International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

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

Analysis of forces on the freeform surface in magnetorheological fluid based

finishing process
Ajay Sidpara, V.K. Jain n
Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: The magnetorheological (MR) fluid based finishing process is a deterministic process for finishing of
Received 18 August 2012 flat, curved and freeform surfaces. In case of finishing, the knowledge of forces acting on the curved
Received in revised form workpiece surface in different conditions improves the understanding of the process. An experimental
14 February 2013
investigation is carried out to measure the forces on the freeform surface in real time. The effects of the
Accepted 15 February 2013
Available online 24 February 2013
process parameters such as angle of curvature of the workpiece, rotational speed of the tool and feed
rate on normal, tangential and axial forces, are studied. The normal force is found to be more dominant
Keywords: compared to other forces. A theoretical model of normal force and tangential force acting on
Magnetorheological fluid the workpiece is also proposed to improve the understanding of the workpiece–abrasive particles
Finishing
interaction in the MR fluid based finishing process. A comparison of theoretical and experimental
Freeform surface
results is carried out to validate the proposed models, which show that the trends are in good
Normal force
Tangential force agreement.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction time control of the forces acting on the workpiece surface and
very low abrading forces. Many researchers have developed
Magnetorheological fluid based finishing (MRFF) is a nano- experimental setups of the MRFF process to finish curved or
finishing process for a variety of materials such as optics, crystals freeform surfaces.
and a few metals also. In this process, finishing is performed by Tricard et al. [5] developed the magnetorheological jet finish-
interaction of magnetorheological (MR) fluid with the workpiece ing process for the finishing of steep concave surfaces of glasses
under the effect of a magnetic field. The MR fluid consists of and lenses. However, metallic workpieces may be difficult to
magnetic carbonyl iron particles (CIPs), abrasive particles, carrier finish by this process. Kim and Noh [6] developed a magnetic
fluid and additives. When the MR fluid is exposed to the magnetic polishing technology to finish freeform surfaces (die and mold).
field, it gets stiffened due to magnetization of CIPs. When this The initial rough surface is finished by an abrasive wheel, which is
stiffened MR fluid interacts with the workpiece, material removal followed by a magnetic brush to reduce the surface roughness
takes place. further. The final surface roughness of 90 nm is achieved from an
Finishing of the curved or freeform component is difficult initial surface roughness of 640 nm on mild steel workpieces.
compared to flat surfaces due to the curvature of the workpiece Singh et al. [7] developed a ball end MR finishing tool for finishing
surface or complex profile, which are difficult to define mathe- 3D surfaces using an electromagnet as the source of magnetic
matically or program for automated finishing process. Research- field. It is reported that the developed tool is more suitable for
ers have developed/used many processes for finishing of freeform finishing magnetic materials. Singh et al. [8] finished typical 3D
surfaces, such as grinding [1], honing [2], ball burnishing [3], workpiece surfaces made by a milling process at different angles
flexible abrasive tools [4], etc. However, the requirement for of projection such as flat, 301, 451 and other curved surfaces. The
nanometer level surface roughness is still an issue for such surface roughness is reduced to 16.6 nm, 30.4 nm, 71 nm and
processes due to high finishing forces, fixed or embedded abrasive 123.7 nm on flat, 301, 451 and curve surfaces, respectively, in 60
particles, high temperature, etc. The MRFF is one of the processes passes of finishing. Sidpara and Jain [9] finished the freeform
used for finishing of curved and freeform surfaces due to its surfaces of a prosthesis knee joint implant made of titanium.
advantages such as flexibility of the MR fluid brush or ribbon, real Different MR fluids such as oil based, water based and chemical
added water based are used to study their effectiveness in terms
of surface roughness and finishing rate. It is reported that step-
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 512 2597916; fax: þ 91 512 2597408. wise finishing significantly reduces the surface roughness of hard
E-mail address: [email protected] (V.K. Jain). materials.

0890-6955/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2013.02.004
2 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

