Investigation of Wire-Cut EDM parameters for machining 2304 duplex stainless steel: effects on material removal rate, surface roughness, and tool wear

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the optimization of Wire-Cut Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM) for 2304 duplex stainless steel, a material valued for its superior mechanical properties and corrosion resistance in challenging environments such as oil and gas, marine, and chemical industries. The study aims to evaluate how WEDM parameters—pulse duration, peak current, and wire speed—affect MRR, surface roughness (Ra), and tool wear. Using a Taguchi-based design of experiments (DoE) method, machining trials were conducted by varying these parameters. Results showed that Material Removal Rate (MRR) and surface roughness increased with longer pulse durations and higher peak currents, demonstrating a direct relationship. MRR peaked at 8.8 mm³/s at 300 µs pulse duration and 30 A peak current, while surface roughness increased to 2.1 µm under the same conditions. ANOVA analysis confirmed that pulse duration had the most significant effect on MRR and surface roughness, accounting for 58% and 54% of the variation, respectively. Tool wear, which increased with higher discharge energies, was mainly influenced by peak current, contributing to 45% of the observed variance. This study concludes that optimizing WEDM parameters can enhance machining performance while balancing MRR, surface finish, and tool wear trade-offs.

Keywords:
Wire-Cut EDM; 2304 Duplex Stainless Steel; Material Removal Rate; Surface Roughness; Tool Wear

1. INTRODUCTION

WEDM has become a vital non-traditional machining process, particularly for the precision machining of hard-to-cut materials like stainless steels, titanium alloys, and superalloys. Among the various grades of stainless steel, 2304 duplex stainless steel stands out due to its superior mechanical properties, which include excellent corrosion resistance, high strength, and enhanced fatigue and wear resistance. These properties make 2304 duplex stainless steel highly desirable for applications in industries such as chemical processing, marine, and oil and gas, where materials are exposed to extreme conditions [¹]. However, these same properties that make the material desirable also pose significant challenges for traditional machining processes, such as turning and milling, which struggle to achieve precision and efficient material removal without compromising the material’s integrity. This is where WEDM proves advantageous, as it offers a method for machining complex and tough materials with high precision, without the need for physical cutting forces, thus reducing the risk of tool wear and thermal damage [²].

WEDM is a specialized form of electrical discharge machining (EDM) where a thin wire, typically made of brass or copper, acts as the tool electrode. The process involves a series of electrical discharges between the wire and the workpiece, which erode material from the surface of the workpiece. The dielectric fluid used in the process ensures cooling and prevents the arcing of discharges. The ability to control WEDM parameters such as pulse duration, peak current, wire speed, and dielectric flushing rate provides precise control over MRR, surface finish, and tool wear. However, achieving optimal WEDM parameters for 2304 duplex stainless steel is not straightforward, due to the alloy’s unique combination of austenitic and ferritic phases. These two phases have different thermal and electrical conductivities, which complicates the WEDM process by affecting the efficiency of material removal and the quality of the machined surface [³].

The problem addressed in this research is the challenge of optimizing WEDM parameters to machine 2304 duplex stainless steel efficiently, while maintaining a high-quality surface finish and minimizing tool wear and energy consumption. The complex microstructure of duplex stainless-steel results in uneven material removal when machined using WEDM, which can lead to poor surface integrity and an increased HAZ [⁴]. These issues are compounded by the fact that improper WEDM parameters can result in excessive wire wear, leading to frequent tool replacement, increased machining costs, and decreased productivity. Therefore, the main challenge is to identify the ideal combination of WEDM parameters that will not only optimize MRR but also reduce Ra, minimize the HAZ, and prolong the lifespan of the wire electrode [⁵].

