Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817

30th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent

30thManufacturing(FAIM2021)15-18
International Conference on Flexible Automation
June 2021, and
Athens, Intelligent
Greece.
Manufacturing(FAIM2021)15-18 June 2021, Athens, Greece.
Determination of the Correlation between Process Parameters and Kerf
Determination of the Correlation between Process Parameters and Kerf
Characteristics in Abrasive Waterjet Milling of High Strength 7075-T6
Characteristics in Abrasive Waterjet Milling of High Strength 7075-T6
Aluminum Alloy
Aluminum Alloy
Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratańskia,b
a,b, Rafał Kudelskia, Nikolaos E. Karkalosb,
a b
Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański , Rafał Kudelski
Angelos P. Markopoulosb,* , Nikolaos E. Karkalos ,
Angelos P. Markopoulos b,*
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics,
a

AGHDepartment
a
University ofofScience and Technology,
Manufacturing Systems, Faculty of Mechanical
al. Mickiewicza Engineering
30, 30-059 Cracow,and Robotics,
Poland
Department of Manufacturing Systems, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
b
National Technical University of Athens, School of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory of Manufacturing Technology,
b
National Technical University of Athens, School
Heroon of Mechanical
Polytechniou Engineering,
9, 15780, Laboratory of Manufacturing Technology,
Athens, Greece
Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780, Athens, Greece
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +306944374181; E-mail address: amark@mail.ntua.gr
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +306944374181; E-mail address: amark@mail.ntua.gr

Abstract
Abstract
Non-conventional manufacturing processes are often advantageous compared to conventional ones, as they can achieve high productivity in
Non-conventional manufacturing
demanding cases. Abrasive waterjetprocesses are often advantageous
(AWJ) machining compared
is one of the most to conventional
established ones, asmachining
non-conventional they can processes,
achieve high productivity
which can achievein
demanding cases.
high material Abrasive
removal rates waterjet
without (AWJ)
leadingmachining
to undesiredis one of the most
workpiece established
material non-conventional
alterations and can rendermachining processes,
a large variety which
of shapes. Incan
the achieve
present
high
work,material removal
experiments rates without
regarding the AWJ leading to undesired
milling workpiece
of high strength material
7075-T6 alterations
aluminum andare
alloy canconducted
render a large
with variety
a view ofto shapes. In the
correlate the process
present
work, experiments
parameters, such as regarding the AWJjetmilling
waterjet pressure, of distance,
standoff high strength 7075-T6
jet traverse aluminum
speed alloy mass
and abrasive are conducted
flow rate with
with adepth
viewoftopenetration,
correlate the process
width and
parameters, such
taper angle of theasproduced
waterjet pressure,
kerf. Afterjetthe
standoff distance,
correlation jet traverse
between speed
input and and abrasive
output mass
parameters of flow rate with
the process is depth of penetration,
established, statisticalwidth and
analysis
taper angle
enables of the produced
the determination kerf.influence
of the After theofcorrelation between
input parameters on input
outputand output parameters
quantities and finally, of the process
appropriate is established,
process conditionsstatistical analysis
for the regulation
enables
of depththe determination
of cut of the influence
and kerf characteristics of input parameters on output quantities and finally, appropriate process conditions for the regulation
are derived.
of depth of cut and kerf characteristics are derived.

© 2020The
© 2020 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This
© isisan
2020
This an
Theopen access
Authors.
open access article
Published
article under
by
under the BY-NC-ND
Elsevier
the CC CC
Ltd.BY-NC-ND
licenselicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
This is an open
Peer-review under responsibility
access
under ofof
article under
responsibility thethe
the CCscientific
BY-NC-ND
scientific committee
license
committee of FAIM
the FAIM2020.2021.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the FAIM 2020.
Keywords: Abrasive waterjet milling; aluminum 7075-T6; depth of penetration; kerf width; kerf taper angle
Keywords: Abrasive waterjet milling; aluminum 7075-T6; depth of penetration; kerf width; kerf taper angle

