 Open Access
 Total Downloads : 156
 Authors : Bishnu Mohan Jha, Dr. A. Mandal
 Paper ID : IJERTV5IS070162
 Volume & Issue : Volume 05, Issue 07 (July 2016)
 DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV5IS070162
 Published (First Online): 12072016
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 Publisher Name : IJERT
 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Electrochemical Machining of SG Iron using Mixed Electrolyte (Potassium Chloride and Sodium Nitrate)
Bishnu. M. Jha
Centre for Energy Engineering Central University of Jharkhand Ranchi, India,
Dr. A. Mandal
Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering, NIFFT, Hatia,
Ranchi, India,
Abstract For any new material – electrolyte combination and machining conditions experiments need to be conducted to predict the effects of process parameters on machined geometry. SG Iron has emerged as an important category of engineering materials for making machine, automobile components because of the effective combination of lower cost of production compared to that of cast steel and its properties. Little information is available on machining of SG Iron by electrochemical machining process. The objective is to develop mathematical models based on Box Behnken design to predict the effect of process variables such as machining time, potential, inter electrode gap and two electrolytes a) KCl + NaNo3 solution1 (125 grams of KCl + 250 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) and b) KCl+ NaNO3 solution 2 (166.667 grams of KCl + 200 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) on surface roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Smmr, Smvr, SHtp. It is found that the chloride to nitrate ratio has a significant influence on the surface roughness parameters. A few conclusions drawn are, for E1 electrolyte (125 grams of KCl + 250 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) the chloride to nitrate ratio is 0.5. The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E1 electrolyte are closer to that of pure NaNO3 solution. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E1 the range is (0.27 to 1.57); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (2 to 1.0); for E2 electrolyte (KCl+ NaNO3 solution2 (166.667 grams of KCl + 200 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) , the chloride to nitrate ratio is 0.83 The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E2 are closer to that of pure NaCl solution. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E1 the range is (0.74 to 0.65); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (1 to 0.49).
Keywords Electrochemical Machining; SG Iron; Potassium Chloride ; Sodium Nitrate; Box Behnken design; Sa, Sq, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Smmr, Smvr, SHtp
INTRODUCTION
Electrochemical machining (ECM) can be used to machine complex features in hard and difficult to machine materials with negligible tool wear, reasonable accuracy and acceptable surface finish. The material removal rate, accuracy and surface finish depend on many process parameters. Some of the basic controllable operating parameters of ECM are: initial gap between tool and workpiece, machining feed rate, applied potential also on type, concentration, temperature, pressure, flow rate and pH level of inlet electrolyte. Some of the difficult or impossible to control parameters are electric field strength which depends on the shape of the electrode at any point, machining potential, flow regime, pressure, temperature and pH level of electrolyte during machining,
passivation, hydrogen gas evolution and non uniform two phase flow of electrolyte, microstructure and composition (local) of work piece materials [18] .
ECM results of only a few combinations of electrolyte and workpiece material, under specific machining conditions have been reported. It is clearly established that results reported in literature cannot be extrapolated. So for any new material – electrolyte combination and machining conditions experiments need to be conducted to predict the effects of process parameters on machined geometry.
SG Iron has emerged as an important category of engineering materials for making machine, automobile components because of the effective combination of lower cost of production compared to that of cast steel and its properties [9].
Little information is available on machining of SG Iron by electrochemical machining process [10]. For commercial exploitation of ECM for machining SG Iron it is essential to develop models for predicting the nature of surface that will be generated. The present work is undertaken to study the surface roughness produced during machining of SG Iron using ECM.
Surface roughness influences the functional performance properties of engineering surfaces [1113] and hence, it is treated as one of the indices of product quality. As the surfaces interact in three dimensions, rather than in two [3] hence 3D parameters or combination of different 3D parameters [3, 1517] are found to be more effective for surface characterization than a combination of 2D parameters.
The objective is to develop mathematical models based on Box Behnken design to predict the effect of process variables on surface roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Smmr, Smvr, SHtp.
Statistical design of experiments is an effective tool for studying the complex effects of number of independent process variables on response factor. BoxBehnken design

is one such method. The three variable fifteen run Box Behnken design is a spherical design. All the design points lay on the sphere of . The experiments are conducted at predetermined levels and based on analysis of variance the models developed are validated.
Plan Of Investigation
For developing the model using Box Behnken the following steps are followed:

Determining the useful limits of the variables namely machining time, applied potential, inter electrode gap and electrolytes.