The literature on WEDM and duplex stainless steels is extensive, with many studies focusing on different grades of stainless steels, such as 304 and 316, or other high-performance materials like titanium alloys. These studies provide insights into how WEDM parameters influence Ra, tool wear, and the HAZ. However, studies specifically addressing the WEDM machining of 2304 duplex stainless steel are limited. The few existing studies on 2304 duplex stainless steel suggest that its machining characteristics are significantly different from those of more common stainless steels due to its dual-phase microstructure, which affects the thermal conductivity and energy absorption during machining. Furthermore, existing research often focuses on single performance criteria, such as MRR or surface finish, without considering a holistic approach that considers multiple response variables, including tool wear and energy efficiency. This gap in the literature presents an opportunity for further investigation into the optimization of WEDM parameters specifically for 2304 duplex stainless steel [⁶].

The significance of this research lies in its potential to improve the machining efficiency of a material that is increasingly being used in demanding industrial applications. The findings of this study will be relevant to industries that rely on high-precision machining of 2304 duplex stainless steel, such as the oil and gas, marine, and chemical processing industries, where material performance is critical to operational success. By optimizing WEDM parameters for this material, manufacturers can improve product quality while reducing machining time and costs. Additionally, understanding the relationship between WEDM parameters and machining performance can lead to the development of more sustainable manufacturing processes by minimizing tool wear and energy consumption. Given the increasing demand for environmentally friendly manufacturing practices, this research aligns with industry trends towards more sustainable production methods.

The novelty of this research lies in its focus on 2304 duplex stainless steel, a material that has not been extensively studied in the context of WEDM. While significant research has been conducted on other grades of duplex stainless steels, the unique microstructural and mechanical properties of 2304 require a specific investigation to understand how it behaves under WEDM conditions. Furthermore, this study aims to take a comprehensive approach by analyzing multiple response variables, including MRR, Ra, tool wear, and the HAZ, to provide a holistic understanding of the machining process. The novelty also extends to the methodology, which involves the use of DoE techniques to systematically study the effects of different WEDM parameters on machining performance. This approach will enable the identification of optimal parameter settings for multiple response variables simultaneously, which is not commonly addressed in existing research [⁷].

The objectives of this study are to investigate the effects of key WEDM parameters, including pulse duration, peak current, and wire speed, on the machining performance of 2304 duplex stainless steel. Specifically, the study aims to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and important performance criteria such as MRR, Ra, tool wear, and the extent of the HAZ]. By conducting a series of controlled experiments, the research seeks to determine the optimal WEDM parameter settings that will maximize MRR while minimizing Ra, tool wear, and the HAZ. Additionally, the study will explore the microstructural changes that occur in the material during WEDM machining, with a particular focus on how these changes affect the material’s mechanical properties and surface integrity. The ultimate goal of the research is to provide manufacturers with practical guidelines for optimizing WEDM machining of 2304 duplex stainless steel, thereby improving product quality, reducing machining costs, and enhancing the overall efficiency of the manufacturing process [⁸].

In summary, this research addresses the need for optimized WEDM machining of 2304 duplex stainless steel, a material that is gaining prominence in several industrial applications. The study builds on existing knowledge of WEDM and stainless steel machining but focuses on the unique characteristics of 2304 duplex stainless steel. By analyzing multiple response variables and employing a rigorous experimental methodology, this research aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on advanced machining techniques and provide practical recommendations for industry. The findings of this study will have important implications for manufacturers looking to improve the precision and efficiency of their machining processes while minimizing costs and environmental impact.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the Investigation of Wire-Cut EDM Machining Characteristics of 2304 Duplex Stainless Steel, the materials and methods section is essential to outline the experimental procedure, machinery used, and parameters set for evaluating the machining performance. The study’s aim was to investigate how various WEDM parameters influenced key output characteristics, such as MRR, Ra, and tool wear, when machining 2304 duplex stainless steel. The experimental setup was carefully designed to ensure the consistency and repeatability of results, while a comprehensive range of WEDM parameters was selected for evaluation.

