Mechanisms of Brittle Material

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University M c r c t . n 's i
A Be."1 j. H o w 0 : " V\ V
300 N o r t r Z e e b R o a d A n n A rb o r V H a s 'Q Q ' 346 U S A
3 1 3 761 -4 BOO 6 0 0 5 3 '- 0 6 0 0
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Order N um ber 9239602
M echanism s o f b rittle m aterial erosion associated w ith

high-pressure abrasive w aterjet processing: A m odeling and
application study
Zeng, Jiyue, P h.D .
University of Rhode Island, 1992
U - M - I
300 N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
M ECHANISM S OF BR ITTL E M ATERIAL EROSIO N ASSOCIATED
W ITH HIGH PR ESSU R E ABRASIVE W ATER JET PRO CESSING
— A M ODELING AND APPLICA TIO N ST U D Y
BY
JIYUE ZENG
A DISSERTATION SU BM ITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLM ENT OF THE
REQUIREM ENTS FO R THE D E G R EE OF
DO C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
M ECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND A PPLIED MECHANICS
UN IVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
1092
D O C T O R OF PH ILO SO PH Y DISSERTATION
OF
JIY U E ZENG
APPR O V ED :
D issertation Com m ittee
Major Professor
D EA N OF TH E G R A D U A T E SCHOOL
U N IV ER SITY OF RH O DE ISLAND
1992
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTR A C T
An introduction on the developm ent history and the state-of-the-art of abrasive
waterjet technology is presented. An intensive review of literature is given on th
published experim ental and theoretical studies of both ductile and brittle material
erosion. The review is presented in a tabular format for quick referencing. A study
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM ) is conducted to give the first-hand informa
tion on the erosion m echanism s associated with abrasive waterjet processes. It reveals
that the erosion m echanism s of brittle materials include plastic flow at the imm edi
ate impact site and a surrounding crack network. For polycrystalline ceramics, the
cracking occurs along grain boundaries. Based on this observation, an elasto-plastic
theory is used to m odel the brittle material removal applied to abrasive waterjet pro
cess. By analogy to the damage patterns by small detonation, the network cracking
phenom enon is attributed to fractures caused by impact induced stress waves. A
crack network m odel to evaluate the fractured volum e is derived in terms of the input
stress wave energy and the required fracture surface energy. The stress wave energy is
expressed w ith a modified H utchings’ equation for normal incidence and with an equa
tion derived in this study for low incidence, respectively. The crack network model
combined w ith B itter’s deformation wear model gives the total material removal for
a single particle im pact at normal incidence, and, combined with Finnie’s m icrocut
ting m odel, gives the total material removal for low incidence im pacts. Observations
on the abrasive waterjet cutting front reveal that the cutting process is associated
with abrasive particle im pacts at glancing angles. The energy dissipation phenomena
in abrasive waterjet cutting are characterized. Consequently, the individual particle
removal m odel for low incidence im pacts, combined with the analytical results from
the energy dissipation study, is used to derive an equation which predicts the depth
of cut. By analogy to this theoretical equation, an empirical equation is also derived
which narrows the gap between the theories and applications. Based on this empirical
equation, a new m aterial parameter, called “M achinability Num ber”, is defined. The
“M achinability Number” is applied to the parameter prediction of abrasive waterjet
processes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank m y parents for giving m e wisdom and teaching
me of striving for success and being patient, w ithout which I would not be able to
face any failure. I would also like to thank my wife for her love, encouragement and
understanding. Besides, I want to say a “Thank Y ou” to m y little boy who, though
not yet spoke, m ade m e happy when I was upset. A very special thank is given to
Dr. Thomas J. Kim, m y advisor in m any aspects. His wise guidance and friendly
attitude become driving forces for me through the course of this investigation and
are unforgettable in m y life. My gratitude is extended to Dr. Arun Shukla and Dr.
O tto J. Gregory for serving on my com m ittee, to Dr. David G. Taggart, Mr. Ray
McLaughlin, Mr. Manuel Merril, Mr. Rodney W . Knight and Miss Minnie Sagar
for their m any essential helps, to Mr. R. Heines, Mr. R. J. Wallace and Miss H.
A. Costantino for conducting some of the experim ents. Finally, I thank my labm ate
Shaoyan for his support and friendship. I wish a good luck for his future.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIG URES ........................................................................................................................ ix
NO M EN CLA TU RE .................................................................................................................. xvii
C H A PTER 1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction of Abrasive Waterjet Technology 1
1.1.1 H istorical Review 1
1.1.2 Abrasive Waterjet Technology State of the Art 5
1.2 Statem ent of the Problem 18
1.3 Approach of the Study 18
CH A PTER 2 A LITER A TU R E REVIEW OF EROSION STUDIES ..................... 22
2.1 D uctile M aterial Erosion 20
2.2 B rittle M aterial Erosion 22
2.3 Sum m ary 58
CH A PTER 3 A SEM ST U D Y ON AWJ EROSION M ECHANISM S .................... 63
3.1 AW J Erosion Experiment Descriptions 63
3.2 SEM Observations 66
3.2.1 Erosion by Sweeping 66
3.2.2 Erosion by Grooving 77
3.2.3 Erosion by Cutting 84
3.3 Conclusions and Discussions 92
CH A PTER 4 SINGLE PARTICLE M ATERIAL REM OVAL M ODELS .............. 97
4.1 An E lasto-P lastic M odeling Approach Applied to Brittle M aterials 97
4.2 A Crack Network M odel 103
4.3 Normal Impact M odeling 106
4.3.1 Stress W ave Energy Evaluation 106
4.3.2 M aterial Removal M odel 110
4.3.3 Verification with Erosion Experim ents 111
4.3.4 Sum m ary 115
4.4 Low Incidence M odeling 117
4.4.1 Stress Wave Energy Evaluation 117
4.4.2 M aterial Removal M odel 128
4.4.3 Verification w ith Erosion Experim ents 130
4.4.4 Discussions 131
4.5 Summary 134
C H A PTER 5 E N E R G Y DISSIPATIO N PH ENOM ENA 135
5.1 Characterization of Energy Dissipation Phenom ena 135
5.2 Critical Jet Exit Angle 143
5.3 Summary 147
C H A PTER 6 M ODELING OF AWJ CUTTING PROCESSES 150
6.1 Equation for D epth of Cut 150
6.2 Verification w ith C utting Experim ents 155
6.3 Summary 156
C H A PTER 7 M ATERIAL M ACHINABILITY B Y AWJ 160
7.1 Governing Equation of M echinability 160
7.2 An Empirical M odel 162
7.3 M achinability Num ber and Its Applications 176
7.4 Summary 184
VI
C H A PTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS 186
A P PE N D IX A D ETERM INA TIO N OF AWJ PARTICLE VELO CITY 189
A P PE N D IX B EVALUATION OF COM PLEX INTEG RALS 190
A P PE N D IX C C O M PU T ER PROGRAM S 193
Program 1 Numerical Solutions of the Integrand Poles 193
Program 2 Numerical Evalution of the First Integral 194
Program 3 Numerical Evalution of the Second Integral 196
Program 4 Numerical Evalution of the Third Integral 198
Program 5 Numerical Evalution of the Fourth Integral 200
Program 6 M utiple Regression Analysis 202
BIBLIO G RAPH Y 204
Vll
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
2.1 Erosion m echanisms of ductile materials ..................................................................... 21
2.2 Erosion parametric studies of ductile materials ............................................................32
2.3 M aterial removal modeling of ductile materials ......................................................... 38
2.4 Erosion m echanisms of brittle materials...... ................................................................... 43
2.5 Erosion parametric studies o f brittle materials ......................................................... 51
2.6 M aterial removal modeling of brittle materials ......................................................... 56
3.1 Parameter settings of erosion tests .................................................................................. 65
4.1 Properties of alumina ceramics .................................................................................... 112
4.2 Poles of the integrands ..................................................................................................... 126
4.3 Numerical results of j3\ - j3^ ...............................................................................................126
4.4 Numerical results of /35, /36, & 0 ................................................................................... 129
5.1 Experim ental data of the kerf width and taper ......................................................... 136
5.2 Cutting test parameters ................................................................................................... 139
5.3 Curve-fitting data of striation marks ............................ 141
5.4 C utting test parameters and the critical jet exit angles ........................................ 146
6.1 Values of f(0,.) ................................................................................................................... 154
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1.1 Historical review of waterjet technology ...................................................................... 3
1.2 A survey on the papers presented at the 1st - 10th International Sym posium of
Jet Cutting Technology — D ivision of waterjet areas ........................................... 4
1.3 A survey on the papers presented at the 1 st - 10th International Sym posium of
Jet C utting Technology — D iversity of WJ applications ..................................... 6
1.4 A survey on the papers presented at the 1st - 10th International Sym posium of
Jet C utting Technology — Diversity of AWJ applications ..................................... 6
1.5 Diagram of an AW J s y s t e m ...............................................................................................8
1.6 Diagram of an intensifier pump .................................................................................... 9
1.7 Diagram of a nozzle a s s e m b ly .........................................................................................10
1.8 Direct pum ping abrasive slurry jet circuit ................................................................ 12
3.1 Experim ental configurations used in sweeping and grooving erosion tests .. 64
3.2 Experim ental configuration used in cutting tests ................................................. 64
3.3 A cutting m echanism dom inates the material removal process of SS 304. (x 95,
im pact angle = 20°) .............................................................................................................67
3.4 A typical crater observed on the SS 304 sam ple, (x 310, im pact angle = 20")
..................................................................................................................................................... 67
3.5 A typical crater observed on the SS 304 sam ple, ((a) x 125 and its enlarged
view (b) x 1900, im pact angle = 20°) ........................................................................ 68
ix
3.6 Two partially overlapped craters observed on the SS 304 sample, (x 310, im pact
angle = 20 °) ..............................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................... 69
3.7 A raised lip at the exit end of the crater observed on the SS 304 sample. (x l9 0 ,
im pact angle = 20°) .......................................................................................................... 69
3.8 An enlarged view of the raised lip shown in Figure 3.7. (x 310, im pact angle =
2 0 ° ) .............................................................................................................................................70
3.9 An enlarged view of the m essy crater shown in the center of Figure 3.7. (x 1260,
im pact angle = 20°) .......................................................................................................... 70
3.10 M ajority of the craters on the SS 304 sample were created by an indentation
action, (x 430, im pact angle = 90°) ........................................................................... 72
3.11 A typical indentation crater observed on the SS 304 sample, (x 190, impact
angle = 90") ........................................................................................................................ 72
3.12 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sample shows inward grooving traces and
raised m aterial, (x 1900, im pact angle = 90°) ....................................................... 73
3.13 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sample shows evidence of ductile fracture,
(x 310 and x 1900, impact angle = 90°) ................................................................... 73
3.14 A plastic im pression on the SS 304 sample due to a longitudinal im pact, (x 190,
impact angle = 90°) ......................................................................................................... 74
3.15 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sample with particle fragments em bedded,
(x 310, im pact angle = 90") ......................................................................................... 74
3.16 Overall appearance (a, x 490) and a partially enlarged view (b, x 2500) of a
typical crater observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 20") ........ 75
crater due to an erasing action, observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle
= 20°) ................................................................................................................................... 76
crater observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (impact angle = 90°) ...................... 78
crater observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 90°) ...................... 79
3.20 Tw o fractured craters (a) &; (b) observed on the A D 99.5 sample (x 490, impact
angle = 90°) ....................................................................................................................... 80
3.21 Top view (a, x 33) and side view (b, x 40) of the groove created on the AD 99.5
sam ple, (im pact angle = 90°) ......................................................................................... 81
3.22 General m orphology of the groove surface on the AD 99.5 sample, (a, x 1500,
& b, xlOOO, im pact angle = 90°) ................................................................................. 82
3.23 Some isolated craters and semi-craters observed on the edge of the groove of
the A D 99.5 sample, (a, x 290 & b, x 860, im pact angle = 90°) .................... 83
3.24 General damage pattern on the centered area (a, x 160) and the exit edge (b, x
40) of the eroded AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 20°) ................................ 85
3.25 Two individual craters observed on the AD 99.5 sam ple, (x 840, impact angle
= 20°) 86
3.26 The top (a), middle (b) and bottom (c) areas on the vertical groove of the cut
SS 304 sample, (x 200) ................................................................................................... 87
3.27 A chip formed by a cutting action observed on the cut SS 304 sample, (x 500)
.................................................................................................................................................. 38
XI
3.28 The vertical groove on the cut AD 99.5 sample, (a) The whole view (x 1.5); (b)
The upper portion (x 5 0 )................................................................................................. 88
3.29 The top (a ), m iddle (b) and bottom (c) areas on the vertical groove of the cut
AD 99.5 sam ple, (x 500) ............................................................................................... 89
3.30 (a) Evidence of integranular cracking (area A ), transgranular cracking (area B ),
and scratching trace (area C) on the cut AD 99.5 sam ple, (x 500); (b, x 1400)
& (c, x 4500) show enlarged views of area C ............................................................ 90
3.31 The very top edge of the vertical groove of the cut AD 99.5 sample, (x 500) 91
3.32 Steps (indicated by arrows) formed on the profile of the cutting front of the cut
AD 99.5 sam ple, (x 2 0 ) ...................................................................................................93
3.33 The entire cutting front is impacted by the original jet or the deflected jet at
glancing angles..................................................................................................................... 93
3.34 A hypothesis for the step formation in AWJ cutting processes ...................... 95
4.1 Scanning electron micrograph of isolated im pact site on sintered alumina (No.
46 grit, 75 m /s). (A ) bar = 45 /rm, (B ) bar = 15 /im . (after Ritter et al., 1984)
.................................................................................................................................................. 98
4.2 Circumferential cracks outside a central undamaged zone produced by the im
pact of a compressible projectile, (a) Interference reflected light micrograph,
(b) polarized reflected light micrograph, (after Evans et al., 1978) .............. 98
4.3 Optical reflected light micrographs of orthogonal sections through ZnS targets
im pacted by WC and glass projectiles, (a) The extent of the radial and lateral
fracture (parallel to the surface) for a WC projectile target; (b) the same im pact,
but highlights the formation of lateral cracks from radial cracks (e.g. at arrowed
location); (c) the extent of the radial and lateral fracture for a glass projectile
xii
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impact; (d) the same as (c) but indicating the zone of microfracture (arrowed)
beneath the center of im pact, (after Evans et al., 1978) ................................. 100
4.4 Dam age from a DIAjet particle im pact on glass, (x 1000) (after Summers et
al., 1991) ............................................................................................................................ 100
4.5 Fractures in a ‘Perspex’ cone produced by 0.4 g of lead azide. (actual size)
(after Kolsky, 1963) ....................................................................................................... 100
4.6 Stress wave pattern and energy partition, (after W oods, 1 9 6 8 ) ..................... 102
4.7 Idealized crack network m odel..................................................................................... 105
4.8 Erosion ratios for alum ina ceram ics........................................................................... 114
4.9 Comparison of normalized erosion ratios for six alumina ceram ics...................114
4.10 Scanning electron micrograph of hand-m ade fracture surface of AD 85. (x 800)
116
4.11 Correlation of the grain size and fracture energy with the erosion ratio. .. 116
4.12 Idealized picture of an abrasive grain removing m aterial by scratching and net
work cracking..............................................................................................................................
118
4.13 Approxim ation of 0 values ......................................................................................... 129
4.14 Comparison o f the elasto-plastic m odel and the experim ental results 132
4.15 Grain size and fracture energy are the two major m aterial param eters. .. 132
5.1 Striation marks on an Al 6061-T6 sample cut by an A W J.................................. 136
