lot. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.471-479, 1989. 0890--6955/8953.00 + .

00
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press plc

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PARAMETERS IN ABRASIVE

JET MACHINING
V. C. VENKATESrt*t, T. N. GoIJ*, K. H. WON6* and M. J. LIM*
(Received 12 January 1988)

Abstract--Abrasive jet machining (AJM) is a process that removes material by directing a high velocity
stream of abrasive particles onto a workpiece. This paper reports a study of the results of machining under
various conditions. A commercial AJM machine was used, with nozzles of diameter ranging from 0.45 to
0.65 mm, the nozzle materials being either tungsten carbide or sapphire, both of which have high tool lives.
Silicon carbide and aluminium oxide were the two abrasives used. Other parameters studied were nozzle tip
distances (5-10 mm), spray angles (60° and 90°) and pressures (5 and 7 bars). The materials machined were
glass, ceramics, and electro-discharge machined (EDM) die steel. Material removal rate and the machined
cavity dimensions were measured. The blind holes that were drilled were found to be not circular and
cylindrical but almost elliptical and bell mouthed. High material removal rate conditions did not necessarily
yield small narrow clean-cut machined areas, a desirable factor for AJM applications. Empirical evaluation
was carried out to characterize quantitatively the effects of various machining conditions. During the course
of these investigations a red hot region was found to form under certain conditions and accompanied by high
material removal; a metallurgical study of this red hot zone and its relation to optimum AJM machining
conditions are presented.

NOMENCLATURE

AJM abrasive jet machining

EDM electro-discharge machining
HAZ head affected zone
MRR material removal rate
NTD nozzle tip distance
R2 coefficient of multiple determination
USM ultrasonic machining

INTRODUCTION

ABRASIVE jet machining (AJM) is an impact machining process that removes material
by directing a high-velocity stream of abrasive particles onto a workpiece (Fig. 1). The
process differs from sand blasting in three basic ways: (i) the main purpose of sand
blasting is to clean workpiece surfaces, whereas AJM is used to cut materials; (ii) the
abrasive particle size used in sand blasting is larger than that of the abrasive powder
used in AJM and (iii) closer control of the high speed stream of particles is possible
with AJM. The work material must also have the property of impact brittleness [1].
An excellent review of past work on erosion of surfaces by solid particles entrained
in a fluid stream has been made by Verma and Lal [2]. Practical applications of the
process have also been published [1, 3-8]. The process however has not attracted the
same attention of researchers as EDM for example. It is possible that with more
research efforts, AJM could become a more powerful tool than it is recognized as
today.

FEATURES OF A J M

One process that is similar to AJM is ultrasonic machining (USM), which makes use
of the principle of impact and an abrasive cutting material. Both processes can drill
holes in glass, but there are also marked dissimilarities between them, leading to

*Faculty o f Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 0511.

tPresent address: Tennessee Technological University, Center for Manufacturing Research and Technology
Utilization, Cookeville, TN 38505, U.S.A.

mM 2g:4-A 471
472 V . C . VENKATESHet al.

~
High velocity air and
abrasive particles

Abrasive and
work particles ' Nozzle t i p
swept out
together
%
oO ° I~° Nozzle tip distance
Abrasive NTD
action

I
f I
Fl6. 1. Principle of abrasive jet machining.

different economics and applications. USM is a faster process (higher material removal
rate), generates heat, produces higher cutting forces and is more expensive. AJM is a
slower process, is much cooler due to the expanding air, forces are lower and the
process is much cheaper. Replacement of the tool in USM is a lengthy process , the new
tool having to be brazed onto the shank; in AJM the nozzle is simply screwed on.
Hence identical machining parameters cannot be used for both processes for purposes
of comparison [9]. For USM, the rate of wear has been considered a major parameter;
for AJM it is the material removal rate. Typical applications of AJM are for deburring
(surgical needles, hydraulic valves, biomedical plastic components, delicate
beryllium-copper electronic springs), for shallow machining (resistor path in insulators,
intricate patterns on silicon semiconductors) and for etching (registration numbers
on motor-car toughened-glass windows). Typical applications of USM are drilling of
intricately profiled holes in glass, engraving of carbide dies, manufacture of carbide
dies and cutting of crystals.

