Ibrahim Basudan PHD ETD PDF

A Dissertation
entitled
Pneumatic Polishing- New Polishing Method focusing on the effect of Abrasive Grain
Size on Surface Roughness of Stainless Steel
by
Ibrahim M. Basudan
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in
Engineering
________________________________________
Ioan Marinescu PhD, Committee Chair
________________________________________
Abdollah Afjeh PhD, Committee Member
________________________________________
Sarit Bhaduri PhD, Committee Member
________________________________________
Matthew Franchetti PhD, Committee Member
________________________________________
Daniel Georgiev PhD, Committee Member
________________________________________
Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, PhD, Dean
College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo

June 2017
Copyright 2017, Ibrahim Basudan
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document
may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
An Abstract of
Pneumatic Polishing- New Polishing Method focusing on the effect of Abrasive Grain
Size on Surface Roughness of Stainless Steel
by
Ibrahim Basudan
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in
Engineering
The University of Toledo
June 2017
A novel Pneumatic Polishing tool that utilizes the Magnetic Abrasive Polishing (MAP)
technique is developed. This polishing tool shows a significant increase in the process
efficiency as well as better surface roughness results. The design, fabrication and testing
processes of the pneumatic polishing tool were done in house. In order to achieve the
desired results one would need to understand the role of process parameters during the
polishing process and study their effect on surface roughness. As a result of the study, an
empirical model is proposed to predict the values of surface roughness and material
removed based on experiments that were performed in a full factorial design, each factor
at three levels. The parameters include pressure inside the rubber ball (8, 10, 12 psi), Al2O3
abrasive grain size (32, 16, 1 um), and polishing tool rotational speed (900, 1200, 1500
rpm). The workpieces are made of 304L HRAP stainless steel and were prepared to have
a concave hemisphere with a 1.5 in diameter. Experiments were conducted on the Haas
VF-2 VMC milling machine. The experimental results show a significant improve of
surface roughness, up to 77% in one of the cases from 0.4043 down to 0.0913 um. The
results show that as the pressure and rotational speed increase but grain size decreases then
the surface roughness improves until both pressure and speed reach the highest level (12
psi and 1500 rpm respectively). At this stage, it is shown that the surface quality
deteriorates due to the decrease in load per grain caused by the fracture of large grains into
smaller ones. Moreover, the low number of active grains engaged in cutting at high speed
contribute to a lower process efficiency which leads to a lower surface finish quality.
To my father Mohammad, my brother Sameer, my nephew Sameer, and my dear son
Yousuf.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Marinescu for his constant
encouragement, direction, and support. I would like also to thank Todd Gearing of Master
Chemical Corp, and Len Carravallah of Mitutoyo Michigan.
v
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xii
List of Symbols ................................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 Steel ............................................................................................................................2
1.2 Abrasives ....................................................................................................................3
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 3: Research Objectives ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 4: Research Methodologies .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Design and Development of the Pneumatic Polishing Tool ....................................11
4.2 Magnetic Abrasive Polishing Technique .................................................................15
4.3 Abrasive cutting mechanism ....................................................................................16
4.4 Design of Experiments .............................................................................................18
Chapter 5: Significance ......................................................................................................20
Chapter 6: Experimental Work and Results.......................................................................21
6.1 Experiment Set-up ....................................................................................................21
6.2 Process Parameters Investigation .............................................................................22
6.3 First Experiment: Study of the effect of polishing process parameters on the surface
roughness and material removal rate of hemispherical 304L Stainless Steel ................25
vi
6.3.1.1 Surface Roughness .........................................................................................28
6.3.1.2 Material Removal Rate ...................................................................................53
6.3.1.3 Comparison .....................................................................................................49
6.4 Second Experiment: Study of the effect of sub-micron abrasive grains and magnetic
force on the surface finish of 304L Stainless Steel in Pneumatic Polishing ..................57
6.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................57
6.4.2 Methodology......................................................................................................59
6.4.3 Experimental Set-up ..........................................................................................63
6.4.4 Results ...............................................................................................................65
6.4.4.1 Analysis using the missing values ..................................................................67
6.4.4.2 Analysis using add a constant approach .........................................................72
6.4.4.3 Discussion .......................................................................................................75
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 8: Model Validation .............................................................................................81
Chapter 9: Future Work .....................................................................................................85
References ..........................................................................................................................86
vii
List of Tables
6.1 Polishing Process Parameters Investigation Results ..............................................23
6.2 Design of Experiment-Factor levels ......................................................................25
6.3 Runs generated by Minitab ....................................................................................26
6.4 Experiment results .................................................................................................27
6.5 Surface Roughness comparison at different speeds ...............................................29
6.6 Surface Roughness comparison at different pressure levels ..................................30
6.7 Sum of Square deviation by the first and second order models .............................43
6.8 Sum of squared deviation by the three models ......................................................44
6.9 A run borrowed from table 6.1 ..............................................................................50
6.10 A run borrowed from table 6.4 ..............................................................................50
6.11 Material removal rate experimental results............................................................53
6.12 Factors to be studied ..............................................................................................57
6.13 Size comparison between the particles ..................................................................63
6.14 Minitab generated table of experimental runs showing factor levels ....................65
6.15 Surface roughness measurements ..........................................................................66
6.16 Data to be used for Analysis using the missing values method .............................67
6.17 Results using add a constant approach...................................................................72
8.1 Runs generated by Minitab using Tagouchi method .............................................81
8.2 Surface roughness values (actual vs. predicted by the models) .............................82
8.3 Error comparison ...................................................................................................83

viii
List of Figures
4-1 First Concept Design..............................................................................................11
4-2 First tool with several parts ....................................................................................12
4-3 Schematic of the final design .................................................................................13
4-4 Pneumatic Polishing Tool .....................................................................................13
4-5 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the milling machine .................................14
4-6 Workpiece shape design in 3D ..............................................................................15
4-7 Schematic and actual PPT showing the location of the magnets ...........................15
4-8 Schematic showing two and three body abrasion (Marinescu, 2007) ...................16
4-9 Cutting mechanism hypotheses..............................................................................17
6-1 Tool set-up before parameters investigation experiment .......................................22
6-2 Workpiece after machining ...................................................................................24
6-3 Three dimensional illustration of the results ..........................................................28
6-4 Variability in the results at different pressure and speed levels.............................29
6-5 Main effect plot generated by Minitab...................................................................31
6-6 Surface Roughness at 8, 10, and 12 psi .................................................................32
6-7 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (P and G).......................................................33
6-8 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (S and P) .......................................................34
6-9 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (S and G).......................................................34
6-10 Surface response plot of Ra at Grain size and Pressure .........................................35

ix
6-11 Surface response plot of Ra at Grain size and Speed.............................................36
6-12 Surface response plot of Ra at Pressure and Speed ...............................................36
6-13 Factors interaction plot .........................................................................................37
6-14 General Linear Model Analysis for the first experiment .......................................38
6-15 Residual plots for the first experiment ...................................................................39
6-16 Regression model and ANOVA generated by Minitab .........................................40
6-17 Regression model and ANOVA of the second order model generated by Minitab .........41
6-18 Comparison of % of Error generated by the first-order and the second-order models ...43
6-19 Regression model and ANOVA for the third model .............................................44
6-20 The difference in Error % generated by the three models .....................................45
6-21 New regression model with no data transformation ..............................................46
6-22 Normality assumptions are met, and no abnormality is found ..............................47
6-23 ANOVA of the SQRT Transformation model .......................................................48
6-24 This model (SQRT-Model) shows no sign of abnormality ...................................48
6-25 Natural Log transformation based model analysis.................................................49
6-26 Natural Log-Model residual plots ..........................................................................51
6-27 A surface texture generated by Zygo® NewView 5000 ........................................52
6-28 Surface profile generated by Mitutoyo® SV-C4500 .............................................54
6-29 3D view of the behavior of material removed ......................................................55
6-30 ANOVA, Normal Probability Plot and Residual plot for MRR ............................56
6-31 Main effect plot for MRR generated by Minitab ...................................................60
6-32 Schematic showing two- and three-body abrasion (Marinescu, 2007) ..................60
6-33 Cutting Mechanism during polishing with the use of magnets .............................61
x
6-34 Mechanism of polishing in this study ....................................................................62
6-35 Analysis of forces acting on the magnetic abrasive as described (Wang, 2017) ...64
6-36 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the milling machine .................................64
6-37 3D representation of the 304L Stainless Steel workpiece .....................................68
6-38 First Regression Analysis of the Surface Roughness results using missing data ..69
6-39 Normality and residual plots of Ra results using the missing data approach ........70
6-40 Regression Analysis using missing data with natural log data transformation .....71
6-41 Normality and Residual plots of Ra difference using Missing Values Approach .72
6-42 Comparison of the actual and predicted results of the % difference in Ra ............74
6-43 Regression analysis of the first transformed data - add a constant approach ........75
6-44 Normality assumption of the residual plots is satisfied .........................................76
6-45 Predicted values using models a and 3 against actual unchanged results ..............77
6-46 Factors influence on the surface roughness change ...............................................78
7-1 Grain Size effect on Ra ..........................................................................................79
7-2 Roughness improves as Grain size gets smaller ....................................................80
8-1 Models validation against the actual values of surface roughness ........................82
8-2 Error plot of the modes' predicted values of Ra .....................................................83
xi
List of Abbreviations
PPT.............................Pneumatic Polishing Tool

MAP ...........................Magnetic Abrasive Polishing
MAF ...........................Magnetic Abrasive Finishing
MRR...........................Material Removal Rate
in ................................Inches
um ..............................Micrometer
nm ..............................Nanometer
rpm .............................Revolution per minute
psi ...............................Pounds per square inch
min .............................Minutes
AISI ............................American Iron and Steel Institute

PMMC........................Precision Micro-Machining Center
xii
List of Symbols
Ra ...............................Surface roughness
P .................................Pressure
G.................................Abrasive Grain size
S .................................Polishing tool rotational speed
C .................................Constant in the model
α .................................Power of the first factor in the model

