4.5 Article

Multiple-objective optimization of hydroxyapatite-added EDM technique for processing of 316L-steel

期刊

MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 1134-1145

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2021.1885715

关键词

Electro-discharge; 316l; hydroxyapatite; rlt; roughness; NSGA-II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the influence of EDM method variables on machining performances of 316 L steel and proposes optimal solutions for processing through the NSGA-II method. By adjusting peak current, HA amount, and pulse-on time, lower RLT and SR can be achieved compared to previous studies, leading to a potential and cost-effective method for processing 316 L steel.
Fabrication of the 316 L steel with moderate surface roughness (SR) and thin recast layer (RLT) is very difficult using both the conventional and non-traditional machining processes. Due to the stochastic behavior of electro-discharge machining (EDM) process, the machining performances significantly rely on the system variables. This research work aims to investigate the influences of EDM method variables on the machining performances during the machining of 316 L steel. Another goal is to minimize the performances by applying nano-hydroxyapatite (HA) particles in the EDM-Oil. Moreover, the optimal solutions for processing of 316 L through the NSGA-II method are proposed in this research. Followed by the pulse-on time and HA amount, ANOVA study reports peak current being the most important parameter for the responses such RLT and SR. The augment of peak current, HA amount, and pulse-on time result comparatively lower RLT and SR than the previous studies. The best 7 solutions selected from the predicted 120 solutions following the objectives are proposed generating the Pareto frontiers. Less than 10% of the validation tests errors confirm the high accuracy of the predicted solutions. The present research proposed a potential and cost-effective method for processing of 316 L steel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据