You are on page 1of 36



• Introduction
• Classification

• Mechanism of formation
• Effects Of Cutting Conditions On Burr

Jyoti Ranjan Nayak

Undesirable burrs are created in most machining processes. A
burr is a plastically deformed material that remained on the
work piece after machining. It is often in the form of a rough
strip of metal at the edge of the work piece adjacent to the
machined surface. The burrs produced on piece part edges in
machining operations must be removed for most parts to
function effectively.
The existence of burrs on a work piece may cause several
problems, such as:
• Decreasing the fit and ease of assembly of parts;
• Damaging the dimensional accuracy and surface finish;
• Increasing the cost and time of production due to
• Jeopardizing the safety of workers and consumers;
• Contributing to electrical short circuits;
• Reducing cutting performance and tool life; and
• Degrading the aesthetics of the components.

Burrs are injurious even during machining because they hit the
cutting edge and cause groove wear. This groove wear, in turn,
accelerates the burr growth
The removal of burrs or deburring is often done by additional
machining with abrasive or finishing tools. While manual
deburring is a workable solution, it has several limitations. It is
tedious, time consuming and yields unpredictable and
inconsistent results. Special precautions must be taken to ensure
the safety of workers in a manual deburring cell. A manual
deburring operation can also be a bottleneck in a production

Deburring is necessary especially in the manufacturing of

precision parts such as computer components or aircraft engine
For example,
• In the computer storage manufacturing industry, an
attached burr may inhibit assembly of the file, or a
detached burr may later restrict file function or cause disk
• In the case of engine parts, producing a turbine blade with
a specific contour is necessary to reduce the local stress
intensity in the component and therefore to minimize the
possibility of fracture

Deburring and edge finishing on precision components may

constitute as much as 30% of the cost of the part and also can
be the source of significant dimensional errors .Progress in
manufacturing has led to the need for improved deburring
technology. Increased understanding of burr formation can yield
tremendous befits in reducing the production costs

In evaluating the requirements for deburring, the properties

and characteristics of burrs produced by manufacturing process
must be understood. The shape of burrs is highly dependent
upon the particular manufacturing operation used. A burr can be
a sharp ragged projection or it can be a small swell of raised
material. In orthogonal cutting either burr or edge breakout
(negative burr) can be formed where the tool exits the
workpiece, depending on exit geometry and material condition
Classification based on mechanism of formation
Gillespie and Blotter classified the machining burrs into four
specific types:
• Poisson burr: The Poisson burr is a result of a material’s
tendency to bulge at the sides when it is compressed until
permanent plastic deformation occurs

• Roll-over burr: The rollover burr is essentially a chip that

is bent rather than sheared, resulting in a comparatively
larger burr. This type of burr is also known as an exit burr
because it is usually formed at the end of a cut in face-
• Tear burr: A tear burr is the result of material tearing loose
from the work piece rather than shearing .
• Cut-off burr : The cut-off burr is a projection of material
left when the work piece falls from the stock before the
separating cut has been completed
Classification according to Kishimoto et al

• Primary burr
• Secondary burr

Classification according to Gwo-Lianq Chern

Gwo-Lianq Chern
classified burr
according shape of
burr and the type of
burr formed is highly
dependent on the in-
plane exit angle; five
types of burrs are:

• Knife-type burr
• Wave-type
• Curl-type burr
• Edge breakout
• Secondary

as shown
schematically in
figure .The first three
types of burrs can be
classified into the
primary burrs as
Kishimoto et al defined.

Classification according to Nakayama and Arai

Nakayama and Arai approached the classification of machining
burrs by: (1) the cutting edge which is directly associated with
the burr formation; and (2) the mode and direction of the burr
Types of burr are

• Backward or entrance burr

• Sideward burr
• Forward or exit burr
• Leaned burr


Burr Formation Mechanisms according to Gwo-
Lianq Chern
Type of burr formed is highly dependent on the in-plane exit
angle, ψ.
In-plane exit angle, ψ, is
defined as the angle in the
machining plane between
the cutting velocity vector,
V, and the edge of the work
piece to be machined, xy,
as shown in figure below.
This definition is
consistent with the
definition of the in-plane
exit angle in orthogonal
cutting and is different from
the exit angle given by
Kishimoto et al (explained later )

