Fig 1.
Schematic illustration of the ECD process utilizing a tubular electrode.
Fig 2.
Electrochemical drilling setup [34].
Table 1.
Experimental settings.
Table 2.
Experimental design and HPI results.
Fig 3.
A hole geometry and terminology (Ahole: hole cross-sectional area, de: electrode diameter, h: hole depth, Lr and Ll: length of the right- and left-side wall profiles of the hole cross-section).
Fig 4.
Sample hole geometries for various machining settings and workpiece materials.
a) Hadfield/4.5 V/200 rpm/40 bar/100 g/L, h = 8 mm, b) Hadfield/4.5 V/200 rpm/20 bar/125 g/L, h = 8 mm, c) Hadfield/4.5 V/200 rpm/20 bar/150 g/L, h = 8 mm, d) Hadfield/4.5 V/400 rpm/20 bar/150 g/L, h = 8 mm, e) Hadfield/5.5 V/400 rpm/20 bar/125 g/L, h = 8 mm, f) AISI1040/4.5 V/400 rpm/40 bar/100 g/L, h = 8 mm, g) AISI1040/4.5 V/400 rpm/20 bar/150 g/L, h = 8 mm, h) AISI1040/6.5 V/200 rpm/20 bar/125 g/L, h = 8 mm, i) PM/4.5 V/400 rpm/20 bar/100 g/L, h = 14 mm, j) PM/5.5 V/400 rpm/40 bar/100 g/L, h = 14 mm, k) PM/6.5 V/200 rpm/40 bar/125 g/L, h = 14 mm.
Fig 5.
The effect of process parameters on HPI.
Table 3.
S/N ratios for HPI.
Table 4.
Result of ANOVA for HPI.
Table 5.
The validation experiment for HPI.