Wear 254 (2003) 763773

A study on recycling of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty
Manufacturing Engineering Section, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India Received 4 October 2002; accepted 20 February 2003

Abstract This paper reports the effect of recycling of local garnet abrasives (origin: southern India) while cutting aluminium using abrasive water jet machining. The inuence of pressure, traverse rate, and abrasive ow rate on American Foundrymens Society grain neness number, average particle size, depth of cut, top kerf width, bottom kerf width, kerf taper, and surface nish obtained using a specially formulated optimised abrasive test sample have been studied. The performance of the test sample has been compared with that of commercial grade abrasive of mesh size 80. Recycling studies, undertaken with used abrasives after screening out particles less than 90 m size and also with all particles without screening are reported. It is found that the test sample performed better than mesh size 80 abrasives, in terms of achievable depth of cut and surface nish. Recycled abrasives reduces kerf taper, improving the parallelism of cut surface. These results indicate that the proper selection of abrasive particle size distribution is necessary for achieving improved results. The reusability percentage of test sample of the local abrasives that can be recycled is determined as 81%. 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Abrasive water jet machining; Abrasive particle size distribution; Recycling; Garnet abrasives

1. Introduction Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM), an emerging technology is experiencing continuous growth. Its industrial usage depends on cost effectiveness. In general, the overall cost of AWJM systems remains quite high compared to traditional machining techniques, despite the thrust by the industry to reduce the equipment cost and increase the system reliability. System operating costs have been held steady for many years at a high level [1]. The largest component of operating cost is that of abrasive, constituting nearly 75% of the total operating expenses. When abrasive disposal is included, this percentage can be even higher [1,2]. The cost of abrasives has restricted many opportunities and usage of this technology. This cost, however must be considered along with abrasive performance. Good abrasive performance is more important than the cost of abrasive, since any disadvantage in higher abrasive purchase cost can be outweighed by the higher cutting speed achieved with a better performing abrasive. Therefore cost of abrasive should be weighed against its performance and the most cost-effective abrasive should be selected [3]. The cutting efciency is inuenced by the particle size, particle size distribution, and shape of the abrasive particles.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-44-445-8508; fax: +91-44-235-2545. E-mail address: ovk@iitm.ac.in (O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty).

Abrasive particles disintegrate during the acceleration and focusing processes and also after cutting. During the cutting process, the breakdown of abrasive particles occurs in two stages: (1) particle/particle, particle/water jet and particle/wall collisions in the mixing chamber/focusing tube assembly; (2) particle/particle and particle target collisions [4]. With proper cleaning and sorting, an important portion of sludge may be recycled and fed back to the cutting process. Only the remaining portion, the microchips of the workpiece material and the used abrasive material of ner size particles usually less than 90 m are disposed [5]. Recycling of the abrasives makes the process more economical, effective and environmentally friendly. Realising the importance of recycling, fully automated systems for abrasive recycling have been recently introduced into the market. Natural abrasives are often mined from riverbeds or sand deposits. Impurities are removed to improve the performance of cutting. The abrasives are subsequently sized. This multistep process uses metal screen sieves to remove very ne and oversized particles [3]. Among the abrasives, the industries frequently use garnet, as it demonstrated effectiveness of its hardness, sharp edges, owability, availability, and reasonable cost [6]. Comparison of garnet, silica and steel grit indicated improved performance of garnet [6,7]. However, different types of garnet, even when chemically and physically similar, perform quite differently [8].