The primary material chosen for this investigation was 2304 duplex stainless steel, a low-alloy duplex stainless steel that consists of nearly equal proportions of austenitic and ferritic microstructures. This steel grade was selected due to its growing importance in industries such as chemical processing, oil and gas, and marine environments, where high strength and corrosion resistance are essential. The chemical composition of 2304 duplex stainless steel includes chromium, molybdenum, and nitrogen, which contribute to its resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion, while its duplex structure provides excellent mechanical properties. The experimental workpiece dimensions were set to 10 mm C × 10 mm × 5 mm, as standard sizes to allow for uniform comparison across trials.

The Wire-Cut EDM machine employed for the experiments was 3240 NXG (Figure 1), which is widely recognized for its precision in machining hard materials. The Ezeecut NXG is a high-precision Wire EDM (Electrical Discharge Machining) machine widely used in industries like aerospace, automotive, and tool-making. It uses a thin wire and electrical discharges to cut through conductive materials with extreme accuracy, making it ideal for producing intricate shapes and contours with tight tolerances. The machine operates through a non-contact cutting process, eliminating mechanical stress on the workpiece. Equipped with an advanced CNC interface, like the RATNAPARKHI NXG controller, it allows operators to program complex geometries and automate processes such as wire threading. This makes the Ezeecut NXG highly efficient for machining hard materials like steel, tungsten carbide, and titanium, as well as softer metals, catering to applications in mold-making, precision engineering, and medical device manufacturing.

Figure 1
Micro-wire cut EDM.

The experimental procedure began with the preparation of the workpieces, which involved grinding and polishing the 2304 duplex stainless steel samples to obtain smooth, defect-free surfaces (Figure 2). This step was essential to ensure that the initial Ra of the samples did not influence the experimental results. After polishing, the samples were cleaned using acetone to remove any residual contaminants that could interfere with the EDM process. Prior to machining, the samples were subjected to chemical etching using a solution of 25% nitric acid and 75% hydrochloric acid to reveal the microstructure of the duplex stainless steel. This step was important for understanding the metallurgical changes that occurred during the machining process, particularly the formation of the HAZ.

Figure 2
Flowchart of the experimental work.

To assess the influence of WEDM parameters on the machining characteristics, a design of experiments (DoE) approach was adopted, specifically using the Taguchi method. This method allowed for the systematic variation of multiple input parameters and the identification of their individual and interactive effects on output characteristics. Three key WEDM parameters were selected for evaluation: pulse duration (Ton), peak current (Ip), and wire speed. These parameters were varied across three levels to capture a wide range of machining conditions. The pulse duration was varied from 100 µs to 300 µs, the peak current from 10 A to 30 A, and the wire speed from 2 mm/s to 6 mm/s. These parameter ranges were chosen based on a review of existing literature and preliminary experiments, which indicated that these ranges would provide meaningful variations in machining performance.

The primary response variables measured in the experiments were MRR, Ra and tool wear. This value provided a direct measure of the efficiency of the machining process, with higher MRR values indicating faster material removal. Ra was measured using a Taylor-Hobson Surtronic 3+ Ra meter, which provided highly accurate measurements of the machined surfaces. The Ra was measured at three different locations on each sample (top, right, and left) to ensure that the results were consistent across the entire machined surface. Tool wear was assessed by measuring the weight loss of the molybdenum wire after each machining trial, which was an important factor in determining the economic feasibility of the machining process [⁹].

In addition to these performance measures, the kerf width was also evaluated as a secondary response variable. Kerf width refers to the width of the material removed during the machining process and is critical for determining the dimensional accuracy of the machined component. The HAZ is particularly important in duplex stainless steel, as excessive heating during the EDM process can lead to undesirable changes in the microstructure, such as the formation of sigma phases, which can reduce the material’s toughness and corrosion resistance. Advanced microscopy techniques such as transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were employed to analyze sub-surface structural changes. TEM observations revealed refined grain structures and phase transformations, providing deeper insights into the material’s thermal stability and enhanced surface integrity post-machining.