Selecting the design matrix to conduct the experiments.

Conducting the experiments as per the design matrix.

Developing mathematical models based on regression.

Checking the adequacy of the models.

Analysis of the results.

Determining the useful limits of variables: Three controllable ECM parameters are selected. They are applied potential, interelectrode gap and machining time. All machining are done at zero tool feed rate. The useful limits of time, potential and inter electrode gap are chosen based on preliminary experiments conducted and information available in literature. Two electrolytes are chosen namely a) KCl + NaNo3 solution1 (125 grams of KCl + 250 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) and b) KCl+ NaNO3 solution2 (166.667 grams of KCl + 200 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water).
For simplifying the recording of the conditions of the experiments and processing of the experimental data, the upper, lower and intermediate levels of the variables are coded as +1, 1& 0, respectively by using the following relationship:
The actual and coded values of the different variables are listed in Table 1.
shaped tool (10 mm side) made of copper is used. Work piece material specification is given in Table 3.
All the experiments are conducted according to the
design matrix but in random fashion to avoid any systematic error creeping into the results. Hommel Tester T8000 is used for measuring the surface texture parameters.
2) Developing the Mathematical Model : To correlate the effects of the variables and the response factor i.e. the surface roughness parameters Sa, Sq, Ssk, Sku, Smmr, Smvr and SHtp the following second order polynomial is selected.
Y = Bo + B1T+ B2V +B3G+ B11T2 + B22V2 +B33G2
+B12TV+B13TG+B23VG
where, B's are the regression coefficients. The controllable ECM parameters T, V, G and their combinations are in coded values.
Table 2. Design Matrix
V
Sl.No. 
Variables 

T 
G 

1 
1 
1 
0 
2 
+1 
1 
0 
3 
1 
+1 
0 
4 
+1 
+1 
0 
5 
1 
0 
1 
6 
+1 
0 
1 
7 
1 
0 
+1 
8 
+1 
0 
+1 
9 
0 
1 
1 
10 
0 
+1 
1 
11 
0 
1 
+1 
12 
0 
+1 
+1 
13 
0 
0 
0 
14 
0 
0 
0 
15 
0 
0 
0 
Checking the Adequacy of the Models: The analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique [18] is used to check the adequacy of the developed models at 95% confidence level. Fratios of the models developed are calculated and are compared with the corresponding tabulated values for 95% level of confidence. If the calculated values of Fratio did not exceed the corresponding tabulated value then the model is considered adequate.
Table 1. The Actual And Coded Values of Different Variables
Variables 
Symbol 
Low Level 
Intermediate Level 
High Level 

Actual 
Coded 
Actual 
Coded 
Actual 
Coded 

TIME (minutes) 
T 
2 
1.0 
3 
0 
4 
+1.0 
POTENTIAL (volt) 
V 
15 
1.0 
20 
0 
25 
+1.0 
INTER ELECTRODE GAP (mm) 
G 
0.64 
1.0 
0.96 
0 
1.28 
+1.0 
(predicted)
(predicted)
Selecting the Design Matrix: The three variable design matrix The goodness of fit of the models are tested by calculating
is shown in Table 2. Electrolyte is not taken as one of the
R2, R2(adjusted) & R2
. The coefficients of the models
(predi
(predi
design matrix variable as it is difficult to conduct the developed and model statistics are given in Table 4 6. Table
experiments in a random order. Hence, two sets of
5 shows that by using reduced quadratic models R2
cted) can
experiments are conducted using the electrolytes to assess their effects on surface texture parameters.