Knife-Type Burr :
The knife-type burr is created by the pushing out of the uncut
part, AB, near the transition machined surface when ψ reaches
150, as shown in Figure below The burr height (h) is about the
same as the depth of cut, d. The burr is formed by the plastic
bending moment, Mf, which is caused by the feed force Ff,
exerted on AB as the cutter advances. Photo of the knife-type
burr is shown in

Wave type Burr:

For ψ approximately 90, wave-type burrs are created. These
types of burrs are produced from the machined surface
periodically. Figure illustrates the formation of the wave-type

A roll-over burr is formed

along the edge CD after tool
exit from the transition-
machined surface. This roll-
over burr is removed by the
next tool passage except for
the material very close to
the corner D. This can be
understood by the
‘‘minimum undeformed
chip thickness’’ in that
there is a minimum
undeformed chip thickness
below which a chip will not
be formed. When this
occurs rubbing takes place
instead. Applying this idea
to the secondary cutting
edge on the clearance
surface of a milling tool in
this case (where the in-
plane exit angle approximates 90), it is found that a small
triangular portion of the material that should be removed will be
left behind, as can be seen
in figure is the corner
angle of the tool. The small
triangular portion left
behind has been called a
‘‘Spanzipfel’’. The
Spanzipfel, S, will be
plastically deformed as it
comes in contact with the
clearance surface of the
tool. Thus, as the tool
moves by an increment of
the feed, the Spanzipfel
near the corner D in Figure
is bent by an angle of 90-ζ, and the material in S on AD is
compressed to BD. Eventually, as the cutter advances, the roll-
over burr on the edge CD is bent and compressed to the edge
DE. The length of CD is L1 and the length of DE is L2, where L2
approximates L1sin z. This indicates that the roll-over burr along
CD is ‘‘squeezed’’ to the shorter length DE, which contributes to
the formation of the wave-type burr as schematically illustrated
in figure above. Thickness of the wave-type burr also increases
under volume-constancy relationship during this plastic
deformation. The interval of the wave-type burrs, p in Figure
above is found to be of the order of several millimeters and to
increase with feed rate. Close-up photo (×90) of the wave-type
burr is shown in Figure. The formation of a wave-type burr will
increase the difficulty of deburring due to its complexity of
geometric shape and larger thickness, and thus should be
Actually, an in-plane exit angle about 90 is very unfavorable
from the view point of tool life. The cutter enters the work piece
and takes a chip that gets
progressively thicker as the
cutter tooth rotates. Since the
center of the cutter lies along
the work piece edge in this
case, as shown in Figure the
tool exits the work piece
where the undeformed chip
thickness reaches a
maximum. The cutting force
increases with the undeformed chip thickness which is the feed
per revolution in single-tooth face milling. Since the variation of
cutting force is the most in this situation, tool life will be reduced

Curl-Type Burrs:
For in-plane exit angles less than 45, curl-type burrs are
found after machining, as shown in figure below .A roll-over burr
along the edge KJ is created after the tool exits from the
transition machined
surface. This roll-over burr curls up as a result of the next tool
passage due to rubbing The burr along KJ is then bent and
compressed to the edge KL. The burr height is reduced
because of the curl-up. However, the burr root thickness, hr,
is larger than those of knife-type burrs. Photo of the curl-type
burr is shown in Figure below. In plane exit angles less than
90 are not suggested in real applications since the cutter
center is outside the work piece and the material removal rate
is low in this case.

Secondary Burr: The secondary burr, as shown in Fig. 4(e), is

formed when fracture causing separation of the primary burr
occurs near the root of the burr. It takes place when the plastic
strain at the root of the primary burrs becomes too high for the
material to sustain. The burr height is thus reduced notably. The
existence of secondary burrs is sometime hard to recognize by
naked eyes. But some small protrusions can still be felt by the
fingers when rubbing the machined edge. Photo of the
secondary burr is shown in Figure

Edge Breakout
Burr: The edge breakout, as shown in Figure is found when
the metal removal rate
becomes very high. A rough
chamfer and sharp burrs are
then created along the tool
exit edge. The interval of the
sharp burrs on the breakout
edge, p, is the same as the
feed rate. Photo of the edge
breakout is shown below.
Edge breakout occurred when
very high feed rate was chosen. Such high feed rate is rarely
seen in aluminum alloys under normal cutting conditions
because of the ease of machining this relatively ductile
material. Surface finish deteriorates with increasing feed rate,
and thus feed rate seldom reaches a level high enough to
cause edge breakout

