been carried out and the
experimental results are as shown in Table 12.

4. CONCLUSION
This study investigates electrochemical machining on
tool steel SKD11 workpiece using Taguchi approach.
The following conclusions are arrived:
(1) Among the four process parameters, supply
voltage (46%) influences highly the material removal
rate response characteristic, followed by tool feed rate
(19%), current (6%) and the concentration of
electrolyte by (3%).
(2) Current (53%) influences highly the surface
roughness response characteristic, followed by tool
feed rate (21%), supply voltage (11.5%) and the
concentration of electrolyte by (0.2%).
(3) From the S/N curves drawn it is observed that
the optimum level, of the factors selected, which will
produce maximum material removal rate is
A3B3C3D3 and the value obtained is 0.992 mm3/min.
In addition, the optimum level for surface roughness
is A3B3C1D3 and the value obtained is 3.218 m.
(4) Mathematical models are developed for
material removal rate and surface roughness using
linear regression approach with the help of software
program used in this work.

3.5. Contour and surface relationships

Figs 6 and 7 show the contour plots between material
removal rate and surface roughness with controlling
parameters supply voltage, tool feed rate, electrolyte
concentration and current. It can be shown that
material removal rate is higher at the dark area of Fig.
6-a, when the supply voltage and tool feed rate values
are higher than 25V and 0.9 mm/min until 30V and
1.0 mm/min respectively. However, the surface
roughness is smaller at the most faint area of Fig. 7-b,
when the current ranges from 55A to 60A and
electrolyte concentration value ranges from 10% to
13%.
The surface plot between material removal rate and
both supply voltage and tool feed rate can be shown in
Fig. 8. As the supply voltage and tool feed rate
increase, the material removal rate increase. In electro
chemical machining, the material removal rate is
proportional to the supply voltage. The tool feed rate
determines the amount of current that can pass
through the work and the tool. As the tool approaches
the work piece the length of the conductive current
path decreases and the magnitude of current increases.
This continues until the current is just sufficient to
remove the metal at a rate corresponding to the rate of
tool advance.
Fig. 9 shows the surface plot between material
removal rate and both electrolyte concentration and
current. It can be shown that there is small effect of
these parameters on material removal rate. Material
removal rate increases with increase in current. Since
the current density is proportional to the concentration
of electrolyte, thus the amount of material removal
increases with the electrolyte concentration.
The surface plot between surface roughness and
both supply voltage and tool feed rate can be shown in
Fig. 10. Good surface roughness can be done when
increase both supply voltage and tool feed rate. Fig.
11 shows the surface plot between surface roughness
and both electrolyte concentration and current. As the
current values increases, the surface roughness values
relatively decreases. Hence, it was revealed that
irregular removal of material was more likely to occur
at high currents values. Electrolyte concentration
seems that has no effect on surface roughness.

REFERENCES
Swift KG, Booker JD (1997). Process Selection from
Design to Manufacture. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
McGeough, JA (1998). Advanced methods of
machining. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Benedict GF (1987). Nontraditional Manufacturing
Processes, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Sameh SH (2014). Parameter optimization of
electrical discharge machining process by using
Taguchi approach. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Research, 6 (3): 27 42.
Krishankant, Jatin Taneja, Mohit Bector, Rajesh
Kumar (2012). Application of Taguchi Method
for Optimizing Turning Process by the effects
of Machining Parameters. International Journal
of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT), 2 (1): 263 - 274.
Chinnamuthu Senthilkumar, Gowrishankar Ganesan,
Ramanujam Karthikeyan, Optimization of ECM
Process Parameters Using NSGA-II, Journal of
Minerals and Materials Characterization and
Engineering, Vol. 11, 2012, pp. 931-937.
Rao RV, Pawar PJ, Shankar R (2008). Multi-objective
optimization of electrochemical machining
process parameters using a particle swarm
optimization algorithm. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 222(8):
949-958.

103

Habib
Experimental Investigation of Electrochemical Machining Process using Taguchi Approach

Asokan P, Ravi Kumar R, Jeyapaul R, Santhi M

(2008). Development of multi-objective
optimization models for electrochemical
machining process. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39(1-2):
55-63.
Acharya BG, Jain VK, Batra JL (1986). Multiobjective optimization of the ECM process.
Precision Engineering, 8 (2): 8896.
Chakradhar D, Venu Gopal A (2011). Multi-Objective
Optimization of Electrochemical machining of
EN31 steel by Grey Relational Analysis.
International Journal of Modeling and
Optimization, 1(2): 113 117.
Dharmalingam S, Marimuthu P, Raja K, Pandyrajan
R, Surendar S (2014). Optimization of Process
Parameters on MRR and Overcut in

Electrochemical Micro Machining on Metal

Matrix Composites Using Grey Relational
Analysis. International Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IJET), 6(2): 519 529.
Glen Stuart Peace (1993). Taguchi Methods: a Handson Approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
Inc.
Goswami R, Chaturvedi V, Chouhan R (2013).
Optimization of electrochemical machining
process parameters using Taguchi approach.
International Journal of Engineering Science
and Technology (IJEST), 5(5): 9991006.
Bisht B, Vimal J, Chaturvedi V (2013). Parametric
Optimization of Electrochemical Machining
Using
Signal-To-Noise
(S/N)
Ratio.
International Journal of Modern Engineering
Research
(IJMER),
3(4):
1999-2006.

104

International Journal of Scientific Research in Chemical Engineering, 1(6), pp. 93-105, 2014

Dr. Sameh S. Habib is an Associate Professor of Nontraditional Machining, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Shoubra Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, Cairo, Egypt. He
received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Shoubra Faculty of Engineering, Benha
University, Cairo, Egypt, 2003.

105