Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787

23rd International Conference on Material Forming (ESAFORM 2020)

Multi-Objective Optimization of Abrasive Water Jet Cutting Using MOGA

Miroslav Radovanovica,*
a
University
University of Nis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineeing, Aleksandra Medvedeva 14, 18000 Nis, Serbia

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+381 64 264 1540; fax:+381 18 588 244. E-mail address: miroslav.radovanovic@masfak.ni.ac.rs

Abstract

Abrasive water jet (AWJ) cutting is an unconventional machining process used to cut different types and thicknesses of materials. Cutting process
is based on material removal by erosion. Cutting tool is an ultra-fast thin jet of water mixed with abrasive particles. High-speed water jet
accelerates the abrasive particles and these particles erode the material. AWJ cutting is a complex process with many factors that determine
performances. The most important factors are: water pressure, water flow rate, orifice diameter, nozzle diameter, abrasive mass flow rate, traverse
speed and standoff distance. The most important performances are performances related to economy, productivity and quality. Optimizing the
AWJ cutting performances is essential in order to obtain better product quality, higher productivity and higher economic efficiency. In process
optimization it is logical to take economy and productivity performances as objectives and quality performances as constraints. For the realization
of production goal single-objective optimization is a good way, but multi-objective optimization is the right way. In this paper, multi-objective
optimization of abrasive water jet cutting carbon steel S235 is studied. Optimization was performed to simultaneously optimize two objectives
(productivity and operating cost) with three factors (traverse speed, abrasive mass flow rate and standoff distance) and three constraints
(perpendicularity tolerance, surface roughness limit and traverse speed for separation cut). The optimization problem was solved using multi-
objective genetic algorithm (MOGA).

© 2020
© 2020Miroslav
The Authors. Published
Radovanovic. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. Ltd.
by Elsevier
Thisisisan
This anopen
openaccess
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-ND licenselicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibilityof of
thethe scientific
scientific committee
committee of 23rd
of the the 23rd International
International Conference
Conference on Material
on Material Forming.
Forming.

Keywords: Abrasive water jet cutting; Multi-objective optimization; Multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA).

1. Introduction
Modern machining technologies are widely used in
manufacturing industries nowadays. Abrasive water jet (AWJ)
cutting is one of the most advanced modern machining
technologies used in manufacturing industry for material
processing. AWJ cutting is an unconventional machining
technology. Cutting process is based on the erosion of material
by abrasive particles accelerated by high speed water jet. AWJ
cutting is an effective technology for machining various
engineering materials and wide range of thickness. AWJ
cutting is widely used in the machining of materials such as
titanium, steel, brass, aluminum, stone, inconel and any kind
of glass and composites. Thickness of the worpkiece that can
be cut could have values up to 100 mm for stainless steel and
up to 120 mm for aluminum. With AWJ it is possible to cut
random contours in thick, middle and thin sheets, such as very
fine tabs and filigree structures. Tolerances of 0.1 mm can be
realized in metal cutting. Characteristics of AWJ cutting are:
no thermal distortion, no heat affected zone, small cutting
force, minimum stress on the workpiece, high flexibility and
versatility. AWJ cutting as machining technology has
developed in the early 1980s.
The first commercial abrasive water jet cutting system was
available in 1983. Hard abrasive particles are added to the
water jet, which makes it possible to cutting practically any
material. Development of AWJ cutting is a result of
development of high pressure pump. The water jet industry has
different definitions for differences in pressure levels. High
pressure is between 15,000 psi (103 MPa) to 40,000 psi (276
MPa). Ultrahigh pressure is between 40,000 psi (276 MPa) to
75,000 psi (517 MPa). Hyper pressure is 75,000 psi (517 MPa)

