Experimental investigation of Electro discharge machining

process by AHP-MOORA technique.

S. Debnath1, S. Ghosh2*
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering ,Assistant Professor, SRKR Engineering College
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Assistant Professor, Mallabhum Institute of Technology
Email: 1 [email protected], [email protected]

In the current study analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combined with Multi-objective optimization by ratio
analysis (MOORA) adopted to find the efficiency of optimizing multiple performance characteristics for EDM of
Al-4.5%Cu- SiC composite using a cylindrical copper electrode. The influence of three machine process
parameter pulse on (TON), peak current, duty cycle and one material variable weight fraction on the response
variables material removal rate (MRR), electrode wear ratio (EWR) and surface roughness (SR) have been
investigated using multi-attribute decision- making model. The response surface methodology (RSM) central
composite designs (CCD) have used as the design of the experiment. The weight factors for the output responses
assigned by AHP method and the most desirable significant factor levels determined by MOORA method. The
method implemented in this paper is advantageous in various real-life decision-making problems in the
manufacturing environment.
Keywords: EDM; Al-4.5Cu-SiC; AHP; MOORA
1. Introduction

Electro Discharge machining is one of the most important non-conventional machining processes which are
extensively used in various industries. The working principle of the EDM is based on thermoelectric process
where machining operation is performed under high frequency controlled pulses produced in the dielectric
liquid between the tool and workpiece. A plasma channel created in the spark gap maintained between tool
and workpiece and due to the continuous bombardment of ions and electrons generating temperature in the
range of 8000°C–12000°C in this small gap, which causes vaporization and erosion of the material. The main
limitation in this process during machining of hard material is poor surface quality with a low metal removal
rate. In EDM no physical contact between tool and workpiece which eliminated the chance of thermal stresses
in the workpiece as well as a tool. However, the depletion of the plasma channel and the absence of physical
contact between workpiece and tool make it complicate the machining process. A lot of application of
MOORA in various domain of science and technology found in the literature and a few of them related to
literature cited in this article. In the manufacturing field, few authors used this MOORA method such as S.
Chakraborty in his review paper discuss the versatility of the MOORA method in a real-time manufacturing
environment. In this work, six decision-making problems framed these are an industrial robot, flexible
manufacturing system, a computerized numerical control machine, the most s uitable non-traditional
machining process for a given work material and shape feature combination, a rapid prototyping process and
an automated inspection system. In his paper, he concluded that MOORA method can consider the entire
attributes along with their relative importance and hence it can provide a better accurate evaluation of the
alternatives. This decision- making problems technique is computationally effortless, easily comprehensible,
and robust compare to others [1]. The MOORA technique successfully implemented in another case also like
as Brauers et al. generalized that alternative with midway attributes can rank first in MOORA, which is not
possible with the weighted linearity of the different objectives. It can successfully use consideration of
contradictory objectives[2]. The same author used this MOORA method in the ranking of contractor
objective, as the client satisfaction, reduce of external costs, diminish the customer annoyances and the
management cost per employee as low as possible[3]. Patel et al.implement AHP/Moora in the selection of
wire-cut electrical discharge machining process parameter[4].Gadakh also use the MOORA method to evaluate
the suitable process parameter in the milling operation[5].The other multi-attribute decision making (MADM)
method also implement in the manufacturing field few of them discussed here, Senthil et al. also used
TOPSIS to optimize the multiple responses machining of Al-CuTiB to achieve the best possible set of process
parameters for machining[4]. Talla et al. successfully used the multi-objective optimization to control the
process parameters of PMEDM using Taguchi, grey relation analysis (GRA) and principal component analysis
(PCA) to control the process parameters [5]. The various multi-objective optimizations like Taguchi coupled
with grey relational analysis, grey relational analysis (GRA) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) have also been carried out for EDM and wire EDM as reported by Lal et al., Raghuraman et al. and
Azhiri et al.[6]–[9]. From this literature work, it reveals that the efficiency of the machining performance in