The study of forces acting on the workpiece is one of the most From the above literature survey, it is found that there is
important subjects to be studied in case of fine finishing pro- hardly any theoretical and experimental study of forces acting on
cesses. This study not only improves the understanding of the the curved or freeform workpiece surface available in case of the
mechanism of material removal but also facilitates the tuning of MRFF process. Therefore, it has been attempted to conduct an
process parameters for different types of workpiece to be finished. experimental study to analyze forces acting on the freeform
Many researchers have studied the forces acting on flat work- surface at different angles of curvature of the workpiece, rota-
pieces such as glasses, sapphires, single crystal silicon, etc. in case tional speed and the feed rate of the finishing tool. A theoretical
of the MRFF process. model is also proposed for the normal force and tangential force,
Schinhaerl et al. [10] found that normal force varies between 2 and it is validated with experimental results.
and 20 N, and observed that it depends mainly on the working
gap between the carrier wheel and the workpiece. DeGroote et al.
[11] noticed that there is an optimum concentration of diamond 2. Experimentation
powder where the highest tangential force is obtained. Further
increase in diamond powder concentration did not result in Fig. 1(a) shows a MRFF tool mounted on a CNC milling machine.
high material removal rate (MRR). Shorey et al. [12] found Here, the MR fluid is supplied at the lower end of the MRFF tool
that the tangential force decreases with increase in diamond where a permanent magnet is attached. A sintered Nd–Fe–B
powder concentration for sapphire as a workpiece. Jung et al. [13] permanent magnet (N50 grade) is used for magnetization of the
theoretically analyzed the centrifugal force acting on the abrasive MR fluid, which has maximum energy product (BHmax) of 48–51
particles and the magnetic force between two magnetic particles. mega Gauss Oersted (MGOe). MR fluid gets stiffened and creates a
Miao et al. [14] measured the tangential force and normal force flexible brush as shown by label 4 in Fig. 1(a). The MRFF tool
simultaneously. A modified Preston’s equation is proposed that moves downward in the z-axis till a particular gap is achieved and
predicts MRR in terms of mechanical properties of optical glasses the rotation to the tool is given. To cover more area of the
and shear stress. Miao et al. [15] found that normal force and workpiece, feed is given to the workpiece in the x-axis. Significant
tangential force increase with diamond powder concentration up normal, tangential and axial forces are created by interaction
to an optimum level, beyond which it is more or less stabilized. of stiffened MR fluid and workpiece. The normal force (Fn) acts
The normal force and tangential force increase with increase in on the workpiece applied by abrasive particles through CIPs.
wheel speed and decrease in working gap. Kim et al. [16] reported The tangential force (Ft) acts on the workpiece due to rotation
that the magnetic levitation force acting on the abrasive particles of the MRFF tool. The axial force (Fa) acts on the workpiece due to
is responsible for material removal in the MRFF process. Sidpara the feed given to the workpiece. A 3-components dynamometer
and Jain [17] investigated the effect of CIP concentration, abrasive (model-9257B, Kistler made) is mounted below the workpiece.
particles concentration, wheel speed and working gap on the The sensors attached within the dynamometer are suitable
normal force and tangential force. It is reported that the normal for measuring relatively low forces (0.01 N for all the three force
force and tangential force are significantly affected by working components) with drift compensation, which allows for the detec-
gap and CIP concentration, compared to other parameters. It is tion of subtle changes in the process parameters.
also found that both forces decrease after an optimum level of The workpiece is a replica of a knee joint implant (made of
abrasive particles concentration. Sidpara and Jain [18] developed stainless steel). There are at least two radii of curvature in case of
a theoretical model for normal force and tangential force in case a true freeform surface. In such surfaces, it is difficult to calculate
of a flat silicon workpiece. The models are validated with experi- the angle of curvature and the problem becomes quite complex to
mental results for working gap, concentration of CIPs as well as solve for the forces in the MRFF process. Therefore, in the present
abrasive particles. case, the shape of the surface is a simple freeform surface where

Fig. 1. (a) Photograph of force measurement on freeform surfaces (1—tool holder of CNC milling machine, 2—MRFF tool, 3—workpiece, 4—MR fluid brush, 5—three-axes
dynamometer, and 6—workpiece fixture), (b) locations of force measurement at different angles of curvature and (c) schematic profile of the surface.
 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10 3

the curvature is only in the y-direction and the surface non-

variant flat is along the x-direction, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The
finishing tool is attached to a 3-axes CNC machining center where
no inclination is given to the tool. Therefore, the tool always
remains vertical (i.e., the z-axis) and it is used as a reference for
calculation of the angle along the y-direction. To study the effect
of curvature, it is necessary to calculate angles at different
locations. Therefore, five different angles of curvature (51–251)
are identified (Fig. 1(b)) and used for further study.
The effect of process parameters such as concentration of CIPs
as well as abrasive particles (diamond particles), working gap,
wheel speed, etc. on the normal force and tangential force on the
flat workpiece has been reported earlier [18]. Therefore, in the
present study, the selected process parameters are the angle of
curvature of the workpiece (y), rotational speed of the MRFF tool
(S) and feed rate of the workpiece (F). Based on earlier reported
work [17], some of the parameters are kept constant during
experiments (Table 1). The selected process parameters and their
levels are given in Table 2.
The full factorial design of experiments [19] was chosen and
total 125 experiments were conducted to collect force measure- Fig. 3. Effect of angle of curvature on the forces at S¼ 1000 RPM and f ¼4 mm/min
ment data. The maximum, minimum and average values of (Fn—normal force, Ft—tangential force, and Fa—axial force).

