TOOL DESIGN FOR BURR REMOVAL IN DRILLING OPERATIONS

P. Stringer, G. Byrne and E. Ahearne

Advanced Manufacturing Science (AMS) Research Centre, Mechanical Engineering, University
College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

ABSTRACT

One of the most significant problems encountered in machining, particularly in drilling, is
that of burr formation. Burrs usually comprise of work piece material which has been plastically
deformed during the machining process and projects beyond the desired edge of the work piece.
The adverse effects of burrs depend on the component application but may include; stress
concentration and related fatigue failure and increased wear on components and tools involved in
the manufacture of the part. The minimisation or eradication of burrs produced during the
drilling process is therefore of the utmost importance.
Currently there is a focus on reducing burr formation through optimisation of process
control parameters and drill geometry. However previous studies have shown that, while it is
possible to reduce the size of the burr, it is not possible to eliminate it entirely. Although
numerous companies have developed methods for removing drilling burrs, these invariably
involve extra process steps and increase cycle times and costs. A combined drilling and
deburring tool would provide the optimal solution, removing the burr while not significantly
increasing drilling time.
This paper reviews the current state of art in the field of burr reduction and removal in
drilling operations, with a focus on tool design.


KEYWORDS: Drilling, Burr, Deburring

1. INTRODUCTION

Drilling burrs are a significant problem within the engineering industry. Their removal is
necessary in most cases and can prove costly depending on accessibility to the burr. Significant
international collaboration is currently taking place through the "Burr Working Group" within
the International Academy for Production Engineering (CIRP).
Burr removal may represent a considerable part of the total manufacturing cost of a
precision component. Most documented literature indicates an incurred extra cost of
approximately 10-14% of direct manufacturing cost [1, 2], while others report it to be up to 30%
[3]. In addition to the considerable cost, burrs lead to a significant number of other problems
specific to drilling for example, close tolerances on critical holes cannot be realised in the
aircraft industry [4] while brittle burrs may serve as crack initiation points and reduce component
fatigue life [5]. Loose burrs can cause mechanisms to jam, increase wear, or potentially cause
personal injury [6].
Many of the costs incurred due to deburring come from the labour time involved in the
process. In certain circumstances it is necessary to dismantle assemblies after drilling in order to
remove any burrs, this significantly increases cycle times. Alternatively, if automated deburring
is being used, it requires an extra process step leading to increased cycle times and increased
cost.
2. DRILLING BURRS

2.1 Types of drilling burr
There are a number of different types of burr produced during the drilling process. Two
burrs are produced in the drilling of every hole; an entrance and an exit burr (see Fig. 1). The
entrance burr is produced on the side of the work piece where the drill enters, this burr is usually
considerably smaller than the exit burr and is usually of little concern as it may be removed
easily by chamfering the hole. This may be achieved using a combined chamfering and drilling
bit so as to not add an extra process step and therefore more time to the process. The exit burr is
formed on the opposite side of the work piece as the drill breaks through. These burrs are usually
more substantial than the entrance burr, and as they are on the opposite side of the work piece to
the machine, they are more challenging to remove. They can also be located within a cavity in
the work piece where there is no access to the exit side of the hole.
There are different systems of classification of burr types. For the purpose of this paper
they will be described according to their shape, i.e. uniform, transient and crown burrs.
When drilling through a number of layers, interlayer burrs are often formed between the
layers (see Fig. 1). In certain circumstances these burrs must be removed. In order to do this, it
may be necessary to dismantle the parts to remove the burrs.


Inter-layer Burr
Exit Burr
Entrance Burr
Material A
Material B

Fig 1: Entrance, exit and inter-layer burrs (note drill entered from top of figure)


2.2 Creation of exit burrs
Exit burrs are created as the drill bit exits from the work piece. As the drill emerges from
the work piece the material in front of the drill tip is plastically deformed. The material is
stretched and thinned, this causes the material to fracture. Different types of burr are formed
depending on where the initial fracture occurs. If the fracture occurs at the centre of the tip a
larger crown burr will be formed. If however the fracture occurs at the edge of the hole then a
smaller uniform burr will be formed. A transient burr is formed when fracture occurs at both
locations simultaneously [7].

2.3 Burr minimisation
A number of different approaches have been adopted to control burr formation.

2-Axis Drilling Burr Control Charts
Drilling Burr Control Charts (DBCC) can be used to predict what type of burr will be
formed given certain drilling parameters, this can be used to minimise burr or to alter the type of
burr produced [5]. There are a number of parameters which affect the burr produced during
drilling, these relate to drill geometry, material properties, process conditions, tool wear and tool
material. A DBCC is formed using experimental results, they can be used to relate feed rate (f),
drill diameter (d), tool rake angle () and spindle speed (N) to the type of burr produced. An
example of a DBCC is shown in Fig. 2, this is DBCC is for Stainless Steel AISI304L [8]. F
n
is a
nondimensionalised feed parameter (=f/d) , S is a cutting parameter (=*d*N).

