Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/manpro

Technical Paper

Comparison of nishing characteristics of two paramagnetic materials

using double disc magnetic abrasive nishing
Prateek Kala, Pulak M. Pandey
Mechanical Department, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 March 2014
Received in revised form 19 July 2014
Accepted 20 July 2014
Available online 20 August 2014
Keywords:
Magnetic abrasive
Copper alloy
Stainless steel
Double disc
Paramagnetic

a b s t r a c t
Present paper demonstrates the application of double disc magnetic abrasive nishing (DDMAF) process,
on planar paramagnetic workpieces (copper alloy and stainless steel) of different mechanical properties
like ow stress, hardness, shear modulus, etc. The copper alloy and stainless steel work pieces have been
nished using DDMAF process. The experiments were performed based on a response surface methodology. The results obtained after nishing have been analyzed to determine the effect of different process
parameters like working gap, rotational speed, percentage weight of abrasive, abrasive mesh size and
feed rate for individual work material and to study various interaction effects that may signicantly
affect the nishing performance of the process. The outcomes of the analysis so obtained for the two
different work materials have been critically compared to understand the effect of the considered process parameters based on mechanical properties. The scanning electron microscopy was also conducted
on the work piece surface to understand the possible mechanism of material removal and the surface
morphology produced.
2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Surface nish of a product is a very important aspect as it can
affect the product life [1]. The technological shift from macro to
micro and nano levels has further increased the thrust on various nishing processes. In addition, the development in materials
has created implicit demand for new advanced nishing processes.
Among the various advanced nishing processes, magnetic abrasive based nishing processes are gaining importance because of
their capability to produce good nish with least surface damage.
Another reason that magnetic abrasive based nishing processes
are getting attention by the researchers has been that the nishing

Abbreviations: Avg, Average; Cp , Centripetal force; Cu alloy, Copper alloy;

DDMAF, Double disc magnetic abrasive nishing; DF, Degrees of freedom; DOE,
Design of experiments; F, Fishers value; Fc , Cutting force; Fn , Normal indentation
force; FMAB, Flexible magnetic abrasive brush; Ilower , Current to the lower electromagnet; Iupper , Current to the upper electromagnet; L, Length of work piece
(mm); rpm, Rotation per minute; MAF, Magnetic abrasive nishing; MAP, Blend
of ferromagnetic and abrasive particles; MS, Mean square; SEM, Scanning election
microscopy; Seq. SS, Sequential sum of squares; SS, Sum of squares; SS 202, Stainless steel 202; T, Magnetic ux density in tesla; T, Thickness; Y, Process yield; % wt,
Percentage weight of abrasive in the blend of abrasive and ferromagnetic particles;
%Ra , Percentage change in surface roughness.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 1126596083.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.M. Pandey).

forces in these processes can be controlled easily during nishing

[2].
Among the various magnetic abrasive processes, magnetic abrasive nishing process has been widely used for nishing cylindrical
and at work-pieces. Cylindrical MAF has been utilized to nish
solid and hollow cylindrical objects [3,4]. It has also been used with
various conventional processes like grinding [5] and unconventional machining processes like electro chemical machining [6,7].
Researchers have even used gel based magnetic abrasive medium
for better performance of magnetic abrasive nishing [8]. On the
other hand MAF has also been used to nish at work pieces.
Researchers working in the area of MAF have attempted to modify
basic MAF process which has been discussed as follows.
Jain et al. [9] provided a pulsating direct current to the electromagnet to create a stirring effect on the exible magnetic abrasive
brush (FMAB). They have reported a remarkable improvement in
surface roughness over the conventional approach in which a static
direct current was supplied to the electromagnet.
In another approach Yin and Shinmura [10] subjected a SUS 304
sample to three modes of vibrations. It was observed that the vibration along the direction of feed resulted in a smoother surface while
the vibrations at perpendicular direction of feed resulted in a better
polishing effectiveness. They also reported that the combination of
both the vibrations yielded a better polishing effectiveness as well
as a smoother surface.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2014.07.007
1526-6125/ 2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

64

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Nomenclature

level of condence interval

i , ii , ij , constant coefcients

error
Ra
centre line average surface roughness (m)
error variance
Ve

In a recent attempt Mulik and Pandey [11] subjected a hard

workpiece (AISI 52100) to ultrasonic vibrations while performing
MAF. It resulted in a signicant improvement in polishing effectiveness because of addition of ultrasonic vibrations. They [12] also
measured the machining forces in case of MAF and UAMAF and
pointed out that the application of ultrasonic vibrations resulted in
an increase in tangential cutting force, which yields in producing
better surface nish.
In the above discussed research attempts [912] and in common
practice, a at ferromagnetic workpiece is considered for performing planar MAF. This is because the use of ferromagnetic workpiece
aids in achieving high magnetic ux density in the working gap
due to the high magnetic permeability, which results in an effective nish. However in case of para/diamagnetic at workpiece,
because of their low magnetic permeability, the magnetic ux
density developed in the working gap might not be sufcient to
obtain an effective nish [13]. In order to improve the magnetic
ux density in the working gap while nishing a paramagnetic
material, Kim and Kwak [14] used a single pole electromagnet and
installed a permanent magnet under a magnesium alloy work piece
(AZ31). They reported an improvement in the magnetic ux density
available in the working gap (maximum magnetic ux density of
0.2 mT). They observed that addition of permanent magnet yielded
a better surface nish when compared with performing nishing
without permanent magnet. They were able to reduce the surface
roughness of the work piece from 0.358 m to 0.190 m in 15 min.
Using a similar approach [14] of incorporating a permanent magnet beneath the work piece, Kim et al. [15] nished aluminiumSiC
based composite. By producing a maximum magnetic ux density of 0.2 mT they reduced the surface roughness of the composite
material workpiece from 1.2 m to 0.4 m in 50 min.
Kala et al. [16] developed a new setup using a four-pole electromagnet and a set of permanent magnet mounted on a perpex disc
for nishing copper alloy workpiece. They reported that by using
ultrasonic vibrations with the above arrangement a surface nish in
nanometres level on a at copper alloy (C70600) work piece could
be achieved. They were able to reduce surface roughness of work
piece from 200 nm to 56 nm in 10 min.
In the attempts [1416], a para/diamagnetic work material has
been nished using a maximum magnetic ux density of 0.2 mT.
The soft workpieces like magnesium and copper alloy were nished in 1015 min. However, nishing a relatively harder material,
like aluminium based composite material, with a similar magnetic
eld intensity (0.2 mT) would require more time (4050 min) [15]
which would increase the production time. In order to minimize
the production time, the maximum magnetic ux intensity used
for nishing in the above case [15] must be increased. This can be
achieved by using a high magnetic ux intensity-producing source.
Therefore, the present work aims at developing a setup which
could be used for nishing para/diamagnetic at workpieces of different hardness values. For evaluating the nishing performance of
developed setup on paramagnetic materials of different hardness,
copper alloy (90 Hv) and stainless steel (250 Hv) were selected as
the work materials. Considering the hardness values of work materials, a compact setup was fabricated which could produce a range
of magnetic ux density that was suitable for nishing materials