variation within the repeated experiments (375 total experi-

ments¼125  3) of all the measurements are 1.1 N, 0.1 N and and axial force (Fa). Measurement of forces is started before the
0.48 N, respectively. A LabView software interface is used to MR fluid brush comes in contact with the workpiece surface and
simultaneously record normal force (Fn), tangential force (Ft) continues till it passes over the surface completely as shown in
Fig. 2. When the MR fluid brush is not in contact with the
Table 1
workpiece, force reading in x (Fa) and y (Ft) directions are zero,
Constant parameters during experiments. while there is some initial reading of forces in the z direction (Fn)
due to preloading of the dynamometer with the workpiece and its
Parameters Value fixture. Therefore, once the experiment is over, the preload value
of force is subtracted from the observed to calculate the actual
Working gap (mm) 1
Average size of CIPs (mm) 6 force. During gradual loading, higher values of normal force (Fn)
Average size of diamond particles (mm) 6 and tangential force (Ft) are observed due to compression of the
Concentration of CIPs (% vol.) 40 brush, while there is no force in the x direction (Fa) because feed is
Concentration of diamond particles (% vol.) 3.5 not given to the workpiece yet. Once the predetermined gap
Concentration of water (% vol.) in case of water based MR fluid 48.5
Concentration of glycerol (% vol.) 8
(1 mm) is achieved, the feed is given to the workpiece and all the
three forces get stabilized. From the recorded data, force values
after stabilization are considered for further discussion.
The measured force readings are fitted with quadratic equa-
tions (Eqs. (1)–(3)) and they have reasonably good coefficient of
Table 2
determination (R2). R2 is a measure of the proportion of variability
Selected process parameters and their levels.
in a data set that is accounted for by a statistical model. The value
Parameters Levels of R2 varies from 0 to 1, where 1 represents the best fitting of data
with the selected equation. The experimental data are supplied to
Angle of curvature 51 101 151 201 251 the ‘‘DataFit’’ software, where the software calculates the ‘‘R2’’
Tool rotational speed (RPM) 700 800 900 1000 1100
Feed rate (mm/min) 1 2 3 4 5
value of the user-defined equation. It is observed from the
‘‘Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)’’ that the interaction terms have
less than 1% contribution to the forces. It is also noticed from
Eqs. (1)–(3) that the magnitude of coefficients of interaction
terms (yS, yF, and SF) is much lower than that of the main
parameters. Therefore, the statistical significance of interaction terms
and one of the quadratic terms is low. However, they are included in
the model to improve the R2 value of the equation so that the
experimental results can be explained in a better way. These
equations can be used to calculate forces by choosing any absolute
value of the process parameters within the selected range.
F a ðNÞ ¼ 4:3720:081y þ 0:012S þ0:247F0:00004yS0:0021yF
2
þ 0:00009SF þ 0:002y 0:000006S2 0:044F 2 ðR2 ¼ 0:9485Þ
ð1Þ

F t ðNÞ ¼ 7:2570:191y þ 0:021S þ 0:526F0:00008yS0:008yF

2
þ 0:0001SF þ 0:006y 0:00001S2 0:077F 2 ðR2 ¼ 0:9088Þ
Fig. 2. Sample of the force measurement data. ð2Þ
4 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

F n ðNÞ ¼ 15:0270:266y þ 0:042S þ 0:757F0:0002yS on Maxwell’s equations, as given by Eqs. (5) and (6).
 
2
0:0056yF þ 0:0001SF þ 0:0085y 0:00002S 2 1
r rA ¼J ð4Þ
mr m0
2 2
0:115F ðR ¼ 0:9480Þ ð3Þ where, m0 is the permeability of free space, and mr is the relative
permeability of material.
rH¼J ð5Þ

3. Results and discussions where H is the magnetic field.

rB¼0 ð6Þ
The effects of angle of curvature of the workpiece, rotational
where B is the magnetic flux density.
speed of the tool and feed rate of workpiece on normal force,
J is the DC current density field flowing in the direction of
tangential force and axial force have been discussed in the
transmission. However, in the present case, a permanent magnet
following sub-sections.
is used. Therefore, excitation (magnetic field) is provided by the
permanent magnet. Boundary conditions are imposed by supply-
ing the coercive field force Hc (836 kA/m) and residual flux density
3.1. Angle of curvature of the workpiece surface
Br (1.45 T) of permanent magnet (N50 grade of Nd–Fe–B) along with
the direction of magnetization to the solver. 10 passes are given
The angle of curvature of the workpiece is the angle between
to the adaptive setup with 30% refinement per pass as conver-
the rotational axis of the tool and the normal to the workpiece, as
gence criterion. Three-noded triangular elements having max-
shown in Fig. 1(b). It is observed that all three forces decrease
imum side length of 3 mm are used. Total 1000 triangular
with increase in the angle of curvature on the workpiece surface
elements are used for meshing of the domain of interest. Given
(Fig. 3). One of the most important reasons for the reduction in all
the magnetic field of permanent magnet as an excitation, the
three forces is the contact area of the MR fluid brush with the
magnetostatic field simulator computes the magnetic vector
workpiece surface. In the present case, the MRFF tool is fixed in
potential (A) at all points in space. After A is computed, magnetic
the vertical (z-axis) and only rotation is provided. Therefore, the
flux density (B) and magnetic field (H) can be computed using the
effective contact area or finishing spot (where effective material
relationships of Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively.
removal takes place) will be less when the curvature of the
surface increases. B¼rA ð7Þ
Furthermore, working gap also varies depending on the angle
B ¼ m0 H ð8Þ
of curvature of the workpiece surface, as shown in Fig. 4(a). When
the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface increases, the A model similar to the experimental setup is created in the
working gap also increases. Magnetic flux density is inversely software. A vibrating sample magnetometer is used to measure
proportional to the working gap (Fig. 4(b)). Therefore, magnetic the magnetic properties (saturation magnetization, coercive mag-
flux density decreases with increase in the angle of curvature of netic field, and residual flux density) of MR fluid. Nonlinear
the surface. As a result, strong interaction of the MR fluid with the permeability of the MR fluid is obtained from the B–H curves
workpiece surface does not take place and the forces decrease. for the simulation. All the inputs (properties of MR fluid, work-
The finishing spot can be estimated by knowing the distribu- piece and permanent magnet) are supplied to the FEA solver and
tion of magnetic flux density on the workpiece surface. High simulation is carried out. In the present case the minimum
intensity of magnetic flux density results in effective interaction working gap was maintained at 1 mm. However, the overall gap
of the MR fluid brush with the workpiece surface that results in varies depending on the curvature of the workpiece. The magnetic
high forces and more removal of material. Therefore, a finite flux density is 0.5 T at 1 mm working gap (T) as shown in Fig. 4(b).
element analysis (FEA) is carried out to simulate magnetic flux Therefore, approximate area of the finishing spot is calculated
density (B) on the freeform surface in a ANSYS Maxwell V13. from the area where the distribution of magnetic flux density is
The results provide the information of the distribution of magnetic more than 0.5 T. The remaining contact area of the MR fluid brush
flux density at different angles of curvature of the workpiece. with the workpiece surface is not considered due to low magnetic
The magneto–static field simulator solves for the magnetic flux density. Fig. 5 shows that the area of finishing spot decreases
vector potential (A) in the following field equation (Eq. (4)) based with increase in the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface.

