https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0363-5066
Abstract
The research aimed to study the impact of changing the stand-off distance (SOD) and traverse speed (TS) on the results of abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining on brass surfaces. The study specifically evaluated the kerf width (KW), cutting quality (CQ) and surface roughness (Ra). For this purpose, Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) was used, and adjustments were made to the SOD and TS to obtain the best cutting quality for 0.8-mm-thick brass sheets. The results showed that to achieve high cutting quality, it was necessary to reduce the SOD and increase the TS to minimize the KW. Conversely, higher TS and Ra resulted in decreased cutting quality. The largest KW was recorded at an SOD of 5 mm and TS of 90 mm/min, measuring 6.537 mm. Fine-tuning the SOD by 1 mm at the same TS produced the best machining outcomes, with a minimum KW of 1.706 mm, indicating superior cut quality. Lower cutting quality was observed at higher traverse speeds and surface roughness. The optimal Ra was achieved at 90 mm/min with an SOD of 5 mm, measuring 1.1 µm, while the maximum Ra was observed at 150 mm/min with an SOD of 1 mm, measuring 8.15 µm.
Introduction
Abrasive water jet cutting technology has attracted much attention for its proficiency in effortlessly slicing through even the most resilient materials. However, abrasive water jets are considered one of the nonconventional machining processes that were developed to overcome the problems associated with the traditional processes. The cutting action of abrasive water jet machining is performed by the mechanical impact of tiny abrasives as noncountable cutting edges alongside the impact energy of an extreme-pressure water jet. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, known for its high electrical and thermal conductivity as well as durability and reliability. With superior formability in both hot and cold conditions, thin brass sheets, typically measuring around 0.8 mm in thickness, find extensive application in various sectors. These include the production of metal cladding tiles, signage, lighting fixtures, jewelry components, handbags and garment embellishments. As highlighted by Babu and Muthukrishnan (Citation2018), the abrasive water jet method employs a combination of abrasive particles and pressurized water to cut soft materials and thin metals. Natarajan et al. (Citation2020) underscore the significance of various techniques for mixing abrasives and water, forming the basis of abrasive water jet machining through the projection of abrasive and water streams. In the pursuit of superior solutions, addressing aspects such as reducing production time, enhancing sub-processes, achieving waste reduction, accomplishing miniaturization and maintaining high precision becomes paramount (Gupta, Citation2020; Anu Kuttan et al., Citation2021). The environmentally friendly and cost-effective nature of abrasive water jet machining technology, along with its high material removal ratio, further solidifies its standing.
The application of nonferrous alloys across diverse industries is on the rise due to their favorable characteristics, as noted by Marichamy et al. (Citation2019). However, abrasive water jet machining is adapted to cut a wide range of materials like brass, Inconel, titanium, steel, aluminum, stone, granite, glass and composites (Kumar et al., Citation2018; Marichamy et al., Citation2019; Radovanovic, Citation2020). These materials play crucial roles in aerospace, automotive, marine, electrical and medical applications. Surface finishes are explored on various materials, including aluminum, brass and titanium (Madhu and Balasubramanian, Citation2018; Llanto et al., Citation2021; Madankar et al., Citation2021).
