CARS REPORT

SO No: CVRDE/16CR0006/APD/15-16/LP DT 08-12-2016

Development of Magnetic abrasive finishing (MAR) technology for CNC

machined Diaphragms

Milestone – I Report

Submitted to Submitted by

CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai IIT Kanpur, Kanpur

March 2017
 Milestone-1 Report
1.1 INTRODUCTION

The life and functionality of any product depend greatly on the quality of the surface
produced. Surface finishing is the last and essential stage of a production system. This
stage requires almost 15% of the overall production cost and is uncontrollable in nature.
In the present era of nanotechnology, the focus of manufacturing industries is on
producing precision parts that require finish at micro and nano scale. Products like silicon
in IC industries, micro-channels in micro-fluidics, optics and free-form surfaces in
medical science, and moving assembly such as piston cylinder and bearings in
automobile require highest level of surface finish in order to increase their life and
functionality [1]. Also, the fact that the fatigue failure generally nucleates at the surfaces
of engineering components, makes the surface conditions to be one of the important
factors influencing the fatigue strength. Thus, the surfaces with higher roughness values
in general possess lower fatigue life. To ensure reliable performance and prolonged
service life of modern machinery, its components require to be manufactured not only
with high dimensional and geometrical accuracy but also with high surface finish.
Surface finish has a significant influence on vital functional properties such as wear
resistance, fatigue strength and power loss due to friction on most of the engineering
components. Thus, smaller roughness values are required to improve [2].
 Wear resistance,

 Mechanical properties like fatigue resistance, toughness etc.,

 Optical properties,

 Corrosion and oxidation resistance,

 Aesthetic appearance.

Unfortunately, normal machining methods like turning, milling etc. cannot meet this
stringent requirement. Therefore, a final finishing operation is required to make most of
the machined components capable to perform their desired functions efficiently.
Xnom=X
 Shape and size
constraints

Fig. 0.1 Classification of micro/nano finishing processes

1.2 TRADITIONAL FINISHING PROCESSES

Classification of different traditional and advanced micro/nano finishing processes is

shown in Fig.1.1. Traditional finishing processes like grinding, lapping, honing although
produce good surface quality, they pose certain limitations. They are incapable in
producing ultrafine surface on 3-D complex shaped components. Also, the pressure
applied on the surface during finishing operations is high and may even damage the
surface being polished. The difficulties in adopting traditional finishing processes
increased with the advancements in technology. In all traditional finishing processes,
there exists a predefined relative motion between the cutting edge and workpiece being
finished since abrasives are in bonded form. This is the major limitation that attributes to
the difficulty in adopting traditional finishing processes especially when it comes to
finishing intricate, freeform and complex geometries. This limitation can thus be
overcome by using cutting edges which have an ability to take the shape of the surface
being finished i.e.; a flexible finishing tool. Thus, to finish complex 3-D components and
difficult to machine materials without any micro/nano defects and with surface roughness
in nano scale range, different techniques have been developed as shown in Fig.1.2 which
mainly address the issues, namely, how to overcome the limitations of tool hardness
requirements, and restricted relative motion of the tool with respect to workpiece surface
(or, flexibility of the cutting tool).

1.3 ADVANCED FINISHING PROCESSES

Advanced finishing processes use a flexible finishing tool that itself can take the contour
of the surface being polished. Such abrasive based finishing processes with flexible
polishing tool can be classified into two categories (Fig1.2.) that is with and without
magnetic field assistance. The former includes magnetic abrasive finishing, magneto
rheological finishing, and allied processes, and the latter includes abrasive flow finishing,
chemo mechanical polishing, elastic emission machining, and elastic abrasive finishing.
These second category of processes can control the finishing forces in real time, and thus
are the most suitable processes for finishing different materials to a nano level surface
finish [3].

