Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review

S.P. Kadam ⇑, S. Mitra
Production Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal 700032, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent developments in precision manufacturing along with miniaturization of parts have put strict
Received 3 June 2020 requirements on edge and surface finishing processes. It not only requires clean and defect free surfaces
Accepted 1 July 2020 but also maintain previously generated precision dimensions on advance engineering material. The burr
Available online xxxx
is undesired but inevitable, real productivity killer and amid the most worrying obstructions to mecha-
nization of machining processes, hence affecting quality. Deburring and edge quality is of concern for the
Keywords: performance, cost, safety and appearance of the parts. Over the years electrochemical deburring (ECD)
Burr
has emerged as a tool for removal of the burrs and retain the requisite edge tolerances exclusive of dam-
Electrochemical deburring
Deburring time
aging formerly generated precision dimensions. Conventional ECD process working on the electrochem-
Mathematical modeling ical principle has been now coupled with faradayic technology to enhance process capability. It is well
Burr height known that ECD process works for conductive work materials and in specific applications. This review
encompasses fundamental principle, parametric analysis and capabilities of the ECD processes that have
been evolved through cross innovations. It also critically analyzes mathematical approaches for the mod-
eling of the process in conjunction with their key formulations. Further it discusses the areas which need
to be explored.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Manufacturing Material Science and Engineering.

1. Introduction ing know-how is not simple and creates bottleneck in the produc-
tion lines. Therefore a careful and the most cost-effective approach
Rapid development in the field of optics, electronics, MEMS and of burr prevention, minimization and removal is needed for acquir-
medicine has forced engineers to design and manufacture compact ing the required quality and tolerance [2].
and reliable products. Consequently, the demand for miniature Deburring operation includes removal of burrs and maintaining
components with complex features has drastically increased [1]. proper edge condition without effect on rest of the surface [8,9]. On
Researchers have proposed different manufacturing process to precision parts, deburring and edge finishing often account 30% of
meet this demand. But most of the manufacturing processes are part cost and even more for small parts. Sometimes, it becomes
associated with one of the unavoidable by-product i.e. burr. It source of many dimensional discrepancies [4]. Difficulty of the
has been found that, the burrs are bigger in micromachining [2] deburring tool approach, tool positioning, lack of space and non-
and is the function of cutting parameters, tool geometries and tool visibility of the burr region deburring of inaccessible areas poses
path [3]. The burr geometry can be characterized by the height, a range of problems. For smaller feature and/or part sizes, burr
width, radius, and length of the burr [4]. Burr generates noise, fric- problems become more complex to resolve [2,10].
tion and wear, overheating, short circuits, leakages, inaccurate The potential success of any deburring process is depends on
dimensional measurement and may diminish the life of work parts. edge tolerances, product and feature size, proximity to other edges
Furthermore burr has a huge potential to cause a safety hazard to and surfaces, machinability, burr properties and accessibility of
personnel [5,6]. Whereas, controlled and uniform edge quality can features [11]. Principal deburring processes using electrochemical
increase fatigue strength of overstressed components, reliability removal mechanisms [12] are shown in Fig. 1. The majority of
and overall product performance [7,8]. Moreover, the edge finish- the deburring processes and tools are developed for definite work-
part geometries and unable to handle wide range of workpiece
geometries and materials [9].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.P. Kadam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Manufacturing Material Science and Engineering.

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
2 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Principal deburring processes using electrochemical removal mechanisms [12].