Burr Formation Mechanisms according to Gillespie

and Blotter

• Poisson burr: Poisson burr is formed as a result of lateral

bulging of material along the work edge when it is
compressed under a passing cutting tool.
• Roll-over burr: Roll-over burr is essentially a chip that
remains attached to the work and pushed ahead of the
cutting tool's path on exit from the work rather than being
broken in formation.
• Tear burr. Tear burr is usually formed in a punching
operation as the result of material deforming basically due
to the tool/die clearance and, like the roll- over burr,
adhering to the work piece edge when the tool exits the
• Cut-off burr : Cut-off burr The cut-off burr is a projection
of material left when the work piece falls from the stock
before the separating cut has been completed

A combination of the Poisson and tear burr can end up as a so-

called top burr or entrance burr [Lee 2001], along the top edge
of a machined slot, or along the periphery of a hole when a tool
enters it.
Burr Formation Mechanisms according to
Kishimoto et al

• Primary burr
• Secondary burr

Primary burr is the roll-over burr produced on the tool exit edge.
The burr thickness was found to vary from minimum to
maximum burr thickness along the length of the burr.

They claimed that through proper selection of parameters-

depth of cut, the exit angle, and the corner angle (inclination
angle) of the tool, the roll-over burr produced during the face
milling process will be separated at its thinnest portion and only
a small burr will remain on the edge of the machined part. They
named the former normal roll-over burr a ‘‘primary burr’’ and
the latter one a ‘‘secondary burr’’ which is the material
remaining after the breakage of the primary burr.
The influence of in-plane
exit angle on burr
formation of Al 1100 is
shown in Figure. Under
the chosen cutting
condition (depth of cut
= 0.76 mm, feed rate =
0.03 mm/ tooth), only
curl-type burrs, wave-
type burrs and knife-
type burrs were found
according to different in-
plane exit angles. The
burr heights of a wave-
type burr and a knife-type
burr are essentially about
the same as the depth of
cut. The variation of burr
height with respect to
different in-plane exit
angles and depths of cut
is shown in Figs. 11
and 12, for Al 2024-T4
and Al 6061-T6,
respectively. The types of
burrs created are also
shown in these figures.
Feed rate for these tests
was 0.03 mm/tooth. For a
given in-plane exit angle,
it can be seen that burr
height increases
proportionally with depth
of cut and suddenly
decreases at a critical
depth of cut, dcr. This
sudden change in burr
height denotes the
formation of the secondary burr.
It is also observed
that dcr of Al 2024-T4
in Fig. 11 is less
than that of Al 6061-
T6 in Fig. 12 for a
given in-plane exit
angle. For example,
dcr of Al 2024-T4 for
an in-plane exit angle
of 1201 is 1.1 mm,
while dcr of Al 6061-
T6 is 1.4 mm. From
Table 2, the fracture
strains of Al 2024-T4
and Al 6061-T6 are
0.13 and 0.5,
respectively. Since
the fracture strain is
the maximum strain
the material can
sustain during plastic
deformation without
fracture, and can be
used as an indication
of ductility, it is
believed that Al 6061-
T6 is more ductile
than Al 2024-T4.
Therefore, Al 2024-T4
is more susceptible to
the breaking away of
the primary burr to
form the secondary
burr than Al 6061-T6.
But this transition of
burr formation has not
occurred on edges
with a 1501 in-plane
exit angle in Al 6061-
T6. For the same
depth of cut, burr
height increased with
in-plane exit angle,
the same as observed
in Fig. 10 for Al 1100. In Figs. 11 and 12, it can also be seen that
dcr becomes larger with the increase of in-plane exit angle, which
denotes that a small
in-plane exit angle is more susceptible to the formation of the
secondary burr. In Fig. 11 for example, dcr of Al 2024- T4 for an
in-plane exit angle of 120 is 1.1 mm, while dcr for an in-plane
exit angle of 150 is 1.8 mm. The influence of feed rate on burr
formation is also investigated, as can be seen in Fig. 13. In-plane
exit angle was constant at 120 for these tests. The depths of cut
were 1.02mm for Al 6061-T6 and 0.64mm for Al 2024-T4,
respectively. Primary burrs of wave-type and knife-type were
created at small feed rates (less than 0.1 mm/tooth). For a given
depth of cut and in-plane exit angle, it can be seen that burr
height remains almost the same with increasing feed rate until
the secondary burr forms at the feed rate of 0.16 mm/tooth.
Edge breakout is created for both Al 2024-T4 and Al 6061-T6
when the feed rate reaches 0.46 mm/tooth

