ArticlePloS one2025
Electrochemical grooving of tube inner walls with emphasis on feed strategy and multi-pass effects on material removal and groove geometry.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrochemical (EC) grooving minimises tool wear and residual stress when machining hard-to-cut tube materials. This study examines how the number of passes and tool feed direction affect material removal rate (MRR) and removed area (RA) in Stellite 21 tubes. Two feed strategies were tested: Unidirectional Electrolyte Flow (UEF), where the tool moves entirely opposite to the electrolyte flow; and Hybrid Electrolyte Flow (HEF), where the tool first moves against and then with the flow direction. Results showed that the highest MRR values (26.67 mg/s for HEF, 24.8 mg/s for UEF) were observed with two passes, but dropped significantly at four and six passes due to extended machining time. RA increased along the tool path under UEF, reaching up to 327% at the tool exit. Flow simulations revealed that low velocity and conductivity at the tool entry caused under-machining, whereas turbulence at the exit enhanced material removal. These findings offer valuable guidance for optimising EC grooving processes in aerospace and biomedical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.