The 12th International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)

1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Modeling of Polishing Mechanism in Magnetic Abrasive Polishing

M. G. V. S. Raghuram, Suhas S. Joshi∗

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai – 400 076, India

Keywords: super finishing, magnetic abrasive polishing, surface roughness, material removal rate,
Taguchi methods

ABSTRACT: Magnetic Abrasive Polishing (MAP) is a super-finishing process primarily used for polishing of non-
magnetic and hard materials like, ceramics and stainless steel. This paper deals with the detailed parametric
study in polishing of stainless steel work surface. Statistically designed experiments based on Taguchi methods
show that size-ratio, tool-work surface clearance, polishing speed, magnetic abrasive diameter and polishing time
have significant effect on the surface roughness obtained. A minimum surface roughness of 20 nmRa was
achieved by this process. The surface roughness predicted by the proposed analytical model was found to agree
reasonably well with the experimental results .

1 Introduction
Magnetic abrasive polishing (MAP) is a relatively new super-finishing technique used primarily to obtain
nanometric level of surface finish especially on the non-ferrous and hard material like stainless steel and
ceramics . It uses a controlled magnetic force of extremely small magnitude on ferromagnetic abrasive particles
which are a conglomerate of abrasives and iron particles for the material removal. Thus , the tool in this process
becomes virtually resilient. The process therefore is free from most of the ill-effects of conventional super-
finishing processes , which use hard grinding wheels that inflict micro-cracks, geometrical errors and distortions
on the work surfaces. The process is widely used for ultra-fine polishing of very hard and brittle non-magnetic
materials. Two most commonly polished materials are stainless steel and ceramics.

A number of researchers have developed experimental set-ups mainly for MAP of cylindrical surfaces since 80’s
mainly to demonstrate the feasibility of the process. It is observed that the material removal phenomenon in MAP
is complex, being influenced by a large number of parameters related to abrasives, workpiece and metal removal
process. In spite of the large number of experimentation (Fox et al., 1994; Shinmura et al., 1992; Shinmura et al.,
1993; Shinmura et al., 1994; Kremen, 2000), limited information is available on this process in the open literature.
Also, there are very few attempts to model the mechanism of material removal in MAP process mathem atically.
Kremen et al. 1994; Kremen et al. 1996) have developed a mathematical model based on the concept of out-of
roundness of the workpiece to predict material removal rate (MRR) and machining time in polishing of cylindrical
work surfaces. In another approach, Jeong-Du and Min-Seong (1995) have developed a mathematical model of
the process from the first principles by analyzing the volume removal by a single abrasive grain. They estimated
the total material removal rate of the process by the addition of removal by all the grains that participate in the
process. However, their models take into account a limited number of process and abrasive related parameters.
This paper deals with a detailed parametric study of MAP process and its analytical modeling to predict surface
roughness. The experiments were designed using Taguchi methods and performed on a specifically designed
and fabricated set-up. The experimental procedure followed by statistical analysis of the parameters affecting
surface roughness in this process is discussed below. The paper concludes with a discussion on experimental
validation of the analytical model results.

2 Experimental Procedure

2.1 Experimental Set-up

A schematic of experimental set-up designed and fabricated for this experim entation is shown in Figure 1. It
consists of an electromagnet for the generation of magnetic field with two poles N and S. The set-up can be
mounted on a vertical milling machine. A carbon brush and slip ring assembly is designed to provide DC power
supply to the rotating magnet coils . The set-up can provide magnetic flux density of 0.25-0.5 T for the current in

344
the range of 0.5-1 A. During the polishing operation, the machine table is provided with a linear feed in addition to
the rotary motion provided to the magnetic abrasive conglomerate, see Figure 1.