During the experiments, the flushing pressure of the dielectric fluid was carefully controlled to maintain a stable spark gap and to ensure efficient debris removal. The flushing nozzles were positioned approximately 0.2 mm away from the workpiece, as this distance was found to optimize cutting performance without excessive wear on the wire or distortion of the machined surface. The wire tension was also adjusted based on the thickness of the workpiece, ensuring that the wire remained taut during the machining process to prevent deviations in the cut path.

Following the completion of the machining trials, the results were analyzed using statistical methods, including ANOVA (Analysis of Variance), to determine the significance of each WEDM parameter on the response variables. This analysis allowed for the identification of trade-offs between different performance measures. For example, higher pulse durations tended to increase MRR but resulted in a rougher surface finish and greater tool wear. Similarly, higher peak currents improved MRR but increased the risk of wire breakage and surface damage. Additional experiments were conducted using cylindrical and rectangular workpieces to evaluate the applicability of the findings to diverse geometries. The results revealed significant variations in MRR and Ra based on geometry, with cylindrical geometries showing higher Ra due to increased surface area exposure [¹⁰]. The materials and methods section of this study provided a comprehensive framework for investigating the WEDM machining characteristics of 2304 duplex stainless steel. The use of advanced statistical techniques ensured that the results were robust and applicable to a wide range of industrial applications.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental investigation into the WEDM of 2304 duplex stainless steel involved varying key parameters—pulse duration, peak current, and wire speed—and observing their effects on critical performance metrics such as MRR, Ra (Ra), and tool wear. The results of this study provide significant insights into the optimal conditions for machining 2304 duplex stainless steel using WEDM and highlight the interactions between the different input parameters and the machining outcomes. The MRR increased consistently with the rise in pulse duration and peak current (Figure 3). This observation is in line with the theoretical understanding of WEDM, where longer pulse durations provide more time for energy transfer to the workpiece, resulting in higher erosion rates. At a pulse duration of 300 µs and a peak current of 30 A, the MRR reached a maximum of 8.8 mm³/s, while the lowest MRR of 5.0 mm³/s was recorded at a pulse duration of 100 µs and a peak current of 10 A. These results indicate a linear relationship between pulse duration and MRR, with a correlation coefficient of 0.97, demonstrating a strong positive relationship between these parameters [¹¹].

Figure 3
Material removal rate vs. Pulse duration for 2304 duplex stainless steel.

Ra (Ra) was another critical metric analyzed. As shown in Figure 4, Ra increased with both pulse duration and peak current. The highest Ra value of 2.1 µm was observed at the maximum pulse duration of 300 µs and peak current of 30 A, while the lowest Ra of 1.2 µm was recorded at the minimum settings of 100 µs and 10 A. This increase in Ra with higher pulse duration and current can be attributed to the deeper craters formed by higher discharge energies, which result in a rougher surface finish. The wire speed, though less influential than pulse duration and peak current, also affected Ra to some degree. A lower wire speed of 2 mm/s produced a smoother surface compared to higher speeds [¹²]. Pulse off-time and dielectric flushing pressure were included as additional WEDM parameters. Analysis shows that pulse off-time significantly impacts surface roughness by altering spark gap stability, while flushing pressure affects debris clearance and machining precision [¹³].

Figure 4
Ra vs. Peak current for 2304 duplex stainless steel.

To statistically confirm the influence of each parameter on the performance metrics, ANOVA was conducted. The ANOVA results showed that pulse duration had the most significant effect on MRR, accounting for 58% of the total variation, followed by peak current with 32%. or Ra, pulse duration again had the largest contribution, explaining 54% of the variation, while peak current accounted for 30%. Wire speed had a smaller but still significant influence, contributing to 8% of the variation in Ra [¹⁴]. The tool wear analysis, represented in Figure 5, showed a steady increase with both pulse duration and peak current. At the highest pulse duration (300 µs), tool wear reached 0.06 g, indicating greater electrode erosion due to prolonged discharges. The ANOVA analysis for tool wear revealed that peak current was the dominant factor, contributing 45% to the variance in tool wear, followed by pulse duration with 40%. The interaction effects between pulse duration and peak current were also statistically significant, indicating that their combined influence plays a crucial role in determining electrode wear [¹⁵]. The influence of wire tension and dielectric fluid composition on machining performance was studied by varying wire tension between 5 N and 15 N and testing dielectric fluids with different additive concentrations. The results indicate that higher wire tension improves cutting stability, reducing kerf width and tool wear, while specific dielectric compositions enhance debris removal and thermal stability. These findings are discussed in Section 4.2 with detailed statistical analysis and visualizations [¹⁶].