β .................................Power of the second factor in the model
γ ..................................Power of the third factor in the model
Al2O3 ..........................Aluminum Oxide
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Polishing process is one of final steps before a product is out to be used, as it helps attain
the final shape, texture and surface quality of a product by removing machining traces or damaged
sublayers. Conventionally though polishing process is carried out either manually or semi-
automated, but in both cases it consumes a long time and requires highly skilled labor. This is clear
in the case of free form surfaces, as the complex geometry can pose hurdles to achieve the final
desired surface roughness in addition to the noticeable variability in surface quality due to labor’s
skills. So realizing the current limitations to the process led to proposing a state of the art
Pneumatic Polishing tool that uses pressurized air inside a rubber ball which can work with any
workpiece shape and provide the desired surface finish. The tool is also equipped with a ceramic
magnet rings as part of utilizing the Magnetic Abrasive Polishing (MAP) technique which has
been proven to improve the polishing process efficiency as well as surface roughness according to
Jae-Seob Kwak (2012) and Y. Wang et al (2017).
The purpose of this study is to develop a novel automated Pneumatic Polishing tool
technique that enhances the polishing process efficiency as well as generates surfaces with a
nanoscale quality. It is known that precision machining plays a vital role in many industries as it
provides better results in terms of process control, accuracy, efficiency and ultimately nanoscale
1
surface finish. Light industry, electronics, automotive, and any field that deals with accuracy can
benefit from this project. Companies that look for a better efficiency in terms of quantity and
quality of production in polishing such as polishing a mold engine for an automotive, or those
which rely on devices that provide a level of sophistication and reliability such as medical devices
or implants will all find this project beneficial as the results are promising.
1.1 Steel
The production of steels and cast irons in the U.S alone exceeds 100 million tons annually, this
is how much these to metal groups are used (Tlusty, 2000). Although that figure is old, it stills
highlights the importance of steels in any industry. Therefore, the need for abundant resources of
and variety of grades of steels are obvious. Iron ore makes the core substance in the process of
making cast irons and steels, but they differ in the amount of carbon content. Steels usually contain
up to 1.7% carbon, whereas carbon levels exceed that amount for the cast irons (Krar, 2011).
Depending on the level of carbon also, steels are classified as carbon steels and alloy steels (Krar,
2011). There are three types of carbon steels: low-carbon steels (0.02% to 0.3% carbon by mass),
medium-carbon steels (0.3% to 0.6% carbon), and high-carbon steels (up to 1.7% carbon). The
alloy steels are therefore a combination of carbon steels with an addition of alloys that help achieve
a certain application such as adding chromium to low-carbon steels to enhance its mechanical
properties as well as making a film layer on the steel to resist corrosion (Marinescu et al, 2007).
Alloy steels can be subcategorized based on the level of alloying elements (i.e., more or less than
5%) into high and low alloy steels (Tlusty, 2000). Therefore, Stainless Steel is then of the high
alloy steels since the level of chromium exceeds that threshold. Stainless Steels are mainly used in
the food, medical, petroleum, and chemical industries due to their hardness and corrosion
2
resistance, some though are designed to withstand high temperatures as in the aerospace industry
(Marinescu et al, 2007).
Moreover, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) divides the stainless steels based on
their microstructural families to three main types: Austenitic (AISI 200 and 300 series), Ferritic
(AISI 400 series), and Martensitic (AISI 500 series) according to DeGarmo et al. Our workpiece
is made of 304L (L denotes the low carbon content) Stainless Steel that falls into the austenitic
type.
Austenitic stainless steels are nonmagnetic, share the corrosion resistivity like other types of
stainless steel, retain an outstanding formability due to its FCC crystal structure, and they tend to
mechanically improve as a result of cold working (DeGramo et al, 1988). Another alloy that can
improve the mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steels is addition of Ni as it is known to
improve the hardness (Tlusty, 2000). Austenitic stainless steels are the most ductile, but can be
susceptible to stress-corrosion cracks (Klpakjian, 2000). They are costly, so caution should be
exercised when selecting the material to be used in the design and/or manufacturing processes.
1.2 Abrasives
An abrasive is, according to DeGarmo et al, a hard material that can cut or abrade other
substances. Abrasives can be found in the nature in the forms of emery, sandstones, corundum and
diamond. They can also be manufactured such as aluminum oxides and synthetic diamond.
Whenever there is a need to produce any part that requires a high level of accuracy and precision,
finishing processes that utilize abrasive grains are of choice. Evidently the control of the shape and
size of the natural abrasives can be a hard task to overcome, so the production of various abrasive
grain sizes and shape have made it possible to study and research the field of precision engineering.
3
The cutting action of those abrasive is very fine, and thus produce a smooth surface with better
quality (Kalpakjian, 2000). The hardness of abrasive grains makes the classification into
conventional and super-abrasives where the latter are 10 to 100 times harder and more expensive
(Marinescue et al, 2007). Aluminum oxides and Silicon Carbides are among the conventional
abrasives, whereas Diamond, Cubic Boron Nitride are types of the Superabrasives all of which are
synthetic (Marinescu et al, 2007). Before producing any type of synthetic abrasives, one needs to
consider three main properties of abrasive grains: Hardness, Friability and attritious wear
(Kalpakjian, 2000) (DeGarmo, 1988). High capability to resist penetration is desire, that’s
hardness (DeGarmo, 1988). Attritious wear is low when the abrasive grains and the workpiece
material are chemically inert with respect to each other. For instance Aluminum Oxides are
chemically inert with iron, and they are used to machine iron and steels because of the low attritious
wear than that of Silicon Carbides. Friability is beneficial in the finishing processes as they insure
the generation of sharp edges for the abrasive grains which makes them self-sharpening particles
(Kalpakjian, 2000).
Alumina was first discovered in 1893, it is known for its toughness when working on steels
and irons, and it is estimated to have an average hardness of 2100 Knoop (DeGarmo, 1988). They
are divided into two main groups: fused and unfused. Fused alumina can be found in three forms
based on their friability (which is the ability of abrasive grains to fracture into smaller particles):
dark (low), white (high), and monocrystalline. Unfused alumina or ceramic aluminum oxides are
harder than fused alumina, the example of which is seeded gel (Kalpakjian, 2000).
It is estimated that aluminum oxides make up to 75% of grinding wheels, which makes this
type of abrasives the most important and commonly used (Krar, 2011). There are different levels
of purity of the aluminum oxides depending on the application in which they are used; though as
4
the purity increases, the hardness and brittleness increase. 97.5% aluminum oxides are more brittle
but not as tough as the regular aluminum oxides (94.5% pure) (Krar, 2011). Applications of the
abrasives according to their grain sizes are (Krar, 2011):
 8 to 54 for rough grinding operations
 54 to 400 for precision grinding processes
 320 to 2000 for ultra precision processes
5
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Striving for better surface roughness is very important in precision engineering, in this
section a light will be shed on the history of what has been done and what has inspired coming up
with this project. The main focus is on polishing and related contribution by authors from across
the globe.
Since the mid-eighties, many have tried to automate the polishing process, one particular
field in which automation of the classical polishing was of a great importance has been the
manufacturing of optics (D. Walker et al, 2003). The Stressed Lap developed by Steward
Observatory was the first use a computer-controlled approach but at the time it was very expensive
process (D. Walker et al, 2003). So as technology advances, it has become possible to design and
make machines which are capable of controlling and monitoring the polishing process. This is
clear as a fully automated grinding and polishing of aspheric optics was introduced by the
collaboration of Zeeko® Ltd and the Optical Science Lab of London in the early 2000. Dr. Wlaker
and co-workers developed a technique using a computer numerical control (CNC) to minimize
polishing process time and improve surface quality, it is known as bonnet polishing (S. Zeng, L.
Blunt, 2014).
Moreover, Harbin Institute of Technology in China has made their own prototype and
studied its potential applications, from which a roughness of about 0.931 nm was achieved when
6
a BK7 optical glass was polished (B. Gao, 2005)(B. Gao et al, 2004)(J. Song, Y. Yao, D. Xie, B.
Gao, 2007). Other efforts using a computer controlled polishing system was developed by Yi et
al (A. Yi, M. Hezlep, T. Pol, 2004), where the polishing head and the motor were monitored by an
in line torque sensor that sends pressure readings feedback constantly in a process using a pin-
polisher. Though it is fully automatic, but it still requires paying a close attention to the sensor
accuracy as well as the limitation to working with sever asphericity (A. Yi, M. Hezlep, T. Pol,
2004).
Additionally, Ryuh et al went as far as embedding the use of a robot that feeds off a
polishing program generated by a PC in a robotic die polishing station (B. Ryuh, S. Park, G.
Pennock, 2005). This workstation has shown success as a standalone polishing center, fully
automated, and results showed surface roughness of a good quality as well as the ability to work
with a variety of shapes. On the other hands though, it can only work on metals, any additional
technologies such as the use of magnetic field will significantly alter the polishing tool design and
ultimately the whole program that is generated by the PC. S. Ji et al presented a gasbag polishing
technique used on free form molds, and reported good surface roughness values as low as 5 nm,
the system was reported to be more efficient compared to the conventional polishing methods (S.
Ji et al, 2006).
The common principle used in most or all the above mentioned systems is their reliance on
the flexible and compliant contact in order to generate better quality and smoother surface finish.
However, as the project utilizes the use of magnetic field properties, some of the efforts that have
been published are worthy of mentioning in the following paragraphs.
Magnetic field assisted finishing technique has been an interesting study since it’s the first
introduction by the Soviet Union (H.-J. Ruben, 1987). T. Mori et al discuss the mechanism that
7
governs the process of magnetic abrasive finishing the in his paper titled “Clarification of magnetic
abrasive finishing mechanism”. In this paper a nonmagnetic stainless steel workpiece was
polished by a magnetic abrasive brush, which was generated in the middle of a magnetic pole and
the surface to be polished creating a normal force to push the abrasives to penetrate the workpiece
surface and a tangential force to keep the abrasives from deviating away from the magnetic balance
point.
S. Ji et al presented a case of applying the Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) whereby
the control of the working abrasive form and structure was studied, and it was reported that using
the MAF in combination with gasbag polishing is a solution to the “incline effect” (S. Ji et al,
2010). J. Kwak introduced a new way of increasing the density of the magnetic flux, which is
directly correlated to the contact force exerted by the abrasives on the workpiece, by installing
permanent magnets under the workpiece and surface roughness readings for the AISI316 stainless
steel (nonferrous) were shown to be improved (J. Kwak, 2012). Moreover, Singh, D.K., Jain, V.K.,
Raghuram, V., & Komanduri, R. have found that the magnetic force contribute to assist
significantly in the formation of an abrasive brush that develops abrasion pressure which causes
micro scratched in the surface being polished (2005).
8
Chapter 3
Research Objectives
The design and development of a pneumatic polishing tool that utilizes the flexible polishing
theory and Magnetic Abrasive Polishing (MAP) technique is to be achieved in this project. This
will include full control of all the parameters which govern the mechanism of polishing through
the use of the milling machine at the high-bay area (Haas VF-2 VMC), and the polishing process
will be performed on concave shaped 304L HRAP Stainless Steel. Based on the literature search,
the techniques proposed within this project are found to be new. The following are to be expected
at the end of this project;
 Full development of the Pneumatic Polishing tool that uses a MAP technique,
mounted on a milling machine as a platform.
 Analysis of the contact area between the Pneumatic Polishing tool and the
workpiece surface.
 Obtain a significant surface roughness value reduction and study the effect of
several parameters that have a direct effect on results.
 Optimize the polishing process parameters that will allow for an accurate prediction
of final surface finish.
 Study the effect of finer abrasive grains (nano-level) on the surface roughness.
9
 Experimental study of the surface roughness of Stainless Steel with respect to
different levels of magnetic force.
10
Chapter 4
Research Methodologies
4.1 Design and Development of the Pneumatic Polishing Tool
Simplicity and efficiency have been taken in consideration during the very first stages in
the design process. Half spherical shape of the tool helps working on any complex surfaces, as the
rubber is flexible enough to attain the shape of the workpieces yet maintaining other process
parameters (pressure, cutting/contact area, speed...etc) which in fact enhances the process outcome
in terms of surface roughness. The first proposed designs are shown in figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 First concept designs

11
After examining the two designs, the selection was based on the ease of manufacturing the
tool in house so design 2 was the choice. Finding the rubber end of the tool took a few stages; first
an additive manufacturing method was utilized but this technology does not provide a sealed final
product as the part shown in figure 4-2 below did not hold any air due to the lack of solidity. Then
a piece of rubber used for a bicycle horn was utilized. The tool was made of steel in two pieces;
rubber holder and a shaft to be screwed together.
Figure 4-2 First tool with several parts
This design though failed to keep air pressured in the rubber end. So some modifications
were added in order to overcome the main issue of air leakage, and the final design is shown below.
Though it looks very simple, this design is practical, easy to assemble and secures air pressure.
12
Figure 4-3 Schematic of the final design
Figure 4-1 Pneumatic Polishing Tool
The parts were then made and assembled, air was pumped, rubber was covered with a
typical polishing cloth and the tool was mounted on a milling machine (Haas VF-2 VMC) located
at the Precision Micro-Machining Center which allows for at least three degrees of freedom
movement as seen in figures 4-4 and 4-5.
13
Figure 4-5 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the Milling Machine
The testing experiment was designed to allow different rotating speeds, but fixing other
factors such as pressure, depth of rubber contacting the workpiece surface all at time intervals of
5 minutes. Aluminum oxide -66 micron was used as an abrasive paste throughout the testing stages.
The workpiece tested has a complex shape with concaves and a flat bottom made of stainless steel.
During the testing operation, it was successfully found the pneumatic polishing tool is operational
with no issues reported. Thus, the two main objectives of simplicity of design and process
efficiency are met at this stage.
The workpiece material is 304L HRAP stainless steel, with a hemisphere shape having a
diameter of 76.20 mm as shown in the three dimensional drawings below.
Figure 4-6 The workpiece shape design in 3D