• Introduction
• Micro Cutting And Conventional Cutting
• Classification And Mechanism of

• Effects Of Cutting Conditions On Burr
Micro-machining is the most fundamental technology for
production of miniaturized parts and components. Micro-
machining is a material removal process by means of
mechanical force. Many products have been reduced in
dimension and weight so as to increase their handiness and to
reduce their cost, such
as in the semiconductor
and biomedical fields

must be precision
machining in order to
manufacture miniature
components within very
close tolerances. It
hinges on the progress
of the machine that is
able to carry out micro-
machining operations
and on the development
of micro- tools. The very
limited availability of
micro-tools is always a
major concern in micro-
machining. Unreliable
tool life and early tool
failure are the most
important problems when employing micro-tools for micro-
machining applications. In micro-machining, vibration and chip
flow characteristics are almost unnoticeable without the use of
special equipment. Micro-tools can break before the cutting edge
of the tool gets damaged

Most machining operations do not often leave behind smooth or

well-defined edges on the part. Instead, parts will most likely
end up exhibiting ragged, protruding, sometimes hardened,
material along edges, known as burrs. Kim reported several
problems affecting form and function of parts in the
manufacturing processes due to burrs. Therefore, burrs must
generally be removed in subsequent deburring processes to
allow the part to meet specified tolerances


The micro-machining mechanism in this study is quite
different from that of traditional metal cutting operation. To
achieve recommended cutting speeds for conventional
machining in micro machining the rotational spindle speed
required is far above the limit of commercially available spindles
and that micro tools used for cutting stainless steel are easily
fractured at high cutting speeds. Hence, a lower range of cutting
speed was used which is very low compared to those employed
in traditional metal cuttings.

In this situation the cutting edges of micro-tools fail to remove

materials by the formation of cutting chips, indicating that
grinding and plowing processes prevail. Material is removed with
the advancement of micro-tool by the mechanisms of both
plastic deformation and fracture.

In the micro-machining process, the burr is usually very

difficult to remove and, more importantly, burr removal can
seriously damage the work piece.
Conventional deburring operations cannot be easily applied to
micro-burrs due to the small size of parts. In addition, deburring
may introduce dimensional errors and residual stresses in the
component. These problems are highly dependent on burr size
and type. Hence, the best solution is to prevent burr formation in
the first place
conventional processes, top or entrance type burrs are
substantially smaller than exit type burrs, and usually no
deburring process is necessary. However, micro-top or entrance
type burrs are comparatively large because the radius of the
cutting edge is large compared to the feed per tooth
According to Gwo-Lianq Chern and Ying-Jeng

Basically there are four types of burrs produced in micro- milling

• Primary burr;
• Needle-like burr;
• Feathery burr;
• Minor burr
Fig. 10. Photos of burrs (100×) in micro-machining: (a) primary
burr; (b) needle-like burr; (c) feathery burr; (d) minor burr. N is in
rpm, S in mm/min and d in µm.
The formation process of primary burr can be illustrated in Figure
When the micro-tool fails to produce a chip after the
engagement, rubbing takes place
instead. Material ahead of the tool
path is pushed and deformed
plastically, Figure(a). Then it is
fractured near the middle, Figure(b).
The primary burr is turned over,
Figure(c) and is formed with a width
of about half of the tool diameter,
Figure(d). If fracture occurs in the
primary burr during the micro-
machining process, feathery burr or
needle-like burr is formed.
Minor burr is created when both the
axial engagement and the feed rate
are very small. d is only 1 µm and Sz
is as low as 0.025 µm for the minor
burr formation in Figure

It is noted that the primary burr, the

feathery burr and the needle-like
burr are all produced on the side of
micro-slot where up milling occurs.
The cutting force increases after
initial tool engagement. Those burrs
produced on that side remain
attached on the slot edge. On the
opposite side where down milling
exists, the burrs tend to be removed
with the chip formation and thus few
burrs can be found.

