World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering

Vol:12, No:4, 2018

Erosion in Abrasive Jet Nozzles: A Comprehensive

Study
D. V. Sreekanth, M. Sreenivasa Rao

 techniques which work with the help of abrasive media. The

Abstract—Abrasive jet machining is one of the promising non-
traditional machining processes which uses mechanical energy
(pressure and velocity) for machining various materials. The process
parameters that influence the metal removal rate are kerfs, surface
finish, depth of cut, air pressure, and distance between nozzle and
work piece, nozzle diameter, abrasive type, abrasive shape, and mass
flow rate of abrasive particles. The abrasive particles coming out with
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf
erosion takes place in abrasive jet machining due to the impact
of high velocity abrasive particles on work surface [1], [8].
The optimal metal removal depends on pressure, nozzle
diameter, stand of distance [SOD] etc.
The material removal rate [MRR] mainly depends on the
pressure, flow rate and size of abrasives. It is highlighted by

high pressure not only hits work surface but also passes through the
nozzle resulting in erosion. This paper focuses mainly on the effect of
different parameters on the erosion of nozzle in Abrasive jet
machining. Three different types of nozzles made of sapphire,
tungsten carbide, and high carbon high chromium steel (HCHCS) are
used for machining glass and the erosion of these nozzles are
calculated. The results are shown in tabular form and graphical
representation.
Keywords—AJM, nozzle, sapphire, tungsten carbide, chrome
steel.
I. INTRODUCTION
many reviewers that by increase in pressure the MRR
increases followed by decrease in Ra value [2]. The increase
in grain size of abrasives produces greater metal removal
rates. At higher pressure the MRR increases followed by
Abrasive flow ratio [AFR] up to an optimal level and then
decreases with increase in AFR. It is also analyzed that by
increasing in AFR the Mixture Flow Ratio [MFR] of air
decreases causing decrease in MRR [10].
The abrasive practices play a vital role in the machining by
AJM. There are different types of abrasive particles available
with different grit sizes. They are silicon carbide, aluminum
oxide, boron carbide, borosilicate carbide, diamond dust etc.

S APPHIRES are precious stones that are naturally available

and generally embedded in jewels. They are also
manufactured as large crystals for industrial use and
[3], [9]. But in our experimentation we have used silicon
carbide as abrasive and the work piece is glass.

decorative purposes. Nozzles in abrasive jet machining has

small diameter hole with high length to diameter ratio.
Because of the remarkable hardness of sapphires they
withstand higher wear and tear. The life of the nozzle made
out of sapphire is more when compared with any metal made
nozzles. The work pieces made using these nozzles have
higher surface finish at close tolerances. Due to its super
natural properties, it is one of the preferred nozzle materials.
Tungsten Carbide (WC) is one of the promising metals
which contain equal part of tungsten and carbon atoms. It has
highest melting point (2870 °C) and its boiling point is 6000 Fig. 1 Setup of AJM at SMEC
°C. WC is extremely hard and used in various industrial
applications like cutting tools, trekking poles, surgical
instruments, jewelers, roller ball pens etc. [11].
Tungsten Carbide (WC) is one of the promising metals
which contain equal part of tungsten and carbon atoms. It has
highest melting point (2870 °C) and its boiling point is 6000
°C. WC is extremely hard and used in various industrial
applications like cutting tools, trekking poles, surgical
instruments, jewelers, roller ball pens etc. [11].
Abrasive jet machining is one of the advanced machining
Fig. 2 Hole formation on glass sheet
D.V.Sreekanth, Professor, is with the Mechanical Engineering Department,
St. Martin’s Engineering College, Secunderabad, India (phone: 9703050004; II. METHODOLOGY
e-mail: dvsrikanth@smec.ac.in).
M. Sreenivasa Rao, Professor and BOS chairman, is with the Department In abrasive jet machining one of the vital parts of the
of Mechanical Engineering, JNTUCE, JNTUH, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, India equipment is nozzle. The life of the nozzle is an important
(e-mail: raoms63@rediffmail.com).

