420
ground surface (i of Fig. 15a) is flattened leaving only a
few shallow valleys in case of stainless steel workpiece
(ii of Fig. 15a, Ra0110 nm). For brass workpiece, the
surface roughness profile became almost straight line (ii
of Fig. 15b) indicating very smooth surface (Ra050 nm).
In accordance with the changes in the initial surface
roughness profile after finishing, the slope of the bearing
area curve (obtained from Veeco optical interferometric
profilers) becomes gentle as shown in Fig. 16. The
smaller the slope of the bearing area curve, the better it
is. Comparatively larger slope of the curve at 67 RPM
for stainless steel workpiece (Fig. 16a) is due to a few
valleys remaining on the surface while in case of brass
workpiece, it is almost flat (Fig. 16b).
8 Conclusions
R-MRAFF process is developed as a polishing method to
reduce the surface roughness of flat stainless steel and
brass workpieces. A combination of medium reciprocation
as well as rotation has been successfully achieved which
results in a better in-process control of the finishing forces
and hence higher finishing performance. R-MRAFF pro-
cess is capable of achieving mirror finished surface in the
nanometer range and surface roughness as low as 110 nm
for stainless steel and 50 nm for brass workpiece is
achieved. Based on the presented study, following con-
clusions are drawn:
1. It has been found that under similar experimental con-
ditions, R-MRAFF process is more effective in reducing
surface roughness than MRAFF process.
2. From atomic force microscope and scanning electron
microscope images, it has been observed that the abra-
sive cutting marks in R-MRAFF process generate cross-
hatch pattern which increases the oil retention capability
of the workpieces to reduce friction.
3. MRAFF and R-MRAF processes are less efficient for
finishing magnetic workpieces (EN-8) as compared to
non-magnetic workpieces.
4. From the ANOVA for %ΔRa, it has been observed that
among the significant terms, the combination of S and
its S2 has the highest contribution (37.58%) followed by
combination of N and its N2 (25.8%), P and its P2
(22.17%), and R and its R2 (12.82%) for stainless steel
workpiece. For brass, the combination of S and S2, P
and P2, R and R2, and N and N2, have 29.72%, 24.7%,
23.5%, and 17.42% contribution, respectively.
5. With the increase in the rotational speed of the magnet,
%ΔRa increases and there is a certain optimum value of
rotational speed where the finishing action is best.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2012) 62:405–420
6. The optimized process parameters in terms of highest %
ΔRa for stainless steel workpiece is at magnet RPM0
67, Pr038.92 bar, finishing cycles0660, CIP/SiC02.30.
Similarly, the optimum solution obtained for brass
workpiece is: magnet RPM073, Pr038 bar, finishing
cycles0690, CIP/SiC02.22.
Acknowledgments We acknowledge Department of Science and
Technology, New Delhi for their financial support for Project No.
SR/S3/NERC/0072/2008 entitled “Rotational–magnetorheological
abrasive flow finishing (R-MRAFF)” under which this work has been
done. We sincerely thank BASF Germany for making CIP available of
different grades for our research work.
References
1. Yamaguchi H, Shinmura T, Sekine M (2005) Uniform internal
finishing of SUS304 stainless steel bent tube using a magnetic
abrasive finishing process. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 127:605–
611
2. Jain RK, Jain VK, Dixit PM (1999) Modelling of material removal
and surface roughness in abrasive flow machining process. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 39:1903–1923
3. Yan B, Tzeng H, Huang F, Lin Y, Chow H (2007) Finishing effects
of spiral polishing method on micro lapping surface. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 47:920–926
4. Kordonski W, Jacobs SD (1996) Magnetorheological finishing. Int
J Mod Phys B 10:2837–2848
5. Jha S, Jain VK (2008) Parametric analysis of magnetorheological
abrasive flow finishing process. Int J Manuf Technol Manag
13:308–323
6. Das M, Sidpara A, Jain VK, Ghoshdastidar PS (2010) Parametric
analysis of MR polishing fluid using statistical technique. Int J
Precis Technol 2:51–63
7. Stradling AW (1993) The physics of open gradient dry magnetic
separation. Int J Miner Proc 39:19–29
8. Jain NK, Jain VK, Jha S (2007) Parametric optimization of advanced
fine-finishing processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:1191–1213
9. Gregory RD (2006) Classical mechanics. Cambridge University
Press, UK
10. Kreyszig E (2006) Advanced engineering mathematics. Wiley,
New York
11. Jayswal SC, Jain VK, Dixit PM (2005) Modeling and simulation
of magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
26:477–490
12. Das M (2011) An experimental investigation of rotational–
magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing (R-MRAFF) pro-
cess and a CFD-based numerical study of MRAFF process.
Dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
13. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments.
Wiley, New York
14. Derringer G, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several
response variables. J Qual Technol 12:214–219
15. Gorana VK, Jain VK, Lal GK (2006) Forces prediction during
material deformation in abrasive flow machining. Wear 260:128–
139
16. Sidpara A, Das M, Jain VK (2009) Rheological characterization of
magnetorheological finishing fluid. Mater Manuf Process 24:1467–
1478