14
4.2 Magnetic Abrasive Polishing Technique
The use of the Magnetic Abrasive Polishing (MAP) in this project is of a vital role due to
the promising results of such a technique in the literature. A pair of ceramic ring magnets are to be
installed to the polishing tool holder as shown in figure 4-7, and their effect will be studied based
on the ratio of iron powder mix with aluminum oxide abrasive paste. The magnetic field density
calculations are provided based on the geometry of the polishing tool. The iron powder to be mixed
with the aluminum oxide abrasive paste is simply an educational iron filings and will be mixed in
the most effective weight ratio to ultimately give the best results. So the abrasive paste will be
mixed with iron powder with an equal weight of 1 gram each.
Figure 4-2 Schematic and actual picture show the magnets location inside the tool
15
4.3 Abrasive cutting mechanism
Loose abrasive cutting effect mechanism; sliding or rolling, is of important theoretical
value as it allows for a better understanding of how one could achieve better process efficiency
and thus better results. The cutting forces exerted by the abrasive particles are investigated, and
the material removal rate model then established based on Preston’s law. Factors affecting the
polishing process are as follows; rotating speed, air pressure, dwell time, depth of cut, magnet
density, grain size and workpiece material and shape. The experiment will then help show which
factors are significant, and need further studies. Then an optimization process will be useful to
define the best working process parameters that guarantee best polishing performance. The
experiment is detailed in the next portion of this chapter. From the experimental results, one would
be able to examine the theoretical model’s prediction accuracy. However, from the literature, there
are a number of researchers who have investigated the process of polishing and revealed many
hypotheses as to what exactly happens in the contact area between the polishing tool and the
surface to be polished. Three of those hypotheses are utilized in this project; the mechanical
abrasion (three-body abrasion) causing the cracks in the subsurface, plastic deformation caused by
the frictional heat, and the interaction between slurry, workpiece material and the tool (in our case
it’s the magnetic force) simplified in figures 4-8 & 4-9.
Figure 4-8 Schematic showing two- and three-body abrasion (Marinescu, 2007)
16
To be able to understand the mechanism of polishing, one would need to study the major
factors that play important roles in the process. As Preston law lays out the relationship between
the volume of material removed in a polishing process to pressure, velocity and a constant that
represent any other material and abrasive properties. Here, we will take into consideration the two
main factors (pressure and velocity) but will add to them studying the effect of abrasive size.
Figure 4-9 Cutting Mechanism hypotheses
17
The empirical model to be used in this study for the surface roughness is as following:
𝑅𝑎 = 𝐶 ∗ 𝑃𝛼 ∗ 𝐺𝛽 ∗ 𝑆 𝛾 (1)
Where Ra is surface roughness, C is a constant, P is air pressure inside the polishing tool, G is the
abrasive grain size, and S is the polishing tool rotational speed. The powers α, β, γ are to be found
experimentally.
4.4 Design of Experiments
The polishing process mainly depends on applied pressure, relative velocity and a constant
that represent various parameters, according to Preston’s law. However due to the significant
change in the tool geometry, tool material, abrasive applications type, and other factors, the study
of a full factorial design will be utilized. The factors selected are the air pressure inside the rubber
part of the tool, abrasive grain size, and polishing time at three levels each. Therefore, twenty
seven samples are required for the experimental runs. The selection of the workpiece material has
been agreed upon to be 304L HRAP stainless steel due to its wide range of usage in several
industries. A new polishing cloth will be used for each run to avoid mixing the loose abrasive sizes
which will skew the results. The use of ANOVA, regression, and the design of experiment tools
included in the Minitab software will help with the analysis of the process procedure, results and
conclusions. Another set of runs were considered to study the effect of finer grain sizes and the
magnetic flux strength on the final surface roughness. This includes three levels of submicron sizes
of water based alumina (Al2O3) at 500, 300, and 50 nm. The magnetic flux density was represented
by the value of force at 0.84, 1.68, and 2.52 lbs. The experimental study and analysis of this
experiment is done as per the request of the doctoral dissertation committee request. Another
empirical model is therefore generated and examined.
18
The equipment to be utilized for these sets of experiments are; the Haas VF-2 VMC milling
machine at the high bay area. But in order to measure both surface roughness and measure the
diameter of the workpiece before and after polishing, Mitutoyo surface roughness/contour
measuring devices SV-C3200 and SV-C4500 provided by Mitutoyo of Plymouth, MI office were
utilized. The initial surface roughness and contour diameter were measured for all twenty seven
samples before polishing.
19
Chapter 5
Significance
As of recent years, the polishing process is mainly done manually or at the very best semi-
automatic. This however causes the process reliability to go down as it depends on labors’ skills.
It also causes the process to be time consuming, in addition to variations in the outputs. It is
important to unify the results across the board, by introducing a method through which machines
are utilized, performance is enhanced, and thus surface finish is of a commercial use. This project
introduces a new technique of polishing within which various proven technologies are combined
in one unique tool. The use of pneumatic polishing along with the magnetic abrasive finishing
techniques embedded in one device that shows a great potential is needed as never before. It
ensures the safe use of no-contact finishing method for higher process efficiency, better surface
finish, and it also conforms to the basic polishing laws.
The design and fabrication of the novel pneumatic polishing tool is therefore realized and
conducted. This project will help mitigate the limitations to the traditional polishing, which cannot
work on complicated workpiece geometries. It will also develop a basis that help optimize the best
conditions at which significantly better results in terms of surface roughness and material removal
rate are obtained.
20
Chapter 6
Experimental Work and Results
6.1 Experiment Set-up
Once the design of the polishing tool has been done, the parts were fabricated using the
lathe machine in the Precision Micro-Machining Center. In order to test the functionality of the
polishing tool, air is pumped in the rubber, a polishing cloth is installed, and then the tool is
mounted on the Haas milling machine to perform the test. The parameters for the test are as
following: pressure inside the rubber is set at 7.5 psi, depth the rubber will be pressed onto the
workpiece is at 0.125 in, time is fixed at 5 minutes, with various rotating speeds set at
100,200,300,400, and 500 rpm. The loose abrasives used are aluminum oxide with an average size
of 66 micron in a paste form, and the workpiece is made of stainless steel with a concave shape as
shown figure 6-1.
21
Figure 3-1 Tool setup before parameters investigation experiment
The test described above was successfully conducted without any air leakage issues. This
has allowed for the next step which is investigating the polishing process parameters through a set
of chosen factors at different levels such as air pressure inside the rubber, tool speed, depth of tool
exerts on the workpiece, abrasive grain size, and time.
6.2 Process Parameters Investigation
A set of investigative runs have been conducted to further understand the polishing process
factors influence, the setup and results are shown in the table below (table 6.1).
22
Table 6.1 Polishing Process Parameters Investigation Results
The
P S G t Rainitial Ra mean Difference
(psi) (rpm) d (in) (micron) (min) (µm) Ra (µm) (µm) %
2 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.45 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.215 52.22
4 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.41 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.28 0.22 46.34
6 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.38 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.24 0.17 55.26
8 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.41 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 39.02
10 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.45 0.3 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.2675 40.56
6 750 3/32" 16 15 0.49 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.28 0.2 59.18
6 1000 3/32" 16 15 0.48 0.3 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.18 62.50
6 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.48 0.29 0.25 0.24 0.17 0.2575 46.35
6 1500 3/32" 16 15 0.48 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.205 57.29
6 1750 3/32" 16 15 0.46 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.26 0.2225 51.63
1/32
6 1250 " 16 15 0.48 0.26 0.14 0.25 0.23 0.1975 58.85
6 1250 2/32" 16 15 0.48 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.17 0.255 46.88
6 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.5 0.2 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.2325 53.50
6 1250 4/32" 16 15 0.49 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.265 45.92
6 1250 5/32" 16 15 0.5 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.29 0.315 37.00
6 1250 3/32" 66 15 0.47 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.1925 59.04
6 1250 3/32" 32 15 0.41 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.23 0.15 63.41
6 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.4 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.1475 63.13
6 1250 3/32" 6 15 0.49 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.1925 60.71
6 1250 3/32" 1 mic 15 0.48 0.21 0.16 0.26 0.21 56.25
6 1250 3/32" 16 5 0.42 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.1625 61.31
6 1250 3/32" 16 10 0.46 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.175 61.96
6 1250 3/32" 16 15 0.42 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.165 60.71
6 1250 3/32" 16 20 0.55 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.1733333333 68.48
6 1250 3/32" 16 25 0.46 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.245 46.74
Five factors were considered; air pressure (psi), rotating speed (rpm), depth of rubber
contact (in), abrasive grain size (micron), and dwell time (minutes) each factor at five different
levels. The runs are designed to investigate one variable at a time, fixing the four others at the
average value, for example to examine the effect of time then pressure is fixed at the average value
between 2 and 10 psi (6 psi is then selected) and so on. The workpiece material is a one inch thick
block made of stainless steel, divided into twenty five equal squares of about 1”X1”. The
23
workpiece surface went through a grinding process, roughness measurements were taken before
and after the polishing process using the Pocket Surf® tool. Four different readings were taken,
and the average is compared to the initial value as seen in the table. It is therefore noticed that there
is a significant reduction in the surface roughness of about fifty percent across the entire runs.
The good news about this investigative experiment is that it shows a significant reduction
in the values of surface roughness, 50% reduction in an average throughout the experiment. The
results show that as pressure, speed, depth increase the surface finish ends up rougher. But dwell
time has almost no impact between 5 to 20 minutes. Pressure and velocity are chosen to be studied
further due their importance throughout the history of polishing, i.e., main factors in Preston law,
but the influence of grain size is to become the new factor to be added to our investigation.
The workpiece material to be polished was bought from Alro® as two plates of 304L
HRAP Stainless Steel plates with dimension 7 in wide, 24.5 in long and 1.75 in thick. The
hemisphere shape was then machined using the same milling machine. The plates is then cut to
smaller parts, each contains two concave shapes to be polished. Figure 11 shows a plate with 8
final shapes machined, before it is cut into four rectangular blocks each containing two of the
hemispheres.
Figure 6-2 Workpiece after being machined to have the final shape
24
6.3 First Experiment: Study of the effect of polishing process parameters on the surface roughness
and material removal rate of hemispherical 304L Stainless Steel
Our design of experiment is a full factorial with three factors, each at three levels 33 as
following:
Table 6.2 Design of Experiment-Factor levels
Factor Level
Pressure (psi) 8, 10, 12
Grain Size (um) 32, 16, 1
Speed (rpm) 900, 1200, 1500
Using Minitab software, the order of runs is generated randomly as shown in the table
below, then the experiment is conducted accordingly.
25
Table 6.3 Runs generated by Minitab
Std Order RunOrder Pressure (psi) Grain Size (micron) Speed (rpm)
2 1 8 32 1200
19 2 12 32 900
12 3 10 32 1500
26 4 12 1 1200
14 5 10 16 1200
22 6 12 16 900
16 7 10 1 900
1 8 8 32 900
4 9 8 16 900
7 10 8 1 900
13 11 10 16 900
11 12 10 32 1200
10 13 10 32 900
8 14 8 1 1200
23 15 12 16 1200
3 16 8 32 1500
5 17 8 16 1200
6 18 8 16 1500
21 19 12 32 1500
17 20 10 1 1200
18 21 10 1 1500
15 22 10 16 1500
27 23 12 1 1500
20 24 12 32 1200
25 25 12 1 900
24 26 12 16 1500
9 27 8 1 1500
All twenty seven runs were conducted in one day, samples were then taken to the Mitutoyo
office in Plymouth, MI for measurements. Surface roughness after polishing was measured for all
samples along with the diameter which will help us calculate the volume of material removed
during the polishing process. The results are shown in table 6.4.
26
Table 6.3 Experiment Results
Grain Size Ra B Ra A
StdOrder RunOrder Pressure (psi) (micron) Speed (rpm) (um) (um) ΔRa%
1 8 8 32 900 0.3053 0.2169 28.96
2 1 8 32 1200 0.3043 0.1838 39.60
3 16 8 32 1500 0.3029 0.1543 49.06
4 9 8 16 900 0.3568 0.2337 34.50
5 17 8 16 1200 0.4154 0.1839 55.73
6 18 8 16 1500 0.4355 0.1594 63.40
7 10 8 1 900 0.34 0.0816 76.00
8 14 8 1 1200 0.3199 0.0944 70.49
9 27 8 1 1500 0.3959 0.1206 69.54
10 13 10 32 900 0.2534 0.1879 25.85
11 12 10 32 1200 0.337 0.2639 21.69
12 3 10 32 1500 0.4195 0.2497 40.48
13 11 10 16 900 0.3375 0.2084 38.25
14 5 10 16 1200 0.3271 0.1539 52.95
15 22 10 16 1500 0.3579 0.1011 71.75
16 7 10 1 900 0.3509 0.1078 69.28
17 20 10 1 1200 0.4307 0.1676 61.09
18 21 10 1 1500 0.4043 0.0913 77.42
19 2 12 32 900 0.3018 0.2098 30.48
20 24 12 32 1200 0.3745 0.2695 28.04
21 19 12 32 1500 0.3973 0.2326 41.45
22 6 12 16 900 0.2838 0.0781 72.48
23 15 12 16 1200 0.3797 0.1167 69.27
24 26 12 16 1500 0.3562 0.1519 57.36
25 25 12 1 900 0.394 0.092 76.65
26 4 12 1 1200 0.2859 0.1182 58.66
27 23 12 1 1500 0.3371 0.0891 73.57
Ra B is the mean value of surface roughness before polishing while Ra A stands for the
mean value of surface roughness measured after polishing. The last column indicates the
percentage difference of surface roughness before and after polishing.
27
6.3.1 Surface Roughness
6.3.1.1 Surface roughness results analysis
Figure 6-3 Three Dimensional illustration of the experiment results
This graph shows how the surface roughness is influenced by the three chosen factors, one
would notice the downward trend of the value of surface roughness as the grain size changes from
32 to 1 micron. It is known that as the grain size gets smaller, the overall function of cutting
becomes more efficient. This can be explained as a result of the total number of active abrasives,
as the smaller the size of the abrasives the higher the number of active abrasives engaged in the
cutting process during polishing. This conclusion has been drawn by C.J. Evans et al (2003) when
he studied the effect of granule effect on the material removed during polishing, this is also valid
in the surface roughness model under study. When the lowest level of grain size was used, 1
micron, it is clear we get the best values of Ra, indicated by the orange and grey categories in the
graph, but one would need to further examine the influence of the other factors within this region;
this may help in locating the optimized factors that would produce the best results. It is assumed
28
that the smaller grains along with the iron particles added would have a better and a uniform cutting
action due to the fact that 1 micron grains do not undergo any fracture during the polishing process.
It is also assumed that in any given abrasive mixture, the smaller size grains may contain higher
number of particles than larger ones which in turn achieve more efficient cutting process and better
results.
Ra at G 1 um
0.4307
0.45 0.394 0.3959 0.4043
0.4 0.34 0.3509 0.3371
0.3199
0.35 0.2859
0.3
Ra (um)
0.25
0.1676
0.2
0.1078 0.1182 0.1206
0.15 0.0816 0.092 0.0944 0.0913 0.0891
0.1
0.05
0
900 1200 1500
Speed (rpm)
Ra B (um) @ 8 psi Ra A (um) @ 8 psi Ra B (um) @10 psi