0043-1648/03/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00256-4

764

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

Literature indicates that only limited attempts were made to study the inuence of particle size distribution parameters in AWJM. For the rst time Momber and Kovacevic [9] studied the inuence of two different particle size distribution parameters; size modulus of 150400 m and a distribution modulus of 14, while machining of aluminium. The distribution parameters are derived from a RosinRammlerSperling grain size distribution. The inuence of these parameters on the depth of cut is not signicant in the selected parameter range, whereas surface nish in the smooth cutting zone is sensitive to changes in both of the particle size distribution parameters. In our ongoing research, garnet abrasives obtained from southern India are being tested for utility. Preliminary research on AWJM with these abrasives [1012] has concentrated on depth of cut, top and bottom kerf width, kerf taper, surface nish, and fragmentation of abrasive particles measured by American Foundrymens Society grain neness number (AFS no.) as well as average particle sizes (a.p.s.) proposed by Guo et al. [2]. Since commercial grades of mesh sizes supplied by various vendors vary in their particle size distribution [4,13], a specially formulated test sample with ve equally distributed particle sizes rather than single or three equally distributed sizes is recommended for use based on optimisation studies [12]. The present work attempts to study the recycling capabilities and reusability of local abrasive particles with different particle size distribution. Specially formulated optimised abrasive test sample of ve equally distributed particle sizes was compared with abrasive particles of commercial grade mesh size 80 having AFS no. and a.p.s., similar to test sample. Recycling studies are undertaken with used abrasives after screening out particles less than 90 m and also with all particles without screening. The target parameters considered are depth of cut (d), top kerf width (KWT ), bottom kerf width (KWB ), kerf taper (KT ), surface nish (Ra ) (Figs. 1 and 2), and the fragmen-

tation of abrasives during various stages of recycling studied using AFS no. and a.p.s. The AFS no. is dened as the sum of product (consists of weight of abrasive particles retained in each sieve in percentage multiplied by previous sieve mesh number) divided by the total percentage of abrasives retained in the set of sieves and the pan. The a.p.s. is calculated based on momentum method; dened as the sum of product (consists of particles retained on each sieve in percentage is multiplied with average mesh size of the sieve) divided by the total percentage of abrasives retained in the set of sieves and the pan.

2. Experimental set-up and procedure An injection jet type abrasive water jet machine consisting of pressure intensier, an abrasive machining head, an xy positioning system and a catcher tank has been used for experimentation. The equipment details are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Details of the equipment Item AWJM system Power Maximum discharge pressure Abrasive feeding system CNC work table British standard sieves, mesh number Surface nish measuring equipment Kerf width measurement Scanning electron microscope Description Pressure intensier, injection type nozzle 22 kW, 50 Hz 360 MPa Vibratory conveyor with heating facility Two-axis control (X = 1000, Y = 1000) 30, 36, 44, 52, 60, 72, 80, 100, 120 Perthometer, cutoff length: 0.8 mm, traverse length: 4.8 mm Optical microscope, 0.5 m accuracy JEOL JSM-5300

Fig. 1. Schematic of workpiece.

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

765

Fig. 2. A typical cut surface.

Table 2 Constant process parameters Parameter Abrasive material Abrasive particle shape Primary nozzle diameter (mm) Secondary nozzle diameter (mm) Secondary nozzle length (mm) Standoff distance (mm) Jet impact angle ( ) Workpiece material Pressure (MPa) Traverse rate (mm/min) Abrasive ow rate (g/s) Description Garnet (origin: southern India) Angular (random) 0.25, sapphire 0.8, carbide 70 3 90 Aluminium 6063 T6 225 50 1.5

In this type the jet is formed by accelerating abrasive particles through contact with a high velocity water jet. The water jet is formed in an orice on top of the head, while the abrasives enter the head through a separate entry. The mixing of abrasives, water jet, and air take place in a mixing chamber, and the acceleration process occurs in an acceleration tube. The particles leave the nozzle at velocities of several hundred meters per second. A large number of abrasive particles impinge on target and cut the material [6]. The process parameters kept constant are shown in Table 2. The details of abrasive test sample containing particles of
Table 3 Details of abrasive samples Abrasive sample

