Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Investigation of machinability criteria during micro-abrasive finishing of SUS-304L steel using fuzzy combined with WASPAS approach


This article deals with the optimization of process parameters involving in the magnetic abrasive finishing (MAF) process to achieve the optimum responses. In order to choose to the best decisive course of action, we have used the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method. This method is a multi-criteria decision-making process; here, it optimizes the six process parameters of the MAF process. The WASPAS is used to find the optimum parametric setting of the process parameter for the combined effect of the output responses, i.e., percentage improvement in surface finish (PISF) and material removal rate (MRR) in terms of total relative importance index Qi. The process parameters are namely rotational speed, working gap, particle size of abrasive, quantity of abrasive, finishing time and magnetic flux density, and responses are PISF and MRR. The analysis of variance is implemented not only to find out the percentage contribution of each of the process parameters but also to know the effect of interaction between any two process parameters. Finally, a regression equation is developed as per the backward propagation method and the predicted values are estimated from the equation. Those values are further compared with the experimental values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8


  1. 1.

    Jain V (2009) Magnetic field assisted abrasive based micro-/nano-finishing. J Mater Process Technol 209(20):6022–6038

  2. 2.

    Singh DK (2006) Investigations into magnetic abrasive finishing of plane surfaces. Ph.D. thesis, IIT Kanpur, India

  3. 3.

    Jayswal S, Jain V, Dixit P (2005) Modeling and simulation of magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(5–6):477–490

  4. 4.

    Chang G-W, Yan B-H, Hsu R-T (2002) Study on cylindrical magnetic abrasive finishing using unbonded magnetic abrasives. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42(5):575–583

  5. 5.

    Kim J-D (2003) Polishing of ultra-clean inner surfaces using magnetic force. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21(2):91–97

  6. 6.

    Lin C-T, Yang L-D, Chow H-M (2007) Study of magnetic abrasive finishing in free-form surface operations using the Taguchi method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34(1–2):122–130

  7. 7.

    Kanish T, Narayanan S, Kuppan P, Ashok SD (2018) Investigations on wear behavior of magnetic field assisted abrasive finished SS316L material. Mater Today 5(5):12734–12743

  8. 8.

    Shinmura T, Takazawa K, Hatano E, Aizawa T (1985) Study on magnetic-abrasive process: process principle and finishing possibility. Bull Jpn Soc Precis Eng 19(1):54–55

  9. 9.

    Yamaguchi H, Shinmura T (2004) Internal finishing process for alumina ceramic components by a magnetic field assisted finishing process. Precis Eng 28(2):135–142

  10. 10.

    Shinmura T, Takazawa K, Hatano E (1987) Study on magnetic abrasive finishing: effects of various types of magnetic abrasives on finishing characteristics. Bull Jpn Soc Precis Eng 21(2):139–141

  11. 11.

    Shinmura T, Feng HW, Aizawa T (1994) Study on a new finishing process of fine ceramics by magnetic abrasive machining: on the improving effects of finishing efficiency obtained by mixing diamond magnetic abrasives with ferromagnetic particles. Int J Jpn Soc Precis Eng 28(2):99–104

  12. 12.

    Shinmura T (1988) Study on internal finishing of a non-ferromagnetic tubing by magnetic abrasive machining process. J JSPE 54(4):767

  13. 13.

    Yamaguchi H, Shinmura T, Sekine M (2005) Uniform internal finishing of SUS304 stainless steel bent tube using a magnetic abrasive finishing process. J Manuf Sci Eng 127(3):605–611

  14. 14.

    Mori T, Hirota K, Kawashima Y (2003) Clarification of magnetic abrasive finishing mechanism. J Mater Process Technol 143:682–686

  15. 15.

    Wang Y, Hu D (2005) Study on the inner surface finishing of tubing by magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(1):43–49

  16. 16.

    Singh L, Khangura SS, Mishra P (2010) Performance of abrasives used in magnetically assisted finishing: a state of the art review. Int J Abras Technol 3(3):215–227

  17. 17.

    Kanish T, Kuppan P, Narayanan S, Ashok SD (2015) Experimental investigations and parametric analysis of magnetic field assisted abrasive finishing of SS316L. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 29(1–2):78–95

  18. 18.

