Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Investigation on the abrasive water jet machinability of AA2014 using

SiC as abrasive
R. Shibin a, V. Anandakrishnan a,⇑, S. Sathish a, Vinod Mallemala Sujana b
a
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620015, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu 620 014, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Aluminium alloy AA2014 was subjected to abrasive water jet machining with the abrasive particle as sil-
Received 3 June 2019 icon carbide. Though several parameters are there, the most critical parameters such as traverse speed,
Accepted 18 June 2019 pressure, mass flow rate and standoff distance was considered for machining. The selected parameters
Available online xxxx
were varied at three levels, and an L9 orthogonal design was developed. Based on the developed design,
the abrasive water jet cutting was performed on the aluminium alloy, and the depth of cut was measured
Keywords: and analysed using Taguchi’s quality characteristic ‘‘Larger the better”. The optimum parameter to realize
Aluminium alloy
a higher depth of cut was identified using the main effect plot. Also, the parameter which has a greater
Abrasive water jet machining
Depth of cut
stimulus on the depth of cut was identified using response table and analysis of variance.
Taguchi Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Optimization Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International
Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and Engineering Applications.

1. Introduction optimized parameter with the reduced number of experiments

Abrasive water jet machining is a technique, comes under the
non-traditional machining techniques grouped in the mechanical
machining processes [1]. The process of material removal from
the workpiece is done by the action of impinging the highly accel-
erated abrasive jet, which leads to the cutting of material by the
sharp edges of abrasives [2]. The materials which are difficult to
cut through the conventional technique and the complex profile
may easily be cut through the abrasive water jet machining. The
application of water jet machining is extended in various fields
and irrespective of materials like metals, polymers, ceramics and
composite materials [3] with several distinct advantages like no
thermal distortion, no heat affected zone and higher flexibility.
The abrasive water jet machining was influenced by several pro-
cess parameter like pressure, traverse speed, standoff distance,
mass flow rate, abrasive type, abrasive size orifice diameter, focus-
ing diameter and number of passes. The variation in each parame-
ter affects the machinability of materials and, therefore the
identification of optimum parameter for each material mandates.
Taguchi technique is the most suited technique to identify the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: krishna@nitt.edu (V. Anandakrishnan).
without affecting its quality. The effect of machining parameters
on the machinability of aluminium composites by abrasive water
jet was investigated by Ravi kumar et al. and obtain the optimum
parameter and identified the influencing parameter as traverse
speed [4]. The effect of machining parameters on the surface
roughness and surface topography of titanium alloy by abrasive
water jet was investigated by Vasanth et al. and identified the fac-
tor which influences the surface roughness [5]. The effect of
machining parameters on the machinability of fibre reinforced
polymer and carbon fibre reinforced polymer composites abrasive
water jet was investigated by Alberdi et al. and observed that the
machinability index is found to be different for different compos-
ites [6]. The effect of machining parameters on the kerf character-
istics of alumina ceramics by abrasive water jet was investigated
by Shanmugam et al. and found that the increase in pressure and
mass flow rate results in the reduction of kerf taper angle [7].
The stimulus of traverse speed on the machinability of titanium
alloy was investigated by Hascalik et al. and observed three dis-
tinct regions on the machined surface [8]. The machining parame-
ters of abrasive water jet were optimized multiobjectively by
Pawar et al. and observed almost a striation free surface with the
optimized parameters [9]. The effect of machining parameters on
the depth of cut of cast iron by abrasive water jet was investigated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.659
2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and
Engineering Applications.

