Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-9405-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A review on recent advances in machining methods based on abrasive jet polishing (AJP) Fengjun Chen 1 & Xiangliang Miao 1 & Yu Tang 1 & Shaohui Yin 1
Received: 29 March 2016 / Accepted: 29 August 2016 / Published online: 9 September 2016 # Springer-Verlag London 2016
Abstract Abrasive jet polishing (AJP) is a new nonconventional machining technology for applying to polish the complex surfaces and small areas. Compared with other polishing technologies, AJP has the following advantages: high precision, easy to control, small machining force, good flexibility, without thermal distortion, etc. A review of five main AJP technologies has been conducted to provide an insight into the trends in research of principles, technological method, and impact of polishing quality. Several AJP methods discussed in this work include abrasive water jet polishing, nanoparticle colloid jet polishing, magnetorheological jet polishing, abrasive air jet polishing, and negative pressure cavity jet polishing. The monitoring methods of AJP process are introduced. The jet velocity, material removal, surface roughness, and numerical modeling of jet polishing are also discussed. The effects of some major technological parameters are analyzed. The polish results of metal, glass, and silicon materials are summarized. The probable further research tendency on AJP technology is forecasted. It is a high-potential technology to machine the microstructures and difficult-to-machine materials.
Keywords Abrasive jet polishing . Abrasive water jet . Cavity jet polishing . Air jet polishing . Material removal
* Fengjun Chen
[email protected]
1
National Engineering Research Center for High Efficiency Grinding, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People’s Republic of China
1 Introduction With the rapid development of science and technology, the demands for higher machining efficiency and machining quality are increasing in many areas, such as electronics, precision instruments, optical components, and medical apparatus [1]. Some special manufacturing methods are selected to improve the quality of products [2]. In recent years, a new ultraprecision optical processing technology, abrasive jet polishing (AJP) is developed rapidly. It has unique advantages for polishing hard-polish materials by flexible head. After Bobo won the related patent for drilling wells by using the abrasive water jet (AWJ) technology, the abrasive jet machining (AJM) has been widely used in drilling, cleaning, cutting, polishing, turning, milling, and broken rock. As shown in Fig. 1, the research tendency in AJM fields was approximately counted based on the Engineering Village Database in recent years. Though this trend has a little change in 2011, the research hotspot is rising. AJM technology applied in optics surface polishing was first presented by Fähnle in 1997 [3]. Many research results show that the AJP technology is feasible for manufacturing the precision/ultra-precision optics. Compared with other polishing technologies, AJP technology has many advantages, such as high flexibility, high accuracy, easy control, and low cost. In this review of AJP technology, the current research state of the principle and methods, systems and monitoring, mathematical models, and technological parameters are summarized and analyzed. The further development tendency is also forecasted.
2 Several methods derived from AJP A nanometer polishing surface without damage can be obtained by plastic removal. After polished 3 h by abrasive water jet
786
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 1846 1834
2000 1623 1614 1661
Number of literature
1800
1437
1600 1400 1200
1090
1579 1605
1193 1248 1203
1000 800 600 400 200 0
A K9 glass sample has been polished in NCJP [7], and the surface roughness has been reduced from 3.16 nm RMS to 0.935 nm RMS. Applying the cavitation effect to improve the processing efficiency of NCJP, a nanoparticle colloid hydrodynamic cavitation jet polishing (NCHCJP) was also presented by Wang et al. [8] The material removal rate is improved and the surface roughness of monocrystalline silicon is Ra 0.475 nm.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year
2.3 Principle of AAJP
Fig. 1 Number of collected literatures in AJP technology
polishing (AWJP), the roughness of the center point of the BK7 glass is 1.2 nm. Based on the AWJP, some composite jet polishing technologies are proposed, such as nanoparticle colloid jet polishing (NCJP), magnetorheological jet polishing (MJP), abrasive air jet polishing (AAJP), and negative pressure cavity jet polishing (NPCJP). The corresponding detected apparatus are developed.
2.1 Principle of AWJP As the earliest polishing technology derived from AJP, the basic principle of AWJP is shown in Fig. 2. The proper proportion micro-abrasive is mixed uniformity with water in the tank, and the polishing fluid is transformed into high-pressure liquid by high-pressure pump, then transfers to the nozzle and forms high-speed abrasive jet. The tangential flow has a powerful shear impact force along the workpiece surface, so as to realize micro-removal the material [4]. The AWJP experiments of K9 glass show that the shearing force of super hard particles plays the leading role for material removal, but the normal impact is minor [5].
The basic principle of AAJP is similar to the traditional sandblasting process, as shown in Fig. 4. Abrasive particles are driven by the high-speed airflow to impact the workpiece surface, and then result in the removal of workpiece material [9, 10]. When AAJP the surface, the abrasive particles will impact the material surface and generate many small fragments. Every particle impact can only remove minimum quantity materials. The airflow will take both the abrasive particles and broken fragments of workpiece material away. 2.4 Principle of MJP Because the fluid jet of AWJP is easily influenced by the air disturbance, the MJP technology was proposed by the researchers of QED company based on the processing characteristics of magnetorheological finishing (MRF) [11]. The polishing principle is shown in Fig. 5. Because of the solenoid magnetization, the magnetorheological fluid is ejected from the nozzle; the magnetorheological jet in the vicinity of the nozzle will generate magnetorheological effect, and the ferromagnetic particles are arranged chain structure. So, the fluidity will decrease and the viscosity increases rapidly, which will stabilize the thin jets, greatly improve the stability of removal function [12, 13].
2.2 Principle of NCJP 2.5 Principle of the NPCJP Combined with AWJP and elastic emission machining, the upper-hard abrasive can be replaced with the nanometer colloid particles. The ultra-smooth polishing in NCJP was presented by Song et al., and the mechanism was shown in Fig. 3 [6]. The surface chemical reaction between nanoparticles and work surface is utilized for material removal. The removal process is carried out with alkaline colloid of nanoparticles. When nanoparticles are impacting on the work surface, there exit surface reaction of the hydroxyl radical. By viscous drag of the colloid jet, the nanoparticles are separated and removed from the work surface together with the uppermost atoms of the work surface.