Fig. 0.2 Classification of advanced abrasive finishing processes

All these processes use magneto rheological fluid as flexible polishing tool whose
rheological properties are responsible in transferring abrading forces to the abrasive
particles. Thus, by controlling external magnetic field the rheological properties having
control over abrading forces can be controlled. Magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid) is
a smart fluid that undergoes a change in its mechanical properties in the presence of
magnetic field. MR fluid consists of magnetic particles (CIP or ferromagnetic particles)
and nonmagnetic abrasive particles dispersed in a carrier fluid like water or oil with some
additives. By applying magnetic field, MR fluid experiences a transition from a weak
Newtonian fluid like structure to strong Bingham like fluid structure. This is because as
magnetic field is applied the magnetic particles in the MR fluid acquire magnetic dipole
moment and pile up into interconnected chain like structure along magnetic field, holding
abrasive particles in between them[4] & [5].
The quality of the final finished surface depends on the appropriate selection of
process while the process selection depends on the size and shape of the workpiece. MAF
is preferred when the workpiece is large and flat, MRF is preferred for finishing external
and freeform surfaces usually flat and cylindrical workpieces, MRAFF is capable of
finishing external and internal surfaces of cylindrical and complex shaped surfaces and
MFP is the only process for finishing spherical surfaces more precisely. In the present
work, the surfaces to be finished are flat and freeform disc, thus MRF process is selected
for finishing.
1.3.1 Magnetorheological Finishing (MRF) Process

MRF was invented at the Luikov Institute of Heat and Mass Transfer in Minsk, Belarus
in the late 1980s by a team led by William Kordonski. MRF is a magnetic field-assisted
precision finishing process developed and commercialized by QED Technologies, Inc.
[6]. MRF has gained broad acceptance by most of the world’s leading optics industries;
by transforming the way optics is being made. MRF is a fluid based deterministic
finishing process for finishing flat, curved and freeform surfaces. The MRP fluid forms
a conformal polishing tool and therefore it can polish a variety of shapes, including flat,
convex, and concave. With an appropriate combination of MRP fluid and other finishing
parameters, it has successfully polished a variety of materials to sub-nanometer surface
roughness value [7]. MRP fluid acts as a Newtonian fluid (viscosity 0.1–1 Pa s) in the
absence of magnetic field and viscoplastic fluid (viscosity 10–20 Pa s) in the presence of
magnetic field [8]. More details about the MR fluid are discussed in chapter 2. By
changing the magnetic field strength, the stiffness of the MRP fluid can be controlled in
real time. This exceptional characteristic facilitates rapid control (in milliseconds) of the
yield stress, and thus the pressure applied to the work piece surface being polished.

1.3.1.1 Working Principle

The conventional MRF machine developed by William Kordonski initially used a trough
to carry the MR fluid and was replaced by a vertical wheel in 1995 [6]. The components
of the machine are carrier wheel/vertical wheel, delivery and suction pumps,
conditioning and storage system and magnetic field.

Fig. 0.3 (a) Schematic diagram of forces acting on the workpiece. (b) Cross-sectional view (A-A) of
interaction of MR fluid with workpiece surface. (c) Magnified view of finishing region. [3]

As the wheel rotates, MR fluid gets squeezed in to the working gap between the wheel
and the work piece which is placed below the rotating carrier wheel as shown in Fig.1.3.
Under the action of applied magnetic field MR fluid stiffens and forms a ribbon like
polishing tool. The stiffness of the MR fluid depends on many parameters such as size
and concentration of CIPs, abrasive particles, magnetic flux density etc. This stiffened
MR fluid ribbon forms a finishing spot at the ribbon-workpiece interface during
finishing. When the magnetically stiffened MRP fluid flows over the surface, abrasive
particles being nonmagnetic, they are pushed away from the magnet due to magnetic
levitation force. Magnetic levitation force is the force exerted by magnetic fluid on a
nonmagnetic body. These abrasive particles that are pushed away from magnet (towards
workpiece surface) interact with the asperities of the surface and result in the material
removal. Material removal takes place due to normal 𝐹𝑛 and tangential 𝐹𝑡 forces
(Fig.1.3.) produced as the MR fluid ribbon is dragged into the converging gap by the
rotating carrier wheel. Normal force is responsible for the penetration of abrasive
particles into the workpiece and Tangential/Shear force is responsible for shearing off
the peaks [9] [5] [10]. The setup of the process and the magnified view of finishing zone
are shown in Fig.1.4.