Fig. 4. Variation of (a) working gap with the angle of curvature of the surface and (b) magnetic flux density in the working gap (T—working gap).
 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10 5

Fig. 5. Distribution of magnetic flux density (B in Tesla) at 1 mm working gap (a) inclined view of MRFF tool and workpiece, top view of finishing spot at (b) y ¼ 01,
(c) y ¼ 51, (d) y ¼ 101, (e) y ¼ 151, (f) y ¼201, (g) y ¼ 251, and (h) schematic diagram of FEM model.

In the MRFF process, CIPs move toward the magnet (toward

the carrier wheel surface) due to the magnetic flux gradient, and
abrasive particles toward the workpiece surface due to the
magnetic levitation force. The magnitude of the magnetic levita-
tion force on an abrasive particle is determined by the magnetic
field strength and magnetic properties of the MR fluid. The
magnetic levitation force (Fm) is expressed as [20],
F m ¼ V m0 MrH ð9Þ
where V is the volume of nonmagnetic body, M is the intensity of
magnetization of magnetic fluid, and rH is the gradient of the
magnetic field.
When the contact area of MR fluid on the workpiece surface is
small, a lower number of abrasive particles come in contact with
the workpiece surface. As a result, the magnetic levitation force
applied by abrasive particles through the MR fluid brush will be
less, and it results in reduction of normal force. The tangential
force is exerted on the workpiece due to rotation of the MRFF tool.
Similar to the case of the normal force, the tangential force also
decreases with increase in the angle of curvature of the workpiece
surface due to low magnetic flux density and lower number of
abrasive particles interacting with the workpiece surface. Further,
the axial force exerted on the freeform surface by giving feed to Fig. 6. Effect of rotational speed of the tool on the forces at y ¼51 and f ¼4 mm/
the workpiece also decreases due to small contact area of MR fluid min (Fn—normal force, Ft—tangential force, Fa—axial force).
with the workpiece surface.

3.2. Rotational speed of the tool

When the rotational speed of the tool increases beyond an
Fig. 6 shows that the magnitude of all forces increases up to an optimum level, the yield stress of the MR fluid decreases due to its
optimum value, when the rotational speed of the tool increases. yielding. It has been reported that MR fluid exhibits shear
Further increase in the rotational speed results in decrease in thinning behavior and it is observed that the yield stress of MR
all the three forces. The MR fluid brush sticks to the lower end fluid decreases with increase in its velocity (i.e., shear rate) [21].
of the MRFF tool and it is assumed that it rotates at the same After the optimum rotational speed of the tool, destruction of the
speed as the MRFF tool (no slip condition). In such a case, as the CIPs chain becomes so prominent that it reduces the stiffness of
tool rotational speed increases, the speed at which the abrasive the MR fluid. Fig. 7 shows the condition of the MR fluid brush at
particles abrade the workpiece surface increases. Furthermore, different rotational speeds. It is observed that at high rotational
the frequency of interaction of abrasive particles with the work- speed, CIPs chains get separated by creation of many spikes as
piece surface also increases. As a result, all the three forces shown in Fig. 7 (c). These separated CIPs chains are not able to
increase. exert enough force on the workpiece in all three directions as
6 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

Fig. 7. Condition of MR fluid brush at different rotational speeds of the tool (a) 700 RPM, (b) 900 RPM and (c) 1100 RPM (y ¼ 251 and f¼ 4 mm/min).

models of normal force and tangential force to understand the

mechanism of material removal in the MRFF process. The follow-
ing assumptions are adopted for modeling of forces during the
MRFF process:

 All abrasive particles have the same size and they are spherical
in shape.
 Only abrasive particles are in contact with the workpiece and
all these particles are active, as explained in the following
section.
 Due to low material removal, the removed material mixed
with MR fluid does not alter properties (magnetic, rheological,
and mechanical) of the MR fluid.

