Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Effect of different parameters on surface roughness and material

removal rate in abrasive water jet cutting of Nimonic C263
Arghya Bagchi, Madhulika Srivastava, Rupam Tripathi, Somnath Chattopadhyaya
Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT(ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India

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

Article history: Abrasive water jet cutting is one of the most recent non-conventional and useful processes because of its
Received 5 August 2019 tremendous advantages. The influence of jet pressure, standoff distance and cutting Speed on surface
Accepted 18 September 2019 roughness, material removal rate during abrasive waterjet cutting of Nimonic C263 super alloy has been
Available online xxxx
analyzed in this paper. The roughness of the surface was evaluated in four phases along the width to
know the distinct texture of the surface. The rate of material removal was also measured during exper-
Keywords: iment. The experimental results showed that the roughness of the bottom surface was extremely affected
Abrasive water jet cutting
by standoff distance and pressure of jet. The rate of material removal was also noticed to be dependent
Nimonic C263
Surface Roughness
upon the cutting parameters. From the study of the experimental result the optimal process parameters
Jet pressure have been determined.
Cutting Speed Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International conference
on Materials and Manufacturing Methods.

1. Introduction
The machining of high strength alloys, all brittle and hard to cut
material can be performed effectively by abrasive water jet
machine. This cutting method is more efficient compare to other
machining process as it has lots of advantages like low heat effected
zone, good surface finish, high flexibility [1]. In this cutting process,
elevated pressure water jet strike the material by giving the
momentum to the abrasive particle at mixing chamber. The mate-
rial removal mechanism by AWJC is depends on the type of work
piece material [2]. In case of brittle material, material removed by
micro-cracking and inter-granular fracture at low impact angle
[3]. Jiyue Zeng et al. noticed that a wave of stress produced by
impact of high pressure jet causes fracture [4]. They also observed
that erosion rate is extremely correlated with grain size and frac-
ture strength of work material. The material removes in case of duc-
tile material by abrasive wear and plastic deformation. The micro-
cracking happens at the top kerf and plastic deformation occurs at
the bottom of the kerf [5]. It is applicable to many field by using
many operations like peening, turning, forming etc. Many research-
ers analysed different parameters to optimise better machining
properties. Chithirai Pon Selvan et al. [6] investigated the impact
of multiple process parameters on depth of cut and surface quality
after cutting of Kevlar-phenolic composites. They concluded that
elevated jet pressure and increasing mass flow rate is preferential
as it raises depth of cut and reduces surface roughness. But high tra-
verse speeds reduces depth of cut and also reduce surface quality.
Pavol Hreha et al. [7] attempted to determine the cause of vibration
and acoustic emission during cutting and the correlation of surface
texture with these. The influence of nozzle diameter, standoff dis-
tance and cutting velocity on average kerf width and surface rough-
ness optimized through regression model during abrasive waterjet
cutting of TRIP-steel sheet [8]. Ushasta Aich et al. optimised effect of
different machining parameters on depth of cut during abrasive
waterjet cutting of borosilicate glass [9]. It has reported that the
diamond abrasive produce extremely erosion rate and tremendous
surface quality during cutting of polycrystalline diamond [10]. The
type of abrasive is also responsible for cutting quality. The garnet
produce higher taper of cut compare to silicon carbide and alu-
minium oxides. The width of cut increase in case of SiC as it possess
high hardness [11].The cut surface was also analyzed to identify the
striation formation and variation of surface texture from top to bot-
tom of the thickness [12,13]. Various studies has been done to
investigate the surface pattern, surface quality in different materi-
als but it is first time with a super alloy. In this investigation, the
impact of distinct parameters on surface roughness and MRR has
been optimised and different surface pattern throughout the thick-
ness has been determined.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.104
2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International conference on Materials and Manufacturing Methods.

Please cite this article as: A. Bagchi, M. Srivastava, R. Tripathi et al., Effect of different parameters on surface roughness and material removal rate in abra-
sive water jet cutting of Nimonic C263, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.104
2 A. Bagchi et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. The sample to measure surface roughness.