2351-9789 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an©open
2351-9789 access
2020 The article
Authors. under by
Published theElsevier
CC BY-NC-ND
Ltd. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
This is an openunder responsibility
access article of the
under the CC scientific
BY-NC-ND committee
license of the 23rd International Conference on Material Forming.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.241
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 23rd International Conference on Material Forming.
782 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
2 Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

and over. Pressure has increased every decade, moving to annealing (SA), ant colony optimization (ACO), particle
55,000 psi (379 MPa) by the end of the 1980s and reaching the swarm optimization (PSO) artificial bee colony (ABC), etc.
current standard of 60,000 psi (412 MPa) in the mid 1990s. In have been employed in place of conventional methods such as
general, standard pressure water jet systems run at ultrahigh linear and non-linear programming, etc.
pressure of 55,000 psi (379 MPa) to 60,000 psi (412 MPa) and Some of the advantages of computational approaches such
more advanced systems run at hyper pressure of 94,000 psi as GA in optimizing machining performances may include
(650 MPa) [3,8]. next: preferred when near-optimal conditions instead of the
Optimizing the AWJ cutting performances is essential in exact optimal solution are cost effective and acceptable for
order to obtain better product quality, higher productivity and implementation by the manufacturers, a derivative free
higher economic efficiency. The current trends of research approach for near-optimal points search direction, able to
show soft computing techniques have been used by many handle objective functions of any complexity with both
researchers to optimize the performances of conventional and discrete and continuous variables, an automatic search for the
unconventional machining technologies. non-linear connection between the inputs and outputs, and a
Evolutionary optimization methods that were inspired by fast and simple optimizing technique [11].
nature behavior such as genetic algorithm (GA), simulated There are few researchers who have studied multi-objective
optimization of abrasive water jet cutting. Aultrin and Anand
Nomenclature in [1] have studied multi-objective optimization of abrasive
water jet cutting aluminum alloy 6061. The effect of water
AWJ abrasive water jet pressure, abrasive flow rate, orifice diameter, nozzle diameter
C operating cost per meter of cut and standoff distance on material removal rate and surface
Ca cost of abrasive per hour roughness was investigated using response surface
Ce cost of electrical energy per hour methodology (RSM). Two objectives (material removal rate
Cm cost of maintenance per hour and surface roughness) were optimized using grey relation
Cr cost of wearing parts per hour analysis (GRA). Nair and Kumanan in [17] have studied multi-
Cw cost of water per hour objective optimization of abrasive water jet cutting inconel
Pa abrasive jet power 617. The effect of water pressure, abrasive mass flow rate,
Pe motor power standoff distance and traverse speed on circularity,
Q productivity cylindricity, perpendicularity and parallelism was
Ra surface roughness investigated. Five objectives (material removal rate,
Ram surface roughness limit circularity, cylindricity, perpendicularity and parallelism)
ca unit cost of abrasive were optimized using weighted principal components analysis
cd coefficient of discharge (WPCA). Deepak and Davim in [7] have studied multi-
ce unit cost of electrical energy objective optimization of abrasive water jet cutting fiber
cv coefficient of velocity reinforced polymer (graphite laced GFRP). The effect of
cw unit cost of water traverse speed, water pressure and standoff distance on kerf
do orifice diameter taper and surface roughness was investigated. Two objectives
df nozzle diameter (kerf taper and surface roughness) were optimized using grey
e specific cutting energy relational method. Radovanovic in [20] has studied multi-
h material thickness objective optimization of abrasive water jet cutting carbon
i quality number steel S235. The effect of traverse speed, abrasive mass flow
ma abrasive mass flow rate rate and standoff distance on perpendicularity deviation and
mw water jet mass flow rate surface roughness was investigated. Three objectives
p water pressure (perpendicularity deviation, surface roughness and
q water flow rate productivity) were optimized using multi-objective genetic
qw water jet flow rate algorithm (MOGA). Chakravarthy and Babu in [5] have
 water density studied multi-objective optimization of abrasive water jet
s standoff distance cutting granite. The effect of water pressure, traverse rate and
t machining time needed for a unit of cut surface abrasive flow rate on depth of cut was investigated. Three
u perpendicularity deviation objectives (production cost, production rate and abrasive