Fig. 8. Effect of feed rate on the forces at y ¼ 51 and S ¼1000 RPM (Fn—normal
4.1. Active abrasive particles
force, Ft—tangential force, and Fa—axial force).

In MR fluid, abrasive particles and CIPs are randomly mixed

compared to joined or clustered CIPs chains as shown in Fig. 7 with the liquid medium. Therefore, many abrasive particles are
(a and b). As a result, forces decrease at high rotational speed of not in contact with the workpiece surface when MR fluid interacts
the tool. with the workpiece surface and they are considered as inactive
abrasive particles (shown by gray filled circles in Fig. 10(a)).
3.3. Feed rate of the workpiece Active abrasive particles (shown by red circles in Fig. 10(b)) are
defined as those particles which are in contact with the workpiece
The objective of providing feed rate to the workpiece was to and are responsible for the actual finishing. It has been reported
cover more surface area during finishing. Fig. 8 shows that all the that the abrasive particles move towards a low magnetic field
three forces increase up to an optimum value of the feed rate and region (towards the workpiece) and CIPs towards a high magnetic
then they start decreasing. This trend is similar to what is field region (towards the carrier wheel) due to the magnetic field
observed in case of rotational speed of the MRFF tool. In this case gradient [12,13,16]. Hence, it is assumed that only abrasive
also, the reason for optimum level of feed rate seems to be the particles are in contact with the workpiece surface and they are
shear thinning nature of the MR fluid brush. However, the change active abrasive particles.
in the magnitude of forces is very small with increase in feed rate To calculate the active abrasive particles in MR fluid, it is
compared to that of rotational speed of the tool due to small necessary to define the area on the workpiece surface from where
increment in feed rate values. the material is being removed (i.e., finishing spot). Fig. 5 shows
When the MRFF tool moves horizontally (x-axis) along with its the finishing spot (Sa) profile at different angles of curvature of
rotation, the MR fluid undergoes significant deformation due to the workpiece surface. An approximate measurement of these
dual motions (horizontal as well as rotational). This behavior of finishing spots is carried out after proper scaling by exporting the
the MR fluid brush is evident from Fig. 9. At low feed rate and image of the finishing spot to the AutoCAD software. Different
rotational speed, CIP chains are intact, as shown in Fig. 9 (a and b). mathematical shapes such as rectangle, ellipse, circle, etc. are
When the feed rate further increases, CIP chains get separated to superimposed over the finishing spot, as shown in Fig. 11(a). It is
some extent from each other and get partly out of contact from observed that the ellipse fits better than the other shapes to the
the workpiece surface, as shown in Fig. 9(c). Therefore, all the finishing spot. Hence, the shape of the finishing spot is approxi-
three forces decrease at higher feed rate due to small contact area mated as an ellipse. The area of ellipse is calculated by pab and
of the MR fluid brush with the workpiece surface and low the ellipse is defined by the following equation.
stiffness (yield stress) of MR fluid. x’2 y’2
þ 2 ¼1 ð10Þ
a2 b
4. Modeling of forces x0 and y0 are two axes of an ellipse, while, a and b are the lengths
of the semi minor axis (along the x0 ) and semi major axis (along
After the experimental investigation on forces acting on the the y0 ) of the ellipse. Table 3 shows measurements of the semi
freeform surface, it has been attempted to develop theoretical minor axis (a) and semi major axis (b) at different angles of
 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10 7

Fig. 9. Condition of MR fluid brush at different feed rates (a) 1 mm/min, (b) 3 mm/min and (c) 5 mm/min (y ¼251 and S ¼700 RPM).

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of (a) workpiece and abrasive particles in contact, (b) front view and (c) side view of forces acting on the workpiece by an abrasive particle
(Fm—magnetic force, Fcf—centrifugal force, Fcor—Coriolis force).

Fig. 11. (a) Fitting of finishing spot with different mathematical shapes and (b) variation in the area of finishing spot with the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface.

Table 3 The results of Fig. 11(b) are fitted with a quadratics equation (R2 ¼1),
Measurement of semi minor (a) and semi major (b) of ellipse at different angle of as given by Eq. (11). R2 is the ‘‘Coefficient of determination’’, a
curvature. measure of the proportion of variability in a data set that is
accounted for by a statistical model. The value of R2 varies from
Angle of curvature (y) 2a (mm) 2b (mm)
0 to 1, where 1 represents the best fit of data with the selected
51 8.877 9.729 model.
101 7.548 9.274
2 3 4
151 5.656 6.762 Sa ðmm2 Þ ¼ 37:584 þ 13:06y1:7147y þ 0:0667y 0:0008y ð11Þ
201 3.290 4.386
251 1.846 3.102
The distance of active abrasive particles from the center of the
MRFF tool varies due to curvature of the workpiece surface.
curvature. From this calculation, area of the finishing spot is Each track of active abrasive particles is separated by a distance
calculated and plotted in Fig. 11(b). ‘dcos y’, as shown in Fig. 12(a). Therefore, the approximate
Fig. 11(b) shows that the area of finishing spot decreases number of active abrasive particles is different in different tracks
with increase in the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface. depending on its location (Fig. 12(b)).
8 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

Fig. 12. (a) Front view and (b) top view of variation in r with respect to the
location of abrasive particles.