In order to reduce the air disturbance and improve the polishing accuracy and efficiency, Chen proposed a NPCJP method combining the AWJP with negative pressure cavity technology [14, 15]. The principle is shown in Fig. 6. A negative pressure space is formed in the closed polishing container. The abrasive fluid is ejected to form high-speed jet from the storage tank by differential pressure. Because of the negative pressure condition, the characteristics of the cavitation effect are more apparent to increase the material removal and surface quality of polished workpiece. Comparing with the conventional AJP method, it may obtain higher efficiency and better surface quality.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
787
nozzle
Fig. 2 Principle of AWJP with (a) polishing set-up and (b) section contour of erosion area [4]
workpiece
C B pump tank
polishing solution
(a)
3.1 AJP system 3.1.1 Nozzle structure Injection system is the key component of AJP system. The pressure energy is transformed into kinetic energy to form high-energy beam and complete AJP. The nozzle structure greatly influences the dynamic characteristics, removal function, and surface roughness of polishing components. When the shrinking angle of cone-cylinder nozzle is 13° and the ratio of length to diameter is 4, the spray velocity of abrasive fluid is well uniform, the turbulence intensity is low, and the distribution is uniform of abrasive. This kind of nozzle is suitable to be applied in AJP system [16]. 3.1.2 Feeding system The feeding system must be fed in accurate, uniform, and continuous condition to improve the efficiency and quality of AJP. In Fig. 7, there are two kinds of feeding systems including premixed AWJ and post-mixed AWJ. For premixed AWJ, abrasive enters the mixing chamber through the stopvalve of the abrasive tank. After the abrasive is mixed with water in the mixing chamber, through an acceleration process, the velocity of the abrasive driven by the high-pressure water is near the velocity of water [17].The premixed AWJ acquires higher energy and becomes more effective on the target object. For post-mixed AWJ, the high-pressure water passes by the high-pressure pipe and forms high-speed water jet through nozzle. In the mixed room, the negative pressure formed by high-speed water jet sucks the abrasive into the mixed room
section contour of erosion area
from the inlet pipe, which generates turbulent flow with highspeed water jet. High-speed water jet will transfer kinetic energy to abrasive particles, which forms high-speed abrasive water jet [18]. The premixed way has lower pressure, good mixing effect, high energy utilization, and high machining accuracy, but the equipment is complex and the nozzle wear is serious. Compared with the premixed way, the post-mixed is just the opposite. Therefore, the proper type of mixing should be chosen according to the actual machining accuracy and cost in the design of feeding system of fluid abrasive jet. 3.1.3 Polishing devices Song et al. [19] designed a NCJP system to polish the complex small curvature surface. An ultra-smooth surface with surface roughness of Ra 0.540 nm is obtained after polished K9 glass in the platform composed of X, Y, Z and θ stages. After MRF polished, a quartz glass was polished continually with NCJP system by Peng et al., and the surface roughness was reduced from 0.72 to 0.41 nm in RMS [12]. Lee et al. developed the micro MR fluid jet polishing system of micro-mold material. The surface roughness of brass was Ra 1.84 nm, and the nickel was Ra 2.31 nm [20]. Chen et al. proposed a NPCJP system in Fig. 8. The device comprises a sealed container, a workbench drive system, and a fluid circulating system. A negative pressure space is formed in the upper part of the inner cavity of the sealed container. During polishing, a suction effect of negative pressure is utilized for sucking and compositing polishing fluid. Because of the cavitation effect, the normal pressure environment is Abrasive feeder
Mixing chamber High-pressure air
Y X
(b)
principle of polishing set-up
3 AJP systems and monitoring
Z
A
revolving table
θ axis
Nozzle
Nozzle Concave surface jet
Particles and material fragments
Nanoparticle
Work
Fig. 3 Principle of NCJP [6]
Workpiece
Fig. 4 Principle of AAJP [9]
788 Fig. 5 Sketch of MJP with (a) polishing set-up and (b) arrange of particles [12]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
workpiece
coil
MR jet
N solenoid pump
nozzle tank
(a)
S
(b)
sketch of set-up
changed into a negative pressure environment, and air disturbance is reduced in injecting processing. The negative pressure cavitation effect forms strong cavitation shock wave and high-speed micro jet. Materials are removed under the combined action of abrasive particle cutting and cavitation erosion.
arrange of particles
machining. Rabani et al. performed online monitoring method of jet penetration in AWJ of titanium alloy based on the concept of transfer rate of energy using multiple sensors [23]. 3.2.3 Stand-off distance Jurisevic et al. [24] used sound detection to monitor stand-off distance and found the relationship between the stand-off distance and the sound generated during AWJ machining process.
3.2 AJP monitoring 3.2.1 Flow velocity It is very important to optimize the polishing parameters by monitoring AJP process. Hou et al. [21] used energy transfer method to measure the velocity of water jet near the nozzle. The impact force of the fluid jet measured by the piezoelectricity ergometer is transformed into the velocity value. The result indicates the velocity will reduce along the direction of the flow. Ivantsiv et al. employed acoustic emission (AE) method to monitor particle flow over a wide range of time periods [22]. 3.2.2 Erosion area Using AE sensor, the technological parameters may be controlled by monitoring the erosion area of abrasive jet
3.2.4 Vibration signals Some research results were successfully applied for an adaptive-control constraint AWJ system. Axinte et al. [25] developed an integrated energy-based monitoring of AWJ system using AE sensors and dynamometer. Using piezoelectric accelerometer, Perzel monitored the AWJ system for machining AISI 309 material at different abrasive flow rates with constant traverse rate. It is observed that the impact of abrasive particles does not play a significant role for generating vibration [26]. Hreha et al. [27] monitored the vibration signals of the impact of abrasive particles using accelerometer in AWJ machining of stainless steel (AISI 309). At higher abrasive
Negative pressure space
Fig. 6 Principle of NPCJP with (a) polishing set-up and (b) sketch of cavity[14]
Workpiece nozzle
pump polishing solution
(a)
tank
revolving table
principle of polishing set-up
cavity
(b)
particle
sketch of cavity
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
789
5
Fig. 7 Two kinds of feeding systems with (a) premixed and (b) post-mixed AWJ [17, 18]
5
6 4 1
3 2 1.pump 2.chamber 3.nozzle 4.stop valve 5.tank 6.concentration regulator
(a) premixed mass flow rate, higher peaks and lower RMS values of vibration are also obtained in the high-frequency spectrum.
1
2
3
4 1.pump 2.waternozzle 3.chamber 4.nozzle 5.tank
(b) post-mixed
Modeling of AJP process can predict the surface finishing quality and material removal rate. Several models include velocity change, material removal, surface roughness, and simulation modeling.
rarely examined explicitly, so it is necessary to establish theoretical model to determine the material removal characteristics. Tyagi et al. [30] discussed the theoretical model of abrasive jet based on erosion phenomenon, and the influence of magnetic and the electric field on the material removal rate was studied. The material removal rate decreases by increasing the value of magnetic field and electric field [31, 32]. Cao et al. [33], Shi [34], and Li et al. [35] studied the material removal model to verify the accuracy of material removal model according to the experimental data.
4.1 Model functions
4.1.3 Surface roughness
4.1.1 Jet velocity
Surface roughness model can optimize the polishing parameters to improve the surface quality. Chen et al. [36], Che et al. [37], Zhe et al. [38], and Azmir et al. [39] proposed the surface roughness models based on the different material. In Table 1, the model functions of jet polishing are summarized for different polishing materials, such as BK7 glass, K9 glass, 40CrMnMo7 die steel, and aluminum nitride. The effects of various technological parameters on the polishing performance were also deduced, and different materials were processed with different detailed approaches.