um perpendicularity tolerance consumption) were optimized using a new approach based on
vf traverse speed the principles of fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm (GA).
vs traverse speed for separation cut Jagadeesh et al. in [13] have studied multi-objective
vwj velocity of water jet optimization of abrasive water jet cutting carbon fiber
vawj velocity of abrasive water jet reinforced plastic laminates. The effect of thickness, traverse
w kerf width speed and standoff distance on surface roughness, kerf width
 impact angle and kerf taper was investigated. Two objectives (surface
 momentum loss factor roughness and kerf taper) were optimized using Design expert
 cutting energy efficiency coefficient software. Yuvaraj and Kumar in [24] have studied multi-
objective optimization of abrasive water jet cutting inconel
 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
617. The effect of water pressure, traverse speed, abrasive
mass flow rate and standoff distance on depth of cut, kerf
width, kerf taper and surface roughness was investigated. Five
objectives (depth of cut, kerf width, kerf taper, surface
roughness and cutting rate) were optimized using technique for
order preference by similarity ideal solution (TOPSIS).
In this paper, multi-objective optimization of abrasive
water jet cutting carbon steel S235 was studied. Optimization
was performed to simultaneously optimize two objectives
(productivity and operating cost) with three factors (abrasive
mass flow rate, traverse speed and standoff distance) and three
constraints (perpendicularity tolerance, surface roughness
limit and traverse speed for separation cut). The optimization
problem was solved using multi-objective genetic algorithm
(MOGA).
2. Abrasive water jet cutting
Process of abrasive water jet (AWJ) cutting is based on
material removal from the workpiece by erosion. High velocity
water jet accelerates abrasive particles and those particles
erode the material. Mechanism of erosion in AWJ cutting is
explained by multiple phenomena.
Scheme of abrasive water jet cutting is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Scheme of abrasive water jet cutting
Process of AWJ cutting can be decomposed into next
phases:
 High-pressure pump generates water pressure and delivers
continuous water flow.
 In orifice potential energy of water transforms into kinetic
energy of water jet.
 In nozzle kinetic energy of the water jet transfers to abrasive
particles. Abrasive particles are mixed with the water jet
creating abrasive water jet.
783
3
 Nozzle focuses the abrasive water jet and directs to
workpiece.
 Abrasive particles remove material from the workpiece.
High-pressure pump generates water pressure and delivers
continuous water flow. Via accumulator and high pressure
tubing the pressurized water directs to the cutting head.
Cutting head consists of orifice, mixing chamber and nozzle.
In orifice potential energy of water transforms into kinetic
energy of water jet. Orifice is where the water pressure is
converted to water velocity. Water is pressed out of the orifice
in form of very thin jet at a high velocity. Abrasive particles
are metered from a mini-hopper to the cutting head and added
to water jet in mixing chamber. The high velocity of the water
jet creates a Venturi effect or vacuum in the mixing chamber
located immediately beneath the orifice, so that abrasive
particles are sucked into the water jet. Abrasive particles are
mixed with the water jet in the nozzle. Abrasive water jet exit
of the nozzle as a mixture of water, abrasive particles and some
air. Nozzle focuses abrasive water jet and directs to the
workpiece. Кinetic energy of a jet of abrasive particles is used
for cutting. Abrasive particles erode material of the workpiece
by cutting (small chips) and deformation (small particles). The
precision X-Y movement system is used to move the cutting
head to create the desired cutting path. Advanced motion
controllers for abrasive water jet systems are computer based
and enable the production of accurate paths. Cutting head
moves along the workpiece at traverse speed [16,21,22].
Traverse speed can be given in the form of equation based on
specific cutting energy or in the form of regression equation
obtained by design of experiment (DoE). Traverse speed based
on specific cutting energy is [9]:
Pa
vf  (1)
eihw
where vf-traverse speed, -cutting energy efficiency
coefficient (   0.9113 v0f .134 ), Pa-abrasive jet power, e-specific
cutting energy, i-quality number, h-material thickness, w-kerf
width.
Specific cutting energy was determined experimentally.
Quality number describes the qualitative level of the surface
roughness, the kerf taper angle and the specific cut surface
characteristics. Quality number has value from 1 to 10 (1 for
separation cut-rough cut strongly tapered, 5 for smooth cut
small tapered, 10 for smooth and square cut).
Abrasive jet power is:
1 2
Pa  ma vawj (2)
2
where Pa-abrasive jet power, ma-abrasive mass flow rate, vawj-
velocity of abrasive water jet.
Velocity of abrasive water jet is:

vawj  vwj (3)
1 ma / mw
where vawj-velocity of abrasive water jet, -momentum loss
784 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
4 Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

factor (=0.65-0.85), vwj-velocity of water jet, ma-abrasive The most important AWJ cutting factors are: water
mass flow rate, mw-water jet mass flow rate. pressure, water jet flow rate, orifice diameter, nozzle diameter,
Velocity of water jet based on Bernoullis equation is: abrasive mass flow rate, traverse speed and standoff distance.
AWJ cutting performances can be classified into next
2p categories:
vwj  cv (4)  Process performances (traverse speed for separation cut,

orifice wear, nozzle wear, temperature, noise, etc.).
 Quality performances (form and dimensional accuracy, cut
where vwj-velocity of water jet, cv-coefficient of velocity quality: kerf depth, kerf width, kerf taper, striations, burr,
(cv=0.85-0.98), p-water pressure, - water density. edge radius, jet affected zone, surface roughness).
Water jet mass flow rate is:  Productivity performances (machining time, productivity).
 Economy performances (machining cost, electric energy
mw  qw (5) consumption, abrasive consumption, water consumption).
 Ecology friendly performances (noise, pollution).
where mw-water jet mass flow rate, -water density, qw-water  Safety performances (hazard, health).
jet flow rate. The most important AWJ cutting performances are quality,
Water jet flow rate is: productivity and economy performances. Cut quality limits
AWJ cutting application. Terms in AWJ cutting, according
d o2 2p ISO/TC 44 N 1770, are shown in Fig. 2, where are: Ra-surface
q w  cd (6) roughness, f-pitch of drag line, g-burr, hf-fine cut, hr-remaining
4  surface, n-drag line, rk-edge radius, sb-jet affected zone, h-
material thickness, u- perpendicularity or angularity tolerance
where qw-water jet flow rate, cd-coefficient of discharge [12].
(cd=0.6-0.8), do-orifice diameter, p-water pressure, -water
density. Kerf width is about 10% larger than the nozzle
diameter. Kerf width is:

w  1.1d f (7)

where w-kerf width, df-nozzle diameter.

Traverse speed based on equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and
(6) is:

1.155
  2cv2 p 
 m 
 eihwq a  Fig. 2. Terms related to kerf and cut surface
v f  0.898  
2.31 (8)
 4 
1  m  Perpendicularity deviation and surface roughness are the
 c d 2 2 p a  most significant characteristics of the cut quality. Deviations
 d o 
from the perpendicularity and surface roughness are usually in
AWJ cutting is a complex process with many factors that the form of regression equations obtained by the design of
determine performances. experiment (DoE).
AWJ cutting factors can be classified into next categories: In this paper selected productivity and economy
 Factors of workpiece (material type, material thickness, performances are machining time needed to produce a unit of
material hardness, material toughness, material grain size, cut surface and operating cost per meter of cut. Quality
tolerances, surface roughness). performances (perpendicularity deviation and surface
 Factors of water system (maximum pressure, maximum roughness) and process performance (traverse speed for
water flow rate, water purity, accumulator volume, high separation cut) have taken as constraints.
pressure tubing).
 Factors of abrasive system (abrasive material type, abrasive 3. Multi-objective optimization
hardness, abrasive particle size, abrasive particle shape,
abrasive particle size distribution, abrasives input method). Optimizing the AWJ cutting performances is essential in
 Factors of cutting head (orifice diameter, orifice material, order to provide a better quality, productivity and economic
nozzle diameter, nozzle length, nozzle material). efficiency.
 Factors of movement system (accuracy, stiffness, working Optimization procedure consists of next phases:
conditions).  Selection of objectives, constraints and bounds.
 Factors of process (water pressure, traverse speed, abrasive  Defining the optimization problem.
mass flow rate, standoff distance, impact angle).  Selection a method to solve the optimization problem.
 Solving the optimization problem.
 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Usually objectives are some of the quality, productivity and
economy performances.
Optimization problem of the multi-objective optimization
was defined with goal to maximize productivity and minimize
operating cost. Multi-objective optimizations, where the
objectives are generally conflicting, are difficult for solving
[6,18]. The goal in contour cutting is to have maximum cutting
length with minimum kerf width. Productivity in contour
cutting of sheets is defined as cut surface productivity, i.e. cut
surface in unit of time.
Q  hv f (9)
where Q (mm2/min)-productivity, h (mm)-material thickness,
vf (mm/min)-traverse speed.
Productivity is the objective function that must be
maximized. Inverse function of the productivity is machining
time needed to produce a unit of cut surface. Optimization
problem is defined with objectives, constraints and bound.
Selected objectives are:
 Machining time needed to produce a unit of cut surface
1 the Pareto front. Based on the set of optimal solutions, one
t (10)
hv f
where t (min/mm2-machining time needed to produce a unit of
cut surface, h (mm)-material thickness, vf (mm/min)-traverse
speed. Machining time needed to produce a unit of cut surface
is the objective function that must be minimized.
 Operating cost per meter of cut
1
C Ce  Cw  Ca  Cr  Cm 
vf
1 speed is cv=0.95. Coefficient of discharge is cd=0.7.
C ce Pe  cw q  ca ma  Cr  Cm  (11)
vf
where C (EUR/m)-operating cost per meter of cut, vf (m/h)-
traverse speed, Ce (EUR/h)-cost of electrical energy per hour
(Ce=cePe), ce (EUR/kWh)-unit cost of electrical energy, P e
(kW)-motor power, Cw (EUR/h)-cost of water per hour
(Cw=cwq), cw (EUR/m3)-unit cost of water, q (m3/h)-water flow
rate, Ca (EUR/h)-cost of abrasive per hour (Ca=cama), ca
(EUR/kg)-unit cost of abrasive, ma (kg/h)-abrasive mass flow
rate, Cr (EUR/h)-cost of wearing parts per hour, Cm (EUR/h)-
cost of maintenance per hour.
Operating cost per meter of cut is the objective function
that must be minimized.
Selected constraints are:
 Perpendicularity tolerance
u  um (12)
where: u-perpendicularity deviation, um-perpendicularity
tolerance.
 Surface roughness limit
785
5
Ra  Ram (13)
where Ra-surface roughness, Ram-surface roughness limit.
Perpendicularity deviation and surface roughness are
usually given in the form of regression equations obtained by
design of experiment.
 Traverse speed for separation cut
v f  vs (14)
where vf-traverse speed, vs-traverse speed for separation cut.
Bounds relate to technological limits for abrasive mass flow
rate, traverse speed and standoff distance.
Multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) is used for
solving multi-objective optimization problem. MOGA is
considered one of the most popular meta-heuristic approaches
that are well suited for solving multi-objective optimization
problems because it does not require user to prioritize, scale or
weight objectives. In multi-objective optimization there is a set
of optimal solutions called Pareto optimal set. Non-
dominated optimal solutions usually were plotted to form of
solution must be selected [14].
4. Example of the optimization
An example of multi-objective optimization of abrasive
water jet cutting is presented. Samples of carbon steel S235,
6.5 mm thick, were cut with a water jet cutting machine Hydro
Jet Eco 0615. High pressure pump is with maximum pressure
p=150 MPa, engine power Pe=7.5 kW and maximum water
flow rate q=2.4 l/min. Cutting head is with orifice diameter
do=0.35 mm and nozzle diameter df=1.02 mm. Impact angle is
=90. Abrasive material is a garnet mesh 80. Coefficient of
Momentum loss factor is =0.75. Water density is w=1000
kg/m3. Water pressure is p=150 MPa. Specific cutting energy
is e=6975 MJ/m3. Minimum abrasive mass flow rate is
ma,min=300 g/min. Maximum abrasive flow rate is ma,max=700
g/min. Minimum technological traverse rate is vf,min=50
mm/min. Maximum technological traverse rate is vf,max=150
mm/min. Minimum standoff distance is smin=1 mm. Maximum
standoff distance is smin=5 mm. Unit cost of electrical energy
is ce=0.105 EUR/kWh. Unit cost of water is cw=0.5 EUR/m3.
Unit cost of abrasive is ca=0.7 EUR/kg. Cost of wearing parts
per hour is Cr=0.858 EUR/h. Cost of maintenance per hour is
Cm=1.25 EUR/h. Perpendicularity tolerance is u0.1 mm.
Surface roughness limit is Ra6.3 m. Regression equations
for perpendicularity deviation and surface roughness when
abrasive water jet cutting carbon steel S235 were determined
by design of experiment (DoE) [10,19].
Perpendicularity deviation is:
u  0.00025 ma0.28v1f.05 s 0.60 (15)
786 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
6 Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

