See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248324486

A study on recycling of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining

Article  in  Wear · April 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00256-4

CITATIONS READS

84 894

2 authors, including:

Kantha babu M
Anna University, Chennai
40 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Additive manufacturing of microgrippers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kantha babu M on 10 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wear 254 (2003) 763–773

A study on recycling of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty∗
Manufacturing Engineering Section, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
Received 4 October 2002; accepted 20 February 2003

Abstract
This paper reports the effect of recycling of local garnet abrasives (origin: southern India) while cutting aluminium using abrasive water
jet machining. The influence of pressure, traverse rate, and abrasive flow rate on American Foundrymen’s Society grain fineness number,
average particle size, depth of cut, top kerf width, bottom kerf width, kerf taper, and surface finish obtained using a specially formulated
optimised abrasive test sample have been studied. The performance of the test sample has been compared with that of commercial grade
abrasive of mesh size 80. Recycling studies, undertaken with used abrasives after screening out particles less than 90 ␮m size and also
with all particles without screening are reported. It is found that the test sample performed better than mesh size 80 abrasives, in terms of
achievable depth of cut and surface finish. Recycled abrasives reduces kerf taper, improving the parallelism of cut surface. These results
indicate that the proper selection of abrasive particle size distribution is necessary for achieving improved results. The reusability percentage
of test sample of the local abrasives that can be recycled is determined as 81%.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Abrasive water jet machining; Abrasive particle size distribution; Recycling; Garnet abrasives

1. Introduction Abrasive particles disintegrate during the acceleration

Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM), an emerging
technology is experiencing continuous growth. Its industrial
usage depends on cost effectiveness. In general, the over-
all cost of AWJM systems remains quite high compared
to traditional machining techniques, despite the thrust by
the industry to reduce the equipment cost and increase the
system reliability. System operating costs have been held
steady for many years at a high level [1]. The largest com-
ponent of operating cost is that of abrasive, constituting
nearly 75% of the total operating expenses. When abrasive
disposal is included, this percentage can be even higher
[1,2]. The cost of abrasives has restricted many opportu-
nities and usage of this technology. This cost, however
must be considered along with abrasive performance. Good
abrasive performance is more important than the cost of
abrasive, since any disadvantage in higher abrasive pur-
chase cost can be outweighed by the higher cutting speed
achieved with a better performing abrasive. Therefore cost
of abrasive should be weighed against its performance and
the most cost-effective abrasive should be selected [3]. The
cutting efficiency is influenced by the particle size, particle
size distribution, and shape of the abrasive particles.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-44-445-8508; fax: +91-44-235-2545.
E-mail address: ovk@iitm.ac.in (O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty).
and focusing processes and also after cutting. During the
cutting process, the breakdown of abrasive particles occurs
in two stages: (1) particle/particle, particle/water jet and
particle/wall collisions in the mixing chamber/focusing tube
assembly; (2) particle/particle and particle target collisions
[4]. With proper cleaning and sorting, an important por-
tion of sludge may be recycled and fed back to the cutting
process. Only the remaining portion, the microchips of the
workpiece material and the used abrasive material of finer
size particles usually less than 90 ␮m are disposed [5].
Recycling of the abrasives makes the process more eco-
nomical, effective and environmentally friendly. Realising
the importance of recycling, fully automated systems for
abrasive recycling have been recently introduced into the
market.
Natural abrasives are often mined from riverbeds or sand
deposits. Impurities are removed to improve the performance
of cutting. The abrasives are subsequently sized. This mul-
tistep process uses metal screen sieves to remove very fine
and oversized particles [3]. Among the abrasives, the indus-
tries frequently use garnet, as it demonstrated effectiveness
of its hardness, sharp edges, flowability, availability, and rea-
sonable cost [6]. Comparison of garnet, silica and steel grit
indicated improved performance of garnet [6,7]. However,
different types of garnet, even when chemically and physi-
cally similar, perform quite differently [8].