Deburring via conventional methods requires labour, time, 3. Parameters of electrochemical deburring process
costs and even not reliable for inaccessible areas [8,10]. Several
other non-traditional deburring methods suffer from certain major Successful deburring depends on the ECD tooling used as well
drawbacks [13,14]. But, ECD technique stands differently as it as on the operating condition. Consequently, the manufacturing
eliminates many of the drawbacks encountered by other processes. engineer controls the process variables like applied voltage, cur-
As the ECD process is a non-contact in nature, resulting workpiece rent density, electrolyte type and its concentration, IEG, time of
surface is free from any residual stress and heat affected zone. deburring etc.
Apart from this, the machining rate can be kept steady irrespective
of the hardness and toughness of the material. Moreover, it can
machine a fragile workpiece and intricate shapes without tool 3.1. Role of power supply
wear. The burrs literally dissolve in 5–60 s [9,12] and the rate of
dissolution is influenced only by chemical and electrical properties Current density plays a vital role in the metal removal and is
[15]. directly related to applied current and variation in the electrolyte
concentration. As the voltage increases, the current also increases
proportionately. It is reported in literature that the deburring phe-
nomenon was found to increase along with high current densities
2. Fundamental principle of electrochemical deburring ultimately; deburring time reduces significantly with increase in
voltage. The same observation is depicted in Fig. 3. But then again,
Significant advances registered in ECM during the 1950s and the voltage or current cannot be increased beyond a certain value
1960s were later on, was extended to automobile and gas turbine because of onset sparking possibility which can detroit the work
industries for shaping, finishing, deburring and milling operations part as well as tool [21]. However, as shown in Fig. 4 the current
of big parts [16,17]. ECD is a variant of ECM and governed by the decreases as machining proceeds due to the obstacle of electro-
Faraday’s laws of electrolysis. Process relies on salt or glycol solu- chemical reaction by the precipitation of metal hydroxides
tions and with a specially designed tool to localize material disso- [22,23]. Interval voltage gradually drops down with increase in
lution at specific area [5,12]. When an appropriate DC/pulsed electrolyte concentration [24]. Further, increases in the fillet radius
current is applied, the current density at the highest point of sur- with increase in voltage reported in [25]. While deburring AZ31
face irregularities is higher than that elsewhere. Burrs are hence specimen Lee et al. [20] noted that, as the applied current exceeds
dissolved preferentially forming a controlled radius [5,16]. The tool certain level explosive dissolution makes the machining state
electrode confirms to the part configuration, deburring zone, and unsteady.
non-machining area covered with insulated coating [18]. Tooling’s Unlike glycol based ECD, the faradayic process uses a pulsed
tend to be robust, have chemical resistance and are made from current along with water-based neutral salt solutions to drive the
materials that are less susceptible to electrolytic dissolution. ECD dissolution process in controlled manner [26,27]. The proper range
changes the dimension of the part only to the level of burr removal of peak current, suitable off time and duty factor is significant for
and controlled edge rounding i.e. deburring and radiusing as stability and the deburring performance [6,20,26]. The technology
depicted in Fig. 2 [19]. The equipment design and level of automa- of ultra-short pulse improves local field machining precision and
tion for the electrolytic process is largely influenced by the type surface quality. It allow low machining gap, reduced power input
and size of workpiece to be processed, burr size and location, the in case of short-circuits and helps to eliminate short-circuit as well
production rate and amount of material removal [15]. [26,28,29].

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 2. Mechanism of electrochemical deburring and radiusing.

Fig. 3. Effect of voltage on deburring time [21].

Fig. 5. Change in deburring time and amount of parent material removal for various
initial burr height [21].

3.3. Role of inter-electrode gap size

In ECD, the distance between elctordes affects the machining

speed and should have stable equilibrium machining gap by the
electrochemical effect. The equilibrium gap increases as the input
voltage increases and decreases exponentially as the feeding speed
of the electrode increases [23]. It is enviable to keep the IEG as
small as possible as it reduces the loss of parent material and
deburring time [21]. But, when the gap is extremely small, short
circuit will occasionally halt the process and destroy the adjacent
surface [20,30]. An increase of the IEG causes a decrease of the
machining current due to the increase of the gap resistance. This
leads to decrease of the deburred radius and lower productivity
[31]. A non-uniform machining gap likely to change the hydrody-
namic conditions of the mixture and thereby results in uneven
depth and width in the workpiece edge [15,22].
Fig. 4. Current variation with time for the various electrolytes [23].

3.4. Effect of electrolyte properties

3.2. Role of initial burr height Pressure, flow rate, temperature, pH; conductivity and purity of
the electrolyte require to be controlled in order to make sure sus-
Initial burr height has major influence on deburring operation. tainable reproducibility of the ECD [32]. Generally static electrolyte
Effect of original burr height on deburring time and parent material way is used for ECD. The electrolyte carries current between elec-
removal are depicted in Fig. 5. For a particular final burr height, trodes and removes heat, gas bubbles and precipitate from the gap.
deburring time and parent material removal is more with higher The choice of electrolyte depends on type of material to be
initial burr height. In practice there are limits on parent material machined, ionic concentration, IEG, desired MRR and surface qual-
removal. Due to this restraint it is hard to remove heavy burrs by ity. Apart from salt or glycol solution researchers used mixed elec-
ECD [21]. trolytes [20,22,25,33], emulsion [6], permasol-60 [23], gelatinous

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
4 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Reported experimental work on electrochemical deburring process.