5.2 Tapered kerfs on an alumina (AD 85) plate cut by an AW J............................ 136
xiii
5.3 Kerf width vs stand-off distance.................................................................................. 137
5.4 Kerf w idth vs traverse speed.......................................................................................... 137
5.5 Kerf w idth vs water pressure........................................................................................ 137
5.6 Kerf w idth vs exit nozzle diam eter............................................................................. 137
5.7 Taper vs stand-off distance............................................................................................ 138
5.8 Taper vs traverse speed...................................................................................................... 138
5.9 Taper vs water pressure.................................................................................................. 138
5.10 Taper vs exit nozzle diam eter....................................................................................... 138
5.11 Striation curves.................................................................................................................. 139
5.12 Normalized striation curves........................................................................................... 141
5.13 Characterization of striation curves........................................................................... 142
5.14 Jet exiting the bottom of workpiece........................................................................... 144
5.15 Effect of water pressure on the criticla jet exit angle........................................... 148
5.16 Effect of orifice/nozzle diameter on the critical jet exit angle.............................148
5.17 Effect of abrasive flow rate on the critical jet exit angle.................................... 148
5.18 Effect of workpiece m aterial on the critical jet exit angle................................. 149
5.19 Effect of workpiece thickness on the critical jet exit angle................................... 149
5.20 D ata of critical jet exit angles for 38 mm thick workpieces.............................. 149
6.1 Depth of cut for different alumina ceramics ......................................................... 157
6.2 Depth of cut versus water pressure............................................................................. 157
xiv
6.3 Depth of cut versus traverse speed........................................................................... 158
6.4 D epth of cut versus abrasive flow rate....................................................................... 158
6.5 Depth o f cut versus water flow rate......................................................................... 159
6.6 Depth of cut versus nozzle diam eter....................................................................... 159
7.1 Depth of cut versus water pressure for different traverse speed....................... 163
7.2 D epth of cut versus water pressure for different abrasive flow rate............... 163
7.3 D epth of cut versus water pressure for different orifice diam eter...................... 164
7.4 Depth o f cut versus water pressure for different nozzle diam eter................... 164
7.5 Depth of cut versus water pressure for different m aterials................................ 165
7.6 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different traverse speed..................... 165
7.7 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different abrasive flow rate.............. 166
7.8 Depth o f cut versus water flow rate for different water pressure..................... 166
7.9 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different nozzle diam eter.................. 167
7.10 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different m aterials............................... 167
7.11 Depth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different traverse speed....................... 168
7.12 Depth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different water pressure................... 168
7.13 Depth o f cut versus nozzle diameter for different abrasive flow rate 169
7.14 Depth o f cut versus nozzle diameter for different water flow rate.................. 169
7.15 Depth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different m aterials.............................. 170
7.16 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different water pressure...................... 170
xv
7.17 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different abrasive flow rate...................171
7.18 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different water flow rate..................... 171
7.19 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different nozzle diam eter...................... 172
7.20 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different m aterials................................ 172
7.21 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different traverse speed............ 173
7.22 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different water pressure........ 173
7.23 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different water flow rate...........174
7.24 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different nozzle diam eter 174
7.25 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different m aterials...................... 175
7.26 Correlation betw een the predicted depth of cut from the empirical model and
the measured values from experim ents..................................................................... 175
7.27 Normalized depth of cut versus water pressure for different materials. . . . 177
7.28 Normalized depth of cut versus water flow rate for different materials. . . . 177
7.29 Normalized depth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different materials. .. 178
7.30 Normalized depth of cut versus traverse speed for different m aterials 178
7.31 Normalized depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different materials. 179
7.32 M achinability numbers of various engineering m aterials..................................... 181
7.33 Cut surfaces of AD 94 (a) and an unidentified steel plate (b )....................... 183
A .l Effect of water pressure on orifice efficiency and compressibility coefficient. ..
............................................................................................................................................... 189
A .2 M omentum transfer efficiency in abrasive waterjet nozzles............................. 189
xvi
NOM ENCLATURE
A loaded area
Aj one face area of a fractured surface
a grain size or flaw distribution parameter
as curve-fitting coefficients
b width of particle cutting face
b„ curve-fitting coefficients
C coefficient of impact efficiency
c constant
Ci, = ( E / p ) 1/ 2, velocity of longitudinal waves in a thin rod
Ci velocity of dilatational (longitudinal) waves
Cn see Equation 4.49
C2 velocity of distortional (traverse) waves
C \.i see Equation 4.49
Cp representing the parabolic striation curve
Cn velocity of Rayleigh (surface) waves
C, scale factor
c, curve-fitting coefficients
Cv orifice efficiency
C,j compressibility coefficient
D focusing nozzle diameter
d diameter of particle
Dc crack density function
dj effective jet diameter
E modulus of elasticity of target material
xvii
Ep m odulus of elasticity of im pacting particle
e coefficient of restitution
/ = /e/uM proportional factor
F0 peak value of transient force pulse
fe empirical coefficient related to e
f(t) transient force pulse
fw fraction of stress wave energy utilized in crack formation
f ( 9 n) see Equation 6.15
f i ( 9 c) see Equation 6.8
f ‘i(Oc) see Equation 6.13
jF(£) see Equation 4.47
Fo(£) see Equation 4.68
g see Equation 4.18
Gf, real part of Yk
G„ real part of Yv
G( () see Equation 4.54
G0(£) see Equation 4.69
h depth of cut
Hd dynam ic hardness
see Equation 4.55
■ffu(£) see Equation 4.70
I\ see Equation 4.76
I2 see Equation 4.77
Ii see Equation 4.78
/i see Equation 4.79
K threshold im pact velocity at which the elastic limit is just reached
Kj ratio of vertical to horizontal force com ponent
xviii
kl see Equation 4.48
k2 see Equation 4.48
m ( 47r / 3 )7'pPP, mass of im pacting particle
Mo m agnitude of the transient force pulse
M linear m aterial removal rate
m abrasive flow rate
771 water flow rate
N number of grains within the fractured volum e of a crater
Tlfj regression coefficient
Til regression coefficient
71'2 regression coefficient
n-s regression coefficient
n.\ regression coefficient
n-r, regression coefficient
Nm m achinability number
V porosity of target m aterial
Vi the third pole of the integrands of I\ - U
m transient pressure pulse
Phi) peak value of horizontal com ponent of loading pulse
m horizontal com ponent of loading pulse
Pv0 peak value of vertical com ponent of loading pulse
m vertical com ponent of loading pulse
p„ water pressure
Q total m aterial removal rate along the cutting front
9 quality level parameter
R ratio of abrasive/w ater m ass flow rates
wave travel distance from the source
rj radius of the im pacting circular disk
Re erosion resistance, see Equation 7.1
rp radius of im pacting particle
r3 half width of the strip
S total curve length of the cutting front
T = 7r /u lo a d in g contact tim e
t tim e
u surface displacement
u mean surface displacement
ux superposed mean displacement in the horizontal direction
uxh horizontal displacement caused by horizontal force component
uxh mean value of uxh
uxhr uxh in the form of Fourier transform
uxv horizontal displacement caused by vertical force component
uxv mean value of uxv
uxvF uxv in the form of Fourier transform
uz superposed mean displacement in the vertical direction
uzh vertical displacement caused by horizontal force component
uzh mean value of u
u zhF Uzh in the form of Fourier transform
u zv vertical displacement caused by vertical force component
u zv mean value of uzv
u zvf u zv in the form of Fourier transform
V total volum e removal by a single impact
v particle velocity at im pact
Vf volum e removal due to fractures in a single im pact
Vp volume removal due to plastic flow in a single impact
xx
W stress wave energy transm itted into the target
Wc fracture surface energy required to form a crack network
Wi work done by the vertical force component over the superposed vertical
displacem ent
W2 work done by the horizontal force component over the superposed
horizontal displacement
x horizontal deviation of striation curves
Yh com plex ratio of m ean horizontal displacement rate to the applied
horizontal force
Yv com plex ratio of m ean vertical displacement rate to the applied
vertical force
z depth coordinate in the workpiece
Zn m axim um indentation depth on the target
a im pact angle
a (e ) dim ensionless function of e
8 see Equation 4.105
0i see Equation 4.95
/32 see Equation 4.96
/?3 see Equation 4.97
/3.1 see Equation 4.98
/8s see Equation 4.103
06 see Equation 4.103
7 fracture energy per unit area of target material
e energy required to remove unit volume by deform ation wear
( ( 1/) dim ensionless quantity related to u
77 m om entum transfer efficiency
7 (y) dim ensionless function of 17 see Equation 4.30
xxi
e angle of slope of the cutting front
6c critical value of 9, at which the m axim um depth of cut is reached
K see Equation 4.105
A parameter of a parabolic curve
Ar ratio o f stress wave energy versus total input energy
P see Equation 4.71
V P oisson’s ratio of target m aterial
VP
P oisson’s ratio of im pacting particle
i variable of Fourier transform
p density of target material
pp density of im pacting particle
Pw water density
°7 target m aterial flow stress
elastic load limit
T dimensionless function of t/, see Equation 4.21
l/, ratio of the depth of contact I to the depth of cut z t
U! angular frequency, see Equation 4.40
Wo angular frequency of the force pulse in purely elastic impact
O/i see Equation 4.28
0/e angular frequency of half force pulse of elastic unloading
wp angular frequency of half force pulse in perfect plastic loading
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
CH A PTER 1
IN TR O D U C T IO N
1.1 Introduction of Abrasive W aterjet Technology
1.1.1 H istorical R eview
The idea o f cutting w ith water could be as old as the Chinese phrase “dripping
water penetrates rock”. In the modern waterjet technology, the “dripping w ater”
is replaced by a high velocity water stream, which can penetrate a rock in seconds.
The modern waterjet technology was initiated by Dr. Norman C. Franz in 1968,
who was awarded with the first patent for a high pressure waterjet cutting system .
Based on this idea, the first commercial waterjet cutting system was developed to cut
lam inated paper tubes in 1971. In the following year, the First International Sym po
sium on Jet C utting Technology was held in England to bring together the leading
investigators and manufacturers to discuss both the state-of-the-art and prospects
of waterjet technology. Since then, waterjet technology has experienced a prosper
ous growth. During the following decade, significant im provem ents were m ade on
the overall reliability of the high pressure system with em phasis on extended ser
vice term, simplified m aintenance, and reduced costs. M eanwhile, research interests
were greatly expanded, which led to the m eeting of the first American Water Jet
Conference in 1981. The rapid advance of autom obile industry, m aterial science and
space technology in 70’s and 80’s demanded and also stim ulated the outgrowth of
new ideas and novel technologies in manufacturing. In 1983, the idea of entraining
abrasive into the water stream was patented and was im m ediately followed by the
development of the first commercial abrasive w aterjet(A W J) system . After several
years of efforts from both academia and industry, abrasive waterjet technology has
grown from being a showcase technology to becoming a viable tool for various in
dustries. The abrasive waterjet technology branched out in 1984 with an alternative
technique, i.e., the so-called premixed abrasive slurry jet(A S J) technique. ASJ used
the idea of cutting w ith abrasive/w ater mixture in a different way. Instead of entrain
ing abrasive into a high velocity water stream and then producing an abrasive/water
m ixture jet through a mixing tube as found in a conventional AW J system , an ASJ
is produced by injecting a premixed abrasive/w ater slurry through a single nozzle.
The primary potential commercial application for this technique was for offshore and
subsea applications. Recent advantages have m ade it an alternative cutting technique
com petitive with the conventional AWJ. Figure 1.1 shows the important historical
events in the developm ent of waterjet technology.
To obtain a clear picture of the progress in waterjet technology, a thorough litera
ture survey was conducted based on the papers published in the proceedings from the
first through the ten th International Sym posium on Jet C utting Technology, spon
sored by the BH R Group of UK and held every two years since 1972. The first task in
this survey is to categorize the work (including research, system design, applications)
into six categories: (1) waterjet (W J), including continuous and discontinuous jets;
(2) cavitated waterjet (CW J); (3) conventional i.e., entrainm ent) abrasive waterjet
(AW J); (4) abrasive slurry jet (ASJ); (5) waterjet assisted processes (W JAP); (6) oth
ers. The percentage of the number of papers in each category is shown in Figure 1.2.
Plain waterjets were predom inantly used during the early years. It is interesting to
note the steady emergence of the conventional abrasive waterjets since 1982 and the
abrasive slurry jets since 1986. At the 9th Sym posium (1988), the number of papers
on abrasive w aterjets(both AW Js and ASJs) started to surpass that of plain waterjets
and by 1990 (the 10th Sym posium ), abrasive waterjets had became dominant. Figure
1.2 also shows a trend of research and developm ent works on the cavitated waterjets
as well as the waterjet assisted processes.
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
1966
Patent on ttie
c o n c e p t of
w aterjet cutting
1971
1st com m ercial
1972 waterjet cutting
1st Int. Symp. on system
Je t Cutting
Technology
1981
1st American
W ater Je t
C onference 1983
1st com m ercial
abrasive w aterjet
cutting system
1984
1st commercial
abrasive slurry jet
cutting system
1990
1st Asian Conf. on
R ecent A dvances
of Jetting Tech.
Figure 1.1 Historical review of waterjet technology.
1001
90
C3
80
t) 70
u
u
60 ■ OTHERS
<+-
O
50 m WJAP
ASJ
40
H AWJ
> 30
5 □ CWJ
20 □ WJ
10
0
(S ■*+ NO oo o <N CO o
r- r-- r- r" 00 00 00 00 00 ON
ON ON CN CN QN GN O'
Cn ON ON
1—H
•a •C *£ JZ •C
c T2 •*—*
in <o
4—1
r-
W
o
CN cn ON
International Syposium of Jet Cutting Technology
Figure 1.2 A survey on the papers presented at the 1st - 10th International Sym posium
of Jet Cutting Technology — Division of waterjet areas. (Note: WJ - waterjet, CWJ
- cavitated w aterjets, AWJ - conventional (i.e., entrainm ent) abrasive waterjet, ASJ
- abrasive slurry jet, W JA P - waterjet assisted process)
This survey also reveals the application diversity of waterjets and abrasive wa
terjets. The applications are generally divided into three catogeries: (1) machining,
including cutting, drilling, m illing, and turning of various m aterials for metalworking,
construction, rock excavation, food processing, etc.; (2) cleaning, including decoating
and descaling; (3) m ining, including tunneling. M achining overwhelm ingly dominates
the waterjet and especially abrasive waterjet applications (Figures 1.3 &; 1.4).
1.1.2 A brasive W aterjet T echn ology State o f th e A rt
OPERATING PRINCIPLES
W hen water is pressurized to a high pressure (upto 414 M Pa or 60,000 psi) and
discharged from a small orifice, the velocity of the water stream can reach as high as
800 m /s. Im pingem ent of such a water stream causes damage to materials such as
rocks, plastics, woods, or even some metals by shearing, cracking and delamination. A
long-chain polymer is som etim es used to enhance the j e t ’s cutting efficiency (Franz,
1972). A dram atic increase of the cutting power is achieved by adding abrasive
particles into the high velocity water stream. In this case, water serves primarily as
an accelerating m edium while the abrasive particles take over the role of material
removal. M ixing and acceleration of abrasive particles in the water stream can be
achieved in different configurations. A review of these configurations can be found
in H ashish’s paper (Hashish, 1982, p465). A conventional configuration is to entrain
abrasive into the water stream upon its exit from an orifice. The abrasive particles
is mixed with and accelerated by water through a m ixing tube (also called focusing
nozzle). Another popularly used configuration is to directly pressurize a premixed
w ater/abrasive slurry through a single nozzle in which both water and abrasive are
accelerated. The jet obtained by the conventional configuration is usually called
“abrasive waterjet”, or AWJ in short. The other configuration is called “abrasive
slurry (or suspension) je t” , or ASJ.
Ss;S*
^ □ Mining
^
C/5
oe
•a
C3
O H Cleaning
a
<
o
‘35
o 3 E=3 Machining
>
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
International Symposium o f Jet Cutting Technology
of Jet Cutting Technology — D iversity of WJ applications.
B Cleaning
c
o
_o
”3.
£
<
o Machining
o
>
3
International Symposium of Jet Cutting Technology
of Jet Cutting Technology — Diversity of AWJ applications.
EQ UIPM ENTS
AWJ System: A conventional abrasive waterjet system typically consists of six
component parts. T hey are a high pressure pum p, a nozzle assembly, an abrasive