0043-1648/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00256-4
764 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773

Literature indicates that only limited attempts were tation of abrasives during various stages of recycling stud-
made to study the influence of particle size distribution ied using AFS no. and a.p.s. The AFS no. is defined as the
parameters in AWJM. For the first time Momber and Ko- sum of product (consists of weight of abrasive particles re-
vacevic [9] studied the influence of two different particle tained in each sieve in percentage multiplied by previous
size distribution parameters; size modulus of 150–400 ␮m sieve mesh number) divided by the total percentage of abra-
and a distribution modulus of 1–4, while machining of sives retained in the set of sieves and the pan. The a.p.s. is
aluminium. The distribution parameters are derived from calculated based on momentum method; defined as the sum
a Rosin–Rammler–Sperling grain size distribution. The of product (consists of particles retained on each sieve in
influence of these parameters on the depth of cut is not percentage is multiplied with average mesh size of the sieve)
significant in the selected parameter range, whereas surface divided by the total percentage of abrasives retained in the
finish in the smooth cutting zone is sensitive to changes in set of sieves and the pan.
both of the particle size distribution parameters.
In our ongoing research, garnet abrasives obtained from
southern India are being tested for utility. Preliminary re- 2. Experimental set-up and procedure
search on AWJM with these abrasives [10–12] has concen-
trated on depth of cut, top and bottom kerf width, kerf taper, An injection jet type abrasive water jet machine consist-
surface finish, and fragmentation of abrasive particles mea- ing of pressure intensifier, an abrasive machining head, an
sured by American Foundrymen’s Society grain fineness x–y positioning system and a catcher tank has been used for
number (AFS no.) as well as average particle sizes (a.p.s.) experimentation. The equipment details are given in Table 1.
proposed by Guo et al. [2]. Since commercial grades of
mesh sizes supplied by various vendors vary in their particle Table 1
size distribution [4,13], a specially formulated test sample Details of the equipment
with five equally distributed particle sizes rather than single
Item Description
or three equally distributed sizes is recommended for use
based on optimisation studies [12]. AWJM system Pressure intensifier, injection
The present work attempts to study the recycling capabil- type nozzle
Power 22 kW, 50 Hz
ities and reusability of local abrasive particles with different Maximum discharge pressure 360 MPa
particle size distribution. Specially formulated optimised Abrasive feeding system Vibratory conveyor with
abrasive test sample of five equally distributed particle sizes heating facility
was compared with abrasive particles of commercial grade CNC work table Two-axis control (X = 1000,
mesh size 80 having AFS no. and a.p.s., similar to test sam- Y = 1000)
British standard sieves, mesh 30, 36, 44, 52, 60, 72, 80, 100, 120
ple. Recycling studies are undertaken with used abrasives number
after screening out particles less than 90 ␮m and also with Surface finish measuring Perthometer, cutoff length:
all particles without screening. equipment 0.8 mm, traverse length:
The target parameters considered are depth of cut (d), 4.8 mm
top kerf width (KWT ), bottom kerf width (KWB ), kerf taper Kerf width measurement Optical microscope, 0.5 ␮m accuracy
Scanning electron microscope JEOL JSM-5300
(KT ), surface finish (Ra ) (Figs. 1 and 2), and the fragmen-

Fig. 1. Schematic of workpiece.

 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773 765

Fig. 2. A typical cut surface.

Table 2 five different mesh sizes and the commercial grade abrasive
Constant process parameters of mesh size 80 are shown in Table 3.
Parameter Description A trapezoidal workpiece has been cut and the depth of ma-
Abrasive material Garnet (origin: southern India)
chining (d = AB sin 25◦ ) is determined as shown in Fig. 1.
Abrasive particle shape Angular (random) Each combination of parameters can achieve certain depth
Primary nozzle diameter (mm) 0.25, sapphire of cut, indicated to the operator by splashing of jet. The
Secondary nozzle diameter (mm) 0.8, carbide length of cut over the test runs is therefore, a variable (in
Secondary nozzle length (mm) 70 this work it depends on the conditions of the abrasives; fresh
Standoff distance (mm) 3
Jet impact angle (◦ ) 90
abrasives are expected to cut longer than recycled abrasives).
Workpiece material Aluminium 6063 T6 The top and bottom kerf widths (width of the cuts) are mea-
Pressure (MPa) 225 sured at three locations on the cut length, viz, at the start of
Traverse rate (mm/min) 50 cut, middle and at the end of cut and then averaged (Figs. 1
Abrasive flow rate (g/s) 1.5 and 2). The kerf taper (ratio of top kerf width to bottom kerf
width) is computed. In an AWJM cut surface, the upper sec-
In this type the jet is formed by accelerating abrasive par- tion consists of smooth cutting zone (SCZ) characterised by
ticles through contact with a high velocity water jet. The roughness, while the lower section consists of rough cutting
water jet is formed in an orifice on top of the head, while zone (RCZ) characterised by waviness (Fig. 2). Therefore in
the abrasives enter the head through a separate entry. The this experimentation work, the middle region is selected for
mixing of abrasives, water jet, and air take place in a mix- measurement and comparison of surface finish. Three mea-
ing chamber, and the acceleration process occurs in an ac- surement of surface finish (Ra ) in the direction of cut are
celeration tube. The particles leave the nozzle at velocities made and averaged.
of several hundred meters per second. A large number of To study the disintegration behaviour of abrasives
abrasive particles impinge on target and cut the material [6]. (through AFS no. and a.p.s.), abrasive particles have been
The process parameters kept constant are shown in Table 2. collected at the exit of the focusing nozzle, and also af-
The details of abrasive test sample containing particles of ter cutting. Collection is done through a special catcher,
Table 3
Details of abrasive samples
Abrasive sample Percentage of abrasive mesh designation (particle size, mm) AFS no. Average
particle
#44 #52 #60 #72 #80 #100 #120 size (mm)
(0.355–0.400) (0.315–0.355) (0.250–0.315) (0.200–0.250) (0.180–0.200) (0.160–0.180) (0.125–0.160)
Test sample 20 20 20 20 20 – – 52.8 0.282
Mesh size 80 8.3 29.1 36 1.1 23.7 1.4 0.4 53.8 0.281
766 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773

