Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep

Inuence of workpiece materials on aerosol

emission from die sinking electrical discharge
machining process
S. Thiyagarajan a , S.P. Sivapirakasam a, , Jose Mathew b ,
M. Surianarayanan c , K. Sundareswaran d
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Kallooppara, Kerala, India
c Cell for Industrial Safety and Risk Analysis, Central Leather Research Institute, Adyar, Chennai, India
d Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
b

a b s t r a c t
Simultaneous investigation of environmental emissions and machining aspects of electrical discharge machining
process is essential for achieving hygienic and efcient machining. The main objective of the present work is to
experimentally investigate and analyze the aerosol emission rate and the material removal rate from a die sinking
electrical discharge machining process for three commonly used work piece materials viz., tool steel, mild steel and
aluminum using Taguchi methodology of Experimental Design in order to suggest suitable process conditions for
green manufacturing. The aerosol emission prole of all workpiece materials was found to be closely related to the
material removal prole. A signicant variation in emission and material removal rate was observed for workpiece
materials which may be accorded to the variation in melting and vaporization temperatures. It was also observed
that majority of aerosol constituents evolved from workpiece materials and that the constituents with low melting
points were having high relative concentration in the aerosol emitted. The study introduced a parameter, the relative
emission rate for comparing the emission for various process parameters and workpiecetool material combinations.
The favorable machining parameters for each material were then identied by employing signal to noise ratio analysis
of the relative emission rate.
2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Electrical discharge machining (EDM); Emission; Aerosol; Taguchi methodology; Relative emission rate

1.

Introduction

Electrical discharge machining (EDM) is an important

non-traditional manufacturing process, typically used for
machining very hard and brittle materials. The schematic diagram of EDM process is shown in Fig. 1. The basic principle
in the EDM is the conversion of electrical energy into thermal energy through a series of electrical discharges occurring
between the electrodes (work piece and tool) immersed in a
dielectric uid. A series of voltage pulses usually of the order of
magnitude 20100 V are applied between the electrodes with
a frequency of 5 kHz to 5 MHz. The peak current and pulse

duration are the main process parameters of EDM governing

the process energy. The dielectric uid stored in a sump tank is
ushed continuously through the inter-electrode gap using a
pump. The height of dielectric surface above the spark location
is termed as dielectric level. As the pulse in the EDM process begins, the passage of pre-breakdown current heats the
dielectric liquid in the inter electrode gap. When the dielectric strength of the liquid in the gap is exceeded, breakdown
occurs and initiates a plasma channel. This plasma channel
expands during the following pulse on time. The growth of
the plasma channel is restricted by the surrounding dielectric
uid, which in turn causes a higher concentration of discharge

Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappall 620015, India.
Tel.: +91 431 2503408; fax: +91 431 2500133; mobile: +91 9944547215.
E-mail addresses: spshivam@nitt.edu, spsivam@yahoo.com (S.P. Sivapirakasam).
Received 27 June 2013; Received in revised form 7 January 2014; Accepted 13 January 2014
Available online 24 January 2014
0957-5820/$ see front matter 2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.01.001

740

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of EDM process.