Recent developments in abrasive water jet fields and applications are elucidated by Aurich et al. (Citation2019) and Llanto et al. (Citation2021), contributing to a deeper understanding of the importance of cutting process factors. The work of Llanto et al. (Citation2021) identified key process factors for achieving positive results in abrasive water jet cutting and stands as a valuable reference for future researchers. Joel et al. (Citation2021b) emphasize the importance of determining optimal parameters for abrasive water jet machining to achieve the maximum economic benefits. Nair and Kumanan (Citation2018) investigated the effect of the standoff distance on machining performance, and it is identified as one of the most crucial process factors. Prasad and Chaitanya (Citation2017) further elaborate on the primary process factors affecting cut quality in abrasive water jet machining, including water pressure, standoff distance, nozzle diameter, traverse speed, abrasive flow ratio and abrasive size. Additionally, kerf path width (KPW) cutting characteristics are highlighted as governing quality criteria in abrasive water jet machining. Natarajan et al. (Citation2020) extensively conducted research on the abrasive water jet manufacturing process, providing valuable insights for researchers to enhance results by identifying crucial process factors, work materials and advanced techniques. Building on this, Kumar Pal and Choudhury (Citation2014) utilized Traverse speed (TS) and standoff distance to investigate their effects on kerf top width for AA6351 alloy, revealing a minimum kerf width of 1.4881 at 1 mm and 190 mm/min. Shukla and Singh (Citation2017) emphasized the significant influence of standoff distance on performance factors, while Schwartzentruber et al. (Citation2017) demonstrated a decrease in surface roughness with increased particle velocity and reduced kerf taper. Kartal et al. (Citation2017) explored standoff distances’ impact on Al-6082 T6 alloy machining, noting that a low standoff distance resulted in smoother surfaces. Transitioning to traverse speed effects, Niranjan et al. (Citation2018) conducted abrasive water jet machining experiments on high-strength AZ91 magnesium alloy, finding higher surface roughness at increased traverse speeds. Babu and Muthukrishnan (Citation2018) analyzed standoff distance effects on AISI 1018 mild steel, employing the response surface method to reduce surface roughness significantly. Dumbhare et al. (Citation2018) delved into abrasive water jet machining parameters, identifying traverse speed as the primary factor affecting kerf taper angle. Bhoi et al. (Citation2020) emphasized standoff distance’s role in cutting accuracy, achieving cost reduction and high reliability. Shanmugam et al. (Citation2021) optimized parameters with a standoff distance of 1.5 mm and a traverse speed of 25 mm/min.
Expanding the scope, Srivastava et al. (Citation2019) assessed A359/Al2O3/B4C hybrid metal matrix composites; Iyer and Arunkumar (Citation2022) explored abrasive water jet effects on hybrid vehicles; and Mahalingam et al. (Citation2021) improved steel die drilling surface roughness through standoff distance optimization. Balaji et al. (Citation2021) investigated abrasive water jet drilling parameters for stainless steel, while Fuse et al. (Citation2021) focused on nozzle traverse velocity and standoff distance. Marichamy et al. (Citation2019) examined process factors like standoff distance and nozzle traverse speed for AA6082, optimizing cutting accuracy and surface roughness. Joel et al. (Citation2021a) further optimized standoff distance through response surface methodology for AA6082 alloy cutting. Kumar et al. (Citation2020) highlighted the abrasive water jet machining process variables’ influence on measured results. Madankar et al. (Citation2021) scrutinized AISI 1030 steel traverse speed effects, reporting surface roughness for different plate thicknesses. Nader and Saad (Citation2021) conducted the abrasive water jet machining on carbon steel, determining optimal surface roughness at 3.14 μm with a 4 mm standoff distance and a traverse speed of 30 mm/min. Umapathy and Bhavani (Citation2022) investigated abrasive water jet factors on AISI 1045 steel, emphasizing the importance of determining influencing parameters. Akkurt (Citation2010) characterized the geometric deviations for 353 brass specimens, while Bhavani et al. (Citation2018) optimized input factors for the 353 brass to produce accurate deep holes. Phokane et al. (Citation2017) emphasized surface roughness as an indicator of machining performance, and Marichamy et al. (Citation2019) studied brass surface roughness responses, optimizing process parameters. Aurich et al. (Citation2019) developed a method for burr removal on micropillars in C360 brass, focusing on multi-purpose optimization.
Concluding the comprehensive review, it is revealed that the cutting parameters play crucial roles in governing the machining outputs in terms of surface quality and deviation of the dimensions. Thus, this article investigates the effects of standoff distance and traverse speed on kerf width and surface roughness of 0.8 mm-thick brass machining using abrasive water jet machining. By varying these parameters, the study aims to enhance abrasive water jet cut quality and establish optimum parameter values for improved brass surface quality.
Experimental study
When analyzing the chemical composition of the brass specimen material in machining using cutting, it was found that the specimen material consists of the elements shown in . The Foundry-Master Pro device was used to determine the chemical analysis.
Table 1. Chemical composition of the brass used in the cutting path of the experimental specimens.
Table 2. The SOD and TS levels.
Table 3. The values of the machining factors used in the cutting experiments of AWJ cutting; experiment/specimen number; the SOD of 0.5–15 mm (between the cutting nozzle and the surface); the traverse speed of 5–150 mm/min; the machining time in (min, s).
Table 4. The results of the KPW readings generated by cutting specimens through the operating parameter values used in the AWJ experiments from 1 to 32, in which the KW Points are labeled 1–9 ().