consisting of a cylindrical drum with a screening cloth.

The collected abrasives are cleaned (aluminium debris is
dissolved by adding 20% NaOH solution), dried and then
sieved. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) is used to
study the changes in particle size and shape of abrasives at
nozzle exit and after cutting aluminium material with all
particles during various stages of recycling.
Automated recycling equipment, screen out particles less
than 90 ␮m. Researchers [2,13–15] have preferred elimina-
tion of finer particles less than 90 ␮m for improved cutting
performance and repeated use. Therefore the present works
deals with recycling studies with particles more than 90 ␮m
size. In order to understand the behaviour of recycled local
abrasives in the presence of finer particles, studies are also
undertaken with all particles including particles less than
90 ␮m size (without screening) for possible reduction in re-
cycling costs.

3. Experimental results and discussion

The following subsections detail the results of recycling

studies with particles more than 90 ␮m size and also with
all particles.

3.1. Recycling of abrasive particles with size more

than 90 µm
3.1.1. AFS no./average particle size
Table 4 as well as Figs. 3 and 4 indicate the influence of
recycling on the AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh
size 80. The AFS no. and a.p.s. for fresh abrasives and for
recycled ones at nozzle entry, nozzle exit, and after cutting
are shown in Table 4 and Figs. 3 and 4. Table 5 indicate the
details of particle size distribution of the abrasives at various
stages. It can be observed that the AFS no. increases with
recycling, both with the test sample and mesh size 80.
The complex process of mixing within the mixing cham-
ber and focusing nozzle results in an increase in AFS no.
(reduction in the a.p.s.) at the nozzle exit. It can also be ob-
served from Tables 4 and 5 that tremendous disintegration
occurs with the fresh abrasives in the mixing chamber and
focusing nozzle, as compared to recycled abrasives. This is
to be expected, since fresh abrasives has particles of larger
Fig. 3. Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. of (a) test sample and
(b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.
size. During the cutting process further disintegration takes
place and the AFS no. is further increased (a.p.s. further re-
duces). Guo et al. [2] observed that larger particles disinte-
grate more than smaller particles. The increase in AFS no.
(reduction in the a.p.s.) is found to be more with test sample
as compared to mesh size 80. It is because the test sample
abrasives contains more number of larger particles and there-
fore higher fragmentation due to inter particle collisions and
also with abrasive/water jet and as well with abrasive/target
collisions. The same phenomenon has been observed with
the recycled particles at every cycle.
With the test sample (Fig. 3a and b) it is found that the
increase in AFS no. of recycled particles before and after
cutting is marginal, while with mesh size 80 this increase
is significant. This may be attributed to the particle size

Table 4
Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80 with particles more than 90 ␮m
Fresh abrasives Recycle-I Recycle-II Recycle-III

Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80

AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s.
no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm)
Nozzle entry 53 0.282 54 0.281 65 0.200 63 0.200 66 0.171 65 0.192 71 0.168 70 0.176
Nozzle exit 94 0.192 87 0.195 111 0.170 101 0.171 114 0.168 105 0.162 115 0.161 114 0.160
After cutting 105 0.174 100 0.186 113 0.169 103 0.165 114 0.167 109 0.161 115 0.157 117 0.153
 Table 5
Distribution of all particle sizes of test sample and mesh size 80 at various stages
Abrasive sample Percentage of abrasive retained on mesh designation (particle size, mm) AFS no. Average
particle
#44 #52 #60 #72 #80 #100 #120 #170 #240 Pan size (mm)
(0.355–0.400) (0.315–0.355) (0.250–0.315) (0.200–0.250) (0.180–0.200) (0.160–0.180) (0.125–0.160) (0.09–0.160) (0.063–0.09)
Test sample
Fresh abrasives 20 20 20 20 20 – – – – – 52.8 0.282
After I cut 1.5 3.2 11.3 10.9 7.4 20.4 14 11.9 10 9.4 104.8 0.174
Recycle-I 0.9 0.7 5.7 10.3 5.3 17.6 19 14.4 9.4 16.7 120.9 0.157
Recycle-II 0.7 0.5 5.5 1.3 16.4 17.4 18.3 14.3 11.5 14.1 122.6 0.152
Recycle-III 0 0 2.4 9.5 9.2 17.3 21.7 17.3 12.5 10.2 124.9 0.147
Mesh size 80
Fresh abrasives 8.3 29.1 36 1.1 23.7 1.4 0.4 – – – 53.8 0.281
After I cut 0.2 1.6 13.8 24 10.4 13.1 11.5 8.6 5 11.8 99.5 0.186
Recycle-I 0.1 0.5 7.3 19.2 7.2 16.9 16 11.6 7.5 13.7 110.7 0.167
Recycle-II 0 0.3 3.2 17.6 7.4 20.4 17.9 11.8 8.1 13.3 112.8 0.160
Recycle-III 0 0.2 3.4 10.1 7.6 17.2 27.5 14.3 7.1 12.7 115 0.153

abrasives.

3.1.2. Depth of cut

M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773

(b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.

and mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.

Fig. 5. Effect of recycling of abrasives on depth of cut of test sample
test sample and mesh size 80. Abrasive particles disintegrate
Fig. 5 indicates the effect on the depth of cut for both of
removed. This further increases recycling capabilities of the
than mesh size 80, when the particles less than 90 ␮m are
indicated that the test sample has superior recycling capacity
particles. The results of the AFS nos. and the a.p.s. (Table 4)
sample. This is also influenced by the removal of finer size
distribution and presence of larger size particles in the test
Fig. 4. Effect of recycling of abrasives on a.p.s. of (a) test sample and
767
768 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773
during cutting. Recycling leads to further disintegration. The
role of finer abrasives in reduction of cutting is well estab-
lished [2]. Hence recycling leads to decreased depth of cut.
With the test sample the percentage reduction in depth of cut
with first recycling as compared to fresh abrasives is found
to be 18% and with mesh size 80 it is found to be 22%. With
test sample, reduction in depth of cut due to further recy-
cling is found to be from 0.5 to 3%, while with mesh size
80 it is 3–4%. The performance of the test sample (Fig. 5)
indicates that an increase of 12–20% in depth of cut can be
achieved with the test sample as compared to mesh size 80.
This indicates superior performance of test sample and may
be attributed to the presence of larger size particles in the
fresh sample (Tables 4 and 5). Thus particle size distribution
plays a key role in improving the cutting efficiency.
3.1.3. Kerf width and kerf taper
Average of three measurements of kerf parameters (Figs. 1
and 2) have been recorded. Fig. 6a indicates the influence
of recycling of test sample on top kerf width, bottom kerf
width, and kerf taper. After the first recycling, the kerf pa-
rameters have reduced considerably. This can be attributed
to the availability of larger particles with the fresh abrasives.
On further recycling, it is found that there is a consider-
able reduction in top kerf width as compared to bottom kerf
width. The decrease in kerf widths (top and bottom) is due to
Fig. 6. Effect of recycling of abrasives on kerf parameters of (a) test
sample and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.
Fig. 7. Effect of recycling of abrasives on surface finish of test sample
and mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.
increase in the AFS no. (decreased a.p.s.) and hence reduced
capability to cut. The reduction in kerf taper is also observed
with further recycling. Reductions in kerf taper obtained with
recycled abrasives are advantageous in machining since par-
allelism of a cut surface increases, leading to quality cuts.
Fig. 6b indicates the influence of recycling of mesh size
80 on kerf parameters. Though observations similar to test
sample have been made (both with the top and bottom kerf
width), the kerf widths decreases cycle after cycle, the top
kerf width indicates lower values for mesh size 80 than for
the test sample. This is due to smaller size abrasives present
in the mesh size 80. However the bottom kerf width and the
kerf taper for mesh size 80 are more than those obtained
with the test sample. This supports the fact that particle size
distribution influences these parameters.
3.1.4. Surface finish
The surface finish (Ra ) at the middle section of the work-
piece is measured by Perthometer at three places in the
direction of cut and the average is recorded (Fig. 2). Fig. 7
shows the influences of recycling on surface finish, Ra ,
obtained with the test sample and with mesh size 80. The
superior performance of test sample results in increased sur-
face finish with recycling when compared to mesh size 80 in
every cycle. The improvement in surface finish is attributed
to increase in AFS no. of abrasive particles (reduction in
a.p.s.) (Tables 4 and 5). Though the AFS no. of mesh size 80
also increases with recycling, it is less than that for the test
sample (Tables 4 and 5), hence the surface finish is inferior
to that of the test sample. Therefore, the particle size distri-
butions seem to play a role in controlling the surface finish.
3.2. Recycling studies with all particles
The following subsections detail the results of recycling
studies with all particles up to three cycles. The abrasives
could be reused three times, and could not be continued due
to erratic and discontinuous cutting. Due to disintegration of
abrasives with reuse, the abrasive particles become finer and
finer, and as a result blockage of the flow channel was noticed
 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773 769