energy in a very small volume, which causes the erosion. The
cumulative effect of a succession of sparks spread over the
entire work piece surface leads to its erosion to a shape which
is approximately complimentary to that of the tool.
The EDM machines used in small and medium sized
industries are manually operated. An operator will be simultaneously operating more than one machine. EDM installations
are open systems in which the dielectric tank is exposed to
work atmosphere. The high temperature developed in the
discharge channel of the EDM process causes the generation
of toxic reaction products and metallic particulates that will
be released into the work environment with the potential
of causing severe occupational and environmental problems
(Bommeli, 1983; Tonshoff et al., 1996). Since the discharge temperature of the EDM process depends on peak current and
pulse duration, the deviations of these parameters can inuence the emission. The ushing pressure and dielectric level
that affect the dynamics in the dielectric may also inuence
the emission.
A variety of tools and dielectric materials are being
employed by the manufacturer based on the work material
and the desired machining performance of EDM process. Generally, one material among, copper/tungsten, alloys of copper
or tungsten/graphite is used as the tool electrode and mineral
oils/deionised water/commercial hydrocarbon oils are used
as the dielectric uid. Kerosene, a blend of hydrocarbons, is
widely used in this process due to its high ash point, good
dielectric strength, transparent characteristics, low viscosity
and low specic gravity (Bhattacharyya et al., 2007). Different combinations of workpiece, tool and dielectric uids also
result in the variation in the aerosol emission and its constituents (Evertz et al., 2006).
In order to provide suitable control measures to safeguard
the operator, an estimate of the concentration of emissions is
required. The concentration of aerosol in the work atmosphere
depends on the rate at which it is emitted from the dielectric
surface. The emission rate can be controlled by using effective fume extraction systems. Small and medium sized EDM
machines considered in this study are not equipped with fume
extraction systems. Though the sophisticated EDM machines
are using fume extraction systems, there is a lack of a process specic design due to the insufcient knowledge on the
emission with varying process parameters. This draws the
attention for a systematic study of emission with varying
process parameters at different combinations of workpiece
materials. Such a study could further help in selecting the

best combination of process parameters that could reduce the

emissions.
Good information is available on aerosol exposure on
machine shop workers (NIOSH, 2003a; NIOSH, 2007; Jaakkola
et al., 2009). Nevertheless, literature on experimental investigation of emission from the EDM process is scanty. The rst
report on emissions from the EDM process was by Bommeli
(1983). Through experimental investigation, he identied the
components of emission generated from EDM process when
hydrocarbon based and water based dielectric uids were
used. The hydrocarbon-based dielectric uids caused emission of aliphatic, aromatic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
carbon and metallic particles, whereas water-based dielectric
uids caused emission of toxic constituents like ozone, CO
and metallic particles. A comprehensive review of safety and
environmental aspects of the EDM process was presented by
Tonshoff et al. (1996). Leao and Pashby (2004) presented the
environmental impact resulting from the use of die sinking
EDM process. It was observed that emission of toxic substances and generation of toxic wastes was the important
environmental issues that caused the health problems to the
operators and land and water pollution. The study depicted
that consumption of high amount of energy by the EDM
process was one of the factors that led to environmental problems.
In a manufacturing industry, though the emission is a criterion, productivity and quality aspects of the process are also
vital (Tan et al., 2002). In case of the EDM process, material
removal rate is one of the signicant performance parameters
that need special attention. By varying process parameters
at different combination of materials from the perspective
of reducing exposure may at the same time, considerably
affect performance characteristics of this process. Therefore,
a simultaneous study of the emission rate and the MRR of the
process become inevitable. Since the analysis of emissions is
both expensive and time consuming, the Taguchi methodology of Design of Experiment (DoE) was adopted to limit the no
of experiments in this work (Peace, 1992).
The present investigation was conducted in the die
sinking EDM machine, in a laboratory environment
using kerosene as a dielectric uid. This work had
multiple objectives; the rst being to experimentally
investigate the aerosol emission as well as the material removal rate from die sinking electrical discharge
machining process for three different commonly used
work piece materials viz., tool steel, mild steel and aluminum. The other objectives were to; analyze and compare
the constituents of aerosol emission generated for each of
the work piece materials for identifying the intensity of
reactions taking place during process, analyze the inuence
of process parameters on the relative emission (i.e. ratio of
emission rate to the material removal rate) using the Taguchi
methodology of Experimental Design for suggesting suitable
process conditions for green manufacturing.

2.

Materials and methods

Experiments were conducted using the conventional die

sinking electric discharge machine manufactured by Victory
Electromech, Pune, India. Since majority of EDM operations include drilling holes of various shapes, a blind
hole of 25 mm diameter was drilled on work pieces of
40 mm 40 mm 15 mm size. Copper was used as the tool

741

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Table 1 Composition and properties of workpiece materials.

