CHAPTER-1

Introduction
Surface finish has a vital influence on important functional properties such as wear
resistance and power losses due to friction on most of the engineering components. With the
use of advanced engineering materials, the machining process becomes difficult and precision
surface finish is not produced by the existing machine tools. Therefore fine finishing
processes are employed in machining the surface of many critical machined components to
obtain a very high surface finish apart from high dimensional accuracies. Such Magnetic
abrasive machining(MAM)is a precise polishing method in which the cutting tool is a group
of magnetic abrasive particles (MAPs), and the cutting force is controlled by the magnetic
field in the working gap.

In MAF, two types of forces generated by flexible magnetic abrasive brush (FMAB)
are responsible for finishing: (i) normal magnetic force responsible for packing the magnetic
abrasive particles and providing micro indentations into the work piece, and (ii) tangential
cutting force responsible for micro chipping due to rotation of the FMAB. The FAMB pushes
abrasive particles downward against the work piece surface. The relative motion between the
FMAB and the work piece is provided by rotating the magnet. As a result, the abrasive
particles remove the surface material circumferentially resulting in the finished surface. One
of the main advantages of MAF operation as compared with traditional fine finishing
operations like grinding, honing or lapping is the minimizing of the possibility of micro
cracks on the surface of the work piece because the cutting force is primarily controlled by
the magnetic field and the finishing tool is a flexible magnetic brush forming from magnetic
abrasive powder, while the other traditional finishing processes employ a rigid tool that
subjects the work piece to substantial normal stresses which may cause micro cracks resulting
in reduced strength and reliability of the machined part. In traditional mechanical surface
finishing operation such as grinding, lapping and super finishing, a shaped solid tool grinding
wheel, a lapping plate or an abrasive stone is used. These processes introduce surface defects
such as cracks while finishing brittle materials, these cracks can significantly reduce the
strength and reliability of the components in working [Umehara, 1994]. Magnetic Abrasive
Finishing (MAF) process is the one in which material is removed in such a way that
surface finishing and deburring are performed simultaneously with the applied magnetic
field in the finishing zone and it can achieve highly finished surfaces than conventional
techniques.

1
 MAF is a fine finishing technique which can be employed to produce optical,
mechanical, and electronic components with micrometer or sub micro meter form accuracy
and surface roughness within nanometer range with hardly any surface defects.

Finishing of bearings, precision automotive components, shafts, and artificial hip

joints made of oxide ceramic and cobalt alloy are some of the products for which this process
can be applied. A magnetic abrasive finishing process is a nontraditional process that employs
magnetic field action and mixed magnetic abrasives.

Figure: 1.1 External cylindrical finishing Figure: 1.2 Internal cylindrical finishing

2
 CHAPTER-2
Literature Survey
The effective way of changing the force/finishing pressure and rigidity of MAFB is
through the change in diameter “D” of magnetic abrasive particle. Hence, ferromagnetic
particles of several times the diameter of diamond abrasive “d” are mixed to form the
magnetic abrasive brush. Pressure increases with increase in flux density and decreases as the
clearance gap between tool & work piece increases. Larger the particle size, poorer the
finishing but higher is the stock removal which increases linearly with finishing time.

The surface roughness is predicted as a function of finishing time by a model that has
been derived from the removed volume of material. Thus, it is possible, from the surface-
roughness model, to predict the time when existing scratches are completely removed.

The magnetic force acting on the magnetic abrasive, controlled by the field at the finishing
area, is considered the primary influence on the abrasive behavior against the inner surface of
the work piece.
With increase in working gap, the percentage improvement in surface roughness
increases initially, reaches a maximum value and then it starts decreasing. Removal of burrs
in large surfaces with drilled holes using MAF shown that this method can be applied both
for ferromagnetic and non-magnetic parts. This method can be improved as applied to new
tasks of deburring. The unbounded magnetic abrasive is a mechanical mixture of Sic-
abrasive and ferromagnetic particles with a SAE30 lubricant. Iron grit and steel grit, three
particle sizes were prepared for both and were used as ferromagnetic particles ,each of them
being mixed with 1.2 and 5.5μm Sic abrasive, respectively. Results indicate that steel grit is
more suitable for magnetic abrasive finishing because of its superior hardness and the
polyhedron shape.
Important parameters influencing the surface quality generated during the MAF were
identified as:(i)voltage(DC) applied to the electromagnet, (ii)working gap, (iii)rotational
speed of the magnet, and (iv)abrasive size(mesh number).
Efficient finishing of magnesium alloy is possible by the process. The volume removed per
unit time of magnesium alloy is larger than that of other materials such as brass and
stainless, that is, high-efficiency finishing could be achieved. Micro-burr of magnesium
alloy could be removed easily in a short time by the use of MAF.