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 379 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018
parameter in the machining process.
As per the process requirement the nozzle material should
be of harder material (WC, sapphire etc.) to withstand high
velocity air passing through the nozzle hole along with
abrasives [4].
The nozzle directs abrasive jet in a controlled manner onto
work material. The nozzle is made of circular cross section
having a convergent head with or without a conical section at
discharge end. The nozzle is designed to ensure minimum loss
of pressure due to friction, bends etc. The divergent jet stream
increases the wear of nozzle and results in inaccuracy of cut
and also introduces stray cutting.
It is very important to study the various parameters which
affect the life of the nozzle and to choose right parameters for
prolonged life to avoid frequent change of nozzles.
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf
Fig. 3 Classification of Nozzles in AJM
Process parameters influencing the Nozzle Erosion are:
 Type of abrasives used
 Nozzle material
 Work piece being machined
 Operating pressure
Fig. 4 Ishikawa or fishbone diagram of various causes and effect (Nozzle erosion)
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018
 Diameter of nozzle
 Stand Off Distance (SOD)
 Grain size of abrasives
 Flow rate or feed of abrasive particles
 Velocity of abrasive grains
If the pressure of the gas increases then there is an increase
in the metal removal rate. The kinetic energy present in the
abrasive particles is responsible for the metal removal by
erosion process. The nozzle controls the direction of abrasive
jets on the work piece surface. The high velocity particles of
abrasives remove the material by a technique of micro cutting
and brittle fracture on the work piece.
While performing the machining operation, the coarse
grains impinge on the surface and deflect back towards the
nozzle tip, which also increases the erosion. It can be
identified that the increase in flow rate of air the mass flow
rate of abrasive particles increases and thus the metal removal
rate increases, and the loss of nozzle material also increases
[5].
By maintaining the optimal stand of distance between
nozzle and work piece, the wear of the nozzle can be
decreased.
The size of abrasive particles normally ranges from 10 to 60
microns and the mass flow rate of abrasives is selected as 5
gm/min [6], for experimental analysis. The increase in size of
the abrasives more than the specified size causes the clogging
of nozzle, which disturbs the machining operation.
Accordingly, a cause-effect diagram (fish bone diagram) has
been prepared. The fishbone diagram gives the effect of
parameters on the nozzle erosion.
380 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

Fig. 5 Working of nozzle

III. EXPERIMENTATION
Experiments are conducted on three different types of
nozzles made of sapphire coated, WC and high carbon and
high chromium steel on the Test Rig established at St.
Martin’s Engineering College, Secunderabad.
The abrasive particles coming through the nozzle affects the
nozzle material causing erosion. The nozzle erosion tends to
decrease in weight of nozzle [7].

Fig. 8 Nozzles made of WC and HCHC steel

For finding the quantity of erosion of the nozzles, initial

Fig. 6 Nozzles made of different materials
weight of the nozzle is measured and machining is performed
on the glass specimen. After completion of the first machining
the weight of the nozzle is measured. This weighing process is
repeated up to four machining. The differences in weights are
tabulated.

IV. TABULATION OF EXPERIMENTAL VALUES

Tables I-VI are for three different sets of nozzles made up
of a) sapphire b) WC and c) HCHC steel. The parameters
tested are: a) diameters and b) Pressures. The results of nozzle
erosions are analyzed and reported.

V. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

After the tabulation it has been observed that
(a) From Figs. 9-12, it is inferred that for all nozzle materials,
the erosion increases as the pressure increases.
(b) From Figs. 9, 11, and 12, for all nozzle materials, as the
Fig. 7 Nozzles made of Sapphire coating nozzle diameter increases the erosion decreases.
(c) Fig. 14 shows that the erosion for sapphire nozzle is lower
and TC is in the middle and HCHC is higher. So the

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 381 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018

erosion directly depends on the hardness of the nozzle

material.
TABLE
EROSION OF SAPPHIRE NOZZLE (PRESSURE 6 BAR)
Diameter of the nozzle after second machining
Initial weight in (gms) After first after third machining after fourth machining Total erosion (gms)
(mm) (gms)
2 208.15 208.1 208.07 208.04 208.02 0.13
3 216.22 216.2 216.15 216.12 216.09 0.12
4 220.54 220.5 220.48 220.47 220.44 0.1

TABLE II
NOZZLE EROSION OF WC (PRESSURE 6 BAR)
Diameter of Weight after first Weight after second Weight after third Weight after fourth
Initial weight in (gms) Total erosion (gms)
nozzle (mm) machining (gms) machining (gms) machining (gms) machining (gms)
2 227.1 227.04 227 226.92 226.87 0.23
3 226.22 226.16 226.1 226.09 226.05 0.19
4 174.61 174.54 174.5 174.45 174.43 0.18
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

TABLE III
NOZZLE EROSION OF HC-HC STEEL (PRESSURE 6 BAR)
Diameter of Weight after first Weight after second Weight after third Weight after fourth Total erosion
Initial weight in(gms)
nozzle machining machining machining machining (gms)
2 202.02 201.95 201.87 201.77 201.66 0.36
3 205.66 205.58 205.48 205.39 205.33 0.33
4 203.2 203.11 203.12 203.04 202.99 0.21

TABLE IV
EROSION OF SAPPHIRE NOZZLE (PRESSURE 8 BAR)
Diameter of Weight after first Weight after second Weight after third Weight after fourth Total erosion
Initial weight in (gms)
Nozzle machining machining machining machining In ( gms)
2 208.02 207.98 207.93 207.89 207.86 0.16
3 216.08 216.05 216.02 215.98 215.93 0.15
4 220.44 220.41 220.38 220.36 220.33 0.11