Components

Mild steel
% composition

Tool steel
% composition

Aluminum
% composition

Composition
Iron
Chromium
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Molybdenum
Aluminum
Titanium
Sulfur
Lead
Vanadium
Cobalt
Copper
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium

98.79
0.137
0.174
0.143
0.603
0.0819
0.023
0.0203
0.0094
0.0043
0.014
0.0011
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.

84.77
12.3
2.05
0.215
0.2
0.256
0.0087
0.058
n.d.
n.d.
0.0336
n.d.
0.0514
0.0784
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.

0.123
0.023
n.d
0.167
0.0015
0.017
0.015
0.0146
99.27
0.0024
n.d.
0.0489
n.d.
n.d.
0.005
0.0081
0.0146
0.332

Properties
Melting point ( C)
Boiling Point ( C)
Thermal conductivity (W/m- K)
Specic heat capacity (J/g- C)

1523
3300
51.9
0.472

1421
3134
76.2
0.461

660
2467
227
0.9

n.d. not detected.

electrode. Kerosene, which is the most commonly used dielectric uid, was employed for the present study. Workpiece
materials used were mild steel, tool steel and aluminum. The
composition and properties of workpiece materials are presented in Table 1.

Since a lower value is desirable in the case of relative emission rate, the following equation for lower the better type of
S/N ratio was applied.


 = 10 log

2.1.

1
yi
n
n

(1)

i=1

Experimental design

The Taguchi Methodology of DoE, which is capable of identifying the inuence of input parameters on the emission
of aerosols and material removal rate, employed was in the
present study by conducting least number of experiments.
The experiments were designed based on L9 orthogonal array.
This basic design makes use of up to four parameters, with
three levels each. The peak current, pulse duration, ushing
pressure and dielectric level were the process parameters considered in this study. Three levels within the operating range
for the machining of small and medium sized components
were selected for each of the factors. A total of nine experimental runs were to be conducted, using the combination of
levels for each input factor as indicated in Table 2. The range of
the input parameters is selected based on the operating range
of small and medium sized EDM machines.
The contribution of each factor on emission of aerosol
and material removal rate were estimated. Since the experimental design is orthogonal, the mean effect of each process
parameter at different levels can be estimated by averaging
the outputs corresponding to each factor level combination.
In Taguchi method, any repetitive data in an experiment
is transformed into a consolidated value called the S/N ratio,
which represents the amount of variation present in the output response. The equation for S/N ratio depends on the
criterion of the performance parameter to be analyzed. In this
study the S/N ratio was calculated for the parameter, relative
emission (ratio of emission rate and material removal rate).

where,  is the S/N ratio yi is the measured output value for

the ith repetition and n is the number of repetitions in a trial.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out by dividing
the total variability of S/N ratios into contributions by each of
the process parameter and the error. The following equations
were used to calculate sum of the squared deviations (SS)T and
the sum of squared deviation due to each process parameter
(SS)P .

(SS)T =

m


2i mm 2

(2)

i=1

(SS)P =

t
2

(sj )
j=1


1

m


2
i

(3)

i=1

where m represents the number of experiments in an orthogonal array, i the mean S/N ratio for the ith experiment, m
the total mean of S/N ratio, j the level number of the process
parameter p, t the repetition of each level of the parameter
p and sj the sum of the S/N ratio involving the parameter
p at level j. The variance of the process parameters (VP ) was
calculated by using.

VP =

(SS)P
(df )P

(4)

742

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Table 2 L9 orthogonal array.

Exp. no.

Current (A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

2
2
2
4.5
4.5
4.5
7
7
7

Pulse duration (s)

Dielectric level (mm)

2
261
520
2
261
520
2
261
520

40
60
80
60
80
40
80
40
60

where (df)P was the degree of freedom of the process parameter = t 1. Since it was a saturated design where all columns
were assigned with factors, the variations due to error were
estimated by pooling the estimates of the factors having least
P was calculated as:
variance. The corrected sum of squares (S)

= (SS) (df ) Ve
(S)
P
P
p

(5)

The percentage contribution  was calculated as:

=

(S p )
(SST )

(6)

2.2.