delivery system , a catcher system , a m otion system , and a control unit (see Figure
1.5).
The first stage of the high pressure pump is a hydraulic radial displacement pump,
which is driven by a 20-100 hp electric motor, pressurizing hydraulic oil of up to 20.7
M Pa (3,000 psi). The pressurized hydraulic oil is then fed into and drives an intensifier
pump (Figure 1.6), which in turn pressurizes the water. T he output water pressure is
equal to the oil pressure m ultiplied by the area ratio of the two ends of the intensifier
piston (usually 20:1). The water supply to the intensifier pump is required to be
filtered to 0.5 micron and m aintain a stable pressure o f 0.45-0.55 M Pa(66-80 psi)
which can be provided w ith a booster pump. A typical arrangement also includes an
attenuator on the water outlet of the intensifier to absorb pressure fluctuation.
The main functions of the nozzle assembly (Figure 1.7) are to house the waterjet
orifice and the m ixing tube and to provide an o n /o ff control of the high pressure
water. For convenient alignment of the orifice and the m ixing tube, an adjustment
m echanism is helpful. Abrasive is fed, by vaccum suction, into the mixing chamber
located between the orifice and the m ixing tube. The key parts of the nozzle assembly
is the orifice and the m ixing tube. The orifice is usually m ade of sapphire or diamond.
A sapphire orifice could last up to 200 hours while a diam ond orifice lasts ten times
longer (Burnham , 1990). The mixing tube is typically m ade of tungsten carbide,
which gives a nozzle life less than four hours. A new nozzle m aterial (com posite
tungsten carbide) has been recently developed to extend the nozzle life 10 to 100
times longer (Jablonowski, Sept., 1989).
The abrasive delivery system consists of an abrasive hopper, a metering valve
and a delivery hose. The metering valve turns o n /o ff the abrasive flow and controls
High P r e s s u r e P u m p A b r a s iv e D e liv e r y S y s t e m
I I
A b ra siv e
In te n s if ie r Hopper
E le c tric
Motor Pump
N o z z le
A sse m b ly
T an k C a tc h e r
S e ttlin g
T ank
C o n tro l U n it M o tio n S y s te m C a tc h e r S y s te m
Figure 1.5 Diagram of an AWJ system .
Low P ressure High Pressure
Oil O u t Oil In
Low
Pressure
High
W a te r
P ressure
In
W a te r
O ut
Figure 1.6 Diagram of an intensifier pum p.
W ater J e t
O n/Off Control
High Pressure
W ater Inlet
W ater J e t
Orifice
Mixing 23 A brasive
C ham ber Inlet
Alignment
M echanism
Mixing
Tube
Figure 1.7 Diagram of a nozzle assembly.
10
the flow rate. The delivery hose transports abrasive from the metering valve to the
abrasive inlet on the nozzle assembly.
The catcher system serves the functions of dissipating the residual energy of the
jet as well as collecting the waste. It could be a tank catcher or a point catcher,
depending on the m otion configuration. Steel balls (preferably stainless steel) or
alumina balls are norm ally used for energy dissipation. The wastes including water
and abrasive are pum ped into a settling tank, where the solid wastes are settled for
disposal.
The choice of m otion control system is very much application-dependent. For
general cutting applications, a mechanical manipulator such as a CNC X-Y-Z table,
or a high precision robot is desirable. There are several options to accomplish the
relative m otion between the nozzle and the workpiece. The combination of a moving
nozzle and a fixed workpiece usually requires a tank catcher. A fixed nozzle combined
with a m oving workpiece can be accommodated with a point catcher. In a more
complicated configuration, seen in some X Y cutting system s, both the nozzle and
the workpiece m ove in perpendicular directions. This configuration is best used for a
continuously fed workpiece such as plate glass and paper.
The control unit encompases the overall system control including the cutting mo
tion, water and abrasive on/off controls and emergency protection. Normally the
water and abrasive control can be integrated into the m otion control system . The
control procedure of a cutting operation is usually programmable.
ASJ System: An abrasive slurry jet system distinguishes itself from an entrainment
abrasive waterjet system in its nozzle assembly and abrasive delivery and m ixing
operation. Figure 1.8 shows a simplified abrasive delivery and mixing circuit. The
restrictor creates a small bypass flow, which is fed into the abrasive slurry vessel. The
slurry is then discharged into the water flow down stream of the restrictor. The final
slurry exits a single nozzle to form a jet. The configuration of the nozzle is designed to
11
A brasive Slurry
Supply H opper
A brasive
Slurry
V essel wmmmmam
llllllllll
77777777,
W ater
Restrictor
Nozzle
Figure 1.8 Direct pumping abrasive slurry jet circuit.
12
focus the abrasive particles into the central line of stream to prevent excessive nozzle
wear. W hile the pressurized slurry vessel is discharging, slurry supply is drawn in
from an adjacent open slurry hopper, where dry grit abrasive is fed in and fluidized.
PROCESS PA RAM ETER S
An AWJ cutting process can be controlled by at least 16 parameters. The major
parameters are water pressure, waterjet orifice diam eter, abrasive type, abrasive size,
abrasive flow rate, m ixing tube diameter, nozzle stand-off distance, traverse speed,
cutting angle and the erosion resistance of target m aterial.
The effects of water pressure on an AWJ cutting process are m ainly reflected on
the velocities of waterjet and abrasive particles. Theoretically, the velocity of waterjet
is proportional to square root of the pressure. However, since the compressibility of
water and the orifice efficiency loss increase with the pressure, so does the loss of the
actual waterjet velocity. On the other hand, increase of the water pressure yields a
favorable effect on the abrasive m ixing efficiency. All these effects are included in an
expression (Hashish, 1989, p221) for the abrasive particle velocity at the nozzle tip:
_ vCy j 2 P w . .
v ~ T + r \Iw ( , )
where Pw is water pressure, p w water density, R ratio of abrasive/w ater mass flow
rates, tj m om entum transfer efficiency, Cv orifice efficiency and C v compressibility
coefficient. Values of 77, C„ and Cv are given in A ppendix A. The overall effect of
water pressure on the depth of cut is nearly a linear relation.
The size of waterjet orifice combined with the water pressure, determines the water
flow rate which directly affects the performance of AWJ cutting. As a general rule,
the depth of cut increases as the water flow rate increases. Therefore, for a given
constant water pressure, a large orifice size usually results in a deeper cut. However,
since the water flow rate is lim ited by the pump capacity, the size of water orifice is
often within the range of 0.23 - 0.56 mm (0.009 - 0.022 inch). In addition, the size
13
of orifice must be selected such that it is compatible to the size of the m ixing tube.
An oversize water orifice will result in water accum ulation in the m ixing chamber
and w etting the abrasive delivery hose while the jet formed by an undersize orifice
may not be well focused by the relatively large m ixing tube. Normally, the ratio
of orifice diam eter to m ixing tube diameter is chosen w ithin the range of 0.3 - 0.4.
Typical orifice/tub e com binations are 0.229 m m /0.762 m m (0.009 in /0 .0 3 0 in ), 0.381
m m /1.016 m m (0.015 in /0 .0 4 0 in ), 0.457 m m /1.270 m m (0.018 in /0.050 in).
T he typ e of abrasive used in AWJ process is also an im portant parameter. Com
m only used abrasives include garnet, alumina, silicon carbide, silica sand, steel grit,
glass bead. Since different com binations of abrasive/target m aterial have distinct
interaction and m aterial removal m odes, a certain typ e o f abrasive m ay behave very
differently for different target materials. For exam ple, garnet abrasive and alumina
abrasive have alm ost equal cutting power when cutting ductile m aterials. However,
alumina abrasive is much more effective than garnet abrasive when cutting brittle
m aterials. This phenom enon is still not well understood.
The abrasive size in the ordinary range of mesh 50 - 120 has a minor effect on AWJ
cutting efficiency, but it is critical to the surface finish. Oversize grit abrasive reduces
the m ixing efficiency while undersize grit tends to cause clog in abrasive delivery line.
Small grit abrasive is usually used to produce finer surface finish.
Abrasive flow rate is another major parameter. Increasing abrasive flow rate
increases the cutting depth. However, this relation is nonlinear. Since excessive
abrasive flow will reduce the m ixing efficiency, a flow rate larger than 7.6 g /s (1
lb /m in ) usually doesn’t produce proportional cutting power. Often it can clog the
delivery line, interrupting the cutting process.
The effect of the m ixing tube diameter is relatively small. A larger diameter
mixing tube usually produces a wider kerf and a smaller depth of cut. In terms of
material volum e removal, the effect of the mixing tube diameter is minimal.
14
Variation of the nozzle stand-off distance within a sm all value, say, 3 mm, has
little influence on the cutting performance. However, in some situation such as pocket
m illing, a large stand-off is used such that a spread jet is produced and the depth of
cut is more easily controlled.
Traverse speed is the m ost critical parameter. Theoretically, the depth of cut is
inversely proportional to the traverse speed. Due to its significance to the depth of
cut and its ease o f control, the traverse speed is often used as the sole control variable
to be adapted to the change in workpiece m aterial as well as the thickness while the
other parameters are fixed.
Cutting angle is referred as the angle between the jet and the top surface of
workpiece. Norm ally it is set to be 90 degrees. A recent investigation (M atsui et
al., 1990) recom m ended that an angle slightly less than 90 degrees in the opposite
direction of the traverse direction is ideal to com pensate the curvature change of the
cutting front and, therefore, the kerf w idth variation.
The erosion resistance of target m aterial is not a well defined parameter, since no
single defined m aterial property can be used to characterize the erosion resistance.
For ductile m aterials, the erosion resistance is closely related to the hardness. For
brittle m aterials, more m aterial parameters are involved, such as fracture toughness,
grain size, flaw distribution parameter, etc.. It has been suggested by the author that
a new m aterial param eter, called “Erosion R esistance” , is defined (see Chapter 7 for
details). Prior to the introduction of such a m aterial parameter, some general trends
on the effect of target material on the cutting performance can be noted: (1) for
ductile m aterials, the depth of cut increases as the hardness decreases; (2) for brittle
m aterials, the depth of cut increases as the fracture toughness decreases.
T he parameters in an ASJ process are basically the sam e as those in an AWJ
process. However, current ASJs use a much higher abrasive flow rate (up to 180
g /s) combined with a low water pressure (less than 100 M Pa). ASJ does not use a
15
m ixing tube. Instead, it introduces a new parameter, the suspension concentration.
The suspension in the slurry vessel contains about 50% abrasive by weight. The final
suspension at the nozzle contains about 10% abrasive by weight.
APPLICATIONS
Though abrasive waterjet technology is still in its infancy stage of developm ent,
it has been widely adopted by various industries such as aerospace, defense, foundries,
glass, autom otive, fabrication, hazardous environment, etc.. For exam ple, LTV Aerospace
and Defense C o.’s Aircraft division (Dallas) has em ployed a robotic AWJ system
to trim oversized com posite parts for B-2 bomber (Ashley, 1991). Rockwell Inter
national’s North American Aircraft Operations Division (Colum bus, Ohio) used an
AWJ system to cut titanium components of B-1B bomber (H itchcox, 1986). A d
vanced Technology System s, Inc.(M onroeville, Pennsylvania) has dem onstrated the
practicality of applying AWJ to cut gas well in underground mining environment
where sparking is prohibited (Agbede, 1990). The foundry industry uses abrasive
waterjets for cutting gates and risers off cast parts or removing burned-in sand from
castings.
ADVANTAGES AN D LIMITATIONS
Abrasive waterjet technology offers the following advantages as compared to many
other traditional and non-traditional machining technologies:
Thermal distortion free: Since the im m ediate machining zone is contacted by a
high velocity water stream, any heat generated is im m ediately carried away by the
water. As a result, tem perature rise in the workpiece is less than 60°C. This rep
resents an improvement over not only traditional machining techniques, but also
m any non-traditional ones such as laser, plasma arc, electron beam , flame, electri
cal discharge(EDM ). This characteristic is critical when the workpiece m aterial is
heat-sensitive such as superalloys, advanced ceramics.
High machining versatility: Since abrasive waterjet em ploys erosion mechanisms
16
in the m achining process, given appropriate abrasive selection, virtually any kind
of material can be m achined. Abrasive waterjet is particularly effective in m achin
ing m any “difficult-to-m achine” m aterials. Titanium , high strength ceramics, glass,
com posites of any m atrix m aterial, and honeycom b structures are just a few good
examples.
Small m achining force: The force applied on the workpiece by the jet in a typical
kerf cutting operation is less than 10 New ton (Burnham & Kim, 1989). This small
force allows m achining of fragile or deformable materials and structures such as glass
and honeycom b structures. Turning a long rod dem onstrates another advantage since
the vibration and deformation problems caused by the large force in traditional turn
ing or grinding process are elim inated (Hashish, 1991, p43). It also elim inates the
need for strong and bulky fixtures.
High flexibility: Characteristic of all point cutting tools, abrasive waterjet cutting
is om ni-directional. W hen used in conjunction with a m echanical m anipulator, com
plicated cutting operations can be performed. For exam ple, abrasive waterjet contour
cutting has been widely used. Since the energy carrier is fluid, the cutting head and
the pum ping system can be flexibly connected. Therefore, it can be applied in re
m ote, hazardous, or space-lim ited environments such as subsea, tunneling, nuclear
decommissioning.
Like all other m aterial removal processes, abrasive waterjet m achining has its
lim itations:
Energy dissipating characteristics: Unlike traditional processes such as drilling,
where the cutting edge continually receives energy com pensation during the entire
machining process, an abrasive waterjet continually loses its energy due to dissipation
along its path. Therefore, in a typical abrasive waterjet kerf cutting process, the
cutting power of the jet decreases from the top of workpiece to the bottom , leaving
a tapered kerf and striation marks on the lower portion of the cut surface. This
17
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
phenom enon has also been observed in other beam cutting processes such as laser,
electron beam , plasm a arc, flame, etc.. Decreasing the traverse speed can minimize
this energy dissipating phenom enon. Other m ethods, such as slightly inclining the jet
in a direction opposite the traverse direction (M atsui et al., 1990), have been proposed
to com pensate for the energy dissipation.
High initial capital cost: Primary investm ent of an abrasive waterjet system will
require $50,000 - $500,000, depending on power and com plexity (M ason, 1989). Oper
ating/m aintenance cost is estim ated to be $10 - $30 per hour (M ason, 1989). However,
this high cost is often justifiable.
1.2 S ta tem en t of th e Problem
Abrasive waterjet is becoming a very promising non-traditional machining tool,
especially for difficult-to-machine materials. Unfortunately, the fundamental aspects
of this technology remain a m ystery to the world. W ith the m otivation of advancing
this new technology, this study will investigate the erosion m echanism s, energy dis
sipation, m achinability and parameter prediction associated with abrasive waterjet
m achining of brittle m aterials, with particular attention to advanced ceramics.
1.3 A pproach o f th e Study-
M aterial removal m echanism s are the key to understanding any machining process.
Abrasive waterjet technology is no exception. Since AWJ m achining is generally
understood to be a rapid erosion process, investigation of the erosion mechanisms
becomes the main concern and the first step of this study. Chapter 2 will present
a comprehensive review on the existing erosion theories, including both ductile and
brittle m aterial erosion studies. A SEM (scanning electron m icroscopy) study is then
18
conducted (Chapter 3) on AWJ eroded samples to disclose the m aterial removal modes
in individual im pact events or m ultiple im pact processes such as cutting. Based on
the interpretation on the m aterial removal m echanism s, Chapter 4 is devoted to an
extensive erosion m odeling study for brittle m aterials, ■which leads to m athem atical
m odels of single particle m aterial removal under the conditions of AWJ impact at
large or sm all incidence angles. A preliminary study is conducted in Chapter 5 to
reveal and characterize the energy dissipation phenom ena in an AWJ cutting process.
Chapter 6 uses the results of Chapters 3, 4 and 5 to derive an equation for depth
of cut applied to an AWJ kerf cutting process. This is followed by an experim ental
parametric stu dy (Chapter 7), in which the derived kerf cutting m odel is verified
and modified. AWJ m achinability of various engineering m aterials is evaluated based
on the justified kerf cutting model. These results are used to develop a parameter
prediction m ethod for AWJ kerf cutting processes. Chapter 8 summarizes the major
conclusions of all these studies and proposes recom m endations for future studies.
19
CHAPTER 2
A L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W OF E R O SIO N ST U D IE S
Erosion caused by solid particle im pact is a very com m on phenomenon. In many
fields such as particles (or slurry) transportation, equipm ent protection in a dusty
environm ent, turbine engineering, etc., prevention of particle erosion is the task. In
other applications, it is used as a tool for desirable m aterial removal, surface clean
ing, controlled destruction. Numerous studies on this subject have been conducted
by researchers from m any disciplines including physics, m aterial science, mechanics,
m anufacturing, standardization, etc.. Summaries of some earlier studies can be found
in the book by Engel (1976) and articles by Tilly (1979), Evans (1979), and Ruff and
Wiederhorn (1979).
To provide a comprehensive view of the problem of erosion by solid particle im
pact, a review is conducted based on the literature collected on the subject of erosion
by solid particle im pact. The reviewed works are sorted into two sections (ductile m a
terial erosion and brittle material erosion) and three categories (erosion mechanism,
parametric studies, and material removal modeling). For easy reference, a tabular
format is used.
2.1 D u ctile M aterial Erosion
Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 present the erosion m echanism s, parametric studies and
material removal models of ductile materials, respectively.
2.2 B rittle M aterial Erosion
Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 present the erosion m echanism s, parametric studies and
material removal models of brittle materials, respectively.
20
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials
E rosion Erodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