ve different mesh sizes and the commercial grade abrasive of mesh size 80 are shown in Table 3. A trapezoidal workpiece has been cut and the depth of machining (d = AB sin 25 ) is determined as shown in Fig. 1. Each combination of parameters can achieve certain depth of cut, indicated to the operator by splashing of jet. The length of cut over the test runs is therefore, a variable (in this work it depends on the conditions of the abrasives; fresh abrasives are expected to cut longer than recycled abrasives). The top and bottom kerf widths (width of the cuts) are measured at three locations on the cut length, viz, at the start of cut, middle and at the end of cut and then averaged (Figs. 1 and 2). The kerf taper (ratio of top kerf width to bottom kerf width) is computed. In an AWJM cut surface, the upper section consists of smooth cutting zone (SCZ) characterised by roughness, while the lower section consists of rough cutting zone (RCZ) characterised by waviness (Fig. 2). Therefore in this experimentation work, the middle region is selected for measurement and comparison of surface nish. Three measurement of surface nish (Ra ) in the direction of cut are made and averaged. To study the disintegration behaviour of abrasives (through AFS no. and a.p.s.), abrasive particles have been collected at the exit of the focusing nozzle, and also after cutting. Collection is done through a special catcher,

Percentage of abrasive mesh designation (particle size, mm) #44 #52 #60 #72 #80 #100 #120 (0.3550.400) (0.3150.355) (0.2500.315) (0.2000.250) (0.1800.200) (0.1600.180) (0.1250.160)

AFS no.

Average particle size (mm) 0.282 0.281

Test sample Mesh size 80

20 8.3

20 29.1

20 36

20 1.1

20 23.7

1.4

0.4

52.8 53.8

766

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

consisting of a cylindrical drum with a screening cloth. The collected abrasives are cleaned (aluminium debris is dissolved by adding 20% NaOH solution), dried and then sieved. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) is used to study the changes in particle size and shape of abrasives at nozzle exit and after cutting aluminium material with all particles during various stages of recycling. Automated recycling equipment, screen out particles less than 90 m. Researchers [2,1315] have preferred elimination of ner particles less than 90 m for improved cutting performance and repeated use. Therefore the present works deals with recycling studies with particles more than 90 m size. In order to understand the behaviour of recycled local abrasives in the presence of ner particles, studies are also undertaken with all particles including particles less than 90 m size (without screening) for possible reduction in recycling costs.

3. Experimental results and discussion The following subsections detail the results of recycling studies with particles more than 90 m size and also with all particles. 3.1. Recycling of abrasive particles with size more than 90 m 3.1.1. AFS no./average particle size Table 4 as well as Figs. 3 and 4 indicate the inuence of recycling on the AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80. The AFS no. and a.p.s. for fresh abrasives and for recycled ones at nozzle entry, nozzle exit, and after cutting are shown in Table 4 and Figs. 3 and 4. Table 5 indicate the details of particle size distribution of the abrasives at various stages. It can be observed that the AFS no. increases with recycling, both with the test sample and mesh size 80. The complex process of mixing within the mixing chamber and focusing nozzle results in an increase in AFS no. (reduction in the a.p.s.) at the nozzle exit. It can also be observed from Tables 4 and 5 that tremendous disintegration occurs with the fresh abrasives in the mixing chamber and focusing nozzle, as compared to recycled abrasives. This is to be expected, since fresh abrasives has particles of larger

Fig. 3. Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

size. During the cutting process further disintegration takes place and the AFS no. is further increased (a.p.s. further reduces). Guo et al. [2] observed that larger particles disintegrate more than smaller particles. The increase in AFS no. (reduction in the a.p.s.) is found to be more with test sample as compared to mesh size 80. It is because the test sample abrasives contains more number of larger particles and therefore higher fragmentation due to inter particle collisions and also with abrasive/water jet and as well with abrasive/target collisions. The same phenomenon has been observed with the recycled particles at every cycle. With the test sample (Fig. 3a and b) it is found that the increase in AFS no. of recycled particles before and after cutting is marginal, while with mesh size 80 this increase is signicant. This may be attributed to the particle size

Table 4 Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80 with particles more than 90 m Fresh abrasives Test sample AFS no. Nozzle entry 53 Nozzle exit 94 After cutting 105 a.p.s. (mm) 0.282 0.192 0.174 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 54 87 100 a.p.s. (mm) 0.281 0.195 0.186 Recycle-I Test sample AFS no. 65 111 113 a.p.s. (mm) 0.200 0.170 0.169 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 63 101 103 a.p.s. (mm) 0.200 0.171 0.165 Recycle-II Test sample AFS no. 66 114 114 a.p.s. (mm) 0.171 0.168 0.167 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 65 105 109 a.p.s. (mm) 0.192 0.162 0.161 Recycle-III Test sample AFS no. 71 115 115 a.p.s. (mm) 0.168 0.161 0.157 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 70 114 117 a.p.s. (mm) 0.176 0.160 0.153