1. Introduction order to create features. such as slots, pockets or holes with

1. Introduction order to create
abrasive features.
waterjets, suchparameters
process as slots, pockets
shouldorbeholes with
properly
Non-conventional machining processes are a promising abrasive
adjusted. waterjets, process parameters should be properly
Non-conventional
category of processesmachining
for variousprocesses
industrialare a promising
applications, as adjusted.
Due to the importance of aluminum alloys in the aerospace
category of processes for various industrial applications,
they exhibit various advantages compared to the conventional as Due towhere
industry the importance of aluminum
they are preferred alloys in
for various the aerospace
applications, as
they exhibitprocesses.
machining various advantages compared
In particular, to the conventional
non-conventional processes industry wherehigh
they exhibit theystrength
are preferred for various
to weight ratio, applications,
several studiesas
machining
which processes.
involve a highInpower
particular,
beam,non-conventional
such as laser orprocesses
abrasive they exhibit
regarding highofstrength
the use to weight
AWJ machining for ratio,
aluminumseveral studies
alloys have
which
waterjet (AWJ) machining are amongsuch
involve a high power beam, the as
mostlaser or abrasive
preferred ones regarding the useinofthe
been presented AWJ machining
relevant for aluminum
literature. Some of alloys have
the studies
waterjet (AWJ)
due to their highmachining
efficiency.areAWJ
among the mostemploys
machining preferreda ones
high been presented
investigate the ineffect
the relevant literature.
of process Some of
parameters onthe studies
depth of
due to their
energy waterhigh efficiency.
beam includingAWJan machining
amount ofemploys a high
hard abrasive investigate
penetration the
and effect of process
kerf taper parameters
angle, whereas on focus
others depth onof
energy
particleswater
whichbeam including
can penetrate an amount
almost of hard
any material abrasive
type both soft penetration and kerf taper angle,
surface quality or machining time. whereas others focus on
particles
and hard, such as metals, ceramics, polymers or composites.soft
which can penetrate almost any material type both In surface quality or machining time.
and hard, such as metals, ceramics, polymers or composites. In