with different hardness. Both unbonded and bonded type of abrasives can be used in MAF. Though the use of bonded abrasives
has shown excellent nishing results [3,17,18], unbonded abrasives have been preferred over bonded type of abrasives. The reason
being, the production of bonded abrasives is a tedious and expensive task as it requires sintering at high pressure and temperature
in an inert gas atmosphere, followed by mechanical crushing and
sieving process. On the other hand, unbonded abrasives employ no
such complex preparation and various researchers [1518] have
reported good results with unbonded abrasives also [16,1921].
Therefore, unbonded type of abrasive has been selected for the
present study.
Further the work aims at establishing the performance of various process factors like working gap, mesh number, rotational
speed, percentage weight of abrasive and feed rate on percentage change in surface roughness (%Ra ). A design of experiment
technique has been selected to perform experiments for evaluating the performance of the process for two types of material. The
response so obtained has been analyzed using analysis of variance.
The analysis of the results have been used to present a critical comparative study based on nishing characteristic of the process with
respect to materials of different hardness. For a better understanding of mechanism of material removal and the surface morphology
generated after nishing, for both type of work materials, scanning
electron microscope micrographs for the unnished and nished
work samples have also been obtained.
2. Experimental procedure
In this section, details of the experimental setup, experiments
conducted, process parameters and their ranges have been discussed.
2.1. Magnetic tool design
For nishing a para/diamagnetic workpiece a high magnetic ux
density may be required in the working gap. High magnetic ux
density can be produced using either a single pole of high magnetic
ux density or two poles of low magnetic ux density, between
which the workpiece can be positioned. To select a better option
out of these designs, a simulation was performed using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software, results of which are shown in Fig. 1.
For the simulation, a three dimensional model was made which
consisted of two electromagnets, a copper plate (3 mm thick) separated from electromagnet by an air gap (2 mm thick). The details of
the geometry and properties used for the modelling are provided
in Table 1.
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the magnetic ux distribution across the
cross-sectional area of the electromagnet, air gap and the copper
work piece in case of single and double magnets. From Fig. 1(a)
and (b) it can be observed that for same excitation (6000 A-turns)
the magnetic ux density in case of a single magnet is maximum
inside the electromagnet while that for double magnet is almost
uniformly distributed between electromagnet, the air gap and the
copper workpiece. As per requirement, it is preferred to choose a
design which produces a higher magnetic eld density in the working gap. For the same input parameters, the results of magnetic
ux density distribution over the copper workpiece for single and
double magnets respectively is shown in Fig. 1(c) and (d).
From Fig. 1, it can be observed that for the same excitation (6000
A-turns) maximum magnetic ux density obtained over the work
piece is more in case of double magnet (0.30 T) than single magnet (0.2 T). Thus, using two magnets of smaller magnetic intensity
proves to be a better design over a single magnet of higher intensity
and the same was considered for magnet design in this study.

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

65

Fig. 1. Simulation results showing magnetic ux density distribution for single and double magnet arrangement.

Further, four poles on each upper and lower side (as shown in
Fig. 2) were selected for magnet design over single pole, because of
the following reasons.

(1) In the four pole arrangement the FMAB are formed away from
the axis of rotation. Thus all the chains formed in the FMAB have
a signicant relative linear velocity with respect to work piece
surface which may improve effectiveness of the process when
compared with single pole arrangement.
(2) A four pole design increases the nishing rate, as four FMABs
can nish a given area four times in one rotation.
(3) A four pole ensures synchronous rotation of upper and lower
disc by means of magnetic coupling.

But the design of such an electromagnet may be bulky and may

require a dedicated cooling system. To avoid such complexities
the use of NdBFe type permanent magnet disc has been used. The
arrangement of the four poles with the set of NdBFe magnets is
shown in Fig. 2(a). Whereas Fig. 2(b) shows the actual image of
four-pole magnetic tool with four FMAB formed at respective poles.
3. Experimental setup
The setup used for experimentation is shown in Fig. 3(a). The
setup comprises of two rotating aluminium disks between which
the workpiece is placed. Each disc is an assembly of an aluminium
disc with four blind holes in which four sets of NdBFe magnets are
arranged in a sequence as shown in Fig. 2. Aluminium has been

Table 1
Material and geometrical properties of model objects used for the nite element analysis.
No.

Model

Material

Relative magnetic permeability

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Upper and lower electromagnet core ( 25 mm (H) 20 mm)

Upper and lower electromagnet coil (internal 25 mm external 65 mm (H) 20 mm)
Work piece (thickness = 3 mm)
Air gap (thickness = 2 mm)
Boundary

Alloy steel 1008

Copper
Copper
Air
Vacuum

Specied by BH curve
0.9999
0.99999
1.000
1.0000

66

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Fig. 2. (a) Detailed sketch showing dimension of the aluminium disc and positions of the four magnetic pole. (b) Photo showing FMAB formed at respective magnetic pole.