Table 5 Distribution of all particle sizes of test sample and mesh size 80 at various stages AFS no. #100 (0.1600.180) 20.4 17.6 17.4 17.3 1.4 13.1 16.9 20.4 17.2 0.4 11.5 16 17.9 27.5 8.6 11.6 11.8 14.3 5 7.5 8.1 7.1 11.8 13.7 13.3 12.7 14 19 18.3 21.7 11.9 14.4 14.3 17.3 10 9.4 11.5 12.5 9.4 16.7 14.1 10.2 52.8 104.8 120.9 122.6 124.9 53.8 99.5 110.7 112.8 115 #120 (0.1250.160) #170 (0.090.160) #240 (0.0630.09) Pan Average particle size (mm)

Abrasive sample #60 (0.2500.315) 20 11.3 5.7 5.5 2.4 36 13.8 7.3 3.2 3.4 1.1 24 19.2 17.6 10.1 23.7 10.4 7.2 7.4 7.6 20 10.9 10.3 1.3 9.5 20 7.4 5.3 16.4 9.2 #72 (0.2000.250) #80 (0.1800.200)

Percentage of abrasive retained on mesh designation (particle size, mm)

#44 (0.3550.400)

#52 (0.3150.355)

Test sample Fresh abrasives After I cut Recycle-I Recycle-II Recycle-III

20 1.5 0.9 0.7 0

20 3.2 0.7 0.5 0

0.282 0.174 0.157 0.152 0.147 0.281 0.186 0.167 0.160 0.153

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

Mesh size 80 Fresh abrasives After I cut Recycle-I Recycle-II Recycle-III

8.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

29.1 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.2

Fig. 4. Effect of recycling of abrasives on a.p.s. of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

3.1.2. Depth of cut Fig. 5 indicates the effect on the depth of cut for both of test sample and mesh size 80. Abrasive particles disintegrate

Fig. 5. Effect of recycling of abrasives on depth of cut of test sample and mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

distribution and presence of larger size particles in the test sample. This is also inuenced by the removal of ner size particles. The results of the AFS nos. and the a.p.s. (Table 4) indicated that the test sample has superior recycling capacity than mesh size 80, when the particles less than 90 m are removed. This further increases recycling capabilities of the abrasives.

767

768

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

during cutting. Recycling leads to further disintegration. The role of ner abrasives in reduction of cutting is well established [2]. Hence recycling leads to decreased depth of cut. With the test sample the percentage reduction in depth of cut with rst recycling as compared to fresh abrasives is found to be 18% and with mesh size 80 it is found to be 22%. With test sample, reduction in depth of cut due to further recycling is found to be from 0.5 to 3%, while with mesh size 80 it is 34%. The performance of the test sample (Fig. 5) indicates that an increase of 1220% in depth of cut can be achieved with the test sample as compared to mesh size 80. This indicates superior performance of test sample and may be attributed to the presence of larger size particles in the fresh sample (Tables 4 and 5). Thus particle size distribution plays a key role in improving the cutting efciency. 3.1.3. Kerf width and kerf taper Average of three measurements of kerf parameters (Figs. 1 and 2) have been recorded. Fig. 6a indicates the inuence of recycling of test sample on top kerf width, bottom kerf width, and kerf taper. After the rst recycling, the kerf parameters have reduced considerably. This can be attributed to the availability of larger particles with the fresh abrasives. On further recycling, it is found that there is a considerable reduction in top kerf width as compared to bottom kerf width. The decrease in kerf widths (top and bottom) is due to