2351-9789© ©
2351-9789 2020
2020 TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byLtd.
by Elsevier Elsevier Ltd.
2351-9789©
This
This isisanan 2020
open
open The
access Authors.
access Published
article
article under CC by
under
the Elsevier
the Ltd.
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)Peer-review under responsibility of the
This is an committee
Peer-review
scientific openunder
access
ofarticle under2020.
responsibility
the FAIM the CC BY-NC-ND
of the license
scientific https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)Peer-review
committee of the FAIM 2021. under responsibility of the
scientific committee of the FAIM 2020.
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.114
 Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817
2 P. Karmiris-Obratański/Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Prabhuswamy et al. [1] conducted 3 level full factorial AWJ
machining experiments on Al 6061 workpieces with
trapezoidal shape with 80 mesh size garnet abrasive in order to
determine the influence of process parameters such as water jet
speed, abrasive flow rate and traverse speed of the jet on the
depth of penetration. For the selected process parameters range,
depth of penetration increased with higher pressure, lower
traverse speed and was not significantly affected by the abrasive
mass flow rate. Cenac et al. [2] conducted a study on the
controlling of machining depth during AWJ milling process of
2024 T3 aluminum alloy based on a full factorial experiment.
In order to achieve the desired depth of penetration, they used
a mathematical model to determine the correlation between
process parameters, such as AWJ pressure, nozzle diameter and
abrasive flow rate and the machining depth and noted that their
model achieve a high degree of accuracy. Kolahan and Khajavi
[3] focused on the optimization of the depth of penetration
during AWJ machining of Al 6063-T6 using statistical methods
based on data from experiments designed by Taguchi method.
Using the Taguchi and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
method, they were able to determine the suitable set of
parameters affecting the depth of penetration, including jet
pressure, traverse speed, abrasive flow rate and nozzle diameter
as well and finally determine their optimum values in order to
achieve the desired depth.
Kumar Pal and Tandon [4] also conducted a study regarding
the control of depth of penetration when creating blind pockets
by AWJ machining. Experiments were conducted with various
workpiece materials including Al 6061 and Al 2024 at five
different depths and in each case, milling time and surface
roughness were measured. From their experiments they
determined that the correlation between milling time and
milling depth was non-linear and that milling time was
increased considerably in the case of materials with higher
strength. Rethan Raj and Kanagasabapathy [5] investigated the
effect of process parameters on kerf taper angle and surface
roughness as well. In their study they carried out experiments
on hybrid metal matrix composite workpieces, which were
created by 7075 aluminum alloy reinforced by hBN solid
lubricant and ZrSiO4 in three different volumetric
concentrations, namely 5%, 10% and 15%. The most important
process parameter was found to be traverse speed, regarding
both kerf taper angle and surface roughness of the composite
workpieces. Moreover, they noted the importance of abrasive
mesh size on the depth of penetration and material removal
mechanism. Munuswamy and Krishnan [6] also conducted a
study relevant to kerf taper angle and surface roughness
optimization during AWJ machining. After they conducted
experiments on Al 6351 workpieces, they used Taguchi and
ANOVA method to analyse the results, which indicated that
both quantities decrease with an increase of jet pressure and
decrease of traverse speed whereas the most important
parameter was traverse speed, followed by jet pressure and
standoff distance.
Akkurt et al. [7,8] performed studies of AWJ cutting and
drilling, comparing the results obtained for different materials,
including pure aluminum and AA6061 workpieces with various
thicknesses. For the AWJ cutting experiments, they found that
jet traverse speed and thickness of the workpieces had a
813
considerable influence on surface roughness, with the AA6061
workpiece had better surface quality than pure aluminum [7].
Moreover, during the AWJ drilling process, it was found that
drilling time is affected by mechanical properties of the
workpieces with differences between pure aluminum and
AA6061 workpiece being larger for workpieces with larger
thickness and that surface quality degraded with higher
thickness of the workpiece due to energy loss of the jet and the
cutting efficiency of the abrasive [8]. Yuvaraj and Pradeep
Kumar [9] machined Al 5083-H32 workpieces by the use of
cryogenic assisted AWJ machining with different jet
impingement angles and abrasive mesh sizes in order to
determine the influence of this method and process parameters
on surface integrity. They found that the use of cryogenic
assisted AWJ machining led to less wear and ploughing, a lower
number of embedded particles on the kerf walls due to
increased hardness of the cutting zone and more uniform
surface. In a later work [10], they studied also the effect of
cryogenic assisted AWJ machining and process parameters on
depth of penetration, kerf width, kerf taper and microhardness
as well.
Sutowski et al. [11] analyzed the AWJ machining process of
Al 5251 by high frequency acoustic emission in order to
evaluate surface quality during the experiments. In their work,
they studied the influence of cutting head traverse speed on
flatness, waviness and surface roughness on the Al 5251
workpieces. Using the proposed approach, the effect of
machining conditions on the geometry of the cuts was
determined and a correlation between acoustic emission signal
parameters and surface texture was established. Sharma et al.
[12] carried out an experimental study for the determination of
the relative importance of various process parameters on
surface roughness during machining of 6061 aluminum alloy.
By using statistical methods, they showed that jet pressure was
the most important parameter, followed by the traverse speed
and stand-off distance.
From the literature review it becomes evident that a
comprehensive study, including both various process
parameters as well as outcomes, is not yet conducted regarding
the AWJ machining of aluminum alloys, especially for Al 7075,
which is one of the stronger and harder aluminum alloys. Thus,
in the present work, an experimental study with different jet
pressure, traverse speed, abrasive mass flow rate and stand-off
distance values is conducted and statistical analysis is
performed on experimental results such as depth of penetration,
kerf width and kerf taper angle in order to determine their
correlation with input parameters as well as the relative
importance of these parameters on them.
2. Methodology
AWJ machining experiments were carried out in the present
work on an Al 7075-T651 workpiece, where non-through,
straight slots were created under different process conditions.
More specifically, three different levels of traverse speed (vt),
abrasive mass flow rate (ma), stand-off distance (h) and jet
pressure (P) were employed, for a total of 27 experiments.
Taguchi L9 orthogonal array was used to determine the process
condition values for the first three parameters with this
814 Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817
P. Karmiris-Obratański/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

sequence being repeated for each of the three equidistant jet A schematic presenting some of the basic characteristics of
pressure values. The selected parameter values range, AWJ milling is depicted in Fig.1.
presented in Table 1, was relatively wide, allowing for
significantly different results in each case while respecting the
equipment limits.