Fig. 3. (a) Experimental setup and its component. (b) Magnetic ux density distribution on workpiece surface at different working gaps.

selected as the casing material because relative magnetic permeability of aluminium is close to 1 which hardly affects the magnetic
lines of forces originating from the permanent magnetic disc and
passing through the working gap. The number of magnets can be
changed in order to alter maximum magnetic ux density. The
maximum magnetic ux density distribution along the radial distance from centre of the disc to the outer periphery is shown in
Fig. 3(b). For varying the magnetic ux density available at the
workpiece surface the working gap has been varied and the corresponding change in the magnetic ux density distribution is shown
in Fig. 3(b). The upper disc is mounted on a CNC spindle and the
bottom disc is magnetically coupled with the upper disc.
4. Experimentation details
To evaluate the performance of DDMAF process on paramagnetic workpiece, a soft and a hard material was selected such
that they cover a wide span of hardness of various paramagnetic
materials used commercially. For the same, copper alloy (90 Hv)
and stainless steel (250 Hv) were considered. Copper alloy was
selected based on its hardness value which is quite close to hardness

value of various soft materials like magnesium, aluminium, etc.

while stainless steel SS 202 was selected because among the family
of stainless steel this grade has a high hardness and is relatively
economical. The hardness values and the chemical composition of
both the materials are provided in Table 2.

Table 2
Hardness and chemical composition of workpiece material.
Copper alloy (C61400)

Stainless steel (SS 202)

Hardness

90 Hv

Alloying element
Fe
Al
Mn
P
Cu

Percentage
1.5
6
1
0.015
Rest

Work piece dimension

250 Hv
Alloying element
Percentage
C
0.12
Mn
5.5
Si
0.9
Cr
16
Ni
4
0.2
Mo
0.06
P
0.25
N
Rest
Fe
210 mm170 mm1 mm

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

67

Table 3
Selected process parameters with respective ranges.
Factors representation

Description

Level

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

Working gap (mm)

Percentage of abrasive (%wt)
Abrasive mesh number
Feed (mm/min)
Rotational speed (rpm)

Experiments were designed to evaluate the performance of the

DDMAF process on these two materials. Designing the experiments
is a very crucial step in most of the practical studies. The aim of
performing experiments is to establish a relation between the process parameters and the response or output. Orthogonal arrays and
central composite design methodology is commonly used techniques which involved smaller number of experiments and still
yields results with good accuracy in the range within which experiments are performed. Orthogonal arrays are used to predict a rst
order behaviour of the response for a narrower range of process factors, whereas, central composite design is used to predict a second
order behaviour of the response for a wider range of process factors.
Therefore, central composite design technique has been selected
for the present study to obtain a second order model.
The central composite design technique also called as response
surface methodology yields the response equation of the following
form:
Y = 0 +

k
i=1

i Xi +

k

i=1

ii Xi2 +


j<i

ij Xi Xj + .

(1)

where Y represent the response variable, k is the number of variable,

i , j and ij are the constants and is the random error. Xi , Xi2 and
Xi Xj represents the rst order, second order and the interaction
terms of the process factors, respectively. Least square method has
been used to estimate the value of these constants.
In the present study, working gap, percentage weight of abrasive, abrasive mesh size, rotational speed and feed rate were
selected as the process factors. The levels of the process factors
selected in the present study are shown in Table 3.
The range of the working gap was selected base on the magnetic
ux density available which would be suitable to perform nishing on the two different types of work material. It was observed
through trial experiments that nishing stainless steel workpiece
with working gap greater than 3 mm resulted in very small change
in surface roughness while for copper alloy work samples good
results were being observed between 2 and 3 mm. Therefore, the
upper limit of 3 mm was selected for working gap for both the
materials. While for working gaps less than 1 mm a sudden drop in
surface nish was observed. This could be because of a decrease in
total number of abrasives [22]. Therefore, a lower limit of working
gap was selected as 1 mm. The abrasive sizes were chosen so as to
cover a range of size from coarse to ne size of abrasive. Use of unbonded abrasive poses a limitation on working at high rotational
speeds, as at high peripheral speed loose abrasive tend to leave
the FMAB chain. While at very small rotational speeds the nishing characteristics tends to decrease. Thus the range of rotational
speed was selected based on trial experiments. The range of abrasive concentration was selected based on trial experiments based
on literature survey. The feed rate of the FMAB decides the time
consumed to produce a particular level of nish. A high feed rate
would yield an ineffective nishing operation while a very low feed
rate would mean a high production time. Further it was observed
from trial experiments that decreasing the feed rate beyond a certain value did not cause an appreciable improvement in surface

1
10
400
1
100

1.5
17.5
600
2
225

2
25
800
3
350

2.5
32.5
1000
4
475

3
40
1200
5
600

nish. Thus feed rate was selected based on trial experimentation

in the range 1 mm/min to 5 mm/min. Among the different types
of abrasives alumina (Al2 O3 ) and silicon carbide (SiC) are the most
common types of abrasives used for nishing operations. The silicon carbide powder if used for nishing stainless steels tends to lose
its nishing characteristics very fast, because SiC tends to react with
stainless steel owning to its strong afnity towards carbon atoms.
Whereas, alumina does not present such a problem with either of
the workpiece materials selected. Thus alumina was selected as
the type of abrasive in the present study. The exible magnetic
abrasive brush used to perform nishing consisted of a mixture of
iron and abrasive powder mixed by weight percentage of alumina
abrasive as given in Table 3. The total weight of abrasive used was
experimentally determined based on the working gap and is given
in Table 4. Trial experiments performed by addition of lubricants
hardly showed any improvement in surface nish, conrming the
results observed by Mulik and Pandey [19] and Yang et al. [23].
Thus, lubricant has not been added in the powder mixture.
Since the present operation is nishing operation, so the
response variable should be selected which would represent the
change in surface roughness. The initial surface roughness of the
grounded workpieces was not same for all the workpieces. Therefore, in order to compensate for this variation the ratio of the change
in surface roughness to the initial surface roughness was selected
as the response variable which was calculated as

%Ra =

(initial surface roughness nal surface roughness)

100
initial surface roughness
(2)

The initial surface of the grounded workpieces was calculated

by taking average at three random positions. For the nished workpieces the surface roughness values at same three positions were
obtained with the help of a template and then averaged out to
yield a single value that represented the surface nish of that particular sample. The nished zone equals to the area swept by a
circle of diameter 96 mm displaced 20 mm from its centre. All the
nishing operations were performed to nish the above area in
two passes. The surface roughness values were measured using
a surface prolometer (Talysurf 6.0, make: Taylor Hobson, UK Zresolution 16 nm) for a sample length of 2 mm.
Based on the above inputs the experiments were performed
in the manner described in Table 5. The corresponding surface
roughness values and the %Ra evaluated using Eq. (2) for the two
different workpiece has been presented in Table 5.