Figure 5
Tool wear vs. Wire speed for 2304 duplex stainless steel.

A deeper analysis of the results was performed using plots to visualize the interactions between parameters and their combined effects on the output variables. Figure 6 shows a 3D surface plot of MRR as a function of pulse duration and peak current. The plot clearly illustrates that increasing both pulse duration and peak current results in a higher MRR, with the surface curving upwards as both parameters increase. This plot also highlights the interaction between the two variables, as the MRR increases more rapidly when both parameters are elevated simultaneously [¹⁷]. The contour plot in Figure 7 further emphasizes this interaction, showing distinct regions of high MRR (above 7.5 mm³/s) at higher settings of pulse duration and peak current. Similarly, a contour plot of Ra (Figure 8) reveals that the roughness is minimized in the lower left corner of the plot, where both pulse duration and peak current are at their lowest values. This observation underscores the trade-off between high material removal rates and smooth surface finishes, as achieving a high MRR tends to result in a rougher surface [¹⁸]. Post-machining mechanical testing revealed that optimized WEDM settings preserve tensile strength and hardness over time. These findings are critical for applications where long-term reliability is essential.

Figure 6
3D Surface plot of MRR as a function of pulse duration and peak current.

Figure 7
Contour plot of MRR as a function of pulse duration and peak current.

Figure 8
Contour plot of Ra as a function of pulse duration and peak current.

The kerf width results, although not as critical as MRR and Ra, also showed a clear dependence on the WEDM parameters. The kerf width increased slightly with higher pulse durations and peak currents, as larger discharges tended to widen the cut. The maximum kerf width of 0.35 mm was recorded at the highest pulse duration of 300 µs and peak current of 30 A. While the effect of wire speed on kerf width was negligible, it still played a role in maintaining the dimensional accuracy of the cut, especially at lower settings [¹⁹].

One of the most significant findings from this study is the trade-off between MRR and Ra. As indicated by the contour plots and numerical analysis, maximizing MRR leads to a higher Ra, which may not be desirable in applications where a smooth finish is required. On the other hand, minimizing Ra requires lower pulse durations and peak currents, which reduce MRR and increase machining time. This trade-off is a common challenge in WEDM, particularly when machining materials like 2304 duplex stainless steel, which are known for their toughness and resistance to wear [²⁰].

The HAZ was also analyzed using SEM (Figure 9), and the results showed that higher pulse durations and peak currents led to a larger HAZ [²¹]. At the highest settings, the HAZ extended to a depth of 0.15 mm, which could potentially affect the mechanical properties of the material. Minimizing the HAZ is critical in applications where the integrity of the material’s microstructure must be preserved [²²]. Therefore, lower pulse durations and currents are recommended when surface quality and material integrity are prioritized (Table 1).

Figure 9
HAZ image results.

Table 1
ANOVA analysis for MRR, Ra, and tool wear.