4 Modeling simulation of AJP
The jet velocity is one of the important factors to affect the polishing quality of AJP. The well flow jet beam can be obtained by building the jet velocity model. Narayanan [28] and Wang [29] studied the velocity model to optimize the jet performance in AJP. 4.1.2 Material removal The complex mechanisms of material removal which plays an important role in simulating the surface generation in AJP are 1 2
7 6 5 4 3 1.pump 2.negative pressure space 3.lifting platform 4.rotation motor 5.workpiece 6.swing 7.stirrer Fig. 8 NPCJP device [14]
4.2 Numerical simulation Simulating of AJP can promote experimental and theoretical research further. The structures of jet nozzle can be optimized by numerical simulation. Numerical simulation was performed to study the flow field in the internal mixing chamber with premixed abrasive water jet based on a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) multiphase flow mixture model. The results show that the abrasive concentration in outlet increases firstly and then decreases with the increasing of inlet diameter. When the mass ratio of abrasives to high-pressure water is about 3:4, and contraction cone angle is 30°, a relatively uniform flow field can be obtained [40]. The discrete element method-computational fluid dynamics analysis was used to
Target material
Super hard materials
E-glass
Carbon steel
BK7 optical glass
K9 glass
40CrMnMo7 mold steel BK7 glass
Authors
2008 Che et al. [37]
2008 Azmir et al. [39]
2009 Wang et al. [29]
2010 Li et al. [35]
2010 Shi et al. [34]
2012 Chen et al. [36]
Roughness
Removal depth model by single particle
Removal
Velocity change(up)
Roughness
Roughness
Model type
Different models of AJP
Table 1
Nozzle diameter D, Stand-off distance S, Jet pressure P, Traverse speed u, Jet angle α, Mix mass ratio ν, Abrasive diameter d, Elastic modulus of workpiece E, Workpiece hardness Hw, Abrasive density ρa, Workpiece density ρw.
Workpiece density ρ, Particle density ρp, Particle velocity u.
Abrasive hardness χ1, Hydraulic pressure χ2, Stand-off distance χ3, Abrasive flow rate χ4, Traverse rate χ5, Fiber tensile stress χ6, Fiber volume fraction χ7. Nozzle diameter D, Particle diameter dp, Radial distance from the jet center r, Axial distance from the nozzle exit along the jet flow direction x. Jet angle α.
Water pressure Pw, Abrasive pressure Pa, Impact angle θ, Elastic distortion of abrasive Ea, Abrasive size da, Abrasive density ρa, Nozzle diameter dn, Stand-off Sd.
Important input variables considered
2
2
2
ð1þl Þ
a
þl2d3Paaρt cosθa 2
d n
pffiffiffiffiffi 4 þ k S d g3
þ
1−μ2m Em
ð1þlÞ
a
þl 2d3Paaρt cosθa 2
dn
pffiffiffiffiffi 1 þ k S d g2 g3
2
ρ ρp
1 2
Ra ¼ 0:009872521
f(x, h) = f(x, hI) + f(x, hp)
3
1
H 2 E −2 K −2 c
E 0:975 ρa0:295 d 0:098 D0:914 u0:12 v0:022 H w0:930 ρw0:235 P0:105 S 0:012 α0:270
2 f x; hp ¼ K 2 Eρ 5 r½ux ðxÞ−uK 2
f ðx; hI Þ ¼
K 1 mp u20 exp −0:693ðbxÞ r
f
Rðr; θÞ ¼ dRðdtr;θÞ ¼ μk τ s ðr; θ; αÞV t ðR; θ; αÞ
C 1 −0:567 dp upðx;rÞ ¼ upð0;0Þ 0:1D 1:118 Dx þ 5:567 B 1−2 Dr 1 þ 2B2 Dr
Ra(μm) = 4.074 − 2.93 × 10−4χ1 − 1.9 × 10−5χ2 + 6.89 × 10−2χ3 − 6.67 × 10−2χ4 + 5.66 × 10−4χ5 − 5.28 × 10−3χ6 + 9.6 × 10−3χ7
ρw
pffiffiffiffiffi 2Pw
1−μ2a Ea
ρw
pffiffiffiffiffi 2Pw
d a ρa d 2n sinθð1−cosθÞ πnδs
4
−0:2377cπ3 ρ3a d 3n sin3 ð1−cosθÞ3
2
Ra ¼ 1:3791c
Modeling
The average deviation and standard deviation between the predicted Ra values and measured ones is 3.80 %.
Experimentally verify that the optimized influence function is suitable for precision polishing optics. The accurate is necessary to take further optimization on the material removal model.
Predict the speed value of particle in any position of abrasive jet flow beam internal.
Predict the surface roughness of AWJ machined glass/epoxy laminates.
Miscellaneous parameters are considered to predict the roughness, more test is needed to be further optimized.
Comments
790 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
Target material
BK7 glass
BK 7
Aluminum nitride
Authors
2014 Cao et al. [33]
2015 Kim et al. [31]
2015 Zhe et al. [38]
Table 1 (continued)
Roughness
Removal
Erosion for single particle
Model type
Impact angle α, Pump pressure P.
Wear surface hardness H.
Particle mass mp, Particle velocity u0, Jet angle α, Particle semiangle θ.
Important input variables considered
pn
2ð1þnÞ
mp1þn u0 2þ4ð1−bÞ
sin2ð1þnÞ α
ð2πfAcos2πft Þ
1= f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ CH2 λ1:5 ηDγ 2 the low shear rate N < 40
dz dt
EðRaÞ ¼ 0:37m1=2 sinαf ∫0
¼ CH1 ρp λ2 D3 γ 3 the high shear rate N > 100
2η2 P W ρw dt 1=2
þ
ðpKψbÞ
2
=3ðcosαÞ 2 ðsinαÞ4ð1−bÞ
dz dt
E(x) = Vx + Vy
ðtanθÞð1−bÞ =3
ð1−bÞ V x ¼ k 3 m1þ2 =3u0 p
1 V y ¼ 2knþ1
Modeling
=3 2ð1−bÞ pt pn
=3
Using lower pressure, finer abrasives and smaller impact angle are recommended to obtain a high surface quality by the model.
Accurately reflect the influence of shear rate on the material removal rate.
Erosion model is effective to predict the detailed material removal profile.