Fig. 0.4 (a) Schematic of MR fluid-based finishing process and (b) magnified view of finishing zone [3]

Delivery pump is used to eject the MR fluid on to the rotating wheel, where it gets
stiffened under the applied magnetic field. Significant forces are created by the
interaction among the wheel, MR fluid, and work surface because the MR fluid ribbon
flows through a converging gap. Rotation of the wheel continues to drag the MR fluid
from delivery pump and is removed from the wheel by the suction pump. The MR fluid
is pumped back to the fluid conditioning storage system where it is cooled to a set
temperature and any evaporative losses are replaced. Removal rates obtained with the
standard MR fluid vary from approximately 2 mm/min for a hard silica glass to more
than 9 mm/min for a soft laser glass [5].

1.3.1.2 Advantages of MRF Process

The Magnetorheological finishing provides many advantages over conventional polishing

techniques.
  Adjustable polishing tool: The material removal characteristic of the polishing

tool gets influenced by different parameters, such as magnetic field strength and

wheel speed. Thus, a variety of different polishing tools can be obtained from one

machine set-up.

 Flexible polishing tool: The sufficient conformity of the polishing provides high

flexibility, and thus different surface shapes can be polished by the same

polishing tool.

 Wear less polishing tool: Since there is a continuous circulation and

conditioning of the MR fluid, the polishing tool does not wear.

 No subsurface damage: MRF process creates hardly any subsurface damage,

and it is capable of removing such surface damages.

 Corrective polishing: In MRF, the total error of multi-element optical systems

can be compensated by polishing corrective error-profiles on workpiece surfaces.

 Polishing thin workpieces: Thin workpieces are commonly subject to mounting

distortion or deformation during polishing. As the polishing tool is insensitive to

variations in the immersion depth of the workpiece into the fluid of up to ±25 μm,

magnetorheological finishing is ideally suited to the polishing of thin workpieces.

[11]

1.3.2 Applications of MRF Process

The standard MR fluid composition is effective for finishing optical glasses, glass ceramics,
plastics and some non-magnetic metals.
 The computer controlled MRF process is able to produce surface accuracy of the

order of 10-100 nm peaks to valley.

 Deterministic finishing of variety of shapes, including flats, spheres, aspheres,

and prisms, with a variety of aperture shapes can be accomplished by mounting

 the part under the rotating spindle and sweeping it through the spot under

computer control, such that the dwell time determines the amount of material

removal.

 Efficient and able process for high precision finishing of components.

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

Magnetorheological finishing process is an advanced finishing process (AFP) which