1
large extent depends on the input machining variables. Hence it worth to investigate the relative significance
of the input process parameters to the output response. Moora method is the latest multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) technique which is framed knowing the weak aspects of the older techniques. The literature,
also indicates MOORA methods are stable, and it requires low computational time which makes it effective
MCDM technique. In this paper Ahp-Moora technique employed to find the optimal set of input machining
variables in such manner that the overall machining performance will improve as well as surface quality with
minimum tool wear.
2. Material and methods
In Multi-objective optimization (or programming), also known as multi-criteria or multi-attribute
optimization, simultaneously optimize the two or more contradictory attributes (objectives) subjected to with
or without constraints. Different type of multi-objective optimization can be seen in product and process
design, scheduling, finance, the manufacturing sector, automobile design where ever two or more conflicting
objectives presence. Maximum profits with minimum product cost, maximizing the efficiency with
minimizing the fuel consumption are some typical objective of multi-objective optimization technique. Now-
a-days decision making system is more complicated with varying the interest and values of the decision maker
in real time manufacturing problem. Hence in this scenario multi-objective optimization technique seems to be
a suitable technique for selection of one or more alternatives from a set of multiple or conflicting attributes
and same for the ranking also. In complex decision-making problems, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one
of the most popular analytical techniques. Saaty first developed analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which break
the decision- making problem into a system of hierarchies of objectives, attributes (or criteria), and
alternatives. AHP can efficiently deal with tangible (i.e., objective) as well as non-tangible (i.e., subjective)
attributes, mainly where the subjective judgments of different individuals constitute a vital part of the decision
process. Finding the relative importance of various attributes concerning their goal or objective. Construct a
pair-wise comparison matrix using a scale of relative importance by expert decision maker[10], [11]. Scientist,
Brauers first introduced MOORA method, which has been successfully implemented to various types of
complicated manufacturing problems. In MOORA method [3], [12]–[15] initially design a decision matrix
with the different performance alternatives regarding various attributes (objectives).

x11 x 12 ⋯ ⋯ x1 n
x 21 … … … x2 n
X= ⋯ … ⋯ … …
… ⋯ … … …
x m 1 ⋯ … … x mn
where, xij element indicates the performance measure of ith alternative on the jth attribute, here number of
alternatives is m, and number of attributes is n. In the following steps a ratio system is developed in between
each performance to an corresponding alternative attribute. Brauers et al. employed different ratio systems in
their work such as total ratio, Schärlig ratio, Weitendorf ratio, Jüttler ratio, Stopp ratio, Körth ratio, etc and
finally square root of the sum of squares considered as best choice for denominator of each alternative per
attribute[10]. This ratio can be displayed (Equation 1) as below:
X ij
X ij = ( j=1, 2 , … ., n)
m

√[ ]
∑ X ij2
i=1
(1)

Where, Xij is a dimensionless number, which belongs to the interval [0, 1] representing the normalized
performance of ith alternative on the jth attribute.
3. Theory and calculation
The important steps of the proposed MOORA method described below:
Step-1: Define the Problem
In this step objective has been defined and identification of all the possible alternatives and its attributes has
been done. Let consider electric discharge machine alternative as A = {Ai for i = 1, 2, 3…m} and decision
criteria or attributes of the electric discharge machine alternative consider as set B = {Bj for j =1, 2, 3… n},
and Xij is the performance of alternative Ai when it examined with criteria Bj. An EDM process parameter
selection problem described in hierarchy structure in Fig. 1

2
 Fig. 1. Figure showing hierarchy structure

Step 2: Formulate the decision matrix

In this step a decision matrix has been formulated with the solution of multi-attribute decision-making
process. In the decision matrix, all the performance measure of attributes are represented in a quantitative form
or numerical value (xij) as shown in Table 1.If any of the performance or measures of attributes are in
qualitative form, i.e. linguistic term, then it is required to convert the linguistic terms into a crisp score using
fuzzy conversion scale.
Step 3: Generate the pair wise matrix
With the scale of relative importance a pair wise Matrix has been constructed and shown in below. Let, there are
M attributes are considered in the decision making, the pair wise comparison of attribute i with attribute j yields
a square matrix A =M x M = [aij] M x M, where aij denotes the relative importance of attribute i concerning
attribute j. In the matrix, aij = 1 when i = j and aij= 1/aij.
MRR TWR SR
A= 5 ¿TWR ¿ 0.2 ¿ 1 ¿ 2¿ SR ¿ 0.2¿ 0.5 ¿ 1 ¿
MRR 1 ¿