A water jet corporation machine was used in the experimental approach to machine 58 specimens of brass plates with dimensions of 150 × 100 × 0.8 mm. The experimental procedure used for the cutting of brass was using the Water Jet Corporation PM0227 SlaCAN Ring Run (Model: CLASSICA - CL 510), as explained in . The machine is capable of a net cutting area of 3400 mm along the X-axis, 1800 mm along the Y-axis and 200 mm along the Z-axis. This AWJM has a 3-axis cutting head and allows an inner table working area of 3675 mm x 2100 mm, with overall dimensions of 4500 mm x 2300 mm x 1800 mm, a speed of 0–30 mt/ min, a weight of 3000 kg, positioning accuracy of ± 0,075 mm, repeatability of ± 0,05 mm and a ball bar Ø 300 mm. The nozzle size has an internal diameter of 1.5 mm with a carbide surface. The amount of wear on the nozzle is monitored regularly throughout the experimental work.
Figure 1. Photograph of a water jet corporation machine.
The SOD and TS are the dominant parameters, widely considered the parameters that have been most focused on, and their working range and levels are given here (low, medium and high) as shown in .
In , all experimental specimens were organized into 12 groups composed of 58 specimens. The study used 11 SODs graded from the lowest to the highest (0.5–15 mm) and 13 TSs graded from the lowest to the highest (5–150 mm/min).
All studies were conducted in the laboratory of the Central Metallurgical Research and Development Institute (CMRDI), Ministry of Scientific Research, Egypt. The KPW of the specimens was measured using the profile projector zoom apparatus at all Points from 1 to 9, as shown in . The Ra of the cutting surface edge was tested and measured. A Ra measuring instrument (Surftest SJ-201, Mitutoyo) was used to check the cutting-edge Ra (Ra inspection) for specimens 1 – 58.
Figure 2. The cutting path design used for specimens with AWJ dimensions of 150 × 100 × 0.8 mm. The KW test Points are indicated as numbers 1–9.
The average readout score of 9 Points was recorded by measuring the width of the cutting kerf path to the surface using the projector zoom apparatus shown in . The readings were included in and . The roughness device tester is used to measure the height of the dross in a straight line and steps. shows an image of the device for using a Ra meter.
Figure 3. The magnifying device used to measure the KPW of the cut.
Figure 4. Illustrates the measurement device.
Table 5. The values of the KPW readings generated by cutting specimens using the operating parameters used in the AWJ experiments from 33 to 58, in which the KW Points are labeled 1 –9 ().
Table 6. illustrates the results of the readings of the surface roughness measurements at the edge of the cutting surface for Points 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the straight lines for all specimens from 1 to 58.
Results and discussion
Kerf width
The higher the SOD, the higher the KPW, and the lower the CQ at the maximum SOD of 15 mm will be. To improve cut quality, a lower SOD should be used to lower the KPW and the higher the CQ at the minimum SOD of 1 mm. It has been found that this article agrees with the results of the study done by Shanmugam et al. Citation2021).
Increasing TS decreases the KPW of the cutting path and introduces a high CQ. On the contrary, decreasing TS increased KPW and introduced low CQ. Meanwhile, using high TS with low SOD introduced higher CQ at specimen surfaces. In addition, the acute angles of the cutting path with higher TSs led to the widest KPW at a higher SOD. However, the KPW was less in the obtuse angle, square angle, curved line and curved line corresponding to an arc and straight line is smaller. KW is an important factor that influences the quality and performance of AWJ-cut surfaces (Umapathy and Bhavani, Citation2022).
and show the values of the readings of the cutting paths’ width measurements generated when cutting the specimens. The cut-off was performed for all specimens; the Points at which the measurements.
The cutting path types included straight lines, right angles, obtuse angles, acute angles, and the angle corresponding to the straight line with the arc in a single path, in addition to curved lines. Various SODs and TSs were used.
After finishing the specimen machining, the cut quality was assessed by taking readings of the cut KPW at the Points shown on the cut line for each specimen. CQ was monitored and investigated by measuring KPW at different Points of the cutting paths. Furthermore, the effect of SOD and TS on the KPW and Ra of all specimens is investigated.