where u (mm)-perpendicularity deviation, ma (g/min)-abrasive Table 1. Parameters of the Matlab multiobjective genetic algorithm solver
mass flow rate, vf (mm/min)-traverse speed, s (mm)-standoff Population type Double vector
distance. Population size 50
Surface roughness is: Creation function Constraint dependent
Selection Selection function: Tournament, size: 2
ma0.07 v 0f .29
Ra  0.826 (16) Reproduction Crossover fraction: 0.8
s 0.012 Mutation Mutation function: Constraint dependent
Crosover Crossover function: Intermediate, Ratio: 1.0
where Ra (m)-surface roughness, ma (g/min)-abrasive mass
flow rate, vf (mm/min)-traverse speed, s (mm)-standoff Migration Direction: Forward, Fraction: 0.2, Interval: 20
distance. Equations (15) and (16) are valid for: 300 g/min  ma Multiobjective Pareto front population fraction: 0.35
 700 g/min, 50 mm  vf  150 mm, and 1 mm  s 5 mm. problem settings
Traverse speed for separation cut based on equation for Stopping criteria Generations: 100*number of variables
specific cutting energy (8) is:
Nondominated points generated by the Matlab
m1a.155 multiobjective genetic algorithm solver were plotted to form
vs  0.26 (17) the Pareto front, Fig. 3.
1  0.0003 ma 2.31
Table 2. Part of the Pareto front points
where vs (mm/min)-traverse speed for separation cut, ma Index t (s/cm2) C (EUR/m) vf (mm/min) ma (g/min) s (mm)
(g/min)-abrasive mass flow rate.
1 11.273 3.349 81,857 320.995 1.817
Optimization was performed to simultaneously optimize
2 11.209 3.364 82.326 342.987 1.601
two objectives (machining time needed to produce a unit of cut
surface and operating cost per meter of cut), with three factors 3 10.560 3.447 87.383 359.681 1.761
(abrasive mass flow rate, traverse speed and standoff distance), 4 10.121 2.999 91.173 319.998 1.483
three constraints (perpendicularity tolerance, surface 5 9.488 3.480 97.256 412.842 1.351
roughness limit and traverse speed for separation cut) and 6 9.146 2.651 100.900 311.528 1.382
bounds.
7 8.687 2.716 106.225 341.556 1.278
Mathematical model of the multi-objective optimization
8 8.151 2.352 113.216 309.730 1.205
has form:
 Objective functions 9 7.404 2.091 124.630 301.708 1.014
10 7.266 2.048 127.003 301.020 1.000
922.8
min, t  11 7.275 2.056 126.850 302.000 1.001
vf
12 7.955 2.322 116.002 314.168 1.115
1 13 8.360 2.878 110.382 383.169 1.090
min, C  49.458  0.7ma 
vf 14 8.726 2.617 105.752 324.685 1.129
15 9.051 2.673 101.951 318.596 1.404
 Constraints 16 9.875 2.870 93.445 312.431 1.361