shows greater flexibility in terms of control of forces and shape of components. Majority
of the reported work in the literature related to MRF process is experimental in nature.
While, some researchers have studied this process theoretically in which models were
developed for evaluating material removal rate (MRR) and forces acting on the surface.
The following section reports the research work done in different areas of MRF process.
Freeform surfaces are widely used in industrial applications such as moulds and
dies, turbine blades, aerospace, medical, automobile and optical components. These
freeform components, in order to function efficiently and effectively, the surface
produced should be of high quality and accuracy. Apart from selecting an appropriate
manufacturing process, an appropriate selection of finishing process helps in achieving
better surface quality. In optical lens manufacturing, grinding brings the lens close to the
desired shape and size. While finishing removes surface imperfections. Both these
processes being non-deterministic, was the major drawback in lens manufacturing. To
overcome the difficulties of manual finishing processes, mainly the non deterministic
finishing forces, the Center for optics manufacturing (COM) in Rochester, N.Y. [6]
developed a technology to automate lens finishing process known as Magneto
Rheological Finishing (MRF). The computer controlled MRF process produced surfaces
with accuracy of order 10-100 nm peak to valley by overcoming many limitations
inherent to conventional finishing techniques.
The study of non-Newtonian fluids is known as Rheological characterization. It
includes the study of yield stress, viscosity and temperature of MR fluid with or without
the application of magnetic field. While using in finishing applications, abrasive particles
have been added to the MR fluid in order to increase the finishing rate. The yield stress
was found to be the function of CIPs concentration and magnetic field from the tests
conducted on the designed magnetometer. (Jacobs et al., 1999) demonstrated that MR
fluid based polishing was successful in removal of assymetric figure errors of soft and
hard materials like glasses, ceramics and metals. To polish optical surfaces to very high
precission and nano scale surface roughness, implemented the first commercial
Magnetorheological finishing (MRF) machine. A vertical wheel-based machine was
developed by QED technologies, USA where a rotating wheel carries MR fluid ribbon
to the polishing zone. With this process they were able to polish wide range of optical
surfaces and aspheres on different materials.
Jacobs et al., [12] conducted experiments to illustrate the versatility of MRF
process. Different ways to combine three key ingredients in the MR fluid for achieving
smooth surfaces and high removal rates on different materials was demonstrated. Their
results showed that CI particles alone in the lap have a profound effect on the MRF
process. With soft CI particles, it is possible to achieve an excellent polish for soft optical
glasses, but with a relatively low rate of material removal.
Experiments conducted by Shorey et al., [5] showed that the material removal
depends on the shear stress of the surface being polished. They concluded that removal
rate of glass increases with the addition of non-magnetic abrasives particles like CeO2,
Al2O3, and Diamond. Removal rate depends on the abrasive type, size, shape and
concentration as well. MR fluid with Diamond particles was found to be 10 times more
effective than MR fluids with CeO2 and Al2O3. It was shown that the presence of DI (De-
ionized) water dramatically changes how the abrasive particles interact with the glass
surface.
Phule [13] & [14] reported a summary of the properties and applications and
recent advances concerning MR fluids and devices. Field responsive fluids include
magnetorheological (MR), magnetic liquids or ferro fluids and electrorheological (ER)
fluids which are the sub-set of smart materials. The composition of MR fluid and the
significance of each constituent were discussed.
As the magnetic particles size and its concentration increase, magnetic
susceptibility of MR fluid also increases. From the rheological experiments conducted
by Das et al., [7] it is observed that magnetic field has the highest contribution on the
yield stress and viscosity of the MR fluid. An increase in the volume fraction of CIPs
and the magnitude of the magnetic field gives higher yield stress value. However, an
increase in the water concentration leads to a decrease in the yield stress as well as
viscosity.
Researchers [9] used dual force sensor for simultaneous measurement of drag and
normal force in MRF process. The work demonstrated that the volumetric MRR
increases with increase in shear stress. It was found that normal force and tangential force
increase initially with the addition of nano diamond particles but they stabilize at their
higher concentrations. Normal and tangential forces were found to increase significantly
on lowering the working gap. On increasing the wheel speed, normal force was found to
increase significantly while tangential force has no significant change. This is because at
higher wheel speeds, tangential force exceeds shear strength of the MR fluid. Under these
conditions, solid constituents of the MR fluid shear the fluid instead of remaining intact
with the fluid and building the shear force acting on the workpiece surface.
A dynamometer and virtual instrumentation were used by [10] to on-line record
the normal force and tangential force acting on the workpiece through the
magnetorheological (MR) fluid. Among the selected parameters volume concentration
of CIPs and abrasive particles, working gap, and wheel rotation, the maximum
contribution is made by a working gap on the forces developed on the workpiece surface
followed by CIP concentration while the least contribution is noticed by the wheel speed.
Thus concludes that MRF process performance is dominated by the magnetic field and
magnetic particle (CIPs) concentration as compared to other parameters.
Jain et al., [8] carried a set of experiments to study chemical interactions of
abrasive particles (aluminium oxide and cerium oxide) and carrier fluid (deionized water
