| Literature DB >> 35207828 |
Raman Kumar1, Sehijpal Singh1, Vivek Aggarwal2, Sunpreet Singh3, Danil Yurievich Pimenov4, Khaled Giasin5, Krzysztof Nadolny6.
Abstract
This research work highlights the benefits of abrasive flow polishing (AFP) applied to tungsten carbide dies compared with conventional hand polishing (HP). An indigenous experimental set-up for AFP was developed. The effect of prominent process parameters viz. extrusion pressure, number of cycles, and abrasive particle concentration on the final surface roughness, percentage improvement in surface roughness, and polishing time was investigated by Taguchi-designed experiments. The multi-objective optimization (MOO) was performed using the Taguchi-TOPSIS-Equal weight approach to find the respective optimized AFP parametric settings. A set of skilled operators performed the conventional HP of dies, and the best hand-polished (HPed) die was selected using the TOPSIS technique. The operational performance of the HPed dies and the abrasive flow polished (AFPed) dies were compared on the three-stage wire drawing operation. The results revealed that AFP's surface resulted in a better-quality surface than hand polishing with a 27.06% improvement in surface roughness. Furthermore, AFP can reduce the dependency on costly and tricky-to-locate skilled operators, with a reasonable amount of time saving (about 87.05%). Overall, the study's findings show that abrasive flow polishing of dies is fast and cost-effective.Entities:
Keywords: TOPSIS; abrasive flow machining; abrasive flow polishing; hand polishing; polishing time; surface roughness; tungsten carbide; wire drawing die
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207828 PMCID: PMC8878778 DOI: 10.3390/ma15041287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Abrasive flow machining set-up.
Abrasive flow polishing variables.
| Sr. No. | Variables | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| A | Extrusion Pressure (Ep), Bar | 65 | 85 | 105 |
| B | Number of Cycles (Noc) | 80 | 130 | 180 |
| C | Abrasive Concentration (Ac), Percentage | 50 | 55 | 60 |
Taguchi L9 orthogonal array, experimental observations.
| Exp. No. | Extrusion Pressure (Ep), Bar | Number of Cycles (Noc) | Abrasive Concentration (Ac), % | I-Ra | F-Ra | Percentage | PT | TPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65 | 80 | 50 | 2.612 | 1.708 | 34.61 | 24 | 32 |
| 2 | 65 | 130 | 55 | 2.834 | 1.498 | 47.14 | 24 | 52 |
| 3 | 65 | 180 | 60 | 2.792 | 1.439 | 48.46 | 24 | 72 |
| 4 | 85 | 80 | 55 | 2.871 | 1.231 | 57.12 | 11 | 15 |
| 5 | 85 | 130 | 60 | 2.549 | 1.019 | 60.02 | 11 | 24 |
| 6 | 85 | 180 | 50 | 2.783 | 0.942 | 66.15 | 11 | 33 |
| 7 | 105 | 80 | 60 | 2.634 | 0.879 | 66.63 | 7 | 9 |
| 8 | 105 | 130 | 50 | 2.456 | 0.721 | 70.64 | 7 | 15 |
| 9 | 105 | 180 | 55 | 2.694 | 0.549 | 79.62 | 7 | 21 |
I-Ra: initial surface roughness, F-Ra: final surface roughness, % age I-Ra: percentage improvement of surface roughness, PT: polishing time, TPT: total polishing time.
Figure 2Hand polishing of die by the skilled operator.
Standard multi-stage wire drawing operation.
| No. of Stages | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The diameter of the drum (mm) | 600 | 595 | 590 | 590 | 585 | 585 | 585 |
| Finishing speed (RPM) | 21 | 24 | 33 | 42 | 56 | 61 | 70 |
| Die material | Tungsten Carbide | ||||||
| Material to be drawn | EN9 | ||||||
| Inlet wire size (mm) | 5.5 | 5.05 | 4.63 | 4.23 | 3.85 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Finished wire size (mm) | 5.05 | 4.63 | 4.23 | 3.85 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 2.92 |
| % age reduction | 8.18 | 8.31 | 8.63 | 8.9 | 9.09 | 8.5 | 8.75 |
Figure 3Wire drawing operation layout.