    Pashmforoush F, Rahimi A (2016) Numerical-experimental study on the mechanisms of material removal during magnetic abrasive finishing of brittle materials using extended finite element method. Proc Inst Mech Eng J Mech Eng Sci 230(9):1498–1510

  19. 19.

    Singh P, Singh L (2014) Optimization of magnetic abrasive finishing parameters with response surface methodology. In: Proceedings of the international conference on research and innovations in mechanical engineering, 2014. Springer, pp 273–286

  20. 20.

    Jiao A, Quan H, Li Z, Zou Y (2015) Study on improving the trajectory to elevate the surface quality of plane magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 80(9–12):1613–1623

  21. 21.

    Lee Y-H, Wu K-L, Bai C-T, Liao C-Y, Yan B-H (2015) Planetary motion combined with two-dimensional vibration-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76(9–12):1865–1877

  22. 22.

    Zhou K, Chen Y, Du Z, Niu F (2015) Surface integrity of titanium part by ultrasonic magnetic abrasive finishing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 80(5–8):997–1005

  23. 23.

    Du Z, Chen Y, Zhou K, Li C (2015) Research on the electrolytic-magnetic abrasive finishing of nickel-based superalloy GH4169. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(5–8):897–903

  24. 24.

    Sihag N, Kala P, Pandey PM (2015) Chemo assisted magnetic abrasive finishing: experimental investigations. Procedia CIRP 26:539–543

  25. 25.

    Sihag N, Kala P, Pandey P (2014) Chemo-ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing: experimental investigations. In: 5th international & 26th all India manufacturing technology, design and research conference (AIMTDR 2014) 12th–14th Dec 2014

  26. 26.

    Sihag N, Kala P, Pandey PM (2015) Experimental investigations of chemo-ultrasonic assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int J Precis Technol 5(3–4):246–260

  27. 27.

    Madic M, Antucheviciene J, Radovanovic M, Petkovic D (2016) Determination of manufacturing process conditions by using MCDM methods: application in laser cutting. Eng Econ 27(2):144–150

  28. 28.

    Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A (2012) Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron elektrotech 122(6):3–6

  29. 29.

    Chakraborty S, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J (2015) Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 49(1):5–22

  30. 30.

    Zavadskas EK, Chakraborty S, Bhattacharyya O, Antucheviciene J (2015) Application of WASPAS method as an optimization tool in non-traditional machining processes. Inf Technol 44(1):77–88

  31. 31.

    Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Hasan Aghdaie M, Derakhti A, Zavadskas Kazimieras E, Varzandeh Morshed MH (2013) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40(17):7111–7121

  32. 32.

    Dėjus T, Antuchevičienė J (2013) Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. J Civ Eng Manag 19(5):728–737

  33. 33.

    Staniūnas M, Medineckienė M, Zavadskas E, Kalibatas D (2013) To modernize or not: ecological–economical assessment of multi-dwelling houses modernization. Archives of civil and mechanical engineering 13(1):88–98

  34. 34.

    Mac Crimmon KR (1968) Decisionmaking among multiple-attribute alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach. Rand Corp., Santa Monica

  35. 35.

    Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH (1989) An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis Support Syst 5(3):303–312

  36. 36.

    Zavadskas Kazimieras E, Antucheviciene J, Šaparauskas J, Turskis Z (2013) Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: peculiarities of ranking methodology. Procedia Eng 57:107–112

  37. 37.

    Zavadskas Kazimieras E, Antucheviciene J, Šaparauskas J, Turskis Z (2013) MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 47(2):5–20

  38. 38.

    Maity K, Pradhan S (2017) Study of process parameter on mist lubrication of Titanium (Grade 5) alloy. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, 2017, vol 1. IOP Publishing, p 012030

  39. 39.

    Pradhan S, Maity K (2017) Investigation of surface roughness, tool wear and chip reduction coefficient during machining of titanium alloy with PVD Al–Ti–N coating carbide insert. Analysis 2:4

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Swastik Pradhan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Technical Editor: Izabel Fernanda Machado, Dr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, R., Pradhan, S. Investigation of machinability criteria during micro-abrasive finishing of SUS-304L steel using fuzzy combined with WASPAS approach. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 42, 116 (2020).

Download citation


  • Taguchi method
  • Material removal rate
  • WASPAS method
  • SUS-304L stainless steel
  • Magnetic abrasive finishing
  • Percentage improvement in surface finish (PISF)