Flushing pressure (kg/cm2 )

0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.3

Sampling of aerosol

In order to estimate the emission rate of the EDM process,

the machine was completely enclosed by a transparent hood.
Bottom portion was connected to fresh air inlet to compensate
the account of air sucked using the pump. Air was allowed
to pass through a glass ber lter paper to collect airborne
aerosols. Weight of the lter paper was taken before and after
sampling using a sensitive balance (accuracy 0.01 mg). The
rate of emission of aerosols (AE) into the work atmosphere was
calculated using the following equation.

AE =

wb wa
ts

Fig. 2 Effect of peak current.

(7)

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

743

Fig. 3 Effect of pulse duration.

where wa and wb are the weight of lter paper before and
after the sampling (in mg) and ts is the sampling duration (in
minutes).

2.3.

where, CM is the rate of emission of metallic particles (mg/min)

and Vs is the volume of sample(ml).
The percentage of each metallic constituent was calculated
using the following equation.

Analysis of metallic constituents

PM = 100

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry

(ICP-AES) was used to analyze the metallic constituents of
aerosol samples because of its special characteristics such as
low detection limits, multi element detection, wide dynamic
range and good precision. The analysis was done as per the
standard procedure developed by NIOSH for the analysis of
Elements by ICP (method no.7301) (NIOSH, 2003b). The lter
paper samples with aerosol were completely digested using
aquaregia (1HNO3 :3HCl) and diluted to 25 ml using 5% aquaregia solution. The analysis was done by ICP-AES model OPTIMA
5300DV of make Perkin Elmer. The aerosol samples were analyzed for the constituents of workpiece and tool materials.
The concentrations of metallic constituents of the sample, Cs
(mg/ml), were obtained and the rates of emission of the metallic particles were calculated using the following equation.

CM

Vs
= Cs
ts

(8)

CM
AE

(9)

where, PM is the percentage of metallic particle in emission.

Three samples of aerosol from each workpiece materials were
analyzed for its metallic constituents and its average percentage was calculated.

2.4.

Analysis of material removal rate

The material removal rate (MRR) was calculated by taking the

weights of the work piece before and after the experiment.

MRR =

(Wwb Wwa )
tm

(10)

In which, WWb and WWa are weights of the workpiece in

mg before and after machining and tm is the machining time
in minutes.

744

0.01
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.019
0.02
0.007
0.014
0.012
0.013
0.016
0.02
0.016
0.018
0.019
0.49
0.29
0.24
1.22
2.36
2.11
2.08
4.45
4.28
65.45
20.69
19.35
93.65
142.05
103.72
132.45
245.19
219.36
0.011
0.034
0.033
0.007
0.013
0.014
0.009
0.016
0.018
1.17
0.93
0.67
2.20
3.93
3.23
2.27
5.87
5.13
102.68
27.67
20.33
304.67
311
225.37
260.67
365.67
290.58

MRR
(mg/min)
Relative
emission rate
MRR
(mg/min)

Aluminum
Exp. no.

Table 3 Experimental results.

