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

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,
costs and even not reliable for inaccessible areas [8,10]. Several
other non-traditional deburring methods suffer from certain major
drawbacks [13,14]. But, ECD technique stands differently as it
eliminates many of the drawbacks encountered by other processes.
As the ECD process is a non-contact in nature, resulting workpiece
surface is free from any residual stress and heat affected zone.
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
wear. The burrs literally dissolve in 5–60 s [9,12] and the rate of
dissolution is influenced only by chemical and electrical properties
[15].
2. Fundamental principle of electrochemical deburring
Significant advances registered in ECM during the 1950s and
1960s were later on, was extended to automobile and gas turbine
industries for shaping, finishing, deburring and milling operations
of big parts [16,17]. ECD is a variant of ECM and governed by the
Faraday’s laws of electrolysis. Process relies on salt or glycol solu-
tions and with a specially designed tool to localize material disso-
lution at specific area [5,12]. When an appropriate DC/pulsed
current is applied, the current density at the highest point of sur-
face irregularities is higher than that elsewhere. Burrs are hence
dissolved preferentially forming a controlled radius [5,16]. The tool
electrode confirms to the part configuration, deburring zone, and
non-machining area covered with insulated coating [18]. Tooling’s
tend to be robust, have chemical resistance and are made from
materials that are less susceptible to electrolytic dissolution. ECD
changes the dimension of the part only to the level of burr removal
and controlled edge rounding i.e. deburring and radiusing as
depicted in Fig. 2 [19]. The equipment design and level of automa-
tion for the electrolytic process is largely influenced by the type
and size of workpiece to be processed, burr size and location, the
production rate and amount of material removal [15].
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
3. Parameters of electrochemical deburring process
Successful deburring depends on the ECD tooling used as well
as on the operating condition. Consequently, the manufacturing
engineer controls the process variables like applied voltage, cur-
rent density, electrolyte type and its concentration, IEG, time of
deburring etc.
3.1. Role of power supply
Current density plays a vital role in the metal removal and is
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
ultimately; deburring time reduces significantly with increase in
voltage. The same observation is depicted in Fig. 3. But then again,
the voltage or current cannot be increased beyond a certain value
because of onset sparking possibility which can detroit the work
part as well as tool [21]. However, as shown in Fig. 4 the current
decreases as machining proceeds due to the obstacle of electro-
chemical reaction by the precipitation of metal hydroxides
[22,23]. Interval voltage gradually drops down with increase in
electrolyte concentration [24]. Further, increases in the fillet radius
with increase in voltage reported in [25]. While deburring AZ31
specimen Lee et al. [20] noted that, as the applied current exceeds
certain level explosive dissolution makes the machining state
unsteady.
Unlike glycol based ECD, the faradayic process uses a pulsed
current along with water-based neutral salt solutions to drive the
dissolution process in controlled manner [26,27]. The proper range
of peak current, suitable off time and duty factor is significant for
stability and the deburring performance [6,20,26]. The technology
of ultra-short pulse improves local field machining precision and
surface quality. It allow low machining gap, reduced power input
in case of short-circuits and helps to eliminate short-circuit as well
[26,28,29].
 S.P. Kadam, S. Mitra / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 2. Mechanism of electrochemical deburring and radiusing.
Fig. 3. Effect of voltage on deburring time [21].
Fig. 4. Current variation with time for the various electrolytes [23].
3.2. Role of initial burr height
Initial burr height has major influence on deburring operation.
Effect of original burr height on deburring time and parent material
removal are depicted in Fig. 5. For a particular final burr height,
deburring time and parent material removal is more with higher
initial burr height. In practice there are limits on parent material
removal. Due to this restraint it is hard to remove heavy burrs by
ECD [21].
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
3
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].
3.4. Effect of electrolyte properties
Pressure, flow rate, temperature, pH; conductivity and purity of
the electrolyte require to be controlled in order to make sure sus-
tainable reproducibility of the ECD [32]. Generally static electrolyte
way is used for ECD. The electrolyte carries current between elec-
trodes and removes heat, gas bubbles and precipitate from the gap.