Table 1. Table showing Decision matrix Table 2: Priority matrix

MRR SR TWR
+ - -
0.038 7.55 0.008
0.0166 7.06 0.0026
0.019 7.53 7
0.004
0.0133 6.59 0.0013
0.0527 7.67 3
0.0053
0.0686 6.67 0.0073
0.0521 6.76 0.004
0.0533 5.48 0.0026
0.0526 9.41 7
0.0026
0.07 7.55 7
0.0033
0.056 6.23 3
0.0026
0.0632 5.26 7
0.0015
0.0813 6.27 0.004
0.16 6.69 0.0057
0.0793 4
6.98 8
0.0046
3
0.0733 7.66 7
0.0113
1
0.0553 7.17 2
0.00533
3
0.0606 7.42 0.0042
7
0.036 8.86 0.0053
0.0653 5.64 3
0.002
0.0153 1
6.02 0.0026
0.056 7
7.88 7
0.002
0.034 3
7.74 0.002
0.1033 7.24 0.0047
0.058 6.91 0.003
0.064 1
7.73 0.0037
0.064 7.55 3
0.002
0.069 6.62 0.002

Step -4: Calculation of relative normalized weight

A relative normalized weight at each level of hierarchy structure is calculated using following equation (2) and
equation (3).
M
GM j= [∏ ]
j =1
aij (2)

3
 GM j
W j= M
(3)
∑ GM j
j=1

The geometric mean method of AHP is commonly used to determine the relative normalized weights of the
attributes, because of its simplicity, easy determination of the maximum Eigenvalue, and reduction in the
inconsistency of judgments.
• Calculate matrices A3 and A4 such that A3 = A1 * A2 and A4 = A3 / A2, where A2 = [w1, w2,.. , wj] T.
• Determine the maximum Eigen value λmax that is the average of matrix A.Calculate the consistency
index CI =(λmax- M) / (M - 1). The smaller the value of CI, the smaller is the deviation from the
consistency.
• Obtain the random index (RI) for the number of attributes used in decision making.
• Calculate the consistency ratio CR = CI/RI. Usually, a CR of 0.1 or less is considered as acceptable, and
it reflects an informed judgment attributable to the knowledge of the analyst regarding the problem
under study.
Step-5: Normalization value
As normalization of performance a dimensionless number Rij is considered which is belongs to the interval
zero to one of ith alternative on jth attribute. This Rij value is calculated by the equation no 4 as suggested
by Brauerset et. al.[12]. Normalised matrix calculated as per the equation given below:
X ij
Rij = M
(4)
∑ X ij2
j=1

Step-6: Normalized performance of alternative calculation

In current step obtained the normalized performance of alternatives with considering the weightage of selection
criteria considered in the decision-making process. In multi-objective optimization for maximization (beneficial
attributes) normalized performances are added and subtracted in the case of minimization (non-beneficial
attributes).
g n
y i=∑ W j X ij + ∑ W j X ij
j=1 j= g+1
j=1 ,2 , 3 … … … … … ..n (5)

where, g is the number of attributes to be maximized, (n-g) is the number of attributes to be minimized,
wj is the weight of jth attribute, wj is calculated in analytic hierarchy process method as mentioned in step 3 and
step 4, and yi is the normalized performance value of ith alternative corresponding to all the attributes. The yi
value has been calculated by the equation no 5 as suggested by Brauers et. al.[16]. The weighted normalized
matrix has been calculated.
Step-7: Ranking and selection of an alternative
In the final step ranking has been carried out based on the value of y i which can be positive or negative depends
on the totals of its maximum (beneficial attributes) and minimum (non-beneficial attributes). The highest yi
value considered as best alternative or ranked first while the worst alternative has the lowest yi value or ranked
last. According to above the priority matrix based on the ranking presented in Table 2.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Process parameter selection
The output obtained from evaluation and selection of optimum EDM process parameter using a combined
approach of AHP/MOORA method demonstrated in Table 2. In this Table, all the alternatives ranked according
to the weighted assessment value consider the all the three conflicting responses like metal removal rate (MRR)
consider here as beneficial attribute and tool wear rate (TWR) and surface roughness (SR) considered as a non-
beneficial attribute. It is observed from the table that numbers 14 gives the best multi-performance
characteristics among the 28 no of runs. It depicts the master chart of the design of the experiment that in T on =

4
6µs, Toff= 6µs and current (I) = 15A is best suitable alternative among all combination of EDM process
parameter.

