Original Article

Proc IMechE Part B:

J Engineering Manufacture
1–11
Experimental study of coverage Ó IMechE 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
constraint abrasive flow machining of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0954405419840553

titanium alloy artificial joint surface journals.sagepub.com/home/pib

Li Zhang, Yi Huang, Guoda Chen , Mengru Xu,

Weihai Xia and Yufei Fu

Abstract
In order to study the machining mechanism and process of abrasive flow machining for the titanium alloy artificial joint
surface, the abrasive flow machining experimental platform and the curved surface profiling flow channel were estab-
lished for the machining. The influence of various process parameters (abrasive particle size, abrasive particle concentra-
tion, and processing time) and interaction factors on surface roughness and surface micro-topography of the workpiece
was quantitatively evaluated through response surface analysis, and a surface roughness prediction model was estab-
lished. The experimental results show that coverage constraint abrasive flow machining can significantly improve the sur-
face quality of the titanium alloy artificial joint surface, thereby improving the wear resistance and service life of the
artificial joint. Using abrasive flow machining with a smaller abrasive particle size and a larger concentration can obtain
smaller surface roughness. Under the experimental conditions, the influence of process parameters on the surface
roughness is in descending order of processing time, abrasive particle concentration, and abrasive particle size. And the
interaction of processing time and abrasive particle size is more effective during processing. The research results can
provide the basis for optimizing the flow channel structure for the abrasive flow machining of the titanium alloy artificial
joint surface and have a certain guiding significance on the process optimization.

Keywords
Titanium alloy artificial joint, abrasive flow machining, process parameters, response surface, surface roughness
prediction

Date received: 22 June 2018; accepted: 20 December 2018

Introduction polished by hand, so the efficiency is low and it is diffi-

Due to their good biocompatibility and biomechanical
compatibility, titanium alloys have become the pre-
ferred material for the replacement or repair of medical
devices such as artificial joints, bone wound products,
and artificial dental implants.1–3 Titanium alloy artifi-
cial joints are directly in contact with human body fluid
environment when used as implants. The wear debris
formed during the use of artificial joints will cause pha-
gocytosis of macrophages or fibroblasts at the periph-
ery of the joint to promote the reabsorption of bone
cells, resulting in a decrease in the number of bone cells,
bone resorption, and osteolysis around the artificial
joint, which causes joint loosening and sinking.4–7 In
order to reduce the wear of artificial joints in the
human body, it is necessary to polish the surface of arti-
ficial joints to increase their wear resistance. However,
currently, titanium alloy artificial joints are mainly
cult to ensure the uniformity of the polishing effect. In
addition, when the traditional grinding method is used
to polish the titanium alloy artificial joint, the friction
generates. Under the action of the cutting heat and
pressure during the processing, the workpiece will be
thermally deformed which in turn directly affects the
life of the polishing tool and the surface quality of the
workpiece. Besides, using cutting fluid to remove cut-
ting heat generated during the process will cause
Key Laboratory of E&M, Ministry of Education & Zhejiang Province,
Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, P.R. China
Corresponding author:
Guoda Chen, Key Laboratory of E&M, Ministry of Education & Zhejiang
Province, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, P.R.
China.
Email: gchen@zjut.edu.cn
2 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 00(0)
environmental pollution, health hazards, and high
cost.8,9 Aiming at the difficulties of surface polishing of
titanium alloy artificial joints, a new method for abra-
sive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial joints
was proposed which used a profiling constraint compo-
nent to form the profiling flow channel for fluid pro-
cessing. Abrasive flow finishing processes are mainly
achieved by flowing abrasive laden viscoelastic carrier
over the workpiece surfaces to be finished,10 and the
heat and debris generated during the impact of the
abrasive particles could be discharged from the outlet
of the flow channel.
Many researches on abrasive flow machining can be
found. In Sarkar and Jain’s11 study, a uniform mirror
surface of stainless steel knee joints was achieved using
abrasive flow machining, and it proved the feasibility of
abrasive flow machining to achieve polishing of free-
form complex surfaces. Kavithaa and Balashanmugam12
not only described nanometric surface finishing of typical
prosthetic implants and an extrusion die used in bio-
medical and pharmaceutical industries but also described
the polishing of the industrial components used in aero-
space applications and emphasized the importance of
abrasive flow machining in the field of ultra-precision
machining. Dong et al.13 established a theoretical calcula-
tion model of the normal pressure on the inner surface of
a circular tube and the wall sliding velocity based on
rheology theory and verified the correctness of this model
by numerical simulation and actual experimental tests.
In order to discuss the influence of the process para-
Mechanism of abrasive flow machining
In this article, titanium alloy artificial knee joint work-
piece was machined with softness abrasive flow.
Softness abrasive flow is a weak viscous solid–liquid
two-phase flow,14 in which the volume fraction of the
solid phase particles is generally between 0.1 and 0.3.
Compared with the traditional hardness abrasive flow
which has a higher volume fraction and higher viscoe-
lastic, softness abrasive flow has better fluidity and can
achieve better turbulent flow in the profiling flow chan-
nel to machine workpiece disorderly.13,15,16 In the con-
straint flow channel, because the abrasive particle
volume fraction of softness abrasive flow is small, the
collision between the abrasive particles is not consid-
ered. The movement of abrasive particles in the abra-
sive flow is mainly affected by a series of forces such as
gravity, buoyancy, drag force, pressure gradient force,
virtual mass force, Basset force, Magnus force, and
Saffman force, as shown in Figure 1. The trajectory of
a discrete phase particle (or droplet or bubble) can be
predicted by integrating the force balance on the parti-
cle, which is written in a Lagrangian reference frame.
This force balance equates the particle inertia with the
forces acting on the particle and can be written as
* *
dup gx ðrp  rÞ *
* *
¼ FD ðu  up Þ þ þ Fx ð1Þ
dt rp
18m CD Re
FD ¼ ð2Þ
rP d2p 24
meters of abrasive flow on the surface quality of tita- * 
nium alloy artificial knee joints, a titanium alloy
artificial joint workpiece and a profiling flow channel
were designed for abrasive flow machining experi-
ments. Aiming at the characteristics of multi-curvature
of titanium alloy artificial joints, the influence of the
process parameters of abrasive flow on the surface
quality of workpiece in different curvature regions was
discussed. At the same time, a prediction model of sur-
face roughness was established. The experimental
results can provide technical support for the coverage
constraint abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy
artificial joint surface.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the forces on the abrasive and its cutting action.
rdp up  u
*
Re ¼ ð3Þ
m
* *
where u is the fluid phase velocity, up is the particle
velocity, m is the molecular viscosity of the fluid, r is
the fluid density, rp is the density of the particle, dp is
*
the
*
particle diameter, gx is the acceleration of gravity,
Fx is an additional acceleration (force/unit particle
mass) term, Re is the relative Reynolds number, FD is
the relaxation frequency, and CD is the drag coefficient.
The mechanism of abrasive flow machining is similar
to erosive wear, and the effect of machining is achieved
Zhang et al.
Figure 2. Abrasive flow machining system and machining principle: (a) constraint device, (b) machining system, and (c) machining
principle.
by the micro-cutting action generated by the collision
between particles in the abrasive flow and the work-
piece surface.17–20 If the abrasive particle is regarded as
a micro-tool, the angle and speed of the micro-tool,
when it collides with the workpiece surface under the
action of the flow field, are randomly distributed.21 The
horizontal component of the micro-tool force mainly
causes the plowing damage to the target, and the verti-
cal component mainly causes the impact damage.
Those two damage mechanisms will convert each other
as the impact angle changes. Abrasive particles in the
abrasive flow can be divided into two states. One is an
‘‘active particle’’ that comes into contact with the work-
piece surface and produces the cutting action, and the
other is an ‘‘inactive particle’’ that does not come into
contact with the workpiece surface or comes in contact
with the workpiece surface but does not generate the
cutting action.22,23
According to the erosion model of Oka and col-
leagues,24,25 which was obtained based on a large num-
ber of erosion tests and found to be applicable under
any impact conditions for any type of material, an abra-
sive particle with velocity up impacts the surface of the
workpiece at an angle u which will remove material as
Er ¼ fðuÞ  E90
n1 n2
fðuÞ ¼ ðsin uÞ  ð1 þ Hvð1  sin uÞÞ
 k  k3
k 1 up 2 dp
E90 ¼ KðHvÞ
u0 d0
n1 ¼ s1 ðHvÞq1 ; n2 ¼ s2 ðHvÞq2
where Er is the erosion damage at an arbitrary impact
angle u; E90 is the erosion damage at normal impact
angle; fðuÞ is the impact angle function expressed by
the two trigonometric functions and by initial material
3
Vickers hardness number Hv; up and u0 are the particle
impact speed and the reference impact speed, respec-
tively; dp and d0 are the particle diameter and the refer-
ence diameter, respectively; K is a constant which is
associated with abrasive particle (shape, hardness, etc.);
n1 and n2 are the constants of impact angle function; k1
is the hardness coefficient; k2 is the velocity coefficient;
and k3 is the diameter coefficient.
Equations (4)–(7) show that when the workpiece
material and the abrasive particle are certain, the effect
of removing the material mainly depends on the impact
speed and the impact angle of the abrasive particle
when it impacts the surface of the workpiece. In the
abrasive flow machining experiment, a large number of
abrasive particles continuously impact the surface of
the workpiece in a random state to form the removal
effect in order to achieve the polishing effect.
Design of abrasive flow machining
experiment
The experiment mainly studies the influence of some
key process parameters such as abrasive particle size,
abrasive particle concentration, and processing time on
ð4Þ the abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial
joint surface. The machining experimental platform is
ð5Þ
shown in Figure 2. The Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy artifi-
cial joint workpiece is fixed on the channel base and it
ð6Þ
forms a profiling flow channel with the constraint com-
ð7Þ ponent. The inlet of the abrasive flow is connected with
the outlet of the slurry pump. The pump suction hole is
connected with the agitation tank, and the outlet of
abrasive flow passage leads to the agitation tank at the
same time. The titanium alloy artificial joint workpiece
is polished using self-made abrasive flow. The changes
4 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 00(0)
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of constraint flow channel.
Table 1. Physical parameters of constraint flow channel and
artificial joint workpiece.
Flow channel size parameters Value (mm)
Flow channel height 30
Flow channel length 110
Flow channel gap 5
Artificial joint height 35
Artificial joint length 60
Artificial joint width 30
Artificial joint surface lateral radius of 10, 27, 6.5, 27, 10
curvature
Artificial joint surface longitudinal 45, 38.37, 45
radius of curvature
Inlet channel and outlet channel 20
diameter
in the surface roughness Ra and the surface topography
of the workpiece were observed and recorded to study
the influence of various process parameters on the sur-
face quality to verify the reliability and feasibility of
abrasive flow machining.
The constraint flow channel is a profiling flow chan-
nel with a symmetrical structure, as shown in Figure 3.
The flow channel is locally profiled according to the
shape of the workpiece surface which is composed of
workpiece surface, profiling constraint component sur-
face, inlet channel, and outlet channel. The specific
parameters are shown in Table 1.
In order to study the effect of abrasive flow machin-
ing on the surface quality of workpieces on different
curved surfaces, the surface of the workpiece is divided
into I, II, III, IV, and V regions. The five regions corre-
spond to five curvatures. Among them, I and V are the
lateral epicondyle regions of the knee joint, II and IV
are the lateral condyle regions of the knee joint, and III
is the intercondylar notch region of the knee joint, as
shown in Figure 4. The surface of the workpiece was
pre-polished using sandpaper. After polishing, the orig-
inal surface roughness Ra of the five regions was about
230.0 nm (measure nine points per area for averaging).
The experiment of coverage constraint abrasive flow
machining of titanium alloy artificial joint surface is
conducted under the following conditions: abrasive
grain size of 8–18 mm, abrasive grain concentration of
0.1–0.2, processing time of 0–5 h, inlet flow rate main-
tained at 11 m3/h, and the temperature of the abrasive
flow during machining maintained at around 298 K.
We use Wyko Veeco NT9800 white light interferometer
to observe and measure the surface micro-morphology
Figure 4. Titanium alloy artificial joint workpiece.
Table 2. Factor level of response surface experiment.
Factor level D (mm) u t (h)
–1 8 10 1
1 18 20 5
and surface roughness Ra of each region on the work-
piece surface. For each region, the average of nine mea-
sured values of surface roughness Ra is taken as the
surface roughness. The average surface roughness value
of the five regions is then taken as the average surface
roughness of the entire workpiece.
In order to comprehensively study the influence of
abrasive particle size D, abrasive particle concentration
u (the ratio of the abrasive particle volume to the total
volume of the abrasive flow), and the processing time t
on the surface roughness Ra of the workpiece after
machining and to establish a surface roughness predic-
tion model, the interaction experiments of various fac-
tors based on response surface methodology were
designed and analyzed. The Box–Behnken design is a
spherical design that is compliant with rotation, and
this design method can estimate interacting polyno-
mials with fewer experiments.26 This article uses this
method to design experiments. Three factors (abrasive
particle size, abrasive particle concentration, and pro-
cessing time) were selected for the experiment. Tables 2
and 3 are the response surface condition level table and
response surface experimental design table, respectively.
The processing effect of the abrasive flow is directly
related to the hardness of the abrasive particle.27 Since
the titanium alloy has a high surface hardness, silicon
carbide was selected as the abrasive particles. D is the
abrasive particle size, u is the concentration of abrasive
particle, t is the processing time, Ra is the measured
value of the surface roughness, and Ra# is the predictive
value. The local and route loss of the abrasive flow in
the constraint flow channel will cause the uneven effect
of the abrasive flow on the workpiece surface. In order
to reduce the influence of this phenomenon as much as
possible, the position of the inlet and outlet of the abra-
sive flow will be changed every 0.5 h for machining.
Zhang et al. 5

Table 3. Experimental design and results. Ra0 ¼ 362:49213 þ 0:13053D2  6:76003D

Experiment D (mm) u t (h) Ra (nm) Ra# (nm)

þ3631:3u2  1065:315u  9:25u  Dþ4:75081t2 ð8Þ
group no.  63:38837t  21:925u  tþ1:75075D  t
1 13 0.10 3 137.71 136.79 where Ra# is the surface roughness prediction value, D
2 13 0.15 3 111.44 111.55 is the abrasive particle size, u is the abrasive particle
3 18 0.15 5 121.32 122.99
4 8 0.20 3 114.69 115.61
concentration, and t is the processing time. The appli-
5 8 0.15 1 181.32 179.65 cable range of this surface roughness prediction model
6 13 0.15 3 114.23 111.55 is as follows: 8 mm 4D4 18 mm, 0.1 4u4 0.2, 0 h
7 13 0.15 3 113.62 111.55 4t4 5 h.
8 13 0.10 5 119.84 119.09 In order to evaluate the reliability of the experimen-
9 13 0.10 1 176.26 176.36
10 8 0.15 5 83.81 82.99
tal results and the reliability of the mathematical model,
11 8 0.10 3 125.61 127.18 significant analysis and variance analysis are required
12 18 0.15 1 148.80 149.62 on the experimental results to test the significance of
13 13 0.15 3 111.94 111.55 the factors and the credibility of the mathematical
14 13 0.20 1 163.80 164.55 model. Table 4 shows the variance analysis of the
15 13 0.15 3 106.50 111.55
16 13 0.20 5 98.61 98.51 response surface regression model.
17 18 0.20 3 117.54 115.97 From the analysis of variance in Table 4, we can see
that the model F = 172.50 . F0.01(9, 7) = 6.84 and (p
\ 0.0001) \ 0.05, indicating that the prediction
model is extremely significant. The multiple correlation
Experimental results and discussions coefficient is 0.9955, indicating that the predicted value
Prediction model and reliability analysis is highly correlated with the measured value, and the
model is well fitted. The correction coefficient of the
Surface characteristics of materials, their topography, model is 0.9897, which means that the model can
chemistry, or surface energy, play an essential part in explain the change of response value of 98.97%, and
osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials and the quality of only 1.02% of the total variation cannot be explained
cell adhesion will influence the cell capacity to prolifer- by this model. The signal-to-noise ratio of the model is
ate and differentiate in contact with a biomaterial.28 46.328 ( . 4), indicating that the model has sufficient
For the surface of titanium alloy artificial joints, too resolution. In conclusion, it can be seen that the predic-
large or too small surface roughness may adversely tion model is reasonable, and this model can be used to
affect the adhesion of osteoblasts; therefore, it is neces- analyze and predict the surface roughness Ra of the
sary to carry out cell adhesion experiments within a abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial
certain range of surface roughness to obtain an optimal joint under the experimental conditions in this article.
threshold value of surface roughness which could be At the same time, it can be seen from the F- and p-
used to guide the experiments of abrasive flow machin- value that under the experimental process parameters
ing. According to the experimental data of the response of this article, the order of significance of the three pro-
surface, the prediction model of surface roughness in cess parameters is as follows: processing time t . abra-
the abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial sive particle concentration u . abrasive particle size
joint surface using the Design Expert software is writ- D. It can also be seen from Table 4 that the interaction
ten as of abrasive particle size D and processing time t (D 3 t)

Table 4. Variance analysis of response surface regression model.

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value p-value

Model 11490.29 9 1276.70 172.50 \ 0.0001

D 49.70 1 49.70 6.72 0.0359
u 524.56 1 524.56 70.88 \ 0.0001
t 7601.45 1 7601.45 1027.08 \ 0.0001
D3u 21.39 1 21.39 2.89 0.1329
D3t 1226.05 1 1226.05 165.66 \ 0.0001
u3t 19.23 1 19.23 2.60 0.1510
D2 44.84 1 44.84 6.06 0.0434
u2 347.01 1 347.01 46.89 0.0002
t2 1520.52 1 1520.52 205.45 \ 0.0001
Residual 51.81 7 7.40
Total correlation 11542.10 16
Multiple correlation coefficient is 0.9955 Correction coefficient of the model is 0.9897 Signal-to-noise ratio is 46.328
6 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 00(0)

Table 5. Processing parameters of verification test and experimental result comparison.

No. D (mm) u t (h) Ra# (nm) Ra (nm) E (%)

1 10 0.12 2.0 143.27 150.91 5.06

2 18 0.16 4.0 113.45 120.79 6.08
3 10 0.15 3.0 111.22 106.05 4.88
4 13 0.18 3.0 109.95 114.06 3.60
5 8 0.11 5.0 188.33 177.14 6.32

Figure 5. Contrast of workpiece surface morphology: (a) original surface morphology, (b) machined surface morphology with
abrasive particle size 18 mm, (c) machined surface morphology with abrasive particle size 13 mm, and (d) machined surface
morphology with abrasive particle size 8 mm.

is significantly greater than the other two interactions
(D 3 f, u 3 t). It indicates that the interaction of pro-
cessing time and abrasive particle size may be relatively
more effective during processing.
In order to further verify the reliability of the predic-
tion model, verification experiments were performed, as
shown in Table 5. Here, E is the error of the predictive
value relative to the measured value. It can be found
from Table 5 that the surface roughness prediction
error range is 3.60%–6.32%, which proves the correct-
ness of the prediction model and that it could be used
for the prediction of surface roughness Ra of coverage
constraint abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy
artificial joint surface under the processing conditions
of this article.
Figure 5 shows the surface micro-morphology of
abrasive flow with different abrasive particle sizes after
processing for 5 h at an abrasive grain concentration of
0.1. From Figure 5(a), it can be found that the surface
of the rough polished titanium alloy mainly consists of
convex peaks and groove structures, and the surface
roughness Ra is about 230.0 nm. Figure 5(b)–(d) shows
the surface micro-morphology and roughness at a posi-
tion on the surface of the workpiece after machining
for 5 h under the condition that the abrasive particle
diameter is 18–8 mm and the abrasive particle concen-
tration is 0.1, and the average surface roughness Ra of
the workpiece after machining was reduced to 137.1,
119.8, and 95.8 nm, respectively. At the same time, it
can be found that after abrasive flow machining, the
number of convex peaks and grooves in the workpiece
surface is obviously reduced and the surface topogra-
phy is now mainly composed of pits and extruded lips
formed by abrasive grains impacting the workpiece sur-
face. Moreover, the surface is finer with the decrease in
particle size than the original state. These phenomena
Zhang et al. 7

Figure 6. Contrast of workpiece surface finish: (a) original surface, (b) process 5 h with particle size 18 mm, (c) process 5 h with
particle size 13 mm, and (d) process 5 h with particle size 8 mm.

proved the feasibility of coverage constraint abrasive

flow machining of titanium alloy artificial joint surface.
Figure 6 shows the surface finish of the workpiece
after 5 h of abrasive flow machining with different abra-
sive particle size at a concentration of 0.1. It can be seen
from the figure that the original surface of the titanium
alloy workpiece is not clearly imaged; however, after 5
h of machining with abrasive flow, the clarity of text
reflection on the surface of the workpiece is increased
and the surface finish is improved; the surface finish is
improved with the reduction in abrasive particle size. It
illustrates that abrasive particle size may play an impor-
tant role in the abrasive flow machining and affects the
surface finish of the titanium alloy artificial joint
workpiece.

Figure 7. Effect of particle size and processing time on surface

Effect of abrasive particle size and processing time
on surface roughness
The selection of abrasive particle size is related to the
processing requirements. In the abrasive flow machin-
ing, the larger particles are mainly used for deburring
and rough machining, and the smaller particles are used
for finishing polishing. This experiment studies the pol-
ishing effect of the abrasive flow on the workpiece sur-
face with a smaller particle size range; therefore, the
workpiece surface roughness Ra has been pre-polished
to about 230.0 nm. With reference to the research group
and the research results of abrasive flow machining, sili-
con carbide with particle sizes 8, 13, and 18 mm were
selected for experiments.
Figure 7 shows the response surface of abrasive par-
ticle size D and the processing time t to the average sur-
face roughness Ra of the workpiece when the abrasive
particle concentration u = 0.15. It can be seen from
roughness.
Figure 7 that under the processing conditions of abra-
sive particle size of 8–18 mm, processing time of 0–5 h,
and abrasive particle concentration of 0.15, the surface
roughness Ra decreases with the decrease in abrasive
particle size and decreases with the increase in process-
ing time. It can be further seen that the abrasive particle
flow with a larger particle size has a greater effect on
the initial processing period (0–2 h) than the abrasive
particle flow with a smaller grain size. With the increase
in processing time, the workpiece surface roughness Ra
gradually tends to a processing limit, and the smaller
the particle size, the smaller the limit of surface rough-
ness Ra. The surface roughness Ra can reach to about
80 nm after 5 h of abrasive flow machining with a parti-
cle size of 8 mm. According to Oka’s erosion model, the
8 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 00(0)
Figure 8. Effect of particle concentration and processing time
on surface roughness.
smaller the particle size of abrasive particles, the smaller
the material removal caused by the impact of abrasive
particles on the workpiece surface at the same impact
speed, the finer the micro-scratches produced by the
grinding action of the abrasive flow, and the better the
surface quality of the workpiece. At the same time, it
can be seen that the change trend of the response sur-
face is obvious, indicating that the interaction of abra-
sive particle size D and processing time t (D 3 t) has a
significant effect on surface roughness. Therefore, this
combination can be prioritized during the process opti-
mization, and abrasive particle with smaller particle
sizes should be used to obtain a better surface quality.
Effect of abrasive particle concentration and
processing time on surface roughness
According to the previous study,29 the abrasive particle
concentration of 0.1–0.2 has a good processing effect,
so this concentration range was selected for the machin-
ing experiment to study the effect of abrasive particle
concentration on the processing effect of abrasive flow.
Figure 8 shows the response surface of abrasive par-
ticle concentration u and processing time t to the aver-
age surface roughness Ra of the workpiece when the
abrasive particle size D = 13 mm. It can be seen from
Figure 8 that under the processing conditions of abra-
sive particle size of 13 mm, processing time of 0–5 h,
and abrasive particle concentration of 0.1–0.2, the sur-
face roughness of the workpiece decreases as the abra-
sive particle concentration increases. After processing
for 5 h at an abrasive concentration of 0.2, the surface
roughness Ra of the workpiece can reach to about 98
nm. Under the same conditions, the surface roughness
Ra can reach to about 120 nm when the abrasive parti-
cle concentration is 0.1. It can be further seen that in
the same processing time, the greater the concentration
of abrasive particle, the greater the degree of surface
roughness reduction and the higher the processing
Figure 9. Effect of particle size and concentration on surface
roughness.
efficiency. This phenomenon may be related to the
number of abrasive particles participating in the cutting
at the same time. When the abrasive particle size and
the abrasive particle speed are constant, the abrasive
flow with a larger concentration will have a larger num-
ber of abrasive particles per unit time that impact the
workpiece surface, and consequently, the formed cut-
ting amount is also larger and the surface micro-cutting
traces are finer; therefore, it will have a comparatively
finer processing quality and a higher processing effi-
ciency. However, if the concentration is too large, the
flow viscosity of the abrasive flow will be too high,
which will reduce the flowability of the abrasive flow in
the constraint flow channel and affect the processing
effect.
Effect of abrasive particle size and abrasive particle
concentration on surface roughness
Figure 9 shows the response surface of abrasive particle
size D and abrasive particle concentration u to the aver-
age surface roughness Ra of the workpiece when the
processing time t = 5 h. It can be seen from Figure 9
that under the conditions of abrasive particle size of 8–
13 mm, abrasive particle concentration of 0.1–0.2, and
processing time of 5 h, the greater the concentration of
abrasive particles at the same particle size, the smaller
the surface roughness of the workpiece and the finer the
machined surface. At the same time, it can be found
that at the same abrasive particle concentration, the
smaller the abrasive particle size, the smaller the work-
piece surface roughness. It can be concluded that the
workpiece has a better surface quality under the condi-
tions that the processing time is sufficient, the abrasive
particle diameter is smaller, and the abrasive particle
concentration is larger. This phenomenon is in line with
Oka’s erosion model. Under the conditions that the
processing time is sufficient and the flow rate of the
abrasive flow is constant, the smaller the size of the
Zhang et al.
Figure 10. Surface roughness changes in each region of
abrasive flow machining.
abrasive particles, the smaller the removal amount of
the impact wall formed by a single abrasive particle, the
smaller the micro-cutting trace of the workpiece when
reaching the machining limit. At the same time, when
the concentration of abrasive particles is larger, the
number of abrasive particles involved in the cutting
increases, and the micro-cutting traces will be more
compact, which will help to form a better surface qual-
ity. Besides, it can also be found that the entire response
surface of the interaction of abrasive particle size D and
abrasive particle concentration u (D 3 u) is relatively
flat, indicating that this interaction has little effect on
the surface roughness. Thus, it is not recommended to
prioritize the interaction of particle size and concentra-
tion in the actual process optimization.
Surface roughness analysis of different regions of
workpiece
For the surface regions I, II, III, IV, and V, the processing
effect of abrasive flow is different. The surface roughness
of the five areas was recorded every hour at the processing
conditions of abrasive particle size of 18 mm and abrasive
grain concentration of 0.1 in a total processing time of 5
h, and the results are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows
that the surface roughness of the workpiece in all five
regions has decreased, the surface roughness has declined
in the first 2 h, and the decreasing trend is obviously
reduced after 2 h until it finally tends to reach a stable
value. The surface roughness in the I and V regions was
basically the same which decreased from 230 to 147 nm.
The surface roughness in the II and IV regions was basi-
cally the same and decreased from 230 to 130 nm. The
surface roughness Ra of III region decreased from 230 to
126 nm which has the best processing effect. The surface
roughness value Ra on different regions of the workpiece
was dispersed and this phenomenon may be due to the
uneven distribution of the dynamic characteristics of
abrasive flow on the workpiece surface, such as velocity
distribution, dynamic pressure distribution, turbulent
kinetic energy distribution, and abrasive particle volume
fraction distribution which could affect the removal effect
9
of abrasive particles when impacting the workpiece sur-
face. Those dynamic characteristics will directly affect the
force of the abrasive particle in the viscoelastic media,
resulting in uneven removal effect when the abrasive par-
ticles impact the workpiece surface in different regions.
Aiming at the phenomenon of uneven processing
effect, the structure of the profiling flow channel could
be optimized as follows: (1) set abrasive flow compen-
sation inlet in the poorly processed areas; (2) design a
non-equal height channel to increase the flow rate in
poorly processed areas; (3) set gas compensation inlet
to improve the uniformity of velocity distribution and
dynamic pressure distribution of abrasive flow; (4)
design a processing flow channel with disturbance
structures to enhance the randomness of abrasive flow
thereby improving the processing uniformity; and (5)
design a processing flow channel with a texture similar
to that of a golf ball surface which may have a drag
reduction effect. The ultimate goal of flow channel
structure optimization is to improve the turbulent flow
characteristics of the abrasive flow in the flow channel,
such as increasing the turbulent energy of the abrasive
flow as much as possible, increasing the uniformity of
velocity and dynamic pressure of the abrasive flow in
various regions of the workpiece surface, and reducing
the local loss and loss of the abrasive flow.
In this article, the processing temperature and inlet
velocity were kept constant during the experiments;
however, both processing temperature and inlet velocity
are important factors affecting the processing effect. In
the conventional abrasive flow machining, different
processing temperatures have different processing
effects on the same workpiece sample. When the tem-
perature is too high, the viscosity of the medium is
excessively reduced, thereby causing the abrasive parti-
cle to roll back and reducing the processing efficiency.30
The inlet velocity directly affects the distribution of the
turbulent flow energy, velocity, and dynamic pressure
of the abrasive flow on the workpiece surface, which
would affect the machining effect.31 Compared with the
conventional abrasive flow machining, the soft abrasive
flow has a lower viscosity, and the tendency of the
abrasive particles to roll back in the flow channel is
greater. Therefore, the processing temperature and inlet
velocity could be further studied and expanded to
improve the applicability of the prediction model.
Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study:
1. This article demonstrates that under the experi-
mental conditions, at the same flow velocity, the
smaller the abrasive particle size and the greater
the abrasive particle concentration, the better the
processing effect on the Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy
artificial joint workpiece. As the time of processing
10
increases, the surface roughness of the workpiece
gradually decreases. After a certain time of process-
ing, the surface roughness decreases to its extre-
mity. However, continuous processing leads to an
inconspicuous effect.
2. After abrasive flow machining, the grooves and
peaks on the surface of the titanium alloy work-
piece were significantly reduced, and the micro-
morphology of the surface was mainly micro-pit
and extrusion lip.
3. After abrasive flow machining, the machining sur-
face roughness Ra varies in different regions of the
titanium alloy artificial joint workpiece. The sur-
face roughness of the I and V regions (lateral epi-
condyle regions) shows similar downward trends,
and the surface roughness of the II and IV regions
(lateral condyle regions) also shows similar down-
ward trends. As for the value of processing extre-
mity roughness Ra, I and V regions . II and IV
regions . III regions (intercondylar notch region),
and the III region achieves the best processing
effect. The discovery of this phenomenon can pro-
vide a basis for an optimal design of the constraint
flow channel structure.
4. The three-factor and three-level response surface
experiment was designed under the processing con-
ditions of the abrasive particle size of 8–18 mm, the
abrasive particle concentration of 0.1–0.2, and the
processing time of 0–5 h. Based on the experimen-
tal results, the prediction model of surface rough-
ness Ra is obtained, and its correctness is verified
by the variance analysis and verification test. This
prediction model contributes to guiding the optimi-
zation of the process of coverage constraint abra-
sive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial
joint surface under the experimental conditions.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This work was supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.
51575493 and 51705462), Zhejiang Provincial Basic
Public Welfare Research Project (LGG19E050025),
Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of
China (Nos. LY15E050020 and LQ16E050012) and
Talent Project of Zhejiang Association for Science and
Technology (No. 2018YCGC016).
ORCID iD
Guoda Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9952-125X
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 00(0)
References
1. Liu X, Chu PK and Ding C. Surface modification of tita-
nium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedi-
cal applications. Mat Sci Eng R 2004; 47(3–4): 49–121.
2. Haslauer CM, Springer JC, Harrysson OL, et al. In vitro
biocompatibility of titanium alloy discs made using direct
metal fabrication. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32(6): 645–652.
3. Long M and Rack HJ. Titanium alloys in total joint
replacement—a materials science perspective. Biomater-
ials 1998; 19(18): 1621–1639.
4. Yang SY, Zhang K, Bai L, et al. Polymethylmethacrylate
and titanium alloy particles activate peripheral mono-
cytes during periprosthetic inflammation and osteolysis.
J Orthop Res 2011; 29(5): 781–786.
5. Archibeck MJ, Jacobs JJ, Roebuck KA, et al. The basic
science of periprosthetic osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2000; 50(10): 185–195.
6. Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the prob-
lem. Clin Orthop Relat R 2001; 393: 66–70.
7. Ingham E and Fisher J. Biological reactions to wear deb-
ris in total joint replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J
Engineering in Medicine 2000; 214(1): 21–37.
8. Sun X, Bateman R, Cheng K, et al. Design and analysis
of an internally cooled smart cutting tool for dry cutting.
Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2011;
226(4): 585–591.
9. Lee GI, Gao JC, Jung YS, et al. Study of heat generation
and cutting accuracy depending on spindle rotation
speed change in ultra-precision cutting using ECTS. Int J
Precis Eng Man 2018; 19(2): 265–269.
10. Sambharia J, Mali HS, Sambharia J, et al. Recent devel-
opments in abrasive flow finishing process: a review of
current research and future prospects. Proc IMechE, Part
B: J Engineering Manufacture 2019; 233: 388–399.
11. Sarkar M and Jain VK. Nanofinishing of freeform sur-
faces using abrasive flow finishing process. Proc IMechE,
Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2015; 231(9): 1501–
1515.
12. Kavithaa TS and Balashanmugam N. Nanometric sur-
face finishing of typical industrial components by abra-
sive flow finishing. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2016; 85(9–12):
2189–2196.
13. Dong Z, Gang Y and Liu J. Study on machining mechan-
ism of high viscoelastic abrasive flow machining for sur-
face finishing. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering
Manufacture 2015; 231(4): 608–617.
14. Tan DP, Ji SM and Fu YZ. An improved soft abrasive
flow finishing method based on fluid collision theory. Int
J Adv Manuf Tech 2016; 85(5–8): 1261–1274.
15. Li C and Tan DP. Softness abrasive flow method oriented
to tiny scale mold structural surface. Int J Adv Manuf
Tech 2012; 61(9–12): 975–987.
16. Ji SM, Xiao FQ and Tan DP. Analytical method for soft-
ness abrasive flow field based on discrete phase model.
Sci China Technol Sc 2010; 53(10): 2867–2877.
17. Qi H, Fan J and Wang J. A study of the micro-machining
process on quartz crystals using an abrasive slurry jet.
Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2014;
229(3): 421–434.
18. Ramachandra M and Radhakrishna K. Effect of reinfor-
cement of flyash on sliding wear, slurry erosive wear and
corrosive behavior of aluminium matrix composite. Wear
2007; 262(11): 1450–1462.
Zhang et al. 11

