Advertisement

Detailed Experimental Investigations on Machinability of EN31 Steel by WEDM

  • Kunal Chopra
  • Aishwarya Payla
  • Eswara Krishna MussadaEmail author
Technical Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

EN31 steel is a potential member in automobile industry, and achieving dimensional accuracy with outstanding surface characteristics is a challenging task while machining this alloy. The current investigations deal with wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) of EN31 die steel and establish a fundamental understanding of the process parameters on micro-scale machined surface characteristics. WEDM parameters such as pulse on-time, servo voltage, wire feed and wire tension are grouped in an efficient way to understand the influence of these parameters on edge roughness, kerf width and cutting rate. The current study revealed that low pulse on-time and servo voltage decreased kerf width and edge roughness. However, cutting rate decreased with pulse on-time but increased with servo voltage. Wire tension and wire feed were found to have diverse effects on the response parameters. While edge roughness varied inversely, kerf width was directly proportional to the wire feed corresponding to lower wire tension.

Keywords

Cutting rate Die steel Wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) EN31 Full factorial Kerf Roughness 

List of Symbols

Ton

Pulse on-time

Toff

Pulse off-time

Sv

Servo voltage

Wf

Wire feed

Wt

Wire tension

Kw

Kerf width

Er

Edge roughness

Cr

Cutting rate

Lc

Cutting length

t

Time taken to machine

MRR

Material removal rate

References

  1. 1.
    McGeough J A, Advanced Methods of Machining. Chapman & Hall, New York (1988).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaubey S K, and Jain N K, Mater Manuf Process (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1415440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mouralova K, Kovar J, Klakurkova L, Prokes T, and Horynova M, Measurement 104 (2017) 12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Majumder H, Paul T, Dey V, Dutta P, and Saha A, Measurement 107 (2017) 19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Mahapatra S S, and Patnaik A, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34 (2007) 911.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0672-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang C A, Hsu F Y, and Yao S J, Mater Sci Eng 371 (2004) 119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2003.10.277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mouralova K, Kovar J, and Klakurkova L, Blazik P, Kalivoda M, and Kousala P, Measurement 116 (2017) 556.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.11.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao R V, and Pawar P Part B: J Eng Manuf 223 (2009) 1431.  https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta K, and Jain N K, Mater Manuf Process 29 (2014) 1470.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.941865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma P, Chakradhar D, and Narendranath S, Mater Eng Perform 25 (2016) 3672.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-016-2216-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajendran S, Sakthivel M, and Dharamalingam S, Mater Manuf Process 30 (2015) 199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.941868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mandal A, Dixit A R, Das A K, and Mandal N, Mater Manuf Process 31 (2015) 860  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1048462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar A, Kumar V, and Kumar J. Part E: J Process Mech Eng 232 (2018) 108.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954408916685588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soni H, Narendranath S, and Ramesh M, R, Silicon 10 (2018) 2483.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-018-9780-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh P, Sidhu S S, and Payal H S, Mater Manuf Process 31 (2016) 553.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1025976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kung K Y, and Chiang K T, Mater Manuf Process 3 (2008) 241  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426910701860616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar S S, Uthayakumar M, Kumaran S T, Parameswaran P,·Haneef T K,·Mukhopadhyay C K, and·Rao B P C, Silicon 10 (2018) 2635. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-018-9800-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gopal P M, Prakash K S, and Jayaraj S, Mater Manuf Process 33 (2018) 77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1279316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ikram A, Mufti N A, Saleem M Q, Khan A R, J Mech Sci Technol 27 (2013) 2133  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-013-0526-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gajjar D, and Desai J, Int J Sci Res Dev 2 (2015) 343.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bisaria H, and Shandilya P. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C: J Mech Eng Sci (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406218763447.
  23. 23.
    Gupta K, and Jain N K, Mater Manuf Process 28 (2013) 1153  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2013.792422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mussada E K, Hua C C, and Prasada Rao A K, Mater Manuf Process 33 (2018) 1745.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2018.1476695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prasad D V S S S V, and Krishna G, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43 (2009) 914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weng F T, and Her M G, Process Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19 (2002) 266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700200033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar V, Kumar V, and Jangra K K, J Eng Int 11 (2015) 297.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSOET, BML Munjal UniversityGurgaonIndia

Personalised recommendations