Table 1. Process parameters and their levels.

Parameter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Jet pressure (MPa) 103 137 170
Traverse speed (mm/min) 300 500 700
Abrasive mass flow rate (g/s) 2 5 8
Stand-off distance (mm) 1 3 5
Fig.1. Schematic of the AWJ milling setup showing basic geometric
characteristics.
All experiments were conducted on a H.G. RIDDER –
Automatisierungs GmbH model HWE-1520 machine. For the
3. Results and discussion
experiments, garnet of 80 mesh size was employed as abrasive
material, jet impingement angle was 90o in every case, the Table 3. Experimental results.
diameter of the focusing tube was 1 mm and the waterjet nozzle
No vt ma h P d Wt a
diameter was 0.3 mm. Workpiece hardness was HB160, as per
(mm/min) (g/s) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (rad)
the manufacturer and its composition is presented in Table 2.
1 300 2 1 103 5.116 1.220 0.054
The workpiece dimensions were 150x80x20 and the slots on
the aluminum workpiece had 60 mm length. 2 300 5 3 103 8.233 1.530 0.057
3 300 8 5 103 9.116 1.757 0.063
Table 2. Composition of Al 7075-T651.
4 500 2 3 103 2.279 1.302 0.121
Zn Mg Mn Fe Si Cu [%] Cr Al
5 500 5 5 103 3.837 1.540 0.098
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
6 500 8 1 103 5.954 1.209 0.051
5.10- 2.10- ≤0.30 ≤0.50 ≤0.40 1.20- 0.18- Bal
6.10 2.90 2.00 0.28 7 700 2 5 103 1.116 1.478 0.177
8 700 5 1 103 3.095 1.199 0.090
Although generally aluminum is considered as a 9 700 8 3 103 3.623 1.468 0.118
lightweight, soft material, preferred in various applications 10 300 2 1 137 7.395 1.168 0.040
mainly for its high strength to weight ratio rather than its 11 300 5 3 137 8.907 1.447 0.048
exceptional mechanical properties, some aluminum alloys 12 300 8 5 137 11.190 1.726 0.052
exhibit considerably high strength as well as hardness, which
13 500 2 3 137 4.279 1.458 0.089
can be even comparable to those of steel. More specifically, the
aluminum alloys of 7000 series, frequently used in aerospace 14 500 5 5 137 5.954 1.499 0.069
industry in various structural elements, have Zn as the main 15 500 8 1 137 8.325 1.209 0.040
alloying element and are heat treatable, meaning that it is 16 700 2 5 137 1.861 1.416 0.149
possible to improve their mechanical properties by aging which 17 700 5 1 137 4.907 1.199 0.062
is a heat treatment necessary to achieve strengthening by 18 700 8 3 137 4.302 1.499 0.083
precipitation of the elements [13-15]. The alloy 7075-T651
19 300 2 1 170 9.326 1.209 0.031
which is employed, is solution heat treated, artificially aged and
then stress-relieved by stretching in order to finally achieve 20 300 5 3 170 10.485 1.364 0.023
superior mechanical strength, almost up to 570 MPa [14], 21 300 8 5 170 11.950 1.788 0.034
fatigue resistance and hardness values around HB150 [14, 16]. 22 500 2 3 170 6.069 1.292 0.059
After the experiments were conducted, the depth of cut (d) 23 500 5 5 170 7.965 1.643 0.064
and kerf width were measured using a stereoscope and an 24 500 8 1 170 9.982 1.256 0.008
optical microscope, respectively, equipped with a high
25 700 2 5 170 3.826 1.519 0.105
resolution camera. The obtained images were processed using
ImageJ software and the desired measurements were 26 700 5 1 170 6.088 1.116 0.038
conducted. Kerf taper angle (a) was calculated taking into 27 700 8 3 170 8.425 1.457 0.052
consideration the top (Wt) and bottom kerf width (Wb) as well
as the slot depth, as follows: After the AWJ machining experiments were carried out and
measurements were conducted on the machined workpiece, the
 W  Wb  results regarding the depth of penetration and kerf width were
a  tan 1  t  (1) obtained, as presented in Table 3. In this Table, the calculated
 2d  kerf taper angle values are also included for each experiment.
Subsequently, statistical analysis using ANOVA method was
 Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817
4 P. Karmiris-Obratański/Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
conducted on each of the aforementioned quantities in order to
determine the statistical significance of each process parameter
and observe their effect on these quantities.
In Fig. 2, the main effects plot for the depth of penetration
is presented. It can be seen that the depth of penetration
increases with higher jet pressure, lower traverse speed, higher
abrasive mass flow rate and lower stand-off distance, as it was
anticipated. For the selected range of parameters, it is observed
that the variation of parameters such as traverse speed or jet
pressure affect the depth of penetration values more than others
e.g. the stand-off distance. The ANOVA results confirm this
observation as it is found that traverse speed, abrasive mass
flow rate and jet pressure are statistically significant, with
stand-off distance not being statistically significant, whereas
the relative significance of these terms is 47.6%, 24%, 24.2 %
and 0.2 %, respectively. The high degree of importance of jet
pressure and abrasive mass flow rate is related to the increase
of kinetic energy of the beam, which enables it to penetrate
deeper into the workpiece. Also lower traverse speed allows for
longer time of impingement of the abrasive waterjet on the
workpiece surface and thus contributes greatly to the increase
of depth of penetration. Proper regulation of these three
quantities can lead to the achievement of desired depths in AWJ
milling.
Fig.2. Main effects plot for depth of penetration.
In Fig. 3, the main effects plot for the kerf top width is
displayed. From these graphs, it can be noted that the kerf top
width increases with the increase of stand-off distance and
abrasive flow rate, whereas it decreases with the increase of
traverse speed and jet pressure. From Fig.3 it can be seen that
the variation of stand-off distance has the greatest effect on kerf
top width whereas jet pressure has the smaller. From the
