# Simulation Study of a New Magnetorheological Polishing Fluid Collector Based on Air Seal
## 4 Experimental Design Using an Orthogonal Table
### Results and Discussion of Orthogonal Test
At the confidence level of 95%, the F values of factor 2 and factor 6 are 12.812 and 8.718, respectively, which are greater than F0.05(2,5)  
Figure 12: Effect curve of collector outlet flow rate fluctuation value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Level** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Factor 1**} & **Factor 2** & **Factor 3** & **Factor 4** & **Factor 5** & **Factor 6** \\  & & \(\varphi\) & \(\mathbf{D}\) & \(\theta\) & \(\mathbf{L}\) & \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\) & \(\mathbf{V}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{K-value} & 1 & \(-\)0.45 & \(-\)0.80 & \(-\)0.44 & \(-\)0.41 & \(-\)0.39 & \(-\)0.39 \\  & 2 & \(-\)0.58 & \(-\)0.47 & \(-\)0.53 & \(-\)0.54 & \(-\)0.56 & \(-\)0.28 \\  & 3 & \(-\)0.41 & \(-\)0.17 & \(-\)0.47 & \(-\)0.49 & \(-\)0.48 & \(-\)0.77 \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.13 & \(-\)0.07 & \(-\)0.07 & \(-\)0.07 & \(-\)0.06 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Kavg value} & 2 & \(-\)0.10 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.05 \\  & 3 & \(-\)0.07 & \(-\)0.03 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.13 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Best level} & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & \\  & 0.03 & 0.10 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.08 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Range analysis. but less than F0.01(2,5), indicating that factor 2 and factor 6 have significant indigenous effects on. \(\Delta\)Q\({}_{m}\), with contribution rates of 44.345% and 28.976%, respectively. Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5, statistic F values less than F0.05(2,5), have no significant effect. The outlet mass flow of the model is shown in Figure 13. Within 0.1 s-0.4 s, the outlet flow is relatively stable, which is maintained at about 0.1 kg/s. Under the continuous effect of airflow, the polishing solution fluctuates slightly within the range of 0.5 s-0.7 s, and the hindering effect of airflow on the polishing solution is significantly enhanced. A portion of the MR polishing fluid is dispersed in the collector by airflow during the collection process of the airflow seal, which leads to varying degrees of fluctuation of outlet mass flow. The percentage of collector outlet mass flow and inlet mass flow at different times are defined as instantaneous collection efficiency. The instantaneous collection rate is calculated as (8):  
\[\mathrm{Q}_{\eta}=\frac{\mathrm{Q}_{o}}{\mathrm{Q}_{i}}\times 100\% \tag{8}\]  
where \(\mathrm{Q}_{\eta}\) is the instantaneous collection efficiency, \(\mathrm{Q}_{i}\) is the inlet flow rate, and \(\mathrm{Q}_{o}\) is the outlet flow rate. In the equation, if the outlet flow rate is less than the inlet flow rate at a \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source of Variance** & **SS** & **DF** & **Mean Square Deviation** & **F** & **Contribution Rate (\%)** \\ \hline Factor 1 & 0.003 & 2 & 0.0013 & 0.982 & 0.067 \\ Factor 2 & 0.033 & 2 & 0.0164 & 12.812 & 44.345 \\ Factor 3 & 0.001 & 2 & 0.0003 & 0.235 & 2.871 \\ Factor 4 & 0.001 & 2 & 0.0006 & 0.471 & 1.984 \\ Factor 5 & 0.002 & 2 & 0.0012 & 0.918 & 0.309 \\ Factor 6 & 0.022 & 2 & 0.0112 & 8.718 & 28.976 \\ Error & 0.006 & 5 & 0.0013 & / & / \\ Summation & 0.068 & 17 & / & / & / \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Significant variance analysis. Figure 13: Optimal model inlet and outlet flow. given moment, the fluid is poorly collected and there is a large amount of polishing fluid that is not collected. On the contrary, when the outlet mass flow rate is greater than the inlet flow rate, the collection effect is considered good. An instantaneous collection efficiency of more than 100% can be interpreted as the result of the polishing solution remaining in the collector at a given moment during collection. As shown in Figure 14, the instantaneous collection efficiency in this period decreases to 62.4%, which is the lowest outlet flow in 1 s calculation time.