The study took into account that the Points cover most of the areas where the cut design is exposed, starting from the straight line and the angles of all kinds, and the line corresponding to the arc and ending with the curved line. Each Point was given a number.
, , and show a comparison of Point 4 from the front side and an incomplete cut from the backside. The highest KPW was recorded at 6.76 mm at 15 mm at 150 mm/min. The same Point recorded the minimum KPW with a value of 1.706 mm (a smaller width value) at 1 mm at 90 mm/min. This had been reported previously. It has been found that this result was also proven at 1 mm (Shukla and Singh, Citation2017).
Figure 5. The KPW of (a1,a2) at 15 mm at 150 mm/min and (b1,b2) at 1 mm at 90 mm/min for Point 4.
, , and shows a comparison between the two SODs. The figure shows the front and back of the cutting KPW at 1 and 15 mm between the AWJ nozzle and the surface of the brass at 120 mm/min. This resulted in a maximum cutoff KW of 22.321 mm at Point 7, represented by the acute angle of 30°. As for using SOD of 1 mm and the same TS of 120 mm/min, this resulted in the width of the cutting path being at the minimum and recorded at a value of 4.439 mm, again at Point 7, which is represented by the same acute angle. The results show that the relationship between the KPW of the resulting cut and the SOD increases. Therefore, the higher the SOD used as a parameter in AWJ, the higher the cutting KPW, and consequently, the lower the CQ, and vice versa. The smaller the SOD, the lower the width of the cutting path and, therefore, the higher the CQ.
Figure 6. A comparison between the front and the back of the cutting path width of (c1, c2); (d1, d2) at 120 mm/min at 1 and 15 mm for Points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
At Point 3 in , represented by the right angle, the cutoff path width was lower for 15 and 1 mm, 9.033, and 2.222 mm, respectively. This also confirms Point 5 is represented by the right angle. We found that the values are very close to 9.699 and 2.298 mm. At Point 6, represented by the obtuse angle, the width of the cutoff path was 8.885 and 2.18 mm. At Point 2, represented by a straight line, the KPW was 6.971, as well as 1.728 mm and is considered the lowest cutoff width. Whereas at Point 8, represented by the straight line contrasting with the arc on the cut path, the values were 9.85 and 2.525 mm. At Point 9, represented by the middle of the semicircular line on the cutting path, the values were 7.777 and 1.852 mm. As for Point 1, represented by the starting point of the cut on the straight line of the cutting path, the values were 10.77 and 2.533 mm. The values obtained from the KPW measuring instrument can be reviewed in .
Also, shows a comparison between the front and the back of the cutoff path for SOD of 1 mm and a cutting TS of 5 mm/min and 150 mm/min, respectively. The experimental results for the width of the cutoff path at Point 7, represented by the acute angle, showed that the values were 6.428 and 4.636 mm. This is an addition to the rest of the results for the rest of the Points. The width of the cutting path increases at the lower TS, and consequently, the quality of the cut decreases. The path width decreases when using the maximum TS, and the cut quality increases in an inverse relationship ().
Figure 7. A comparison between the front and the back of the cutting path width of (e1, e2) and (f1, f2) at 1 mm at 5, 150 mm/min, respectively, for Point 7 and the rest of the Points.
The use of the SOD of 0.5 mm with a TS of 50 mm/min also produced a cut width at the minimum value of 4.761 mm at Point 7 on the cutting path. Thus, this affected the quality of the cut to the best width () compared to measurements of the same Point. As is well known, the quality of the process and machining depends on the surface of the cut and KW (Bhavani et al., Citation2018).
Figure 8. The front and back of the cutting path width of (g1,g2) at the minimum at 0.5 mm and 50 mm/min for Point 7.
show the graphs of the results of the cutoff width measurement readings for the cutting path design used for the SODs and TSs operated.
Figure 9. (a,b) KPW measurements at Points 1 –9 on the cutting path from 0.5, 1 mm, and 5 –150 mm/min for specimen numbers 1 –13: (a) 0.5 and 5, 10, 15, 20, and 50; (b) 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 60, 90, 120, and 150.
Surface roughness
To maintain a lower Ra, the SOD should be low, and this was clearly shown in Graph 11 (a and b) for the Points in Rows 1 and 7 in . Accordingly, the SOD was directly proportional to the roughness of the surface. The higher the SOD is, the higher the roughness and the lower the quality, and vice versa; the smaller the SOD is, the less roughness and higher the cutting SQ there will be. Ra is an important parameter that affects the quality and performance of AWJ-cut surfaces (Umapathy and Bhavani, Citation2022).