Table 1
Value of constant parameters.

Constant Variable Nozzle diameter Type of Abrasive Abrasive size

Value 0.76 mm GMT garnet 100 mesh

Table 2
Values of variable parameters.

Variable Standoff distance Pressure Cutting Speed

Parameter (mm) (KSI) (mm/min)
Value 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 30, 35, 40, 45 77, 100, 139, 250

2. Experimental work

The experiment conducted by Abrasive waterjet machine of

model OMAX 55100. The movement of X, Y and Z axis are
2540 mm and 1400 mm and 150 mm respectively. Maximum
standoff distance was 200 mm and maximum pressure of
380 MPa. (55.11 KSI) Kerf width has measured by Flash-2000
(SVW2002559) made by OGP, USA. The surface roughness also
measured by Surfcom-1900SD. The specification of work material
shown on Fig. 1. The plate of Nimonic C263 super alloy of size
200 mm  200 mm  8.2 mm has taken. The sample cut from this
plate of size 30 mm  10 mm  8.2 mm. Tables 1 and 2 show the
constant and varying process parameters.
The surface roughness (Ra), material removal rate has been
shown as output parameters. The sample and the cut surface were
shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
The surface roughness at different section throughout the cut
surface has been measured. The striation marks forms and differ-
ent surface texture present from the top to bottom cut surfaces.
The surface roughness throughout the cut has denoted as R1, R2,
R3, and R4. The design of experiment made by Taguchi L27 orthog-
onal array. There were three factors and four levels, total sixteen
run design of experiment prepared.
Fig. 3. Effect of SOD and jet pressure on MRR.
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Variation of MRR with standoff distance at different pressure
The MRR measured during experiment, and plotted as shown in
Fig. 3. The MRR shows some unique pattern with standoff distance,
but uniformly increases with jet pressure. As the SOD increases
MRR initially increases slightly and then found to be decrease. At
30 KSI pressure MRR is between 6.5 and 7 mm3/s, and at 45 KSI
pressure it was above 11 mm3/s. As the SOD increases MRR initially
increases slightly up to 2.5 mm and then found to be decrease. Up
to a certain standoff distance MRR increases then it was decreases
due to losses of energy and scattering of jet.
3.2. Different surface texture and HAZ
The surface texture throughout the thickness has shown in
Fig. 4. The high kinetic energy water jet when strike the material,

Fig. 2. Division of cut surface throughout the depth of cut.

Please cite this article as: A. Bagchi, M. Srivastava, R. Tripathi et al., Effect of different parameters on surface roughness and material removal rate in abra-
sive water jet cutting of Nimonic C263, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.104
 A. Bagchi et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 4. (a) Rough surface at bottom (b) Middle surface (c) Top surface.

Fig. 7. Effect of SOD at 30 KSI.

Fig. 5. Very small Heat Effected Zone.

Fig. 6. Effect of surface roughness with cutting speed. Fig. 8. Effect of SOD at 35 KSI.

as the strength of the material is so high, slurry produces on the cut
zone. The oscillating pattern of jet normal to the cutting direction
may be the reason for this marks and variation of texture. It was
noticed that very small like 12.07 mm and 8.63 mm heat effected
zones are produced (Fig. 5).
3.3. Pattern of surface quality with cutting speed along the cut surfaces
The experimental data plotted on the graph shows the increas-
ing pattern of surface roughness with cutting speed. The graph
shown in Fig. 4 indicates result at 30 KSI pressure, and the surface
roughness follow same pattern at all pressure. It is noticeable that