Comments
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 791
792
study the dynamic behavior of particles in high-speed abrasive air jet, and the variation of nozzle sizes has no effect on the maximum air velocities [41]. Volume of fluid (VOF), Mixture and Euler model are significant for CFD numerical simulation of AJP. The VOF model was used to simulate water jet [42]; the results show that the air involved in the interior of the nozzle from the environment can improve the coherence of the jet. Euler’s method was used to simulate the composite flow field of two nozzles [43]. A composite flow field structure of two nozzles was calculated and optimized. When the nozzle diameter is 1 mm, the impingement height is 10 mm, and the initial pressure is 0.4 MPa, the optimization value of the distance between the two nozzles is 4 mm. Li et al. [35] utilized the Mixture model to simulate for material removal mechanism in AJP. The influence functions at different impingement angles are obtained by combining the CFD simulation with polishing experiments. Kumar et al. [44] presented an improved finite element model to simulate the 3D erosion in AWJ machining of titanium alloy. The results indicate a significant variation of crater geometry depending on impact velocity and angle. Peng et al. [45] simulated the stand-off distance based on jet mechanics and fluid dynamics and established the physical models of the different stand-off distance of the AWJP. The most optimal polishing distance range should be 10~13 times of nozzle diameter.
5 AJP parameters The material removal rate and surface roughness are influenced by many parameters in AJP, as shown in Fig. 9. It is very important to optimize the jet machining parameters. Li et al. [46] polished the synthetic quartz crystal on AWJ machine tool, and the research results reveal that abrasive mesh, jet pressure, and jet angle are the main factors for obtaining the fine surface roughness; the influence of traverse speed is small. Under the conditions of low pressure, high traverse speed, small abrasive grit, and jet incidence angle, low value of Ra can be gained easily. SKD61 mold steel was polished by Tsai et al. [47], and the optimal processing parameters were obtained. The ratio of abrasive to additive is 1:2, impact angle is 30°, pressure of 4 kg/cm2, and nozzle-to-workpiece distance is 10 mm. The surface roughness is reduced from 1.03 to 0.13 μm. The surface roughness (RMS) of Si single crystal is 0.3 nm after polished, and the surface crystal structure are integrity [48]. The quartz glass is polished and the surface roughness (RMS) of 0.1 nm is obtained [49]. The surface roughness of 0Cr18Ni9Si stainless steel is reduced from 3.203 to 1.195 μm [18]. The Zerodur optical glass is polished using an innovative rotary abrasive fluid multi-jet polishing process
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 Hydraulic parameters
Additive
Nozzle diameter Jet pressure Jet velocity
Polyacrylamide Pyruvic acid Water-wax Hosphoric acid
Traverse speed Abrasive material Flow rate Impact angle Particle size Standoff distance Material properties Abrasive parameters
Material removal rate Surface roughness
Polishing parameters
Fig. 9 Effect factors of material removal and surface roughness
by Shiou et al. [50], and the surface roughness Ra from 0.360 to 0.006 μm has been achieved. 5.1 Influence factors of material removal rate How to improve the machining efficiency become the urgent affairs in AJP. Many researchers have done a great deal of experimental investigation and theoretical analysis to optimize the technological parameters. The influence of machining parameters on material removal in polishing is shown in Fig. 10. 5.1.1 Jet pressure As shown in Fig. 10a, the material removal rate decreases with the decrease of jet pressure. Because with increasing the jet pressure, the jet velocity increase [51]. The larger particle’s energy, the greater amount of material removal volume [7, 52]. Beaucamp et al. [53] found that the removal rates increase as an exponential relationship of inlet pressure by polishing the hard X-ray molding dies. 5.1.2 Jet angle The main trend of maximum polishing depth is seen to decrease with the increases incident angle in 45°~90° range shown in Fig. 10b [54]. With increasing the incident angle, the stress and velocity increase. However, the major trend of removal volume is increased as the incident angle decreases [32]. Therefore, small incident angle is more suitable for precise surface polishing. Ally et al. [55] polished the aluminum 6061-T6, Ti–6Al–4V alloy, and 316L stainless steel using Al2O3 abrasives with the diameter of 50 μm at an average velocity of 106 m/s. The peak erosion rate is found when the incident angle is between 20° and 35°. 5.1.3 Particle size The material removal rate decreases with the decrease of particle diameter in Fig. 10c [52]. This is because the mass and impact of the abrasives decrease with decreasing of the abrasive diameter. When the speed of abrasive particle is the same, the kinetic energy of the abrasive particle will decrease; thus,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
793 3 3
1.2
0.5 0.0
60
80 100 120 140 jet pressure(MPa)
0.8 0.4 30
45 60 75 jet angle(°)
(b) MRR VS jet angle
MRR(μm/min)
MRR(10-2mm3/s)
(a) MRR VS jet pressure
0.8 0.4 0.0
10 15 20 25 5 stand-off distance(mm)
(d) MRR VS stand-off distance
90
1 0
0
10 20 30 40 abrasive diameter(μm)
(c) MRR VS abrasive diameter
5 4 3 2 1 0
0
2
-2
-2
-2
1.0
MRR(10 mm /s)
3
MRR(10 mm /s)
3
MRR(10 mm /s)
1.5
0
10 20 jet velocity(m/s)
30
(e) MRR VS jet velocity
Fig. 10 Influence of technological parameters on material removal rate (MRR) [31, 56]. a MRR VS jet pressure. b MRR VS jet angle. c MRR VS abrasive diameter. d MRR VS stand-off distance. e MRR VS jet velocity
the abrasive particle removal efficiency will decrease [56]. But when the particle size is smaller, the change trend of material removal rate is very slow. Because if the particle size is lower than a certain size, the shear force is very small; the material is difficult to be removed. The SKD61 mold was polished using the particle size of #2000, #3000, and #8000 by Tsai et al. [57], and the result shows that #2000 SiC abrasives have the largest material removal rate. 5.1.4 Stand-off distance Material removal volume decreases with the increase of the stand-off distance shown in Fig. 10d. When the stand-off distance is very small, the influence of stand-off distance on removal depth is not obvious. But the removal depth firstly increases and then decreases, when the distance further increases. Shi et al. [58] proposed that when the stand-off distance is less than 6.2d (d: the nozzle diameter), material removal volume are almost the same. When the stand-off distance is 10~12d, it has a maximum amount of material removal, and then the material removal volume decreases. This is because when stand-off distance is less than the potential core distance (6.2d), the jet diffusion is smaller. The smaller lateral velocity gradient in the impact process, the radial gradient function is weaker. With the continuing increase of stand-off distance (over 12d), decreasing of the jet velocity, the kinetic energy is reduced and the erosion ability is drop, so the material removal volume decreases.
5.1.5 Jet velocity The removal depth becomes deeper with increasing the jet velocity [31], and this trend can also be seen in Fig. 10e. This is because the larger jet velocity, the greater energy of abrasives, the more intense the shearing action of particle impact, thereby the material removal amount increased. But when the jet velocity is lower than a certain value, the shear force is very small, and the material cannot be removed. For another, the larger jet velocity, the worse surface morphology, and the greater surface roughness value. Li et al. [54] polished K9 glass that the optimum jet velocity is nearly 20~25 m/s.