The relationship between TS and Ra is constant. The higher the TS, the higher the roughness of the surface and the lower the cutting SQ. The lower the TS, the lower the roughness of the surface and the higher the CQ. This was proven in other ductile materials. Previous research showed that Ra is one of the preferred parameters in quality studies of surfaces (Niranjan et al., Citation2018; Marichamy et al., Citation2019).
shows the four Points at which the reading of Ra measurements was examined on the part of the cutting path as a representative of the straight line of the test specimens. The measurement was perpendicular to the cutting edge.
Figure 10. The locations for measuring the Ra (Points 1, 2, 3 and 4) from 0.5 to 15 mm SOD and 5 to 150 mm/min TS on a straight part of the cutting path of the backside of the specimen.
show the values of reading the Ra measurements for the four Points on the cutting path of the straight line used to operate the specimens through the operating values used in the AWJM experiments. After finishing the sampling with the cutting, the measurement was done, and the roughness of the cutting surface measurements was taken at the Points indicated on the cutting path for each specimen. The readings for the four Points were recorded by the device shown in . The values of operators and roughness readings were included in , and the results of reading Ra measurements on the vertical axis and the TS used on the horizontal axis were represented at different SODs. This is illustrated by . The results of reading the Ra measurements were graphically represented for all specimens (graphs from 11a–f).
Figure 11. (a–f) Ra measurements at Points 1 –4 on the cutting path from 0.5 to 15 mm SOD and the TS from 5 to 150 mm/min on a straight line were measured as a representative for specimens numbers 1–58: (a) 0.5 mm, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 50 mm/min; (b) 1.5 mm, 5, 35, 70, 100, and 135 mm/min; (c) 2.5 mm, 5, 35, 70, 100, and 135 mm/min; (d) 3 mm, 5, 35, 70, 100, and 135 mm/min; (e) 4 mm, 5, 35, 70, 100, and 135 mm/min; (f) 5 mm, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 mm/min.
Reviewing the roughness measurements readings for Rows 31 and 17 in , the highest roughness readings were in Points 2 and 3; 13.5, 11.18 µm at 100 mm/min TS, 3 mm and 1.5 mm SOD (the graphs in ). We also found increased roughness with increasing SOD and constant TS at both Points. This was already explained in brass gears (Phokane et al., Citation2017).
Also, in Point 2 (Row 45 in ), the roughness reading was 12.34 µm at 20 mm/min at the same SOD of 5 mm. Despite the lower TS, the roughness was higher due to the large SOD (). Likewise, for Point 1 (Row 39 in ), the highest roughness reading was 12.8 µm at 35 mm/min due to the large SOD of 4 mm (the graphs in ). See reading roughness measurements for the Points (Rows 23 and 24); the effect of a large 2.5 mm SOD on Ra also appeared. Despite the use of low TSs of 5, 35 mm/min (Points 1 and 2 in Rows 24 and 23), the reading of roughness was higher at 10, 28, and 11 µm (the graphs in ). As for Points 2 and 3 (Rows 30 and 43 of ), the large SOD 3, 5 mm, in addition to the TS 70 and 5 mm/min, formed a factor together affecting the production of high Ra and the highest reading was 12.27 and 11.25 µm, respectively, due to the large SOD (the graphs in ).
In addition, by comparing the results of Ra measurements for Points (Row 43 in ), the highest roughness reading was 11.25 µm at 5 mm/min, and 5 mm with Point 1 (Row 1 in ) was the lowest reading for roughness measurements at 4.67 µm at the same TS of 5 mm/min and 0.5 mm SOD. We found reduced roughness at the lowest distance. Roughness in Point 1 at 20 mm/min and 0.5 mm (Row 5 in ) increased to 7.24 µm, despite the use of the same SOD compared to Point1 (Row 1 in ), but increasing the TS to 50 mm/min () resulted in higher roughness.
The roughness readings were high at 13.13 and 18.07 µm in Points 1 and 3 (Row 15 in ) at 1.5 mm and 35 mm/min ().
shows the graphs of the results of the Ra measurement readings for the cutting path design used for the SODs and TSs operated.