and paraffin oil) on silicon wafer surface and found that chemically active abrasive
particles become less effective in the presence of oil in MR fluid. Rheological properties
of oil-based MR fluids are lower compared to water-based MR fluids which reduce
strength of the MR fluid under magnetic field. They concluded that the water based MR
fluid yields better results on silicon compared to oil based MR fluids.
Experiments were conducted [15] to study the effect of CIPs size, and
concentration of CeO2 and diamond particles in MR fluid. A minimum finish of 18 nm
was obtained on single crystal silicon. Researchers made the following conclusions:
MRR increases with increase in size of CIPs and concentration of diamond abrasive
particles. For better finishing results the difference between particle size of CIPs and
abrasive particles should be minimal and too high stiffness of MR fluid is not required
for good finish based on the rheological study.
A theoretical model of forces (normal and tangential) acting on the workpiece
was proposed by researchers [16] to improve the in-depth understanding of the
mechanism of material removal during MR fluid based finishing process. Two different
theories were proposed to model the effect of abrasive particles concentration in the MR
fluid. A normal force and tangential squeeze force model was also proposed based on the
theory of rolling process. The theoretical normal force and tangential force model
including squeeze force was found to be in better agreement with experimental results as
compared to the model without considering of squeeze force.
An experimental investigation was carried out to measure the forces on the
freeform surface in real time by Sidpara et al., [17]. The effects of the process parameters
such as angle of curvature of the workpiece, rotational speed of the tool and feed rate on
normal force, tangential force and axial force, were studied. The normal force was found
to be more dominant compared to other forces. The researchers also proposed a
theoretical model of normal force and tangential force acting on the workpiece to
improve the understanding of the workpiece–abrasive particles interaction in the MR
fluid based finishing process. The proposed model was found to be in good agreement
with the experimental values. The researchers observed that normal and tangential forces
significantly reduce with increase in the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface due
to reduction in the contact area of the MR fluid brush with the workpiece surface. Also,
the rotational speed of tool and feed rate of workpiece have an optimum value where the
normal force and tangential force are high due to separation and low strength of CIP
chains structure.
Das et al., [18]conducted experiments to estimate the effect of magnetic and
rheological properties of MR fluid on magnetic field assisted finishing (MFAF)
processes. A detailed rheological study of MR polishing fluid at different volume
concentration of fluid constituents and magnetic field was conducted to predict their
contribution on yield stress and viscosity. Magnetic field was observed to have the
highest contribution of 57.65% and 53.62% followed by Vol% of carbonyl iron particles
(CIPs) with a contribution of 10.71% & 17.68% to the yield stress and viscosity,
respectively. It is observed that Herschel-Bulkley model better fits the rheological data
than other two models (Bingham & Casson fluid). Also, it has been found that when total
solid contents of MR polishing fluid exceeds more than 35%, there is a decrease in the
yield stress. The behaviour of the MRP fluids studied was of shear thinning viscoplastic
nature owing to rupturing of CIP chains at a faster rate at high shear rates. The best
surface finish of 60 nm was achieved on stainless steel workpiece at optimum fluid
composition of 30% CIP, 10% abrasive particles and 12% grease at 0.5 T of magnetic
field. The reported results are useful to study the size and concentration effects of CIPs
and abrasive particles on rheological properties of MR fluid.
An experimental investigation was carried out by Sidpara et al., [19] to study
yield stress and viscosity behaviour by changing the concentration of constituents of MR
fluid under the effect of a magnetic field. The results were correlated with MRR and final
Ra value of the workpiece after finishing. The maximum contribution was observed by
magnetic flux density on yield stress (44.85%) and viscosity (47.58%). The concentration
of CIPs was observed to have second-highest contribution to yield stress (37.33%) and
viscosity (36.43%). The smallest contribution was observed by glycerol on yield stress
(0.0233%) and viscosity (0.05%). Hence, yield stress and viscosity are primarily
controlled by adjusting CIPs concentration and magnetic field. The results concluded that
with an increase in magnetic flux density and CIPs concentration, yield stress and
viscosity increase. Yield stress and viscosity decrease with increasing abrasive particles
concentration. However, an optimum concentration of abrasive particles is required to
achieve low final Ra and high MRR. Concentration of glycerol was found to have almost
a negligible effect on yield stress and viscosity.
Experiments were conducted by Saraswatamma et al., [20] on a silicon wafer
using CeO2 abrasive particles. The researchers employed a ball end MRF tool and an
electromagnet to create MR effect and observed that with increasing working gap,
percentage reduction in Ra decreases. Also, increase in magnetizing current increases
percentage reduction in Ra and at higher working gaps, percentage reduction in Ra
decreases with increase in core rotational speed.
Freeform components fabricated by forming and cutting processes are already of
high surface quality. For abrasive processes to be practical in use, they must show a
significant improvement in surface quality as compared to those obtained by forming and
cutting [21]. Otherwise, the process would not be applied to practical use in industry due
to the disadvantage of the abrasive process such as its high cost and lengthy process time.
For instance, chemo-mechanical polishing (CMP) has a significant advantage in flatness
and surface roughness [22]. MRAFF has a significant advantage in surface roughness of
internal and external freeform surfaces [23].