5.1.6 Addition agent Addition agent can change well material removal rate. The glass was polished and removed more using #180 SiC particles in AJP while adding chemically active liquids such as acetone and phosphoric acid rather than plain water in the slurry. The effect of hydrogen in enhancing of cracks formed due to the impact of abrasive particles on work material. The material removal is the almost the highest in the case of slurry mixed with polymer (polyacrylamide) [59]. Because the polymer in the slurry creates cohesiveness in the jet, the water molecules bonded along with abrasive particles leading to narrowing down of the jet beam. It avoids the diffuse of abrasive particles when spraying from the nozzle.
794
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
particle diameter is too small, the abrasive particle has not enough energy to remove the convex peak of the material surface.
5.2 Effect factors of surface roughness Surface roughness is also one of the most important factors to evaluate the polishing performance. It is necessary to analyze the influence of technological parameters on surface roughness, as shown in Fig. 11.
5.2.3 Jet angle The different jet angles have different influences on surface profile in Fig. 11c. When the jet angle is 90°, the orbicular structure of W-shape is obtained in polished area. But the orbicular structure of meniscus shape is obtained with decreasing the jet angle [62]. The surface roughness Ra increases as the incident angle increases. With increasing of jet angle, the eroding particle can achieve a larger depth, thus causing a higher surface roughness.
5.2.1 Jet pressure The higher kinetic energy of particle can be obtained by increasing the jet pressure, and the better surface quality can be obtained after polished [60, 61]. As shown in Fig. 11a, the surface roughness after polishing increases with an increase of the fluid pressure. This is because when using higher pressure pump, the eroding particle has greater impact energy and creates larger removal quantity, thus improving the surface roughness. After the jet pressure increases to a certain value and continued, the surface roughness would decrease. Shiou et al. [50] has polished the Zerodur optical glass, and the result shows that the pressure at 6 kg/cm2 yields the surface roughness Ra 0.006 μm. The poor surface roughness is obtained at 4 and 5 kg/cm2.
5.2.4 Stand-off distance The value of surface roughness Ra firstly decreases then increases with the increase of the stand-off distance in Fig. 11d. Wang et al. [56] studied the erosion performance of the alumina ceramics in the different technological parameters of AJP. The surface roughness Ra is the lowest when the stand-off distance is about 10 mm. This is because when the stand-off distance is less than the optimal value, the particles have higher kinetic energy and impact force. So, the erosion areas will generate more brittle fracture and the value of Ra increases. When the stand-off distance is far beyond the optimal value, the particles have not enough kinetic energy to remove the material; thus, the value of the Ra will increase.
5.2.2 Particle size
5 4 3 2 1 0
5.2.5 Traverse speed Surface roughness is also improved with the decreasing of a traverse rate in Fig. 11e. The larger grit of abrasive particles has higher impact energy, and is more likely to cause brittle fracture 2.2
Ra(nm)
5
Ra(μm)
Ra(nm)
As shown in Fig. 11b, the surface roughness is improved with the increasing of particle size. A lower surface roughness value can be obtained when using smaller abrasives. This is because the sizes of the scratch grooves made by abrasives are smaller, which results in a finer surface. The value of the Ra increases with the increase of the diameter of abrasive particle, except the particle diameter is less than a value. The smaller abrasive particle generates less brittle fracture and small scratch. But when abrasive
4 3
1.8
2 5 10 15 jet pressure(bar)
(a) Ra VS jet pressure
0
10 20 30 40 particle diameter(μm)
1.4
(b) Ra VS particlediameter
60 75 jet angle(°)
45
90
(c) Ra VS jet angle
5.0
Ra(nm)
Ra(μm)
2.4 2.1
4.0 3.0 2.0
1.8
5 10 15 20 25 stand-off distance(mm)
(d) Ra VS stand-off distance
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
traverse speed(mm/sec)
(e) Ra VS traverse speed
Fig. 11 Influence of technological parameters on surface roughness Ra [20, 53, 56] a Ra vs jet pressure. b Ra vs particle diameter. c Ra vs jet angle. d Ra vs stand-off distance. e Ra vs traverse speed
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
795
and removes a larger amount of material. A lower nozzle traverse speed means that more abrasive particles will strike onto the same area of workpiece surface; thus, the intensity of the brittle fracture and the material removal quantity will be higher, and the processed workpiece surface roughness will be higher. Zhe et al. [63] has researched that the surface roughness increases with the increase of traverse speed when using SiC abrasives for polishing AlN ceramics. After polishing the brass, the surface roughness Ra 1.84 nm can be measured at 0.033 mm/s [20]. 5.2.6 Addition agent The surface roughness would be improved when using some addition agent. Yan et al. [64] polished the SKD61 material using #3000 SiC particles; the surface roughness reduced from an initial value of Ra 0.36 to Ra 0.054 μm in 60 min. The wax-coated #3000 SiC particles and a compound addition agent of pure water and water wax, the surface roughness of the ground workpiece is from Ra 0.36 to Ra 0.049 μm in 45 min. The results show that the polishing time Table 2
reduces and polishing surface improves when the addition agent is well added into the polishing fluid. Because the addition of water wax reduces the cutting force and increases the sliding grinding efficiency, thereby resulting in a much improved surface quality. 5.3 Other factors The material removal volume and removal depth will increase with the increase of polish time, but the material removal rate nearly keeps constant. Some composite jet polishing methods derived from AJP are produced to meet different production requirements. In NCJP, researchers found that the PH value of colloidal solution is an important factor to influence on material removal, and PH in acidic or alkaline can improve the material removal rate [65]. The fluid temperature in erosion area is also important control factors, and the stability of the fluid temperature can improve the polishing quality [66]. Different particle and workpiece materials had different polishing characteristics as shown in Table 2. From this table,
Different polishing types of AJP
Polishing type
Author(s)
Abrasive
Target material
Roughness
AWJP
2007/Li et al. [46] 2008/Li et al. [54]
B4C CeO2
Quartz crystals K9 optical glass
Ra 0.128 μm Ra 2.25 nm
2008/Tsai et al. [47]
SiC
SKD61 mold steel
2008/Yan et al. [64] 2011/Li et al. [68]
SiC Al2O3 CeO2 Diamond SiC
SKD61 mold steel Electroless nickel coated on aluminum alloy substrates
Ra 1.03 to 0.13 μm Ra 0.36 to 0.049 μm Ra 1.4 nm
Fused silica 40CrMnMo7 mold steel BK7 glass AlN ceramics Electroless nickel Fused silica N-BK7 Zerodur optical glass