The number of active abrasive particles in contact with the Fig. 13. M–B curves of MR fluid for different CIP concentrations.
workpiece can be calculated by
2
Nact:abr ¼ Sa =d ð12Þ
measured data.
Many abrasive particles are partially in contact with the
Bðy,X,TÞ ¼ 0:55223y1012 26X104 20:03T
workpiece surface, as shown in Fig. 12(b) as fractional abrasive
2
particles. The force applied by the abrasive particles partially in þ 3yX1010 þ yT1011 20:003XTy 1013 þ 6X 2 105 0:02T 2
contact with the workpiece is not considered in the modeling. The ð17Þ
volume of active abrasive particles can be calculated by
The required quantity rB for Eq. (16) can be obtained by
V act:abr ¼ Nact:abr  V abr ð13Þ differentiating Eq. (17) with respect to T (working gap) for
constant X and y values. The variation in intensity of magnetiza-
tion (M) depends on the applied magnetic flux density (B).
4.2. Forces acting on an abrasive particle
A vibrating sample magnetometer is used to obtain the M–H
curve of MR fluid, as shown in Fig. 13. A quadratic eqs. (R2 ¼1) is
In MRFF process, normal force is responsible for indenting the
fitted with the experimental data for calculation of magnetization
workpiece surface and tangential force is responsible for removal
as a function of magnetic flux density (B).
of material from the workpiece surface. When the finishing is
performed on a freeform surface, components of normal force and M ¼ 0:5474þ 454:42B551:51B2 þ 300:04B3 60:78B4 ð18Þ
tangential force need to be calculated.
After substituting the value of M from Eq. (18) in Eq. (16),
we get
4.2.1. Normal force
The magnetic levitation force (Eq. (9)) of abrasive particles is F mn ¼ V act:abr ð0:5474þ 454:42B551:51B2
responsible for normal force [18]. In the present case, nonmag-
þ 300:04B3 60:78B4 ÞrB  cos y ð19Þ
netic body is abrasive particle in the MR fluid. Therefore, V of
Eq. (9) is replaced by Vact.abr from Eq. (13). Measurement of In addition to the above forces, the centrifugal force acting on
magnetic flux (B) is easier compared to magnetic field strength the abrasive particles is also included in the present analysis.
(H). So, magnetic field strength is replaced by magnetic flux The centrifugal force (Fcf) acting on an abrasive particle is
density using the following relationship calculated by
B ¼ m0 H ð14Þ F cf ¼ ma o2 r ð20Þ
Substituting the value of magnetic field strength from Eq. (14) in where ma is the mass of an abrasive particle, o is the angular
Eq. (9), the magnetic levitation force (Eq. (9)) can be expressed as speed of the MRFF tool and r is the distance between the axis of
F m ¼ V act:abr M rB ð15Þ the rotation of tool and the center of the abrasive particle, as
shown in Fig. 12. Here, it is assumed that there is no slip between
Eq. (15) is applicable to flat surfaces only. Therefore, the normal the wheel and the MR polishing fluid.
component of Fm (Fmn) is calculated depending on the angle of The direction of the above force is in the horizontal plane, as
curvature (y) of the workpiece surface by the following equation, schematically shown in Fig. 10(c). Therefore, a normal component
as schematically shown in Fig. 10(c). of Fcf (Fcfn) is calculated by the following relation.
F mn ¼ V act:abr M rB  cos y ð16Þ
F cfn ¼ ma o2 r  sin y ð21Þ
Fig. 4(a) shows the variation of working gap at different angles
The distance ‘r’ in Eq. (21) varies depending on the location
of curvature of the workpiece surface. It shows that the working
of the abrasive particle on the freeform surface, as shown in
gap continuously changes from one end to other end of the
Fig. 12(a). The force Fcfn can then be calculated by the following
tool at different angles of curvature of the workpiece surface.
relationship.
Fig. 4(b) shows the variation of magnetic flux density (B) along
 
the length of the magnet. Therefore, magnetic flux density (B) is a Xn 
2  
function of angle of the curvature of the workpiece surface (y), F cfn ¼ ma o sin y 5idcos y ð22Þ
 
i¼0
working gap (T) and the bottom length of the MRFF tool (X). This
is given by Eq. (17), which has the best fitting R2 ¼1 with the where n is the number of tracks of abrasive particles.
 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10 9