Please cite this article as: R. Shibin, V. Anandakrishnan, S. Sathish et al., Investigation on the abrasive water jet machinability of AA2014 using SiC as abra-
sive, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.659
2 R. Shibin et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

by Chithirai Pon Selvan et al. and developed a model with least per- Table 2
centage deviation [10]. Wang and Guo developed an empirical for- Response table for the depth of cut.

mulae to predict the depth of cut for polymer matrix composite Level Transverse Speed Standoff Pressure Mass flow rate
during the abrasive water jet machining [11]. The literature reveals (mm/min) Distance (mm) (MPa) (kg/min)
the importance of abrasive water machining and its influence of 1 19.777 14.91 8.443 14.06
parameters on the machining of material. Based on the literature, 2 16.077 17.01 15.873 14.9
it was identified that there is no attempt made on the machining 3 11.707 15.64 23.243 18.6
Delta 8.07 2.1 14.8 4.54
studies on the aluminium alloy 2014, which has applications in Rank 2 4 1 3
defence and aerospace industries. Hence the abrasive water jet
machining studies on the aluminium alloy 2014 was attempted
by varying the process parameter and identified the significance
of abrasive water jet machining parameters.
hence, it was considered as an error during the pooled analysis
of variance.
2. Experimental procedure
3.2. Effect of pressure
Aluminium alloy AA2014 is considered as the workpiece mate-
rial, and the abrasive water jet machine of 60 hp capacity was used The response table for the depth of cut is shown in Table 2,
to perform the abrasive water jet cutting. The parameters consid- which exhibits the influence of parameters on the depth of cut.
ered for the abrasive water jet cutting are traverse speed, standoff Pressure shows the highest delta value with ranking 1 unveils that
distance, pressure and mass flow rate. The selected parameters it has more dominance over the depth of cut shadowed by the tra-
were varied at three levels each, and an L9 orthogonal design verse speed, mass flow rate and standoff distance. Further, in the
was developed using the Taguchi technique, as shown in Table 1. analysis of variance exhibits the highest probability percentage of
In general, garnet is used as abrasive particles, and for the present 70.16 for pressure, as shown in Table 2, shows the dominance over
study, silicon carbide of 120 mesh was taken as an abrasive parti- the depth of cut. The increase in the pressure results in the increase
cle. The rectangular aluminium blocks were fixed in the abrasive in jet velocity, which directly influences the kinetics of abrasive
water jet machine bed and on the set of parameters as deigned particle impinging on the work material leads to a higher removal
the abrasive water jet nozzle is allowed to machine the workpiece. of material.
A similar procedure takes on to complete all nine experimental
runs. On the completion of cutting with the abrasive water jet, 3.3. Effect of traverse speed
the depth of cut for each experimental run were measured using
the machine vision technique, and the values were listed in The traverse speed is observed as the second most contributing
Table 1. parameter on the depth of cut from the response table (Table 2)
with the 8.07 delta value. Also, the analysis of variance exhibits
the probability percentage of 20.91% for traverse speed, and places
3. Results and discussion it next to the pressure. The increase in the traverse results in the
decrease of depth of cut and this is due to the lesser contact time
The depth of cut was considered as the response parameter, and of abrasive water jet at the increased traverse speed. The contact
quality characteristic ‘‘Larger The Better” was chosen as the time of the abrasive water jet is increased at lower traverse speeds,
required depth of cut is always higher. Based on the Taguchi’s qual- which effects in higher material removal during the machining.
ity characteristic, the effect of the abrasive water jet machining
parameter was analysed. 3.4. Effect of mass flow rate

The abrasive particle flow rate is observed as the third most

3.1. Effect of standoff distance
contributing parameter on the depth of cut from the response table
(Table 2) with the 4.54 delta value. Also, the analysis of variance
From the response table shown in Table 2, it was observed that
exhibits the probability percentage of 7.48% for the abrasive parti-
the standoff distance has the least stimulus on the depth of cut
cle flow rate. The increase in the mass flow rate of abrasive particle
when compared with other parameters. Due to the inadequacy in
results in the increase in depth of cut and this is due to the impact
performing the analysis of variance, pooled analysis of variance
of more number abrasive particle impinge over the material leads
was done to identify the parameters influence as shown in Table 3.
to higher material removal.
Standoff distance is observed as the least contributing factor, and
3.5. Regression analysis
Table 1
Experimental design with a depth of cut. To forecast the depth of cut with variation of input parameter, a
regression equation is developed, as shown in Eq. (1) with the
Transverse Standoff Pressure Mass flow Depth of
Speed (mm/min) Distance (MPa) rate (kg/min) Cut (mm) regression coefficient of 97.79%. From the equation, a negative
(mm) effect is observed for traverse speed and a positive effect is
100 0.5 150 0.25 9.63 observed for pressure, mass flow rate and standoff distance.
100 1.5 250 0.4 20.00
100 2.5 350 0.55 29.70
Depth of cut; mm ¼ 2:8575
150 0.5 250 0.55 17.90  0:0807 Transverse Speed; mm=min
150 1.5 350 0.25 22.83
150 2.5 150 0.4 7.50 þ 0:365 Standoff Distance; mm
200 0.5 350 0.4 17.20
200 1.5 150 0.55 8.20
þ 0:074 Pressure; MPa
200 2.5 250 0.25 9.72 þ 15:1333 Mass flow rate; kg=min ð1Þ