Ra A (um) @ 10 psi Ra B (um) @ 12 psi Ra A (um) @ 12 psi
Figure 6-4 Variability in results at different levels of pressure and speed
Table 6.5 Surface Roughness comparison at different speeds, but 1 micron grain size
Speed (rpm)
900 1200 1500
Ra A (um)-Average 0.0938 0.1267 0.1003
% difference in Ra 73.9762 63.4114 73.5081
29
Table 6.4 Surface Roughness comparison at different pressure levels, but a fixed 1 micron grain size
Pressure (psi)
8 10 12
Ra A (um)-Average 0.0989 0.1222 0.0998
% difference in Ra 73.9762 63.4114 73.5081
It seems hard to draw a conclusion as to whether the speed and pressure have a consistent
influence on the surface finish, as seen in the graph above (figure 6-4). This is translated in the
values of the powers in our model. But generally, it seems reasonable to suggest that working at
medium speed and either low or high pressure would generate good results according to the mean
value of Ra calculated at 8, 10, and 12 psi (0.0989, 0.1222, and 0.0998 um respectively). The three
surface response graphs shown in figure 6-6 can be useful in defining the areas where factors have
their best and worst influence. At 32 micron, the average value of surface roughness reaches 0.2187
um, however as the grain size changes to 16 um that value is reduced by roughly 30% down to
0.154122 um. This trend continues to occur as the third level of grain size is applied, with average
value of final surface roughness of 0.106956 um. The factors main effect is shown graphically in
figure 6-5, the lowest values of surface roughness are found to result from low pressure, low speed
and the smallest grain size.
30
Main Effects Plot for Ra (um)
Data Means
Pressure (psi) Grain Size (um)
0.20
0.15
0.10
Mean
8 10 12 1 16 32
Speed (rpm)
0.20
0.15
0.10
900 1200 1500
Figure 6-5 Main effect plot generated by Minitab
31
Figure 6-6 3D representation of Ra at 8,10 &12 psi
32
One way to explore further is to use the contour plot, which will help reveal if the
three factors have any potential relationship which affects the output. Below are some
contour plots retrieved from Minitab, they certainly support the finding above (Grain size
is the significant factor) as lower values of the surface roughness are shown in the plots
where grain size is included. Another finding is that the possible interaction between
pressure and grain size may have better results than any other interactions, as seen in the
plots, better contour values are shown in figure 6-7 compared to figures 6-8 and 6-9.
Surface Roughness
12
0.125
11
Pressure (psi)
10 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
8
5 10 15 20 25 30
Grit Size (micron)
Figure 6-7 Contour plot of Surface roughness under the influence of Grain Size and Pressure
33
Surface Roughness
12
0.175
11
Pressure (psi)
10
8
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Speed (rpm)
Figure 4 Contour plot of Surface roughness under the influence of Speed and Pressure
Surface Roughness
1500
1400
1300
Speed (rpm)
1200 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
1100
1000
900
5 10 15 20 25 30
Grit Size (micron)
Figure 6-9 Contour plot of Surface roughness under the influence of Grain Size and Speed
34
Surface response plots provide almost the same findings, but in a clearer concept
of the response surface, as can be seen in the three plots below. One would quickly notice
the steep surface generated when pressure and grain size are studied (figure 6-10) compared
with all other factor interactions in figures 6-11 and 6-12. This is also supported by the
factors interaction plot in figure 6-13, as one would be able to make decisions which will
optimize the final output. For instance, at a fine grain size, i.e., one micron, one would
choose to set the pressure at 8 psi as this combination is shown to give better surface
roughness. Also at 900 rpm, only the lowest grain size shows better results. However, at
such speed, pressure needs to be set at 12 psi to produce a fine surface. So from the contour
plots, one would neglect the speed effect and choose the optimum values of 1 micron for
the grain size and 8 psi for the pressure.
Surface Roughness
0.25
0.20
Ra (um)
0.15
12
0.10
10
Pressure (psi)
0
10
20 8
30
Grit Size (micron)
Figure 6-10 Surface response of Ra at Grain Size and Pressure
35
Surface Roughness
0.25
0.20
Ra (um)
0.15
0.10 1400
1200
Speed (rpm)
0 1000
10
20
30
Grit Size (micron)
Figure 6-11 Surface response of Ra at Grain Size and Speed
Surface Roughness
0.25
0.20
Ra (um)
0.15
0.10 1400
1200
Speed (rpm)
8 1000
10
12
Pressure (psi)
Figure 5 Surface response of Ra at Pressure and Speed

36
Interaction Plot for Ra (um)
Data Means
1 16 32 900 1200 1500
Pressure
0.20 (psi)
8
P r essur e (psi) 10
0.15
12
0.10
Grain
0.20 Size
(um)
Gr ain Size (um) 1
0.15
16
32
0.10
Speed (r pm)
Figure 6 Factor Interaction Plot for Ra generated by Minitab
37
6.3.1.2 The Surface roughness model
The results show that the final surface roughness of the workpiece underwent a
significant improvement, we will examine the outcome in general at first but then we will
shed more light on the major factor(s) considered. The Minitab output below represent the
basic study of the polishing process considering the linear regressing analysis (figure 6-
14). The results show that the grain size is significant, which further support our study.
Both the normal probability and the residual graphs show no abnormal behavior in the data
as can be seen in figure 6-15.
General Linear Model: Ra (um) versus Pressure (ps, Grain Size (m, ...
Factor Type Levels Values

Pressure (psi) fixed 3 8, 10, 12
Grain Size (micron) fixed 3 1, 16, 32
Speed (rpm) fixed 3 900, 1200, 1500
Analysis of Variance for Ra (um), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Pressure (psi) 2 0.001696 0.001696 0.000848 0.59 0.579
Grain Size (micron) 2 0.056657 0.056657 0.028329 19.55 0.001
Speed (rpm) 2 0.002354 0.002354 0.001177 0.81 0.477
Pressure (psi)*Grain Size (micron) 4 0.013328 0.013328 0.003332 2.30 0.147
Pressure (psi)*Speed (rpm) 4 0.005589 0.005589 0.001397 0.96 0.477
Grain Size (micron)*Speed (rpm) 4 0.003383 0.003383 0.000846 0.58 0.684
Error 8 0.011593 0.011593 0.001449
Total 26 0.094600
S = 0.0380672 R-Sq = 87.75% R-Sq(adj) = 60.17%
Figure 6-14 General Linear Model generated by Minitab
38
Residual Plots for Ra (um)
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99 0.04
90 0.02
Residual
Percent
50 0.00
10 -0.02
1 -0.04
-0.050 -0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Residual Fitted Value
Histogram Versus Order

0.04
4.8
0.02
3.6
Frequency
Residual
0.00
2.4
1.2 -0.02
0.0 -0.04
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Residual Observation Order
Figure 6-15 Normal Probability, Histogram and Residual Plots of Surface roughness generated by Minitab
So in order to solve for the model proposed, the natural log was taken for all the
terms and so the model will look like
Log (Ra) = Log (C) + α Log (P) + β Log (G) + γ Log (S) (2)
Plugging the converted data into Minitab, we get the first regression model as
(3)
39
Regression Analysis: Log (Ra) versus log (P), log (G), log (S)
The regression equation is

Log (Ra) = - 0.729 - 0.201 log (P) + 0.184 log (G) - 0.021 log (S)
General Linear Model: Ra (um) versus Pressure (ps, Grain Size (m, ...

Speed (rpm) fixed 3 900, 1200, 1500
Analysis of Variance for Ra (um), using Adjusted SS for Tests

Pressure (psi) 2 0.001696 0.001696 0.000848 0.50 0.614
Speed (rpm) 2 0.002354 0.002354 0.001177 0.69 0.511
Error 20 0.033893 0.033893 0.001695
Total 26 0.094600
S = 0.0411663 R-Sq = 64.17% R-Sq(adj) = 53.42%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 0.39179 0.13060 8.21 0.001
Residual Error 23 0.36593 0.01591
Total 26 0.75772
Figure 6-16 Regression model and ANOVA generated by Minitab
From the above Minitab output, it is clear that there is a significant correlation
between the abrasive grain size and the final surface roughness. The model proves that
statement as the grain size is the only factor that is raised to a positive, yet small, exponent.
One way to improve a regression model is to raise it to a higher order then examine the
estimation of error. So here we will use the second order regression model, solve for the
powers, then compare it to the first order model obtained from earlier.
40
The second order regression model will follow the form written as
𝑦 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑥1 + 𝛽2 𝑥2 + 𝛽3 𝑥3 + 𝛽11 𝑥12 + 𝛽22 𝑥22 + 𝛽33 𝑥32 + 𝜖 (4)
Solving for the second order regression model using Minitab, we get the following
results;
General Regression Analysis: Log (Ra) versus log (P), log (G), log (S)
Regression Equation
Log (Ra) = -52.7305 + 11.8036 log (P) - 0.228091 log (G) + 30.1115 log (S) -
6.06476 log (P)*log (P) + 0.290293 log (G)*log (G) - 4.91903 log
(S)*log (S)
Coefficients
Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -52.7305 37.4894 -1.40654 0.175
log (P) 11.8036 12.3167 0.95834 0.349
log (G) -0.2281 0.2004 -1.13793 0.269
log (S) 30.1115 24.1746 1.24559 0.227
log (P)*log (P) -6.0648 6.2206 -0.97495 0.341
log (G)*log (G) 0.2903 0.1391 2.08650 0.050
log (S)*log (S) -4.9190 3.9462 -1.24653 0.227
Summary of Model
S = 0.116725 R-Sq = 64.04% R-Sq(adj) = 53.25%

PRESS = 0.496623 R-Sq(pred) = 34.46%

Regression 6 0.485228 0.485228 0.0808714 5.93561 0.001084
log (P) 1 0.005642 0.012513 0.0125132 0.91841 0.349334
log (G) 1 0.386048 0.017643 0.0176426 1.29489 0.268598
log (S) 1 0.000101 0.021139 0.0211387 1.55149 0.227311
log (P)*log (P) 1 0.012951 0.012951 0.0129508 0.95053 0.341230
log (G)*log (G) 1 0.059315 0.059315 0.0593151 4.35347 0.049947
log (S)*log (S) 1 0.021171 0.021171 0.0211708 1.55384 0.226972
Error 20 0.272496 0.272496 0.0136248
Total 26 0.757724
Figure 6-17 Regression model and ANOVA of the second order model generated by Minitab
41
Therefore, the new second order model will look like the following
−6.065 0.2903 −4.919
𝑅𝑎 = 1.86 ∗ 10−53 𝑃11.804 𝐺 −0.228 𝑆 30.112 𝑃𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑃) 𝐺𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐺) 𝑆𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑆) (5)
The model represented above, can predict the values at a better confidence but an
analysis to the error resulted between the first and second order models is needed. So in
this section we will perform a comparison between the two models.
Error
40
30
20
10
% Error
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-10
-20
-30
-40
Experiment Run Number
% E - 1st Order % E-2Nd order
Figure 7 Comparison of % of Error generated by the first-order and the second-order models
The error caused by the second order model seems to be of a lesser value compared
with that caused by the first order model as can be noticed in figure 6-18. Accordingly, the
value of the sum of squared deviation is less when obtaining values of surface roughness
using the second order model as shown in the table below (Table 6.7).
42
Table 6.5 Sum of Squared deviation by first-order and second-order models
First Order Second Order

Sum of Squared Deviation 0.3659 0.2725
The next step is now to examine the second order model using only the grain size
squared in the model, then evaluate it and compare the obtained results to the rest.
So the Minitab output looks like the following;
General Regression Analysis: Log (Ra) versus log (P), log (G), log (S)
Regression Equation
Log (Ra) = -0.716019 - 0.200751 log (P) - 0.228091 log (G) - 0.0212854 log
(S) + 0.290293 log (G)*log (G)
Coefficients
Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -0.716019 0.830551 -0.86210 0.398
log (P) -0.200751 0.315508 -0.63628 0.531
log (G) -0.228091 0.202728 -1.12511 0.273
log (S) -0.021285 0.250191 -0.08508 0.933
log (G)*log (G) 0.290293 0.140715 2.06298 0.051
Summary of Model
S = 0.118056 R-Sq = 59.53% R-Sq(adj) = 52.18%