When the axial engagement is large

(5 µm), fracture is hard to occur due
to the large burr thickness produced.
Several points can be summarized in
our micro-machining experiments.
When a small tool width is employed, i.e. when rake angle is a
small negative value, burr size decreases noticeably. The
formation of minor burr is dominated by the depth of cut, with
some influence of increase in feed per tooth. Burr formation is
retarded when depth of cut is 1 µm where minor burr is
The size and type of burr are a function of machining variables
to better understand micro-burr formation mechanisms. The
machining variables are stated below.
Cutting speed: The first cutting parameter is cutting speed. As
stated earlier micro tools are easily fractured at high cutting
speeds. Hence, a lower range of cutting speed was used is
Feed: The second parameter is feed, which plays an important
role in determining chip thickness and the resulting cutting
force. However, there is no available reference to determine
feed in micro-cutting. The smallest
tool diameter referred to in typical
machining handbooks is in the sub-
millimeter range.
It is known that, in general,
increased feed increases the thrust
force. A correlation between feed
and thrust force with varying tool
diameters can be approximated by
applying the Ernst-Merchant’s shear
plane model to the cutting process.
Figure shows the shear plane model applied to a section of the
cutting edge of a tool. Shear force can be calculated as follows

where, k is the shear strength of material and d is the tool

With Merchant’s equation, we can calculate Ft, the thrust force
exerted on the cutting edge:

Since stress directly influences

burr formation and tool wear, an effective stress is considered,
and can be represented as follows:
the same tool geometry and material are being considered, so it
can be assumed that the effective stress is determined only by
ft/d. As the tool diameter decreases to the micro-scale, to
prevent tool breakage due to high stress, feed should also be
decreased linearly. With this concept, an extrapolated feed for a
micro tool can be calculated
However, this can only be a starting range for the
experiments. Therefore, an optimal feed for burr formation and
tool life should be determined.

Feed / radius of cutting edge: The third parameter is ft/R, or

feed divided by the radius of a cutting edge, which affects rake
angle, chip thickness and, consequently, specific energy. This
parameter shows how much the cutting edge radius plays a role
in the cutting process with respect to tool diameter. For example,
for a 19 mm tool diameter, the cutting edge radius is about
14µm. If the recommended feed of 0.13 mm is used, ft/R is
about 9, and the cutting edge radius effect is insignificant. For a
micro tool, the radius of the cutting edge cannot be decreased to
the same extent as a decrease in diameter. This is because there
is a limit to how sharp the tool can be to avoid fractures of the
cutting edge. For instance, for a 254 µm tool diameter and
cutting edge radius of 2.2 µm, if a 2.2 µm feed is used, the

ratio is about 1.
For this case, the rake angle becomes negative and
consequently the chip thickness increases. To investigate this
effect, three different values of ft/R were used, as shown in
Figure above. Table shows the corresponding cutting conditions

Figure (a) shows results of burr height versus feed. Feed has a
strong effect on burr height and burr height is linearly
proportional to feed. Figure (b) shows burr height as cutting
speed increases. At high feeds per tooth, 2.2 and 3.2 µm, burr
height increases as cutting speed increases.

However, the opposite

result was obtained at low
feeds. This result, which
can be related to tool wear,
will be explained later in
the report.
In general, it is difficult
to measure tool wear, and even more so in micro cutting, due to
the small size of the tools. It was observed that burr size is
related to the amount of tool wear. Figure 9 shows burr height
versus the number of holes machined for a typical test. A big
jump in burr height at point A can be seen due to fatal tool wear.
A SEM of a worn tool after point A can be seen in Figure below.
As a tool becomes worn, ft /R decreases because of an increase
in cutting edge radius. As ft /R decreases, the rake angle
becomes more negative and chip
thickness increases. Consequently, burr
size increases. Therefore, the tool
should be changed before the limit
amount of cut, point A, in order to avoid
large burr formation, and also to
prevent severe tool deformation.
Herein, tool life is defined as the
number of holes created until rapid
increase of burr height occurs. To
investigate the effect of cutting
parameters on tool life, 3 iterations for each of the 9 conditions
have been tested. This resulted in 3000 holes created, and the
burr size of each was measured.
Figure (a) below shows tool life versus feed. As feed increases
tool life decreases due to an increase of cutting force. But tool
life also decreases at feed = 1.3 µm, which is smaller than the
radius of the cutting edge. This result can be explained by the
increase of specific energy required to form a chip, as the feed is
decreased below the cutting edge radius [Backer 1952]. At the
lower feed, defined as ft/R<1, the rake angle becomes negative
so that the sliding and the plowing processes dominate instead