Experimentation: For carrying out the experiments ECM machine model ECMAC – II, manufactured by MetaTech Industries, Pune, India, is used. Flat hexagon
be improved. This analysis has been done using Design Expert [19].For a few cases the experimental data are transformed to improve normality. All the models are statistically adequate.
To validate the models further experiments were carried out at levels different than those of design matrix. The conditions and results are given in Table 7a. The confidence interval is
calculated based on the procedure given in reference [20].The calculated confidence interval with predicted response are given in Table 7b. The predictions based on fitted equations
are adequate only in the immediate neighbor hood of the design [18].
Table 3. Workpiece material specification (SG Iron):
Chemical composition 
BHN 
Nodularity* 
Matrix 

%C 
%Si 
%Mn 
%S 
%P 

3.603.63 
2.302.38 
0.350.36 
0.0140.013 
0.0830.080 
179 
58.24 
Ferritic 
*Nodularity measured using AnalysisTM five pro.
Table 4: The Coefficients of the Models Developed and the Statistical Model Parameters for KCl+NaNO3 1 electrolyte.
Coefficients Of The Models Developed 
Surface Texture Parameters 

Sa 
Sq 
Sz 
S*sk 
Sku 
S#mmr 
S#mvr 
SHtp 

Bo 
3.86667 
5.04667 
26.13335 
2.07030 
3.87334 
0.12682 
0.13172 
7.37667 

B1 
0.37500 
0.61500 
4.95000 
0.13574 
0.82500 
0.00290 
0.01335 
0.66375 

B2 
1.49000 
1.93625 
6.42500 
0.20494 
0.14125 
0.03068 
0.00322 
3.02750 

B3 
1.17250 
1.27125 
0.67500 
0.05644 
0.21875 
0.01659 
0.01279 
2.50125 

B11 
0.60208 
0.90083 
5.67917 
0.25287 
0.66208 
0.02791 
0.00773 
1.56209 

B22 
0.75792 
0.90167 
2.97083 
0.01111 
1.42042 
0.01041 
0.00406 
2.59541 

B33 
0.56792 
0.72667 
1.97083 
0.13269 
0.19458 
0.00711 
0.01193 
2.31291 

B12 
0.31250 
0.28750 
2.02500 
0.05096 
0.25500 
0.00078 
0.00259 
0.91000 

B13 
0.10250 
0.02750 
5.42500 
0.27832 
1.39500 
0.00772 
0.01469 
0.33250 

B23 
1.48750 
1.51500 
0.17500 
0.02679 
0.11750 
0.03495 
0.03182 
5.51500 

FRATIO 
0.71343 
0.76820 
0.17591 
0.05602 
0.04638 
0.05153 
0.28039 
0.89869 

2 
0.30823 
0.48203 
22.36334 
0.02295 
0.79723 
0.00033 
0.000127 
1.40423 

R2 
97.18542 
96.85638 
93.72179 
95.73463 
93.35975 
96.37896 
95.98708 
97.90006 

R2 (adj) 
92.11916 
91.19787 
82.42100 
88.05698 
81.40730 
89.86110/p> 
88.76382 
94.12018 

R2 (pred) 
73.66158 
69.78322 
67.84574 
85.84431 
79.12079 
88.27924 
74.62453 
78.69841 
* (1/(1.0+A)**0.5)*2 , # A**0.5 – transformation formula used.
Table 5: ANOVA for response surface reduced quadratic model (backward, to exit 0.1) Â¢ neglected
Coefficients Of The Models Developed 
Sa 
Sq 

Bo 
3.86667 
5.04667 

B1 
0.37500 
0.61500 

B2 
1.49000 
1.93625 

B3 
1.17250 
1.27125 

B11 
0.60208 
0.90083 

B22 
0.75792 
0.90167 

B33 
0.56792 
0.72667 

B12 
Â¢ 
Â¢ 

B13 
Â¢ 
Â¢ 

B23 
1.48750 
1.51500 

FRATIO 
0.71343 
0.7214 

2 
0.30823 
0.48203 

R2 
96.23 
96.35 

R2 (adj) 
92.46 
92.70 

R2 (pred) 
85.32 
80.70 
2 electrolyte.
2 electrolyte.
Table 6: The Coefficients of the Models Developed and the Statistical Model Parameters for KCl+NaNO3
Surface Texture Parameters 

Sa* 
Sq* 
Sz 
Ssk# 
Sku 
Smmr 
Smvr& 
SHtp$ 

Coefficients Of The Models Developed 
Bo 
1.86922 
2.09525 
21.53335 
0.84453 
2.90333 
0.01570 
27.64998 
2.70401 
B1 
0.05033 
0.06238 
0.67500 
0.02292 
0.19500 
0.00051 
1.27413 
0.07465 