PREVIOUS WORK

Earlier investigations by Venkatesh [9, 10] were carried out on a laboratory-built

machine with fairly large nozzle diameters (2.5-3.5 mm), the nozzle material being
made of brass. This permitted large material removal rates (6-12 rag/rain) and also fast
wear of the nozzle and mixing chamber. Under these conditions it was found that the
material removal rate increased and then decreased for a range of values for abrasive
grit size, spray angle and nozzle tip distance, but this was not so for pressure and
feedrate. Very rapid wear occurred not only in the nozzle but also in the nozzle holder.
As such a rapid study could not be used to examine the process under realistic
conditions, a more detailed investigation was conducted through more systematic exper-
imentation.
EXPERIMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Equipment and materials

In the present study, a commercial abrasive jet machine manufactured by S. S. White
was utilized (Fig. 2). Fine nozzles of 0.46 and 0.65 mm diameter of tungsten carbide
or sapphire were used. The abrasives used were finer, the nozzle tip distance (NTD)
smaller, and the material removal rate lower than in previous tests [11]. The materials
machined were glass, ceramic (Hertel AC5 oxide, A1203ceramic inserts) and EDM die
material (ASSAB XW-5 cold worked steel). Both aluminium oxide and silicon carbide
abrasives were employed. The parameters investigated are shown in Table 1.
 Abrasive Jet Machining 473

(a)

Manual bleed valve

(b) x~
rT~Pressure relief valve ] " To-~suitable
I T S , ~- ~ ] vacuum system

L__.J Check I I ] l
~ valves I I I I Pinch valve
Air I I I I l _ r ~ [ t J I ~ ~<-"::-~-
suppl~" . ~ ] k.._) V V - - I I ~] Handpiece " 2 "
l~ir solenoid I'-I I /Main pressure Vibrator ~ -[3-to a suitable
valve II / regulator mixing chamber T v a c u u m system

I O' /
Pinch valve
pressure r e g u l a t o r

FI~. 2. (a) A commercial abrasive jet machine (S. S. White) was used in the present study. It comprises a
powder chamber with flow and pressure control, a work chamber, an exhaust chamber and a dust collector.
(b) A schematic diagram of the abrasive jet machine.

TABLE 1. MACHINING PARAMETERS AND THEIR VARIATIONS

Level

Notation Parameter (-) (+)

x, Nozzle tip distance 5 mm 10 mm

x2 Spray angle 60° 90°
x~ Pressure 5 bar 7 bar
x4 Abrasive material Silicon carbide Aluminium oxide
x~ Nozzle material Tungsten carbide Sapphire
x,, Nozzle size (internal diameter) 0.46 mm 0.65 mm

Wear takes place not only at the nozzle but also in the nozzle holder. During a 40
min run, the sapphire nozzle was hardly worn but the wear on the tungsten carbide
nozzle was significant, as shown in Fig. 3. The brass nozzle holder was also badly worn.
A new nozzle holder and a new nozzle are shown alongside the worn nozzle holder
and the worn nozzle for purposes of comparison (Fig. 3).

Machining parameters and their variations

To obtain a high efficiency in AJM, it is desirable to have a quantitative understanding
of the relationship between the various operating parameters and machining results.
474 V. C. VENKATESHet al.

(a)

(b)

FIG. 3. (a) New and worn tungsten carbide nozzles and nozzle holders. (b) Wear on a tungsten carbide
nozzle.

Suitable empirical models can be used for purposes of process description, prediction
and control. In view of the complex mechanisms involved, such models have to be
obtained through empirical studies and statistical analysis.
Based on considerations of the physical process, the parameters identified to have a
posssible influence on the machining results are nozzle tip distance, spray angle,
pressure, abrasive material, nozzle material and nozzle size. The variables used in this
study are summarized in Table 1.