Fig. 7. Effect of recycling of abrasives on surface nish of test sample and mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

increase in the AFS no. (decreased a.p.s.) and hence reduced capability to cut. The reduction in kerf taper is also observed with further recycling. Reductions in kerf taper obtained with recycled abrasives are advantageous in machining since parallelism of a cut surface increases, leading to quality cuts. Fig. 6b indicates the inuence of recycling of mesh size 80 on kerf parameters. Though observations similar to test sample have been made (both with the top and bottom kerf width), the kerf widths decreases cycle after cycle, the top kerf width indicates lower values for mesh size 80 than for the test sample. This is due to smaller size abrasives present in the mesh size 80. However the bottom kerf width and the kerf taper for mesh size 80 are more than those obtained with the test sample. This supports the fact that particle size distribution inuences these parameters. 3.1.4. Surface nish The surface nish (Ra ) at the middle section of the workpiece is measured by Perthometer at three places in the direction of cut and the average is recorded (Fig. 2). Fig. 7 shows the inuences of recycling on surface nish, Ra , obtained with the test sample and with mesh size 80. The superior performance of test sample results in increased surface nish with recycling when compared to mesh size 80 in every cycle. The improvement in surface nish is attributed to increase in AFS no. of abrasive particles (reduction in a.p.s.) (Tables 4 and 5). Though the AFS no. of mesh size 80 also increases with recycling, it is less than that for the test sample (Tables 4 and 5), hence the surface nish is inferior to that of the test sample. Therefore, the particle size distributions seem to play a role in controlling the surface nish. 3.2. Recycling studies with all particles The following subsections detail the results of recycling studies with all particles up to three cycles. The abrasives could be reused three times, and could not be continued due to erratic and discontinuous cutting. Due to disintegration of abrasives with reuse, the abrasive particles become ner and ner, and as a result blockage of the ow channel was noticed

Fig. 6. Effect of recycling of abrasives on kerf parameters of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

769

Fig. 8. Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with all particles.

Fig. 9. Effect of recycling of abrasives on a.p.s. of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with all particles.

and the cutting has been erratic. Hence further recycling has been discontinued. 3.2.1. AFS no./average particle size Table 6 as well as Figs. 8 and 9 indicate the details of AFS nos. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80. The AFS no. and a.p.s. for fresh abrasives and for recycled ones at nozzle entry, nozzle exit, and after cutting are shown in Table 6, and Figs. 8 and 9. Table 5 indicate the details of particle size distribution of the abrasives of test sample and mesh size 80 at various stages of recycling (with fresh abrasive, after I cut, recycle-I, recycle-II and recycle-III). These results indicate that the increase in AFS no. (reduction in a.p.s.) in every stages of recycling. The increase in AFS no. resulted in very ne particles and blocked the ow channel.

Fig. 10 shows the SEM photographs of abrasive test sample and mesh size 80 at nozzle entry, nozzle exit and after cutting. It can be generally observed that the larger particles when fractured are likely to yield sharp edged products. Finer particles that are unable to fracture have rounded edges in the process of machining. These photographs are typical of the process and indicate process complexity. 3.2.2. Depth of cut Fig. 11 shows the effect of recycling, wherein with repeated abrasive use (both with the test sample as well as mesh size 80) the depth of cut reduces. Abrasive particles disintegrate (leading to increase in AFS no.) during mixing and cutting processes. With the test sample, the percentage reduction in depth of cut with rst recycling is found to be 22% and with mesh size 80, it is 26%. The reduction in

Table 6 Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80 with all particles Fresh abrasives Test sample AFS no. Nozzle entry 53 Nozzle exit 94 After cutting 105 a.p.s. (mm) 0.282 0.192 0.174 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 54 87 100 a.p.s. (mm) 0.281 0.195 0.186 Recycle-I Test sample AFS no. 105 109 121 a.p.s. (mm) 0.174 0.158 0.157 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 100 106 111 a.p.s. (mm) 0.186 0.174 0.167 Recycle-II Test sample AFS no. 121 122 123 a.p.s. (mm) 0.157 0.155 0.152 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 111 112 113 a.p.s. (mm) 0.167 0.166 0.160 Recycle-III Test sample AFS no. 123 124 125 a.p.s. (mm) 0.152 0.150 0.147 Mesh size 80 AFS no. 113 114 115 a.p.s. (mm) 0.160 0.159 0.153

770

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

Fig. 10. SEM photographs.