1.5 MOTIVATION

Nano-finishing has a wide scope in the field of manufacturing science due to its demand
in current biomedical, optical, MEMS industries. Conventional polishing has proved to
have many challenges. It is a highly artisan-based skill and non-repeatable. These
limitations and their non-converging capabilities emerged the need to explore new
technologies. Using advanced abrasive based finishing process, it is possible to achieve
a surface to pristine form, figure, and finish, regardless of symmetry, geometry, or slope
variation. MRF systems offers many advantages that eliminate the inherent problems of
classical polishing. Today, MRF systems are in operation worldwide, helping businesses
achieve faster cycle times, predictable schedules, and reduced manufacturing costs. In
the end, one can expand capabilities, improve profitability, and satisfy customers like
never before. Flexible and fast, reliable and accurate — MRF does it all. The introduction
of CNC polishing addressed some of the challenges and has many improvements over
conventional polishing. The process is more repeatable. Researchers have explored MRF
process to find its application in various fields. But industries are still sceptical of this
process due to lack of optimization. The model developed in this process, can be used to
predict the final outcome.
In the current study, Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V has been used as workpiece material.
Some of the properties and applications of Ti-6Al-4V are discussed in the following
section. A titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) disc with flat and tapered surfaces is finished by
the developed MRF tool. Ti-6Al-4V (6% aluminium and 4% vanadium) is an alpha-beta
titanium alloys feature both alpha and beta phases and contains both alpha (aluminium)
and beta (vanadium) stabilizers. These alpha-beta alloys are easily formable and exhibit
moderate high-temperature strength. The mechanical properties of these alloys can be
altered through heat treatment. Alpha beta alloys have higher tensile strengths than the
alpha alloys and are moderately difficult to cut. From the past many years, titanium alloys
are playing an important role in the field of aerospace. Commercially pure titanium and
titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) are mainly used for the airframe and the engine parts
respectively. Titanium alloy is a commonly used material for aircraft engines because of
its excellent mechanical properties and corrosion resistance. It is high strength, low
weight ratio and outstanding corrosion resistance inherent to titanium and its alloys that
led their way to a wide and diversified range of successful applications in surgery and
medicine as well as in aerospace, automotive, chemical plant, power generation, oil and
gas extraction, sports, and other major industries. Use of Titanium alloys in many
engineering applications has resulted in reliable, economic and more durable systems
and components, which in many situations have substantially exceeded performance and
service life expectations. Of the various available grades of Ti alloy, Ti6Al4V alloy is
the most widely used titanium alloy with good machinability and excellent mechanical
properties. In aerospace, automotive and marine equipment, Ti6Al4V alloy offers the
best all-round performance for a variety of weight reduction applications. Being excellent
biocompatible, Ti6Al4V has numerous applications in the medical industries.
Characteristics of Ti-6Al-4V alloy like strength, ductility, fracture toughness, high
temperature strength, creep characteristics, weldability, workability, and thermal
processing (higher strength is easily obtained by heat treatment) made Ti-6Al-4V alloy
different from other materials being used in many airframe and engine parts. In
airframes, it is used for general structural, bolts, and seat rail. In engines; the alloy is used
for fan blades, fan case and similar other parts in the intake section where temperatures
are relatively low.
References

