Advertisement

Multi-objective optimization of ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process

  • Aviral Misra
  • Pulak M. PandeyEmail author
  • U. S. Dixit
  • Anish Roy
  • Vadim V. Silberschmidt
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing (UAMAF) is an advanced abrasive finishing process that finishes a workpiece surface effectually when compared to a traditional magnetic abrasive finishing process in the order of nanometer. A change of surface roughness and material removal rate are two important factors determining the efficacy of the process. These two factors affect the surface quality and production time and, thereby, a total production cost. The finishing performed at higher material removal rates leads to a loss in shape/form accuracy of the surface. At the same time, increasing the rate of change of surface roughness increases loss of material. For an optimized finishing process, a compromise has to be made between the change of surface roughness and the material removal (loss). In this work, a multi-objective optimization technique based on genetic algorithm is used to optimize the finishing parameters in the UAMAF processes. A fuzzy-set-based strategy for a higher level decision is also discussed. The results of the optimization based on a mathematical model of the process are validated with the experimental results and are found to be in compliance.

Keywords

UAMAF Finishing Multi-objective optimization Genetic algorithm Material removal Surface roughness Fuzzy sets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

Funding was from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) through grant EP/K028316/1 and Department of Science and Technology (India) through grant DST/RC-UK/14-AM/2012 for project “Modeling of Advanced Materials for Simulation of Transformative Manufacturing Processes (MAST)” .

References

  1. 1.
    Rao RV (2011) Advanced modeling and optimization of manufacturing processes. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jain NK, Jain VK, Jha S (2006) Parametric optimization of advanced fine-finishing processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34:1191–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0682-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verma GC, Kala P, Pandey PM (2017) Experimental investigations into internal magnetic abrasive finishing of pipes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:1657–1668.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8881-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulik RS, Pandey PM (2011) Ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing of hardened AISI 52100 steel using unbonded SiC abrasives. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater 29:68–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-3102-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yun H, Han B, Chen Y, Liao M (2016) Internal finishing process of alumina ceramic tubes by ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85:727–734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7927-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulik RS, Pandey PM (2011) Experimental investigations and optimization of ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 225:1347–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1177/09544054JEM2122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Misra A, Pandey PM, Dixit US (2017) Modeling of material removal in ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Mech Sci 131–132:853–867.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.07.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Misra A, Pandey PM, Dixit US (2017) Modeling and simulation of surface roughness in ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Mech Sci 133:344–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.08.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pandey PM, Thrimurthulu K, Reddy NV (2004) Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Res 42:4069–4089.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540410001708470 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quiza Sardiñas R, Rivas Santana M, Alfonso Brindis E (2006) Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of cutting parameters in turning processes. Eng Appl Artif Intell 19:127–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2005.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuriakose S, Shunmugam MS (2005) Multi-objective optimization of wire-electro discharge machining process by non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. J Mater Process Technol 170:133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.04.105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Das M, Jain VK, Ghoshdastidar PS (2007) Analysis of magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing (MRAFF) process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38:613–621.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1095-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jayswal SC, Jain VK, Dixit PM (2005) Modeling and simulation of magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26:477–490.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2180-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh DK, Jain VK, Raghuram V (2006) Experimental investigations into forces acting during a magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:652–662.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0118-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Misra A, Pandey PM, Dixit US, Roy A, Silberschmidt VV (2017) Modeling of finishing force and torque in ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 0:95440541773757.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405417737579 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mulik RS, Pandey PM (2010) Mechanism of surface finishing in ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Mater Manuf Process 25:1418–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2010.499580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang Y, Hu D (2005) Study on the inner surface finishing of tubing by magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fox M, Agrawal K, Shinmura T, Komanduri R (1994) Magnetic abrasive finishing of rollers. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 43:181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62191-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thrimurthulu K, Pandey PM, Reddy NV (2004) Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:585–594.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2003.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dixit PM, Dixit US (2008) Modeling of metal forming and machining processes : by finite element and soft computing methods. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MathWorks Global Optimization Toolbox User’s Guide. MathWorksGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montgomery DC (2013) Design and analysis of experiments, 8th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bojadziev G, Bojadziev M (1996) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, applications. World scientificGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hazarika M, Dixit US (2015) Assigning and fine tuning of fuzzy membership grades. In: Setup planning for machining. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 91–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aviral Misra
    • 1
  • Pulak M. Pandey
    • 1
    Email author
  • U. S. Dixit
    • 2
  • Anish Roy
    • 3
  • Vadim V. Silberschmidt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia
  3. 3.Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK

Personalised recommendations