The normal force (Fn_abr) acting on the workpiece surface where ty is the yield stress of MR fluid, and Ap is the projected area of
through a single abrasive particle can be calculated by summation abrasive particle in the MR fluid.
of Eqs. (19) and (22). The projected area of abrasive particle is the area through
which the MR fluid applies force on the workpiece surface in the
F n_abr ¼ F mn þ F cfn ð23Þ
tangential direction. Yield stress of the MR fluid is measured by
The total normal force (Fn_total) applied on the workpiece a rheometer (Anton Paar MCR301 with a MRD 180 attachment).
surface by active abrasive particles in the active volume of the Details of the instrument and yield stress measurement are
MR fluid ribbon can be calculated by reported elsewhere [22]. Yield stress of MR fluid is measured as
F n_total ¼ F n_abr  N act:abr ð24Þ a function of concentration of CIPs, concentration of abrasive
particles, magnetic flux density, and rotational speed. Eq. (26)
If the above normal force is more than the yield strength of shows a quadratic model of the yield stress which has a R2 value
MR fluid, the CIP chains structure gets disturbed significantly. of 0.9438 with the experimental data.
Then, the actual normal force applied by an abrasive particle on
the workpiece will be equal to or smaller than the yield strength Yield stress, ty ðPaÞ ¼ 163243:51 þ 4447:55A þ 39378:94B
of the MR fluid.
þ 8241:52C0:03S223:23AC þ 0:001BC þ 0:001CS

4.2.2. Tangential force

Tangential force is exerted on the workpiece surface due to þ 3955:64AB0:002AS þ 0:05BSþ 65:27A2 25097:02B2
rotation of the MRFF tool. The tangential force is also known as
shear force, which primarily relies on bonding strength of cross- 92:02C 2 þ 0:0000002S2 ð26Þ
linked structure of CIPs around abrasive particles under a mag-
netic field [18]. Stiffness or shear strength of MR fluid under a where A, C and S are the volume concentration of abrasive
magnetic field is calculated by yield stress. Before yielding of MR particles, CIPs and rotational speed, respectively.
fluid under shearing, the CIP chains structure is intact (it is The abrasive particles have their own circular motion due to
assumed that the bonding between CIPs is strong enough to carrier wheel rotation. Hence, a force acts on an abrasive particle
withstand shear force). That means that the abrasive particles tangentially in the direction of the tool rotation, called the Coriolis
which are gripped by CIPs bonded structure (or chains) would force (Fcor), as shown in Fig. 10(b). The magnitude of this force
apply force on the workpiece to remove material without loosen- [23] is given by
ing their own orientation.
The shear force (Fs) exerted on the workpiece can be calculated by F cor ¼ 2ma o  v ð27Þ

F s ¼ Ap  ty ð25Þ where n ¼ or is the linear velocity of an abrasive particle.

Fig. 14. Comparison of theoretical and experimental results of (a) angle of curvature of the surface at 1000 RPM and rotational speed of tool at (b) y ¼ 51, (c) y ¼ 151 and
(d) y ¼251 (’ and n are the average values of the repeated experiments).
10 A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 69 (2013) 1–10

The distance ‘r’ varies with the location of abrasive particles, as  The theoretical normal force and tangential force increase with
calculated in case of Fcf from Fig. 13(a). increasing rotational speed of the tool due to rise in Coriolis
  force.
Xn 
2 
F cor ¼ 2ma o  5idcos y ð28Þ
 
i¼0
Acknowledgment
So, the total tangential force (Ft) exerted by an abrasive
particle on the workpiece is the sum of Fs and Fcor, and it can be
The authors thankfully acknowledge the Bhabha Atomic
calculated by combining Eqs. (25) and (28).
Research Center, Bombay (Project no. BARC/ME/20100374) and
F t ¼ F s þ F cor ð29Þ the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New
In some cases, Fn is very large and Ft required to remove the Delhi, India (Project no. 22(0479)/09/EMR-II) for their financial
material in the form of micro/nano chips may be smaller than the support. We sincerely thank BASF, Germany, for arranging carbonyl
resistance offered by the workpiece. In such a case, the abrasive iron powders of different grades for our research work.
particle may rotate and reduce the indentation depth such that it
is able to remove the material from the workpiece. References