B2 
0.21157 
0.19503 
4.33750 
0.00818 
0.20625 
0.00166 
0.63724 
0.35954 

B3 
0.35025 
0.37533 
7.61250 
0.00726 
0.20125 
0.00467 
3.59614 
0.55764 

B11 
0.02853 
0.03559 
3.00833 
0.08826 
0.20083 
0.00100 
3.74319 
0.01112 

B22 
0.12207 
0.13251 
2.18333 
0.09586 
0.34333 
0.00025 
2.82147 
0.22123 

B33 
0.18694 
0.19725 
0.68333 
0.06200 
0.37667 
0.00032 
1.52207 
0.30820 

B12 
0.18018 
0.15588 
2.22500 
0.00394 
0.84250 
0.00170 
1.36862 
0.33190 

B13 
0.01410 
0.02420 
0.42500 
0.00740 
0.10250 
0.00027 
0.93907 
0.04933 

B23 
0.48888 
0.53218 
6.90000 
0.02324 
0.05000 
0.00472 
7.84095 
0.77704 

FRATIO 
0.1908088 
0.2344974 
0.2775899 
0.1989946 
0.06003 
0.28699 
0.13611 
0.2158639 

2 
0.0389926 
0.0449179 
15.623330 1 
0.0015012 
0.08413 
0.00001 
13.87407 
0.1024783 

R2 
96.31093 
95.96771 
95.19419 
95.04249 
96.49705 
95.37846 
93.17770 
96.23249 

R2 (adj) 
89.67061 
88.70959 
86.54373 
86.11897 
90.19174 
87.05971 
80.89758 
89.45098 

R2 (pred) 
80.40591 
76.49837 
69.75772 
73.16990 
88.13236 
70.47863 
68.74218 
78.84940 
*(A)**0.5 # (1+A)**0.125 & (1.0/a)**0.75 $ (A)**0.5
Table 7a. Model Validation for KCl+NaNO3 1: experimental details and measured values roughness parameters
Sl .no 
T 
V 
G 
Sa 
Sq 
Sz 
Ssk 
Sku 
Smmr 
Smvr 
SHtp 

1 
Coded 
1.0 
0.4 
0.34375 
3.42 
4.26 
20.2 
0.108 
2.65 
0.0115 
0.0107 
7.33 
Actual 
2.0min 
18V 
0.85mm 

Confidence interval (Â±) 

2 
Coded 
0.0 
0.2 
0.3125 
3.57 
4.47 
26.4 
0.314 
3.22 
0.0133 
0.0153 
7.69 
Actual 
3.0min 
21V 
1.06mm 

Confidence interval (Â±) 

3 
Coded 
1.0 
0.4 
0.65625 
3.9 
4.91 
22.3 
0.0683 
3.04 
0.0164 
0.0157 
8.29 
Actual 
4.0min 
22V 
1.17mm 

Confidence interval (Â±) 
Table 7b: Model Validation for KCl+NaNO3 1: experimental details and measured values roughness parameters
ECM parameters 
From model 

Sl .no 
T 
V 
G 
Sa 
Sq 
Sz 
Ssk 
Sku 
Smmr 
Smvr 
SHtp 

1 
coded 
1.0 
p>0.4 
0.34375 
2.6805 
3.2152 
16.0611 
UL:0.420224 LL: 0.23908 
3.07247 
UL:0.0158 6 LL:0.00282 
UL:0.0172 8 LL:0.00627 
5.2082 
actual 
2.0min 
18V 
0.85mm 

Confidnce interval (Â±) 
1.3995 
1.6615 
10.3565 
1.79883 
3.53725 

2 
coded 
0.0 
0.2 
0.3125 
3.7911 
5.0490 
27.9296 
UL:0.25515 LL:0.289075 
3.74626 
UL:0.0268 LL:0.00845 
UL:0.0233 1 LL:0.01055 
7.18553 
actual 
3.0min 
21V 
1.06mm 