T arget
Erodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C onclusions R eference
M echanism s M aterial T echnique
(m/s) (deqroe)
M ethod
5 0 0 jim T illy
H46 ste e l 244 SEM A chip was cut out.
q u artz (1973)
6 . 3 mm d i a . 147 C u ttin g a c tio n s occurs at

lead
chrom ium sabat in
m ore p o s i t i v e ra k e a n g le s .
an a ir
ste e l rod, 161, How ever, the chips rem ained
gun 164,
shaped to attach ed because of
SEM o n W inter
c u ttin g 167 ro llin g of the p a rtic le . &
rake angles s e c t ion
m ild 25 H u tchings
through
cu ttin g ste e l 2 .1 mm (1974)
s ta r io n ary c ra te rs C u ttin g actio n s are sim ilai
p la te glass p art icle 100, to th o se by s te e l
shaped to im pacted p r o j e c t i l e s . H ow ever, the
c u ttin g by m oving 169 chips are rem oved by the
rake an g les specim ens frac tu red p a rtic le s
4 mm d i a . & H. S .
m ild ste e l 194 A diabatic shear band plays W inter &
5 mm l e n g t h photo an im p o rta n t r o le in the
25 H u tchings
flat-en d ed 120, graph ch ip detachm ent.
titan iu m (1975)
s te e l rod 175 & SEM
The p a rtic le ro ta te d back
w ork- 186 30
8 x 8 x 1.5 H. S. w ard and rem oved a chip at
hardened sabat in
(mm) square photo rake an g les of -15° & -7°. H utchings
low carbon an a ir 152 20
hard tool graph At a m ore negative rake (1977)
ste e l gun an g le, th e p a r tic le ro ta te d
ste e l
153 30 fo rw ard and form ed a l i p .
q u artz
low carbon 420- 130 C u ttin g and plow ing H u tchings
sand
500 25 SEM (1979)
m ild ste e l glass
|im 142 plow ing p. 59
sphere
1100 |im C u ttin g changed to rid g in g F innie
1100-0 10, 30 stereo
d i a . SiC 67 when im pact an g le changed et a l .
alum inum 60, 90 SEM
p a rtic le from 10 to 90 degrees. (1979)
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m ate ria ls (continued)

E rodent Im pact Im pact
E rosion T arget R esearch
E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C onclusions R eference
M ethod (m /s) degree)
SEM, TEM M aterial is plow ed to form
50 | ^m Ives &
20, E lectro - a lip ,w h ich is su scep tib le
copper ang ular a ir 20 R uff
cu ttin g 60 D eposi to com plete rem oval by
alu m in a (1979)
tio n subsequent im p acts
70 pm 9.1 ,
1080 N itrogen C u ttin g m echanism is Sharm a
an g u lar 18.3, 30 SEM
ste el gas d o m in an t. (1984)
alum ina 61
irre g u la r C rater length due to c u tt S hida &
A rgon ing mode in creases w ith the
304 ste e l s ilic a 120 20 SEM Fujikaw a
gas tem p eratu re of ta rg e t.
p a rtic le s (1985)
150 pm M aterial is extru d ed to
chrom ium T illy
irre g u la r a ir 104 30 form rid g es th a t are vulner
steel (1969)
q u artz ab le to subsequent im p acts.
to
to
P a rtic le o rie n ta tio n is
m ore im p o r ta n t th a n im p in g
410 50 pm S m eltzer
em ent a n g le and t a r g e t
sta in le ss irre g u la r e t a l .
a ir 152 30 SEM m aterial p ro p e rties. A f la t
ste el alum ina (1970)
ex tru sio n fa ce im pact cau ses l i t t l e
dust
damage and a co rn er-o rien te i
im pact form s rid ge.
23 mm d i a .
6061-T0 ste e l shot M aterial is strain ed by S heldon
N itrogen 20
alum inum & 3 mm d i a . 232 & the ad van cin g p a rtic le to & K anhere
gas
allo y g lass shot the degree of breaking o ff. (1972)
90
6 . 3 mm s t e e l
Sabat in 149 A sm all ridge was form ed.
rod shaped
an a ir 175 SEM o n A lip was form ed.
lead t o plowing W in ter &
rake angles gun sectio n
210 A lip was form ed & rem oved. H u tch in g s
angular s t e e l stationary ZD through
123 (1974)
p articles particle c ra te rs
128 R idges w ere form ed.
m ild ste e l oriented to im pacted by
- 7 0 r a k e angl< m o v i n g s a mp l e 200
T able 2 .1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (continued)

