BURR FORMATION IN MICRO-MILLING

Kiha Lee1, Ingo Essel2, David A. Dornfeld1

1. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
2. University of Technology at Aachen (RWTH), Aachen, Germany

Key words: burr formation, micro-machining, micro-burr, micro-milling

Abstract

Experimental studies on micro-milling in aluminum 6061-T6, stainless steel 304 and

copper 110 have been carried out. A range of different cutting chip loads and depths of cut using
127µm, 254µm and 635µm diameters were considered. The influence of the cutting parameters
on burr size and burr type was observed. A comparison to burr formation in different materials is
presented.

Introduction
A phenomenon similar to the formation of chips is the formation of burrs at the end of a
cut. Burrs are undesirable because they present a hazard in handling machined parts and can
interfere with subsequent assembly operations. Thus, they must be removed in subsequent
deburring processes to allow the part to meet specified tolerances.
A number of burr removal processes exist for conventional machining and except for the
cost, can be conveniently applied. In the micro-machining process, however, the burr is very
difficult to remove and, more importantly, the burr removal can seriously damage the workpiece.
Conventional deburring operations cannot easily apply to micro-burrs.
Micro-milling here refers to machining with miniaturized end mills as small as 20µm. The
miniaturized end mills have similar cutter geometries as conventional machine tools.
Research on burr formation in micro-milling of stainless steel, brass, aluminum and cast
iron [1] [2] [3] has been reported. Micro burr formation, however, with respect to cutting
conditions has been studied only in aluminum so far [3]. The fundamental mechanisms are not
well understood. In this paper, the size and type of burr created in aluminum 6061-T6, stainless
steel 304 and copper 110, are studied.
Chu [3] conducted a set of conventional slot and step milling tests to analyze burr
formation in milling aluminum, 6061-T6 and reported milling burr types. Chu reported that the
cutting speed has an insignificant influence on burr formation and larger feed per tooth induces
large burrs in the feed direction. A series of experiments has been performed to investigate burr
formation of three different materials in micro-milling.

2.5 µm

Figure 1. SEM of 127µm micro-mill (left) and its magnified cutting edge (right)
Experimental setup
For machining three materials two flute end mills (Figure 1), provided by RobbJack Corp.,
were used. It is a stub length version with a small cutting length for only low aspect ratios.
Figure 1 illustrates 10,000 times magnified view of the major cutting edge, which is located at
the left side of the top view. The cutting edge radius is around 1.3 µm. A micro end mill was
attached to a Mori Seiki CNC Drilling Center TV-30. Micro-drop coolant was used.
To ensure the correspondence of burr formation in slot-milling with different tool
diameters, the ratio of depth of cut to tool diameter was constant for each diameter, so that the
ratio varies in the same range. The feed per tooth to tool radius ratio was also constant for every
tool and it increased in five steps. The middle values of depth of cut and feedrate have been
selected as recommended from a tool manufacturer, Table 1.

Table 1. Experimental cutting conditions

Diameter [mm] vc [m/min] Depth of [µm] Feedrate [mm/min]
0.635 15 40, 79, 119, 159, 318* 38, 75, 113, 150, 188
0.254 6 16, 32, 48, 64, 127* 15, 30, 45, 60, 75
0.127 3 8, 16, 24, 32, 64*, 127** 8, 15, 23, 30, 38, 64**
*only used for milling the copper alloy and aluminum, **only for aluminum

burr

feed

Figure 2. Burr definition and its location in slot milling (left) and machined slots (right)

Results
Burr definition and its location in slot milling can be seen in Figure 2. The entrance side
burrs at up-milling as well as the exit side burr at down-milling were minimal because they are
both characterized by tool entrance. For this reason they were not evaluated. Also, the bottom
burr at the entrance side was too small for a reasonable evaluation.

Burr

Burr
Burr
Figure 3. Entrance of slot, aluminum (left), stainless steel (medium), copper (right)
 Thus, five different burr types were important for the analysis of the influence of cutting
parameters on burr formation: the entrance side burrs at the down-milling side, the top burrs
from up- and down-milling, the exit burrs at the bottom of the slot and finally the exit side burrs
at the up-milling side.

