Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Investigation of burr formation and surface integrity in micro-milling of aluminum alloy LF21 slot Cover

Investigation of burr formation and surface integrity in micro-milling of aluminum alloy LF21 slot

Open Access
|Jun 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Simulation model.
Simulation model.

Figure 2

(a) Micro-milling experimental platform diagram, (b) micro-milling cutter (bottom view), and (c) schematic diagram of the micro-milling slot.
(a) Micro-milling experimental platform diagram, (b) micro-milling cutter (bottom view), and (c) schematic diagram of the micro-milling slot.

Figure 3

(a) Illustration of the roughness measurement by 3D LSCM. (b) Schematic of burr size on both up-milling and down-milling sides. (c) Measurement of burr size in SEM image.
(a) Illustration of the roughness measurement by 3D LSCM. (b) Schematic of burr size on both up-milling and down-milling sides. (c) Measurement of burr size in SEM image.

Figure 4

Burr size and surface roughness distribution with level classification using natural tones across different experimental groups.
Burr size and surface roughness distribution with level classification using natural tones across different experimental groups.

Figure 5

Top burr and exit burr formation in FE simulation and experiment observations by SEM.
Top burr and exit burr formation in FE simulation and experiment observations by SEM.

Figure 6

(a) Diagram of four deformation zones; (b1)–(b4) Top burr formation process on the up-milling side (stages 1–4); (c1)–(c4) Top burr formation process on the down-milling side (stages 1–4); (d1)–(d4) Exit burr formation process (stages 1–4).
(a) Diagram of four deformation zones; (b1)–(b4) Top burr formation process on the up-milling side (stages 1–4); (c1)–(c4) Top burr formation process on the down-milling side (stages 1–4); (d1)–(d4) Exit burr formation process (stages 1–4).

Figure 7

(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top burr formation of the LF21 slot at different spindle speeds.
(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top burr formation of the LF21 slot at different spindle speeds.

Figure 8

(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit burr formation of LF21 slot at different spindle speeds.
(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit burr formation of LF21 slot at different spindle speeds.

Figure 9

(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top burr formation of LF21 slot at different feed rates.
(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top burr formation of LF21 slot at different feed rates.

Figure 10

(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit burr formation of LF21 slot at difierent feed rates.
(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit burr formation of LF21 slot at difierent feed rates.

Figure 11

(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top bur formation of LF21 slot at different depth of cut.
(a) Top burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of top bur formation of LF21 slot at different depth of cut.

Figure 12

(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit bur formation of LF21 slot at different depth of cut.
(a) Exit burr size measurement results; (b1)–(b5) SEM images of exit bur formation of LF21 slot at different depth of cut.

Figure 13

(a) Surface roughness R
                        a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different spindle speeds.
(a) Surface roughness R a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different spindle speeds.

Figure 14

(a) SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under spindle speeds of (a1) 6,000 rpm and (a2) 18,000 rpm; and (b) SEM-EDS mapping of LF21 slot bottom under spindle speed of 15,000 rpm.
(a) SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under spindle speeds of (a1) 6,000 rpm and (a2) 18,000 rpm; and (b) SEM-EDS mapping of LF21 slot bottom under spindle speed of 15,000 rpm.

Figure 15

(a) Surface roughness R
                        a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different feed rates.
(a) Surface roughness R a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different feed rates.

Figure 16

SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under different feed rates: (a) 0.005 m/min, (b) 0.025 m/min, and (c) 0.045 m/min.
SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under different feed rates: (a) 0.005 m/min, (b) 0.025 m/min, and (c) 0.045 m/min.

Figure 17

(a) Surface roughness R
                        a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different depths of cut.
(a) Surface roughness R a measurement results; (b1)–(b5) Surface micromorphology and 3D characteristics of LE21 slot at different depths of cut.

Figure 18

(a) SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under depth of cut of (a1) 0.03 and (a2) 0.07 mm, and (b) SEM-EDS mapping of LF21 slot bottom under depth of cut of 0.07 mm.
(a) SEM images of LF21 slot bottom under depth of cut of (a1) 0.03 and (a2) 0.07 mm, and (b) SEM-EDS mapping of LF21 slot bottom under depth of cut of 0.07 mm.

EDS mapping of each element content under depth of cut of 0_07 mm_

MnFeSiCuOTiMgZn
1.040.360.160.120.560.030.030.04

Chemical elements of aluminum alloy LF21_

ElementSiTiMnFeCuMg
Mass%0.600.1–0.21.0–1.60.70.20.05

Burr size and surface roughness R a measurement results_

No. N v f a p Up-burrDown-burrExit-burr R a
(rpm)(m/min)(mm)(μm)(μm)(μm)(μm)
16,0000.0250.05493.53564.59647.520.674
29,0000.0250.05472.23551.03612.360.596
312,0000.0250.05389.49407.67578.030.548
415,0000.0250.05445.98463.06463.630.503
518,0000.0250.05376.26395.82451.090.465
612,0000.0050.05403.11480.93750.970.928
712,0000.0150.05412.59431.24743.250.776
812,0000.0350.05458.5497.46586.070.578
912,0000.0450.05492.8541.67633.440.647
1012,0000.0250.03369.27377.19557.590.539
1112,0000.0250.04403.26381.24560.450.543
1212,0000.0250.06487.43567.35784.570.864
1312,0000.0250.07530.22620.38799.521.034

Workpiece material parameters_

Density (kg/m3)Yield strength (MPa)Tensile strength (MPa)Elastic modulus (MPa)Poisson’s ratio (μ)
2,74042976.86 × 104 0.25

Values of influencing factors_

No.Invariant parametersVariable parameters
1 v f = 0.025 m/min, a p = 0.05 mm n (1,000 rpm) = 6, 9, 12, 15, 18
2 n = 12,000 rpm, a p = 0.05 mm v f (m/min) = 0.005, 0.015, 0.025, 0.035, 0.045
3 n = 12,000 rpm, v f = 0.025 m/mim a p (mm) = 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07

Simulation measurement results of burr size_

Burr typeSim. width (w/μm)Sim. length (l/μm)Sim. burr Size (L/μm)Meas. burr Size (L/μm)Error (w%)
Up-burr243.51388.59458.58493.537.1
Down-burr328.61399.13517.01564.598.4
Exit burr145.69789.35802.68750.976.9

EDS mapping of each element content under spindle speed of 15,000 rpm_

MnFeSiCuCTiMgZn
1.130.390.160.068.410.040.030.11

Parameters of J-C constitutive model of red copper_

A (MPa) B (MPa) n m C T melt1 (℃) T room (℃)
34.4114.20.27620.0180.206264320
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2025-0012 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 22
Submitted on: Feb 23, 2025
Accepted on: Apr 24, 2025
Published on: Jun 27, 2025
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2025 Chao Wu, Weimin Li, Zhaoqing Tang, Shuai Feng, Jixiang Liang, Jiahui Li, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.