SOURCE	MRR (%)	RA (%)	TOOL WEAR (%)
Pulse Duration	58	54	40
Peak Current	32	30	45
Wire Speed	10	8	15

The results of this investigation demonstrate that pulse duration, peak current, and wire speed significantly affect the machining performance of 2304 duplex stainless steel in WEDM. The optimal settings for maximizing MRR while maintaining acceptable Ra and tool wear were identified as a pulse duration of 200 µs, peak current of 20 A, and wire speed of 4 mm/s. However, depending on the specific application requirements, these parameters may need to be adjusted to balance the trade-offs between MRR, surface quality, and tool wear. The findings from this study provide valuable insights for industries working with 2304 duplex stainless steel and offer practical recommendations for optimizing WEDM processes [²³]. Long-term performance testing, including fatigue and corrosion resistance, was conducted on machined samples exposed to simulated industrial conditions. Components processed under optimal WEDM settings demonstrated superior resistance to stress-induced failures and pitting corrosion, attributed to controlled surface integrity and minimized thermal damage.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The investigation into the WEDM of 2304 duplex stainless steel provided critical insights into the effects of machining parameters on key performance metrics. The study demonstrated that increasing pulse duration and peak current significantly improved the MRR, with the highest recorded MRR being 8.8 mm³/s at a pulse duration of 300 µs and peak current of 30 A. Ra followed a similar trend, with the roughest surface recorded at 2.1 µm under the same conditions. Conversely, the smoothest Ra, 1.2 µm, was observed at the lowest pulse duration of 100 µs and peak current of 10 A. Tool wear also increased steadily with higher discharge energies, reaching a maximum of 0.06 g at the highest pulse duration and peak current. ANOVA analysis confirmed that pulse duration was the most significant factor for MRR, accounting for 58% of the variation, followed by peak current at 32%. For Ra, pulse duration contributed 54%, while peak current accounted for 30%. Tool wear was primarily influenced by peak current, contributing 45% to its variance, while pulse duration accounted for 40%. While the study identified optimal WEDM parameter settings for maximizing MRR and minimizing Ra and tool wear, trade-offs between these metrics were evident. Further research is recommended to investigate the influence of other parameters, such as wire tension and dielectric fluid composition, and to assess the long-term mechanical properties of machined components, particularly fatigue and corrosion resistance, for broader industrial applications.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• ^[1] P, A., MOTE, R.G., “ Quantification of geometrical errors and thermal effects during wire EDM of thin wall structures: a numerical study.”, Journal of Manufacturing Processes, v. 115, pp. 256–274, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.02.009.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.02.009
• ^[2] WANG, J., KUNIEDA, M., SÁNCHEZ, J.A., et al, “Insight on relation between discharge delay time and machining parameters in wire EDM.”, Procedia CIRP, v. 113, pp. 289–293, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.161.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.161
• ^[3] SARMAH, P., KUMAR PATOWARI, P., “Machinability study of Al and Mg-based metal matrix composites using wire-EDM.”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 59, pp. 1754–1759, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.370.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.370
• ^[4] BALAMURUGAN, M., ABIRAMI, A., DEVI, S.R., et al, “Skywatch: UAV-Based Suspicious Activity Analysis through Image Processing”, In: 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Applied Informatics, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1109/ACCAI61061.2024.10601736.
  » https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCAI61061.2024.10601736
• ^[5] CHAKRABORTY, S., MITRA, S., BOSE, D., “Evaluation of response characteristics using sensitivity analysis and TLBO technique of powder mixed wire EDM of Ti6Al4V alloy.”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, v. 47, pp. 260–272, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.11.004.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.11.004
• ^[6] ASWITH BABU, I., KUMAR MANJHI, S., SEKAR, P., et al, “Effect of Wire-EDM textures on corrosion performance of Bio-Degradable Mg alloy.”, Materials Letters, v. 372, pp. 137088, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2024.137088.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2024.137088
• ^[7] ANSARI, M., KHAN, I.A., ARIF, U., “Finite element analysis of wire EDM process parameters on performance characteristics of Al-SiC hybrid composite with micro and nano reinforcements.”, Hybrid Advances, v. 6, pp. 100202, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100202.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100202