Fig. 9. Effect of recycling of abrasives on a.p.s. of (a) test sample and

Fig. 8. Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. of (a) test sample and (b) mesh size 80 with all particles.
(b) mesh size 80 with all particles.

Fig. 10 shows the SEM photographs of abrasive test sam-

and the cutting has been erratic. Hence further recycling has
been discontinued.
3.2.1. AFS no./average particle size
Table 6 as well as Figs. 8 and 9 indicate the details of AFS
nos. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80. The AFS no.
and a.p.s. for fresh abrasives and for recycled ones at nozzle
entry, nozzle exit, and after cutting are shown in Table 6,
and Figs. 8 and 9. Table 5 indicate the details of particle size
distribution of the abrasives of test sample and mesh size 80
at various stages of recycling (with fresh abrasive, after I cut,
recycle-I, recycle-II and recycle-III). These results indicate
that the increase in AFS no. (reduction in a.p.s.) in every
stages of recycling. The increase in AFS no. resulted in very
fine particles and blocked the flow channel.
ple and mesh size 80 at nozzle entry, nozzle exit and after
cutting. It can be generally observed that the larger parti-
cles when fractured are likely to yield sharp edged prod-
ucts. Finer particles that are unable to fracture have rounded
edges in the process of machining. These photographs are
typical of the process and indicate process complexity.
3.2.2. Depth of cut
Fig. 11 shows the effect of recycling, wherein with re-
peated abrasive use (both with the test sample as well as
mesh size 80) the depth of cut reduces. Abrasive particles
disintegrate (leading to increase in AFS no.) during mixing
and cutting processes. With the test sample, the percentage
reduction in depth of cut with first recycling is found to be
22% and with mesh size 80, it is 26%. The reduction in

Table 6
Effect of recycling of abrasives on AFS no. and a.p.s. of test sample and mesh size 80 with all particles
Fresh abrasives Recycle-I Recycle-II Recycle-III

Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80 Test sample Mesh size 80

AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s. AFS a.p.s.
no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm) no. (mm)
Nozzle entry 53 0.282 54 0.281 105 0.174 100 0.186 121 0.157 111 0.167 123 0.152 113 0.160
Nozzle exit 94 0.192 87 0.195 109 0.158 106 0.174 122 0.155 112 0.166 124 0.150 114 0.159
After cutting 105 0.174 100 0.186 121 0.157 111 0.167 123 0.152 113 0.160 125 0.147 115 0.153
770 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773

Fig. 10. SEM photographs.