ANOVA results, it is found that stand-off distance, abrasive
mass flow rate and traverse speed are statistically significant
but jet pressure is not, for the selected process parameters
range. Moreover, the relative importance of each of these
parameters is 74.6%, 10.2%, 4.4% and 0.02%, respectively.
The fact that the stand-off distance is shown to be a decisive
factor in relation to the kerf top width as higher distance
between the cutting head outlet and the workpiece surface leads
to larger distortion of the jet and dispersion of the abrasive
particles and thus material is being removed in a larger distance
from the desired slot walls. Traverse speed is also important, as
815
a quicker movement of the abrasive waterjet along the desired
slot does not allow sufficient time for the particles and the jet
to remove material far from the desired bounds. Higher
abrasive mass flow rate contributes to more particles impacting
the workpiece, thus contributing to wider slots.
Fig.3. Main effects plot for kerf top width.
Kerf taper angle is indicative of the slot cross-section
geometry and especially its deviation from the ideal straight
cut, as increasing values of this angle indicate greater deviation.
Due to the use of kerf top width, kerf bottom width and depth
of penetration in the calculation, the variation of kerf taper
angle is influenced from the trends of all these parameters.
From Fig.4, it can be seen that kerf taper angle increases with
higher traverse speed and stand-off distance whereas it
decreases with higher abrasive mass flow rate and jet pressure.
These trends can be mainly explained by considering the
respective trends for the depth of penetration and kerf width.
Abrasive flow rate and jet pressure were affecting positively
the depth of penetration, leading to its increase and are both
significant parameters; on the other hand higher traverse speed
led to its decrease. As these parameters are used in the
denominator of Eq.1 and inverse tangent function is an
increasing function for positive inputs, the variation of these
parameters led to opposite effects on kerf taper angle than those
regarding depth of penetration. Moreover, the fact that the
increase of stand-off distance, which is proven to be the
dominant factor regarding kerf width, leads to its increase,
consequently increases the nominator of Eq.1. Thus its
contribution to kerf taper angle is also justified. It is important
to note that the trends observed are consistent with the ones
observed in other literature works, e.g. [17].
From Fig.4, it can be seen that none of the four factors
causes considerably higher variation to kerf taper angle than
the others and also none of these factors has a negligible effect
to kerf taper angle values. This observation is confirmed by the
ANOVA results as it is proven that all factors are statistically
significant and that the relative importance of each term is
28.2%, 14.8%, 24.2% and 21% for traverse speed, abrasive
mass flow rate, stand-off distance and jet pressure,
respectively.
After the variation of process outcome in respect to process
parameters was discussed and explained, regression models
816 Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817
P. Karmiris-Obratański/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
were created as predictive models for the calculation of depth
of penetration, top kerf width and kerf taper angle.
Fig.4. Main effects plot for kerf taper angle.
In the case of depth of penetration, the regression model
which was derived from the fitting of the experimental data,
includes the three statistically significant factors and is the
following:
d = 2.489 – 0.012353 vt + 0.5853 ma + 0.06262 P
This model has a coefficient of determination (R2) value of
95.90% indicating that a successful fit was performed on the
experimental data. In Fig.5, the experimental and predicted
values of depth of penetration are presented. The comparison
between predicted and experimental values shows that in most
cases, the difference between these values is within the
acceptable limits, below 10% of percentage error.
Fig. 5. Comparison between experimented and predicted values of depth of
penetration.
In the case of top kerf width, a regression model was also
developed, in respect to the three significant parameters,
namely traverse speed, abrasive mass flow rate and stand-off
distance, as follows:
Wt = 1.106 – 0.000238vt + 0.0242 ma + 0.09947h
5
This model has a coefficient of determination (R2) value of
90.94%, indicating that a successful fit was performed on the
experimental data. In Fig.6, the experimental and predicted
values of top kerf width are presented. The comparison
between predicted and experimental values shows that in most
cases, the difference between these values is within the
acceptable limits as the percentage error was found to be below
10% in every case, with the error being below 5% in most
cases.
(2)
Fig. 6. Comparison between experimented and predicted values of kerf top
width.
Finally, a regression model was employed for the kerf taper
angle as well. The developed model, including all process
parameters is the following:
a = 0.0945 + 0.00013vt – 0.005981ma+
0.01106h-0.000686P (4)
This model has a coefficient of determination (R2) value of
92.73%, indicating that a successful fit was performed on the
experimental data. In Fig.7, the experimental and predicted
values of kerf taper angle are presented. The comparison
between predicted and experimental values shows that in most
cases, the difference between these values is within the
acceptable limits.
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimented and predicted values of kerf taper
(3) angle.
 Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020) 812–817 817
6 P. Karmiris-Obratański/Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