Table 4
Total weight of abrasive powder used.
Working gap (mm)

Total weight of powder mixture used (g)

1
1.5
2
2.5
3

2
3
4
5
6

68

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Table 5
Details of experiments performed with the response variable for each type of work piece (average surface roughness of grounded workpieces varied between 0.3018 m and
0.3921 m).
Run order

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Working gap (mm)

2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2
1.5
2
1.5
2.5
1.5
2
1.5
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2
2.5

% wt. of abrasive

25
25
40
25
25
25
25
10
25
25
25
32.5
25
17.5
17.5
17.5
32.5
32.5
25
17.5
25
17.5
32.5
32.5
25
32.5
25
17.5
32.5
17.5
32.5
25
17.5

Mesh number

1200
800
800
400
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
1000
800
1000
1000
600
600
1000
800
1000
800
600
1000
1000
800
600
800
600
600
1000
600
800
600

Feed rate (mm/min)

3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
4
2
2
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
2
3
2
4
4
4
3
4

5. Statistical modelling of change in surface roughness

rpm

350
100
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
600
475
350
225
475
225
475
225
350
475
350
475
475
225
350
225
350
225
225
225
475
350
475

Ra (m)

%Ra

Cu

SS

Cu

SS

0.1202
0.1946
0.1675
0.1601
0.1202
0.1803
0.2119
0.1959
0.1568
0.1340
0.1458
0.1373
0.1409
0.2000
0.1109
0.2393
0.1352
0.1244
0.1385
0.1848
0.1315
0.1988
0.1162
0.1704
0.1698
0.1782
0.1486
0.1981
0.1934
0.2123
0.2198
0.1243
0.1712

0.1588
0.2329
0.2216
0.2103
0.1614
0.2161
0.1685
0.2193
0.2555
0.1514
0.2752
0.1734
0.1779
0.1586
0.2113
0.2365
0.2886
0.2107
0.1883
0.1743
0.2036
0.1816
0.28
0.1798
0.196
0.1949
0.1808
0.1958
0.2406
0.2065
0.2411
0.1925
0.2601

67.62
38.72
52.85
55.19
64.76
50.82
36.64
42.92
55.04
61.07
59.26
64.93
60.66
43.88
64.44
30.80
58.70
65.46
57.55
48.83
63.90
46.60
67.30
52.32
53.84
47.87
56.66
45.16
44.09
39.70
41.61
61.87
50.91

52.71
34.78
35.42
36.3
51.52
37.16
53.32
38.8
24.24
56.19
24.51
49.21
49.79
56.83
39.85
30.42
21.89
40.25
47.94
51.75
44.04
47.86
18.67
50.37
42.08
42.92
44.44
39.07
33.19
40.22
30.06
44.04
24.38

The regression analysis has been performed and a model was

obtained which is given as Eq. (3).

General second order models for predicting %Ra based on

the process factors have been obtained for copper alloy and
stainless steel work piece. These models are obtained by performing regression analysis on the experimental data shown in
Table 5.

5.1. Statistical model for copper alloy workpiece

The %Ra roughness obtained for copper alloy samples, shown
in Table 5, has been analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The ANOVA performed initially included some insignicant terms
which were removed and the ANOVA was carried out again with
signicant terms. The obtained ANOVA table has been shown as
Table 6.

%Ra

Cu

= 67.1 + 61.8 X1 + 1.90 X2 0.0137 X3 3.42

X4 + 0.154 X5 13.5 X12 0.0507 X22
0.000165 X52 + 0.00143 X2 X3

(3)

where %Ra Cu denotes the %Ra for copper alloy, X1 is the working gap, X2 is the percentage weight of abrasive, X3 is the mesh
number of abrasive, X4 is the feed rate of the work piece and X4 is
the rotational speed.
5.2. Statistical Model for stainless steel workpiece
The %Ra obtained for stainless steel samples, shown in
Table 5, has been analyzed using ANOVA. The ANOVA performed

Table 6
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) after deletion of insignicant terms for copper alloy sample.
Source

DF

Seq. SS

MS

R2

Regression
Linear
Square
Interaction
Residual error
Lack-of-t
Pure error
Total

9
5
3
1
22
17
5
32

2829.25
2033.26
722.2
73.79
283.02
213.85
69.17
3112.38

314.361

24.44

0.000

90.9%

standard
F(0.05,9,22)
= 2.34

standard
F regression > F(0.05,9,22)

standard
F(0.05,17,22)
= 2.11

standard
F lack-of-t < F(0.05,17,22)

12.864
0.91

0.603

model is adequate and lack of t is insignicant

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

69

Table 7
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) after deletion of insignicant terms for stainless steel sample.
Source

DF

Seq. SS

MS

R2

Regression
Linear
Square
Interaction
Residual error
Lack-of-t
Pure error
Total

11
5
3
3
20
15
5
32

3272.27
2275.96
657.47
338.85
180
138.64
41.37
3452.28

297.479

33.05

0.000

94.8%

standard
F(0.05,15,20)
= 2.20

standard
F lack-of-t < F(0.05,15,20)

9
1.12

initially included some insignicant terms which were removed

and the ANOVA was carried out with signicant terms. The obtained
ANOVA table is given as Table 7.
Based on the signicant terms identied through ANOVA a
regression model has been developed which is represented by Eq.
(4).
%Ra

SS

= 95.0 + 48.3 X1 + 2.64 X2 + 0.0685 X3 4.04

X4 + 0.322 X5 6.82 X1 X1 0.0377 X2 X2
0.000255 X5 X5 0.0463 X1 X5 0.0228
X1 X3 0.00295 X2 X5

(4)

where %Ra SS denotes the %Ra for stainless steel sample, X1 is

the working gap, X2 is the percentage weight of abrasive, X3 is the
mesh number of abrasive, X4 is the feed rate of the work piece and
X5 is the rotational speed.
5.3. Predicting range for the models
The actual %Ra obtained and the percentage change in surface
roughness predicted by these models may vary within a certain
range, which is given as
%Ra

range

= %Ra

predicted

ta/2, DF

Ve

(5)

where %Ra range is the range of percentage in surface roughness,

%Ra predicted is the percentage change in surface roughness predicted by the respective models, ta/2, DF , is the statistical t-value at
a specied level of signicance /2 and degree of freedom (DF),
and Ve is the variance of the error of the predicted model. Using
Eq. (5) and the value of error due to variance from Tables 6 and 7,
the range for the predictive models for copper alloy and stainless steel, at a 95% level of signicance, has been calculated
as
%Ra

Cu range

= %Ra

Cu

%Ra

SS range

= %Ra

SS

standard
F(0.05,11,20)
= 2.31

standard
F regression > F(0.05,11,20)

7.30,

for copper alloy sample.

