3.8 Proceedings Paper

Effect of micro tool-tips in electrochemical micromachining

Journal

MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS
Volume 56, Issue -, Pages 1335-1340

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.329

Keywords

Micro-ECM; Multiphysics simulation; Current density; Tooltip

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the effects of two different tool tips in the electrochemical micromachining process. By simulating and modeling in COMSOL Multiphysics (R) software, it is observed that the ball end provides better machining results with a more uniform current distribution and more effective removal of debris particles from the interelectrode gap.
Electrochemical micromachining (EMM) is an anodic dissolution process which governs by Faraday's laws of electrolysis. The accuracy of the machining depends on the tool design as the streamline of current density formed in between the tool and the workpiece (electrodes) depends on it. In the present paper, two different tool-tips namely flat and ball end are considered for investigation. The complete set-up is modeled in the COMSOL Multiphysics (R) software coupling electrochemistry and fluid flow. The current density develops during EMM for both the tool-tips are used for analysis. The tool material is tungsten and work-piece material is stainless steel. Keeping parametric conditions constant for the two, simulation was performed. It was observed that more uniform current developed for ball end compared to flat end. It leads to a decrease in overcut of 120 mm in ball tip than the flat end. The fluid flow shows flushing of debris particles from the interelectrode gap is more effective in ball end than the flat end tooltip. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the First International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Material Science

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available