Research Papers

Controlled Phase Interactions Between Pulsed Electric Fields, Ultrasonic Motion, and Magnetic Fields in an Anodic Dissolution Cell

[+] Author and Article Information
Curtis Bradley

Integration Engineering Laboratory,
U.S. Army RDECOM-ARDEC Benét Laboratories,
Watervliet, NY 12189
e-mail: curtis.w.bradley6.civ@mail.mil

Johnson Samuel

Department of Mechanical Aerospace
and Nuclear Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: samuej2@rpi.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 28, 2017; final manuscript received November 15, 2017; published online February 13, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Y.B. Guo. This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 140(4), 041010 (Feb 13, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-17-1176; doi: 10.1115/1.4038569 History: Received March 28, 2017; Revised November 15, 2017

This paper presents the design of a novel testbed that effectively combines pulsed electric field waveforms, ultrasonic velocity, and magnetic field waveforms in an anodic dissolution electrochemical machining (ECM) cell. The testbed consists of a custom three-dimensional (3D)-printed flow cell that is integrated with (i) a bipolar-pulsed ECM circuit, (ii) an ultrasonic transducer, and (iii) a custom-built high-frequency electromagnet. The driving voltages of the ultrasonic transducer and electromagnet are calibrated to achieve a timed workpiece velocity and magnetic field, respectively, in the machining area. The ECM studies conducted using this testbed reveal that phase-controlled waveform interactions between the three assistances affect both the material removal rate (MRR) and surface roughness (Ra) performance metrics. The triad-assisted ECM case involving phase-specific combinations of all three high-frequency (15.625 kHz) assistance waveforms is found to be capable of achieving a 52% increase in MRR while also simultaneously yielding a 78% improvement in the Ra value over the baseline pulsed-ECM case. This result is encouraging because assisted ECM processes reported in the literature typically improve only one of these performance metrics at the expense of the other. In general, the findings reported in this paper are expected to enable the realization of multifield assisted ECM testbeds using phase-specific input waveforms that change on-the-fly to yield preferential combinations of MRR and surface finish.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Spieser, A. , and Ivanov, A. , 2015, “ Design of a Pulse Power Supply Unit for Micro-ECM,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 78(1–4), pp. 537–547. [CrossRef]
Mathew, R. , and Sundaram, M. M. , 2012, “ Modeling and Fabrication of Micro Tools by Pulsed Electrochemical Machining,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 212(7), pp. 1567–1572. [CrossRef]
Kozak, J. , Rajurkar, K. , and Makkar, Y. , 2004, “ Study of Pulse Electrochemical Micromachining,” J. Manuf. Process., 6(1), pp. 7–14. [CrossRef]
Skoczypiec, S. , 2011, “ Research on Ultrasonically Assisted Electrochemical Machining Process,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 52(5–8), pp. 565–574. [CrossRef]
Ruszaj, A. , Zybura, M. , Żurek, R. , and Skrabalak, G. , 2003, “ Some Aspects of the Electrochemical Machining Process Supported by Electrode Ultrasonic Vibrations Optimization,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B: J. Eng. Manuf., 217(10), pp. 1365–1371. [CrossRef]
Fan, Z. , Wang, T. , and Zhong, L. , 2004, “ The Mechanism of Improving Machining Accuracy of Ecm by Magnetic Field,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 149(1), pp. 409–413. [CrossRef]
Tailor, P. B. , Agrawal, A. , and Joshi, S. S. , 2013, “ Evolution of Electrochemical Finishing Processes Through Cross Innovations and Modeling,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 66(0), pp. 15–36. [CrossRef]
Rajurkar, K. P. , Zhu, D. , McGeough, J. , Kozak, J. , and De Silva, A. , 1999, “ New Developments in Electro-Chemical Machining,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 48(2), pp. 567–579. [CrossRef]
Inman, M. , Hall, T. , Taylor, E. , Reece, C. , and Trofimova, O. , 2011, “Niobium Electropolishing in an Aqueous, Non-Viscous Hf-Free Electrolyte: A New Polishing Mechanism,” 15th International Conference on RF Superconductivity (SRF), Chicago, IL, July 25–29, pp. 377–381. https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/SRF2011/papers/tupo012.pdf
Park, J. W. , and Lee, D. W. , 2009, “ Pulse Electrochemical Polishing for Microrecesses Based on a Coulostatic Analysis,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 40(7–8), pp. 742–748. [CrossRef]
Pa, P. , 2009, “ Design of a Magnetic-Assistance Superfinish Module for Freeform Machining,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 27(3), pp. 1221–1225. [CrossRef]
Pa, P. , 2008, “ Mechanism Design of Magnetic-Assistance in Surface Finishing of End-Turning,” J. Adv. Mech. Des., Syst., Manuf., 2(4), pp. 587–596. [CrossRef]
Pa, P. , 2009, “ Super Finishing With Ultrasonic and Magnetic Assistance in Electrochemical Micro-Machining,” Electrochimica Acta, 54(25), pp. 6022–6027. [CrossRef]
Fang, J. , Jin, Z. , Xu, W. , and Shi, Y. , 2002, “ Magnetic Electrochemical Finishing Machining,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 129(1), pp. 283–287. [CrossRef]
Aaboubi, O. , Chopart, J. , Douglade, J. , Olivier, A. , Gabrielli, C. , and Tribollet, B. , 1990, “ Magnetic Field Effects on Mass Transport,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 137(6), pp. 1796–1804. [CrossRef]
Tang, L. , and Gan, W. , 2014, “ Experiment and Simulation Study on Concentrated Magnetic Field-Assisted Ecm S-03 Special Stainless Steel Complex Cavity,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 72(5–8), pp. 685–692. [CrossRef]
Pa, P. , 2007, “ Design of Effective Plate-Shape Electrode in Ultrasonic Electrochemical Finishing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 34(1–2), pp. 70–78. [CrossRef]
Pa, P. , 2008, “ Design of Thread Surface Finish Using Ultrasonic-Aid in Electrochemical Leveling,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 36(11–12), pp. 1113–1123. [CrossRef]
Weber, O. , Rebschläger, A. , Steuer, P. , and Bähre, D. , 2013, “ Modeling of the Material/Electrolyte Interface and the Electrical Current Generated During the Pulse Electrochemical Machining of Grey Cast Iron,” European COMSOL Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 23–25. https://www.comsol.co.in/paper/download/182315/weber_abstract.pdf
Pa, P. , 2010, “ A Super Surface Finish Module by Simultaneous Influences From Electromagnetic Force and Ultrasonic Vibrations,” Mater. Manuf. Process., 25(5), pp. 288–292. [CrossRef]
Leese, R. J. , and Ivanov, A. , 2016, “ Electrochemical Micromachining: An Introduction,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 8(1), pp. 3–4. [CrossRef]
Yin, L. , Zhang, W-M. , Yan, Y. , Tu, Q-S. , and Zhang, Z-J. , 2010, “ Study of Electrochemical Finishing With Magnetic Field and High-Frequency Group Pulse,” IEEE International Conference on Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA), Changsha, China, Dec. 18–20, pp. 440–443.
Cook, N. , Loutrel, S. , and Meslink, M. , 1967, “Increasing Electrochemical Machining Rates,” DTIC Document, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Technical Report No. DA-19-066-AMC-26B(W). http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/659004.pdf
Rosten, E. , and Drummond, T. , 2005, “ Fusing Points and Lines for High Performance Tracking,” Tenth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV'05), Beijing, China, Oct. 17–21, pp. 1508–1515.
Lyman, T. , 1967, Metals Handbook, Vol. 10, American Society for Metals, Geauga, OH.
Shevell, R. S. , 1989, Fundamentals of Flight, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stoltz, R. , and Pelloux, R. , 1973, “ Inhibition of Corrosion Fatigue in 7075 Aluminum Alloys,” Corrosion, 29(1), pp. 13–17. [CrossRef]
Datta, M. , and Landolt, D. , 1981, “ Electrochemical Machining Under Pulsed Current Conditions,” Electrochim. Acta, 26(7), pp. 899–907. [CrossRef]
Landolt, D. , Chauvy, P.-F. , and Zinger, O. , 2003, “ Electrochemical Micromachining, Polishing and Surface Structuring of Metals: Fundamental Aspects and New Developments,” Electrochim. Acta, 48(20), pp. 3185–3201. [CrossRef]
Landolt, D. , 1987, “ Fundamental Aspects of Electropolishing,” Electrochim. Acta, 32(1), pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Multifield-assisted anodic-dissolution electrochemical cell reaction depicting the relevant field vectors and the resulting Lorentz force on a nitrate ion [21]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Set diagram of multifield-assisted ECM combinations used as experimental treatments (* indicates a baseline)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