Please cite this article as: R. Shibin, V. Anandakrishnan, S. Sathish et al., Investigation on the abrasive water jet machinability of AA2014 using SiC as abra-
sive, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.659
 R. Shibin et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 3
Pooled Analysis of variance for the depth of cut.

Level DFa Seq SSb Adj SSc Adj MSd F Pe P%

Transverse Speed, mm/min 2 97.912 97.912 48.956 14.36 0.065 20.91
Pressure, MPa 2 328.562 328.562 164.281 48.18 0.02 70.16
Mass flow rate, kg/min 2 35.007 35.007 17.504 5.13 0.163 7.48
Error 2 6.82 6.82 3.41 1.46
Total 8 468.301

S = 1.84659 R-Sq = 98.54% R-Sq(adj) = 94.17%.

a
Degrees of freedom.
b
Sequential sums of squares.
c
Adjusted sums of squares.
d
Adjusted mean squares.
e
Probability.

3.6. Contour plots
Contour plots help to identify the parameters effect on depth of
cut, and the contour plots with respect to the combined effect of
each parameter are discussed below. Fig. 1(a) shows the contour
plot with respect to the traverse speed and standoff distance,
which exhibits a higher values of depth of cut of greater than
25 mm at the combination of lower traverse speed and higher
standoff distance, whereas lower depth of cut of less than 10 mm
is observed at higher standoff distance and higher traverse speed.
Higher depth of cut of greater than 25 mm is observed at a higher
pressure and lower traverse speed, and lower depth of cut of less
than 10 mm is observed at lower pressure with all levels of tra-
verse speed from Fig. 1(b). Fig. 1(c) shows the contour plot with
respect to the traverse speed and mass flow rate, which exhibits
a higher values of depth of cut of greater than 25 mm at the com-
bination of lower traverse speed and higher mass flow rate of abra-
sive particle, and lower depth of cut of less than 10 mm is observed
at higher mass flow rate and higher traverse speed and also at
medium levels of mass flow rate and traverse speed. Higher depth
of cut of greater than 25 mm is observed at a higher pressure, and
higher standoff distance and lower depth of cut of less than 10 mm
is observed at lower pressure with all levels of standoff distance
from Fig. 1(d). Fig. 1(e) shows the contour plot with respect to
the mass flow rate and standoff distance, which exhibits a higher
values of depth of cut of greater than 25 mm at the combination
of higher mass flow rate and higher standoff distance, whereas
lower depth of cut of less than 10 mm is observed at lower mass
flow rate and higher standoff distance and also at higher mass flow
rate with 1 to 1.5 mm standoff distance. Higher depth of cut of
greater than 25 mm is observed at a higher pressure and higher
mass flow rate, whereas the lower depth of cut of less than
10 mm is observed at lower pressure with all levels of mass flow
rate from Fig. 1(f).
3.7. Optimum value and confirmation test
The optimum grouping of parameters to realize the highest
depth of cut is recognized from the main effect plot (Fig. 2). The
lower traverse speed of 100 mm/min, lower standoff distance
1.5 mm, higher pressure of 350 MPa and higher mass flow rate of
0.550 kg/min was identified as the optimum parameters, and it
results in the depth of cut of 31.07 mm from the Taguchi prediction
as shown in Table 4. To endorse the results, confirmation test was

Fig. 1. Contour plot for the depth of cut.