Ref. Work Tool material Electrolyte Experimental conditions Remark/Key Outcome

material
[33] Aluminum Graphite balls Three mixed electrolyte V – 6–20 V, I – 0.2–2 A Graphite balls act as moving electrode.
H3PO4 + H2SO4 give best result.
[31] St 37 SS, Copper NaCl (concentration – V – 30 V, IEG = 0.5–3 mm, Q – 3.75 L/min, t – 20 Exposed electrode height should be equal to
and Brass 13.33 kg/100 L) and 40 s the height of the required deburring radius.
[27] SAE 1010 Brass NaNO3/NaCl Standard potential Aqueous electrolyte along with pulse power
Steel gives better result.
[38] Hydraulic – Electrolyte V – 21 V, I – 23 A, IEG – 0.5 mm, Q – 3.75 L/min, The burr removed from intersecting hole and
jack base concentration – Electrolyte temp. – 25 °C, t – 60 s replaced by a fillet radius of about 2.5 mm.
block 13.33 kg/100 lit.
[23] SCM415 Copper Permasol – 60, NaNO3 V – 30 V, Ipeak – 20 A, IEG – 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 mm. Burr height reduced from 0.9 to 0.15 mm.
(15%), NaCl (15%)
[6] SCM4 Electroplated Emulsion (most cut V – 10–30 V, Ipeak – 1–5 A, J – 0. 1 - l.5 A cm
2, Ton. Most of the burrs detached through the
CBN wheel EC3105) 30% – 10–30 ms, Toff – 10 ms, Cutting speed – 1900 rpm grinding process and the secondary burrs
eliminated by ECD.
[21] SCM-4 Copper NaNO3 (15%) V – 30 V, J – 3.5 A/cm2 , k – 0.0276 Parametric analysis of ECD through
mathematical model and experiment.
[49] 6061 T6 – NaNO3 V – 18 V, I – 150 A, p – 207 kPa, Electrolyte temp. – Deburring nozzle holes of different sizes in
aluminum 24 °C, t – – 10–20 s aluminum airbag inflator housings.
[43] SS304 Copper NaNO3 (25 gm/liter V – 15–25 V, h0 – 1 mm, Pulse frequency 60 Hz, Studied influence of process parameters on
concentration) Ton. – 80%, Toff – 20%, IEG 1.2–1.6 mm, Q – 4.5 deburring rate and change in burr height.
L/min, t – 2 – 6 min
[50] Steel Brass 15% NaNO3 V – 11.5 V, h0 – 0.7–0.8 mm, IEG – 0.178 mm, t – Initial burr of 0.722 mm height is detached
120 s and the fillet radius of 0.211 mm is obtained.
[42] Steel Brass 15% NaNO3 V – 11.5 V, h0 – 0.7–0.8 mm, IEG – 0.14 mm, d – Initial burr of 0.057 mm height is detached
0.2 mm and t – 150 s and the fillet radius of 0.248 mm is obtained.
[20] AZ31 Copper 0.5 M NaNO3, 0.5 M I – 5 A, 10 A and 15 A, IEG – 1 mm, 5 mm and Analyzed electrolyte composition, applied
Magnesium NaCl, 0.005 M 10 mm, Duty factor – 33%, 50% and 75% current, duty factor, and IEG for deburring
Alloy H3PO4 + 0.007 M AZ31 specimen.
H2SO4 + H2O
[25] Brass gears rotating mixture of phosphoric V – 12 V, barrel speed – 2 rpm, electrolyte temp. – The fillet radius of gear is 58.6 lm and its
barrel acid, water and glycerin 50℃, t –5 min standard deviation is 5.9 lm.
[24] Stainless Copper NaNO3, NaCl, and I – 200 mA, IEG – 0.2 mm, Electrolytic Temp. – NaCl electrolyte generates stray corrosion
steel NaNO3 + NaCl (5–30% 25 °C, t – 20–60 s pits on the nonfinished surface of miniature
Concentration) hole.
[41] Aluminum Brass 15% NaNO3 I – 0.1–0.4 A, h0 – 0.4–0.8 mm As the initial burr is the more, required
deburring time is also more.
[34] – – 10% NaNO3(Gel) V – 30 V, Gel thickness – 1.5 mm The utmost burr height reduced from
473.832 mm to 178.643 mm.
[18,51] Aluminum Tungsten- NaCl with 15, 20, and V – 12.4–12.5 V, IEG – 50 lm, t – 10, 20, 30, and Edge condition varied with electrolyte
6082 alloy Copper 25% composition 40 s with different current density, current concentration and time and radius can be
efficiency and electrolyte concentrations controlled by adjusting the variables.
[48] 304 Hollow 1.0 M NaNO3 V – 13 V, h0 = 0.02 to 0.5 mm, Ton. – 12 ms to 75 ms, Burr with the remelted layer removed while
stainless electrode Toff – 100 ms, t – 10 s maintained the precision of the shape and
steel size of micro hole.

electrolyte [34] to improve surface finish, MRR and prevent pits, are added to improve the dimensional control of components
smuts and striation. Some of the electrolytes reported in literature and occasionally non-aqueous electrolytes are used to produce
are listed in Table 1. Due to low throwing power and controlled good surface finish at high current density [22]. Glycerin to elec-
MRR, sodium nitrate is far better than the sodium chloride which trolyte improves the gloss of a workpiece surface, but may dimin-
increases the accuracy in machining [16]. Sodium chloride uses ish electrolyte conductivity [25]. Low conductivity increases the
higher current producing striations, smuts and pitting [18]. In par- heat generated in the IEG. Typical temperature of the electrolyte
ticular, Lee et al. [20] reported that use of an acidic electrolyte normally ranges from 15 °C to 40 °C, with a pH ranging from 7 to
damaged the whole AZ31 surface, in spite of the acidity of the solu- 8.5 having negligible effect on productivity [15,36].
tion was weak. In addition, use of the NaCl electrolyte to some
extent blackened the surface of the AZ31 due to the characteristics 3.5. Role of electrode material
of chlorine. It is desirable to use fresh and clean electrolyte rather
than recirculated one as the reaction product increases the risk of The past work shows that the conductivity, geometrical shape,
short circuit in IEG. chemical composition and properties, and prior history of elec-
Increase in the electrolyte concentration increases the current trode material have an effect on the finishing and material removal
and dissolution efficiency and hence, the MRR increases [18]. How- occurrence [37]. Tool configuration, aspect, shape and precision
ever, an increase in electrolyte concentration restricts the localiza- will have enormous contamination to workpiece and influences
tion of the material removal. This leads to an increase in the stray processing precision as well as productivity [11,30]. The location
etching [35]. Although resolution is enhanced at lower concentra- of the exposed uninsulated length of the electrode, the electrode
tions, the ion-content in the small IEG is inadequate to supply the shape, material and the IEG are majority of the significant elec-
charge carriers needed to complete the charging of the double trode design factors affecting the ECD process [38]. A realistic tool
layer capacitance, ultimately leads to low processing efficiency design not only provides the cathode dimensions and an appropri-
[24]. Therefore, low to moderate electrolyte concentration is pre- ate path for the electrolyte flow but also must ensure maximum
ferred in ECD for localizing the material removal. Some additives current density on the burr region, while it should be minimum