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

771

Fig. 10. (Continued ).

depth of cut due to further recycling is found to range from 3.9 to 5.5% with test sample, while in the case of mesh size 80 it is 33.9%. Fig. 11 indicates that an increase of 1216% in depth of cut is achieved with the test sample as compared to mesh size 80. This indicates superior performance of test sample and may be attributed to the presence of larger size particles in it. However the depth of cut achieved with removal of ner particles (less than 90 m) is marginally higher (Fig. 5) than that of all particles.

Fig. 11. Effect of recycling of abrasives on depth of cut of test sample and mesh size 80 with all particles.

3.2.3. Kerf width and kerf taper Average of three measurements of kerf parameters have been recorded. Fig. 12a indicates the inuence of recycling on top kerf width, bottom kerf width, and kerf taper achieved with the test sample. It can be observed that the top kerf width as well as bottom kerf width achieved with recycled abrasives is lower than those with fresh abrasives. This is due to the increase in the AFS no. of recycled abrasives as compared to fresh abrasives. Similar behaviour is also observed in the recycling studies with particles more than 90 m. However the results obtained with all particles (Fig. 12a), indicate lower values than that of recycling of abrasives having particles, more than 90 m particles (Fig. 6a). It may also be observed that the continuous recycling of the test sample results in decrease of top kerf width, bottom kerf width, while kerf taper decreases and then increases. Fig. 12b indicates the inuence of recycling on kerf parameters achieved with mesh size 80. Though observations similar to test sample are made with regard to the top and bottom kerf width, the top kerf width is found to be smaller than that with the test sample. This is due to the presence of larger sized particles in the test sample. However the bottom kerf width is larger than that of the test sample. The kerf taper is found to increase initially and then decrease. The jet instability at the bottom cut surface is responsible for an

772

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

test sample has resulted in decreased surface nish with rst and second recycling and remains unaltered with third recycling. The reduction in nish can be attributed to increase in the AFS no. of ner particles of abrasives. It is also observed that the performance of mesh size 80 is more uctuating than the test sample. The mesh size 80 is found to yield higher surface nish with fresh abrasives as well as recycled abrasives. Though the AFS no. of mesh size 80 also increases with recycling (Tables 4 and 5), the surface nish is found to uctuate widely. Hence the particle size distribution seems to play a role in controlling the surface nish. This indicates a superior performance of the test sample as compared to mesh size 80.

4. Reuse of abrasives Tests have been carried out to estimate the amount of reuse of local abrasives of test sample and mesh size 80, when the limit for the reusable size is 90 m. Fig. 14a shows the recycling capacity of test sample after every use. It indicates that 81% of abrasives can be reused after the rst cut, 49% after the second cut, 26% after the third cut, and 15% after the fourth cut. This result indicates that test sample of local abrasives is found to be having superior recycling capacity than the 60% reported by Guo et al. [2]. Fig. 14b shows the

Fig. 12. Effect of recycling of abrasives on kerf parameters of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with all particles.

increase in bottom kerf width and could inuence the kerf taper. The variations observed in kerf taper conrm the jet uctuations and may be attributed to the particle size distribution. It is because the nal penetration process controlled by erosion wear at larger angles of attack is associated with an upward deection of the jet, increasing the local rate of change of momentum [6]. 3.2.4. Surface nish Fig. 13 indicates the inuence of recycling on surface nish (Ra ), both with the test sample and mesh size 80. The

Fig. 13. Effect of recycling of abrasives on surface nish of test sample and mesh size 80 with all particles.

Fig. 14. Recycling capacity of local garnet abrasives with (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 m particles.