As for the Points (Rows 50 to 54 in ) at 10 mm, 150 mm/min, and 15 mm, 60, 90, 120 and 150 mm/min, there was no surface for measuring roughness due to the large SOD in an exaggerated manner, as the cut was incomplete in some parts. . shows the cutting path of the straight line of the specimens indicated in (h2), (i2), (j2), (k2), (l2), (m2), (n2), (o2), (p2), (q2) and (r2-w2), and for specimen (s1) from the front.
Figure 12. The cutout path back of the straight line of the specimens indicated by numbers (h2), (i2), (j2), (k2), (l2), (m2), (n2), (o2), (p2), (q2) and (r2-w2), and for the specimen (s1) from the front.
It has been confirmed that a high TS produces a higher Ra. This article agrees with the results of the study (Marichamy et al., Citation2019). By repeating the experiment on Points 1 and 4 using the same operator values, the highest roughness readings were 13.36, 9.27 and 8.15 µm at 150 mm/min and 1 mm (rows 56, 57 and 58, images d4, y2, and f4). For Point 1 (c4), , we found that the highest roughness reading was 9.28 µm at the highest TS of 150 mm/min and the highest SOD of 15 mm. This was also due to the large values of both the TS and the SOD. illustrates the back of the cutoff path of the straight line of the specimens referred to in x2, y2, o2, z2, a4, b4, c4, d4, e4 and f4.
Figure 13. The cutout path back of the straight line in specimens (x2), (y2), (o2), (z2), (a4), (b4), (c4), (d4), (e4) and (f4).
In Point 1, the highest Ra reading was 10.78 µm, at the highest TS of 150 mm/min and a SOD of 1 mm (Row 13, , Image y2). In Point 2, the highest roughness reading was 11.21 µm, at 90 mm/min and the same SOD of 1 mm (Row 11 , Image x2). In , we notice an increase in the Ra with increasing TS, with increasingly less distance between the two specimens.
Also, when comparing the results of reading roughness measurements with Points 1 and 2 at 150 and 90 mm/min at 1 mm (Row 13 and 11 , Images y2 and x2) with the results of reading roughness measurements for Points at 10 mm/min at 1 mm (Row 7 ) in the same graph 12(b), we found that the lowest reading of roughness measurements for Point 4 was 4.66 µm. This was a low reading of roughness at a TS of less than 10 mm/min using the same 1 mm SOD (Row 7 in ). This was due to the lower TS. Also, Point 4 had the highest roughness reading, 10.97 µm at 120 mm/min and 5 mm (Row 49 in , Image a4). When comparing that to Point 1, we found that the reading roughness was 3.46 µm, which was lower due to the low TS of 30 mm/min and the stability of the 5-mm SOD (, Row 46 in , Image z2).
Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the effects of varying the standoff distance and traverse speed on kerf width, surface roughness and cutting quality while machining 0.8 mm brass sheets using an abrasive water jet nozzle. The researchers tested a range of standoff distances from 0.5 to 15 mm and traverse speeds from 5 to 150 mm/min. The results indicated that lower standoff distances and traverse speeds produced narrower kerf widths and higher cutting quality. On the other hand, higher traverse speeds and surface roughness led to decreased cutting quality. The optimal combination was identified as a standoff distance of 1 mm at a traverse speed of 90 mm/min, achieving a minimum kerf width of 1.706 mm and the lowest surface roughness of 1.1 µm. Overall, the study concluded that maintaining lower standoff distances and traverse speeds can optimize the abrasive water jet cutting process. This would result in narrower kerfs, smoother surfaces and higher cutting quality. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into adjusting input parameters to enhance output responses for abrasive water jet machining of brass.
Author contributions
All authors participated in writing and reviewing, editing the manuscript, analyzing the data, obtaining resources, data curation and reviewing drafts of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional review board statement
Not applicable.
Informed consent statement
Not applicable.
| Nomenclature | ||
| AWJ | = | Abrasive water jet |
| AWJM | = | Abrasive water jet machining |
| SOD | = | Stand of distance |
| TS | = | Traverse speed |
| Ra | = | Surface roughness |
| KW | = | Kerf width |
| CQ | = | Cutting quality |
| CW | = | Cutting width |
| SQ | = | Surface quality |
| KPW | = | Kerf path width |
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the team of Al-Fanar Factory for Ceramic Tiles in Riyadh for their cooperation in conducting research experiments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
All the data supporting the results was provided within the article.