Decision matrix of abrasive flow polishing responses.
| Exp. No. | Decision Matrix | Normalized Decision Matrix | Weighted, Normalized Matrix | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-Ra | TPT | % Age I-Ra | F-Ra | TPT | % Age I-Ra | F-Ra | TPT | % Age I-Ra | |
| 1 | 1.708 | 32 | 34.61 | 0.4877 | 0.2978 | 0.1912 | 0.1626 | 0.0993 | 0.0637 |
| 2 | 1.498 | 52 | 47.14 | 0.4277 | 0.4839 | 0.2604 | 0.1426 | 0.1613 | 0.0868 |
| 3 | 1.439 | 72 | 48.46 | 0.4109 | 0.6700 | 0.2677 | 0.1370 | 0.2233 | 0.0892 |
| 4 | 1.231 | 15 | 57.12 | 0.3515 | 0.1396 | 0.3155 | 0.1172 | 0.0465 | 0.1052 |
| 5 | 1.019 | 24 | 60.02 | 0.2909 | 0.2233 | 0.3315 | 0.0970 | 0.0744 | 0.1105 |
| 6 | 0.942 | 33 | 66.15 | 0.2690 | 0.3071 | 0.3654 | 0.0897 | 0.1024 | 0.1218 |
| 7 | 0.879 | 9 | 66.63 | 0.2510 | 0.0837 | 0.3680 | 0.0837 | 0.0279 | 0.1227 |
| 8 | 0.721 | 15 | 70.64 | 0.2059 | 0.1396 | 0.3902 | 0.0686 | 0.0465 | 0.1301 |
| 9 | 0.549 | 21 | 79.62 | 0.1567 | 0.1954 | 0.4398 | 0.0522 | 0.0651 | 0.1466 |
Separation measures, MCS and S/N ratios of abrasive flow polishing.
| Exp. No. | Sepi+ | Sepi− | MCS | S/N Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.1553 | 0.1241 | 0.4441 | −7.051 |
| 2 | 0.1718 | 0.0652 | 0.2750 | −11.213 |
| 3 | 0.2206 | 0.0361 | 0.1408 | −17.030 |
| 4 | 0.0792 | 0.1872 | 0.7026 | −3.065 |
| 5 | 0.0739 | 0.1693 | 0.6960 | −3.148 |
| 6 | 0.0869 | 0.1527 | 0.6373 | −3.914 |
| 7 | 0.0395 | 0.2188 | 0.8472 | −1.441 |
| 8 | 0.0298 | 0.2109 | 0.8762 | −1.148 |
| 9 | 0.0372 | 0.2099 | 0.8494 | −1.418 |
Figure 4Main effects plot (a) means of MCS and (b) S/N ratios of MCS.
Abrasive flow polishing parameters at optimum MCS and response value.
| Optimum AFP | Optimum MCS | Responses | Mean | S/N | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | S/N | |||||
| Ep (A3) | 105 Bar | 0.9595 | −0.3591 | F-Ra (µm) | 0.887 | 1.0415 |
| Noc (B1) | 80 | Percentage I-Ra | 65.12 | 36.2743 | ||
| Ac (C1) | 50 | TPT (min) | 4 | −12.0412 | ||
ANOVA results in MCS.
| Resource | Degree of Freedom | Sum of Square | Variance | Fisher’s Value | Probability | Contribution (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Ep | 2 | 0.51172 | 0.255859 | 36.18 | 0.027 | 91.21 |
| Noc | 2 | 0.02268 | 0.01134 | 1.6 | 0.384 | 4.04 |
| Ac | 2 | 0.01249 | 0.006245 | 0.88 | 0.531 | 2.23 |
| Residual Error | 2 | 0.01414 | 0.007072 | 2.52 | ||
| Total | 8 | 0.56103 | 100.00 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Ep | 2 | 183.31 | 91.656 | 11.87 | 0.078 | 78.32 |
| Noc | 2 | 19.93 | 9.963 | 1.29 | 0.437 | 8.52 |
| Ac | 2 | 15.37 | 7.683 | 0.99 | 0.501 | 6.57 |
| Residual Error | 2 | 15.45 | 7.725 | 6.60 | ||
| Total | 8 | 234.05 | 100.00 | |||
Observations and decision matrix of HP responses.