TABLE V
NOZZLE EROSION OF WC (PR 8 BAR)
Initial weight in Weight after first Weight after second Weight after third Weight after fourth Total erosion
Diameter of nozzle
(gms) machining machining machining machining In gms
2 201.66 201.58 201.49 201.36 201.26 0.4
3 205.33 205.24 205.14 205.05 204.98 0.35
4 202.99 202.92 202.86 202.81 202.75 0.24

TABLE VI
NOZZLE EROSION OF HC-HC STEEL (PR 8 BAR)
Weight after first Weight after second Weight after third Total erosion
Diameter of nozzle Initial weight in(gms) Weight after fourth machining
machining machining machining In gms
2 226.87 226.76 226.72 226.67 226.61 0.26
3 226.04 225.97 225.92 225.89 225.84 0.2
4 174.43 174.37 174.32 174.26 174.22 0.21

Scatterplot of Sapphire nozzle vs machining Process Scatterplot of Sapphire nozzle vs machining Process at Pr( 8bar)
208.16 208.025

208.14 208.000

208.12 207.975
Sapphire nozzle

Sapphire nozzle

208.10 207.950

208.08
207.925

208.06
207.900

208.04
207.875

208.02
207.850
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
machining Process machining Process

Fig 9 Weight loss of Sapphire nozzle of 2 mm dia under pr at 6 bar Fig 10 Weight loss of Sapphire nozzle of 2 mm dia under pr at 8 bar

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 382 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018

Scatterplot of Sapphire nozzle vs machining Process(pr:6bar) Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-2mm) vs Machining Process
216.22 227.10

216.20
227.05

Weight of Wc(ND-2mm)
216.18
Sapphire nozzle

216.16 227.00

216.14
226.95

216.12

226.90
216.10

0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
machining Process Machining Process

Fig 11 Weight loss of Sapphire nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 6 Fig. 14 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 2 mm dia under pressure 6 bar
bar
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-2mm) vs Machining Process

Scatterplot of Sapphire nozzle vs machining Process(8 bar) 201.7
216.10

201.6
Weight of Wc(ND-2mm)

216.05
Sapphire nozzle

201.5

216.00 201.4

201.3
215.95

201.2
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
machining Process Machining Process

Fig. 12 Weight loss of Sapphire nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 8 Fig. 15 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 2 mm dia under pressure 8 bar
bar
Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-3mm) vs Machining Process
Scatterplot of Sapphire nozzle vs machining Process(6 bar) 226.225
220.550
226.200
Weight of Wc(ND-3mm)

220.525 226.175
Sapphire nozzle

226.150
220.500
226.125

220.475 226.100

226.075
220.450
226.050

0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
machining Process Machining Process

Fig. 13 Weight loss of Sapphire nozzle of 4 mm dia under pressure 6 Fig. 16 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 6 bar
bar

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 383 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018

Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-3mm) vs Machining Process Weight of HC-HC (2mm) vs Machining Process( Pressure 6 bar)

205.35 202.05

202.00
205.30

Weight of HC-HC (2mm)

201.95
Weight of Wc(ND-3mm)

205.25

201.90
205.20

201.85
205.15
201.80
205.10
201.75
205.05
201.70
205.00
201.65
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Machining Process Machining Process

Fig. 17 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 8 bar Fig. 20 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 2 mm dia under pressure 6
bar
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-4mm) vs Machining Process Scatterplot of Weight of HC-HC (2mm) vs Machining Process (Pressure 8 bar)
226.90
174.60

226.85
Weight of Wc(ND-4mm)

Weight of HC-HC (2mm)

174.55 226.80

226.75
174.50

226.70

174.45 226.65

226.60
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Machining Process
Machining Process
Fig. 18 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 4 mm dia under pressure 6 bar
Fig. 21 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 2 mm dia under pressure 8
bar
Scatterplot of Weight of Wc(ND-4mm) vs Machining Process
203.00 Weight of HC-HC (3mm) vs Machining Process at( Pressure 6 bar)
205.7

202.95
Weight of Wc(ND-4mm)

Weight of HC-HC (3mm)

205.6
202.90

202.85 205.5

202.80
205.4

202.75

1 2 3 4 5
205.3
Machining Process 1 2 3 4 5
Machining Process
Fig. 19 Weight loss of WC nozzle of 4 mm dia under pressure 8 bar
Fig. 22 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 6
bar

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 384 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018

Scatterplot of Weight of HC-HC (3mm) vs Machining Process (Pressure 8 bar)