of the cutting process. Figure (b) aboveshows tool life versus

cutting speed. Except for the lowest feed per tooth, tool life
decreases as cutting speed increases. At the lowest feed, tool
life increases as cutting speed increases. This can be explained
by the built-up edge observed in several SEM images of tools at
this particular condition. If the part of the built-up edge remains
on the tool, the tool can continue to cut for a long time without
wear. Since metal flow around the tool edge tends to become
more uniform and laminar as cutting speed is increased, the
built-up edge persists when using WC-Co tools and the rate of
wear decreases as cutting speed increases [Trent and Wright,
2000]. This uniform metal flow can explain why burr height
decreased as cutting speed increased at this particular feed


• Five level integration required for burr

• Contour Chart Of Burr Formation

To effectively address burr prevention, the entire „process chain

“from design to manufacturing must be considered, Figure 2.
Here we see the importance of integrating all the elements
affecting burrs, from the part design, including material
selection, to the machining process

Figure Five level integration required for burr minimization

Since milling (specially face milling) figures so prominently in the

manufacture of so many parts, for example, automotive engines
and transmission components, it has been a major focus for burr
reduction and prevention for many years. In milling, the
kinematics of tool exits from the work piece is a dominant factor
in burr formation and, as a result, substantial success has been
realized by adjusting the tool path over the work piece.
Design for Burr Minimization
Burr formation is significantly affected by how a product is
designed . This section introduces several rules that allow
designers to enhance edge quality at the early design stage. If
the part material and its surface treatment do not change, then
the part geometry and its edge features are the main factors
determining burr formation. Four design rules are presented and
can be embedded into CAD systems, as shown in Figure

1. Avoid through holes

Drilling exit burr often occurs along the exit side of a hole. On
the contrary, entrance burrs are usually small and considered
burr-free. Therefore, it is beneficial to avoid design of through
holes. As shown schematically in Figure, through holes should be
replaced with blind holes for reducing exit burr when this design
change does not affect the original product function

Exit burr

2. Avoid 90º counter sinks

Figure shows that simple counter sinks with angles greater than
90º creates an exit angle of 135º or greater . In this case, no
burrs will form at the bottom intersection for certain materials.
Hence it is favorable not to adopt 90º counter sinks in a product
design if edge quality is an important concern
Exit burr
3. Select appropriate step/slot depths

A curly side burr will form along the side edges of a slot/step
when the axial depth of cut is smaller than a critical value.
Increasing the depth of cut is likely to produce less detrimental
side burrs that loosely attach to the work part. This type of burr
is easy to remove in the deburring operation. Therefore, a
slot/step depth should be appropriately selected so that the
curly side burr will not produce

exit burr side burr

4. Add appropriate chamfers

Since the tool path cannot be adjusted, it is difficult to prevent

exit burr formation in a slot/step milling operation. However,
adding chamfers along the part edges can, to a large extent,
reduce exit burr size. At the design stage, a simple look-up table
can effectively help designers select both the chamfer size and
angle in order to meet specified edge quality. Notice that
chamfering requires a secondary finishing operation. An
interesting issue thus arises: a chamfering operation prior to a
face milling operation may reduce the total manufacturing cost
compared to the reverse operation sequence, which is
prevalently used in industry

Machining sequences determine what types of burr will form.
Each exit burr, side burr, or top burr requires different deburring
work as well as the associated deburring cost. Therefore
machining operation sequencing can be a feasible way to reduce
deburring cost. The edge-precision macro-planner contains a set
of machining feature decomposition and re-mapping rules that
result in less detrimental machining burrs.

(1) Milling prior to drilling because drilling burrs are easy to form
compared to milling burrs

(2) Shallow slot/step prior to deep slot/step for trade-offs

between top burr and exit burr formation along the edge A

1. 2.

(3) depth first in the slot/step milling to avoid the formation of

curly side along the edge B

(4) width first in the pocket milling for trade-offs between top
burr and exit burr formation along the island edges

3. 4.