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Type III Type II Type I

d
f
F
n
( ) dN S


Fig 2: Drilling Burr Control Chart for stainless steel (AISI304L) [8] Note: Type I are
Uniform burrs, Type II are transient burrs, Type III are crown burrs

3-Axis Drilling Burr Control Charts
It is possible to add a further axis to the DBCC. This axis allows the graphs to be applied to
different work piece materials [9]. In order to add the third axis it is necessary to develop a
parameter (G) which will relate the tendency of the material to produce a burr to some of its
material properties. As the G value increases the tendency to form large burrs moves towards
lower feed and speed rates. An example of a 3-Axis DBCC as developed by Reich-Weise et al.
[9] is shown in Fig. 3. F
n
= f /d, S = (N) (d) 10
5
, G = K
1
(
t

y
)(A+Z) Where
t
= Material
tensile strength,
y
= Material yield strength, A = Percent area reduction at fracture, Z = Percent
elongation at fracture, K = A constant used to create a dimensionless number.

S
F
n
G = 146/K
G = 279/K
Type III
Type II
Type I

Fig 3: 3-Axis Drilling Burr Control Chart [9]
Burr minimisation through drill tip design
Gillespie [10] carried out research into the effects of drill geometry on burr, he found that
increasing helix angle will reduce burr height by up to 50%, thickness by up to 20% and radius
by 6%. It was also shown that burr height increases with drill diameter, however the most
important characteristic of a drill bit in terms of burr minimisation is its sharpness. It has been
shown [11, 12] that by changing the tip of the drill it is possible to minimise the burr which is
formed, however in some cases, due to surface hardening, it can be more problematic to remove
the burr which is formed.

Ultrasonic vibration in drilling
The application of an axial (along axis about which drill turns) ultrasonic vibration has
been investigated [13, 14]. The ultrasonic force is found to reduce the forces involved in drilling
and also to reduce the burr formed, however it does not eliminate burr formation.

Pre-drilling and pre-chamfering
A study carried out into the effect of predrilling and chamfering the predrilled hole was
carried out [15]. This study found that by predrilling it was possible to reduce the size of burr
formed, however it has been shown that chamfering the predrilled hole can eliminate both
entrance and exit burrs [15]. In order to eliminate the burr the hole must be chamfered to the
final diameter, as illustrated in Fig. 4. In this figure the hole was predrilled (d
p
) to 2.75mm, the
final hole diameter (D) was 6.1mm.

d
p
d
c
D
0.08
0.04
1.5
0
2.25
0.75
3
0
0.12
0.16
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
(a)
(b)
B
u
r
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
B
u
r
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
(d
c
/D) ratio
(d
c
/D) ratio

Fig 4: This figure shows the effect of the ratio d
c
/D (chamfered diameter to final drilled
diameter) on burr height. (a) is the entrance side (b) is the exit side [15]
Effects of other drilling parameters on burr size
Stein [16] carried out an investigation into the effects of certain drilling parameters on burr
size. It was found the newer drills produced smaller burrs than the worn ones. It was also found
that increasing feed rate increased burr size. Further to this it was observed that while at low feed
rates increasing the spindle speed had little effect on burr size while at high feed rates burr size
increased with spindle speed. A study of the stress fields associated with new and worn tools has
been carried out [17]. This shows the effect tool wear has on the stress field around the cutting
edge of a tool and its relationship to the size of the burr formed. Tool coatings may maintain the
tool geometry for a longer period of time thus minimizing the size of burr formed for longer.


3. CURRNT METHODS OF BURR REMOVAL

There are a number of different methods currently employed in industry for the removal of
burrs. These range from dedicated processes to integrated tools. Dedicated processes operate by
a chemical, electrical, mechanical or thermal means. Most available methods add further
processing steps to the manufacturing process, thus increasing manufacturing time and cost,
while many also require extra machines or equipment. Of particular interest are those which do
not add an extra processing step, such as integrated drilling and deburring tools.
Many companies remove burrs which have been formed during the drilling process
manually, using a scraper or dedicated deburring tool. The parts are removed from a machining
centre so they may be deburred adding further steps to the manufacturing process and extra
labour costs.
Within the aircraft industry there are further problems as it is necessary to drill holes in a
number of components in a stack in order to rivet them together. The components must then be
disassembled in order to remove the inter layer burrs before reassembling the components and
riveting. By eliminating the deburring step, and associated dismantling and rebuilding steps,
significant savings in manufacturing time can be realised. The use of auto-riveting machines
avoids this problem, the clamping forces produced by the machine prevent the layers separating
and burrs forming.