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

on the non-burr zone [18,39]. Tool material should bear up high graphite balls as the moving electrode using turned aluminium
localized current density and electrolyte pressure. Suitable coating specimens. Hakim et al. [31] investigated the effect of position of
material should be chosen to circumvent stray cutting, excess cur- the exposed uninsulated length of the electrode, the electrode
rent damage, and dimensional unsteadiness. Materials like elec- material and the IEG on the performance of the deburring process.
trolytic copper, copper tungsten, graphite, brass, titanium and Choi and Kim [23] studied the characteristics of ECD, through
stainless steel are used in many cases. During testing of copper, experiments and contribution of electrolytic gap and fluid, to the
brass and stainless steel it is found that the stainless steel elec- burr removal were analyzed considering the burr height. More-
trodes resulted in higher values of deburred radius than copper over, the deburring efficiency and performance for an inner cross
and brass electrodes. It is also found that copper electrodes remove hole were examined for diverse electrolytic current and deburring
the burr at a higher rate than other two electrodes [38]. Tool heads setting. Furthermore, Choi and Kim, [6] proposed a method of ECD
can have several design shapes based on the required profile and by means of electroplated CBN wheel. The experimental method
on the processing conditions [39]. As the process is driven by cur- used was blend of a wheel rotation with an electrochemical
rent flow between the electrodes, alignment of cathode and anode dissolution.
is important to achieve desired deburring and edge radius results. In term of steadiness and the performance of deburring, the
Off-center tooling may damage to the cathode if a burr contacts the pulse current is superior than DC power is reported in
cathode [15]. [6,20,27,42]. Sarkar et al. [21] analyzed through experiment para-
metric effect of process on deburring time and base material loss.
3.6. Effect of feed rate Lee et al. [20] suggested an ECD process, to take away microscopic
burrs on magnesium alloy. They evaluated the machining charac-
ECD is a targeted metal dissolution process that uses immobile teristics for each machining condition with NaCl electrolyte. Lee
tooling to concentrate a deburring current on only burr regions et al. [25] proposed system of a rotational barrel to eliminate burrs
[15]. Ghabrial & Ebeid [22,40] reported that, non-rotating though from very small metal parts with different electrolyte composi-
a non-equilibrium process is of use in deburring as it yield higher tions. In order to achieve the best deburring results, researchers
MRR under less power consumption. Moreover, use of a rotating [43–47] have attempted the process parameter optimization in
and feeding tool electrode improve the deburring process by creat- ECD to develop predictive models. Furthermore, to impound elec-
ing turbulent flow in the IEG. The performance of ECD process with trochemical dissolution to the constricted limits of the burr and
moving tool is superior in respect of the deburring time and base avoid stray corrosion, recently Wang and Shen [34] developed a
material removal particularly for removing heavy burr. In case of process involving a gelatinous electrolyte. However, preparation,
ECD with controlled tool feeding a higher IEG can be maintained maintenance of gel thickness and removal of gel is cumbersome
without appreciable loss of process performance. However, there task. To address the misalignment of the electrode issue Kong,
is higher limit of feed rate due to possibility of sparking and gap Liu and Fan, [48] implemented a substandard nested circle-fitting
short. technique based on the least-square method in ECD of micro hole.
A comprehensive view of past experimental work by different
researchers in this area is presented in Table 1.
3.7. Effect of processing time
Over the years, several significant contributions in this area
have occurred based on the characteristic relationships of the pro-
Processing time needs to be controlled in a reasonable range to
cess parameters within small gap to increase the precision. In the
achieve the desired fillet radius. Too short processing time cannot
subsequent section, process models pertaining to ECD process
remove burrs entirely and too long processing time affects process-
along with their key formulation are discussed in detail.
ing efficiency and degrades edge quality of the feature [24]. Ini-
tially, the burr dissolution rate is high, as the spiky edges of
5. Modeling of electrochemical deburring process
burrs collect more electrons than elsewhere but due to solid and
gaseous contaminations dissolution reduces progressively with
In early stage of ECD development, Hakim et al. [38] focused
processing time [23,25]. As the burr is successively dissolved, the
their effort on tooling design and deburring cost calculation. Later
metal dissolution rate on the surface around the burr increases
on, Mahdy et al. [52] developed a flow chart for the determination
consequently. When steady current is supplied, the deburring time
of the best possible conditions of drilling with least manufacturing
increases with the increase of IEG, initial burr height, the thickness
cost from the viewpoint of burr formation. The required ECD time
of the burr root and the radius of the miniature hole, but decreases
for a certain fillet radius can be calculated as given in equation (1),
with the processing current and volume of electrochemical equiv-