Data measurements
Unlike ultrasonic machining, AJM does not produce cylindrical holes. The abraded
surface is usually the shape of an inverted bell mouth. A plan view of the bell mouthed
cavity shows that it is elliptical or oval and not circular (Fig. 4). This is especially true
if the spray angle is not 90 ° . The machining results were studied through two character-
istics, namely material removal rate (MRR) and the dimension of the major axis of the
spray or cavity. Material removal rate was obtained from the change in specimen mass
after 1 min of machining. The major axis for spray was measured by a profile projector
 Abrasive Jet Machining 475

(a) Major axis dimension o f s p r a y

I~ _I

Plan view o f
sprayed surface

Major axis dimension of c a v i t y

I- -I
Section view o f
wor kpiece s u r f a c e

(b)

Fro. 4. (a) Schematic profile of an abraded surface showing spray/cavity dimensions. (b) Actual profile of a
glass surface abraded by A1203, seen on an optical projector.

and that for the cavity was measured by a Talysurf machine. The profile projector
measured only the spray major axis for glass and EDM machined die, as the colour of
the ceramic surface did not permit such measurements. The uneven surface of the EDM
machined die surface did not permit the use of the Talysurf machine to measure the
major axis of the cavity; this however was not a problem for glass and ceramic.

Experimental conditions
To study the simultaneous effects of the large numbers of machining parameters on
machining results, an efficient statistical experimental design was used. A replicated
one-quarter of an orthogonal fractional factorial design [12] for six parameters, requiring
only 32 test runs per workpiece material, was used. Thus for three workpiece materials
(glass, ceramic and E D M machined die) a total of 96 test runs were carried out, each
run resulting in a material removal rate and a major axis measurement. The number
of test runs chosen satisfies the requirements for statistical validity of results as well as
economy of experimental efforts. The design is summarized in Table 2, where the -
and + signs denote the different settings for each parameter, and each pair of settings
476 V . C . VENKATESH et al.

TABLE 2. EXPERIMENTAL $EI"I'INGS

No. xl xz X3 X4 X5 X6

1 . . . . . -t-
2 + . . . . .
3 - + - - + -
4 + + - - + +
5 - - + - + -
6 + - + - + +
7 - + + - - +
8 + + + - - -

9 - - - + + -
10 + - - + + +
11 - + - + - +

12 + + - + - -
13 - - + + - +
14 + - + + - -
15 - + + + + -
16 + + + + + +

reflects the w o r k i n g r a n g e of a p a r a m e t e r . E v e r y test r u n was r e p e a t e d , yielding two

values for each of the responses, m a t e r i a l r e m o v i n g rate a n d m a j o r axis m e a s u r e m e n t s .
I n s t e a d of following the o r d e r of e x p e r i m e n t a l settings, actual test r u n s were c o n d u c t e d
in a r a n d o m s e q u e n c e so as to e l i m i n a t e a n y systematic bias in the resulting data due
to e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l data were a n a l y z e d by established statistical p r o c e d u r e s a n d the

essential results are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 3. T h e p r e s e n c e of a + or - sign in the table
d e n o t e s a statistically significant effect at 0.05 level of significance, a n d the sign indicates
the d i r e c t i o n of c h a n g e in the r e s p o n s e w h e n the p a r a m e t e r changes from the - level
to the + level in T a b l e 2. A 0 suggests that the effect of the p a r a m e t e r in q u e s t i o n is
statistically insignificant. All the signs refer to the effects of i n d i v i d u a l p a r a m e t e r s ;
i n t e r a c t i o n effects of the p a r a m e t e r s were f o u n d to be insignificant.

Material removal rate

T h e empirical m o d e l s for the m a t e r i a l r e m o v a l rate, based o n the test results, are
established for each w o r k p i e c e material. O n l y those terms that are statistically significant
are i n c l u d e d in a model:

MRRslas s = 37.775 + 16.950xl + 7.350x3 + 7.4875x6 (1)

MRREDM = 8.325 + 2.325X3 - 1.025x4 + 0.9625x5 + 1.3x6 (2)

