Open Access
Review
Table 1
Variation of process parameter in various AFM processes.
| Process | Machine | Medium | Tool | Workpiece | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBG-AFF [67] | Number of cycles: 100–200 | C: (10–15) wt.% Processing oil in polymer: abrasive medium (#200–1200) | Drill bit (Ф − 9–13 mm) | AISI 1040 and AISI 4340 | (1) As the drill bit diameter increases, Ra decreases from 0.34 to 0.28 μm and Material removal rises from 0.2 to 0.9 mg. |
| CFAAFM [55,68] | P: 20–34 bar, number of cycles: 2–6, T: 32 ± 2 °C | Al2O3 (250–100 μm), C: 1–2 wt.% | CFG rod (0–70 rpm), Shape-square, splined, rectangular | Brass, OD-10 mm, ID-8 mm, L-16 mm, R ai −0.950 ± 0.050 μm | (1) Low Ra
value with more finishing rate. (2) Additional centrifugal force increases resultant forces. |
| HLX-AFM [30,59] | P: 3–7 N/mm2, number of cycles: 2–5 | Al2O3 #200, medium flow volume: 290 cm3, RR: 0.95, Abrasive to medium conc.: (0.75–1.25) | Helical profile rod: drill bit, spline and 3-start helical | Brass | (1) Roughness value reduced from 1.3 µm to 0.5 µm with 3-start helical profile rod |
| SFAAFM [13] | P: 10–40 bar | SiC #200, Abrasive to carriers ratio: 50–50, 40–60, 60–40 | Drill diameter, rotational speed of drill | Inconel 718 | (1) Force on the workpiece surface increased which resulted in increase in material removal rate. |
| R-AFF [69] | P: 4–8 MPa, Ø: 22°–9° | 37 vol.% SiC (#220), (12.5–27.5) vol.% processing oil | N − 2–10 rpm | Al alloy, Al alloy/SiC (10%) and Al alloy/SiC (15%), R ai − 0.3 ± 0.03 μm. | (1) Results show 44% better ΔRa
value and 81.8% more Material removal compared to AFM. (2) The helical path followed by abrasives as compared to straight in AFM |
| ECAFM [71] | P: 2–10 N/mm2, number of cycles: 2–10, R ai: 1.23–1.27 μm, T: 32 ± 2 °C | Silicon based polymer, hydrocarbon gel and Al2O3 (#150) abrasive with NaI, C: (0.5–1.5) wt.% | V: 0–20 Volt, M: 0.5–2.5 Molal, SL: 100 mm, Cathode rod (Ф − 5.2 mm), Vol. − 300 cm3. | Brass | (1) Excellent internal surface finishing was achieved. (2) Maximum material removal was 68.75 mg at C-0.5 wt.%, V-10 v, P- 6 N/mm2 |
| UAAFM [72] | P: 2-22 bar, T: 4-8 min | RR: 6-4, 60 wt.%, SiC: (150–350 μm), μ: 730 Pa-s | ν-0-20 kHz, λ-10 μm | EN8, OD-20 mm, ID-15 mm, long-20 mm | (1) 73.12% improvement in roughness value (2) Volumetric material removal rate-560 cm3/min |
| MAAFM [73] | P: 15 bar, vol.- 450 cm3/min, number of cycles: 0-7 | Viscous polymer based medium with Al2O3 (355 μm), C: (1.5-1) wt.% | B: 0–0.7 tesla | Aluminum, brass, mild steel, OD-10 mm, ID-7 mm, length −18 mm | (1) Material removal in MAAFM was more as compared to AFM (2) Improvement in Ra for Al was 2.41% and for brass it was 88.87%. |
| MRAFF [48] | P:3.75 MPa, No of cycles: 200 | 20 vol% of CIP, 20 vol% of SiC and 60 vol% of viscoplastic | B: 0-0.57 tesla | SS | (1) The roughness value reduced from 0.47μm to 0.34 μm. (2) Improvement in surface finish was increased with increase in magnetic flux. |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.