The effect of peak current on the emission of aerosol, MRR,

and relative emission rate for different workpiece materials
are presented in Fig. 2. Emission of Aerosol and MRR increased
with increase in peak current due to the increase in melting
and vaporization of electrodes (workpiece and tool) at high
values of peak current. These values were the highest for the
workpiece material with the lowest melting and vaporization
temperatures (aluminum) and the lowest for the workpiece
material with the highest melting and vaporization temperatures (mild steel).
For aluminum, the relative emission rate was very high at
low value of peak current due to which, a signicant portion of
the eroded material was escaped into the atmosphere as emissions. Due to the low melting point and high heat conductivity
of aluminum, more materials would be melted and removed
from the workpiece, compared to other materials. At low values of peak current, the size of molten metallic particles would
be low. So a signicant portion of the removed materials would
be carried away by the emission, thereby increasing the relative emission rate. At high values of peak current (>2 A) since
the size of molten particles was increasing, emission is found
to depend mainly on vaporization of workpiece materials. The
vaporized fraction of the molten material for aluminum was
low because of high latent heat of vaporization due to which
the relative emission rate signicantly reduced at medium
values of temperature (at a current of 4.5 A). As the peak current increased above 4.5 A, the vaporization fraction gradually
increased due to increase in heat energy. This may be the
reason for the increase in relative emission rate at higher values of peak current.
For other materials (mild steel and tool steel) the relative
emission rate increased slightly with increase in the peak
current. This trend may be due to the increase in vaporized
fraction of the workpiece with the increase in peak current.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Relative
emission rate
Mild Steel

Effect of peak current

82.67
39.07
36.6
127.52
175.7
152.2
147.7
252.
226.76

Results and discussion

The experiments are conducted as per the orthogonal array

and the results of MRR, aerosol emission and relative emission
rate are presented in Table 3. It can be observed from this table
that the output responses MRR and emission vary signicantly
with the process parameters. Both these output responses
show a similar trend. Also these parameters are dependent on
workpiece material. The relative emission rate also is found to
be varying with the process parameters. Detailed discussion
on the inuence of workpiece materials on aerosol emission
is presented in the following sections.

3.1.

0.79
0.63
0.52
1.65
2.87
2.46
2.42
4.75
4.69

(11)

MRR
(mg/min)

3.

AE
MRR

Emission
(mg/min)

RER =

Tool Steel

The quantity of aerosol emission from the process as compared with that of the work piece erosion is referred to as
the relative emission rate (RER). This parameter indicates the
amount of emission per unit material removal and was calculated using the equation.

Emission
(mg/min)

Relative
emission rate

Relative emission rate

Emission
(mg/min)

2.5.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

745

Fig. 4 Effect of dielectric level.

3.2.

Effect of pulse duration

The effect of pulse duration on the output parameters is presented in Fig. 3. The aerosol emission and MRR increased
with increase in pulse duration up to a medium value
(261 s) and then slightly decreased. As the pulse-on duration was increased, the amount of heat energy transferred
to the workpiece and tool surfaces were increased and consequently the material removal and the aerosol emission
also increased. The reduction after a medium value of pulse
duration may be due to the fact that, beyond a particular value of spark radius, the temperature of the outer
region would be considerably reduced, causing a reduction in the workpiece and tool vaporization (Eubank et. al.,
1993) and consequent material removal and emission of
aerosol.
The relative emission rate was found to be increasing with
increase in pulse duration. As the pulse duration increased,
the energy transferred to the workpiece and tool surface
increases. So, more molten material would be vaporized
causing an increase in relative emission. Eventhough the
material removal and emission was reduced after medium
value of pulse duration, the relative emission increased
slightly due to the increase in vaporization fraction of the
removed material.

3.3.

Effect of dielectric level

Graphs presented in Fig. 4 depict the effect of dielectric level

on aerosol emission rate, MRR and relative emission rate
respectively. For all materials the aerosol emission showed a
decreasing tendency with an increase in the dielectric level
above the spark location. As the dielectric level increased,
more vapors would be condensed and/or precipitated in the
dielectric itself which caused a decrease in the emission of
total aerosol. The material removal rate was found to be
decreasing with an increase in the dielectric level. This was
due to the reason that the ushing is more effective at low
dielectric level. However, this variation was not signicant. For
all materials the relative emission was found to be higher at
a medium value of ushing dielectric level (60 mm) and lower
at a higher value of dielectric level (80 mm). This is due to the
signicant reduction of material removal rate from 40 mm to
60 mm of dielectric level. The decrease in relative emission
rate at 80 mm was due to the effect of condensation of vapors
during transport.

3.4.