4. Conclusions
In the present work, experiments on AWJ machining of Al
7075-T651 were conducted in order to study the correlations
between process parameters and its outcome such as the depth
of penetration, kerf width and kerf taper angle. After the
statistical significance of the process parameters in each case
was determined by ANOVA, regression models were
developed for the prediction of the process outcome. From this
work, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Regarding depth of penetration, it was shown that traverse
speed is the most important parameter, followed by jet pressure
and abrasive mass flow rate. As anticipated, the increase of the
traverse speed led to more shallow slots whereas increased jet
pressure and abrasive mass flow rate resulted in larger depth of
penetration.
Regarding kerf top width, it found that the stand-off distance
played by far the most important role than the other parameters
contributing to the 74.6% of the variation of kerf top width
whereas abrasive mass flow rate and traverse speed followed.
In order to decrease kerf top width, a decrease of stand-off,
decrease of abrasive mass flow rate and increase of traverse
speed is necessary.
As for kerf taper angle, it was noted that all factors are
statistically significant and can contribute to its regulation.
Traverse speed was the most important parameter followed by
stand-off distance, jet pressure and abrasive mass flow rate.
Lower kerf taper angles can be obtained with lower traverse
speed, higher abrasive mass flow rates, lower stand-off
distance and higher jet pressure values.
Finally, the regression models developed for the prediction
of depth of penetration, kerf top width and kerf taper ratio were
found to exhibit a considerably high level of fitness.
[9] Yuvaraj N, Pradeep Kumar M. Cutting of aluminium alloy with abrasive
water jet and cryogenic assisted abrasive water jet: A comparative study
of the surface integrity approach. Wear 2016; 362-363:18-32.
[10] Yuvaraj N, Pradeep Kumar M. Study and evaluation of abrasive water jet
cutting performance on AA5083-H32 aluminum alloy by varying the jet
impingement angles with different abrasive mesh sizes. Mach Sci Technol
2017; 21 (3):385-415.
[11] Sutowski P, Sutowska M, Kapłonek W. The use of high-frequency
acoustic emission analysis for in-process assessment of the surface quality
of aluminium alloy 5251 in abrasive waterjet machining. Proc Inst Mech
Eng B 2018; 232 (14):2547-2565.
[12] Sharma MK, Chaudhary H, Kumar A. Optimization of Abrasive Waterjet
Machining Process Parameters on Aluminium Al-6061. International
Journal of Science and Research 2017; 6(6):869-874.
[13] Santos Jr MC, Machado AR, Sales WF, Barrozo MAS, Ezugwu EO.
Machining of aluminum alloys: A review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2016;
86:3067-3080.
[14] Aoi I, Kuramoto S, Oh-ishi K. Mechanical properties of Al-(8,10)%Zn-
2%Mg-2%Cu base alloys processed with high-pressure torsion. In:
Hyland M, editor. Light Metals 2015. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 179-182.
[15] Tajally M, Huda Z, Masjuki HH. Effect of cold rolling on bending and
tensile behavior of 7075 Aluminum Alloy. J Appl Sci 2009; 9(21):3888-
3893.
[16] Hatch, JE. Aluminum: Properties and Physical Metallurgy. 1st ed. Ohio:
ASM International; 1984.
[17] Shanmugam DK, Wang J, Liu H. Minimization of kerf tapers in abrasive
waterjet machining of alumina ceramics using a compensation technique.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2008; 48: 1527-1534.