(6)

6.11,

for stainless steel sample.

(7)

In order to validate the predictive models few experiments

(other than Table 5) have been conducted and the details of which

model is adequate and lack pf t is insignicant

0.491

are provided in Table 8. From Table 8, it can be seen that the experimental values of %Ra are within the range predicted by the two
statistical models.
6. Effect of process parameters
The main effect plot and the percentage contribution of signicant factors have been shown in Fig. 4 for copper alloy and in Fig. 5
for stainless steel. From the gures, it can be seen that each process factor mostly behaves differently for the two types of work
materials. The reason for the same factors has been discussed in
detail in the following section. The graphs in the following section
have been plotted using Eqs. (3) and (4), which adequately represents the process behaviour within the given range of process
factors.
6.1. Effect of working gap
The effect of working gap on %Ra in case of copper alloy and
stainless steel is shown in Fig. 6. The gure shows that while nishing the copper alloy workpiece a high %Ra is observed at a
higher working gap. While in case of stainless steel workpiece
a high %Ra is observed at lower working gap. This shows that
the working gap behaves in a different manner for the two different workpiece materials. This may be because stainless steel
being relatively harder material may require higher indentation
force to cause an optimum indentation depth resulting in effective
nishing and a high indentation force can be obtained with high
magnetic ux density at lower working gap. However the same
magnitude of indentation force may cause an excessive indentation on a soft workpiece thus deteriorating the surface nish.
From Fig. 6, it can be observed that for stainless steel the %Ra
drops as the working gap is increased. This may be because as
the working gap is increased the total available magnetic force
which causes indentation decreases, thus causing a drop in the
%Ra . Whereas for copper alloy workpiece the %Ra initially
increases as the working gap is increased but after a certain value
of working gap, further increase results in drop in %Ra . This
may be because at the higher working gap the available magnetic

Table 8
Experiments for the validation of developed models.
Trial no.

Process factors
Working gap
(mm)

1
2
3

1.5
2
2.5

Percentage change in surface roughness

Percentage
weight of
abrasive (%)

Mesh
number

25
20
35

600
800
100

Rotational
speed (rpm)

350
400
250

Feed rate
(mm/min)

1.5
2.5
2

Copper alloy

Stainless steel

Obtained from
Eq. (6)

Through
experimentation (%)

Obtained from
Eq. (7)

Through
experimentation (%)

51.12 7.30%
57.09 7.30%
63.41 7.30%

54.3
55.30
60.5

55.40 6.11%
49.52 6.11%
39.57 6.11%

57.2
51.56
42.8

70

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Fig. 4. For copper alloy samples (a) main effect plot showing effect of process factors on percentage change in surface roughness and (b) percentage contributions of process
factors.

indentation force may be causing an excessive indentation resulting in a rough surface. However, as the working gap is increased the
available magnetic indentation force decreases causing relatively
less indentation on the workpiece which appears as a improvement in %Ra . The %Ra shows a drop after a certain value of
working gap in case of copper alloy and may be because at higher
working gap the available magnetic indentation force may be small
enough to cause a proper indentation. The percentage contribution of the process parameters shown in Fig. 5(b) indicates that the
percentage contribution of the working gap is maximum for producing a greater %Ra for stainless steel as compared to copper
alloy.
6.2. Effect of percentage weight of abrasive
The effect of varying percentage weight of abrasive on %Ra for
copper alloy and stainless steel work piece is shown in Fig. 7. It
can be observed from the gure that for copper alloy workpiece a
higher %Ra is obtained at a higher value of percentage weight of
abrasive (30%) while for stainless steel workpiece higher %Ra
is observed at a lower value of percentage weight of abrasive
(20%). In general by increasing the percentage weight of abrasive the total number of cutting edge increases but in proportion
the nishing force acting on the abrasive particle decreases. Thus
it is aimed to identify the value of percentage weight of abrasive

for which the %Ra is maximized. Fig. 7 shows that for copper
alloy workpiece, as the percentage weight of abrasive is increased
from 10%, the %Ra also increases. But increasing the percentage weight of abrasive beyond a certain value results in a drop
in the %Ra . This may be because at a lower value of percentage weight of abrasive the strength of the FMAB formed in the
working gap may be high enough to cause excessive indentation
on soft material like copper alloy workpiece surface. On increasing
the percentage weight of the abrasive, the stiffness of the FMAB
decreases. This may cause the indentation force to decrease, thus
reducing the extent of excessive indentation. In addition, the total
number of cutting edges also increases which may result in an
increase in %Ra . However, increasing the percentage weight of
abrasive beyond a certain value (30%) results in decrease in %Ra .
This may be because at higher abrasive concentration the number of cutting edges may increase but consecutively the nishing
force exerted by the FMAB may decrease which may not be sufcient enough to cause proper indentation thus resulting in drop
in %Ra .
Fig. 7 shows that for stainless steel as the percentage weight of
abrasive is increased above 10%, the increases. This increase may
be because of increase in total number of cutting edges. However,
increasing the percentage weight of abrasive beyond 20% results in
a drop in percentage change in surface roughness, which may be
due to insufcient nishing force.

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

71

Fig. 5. For stainless steel (a) main effect plot showing effect of process factors on percentage change in surface roughness and (b) percentage contributions of process factors.