x1
y1
alent [41]. Br e 3 r 3
t0 m ¼ t m1 þ tm2 ¼ þ ð1Þ
Majority of experimental work has gone into ECD process devel- K ECD K Co K ECD K  CO


opment to maximize the process response. Additionally, research-

where t 0 m is the deburring time per part of burr to achieve a speci-
ers used different approaches along with pulse power source so as
fied fillet radius, t m1 and t m2 are the deburring time per part to attain
to further augment the process yield. In the subsequent section, a
zero burr and a particular fillet radius from zero burr respectively,
detailed review of the literature is presented with an intend to
Bre is the enlarging burr height, KECD, K*ECD, KCo and K*Co are the
understand the work done so far and opportunities for potential
coefficients and correction factors for deburred burr and fillet radius
research and development work.
respectively, r is the deburring fillet radius and x3, y3 are the expo-
nents. Choi and Kim [23] developed relation given in Eq. (2) to find
4. Experimental development in electrochemical deburring out equilibrium gap under steady state condition,
 0 0 ð1
yo Þ
0

The one of the early experimental work reported by Ghabrial t0 ¼ yo
y þ In 0 ð2Þ

and Ebeid [22] used air-electrolyte mixture to improve dimen- ð1
y Þ
sional accuracy and surface finish at the same time minimizing 0
The equilibrium gap yb , when y ¼ 1is calculated as:
sparking, striations and smuts. However, mixture is only suitable
for finishing operations, as air electrolyte mixtures lead to a K gV s kE
yb ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
decrease in MRR. Pramanik et al. [33] explored ECD process with y v
Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
6 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

0
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where y is position of machining surface, y and t0 are position and
h ¼ h o þ Sa
Sa 2 þ 2kt ð7Þ
time dimensionless parameter, g is current efficiency, v is tool’s
feed velocity, yo is initial gap, E is applied voltage, k is specific con- 2
ductivity, K is electrolytic constant and V s is specific removal vol- ðho
ht Þ þ 2ho Sa
2ht Sa
t¼ ð8Þ
ume. Eq. (3) shows that machining gap approaches a stable 2k
distance as time passes, despite the initial gaps are different. Thus, where Sa is distance of burr tip from tool electrode. Even though
ECD is self-adjusting to give a stable machining process. developed model are just about consistent with the trial values it
Fig. 6 show the schematic view of the interelectrode gap. Before seems that, model deviate on account of several reason. Ma et al.
deburring operation, points A and B are situated on the peak of the [42] developed similar model considering d as pulse duty factor of
burr and on the base material adjoining to the burr. After deburring pulse power instead of direct current as below,
process for time t, points A and B will be moved to points A’ and B’ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
respectively. Initial burr height and IEG are h0 and So while, Sn is h ¼ h o þ Sa
Sa 2 þ 2dkt ð9Þ
the measure of removal of stock material and a constant factor k.
ht and h are the reduced burr height after deburring operation 2
ðho
ht Þ þ 2ho Sa
2ht Sa
for time t with reference to initial base material surface and t¼ ð10Þ
reduced base material surface respectively. 2dk
Sarkar et al. [21] put forward a mathematical model, gives real Both the models considered initial IEG distance from burr tip up
impetus to modeling of ECD process to predicts the burr height, to tool surface. Furthermore, model gives relation to find out
deburring time and loss of parent material as given in Eqs. (4), reduced burr height and deburring time and not about base mate-
(5) and (6) respectively. rial loss. Wang et al. [34] developed a model to envisage the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi removal height of the burr during machining beside with the
2
h¼ So 2 þ 2kt
ðSo
ho Þ þ 2kt ð4Þ required machining time to efficiently control the machining con-
dition using gelatinous electrolyte.
( 2 )
ho
h n 2 o
2
2
t¼
2
ðho
h Þ þ 4So ðSo
ho Þ ð5Þ ð2ho So
ho Þ
8kh
2 t¼ ð11Þ
2k
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
( 2 ) ffi The authors [20,34,42,50] have defined a constant factor k, as
u 2 n o
u 2 h
h
Sn ¼ tSo þ
o 2 2
ðho
h Þ þ 4So ðSo
ho Þ
So ð6Þ gAKV
4h
2 k¼
qZF
From Eq. (5) it is inferred that, process takes an infinite time to where g is the current efficiency, A the gram atomic weight of the
take away the burr entirely. However, they consider secondary metallic ions, V the supplied voltage, K the electrolyte conductivity,
generated burr into account which takes infinite time. Addition- q the density of the work part, Z the valence of the cation and F is
ally, it is inferred from Eq. (6) that, the loss of parent material is the faraday constant. Wei et al. [41] developed a mathematical
depends only on the initial burr height, final burr height and model for the micro-ECD of miniature holes based on the finite ele-
deburring time. Eventhough, it seems that the model is limited ment analysis as given in equation (12),
to a specific combination of electrolyte, work material and input
b 
voltage it agrees well with experimental results. Xu et al. [50] t¼ e
eð1
ho Þ ð12Þ
developed a mathematical model of ECD to analyze influence of a
IEG, supplied voltage and deburring time on burr height dissolu- where parameter a and b are related to radius of the miniature hole
tion as, and burr root thickness. They concluded that, as burr dissolves
gradually the current density on the surface around the hole
increases. Recently Prabhu, & Kumar [53] proposed mathematical
model and hydrodynamics of the process for optimal velocity calcu-
lations which can be tentatively calculated as given below.