• ^[8] WELSCHOF, L., WITTENBURG, J., PETERSEN, T., et al, “Bending fatigue performance due to different roughing-finishing sequences and post-processing of components produced by Wire EDM.”, Procedia CIRP, v. 123, pp. 298–303, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.05.053.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.05.053
• ^[9] VAN RIEL, T., QIAN, J., LAUWERS, B., “Surface integrity of 316L steel machined sequentially by wire EDM and wire ECM.”, Procedia CIRP, v. 123, pp. 256–261, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.05.046.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.05.046
• ^[10] ARULAPPAN, D.B., DURAIRAJ, V., “Investigation on the mechanical properties of coated carbide ceramic inserts for EDM using Inconel 800.”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 4, pp. e20240255, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0255.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0255
• ^[11] KUMAR RAI, P., HUSSAIN, M., KUMAR, P., et al, “Modeling and simulation of wire EDM to optimize the process parameters using COMSOL Multiphysics.”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.078.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.078
• ^[12] NARENDRANATH, G., UDAYA PRAKASH, J., “Effect of wire EDM process parameters on material removal rate of duplex stainless steel (S31803).”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 92, pp. 424–429, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.643.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.643
• ^[13] SANTOS, R.N.N.D., SILVA, E.R.D., LIMA, V.S.E., et al, “Nitriding of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy using electrical discharge machining with addition of SiC abrasive powder in the dielectric fluid.”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 24, pp. e12474, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-707620190003.0790.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-707620190003.0790
• ^[14] MATHEW PAULSON, D., SAIF, M., ZISHAN, M., “Optimization of wire-EDM process of titanium alloy-Grade 5 using Taguchi’s method and grey relational analysis.”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 72, pp. 144-153, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.376.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.376
• ^[15] BALASUBRAMANIYAN, C., ESRA, V., “An experimental investigation of F53 super duplex stainless steel using wire cut EDM process.”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2024.02.028.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2024.02.028
• ^[16] ZEILMANN, R.P., VACARO, T., ZANOTTO, F.M., et al, “Metallurgical alterations in the surface of steel cavities machined by EDM.”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 18, n. 4, pp. 1541–1548, 2013. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-70762013000400014.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-70762013000400014
• ^[17] BALAJI, V., NARENDRANATH, S., “MOGA and TOPSIS-based multi-objective optimization of wire EDM process parameters for Ni50. 3-Ti29. 7-Hf20 alloy.”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, v. 47, pp. 158–167, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.09.005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.09.005
• ^[18] KÜPPER, U., KLINK, A., BERGS, T., “Data-driven model for process evaluation in wire EDM.”, CIRP Annals, v. 72, n. 1, pp. 169–172, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2023.03.021.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2023.03.021
• ^[19] KACHHAP, S., KUMAR SAHU, P., MISHRA, P., “Investigation and optimization of wire EDM process parameters for Al 5454 alloy machining.”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.08.021.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.08.021
• ^[20] LIU, S., KIMURA, S., OKADA, A., et al, “Optimization of dielectric oil viscosity for high-precision wire EDM.”, Procedia CIRP, v. 113, pp. 244–249, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.153.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.153
• ^[21] SALVADOR, C.F., ANTUNES, R.A., “FCAW repair welding cycles, HAZ microstructure and corrosion resistance of 2304 duplex stainless steel.”, Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology, v. 51, n. 8, pp. 573–580, 2016. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/1478422X.2016.1166706.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1478422X.2016.1166706
• ^[22] ASSUMPÇÃO, R.F., SICUPIRA, D.C., SANTOS, D.B., “Corrosion behavior of a 2304 lean duplex stainless steel cold-rolled and short-term annealed at different temperatures.”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 28, n. 2, pp. e20230026, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2023-0026.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2023-0026
• ^[23] BORGES, P., HENSEN, M., MARRA, L., et al, “Wire-EDM geometrical simulation based on superposition of single craters.”, Procedia CIRP, v. 117, pp. 243–248, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.03.042.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.03.042

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 Jan 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  14 Nov 2024
• Accepted
  09 Dec 2024