Ra 0.119 to 0.0547 nm Ra0.4142 to 0.1725 μm Ra 0.0231 to 0.0175 μm Ra 0.92 to 0.23 μm RMS 3.35 to 1.68 nm RMS 24.282 to 3.442 nm Ra 0.36 to 0.01 μm Ra 0.36 to 0.006 μm
K9 optical glass Monocrystalline silicon Quartz glass Hot-work mold steel Silica glass K9 optical glass K9 optical glass K9 optical glass BK7 glass K9 optical glass Brass Nickel Borosilicate glass BK7 K9 optical glass
Ra 0.519 nm Ra 1.026 to 0.475 nm Ra 1.919 to 0.540 nm Ra 812 to 88 nm Ra 0.580 to 0.329 nm RMS 18.429 to 16.789 nm Ra 1.46 nm RMS 43.030 to 3.164 nm RMS 40 to 6.8 nm RMS 48.726 to 4.43 nm Ra 1.84 nm Ra 2.31 nm RMS 1.3 nm Ra 5 to 1.6 nm
2012/Wang [49] 2013/Chen et al. [36]
FJP
NCJP
MJP
NPCJP
2015/Zhe et al. [38] 2013/Beaucamp et al. [53] 2014/Sun et al. [69] 2015/ Tsegaw. [70] 2015/Shiou et al. [50]
SiC Al2O3
2009/Zhang et al. [7] 2011/Wang et al. [8] 2012/ Song. [19] 2012/Lu et al. [71] 2013/Peng et al. [13] 2013/Wang et al. [72] 2014/Wang et al. [32] 2014/Wang et al. [73] 2014/Li et al. [74] 2015/Wang et al. [75] 2015/ Lee [20]
Al2O3 SiC Al2O3 SiO2 SiO2 SiO2 White sapphire CeO2 CeO2 CeO2 CeO2 CeO2 CeO2 CeO2
2015/Kim et al. [31] 2015/Chen et al
CeO2 CeO2
796
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
we can see that the surface roughness of polished K9 glass can arrive Ra 0.519 nm and the mold steel is Ra 49 nm. Guo et al. [67] polished seven kinds of different glass materials in FJP, and the result showed that different glasses with different surface roughness are obtained under the same conditions. The value of surface roughness Ra would be decided by the Young’s modulus (Hk) and Knoop hardness (E), and the relationship value is E0.5Hk-1.4. In addition, there are some other technological parameters needing to be further researched, such as the intensity of magnetic field intensity in MJP and the cavitation intensity in NPCJP.
6 Development tendency of AJP technology Figure 12 shows some important research results of the AJP. Some key research results have been obtained under the joint efforts of researchers in national or abroad, while some suggestions need to be proposed as follows.
system. At present, the research of macroscopic processing mechanism is primarily accomplished by experimental and simulative method, and lack of theoretical formula. It is difficult to guide the actual production application. Therefore, the systematic theory research of micro-removal with macroremoval mechanism would become a vital research direction in AJP technology. 6.2 Models of material removal Some scholars have already established many mathematical models of AJP. But many complex phenomena is difficult to be accurately described and explained by mathematical model during jet polishing process, such as medium coupling, the interaction between abrasive particle and fluid, the mutual interference of abrasive movement, and particle impact. Further, the most experience model also includes many of the unknown parameters, and it is difficult to be used in the production practice. Further improvement on these models is very necessary.
6.1 Systematic theory research of material removal mechanism
6.3 Control methods
In general, the material removal would be divided into microand macro-removal mechanism. The material removal influence of single abrasive grain is major studied for microprocessing mechanism, but there is no mature theoretical
Process control strategy and method is one of the most important researches of jet polishing. The intelligent processing equipment and control system can reduce the reliance on manual operation, increase the machining efficiency, and improve
Sintering alumina ceramic polishing
1987 1988
Stainless steel materials polishing
1989 1992
Optical materials polishing
1997 2001
MJP of BK7 glass
2003 2004
Rigid alloy material polishing
2005
Quartz crystal polishing
2006
Depth rate modelling Addition agent: Polyacrylamide, pyroracemic, phosphoric
2007
Measuring for jet diameter Velocity model in fluid internal Removal rate model about impact angle NCHCJP Particle velocity distribution Air driven fluid jet polishing
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Combine fluid bed and fore-mixed WC surface polishing Electro-chemical FJP Multi-jet abrasive fluid jet polishing NPCJP
Fig. 12 Development of AJP
SiC whisker reinforced aluminum matrix composite polishing Diamond thin film polishing D Aviation materials of titanium content aluminum alloys polishing Femoral head prosthesis polishing F Fluidized bed assisted AJP F SKD die steel And K9 glass polishing N NCJP Addition agent:wax-coated Ultrasonic vibration assisted jet polishing SKD61 free-form surface polishing S Hard material polishing with big abrasive Zr-based bulk metallic glass AWJP Abrasive secondary impact model Monitoring the material erosion process
2013 2014 2015
Combine abrasive jet & gasbag polishing Hybrid "fluid jet / float" polishing
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799
the machine system stability. So, the different control methods need to be studied according to different polishing processes. In addition, it is very important to establish the process database for controlling the AJP under different conditions.
797
References 1.
2.
6.4 Optimization technological parameters The researches of AJP are still in the preliminary stage of development, so further research of the technological parameters is very necessary. In addition, composite processing technology is also a research hotspot. For example, it may composite the precision grinding, turning, milling, etc., in order to obtain better polishing effect and efficiency.
3.
6.5 Application extensions
7.
AJP technology is not yet mature and processing cost is high, so it only applies in some limited areas. As the developments of new materials, new structure, and new product, the traditional manufacturing technology cannot meet the requirements, so the AJP technology can play an important role because of its unique advantages.
4. 5. 6.
8.
9.
10.
6.6 Economizing develop Traditional AJP, such as AWJP and NPCJP, abrasive congestion and severe waste will occur in polishing process. In addition, it is also one of the key factors to affect the polishing cost for configurating the magnetorheological fluid in MJP processing, which makes the development of some new types of polishing fluid and the innovation of optimization design of the circulation system.
11.
12.
13.
14.
7 Conclusions
15.
AJP is a promising non-conventional polishing technology based on complex fluid jet of water and abrasives composition. Many references are dedicated to the study and development of AJP. From basic principle of AJP, five main polishing processes are derived such as AWJP, NCJP, MJP, AAJP, and NPCJP. The review focuses on the theoretical and experimental studies related with AJP which includes methods and systems of AJP, monitoring of AJP process parameters, modeling of AJP process, influence factors of material removal rate and surface roughness. The future development tendency of AJP technology is described. Hence, this current review work may guide the subsequent researchers to determine their direction and method of research.
16. 17.
18.
19.
20.