0.00025 m 0.28 1.05 0.60

v s  0.1 17 10.877 3.321 84.841 331.831 1.557
a f
18 11.209 3.364 82.326 324.987 1.601
ma0.07 v 0f .29
0.826  6.3
s 0.012
m1a.155
v f  0.26
1  0.0003 ma 2.31
50  v f  150 ; 300  ma  700 ; 1  s  5

where t (s/cm2)-machining time needed to produce a unit of cut

surface, C (EUR/m)-operating cost per meter of cut, vf
(mm/min)-traverse speed, ma (g/min)-abrasive mass flow rate,
s (mm)-standoff distance. Optimization problem was solved
using Matlab multiobjective genetic algorithm solver for
determination a set of nondominated optimal points, known as
Pareto front. Parameters of the Matlab multiobjective genetic
algorithm solver are presented in Table 1. Fig. 3. Pareto front points
 Miroslav Radovanovic / Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 781–787
Miroslav Radovanovic/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Part of the Pareto front points obtained as a result of the
optimization process is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the following factor levels can be
selected for abrasive water jet cutting carbon steel S235, 6.5
mm thick: traverse rate vf=127 mm/min, abrasive flow rate
ma=300 g/min and standoff distance h=1 mm.
For these factor levels, machining time needed to produce
a unit of cut surface is t=7.266 s/cm2 (productivity is Q=8.258
cm2/min) and operating cost per meter of cut is C=2.048
EUR/m.
5. Conclusion
Abrasive water jet (AWJ) cutting is a complex machining
process with many factors that determine performances.
Optimizing the AWJ cutting performances is essential in order
to obtain better product quality, higher productivity and higher
economic efficiency. To optimize machining performances
optimization problem was defined. Optimization problem
consists of two objectives (machining time needed to produce
a unit of cut surface and operating cost per meter of cut), three
factors (abrasive mass flow rate, traverse speed and standoff
distance), three constraints (perpendicularity tolerance,
surface roughness limit and traverse speed for separation cut)
and bounds. Cut quality performances limit productivity and
economy performances in AWJ cutting applications.
Perpendicularity tolerance and surface roughness limit are
conditions for good quality of the parts. In order to define the
optimization problem it is necessary to know the
perpendicularity deviation, the surface roughness and the
traverse speed for separation cut in correlation to the process
factors. Equations for perpendicularity deviation and surface
roughness were determined by design of experiment (DoE).
Equation for traverse speed for separation cut was determined
using specific cutting energy. Multi-objective optimizations,
where the objectives are generally conflicting, are difficult for
solving. Matlab multiobjective genetic algorithm solver was
used for solving multi-objective optimization problem. The
following factor levels were selected for abrasive water jet
cutting carbon steel S235, 6.5 mm thick: traverse rate vf=127
mm/min, abrasive flow rate ma=300 g/min and standoff
distance h=1 mm. For these factor levels, machining time
needed to produce a unit of cut surface is t=7.266 s/cm2
(productivity is Q=8.258 cm2/min) and operating cost per
meter of cut is C=2.048 EUR/m.
Acknowledgement
The paper is a result of the technological project TR35034
which is supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development of Republic of Serbia.
References
[1] Aultrin J, Anand D. Multi-objective optimization of abrasive water jet
machining of aluminum 6061 alloy by Grey Relational Analysis. JCHPS
2016;9(1):410-417.
787
7
[2] Akkurt A, Mustafa K, Ulvi S, Fevzi E. Effect of feed rate on surface
roughness in abrasive water jet cutting applications. J Mater Process Tech
2004;147: 89–396.
[3] Axinte D, Kong M. An integrated monitoring method to supervise waterjet
machining. Cirp Ann-Manuf Techn 2009;58(1):303–306.