PRESS = 0.466793 R-Sq(pred) = 38.40%

Regression 4 0.451107 0.451107 0.112777 8.09181 0.000360
log (P) 1 0.005642 0.005642 0.005642 0.40485 0.531159
log (G) 1 0.386048 0.017643 0.017643 1.26587 0.272669
log (S) 1 0.000101 0.000101 0.000101 0.00724 0.932970
log (G)*log (G) 1 0.059315 0.059315 0.059315 4.25590 0.051113
Error 22 0.306617 0.306617 0.013937
Total 26 0.757724
Figure 6-18 Regression model and ANOVA for the third model
43
As can be noticed that the percentage of variability explained by the model
represented by R-Squared in this case has a lower value than that of the second order model
which contained all the terms, yet it is still better than the first order model. The empirical
model will be as described by the equation below;

0.290293
𝑅𝑎 = 0.192301 ∗ 𝑃−0.200751 ∗ 𝐺 −0.228091 ∗ 𝑆 −0.0212854 ∗ 𝐺𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐺) (6)
This model actually shows comparable results to those generated by the second
order-model with all terms as shown in the figure(6-19), but it produces a larger sum of
squared deviation.
Error
40
30
20
10
% Error
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-10
-20
-30
-40
Experiment Run Number
% E - 1st Order % E-2Nd order % E - 2nd Oder 2
Figure 8 The difference in Error % generated by the three models
Table 6.6 Sum of squared deviation generated by the three models
First Order Second Order 2nd-Order w/ G

Sum of Squared Deviation 0.3659 0.2725 0.30662
44
Equations 3 through 6 represent various forms of models that best fit the results,
however all of them lack the power of prediction on one hand, and generate variabilities.
The original straightforward form of a regression model is therefore shown in equation 7.
This representation of the data is then transformed to test for better prediction and less
variability as shown. Figures 6-20 and 6-21 show the same finding as before, that the
abrasive grain size is the only significant factor and the model is moderate in its power at
60% but the S-statistic shows that the average deviation from the mean is low which means
that the model can fit the data well.
𝑅𝑎 (𝑢𝑚) = 0.1353 − 0.00196 𝑃 + 0.00361 𝐺 − 0.000012 𝑆 (7)
Regression Analysis: Ra (um) versus Pressure (ps, Grit Size (m, Speed
(rpm)
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Regression 3 0.056892 0.018964 11.57 0.000
Pressure (psi) 1 0.000278 0.000278 0.17 0.684
Grit Size (micron) 1 0.056371 0.056371 34.38 0.000
Speed (rpm) 1 0.000243 0.000243 0.15 0.704
Error 23 0.037708 0.001639
Total 26 0.094600
Model Summary
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0404905 60.14% 54.94% 46.06%
Coefficients
Term Coef SE Coef T-Value P-Value VIF

Constant 0.1353 0.0624 2.17 0.041
Pressure (psi) -0.00196 0.00477 -0.41 0.684 1.00
Grit Size (micron) 0.003610 0.000616 5.86 0.000 1.00
Speed (rpm) -0.000012 0.000032 -0.39 0.704 1.00
Regression Equation
Ra (um) = 0.1353 - 0.00196 Pressure (psi) + 0.003610 Grit Size (micron)

- 0.000012
FigureSpeed (rpm)
6-20 New regression model with no data transformation
45
Figure 6-21 Normality assumptions are met, and no abnormality is found
46
Data transformation was used to examine the possibility of a better fit to the results
by other models, and the resulted models are shown in equations 8 and 9. Both models
(square root transformation and natural log transformation) are shown to have the same
ANOVA with the abrasive grain size being the significant factor, figures 6-22 and 6-24
respectively. It can be noticed though that the average deviation from the mean values
using the SQRT-model is smaller and thus better than that generated using the Nat-Log-
Model. Both also show normality assumptions being met with no abnormalities in the
residual plots as shown in figures 6-23 and 6-25 respectively.
(rpm)
Method
Box-Cox transformation
Rounded λ 0.5
Estimated λ 0.335332
90% CI for λ (-0.483168, 1.14783)
Analysis of Variance for Transformed Response

Regression 3 0.090567 0.030189 11.67 0.000
Pressure (psi) 1 0.000841 0.000841 0.33 0.574
Grit Size (micron) 1 0.089497 0.089497 34.61 0.000
Speed (rpm) 1 0.000229 0.000229 0.09 0.769
Error 23 0.059475 0.002586
Total 26 0.150042
Model Summary for Transformed Response

0.0508513 60.36% 55.19% 46.40%
Coefficients for Transformed Response

Constant 0.3671 0.0784 4.68 0.000
Pressure (psi) -0.00342 0.00599 -0.57 0.574 1.00
Grit Size (micron) 0.004548 0.000773 5.88 0.000 1.00
Speed (rpm) -0.000012 0.000040 -0.30 0.769 1.00
Regression Equation
Ra (um)^0.5 = 0.3671 - 0.00342 Pressure (psi) + 0.004548 Grit Size (micron)

- 0.000012 Speed (rpm)
Figure 6-22 ANOVA of the SQRT Transformation model
47
Figure 6-23 This model (SQRT-Model) shows no sign of abnormality
(rpm)
Method
Box-Cox transformation λ = 0

Regression 3 2.39773 0.79924 11.35 0.000
Pressure (psi) 1 0.03530 0.03530 0.50 0.486
Grit Size (micron) 1 2.36018 2.36018 33.52 0.000
Speed (rpm) 1 0.00225 0.00225 0.03 0.860
Error 23 1.61965 0.07042
Total 26 4.01738

0.265366 59.68% 54.43% 45.48%

Constant -2.021 0.409 -4.94 0.000
Pressure (psi) -0.0221 0.0313 -0.71 0.486 1.00
Grit Size (micron) 0.02336 0.00403 5.79 0.000 1.00
Speed (rpm) -0.000037 0.000208 -0.18 0.860 1.00
Regression Equation
ln(Ra (um)) = -2.021 - 0.0221 Pressure (psi) + 0.02336 Grit Size (micron)
- 0.000037
Figure 6-24Speed
Natural(rpm)
Log transformation based model analysis
48
Figure 6-25 Natural Log-Model residual plots
√𝑅𝑎 = 0.3671 − 0.00342 𝑃 + 0.004548 𝐺 − 0.000012 𝑆 (8)
ln 𝑅𝑎 = −2.021 − 0.0221 𝑃 + 0.02336 𝐺 − 0.000037 𝑆 (9)
6.3.1.3 Comparison
Now that we have established the a solid ground in the relationship between the
polishing process output in terms of surface roughness and the main focus in this case
which is the abrasive grain size, it would be beneficial to show how the proposed
mechanism differ from conventional polishing. In doing so, we shall compare two set of
runs; one from the process parameters investigation group where no MAP nor a complex
49
shape was used (represented by table 6.9), and another from the experimental runs where
the magnets were installed, and the workpiece has a hemispheric shape (table 6.10).
Table 6.7 A run borrowed from table 1
P (psi) S (rpm) d (in) G t (min) Ra Ra final %
(micron) initial (µm) difference
(µm)
8 1250 3/32 16 15 0.41 0.25 39.02
As the findings have shown before that the speed does not play a major role in
influencing the surface roughness, the difference in speed within this comparison is not of
a great concern. Therefore, it is clear that using the new proposed polishing tool and
technique has reached to better results, i.e. Ra (mean value) at 0.1839 um, in a fraction of
the time it took to obtain a surface that is not even comparable in roughness Ra at 0.25 um.
Table 6.8 A run borrowed from table 4
P (psi) G (micron) S (rpm) Ra before Ra after % difference
(µm) (µm)
8 16 1200 0.4154 0.1839 55.73
Visible comparison of the smoothness of the surface profile produced by both
methods can easily be found in figures 6-26 and 6-27 below. Despite the geometry
difference, one could argue that working on a flat surface could have produced better
results, unfortunately it is not the case when using a tool that has a convex rubber nose as
50
that is shown to contribute negatively due to the dimple shape produced when the polishing
tool rotates in a fixed location. On the other hand, when the tool rotates around the tool
axis in addition to a negligible rotation around the workpiece axis, but that dimple effect is
shown to be absent which in turn enhances the process efficiency and produce a better
surface finish.
Figure 6-26 A surface texture generated by Zygo® NewView 5000
51
Figure 6-27 Surface profile generated by Mitutoyo® SV-C4500
52
6.3.2 Material Removal Rate
6.3.2.1 Results Analysis
Table 6.9 Material removal rate experimental results
Pressure Grain Size Speed MRR

StdOrder RunOrder (psi) (micron) (rpm) (mm^3/min)
1 8 8 32 900 713.7953
2 1 8 32 1200 751.0252
3 16 8 32 1500 723.3063
4 9 8 16 900 719.887
5 17 8 16 1200 694.9947
6 18 8 16 1500 691.8825
7 10 8 1 900 729.4743
8 14 8 1 1200 735.8855
9 27 8 1 1500 667.7309
10 13 10 32 900 703.138
11 12 10 32 1200 723.3467
12 3 10 32 1500 729.4002
13 11 10 16 900 711.7595
14 5 10 16 1200 713.7935
15 22 10 16 1500 729.2234
16 7 10 1 900 737.8924
17 20 10 1 1200 737.3755
18 21 10 1 1500 729.4973
19 2 12 32 900 713.7639
20 24 12 32 1200 715.5666
21 19 12 32 1500 671.3102
22 6 12 16 900 673.1551
23 15 12 16 1200 713.3481
24 26 12 16 1500 723.9244
25 25 12 1 900 699.1521
26 4 12 1 1200 713.403
27 23 12 1 1500 719.9695
53
The results of the material removed during the polishing process are shown the
table above. The last column was calculated though measurements of the diameter of the
hemisphere before and after the polishing then the difference in volume was calculated in
millimeter cube which then was divided by the process time. Unfortunately this section
did not reveal so much about the relationship between the three factors and the material
removed. Nevertheless, this section will shed some light on the results followed by a
section dedicated to the model analysis.
MRR (mm^3/min)
760
MRR (mm^3/min)
740
720
700
680
660
640
Pressure (psi)
620 12
32 32 32 10
16
900 16
1200 1500 16
900 1 8
1200 1
1500 1
900
1200
1500
Grain Size (um) and Speed (rpm)
620-640 640-660 660-680 680-700 700-720 720-740 740-760
Figure 6-28 Three dimensional view of the behavior of material removed under the influence of all three factors
The material removed during polishing did not seem to have been affected by the
change in any of the three factors, which is hard to explain at this point as historically
polishing has always been dependent on at least the pressure and speed. This finding proves
that there is so much variability during the process. From ANOVA, one will be able to
54
notice the lack of correlation between any of the factors studied and the response. In
addition, the regression is only able to explain a very low percentage of the variability, R-
squared at 27.5%. Therefore, the model interprets that in a weak relationship represented
in the equation below.
𝑀𝑅𝑅 = 780.4927 ∗ 𝑃−0.02856 ∗ 𝐺 −0.00237 ∗ 𝑆 −0.00264 (10)
General Regression Analysis: LOG (MRR) versus LOG (P), LOG (G), LOG (S)
Regression Equation
LOG (MRR) = 2.89237 - 0.0285642 LOG (P) - 0.00236817 LOG (G) - 0.00264223
LOG(S)
General Linear Model: MRR (mm^3/mi versus Pressure (ps, Grain Size (m, ...