Confidnce interval (Â±) 
1.3369 
1.5867 
9.8898 
1.71778 
3.37786 

3 
coded 
1.0 
0.4 
0.65625 
3.4415 
4.7606 
34.0655 
UL:0.670856 LL:0.15844 
4.03027 
UL:0.0198 9 LL:0.00435 
UL:0.0207 1 LL:0.00811 
6.59375 
actual 
4.0min 
22V 
1.17mm 

Confidence interval (Â±) 
1.4418 
1.7112 
10.666 
1.85260 
3.64297 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
For the ease of discussion applied potential, interelectrode gap, machining time, KCl + NaNo3 solution1, KCl+ NaNO3 solution2 will be referred to as potential, gap, time, E1 & E2 respectively. The trends of Sa, Sq are quite similar. It is in conformity with the results reported by Nowicki [13] that a strong correlation exists between Sa, Sq.
The trends of Sq obtained with E1 and E2 for machining time (Figs.1&2) are quite different. For E1 electrolyte as the time changes from 1 to +1 the minimum value of Sq increases steadily up to time level 0 and then starts decreasing. However, as machining time changes from 1 to
+1 level minimum value of Sq increases steadily for E 2.electrolyte The value of Sq is in the range of 2.5 11.4m in case of E1 and from 2.6 – 12.6 m in case of E2.
For E1 electrolyte the chloride to nitrate ratio is 0.5. The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E1 electrolyte are closer to that of pure NaNO3 solution [21]. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E1 the range is (0.27 to 1.57); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (2 to 1.0)[21]. For E2, the chloride to nitrate ratio is
0.83 The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E2 are closer to that of pure NaCl solution [21]. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E2 the range is (

to 0.65); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (1 to 0.49)[21].
The mechanism of material removal depends on the ratio of chloride /nitrate[22,23] . The chloride anaions cause only a localized attack of passive film formed in the presence of nitrate ions on the steel surface. The chloride ions lowers oxidation powers of nitrate anaions and that prevents the formation of strongly adherent films [24]. It is reported that that where Cl ion is present the anodic current is large in the active region. The presence of Cl in mixed electrolyte leads to the formation of porous surface films. [24]. In mixed electrolyte as the concentration ratio of chloride/nitrate increases the metal removal rate and current efficiency increases[24].
Sku is the kurtosis of topography height distribution. This is a measure of the peakedness or sharpness of the surface height distribution. A Gaussian surface has Sku value of 3.0. Fig. 3&4 show the variation of Sku in E1 &E2 electrolytes at machining time +1 level. In case of E1 and E 2 Sku varies in the ranges of 1.72 to 7.17 and 1.93 to 4.3 respectively. High value of Sku signifies sharp peak. The variation of Sku with E2 electrolyte is quite small which means a surface with lower undulations. Ssk signifies skewness of surface height distribution. A surface with predominantly deep valleys will tend to have a negative skew, whereas a surface comprised predominantly of peaks will have positive skew. Negative skew is the criteria for good bearing surface. In case E1 and E2 electrolytes the parameter Ssk varies in the ranges of 0.27 to 1.57 and 0.74 to 0.65 respectively. The surface obtained with E2 electrolyte has more valleys than peaks. Fig. 5&6 show the variation of Ssk in E1 &E2 electrolytes at machining time
+1 level.
The parameters Smmr and Smvr for all the electrolytes vary predominantly within 0.004 to 0.04 and 0.003 to 0.04 respectively. The high value of Smmr (>3m3/m2 i.e. 0.003 mm3/mm2) indicates that the material volume will be subjected to higher wear [25]. Smmr and Smvr are numerically equal to Sp/1000 and Sv/1000 where Sp and Sv are maximum height of peaks and maximum height of valleys.
High value of the SHtp indicates a steep bearing ratio curve and a lower value indicates a flatter one. For higher bearing loads, a flat curve is desirable Depending on the functional requirement it is possible to select the process variables to maintain SHtp in a specified range. The overall range of SHtp for E1 electrolyte is 3.7 23.3 and for E2 electrolyte is 4.124.6. There is little difference in the distribution of SHtp obtained with E1 and E2 electrolytes. Fig. 7&8 show the variation of SHtp in E1 &E2 electrolytes at machining time +1 level.
In general, from literature [1,2,2225] it is found that as the inter electrode potential increases the current density increase. With increase in inter electrode gap resistance of the electrolyte increases and the current density decreases. The flow pattern also changes with the gap as well as the local surface condition of the work piece. This also affects the current density. For example if the graphite particles are removed or a film is formed on the surface then the current density changes. The active electrolyte and passive electrolytes affect the machining rate and surface finish in more way than one. The concentration of chloride, nitrate anions and their ratios together with current density change material removal mechanism.
All the roughness amplitude parameters observed in the study are in high range. It [24] is suggested that Cl ions does not remove the anodic film uniformly. The attack is relatively localized and that may lead to nonuniform material removal. Another possible reason is the microstructure of SG Iron. The matrix is ferritic. Most of the electrolytes preferentially attack ferritegraphite interface because of the difference in electrical conductivity. The different electrical conductivities of iron and graphite lead to change in the intensity of local electricity field. That in turn leads to inhomogeneous oxidation of microstructure leading to a rough surface finish [26]. It is reported that at low current level current density, the current efficiency is very low in case of pure NaNO3 electrolyte because of oxygen evolution but as the current density increases the current density also increase rapidly [22]. In case of pure NaCl electrolyte current efficiency varies slightly with change in current density and hydrogen evolution takes place at cathode [22]. In case of mxed electrolytes (NaCl + NaNO3) the current efficiency increases with increase in chloride to nitrate ratio [24].
Fig.1 Variation of Sq at machining time +1 (E1 electrolyte)
Fig.4 Variation of Sku at machining time +1 (E2 electrolyte)
Fig.2 Variation of Sq at machining time +1 (E2 electrolyte)
Fig.5 Variation of Ssk at machining time +1 (E1 electrolyte)
Fig.3 Variation of Sku at machining time +1 (E1 electrolyte)
Fig.6 Variation of Ssk at machining time +1 (E2 electrolyte)
Fig.7 Variation of SHtp at machining time +1 (E1 electrolyte)
Fig.8 Variation of SHtp at machining time +1 (E2 electrolyte)
CONCLUSIONS

