0
Research Papers

Concept and Mechanics of Fine Finishing Circular Internal Surfaces Using Deployable Magneto-Elastic Abrasive Tool

[+] Author and Article Information
V. S. Sooraj

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Space Science
and Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram 695547, Kerala, India
e-mail: sooraj.iist@gmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 30, 2016; final manuscript received March 8, 2017; published online April 20, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Y. B. Guo.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(8), 081001 (Apr 20, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: MANU-16-1472; doi: 10.1115/1.4036289 History: Received August 30, 2016; Revised March 08, 2017

Fine finishing of cylindrical internal surfaces without affecting geometric form is a critical requirement in several mechanical and aerospace applications. Although various methodologies using flexible abrasive media are reported for the same, many of them demand complex tooling and fixtures to be developed in tune with the internal dimensions to feed the abrasive media. The present paper investigates the feasibility of using magneto-elastic abrasive balls with the aid of a mechanically deployable tool for microfinishing of geometrically symmetric tubular specimens. The deployable tool used for the present experimentation is designed like an umbrella mechanism, with magnetic pads to hold the elastic abrasive balls, expandable for bore diameter ranges from 45 to 75 mm. The magnetic type elastic abrasive balls proposed in the form of mesoscale balls of diameter 3.5 ± 0.25 mm are capable of finishing the bore surface without altering its roundness. Effects of elastomeric medium, mechanics of material removal and generation of finished profile during the proposed technique have been discussed in detail, through a comprehensive mathematical model. Effect of various process variables on surface roughness was investigated experimentally using response surface methodology and the theoretical predictions were validated at optimum operating condition. Sixty-two percent reduction in average roughness on brass tubes of initial roughness 0.168 μm, with significant improvement in all the associated two-dimensional roughness parameters and without any deviation on roundness, was clearly demonstrating the potential of proposed methodology.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Free body diagram of finishing forces

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Details of finishing setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Mechanics of chip removal by spherical abrasive grain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Mechanics of chip removal by nonspherical grains with positive rake angle: (a) with the rolling of elastic abrasive ball and (b) without the rolling of elastic abrasive ball

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Macroscopic images of magneto-elastic abrasive balls: (a) standard abrasive gift and (b) magneto-elastic abrasive ball

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Contact analysis of magneto-elastic abrasive ball versus standard abrasive grit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mechanics of cutting and finishing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of mechanically deployable magneto-elastic abrasive tool

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pads used for contact experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Configurations of grains in deformed contact zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Distribution of embedded grain size and depth of penetration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normal probability plot for grain size

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Mechanics of finishing and behavior of balls in successive passes: (a) initial roughness profile and (b) profile after processing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Fishbone diagram of process variables

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of radial expansion on roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of tool rotation on roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Effect of feed rate on roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Effect of abrasive grain size on roughness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Surface plot for optimum operating condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Variation of roughness with processing time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Roughness profile before and after processing: (a) before processing and (b) after processing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of theoretical and experimental results

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In