E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O bserv atio n s & C o n clu sio n s R eference
M ethod (m/s) (doq rcc)
3.1 WC 120 S E M, D isplaced m aterial form ed a

H u tchings
mm Sapph 25 S ect ion lip at and around the front
233 et a l .
m ild ste e l b all ire thro u g h of the c ra te r. The lip was
(1976)
9.5 mm h a r d the lip detached alo n g a shear
141 30 of c ra te r d efo rm atio n band.
ste e l b a ll
The p a rtic le ro ta te s fo r
work ward and form ed a lip at
8 x 8 x 1 .5 H igh
hardened sabat in
speed rake an g les of -35° and H utchings
(mm) square an a ir
low c a r b o n 30 -50°. At m ore p o sitiv e rake (1977)
hard to o l 153 photo
ste e l gun
ste e l graph an g les, the p a rtic le rotate<
backw ard and rem oved a ch ip
an g u lar A high d islo c a tio n d en sity Ives &
310 sabat in
50 alum ina 20, SE M, zone was found surrounding R uff
bO sta in le ss an a ir
g lass 59 90 TEM the c ra te r in analogy to
CO |im (1977) &
ste e l gun
sphere hardness in d en tatio n . (1978)
ex tru sio n P a rtia lly m eltin g due to
ad iab atic shear lo c a liz a Shewmon
7075-T651 4 .76 mm 35, tio n com bined w ith in e rtia l
143 (1979)
alum inum b a ll a ir gun force caused lip d e ta c h m e n t •C h r i s t m a n
SEM
allo y b earings 185 For norm al i n c i d e n c e , c r a t & Shewmon
90 er o v erlap p in g produces (1979)
m aterial rem oval.
Increase of d u c tility red
1100-0 1 1 0 0 ( 1m uces erosio n ra te since i t Levy
pure SiC a ir 67 30 SEM allow s g re a te r energy abs (1979)
alum inum P a rtic le o rp tio n & av o id s fra c tu re .
S E M, TEM A h ill-a n d -v a lle y top o g ra
Brown &
sin g le 7 0 i^m S ection phy. M aterial is pushed
E dington
c ry stal g lass 133 90 th r. the from v alley to form h ills .
(1981,
copper sphere subsurface Subsurface dam ages include
of crater p. 377)
voids, crack & shear.
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (co n tinu ed)

M ethod ( m/ s ) (dcqree)
free
R idges w ere form ed for R ickerby
1 . 5 8 mm fa llin g 50 0 - 9 0
p o ly cry sta sin g le im p acts. M ultip le &
d iam eter p a rtic le s SEM im pact led to the
llin e WC-6% C o M acM illan
im pacted 10 -
alum inum 30 form ation and d etachm ent (1982)
spheres by m oving 130 of th in p la te le ts .
specim en
Soft m aterial (12 HRC) was
A1SI 1060 rem oved m ainly by shear lip
100 15, H ein &
ste e l, heat Ilel ium d etach m en t, hard m aterial
4.76 mm 30, Shewmon
treatm en t gas gun SEM ( 6 0 HRC) b y in te rse c tio n of
WC s p h e r e s 60, (1983)
ex tru sio n 200 a d ia b a tic sh e a r bands and
to 12, 45,
85
60 HRC m edium h a r d m a t e r i a l (45
HRC) bv both m odes.
A d efo rm atio n map was con
stru c te d fo r d iffe re n t type:
100 of c ra te rs su b jected to W alley
4 mm SEM
polypropy a range of im pact v e lo c ity et a l .
d iam eter gas gun H igh
len e and a tta c k a n g le s . R aised (1984)
s te e l 0 - 9 0
Speed l i p s w ere found f o r th e
spheres photo
250 v elo city range of 100-250
graphy m /s and w ith som e p re fe r
ence on larq e im pact an q les
350-450 pm 30, L ip form ation and lip Reddy &

copper, Sundara-
d iam eter N itrogen 60, fra c tu re w ere responsible
Cu - 6% A 1 40 SEM
ste e l 90 for m ate ria l rem oval for ra jan
allo y gas
spheres a ll th ese im pact an g les. (1986,
V. Ill)
S train hardened subsurface

343 pm SEM K eiser
alum inum was observed, but there
d iam eter a ir gun 2 8.5 P ro filo - (1988,
allo y 30 was no ev id en ce of
WC b a l l s m eter V. 124)
so fte n in g .
T able 2 .1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (co n tin u ed )
Erosion T arget Erodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

M ethod (m/s) (deqree)
Free
54 90 R ickerby
1 . 5 8 mm fa llin g O v erlap p ed im p acts produced
p o ly cry sta &
d iam eter p a rtic le h ig h ly s tr a in e d reg io n s
llin e 50 0-90 SEM M acM illan
WC-6%Co im pacted w here th in p la te le ts
alum inum (1980,
spheres by m oving 10- sp alled o ff.
30 1982)
specim en 130
In d en taio n , plow ing, and
sm ear ty p e s o f c r a t e r s w ere
form ed no m a tte r th e im pact
m icro - an g le was sm all or large. B ellm an &
flaking D uring the c ra te r form ation
Levy
(deform 600 pm 30 process, a com bined fo rging
A1 1100-0 (1981)
atio n SiC -ex tru sio n m echanism pro
a ir SEM
Is5 wear) 30 duced sm all p la te le ts w hich
Cn A1 7075-T6 p a rtic le s Levy &
w ere knocked o ff by sub
C hik
90 sequent im p acts. W ork hard
(1983)
ening due to the heat gene
rated by a d ia b atic shear
defo rm atio n enhanced the
p la te le t form ation.
M aterial was e x tr u d e d b e t
70 & 200 pm ween the p a rtic le and the Brown
p o ly cry sta 61 30,
glass SEM strain -h ard en ed surface to e t a l .
llin e a ir 90
spheres form th in lip s w hich w ere (1981)
a-F e 122
rem oved b y o v e r l a p p e d im pac :s .
M a t e r i a l was l o s t by f l a k e
SEM fragm entation fo r norm al
70-30 B rass 3 mm 25, im p acts and by lip fragm en N aim &
diam eter im pact
(7 0%Cu, gas gun 120 ta tio n for o b liq u e im pacts. Bahadur
ste e l 90 over
30%Zn) These flak es and lip s have (1984
b a lls lap pin g
m u ltilay ered stru c tio n due V. 94)
- - t o —r e p e t i t i v e - i m p a c t s

Erodent Im pact Im pact R esearch
E rosion T arget
E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O bserv atio n s & C onclusions R eference
M echanism s M aterial T ech n iq u e
(m/s) (deqree)
M ethod
2 1 0 p. m P la te le t form ation due to E m ilian i
T i-6A 1-4V SEM,
sp herical g as-b last o verlap p ed im pacts is the & Brown
titan iu m 61 90
rig EDS p rim ary erosion m echanism (1984,
s ilic a
allo y
part ic le s in steady sta te erosio n . V. 94)
f 1a k i n g ste e ls
(deform 1018-1020,
P la te le t form ation
atio n 4340, 200 me s h Levy &
m echanism , i.e ., forging-
w ear) 2J C r - J2 Mo , coal Yau
kerosene vary ex tru sio n m echanism ,
_L p a rtic le 13 SEM (1984,
b C r - 2 Mo occurred sim ila rly as in
slu rry V. 98)
g a s-so lid p a rtic le erosion.
SS 304, 321,
410
V enkatara-
com m ercial 6 . 3 5 rnm
SEM M aterial was lo st in the man & Sun-
p u rity diam eter free fa ll 5.5 90
form of flak e fra c tu re . d ararajan
copper WC b a l l s
( 1 9 8 9 . vl35>
P a rtic le broke up on im pact
S E M, The frag m en ts im pacted the
T illy
area around the prim ary
7 0 0 )lm high (1973)
H46 ste e l in d en tatio n and produced
q u artz 244 speed
a d d itio n al m aterial rem oval
secondary photo
S e c o n d a r y e r o s i o n may i n c r
erosion graphy
eases w ith p a r ti c l e s iz e .
sta tio n a ry A lip form ed in the early
S E M, W in ter &
p a rtic le s stage of im pact may be
an g u lar 150, sectio n H u tchings
im p acted 25 rem oved by th e fra g m e n ts of
m ild ste e l g lass 169 th ro u g h (1974)
by m oving the o rig in a l p a r tic le .
p a rtic le s c ra te r
specim en
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (co n tin u ed )

E rosion Target R esearch
M ethod (m/s) (doqroe)
A co rn ered -o rien ted im pact
4 3 - 7 4 ( 1m
S E M, heated up the lo calized S m eltzer
T i-6A 1-4V A rizona a ir 198 60
TEM zone to its m eltin g p oint e t a l .
road dust
and e je c t the m o lten d eb ris (1970)
m elting & M aterial was m olten and
Brown &
sp latterin g G allium , e je cte d during the im p act.
250 pm E d in g to n
200 90 SEM The lo cal tem perature was
s ilic a (1981,
Indium found to be at lea st 1 5 6 c C,
spheres v 7 2)
the m eltin g point of Indium
L o calized m eltin g is caused
S E M, by sm earing a th in lay er of Brown &
sin g le 210 pm
133 30 EDS, m aterial betw een the p a r ti E d in g to n
c ry sta l g lass
T EM, cle and the embedded frag (1981,
copper beads
rep lica m ents w hich are le ft by a v 7 3)
p rev io u s im p act.
D uring the th resh o ld perio d Brown &
p o ly cry sta 250 pm SE M,
of erosion, m aterial is E d in g to n
llin e s ilic a T EM,
lo st by 3 m echanism s: m elt (1981,
alum inum p a rtic le s rep lica
ing, dust & sheet form ation . v77)
The p a rtic le is frac tu red
and p art of i t is bonded to S m elt z e r
43-74 pm
T i-6A l-4V the ta rg e t su rface. The
198 90 e t a l .
A rizona a ir SEM embedded p a rtic le is sub
at 4 0 0 °C (1970)
em bedding road dust seq u en tly d etach ed and some
b o n d e d m e t a l mav b e rem oved
50 pm S E M, TEM, P a r t i c l e e m b e d d in g fo r m s an Ives &
20, e le c tro - em b rittled surface layer,
copper an g u lar a ir 90 R uff
60 d e p o s i t i o nw hich is fractu red away.
alum ina (1979)
4 mm SEM & H . S The s te e l b a lls w ere alm o st W alley
polypropy
d iam eter gas gun 370 60 photo co m p letely subm erged in the e t a l.
lene graphy
ste e l b alls ta rg e t surface. (1984)
E rosion Target E rodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C o n clu sio n s Re f e r e n c e
Met h o d ( m/ s ) (deqroo)
300 |lm d i a . R ip p les w ere observed. B itte r
silv e r
cast iron jet 60 M aterial is lo st in the (1963,
p late
p e lle ts form o f ch ip d etach m en t. P5
com m erciall} R ip p les w ere observed. A F innie &
photo
pure sand 30 theory was d eriv ed to K abil
graphy
alum inum ex p lain t h is phenomenon. (1965)
Surface r i p p le s w ere o b s e r
45" ved on th e 45° b an d a n g le M ill &
m ild ste el 230 Pm photo
rip p le band a r e a . On t h e b e n d s e r o d e d
pipe bend sand a ir 32 graphy M ason
form ation an g le by 7 0 jj.m s a n d , step s at a (1977)
and la rq e r scale w ere seen.
m acro- R ipple phenomenon w ere
flak in g observed and ex p lain ed :
30 Pm (1) O verlapped c ra te rs form
LO a random netw ork of depre
GO irre g u la r
ssio n s & ridges by a pro C arter
alum ina
sand cess of p la s tic flow ; (2) e t a l .
p a rtic le s SEM
copper 300 5-90 (1980)
b la ste r In terferen ce of neig h b o rin g
75-125 Pm m o b ile c re sts causes phase
glass lockin g of rip p le p a tte rn s;
spheres (3) M aterial is lo st from
th e w ork-hardened and em br
ittle d wave c re sts .
A ISI 1020 250 m SiC R ip p les and ra ised lip s G reen et
ste e l p a rtic le s a ir 150 30 SEM a l. (1981)
w ere observed.
R ip p le s w ere form ed a f t e r
a p e r io d o f e r o s i o n . T hin
poly 70 & 200 61 Brown
30, torq u es form ed on the
cry stallin e pm glass a ir SEM e t a l .
dow nw ind side of rip p les
a-Fe spheres 122 90 <1981,
ruptured ev en tu ally and
v70)
caused m aterial lo ss.
T able 2 .1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (continued)
E rosion E rodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

T arget
M ethod (m/s) (deqree)
R ipple form ation process:

(1) O verlapped im pacts c r e
a te th in lip s; (2) T h i n n i n g
SEM and fo ld in g of lip s by su r
face shear; (3) Short rid Brown &
sin g le 2 1 0 |lm sectio n ges are form ed by f o r tu it E d ington
c ry sta l glass a ir 133 30 through ously sid e-b y -sid e im p acts; (1982,
copper sphere rip p les (4) M aterial is p ile d up to v 7 9)
rip p le
form long rip p les; (5) T hin
form ation
tonques are form ed tow ards
and
the dow nw ind side of rip p le
m acro-
(6) T hin tonques are d e ta
flaking
ched bv 45° shear crack in g .
to C o n cen trical rip p les w ere
CO
form ed on th e j e t - c r e a t e d
60 6 1 - T 6 5 1 1 2 0.8 pm
122 p i t . T onques on th e c r e s t Rao
alum inum sp h erical S E M,
a ir jet 90 were observed. M aterial is et a l .
allo y & glass EDS
130 rem oved by flake detachm ent (1983)
pure copper beads
by d ire c t im pact and o u t
flow ing p a rtic le ab rasio n.
A h i ll & v alley topography