By using Box Behnken experimental design regression equations are developed to correlate ECM process variables operating voltage, work piece tool gap and machining time with surface roughness parameters Sa, Sq
, Sz, Ssk, Sku, Smmr, Smvr and SHtp.

It is found that the chloride to nitrate ratio has a significant influence on the surface roughness parameters.

For E1 electrolyte (KCl + NaNo3 solution1 (125 grams of KCl + 250 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) the chloride to nitrate ratio is 0.5. The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E1 electrolyte are closer to that of pure NaNO3 solution. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E1 the range is (0.27 to 1.57); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (2 to 1.0)[21].

For E2 electrolyte (KCl+ NaNO3 solution2 (166.667 grams of KCl + 200 grams of NaNO3 /litre of tap water) , the chloride to nitrate ratio is 0.83 The ranges of value for surface roughness parameters obtained with E2 are closer to that of pure NaCl solution. The exception is for Ssk. In case of E1 the range is (0.74 to 0.65); for pure NaNO3 solution the range is (1 to 0.49)[21].

There is little variation in the range of values in SHtp for both the cases (E1 and E2 electrolytes).

The regression equations may be used to select machining time, applied potential, inter electrode gap for producing surface roughness within a desired range.

REFERENCES

McGeough J.A, Principles of Electrochemical Machining, Chapman and Hall, 1974

Rumyantsev E, and Davydov A, Electrochemical Machining of Metals, Mir Publishers Moscow,1989, 13 36.

Ramasawmy H and Blunt L, 3D Surface Topology Assessment of the Effect of Different Electrolytes During Electrochemical Polishing of EDM Surfaces, Int. J. Machine Tools &Manufacture, 2002,vol.42, 567 574.

Konig W and Lindelauf P, Surface Generation in Electrochemical Machining, Annals of the CIRP, 1973, Vol.29, no.1, 97100.

Kops L and Quack V.B., Investigation of the Role of Workpiece Grain Size in Electrochemical Machining Process, Trans. ASME, J. Engg. Ind., 1976,Vol. 98, 360368.

Krishnaiah Chetty O.V, Murthy, R.V.G.K and Radhakrishnan V, On Some Aspects of Surface Formation in ECM, Trans. ASME, J. Engg. Ind., 1981,Vol. 103, 341348.