6.3. Effect of abrasive mesh number

65

65

60

60

55

55

50

50

45

Cu alloy
SS202

40
35
30
25

Percentage change in Ra

Percentage change in Ra

The effect of increasing mesh number or decreasing abrasive

grain size for nishing of copper alloy and stainless steel sample

can be seen in Fig. 8. For both type of work materials as the mesh
number increases, the %Ra also increases. This may be because, as
the mesh number increases the abrasive grain size decreases. With
the decrease in grain size the number of abrasives falling under

45

35
30
25

20

20

15

15

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Working gap (mm)

Fig. 6. Effect of varying working gap on %Ra for Cu alloy and SS 202 (%
weight of abrasive = 25%, mesh number = 800, feed rate = 3 mm/min, rotational
speed = 350 rpm).

Cu alloy
SS202

40

15.0

22.5

30.0

37.5

Percentage of abrasive
Fig. 7. Effect of varying percentage weight of abrasive on percentage change in
surface roughness for Cu alloy and SS 202 (working gap = 2 mm, mesh number = 800,
feed rate = 3 mm/min, rotational speed = 350 rpm).

72

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

75

65

70
65

55

60

Percentage change in Ra

Percentage change in Ra

60

Cu alloy
SS202

55
50
45
40
35
30

50

Cu alloy
SS202

45
40
35
30
25
20
15

25

10
20
400

600

800

1000

1200

5
100

200

Mesh number

300

400

500

600

Rotational speed (rpm)

Fig. 8. Effect of abrasive mesh number on %Ra for Cu alloy (working gap = 2 mm,
% weight of abrasive = 25%, feed rate = 3 mm/min, rotational speed = 350 rpm).

Fig. 10. Effect of rotational speed on %Ra for Cu alloy SS 202 (working gap = 2 mm,
% wt of abrasive = 25%, mesh number = 800, feed rate = 3 mm/min).

6.5. Effect of rotational speed

iron particle may increase, thus increasing the number of cutting
edges. In addition, abrasives under the iron particles may uniformly
distribute the total normal force acting on the workpiece, which
results in smoother surface. Thus %Ra increases with increase in
abrasive mesh number.

6.4. Effect of feed rate

The effect of feed on %Ra for both copper alloy and stainless
steel workpiece is shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that for both the
work material as the feed rate is decreased the %Ra increases. This
may be because at lower feed rate the FMAB translates slower with
respect to workpiece thus increasing the total number of collisions
with the peaks present on the work piece surface. The %Ra for
copper alloy samples was overall more when compared with stainless steel workpiece. This could be because copper being a softer
material may facilitate easy shearing of the peaks present on the
workpiece surface.

75

6.6. Interaction effects

70

Cu alloy
SS202

65

Percentage change in Ra

The effect of varying rotational speed on %Ra for copper alloy

and stainless steel workpiece is shown in Fig. 10. For both the materials the %Ra rst increases with increase in rotational speed and
then starts decreasing. The reason for this behaviour may be understood by understanding the behaviour of forces acting on a MAP
during MAF. Fig. 11 shows the schematic view of the forces acting on
MAP. The net force acting on the MAP can be divided into three main
forces Fn , the normal indentation force, Fc , the tangential cutting
force, and Cp , centripetal force. For stainless steel, the %Ra initially increases up to 275 rpm. This increase may be because of the
increase in total number of collisions per unit time [24]. However,
increase in the rotational speed above 275 rpm results in a decrease
in %Ra . This may be because at higher rotational speeds the FMAB
chains may start disarranging because of insufcient centripetal
force. Further, at higher rotational speed there is more possibility
that the MAPs topple and do not cause proper indentation [20].
Whereas for copper alloy a similar trend is observed but the
drop in %Ra is observed at a relatively higher rotational speed
(500 rpm). This may be because copper alloy is a soft material and
would require relatively less normal indentation force to produce
indentation depth similar to that in stainless steel.

The analysis of data yielded some signicant interaction effects

due to the difference in mechanical properties of the work samples
which are discussed below.

60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
1

Feed rate (mm/min)

Fig. 9. Effect of feed rate on %Ra for copper alloy and stainless steel (working
gap = 2 mm, % wt of abrasive = 25%, mesh number = 800, rotational speed = 350 rpm).

6.6.1. Copper alloy workpiece

For the copper alloy samples the interaction effect between percentage weight of abrasive and mesh number was observed and has
been represented in Fig. 12. From the gure it can be observed that
at lower percentage weight of abrasive the increase in mesh number of abrasive causes a small increase in %Ra . While at higher
percentage weight of abrasive as mesh number is increased the
%Ra increases signicantly. This may be because at lower percentage weight of abrasive normal indentation force acting on the
copper alloy sample may be high enough to cause excessive indentation and thus suppressing the effect of varying mesh number.
While as the percentage weight of abrasive is increased the number of iron particles would decrease. Because of this the magnetic
ux density in the gap may reduce causing the normal force to

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

73

Fig. 11. Schematic diagram showing direction of forces acting on MAP during MAF [19].

Fig. 12. Interaction effect between abrasive mesh number and percentage weight of abrasive for copper alloy: (a) response surface for %Ra and (b) variation of %Ra with
mesh no. and abrasive weight percentage (gap: 2 mm; rotational speed: 350 r/min; feed: 3 mm/min are xed).

Fig. 13. Interaction effect between working gaps and mesh number for stainless steel (a) response surface for %Ra and (b) variation of %Ra with mesh no. and gap (% wt.
of abrasive: 25%; rotational speed: 350 r/min; feed: 3 mm/min are xed).

74

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram showing a possible arrangement of FMAB chains at

higher and lower working gap with bigger and smaller size abrasive particle.

decrease and thus avoid causing excessive indentation. This may

cause the effect of varying mesh number to become signicant and
cause appreciable increase in %Ra at a higher value of percentage
weight of abrasive.
6.6.2. Stainless steel workpiece
For stainless steel workpiece three signicant interaction effects
were observed which are discussed as follows. The interaction

effect observed between abrasive mesh number and working gap

can be seen in Fig. 13. The gure shows that for lower mesh number
of abrasive the %Ra is maximum at 2 mm working gap and changing the working gap above and below 2 mm results in drop in %Ra .
While for a higher mesh abrasive (smaller size abrasive) %Ra
increases as the working gap is decreased. This may be because
in the present study unbonded type abrasives have been used. In
case of unbonded MAP the abrasives are trapped within the FMAB
chains formed by the iron particles. Thus geometry and the orientation of the iron and abrasive particle may play an important
role in nishing. For understanding the role of geometry and orientation on nishing operation in case of un-bonded MAPs, Fig. 14
has been presented which shows a possible arrangement of FMAB
chain and the abrasive particle at different working gaps. With the
help of Fig. 14 it can be visualized that the FMAB chains may hold a
bigger size abrasive particle between the chains. So as the working
gap is increased or decreased the distance between FMAB chains
change [25] which may affect the holding capability of the chains.
The distance between FMAB chains would change because as the
working gap is varied the magnetic ux passing through the chains
change and thus the repulsion force between the chains will change
[25]. Thus as the working gap is decreased below 2 mm the distance
between FMAB chains may increase resulting in lesser holding force
for large size abrasive particle resulting in drop in %Ra. On the