2.2 Magnetic Abrasive Powder

Carbon brush
assembly Milling machine spindle

Spindle rotation
Mixing iron and Al 2O 3 Drying
Brass ring powders in wet binder
assembly
DC Power
Iron core Pulverizing

Magnetic Coil Magnetic Abrasives of

poles Magnetic Sieving
necessary size
abrasives

N S
Workpiece

Linear table feed

Machine table
Figure 2. Steps in the preparation of magnetic
Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental set-up for MAF abrasives

The preparation of magnetic abrasive powder is the key aspect of the MAF process. The magnetic abrasives
prepared for this experimentation involve various processing steps as shown in Figure 2 with 50:50 volume of
iron and abrasive particles and an adhesive.

2.3 Taguchi Method-based Experiment Design

MAP is a super finishing process therefore, surface roughness (SR) has been taken as a principal response
variable. It was measured along the feed direction.

It is understood that the material removal in MAP is a complex function of a large number of parameters
dependent on the work material characteristics, process parameter and morphology of abrasives as show in the
cause and effect diagram in Figure 3. Of these, eight factors (highlighted in the figure) were chosen for this
experimentation; they are: size-ratio, a ratio of size of abrasive particles to the size of iron particles, size of

345
 Process conditions
Work material characteristics
Working clearance

Hardness Material Speed Finishing time

Initial roughness Magnetic flux density Feed Quality

of
Surface
Proportion of iron, abrasive particles Type of abrasive

Size of abrasive particle Size of iron particle

Hardness of abrasive Size of magnetic particle

Morphology of abrasive particles

Figure 3. Factors governing polished surface characteristics MAP process

Table 1. Control factors, their levels and interactions

Factor DOF Level 1 Level 2

A. Polishing time (min) (2-1) =1 6 12
B. Speed (rpm) (2-1) =1 250 1000
C. Tool-work clearance (mm) (2-1) =1 1 2
D. Size ratio (2-1) =1 3 (15/5) 8 (40/5)
E. Initial surface roughness (nmRa) (2-1) =1 100-200 300-400
F. Feed rate (mm/min) (2-1) =1 16 32
G. Magnetic particle diameter (µm) (2-1) =1 45 to 75 150 to180
H. Current (A) (2-1) =1 0.5 1.0
AB, AE, AF, AH, BF, CG, DG [(2-1) x (2-1)] x 7=7
Total 15

A: Polishing time G: magnetic Particle diameter

1 11
E: Initial µRa 6 12 H: Current
7 13
3 9 15 14

B: Speed 2 10 8 4 5 D: Size-ratio
F: Feed rate C: Clearance

Figure 4. Linear graph for L26 orthogonal array and assignment of various factors to its columns
magnetic abrasive particles, magnetic flux density (current), working clearance, speed of rotation, polishing time
and initial surface roughness. It is understood that while the size of abrasive particles influences the quality of
surface generated, there is little knowledge about the influence of size of iron particles in a magnetic particle, a
new parameter termed as “size-ratio” as given below was introduced.

d ( Abrasive particle diameter )

Size − ratio = a
d i (Iron particle diameter )
(1)

Similarly the influence of other parameters such as feed rate and initial SR of workpiece has not been given
adequate attention in the literature, hence they were also considered during this experimentation (Raghuram et
al., 2002). Thus, in all eight factors and their levels chosen for this experimentation are given in Table 1.

346
Based on the physical understanding of the MAP process, seven two-factor interactions influencing the response
variables were considered. The other two-factor interactions and higher order interactions (Phadke, 1989) were
not considered during the design of these experiments. The overall degree of freedom of this experiment is
estimated to be 15 (refer Table 1) and accordingly L16 orthogonal array was selected for this experimentation.
Assignment of various factors and interactions to the columns of this array was done as per the linear graph
shown in the Figure 4.

