Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Experimental study demonstrates near-dry electrical discharge machining performance on additive Inconel, indicating copper maximizes material removal while brass optimizes surface finish.
The inherent microstructural variability, poor surface finish, and dimensional inaccuracies of wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM)-fabricated Inconel superalloys necessitate effective post-processing to achieve the required functional performance. Therefore, this study quantitatively evaluates the post-processing capability of near-dry electrical discharge machining on WAAM-fabricated Inconel and develops linear regression models. Experiments were conducted using a Taguchi-L9 design with three levels each of three parameters-current, duty cycle, and dielectric flow rate-while material removal rate (MRR), tool wear rate (TWR), and surface roughness were considered as performance variables. All experiments were performed for both copper and brass tool-electrodes, and the resulting response variables were quantitatively compared. The MRR obtained with brass (0.121-3.451 mm³/min) was considerably lower than with copper (0.906-12.34 mm³/min) and showed non-linear behaviour with increased instability at higher discharge currents and duty cycles. Copper consistently exhibited lower TWR, with near-zero or negative wear, while brass ranged from 0.340-5.279 mm³/min. The maximum surface profile height (Rz) ranged from 7-26 μm for brass and 13-41 μm for copper. These results indicate that copper enables high-productivity machining with superior performance, while brass is better suited for finishing applications. Except for the brass TWR model, which showed a lower adjusted R², all regression models were statistically significant and explained a substantial proportion of the variability in MRR, TWR, and Rz. The relatively poor fit of the brass TWR model is attributed to the inherently non-linear relationship between process parameters and TWR, which a simplified linear regression model cannot fully capture.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Udutha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: