Multiobjective Optimization of Chemically Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) on Inconel 625 Tubes Using Genetic Algorithm: Modeling and Microstructural Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Setup
3. Methodology
4. Results and Discussions
5. Multiobjective Optimization
5.1. Regression Method
5.2. Genetic Algorithm (GA)
6. Conclusions
- The developed regression model shows a strong correlation with the experimental results. The processing time and abrasive size are the major significant parameters for PIISF, PIESF and MR.
- The SEM images of the rough surface of Inconel 625 tubes exhibiting scratches, waviness and craters are clearly visible on the rough surface. Moreover, the SEM image of the chemically treated surface of the Inconel 625 tube reported that the tube surface became diffused after chemical treatment using FeCl3 and that the intermolecular bonding of the material’s upper surface became weakened.
- Multioptimization results using a genetic algorithm suggested that PIISF, PIESF and MR are best optimized by setting the value of processing time (A) at 75 min, surface rotational speed (B) at 60 RPM, weight % of abrasives (C) at 30%, chemical concentration (D) at 500 gm/lt and abrasive size (E) at 40 microns.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eiselstein, H.; Tillack, D. Invention and Definition of Inconel 625 Alloy; Inconel Alloys International Inc.: Huntington, WV, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, K.L.; Yeo, S.H.; Ong, C.H. Non-traditional finishing processes for internal surfaces and passages: A review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B Eng. Manuf. 2016, 231, 2302–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashimoto, F.; Yamaguchi, H.; Krajnik, P.; Wegener, K.; Chaudhari, R.; Hoffmeister, H.W.; Kuster, F. Abrasive fine-finishing technology. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 65, 597–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezugwu, E.O. Key improvements in the machining of difficult-to-cut aerospace superalloys. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2005, 45, 1353–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thakur, A.; Gangopadhyay, S. State-of-the-art in surface integrity in machining of nickel-based super alloys. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2016, 100, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanabalan, S.; Sivakumar, K.; Narayanan, C.S. Analysis of Form Tolerances in Electrical Discharge Machining Process for Inconel 718 and 625. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2014, 29, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talla, G.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Biswas, C.K. Effect of Powder-Suspended Dielectric on the EDM Characteristics of Inconel 625. ASM Int. 2016, 25, 704–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, A. Investigation of Material removal rate and Surface roughness during Wire electrical discharge machining (WEDM) machining of Inconel 625 super alloy by cryogenic treated tool electrode. J. King Saud Univ. -Sci. 2017, 29, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manikandan, N.; Kumanan, S.; Sathiyanarayanan, C. Multiple performance optimization of electrochemical drilling of Inconel 625 using Taguchi based Grey Relational Analysis. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadian, N.; Turenne, S.; Brailovski, V. Surface finish control of additively-manufactured Inconel 625 components using combined chemical-abrasive flow polishing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2017, 20, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinmura, T.; Yamaguchi, H. Study on a new internal finishing process by the application of magnetic abrasive machining: Internal finishing of stainless-steel tube and clean gas bomb. JSME Int. J. 1995, 38, 798–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamaguchi, H.; Shinmura, T. Study of an internal magnetic abrasive finishing using a pole rotation system. Précis Eng. 2000, 24, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Hu, D. Study on the inner surface finishing of tubing by magnetic abrasive finishing. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2005, 45, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J.; Yamaguchi, H. Internal finishing of capillary tubes by magnetic abrasive finishing using a multiple pole-tip system. Précis Eng. 2013, 36, 510–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nteziyaremyea, V.; Wang, Y.; Li, W.; Shihb, A. Yamaguchi H Surface Finishing of Needles for High-Performance Biopsy. Procedia CIRP 2014, 14, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mulik, R.S.; Pandey, P.M. Experimental study to determine work-brush interface temperature in magnetic abrasive finishing process. Process. Fabr. Adv. Mater. (PFAM) 2011, XIX, 1096–1105. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, A.; Goel, H.; Mulik, R.S.; Pandey, P.M. Determining work-brush interface temperature in magnetic abrasive finishing process. J. Manuf. Processes 2014, 16, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Z.; Chen, Y.W.; Zhou, K.; Li, C. Research on the electrolytic-magnetic abrasive finishing of nickel-based superalloy GH4169. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2015, 81, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judal, K.B.; Yadava, V. Cylindrical Electrochemical Magnetic Abrasive Machining of AISI-304 Stainless Steel. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2013, 28, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sihag, N.; Kala, N.P.; Pandey, P.M. Chemo Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing: Experimental Investigations. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sihag, N.; Kala, N.P.; Pandey, P.M. Analysis of Surface Finish Improvement during Ultrasonic Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing on chemically treated Tungsten substrate. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, K.; Pandey, P.M. Use of chemical oxidizers with alumina slurry in Double Disk Magnetic Abrasive Finishing for improving surface finish of Si (100). J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 32, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.; Gangwar, S.; Yadav, P.C.; Singh, D.K. Optimization of process parameters affecting surface roughness in magnetic abrasive finishing process. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2017, 32, 1723–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G.; Kumar, H.; Kansal, H.K. Investigations into internal roundness of Inconel 625 tubes with Chemically assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 1579–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G.; Kumar, H. Influence of chemically assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process parameters on external roundness of Inconel 625 tubes. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 37, 3283–3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G.; Kumar, H.; Kansal, H.K. Effects of Chemically assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Process Parameters on Material Removal of Inconel 625 tubes. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 48, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G.; Kumar, H.; Kumar, A. Machining of Inconel 718 Flat Surfaces with Chemically Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Process. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 11, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, D.K.; Jain, V.K.; Raghurama, V.; Komanduri, R. Analysis of Surface Texture Generated by A Flexible Magnetic Abrasive Brush. Wear 2005, 259, 1254–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girma, B.; Joshi, S.S.; Raghuram, M.V.G.S.; Balasubramaniam, R. An Experimental Analysis of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing of Plane Surfaces. Mach. Sci. Technol. 2000, 10, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.K.; Gangwar, S.; Singh, D.K.; Ahmad, S. Multi-objective optimization of magnetic abrasive finishing by desirability function with genetic algorithm. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misra, A.; Pandey, P.M.; Dixit, U.S.; Roy, A.; Silberschmidt, V.V. Multi-objective optimization of ultrasonic-assisted magnetic abrasive finishing process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 101, 1661–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Babbar, A.; Sharma, A.; Singh, P. Multi-objective optimization of magnetic abrasive finishing using grey relational analysis. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 50, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Goldberg, D.E. Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning; Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Roslan, Z.B.; Ramli, Z.; Razman, M.R.; Asyraf, M.R.M.; Ishak, M.R.; Ilyas, R.A.; Nurazzi, N.M. Reflections on Local Community Identity by Evaluating Heritage Sustainability Protection in Jugra, Selangor, Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, V.-B.; Kanhaiya, K.; Năstac, D.I.; Czeizler, E.; Petre, I. Network controllability solutions for computational drug repurposing using genetic algorithms. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Deng, B.; Shen, Q.; Yang, J.; Li, Y. Optimization based on genetic algorithms on energy conservation potential of a high speed SI engine fueled with butanol–gasoline blends. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shehadeh, A.; Alshboul, O.; Tatari, O.; Alzubaidi, M.A.; Hamed El-Sayed Salama, A. Selection of heavy machinery for earthwork activities: A multi-objective optimization approach using a genetic algorithm. Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 61, 7555–7569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfarizi, M.G.; Stanko, M.; Bikmukhametov, T. Well control optimization in waterflooding using genetic algorithm coupled with Artificial Neural Networks. Upstream Oil Gas Technol. 2022, 9, 100071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkhawaga, A.M.; Mahmoud, N.M.; Abd Elnaby, M.M.; Hussein, A.H. New hybrid approaches for SLL reduction and size miniaturization of planar antenna arrays based on 2D convolution and genetic algorithm. Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 61, 7233–7264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, X.; Cheng, M. Design and application of energy planning scheme based on genetic algorithm. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordán, J.; Palanca, J.; Martí, P.; Julian, V. Electric vehicle charging stations emplacement using genetic algorithms and agent-based simulation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 197, 116739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanyilmaz, A.; Tichell, P.R.N.; Loiacono, D. A genetic algorithm tool for conceptual structural design with cost and embodied carbon optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 112, 104711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
CMAF Parameters | Units | Symbol | Levels | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
1. Processing Time (PT) | Mins. | A | 15 | 30 | 45 | 60 | 75 |
2. Surface Rotational Speed (SRS) | RPM | B | 60 | 120 | 180 | 240 | 300 |
3. Weight % of Abrasive Particles (WAP) | gms. | C | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 |
4. Chemical Concentration (CC) | gm./Lt. | D | 500 | 550 | 600 | 650 | 700 |
5. Abrasive size (AS) | microns | E | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 |
Other Parameters | |||||||
Workpiece | Material—Inconel 625 Dimensions—(Ø25 × 150 × 2 mm) | ||||||
Permanent Magnet | Material—Nd-Fe-B size—(35 mm × 35 mm × 25 mm) SS 400 Steel yoke | ||||||
Amount of SiC (Abrasive) and Iron Particles | 3 gms for each pole | ||||||
Size of Iron Particle | 300 µm | ||||||
Lubricant | Barrel-finishing compound (Ashfa Coorporation, Mumbai, Maharashtra) | ||||||
Pole work gap | Gap = 2 mm | ||||||
Etchant | FeCl3 diluted with Ethanol | ||||||
Etching Time | Time = 30 min | ||||||
Etching Temperature | Temperature = 65 °C | ||||||
Response Factors | |||||||
1. Improvement in internal surface finish (PIISF) | |||||||
2. Improvement in external surface finish (PIESF) | |||||||
3. Material removal (MR) |
S. No. | Input Process Parameters | Output Responses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT (A) | SRS (B) | WAP (C) | CC (D) | AS (E) | PIISF | PIESF | MR | |
1 | 30 | 120 | 40 | 550 | 40 | 24 | 23 | 0.34 |
2 | 60 | 120 | 40 | 550 | 80 | 26 | 24 | 0.37 |
3 | 30 | 240 | 40 | 550 | 80 | 25 | 20 | 0.3 |
4 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 100 | 23 | 16 | 0.26 |
5 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 52 | 39 | 0.74 |
6 | 60 | 120 | 30 | 650 | 80 | 32 | 28 | 0.64 |
7 | 30 | 120 | 30 | 650 | 40 | 42 | 33 | 0.71 |
8 | 30 | 240 | 40 | 650 | 40 | 52 | 45 | 0.79 |
9 | 60 | 120 | 30 | 550 | 40 | 61 | 49 | 0.88 |
10 | 15 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 12 | 8 | 0.19 |
11 | 30 | 240 | 30 | 650 | 80 | 32 | 29 | 0.64 |
12 | 60 | 240 | 30 | 650 | 40 | 58 | 44 | 0.8 |
13 | 45 | 180 | 45 | 600 | 60 | 25 | 19 | 0.28 |
14 | 45 | 180 | 25 | 600 | 60 | 30 | 26 | 0.54 |
15 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 45 | 31 | 0.74 |
16 | 75 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 71 | 59 | 1.02 |
17 | 45 | 300 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 62 | 50 | 0.9 |
18 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 43 | 39 | 0.86 |
19 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 20 | 44 | 32 | 0.81 |
20 | 30 | 120 | 40 | 650 | 80 | 21 | 14 | 0.22 |
21 | 60 | 240 | 30 | 550 | 80 | 45 | 39 | 0.71 |
22 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 53 | 34 | 0.84 |
23 | 60 | 240 | 40 | 650 | 80 | 38 | 32 | 0.64 |
24 | 45 | 60 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 48 | 45 | 0.79 |
25 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 700 | 60 | 51 | 46 | 0.84 |
26 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 500 | 60 | 47 | 33 | 0.75 |
27 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 54 | 39 | 0.85 |
28 | 45 | 180 | 35 | 600 | 60 | 51 | 40 | 0.84 |
29 | 30 | 240 | 30 | 550 | 40 | 36 | 29 | 0.51 |
30 | 30 | 120 | 30 | 550 | 80 | 28 | 18 | 0.36 |
31 | 60 | 240 | 40 | 550 | 40 | 51 | 37 | 0.83 |
32 | 60 | 120 | 40 | 650 | 40 | 46 | 38 | 0.76 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 5548.91 | 20 | 277.45 | 5.44 | 0.0031 | Significant |
A—Processing time | 1926.04 | 1 | 1926.04 | 37.76 | <0.0001 | |
B—Surface rotational Speed | 301.04 | 1 | 301.04 | 5.9 | 0.0334 | |
C—Wt% of abrasives | 155.04 | 1 | 155.04 | 3.04 | 0.1091 | |
D—Chemical concentration | 45.38 | 1 | 45.38 | 0.8896 | 0.3659 | |
E—Abrasive size | 1134.38 | 1 | 1134.38 | 22.24 | 0.0006 | |
AB | 0.5625 | 1 | 0.5625 | 0.011 | 0.9183 | |
AC | 22.56 | 1 | 22.56 | 0.4423 | 0.5197 | |
AD | 115.56 | 1 | 115.56 | 2.27 | 0.1604 | |
AE | 45.56 | 1 | 45.56 | 0.8932 | 0.3649 | |
BC | 105.06 | 1 | 105.06 | 2.06 | 0.1791 | |
BD | 27.56 | 1 | 27.56 | 0.5404 | 0.4777 | |
BE | 5.06 | 1 | 5.06 | 0.0992 | 0.7586 | |
CD | 85.56 | 1 | 85.56 | 1.68 | 0.2218 | |
CE | 0.5625 | 1 | 0.5625 | 0.011 | 0.9183 | |
DE | 45.56 | 1 | 45.56 | 0.8932 | 0.3649 | |
A² | 136.74 | 1 | 136.74 | 2.68 | 0.1298 | |
B² | 43.37 | 1 | 43.37 | 0.8502 | 0.3763 | |
C² | 939.41 | 1 | 939.41 | 18.42 | 0.0013 | |
D² | 2.37 | 1 | 2.37 | 0.0464 | 0.8334 | |
E² | 507.41 | 1 | 507.41 | 9.95 | 0.0092 | |
Residual | 561.09 | 11 | 51.01 | |||
Lack of fit | 457.76 | 6 | 76.29 | 3.69 | 0.0866 | not significant |
Pure error | 103.33 | 5 | 20.67 | |||
Cor total | 6110 | 31 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 3747.27 | 20 | 187.36 | 4.64 | 0.0061 | significant |
A—Processing time | 1380.17 | 1 | 1380.17 | 34.15 | 0.0001 | |
B—Surface rotational Speed | 140.17 | 1 | 140.17 | 3.47 | 0.0895 | |
C—Wt% of abrasives | 104.17 | 1 | 104.17 | 2.58 | 0.1367 | |
D—Chemical concentration | 104.17 | 1 | 104.17 | 2.58 | 0.1367 | |
E—Abrasive size | 661.5 | 1 | 661.5 | 16.37 | 0.0019 | |
AB | 30.25 | 1 | 30.25 | 0.7484 | 0.4055 | |
AC | 30.25 | 1 | 30.25 | 0.7484 | 0.4055 | |
AD | 90.25 | 1 | 90.25 | 2.23 | 0.1632 | |
AE | 45.56 | 1 | 45.56 | 0.0247 | 0.8779 | |
BC | 30.25 | 1 | 30.25 | 0.7484 | 0.4055 | |
BD | 42.25 | 1 | 42.25 | 1.05 | 0.3285 | |
BE | 36 | 1 | 36 | 0.8907 | 0.3656 | |
CD | 42.25 | 1 | 42.25 | 1.05 | 0.3285 | |
CE | 9 | 1 | 9 | 0.2227 | 0.6462 | |
DE | 25 | 1 | 25 | 0.6185 | 0.4482 | |
A² | 34.19 | 1 | 34.19 | 0.8458 | 0.3775 | |
B² | 171.85 | 1 | 171.85 | 4.25 | 0.0636 | |
C² | 430.19 | 1 | 430.19 | 10.64 | 0.0076 | |
D² | 5.19 | 1 | 5.19 | 0.1283 | 0.727 | |
E² | 350.06 | 1 | 350.06 | 8.66 | 0.0134 | |
Residual | 444.61 | 11 | 40.42 | |||
Lack of fit | 378.61 | 6 | 63.1 | 4.78 | 0.0535 | not significant |
Pure error | 66 | 5 | 13.2 | |||
Cor total | 4191.88 | 31 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 1.63 | 20 | 0.0813 | 10.89 | 0.0001 | significant |
A—Processing time | 0.4874 | 1 | 0.4874 | 65.29 | <0.0001 | |
B—Surface rotational speed | 0.0561 | 1 | 0.0561 | 7.51 | 0.0192 | |
C—Wt% of abrasives | 0.0963 | 1 | 0.0963 | 12.9 | 0.0042 | |
D—Chemical concentration | 0.0486 | 1 | 0.0486 | 6.51 | 0.0269 | |
E—Abrasive size | 0.3361 | 1 | 0.3361 | 45.02 | <0.0001 | |
AB | 0.0049 | 1 | 0.0049 | 0.6564 | 0.435 | |
AC | 0.0012 | 1 | 0.0012 | 0.1641 | 0.6932 | |
AD | 0.04 | 1 | 0.04 | 5.36 | 0.0409 | |
AE | 0.0004 | 1 | 0.0004 | 0.0536 | 0.8212 | |
BC | 0.04 | 1 | 0.04 | 5.36 | 0.0409 | |
BD | 0.0012 | 1 | 0.0012 | 0.1641 | 0.6932 | |
BE | 0.0132 | 1 | 0.0132 | 1.77 | 0.2101 | |
CD | 0.0036 | 1 | 0.0036 | 0.4823 | 0.5018 | |
CE | 0.0256 | 1 | 0.0256 | 3.43 | 0.091 | |
DE | 0.0006 | 1 | 0.0006 | 0.0837 | 0.7777 | |
A² | 0.0788 | 1 | 0.0788 | 10.55 | 0.0078 | |
B² | 0.002 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.2631 | 0.6182 | |
C² | 0.2967 | 1 | 0.2967 | 39.74 | <0.0001 | |
D² | 0.0005 | 1 | 0.0005 | 0.0733 | 0.7916 | |
E² | 0.1409 | 1 | 0.1409 | 18.88 | 0.0012 | |
Residual | 0.0821 | 11 | 0.0075 | |||
Lack of fit | 0.0664 | 6 | 0.0111 | 3.53 | 0.0938 | not significant |
Pure error | 0.0157 | 5 | 0.0031 | |||
Cor total | 1.71 | 31 |
Response Parameters | Optimization | PT (A) | SRS (B) | WAP (C) | CC (D) | AS (E) | Objective Function |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIISFMAX | Single-Objective | 61.95 | 300.00 | 37.69 | 700.00 | 33.05 | 77.81 |
PIESFMAX | Single-Objective | 75.00 | 60.00 | 28.25 | 500.00 | 47.47 | 80.65 |
MRMAX | Single-Objective | 75.00 | 60.00 | 31.66 | 500.00 | 39.31 | 1.10 |
Multiobjective | 75.00 | 60.00 | 28.51 | 500.00 | 43.98 | 54.60 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Singh, G.; Kumar, H.; Kansal, H.K.; Sharma, K.; Kumar, R.; Chohan, J.S.; Singh, S.; Sharma, S.; Li, C.; Królczyk, G.; et al. Multiobjective Optimization of Chemically Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) on Inconel 625 Tubes Using Genetic Algorithm: Modeling and Microstructural Analysis. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1168. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mi13081168
Singh G, Kumar H, Kansal HK, Sharma K, Kumar R, Chohan JS, Singh S, Sharma S, Li C, Królczyk G, et al. Multiobjective Optimization of Chemically Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) on Inconel 625 Tubes Using Genetic Algorithm: Modeling and Microstructural Analysis. Micromachines. 2022; 13(8):1168. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mi13081168
Chicago/Turabian StyleSingh, Gurpreet, Harish Kumar, Harmesh Kumar Kansal, Kamal Sharma, Raman Kumar, Jasgurpreet Singh Chohan, Sandeep Singh, Shubham Sharma, Changhe Li, Grzegorz Królczyk, and et al. 2022. "Multiobjective Optimization of Chemically Assisted Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) on Inconel 625 Tubes Using Genetic Algorithm: Modeling and Microstructural Analysis" Micromachines 13, no. 8: 1168. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mi13081168