0
Research Papers

Numerical Simulation and Experimentation on Electrochemical Buffing

[+] Author and Article Information
Piyushkumar B. Tailor

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai,
Mumbai 400076, India
e-mail: tailorpb@gmail.com

Amit Agrawal

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai,
Mumbai 400076, India
e-mail: amit.agrawal@iitb.ac.in

Suhas S. Joshi

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai,
Mumbai 400076, India
e-mail: ssjoshi@iitb.ac.in

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 16, 2015; final manuscript received October 30, 2015; published online January 12, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Y. B. Guo.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 138(6), 061009 (Jan 12, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1418; doi: 10.1115/1.4032087 History: Received August 16, 2015; Revised October 30, 2015

The electrochemical buffing (ECB) process primarily works on the principle of preferential dissolution by coupling of electrical, chemical, and mechanical actions. ECB is used to buff clean and hygienic nanoscale surface finish of high-purity components. Despite being well known, the process mechanism has not been discussed adequately in the literature, which makes process control and its use difficult. This work explores the various material removal mechanisms through numerical simulations to better understand and control the ECB process. The numerical results are found to match reasonably well with the experimental data. It is found from the simulation results that the flux of species generated is dominated by current density and interelectrode gap, whereas flow of electrolyte and rotation speed of buff-head primarily influence their migration. The simulation model also infers that convective flux contributes of order of 102 over to diffusion flux in species migration, whereas electrophoretic flux does not have a significant contribution.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparative concentration profile of Na+ species along the cross stream at outlet (id: 1000 mA/cm2, u: 0.01 m/s, and initial concentration: 600 mol/m3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Validation of the model with experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Two-dimensional model geometry of ECB

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Working principle of ECB

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Flux of species over cross-stream under different current densities (concentration of electrolyte: 15%, interelectrode gap: 100 μm, flow of electrolyte: 15 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 300 rpm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic line diagram of parallel plates electrode channel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Photograph of ECB setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Streamwise flux generation of species for different concentrations of electrolyte (current density: 4.08 mA/cm2, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece/buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of concentration of electrolyte on ionic conductivity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Streamwise flux generation of species for different interelectrode gaps (current density: 4.08 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 10%, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece /buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Streamwise variation of flux of various species under different current densities (concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece and buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Streamwise flux generation of species at different flow rates of electrolyte (current density: 4.08 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece/buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Streamwise flux generation of species at different rotational speeds (current density: 4.08 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece/buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Streamwise current density at different rotational speeds (current density: 4.08 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece/buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Streamwise concentration of species near surfaces of electrodes (current density: 5.88 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece/buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Concentration of species over the cross-stream at different radial distances (current density: 2.29 mA/cm2, concentration of electrolyte: 15%, interelectrode gap: 100 μm, flow of electrolyte: 15 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 300 rpm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Streamwise flux generation of species by different mechanisms (concentration of electrolyte: 10%, interelectrode gap: 125 μm, flow of electrolyte: 20 LPH, and rotational speed of buff-head: 600 rpm, at 1 μm from workpiece and buff-head)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of the model prediction with experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Micrographs of workpiece surface before and after ECB

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In