Integrated drilling and deburring tools
A number of tool companies have developed integrated drilling and deburring tools which
are capable of first drilling a hole and then removing any burr which is formed. These tools work
for holes with a diameter greater than 9.5 mm [18, 19]. An example of one of these tools can be
seen in Fig. 5. This tool is produced by E-Z burr and consists of a spade drill and a deburring
tool. It is also possible to incorporate a chamfering tool which will chamfer the entrance side of
the hole. This tool is available to drill holes greater that 9.5mm [18].


Fig 5: E-Z Burr Burrfree drill [18]

Kim et al. developed a drill capable of deburring. This tool incorporated a deburring cutter
which is mounted on a cantilever located within a cavity in the shank of the drill [20]. This tool
is shown in Fig. 6.


Fig 6: Drill with incorporated deburring cutter [20]

A drill bit has also been developed by Kubota et al. [21] which is capable of deburring.
This tool operates by utilising two cutting edges on the reverse of the tip (as shown in Fig. 7) to
remove the burr once the hole has been drilled.


1 mm
1.5 mm
The part of
reduced
body
Cutting
edge for
deburring
Cutting
edge for
drilling

Fig 7: Drill capable of deburring [21]

4. SUMMARY

Significant research has gone into burr minimisation and reduction. Many researchers have
shown that though burr size may be reduced, it can not be eliminated. This presents a significant
problem within industry as deburring is both costly and time consuming. A number of integrated
drilling and deburring tools have been developed, however there is potential for optimisation for
tool geometry and tool coatings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge that this research has been carried out as part of a
project funded by Enterprise Ireland.

REFERENCES

[1] Hockauf, W. Investment - production costs - burr reduction - prediction of burrs. In First
International Workshop on High Performance Cutting (2002), G. Byrne, D. Dornfeld, G.
Eisenbltter, and E. Ahearne, Eds., CIRP.
[2] Kalpakjian, S., and Schmid, S. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 4th ed.
Prentice Hall, USA, 2000.
[3] Gillespie, L. Deburring precision miniature parts. Precision Engineering (1979), 189198.
[4] Nichol, W. Understanding exit burr in the drilling process. SAE Technical Papers (2001).
[5] Kim, J., Min, S., and Dornfeld, D. Optimization and control of drilling burr formation of
AISI 304l and AISI 4118 based on drilling burr control charts. International Journal of
Machine Tools & Manufacture (2001), 923 936.
[6] Gillespie, L. Fighting the battle of the burr. Manufacturing Engineering (2000), 114125.
[7] Min, S., Kim, J., and Dornfeld, D. Development of a drilling burr control chart for low
alloy steel, AISI 4118. Journal of Materials Processing Technology (2001), 4 9.
[8] Kim, J., and Dornfeld, D. Cost estimation of drilling operations by a drilling burr control
chart and bayesian statistics. Journal of Manufacturing Systems (2001), 8997.
[9] Reich-Weise, C., and Dornfeld, D. Drilling burr control chart - adding a material property
axis. LMA Research Reports 20042005 (2005), 19 21.
[10] Gillespie, L., Albright, R., and Neal, B. Effects of drilling variables on burr properties.
Tech. rep., Bendix Corporation, 1976.
[11] Ko, S., and Chang, J. Development of drill geometry for burr minimization in drilling.
Annals of the CIRP (2003), 45 48.
[12] Ko, S., and Lee, J.K. Analysis of burr formation in drilling with a new-concept drill.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology (2001), 392 398.
[13] Neugebauer, R., and Stoll, A. Ultrasonic application in drilling. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology (2004), 633 639.
[14] Takeyama, H., and Kato, S. Burrless drilling by means of ultrasonic vibration. Annals of
the CIRP (1991), 83 86.
[15] Abdel Mohsen Mahdy, M. Economic drilling conditions for a given deburring radius.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology (2001), 197 205.
[16] Stein, J. The Burrs from Drilling. Deburring Technology Inc., USA, 1995.
[17] Jackson, M., Robinson, G., Whitfield, M.D., and Ahmed, W. Burr formation and
elimination in micromilling processes. Procedings of the 23rd International Manufacturing
Conference. (2006), 397 404.
[18] E-Z Burrfree drill. http://www.ezburr.com, 11th August 2006.
[19] Heule. Combi tool. http://www.heuletool.com/cats/cat-comb.pdf, 11th August 2006.
[20] Kim, K., Cho, C., Jeon, S., Lee, K., and Dornfeld, D. Drilling and deburring in a single
process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture (2003), 1327 1331.
[21] Kubota, H., Tabei, H., and Sawairi, Y. Development of a drilling tool with a function of
deburring. Journal of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering (1992), 655-660.