The choice of electrolyte depends on type of material to be
machined, ionic concentration, IEG, desired MRR and surface qual-
ity. Apart from salt or glycol solution researchers used mixed elec-
trolytes [20,22,25,33], emulsion [6], permasol-60 [23], gelatinous
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,
smuts and striation. Some of the electrolytes reported in literature
are listed in Table 1. Due to low throwing power and controlled
MRR, sodium nitrate is far better than the sodium chloride which
increases the accuracy in machining [16]. Sodium chloride uses
higher current producing striations, smuts and pitting [18]. In par-
ticular, Lee et al. [20] reported that use of an acidic electrolyte
damaged the whole AZ31 surface, in spite of the acidity of the solu-
tion was weak. In addition, use of the NaCl electrolyte to some
extent blackened the surface of the AZ31 due to the characteristics
of chlorine. It is desirable to use fresh and clean electrolyte rather
than recirculated one as the reaction product increases the risk of
short circuit in IEG.
Increase in the electrolyte concentration increases the current
and dissolution efficiency and hence, the MRR increases [18]. How-
ever, an increase in electrolyte concentration restricts the localiza-
tion of the material removal. This leads to an increase in the stray
etching [35]. Although resolution is enhanced at lower concentra-
tions, the ion-content in the small IEG is inadequate to supply the
charge carriers needed to complete the charging of the double
layer capacitance, ultimately leads to low processing efficiency
[24]. Therefore, low to moderate electrolyte concentration is pre-
ferred in ECD for localizing the material removal. Some additives
are added to improve the dimensional control of components
and occasionally non-aqueous electrolytes are used to produce
good surface finish at high current density [22]. Glycerin to elec-
trolyte improves the gloss of a workpiece surface, but may dimin-
ish electrolyte conductivity [25]. Low conductivity increases the
heat generated in the IEG. Typical temperature of the electrolyte
normally ranges from 15 °C to 40 °C, with a pH ranging from 7 to
8.5 having negligible effect on productivity [15,36].
3.5. Role of electrode material
The past work shows that the conductivity, geometrical shape,
chemical composition and properties, and prior history of elec-
trode material have an effect on the finishing and material removal
occurrence [37]. Tool configuration, aspect, shape and precision
will have enormous contamination to workpiece and influences
processing precision as well as productivity [11,30]. The location
of the exposed uninsulated length of the electrode, the electrode
shape, material and the IEG are majority of the significant elec-
trode design factors affecting the ECD process [38]. A realistic tool
design not only provides the cathode dimensions and an appropri-
ate path for the electrolyte flow but also must ensure maximum
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
on the non-burr zone [18,39]. Tool material should bear up high
localized current density and electrolyte pressure. Suitable coating
material should be chosen to circumvent stray cutting, excess cur-
rent damage, and dimensional unsteadiness. Materials like elec-
trolytic copper, copper tungsten, graphite, brass, titanium and
stainless steel are used in many cases. During testing of copper,
brass and stainless steel it is found that the stainless steel elec-
trodes resulted in higher values of deburred radius than copper
and brass electrodes. It is also found that copper electrodes remove
the burr at a higher rate than other two electrodes [38]. Tool heads
can have several design shapes based on the required profile and
on the processing conditions [39]. As the process is driven by cur-
rent flow between the electrodes, alignment of cathode and anode
is important to achieve desired deburring and edge radius results.
Off-center tooling may damage to the cathode if a burr contacts the
cathode [15].
3.6. Effect of feed rate
ECD is a targeted metal dissolution process that uses immobile
tooling to concentrate a deburring current on only burr regions
[15]. Ghabrial & Ebeid [22,40] reported that, non-rotating though
a non-equilibrium process is of use in deburring as it yield higher
MRR under less power consumption. Moreover, use of a rotating
and feeding tool electrode improve the deburring process by creat-
ing turbulent flow in the IEG. The performance of ECD process with
moving tool is superior in respect of the deburring time and base
material removal particularly for removing heavy burr. In case of
ECD with controlled tool feeding a higher IEG can be maintained
without appreciable loss of process performance. However, there
is higher limit of feed rate due to possibility of sparking and gap
short.