V 2 lw
U¼ ð13Þ
4:1868te ye 2 Cpeðho
hi Þbw
where V is applied voltage, U and te is velocity and specific resistiv-
ity of the electrolyte, lw and bw are length and width of the work
piece, ho and hi are outlet and inlet temperature of the electrolyte,
Cpe is average specific heat of the electrolyte.
It is well understood that, final results in ECD are influenced by
a number of parameters. Most of these solutions were solved just
for a two-dimensional situation and is based on the number of sim-
plified assumptions. The main disadvantage of empirical equations
is that, the precise path of the electric current flow lines in the IEG
is hard to determine methodically and they are valid only were the
experiments were conducted.

6. Process capabilities and limitations

ECD is ideal for difficult-to-reach locations, intersecting holes

and precision parts. Some of the commonly used applications
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of IEG in ECD. reported in literature are compiled in Table 2. Process is used

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Table 2 repeatability. Comparison between the hypothetical and the exper-

Major reported applications of electrochemical deburring process. imental outcomes show that, high voltage, small IEG and faradayic
Area of Part/Feature approach beneficial for efficient MRR and smooth radius genera-
application tion. Further, the way forward is to explore the effects of work tool
Automotive Pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, wrist pin holes, bolt interactions in the small gap (IEG) apart from the typical paramet-
holes and thrust faces [12], inflation holes in air bag ric effect to build up broad models and simulations of the ECD
canisters [50], spline shafts [5], governor-shaft cross hole process.
[23]
Aerospace Cooling holes in turbine blades [12], fuel manifolds or oil
injection pressure tubes [52] Declaration of Competing Interest
Manufacturing Edges of pump gears [12], Impellers of axial and centrifugal
pumps [36], milled components, drilled holes, and punched The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
blanks [5], cast parts [39], gears, screws, and cap nuts [25],
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
threads [19], Remove recast layer [48,54]
Fluid power Intersecting and cross-hole passages of pump valve [12,30], to influence the work reported in this paper.
spools and sleeves of fluid distributors [5], fuel system
housing [49], hydraulic elements of powered mining sup- Acknowledgements
ports [39], Oil flow groove of front planetary carrier [27]
Medical Surgical knife blades, medical clips and stents with a recast
layer [55]
Author gratefully acknowledges the research fellowship
granted by MHRD India under QIP scheme run by AICTE New Delhi.