Cutting parameters including feed per tooth, the radial depth of
cut and the axial depth of cut are determined at the micro-
planning stage. A series of milling experiments have been
conducted for Al 6061 to select appropriate parameters. Similar
to the look-up table used in the conventional micro-planner, it is
also beneficial to set up a series of machining tables for reducing
burr formation. However, since mostly geometric factors
dominate burr formation behavior, a set of simple rules is
established from the experimental data, instead of complete
burr formation databases. These rules provide useful “handles”
for burr control in the micro-planning:

(1) Exit burr in the cutting direction: one important factor

controling exit burr formation is the in-plane exit angle .
Adjusting the width of cut can effective ly control the burr
(2) Exit burr in the feed direction: in the slotting operation
using end milling cutters, typically exit burr height along the
edge is described as a bell-shape curve, i.e. larger burr height in
the middle and smaller burr height close to the ends [10]. In
addition, burr height is approximately proportional to the depth
of cut. Feed per tooth also affects exit burr formtaion but not
(3) Side burr: the depth of cut is the most important factor
determining the occurrence of curly side burr. Our experimental
data shows that a depth of cut smaller than 0.25R favors the
formation of curly side burr.
(4) Edge breakout: the width of cut (equivalently, the exit
angle) dominates the occurrence of edge breakout. Given tool
geometry, this edge defect only takes place within the exit angle
range from 120o to 135o, not depending on other cutting
The strategies used in the micro-planer for enhancing edge
quality are summarized in Table 1.
Tool Path Planning
Tool engagement, to a large extent, determines machining burr
formation. Therefore, burr minimization can be achieved by
controlling tool engagement conditions. Three main factors
affecting how a tool cutting edge leaves the workpiece:
workpiece geometry, tool geometry and tool path. At this stage,
workpiece design and tool geometry are usually fixed, so only
tool path can be used for reducing burr formation. A set of five
tool path planning algorithms are developed:

(1) Avoiding tool exits for 2D polygonal contours by adjusting

the radial depth of cut,

(2) Avoiding tool exits for 2D contours with circular edges by

adjusting the radial depth of cut,

(3) Avoiding tool exits for 2D polygonal contours by adjusting

tool position,

(4) Avoiding tool exits for 2D contours with circular edges by

adjusting tool position, and

(5) Avoiding tool exits for a 2D free-form contour by adjusting

tool position.

To avoid tool exits is the crucial point for reducing exit burr
formation, because tool exit is the necessary condition for exit
burr to occur. When the tool always enters the workpiece, only a
secondary burr can be produced, which is generally considered
to be burr-free.
Examples of application of burr
minimization strategies
Tool path planning in milling: One of the most successful
areas of application of burr minimization strategies is in tool
path planning for face milling. To a great extent, burr formation
in milling can be prevented by adjusting the path of the milling
cutter over the workpiece face. Specific cases have been
evaluated in automotive engine manufacturing with major
automobile companies. This can be extended to optimization of
the process to insure that surface quality, including flatness,
specifications are met or exceeded. Figure 10 shows a
conventional tool path for face milling a surface on a cast AlSi
alloy automotive engine block. The presence of substantial burrs
at critical locations required frequent tool changes as well as
additional deburring operations.
The optimized tool path using the criteria described above is
shown in Figure 11 and, in Figure 12, shows the resulting burr
free work piece. Although the tool path is substantially longer in
this example, it was possible to increase the feed rate without
loss of surface finish to maintain the required 5 second cycle
time for the process. The tool life (as a result of dramatically
reduced burr formation) was increased by a factor of 3 and the
resulting savings per machine/year were estimated at
approximately $50,000
An empirical model
described by least
squares and a contour
chart describing the
results are proposed for
use to minimize burr
formation and improve
tool life. An empirical
model of burr formation
obtained by lease
squares method is shown
below. Here, y is burr
height [µm].
Figure 12. Contour chart of burr formation.

y = 7.5 - 3.5 Vc + 5.3 ft + 0.2Vc2 + 0.8 ft2 +1.0Vc ft

Where, Vc is cutting speed and ft is feed per tooth. Figure 12

shows the contour chart based on Equation (4).
The following equation is an empirical model for tool life:
y = - 387+ 44Vc + 443 ft- Vc2 - 89 ft2 -18Vc ft (5)

where, y is the number of

holes created before the
failure. Figure 13 shows a
contour chart based on
Eqation 5 . With these two
charts, burr formation and
tool life can be controlled
and optimized. For
example, Figure 14 shows
the combined contour
chart of equations 4 and 5.
Using this chart, a
confirmation test was
conducted to compare burr
formation and tool life at
two cutting conditions, A
and B.
Table 2 shows burr height, tool life and material removal rate,