3.7. Effect of processing time
Processing time needs to be controlled in a reasonable range to
achieve the desired fillet radius. Too short processing time cannot
remove burrs entirely and too long processing time affects process-
ing efficiency and degrades edge quality of the feature [24]. Ini-
tially, the burr dissolution rate is high, as the spiky edges of
burrs collect more electrons than elsewhere but due to solid and
gaseous contaminations dissolution reduces progressively with
processing time [23,25]. As the burr is successively dissolved, the
metal dissolution rate on the surface around the burr increases
consequently. When steady current is supplied, the deburring time
increases with the increase of IEG, initial burr height, the thickness
of the burr root and the radius of the miniature hole, but decreases
with the processing current and volume of electrochemical equiv-
alent [41].
Majority of experimental work has gone into ECD process devel-
opment to maximize the process response. Additionally, research-
ers used different approaches along with pulse power source so as
to further augment the process yield. In the subsequent section, a
detailed review of the literature is presented with an intend to
understand the work done so far and opportunities for potential
research and development work.
4. Experimental development in electrochemical deburring
The one of the early experimental work reported by Ghabrial
and Ebeid [22] used air-electrolyte mixture to improve dimen-
sional accuracy and surface finish at the same time minimizing
sparking, striations and smuts. However, mixture is only suitable
for finishing operations, as air electrolyte mixtures lead to a
decrease in MRR. Pramanik et al. [33] explored ECD process with
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
5
graphite balls as the moving electrode using turned aluminium
specimens. Hakim et al. [31] investigated the effect of position of
the exposed uninsulated length of the electrode, the electrode
material and the IEG on the performance of the deburring process.
Choi and Kim [23] studied the characteristics of ECD, through
experiments and contribution of electrolytic gap and fluid, to the
burr removal were analyzed considering the burr height. More-
over, the deburring efficiency and performance for an inner cross
hole were examined for diverse electrolytic current and deburring
setting. Furthermore, Choi and Kim, [6] proposed a method of ECD
by means of electroplated CBN wheel. The experimental method
used was blend of a wheel rotation with an electrochemical
dissolution.
In term of steadiness and the performance of deburring, the
pulse current is superior than DC power is reported in
[6,20,27,42]. Sarkar et al. [21] analyzed through experiment para-
metric effect of process on deburring time and base material loss.
Lee et al. [20] suggested an ECD process, to take away microscopic
burrs on magnesium alloy. They evaluated the machining charac-
teristics for each machining condition with NaCl electrolyte. Lee
et al. [25] proposed system of a rotational barrel to eliminate burrs
from very small metal parts with different electrolyte composi-
tions. In order to achieve the best deburring results, researchers
[43–47] have attempted the process parameter optimization in
ECD to develop predictive models. Furthermore, to impound elec-
trochemical dissolution to the constricted limits of the burr and
avoid stray corrosion, recently Wang and Shen [34] developed a
process involving a gelatinous electrolyte. However, preparation,
maintenance of gel thickness and removal of gel is cumbersome
task. To address the misalignment of the electrode issue Kong,
Liu and Fan, [48] implemented a substandard nested circle-fitting
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.
Over the years, several significant contributions in this area
have occurred based on the characteristic relationships of the pro-
cess parameters within small gap to increase the precision. In the
subsequent section, process models pertaining to ECD process
along with their key formulation are discussed in detail.
5. Modeling of electrochemical deburring process
In early stage of ECD development, Hakim et al. [38] focused
their effort on tooling design and deburring cost calculation. Later
on, Mahdy et al. [52] developed a flow chart for the determination
of the best possible conditions of drilling with least manufacturing
cost from the viewpoint of burr formation. The required ECD time
for a certain fillet radius can be calculated as given in equation (1),

x1
y1
Br e 3 r 3
t0 m ¼ t m1 þ tm2 ¼ þ ð1Þ
K ECD K Co K ECD K  CO

where t 0 m is the deburring time per part of burr to achieve a speci-
fied fillet radius, t m1 and t m2 are the deburring time per part to attain
zero burr and a particular fillet radius from zero burr respectively,
Bre is the enlarging burr height, KECD, K*ECD, KCo and K*Co are the
coefficients and correction factors for deburred burr and fillet radius
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
out equilibrium gap under steady state condition,
 0 0 ð1
yo Þ
0
t0 ¼ yo
y þ In 0 ð2Þ
ð1
y Þ
0
The equilibrium gap yb , when y ¼ 1is calculated as:
K gV s kE
yb ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
y v
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
Table 2
Major reported applications of electrochemical deburring process.