 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773
Fig. 10. (Continued ).
depth of cut due to further recycling is found to range from
3.9 to 5.5% with test sample, while in the case of mesh size
80 it is 3–3.9%. Fig. 11 indicates that an increase of 12–16%
in depth of cut is achieved with the test sample as com-
pared to mesh size 80. This indicates superior performance
of test sample and may be attributed to the presence of larger
size particles in it. However the depth of cut achieved with
removal of finer particles (less than 90 ␮m) is marginally
higher (Fig. 5) than that of all particles.
Fig. 11. Effect of recycling of abrasives on depth of cut of test sample
and mesh size 80 with all particles.
771
3.2.3. Kerf width and kerf taper
Average of three measurements of kerf parameters have
been recorded. Fig. 12a indicates the influence of recycling
on top kerf width, bottom kerf width, and kerf taper achieved
with the test sample. It can be observed that the top kerf
width as well as bottom kerf width achieved with recycled
abrasives is lower than those with fresh abrasives. This is due
to the increase in the AFS no. of recycled abrasives as com-
pared to fresh abrasives. Similar behaviour is also observed
in the recycling studies with particles more than 90 ␮m.
However the results obtained with all particles (Fig. 12a),
indicate lower values than that of recycling of abrasives hav-
ing particles, more than 90 ␮m particles (Fig. 6a). It may
also be observed that the continuous recycling of the test
sample results in decrease of top kerf width, bottom kerf
width, while kerf taper decreases and then increases.
Fig. 12b indicates the influence of recycling on kerf pa-
rameters achieved with mesh size 80. Though observations
similar to test sample are made with regard to the top and
bottom kerf width, the top kerf width is found to be smaller
than that with the test sample. This is due to the presence of
larger sized particles in the test sample. However the bottom
kerf width is larger than that of the test sample. The kerf
taper is found to increase initially and then decrease. The
jet instability at the bottom cut surface is responsible for an
772 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773
Fig. 12. Effect of recycling of abrasives on kerf parameters of (a) test
sample and (b) mesh size 80 with all particles.
increase in bottom kerf width and could influence the kerf
taper. The variations observed in kerf taper confirm the jet
fluctuations and may be attributed to the particle size distri-
bution. It is because the final penetration process controlled
by erosion wear at larger angles of attack is associated with
an upward deflection of the jet, increasing the local rate of
change of momentum [6].
3.2.4. Surface finish
Fig. 13 indicates the influence of recycling on surface fin-
ish (Ra ), both with the test sample and mesh size 80. The
Fig. 13. Effect of recycling of abrasives on surface finish of test sample
and mesh size 80 with all particles.
test sample has resulted in decreased surface finish with first
and second recycling and remains unaltered with third recy-
cling. The reduction in finish can be attributed to increase
in the AFS no. of finer particles of abrasives. It is also ob-
served that the performance of mesh size 80 is more fluc-
tuating than the test sample. The mesh size 80 is found to
yield higher surface finish with fresh abrasives as well as re-
cycled abrasives. Though the AFS no. of mesh size 80 also
increases with recycling (Tables 4 and 5), the surface finish
is found to fluctuate widely. Hence the particle size distri-
bution seems to play a role in controlling the surface finish.
This indicates a superior performance of the test sample as
compared to mesh size 80.
4. Reuse of abrasives
Tests have been carried out to estimate the amount of reuse
of local abrasives of test sample and mesh size 80, when
the limit for the reusable size is 90 ␮m. Fig. 14a shows the
recycling capacity of test sample after every use. It indicates
that 81% of abrasives can be reused after the first cut, 49%
after the second cut, 26% after the third cut, and 15% after
the fourth cut. This result indicates that test sample of local
abrasives is found to be having superior recycling capacity
than the 60% reported by Guo et al. [2]. Fig. 14b shows the
Fig. 14. Recycling capacity of local garnet abrasives with (a) test sample
and (b) mesh size 80 with more than 90 ␮m particles.
 M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty / Wear 254 (2003) 763–773
recycling capacity of mesh size 80. It indicates that 83% of
local abrasives can be reused after the first cut, 55% after
the second cut, and 31% after the third cut, 13% after the
fourth cut.
5. Summary and conclusions
This paper reports the findings of research on recycling
of garnet abrasives available in southern India. Tests con-
ducted on aluminium using optimised abrasive test sample,