Please cite this article as: A. Bagchi, M. Srivastava, R. Tripathi et al., Effect of different parameters on surface roughness and material removal rate in abra-
sive water jet cutting of Nimonic C263, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.104
4 A. Bagchi et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 9. Effect of SOD at 40 KSI.
Fig. 10. Effect of SOD at 45 KSI.
the surface roughness increases at bottom cut surfaces. After a
speed of 140 mm/min it was vulnerable to surface quality. Slow
and steady jet produces good surfaces as the uniform jet, without
any disturbance cut the material (Fig. 6).
3.4. Variation of surface roughness with standoff distance at different
pressure
It was noticed from the Fig. 7 that surface roughness gradually
increases with standoff distance. At an initial pressure, the surface
roughness at the bottom is very high, up to 5.6 mm.
From the Fig. 8, as the pressure increases, surface quality
increases both at top and bottom surfaces. Further increment with
pressure improves the bottom surface but reduces the top surface
up to some extent. The acceptable surface pattern shown at 45 KSI.
High jet pressure also increases the material removal rate. So, high
Please cite this article as: A. Bagchi, M. Srivastava, R. Tripathi et al., Effect of different parameters on surface roughness and material removal rate in abra-
sive water jet cutting of Nimonic C263, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.104
jet pressure and low SOD are suitable for quality surface finish. The
surface roughness variation shown in Figs. 9 and 10 at 40 and 45
KSI pressure.
4. Conclusions
It can be concluded from experimental result as follow:
 The abrasive water jet cutting produces very small HAZ and
multiple surface textures along the depth during cutting of
Nimonic super alloy
 MRR increases with increase of pressure and shows various pat-
terns with SOD. MRR initially increases and after certain SOD it
decreases. The high SOD increases the jet focus point and the
loss of energy occurs due to scattering of jet.
 The surface quality reduces after certain cutting speed. At an
elevated cutting speed with the oscillation of the jet increases
leading to increase surface roughness. So, the low cutting speed
is good for better surface.
 It has noticed that the surface roughness at the bottom portion
was reduced at high jet pressure. Low SOD and high pressure
are suitable to improve surface quality.
 High jet pressure, low cutting speed, low SOD improves MRR as
well as surface quality.
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge DRDL; Hyderabad, India allowed
performing experiment.
References
[1] D. Krajcarz, Comparison metal water jet cutting with laser and plasma cutting,
Procedia Eng. 69 (2014) 838–843.
[2] M. Asme, A modeling study of metal cutting with abrasiwe waterjets, 106,
2016.
[3] S. Paul, A.M. Hoogstrate, C.A. Van Luttervelt, H.J.J. Kals, Analytical modelling of
the total depth of cut in the abrasive water jet machining of polycrystalline
brittle material, 73, 1998, 206–212.
[4] J. Zeng, T.J. Kim, An erosion model of polycrystalline ceramics in abrasive
waterjet cutting, 193, 1996, 207–217.
[5] S. Paul, A.M. Hoogstrate, C.A. Van Luttervelt, H.J.J. Kals, Analytical and
experimental modelling of the abrasive water jet cutting of ductile materials,
73, 1998, 189–199.
[6] M.C.P. Selvan, N.M.S. Raju, A machinability study of Kevlar-phenolic
composites using abrasive waterjet cutting process, (2), 2012.
[7] P. Hreha, S. Hloch, V. Peržel, Analysis of acoustic emission recorded during
monitoring of abrasive waterjet cutting of stainless steel AISI 309 analysis of
acoustic emission recorded during monitoring of abrasive waterjet cutting of
stainless steel AISI 309, 2015.
[8] J. Kechagias, G. Petropoulos, Application of Taguchi design for quality
characterization of abrasive water jet machining of TRIP sheet steels, 2012,
635–636.
[9] U. Aich, S. Banerjee, A. Bandyopadhyay, P. Kumar, Abrasive water jet cutting of
borosilicate glass, Procedia Mater. Sci. 6 (1) (2014) 775–785.
[10] D.A.Ã. Axinte, D.S. Srinivasu, M.C. Kong, Abrasive waterjet cutting of
polycrystalline diamond: a preliminary investigation, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 49 (10) (2009) 797–803.
[11] A.A. Khan, M.M. Haque, Performance of different abrasive materials during
abrasive water jet machining of glass, 191, 2007, 404–407.
[12] R. Kovacevic, Surface texture in abrasive waterjet cutting, 32–40.
[13] H. Orbanic, M. Junkar, Analysis of striation formation mechanism in abrasive
water jet cutting, 265, 2008, 821–830.