Effect of ushing pressure

Fig. 5 represents the effect of ushing pressure on the emission rate of aerosol, MRR and relative emission rate. It can be

746

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Fig. 5 Effect of ushing pressure.

observed from this gure that the emission of aerosol and MRR
decreased with increasing ushing pressure up to 0.5 kg/cm2 .
Beyond 0.5 kg/cm2 both these parameters got increased. The
increasing ushing pressure at low range (0.30.5 kg/cm2 )
caused increase in turbulence in the dielectric medium, which
in turn inuenced the reduction in heat transfer rate in the
workpiece material. This reduction caused, a reduction in
material removal as well as emission. At higher values of
ushing pressure (0.50.7 kg/cm2 ) more molten materials were
carried away by the dielectric level resulting in an increase in
the material removal and emission rate of aerosol.
The relative emission rate was found to be higher at a
medium value of ushing pressure due to the signicant
reduction in material removal. This parameter was found to be
lower at a lower level of ushing pressure for low melting point
material (aluminum) and at high level of ushing pressure for
a high melting point material (mild steel). The reduction for
aluminum was due to the high rate of material removal at low
ushing pressures.

and was the lowest when mild steel was used as the workpiece. Aluminum was the material with the lowest melting
and boiling temperatures and mild steel was the material with
the highest melting and boiling temperatures. These results
indicate that there is a strong correlation between aerosol
emissions and melting and boiling temperatures of workpiece
material. As these workpiece parameters decreased, more
workpiece constituents were melted and evaporated resulting
in an increasing the aerosol emission.
The average values of relative emission rate for the workpiece materials under consideration are presented in Fig. 6. It
can be observed that the relative emission was higher for a low
melting point material (aluminum) and lower for a high melting point material (mild steel). For low melting point materials
a signicant portion of the heat supplied by the spark was used
to increase the vaporization of the electrode and dielectric
materials that aids in the increase of relative emission.

3.6.
3.5.

Effect of workpiece materials

From the above discussion it is clear that the inuence of

process parameters was similar for all workpiece materials.
So the interaction between process parameters and workpiece materials was not signicant. The emission of aerosol
was the highest when aluminum was used as the workpiece

Constituents of aerosol samples

The constituents of aerosol samples were analyzed

and the average concentration was calculated. The
major metallic constituents of aerosol generated while
machining different workpiece materials were presented
in Figs. 79. From these gures it is clear that the major
portion of the constituents belongs to the workpiece material
(aluminum, iron, chromium etc.). This was due to the fact

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

747

Fig. 6 Effect of workpiece material of relative emission

rate.
that, while machining more heat was concentrated in the
workpiece side as explained by Eubank et al. (1993). The ratio
aluminum:copper (Fig. 7) was higher compared to that of iron:
copper ratios (Figs. 8 and 9). This was because of lower values
of melting and boiling temperatures of aluminum compared
to iron. 3040% of the aerosol samples include unidentied components. It may include carbon and hydrocarbons
attached to the aerosol.
In the case of alloys (tool steel) the composition in the emission was found to be dependent on the melting temperature of
individual components. Since the melting point of chromium
is high compared to that of iron, the fraction of chromium in
the emission was lower compared to tool steel.

3.7.

Statistical analysis on relative emission rate

Statistical analysis of the relative emission rate was carried

out in order to nd out the optimum parameter settings and
analyze the contribution of each factor to output responses.
The signal to ratio (S/N) was helpful in optimizing the process
parameters. The signicance of each factor was then analyzed
using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The S/N ratio calculated for the relative emission rate and
the mean S/N ratio at three levels of process parameters are
presented in Table 4.
Regardless of the type of performance characteristics
desired (higher the better, lower the better or nominal the
better), a large S/N ratio implied better performance characteristics. Therefore, the optimal level of the process parameters
was that with the highest S/N ratio. Since lower value of
relative emission rate is desirable, lower output response is
optimal. It can be observed from tables that, for the relative

Fig. 7 Composition of aerosol generated while machining

aluminum.