indicate improved performance of the abrasives compared
to commercial abrasive with mesh size 80. The results are
summarised as follows:
• Particle size distribution, if controlled will yield improved
performance of fresh as well as recycled abrasives. The
test sample showed advantages in cutting as well as recy-
cling. These are analysed using studies on AFS no. and
a.p.s. along with SEM photographs.
• Fragmentation is more pronounced in the mixing chamber
and focussing nozzle than after cutting and it is higher
with fresh abrasives than recycled abrasives.
• Recycling if continued beyond three cycles, discontinuous
cutting will result due to blockage of the flow channel
with finer abrasive particles.
• Depth of cut is higher by 12–20% with test sample with
particles more than 90 ␮m than mesh size 80.
• Test sample with particles greater than 90 ␮m performs
better compared to when all particles are used. Also it
performs better compared to mesh size 80.
• Improved surface finish is obtained with test sample
than mesh size 80. However the surface finish decreases
when particles less than 90 ␮m are removed (both with
test sample as well as mesh size 80) compared to all
particles.
• Recycled abrasives cause reduction in kerf taper. It is ad-
vantageous in machining because of the improvement in
parallelism of cut surfaces.
• The reusability of abrasives of test sample with more than
90 ␮m will be 81, 49, 26 and 15% after the first, second,
third, and fourth cut, respectively.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere thanks to Science and
Engineering Research Council, Department of Science and
Technology, Government of India, for the financial support
View publication stats
773
for the equipment. They also acknowledge the financial as-
sistance for research interactions with German counterparts
under the DST-DAAD project based personnel exchange
program 1999.
References
[1] P.J. Singh, Relative performance of abrasives in abrasive waterjet
cutting, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Jet
Cutting Technology, Rouen, France, 1994, pp. 521–541.
[2] N.S. Guo, H. Louis, G. Meier, J. Ohlsen, Recycling capacity of
abrasives in abrasive waterjet cutting, in: Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, Amsterdam,
Scotland, 1992, pp. 503–523.
[3] J.L. Ohman, Abrasives: their characteristics and effect on waterjet
cutting, in: Proceedings of the Seventh American Waterjet
Conference, WJTA, Seattle, WA, 1993, pp. 363–374.
[4] T.J. Labus, K.F. Neusen, D.G. Alberts, T.J. Gores, Factors influencing
the particle size distribution in an abrasive waterjet, ASME J. Eng.
Ind. 113 (1991) 402–411.
[5] M. Knapp, J. Ohlsen, Recycling of abrasive material in waterjet
cutting, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Jet
Cutting Technology, Rouen, France, 1994, pp. 511–519.
[6] M. Hashish, A modelling study of metal cutting with abrasive
waterjets, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 106 (1984) 88–106.
[7] K. Matsumoto, H. Arasawa, S. Yamaguchi, A study of the effect of
abrasive material on cutting with abrasive waterjet, in: Proceedings
of the Ninth International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology,
Sendai, Japan, 1988, pp. 225–269.
[8] J. Vasek, P. Martinec, J. Foldyna, L. Hlavac, Influence of properties
of garnet on cutting process, in: Proceedings of the Seventh American
Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Seattle, WA, 1993, pp. 375–387.
[9] A.W. Momber, R. Kovacevic, Particle size distribution influence in
high speed erosion of aluminium, Particle Sci. Technol. 18 (2000)
199–212.
[10] O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, N. Ramesh Babu, Some investigations on
abrasives in abrasive waterjet machining, in: Proceedings of the
10th American Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Houston, USA, 1999,
pp. 419–430.
[11] M. Kantha Babu, O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, Studies on the use of
local abrasives in abrasive waterjet machining of aluminium, in:
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on CAD/CAD,
Robotics and Factories of the Future, Trinidad, West Indies, 2001.
[12] O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, M. Kantha Babu, Abrasive waterjet
machining of aluminium with local abrasives, in: Proceedings of the
11th American Water Jet Conference, WJTA, Minneapolis, USA,
2001, pp. 325–341.
[13] R. Kovacevic, Surface texture in abrasive waterjet, J. Manuf. Syst.
10 (1991) 32–40.
[14] N.S. Guo, H. Louis, G. Meier, J. Ohlsen, Modelling of abrasive
particles disintegration in the abrasive waterjet cutting in relation
to the recycling capacity, in: Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Jet Cutting Technology, France, Rouen, 1994,
pp. 567–585.
[15] A.W. Momber, R. Kovacevic, Principles of Abrasive Waterjet
Machining, Springer, London, 1998, 224 pp.