Fig. 15. Interaction effect between rotational speed and percentage weight of abrasive for stainless steel: (a) response surface for %Ra and (b) variation of %Ra with
rotational speed and abrasive weight percentage (gap: 2 mm; mesh number: #800; feed: 3 mm/min are xed).

Fig. 16. Interaction effect between working gap and rotational speed for stainless steel (a) response surface for %Ra and (b) variation of %Ra with working gap and
rotational speed (% wt. of abrasive: 25%; mesh number: #800; feed: 3 mm/min are xed).

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

75

Table 9
Optimized value for CU and SS 202 work material.
Sample

Working gap (mm)

% wt of abrasive

Mesh number

Feed rate (mm/min)

rpm

%Ra

Cu alloy
SS 202

2.3
1

36
18

1200
1200

1
1

467
436

84.15 7.30
81.16 6.11

predicted

%Ra
85.3
79.5

experimental

Ra

experimental

(m)

0.0532
0.0792

Note: Initial average surface roughness of grounded copper alloy and stainless steel was 0.3613 m and 0.3865 m, respectively.

other hand as the working gap is increased beyond certain value,

though the chains may come closer to each other but due to increase
in working gap the MFD decreases causing decrease in normal force
acting on the workpiece surface. Thus for a large abrasive size a drop
in %Ra may occur on increasing or decreasing working gap beyond
certain value.
However, for smaller sized abrasives the FMAB chains may hold
the abrasive under the chains as shown in Fig. 14. Decrease in
the working gap causes increase in distance between FMAB chains
which hardly affect the holding capability of chains as compared
to bigger size abrasive particle. Therefore decrease in working gap
causes an increase in normal force on the smaller abrasive particles.
Thus in case of smaller abrasive size particle a decrease in working
gap results in increase in %Ra .
The effect of interaction between percentage weight of abrasive
and rotational speed on %Ra can be seen in Fig. 15. The effect can
be associated with the reason that at higher abrasive concentrations the FMAB has low shear strength because of decrease in total
number of iron particles. Due to which FMAB chain starts breaking
at relatively lower value of rotational speed. The breaking of chains
may result in drop in the force available for nishing, thus causing
drop in %Ra . Thus when a low abrasive concentration was used,
drop in %Ra was observed at higher rotational speeds while as the
abrasive concentration is increased the drop in %Ra is observed
at relatively lower rotational speeds.
The interaction between working gap and rotational speed in
case of hard material like stainless steel can be seen in Fig. 16.
From the gure, it can be seen that at lower working gap the
drop in %Ra is observed at relatively higher rotational speed.
While at higher working gap the drop in %Ra is observed at
relatively lower rotational speed. This may be because of the
lower magnetic ux density at higher working gaps. Since at low
magnetic ux density the centripetal force available for holding
the abrasives may be low, thus the FMAB may start breaking
at relatively lower rotational speeds. This breaking of chains
may cause the available nishing force to reduce which may
cause drop in %Ra . While at lower working gap the available
magnetic ux density may be high and thus provide a greater centripetal force to hold the abrasive particles. Thus at lower gaps
the drop in %Ra is observed at a relatively higher rotational
speed.

8. Surface morphology
For better understanding of the surface proles generated after
machining using DDMAF process, SEM images of samples before
and after machining were obtained. Fig. 18 (a) and (b) show the
SEM images of copper alloy workpiece before and after nishing respectively. From gure it can be observed that the DDMAF
process has effectively removed the lays created by the grinding process. The FMAB chains have removed the material in form
of micro and nano scratches thus producing a new pattern of
lays. Further, Fig. 18(c) shows the SEM image of the copper alloy
sample which has been nished with working gap at 1 mm, percentage weight of abrasive at 25%, 800 mesh number, 3 mm/min
feed and 350 rpm. From the gure it can be observed that the
high magnetic ux density produced at lower working gap has created deep scratches and indentation marks. Similarly SEM images
for stainless steel samples before and after nishing have been
obtained which are shown in Fig. 19 (a) and (b), respectively. The
machined surface, obtained after processing using DDMAF, was
smoother. Thus DDMAF process proved to be effective to produce a nanometre level surface nish on materials of different
hardness.

7. Process optimization for two workpiece materials

In order to estimate the best performance of the DDMAF process
for the two types of work material the objective functions given
by Eqs. (3) and (4) have been optimized using genetic algorithm
toolbox available in MATLAB12 software. The values of the process
parameters at which the response variable %Ra was maximized
for a work material have been presented in Table 9. For the validation, three experiments for each material were performed at the
factors setting at which the model was maximized. The average of
three values so obtained was between lower and upper limit (condence interval) and has been presented in Table 9. Fig. 17 shows
the surface roughness proles obtained before and after polishing
for both the materials.

Fig. 17. Surface roughness value for Cu (a) unnished; (b) nished at working
gap = 2.3 mm, abrasive mesh = 1200, % wt of abrasive = 36%, feed rate = 1 mm/min,
rotational speed = 467 rpm, SS 202 (c) unnished (d) nished at working gap = 1 mm,
abrasive mesh = 1200, % wt of abrasive = 18%, feed rate = 1 mm/min, rotational
speed = 436 rpm.

76

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

Fig. 18. SEM images of copper alloy sample at 2000 magnication (a) grounded (b) nished using DDMAF at working gap = 2.3 mm, abrasive mesh = 1200, % wt of abrasive = 36%, feed rate = 1 mm/min, rotational speed = 467 rpm, (c) image showing deep scratch marks created due to high magnetic ux density working gap = 1 mm, abrasive
mesh = 800, % wt of abrasive = 25%, feed rate = 3 mm/min, rotational speed = 350 rpm.