References
extensively to remove recast surfaces resulting from EDM, LBM
and EBM processes [48,49,54]. However, Deburring of titanium [1] W. Grzesik, Micro-machining, Adv. Mach. Process. Metall. Mater. (2017) 399–
alloys, sintered tungsten, zinc die castings requires the use of spe- 436.
cial additives and often present processing problems [12]. There- [2] K. Lee, D.A. Dornfeld, Microburr formation and minimization through process
control, Precision Eng. 29 (2005) 246–252.
fore, the major limitation of ECD is with regard to burr size, part [3] J. Kim, S. Min, D.A. Dornfeld, Optimization and control of drilling burr
size, tooling design and difficulty in positioning and aligning the formation of AISI 304L and AISI 4118 based on drilling burr control charts, Int.
cathode with respect to workpiece. Along with high initial invest- J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 41 (2001) 923–936.
[4] L.K. Gillespie, Deburring precision miniature parts, Precis. Eng. (1979) 189–
ment cost, operational, maintenance and tooling cost connected
198.
with ECD make this process a costly deal despite its distinct pro- [5] N.K. Jain, S. Pathak, Electrochemical processing and surface finish, Compreh.
cess capabilities and advantages. The problem is augmented by Mater. Finish. 3 (2017) 369–379.
the corrosion, toxicity and safety related problems of ECD. Incre- [6] I.-H. Choi, J. Du Kim, Electrochemical deburring system using electroplated
CBN wheels, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 38 (1–2) (1998) 29–40.
ment in gap resistance due to electrolyte heating, uneven current [7] N. Ramachandran, S.S. Pande, N. Ramakrishnan, The role of deburring in
flow, precipitate and gas bubble formation leads to the occurrence manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 44 (1994)
of micro sparks, smut, pitting and short-circuits thereby results 1–13.
[8] R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan, Investigation of AJM for
poor dimensional control of the workpiece [12,18]. Longer pulse deburring, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 79 (1998) 52–58.
off durations in case of pulse power, vibrating electrodes or a more [9] J.C. Aurich, D. Dornfeld, P.J. Arrazola, V. Franke, L. Leitz, S. Min, Burrs—Analysis,
flushing quantity within the work gap can be used for the short- control and removal, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 58 (2009) 519–542.
[10] R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan, An experimental study on
circuit elimination [28]. Hexavalent chrome while stainless steel the abrasive jet deburring of cross-drilled holes, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 91
processing and acidic electrolyte is hazardous to personal, equip- (1999) 178–182.
ment and environment. A carbon deposit nearby to the juncture [11] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Design for advanced manufacturing: technologies and
processes, Deburring micro parts, Chapter (McGraw-Hill Professional, 2017),
requires brushing or cleaning for several applications [11]. In addi- Access Engineering.
tion, it is hard to remove thick burrs by the process and ECD [12] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Deburring and Edge Finishing Hand Book. Copyright Ó
machining is justified only in case of batch or mass production. 1999. Soc. Manuf. Eng., ISBN 0-87263-501-5 (1999).
[13] S.H. Lee, D.A. Dornfeld, Precision laser deburring, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 123 (2001)
356–364.
[14] Young Hun Jeong, Byung HanYoo, Han Ul Lee, Byung-Kwon Min, Dong-Woo
7. Conclusion
Cho, Sang Jo Lee, Deburring micro-features using micro-EDM, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 209 (2009) 5399–5406.
In spite of remarkable enhancement in productivity and preci- [15] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Design for Advanced Manufacturing: Technologies and
sion of manufacturing, burrs and edge defects persist to plague Processes, Electrochemical Micro Deburring, Chapter (McGraw-Hill
Professional, 2017), Access Engineering.
manufacturing processes. Although ‘‘burr-free” machining is [16] J.A. McGeough, Principles of Electrochemical Machining, Chapman and Hall,
impossible, it is possible to remove burrs inexpensively with London, 1974.
ECD. Deburring and radiusing based on electrochemical principal [17] B. Bhattacharyya, J. Munda, M. Malapati, Advancement in electrochemical
micro-machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 44 (2004) 1577–1589.
are widely accepted, providing cost-effective approach to selec- [18] Satisha Prabhu, Abhishek Kumar, Vishvesh J. Badheka, Electrochemical
tively removing burrs from remote regions, with reliable results deburring of Al6082 using NaCl electrolyte: an exploratory study, (2019)
from part-to-lot and with absolute uniformity. Furthermore, the 445-457.
[19] John Halladay, Practical applications of thermal deburring and electrochemical
process can be carried out inside or outside cast, stamped or deburring, precision machined products association, in: 2011 PMPA National
chipped parts, in fixed position or with electrode-tool progress. Technical Conference.
The tooling is relatively simple and machines can accommodate [20] E.-S. Lee, J.-K. Won, T.-H. Shin, S.-H. Kim, Investigation of machining
characteristics for electrochemical micro-deburring of the AZ31 light weight
a wide range of part sizes and materials. In addition to this, process magnesium alloy, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 13 (3) (2012) 339–345.
has very short cycle time with little or without side effect as com- [21] S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, B. Bhattacharyya, Mathematical modeling for controlled
pared to other deburring processes. Nevertheless, the process pro- electrochemical deburring (ECD), J. Mater. Process. Technol. 147 (2004) 241–
246.
vides superior control through the use of pulsed electric field and is
[22] S.R. Ghabrial, S.J. Ebeid, Beneficial effect of air-electrolyte mixtures in
scalable to big surfaces with very minute details. ECD process pro- stationary electrochemical machining, Precis. Eng. (1981) 221–224.
vides a most efficient potential solution within the reach of the [23] I.-H. Choi, J. Du Kim, A study of the characteristic of the electrochemical
production engineer and a very narrow bound in the field of preci- deburring of a governor-shaft cross hole, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 75 (1998)
198–203.
sion manufacturing, especially for internal features where other [24] X. Zheng, Z. Wei, Z. Yu, Electrochemical deburring of miniature holes, Adv.
methods are extremely difficult, arduous or have suspected Mater. Res. 690–693 (2013) 3226–3230.

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059
8 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