| Exp. No. | HP-SO | Decision Matrix | Normalized Matrix | Weighted, Normalized Matrix | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HP-F-Ra | HP-T | HP-% Age I-Ra | HP-F-Ra | HP-T | HP-% Age I-Ra | HP-F-Ra | HP-T | HP-% Age I-Ra | ||
| 1 | 1 | 2.167 | 29 | 48.89 | 0.2231 | 0.2548 | 0.3405 | 0.0744 | 0.0849 | 0.1135 |
| 2 | 1 | 2.256 | 32 | 51.25 | 0.2322 | 0.2811 | 0.3569 | 0.0774 | 0.0937 | 0.1190 |
| 3 | 1 | 2.743 | 35 | 57.98 | 0.2824 | 0.3075 | 0.4038 | 0.0941 | 0.1025 | 0.1346 |
| 4 | 2 | 2.998 | 38 | 48.01 | 0.3086 | 0.3339 | 0.3344 | 0.1029 | 0.1113 | 0.1115 |
| 5 | 2 | 3.127 | 40 | 44.93 | 0.3219 | 0.3514 | 0.3129 | 0.1073 | 0.1171 | 0.1043 |
| 6 | 2 | 3.258 | 39 | 49.25 | 0.3354 | 0.3426 | 0.3430 | 0.1118 | 0.1142 | 0.1143 |
| 7 | 3 | 3.878 | 42 | 40.98 | 0.3992 | 0.3690 | 0.2854 | 0.1331 | 0.1230 | 0.0951 |
| 8 | 3 | 3.989 | 40 | 42.58 | 0.4106 | 0.3514 | 0.2966 | 0.1369 | 0.1171 | 0.0989 |
| 9 | 3 | 4.091 | 44 | 44.68 | 0.4211 | 0.3866 | 0.3112 | 0.1404 | 0.1289 | 0.1037 |
Separation measures and MCS of hand-polished die and TOPSIS ranks.
| Exp. No. | Sepi+ | Sepi− | MCS | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0211 | 0.0814 | 0.7941 | 2 |
| 2 | 0.0156 | 0.0759 | 0.8294 | 1 |
| 3 | 0.0264 | 0.0663 | 0.7148 | 3 |
| 4 | 0.0452 | 0.0445 | 0.4962 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.0551 | 0.0363 | 0.3968 | 6 |
| 6 | 0.0517 | 0.0374 | 0.4200 | 5 |
| 7 | 0.0803 | 0.0094 | 0.1044 | 8 |
| 8 | 0.0789 | 0.0128 | 0.1394 | 7 |
| 9 | 0.0851 | 0.0086 | 0.0917 | 9 |
Predicted and experimental abrasive flow polished MCS at optimal parameters.
| Response | Factor/Level | Predicted | Experimental | Relative Error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCS | A3, B1, C1 | 0.9595 | 0.9188 | 4.43 |
Percentage change in abrasive flow polishing responses in comparison to hand polishing.
| Responses | HPed Die | AFPed Die | Percentage Change in AFP Polished Die |
|---|---|---|---|
| Response Value | |||
| F-Ra (µm) | 2.256 | 0.887 | −60.68 II |
| % age I-Ra | 51.25 | 65.12 | 27.06 III |
| TPT (min) | 32 | 4 | −87.50 I |
I, II, and III are ranks of AFP responses as per improvement; negative sign means improvement for F-Ra and TPT; positive sign means improvement for percentage I-Ra.
Observations of three-stage wire drawing operation.
| Polishing | Number of Stages | Surface Roughness, | Percentage Reduction in Ra | Bearing Diameter of Die (mm) | Increase in Bearing Diameter of Die (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before Drawing | After Drawing | Before Drawing | After Drawing | ||||
| Hand polished | First | 2.638 | 3.665 | 38.93 | 4.63 | 4.66 | 0.03 |
| Second | 2.187 | 3.287 | 50.30 | 4.23 | 4.28 | 0.05 | |
| Third | 2.273 | 3.653 | 60.71 | 3.85 | 3.89 | 0.04 | |
| AFP polished | First | 0.798 | 1.013 | 26.94 | 4.63 | 4.65 | 0.02 |
| Second | 0.854 | 1.221 | 42.97 | 4.23 | 4.27 | 0.04 | |
| Third | 0.831 | 1.259 | 51.50 | 3.85 | 3.89 | 0.03 | |
Figure 5SEM micrograph of (a) abrasive flow polished die (b) hand polished die.
Figure 6Contour plots for final surface roughness: (a) plot between abrasive concentration and the number of cycles; (b) plot between the number of cycles and extrusion pressure; (c) plot between abrasive concentration and extrusion pressure.
Figure 7Contour plots for percentage improvement in surface roughness: (a) plot between abrasive concentration and the number of cycles; (b) plot between the number of cycles and extrusion pressure; (c) plot between abrasive concentration and extrusion pressure.
Figure 8Contour plots for total polishing time: (a) plot between abrasive concentration and a number of cycles; (b) plot between the number of cycles and extrusion pressure; (c) plot between abrasive concentration and extrusion pressure.