[1] S. Ajay, “Magnetorheological fluid based nanofinishing of flat and freeform

surfaces.”
[2] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Nano-level finishing of single crystal silicon blank
using magnetorheological finishing process,” Tribol. Int., vol. 47, pp. 159–166,
2012.
[3] V. K. Jain, A. Sidpara, M. R. Sankar, and M. Das, “Nano-finishing techniques: a
review,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C-Journal Mech. Eng. Sci., vol. 226, no.
C2, pp. 327–346, 2012.
[4] J. de Vicente, D. J. Klingenberg, and R. Hidalgo-Alvarez, “Magnetorheological
fluids: a review,” Soft Matter, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 3701, 2011.
[5] A. B. Shorey, S. D. Jacobs, W. I. Kordonski, and R. F. Gans, “Experiments and
observations regarding the mechanisms of glass removal in magnetorheological
finishing.,” Appl. Opt., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 20–33, 2001.
[6] D. C. Harris, “History of Magnetorheological Finishing,” Wind. Dome Technol.
Mater. XII, vol. xxxx, p. 80160N–80160N–22, 2011.
[7] A. Sidpara, M. Das, and V. K. Jain, “Rheological characterization of
magnetorheological finishing fluid,” Mater. Manuf. Process., vol. 24, no. 12, pp.
1467–1478, 2009.
[8] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Effect of fluid composition on nanofinishing of
single-crystal silicon by magnetic field-assisted finishing process,” Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol., vol. 55, no. 1–4, pp. 243–252, 2011.
[9] C. Miao, S. N. Shafrir, J. C. Lambropoulos, J. Mici, and S. D. Jacobs, “Shear
stress in magnetorheological finishing for glasses.,” Appl. Opt., vol. 48, no. 13,
pp. 2585–2594, 2009.
[10] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Experimental investigations into forces during
magnetorheological fluid based finishing process,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.,
vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 358–362, 2011.
[11] J. E. Degroote, A. E. Marino, J. P. Wilson, A. L. Bishop, J. C. Lambropoulos,
and S. D. Jacobs, “Removal rate model for magnetorheological finishing of
glass.,” Appl. Opt., vol. 46, no. 32, pp. 7927–41, 2007.
[12] S.D. Jacobs and A.B. Shorey, “Magnetorheological finishing: new fluids for new
materials,” Appl. Opt., vol. 1, pp. 142–4, 2000.
[13] P. P. Phulé, “Magnetorheological (MR) Fluids: Principles And Applications,”
Smart Mater. Bull., no. 2, pp. 7–10, 2001.
[14] S. Genc, “Rheological properties of magnetorheological fluids,” Smart Mater.
Struct., vol. 11, pp. 140–146, 2002.
[15] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Experimental investigations into surface roughness
and yield stress in Magnetorheological fluid based Nano-finishing process,” Int.
J. Precis. Eng. Manuf., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 855–860, 2012.
[16] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Theoritical analysis of forces in magnetorheological
fluid based finishing process,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., vol. 56, pp. 50–59,
2012.
[17] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Analysis of forces on the freeform surface in
magnetorheological fluid based finishing process,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.,
vol. 69, pp. 1–10, 2013.
[18] M. Das, V. K. Jain, and P. S. Ghoshdastidar, “Estimation of magnetic and
rheological properties of MR polishing fluid and their effects on magnetic field
assisted finishing process,” Int. J. Precis. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3–4, pp. 247–267,
2014.
[19] A. Sidpara and V. K. Jain, “Rheological properties and their correlation with
surface finish quality in MR fluid-based finishing process,” Mach. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 367–385, 2014.
[20] K. Saraswathamma, S. Jha, and P. V. Rao, “Experimental investigation into Ball
end Magnetorheological Finishing of silicon,” Precis. Eng., vol. 42, pp. 218–