Fig. 8 Composition of aerosol generated while machining

mild steel.
emission rate, a lower value of peak current is desirable for
tool steel and mild steel whereas a medium value is desirable
for aluminum. Lower values of pulse duration, dielectric level
and ushing pressure were found to be favorable.
The ANOVA results for output responses are presented in
Tables 57. From these tables the contribution of each machining parameter on output responses could be observed.
From the S/N ratio tables and ANOVA results, it can be
observed that the peak current was the most inuential
parameter in case of mild steel and tool steel, whereas pulse
duration was the most signicant parameter in case of aluminum. The second most inuential parameters were; pulse
duration in case of tool steel and mild steel and peak current
in case of aluminum. The signicance of other factors (ushing pressure and dielectric level) was comparatively less in all
the cases.
Optimum values of current and pulse duration discussed
above could lead to a substantial reduction in productivity.
Consequently, sheer optimization of process parameters is
not a feasible solution for occupational exposure to emissions
from EDM process. Control methods such as fume extraction
system, local exhaust ventilation system and administrative
controls should be in force to reduce the risk of exposure.
Major quality aspect of the process is surface roughness.
The surface roughness is improved in nal stage with low

Fig. 9 Composition of aerosol generated while machining

tool steel.

748

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

Table 4 S/N ratios.

Workpiece material

Factor

Level I

Level II

Level III

Maxmin

Mild steel

I
tp
h
fp

45.17172
44.62927
42.66146
43.09571

41.11139
41.24702
41.81516
41.0551

40.33319
40.74001
42.13968
42.46548

4.838532
3.889268
0.846296
2.04061

Tool steel

I
tp
h
fp

43.43684
43.69765
42.48875
42.14298

41.95596
40.70819
41.17698
41.21328

39.87175
40.85871
41.59881
41.90828

3.565088
2.989459
1.311772
0.929701

Aluminum

I
tp
h
fp

37.61453
47.17663
42.84777
42.94623

45.15001
39.63946
41.18695
41.25836

43.04405
38.9925
41.77387
41.60401

7.53548
8.18413
1.660823
1.687865

I peak current, tp pulse duration, h dielectric level, fp ushing pressure.

Table 5 Results of ANOVA for mild steel.

SS

2
2
2
2

40.50326
26.82312
1.093782
6.550446

20.25163
13.41156
0.546891
3.275223

39.40948
25.72933

74.9706

37.4853

Source

Df

I
tp
ha
fp
Total
a

5.456664

% contribution
52.56657
34.31923
5.835792
7.278405
100

Factor pooled into error.

Table 6 Results of ANOVA for tool steel.

Source

Df

I
tp
ha
fp
Total
a

SS

2
2
2
2

296.4057
124.2692
15.19823
17.41206

148.2029
62.13458
7.599113
8.70603

453.2852

56.66065

S
281.2075
109.0709
2.213829

% contribution
62.04
24.06
13.41
0.49
100

Factor pooled into error.

Table 7 Results of ANOVA for aluminum.

SS

2
2
2
2

90.6982
124.2075
4.256073
4.769918

45.3491
62.10373
2.128037
2.384959

86.44213
119.9514

223.9316

Source

Df

I
tp
ha
fp
Total
a

206.9074

38.60202
53.56607
7.602451
0.229465
100

Factor pooled into error.

current values. The rate of emission during this step is low

since current is very low. So the optimization of process
parameters will not affect the quality aspects of the process.

4.

111.9658

0.513844

% contribution

Conclusions

An experimental investigation on aerosol emission, and MRR

of EDM process for three different work piece materials viz.,
tool steel, mild steel and aluminum was conducted in this
study. The metallic constituents of aerosol emissions were
analyzed and compared with that of workpiece materials
used. Also the inuence of process parameters on the relative emission rate (i.e. ratio of emission rate to the MRR) was

analyzed. The following conclusions were derived from this

study.
The aerosol emission prole of all workpiece materials was
closely related to the material removal prole. The inuence
of process parameters on aerosol emissions was similar for
all the workpiece materials considered.
There is a signicant variation in emission and MRR for the
workpiece materials due to the variation in melting and
vaporization temperatures. These parameters were higher
for aluminum (low melting point material) and lower for
mild steel (high melting point material).
Major constituents of aerosol belong to the workpiece materials. The melting point of the constituents has a strong