[25] S.-J. Lee, Chung Ping Liu, Tien Jung Fan, Yi-Ho Chen, Deburring miniature [41] Zefei Wei, Xinghua Zheng, Yu. Ziyuan, Mathematical modeling and
components by electrochemical method, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 8 (2013) experimental study on electrochemical deburring of miniature holes, Adv.
1713–1721. Mater. Res. 721 (2013) 382–386.
[26] Alonso Lozano-Morales, Heather Mccrabb, Phillip Miller, Maria Inman, and E. [42] Ning Ma, Wen Ji Xu, Ze Fei Wei, Gui Bing Pang, Modeling and experiment of
Jennings Taylor, Electrochemical finishing of small part components, faraday pulse electrochemical deburring on inclined exit surface of drilling hole, Adv.
technology, inc., Clayton, Ohio, (2008) 27-31. www.metalfinishing.com. Mater. Res. 328–330 (2011) 502–506.
[27] E.J. Taylor, M. Inman, Electrochemical surface finishing, Electrochem. Soc. [43] D. Shome, S. Mitra, S. Sarkar, Response Surface Methodology-based approach
Interface (2014) 57-61. to Electrochemical Deburring (ECD) of SS304 stainless steel workpiece, IJPD 6
[28] H.-P. Schulze, Problems of the processing accuracy for electro-erosion and (1) (2008) 2–15, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2008.019117.
electro-chemical machining processes, Int. J. Mater. Form. 2 (1) (2009) 641– [44] M. Singha, S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, A.S. Kuar, Grey-based Taguchi method for
644. optimisation of multiple characteristics in electrochemical deburring process,
[29] Y.-B. Lia, Y.-J. Zhangb, Z.-N. Guo, Design and its experiments of micro IJMTM 26 (1/2/3/4) (2012) 137–148, https://doi.org/10.1504/
electrochemical machining system, Adv. Mater. Res. 97–101 (2010) 2505– IJMTM.2012.051436.
2508. [45] Manoj Singha, Soumyya Sarkar, Souren Mitra, Arunanshu Shekhar Kuar,
[30] L. Tang, G. Zhao, Technique of ECM deburring for intersecting holes of pump, Optimization of process parameters in electrochemical deburring of die steel
Adv. Mater. Res. 411 (2012) 323–326. using taguchi method, Int. J. Mod. Manuf. Technol. 4 (1) (2012) 121–126.
[31] M.A.E. Hakim, M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, M. Abdulla Sayed, The effect of some [46] M. Singha, S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, A. S. Kuar, Evaluation of the characteristics of
electrode design factors on electrochemical deburring (ECD). Int. J. Mater. electrochemical deburring process of die steel using response surface
Prod. Technol. 4 (3) (1989) 259–272. methodology, Nova Science Publishers, (4) (3/4) JMTR (2012).
[32] Solutions for Deburring Applications—Electrochemical Deburring (1999). [47] Ashish Mishra, Sanchay Gupta, R. N. Mall, Application of Taguchi and ANOVA
Retrieved from http://www.sermatec.com. to optimize the process parameter of electrochemical deburring, Int. J.
[33] D.K. Pramanik, R.K. Dasgupta, S.K. Basu, A study of electrochemical deburring Technol. Res. Eng. 1(12) (2014) 1477-1480.
using a moving electrode, Wear 82 (1982) 309–316. [48] Quancun Kong, Guili Liu, Xiahui Fan, ZhiqiangWang, Dong Li, Jianli Song, A
[34] Kun Wang, Qi Shen, Bin He, Localized electrochemical deburring of cross hole nested circle-fitting method for micro-hole centering and its application in
using gelatinous electrolyte, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (13) (2016) 1749– electrochemical deburring, Proc. I Mech. E Part B: J Eng. Manuf. (2019) 1–14.
1754. [49] D.G. Risko, Electrolytic machining, deburring and polishing, Plat. Surf. Finish.
[35] B. Bhattacharyya, J. Munda, Experimental investigation into electrochemical (2004) 48–52.
micromachining (EMM) process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 140 (2003) 287– [50] W.J. Xu, W. Wang, X.Y. Wang, G.B. Pang, Mathematical modeling of
291. electrochemical deburring, Adv. Mater. Res. 126–128 (2010) 545–550.
[36] I.K. Perestoronin and V.P. Sirotkina, Electrochemical method of deburring [51] Satisha Prabhu, Abhishek Kumar, Investigation of nickel coated tool for
impellers of axial and centrifugal pumps, Translated from Khimicheskoe i electrochemical deburring of Al6082, Int. J. Surf. Eng. Interdisc. Mater. Sci., 6
Neftyanoe Mashinostroenie 7 (1973) 25-26. (1) (2018) 17-31.
[37] Piyushkumar B. Tailor, Amit Agrawal, Suhas S. Joshi, Evolution of [52] M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, Economic drilling conditions for a given deburring
electrochemical finishing processes through cross innovations and modeling, radius, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 110 (2001) 197-205.
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 66 (2013) 15–36. [53] Satisha Prabhu, K. Abhishek Kumar, Mathematical modeling and
[38] M.A. El Hakim, M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, M. Abdulla Sayed, ’ECD tooling hydrodynamics of electrochemical deburring process, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater.
design’, Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol., 13 (3-6) (1998) 167-183. Sci. Eng. 346 (2018) 012063.
[39] Ioan - lucian bolundut, Electrochemical deburring of mining hydraulic [54] M.Y. Ali, W.N.P. Hung, Micromachining, Compreh. Mater. Finish. 1 (2017) 322–
elements, Ann. Univ. Petrosßani, Mech. Eng. 12 (2010) 23-32. 343.
[40] S.J. Ebeid, A.M. Abdel Mahboud, High speed electrochemical boring, Precis. [55] A. Lozano-Morales, L. Gebhart, M. Inman, E.J. Taylor, P.O. Miller, Medical device
Eng. 10 (2) (1988) 80–84. surface finishing by ECM, Surf. Finish. Proc. (2007).

Please cite this article as: S. P. Kadam and S. Mitra, Electrochemical deburring - A comprehensive review, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.059