The polishing experiments were performed on stainless steel (SS-304) plates and were replicated once. The
surface roughness was measured using a Taylor Hobson SURTRONIC-3 instrument (0.8 mm cut-off length) as
an average of at least 4 to 5 measurements taken on each specimen

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Analysis of Surface Roughness in Magnetic Abrasive Polishing

Analysis of the experimental data was done using STATGRAPHICS-PLUS software based on the means plots,
normal probability plots , Pareto charts, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Tables presented elsewhere
(Raghuram, 2002). The normal probability plot shown in Figure 5a and Pareto chart in Figure 5b indicate that the
factors D: size ratio, C: clearance, B: speed, A: polishing time and G: magnetic particle diameter influence the
surface roughness significantly.

3.1.1 Effect of size- ratio (Factor D)

The smaller size-ratio, the lower the surface roughness, see Figure 5b. It is understood that when the size-ratio is
low i.e. when da<<di, there could be more abrasive grains on the surface of a magnetic particle, see Figure 6a.
Whereas, when size ratio is high i.e. when da>>di, the iron particles tend to cover the abrasive particles, see
Figure 6b . Hence, the number of abrasive cutting edges exposed to the work surface reduces. At the same time,

99.9 D:Size Ratio

99 C:Clearance +
D B:Speed
-
percentage

95 C G:Magnetic Particle Diameter

B A:Finishing Time
80 AE
BF
50 AF
20 DG
A AH
5 G AB
H:Current
1 CG
F:Feed
0.1 E:Initial Surface roughness
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
0 2 4 6 8
Standardized effects Standardized effect

a. Normal probability plot b. Pareto chart

(Vertical line indicates (95% confidence level)
Figure 5 a-b. Factors influencing surface roughness in magnetic abrasive polishing

a. Lower size ratio b. Higher size ratio

Figure 6 a-b . Schematic of effect of size-ratio

the number of iron particles exposed to workpiece surface increases as compared to when the size-ratio is low.
Therefore, in these experiments, when the size ratio is low (3) better surface finish was obtained.

3.1.2 Effect of Clearance (Factor C)

The clearance between the work surface and magnetic poles influences the surface roughness significantly, see
Figure 5 a-b . The lower the clearance, the lower is the surface roughness. Packing density of magnetic abrasives
changes with the working clearance. The densely or sparsely filled abrasives increase or decrease the flux

347
density and accordingly change the magnetic force on each particle (Shinmura et al., 1985). Therefore, lower
clearance packing the magnetic abrasives densely would give lower surface roughness.

3.1.3 Effect of Speed (Factor B)

The speed of rotation of magnetic abrasives influences the response variable significantly, refer Figure 5 a-b . The
lower the speed, the lower is the surface roughness. This probably could be due to comparatively more stable
positioning of the abrasives at lower speeds thereby preventing sharp (fresh) abrasive particles entering into the
machining zone.

3.1.4 Effect of Magnetic particle diameter (Factor G)

The diameter of magnetic abrasive particle influences the surface roughness significantly, see Figure 5 a-b. The
higher the diameter of magnetic abrasive particle, the lower is the surface roughness. The larger the diameter of
magnetic abrasive particle, the lesser will be its movement and machining operation will be more stable. Hence,
lesser will be material removal rate and surface roughness. On the other hand, smaller diameter particles would
tend to increase movement of particles during polishing thereby resulting in less stable operation and giving poor
finish. This indicates that there could be an interaction between size of the magnetic abrasive particle and speed,
which was not considered in the present experimentation.

3.1.5 Effect of polishing time (Factor A)

The polishing time also influences the surface roughness significantly, see Figure 5a-b. The higher the polishing
time, lower is the surface roughness. The SR rapidly decreases with polishing time and reaches a saturation level
after some polishing time (Shinmura et al., 1985). This could be the result of the very small forces applied on the
abrasive particles by the magnetic field. Therefore, once the polishing time reaches the saturation point, there will
be very little material removal. This leads to a condition of super polishing (i.e. lower surface roughness).