19. Ji X, Qing Q, Ji C, et al. Slurry erosion wear resistance 30. Fang L, Zhao J, Sun K, et al. Temperature as sensitive
and impact-induced phase transformation of titanium monitor for efficiency of work in abrasive flow machin-
alloys. Tribol Lett 2018; 66(2): 64. ing. Wear 2009; 266(7): 678–687.
20. Sasikumar K, Arulshri KP, Ponappa K, et al. A study on 31. Zohoor M, Zohourkari I, Cacciatore F, et al. Influence of
kerf characteristics of hybrid aluminium 7075 metal machining parameters on part geometrical error in abra-
matrix composites machined using abrasive water jet sive waterjet offset-mode turning. Proc IMechE, Part B: J
machining technology. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineer- Engineering Manufacture 2015; 229(12): 2125–2133.
ing Manufacture 2016; 232(4): 690–704.
21. Setti D, Sinha MK, Ghosh S, et al. Performance evalua-
Appendix 1
tion of Ti-6Al-4V grinding using chip formation and coef-
ficient of friction under the influence of nanofluids. Int J
Notation
Mach Tool Manu 2015; 88(88): 237–248. CD drag coefficient
22. Gorana VK, Jain VK and Lal GK. Prediction of surface dp particle diameter
roughness during abrasive flow machining. Int J Adv d0 reference diameter
Manuf Tech 2006; 31(3–4): 258–267. D abrasive particle size
23. Jain RK, Jain VK and Dixit PM. Modeling of material
E error of the predictive value relative to the
removal and surface roughness in abrasive flow machin-
ing process. Int J Mach Tool Manu 1999; 39(12): 1903–
measured value
1923. E90 erosion damage at normal impact angle
24. Oka YI, Okamura K and Yoshida T. Practical estimation Er erosion damage
of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact —part FD relaxation frequency
1: effects of impact parameters on a predictive equation. Fx additional acceleration term
Wear 2005; 259(1): 95–101. Hv material Vickers hardness
25. Oka YI and Yoshida T. Practical estimation of erosion k1 hardness coefficient
damage caused by solid particle impact—part 2: mechan- k2 velocity coefficient
ical properties of materials directly associated with ero- k3 diameter coefficient
sion damage. Wear 2005; 259(1–6): 102–109. K constant associated with abrasive particle
26. Howard M and Chen K. An integrated systematic inves- *
gx acceleration of gravity
tigation of the process variables on surface generation in
n1 ; n2 constant of impact angle function
abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy 6Al4V. Proc
Ra measured value of the surface roughness
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2014;
228(11): 1419–1431.
Ra0 predictive value of the surface roughness
27. Gov K and Eyercioglu O. Effects of abrasive types on the Re relative Reynolds number
surface integrity of abrasive-flow-machined surfaces. Proc t processing time
*
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2016; 232(6): u fluid phase velocity
*
1044–1053. up particle velocity
28. Anselme K and Bigerelle M. On the relation between sur- u0 reference velocity
face roughness of metallic substrates and adhesion of u impact angle
human primary bone cells. Scanning 2014; 36(1): 10. m molecular viscosity of the fluid
29. Zhang L, Wang JS, Tan DP, et al. Gas compensation- r density of fluid
based abrasive flow processing method for complex tita- rp density of the particle
nium alloy surfaces. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2017; 92(9– u abrasive particle concentration
12): 3385–3397.