CFD analysis of nanofinishing of complex surfaces

by magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing

(MRAFF) process

M.Tech defence seminar

by
Sayan Mallick
16ME61R14
 Introduction

 Surface finishing is a broad range of industrial processes that alter the surface of a manufactured
item to achieve a certain property.
 The quality of surface is one of the significant parameters which affects the life and
functionality of any product.
 The most conventional, well known and effective finishing processes are as follows
1. Grinding
2. Honing
3. Lapping
But all these 3 processes have some specific limitations.
 So here the Magnetorheological finishing is introduced.
 Magnetorheological finishing Process consists experimental setup and the fluid is known as Magnetorheological
fluid or Magnetorheological medium.
 This medium acts as a tool in finishing process.
Application of MR Fluid >

Magnetorheological Fluid

Clutches, Brakes, Finishing of optical lenses,

Dampers etc. glass, ceramics, plastics and
some non-magnetic metals

Without using any Abrasive Using non-magnetic

particles Abrasive particles
Constituents of MR Fluid >

Magnetic particles Abrasive particles Carrier fluid Stabilizers

Carbonyl iron Cerium oxide Water Glycerol

powder(CIP)

Electrolyte iron powder Diamond powder oil Grease

Iron-cobalt alloy powder Aluminium oxide Oleic acid

Boron carbide Xanthan gum

Essential features of MR fluid for MRF process >

 Optimum concentration of abrasive particles and magnetic particles.
 High yield stress under magnetic field.
 Low off-state viscosity.
 Less agglomeration and low re-dispersibility.
 Resistance to corrosion.
MRAFF and Rotational-MRAFF

Combination of MRF and AFM process = MRAFF Process

 Working principle of MRAFF

 Magnetic field is selectively applied across the workpiece surface only where the
abrasion is needed keeping other areas unaffected. Inside the polishing medium,
the NMAPs are held by the CIP chains and they shear peaks from the workpiece
surface.
 Magnetic flux density is the main contributor in improving surface finish among
the three main variables: magnetic flux density, extrusion pressure, and finishing
cycles.
 As the magnetic flux density increases by increasing magnetizing current to
electromagnet, CIP chains hold the NMAPs more firmly and thereby result in
faster finishing action.
 Why simulation?

Time needed to run simulations is much smaller in most cases than for experiments
A
D
V Very less resources are needed
A
N
T
A
G Rich data (at all points & at all time)
E
S
Deeper insight into the process

L
I
M Accuracy of modeling becomes a challenge
I
T
A
T
I Experiments are needed to calibrate unknown parameters
O
N
S
 Objective

1. CFD analysis of the flow of MR fluid around the workpiece for velocity profile and pressure
field.

2. Study of differential velocity and pressure gradient and their relation with finishing of different
surfaces, effect of viscosity and yield stress on velocity and pressure gradient.
 Assumptions in modelling

1. The walls have been considered in no slip condition.

2. Temperature and strain reference temperature are taken as constant.

3. The fluid has been considered as incompressible and the flow is considered as laminar and
axi symmetric

4. The medium is homogeneous, isotropic

 Methodology

 Workpiece material has been taken as titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V)

 Fixture material has been taken as UNS C26000
 Fine, Free tetrahedral mesh was used
 Element no. is 493865

Meshed model of fixture & workpiece in COMSOL

 Fixture dimension – height is 90 mm and dia is 60 mm

 Problem is considered as One dimensional single phase flow

Working equation
 Boundary conditions
 At low shear rates the material behaves as a highly viscous
liquid (unyielded viscosity, μ r and above a critical shear rate c
a transition occurs and it starts yielding
 Inlet velocity of fluid has been considered as 1m/s. Viscosity model
 Since the equation is a second order ordinary differential
equation, two boundary conditions are needed to completely
describe this problem.
 They are, (a) at the wall (i.e. at r = rf), vz = 0, and (b) at r =0,
dvz /dr = 0. Finite-difference method is used to discretize the
first equation.  The complexity of the rheological behavior of the fluid makes
an analytical solution of the Navier–Stokes equation a bit
difficult and hence computational fluid dynamics simulation is
used.
 Momentum equation is solved computationally to get the
Momentum equation velocity profile.
 Work separation