70 & 210 pn was observed. M aterial is
s ilic a rem oved m ainly by flak in g
1100 Brown
spheres, SE M, from v a lle y s. F rig ile p a r
alum inum a ir 122 90 (1983)
TEM tic le s in crease v alley f la
allo y 210 pm king, and an g u lar p a rtic le s
an g u lar produce ad d itio n al erosion
qu artz by c u ttin g the h ills .
p a rtic le s
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (co n tin u ed )

Erodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C o n clu sio n s R eference
M ethod ( m/ s ) {deqroo)
R ipples w ere observed. The
top lay er of surface has a
6 0 6 1 —T 6 , & lam inar stru c tu re and co n t
212-250 pm
6061-0, & ains embedded p a rtic le f r a
&
1100 gm ents. D uring the subse Cousens
495-600 pm
alum inum 30 &
quent im p acts, the re la tiv e
g lass beads
allo y s a ir 90 SEM so ft bulk m aterial is back H utchings
60 (1983)
ward ex truded to the su rf
rip p le
ro ll-b o n d ed ace at the weak p o in ts of
form ation 600-700 prn
alum inum the top layer and is beaten
and iron shots
com posites in to p la te le ts . The d etach
m acro-
m ent of these p la te le ts
flaking
causes m aterial lo s s .
CO
O C o n c e n tr ic a l r i p p l e s w ere
30 p m
o b s e rv e d on th e j e t - c r e a t e d Rao et al.
6061-T6511 crushed 41 S E M,
p it. The rip p le form ation (1983,
alum inum g lass 90 E DS
A rgon m echanism is b eliev ed to be v92)
a llo y p a rtic le 87 sim ilar to th a t d escrib ed
jet
bv F innie & K abil (1965) .
u n treated & Surface rip p le s and p la te
N itrogen le ts on the tr a ilin g edge

70 pm Sharm a
N itrogen of rip p les w ere observed on
gas & Argon s ilic a 61 30 SEM (1984)
gas tre a te d gas u n treated 1080 ste e l, but
spheres
ste e ls not on the n itro g en and
arqon aas tre a te d ste e ls .
T able 2.1 E rosion m echanism s of d u c tile m aterials (continued)

Erodent Im pact Im pact R esearch
E rosion T arget
M ethod (m/s) ( duq r o e )
P a rtic le ham m ering actio ns,
com bined w ith the force of
slu rry of
flu id , causes p la s tic flow .
30 wt % o p tic a l N aerheim
M aterial is p ile d up in to
8 8 - 1 5 0 (.im m icro (1985,
N i (200) slu rry 30 30 rip p le s. At a c e rta in ridge
g lass beads scope & vl05)
h eig h t, m aterial is pushed
i n 1M SEM
over the c re st in to tonques
NaC104
and co n seq u en tly to rn o ff.
r .i p p l e R ip p les w ere w ell
form ation 30 Reddy &
developed.
350-450 pm Sundara-
and R ipples w ere not so
copper diam eter N itrogen 40 ra jan
m acro- 60 SEM
p ro m in en t.
ste e l gas (1986,
f 1a k i n g No rip p le s .
spheres 90 v lll)
No rip p les at tem perature

below 5 3 8 °C. At 649°C and
above, rip p le p a tte rn s w ere
AISI 446, observed, e sp e c ia lly appa
S te llite 6B rent on A ISI 446 and MA754.
Inconel, 12 p m T hin sh eets of m etal w ere
gas S trin g er
MA 7 5 4 ang ular 36 30 SEM form ed on c re sts tow ards
stream & W right
P22 alum ina the dow nw ind sid e. It is
(1987)
at 204-760° b eliev ed th at rip p le s are
form ed due to the develop
m ent of an in tr in s ic e q u il
ib riu m s tr u c tu r e ra th e r
than p a rtic u la r ero sio n
m icro m ech an ism s.
1 ................... ..
T able 2.2 P aram etric stu d ies of Dv i c t i l e M aterials
Erodent Im pact Im pact R esu lts

Para Target R ef.
Erodent A ccel. V el. A nglea (R: N orm alized
m eters M aterial (m /s) (degree)
M ethod p r o sio n r a te )
copper,
10 Finnie
alum inum , m esh 60 R
76 (1958)
SAE 1 0 2 0 S i C
90
ste el
0 a 90
10
alum inum ,
copper, 3 0 0 |1
R
3AE-1055 cast
(as iron
10 B itte r
received) p e lle ts
0 a 90 (1963,
Im pact 90 pi 6y )
A ngle mesh 60
107
SiC
p a r ti
SAE-1055 R
cles
(fu lly
hardened)
0 a 90
210 P
alum ina N eilsen
p a rti 79 10 &
R
alum inum c les, a ir G ilch rist
475 P 150 90 (1968)
glass
0 a 90
soheres
Al allo y ,
60-125
chrom ium T illy
pm 10
steel, R (1969)
q uartz a ir 104
polypro
p a r ti 90
p ylene,
cles
nylon 0 a 90
2024 A l, 50-60 P
ri-6 A l-4 V alum ina 152 S m eltzer
410 SS dust 20 R
et a l .
a ir
(1970)
17-7 PH 0-210 P
90
s t a in l e s s A rizona 198 0 a 90
steel R d.D ust
H46 T illy
11% 135 Pm R (1973)
366 90
chrom ium quartz
ste e l
3 a 90
32
T able 2.2 E rosion param etric stu d ies (continued)

Para Target
Erodent A ccel. V el. A nglea (R: N orm alized R ef.
m ete M aterial
M ethod (m/s) (degree) erosion rate)
304 ste el 10 Young

5 0 Jim CO2
at 2 5 °C 30 & Yee
alum ina gas
5 0 0 °C 90 (1977)
a 90
F innie
1100-0 280- 10
e t a l.
alum inum 3 5 0 Jim 78
(1979,
SiC 90
p36)
Im pact
a 90
A ngle rree-
1.58 mm f a i l i n g
R ickerby
coarse d ia . p article 10
g rain ed WC-
&
im pact 50
M acM illan
alum inum Swt%CO e d b y 90
(1982)
s p h e r e s m oving
soecim er a 90
several Levy
kinds of m esh coal- 10 15 & Yau
ste e l & 120 kerosene (1984,
tain less coal slurry 30 90 v98)
ste el
a 90
23 &
w ind S hayler
50 Jim 130 20
AISI 303 tunnel & Yee
ash
ste el 4 sand (1984,
p a r ti 310 90
b la ste r v98)
cles
a 90
several
1 2 0 Ji m
kinds of Shida 4
s ilic a Argon 15
steels Fujikaw a
p a r ti 120
at 300 gas (1985)
cles 90
650°C a 90
M orrison
37-270 4
304 Jim 10
S catter-
s t a in l e s s alum ina 100 good
steel p a r ti 90
(1986,
cles v l l l )
90
33
T able 2.2 E rosion param etric stu dies (continued)
Erodent Impact Impact R esu lts

Para Target Anglea Ref.
Erodent A c c e l . Vel. (R: N orm alized
meters Material (m /s) (degree)
Method prn;ion rate)
pure
alum inum
a 90
hot
ro lled 5wt%
1020 150
steel g rit Lin &
quartz 10
Im pact 47.1 Shao
w ater
sand &
Angle (1991,
w ater 90
vl41)
high slu rry
chrom ium
cast
iro n
mullite
&
glass
m esh 46 120- velocity exponent Finnie

SAE 1020 20
250 = 2 (1953)
steel SiC
3 mm
2.83
Al 6061- glass
TO w o r k shot
hardened 2.3 mm
steel 2.80
surface
impact shot
velo 20
3 mm
city Al glass 2.52
120 velocity Sheldon
gas
6061-TO shot exponent
gun &
annealed 2.3 mm 363 Kanhere
surface steel 2 .34
(1972)
shot
Al 3 mm
6061-TO glass 2.41
work shot
hardened 90
& 2.3 mm
steel :.19
an n ealed
surface shot
34
T able 2.2 E rosion param etric stu dies (continued)

Para T arget
^ Erodent A ccel. V el. A ngleo R esu lts R ef.
m eter = M ateria.
M ethod ( m/ s ) (degree
H46
25 &
11% 61 T illy
125 p m 90 v el. exp. = 2.3
chrom ium (1973)
q u artz
steel 610
9.5 mm 180 H utchings

m ild
ste e l 30 v e l. exp. = 2 . 9 et a l.
steel
b a lls 400 (1976)
45 2 .9 Young &
304 5 pm C02
35-65 V ti • t a
steel alum ina gas
90 3 .4 (1977)
270 pm
annealec
20 2.2
steel
shot 70 2.1
27 0 pm Ma j i &
alum inum h a rd en e c 10 20 2 . 2 - 2 .4 S h e l d o n
^ gas v el. exp.
6061-T6 ste el (1979)
stream
80 70 2 . 1- 2 .4
shot
270 pm
hardene< 1 20 2.7
steel
im pact 70 2.5
g rit
v elo f r e e
c ity 1.58 mm
p olycry f a l l l i n g
R ickerby
WC- p a r t i c l e
10
s ta llin e &
6w t % C o 90 v el. exp. = 3.3
im p a c te d
alum inum M acM illan
spheres b y m o v in g 200
s p e c im e n
(1980)
0) 70 30 4.07 Brown
p olycry to n
61- & et a l.
to <D p ir 90 3.07
sta llin e G a ir v el. exp.
it)
r~ 1 Q. 200 122 30 2.7 (1981,
a-Fe tjl CO
v70)
p m 90 2.86
f r e e
R ickerby
1.58 mm f a l l l i n g
30 2.98
coarse 10 &
p a r t i c l e
g rain WC- M acM illan
im p a c te d
alum inum
6w t % C o 150 (1982,
D y m o v in g
90 3.3
spheres v 7 9)
s p e c im e n
hot -Cerosene 20 2.01 Levy &

ro lled mesh 10 Yau
-30 wt % 50 2.12
1018 200 v el. exp. (1984,
toal 60 1.71
steel coal 30 v98)
slu rry 90 1.62
2.3 & w ind
Shayler
A ISI 303 5 pm tunnel 110
v el. exp. = 2.5 & Yee
ash par & sand 35
steel (1984)
- t i d e o laster 300
3 04steel S hida &
120 Urn 40-
A rgon v el. exp. = 2.8 F ujikaw a
at 300 & 120 20
SiC gas
650 cC (1985)
35
T able 2.2 E rosion param etric stu d ies (continued)
Erodent Impact; Im pact R esu lts

Para T arget
^ Erodent A ccel. V el. A nglec1 (R: N orm alized R ef.
m eter s M ateria.
M ethod (m/s) (degree erosion rate)
R decreases as
qu artz
82 45 the value of CpAl
vario u s sand
in c re a se s. H utchings
pure
(C: sp ecific heat (1975,
m etals SiC
p: d en sity , AT: v35)
p a r ti 136 20 tem p, rise above
cle the m eltin g D t.)
plain car
bon steel 2 5 0 |xm
R slig h tly G reen
under diff SiC
erent heat a ir 158 30 increases w ith e t a l.
p a r ti
treatm ent hard ness. (1981)
cle
conditions
S p ecific erosion
76
various energy is propor
SiC 20 M alkin
target pure 137 tio n a l to the sp
(1981)
m at m etals e c ific m elting
e ria l q u artz 82 45 energy.
prop AISI 4140
steel R increases w ith
e rtie s
in creasin g hard A m brosini
under a ir
1 25 flm &
various b la s t 50 ness & ultim ate
SiC 30
heat stren g th & decr Bahadur
ing
treatm ent easin g d u c tility . (1987)
conditions
a) The ag in g or
w ork-hardening
several treatm en t has no
70-200 e ffe c t on R of
abrasion
|1 m a ir h i. tem p, allo y s;
re sistan t 30,
q u artz, N inham
allo y s & b la s t 60 b) D ifferent hi.
60, (1988)
SiC ing tem p, allo y s have
high tem - 90
p a r ti only sm all d if f
D erature
c le erence of R;
a llo y s
c) A b rasiv e-resis
tan t allo y s exhi
b it higher R than
h i. tem p, allo y s.
A new p a r a m e t e r t|
S rosion E fficiency t
ls d efin ed as the
ratio of the vol- Sundara-
ime rem oval to the ra jan
any any
vary 90 ;olum e d i s p l a c e d . e t a l .
kind kind
q = 2EvH /u2 (1990,
E : vol. lo s/u n it v!40)
V
m ass of erodent
H: hardness
u: im pact v el.)
36
T able 2 .2 E rosion param etric stu d ies ( c o n tin ued)

Para T arget R ef.
Erodent A c ce l. V el. A nglea (R : N o r m a liz e d
m eters M aterial (m /s ) (d e g re e )
M ethod e r o s io n r a t e )
U=305
T illy
H46 0-200 R
128, //^ u ^ 2 4 4 (1973)
11% pm 244, 90
chrom ium q u artz 305
ste e l 0 200
d ( p m)
erod
gold,
ent M isra &
copper, SiC R
size Finnie
copper abra 120 20
(1981)
single sive
cry stal 0 250
d (pm)
M orrison
37, 63,
304 &
130,
10 R S catter-
sta in 270 pm
100 good
less alum ina
90 (1986,
ste el p a rti
0 300 v lll)
cle
d (pm)
5wt%
hot 150 10 R L in &
q u artz
ro lled g rit Shao
sand- 47 . 1
1020 quartz 90 (1991)
w ater
ste el sand
slu rry 0 300
d (Um)
chalk, — * < 1 ^ - — '----------- M isra &