Speed (rpm) fixed 3 900, 1200, 1500
Analysis of Variance for MRR (mm^3/min), using Adjusted SS for Tests

Pressure (psi) 2 1639.1 1639.1 819.5 2.04 0.156
Speed (rpm) 2 823.6 823.6 411.8 1.03 0.377
Error 20 8032.3 8032.3 401.6
Total 26 11073.2
S = 20.0404 R-Sq = 27.46% R-Sq(adj) = 5.70%
Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

(response is MRR (mm^3/min)) (response is MRR (mm^3/min))
99 40
95
30
90 20
80
10
70
Residual
Percent
60 0
50
40 -10
30
20 -20
10 -30
5
-40
1 -50
-50 -25 0 25 50 690 700 710 720 730 740
Residual Fitted Value
Figure 6-29 Regression mode, ANOVA, Normal Probability Plot and Residual plot for MRR
55
The main effect plots (figure 6-30) though show agreement with the knowledge in
the polishing world, take for instance the pressure effect on the mean value of material
removed; as the pressure increases it allows for a better cutting process by the abrasives up
to a certain level at which the grains start to break into smaller pieces that leads to loss in
load per grain, which eventually contribute to a less cutting action. The same argument can
be applied to the speed influence on the material removed, but with the abrasive grain size
it seems hard to explain the drop in the amount of material removed at 16 micron.
Main Effects Plot for MRR (mm^3/min)

Data Means
Pressure (psi) Grain Size (um)

725
720
715
710
705
Mean
8 10 12 1 16 32
Speed (rpm)
725
720
715
710
705
900 1200 1500
Figure 6-30 Main effect plot for MRR generated by Minitab
56
6.4 Second Experiment: Study of the effect of sub-micron abrasive grains and magnetic
force on the surface finish of 304L Stainless Steel in Pneumatic Polishing
6.4.1 Introduction
As the need for finer surfaces of molds or medical devices is increasing, the
finishing process undergoes a significant amount of research and investigation. In this
study, a novel polishing device, previously made in-house, is used to study the influence
of finer abrasive grain size on the surface roughness of non-magnetic Stainless Steel that
has a concave shape. Three nanometer levels of Alumina (Al2O3) water-based abrasive
slurry are used to form the magnetic abrasive with iron powder. Another area of
investigation is to study the behavior of surface roughness against three different levels of
magnetic strength. For the rest of the process parameters, the levels at which surface
roughness values were optimized were considered, i.e. rotational speed at 1500 rpm, and
air pressure inside the rubber part of the tool is kept at 12 psi. So the new set of parameters
are shown in the table 12;
Table 6.10 Factors to be studied
Factor Level
Grain Size (nm) 500, 300, 50
Magnetic Force(lb) 0.84, 1.68, 2.52
From the study done by T. Shinmura (1990), one could draw the conclusion that
the magnetic field generates enough pressure exerted on the magnetic abrasives during the
finishing process. And from the same study, the magnetic abrasives are formed by
subjecting the abrasives and the iron powder particles to high pressure and temperature
57
then sinter the mixture. This mixture is then controlled and kept together by the use of
magnetic forces inside the working zone. J-D Kim et al (1995) study was the pioneer to put
the magnetic polishing technology to an actual use when they introduced the two stages
polishing mechanism which was shown to have significantly improve the surface
roughness of steel. A magnetic brush was formed that employs the use of generated
pressure in the polishing zone by the permanent magnet which therefore pushes the
abrasives to indent the workpiece surface. Surface roughness was improved from 0.64 um
down to 0.008 um. Not until 2003 when T. Mori et al was the behavior of magnetic
abrasives first studied and force analysis during a finishing process was introduced. In their
study, it was found that the abrasive weight is proportional to the acting normal force. The
magnetic abrasive polishing was characterized by two main clauses: a. the magnetic field
generates normal and tangential forces that act on the magnetic abrasive and b. magnetic
abrasive bundles are separated from each other. The range of magnetic forces was found
to be 0 -20 N, which conforms to our selection of magnetic force levels. C-T Lin et al
(2007) were able to study and optimize the weight of the magnetic abrasive when used to
finish stainless steel specimen (SUS304) on a CNC machine. A correlation between the
finishing forces and magnetic abrasive weight was found experimentally, and the optimum
weight was found to be 2 grams. Another study on the finishing forces during Magnetic
Abrasive Finishing (MAF) process was conducted and proved by Kanish T. et al (2017),
where the relationship between the magnetic abrasive sizes (grit) was established. Stainless
Steel (SS316L) was polished, and the forces acting on the magnetic abrasive were shown
to be influenced by grit size of high order (1200 mesh). This motivates our study as to
investigate the nano-level of Alumina and its influence on surface roughness. The recent
58
study done by Wang Y. et al (2017) explores the behavior of the components of the
magnetic abrasive slurry (i.e., abrasives and iron particles) both theoretically and
experimentally with respect to acting forces. The resultant force acting on both the abrasive
and iron particles is found to be dependent on the nature of the workpiece undergoing the
finishing process (magnetic or non-magnetic). More abrasive particles are shown to be
engaged in the material removal during the finishing of a non-magnetic workpiece due to
the influence of the resultant force acting on the particles. This conclusion will be a basis
to the finer alumina that will be used in our study.
6.4.2 Methodology
Finishing process involves a combination of cutting actions as well as subsurface
deformation, according to the principle of polishing described I. Marinescu et al (2007).
The loose abrasive particles are either sliding or rolling during the polishing and lapping
processes. Therefore, the mechanical action of those loose abrasive particles is noticed; as
abrasion which causes subsurface micro-level cracks in the workpiece material, and the
heat generated by the friction in the working zone which causes plastic deformation in that
area, this is shown in figure 6-31. This cutting concept along with the utilization of the
magnetic assisted finishing (MAF) is the backbone of this study.
59
Figure 6-31 Schematic showing two- and three-body abrasion [I. Marinescu]
The magnet is attached to the Pneumatic Polishing Tool from inside, and the
magnetic field is generated in the working zone causing a magnetic field that acts on the
magnetic abrasive (both alumina and iron powder) particles.
Figure 9 Cutting Mechanism during polishing with the use of magnets
From previous investigation such as the one done by Wang Y. et al (2017), the
forces acting on the magnetic abrasive particles are found to be magnetic force and gravity
force as shown in figure 6-33.

60
Figure 6-33 Mechanism of polishing in this study-Using mechanical and magnetic hypotheses
The forces influencing the behavior of the abrasive particles are shown to have two
components Fm and Fg; that is a magnetic force and the gravity force (figure 6-34). The
resultant force is Fres-Abr and it is always negative in direction with respect to the magnetic
field (equation 13). This means that the forces are exerted on the abrasive particles to push
them towards the surface to be finished. Forces that are acting on the iron powder particles
are of the same types, but with an opposite influence. The resultant force on the iron powder
is positive in our case as the workpiece material is nonmagnetic, which makes the direction
of the magnetic force upward towards the magnet (refer to equation 15). This though is
highly influenced by the mass ratio of the magnetic abrasive components. The finer the
alumina, and since the iron powder size is fixed and the weight ratio is fixed, the higher
the magnetic force acting on the iron powder.
61
Figure 6-34 Analysis of forces acting on the magnetic abrasive as described by Wang Y et al (2017)
From the analysis provided in figure 44, one can easily find the force components
as following:
Forces acting on the Abrasive Particles:
𝐹𝑎𝑏𝑟,𝑥 = −𝐹𝑚 cos 𝜃 (11)
𝐹𝑎𝑏𝑟,𝑦 = −𝐹𝑚 𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 − 𝐹𝑔 (12)
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑠,𝑎𝑏𝑟 = 𝐹𝑎𝑏𝑟,𝑥 + 𝐹𝑎𝑏𝑟,𝑦 (13)
Forces acting on the Iron Powder Particles:
𝐹𝑦 = 𝐹𝑚 − 𝐹𝑔 (14)
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑠,𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛 = 𝐹𝑚 − 𝐹𝑔 (15)
The forces on the x-direction acting on the iron powder are assumed to be neglected
since the influence of forces in the y-direction is significant with respect to the overall
behavior of the particles during the process.
In this study, the size comparison between the particles of iron powder and that of
the alumina is shown in table 6.13 where it is noticed that the iron powder is larger than all
62
the three levels of the alumina. This is sought after in hope it will not only cluster the
magnetic abrasive in the working zone but also to give a bit of free space to the abrasives
to cut and itch the workpiece surface.
Table 6.11 Size comparison between the particles
Particle Type Size (nanometer)

Iron Powder 2500 2500 2500
Alumina 500 300 50
Ratio 1:05 1:08 1:50
6.4.3 Experimental Set-up
The Pneumatic Polishing Tool (PPT) is mounted on a milling machine (Haas VF-2
VMC), 304L Stainless Steel workpiece is to be polished and is shown in figures 45 and 46.
The design of experiment is a full factorial with two factors, three level each (23) that
comprises nine runs as shown in table 14. Workpiece material is 304L stainless steel with
a concave shape of a diameter of 72 mm as shown in figure 6-36. Surface roughness values
before and after polishing are measured using a device provided by Mitutoyo (SV-3200)
in Plymouth, MI. The weight ratio of alumina to the iron powder was 1gram to 1 gram.
63
Figure 6-35 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the milling machine
Figure 6-36 3D representation of the 304L Stainless Steel workpiece
The Minitab generated table of runs combination is shown in table 6.14, where
randomized run order is to be followed during the experiment to protect the
randomization assumption.
64
Table 6.12 Minitab generated table of experimental runs showing the factor levels
StdOrder RunOrder PtType Blocks G F

7 1 1 1 50 0.84
8 2 1 1 50 1.68
1 3 1 1 500 0.84
9 4 1 1 50 2.52
2 5 1 1 500 1.68
3 6 1 1 500 2.52
4 7 1 1 300 0.84
6 8 1 1 300 2.52
5 9 1 1 300 1.68
6.4.4 Results
Some unforeseen obstacles were encountered during the experiment which resulted
in deflation of the rubber part due to heat generated in the polishing area. Process
modifications were needed as more than one run had the undergone the same heat issue.
This is explained by the usage of water based slurry compared with the previous type which
is oil based alumina polishing paste. Therefore, speed was reduced to 1200 rpm, pressure
was reduced to 10 psi (first experiment shows good results at these levels), and most
importantly the polishing time was reduced to 2.5 minutes. Once the runs are conducted,
samples are taken again to the Mitutoyo branch in Plymouth, MI for surface roughness
measurements. Surface roughness measurements are taken three times and the average
value is then calculated and used in the analysis, results are shown in table 6.15 as
following;
65
Table 6.13 Surface roughness measurements
Grain Size Magnet Force Ra before % Difference

StdOrder (nm) (lb) Ra (um) (um) (um)
1 500 0.84 0.124357 0.1539 19.20
2 500 1.68 0.182453 0.1879 2.90
3 500 2.52 0.17854 0.2169 17.69
4 300 0.84 0.22143 0.2337 5.25
5 300 1.68 0.21323 0.2639 19.20
6 300 2.52 0.09078 0.0816 -11.25
7 50 0.84 0.23487 0.2497 5.94
8 50 1.68 0.149447 0.1182 -26.44
9 50 2.52 0.124443 0.0781 -59.34
First look at the results in the table reveals improvement in surface roughness, but
there seem to be cases where the change is negative which suggests the surface has become
rougher than before polishing. A further analysis will follow such as ANOVA, and the
empirical model will be presented afterwards. But in order to study the results, one would
put some effort in avoiding the negative values and that is possible in two ways; either by
adding a constant (a) so that the least negative value becomes a very small number, say
0.01, or by using the missing values (any negative value will be omitted) as recommended
by Rick Wicklin in his article (2011).
66
6.4.4.1 Analysis using the missing values
In this case as mentioned previously, we omit the negative values in the percentage
difference in the overall surface roughness values as shown in table 6.16.
Table 6.14 Data to be used for Analysis using the missing values method

StdOrder (nm) (lb) Ra (um) (um) (um)
1 500 0.84 0.124357 0.1539 19.20
2 500 1.68 0.182453 0.1879 2.90
3 500 2.52 0.17854 0.2169 17.69
4 300 0.84 0.22143 0.2337 5.25
5 300 1.68 0.21323 0.2639 19.20
6 300 2.52 0.09078 0.0816 0.0
7 50 0.84 0.23487 0.2497 5.94
8 50 1.68 0.149447 0.1182 0.0
9 50 2.52 0.124443 0.0781 0.0
The regression model generated by Minitab is represented by equation (16) and the
ANOVA analysis shown in figure 6-37. It is noticed that neither factor has a significant
influence on the results, but this might be related to the method used in analyzing the
negative values of the surface roughness. Equation 16 shows that the percentage difference
in the final surface roughness is slightly proportional to the abrasive size but inversely
proportional to the magnetic force. This is expected as the material removed by larger
grains is more than that removed by much finer ones. One should notice that in our case
the larger the percentage difference in the surface roughness, the smoother the surface. On
the other hand, the magnetic force is shown to have a negative influence on the surface
roughness. This part will be explained in a later section with the discussion and
conclusions. Form the Minitab output in the same figure, one could also notice that the
67
model generated is weak, and there is so much variability that cannot be explained.
Nevertheless, data are showing an acceptable normality behavior and the residual versus
fitted values are not showing any abnormality as shown in figure 6-38.
𝐺 0.025
𝑅𝑎(% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) = 4.93 (16)
𝐹2.52
Regression Analysis: Ra (% diff) versus Grain Size (nm), Magnet Force (lb)
Source DF Seq SS Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-

Value
Regression 2 218.27 38.02% 218.27 109.14 1.84
0.238
Grain Size (nm) 1 191.40 33.34% 191.40 191.40 3.23
0.123
Magnet Force (lb) 1 26.87 4.68% 26.87 26.87 0.45
0.526
Error 6 355.76 61.98% 355.76 59.29
Total 8 574.03 100.00%
Model Summary
S R-sq R-sq(adj) PRESS R-sq(pred)

7.70018 38.02% 17.37% 670.943 0.00%
Coefficients
Term Coef SE Coef 90% CI T-Value P-Value