Additional information
Funding
References
- Akkurt, A. (2010) Cut front geometry characterization in cutting applications of brass with abrasive water jet. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 19(4): 599–606. doi:10.1007/s11665-009-9513-8
- Anu Kuttan, A.; Rajesh, R.; Dev Anand, M. (2021) Abrasive water jet machining techniques and parameters: a state of the art, open issue challenges, and research directions. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 43(4): 220. doi:10.1007/s40430-021-02898-6
- Aurich, J.C.; Kirsch, B.; Setti, D.; Axinte, D.; Beaucamp, A.; Butler-Smith, P.; Yamaguchi, H. (2019) Abrasive processes for micro parts and structures. CIRP Annals, 68(2): 653–676. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.006
- Babu, M.N.; Muthukrishnan, N. (2018) Exploration on kerf-angle and surface roughness in abrasive water jet machining using response surface method. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 99(6): 645–656. doi:10.1007/s40032-017-0366-x
- Balaji, K.; Siva Kumar, M.; Yuvaraj, N. (2021) Multi objective taguchi–grey relational analysis and krill herd algorithm approaches to investigate the parametric optimization in abrasive water jet drilling of stainless steel. Applied Soft Computing, 102: 107075. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.107075
- Bhavani, B.G.; Yoga, G.P.M.; Sundaram, M.; Ramasubramania, A.K.B.; Mariappan, S.K.; Sundarajan, L.R.; Rajagopalan, V. (2018) An experimental study on deep hole machining in brass using abrasive water jet machine. International Journal of Modern Manufacturing Technologies, X1: 27–36.
- Bhoi, N.K.; Singh, H.; Pratap, S. (2020) Strategies for controlling the accuracy and reliability of abrasive water jet machining. In Reliability and Risk Assessment in Engineering. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, V. Gupta, P. Varde, P. Kankar, N. Joshi (Eds.), Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-3746-2_13
- Dumbhare, A.P.; Dubey, S.; Deshpande, V.Y.; Andhare, A.B.; Barve, P.S. (2018) Modeling and multi-objective optimization of surface roughness and kerf taper angle in abrasive water jet machining of steel. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 40(5): 259. doi:10.1007/s40430-018-1186-5
- Fuse, K.; Chaudhari, R.; Vora, J.; Patel, V.K.; de Lacalle, L.N.L. (2021) Multi-response optimization of abrasive water jet machining of Ti6Al4V using integrated approach of utilized heat transfer search algorithm and RSM. Materials, 14(24): 7746. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/24/7746 doi:10.3390/ma14247746
- Gupta, K. (2020) On productivity of abrasive water jet machining for miniature gear manufacturing. Paper presented at the Institute of Physics Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
- Iyer, N.P.; Arunkumar, N. (2022) Investigation of abrasive water jet machining parameters of bismaleimide composites. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 37(14): 1642–1651. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/10426914.2022.2032145
- Joel, C.; Jeyapoovan, T.; Praneeth Kumar, P. (2021a) Experimentation and optimization of cutting parameters of abrasive jet cutting on AA6082 through response surface methodology. Materials Today: Proceedings, 44: 3564–3570. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.452
- Joel, C.; Joel, L.; Muthukumaran, S.; Matilda Shanthini, P. (2021b) Parametric optimization of abrasive water jet machining of C360 brass using MOTLBO. Materials Today: Proceedings, 37: 1905–1910. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.471
- Kartal, F.; Yerlikaya, Z.; Gökkaya, H. (2017) Effects of machining parameters on surface roughness and macro surface characteristics when the machining of Al-6082 T6 alloy using AWJT. Measurement, 95: 216–222. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2016.10.007
- Kumar Pal, V.; Choudhury, S.K. (2014) Fabrication and analysis of micro-pillars by abrasive water jet machining. Procedia Materials Science, 6: 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.008
- Kumar, R.S.; Gajendran, S.; Kesavan, R. (2018) Estimation of optimal process parameters for abrasive water jet machining of marble using multi response techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(5): 11208–11218. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.145
