Mid-Term Thesis Meeting

22nd December 2021

Electrochemical Micromachining of Ti6Al4V with and without laser

assistance

Pardhu Nihar Srungarapu Promoters: Prof. dr. ir. Dominiek Reynaerts;

Mentors: Muhammad Hazak Arshad,
Krishna Kumar Saxena;
Assessors: Prof. dr. ir. B.Van Hooreweder,
S.Gallas

1
Thesis Objectives
• Objective 1: To compare the electrochemical machining characteristics of an
SLM Ti6Al4V vs rolled Ti6Al4V
• Objective 2: To investigate whether assistance of Laser to ECM reduces
passivation layer on SLM Ti6Al4V and rolled Ti6Al4V

2
Literature Review
Why is ECM suitable for milling Ti6Al4V?
• Ti6Al4V has very good mechanical properties: Bulk Modulus (90 GPa – 150 GPa), Fracture
Toughness (85 Mpa.m1/2 - 100 Mpa.m1/2 ) and Hardness (3370 MPa – 3730 MPa)[2]
• This makes it very difficult to machine using conventional machining processes.
• We require a process which provides High aspect ratio features, independent of hardness
and thermally induced defects and micro-residual stresses on the Workpiece.

Micro ECM

3
Literature Review
Problems with Micro ECM of
Ti6AL4V:
• Stray corrosion: Causes unwanted
material removal and can lead to poor
machining accuracy and surface quality.
 One way to prevent this is to use a
Passivating Electrolyte (e.g. NaNO3)
[3]
 However, we still need to overcome
the passivating layer in the machining
direction. (Use of Laser)
4
Importance of a comparison study
between ECM performance of
Ti6Al4V samples produced through
SLM versus Rolling:
• SLM produced parts have the following
common mechanical defects: 1) Lack of
Fusion or Cracking and 2) Porosity[4]
• These defects affect the Machinability
which are not seen in case of a Rolled
Ti6Al4V sample (Monolithic component).
• Variation in input process parameters and
the process response factors when we
shift from Rolling to SLM to manufacture
the sample.
Literature Review
• Identifying the input parameters which effect the ECM Process
Performance and the response factors which could be studied to
understand these effects:
Key Input Process Parameters
• Voltage
• Electrolyte flow rate
• IEG
• XY – Motor speed

Key Output Response Factors

• Surface Roughness
• Current Density
• MRR
• Channel Depth and
Width
Fig 1. Ishikawa diagram representing the parameters which affect the
process performance in ECM process.[1]

5
Experimental Plan:
1. Trial Experiments (March-April): 3. Pitting Propagation Study (October-
November)
• Mill Channels on Monolithic and 3D Printed
samples to determine the optimum input • Drill Cavities experiments for varying machining
parameters (e.g. Voltage) for both cases. times and observe the growth of passivation
2. Design of Experiments (May- layer using:
September): 1. Microscopic Analysis
• Mill channels on Monolithic and 3D Printed 2. Current measurement
samples to analyze the output response
factors such as:
1. Current Density
2. Material Removal Rate
3. Channel Dimensions (Radial overcut)

6
Experimental Setup

Fig. Coaxial laser and electrolyte flow through

the steel electrode of internal diameter 0.35

7
Preliminary Trial Experiments
• Conclusion – Selection of input parameters
for the DOE Study
1. 3-Levels of Voltages: 25 V, 35 V and 45 V
2. 2-Levels of Feed Rate: 0.03 mm/s and
0.06 mm/s
3. 2-Levels of Process Mode: ECM and
LECM
4. 2-Levels of Material: Rolled Ti6Al4V and
SLMed Ti6Al4V

8
Main Experiments
• Rolled and SLMed Ti6Al4V Samples of dimensions 20 mm x 20mm x
5mm.
• 2 channels of 5mm length per parameter combination – total of 72
channels milled.

9
Design of Experiments (DoE) Study
• Effect on MRR
Conclusions:
1. Acceleration of Process
due to Laser.
2. Effect of presence of Pores
in SLMed samples.
3. Interaction between
Material removal and
Passivation

10
Design of Experiments (DoE) Study
• Effect on Surface Roughness
Conclusions:
1. Inherent roughness of
SLMed sample.
2. More uniform removal at
higher voltages

11
Design of Experiments (DoE) Study
• Effect on Channel Depth

Conclusions:
1. Easier Z-Direction
propagation in SLMed
sample due to pores.
2. Introduction of Laser
increases depth (Hilling
Phenomenon)
3. Interaction between
Material removal and
Passivation observed
again.

12
Design of Experiments (DoE) Study
• Effect on Channel Width
Conclusions:
1. Higher passivation in
SLMed sample leading to
lower channel widths
(Stray Machining
reduction).
2. Effect of Laser also
reduces machining in X-Y
directions.
3. Higher voltage leading to
wider current profile
(Copying Principle).

13
Plan for the Future

PHASE 1: Literature Review and Trial

Experiments.
PHASE 2: Main Experiments and DoE Study Completed

PHASE 3: Pitting Propagation Study with and

without Laser assistance in the ECM Process.
PHASE 4: Writing Thesis Report Future Work

14
References
1. Krishna Kumar Saxena, Jun Qian, Dominiek Reynaerts, “A review on process capabilities of
electrochemical micromachining and its hybrid variants”, International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture 2017; 27: 28–56
2. Hansong Li et al., “A Study of Electrochemical Machining of Ti-6Al-4V in NaNO3 solution”,
Scientific Reports, 6:35013, DOI: 10.1038, 2016
3. Muhammad Hazak Arshad, Krishna Kumar Saxena, Jun Qian, Dominiek Reynaerts,
“Electrochemical micro-milling of Niobium Carbide (NbC) cermet with and without laser
assistance”, euspen’s 21st International Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, DK, June
2021
4. Dengyong Wang et al., “Enhancement of the Localization Effect during Electrochemical
Machining of Inconel 718 by Using an Alkaline Solution”, Applied Sciences 2019, 9, 690.
5. Schubert et al., “Electrochemical machining of Tungsten Carbide”, Journal of Solid State
Electrochemistry, 2017.
6. Palani et al., “Experimental investigations of electrochemical micromachining of nickel
aluminum bronze alloy”, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 35:16, 1860-1869, 2020.

15
 THANK YOU

16