21. Acknowledgments This work is sponsored by the NSFC (Grant No. 51205120), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
Chen FJ, Yin SH, Ohmori H, Yu JW (2013) Form error compensation in single-point inclined axis nanogrinding for small aspheric insert. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65(1–4):433–441 Chen FJ, Hu SJ, Yin SH (2012) A novel mathematical model for grinding ball-end milling cutter with equal rake and clearance angle. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63(1–4):109–116 Fähnle OW, Brug HV, Frankena HJ (1998) Fluid jet polishing of optical surface. Appl Opt 37(28):6771–6773 Fang H, Guo PJ, Yu JC (2004) Research on material removal mechanism of fluid jet polishing. Opt Techniq 30(2):248–250 Fang H, Guo PJ, Yu JC (2006) Optimization of the material removal in fluid jet polishing. Opt Eng 45(5):1–6 Song XZ, Zhang Y, Zhang FH (2008) Study on removal mechanism of nanoparticle colloid jet machining. Adv Mater Res 53-54: 363–368 Zhang FH, Song XZ, Zhang Y, Luan DR (2009) Figuring of an ultra-smooth surface in nanoparticle colloid jet machining. J Micromech Microeng 19(5):1–6 Wang X, Zhang FH, Zhang Y, Zhou M (2011) An experimental study of the nanoparticle colloid hydrodynamic cavitation jet polishing performance under different nozzle designs. Adv Mater Res 325:633–637 Fan JM, Wang CY, Wang J (2009) Modelling the erosion rate in micro abrasive air jet machining of glasses. Wear 266(9–10):968–974 Li QL, Wang J, Huang CZ (2008) Erosion mechanisms of monocrystalline silicon under a microparticle laden air jet. J Appl Phys 104(3):034903 Kordonski WI (2003) Apparatus and method for abrasive jet finishing of deeply concave surfaces using magnetorheological fluid, US6561874B1 Dai YF, Zhang XC, Li SY, Peng XQ (2009) Deterministic magnetorheological jet polishing technology. J Mech Eng 45(5): 171–176 Peng WQ, Li SY, Guan CL, Shen XM, Dai YF, Wang Z (2013) Improvement of magnetorheological finishing surface quality by nanoparticle jet polishing. Opt Eng 52(4):1–7 Chen FJ, Yin SH, Hu T, Yu JW, Xu ZQ (2013) Device and method for polishing symmetrical optical component of small-caliber rotating shaft. CN102873643A Chen FJ (2012) Method and device for polishing small-bore optical element. CN102672554A Shi CY, Yuan JH, Wu F, Wan YJ (2008) Nozzle Design of Fluid Jet Polishing. Opt-Electr Eng 35(12):131–135 Liu LH, Cao H, Zou CQ (2012) Supply abrasive system of premixed abrasive jet and Derusting application. Appl Mech Mater 217-219:2033–2037 Song YG, Song DL, Wang K (2013) The removal mechanism experimental research of smooth and flat processing of abrasive water jet to single abrasive particles. Appl Mech Mater 281:469–474 Song XZ, Zhang Y, Zhang FH (2012) Ultra-precision shaping and ultra-smooth polishing investigation of high-purity quartz glass in nanoparticle colloid jet machining. Adv Mater Res 426:396–399 Lee JW, Ha SJ, Cho YK, Kim KB, Cho MW (2015) Investigation of the polishing characteristics of metal materials and development of micro MR fluid jet polishing system for the ultra precision polishing of micro mold pattern. J Mech Sci Technol 29(5):2205– 2211 Hou RG, Huang CZ, Zhu HT, Niu ZW (2010) The measurement of the velocity outside the high pressure water jet and abrasive water jet nozzle based on the energy transfer method. Adv Mater Res 135: 361–364
798 22.
Ivantsiv V, Spelt JK, Papini M (2009) Mass flow rate measurement in abrasive jets using acoustic emission. Meas Sci Technol 20(9): 095402 23. Rabani A, Marinescu I, Axinte D (2012) Acoustic emission energy transfer rate: a method for monitoring abrasive waterjet milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 61:80–89 24. Jurisevic B, Brissaud D, Junkar M (2004) Monitoring of abrasive water jet (AWJ) cutting using sound detection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 24(9–10):733–737 25. Axinte DA, Kong MC (2009) An integrated monitoring method to supervise waterjet machining. CIRP Ann- Manf Technol 58:303– 306 26. Peržel V, Hreha P, Hloch S, Tozan H, Valíček J (2012) Vibration emission as a potential source of information for abrasive water jet quality process control. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 61(1–4):285–294 27. Hreha P, Radvanská A, Hloch S, Peržel V, Królczyk G, Monková K (2015) Determination of vibration frequency depending on abrasive mass flow rate during abrasive water jet cutting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77(1–4):763–774 28. Narayanan C, Balz R, Weiss DA, Heiniger KC (2013) Modelling of abrasive particle energy in water jet machining. J Mater Process Technol 213(12):2201–2210 29. Wang J (2009) Particle velocity models for ultra-high pressure abrasive water jets. J Mater Process Technol 209(9):4573–4577 30. Tyagi RK (2012) Abrasive jet machining by means of velocity shear instability in plasma. J Manuf Process 14(3):323–327 31. Kim WB, Nam E, Min BK, Choi DS, Je TJ, Jeon EC (2015) Material removal of glass by magnetorheological fluid jet. Intl J Precis Eng Manuf 16(4):629–637 32. Wang T, Cheng HB, Tam HY (2014) Mathematic models and material removal characteristics of multigesture jetting using magnetorheological fluid. Appl Opt 53(32):7804–7813 33. Cao ZC, Cheung CF (2014) Theoretical modelling and analysis of the material removal characteristics in fluid jet polishing. Int J Mech Sci 89:158–166 34. Shi CY, Yuan JH, Wu F, Hou X, Wan YJ (2010) Material removal model of vertical impinging in fluid jet polishing. Chin Opt Lett 8(3):323–325 35. Li ZZ, Li SY, Dai YF, Peng XQ (2010) Optimization and application of influence function in abrasive jet polishing. Appl Opt 49(15):2947–2953 36. Chen TX, Wang CY (2012) Investigation into roughness of surface polished by abrasive waterjet with Taguchi method and dimensional analysis. Mater Sci Forum 723:188–195 37. Che CL, Huang CZ, Wang J, Zhu HT, Li QL (2008) Theoretical model of surface roughness for polishing super hard materials with abrasive waterjet. Key Eng Mater 375-376:465–469 38. Lv Z, Huang CZ, Zhu HT, Wang J, Wang Y, Yao P (2015) A research on ultrasonic-assisted abrasive waterjet polishing of hardbrittle materials. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78(5–8):1361–1369 39. Azmir MA, Ahsan AK (2008) Investigation on glass/epoxy composite surfaces machined by abrasive water jet machining. J Mater Process Technol 198:122–128 40. Liu GY, Chen XX, Zhu DM, Zhang SJ, Chen JD (2014) Internal mixing chamber flow field of a premixed abrasive water jet descaling nozzle. J Univ Sci Technol Be 36(6):830–837 41. Li HZ, Lee A, Fan JN, Yeoh GH, Wang J (2014) On DEM–CFD study of the dynamic characteristics of high speed micro-abrasive air jet. Powder Technol 267:161–179 42. Lu JG, Gong C, Yan LL, Yang MG (2014) Numerical simulation and experimental study of the coherence of high-speed water jet. J Eng Thermophys 35(8):1526–1529 43. Zhang RZ, Luo YC, Li XL, Zhang Y (2014) Analysis of composite flow field characteristics in fluid jet polishing. Proc SPIE 9281. doi:10.1117/12.2068001