System block diagram showing the relation between the data, power, and electrolyte flow within the experimental testbed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Flow cell design details (a) three-quarter section view, (b) cross section showing electrolyte flow, IEG, and electric field direction, (c) cross section showing ultrasonic velocity and magnetic field directions (note: figure uses left-handed coordinate system)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Bipolar pulse ECM circuit utilizing two power supplies

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Motion tracking of the workpiece corner features showing the mean position point for each frame: (a) base frame A, (b) target frame B, and (c) pseudo-color frame A superimposed on frame B showing displacement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Magnetic field map at time intervals between the maximum magnetic field in (a) to minimum in (d) (note: the circular area indicates the machining area)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Phase differences between assistance waveforms (Note: PECM current and voltage signals are from experiments, whereas the ultrasonic velocity and magnetic field are simulated signals for illustrative purpose)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Coupled dual-assisted ECM performance, (a)–(c) MRR and total anodic charge, (d)–(e) surface roughness in terms of Ra and peak anodic current (note: the scale on the vertical axis is different for each figure for clarity purposes)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Four phase differences used in the Ultra–Mag interaction and the resulting estimate of the Lorentz force in the Z-direction r˙×B(r,t) (note: the plot ignores secondary electric fields and is for a positively charged particle close to the ultrasonically vibrating workpiece surface)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Performance metrics of 16 triad-assisted ECM experiments showing all phase difference combinations between the waveforms for PECM, ultrasonic velocity, and magnetic fields: (a) MRR and (b) Ra (note: PECM baseline noted on the color bar)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison between the assistance cases using the best-performing phasing results: (a) MRR and (b) Ra



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