Please cite this article as: R. Shibin, V. Anandakrishnan, S. Sathish et al., Investigation on the abrasive water jet machinability of AA2014 using SiC as abra-
sive, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.659
4 R. Shibin et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

and further, it was statistically analysed. The pressure was recog-

nized as the most directing factor on the depth of cut through
the analysis of variance and response table, followed by the tra-
verse speed and mass flow rate. The optimum abrasive water jet
machining parameter to achieve the higher depth of cut is recog-
nized as 100 mm/min traverse speed, 1.5 mm standoff distance,
350 MPa pressure and 0.550 kg/min mass flow rate.

References

[1] K. Sreekesh, P. Govindan, A review on abrasive water jet, Int. J. Recent Adv.
Mech. Eng. 3 (2014) 153–158.
[2] N. Yuvaraj, M. Pradeep Kumar, Multiresponse optimization of abrasive water
jet cutting process parameters using TOPSIS approach, Mater. Manuf. Process.
30 (2015) 882–889, https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.994763.
[3] C.Z. Huang, R.G. Hou, J. Wang, Y.X. Feng, The effect of high pressure abrasive
water jet cutting parameters on cutting performance of granite, Key Eng.
Mater. 304–305 (2006) 560–564, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
Fig. 2. Main effect plot for the depth of cut. KEM.304-305.560.
[4] K. Ravi Kumar, V.S. Sreebalaji, T. Pridhar, Characterization and optimization of
abrasive water jet machining parameters of aluminium/tungsten carbide
composites, Measurement 117 (2017) 57–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Table 4 measurement.2017.11.059.
[5] S. Vasanth, T. Muthuramalingam, P. Vinothkumar, T. Geethapriyan, G. Murali,
Confirmation test.
Performance analysis of process parameters on machining titanium (Ti-6Al-
Optimum levels Predicted Experiment Error 4V) Alloy using abrasive water jet machining process, Procedia CIRP 46 (2016)
(%) 139–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.072.
[6] A. Alberdi, A. Suárez, T. Artaza, G.A. Escobar-Palafox, K. Ridgway, Composite
100 mm/min, 1.5 mm, 350 MPa, 31.07 29.7 4.4 cutting with abrasive water jet, Procedia Eng. 63 (2013) 421–429, https://doi.
0.55 kg/min org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.217.
[7] D.K. Shanmugam, J. Wang, H. Liu, Minimisation of kerf tapers in abrasive
waterjet machining of alumina ceramics using a compensation technique, Int.
J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 48 (2008) 1527–1534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
directed with the optimum parameters, and the depth of cut of ijmachtools.2008.07.001.
29.7 mm was obtained, which shows the least error deviation of [8] A. Hascalik, U. Çaydasß, H. Gürün, Effect of traverse speed on abrasive waterjet
machining of Ti–6Al–4V alloy, Mater. Des. 28 (2007) 1953–1957, https://doi.
4.4%. org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.04.020.
[9] Padmakar J. Pawar, S. Umesh, VidhateMangesh Y. Khalkar, Improving the
quality characteristics of abrasive water jet machining of marble material
4. Conclusion using multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm, J. Comput. Des. Eng. 5
(2018) 319–328, 1037//0033-2909.I26.1.78.
The abrasive water jet machining was performed in the alu- [10] M.C.P. Selvan, N.M.S. Raju, R. Rajavel, Effects of process parameters on depth of
cut in abrasive waterjet cutting of cast iron, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2 (2011) 1–5.
minium alloy 2014 using the silicon carbide as an abrasive particle
[11] J. Wang, D.M. Guo, A predictive depth of penetration model for abrasive
by varying the process parameters pressure, traverse speed, stand- waterjet cutting of polymer matrix composites, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 121
off distance and mass flow rate. Depth of cut was considered as the (2002) 390–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(01)01246-8.
response, and it was measure using the machine vision technique,

Please cite this article as: R. Shibin, V. Anandakrishnan, S. Sathish et al., Investigation on the abrasive water jet machinability of AA2014 using SiC as abra-
sive, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.659