Area of Part/Feature
application
Automotive Pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, wrist pin holes, bolt
holes and thrust faces [12], inflation holes in air bag
canisters [50], spline shafts [5], governor-shaft cross hole
[23]
Aerospace Cooling holes in turbine blades [12], fuel manifolds or oil
injection pressure tubes [52]
Manufacturing Edges of pump gears [12], Impellers of axial and centrifugal
pumps [36], milled components, drilled holes, and punched
blanks [5], cast parts [39], gears, screws, and cap nuts [25],
threads [19], Remove recast layer [48,54]
Fluid power Intersecting and cross-hole passages of pump valve [12,30],
spools and sleeves of fluid distributors [5], fuel system
housing [49], hydraulic elements of powered mining sup-
ports [39], Oil flow groove of front planetary carrier [27]
Medical Surgical knife blades, medical clips and stents with a recast
layer [55]
extensively to remove recast surfaces resulting from EDM, LBM
and EBM processes [48,49,54]. However, Deburring of titanium
alloys, sintered tungsten, zinc die castings requires the use of spe-
cial additives and often present processing problems [12]. There-
fore, the major limitation of ECD is with regard to burr size, part
size, tooling design and difficulty in positioning and aligning the
cathode with respect to workpiece. Along with high initial invest-
ment cost, operational, maintenance and tooling cost connected
with ECD make this process a costly deal despite its distinct pro-
cess capabilities and advantages. The problem is augmented by
the corrosion, toxicity and safety related problems of ECD. Incre-
ment in gap resistance due to electrolyte heating, uneven current
flow, precipitate and gas bubble formation leads to the occurrence
of micro sparks, smut, pitting and short-circuits thereby results
poor dimensional control of the workpiece [12,18]. Longer pulse
off durations in case of pulse power, vibrating electrodes or a more
flushing quantity within the work gap can be used for the short-
circuit elimination [28]. Hexavalent chrome while stainless steel
processing and acidic electrolyte is hazardous to personal, equip-
ment and environment. A carbon deposit nearby to the juncture
requires brushing or cleaning for several applications [11]. In addi-
tion, it is hard to remove thick burrs by the process and ECD
machining is justified only in case of batch or mass production.
7. Conclusion
In spite of remarkable enhancement in productivity and preci-
sion of manufacturing, burrs and edge defects persist to plague
manufacturing processes. Although ‘‘burr-free” machining is
impossible, it is possible to remove burrs inexpensively with
ECD. Deburring and radiusing based on electrochemical principal
are widely accepted, providing cost-effective approach to selec-
tively removing burrs from remote regions, with reliable results
from part-to-lot and with absolute uniformity. Furthermore, the
process can be carried out inside or outside cast, stamped or
chipped parts, in fixed position or with electrode-tool progress.
The tooling is relatively simple and machines can accommodate
a wide range of part sizes and materials. In addition to this, process
has very short cycle time with little or without side effect as com-
pared to other deburring processes. Nevertheless, the process pro-
vides superior control through the use of pulsed electric field and is
scalable to big surfaces with very minute details. ECD process pro-
vides a most efficient potential solution within the reach of the
production engineer and a very narrow bound in the field of preci-
sion manufacturing, especially for internal features where other
methods are extremely difficult, arduous or have suspected
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
7
repeatability. Comparison between the hypothetical and the exper-
imental outcomes show that, high voltage, small IEG and faradayic
approach beneficial for efficient MRR and smooth radius genera-
tion. Further, the way forward is to explore the effects of work tool
interactions in the small gap (IEG) apart from the typical paramet-
ric effect to build up broad models and simulations of the ECD
process.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Author gratefully acknowledges the research fellowship
granted by MHRD India under QIP scheme run by AICTE New Delhi.
References
[1] W. Grzesik, Micro-machining, Adv. Mach. Process. Metall. Mater. (2017) 399–
436.
[2] K. Lee, D.A. Dornfeld, Microburr formation and minimization through process
control, Precision Eng. 29 (2005) 246–252.
[3] J. Kim, S. Min, D.A. Dornfeld, Optimization and control of drilling burr
formation of AISI 304L and AISI 4118 based on drilling burr control charts, Int.
J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 41 (2001) 923–936.
[4] L.K. Gillespie, Deburring precision miniature parts, Precis. Eng. (1979) 189–
198.
[5] N.K. Jain, S. Pathak, Electrochemical processing and surface finish, Compreh.