Entrance burrs
Curl-type entrance side burr was formed, Figure3. With higher feedrate, the burr size
slightly increases for all the materials. The increase of the depth of cut resulted in a clear increase
of the burr length for aluminum and copper. No similar result was not observed in stainless steel.
Longer burr was formed in stainless steel, compared to other two materials. The lower strength
of the copper and aluminum enabled a better fracturing and so less material was formed to the
burr. From bottom to top at the entrance side in aluminum and copper, the burr size increases,
because the cutting edge underneath end-mill first exits the workpiece and pushes the material to
the top.

Top burrs
In slot milling operations top burrs occur at two different locations. As shown in Figure 4,
one type of top burr is formed at the up-milling side and the other at the down-milling side of the
cut. These burrs are difficult to remove in micro slot milling. Conventional deburring operations
cannot easily remove these burrs. In milling aluminum, wavy-type burr is created when the tool
enters the top surface of the workpiece with high feedrate. A ruptured-type burr results when the
tool exits. With higher feedrate, the burr size increases. Depth of cut has an insignificant
influence on burr formation in aluminum.
For stainless steel, at the upper side of the photo (Figure 4) the top burr from up-milling
shows an orientation to the right, which is similar to the direction of the material flow as a result
of tool rotation and feed motion. The bottom side of the photo displays the top burr from down-
milling. As it can be seen in the photo it is a kind of rollover burr. Regarding the influence of an
enhancement of depth of cut it can be reported that the top burrs from up- and down-milling
decreased significantly. Up to the ratio of depth of cut to diameter, 3/16, burr size decreases.
After that, burr increases as depth of cut increases because of tool wear. The results from milling
stainless steel showed somewhat decreasing top burr on both when the feedrate was raised up to
the degree in which tool wear increases. The main reason was the transient to a more regular burr
on both sides.
As can be seen in Figure 4, milling the copper brought very good results with respect to the
top burr formation at small depths of cut. Considerable top burrs first occurred when cutting with
a high depth of cut, a half diameter depth. With higher feedrate, the burr size increases.

Feed

Figure 4. Midpoint of slot, aluminum (left), stainless steel (medium), copper (right)
 Figure 5. End of slot, aluminum (left), stainless steel (medium), copper (right)

Exit burrs
Exit side burrs were always created in milling aluminum regardless of depth of cut and
feed. As seen in Figure 5, it is a flag-type burr. The length of burr is roughly same as the width of
slot. This burr is easier to be removed than top burr since it is attached to the workpiece slightly.
Exit burr at the foot of slot in aluminum can hardly be observed.
In stainless steel, large bottom burr was formed. At the small depth of cut to 1/16 diameter-
ratio the bottom burr and the exit side burr merged. The bottom burr height was bigger than the
depth of cut of the slot, which leads to the conclusion, that the material was not only bent but
also plastically deformed in the feed direction as can be seen in Figure 5. The burr height of the
bottom burr slightly decreased with a raise of the feedrate at this small depth of cut. At higher
feedrates, finally a large exit side burr was formed with smaller bottom burr.
The experimental results from micro-milling in copper did not take after stainless steel but
aluminum. There was no transition from a bottom burr to a side burr formation. Concerning the
exit side at up-milling in copper, it can be noted that three different types of workpiece edges
occurred. It consists of a fin type burr which can be seen in Figure 5, the flag burr which
occurred mainly at higher depths of cut and a sharp and small burr as a consequence of the
detachment of fin type burr or flag burr.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Consortium on Deburring and Edge Finishing (CODEF) at
University of California at Berkeley. Information is available at http://lma.berkeley.edu. The
authors thank Robbjack Corp. for supporting the work.

References

1. Damazo, B. N., Davies, M. A., Dutterer, B. S., Kennedy, M. D., 1999, “A summary of micro-
milling studies,” 1st International Conference of the European Society for Precision
Engineering and Nanotechnology, Bremen, Germany, 31 May - 4 June, 1999. 322-324
2. Schaller, T., Bohn, L., Mayer, J., Schubert, K., “Microstructure grooves with a width of less
than 50µm cut with ground hard metal micro end mills,” Precision Engineering 1999, Vol. 23,
229-235.
3. Lee, K., Stirn, B., Dornfeld, A., “Burr Formation in Micro-Machining, Aluminum, 6061-T6,”
10th, International Conference on Precision Engineering, Japan 2001
4. Chu, C. H., Integrated Edge Precision Machining, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 2000