3
MAF process creates micro scratches having width less than 0.5µm on the finished surface
by the shearing of the peaks resulting in circular layers formed by the rotation of the FMAB.
It shows that the finished surface has fine scratches which are further distant apart resulting
in smoothened surface. But these fine scratches would also disappear by using higher mesh
number(finer abrasive particles).
A new technique was developed to compare the performance of the magnetic
abrasive powders and to find the powder that is appropriate for finishing and deburring of
drilled holes placed on a plane steel surface.
In addition to deburring, efficiency influence to surface roughness is analyzed. To
improve the surface roughness and purity, volume of powder, height of gap, inductor
rotational frequency, feed velocity and the method of coolant supply are analyzed and
proved that the continuous flow of coolant and the Fe powder without abrasive is effective
for deburring and surface quality.

4
 CHAPTER-3
Discussion
3.1 Experiment
A schematic of experimental setup is shown in figure 1, which embodies the
principles of internal finishing described in the previous section. The experimental setup has
major components like electromagnet (1KGauss,3K Gauss), control unit, A.C. motor, and
variable A.C. supply. The main elements of MAF equipment include the electromagnet
(1KGauss), variable A.C. supply and abrasive powder (Sintered Al2O3 +Fe). The cylindrical
work piece i.e. SS304, CI and brass pipe, washed in the chuck attached to A.C. motor and
abrasives were packed in the pipe and over the one end cap is provided with the help of dead
centre to kept the abrasive inside of pipe. Magnetic field was applied to the abrasives by
electromagnet. Magnetic field strength is varied for experimentation with the help of variable
A.C. supply. Electromagnet plays an important role in present experimentation. The space
between work piece and electromagnet is kept constant initially. The magnetic field strength
depends upon weight percentage of the magnetic particles, present in the magnetic
abrasive powder. Both the working gap and size of the work piece are taken into
consideration, while designing. The objective of the design is to give rotational motion to the
cylindrical work piece. The work piece is rotated at 1200, 1280 and 1360 rpm. An AC motor
is chosen for providing rotational motion to the work piece. A working view of the setup is
shown in the figure 3.1. Magnetic abrasive particles through magnetic pressure finish the
work piece. Al2O3 based sintered magnetic abrasives are used as magnetic abrasives. The
Al2O3 based sintered magnetic abrasives have been developed in sintering machine. The
process parameters were the gap between work piece and magnet, rotational speed of work
piece, magnetic flux density, current, concentration of particles and the work piece gap. The
improvement of surface roughness was achieved due to the vibrational motion occurring in
the particles effectively removes unevenness in rotational direction and direction orthogonal
to it.

5
 Figure 3.1: Working model of electromagnetic abrasive finishing

3.2 Experimental Condition

In this work Al2O3 based sintered magnetic abrasives were used for internal
finishing of cylindrical SS304, CI and brass pipes. The Alumina (Al2O3) based sintered
magnetic abrasives were prepared by blending of Al2O3 (50%) of 300 mesh size(74μm)
and iron powders(50%) of 300 mesh size (51.4μm), compacting them by using a Universal
Testing Machine(UTM), sintering the mixture in a sintering set up at 1100°C in H2 gas
environment, crushing the compacts into small particles and then sieving to different ranges
of sizes. The obtained sizes are 200μm, 300μm, and 400μm. The experimental conditions
are shown in table no.1 Cylindrical Brass, SS305 and CI pipes(Ø34 x80mm) were used for
the experiments as work pieces. In this work, experimental variables such as concentration,
gap between work piece and pole and machining time were considered for the study
purposes. Effect of various parameters with respect to MFD was studied out w.r.t. material
removal rate. The finishing characteristics of magnetic abrasives were analyzed by
measuring the surface roughness, which was measured at four points before and after
finishing using a Mitutoyo surface roughness tester (SJ-210P) having at least count of
0.001μm (cut off length = 2.5cm) and roughness on average scale reading is taken.

6
Table-I

Experimental Conditions of Work Piece

Abrasive grain size 200μm,300μm,400μm

Magnetic pole SS400:Material

Abrasive grain size 200μm,300μm,400μm

Magnetic pole SS400:Material

Work piece SS 304,CI and Brass tubes

Revolution 1200,1280 and 1360 rpm

Magnetic abrasives Aluminum oxide Al2O3 ,Ferrite particles

Magnetic flux density 3000 and 1000 gauss

3.3 Experimentation
In experimentation part firstly setup was prepared having two different coils having
different number of coils and result of the reisarange of magnetic flux density on which
testing will be carried out. Three specimens were selected for experimentation. Work piece
consist of cylindrical tube in which mixture of aluminum oxide and iron oxide is placed,
initial reading before testing and after testing is taken so as to study out the effect of various
parameter on the surface finish of work piece.