[4] Caydas U, Hascalik A. A study on surface roughness in abrasive waterjet
machining process using artificial neural networks and regression analysis
method. J Mater Process Tech 2008;202:574–582.
[5] Chakravarthy P, Babu N. A new approach for selection of optimal process
parameters in abrasive water jet cutting. Mater Manuf Process 2007;14(4):
81-600.
[6] Chaturvedi V, Singh D. Multi response optimization of process parameters
of abrasive water jet machining for stainless steel AISI 304 using VIKOR
approach coupled with signal to noise ratio methodology. J Adv Manuf
Syst 2015;14(2):107-121.
[7] Deepak D, Davim P. Multi-response optimization of process parameters in
AWJ machining of hybrid GFRP composite by grey relational method.
Procedia Manufacturing 2019;35:1211-1221.
[8] Gostimirovic M, Pucovsky V, Sekulic M, Rodic D, Pejic V. Evolutionary
optimization of jet lag in the abrasive water jet machining. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2019; 101(9-12):3131-3141.
[9] Hoogstrate AM. Towards high-definition abrasive waterjet cutting. PhD
thesis, Delft University of Technology; 2000.
[10] Herghelegiu E. Contributions to the optimization of the water jet working
parameters. PhD thesis, University Vasile Alecsandri of Bacau; 2011.
[11] Iqbal A, Udar N, Hussain G. Optimization of abrasive water jet cutting of
ductile materials. J Wuhan Univ Technol 2011; 26(1):88-92.
[12] ISO/TC 44 N 1770: Water jet cutting-Geometrical product specification
and quality; 2010.
[13] Jagadeesh B, Babu PD, Mohamed MN, Marimuthu P. Experimental
investigation and optimization of abrasive water jet cutting parameters for
the improvement of cut quality in carbon fiber reinforced plastic laminates.
J Ind Text 2018; 48(1):178-200.
[14] Kovacevic M, Madic M, Radovanovic M, Rancic D. Software prototype
for solving multi-objective machining optimization problems: Application
in non-conventional machining processes. Expert Syst Appl
2014;41(13):5657-5668.
[15] Madic M, Markovic D, Radovanovic M. Comparison of meta-heuristic
algorithms for solving machining optimization problems. Facta
Univeristatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering 2013;11(1):29-44.
[16] Momber AW, Kovacevic R. Principles of abrasive water jet machining.
London: Springer; 1998.
[17] Nair A, Kumanan S. Multi-performance optimization of abrasive water
jet machining of Inconel 617 using WPCA. Mater Manuf Process
2017;32(6): 693-699.
[18] Qiang Z, Miao X, Wu M, Sawhney R. Optimization of abrasive waterjet
machining using multi-objective cuckoo search algorithm. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2018;99:1257-1266.
[19] Radovanovic M, Madic M. Optimizing factor levels based on cost in
abrasive water jet cutting using GA. In: Cus F, Gecevska V, Chiampo F,
editors. Methods and techniques for industrial development. Maribor:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering; 2015. p. 17-30.
[20] Radovanovic M. Multi-objective optimization of process performances
when cutting carbon steel with abrasive water jet. Tribol. ind.
2016;38(4):454-462.
[21] Sharma V, Chattopadhyaya S, Hloch S. Multi response optimization of
process parameters based on Taguchi - Fuzzy model for coal cutting by
water jet technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2011;56:1019-1025.
[22] Srinivasu D, Babu, N. An adaptive control strategy for the abrasive
waterjet cutting process with the integration of vision-based monitoring
and a neuro-genetic control strategy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2008; 38(5-
6):514-523.
[23] Valicek J, Hloch S, Kozak D. Surface geometric parameters proposal for
the advanced control of abrasive waterjet technology. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2009;41:323-328.
[24] Yuvaraj N, Kumar MP. Multiresponse optimization of abrasive water jet
cutting process parameters using TOPSIS approach. Mater Manuf Process
2015;30(7): 882-889.