226.05 Erosion(gm)
0,4 HCHC
0,33
0,35
226.00 0,3
Weight of HC-HC (3mm)

WC
0,25 0,2 0,21
SAPPHIRE 0,18
225.95 0,2
0,15 0,12
0,1
0,1
225.90
0,05
0
225.85

1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 26 Erosion graph of different nozzles

Machining Process

Fig. 23 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 3 mm dia under pressure 8 NOZZLE ERROSION(gms) at 

Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

bar
Pressure( 6 bar)
1
Scatterplot of Weight of HC-HC (4mm) vs Machining Process(Pressure 6 bar)

203.20

0,5
Weight of HC-HC (4mm)

203.15

0
203.10
2mm Nozzle 3mm Nozzle 4mm Nozzle
Sapphire Wc HC‐HC
203.05
Fig. 27 Nozzle erosion vs pressure (6 bar)

203.00

1 2 3 4 5
NOZZLE ERROSION(gms) at Pressure (8bar)
1
Machining Process
0,8
Fig. 24 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 4 mm dia under pressure 6
bar 0,6

0,4
Scatterplot of Weight of HC-HC (4mm) vs Machining Process(Pressure 8 bar)
174.45 0,2

0
174.40 2mm Nozzle 3mm Nozzle 4mm Nozzle
Weight of HC-HC (4mm)

Sapphire WC HC‐HC
174.35

Fig. 28 Nozzle erosion vs pressure (8 bar)

174.30

Based on the observations of erosion, it is concluded that

174.25 the sapphire coated nozzle is better when compared with
other two nozzles. This analysis supports the theoretical
174.20
statement made by [1]. The size of nozzle that can be
1 2 3 4 5 effectively used in all three materials is 3 mm nozzle, where
Machining Process
optimum erosion can be attained at that point at different
Fig. 25 Weight loss of HC-HC nozzle of 4 mm dia under pressure 8 pressures as shown in Figs. 27 and 28 respectively.
bar
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper deals with experimental works for nozzle
erosion for (a) sapphire coated nozzle, (b) WC and (c)
HCHCS in AJM machining process. Experiments are
conducted at two different pressures; 6 bar and 8 bar and 3
different nozzle diameters; 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm, keeping

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 385 ISNI:0000000091950263
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Vol:12, No:4, 2018

all the other parameters such as SOD, material of job etc.,

constant.
From the results it may be concluded that
(a) For all the tested nozzle materials the erosion increases as
the operating pressure increases within the operating
range.
(b) For all the tested nozzle materials the erosion decreases as
the diameter of the nozzle increases.
(c) The erosion increase is proportional to the hardness of the
materials. If the nozzle material hardness is high the
erosion is less, and if the nozzle material hardness is low,
the erosion is more.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Author thanks Head and other faculty of the department of
Open Science Index, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Vol:12, No:4, 2018 publications.waset.org/10008760/pdf

Mechanical Engineering JNTUH for extending their support to

perform this analysis. The authors also thank management,
Principal and other Professors of St. Martin’s Engineering
College for their support towards conducting the experiments
successfully.

REFERENCES
[1] A P Verma and G K Lal. 'An Experimental Study of Abrasive Jet
Machining'. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research,
vol 24,-110 I, 1984.
[2] I Finnie. 'Erosion of Surface by Solid Particles'. Welr, vol 3, 1960.
[3] P K Sarkar and P C Pandey. 'Some Investigations on the Abrasive Jet
Machining', Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), vol 56, ME 6,
1976.
[4] R Balasubramaniam, J Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan An experimental
study on the abrasive jet deburring of cross-drilled holes, Journal of
Materials …, 1999 – Elsevier.
[5] Balasubramaniam, J Krishnan, N. Ramakrishnan Preparation of edge
radius in AJEM - Journal of Materials …, 2000 – Elsevier.
[6] Morrison, C.T., Scattergood, R.O., Routbort, J.L. (1986). Erosion of 304
stainless steel. Wear 111, 1-13 lsdr33 Elsevier.
[7] Bhaskar Chandra Kandpal1* Naveen Kumar2 Rahul Kumar3 Rahul
Sharma4 Sagar Deswal5 Machining Of Glass And Ceramic With
Alumina And Silicon Carbide In Abrasive Jet Machining, International
Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, IJAET/Vol.II/ Issue
IV/October-December, 2011/251-256.
[8] Bhaskar Chandra1, Jagtar Singh2 A Study of effect of Process
Parameters of Abrasive jet machining--International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST) Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011.
[9] V.C. Venkatesh, T.N. Goh, K.H. Wong, M.J. Lim -An empirical study
of parameters in Abrasive Jet Machining 1989,Int Journal of Machine
Tools and Mfg 
[10] D.S. Robinson Smart, 2011. Experimental Investigation of Effect of
Abrasive Jet Nozzle Position and Angle on Coating Removal Rate.
International Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 1: 57-64.

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 12(4) 2018 386 ISNI:0000000091950263