3.4 Results and discussions

To establish the feasibility of usage of MAM, the experiments were conducted by
selecting the process parameters based on the findings of trial runs and some of the
parameters influence is discussed below. Range of magnetic flux density has been taken for
comparative study i.e.1000 and 3000 Gauss. With respect to these MFD study was carried out
to find the effect of work piece on circumferential speed, standoff distance and time, on
surface finish of work piece.

7
 In this study, the rotational speeds of 1200,1280and 1360 rpm are taken with duration
of machining as 15, 30 and 45 minutes were taken for experimentation. It was observed that
the improvement in surface finish is more with the medium range of standoff distance and
machining time. The improvement in surface finish can be due to more abrasives that come in
contact with the work piece during experimentation.

3.4.1 Influence of gap between work piece and magnetic pole on surface
finish at 1000 Gauss MFD
Figure3.2, Illustrates the effect of gap between the work piece and the magnetic poles
on work surface finish with respect to 1000 Gauss MFD. The gap considered for the
experimentation was 5, 15 and 30 mm and the machining duration was 45 minutes. It can be
seen that the work piece clearance of 5 mm with Al2O3 abrasive grit contributed to an
improvement in surface finish. Similar trend was noticed with SiC grits also it was found that
maximum MRR was taken in case of Cast iron at a standoff distance of 15 mm. It may be due
to strong magnetic field created by coils as a result of which the mixture particles are attracted
towards the wall of the cylinder tubes. In this case maximum machining to be occurred in
case of brass at 30 mm standoff distance and in all other cases maximum material removal
rate occurred at a distance of 15 mm.

Figure 3.2: Improvement in surface finish w.r.t standoff distance of coil from work piece

8
3.4.2 Influence of Time of machining on surface finish at 1000 Gauss MFD
Figure 4, illustrates the effect of machining time on surface finish of the work piece
with respect to 1000 Gauss MFD. The time considered for the experimentation was 15, 30
and 45 minutes. It can be seen from the figure that maximum material removal rate was taken
place at 45 minutes in all the cases of materials but maximum material finish occurred in case
of brass. In this case maximum surface improvement will take place at duration of 45
minutes. It may be due to striking of particles with tubes wall again and again as a result
hardness of particles may be getting reduced and due to which material removal takes place.

Figure4: Improvement in surface finish w.r.t time of machining.

3.4.3 Influence of Concentration of Powder on Surface Finish at 1000

Gauss MFD.
Figure5, illustrates the effect of concentration of powder on the surface finish which
was studied with respect to 1000 Gauss MFD and at a speed of 1280 rpm. The time
considered for the experimentation was 30 minutes. It can be seen from the figure that
maximum material removal rate was taken place at concentration of 3:1ratio of Al2O3 and
ferrite particles in all the cases of materials except SS304 but maximum material finish
occurred in case of brass. As we see from the figure that with increase in abrasive aluminum
oxide, material removal rate increases.

9
 The reason behind it may be due to the increase in number of abrasive particles as we
know that more the number of abrasive particles more will be the surface finish so it increases
the material removal rate of the material.

Figure: 5 Improvement in surface finish w.r.t. concentration of aluminium oxide to

ferrite particles

3.4.4 Influence of gap between work piece and magnetic pole on surface
finish at 3000 Gauss MFD.
Figure-6 Illustrates the effect of gap between work piece and the magnetic poles on
work surface finish with respect to 3000 Gauss MFD. The gap considered for the
experimentation was 5, 15 and 30 mm and the machining duration was 45 minutes. It can be
seen that the work piece clearance of 30 mm with Al2O3 abrasive grit contributed to an
improvement in surface finish in case of brass. It was found that maximum MRR was taken
in case of cast iron will beat a standoff distance of 15 mm it may be due to strong magnetic
field created by coils as a result of which the mixture particles are attracted towards the wall
of the cylinder tubes. In case of stainless steel all the standoff distance have same MRR. So
over all we can say that standoff distance of 15 mm is best as it has shown good results.

10
 Figure 6: Improvement in surface finish w.r.t stand off distance of coil from work piece

3.4.5 Influence of Time of machining on surface finish at 3000 Gauss MFD

Figure 7, illustrates the effect of machining time on surface finish of the work piece
with respect to 3000 Gauss MFD. The time considered for the experimentation was15 ,30 and
45 minutes. It can be seen from the figure that maximum material removal rate was taken
place at 30 minutes in all the cases of materials but maximum material finish occurred in case
of brass. As we had seen that in starting material removal rate is less with increase in time
from 30 to 45 min it had increase after 45 min it had again decreases it may be due blunt of
abrasive particles due to its earlier use.