 In the actual experiment the fluid was reciprocating up and down

Highest and lowest value of viscosity and yield stress was taken from actual experiment

 Flow was separated as flow from top and flow from bottom with highest and lowest
values od viscosity and yield stress

 Overall four type of simulations were performed in order to get the complete result.
Geometry
 Sketch view

Transparent view along

fixture
Results
 FLOW FROM TOP MAX VISCOSITY

CUT PLANE 1 CUT PLANE 2

CUT PLANE 3
Velocity analysis
At Centre
Pressure distribution
At Centre
Velocity analysis
At +ve distances
Pressure distribution
At +ve distances
Velocity analysis
At -ve distances
Pressure distribution
At -ve distances
 Conclusion
 To analyses the complete upward and downward reciprocating motion of the liquid, mainly two different
types of simulations were done.
Pressure gradient and velocity mainly varies with the change in working gap between workpiece and the
fixture.
Highest and lowest values of velocity have been found at cut plane 1 are 0.49 m/s and 0 m/s, at cut plane 2
are 0.46 m/s and 0.04 m/s, at cut plane 3 are 0.17 m/s and 0.01 m/s.
 Highest and lowest values of pressure gradient at cut plane 2 are 7.59×104 N/m3 and -9.48×104 N/m3.
 High value of velocity and pressure gradient is resulting to higher finishing rate. So high velocity zone of
workpiece is being smoother than other zones.
 Ultimate aim of the project is making such a fixture we can maintain a uniform working gap throughout the
surface between fixture inner wall and workpiece.
 References
 N. P. Mahalik, Micromanufacturing and Nanotechnology.

 L. Rhoades, “Abrasive flow machining: a case study,” J. Mater. Process.Tech., vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 107–116, 1991

 V. K. Jain, P. Kumar, P. K. Behera, and S. C. Jayswal, “Effect of working gap and circumferential speed on the
performance of magnetic abrasive finishing process,”Wear, vol. 250–251, no. PART 1, pp. 384–390, 2001

 K.T, “Surface finishing with abrasive flow machining, SME technical paper, pp 35-43,” 1989.

 V. K. Gorana, V. K. Jain, and G. K. Lal, “Experimental investigation into cutting forces and active grain density during
abrasive flow machining,” Int. J. Mach.Tools Manuf., vol. 44, no. 2–3, pp. 201–211, 2004.

 T. Shinmura, K. Takazawa, and E. Hatano, “Study on Magnetic-abrasive Finishing (1st Report) ???On Process Principle
and a Few Finishing Characteristics???,” J. Japan Soc. Precis. Eng., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 851–857, 1986

 S. D. Shafrir, S. N., Lambropoulos, J. C., and Jacobs, “Toward magnetorheological finishing of magnetic materials,” J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng, 2007.
 V. K. Jain, A. Sidpara, M. R. Sankar, and M. Das, “Nano-finishing techniques: a review,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J.
Mech. Eng. Sci., vol. 226, no. 2, pp. 327–346, 2012.

 S. Jha and V. K. Jain, “Design and development of the magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing (MRAFF) process,” Int. J.
Mach.Tools Manuf., vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1019–1029, 2004.

 A. Sato, T., Yamaguchi, H., Shinmura, T. and T. Okazaki, “Study of internal magnetic field assisted finishing for copper tubes
with MRF (Magneto-rheological fluid)-based Slurry,” Key Eng. Mater, 2007

 A. Sadiq and M. S. Shunmugam, “Magnetic field analysis and roughness prediction in magnetorheological abrasive honing
(MRAH),” Mach. Sci.Technol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 246–268, 2009.

 Ajay Sidpara, V. K. Jain (2014), “Rheological properties and their correlation with surface finish quality in MR fluid based
finishing process”, Machining Science andTechnology.Volume 18 (6), Pages 367-385

 Das, M., Jain, V.K. and Ghoshdastidar, P.S., 2008. Fluid flow analysis of magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing
(MRAFF) process. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 48(3-4), pp.415-426.
Thank you