3.1.6 Effect of Current (H), Feed rate (F) and Initial surface roughness (E)
It is evident that these parameters do not influence the surface roughness significantly, see Figure 5 a-b . It is
understood that current may not be influential due to the stable particle positioning at relatively lower flux
densities considered for this experiment. The feed rate may not be influential due to the smaller range over which
this parameter was tested. It appears that wider levels could have made substantial difference on surface
roughness, rather could have contributed in reducing it. Similarly, if the initial surface roughness is relatively (~ 1
µm R a), then it may influence the roughness of the surface obtained during MAP process. However, if the initial
surface roughness is low (~ 0.1-0.3 µm Ra), as usually the case may be, then it may not influence the final
surface roughness significantly as observed here. In the present experiment, stainless steel plates used have
relatively better finish (0.1-0.4 µRa) it would not have influenced the final value of SR.

3.1.7 Interaction effects:

It is seen that none of interactions are significant, refer Figure 5a-b . It could be due to the reasons explained
below:
i) Polishing time x Initial surface roughness (AxE) Interaction: It is felt that with use of surfaces with relatively
lower initial roughness and polishing time levels (6 and 12 min), probably falling in the saturation phase,
therefore their interaction may not be significant. The interaction could have been there if polishing time is
reduced considerably or initial surface roughness would have been relatively high (≈ 1 µm R a). Similarly,
the interactions such as (speed x feed rate), (polishing time x feed rate), (polishing time x current) and
(polishing time x speed) may not be significant due to very low values of current and feed rate, and high
values of polishing time considered for this experiment.
ii) Size-ratio x Magnetic particle diameter (DxG) Interaction: In the present experiment, since the definition
‘size-ratio’ includes iron particle diameter, its interaction with magnetic particle diameter may not be
significant.
iii) Clearance x Magnetic particle diameter (CxG) Interaction: It was initially expected that by lowering the
clearance, more particle fracture would take place and consequently influence both surface roughness and
material removal rate. However, with levels of clearance (1 mm and 2 mm) considered here, there may not
be significant fracture of the particles and hence this interaction may not be significant.

4. Analytical Modeling of the Polishing Mechanism in MAP

In this model, abrasive action of a single abrasive particle is considered to estimate the total material removal by
all the abrasives that participate in the process. When an abrasive grain removes material, it produces a groove
corresponding to its shape on the work surface. The volume of the groove gives material removed by the grain
and the profile of the groove gives surface roughness.

The total Material Removal (MR) in the process can be evaluated by knowing the number of abrasive cutting
edges per magnetic particle participating in the process and other parameters of the process. Therefore,

348
 Materia Removal (MR) = f ( Hw , N s , P, dm , d a , n, t f ) (2)

SurfaceRoughness ( SR) = f ( H w , N s , P, d m , d a , n, Rao , t f ) (3)

where, Hw – workpiece hardness, Ns - speed of rotation, P - abrasive pressure, dm - magnetic particle diameter,
da - abrasive particle diameter, n - number of active abrasive cutting edges, Rao - initial surface roughness and tf -
is polishing time.

4.1 Assumptions of the Model

i. Related to abrasives :
o Each abrasive grain is spherical in shape, uniform in size, has a single cutting edge, which remains
sharp during entire machining time (Jain et al., 1999).
o Each grain has material to cut and penetrates to an equal depth during polishing.
o The force acting on each abrasive grain is constant and equal to average force.

ii. Related to magnetic abrasive particles:

o Each magnetic particle is spherical in shape, uniform in size and has equal number of abrasive grains
on it.
o Fracture of magnetic particles during polishing has not been considered in this model.

iii. The work surfaces have a uniform profile without statistical distribution with initial surface roughness Rao
(Jeong-Du and Min-Seong,1995).

iv. The magnetic field strength in the clearance region is uniform.

4.2 Volume Removal by Single and Multiple Abrasive Grains

A schematic of material removal by an abrasive grain under the action of normal force is shown in Figure 7 (Jain
et al., 1999).