MRRceramic = 7.94375 + 2.13125Xl + 1.63125x3 - 3.59375x4 + 2.1062x6 (3)

w h e r e MRR is in m g / m i n ; a n d the i n d e p e n d e n t variables o n the right h a n d side of

e q u a t i o n s are d i m e n s i o n l e s s coded values given by

actual value - m i d - v a l u e of e x p e r i m e n t a l r a n g e
(4)
x -- half e x p e r i m e n t a l r a n g e

It can be readily verified that x takes o n values of + 1 a n d - 1 for the + a n d - levels

of e x p e r i m e n t a l settings; for x4 a n d xs, + 1 a n d - 1 are the only possible coded values
a n d e q u a t i o n (4) n e e d n o t be used. T h e coefficients of multiple d e t e r m i n a t i o n R E for
the three m o d e l s are 9 3 . 0 % , 87.5% a n d 87.0% respectively, showing a satisfactory
fitting of the e q u a t i o n s .
 Abrasive Jet Machining 477

TABLE3. SUMMARYOF EFFECTSOF MACHININGPARAMETERS

Nozzle tip Spray Powder Nozzle Nozzle

distance angle Pressure material material size
Response Material X! X2 X3 X4 X5 X6

Material Glass + 0 + 0 0 +
removal EDM 0 0 + - + +
rate Ceramic + 0 + - 0 +
Spray Glass + - 0 0 + +
dimension EDM + - + 0 0 +
Cavity Glass + - + 0 + +
dimension Ceramic + - 0 - 0 +

Physical interpretations
Since the models are based on an orthogonal experimental design, it is possible to
interpret the effects of the various independent variables through their respective
coefficients directly [12]. It is seen that the material removal rate is highest for glass,
possibly due to microchipping by fracture of the brittle material rather than "ploughing
off" action in the harder and tougher EDM machined die and ceramic. For the same
reason, the type of powder material, represented by x4, does not significantly affect
the material removal rate of glass; however, for the EDM die and ceramic, material
removal rate is decreased when the powder material changes from silicon carbide to
aluminium oxide.
Notable in all the models is the pressure term x3, which has a considerable effect on
material removal rate. This can be explained by the fact that pressure helps to accelerate
the abrasives, leading to a higher impact energy.
As for the nozzle properties, it is noted that the x~ term is significant only for glass
and ceramic. As x~ increases, the increased spread and velocity of the abrasives help
to break the highly brittle glass with less effect on the tougher ceramics. The EDM
metal has a hard and tougher heat affected zone (HAZ) which could withstand the
impact of the abrasives, resulting in minimal increase in material removal rate.
Nozzle material, represented by xs, affects only the EDM material. As the abrasive
passes through the nozzle, some sharp edges of the abrasives might be blunted. When
the nozzle material is changed from tungsten carbide to the harder sapphire, the blunting
effect is less; thus the remaining sharp edges of the abrasive could help material removal
on the hard and tough E D M die through erosion ploughing. Nozzle size, denoted by
x6, is important for all three materials. Material removal rate increases as nozzle
diameter increases, as this in effect increases the machined surface area. This has the
most influence for glass due to its brittleness.
A significant conclusion emerging from the modeling study is that the most important
parameter that determines material removal rate varies according to the material being
machined. For glass it is the nozzle tip distance, for EDM material it is the pressure
and for ceramic material, the powder material. It has also been established from the
data that the material removal rate could be inconsistent from one glass sample to
another, the pooled variance in the experiment being 5.1 mg/min for glass, compared
to 1.50 and 1.98 for E D M material and ceramic, respectively.

Spray and cavity dimensions

The effects of various machining parameters on the dimension, represented by the
major axis, of a spray-affected zone or cavity are also summarized and included in
Table 3. Measurements for spray-affected zones have been made for glass and EDM
die material, showing that they are larger for glass, but in both cases the nozzle tip
distance is the most significant parameter, as is to be expected due to the geometry of
478 V . C . VENKATESH et al.

the spray. The mathematical models analogous to equations (1)-(3) relating the dimen-
sions to the parameters have close fits reflected by R 2 values of 98.1% and 97.4% for
glass and EDM die material, respectively.
The major axis of the cavity zone was measured in glass and ceramic material.
Observations similar to those for the spray-affected zone have been made, and models
for the major axis measurements have been fitted with R 2 equal to 98.8% and 98.4%
for glass and EDM die material, respectively.
The indications are that for low spray/cavity dimensions a low nose tip distance and
a small nozzle diameter are essential. For a deeper cut, pressure will have to be
increased at the same time.