VIF
Constant 4.93 7.86 ( -10.33, 20.20) 0.63 0.553
Grain Size (nm) 0.0251 0.0139 (-0.0020, 0.0521) 1.80 0.123
1.00
Magnet Force (lb) -2.52 3.74 ( -9.79, 4.75) -0.67 0.526
1.00
Regression Equation
Ra (% diff) = 4.93 + 0.0251 Grain Size (nm) - 2.52 Magnet Force (lb)
Figure 6-37 First Regression Analysis of the Surface Roughness results using missing data
68
Figure 6-38 Normality and residual plots of the surface roughness results using the missing data approach
Therefore, data transformation using the natural logarithm has been utilized and
the new model is represented by equation 17. The new model is able to surpass the
capability of the first one at a much higher confidence as shown in the regression analysis
output (figure 6-39).
𝐺 0.014
𝑅𝑎 (% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) = 2.69 (17)
𝐹3.44
69
A comparison will be performed to show if this transformation has actually helped
represent the result data in a more clear way. Equations 16 and 17 share the interpretation
of the type of correlations between surface roughness difference and both of the studied
factors (abrasive gran size and magnetic force). But the difference is in the value of the
constant and the powers of both factors. Equation 17 shows a better model in terms of
prediction accuracy though, that is the model is capable of explaining the process at a
higher confidence level as seen in figure 6-39.
Regression Analysis: Ra (% diff) versus Grain Size (nm), Magnet Force (lb)

Value
Regression 2 109.68 64.60% 109.68 54.84 5.47 0.044
Grain Size (nm) 1 59.58 35.09% 59.58 59.58 5.95 0.051
Magnet Force (lb)1 50.10 29.51% 50.10 50.10 5.00 0.067
Error 6 60.10 35.40% 60.10 10.02
Total 8 169.78 100.00%

3.16489 64.60% 52.80% 140.882 17.02%
Term Coef SE Coef 90% CI T-Value P-Value VIF

Constant 0.99 3.23 ( -5.28, 7.27) 0.31 0.769
Grain Size (nm) 0.01398 0.00573 (0.00284, 0.02511) 2.44 0.051 1.00
Magnet Force (lb) -3.44 1.54 ( -6.43, -0.45) -2.24 0.067 1.00
Regression Equation
ln(Ra (% diff)) = 0.99 + 0.01398 Grain Size (nm) - 3.44 Magnet Force (lb)
Figure 6-39 Regression Analysis using missing data with natural log data transformation
70
Both abrasives grain size and magnetic force are shown to be marginally significant
at a 90% confidence interval, with a higher contribution percentage to the abrasive grain
size. The transformed regression model is at about 65 % strength, almost double that of the
first model in equation 16.
Figure 6-40 Normality and Residual plots of the Surface Roughness difference using the transformed data (Missing
Values Approach)
A quick comparison of the models generated using the missing values approach are
shown in figure 6-41 against the actual values of the percentage difference in surface
roughness. It is clear that the natural logarithmic transformation to the data was helpful in
reducing the large variations in the results as seen in the figure, even though one might
argue the models are more conservative in predicting the values. One should keep in mind
that it is desired to achieve a better roughness which is indicated by a higher positive
71
percentage difference in our study. Therefore, another look at the models obtained here in
comparison to the model obtained by the other approach is necessary.
% Difference in Surface Roughness (Missing Values

25.00 Approach)
20.00
15.00
%
10.00
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-5.00
Run Standard Order
% Difference Actual Model 1 Model 2
Figure 6-41 Comparison of the actual and predicted results of the % difference in Surface Roughness
6.4.4.2 Analysis using add a constant approach
In this case, a constant “a” will be added to the actual results so that the minimum
value is so small but is not a zero (0.01). The new results are shown in table 6.17, and the
analysis is done using Minitab to find the models.
Table 6.15 Results using add a constant approach

StdOrder (nm) (lb) Ra (um) (um) Actual
1 500 0.84 0.124357 0.1539 78.55
2 500 1.68 0.182453 0.1879 62.25
3 500 2.52 0.17854 0.2169 77.04
4 300 0.84 0.22143 0.2337 64.60
5 300 1.68 0.21323 0.2639 78.55
6 300 2.52 0.09078 0.0816 48.10
7 50 0.84 0.23487 0.2497 65.29
8 50 1.68 0.149447 0.1182 32.91
9 50 2.52 0.124443 0.0781 0.01
72
In this section we treated the data using the addition of constant “a = 59.35” to all
the actual values of the percentage difference in surface roughness, analyzed them using
ANOVA and found the regression model as seen in figure 6-42. Abrasive grain size
contributes to almost half of the influence on the overall results, which is yet the same
conclusion from the first study. The magnetic force, though it is not highly significant,
might play a role if tested in an interaction effect. Therefore, the first model of the second
approach is shown in equation 18 before adjusting for the constant “a” and in equation 19
after the adjustment.
𝐺 0.0901
(𝑅𝑎 + 𝑎) = 58.6 (18)
𝐹16.53
𝐺 0.0901
𝑅𝑎 = −0.75 (19)
𝐹16.53
73
Regression Analysis: Ra+a (%Diff) versus Grain Size (nm), Magnet Force
(lb)
Value
Regression 2 3630 67.37% 3630 1814.9 6.20 0.035
Grain Size (nm) 1 2474 45.91% 2474 2473.6 8.44 0.027
Magnet Force (lb)1 1156 21.46% 1156 1156.2 3.95 0.094
Error 6 1758 32.63% 1758 293.0
Total 8 5387 100.00%
Model Summary

17.1158 67.37% 56.50% 4548.20 15.58%
Coefficients
Term Coef SE Coef 90% CI T-Value P-Value VIF

Constant 58.6 17.5 ( 24.7, 92.5) 3.36 0.015
Grain Size (nm) 0.0901 0.0310 (0.0298, 0.1503) 2.91 0.027 1.00
Magnet Force (lb) -16.53 8.32 (-32.69, -0.36) -1.99 0.094 1.00
Regression Equation
Ra+a (%Diff) = 58.6 + 0.0901 Grain Size (nm) - 16.53 Magnet Force (lb)
Figure 6-42 Regression analysis of the first transformed data using the add a constant approach
This new model (equation 19), is shown to have a better R-square value (at 67.37%)
compared to either model obtained in the previous section (i.e., equations 16 and 17). The
residual plots are shown in figure 6-43, normality assumption is met.
74
Figure 6-43 Normality assumption of the residual plots is satisfied
6.4.4.3 Discussion
As this study is looking for better results in terms of lower values of surface
roughness, it becomes important to find those conditions at which a model predicts values
that are desired. The previous sections were a representation of the effort through which
one is able to identify the potential correlations that govern the variables within a model.
Now that a few models are obtained, a comparison between those models is necessary in
order to choose the one that is capable of describing the finishing process at high level of
confidence. Figure 6-44 shows a comparison between the first model (equation 16, using
the missing values approach) and the third model using the absolute value (equation 19,
using the ass a constant approach) against the actual data (unchanged).
75
Models Comparision against actual values
40.00
% Difference in Surface Roughness
20.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
-80.00
Run Standard Order
% Difference (Acutal) Model 2 |model 3|
Figure 6-44 Predicted values using models a and 3 against actual unchanged results
One reason why the absolute value of model 3 was chosen is because this model
is capable of showing comparable results to those obtained from the experiment as seen
in figure 6-44. Therefore, the model that best describes this experimental study is shown
in equation 20.
𝐺 0.09
𝑅𝑎 (% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓) = |−0.75 ∗ 𝐹16.5 | (20)
The effect of the abrasive grain size and the magnetic force on the mean value of
the percentage difference in surface roughness is shown in figure 6-45, one can easily see
the matching correlation from the graph compared to the model in equation 20. As has been
seen before the effect of the alumina size is almost predictable, i.e. the larger the grain size
the higher the difference in the roughness but one cannot conclude to a better surface
quality as the difference could be negative which an indication of a rougher surface. On
the other hand, the magnetic force effect shows an interesting correlation; the stronger the
force, the less the difference becomes. This can be explained as following; at a high level
76
of magnetic strength and smaller abrasive grain size, the iron powder particles are pulled
with a higher strength leaving behind the finer abrasives which are either trapped in the
large grooves (as seen in figure 6-46) or the resultant force on the abrasive grains are high
enough to cause deeper itching and cutting but not uniform.
Main Effects Plot for Ra+a (%Diff)

Fitted Means
Grain Size (nm) Magnet Force (lb)
120
100
Mean of Ra+a (%Diff)
80
60
40
20
0
0 120 240 360 480 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 6-45 Factors influence on the surface roughness change
The experimental results show that the surface gets rougher at 50 nanometer grain
size of the alumina, and that is the case where the magnetic force is at a high level too. This
negative effect of the polishing process (or factors) is due to the reasons mentioned earlier;
the groove effect and the pulling force of iron particles. Figure 50 shows the surface profile
after polishing in that case (G 50 nm and F 2.52 lb), one can easily notice the deep grooves
(multifold in size compared to 50 nm grains) generated on the surface being polished which
acts as a trap to those fine grains. Moreover, as we know that the action of the abrasives is
either rolling or sliding in a finishing process but in this case they lack the force that is
77
capable of returning the particles back to the cutting action due to the magnetic force
(which is acting in the negative y-direction).
Figure 6-46 Surface profile at G 50 (nm) and F 2.52 (lb)
78
Chapter 7
Discussion and Conclusions
In this project, we are able to make a novel yet simple pneumatic polishing tool that
utilizes magnetic abrasive polishing concept. The tool has been successfully tested, and the
results obtained are promising. The surface roughness is shown to have improved
significantly, compared to conventional polishing, it is believed to be attributed to the
cutting mechanisms that the grain size has a strong correlation to the output in polishing as
seen in figures 7-1 and 7-2 which is agreed upon generally.
Main Effects Plot for Ra (um)

Data Means
0.22
0.20
0.18
Mean
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
1 16 32
Grain Size (um)
Figure 7-1 Grain Size effect on Ra
79
Surface Roughness at different levels
of Grain Sizes
0.3
Ra (um)
0.2
0.1
0
32 16 1
Grain Size
Figure 7-2 Roughness improves as Grain size gets smaller
In the second part of this project, an investigation of the influence of nano-level
abrasive grain size and magnetic field strength was experimentally conducted on the same
workpiece material (304L Stainless Steel). A model that correlates the relationship between
the surface roughness difference (percentage) and both of the studied factors was
established. It was again found that the abrasive grain size plays a significant role in the
polishing process, though at the smallest size the effect was found to be inversed due to the
large grooves generated in the surface, and the large pulling force acting on the iron
particles. There is a limit to applying the model proposed in the second part; that is it should
not be used at finer abrasive grains less than 300 nanometer.
80
Chapter 8
Model Validation
In this project, two experimental studies were conducted and the resulted models
are to be verified in this section. In the first study, the effect of three main factors namely
pressure in the rubber tip of the PPT, abrasive grain size, and tool rotational speed were
considered. Now to validate the model(s), we chose values to those factors such that they
are (1) available, and (2) reasonable and within the normal range. So the new set of runs is
shown in table 8.1, following a Taguchi method.
Table 16.1 Runs generated using Taguchi method
Validation using Taguchi- 3^2

P (psi) G (micron) S (rpm)
9 66 1000
9 6 1300
11 66 1300
11 6 1000
The runs were all conducted on the same milling machine, in one day, and
followed the same procedure. Workpieces were taken for measurements at the Mitutoyo
new show room in Novi, MI, and the results are shown in table 8.2.
81
Table 8.2 Surface roughness values (actual vs. predicted by the models)
After
Validation using Taguchi- 3^2 Before (Actual) Model1 Model2 Model3
Ra Ra Ra Ra
P (psi) G (micron) S (rpm) (um) Ra (um) (um) (um) (um)
9 66 1000 0.1167 0.1429 0.34392 0.38999 0.4891
9 6 1300 0.1543 0.0697 0.12372 0.12111 0.1191
11 66 1300 0.1839 0.137 0.3364 0.3771 0.46281
11 6 1000 0.1594 0.0991 0.1234 0.11886 0.11522
One way to investigate the models’ adequacy in predicting the values of the surface
roughness is to plot the results and examine the differences. This is shown in figure 8-1, as
can be seen that the original regression model shows a good estimation of the values at low
level of abrasive grain size (6 micron). In fact all the models provide a good estimation at
those points, but both the square root and natural log models fail to rise to the challenge
when the abrasive grain size goes to 66 microns.
Models Validation against acutal values of Surface

0.7
Rougness
0.6
Surface Roughness (um)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 Validation run order 3 4
Ra (um) Actual values No Data Transformation Model
Natural Log Transformation Model SQRT Transformation Model
Figure 10 Models validation against the actual values of surface roughness
82
Another useful method of comparing the adequacy of the models, is to calculate
and plot the error associated with the values using each model. This comparison is shown
in table 8.3 and the plot is shown in figure 8-2.
Table 8.3 Error comparison
After
Before (Acutal) Model1 Model2 Model3
Ra Ra % Ra % Ra %
(um) Ra (um) (um) Error 1 (um) Error 2 (um) Error 3
0.1167 0.1429 0.34392 58.45 0.38999 63.36 0.4891 70.78
0.1543 0.0697 0.12372 43.66 0.12111 42.45 0.1191 41.47
0.1839 0.137 0.3364 59.27 0.3771 63.67 0.46281 70.4
0.1594 0.0991 0.1234 19.69 0.11886 16.63 0.11522 13.99
Comparison between Error generated by several models