References

[1] Prabuswamy NR, Srinivas S, Vasli A, Sheshashayan MV, Venkatesh S,

Roongta Y. Machinability Studies of Aluminum 6061 cut by abrasive
water jet. Materials today: Proceedings 2018; 5(1):2865-2870.
[2] Cenac F, Zitoune R, Collombet F, Deleris M, Abrasive Water-Jet milling
of aeronautic aluminum 2024-T3. Proc Inst Mech Eng L 2015;229 (1):29-
37.
[3] Kolahan F, Hamid Khajavi A. A statistical approach for predicting and
optimizing depth of cut in AWJ machining for 6063-T6 Al alloy.
International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering 2009;
3 (11):1395-1398.
[4] Kumar Pal V, Tandon P. Identification of the role of machinability and
milling depth on machining time in controlled depth milling using
abrasive water jet. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2013;66: 877-881.
[5] Rethan Raj R, Kanagasabapathy H. Influence of Abrasive Water Jet
Machining Parameter on Performance Characteristics of AA7075-ZrSiO4-
hBN Hybrid Metal Matrix Composites. Mater Res Express 2018;
5:106509.
[6] Munuswamy NB, Krishnan MN. Multiresponse analysis in abrasive
waterjet machining process on AA6351. International Journal of
Manufacturing, Materials and Mechanical Engineering 2014; 4(4): 34-48.
[7] Akkurt A, Kulekci MK, Seker U, Ercan F. Effect of feed rate on surface
roughness in abrasive waterjet cutting applications. J Mater Process
Technol 2004; 147 (3):389-396.
[8] Akkurt A. The effect of material type and plate thickness on drilling time
of abrasive water jet drilling process. Mater Des 2009; 30 (3):810-815.