Figure 7. Material removal by spherical abrasive grain (Jain et al., 1999)

Volume of the material removed by an abrasive grain is given by the product of the cross-sectional area of the
groove and the length of its contact with the work surface [13] as below –

(
Va =  da
2
)
4 sin  2 hd( da - hd ) da  - hd (d a - hd ) ( da 2 - hd ) La
-1
  
(4)

where, da is the diameter of abrasive grain; La is the actual length of contact of the abrasive grain with the
workpiece. The depth of indentation of abrasive into workpiece hd in terms of Hw, the hardness of work material
is given by Jain et al., (1999).

hd = ( d a 2 ) - ( da ) 4 - ( Fn H wπ ) .
2

If P is the magnetic pressure acting on a spherical abrasive grain of diameter da, the normal force Fn acting on it
is given by –

Fn = P π da 2 4 (5)

349
The length of contact La in Eq. 4 is assumed to be half of the total length of travel of the abrasive grain in a given
polishing time as below –

(
La = π D p N s t f 4 ) (6)

where, Dp is the magnetic pole diameter, Ns is the speed of rotation of magnetic abrasives and tf is the polishing
time. The total number of magnetic abrasive particles actively participating in the polishing process N can be
obtained by the following relation.

2)
N = 4 Ao (π dm (7)

where, A0 is the area of the magnetic poles and dm is the diameter of magnetic abrasive particles. It is assumed
that each abrasive grain will have a single cutting edge and each magnetic abrasive particle will have n number
of active abrasive grains. Therefore,

Number of cutting edges = N ×n (8)

Therefore, the product of Eq. (4) and (8) gives the total material removal as below –

Material Re moval ( MR) = Va × N × n (9)

Substituting the Eq. (4) and (6) in Eq. (9) yields,

π D p N s tf Nn  d 2 d 
-1 2 hd ( d a - hd )
MR =  a sin - hd ( d a - hd )  a - hd  (10)
4  4 da  2 

4.2 Modeling of Surface Roughness

The surface roughness can be evaluated based on the surface profile depicted in Figure 8 and the material
removal as obtained by the above procedure. It is known that –

Total volume removed = Length (ll ) × width (lw ) × Height of the finished area (11)

Figure 8. Simplified geometry of work surface (Jain et al., 1999)

Therefore, from Eq.(9) and the geometry shown in Figure 6 we get,

( )
Va Nn = (1 2 ) ll l w R oa - Ra 1- Ra Rao  (12)

Substituting Va from Eq. (4) in Eq.(12) and simplifying, we get expression for surface roughness

π Dp Ns tf NnRao  da 2 −1 2 hd ( da − hd ) d 
Ra = Ra −  − t ( da − hd )  a − hd   (13)
o
sin
2ll lw  4 da  2  

350
4.3 Experimental Validation of the Model
A comparison of the predicted surface roughness using the proposed model with that of the corresponding
experimental results as per the parametric conditions in Table 2 is shown in Figure 9. It can be observed that the
models agree reasonably well with the experimental data. However, there is large variation at some parametric
levels. The discrepancies in the models could be due to the following aspects:
o The initial surface roughness which is a significant factor influencing the MR is not included in the model
for MR.
o Number of cutting edges per magnetic particle was assumed to be one, but it needs to be ascertained
experimentally by other methods.
o All the magnetic abrasive particles in contact with the work surface may not participate during polishing
operation. Hence, some uncertainty will always prevail.
o The effect of clearance between the magnetic poles and the work surface causing the inter-particle
interactions and their breaking is not considered.