Jeng MingChang, Doong JiLiang and Yang ChihWen, The Effects of Carbon Content and Microstructure on the Metal Removal Rate in Electrochemical Machining, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 1993, Vol.38,527538.

JoÃ£o Cirilo da Silva Neto , Evaldo Malaquias da Silva and Marcio Bacci da Silva., Intervening Variables in Electrochemical Machining. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,2006,Vol.179,pp. 9296.

Pihura D. and Oruc M., Applications of Spheroidal Graphite Cast Iron in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Materials and Technology , 2007, Vol.41, no.4, 193195.

Weber O. , Bahre D., and Rebschlager, Study of Pulse Electrochemical Machining Characteristics of Spheroidal Cast Iron Using Sodium Nitrate Electrolyte, COMA 13, Int. Connf. On Competitive Manufacturing, Jan.,30 Feb.,1. 2013, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Petropoulus G.P, Pandazaras C.N, Paulo Davim J, Surface Texture characterization and Evaluation Related to Machining, in Surface Integrity in Machining, Ed. Paulo Davim J, Springer,2010,3766.

Chiffre L.De, Lonardo P, Trumpold H, Lucca D.A, Gosh G, Brown C.A, Raja J, Hansen H.N, Quantitative Characterization of Surface Texture, Ann.CIRP, ,2000,vol.49,635652.

Nowicki B, Multiparameter Representation of Surface Roughness, Wear,1985,Vol.102,pp. 161 176.

Benardos P.G. and Vosniakos G.C., Predicting Surface Roughness in Machining, Int. Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, vol. 43, (2003), 833844.

Stout K.J, Sullivan P.J, Dong W.P,Mainsah E, Luo N,Mathia T, Zahouani H, The Development of Methods for the Characterisation of Roughness in Three Dimensions, EUR 15178 EN, 1993, 1113.

Aris N.F.M, Cheng K, Characterization Of The Surface Functionality On Precision Machined Engineering Surfaces, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2008, Vol.38, 402409.

Deleanu L ,Georgescu C and Suciu C, A Comparison Between 2D And 3D Surface Parameters For Evaluating The Quality Of Surfaces, The Annals of "Dunarea De Jos" University of Galati", ISSN 1221 4566 ,2012,pp.512.

Montgomery D.C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, Ed.5th , Wiley India Pvt. Ltd., N. Delhi, 427,417419,458459,448454.

DesignExpert V9Â®product of M/s Stat Ease Inc.

Deming S.N. and Morgan S.L., Experimental Design A Chemometric Approach, 1987, Elsevier, Netherlands, 171173.

Bishnu.M.Jha and A.Mandal, Electrochemical Machining of SG Iron: Effect of Process Variables on Surface Roughness Parameters., International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT).,Vol. 2 Issue 7, July 2013. ISSN: 22780181.

Wagner,T., High Rate Electrochemical Dissolution of Iron Based Alloys in NaCl and NaNO3 Electrolytes. http://elib.uni stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2003/1293/pdf/TWagDiss.pdf

Lesch A., Wittstock G.,Burger C. ,Walther B. and Hackenberg J., External Control of Anodic Mechanism in 100Cr6 Dissolution in Nitrate/ Chloride Mixed Electrolytes, J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. , 2011, vol.1, no.1, 3954.
3
3

Mao Kao_Wen and Hoare J.P., The Anodic Dissolution of Mild Steel in Solutions Containing Both Cl and NO – Ions, Corrosion Science, 1973, vol.13, 799803.

ZawadaTomkiewicz A, Surface roughness produced by hard turning with PCBN tools, 7th International DAAAM Baltic Conference
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING 2224 April 2010, Tallinn, Estonia,
http://www.kirj.ee/public/Engineering/2011/issue_1/eng2011188 99.pdf

Bahre D.,Weber O. and Rebschlag er, Investigation on Pulse Electrochemical Machining Characteristics of Lamellar Cast Iron Using a Response Surface MethodologyBased Approach, The Seventeenth CIRP Conference on Electro Physical and Chemical Machining (ISEM), Procedia CIRP 6 ( 2013 ) 363 368.