Fig. 2. Effect of process parameters on experiment

4.2. EDM Microstructure
In the Fig. 3(a) shows the micrograph of EDM surface which shows micro-cracks in the EDM surface. This
micro-crack formed due to the uneven bottom spark of the electrode. Due to poor flushing melted portion
redeposit in the EDM inner wall which results in poor hole quality(shown in Fig. 3b). We obtain more MRR
than original optimal settings due to high current. Moreover, in this experiment obtain low surface roughness
and high EWR due to high wt. fraction of SiCp presence in the specimen.

(a) (b)

Fig.3 (a) EDM surface (b) EDM surface interphase

5. Conclusion
The methodology based on the AHP coupled with MOORA method is successfully implemented in the non
-conventional machining decision-making problem. Here in this method illustrate the selection of best suitable
EDM process parameter combination among the large no alternatives. In the MOORA method calculation
procedure is not affected by the introduction of any other extra parameter (e.g., v in VIKOR method and ζ in
GRA method) as it happened in other MODM methods. It is also effortless and comprehends which involves
less computational problems, which may be quite useful to the decision makers not having the high
mathematical background. In the MOORA technique consider all the attributes along with all the along with
their relative importance and hence it can give most stable and accurate evaluation. However, some former
researcher finds some discrepancies in the case of subjective judgments taken by the decision makers, and it
fails in some cases where a large number of qualitative attributes presence.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Production Engineering department of NIT Agartala for support to carried out
the experimental work.

5
References

[1] S. Chakraborty, “Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing
environment,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 54, no. 9–12, pp. 1155–1166, Jun. 2011.
[2] W. K. M. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas, “Project management by multi moora as an instrument for
transition economies,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5–24, Jan. 2010.
[3] W. K. M. Brauers, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and T. Vilutiene, “Multi‐objective contractor’s ranking
by applying the Moora method,” J. Bus. Econ. Manag., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 245–255, Jan. 2008.
[4] P. Senthil, S. Vinodh, and A. K. Singh, “Parametric optimisation of EDM on Al-Cu/TiB2 in-situ metal
matrix composites using TOPSIS method,” Int. J. Mach. Mach. Mater., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 80, 2014.
[5] G. Talla, D. K. Sahoo, S. Gangopadhyay, and C. K. Biswas, “Modeling and multi-objective
optimization of powder mixed electric discharge machining process of aluminum/alumina metal matrix
composite,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 369–373, Sep. 2015.
[6] S. Lal, S. Kumar, Z. Khan, and A. Siddiquee, “Multi-response optimization of wire electrical discharge
machining process parameters for Al7075/Al2O3/SiC hybrid composite using Taguchi-based grey
relational analysis,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf., vol. 229, no. 2, pp. 229–237, Feb.
2015.
[7] M. Durairaj, D. Sudharsun, and N. Swamynathan, “Analysis of Process Parameters in Wire EDM with
Stainless Steel Using Single Objective Taguchi Method and Multi Objective Grey Relational Grade,”
Procedia Eng., vol. 64, pp. 868–877, Jan. 2013.
[8] R. Bagherian Azhiri, R. Teimouri, M. Ghasemi Baboly, and Z. Leseman, “Application of Taguchi,
ANFIS and grey relational analysis for studying, modeling and optimization of wire EDM process while
using gaseous media,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 71, no. 1–4, pp. 279–295, Mar. 2014.
[9] A. Soubeyran, “Book review of Ezey Dar-El,Human Learning: From Learning Curves to Learning
Organizations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 2000, 236 p. ISBN 0792379438,” Optimization,
vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 339–342, Jun. 2005.
[10] T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, vol. 26, no. 7. New York: McGraw Hill, 1980.
[11] Saaty Thomas L, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. 2000.
[12] W. K. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas, “Robustness of the multi‐objective MOORA method with a test for
the facilities sector,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 352–375, Jan. 2009.
[13] W. K. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas, “The MOORA method and its application to privatization...,”
Control Cybern., 2006.
[14] F. A. Lootsma, Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and difference... Springer Science & Business
Media, 2007.
[15] D. Kalibatas and Z. Turskis, “MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION OF INNER CLIMATE BY USING
MOORA METHOD,” Inf. Technol. Control, vol. 37, no. 1, 2015.
[16] W. K. M. Brauers, E. K. Zavadskas, F. Peldschus, and Z. Turskis, “Multi‐objective decision‐making for

6
road design,” Transport, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 183–193, Jan. 2008.