223, 2015.
[21] V. Venkatesh and S. Izman, Precision Engineering. New Delhi,.: The McGraw-
Hill, 2008.
[22] N. Saka, T. Eusner, and J.-H. Chun, “Scratching by pad asperities in chemical-
mechanical polishing,” Ann. CIRP, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 329–332, 2010.
[23] L. Nagdeve, V. K. Jain, and J. Ramkumar, “Experimental Investigations into
Nano-finishing of Freeform Surfaces Using Negative Replica of the Knee Joint,”
Procedia CIRP, vol. 42, no. Isem Xviii, pp. 793–798, 2016.
[24] M. Ashtiani, S. H. Hashemabadi, and A. Ghaffari, “Journal of Magnetism and
Magnetic Materials A review on the magnetorheological fl uid preparation and
stabilization,” J. Magn. Magn. Mater., vol. 374, pp. 716–730, 2015.
[25] J. Huang, J. Q. Zhang, and J. N. Liu, “Effect of magnetic field on properties of
MRfluids,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, vol. 19, pp. 597–601, 2005.
[26] S. Chen, J. Huang, H. Shu, T. Sun, and K. Jian, “Analysis and testing of chain
characteristics and rheological properties for magnetorheological fluid,” Adv.
Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 2013, no. Ci, pp. 1–7, 2013.
[27] J. Rabinow, “The magnetic fluid clutch,” AIEE Trans., vol. 67, p. 1308–1315.,
1948.
[28] Y. P. Choi, S. B., Lee, S. K., and Park, “A Hysteresis Model for Field-
Dependent Damping Force of a Magnetorheological Damper.,” J. Sound Vib.,
vol. 245, p. 375–383., 2001.
[29] S. J. Seok, J. W., Lee, S. O., Jang, K. I., Min, B. K., and Lee, “Tribological
Properties of a Magnetorheological (MR) Fluid in a Finishing Process,” Tribol.
Trans., vol. 52, pp. 460–469, 2009.
[30] N. M. E. Lemaire, A. Meunier, G. Bossis, J. Liu, D. Felt, P. Bashtovoi,
“Influence of the particle size on the rheology of magnetorheological fluids,” J.
Rhelogy, vol. 39, no. DOI: 10.1122/1.550614, pp. 1011–1020, 1995.
[31] M. T. López-López, P. Kuzhir, a Meunier, and G. Bossis, “Synthesis and
magnetorheology of suspensions of submicron-sized cobalt particles with
tunable particle size.,” Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of
Physics journal, vol. 22, no. AUGUST. p. 324106, 2010.
[32] “Lord Corporation Products,” http://www.lord.com. 2014.
[33] R. S. Davidson and D. King, “Effect of Particle Size on Particle,” Anal. Chem.,
vol. 56, no. 6. pp. 1409–1411, 1984.
[34] B. N. SLC Ferreira, RE Bruns, EG P da Silva, WNL dos Santos, CM Quintella,
JM David, JB de Andrade, MC Breitkreitz, ICSF Jardim, “Statistical designs and
response surface techniques for the optimization of chromatographic systems,” J.
Chromatogr., vol. A, no. 1158, pp. 2–14, 2007.
[35] D. Bas and I. H. Boyacı, “Modeling and optimization I: Usability of response
surface methodology,” J. Food Eng., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 836–845, 2007.
[36] D. C. M. R.H. Myers, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product
Optimization Using Designed Experiments, second ed., Wiley, New York, 2002.
2002.
[37] M. A. Bezerra, R. E. Santelli, E. P. Oliveira, L. S. Villar, and L. A. Escaleira,
“Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical
chemistry,” Talanta, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 965–977, 2008.
 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH WORK

 To design and develop an experimental setup/tooling of Magnetorheological fluid

finishing for finishing flat and Tapered surfaces, which can be controlled by CNC

interface.

 To study characteristics of Magnetorheological fluid medium and its behaviour under

external magnetic field.

 To conduct experiments on the developed experimental setup and to study the effect of

process parameters of MRF on final surface finish through statistically designed

experiments.

 Analysis of machined surface characteristics and texture to understand the surface

generating mechanism in MRF by using Atomic Force Microscopy and Surface

Analyser.