Mater. Finish. 3 (2017) 369–379.
[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.
[7] N. Ramachandran, S.S. Pande, N. Ramakrishnan, The role of deburring in
manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 44 (1994)
1–13.
[8] R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan, Investigation of AJM for
deburring, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 79 (1998) 52–58.
[9] J.C. Aurich, D. Dornfeld, P.J. Arrazola, V. Franke, L. Leitz, S. Min, Burrs—Analysis,
control and removal, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 58 (2009) 519–542.
[10] R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan, An experimental study on
the abrasive jet deburring of cross-drilled holes, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 91
(1999) 178–182.
[11] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Design for advanced manufacturing: technologies and
processes, Deburring micro parts, Chapter (McGraw-Hill Professional, 2017),
Access Engineering.
[12] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Deburring and Edge Finishing Hand Book. Copyright Ó
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
Cho, Sang Jo Lee, Deburring micro-features using micro-EDM, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 209 (2009) 5399–5406.
[15] LaRoux K. Gillespie, Design for Advanced Manufacturing: Technologies and
Processes, Electrochemical Micro Deburring, Chapter (McGraw-Hill
Professional, 2017), Access Engineering.
[16] J.A. McGeough, Principles of Electrochemical Machining, Chapman and Hall,
London, 1974.
[17] B. Bhattacharyya, J. Munda, M. Malapati, Advancement in electrochemical
micro-machining, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 44 (2004) 1577–1589.
[18] Satisha Prabhu, Abhishek Kumar, Vishvesh J. Badheka, Electrochemical
deburring of Al6082 using NaCl electrolyte: an exploratory study, (2019)
445-457.
[19] John Halladay, Practical applications of thermal deburring and electrochemical
deburring, precision machined products association, in: 2011 PMPA National
Technical Conference.
[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
magnesium alloy, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 13 (3) (2012) 339–345.
[21] S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, B. Bhattacharyya, Mathematical modeling for controlled
electrochemical deburring (ECD), J. Mater. Process. Technol. 147 (2004) 241–
246.
[22] S.R. Ghabrial, S.J. Ebeid, Beneficial effect of air-electrolyte mixtures in
stationary electrochemical machining, Precis. Eng. (1981) 221–224.
[23] I.-H. Choi, J. Du Kim, A study of the characteristic of the electrochemical
deburring of a governor-shaft cross hole, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 75 (1998)
198–203.
[24] X. Zheng, Z. Wei, Z. Yu, Electrochemical deburring of miniature holes, Adv.
Mater. Res. 690–693 (2013) 3226–3230.
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
components by electrochemical method, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 8 (2013)
1713–1721.
[26] Alonso Lozano-Morales, Heather Mccrabb, Phillip Miller, Maria Inman, and E.
Jennings Taylor, Electrochemical finishing of small part components, faraday
technology, inc., Clayton, Ohio, (2008) 27-31. www.metalfinishing.com.
[27] E.J. Taylor, M. Inman, Electrochemical surface finishing, Electrochem. Soc.
Interface (2014) 57-61.
[28] H.-P. Schulze, Problems of the processing accuracy for electro-erosion and
electro-chemical machining processes, Int. J. Mater. Form. 2 (1) (2009) 641–
644.
[29] Y.-B. Lia, Y.-J. Zhangb, Z.-N. Guo, Design and its experiments of micro
electrochemical machining system, Adv. Mater. Res. 97–101 (2010) 2505–
2508.
[30] L. Tang, G. Zhao, Technique of ECM deburring for intersecting holes of pump,
Adv. Mater. Res. 411 (2012) 323–326.
[31] M.A.E. Hakim, M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, M. Abdulla Sayed, The effect of some
electrode design factors on electrochemical deburring (ECD). Int. J. Mater.
Prod. Technol. 4 (3) (1989) 259–272.
[32] Solutions for Deburring Applications—Electrochemical Deburring (1999).
Retrieved from http://www.sermatec.com.
[33] D.K. Pramanik, R.K. Dasgupta, S.K. Basu, A study of electrochemical deburring
using a moving electrode, Wear 82 (1982) 309–316.
[34] Kun Wang, Qi Shen, Bin He, Localized electrochemical deburring of cross hole
using gelatinous electrolyte, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (13) (2016) 1749–
1754.