Figure 7: Improvements in surface finish w.r.t time of machining

11
3.4.6 Influence of concentration on Surface Finish at 3000 Gauss MFD.
Figure8, illustrates the effect of concentration of powder on the surface finish which
was studied with respect to 3000 Gauss MFD and at a speed of 1280 rpm. The time
considered for the experimentation was 30 minutes. It can be seen from the figure that
maximum material removal rate was take place at concentration of 2:2ratio of Al2O3 and
ferrite particles in all the cases of materials except SS304 but maximum material finish
occurred in case of brass.
As we see from the figure that with increase in abrasive aluminum oxide, material removal
rate increases. There as on behind it may be due to the increase in number of abrasive
particles.
As we know that more the number of abrasive particles more will be the surface finish, so it
increases the material removal rate of the material but in this case we found that with
increase in concentration of aluminum oxides particles it has not increased tremendously as
it may be due to striking of abrasive particles with each other and also as ferrite particles
are lesser so due to its lesser number of particles are attracted towards outer wall of cylinder,
as a result of which less machining will be there.

Figure 8: Improvement of surface w.r.t concentration of aluminum oxide to ferrite

particles

12
13
 4. Conclusion
This research work showed the feasibility of using Al 2O3 based sintered magnetic
abrasive particles for the internal finishing of cylindrical brass, CI and SS304 pipes and
gained an understanding of the mechanism involved. Polishing of cylindrical work piece was
developed using available abrasives. A machining setup was developed for carrying out
study.
The setup was prepared so that electromagnet will be placed on both side of a work
piece holding mandrel was supported between the chuck and another end of cylindrical tube.
The experimentation with these process parameters reduced the surface roughness value on a
cylindrical component from an initial Ra value of 0.257 μm to 0.075 μm Ra over a
machining duration of 15 minutes with Aluminum Oxide, 220 grits magnetic abrasives.
These studies also indicated the need to consider the work piece initial roughness, apart from
its hardness for achieving an improved finish on the work surface. From table 2,
following conclusions has been made:-

 From these studies it was clear that work piece having initial roughness around
0.4μm Ra is found to give a significant improvement in surface finish with semi
magnetic abrasive machining.
 Study shows that on various parameters improvement in surface finish is maximum
in case of brass as compared to other materials.
 It has been found that with the increase in number of turns in a coil magnetic flux
density also increases as a result of which maximum material removal rate will be
occurring.
 An effort has been made out to find out the best parameters for abrasive machining
with respect to various parameters so that maximum machining will take place.

14
 5. Reference
1. D. Tudorand D. Andrea, “Magneto-Abrasive Finishing of Complex Surfaces”,
Nonconventional Technologies Romania, December, 2013, pp. 31-36.
2. M. Sharma, D. P. Singh, “To Study the Effect of Various Parameters on
MagneticAbrasiveFinishing”,IJRMETVol.3,Issue2,May- Oct2013, pp. 212-217.
3. M. G. Patil, Kamlesh Chandra, P. S. Misra, “Study of Mechanically Alloyed Magnetic
Abrasives in Magnetic Abrasive Finishing”, International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research Volume 3,Issue10, October-2012,pp.1-5.
4. Y. M. Hamad, “Improvement of Surface Roughness Quality for Stainless Steel 420
Plate Using Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Method” ,Al-Khwarizmi Engineering
Journal,Vol.6,No.4,(2010), pp.10-20.
5. Rohit Rampal, “Comparing the Magnetic Abrasives by Investigating the Surface
Finish”, Journal of Engineering, Computers & Applied Sciences (JEC&AS) Volume1,
No.1, October 2012, pp.20-24.
6. Yan Wang and Dejin Hu, “Study on the Inner Surface Finishing of Tubing by
Magnetic Abrasive Finishing”, International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture, 45, 2005, pp.43-49.
7. Dhirendra K. Singh, V. K. Jain, V. Raghuramand R. Komanduri, “Analysis of Surface
Texture Generated by a Flexible Magnetic Abrasive Brush,”Wear.259, 2005, pp. 1254-
1261.
8. Shinmura. T, Takazava. K and Hatano T., “Study on Magnetic Abrasive Process-
Application to Plane Finishing”, Bulletin of Japan Society of Precision Engineering,
Vol.19(4), 1985, pp.289-291.
9. Yamaguchi. H and Shinmuira. T, “Study of the Surface Modification Resulting from
an Internal Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Process”, Wear.225-229, 1999, pp. 246-255.
10. Dhirendra K. Singh, V. K. Jain, V. Raghuram, “Super finishing of alloy steels using
magnetic abrasive finishing process”, annual report2003.
11. Dixit, “Analysis of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing with Slotted Magnetic Pole”,
International Conference on Numerical Methods in industrial Forming Processes. Vol.
712, pp1435-1440.

15