Table 2. Specifications of experimental runs used for the comparison SR

Polishing Speed Clearance Size Initial Ra Feed rate Magnetic Current

Run time (min) (rpm) (mm) ratio (microns) (mm/min) particle dia (A)
‘A’ 'B' 'C' 'D' ' E' 'F' (microns) ‘G’ 'H"
2 6 250 1 3 0.1-0.2 32 165 1.0
4 6 250 2 8 0.3-0.4 32 165 0.5
5 6 1000 1 3 0.3-0.4 16 165 0.5
7 6 1000 2 8 0.1-0.2 16 165 1.0
9 12 250 1 8 0.1-0.2 16 165 0.5
11 12 250 2 3 0.3-0.4 16 165 1.0
14 12 1000 1 8 0.3-0.4 32 165 1.0
16 12 1000 2 3 0.1-0.2 32 165 0.5
0.8
Surface Roughness (microns)

0.7 Experimental
0.6 Predicted
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Experimental Runs
Figure 9. Comparison of predicted and experimental
surface roughness

5 Conclusions
o The detailed parametric study on MAP process using Taguchi methods revealed that size-ratio, clearance,
speed, magnetic particle diameter and polishing time have significant effect on the surface roughness in
magnetic abrasive polishing.
o Since the size-ratio changes the number of active cutting edges participating in the polishing operation, it
influences surface roughness significantly. The influence of clearance between work surface and magnetic
poles on surface roughness can be attributed to changes in the packing density of the magnetic abrasives.
Polishing speed and magnetic particle diameter are related to stability of particle positioning during MAP
process, whereas, the effect of polishing time could be related to the saturation stage in the material
removal.
o None of the interactions were found to influence surface roughness significantly. It could be due to low
magnitudes of current and feed rates used in the present experiment.
o The proposed model surface roughness based on the prediction of material removal by an abrasive grain
and surface geometry agree with the experimental data with reasonable accuracy. However, further
investigations are needed in the evaluation of exact number of cutting edges participating in the cutting
process, inter-particle interactions and their fracture to improve upon the accuracy of the model.

6 References
Fox M., Agrawal K., Shinmura T., Komanduri R. 1994. Magnetic abrasive finishing of rollers, Annals of the CIRP, 43(1), 181-
184.

351
Jain R. K., Jain V. K., Dixit P. M. 1999. Modeling of material removal and surface roughness in abrasive flow machining
process, Int. J. of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 39, 1903-1923.
Jeong-Du K., Min-Seong C. 1995. Simulation for the prediction of surface-accuracy in magnetic abrasive machining, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 53, 630-642.
Kremen G. 2000. Material removal rate and surface roughness of the magnetic-abrasive processes, Machining Technology,
11(2), 1-5.
Kremen G. Z., Elsayed E. A., Ribeiro J. L. 1994. Machining time estimation for magnetic abrasive processes, Int’l Journal of
Production Research, 32(12), pp.2817-2825.
Kremen G. Z., Elsayed E. A., Rafalovich V. I. 1996. Mechanism of material removal in the magnetic abrasive process and the
accuracy of machining, Int’l Journal of Production Research, 34(9), 2629-2638.
Phadke M. S. 1989. Quality Engineering Using Robust design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey .
Raghuram M. G. V. S., Joshi S. S., Balasubramanium R., Ramakrishnan N. 2002. Study of super-finishing process using
magnetic abrasives, Proc. of the Second Int’l Conference on Precision Engg., 100-107.
Raghuram M. G. V. S., 2002. Parametric studies & Modeling of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing, M. Tech. Dissertation, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (India).
Shinmura T., Yamaguchi H., Aizawa T. 1993. A new internal finishing process of non-ferromagnetic tubing by the application of
a magnetic field, Int. J. Japan Soc. Prec. Eng., 27(2), 132-137.
Shinmura T., Huiwang F., Aizawa T. 1994. Study on a new f inishing process of fine ceramics by magnetic abrasive machining,
Int. J. Japan Soc. Prec. Eng., 28(2), pp99-104.
Shinmura T., Yamaguchi H., Shino Y. 1992. A new internal finishing process of a non-ferromagnetic tubing by applying a
rotating magnetic field, Int. J. Japan Soc. Precision Eng., 26(4), 302-304.
Shinmura T., Takazawa K., Hatano E. 1985. Study on magnetic-abrasive process, Bull. Japan Soc. of Prec. Engg., 19(4), 289-
291.

352