RED HOT REGION DURING MACHINING

Despite the cooling effect of the jet caused by the expansion of air, there is heating
of the impact region causing an orange yellow glow. Though this glow is fairly evident,
none of the other investigators [3-8] have reported this phenomenon. This glow is
observed only when silicon carbide is used as an abrasive and not when employing
aluminium oxide, possibly because the former is a harder abrasive.
This orange yellow glow is observed for glass and ceramic at 4 and 7 bar pressure
with both 0.46 and 0.65 mm internal diameter sapphire nozzles and a nose tip distance
variation from 3 to 30 mm at 90° spray angle. With EDM die material, however, for
the same conditions, the glow is not observed beyond a nose tip distance of 21 mm.
This could be attributed to the fact that the EDM die material is a better conductor of
heat than glass and ceramic and the heat generated at nose tip distance from 21 to 30
mm is easily dissipated.
No heat affected zone was observed in the EDM die material subjected to the red
hot region. High speed steel (HSS) was also machined under red hot glow conditions.
Using the Wright and Trent technique [13] the specimen was etched after polishing but
no arc of darkened structure appeared, as the HSS material did not contain cobalt [14].
Subsequent tests with HSS containing cobalt have so far not yielded a darkened
structure; probably the quantity of heat generated was not adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

The unconventional abrasive jet machining process involves a number of complex

mechanisms that defy theoretical analysis from first principles. A systematic study
through statistical experiment design and modeling has been carried out to investigate
the effects of various process parameters on the machining results. The findings are
summmarized as follows.
(1) The nozzle holder which is made of brass wore rapidly though not as fast as the
tungsten carbide nozzle. During a 40 min run hardly any wear occurred on
sapphire nozzles.
(2) The abraded surface has a bell mouth shape that is elliptical and not cylindrical
in shape even with a 90° spray angle.
(3) The mathematical modeling study reveals that the material being machined
determines the most important parameter governing material removal rate. For
glass it is the nozzle tip distance, for EDM die material it is the pressure, and
for oxide ceramics the abrasive material.
(4) The study has also shown that low spray and cavity dimensions are associated
with a small nozzle tip distance and a small nozzle diameter. A higher pressure
at the same time gives a deeper cut.
(5) The orange yellow glow conditions occur only when silicon carbide abrasives are
used. They also occur when material removal rates are high. No heat affected
zone or any major structural change has been observed so far. The glow conditions
do not necessarily accompany optimum machining conditions.
 Abrasive Jet Machining 479

REFERENCES
[1] H. W. YANgEE, Manufacturing Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1979).
[2] A. P. VERMA and G. K. LAL, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 24, 19 (1984).
[3] F. J. LAVOIE, Mach. Des. 135, September (1973).
[4] R. N. STAUFFER,Manufact. Engng, 40, July (1976).
[5] J. McDONALD, Manufact. Engng, 55, July (1979).
[6] Machining Data Handbook, Vol. II. Metcut Research Associates, Cincinnati, OH (1980).
[7] P. C. PANDEr and H. S. SHAN, Modern Machining Processes. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).
[8] R. K. SPmNGBORN,Non-traditional Machining Processes. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn,
MI (1975).
[9] V. C. VENKATESH,J. mech. Working Technol. 8, 247 (1983).
[10] V. C. VENKATESH,Ann. CIRP 33, 109 (1984).
[11] K. H. WONG, Optimization of Parameters in Abrasive Jet Machining, B.Eng. Thesis, National University
of Singapore (1985-1986).
[12] O. L. DAvis, Design and Analysis of Industrial Experiments, 2nd Edn. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh
(1972).
[13] P. K. WRIGHT and E. M. TRENT,J. Iron Steel Inst., 364, May (1973).
[14] P. K. WalGHT, Personal discussions, 26 May (1987).