Fig. 19. SEM images of stainless steel sample at 2000 magnication (a) grounded (b) nished using DDMAF at working gap = 1 mm, abrasive mesh = 1200, % wt of
abrasive = 18%, feed rate = 1 mm/min, rotational speed = 436 rpm.

9. Conclusions
In the present work the nite element analysis has been successfully used to design a magnetic abrasive nishing tool. The

simulation results revealed that the two opposite magnetic pole

arrangements is a better option for producing a high magnetic
ux density in the working gap while nishing a para/diamagnetic
material. Based on the simulation results, a double disc magnetic

P. Kala, P.M. Pandey / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 17 (2015) 6377

abrasive setup was designed and fabricated. The nishing experiments performed on the two different types of work materials
revealed that the developed setup is capable of producing good surface nish on work materials irrespective of their hardness. Though,
the value at which process parameters would yield good surface nish depends on mechanical properties of the work materials. The
analysis of the data obtained from experimentation revealed that
working gap plays a dominant role in obtaining a good surface nish
in a hard material like stainless steel. However, for a soft material like copper alloy rotational speed plays a dominant role. For
stainless steel better surface nish was achieved when the combination of process factors yielded a higher magnetic ux density and
thus higher nishing forces like at 1 mm working gap, 18% abrasive
weight percentage, and 436 rpm. For soft materials like copper alloy
better surface nish was achieved when the combination of process factors yielded a lower magnetic ux density and thus lower
nishing forces like at 2.3 mm working gap, 36% abrasive weight
percentage, and 467 rotational speed. Feed rate and abrasive mesh
size affected the change in surface roughness in a similar manner
for both types of materials. Abrasives of 1200 mesh number and
feed rate of 1 mm/min yielded a better %Ra . Different interaction
effects were observed for the two types of work material which
may be because of the difference in the mechanical properties like
hardness, ow stress. Genetic algorithm based optimization has
been used to estimate the best performance of the developed process. It resulted in average surface nish of 53 nm and 79 nm for
copper alloy and stainless steel respectively.
References
[1] Kenton T. The future of mechanical surface nishing. Met Finish 2009;107(5):
224.
[2] Jain VK. Magnetic eld assisted abrasive based micro-nano-nishing. Mater
Process Technol 2009;209(20).
[3] Fox M, Agrawal K, Shinmura T, Komanduri R. Magnetic abrasive nishing of
rollers. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 1994;43(1):1814.
[4] Yamaguchi H, Shinmura T, Raghuram V. Study of an internal magnetic abrasive
nishing using a pole rotation system. Discussion of the characteristic abrasive
behaviour. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2000;24:23744.
[5] Lin CT, Yang LD, Chow HM. Study of magnetic abrasive nishing in freeform surface operations using the Taguchi method. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
2006;34(1):12230.

77

[6] Taweel El. Modelling and analysis of hybrid electrochemical turning-magnetic

abrasive nishing of 6061 Al/Al2 O3 composite. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
2007;37(7):705147.
[7] Yan BH, Chang GW, Cheng TJ, Hsu RT. Electrolytic magnetic abrasive nishing.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2003;43:135566.
[8] Wang AC, Lee SJ. Study the characteristics of magnetic nishing with gel abrasive. Int J Mach Tool Manufact 2009;49:10639.
[9] Jain VK, Singh DK, Raghuram V. Analysis of performance of pulsating exible
magnetic abrasive brush (P-Fmab). Mach Sci Technol 2008;12(1):5376.
[10] Yin S, Shinmura T. A comparative study: polishing characteristics and its
mechanisms of three vibration modes in vibration-assisted magnetic abrasive
polishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2004;44(4):38390.
[11] Mulik RS, Pandey PM. Ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive nishing of hardened AISI 52100 steel using unbonded SiC abrasives. Int J Refract Met Hard
Mater 2011;29(1):6877.
[12] Mulik RS, Pandey PM. Experimental investigations and modeling of nishing
force and torque in ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive nishing. J Manuf Sci
Engm ASME 2012;5(134):112.
[13] Kwak JS. Enhanced magnetic abrasive polishing of non-ferrous metals utilizing
a permanent magnet. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2009;49:6138.
[14] Kim SO, Kwak JS. Magnetic force improvement and parameter optimization for
magnetic abrasive polishing of AZ31 magnesium alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met
Soc Chin 2008;18:36973.
[15] Kim TW, Kang DM, Kwak DM. Application of magnetic abrasive polishing to
composite materials. J Mech Sci Technol 2010;24(5):102934.
[16] Kala P, Kumar S, Pandey PM. Polishing of copper alloy using double
disk ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive polishing. Mater Manuf Process
2013;28(2):2006.
[17] Girma B, Joshi SS, Raghuram V, Balasubramaniam R. An experimental analysis of magnetic abrasives nishing of plane surfaces. Mach Sci Technol
2006;10(3):32340.
[18] Khairy AB. Aspects of surface and edge nish by magneto abrasive particles. J
Mater Process Technol 2001;116:7783.
[19] Mulik RS, Pandey PM. Magnetic abrasive nishing of hardened AISI 52100 steel.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2010;55:50115.
[20] Mulik RS, Pandey PM. Experimental investigations and optimization of ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive nishing process. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng
Manuf 2011;225(8):134762.
[21] Chang GW, Yan BH, Hsu RT. Study on cylindrical magnetic abrasive
nishing using unbonded magnetic abrasives. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
2002;42(5):57583.
[22] Jain VK, Kumar, Behera P, Jayswal S. Effect of working gap and circumferential speed on the performance of magnetic abrasive nishing process. Wear
2001;250:38490.
[23] Yang LD, Lin CT, Chow HM. Optimization in MAF Operations using Taguchi
parameter design for AISI304 stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2009;42:595605.
[24] Singh DK, Jain VK, Raghuram V. Parametric study of magnetic abrasive nishing
process. J Mater Process Techol 2004;149:229.
[25] Mori T, Hirota K, Kawashima Y. Clarication of magnetic abrasive nishing
mechanism. J Mater Process Technol 2003:1434, 6826.