- Kumar, V.; Das, P.P.; Chakraborty, S. (2020) Grey-fuzzy method-based parametric analysis of abrasive water jet machining on GFRP composites. Sādhanā, 45(1): 106. doi:10.1007/s12046-020-01355-9
- Llanto, J.M.; Tolouei-Rad, M.; Vafadar, A.; Aamir, M. (2021) Recent progress trend on abrasive water jet cutting of metallic materials: A review. Applied Sciences, 11(8): 3344. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/8/3344 doi:10.3390/app11083344
- Madankar, A.; Dumbhare, P.; Deshpande, Y.V.; Andhare, A.B.; Barve, P.S. (2021) Estimation and control of surface quality and traverse speed in abrasive water jet machining of AISI 1030 steel using different work-piece thicknesses by RSM. Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 21(2): 518–525. doi:10.1080/14484846.2021.1876600
- Madhu, S.; Balasubramanian, M. (2018) Impact of nozzle design on surface roughness of abrasivejet machined glass fibre reinforced polymer composites. Silicon, 10(6): 2453–2462. doi:10.1007/s12633-018-9777-4
- Mahalingam, S.; Kuppusamy, B.; Natarajan, Y. (2021) Multi-objective soft computing approaches to evaluate the performance of abrasive water jet drilling parameters on die steel. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 46(8): 7893–7907. doi:10.1007/s13369-021-05591-x
- Marichamy, S.; Ravichandran, M.; Stalin, B.; Babu, S.B. (2019) Optimization of abrasive water jet machining parameters for α-β brass using taguchi methodology. FME Transactions, 47(1): 116–121. doi:10.5937/fmet1901116M
- Nader, A.J.; Saad, K.S. (2021) Influence of Abrasive Water Jet (AWJ) on surface roughness. International Journal of Engineering Materials and Manufacture, 6(3): 132–140. doi:10.26776/ijemm.06.03.2021.04
- Nair, A.; Kumanan, S. (2018) Optimization of size and form characteristics using multi-objective grey analysis in abrasive water jet drilling of inconel 617. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 40(3): 121. doi:10.1007/s40430-018-1042-7
- Natarajan, Y.; Murugesan, P.K.; Mohan, M.; Liyakath Ali Khan, S.A. (2020) Abrasive water jet machining process: a state of the art of review. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 49: 271–322. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2019.11.030
- Niranjan, C.A.; Srinivas, S.; Ramachandra, M. (2018) Effect of process parameters on depth of penetration and topography of AZ91 magnesium alloy in abrasive water jet cutting. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys, 6(4): 366–374. doi:10.1016/j.jma.2018.07.001
- Phokane, T.; Gupta, K.; Gupta, M.K. (2017) Investigations on surface roughness and tribology of miniature brass gears manufactured by abrasive water jet machining. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 232(22): 4193–4202. doi:10.1177/0954406217747913
- Prasad, K.S.; Chaitanya, G. (2017) A review on current research trends in abrasive water jet machining. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4: 3264–3270.
- Radovanovic, M. (2020) Multi-objective optimization of abrasive water jet cutting using MOGA. Procedia Manufacturing, 47: 781–787. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.241
- Schwartzentruber, J.; Spelt, J.K.; Papini, M. (2017) Prediction of surface roughness in abrasive water jet trimming of fiber reinforced polymer composites. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 122: 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.05.007
- Shanmugam, A.; Mohanraj, T.; Krishnamurthy, K.; Gur, A.K. (2021) Multi-response optimization on abrasive water jet machining of glass fiber reinforced plastics using taguchi method coupled with topsis. Surface Review and Letters, 28(12): 2150120. doi:10.1142/S0218625X21501201
- Shukla, R.; Singh, D. (2017) Experimentation Investigation of abrasive water jet machining parameters using taguchi and evolutionary optimization techniques. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 32: 167–183. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2016.07.002
- Srivastava, A.K.; Nag, A.; Dixit, A.R.; Scucka, J.; Hloch, S.; Klichová, D.; Hlaváček, P.; Tiwari, S. (2019) Hardness measurement of surfaces on hybrid metal matrix composite created by turning using an abrasive water jet and WED. Measurement, 131: 628–639. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2018.09.026
- Umapathy, V.; Bhavani, B.G. (2022) Pocket milling of AISI 1045 steel using abrasive water jet machining by varying contours. Revista de Chimie, 73(2): 62–74. doi:10.37358/RC.22.2.8520