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49. 50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Kumar N, Shukla M (2012) Finite element analysis of multi-particle impact on erosion in abrasive water jet machining of titanium alloy. J Comput Appl Math 236(18):4600–4610 Peng JQ, Song DL, Li LC (2012) Numerical simulation and experimental study of stand-off distance in abrasive waterjet polishing. Adv Mater Res 472-475:2037–2042 Li QL, Huang CZ, Wang J (2007) A study on erosion mechanisms of quartz crystals polished by micro abrasive waterjet. Adv Mater Res 24-25:195–199 Tsai FC, Yan BH, Kuan CY, Huang FY (2008) A Taguchi and experimental investigation into the optimal processing conditions for the abrasive jet polishing of SKD61 mold steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(7–8):932–945 Mimura H, Yumoto H, Matsuyama S, Yamamura K, Sano Y, Endo K, Mori Y, Nishino Y, Yabashi M, Tamasaku K, Ishikawa T, Yamauchi K (2005) Surface figuring and measurement methods with spatial resolution close to 0.1 mm for x-ray mirror fabrication, Proc SPIE 5921, doi: 10.1117/12.623103 Wang JL (2012) Ultraprecision optical fabrication on fused silica. Proc SPIE 8416 DOI: 10.1117/12.975836 Shiou FJ, Asmare A (2015) Parameters optimization on surface roughness improvement of Zerodur optical glass using an innovative rotary abrasive fluid multi-jet polishing process. Precis Eng 42: 93–100 Liu ZW, Huang CZ, Wang J, Zhu HT, Li QL (2010) Study on machining system of precision micro abrasive water jet and polish experiment. Key Eng Mater 431-432:102–105 Orbanić H, Junkar M, Bajsić I, Lebar A (2009) An instrument for measuring abrasive water jet diameter. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49(11):843–849 Beaucamp A, Namba Y (2013) Super-smooth finishing of diamond turned hard X-ray molding dies by combined fluid jet and bonnet polishing. CIRP Ann-Manuf Technol 62(1):315–318 Li ZZ, Li SY, Dai YF, Peng XQ (2008) Effects of various parameters on material removal rate and the footprint in abrasive jet polishing process. Chin Mech Eng 19(21):2532–2535 Ally S, Spelt J, Papini M (2012) Prediction of machined surface evolution in the abrasive jet micro-machining of metals. Wear 292– 293:89–99 Wang Y, Zhu HT, Huang CZ, Wang J, Yao P, Zhang ZW (2014) A study on erosion of alumina wafer in abrasive water jet machining. Adv Mater Res 1017:228–233 Tsai FC, Ke JH (2013) Abrasive jet polishing of micro-channels using compound SiC abrasives with compound additives. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67(5–8):1151–1159 Shi CY, Yuan JH, Wu F, Wang JY (2011) Influence of stand distance on material removal function fluid jet polishing. Infrared Laser Eng 40(4):685–689 Palleda M (2007) A study of taper angles and material removal rates of drilled holes in the abrasive water jet machining process. J Mater Process Technol 189(1–3):292–295 Jafar RHM, Spelt JK, Papini M (2013) Surface roughness and erosion rate of abrasive jet micro-machined channels:experiments and analytical model. Wear 303(1–2):138–145 Azmir MA, Ahsan AK (2009) A study of abrasive water jet machining process on glass epoxy composite laminate. J Mater Process Technol 209(20):6168–6173 Shi CY, Yuan JH, Wu F, Wan YJ (2010) Influence analysis of impact angle on material R emoval profile in fluid jet polishing. Acta Optica Sin 30(2):513–517 Lv Z, Huang CZ, Wang J, Zhu HT, Yao P, Liu ZW (2013) An experimental research on abrasive water jet polishing of the hard brittle ceramics. Adv Mater Res 797:15–20 Yan BH, Tsai FC, Sun LW, Hsu RT (2008) Abrasive jet polishing on SKD61 mold steel using SiC coated with wax. J Mater Process Technol 208(1–3):318–329
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 90:785–799 65.
Song XZ, Zhang Y, Zhang FH (2012) Effects of colloid rheological characters in ultra-smooth polishing by nanoparticle colloid jet machining. Proc SPIE 8416 DOI:10.1117/12.977357 66. Shi CY, Yuan JH, Wu F, Wan YJ (2010) Thermal research in fluid jet polishing process. Proc SPIE 7655 DOI 10.1117/12.866712 67. Guo PJ, Fang H, Yu JC (2007) Computer-controlled fluid jet polishing. Proc SPIE 6722 DOI:10.1117/12.782917 68. Li ZZ, Wang JM, Peng XQ, Ho LT, Yin ZQ, Li SY, Cheung CF (2011) Removal of single point diamond-turning marks by abrasive jet polishing. Appl Opt 50(16):2458–2463 69. Sun TX, Sun L, Jin YQ, Wang F, Sun DX (2014) Research on the fluid jet polishing in advanced optical fabrication, Procof SPIE 9821 doi:10.1117/12.2069715 70. Tsegaw AA, Shiou FJ (2015) Development of a small rotary multijet abrasive fluid jet polishing tool. Key Eng Mater 625:140–148
799 71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Lu CD, Wu MF, Wen DH, Chai GZ (2012) Experimental study on magnetorheological (MR) jet polishing of mould free surface. Key Eng Mater 500:287–290 Wang T, Cheng HB, Chen Y, Feng YP, Dong ZC, Tam HY (2013) Correction of remounting errors by masking reference points in small footprint polishing process. Appl Opt 52(33):7851–7858 Wang T, Cheng HB, Chen Y, Tam HY (2014) Multiplex path for magnetorheological jet polishing with vertical impinging. Appl Opt 53(10):2012–2019 Li APY, Cheung MFM, Tong H, Cheng HB, Yam Y (2014) Design and implementation of a technique for iterative magnetorheological jet polishing. Int J Optomechatroni 8(3):195–205 Wang T, Cheng HB, Yang H, Wu WT, Tam HY (2015) Controlling mid-spatial frequency errors in magnetorheological jet polishing with a simple vertical model. Appl Opt 54(21):6433–6440