80
70
60
Percentage of Error
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 Validation run order 3 4
Error-No Data Transformation Model Error-SQRT Model Error-Natural Log Model
Figure 8-2 Error plot of the modes' predicted values of Ra
One could argue that there is so much variability that the models are not able to
explain, which is true, but it is due to the weakness of the models as they have only the
abrasive grain size to be the only influential factor in the study. Furthermore, since the
83
value of the abrasive grain size at 66 microns is so large compared to only 6 microns, the
effect of such a large range is obvious in the values predicted and the large variation from
one run to another. Because of this we will focus on runs 2 and 4 (at the G value of 6
microns). Model 3 (which is based on the natural logarithmic transformation of the data)
shows to have the smallest value of error generated at G value of 6 microns, but then the
error is so large at 66 microns compared to the other models. Therefore, the simple
regression model (model 1) generates an acceptable error given the weakness of the model.
In regards to the second study that involved the nano-level of the abrasives and the
magnetic force, unfortunately validation runs to the models were not conducted due to
some complications; lack of abrasive sizes in the range of 50 to 500 nanometers, and the
lack of availability of certain levels of magnetic force.
84
Chapter 9
Future Work
There are some areas to be investigated further; a study can be conducted to evaluate the
effect of the type of slurry used in the finishing process, and another can focus on the
preparation of the magnetic abrasive (i.e. sintered compound, different shape and size of
the iron powder particles). One area is using different material (depending on the final
application) which can lead to a study of the effect of magnetic forces on a magnetic versus
non-magnetic workpiece material in pneumatic polishing. Another future work may focus
on the tribology of the abrasive grains and the effect of the polishing process on it. This
may be done by taking the polishing cloths under a microscope to investigate and draw
conclusions.
85
References
1. Cao, Z., Cheung, C. F., & Zhao, X. (2016). A theoretical and experimental
investigation of material removal characteristics and surface generation in bonnet
polishing. Wear, 360-361, 137-146. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2016.03.025
2. DeGarmo. E., Black. J., Kohser. R. (1988). Materials and Processes in
Manufacturing. Pg. 699-707. New York City, NY: Macmillan.
3. Evans, C. J.; Paul, E.; Dornfeld, David; Lucca, D. A.; Byrne, G.; Tricard, M.; et
al.(2003). Material Removal Mechanisms in Lapping and Polishing. Laboratory
for Manufacturing and Sustainability. UC Berkeley: Laboratory for
Manufacturing and Sustainability. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4hw2r7qc
4. H.-J. Ruben, in: A. Niku-Lari (Ed.), Advances in Surface Treatments, vol. 5,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987, pp. 239–256.).
5. Jeng, Y. R., Huang, P. Y., & Tsai, H. J. (n.d.). Theoretical Investigation for the
Material Removal Rate of Metal Polishing Process. Proceedings of the 35th
International MATADOR Conference, 207-210. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-988-
0_46
6. Ji, S. M., Chen, G. D., Jin, M. S., Zhang, L., Yuan, Q. L., & Zhang, X. (2010).
Application of Magnetic Abrasive in Gasbag Polishing. AMR Advanced Materials
Research, 102-104, 690-694. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.102-104.690
86
7. Kalpakjian. S. & Schmid. S. (November, 2000). Manufacturing Engineering and
Technology. Pg. 704-734. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Kanish, T., Narayanan, S., Kuppan, P., & Ashok, S. (2017). Investigations on the
Finishing Forces in Magnetic Field Assisted Abrasive Finishing of
SS316L. Procedia Engineering, 174, 611-620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.196
9. Kim, J., & Choi, M. (1997). Study on magnetic polishing of free-form
surfaces. International Journal Of Machine Tools And Manufacture, 37(8), 1179-
1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0890-6955(95)00078-x
10. Kim, S., & Kwak, J. (2008). Magnetic force improvement and parameter
optimization for magnetic abrasive polishing of AZ31 magnesium alloy.
Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 18. doi:10.1016/s1003-
6326(10)60234-8
11. Kogut, L., & Etsion, I. (2002). Elastic-Plastic Contact Analysis of a Sphere and a
Rigid Flat. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 69(5), 657. doi:10.1115/1.1490373
12. Krar. S., Gill. A., Smid. P. (2011). Technology of Machine Tools. Pg. 568-574.
New York City, NY: McGrow Hill.
13. Kwak, J. (2012). Mathematical model determination for improvement of surface
roughness in magnetic-assisted abrasive polishing of nonferrous AISI316
material. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 22.
doi:10.1016/s1003-6326(12)61814-7
14. Lin, C., Yang, L., & Chow, H. (2006). Study of magnetic abrasive finishing in
free-form surface operations using the Taguchi method. The International Journal
87
Of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 34(1-2), 122-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0573-8
15. Luo, J., & Dornfeld, D. A. (2004). Effects of Abrasive Size Distribution in CMP.
Integrated Modeling of Chemical Mechanical Planarization for Sub-Micron IC
Fabrication, 97-113. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-07928-7_4
16. Ma, Z., Peng, L., & Wang, J. (2013). Ultra-smooth polishing of high-precision
optical surface. Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics,
124(24), 6586-6589. doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2013.05.093
17. Marinescu, I. D., Uhlmann, E., & Doi, T. K. (2007). Handbook of lapping and
polishing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18. Marinescu. I., Hitchiner. M., Uhlmann. E., Rowe. W., Inasaki. I. (2007).
Handbook of Machining with Grinding Wheels. Pg. 75-82. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC
Press.
19. Mori, T., Hirota, K., & Kawashima, Y. (2003). Clarification of magnetic abrasive
finishing mechanism. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 143-144, 682-
686. doi:10.1016/s0924-0136(03)00410-2
20. Ryuh, B., Park, S. M., & Pennock, G. R. (2006). An automatic tool changer and
integrated software for a robotic die polishing station. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, 41(4), 415-432. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2005.06.004
21. Schinhaerl, M., Smith, G., Stamp, R., Rascher, R., Smith, L., Pitschke, E., Geiss,
A. (2008). Mathematical modelling of influence functions in computer-controlled
polishing: Part II. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 32(12), 2907-2924.
doi:10.1016/j.apm.2007.10.012
88
22. Shiming, J., Mingsheng, J., Li, Z., Xian, Z., Jiang, Z., Qiaoling, Y., & Yindong,
Z. (2008). Contact analysis and control of robotic spinning-inflated-gasbag
polishing technique on mould surface. 2008 27th Chinese Control Conference.
doi:10.1109/chicc.2008.4605804
23. Singh, D. K., Jain, V. K., Raghuram, V., & Komanduri, R. (2005). Analysis of
Surface Roughness and Surface Texture Generated by Pulsating Flexible
Magnetic Abrasive Brush (P-FMAB). World Tribology Congress III, Volume 1.
doi:10.1115/wtc2005-63134
24. Shinmura T., Takazawa K., Hatano E.. Study of Magnetic abrasive finishing.
Annals of CIRP, 39/1/1990: 325–28.
25. Song, J. (2008). Effects Of Polishing Parameters On Material Removal For
Curved Optical Glasses In Bonnet Polishing. CJME Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering (English Edition), 21(05), 29.
doi:10.3901/cjme.2008.05.029
26. Tam, H., Lui, O. C., & Mok, A. C. (1999). Robotic polishing of free-form
surfaces using scanning paths. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 95(1-
3), 191-200. doi:10.1016/s0924-0136(99)00338-6
27. Tlusty. G. (2000). Engineering Materials and Their Properties.
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT. Pg. 71-75. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28. Walker, D., Brooks, D., King, A., Freeman, R., Morton, R., Mccavana, G., &
Kim, S. (2003). The “Precessions” tooling for polishing and figuring flat,
89
spherical and aspheric surfaces. Opt. Express Optics Express, 11(8), 958.
doi:10.1364/oe.11.000958
29. Wang, C., Lin, S., & Hochen, H. (2002). A material removal model for polishing
glass–ceramic and aluminum magnesium storage disks. International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, 42(8), 979-984. doi:10.1016/s0890-
6955(02)00004-4
30. Wang, C., Yang, W., Ye, S., Wang, Z., Zhong, B., Guo, Y., & Xu, Q. (2014).
Optimization of parameters for bonnet polishing based on the minimum residual
error method. Optical Engineering Opt. Eng, 53(7), 075108.
doi:10.1117/1.oe.53.7.075108
31. Wang, Y., Wu, Y., & Nomura, M. (2017). Fundamental investigation on nano-
precision surface finishing of electroless Ni–P-plated STAVAX steel using
magnetic compound fluid slurry. Precision Engineering, 48, 32-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2016.11.003
32. Wicklin, R. (2011). Log transfromations: How to handle negative data values?.
Retrieved from http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2011/04/27/log-transformations-
how-to-handle-negative-data-values.html
33. Yi, A. Y., Hezlep, M., & Pol, T. (2004). A computer controlled optical pin
polishing machine. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146(2), 156-162.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.10.011
34. Zeng, S., Blunt, L., & Racasan, R. (2013). An investigation of the viability of
bonnet polishing as a possible method to manufacture hip prostheses with multi-
90
radius femoral heads. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 70(1-4), 583-590. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5302-5
35. Zeng, S. Y., Blunt, L., & Jiang, X. Q. (2011). The Application of Taguchi
Approach to Optimise the Processing Conditions on Bonnet Polishing of CoCr.
KEM Key Engineering Materials, 496, 235-240.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.496.235
36. Zeng, S., & Blunt, L. (2014). Experimental investigation and analytical modelling
of the effects of process parameters on material removal rate for bonnet polishing
of cobalt chrome alloy. Precision Engineering, 38(2), 348-355.
doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2013.11.005
91

Ibrahim Basudan PHD ETD PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibrahim Basudan PHD ETD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Dissertation

Size on Surface Roughness of Stainless Steel

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in

The University of Toledo

The University of Toledo

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Marinescu for his constant

Chemical Corp, and Len Carravallah of Mitutoyo Michigan.

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xii

List of Symbols ................................................................................................................ xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.2 Design of Experiment-Factor levels ......................................................................25

6.3 Runs generated by Minitab ....................................................................................26

6.4 Experiment results .................................................................................................27

6.5 Surface Roughness comparison at different speeds ...............................................29

6.6 Surface Roughness comparison at different pressure levels ..................................30

6.8 Sum of squared deviation by the three models ......................................................44

6.9 A run borrowed from table 6.1 ..............................................................................50

6.10 A run borrowed from table 6.4 ..............................................................................50

6.11 Material removal rate experimental results............................................................53

6.12 Factors to be studied ..............................................................................................57

6.13 Size comparison between the particles ..................................................................63

6.15 Surface roughness measurements ..........................................................................66

6.17 Results using add a constant approach...................................................................72

8.1 Runs generated by Minitab using Tagouchi method .............................................81

8.3 Error comparison ...................................................................................................83

4-1 First Concept Design..............................................................................................11

4-2 First tool with several parts ....................................................................................12

4-3 Schematic of the final design .................................................................................13

4-4 Pneumatic Polishing Tool .....................................................................................13

4-5 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the milling machine .................................14

4-6 Workpiece shape design in 3D ..............................................................................15

4-9 Cutting mechanism hypotheses..............................................................................17

6-1 Tool set-up before parameters investigation experiment .......................................22

6-2 Workpiece after machining ...................................................................................24

6-3 Three dimensional illustration of the results ..........................................................28

6-4 Variability in the results at different pressure and speed levels.............................29

6-5 Main effect plot generated by Minitab...................................................................31

6-6 Surface Roughness at 8, 10, and 12 psi .................................................................32

6-7 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (P and G).......................................................33

6-8 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (S and P) .......................................................34

6-9 Contour plot of Surface Roughness (S and G).......................................................34

6-10 Surface response plot of Ra at Grain size and Pressure .........................................35

6-12 Surface response plot of Ra at Pressure and Speed ...............................................36

6-13 Factors interaction plot .........................................................................................37

6-15 Residual plots for the first experiment ...................................................................39

6-16 Regression model and ANOVA generated by Minitab .........................................40

6-20 The difference in Error % generated by the three models .....................................45

6-21 New regression model with no data transformation ..............................................46

6-22 Normality assumptions are met, and no abnormality is found ..............................47

6-23 ANOVA of the SQRT Transformation model .......................................................48

6-24 This model (SQRT-Model) shows no sign of abnormality ...................................48

6-25 Natural Log transformation based model analysis.................................................49

6-26 Natural Log-Model residual plots ..........................................................................51

6-27 A surface texture generated by Zygo® NewView 5000 ........................................52

6-28 Surface profile generated by Mitutoyo® SV-C4500 .............................................54

6-29 3D view of the behavior of material removed ......................................................55

6-31 Main effect plot for MRR generated by Minitab ...................................................60

6-36 Pneumatic Polishing Tool mounted on the milling machine .................................64

6-37 3D representation of the 304L Stainless Steel workpiece .....................................68