[35] B. Bhattacharyya, J. Munda, Experimental investigation into electrochemical
micromachining (EMM) process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 140 (2003) 287–
291.
[36] I.K. Perestoronin and V.P. Sirotkina, Electrochemical method of deburring
impellers of axial and centrifugal pumps, Translated from Khimicheskoe i
Neftyanoe Mashinostroenie 7 (1973) 25-26.
[37] Piyushkumar B. Tailor, Amit Agrawal, Suhas S. Joshi, Evolution of
electrochemical finishing processes through cross innovations and modeling,
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 66 (2013) 15–36.
[38] M.A. El Hakim, M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, M. Abdulla Sayed, ’ECD tooling
design’, Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol., 13 (3-6) (1998) 167-183.
[39] Ioan - lucian bolundut, Electrochemical deburring of mining hydraulic
elements, Ann. Univ. Petrosßani, Mech. Eng. 12 (2010) 23-32.
[40] S.J. Ebeid, A.M. Abdel Mahboud, High speed electrochemical boring, Precis.
Eng. 10 (2) (1988) 80–84.
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
[41] Zefei Wei, Xinghua Zheng, Yu. Ziyuan, Mathematical modeling and
experimental study on electrochemical deburring of miniature holes, Adv.
Mater. Res. 721 (2013) 382–386.
[42] Ning Ma, Wen Ji Xu, Ze Fei Wei, Gui Bing Pang, Modeling and experiment of
pulse electrochemical deburring on inclined exit surface of drilling hole, Adv.
Mater. Res. 328–330 (2011) 502–506.
[43] D. Shome, S. Mitra, S. Sarkar, Response Surface Methodology-based approach
to Electrochemical Deburring (ECD) of SS304 stainless steel workpiece, IJPD 6
(1) (2008) 2–15, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2008.019117.
[44] M. Singha, S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, A.S. Kuar, Grey-based Taguchi method for
optimisation of multiple characteristics in electrochemical deburring process,
IJMTM 26 (1/2/3/4) (2012) 137–148, https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJMTM.2012.051436.
[45] Manoj Singha, Soumyya Sarkar, Souren Mitra, Arunanshu Shekhar Kuar,
Optimization of process parameters in electrochemical deburring of die steel
using taguchi method, Int. J. Mod. Manuf. Technol. 4 (1) (2012) 121–126.
[46] M. Singha, S. Sarkar, S. Mitra, A. S. Kuar, Evaluation of the characteristics of
electrochemical deburring process of die steel using response surface
methodology, Nova Science Publishers, (4) (3/4) JMTR (2012).
[47] Ashish Mishra, Sanchay Gupta, R. N. Mall, Application of Taguchi and ANOVA
to optimize the process parameter of electrochemical deburring, Int. J.
Technol. Res. Eng. 1(12) (2014) 1477-1480.
[48] Quancun Kong, Guili Liu, Xiahui Fan, ZhiqiangWang, Dong Li, Jianli Song, A
nested circle-fitting method for micro-hole centering and its application in
electrochemical deburring, Proc. I Mech. E Part B: J Eng. Manuf. (2019) 1–14.
[49] D.G. Risko, Electrolytic machining, deburring and polishing, Plat. Surf. Finish.
(2004) 48–52.
[50] W.J. Xu, W. Wang, X.Y. Wang, G.B. Pang, Mathematical modeling of
electrochemical deburring, Adv. Mater. Res. 126–128 (2010) 545–550.
[51] Satisha Prabhu, Abhishek Kumar, Investigation of nickel coated tool for
electrochemical deburring of Al6082, Int. J. Surf. Eng. Interdisc. Mater. Sci., 6
(1) (2018) 17-31.
[52] M. Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, Economic drilling conditions for a given deburring
radius, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 110 (2001) 197-205.
[53] Satisha Prabhu, K. Abhishek Kumar, Mathematical modeling and
hydrodynamics of electrochemical deburring process, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 346 (2018) 012063.
[54] M.Y. Ali, W.N.P. Hung, Micromachining, Compreh. Mater. Finish. 1 (2017) 322–
343.
[55] A. Lozano-Morales, L. Gebhart, M. Inman, E.J. Taylor, P.O. Miller, Medical device
surface finishing by ECM, Surf. Finish. Proc. (2007).