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 739749

inuence on the emission. Constituents with low melting points were having high relative concentration in the
aerosol emitted.
The study introduced the parameter relative emission rate
for comparing the emission on various process parameters and workpiece tool material combinations. The relative
emission varies with process parameters and workpiece
materials. It was found that the relative emission rate was
higher for materials with low melting temperature (aluminum).
It was observed from the S/N ratio analysis for relative emission rate that a lower value of peak current is desirable
for tool steel and mild steel whereas a medium value is
desirable for aluminum. Lower values of pulse duration,
dielectric level and ushing pressure were favorable.
ANOVA results on the relative emission rate show that the
peak current and pulse duration were the most inuential
process parameters.
Optimum values of peak current (<4.5 A) and pulse duration
(<261 s) which could reduce the emission may lead to a substantial reduction in material removal rate which is a measure
of productivity in EDM process. The optimum values of these
parameters for increased production were based on manufacturing condition and machine specications. Decrease in
production rate increase the cost of operation and exposure
duration. So, alternate control methods like fume extraction
system, local exhaust ventilation system and administrative
controls should be employed to reduce the risk of emission.
The relationship between process parameters and emission
rate identied in this study could help to develop a process
specic fume extraction system that operate according to the
workpiece material and process parameters.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Director, NIT Tiruchirappalli
for providing the facilities to carry out the experimental work.
Part of this work is supported by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India (F.No.19/102/2008-RE).

749

References
Bhattacharyya, B., Gangopadhyay, S., Sarkar, B.R., 2007. Modelling
and analysis of EDMed job surface integrity. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 189, 169177.
Bommeli, B., 1983. Study of the harmful emanations resulting
from the machining by electro-erosion. In: Proceedings of the
Seventh International Symposium on Electromachining (ISEM
VII), pp. 469478.
Eubank, P.T., Patel, M.R., Barrufet, M.A., Bozkurt, B., 1993.
Theoretical models of the electrical discharge machining
process. III. The variable mass, cylindrical plasma model. J.
Appl. Phys. 73 (11), 79007909.
Evertz, S., Dott, W., Eisentraeger, A., 2006. Electrical discharge
machining: occupational hygienic characterisation using
emission based monitoring. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 209
(55), 423434.
Jaakkola, M.S., Suuronen, K., Luukkonen, R., Jarvela, M., Tuomi, T.,
Alanko, K., Makela, E.A., Jolanki, R., 2009. Respiratory
symptoms and conditions related to occupational exposures
in machine shops. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 35 (1), 6473.
Leao, F.N., Pashby, I.R., 2004. A review on the use of
environmentally-friendly dielectric uids in electrical
discharge machining. J. Mater Process Technol. 149, 341346.
NIOSH, 2003a. Aerosol Program Assessment Committee Report,
Available at:
www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aerosols/pdfs/ACGreport.pdf
(accessed 18.08.09).
NIOSH, March 2003b. NIOSH Manual for Analytical Methods.
Elements by ICP, Method 7301. Issue 1.
NIOSH, 2007. Health Hazard Evaluation Report: Report on
Respiratory and Dermal Conditions Among Machine Shop
Workers, Pittsburg, Kansas. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA No. 2007-0263-3069,
Cincinnati, OH.
Peace, G.S., 1992. Taguchi Methods A Hands-On Approach.
Addision-Wesley, MA, USA.
Tan, X.C., Liu, F., Cao, H.J., Zhang, H., 2002. A decision-making
framework model of cutting uid selection for green
manufacturing and a case study. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
129, 467470.
Tonshoff, H.K., Egger, R., Klocke, F., 1996. Environmental and
safety aspects of electrophysical and electrochemical
processes. Ann. CIRP Manuf. Technol. 45 (2), 553568.