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763773

773

recycling capacity of mesh size 80. It indicates that 83% of local abrasives can be reused after the rst cut, 55% after the second cut, and 31% after the third cut, 13% after the fourth cut.

for the equipment. They also acknowledge the nancial assistance for research interactions with German counterparts under the DST-DAAD project based personnel exchange program 1999. References
[1] P.J. Singh, Relative performance of abrasives in abrasive waterjet cutting, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, Rouen, France, 1994, pp. 521541. [2] N.S. Guo, H. Louis, G. Meier, J. Ohlsen, Recycling capacity of abrasives in abrasive waterjet cutting, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, Amsterdam, Scotland, 1992, pp. 503523. [3] J.L. Ohman, Abrasives: their characteristics and effect on waterjet cutting, in: Proceedings of the Seventh American Waterjet Conference, WJTA, Seattle, WA, 1993, pp. 363374. [4] T.J. Labus, K.F. Neusen, D.G. Alberts, T.J. Gores, Factors inuencing the particle size distribution in an abrasive waterjet, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 113 (1991) 402411. [5] M. Knapp, J. Ohlsen, Recycling of abrasive material in waterjet cutting, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, Rouen, France, 1994, pp. 511519. [6] M. Hashish, A modelling study of metal cutting with abrasive waterjets, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 106 (1984) 88106. [7] K. Matsumoto, H. Arasawa, S. Yamaguchi, A study of the effect of abrasive material on cutting with abrasive waterjet, in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, Sendai, Japan, 1988, pp. 225269. [8] J. Vasek, P. Martinec, J. Foldyna, L. Hlavac, Inuence of properties of garnet on cutting process, in: Proceedings of the Seventh American Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Seattle, WA, 1993, pp. 375387. [9] A.W. Momber, R. Kovacevic, Particle size distribution inuence in high speed erosion of aluminium, Particle Sci. Technol. 18 (2000) 199212. [10] O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, N. Ramesh Babu, Some investigations on abrasives in abrasive waterjet machining, in: Proceedings of the 10th American Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Houston, USA, 1999, pp. 419430. [11] M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, Studies on the use of local abrasives in abrasive waterjet machining of aluminium, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on CAD/CAD, Robotics and Factories of the Future, Trinidad, West Indies, 2001. [12] O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, M. Kantha Babu, Abrasive waterjet machining of aluminium with local abrasives, in: Proceedings of the 11th American Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Minneapolis, USA, 2001, pp. 325341. [13] R. Kovacevic, Surface texture in abrasive waterjet, J. Manuf. Syst. 10 (1991) 3240. [14] N.S. Guo, H. Louis, G. Meier, J. Ohlsen, Modelling of abrasive particles disintegration in the abrasive waterjet cutting in relation to the recycling capacity, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, France, Rouen, 1994, pp. 567585. [15] A.W. Momber, R. Kovacevic, Principles of Abrasive Waterjet Machining, Springer, London, 1998, 224 pp.

5. Summary and conclusions This paper reports the ndings of research on recycling of garnet abrasives available in southern India. Tests conducted on aluminium using optimised abrasive test sample, indicate improved performance of the abrasives compared to commercial abrasive with mesh size 80. The results are summarised as follows: Particle size distribution, if controlled will yield improved performance of fresh as well as recycled abrasives. The test sample showed advantages in cutting as well as recycling. These are analysed using studies on AFS no. and a.p.s. along with SEM photographs. Fragmentation is more pronounced in the mixing chamber and focussing nozzle than after cutting and it is higher with fresh abrasives than recycled abrasives. Recycling if continued beyond three cycles, discontinuous cutting will result due to blockage of the ow channel with ner abrasive particles. Depth of cut is higher by 1220% with test sample with particles more than 90 m than mesh size 80. Test sample with particles greater than 90 m performs better compared to when all particles are used. Also it performs better compared to mesh size 80. Improved surface nish is obtained with test sample than mesh size 80. However the surface nish decreases when particles less than 90 m are removed (both with test sample as well as mesh size 80) compared to all particles. Recycled abrasives cause reduction in kerf taper. It is advantageous in machining because of the improvement in parallelism of cut surfaces. The reusability of abrasives of test sample with more than 90 m will be 81, 49, 26 and 15% after the rst, second, third, and fourth cut, respectively.

Acknowledgements The authors express their sincere thanks to Science and Engineering Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, for the nancial support