[1] X. Wu, Y. Kita, K. Ikoku, New polishing technology of free form surface by GC,
5. Comparison of theoretical and experimental forces Journal of Materials Processing Technology 187 (188) (2007) 81–84.
[2] B. Nowicki, The new method of free form surface honing, CIRP
The results of the theoretical study of forces for angle of curvature Annals—Manufacturing Technology 42 (1) (1993) 425–428.
[3] Fg.-J. Shiou, C.-H. Chen, Freeform surface finish of plastic injection mold by
of the workpiece surface and rotational speed of the tool are validated using ball-burnishing process, Journal of Materials Processing Technology
with experimental data. All the experiments shown in Fig. 14(a–d) 140 (2003) 248–254.
have been repeated three times and their variations are given by the [4] S-S. Cho, Y-K. Ryu, S-Y. Lee, Curved surface finishing with flexible abrasive
tool, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 42 (2002)
statistical bars. Fig. 14(a–d) shows the comparison of theoretical and 229–236.
experimental normal force as well as the tangential force at different [5] M. Tricard, P.R. Dumas, D. Golini, New industrial applications of magnetor-
angles of curvature and rotational speed of the tool. Fig. 14(a) shows heological finishing (MRF), frontiers in Optics 2004, Optical Society of
America—Technical Digest (2004) OMD1.
that theoretical forces are lower than experimental forces. One of the
[6] J-D. Kim, I-H. Noh, Magnetic polishing of three dimensional die and mold
reasons for such a trend seems to be the calculation of the finishing surfaces, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33
spot. The finishing spot is calculated from the area where the (2007) 18–23.
magnetic flux density is high. However, the MR fluid is also in contact [7] A.K. Singh, S. Jha, P.M. Pandey, Design and development of nanofinishing
process for 3D surfaces using ball end MR finishing tool, International Journal
with the workpiece surface outside of the measured area but at lower of Machine Tools and Manufacture 51 (2011) 142–151.
magnetic flux density. That additional contact of MR fluid with the [8] A.K. Singh, S. Jha, P.M. Pandey, Nanofinishing of a typical 3D ferromagnetic
workpiece at low magnetic flux density may result in a slight increase workpiece using ball end magnetorheological finishing process, International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 63 (2012) 21–31.
in the normal force. Further, the contacts of partially abrasive particles [9] A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain, Nanofinishing of freeform surfaces of prosthetic knee
(which are covered in an elliptical finishing spot) are also not joint implant, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B
considered. It may also result in a marginal increase in the forces Journal of Engineering 226 (11) (2012) 1833–1846.
[10] M. Schinhaer, C. Vogt, A. Geiss, R. Stamp, P. Sperber, L. Smith, G. Smith,
acting on the workpiece surface. R. Rascher, Forces acting between polishing tool and workpiece surface
Fig. 14(b–d) shows the theoretical forces increase with in magnetorheological finishing, Proceedings of SPIE 7060 (2008) 706006,
increasing rotational speed of the tool, while experimental forces http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.794196.
[11] J.E. DeGroote, A.E. Marino, J.P. Wilson, A.L. Bishop, J.C. Lambropoulos,
have an optimum value, which has been explained earlier.
S.D. Jacobs, Removal rate model for magnetorheological finishing of glass,
Theoretical normal force is calculated by considering centrifugal Applied Optics 46 (32) (2007) 7927–7941.
force (Fcf), while the tangential force is based on the Coriolis force [12] A.B. Shorey, S.D. Jacobs, W.I. Kordonski, R.F. Gans, Experiments and observa-
(Fcor). Both these forces (Fcf and Fcor) increase with increasing tions regarding the mechanisms of glass removal in magnetorheological
finishing, Applied Optics 40 (1) (2001) 20–33.
rotational speed (o) of the tool without considering the random [13] B. Jung, K. Jang, B.K. Min, S.J. Lee, J. Seok, Magnetorheological finishing
deformation of CIP chains at high rotational speed. process for hard materials using sintered iron–CNT compound abrasives,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 49 (2009) 407–418.
[14] C. Miao, S.N. Shafrir, J.C. Lambropoulos, J. Mici, S.D. Jacobs, Shear stress in
magnetorheological finishing for glasses, Applied Optics 48 (1) (2009)
6. Conclusions
2585–2594.
[15] C. Miao, J.C. Lambropoulos, S.D. Jacobs, Process parameter effects on material
An experimental as well as theoretical study is carried to removal in magnetorheological finishing of borosilicate glass, Applied Optics
study forces on the freeform surface in MRFF process. The main 49 (10) (2010) 1951–1963.
[16] W. Kim, S. Lee, B Min, Surface finishing and evaluation of three-dimensional
conclusions are summarized as follows. silicon microchannel using magnetorheological fluid, Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering: The ASME 126 (2004) 772–778.
[17] A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain, Experimental investigations into forces during magne-
torheological fluid based finishing process, International Journal of Machine
 Normal and tangential forces significantly reduce with increase Tools and Manufacture 51 (2011) 358–362.
in the angle of curvature of the workpiece surface due to [18] A. Sidpara, V.K. Jain, Theoretical analysis of forces in magnetorheological fluid
reduction in the contact area of the MR fluid brush with the based finishing process, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 56 (1)
(2012) 50–59.
workpiece surface. [19] D.C. Montgomery, Design and analysis of experiments, 5th ed., John Wiley &
 Rotational speed of tool and the feed rate of workpiece have an Sons Inc., New York, 2001.
optimum value where the normal force and tangential force are [20] R.E. Rosensweig, Ferrohydrodynamics, Dover, New York, 1985.
[21] F.D. Goncalves, M. Ahmadian, J.D. Carlson, Behavior of MR fluids at high
high due to separation and low strength of CIP chains structure.
velocities and high shear rates, International Journal of Modern Physics B 19
 The theoretical normal force as well as the tangential force (07–09) (2005) 1395–1401.
is less than those of experimental forces in case of angle of [22] A. Sidpara, M. Das, V.K. Jain, Rheological characterization of magnetorheolo-
curvature of the workpiece surface. That may be due to gical finishing fluid, Materials and Manufacturing Processes 24 (12) (2009)
1467–1478.
additional contact area of the MR fluid brush with the work- [23] R.D. Gregory, Classical Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, New York,
piece surface apart from the selected area of the finishing spot. 2006.