C60M glass, H '/Ha Finnie
R / — >1
ste e l C60H, A H (1981)
of flin t (ref. to
hardness garnet, W eiiinger
0 H 300C
750 corun et a l .
erod Ha (kgf/m m 2 )
ent
kgf/m m 2 dum,
target hardness
Wear, vl,
K:
SiC 1958, p225)
hard Ha : abrasive hardness
ness 180-250 a=30°
pm
Levy S
calcite,
A ISI R Chik
ap atite, 30,
1020 a ir 80 / ^ a = 9 0° (1983,
sand, 90
ste e l v89)
alum ina,
32 700 3000
silico n
Hv (kgf/m m 2 )
carbide
37
T able 2 .3 M aterial rem oval m odeling of d u c tile m aterials
Im pact
E rosion T arget E rosion E quation
E rodent ^ngle u Com m ents R eference
M echanism s M aterial ( d e g r e e
(R: s i n g l e p a r t i c l e m a t e r i a l r e m o v a l'
R = ( ^ ) n w 2 (sin 2 a - 3 sin 2« ) , u s 18.5° V alid fo r low in c id

d u c tile irre g u la r \|> a f 2 ence an g les, but not F innie
c u ttin g rig id sm all (1958)
m aterials fo r larg e incidence
abrasive R = (c o s ex), u > 18.5° an g le s.
l|XTj' 6
1) For a s a 0 ,
p _ m (v s in a - K )
2e W ell c o rre la te d w ith
2 m C ( v s in a - K ) 2 C (v sin a - K )2 , t h e ero sion trend s of
+ ------------ ---------------------------- ---(vcos a — -----------------------------—
both d u c tile and
vvsin a vvsin a
cu ttin g b r i t t l e m ate ria ls.
wear d u c tile 2) For B itte r
& 0 <x > cxq, The ero sion ra te of
& (1963,
CO d efo rm atio n e la s tic p m ( v s in a - K ) 2 d u c tile m aterials is
oo b r ittle p5 & pl69)
wear sphere 90 2 e
peaked a t a low
m aterials 3 in cid en ce an g le w hile
m (v 2c o s 2 cx - K i ( v s i n cx - K ) t . th a t of b r ittle
+
m a te ria ls is peaked
E: sp e c ific energy of defoxrm ation a t norm al in cidence.
w ear, g: sp e c ific energy of c u ttin g
w ear, cxo: co n stan t re la te d to

m aterial p ro p e rtie s & im pact
v e lo c ity . K & K l: ta r g e t/p a rtic le
c o n sta n ts.
fra c tu re R « d 3 v 3 ' ’ l>’

S heldon &
due to rig id 3 V alid fo r re la tiv e ly
alum inum 90 H v2 K anhere
over sphere low im pact v e lo c ity .
(1972)
stra in in g
Hv: V ickers hardness
T able 2 .3 M aterial rem oval m odeling of d u c tile m aterials (co n tin u ed )
Im pact
E rosion T arget E rosion E quatio n
E rodent A ngle u Com m ents R eference
M echanism s M aterial (R: single p a rtic le m aterial rem oval)
(deg ree
tw o-stage
erosion
R = e , m ( - V )2 [1 - ( ^ r . ) o K ]2 + r 2 m F j , v( ^ ) 2 W e l l c o r r e l a t e d w ith
d u c tile fra g ile experim ental d ata in T illy
due to 90
m aterials p a rtic le tl and E2 : sp e c ific energy of th e term s of p a rtic le (1973)
p a rtic le
1s t & 2nd stage ero sio n . F d,v: size and im pact
fragm enta
p a rtic le frag m en tatio n co n stan t, v e lo c ity .
tio n
d th r: th resh o ld d. V r: te s t v elo city
R = (sin 2 a - 4sin 2 a ) + l ^ l l Y 2s i n l a
4 r p (o3
w here /ap|> K |b The o v e rall v e lo c ity
irre g u la r
0) = V m e x p o n e n t was found
to be g re a te r than 2. F innie &
cu ttin g d u c tile
sm all T his ex pression is only v a lid fo r
m aterials rig id E xperim ental v e r if i MaFadden
the case of non-zero h o rizo n tal
abrasive c atio n was not (1978)
v e lo c ity component as th e p a r tic le
p ro v id ed .
e x its th e su rface. For th e o th er
case, a m ore c o m p lic a te d f o r m u la t io n
can be found in th e o rig in a l paper.
R _ Ae 2 « rm p v 2
er C ay E xperim ental v e r if i
low cycle irre g u la r A lp: p la s tic s tra in in tro d u ced per H u tchings
d u ctle c atio n was not
rig id 90 (1979)
fatiq u e p ro v id ed .
m etals cy cle. Ef: fa ilu re s tra in . H r: ratic
p a rtic le
of deform ed volum e to in d en ta tio n
volum e, tly: u n iax ial y ie ld s tre s s .
p la te le t -- g Ec: c r itic a l P re d ictio n of v e lo c i

rig id « rinnp,T vJ
form ation ty exponent of 3 is H u tchings
m etals sp h erical 90 R = 0.033— — - - - - - s tra in . Hd:
at c r i t i c o rre la te d w ith (1981)
p a rtic le _ 2u ~ dynam ic hard-
cal stra in Ec H a l ex perim ent.
n e s s .
T able 2 .3 M aterial rem oval m odeling of d u c tile m ate ria ls (co n tin u ed )
Im pact
E rosion T arget E ro sio n E quation
E rodent 'V n g le a Com m ents R eference
(degree
0 .0065m v2-5pp 25
R ~ -------------------- -—
p la te le t r tO.75i_jO.25
' -' P 1 111 IIs W ell c o r r e l a t e d w ith
form ation rig id
m etals 90 Tm: t a r g e l t a r g e t t h e r m o p h y s i c a l 3 u n d a r a r a j a r
Cp: t a r g e t s p e c i f i c h e a t .
a t c r i t i p a rtic le m e ltin g p o i n t. Hs: s t a t i c hardness. p ro p e rtie s . (1983)
cal s tra in
T h is i s a s i m p lif ie d e q u a tio n . See
th e o r i g in a l p a p e r fo r com plete
fo rm u latio n .
The liq u id drag force is considered
irre g u la r in ad d itio n to the ta rg e t m aterial
rig id r e s i s t a n t f o r c e in th e m o tio n eq u - E xperim ental B en ch aita
d u c tile t i o n o f th e p a r t i c l e . The d e r iv e d
c u ttin g p a rtic le sm all v e rific a tio n was e t a l .
m etals fo r m u la tio n f o r t h e m a t e r i a l rem oval
o in a not provided for (1983)
liq u id re q u ire s n u m erical e v a lu a tio n . In
ero sio n r a te . B en ch aita
stream t h i s m o d e l , R cc v2-5 . B u t t h e e f f e c t
(1985)
of p a r tic le siz e is not in cluded.
a) P a rtic le e x its m aterial (txcixo)
m ( ) n ° - 25 v 2-5 ______
R = 0 .564( — ----------------)sin 2uv,sin a
a rL 25 R r a 7 5
b) P a rtic le h o rizo n tal v e lo c ity Y |,= ()
w hile th e p a rtic le is p ro p elled E xperim ental v e r if i
irre g u la r 0 H ashish
c u ttin g d u c tile c atio n was not
rig id outw ard (ao<cx<ai) (1987)
m etals p ro v id ed .
p a rtic le 90 r = _my2. cos 2 a ( i + R « - a o Um2 (x)
2Rsa f «i-cx0
c ) Vh = 0 w hile th e p a rtic le is s t i l l
m oving inw ard, (cxxxi)

(R f, R s: p a r ti c l e
R = sin2cx(2 - + - 1 — ) shape param eters)
2af 90 - «i Rstan <x
T able 2.3 M aterial rem oval m odeling of d u c tile m ate ria ls (con tin u ed )
Lmpact E ro sio n E quation

E rosion T arget
E rodent \n g le a Com m ents R eference
degreei
p _ ^ 2 llC m v 2 s i n 2 a F ( t ) j f j ]
p la te le t nCp
W ell c o rre la te d w ith
form at!on rig id j ( n + l ) ( n / n c ) ( 2 - n / n c) c? Sundararajar
m etals 90 ta rg e t therm ophysical
a t c r i t i p a rtic le (1983)
p ro p e rtie s .
cal stra in 4(l+A .)tan2a F ( t )
The liq u id drag force is considered

irre g u la r in ad d itio n to the ta rg e t m aterial
rig id re s is ta n t force in the m otion equ- E x p erim ental B en ch aita
d u c tile tio n of the p a rtic le . The d eriv ed
c u ttin g p a rtic le sm all v e rific a tio n was e t a l .
m etals fo rm u la tio n f o r th e m a t e r i a l rem oval
in a not provided for (1983)
liq u id re q u ire s num erical e v a lu a tio n . In
erosio n ra te . B en ch aita
stream th is m odel, R oc v ~ 5 . But th e e ffe c t
(1985)
of p a rtic le siz e is not included.
a) P a rtic le e x its m ate ria l (OKOCo)
111P ^ - 2 5 y 2 . 5
R = 0 . 5 6 4 ( — — --------------- ) s i n 2 t x V s i n cx
a ( . 1. 2 5 R f 0 . 7 5
b) P a rtic le h o rizo n tal v e lo c ity ''],

w hile the p a rtic le is p ro p elled E xperim ental v e r if i
irre g u la r 0 H ashish
c u ttin g d u ctle catio n was not
rig id outw ard ( ( Xo <t x<CXl ) (1987)
m etals p ro v id ed .
p a rtic le 90
R = c o s2« ( l + R f - - —' Uurcx)
2 R so f < jq-(x0
c ) V], = 0 w hile the p a rtic le is s t i l l
m oving inw ard. ((XXXI)

(R f, Rs: p a r t i c l e
R= m v 2 sin2a ( 2 - )0 ’ H + 1 ) shape param eters)
2of 90 - a i R stnn2 a
T able 2 .3 M aterial rem oval m odeling of d u c tile m ate ria ls (co n tin u ed )
Empact
E rodent \n g le a Com m ents R eference
M echanism s M aterial (R: single p article m aterial rem oval)
;d e g r e e
0 .2nCmv2sin2a F (l). , .
R = ( ~ ){1 +
nCp T his model is ab le to
( n + l ) ( ) i / p c) ( 2 - p / p c) ex p lain th e ero sio n -
L | - e2} a n g le r e l a t i o n , w hich
p la te le t irre g u la r 4(l+X )lan2cxF(t) is stron g ly dependent
form ation or 0 n: strain -h ard en in g exponent
m etals on p. & X . T h e p r e d i c
a t c r i t i sp h erical F (t ): num erical c o n sta n t
ted v e lo c ity is g re a S undararajar
c al stra in p a rtic le 90 C: a can stan t c h a ra c te riz in g
te r than 2. I t supp (1991)
th e tem perature dependence
o rts the ob serv atio n s
of flow s tre ss.
t h a t ( 1) the lin e a r
|.l: c o e ffic ie n t of fric tio n re la tio n bew teen R &
hardness; (2) R i s
|.lc: c r itic a l c o e ffic ie n t of
to in se n sitiv e to ta rg e t
fric tio n
stren g th .
X: p a rtic le shape c o e ffic ie n t
e: c o e ffic ie n t of r e s titu tio n
T able 2 .4 E rosion m echanism s of b r i tt l e m aterials

E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C o n clu sio n s R eference
M ethod ( m/s) (deq r e e )
1 5 0 |lm T illy
glass a ir 104 90 L ateral & ra d ia l crack in g .
quartz (1969)
A cen tral p la s tic im press
400 pm 130 ion su rro u n d ed by ra d ia l,
high
WC s p h e r e s la te ra l and m edian cracks.
ch em ically speed
860 M aterial is rem oved by
photo Evans &
exp 1o d i n g la te ra l cracks. A d d itio n al
graphy, W ilshaw
dep o sited to il
50 0 pm 302 m inor ch ip p in g damages were (1977)
ZnS tech n iq u e 90
nylon opt ica l observed for g lass spheres
co n ica 1, (a window
spheres 1000 m icro due to im p acts of fractu rec
rad ial, glass)
scopy & pa r t i c l e s .
& la te ra l
1000 Pm C ircu m feren tial crack seg
crack 160, SEM
glass m ents w ith in a damage annu-
CO system 350
spheres l u s . No m a t e r i a l lo s s .
qlass 125 C onical & r a d ia l cracks.
Cone & ra d ia l cracks form ec
boro- during loading. L ateral
s ilic a te cracks form ed during
ste e l C haudhri
a ir gun 160 u nloading. The cone crack
glass 1 mri h igh &
or experiences an o p en-close-
dia . speed W alley
p ro p elled 90 open o sc illa tio n .
photo (19/0)
by sm all graphy Cone & ra d ia l cracks form ec
ere
d eto n atio n during loading. The end of
soda-lim e glass 140
cone crack curved up durinc
glass u n lo ad in q .
R ad ial & la te ra l cracks
ste e l 2 00
seen but not cone cracks.
PPG flo a t o p tic a l A c en tral p la s tic im press
3 mm d i a . 50 K irchner
g lass plate m icro ion, co n ical, ra d ia l & l a t
glass gas gun 90 G ruver
heated to scope e ra l cracks. Some im pact
spheres 125 (1978)
44Q-770°C & sen .. __si.tes w ere c r u s h e d --------
T able 2 .4 E rosion m echanism s of b r ittle m aterials (co n tin u ed )
E rosion T arget Erodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

E rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C o n clu sio n s R eference
M ethod ( m/ s ) Idegree)
WC s p h e r e s A c e n tra l p la s tic im press

ZnS
io n surrounded by ra d ia l,
co n ical and la te ra l crack.
MgF an g u lar SiC
A ngular p a rtic le s tend to
ang u lar ex ploding < 1 00 0 o p tic a l produce asym m etric frac tu re
Mg O Evans
q u artz fo il or m icro p a tte rn . L ateral cracks o f
90 et al.
gas stream scopy & ten in itia te at ra d ia l or
WC s p h e r e s (1978,
m ethod SEM co n ical cracks. A zone of
p343)
ZnS glass m icro fractu res occurs ben
spheres e a th th e c e n tra l im p ressio n
1000 |im g l
h.p - S i 3 N4 500 No frac tu re.
ass sphere
d)
i—1
4^ T? 3 mm d i a .
4^ CO 0 9 4% glass
co n ical, G 70 K irchner
0 rH alum ina sphere
rad ial, ■P Q, H ertzian cone cracks. &
r\j (X
& la te ra l 90 G ruver
crack Z CO
h .p . 1 .59 mm (1978,
S to
sysLem 0 S i 3N 4 dia. WC 50 p25)
o M
o p sphere
«H (0
3 mm d i a . up to No v isib le damage. G lass

glass sphere 124 spheres crushed at 124 m /s.
1 . 5 9 mm d i a up to No v i s i b l e damage. S teel
transform a 198 o p tic a l sheres fla tte n e d at 198 m /s
s t e e l sphere K irchner
tio n m icro In d e n ta tio n s.
9 et a l .
toughened 90
1.59 mm scopy & In d en tatio n , circu m feren (1979,
Z irco nia 71. 4
dia. WC SEM t ia l cracks, ra d ia l cracks. p 4 9)
sphere > 71.4 L ateral vent cracks ex ten d
up to to surface lead in g to ch ip
140 p ing betw een ra d ia l cracks.
T able 2.4 E rosion m echanism s of b r ittle m aterials (co n tin u ed )
E rosion T arget E rodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

M ethod (m/s) ^degree)
corning 10 & 30 |lm M aterial is lo st by the Sargent
7740 Pyrex alum ina a ir 65 form ation and in te ra c tio n e t a l .
90 SEM
glass p a rtic le of la te ra l cracks. (1979)
Z inc 3 mm d i a . In d en tatio n s, H ertzian cone R ichard &
su lfid e g lass 68.7 90 SEM cracks, ra d ia l cracks and K irchner
p late s sphere la te ra l vent cracks. (1979)
A c e n tra l p la s tic im p ress
o p tical
hot-pressed 2 7 3 Ji m ion w ith ra d ia l & la te ra l
m icro G ulden
MgF qu artz a ir cracks. L ateral cracks are
190 90 scopy (1979)
(Irtran ) p a rtic le responsible fo r the m ajo ri
& SEM
ty of m aterial rem oval.
conical, so d a-lim e A ll im p acts produced
rad ial, s ilic a glass la te ra l ch ip p in g .
& la te ra l Some im p acts => chip p in g ;
Cn crack W iederhorn
sapphire o p tical Some im pacts => p la s tic
system 150 Jim &
a ir m icro im p ressio n only.
SiC
90 90 M ore p la s tic im p ressio n ; Hockey
abrasive stream scopy
h .p . S i 3N4 (1983,
& SEM Less b r ittle c h ip p in g .
g rain
C racks a rre ste d w ith in the p766)
h .p .
alum ina, so lid . Subsequent im p acts
h .p . S i 3N4 are needed for m aterial
rem oval.
soda-lim e 4 0 0 Ji m S i C slin g er L ateral and ra d ia l cracks R itte r et
37.5 90 SEM
glass abrasive type cause surface sp allin g . a l. (1984)
AD 9 0 & L ateral & ra
Sm all g rain
AD 9 9 . 7 d ia l cracks.
37 => la te ra l &
alum ina
In terg ra n u la r R itte r
AD 99.5 1 0 1 6 Ji m slin g er ra d ia l cracks
90 crack in g . et a l .
SiC type Large g rain
In terg ran u lar (1987)
CR6 & abrasive => in te rg ra
106 & som e ra d ia l
CR30 nular cracks
crack in a
T able 2.4 E rosion m echanism s of b r i tt l e m aterials (continued)
E rosion T arget E rodent Im pact Im pact Research

Erodent A ccel. V el. A ngle O b serv atio n s & C onclu sio n s R eference
M ethod (m/s) (degree)
la te ra l, m edian & H ertzian

sin g le 40-94 pm cone cracks w ere observed. Johansson
slin g er S E M,
cry stal ang u lar 47 90 M aterial lo ss can be caused e t a l .
type TEM
Si (001) alum ina by any kind of these cracks (1987)
or th e ir co m bination .
30 S cratch in g .
S i 3 N4
300 P a r t ic l e embedded. A flake
(9S) 710 pm
of m aterial was diqqed up.
an g u lar
glass 100 L ateral cracks.
SiC
KP-95 L ateral cracks. Wada &
abrasive
alu A p la s tic -im pression lik e a W atanabe
c o n ic al, 80
m ina A -482 a ir SEM k n i f e e d g e . No la te ra l and (1987)
rad ial, ra d ia l cracks.
& la te ra l SiC Als 03 300 M elting of p a rtic le an d /o r
crack glass glass targ e t occurs fo r a ll these
system S i 3 N 4 (Ml) glass cases due to the lo calized
S i 3N4 ( 9 S ) a i 2o 3 h e atin g .
30
A 1 20 3 ( A—4 8 2 : SiC
AD 9 9
alum ina
360 & 1300 o p tic a l B reder

AD 9 9 . 7 m icro R ad ial cracks form ed in
pm SiC a ir gun 181 90 e t a l .
CR 6 a ll alum ina sam ples.
p a rtic le scopy (1988)
CR 3 0
3 kinds of 500 p m SiC Wada &
250-
Z r02 c e ra m ic abrasive a ir stream 80 SEM L ateral crack in g . W atanabe
300
(1 9 8 8 .o 5 8 7 )
hot-pressed SiC
In terg ra n u la r crack in g .
A l 2 O, A12 0 Wada
250- E la s tic -p la s tic in d en tatio n
500 pm a ir stream SEM et a l .
h ot-pressed SiC 300 80
w ith l a t e r a l c rac k in g . (1988,
A 1 20 3 - SiC
S cratch in g & p la s tic inden p ll3 )
co m posite A l 20
ta tio n w ith l a t e r a l crac k s.

E rodent A ccel. V el. Angle O b serv atio n s & C onclusions R eference
(m/s) (degree)
M ethod
scouring •—i P a rtic le /
PA1 <0
sin tered m ark g tn ta rg e t
405 pm E17
alu m in a p en etratio n 0) G
A lundum 1> -H re la tiv e
PA3 rd M S riniva-
co n ical, reg io n -(o hardness
p a rtic le
punched-out m san
rad ial, a ir O H is an
cham pion Z O &
& la te ra l b lastin g 80 90 SEM reg io n im portant
S catter-
crack L ateral & ra d ia l fa c to r in
system sintered P A 1 crack in g . L ateral the tra n
good
4 0 5 |lm (1988)
alu m in a cracks p ro pagate s itio n of
PA3 SiC
a long g rain boun frac tu re
cham pion d aries . p a tte rn .
In terg ra n u la r ch ip p in g w ith
R itte r
no ev id en ce of ra d ia l or
sin tere d 90 e t a l .
l a t e r a l crack in g fo r both
-a alum ina (1984)
400 pm tu b u lar 23°C and 1000°C.
AD 9 9 . 5 R itte r
SiC ro to r 75 SEM For 23°C, i n t e r g r a n u l a r
in te rg ra a t 23°& (1985)
p a rtic le ch ip in g w ith th e p i ts elo n
nular & 1000°C R itte r
15 g ated in th e im pact d i r e c t
tran sg ra- et a l .
ion. For 1000°C, p l a s t i c
n ular (1986)
wear scars w ere observed.
c rack in g
F ractu res w ith grooves or
23-270 pm 15 M orrison
60- p la s tic shear zones.
m u llite alu m in a SEM et a l .
1 00 T ransgranular and
p a rtic le 90 (1985)
in te rg ran u la r c ra c k s.
AD 9 0 & L ateral & ra
S m all g rain
AD 9 9 . 7 d ia l cracks.
37 => la te ra l &
In terg ra n u la r R itte r
1016 pm slin g er ra d ia l cracks
AD 9 9 . 5 90 et a l .
crack in g .
SiC type Large g rain
In terg ran u lar (1987)
CR6 & abrasive => in te rg ra
106 & some ra d ia l
CR30 nular cracks
c r a c k i n g ________

M ethod ( m/ s ) (degree)
hot-p ressed SiC
In terg ra n u la r crack in g .
Al? Al? O - Wada
250- E la s tic -p la s tic in d en tatio n
5 0 0 |lm a ir stream SEM et a l .
hot-p ressed SiC 300 80
w ith la te ra l crack in g . (1988,
A12 0 3 - SiC
S cratch in g & p la s tic inden p ll3 )
co m p o site a i 2o3
ta tio n w ith la te ra l cracks.
In terg ra n u la r crack in g &
99.5% sp a lla tio n . Pores around
in te rg ra-
alum ina g rain b o u n d aries are im por
nular &
tan t fo r crack in itia tio n .
tran sg ra-
reactio n The binder m aterial was
nular
bonded SiC w ater eroded p re fe re n tia lly .
cracking
co n tain in g C obalt b inder was p referen Graham
a trip le x
38 |lm tia lly rem oved by a com bin & B all
plunger 245
WC-Co sm all SEM (1989)
q u a rtz ite pump ed actio n of erosion and
cement p a rtic le co rro sio n , leading to the
exposure and eventual
rem oval of WC q r a i n s .
The nickel m atrix shows a
WC-Ni
high re sistan c e to the ero
cem ent
siv e-co rro siv e co n d itio n .
3 mm d i a . A m ain ring frac tu re s u rr
650
liq u id jet ounded by many circum feren Bowden
ring com m ercial &
90 SEM t ia l fra c tu re s, w hich are
fractu re p late glass lead slug 210 F ield
produced by stre ss w aves.
12.1 mm A ring fra c tu re . No short (1964)
5
steel b all c ircu m feren tial frac tu res.
125- A I 2O 3 80 Sm oothed and rounded in Shipw ay
sin tere d
m icro 1 50( Jr r s i l i c ; a ir 98 appearance. M aterial &
boron 90 SEM
ch ip p in g 6 0 0 - 8 5 0 |lm b lastin g rem oval may occur by m inor H utchings
carbide 50
silic a ch ip p in g . (1991)
T able 2 .4 E rosion m echanism s of b r ittle m aterials (continued)
E rosion E rodent Im pact Im pact R esearch

T arget
(m/s) (degree)
M ethod
E vidences of m eltin g at the
alum ina & im pact s ite w ere observed.
m u llite The low er therm al conducti
Yust &
at room SiC v ity of ceram ics favors the
gas 24.4 90 SEM C rouse
tem perature p a rtic le g en eratio n of lo c a lly elev
(1978)
and at ated tem p eratu res. E rosion
47 0 °C damages in c lu d e b r i t t l e
fra c tu re and p la s tic sh ear.
P la stic flow co n trib u tes to
23-270 pm R outbort
com m ercial the ero sio n of nom inally
an g u lar 54- e t a l .
reactio n SO SEM b r i t t l e m a te ria ls though
alu m in a 151 (1980)
p la s tic bonded SiC th e damage i s p re d o m in an tly
p a rtic le
deform atior b r ittle frac tu re.
& m eltin g 405 Pm E -17 P l a s t i c p u n c h -ty p e damage M urugesh &
sapphire alum ina 90 90 SEM w ithout crack in g or S cattergood
p a rtic le frag m en tatio n . (1990)
125 -150 m 30 E tc h ed sam ple: U netched

an g u lar 98 S cratch in g but sam p le:
s ilic a 90 no crack in g . som e la te
Silceram
(a s ilic a te Some crack in g . ra l crack.
125 -150 Pm gas
glass 30, M ajo rity of th e im pact
rounded b lastin g 44 Spark &
ceram ic) 90 SEM site s showed p la s tic
s ilic a H utchings
etched & defo rm atio n only.
(1991)
u n etch ed 125 -150 pm G eneral damages are shallow
30, d isc -lik e p la s tic im p ress
g lass 87
beads 90 ions. Some frac tu res occur
at 90 and above 87 m /s.

M ethod (m/s) degree)
1100-0
R ip p les.
alum inum
to o l ste e l
(Rc 64)
m olded
120 m esh B rittle erosion.
g rap h ite
SiC No r ip p le s .
96.5%
p a rtic le
rip p le MgO
form ation 99.5%

alum ina
s ilic a
Sheldon &
glass
o p tic a l F innie
1100-0 152 30 (1966)
m icro
R ip p les.
alum inum scopy
Tool s te e l and s ilic a g lass
to o l ste e l
sa m p le s show ed t r a n s i t i o n
(Rc 64)
from b r i t t l e to d u c t i l e
s ilic a
1000 mesh b e h av io r.
g lass
96.5% SiC
MgO p a rtic le
99.5% No rip p le s .
alum ina
m olded
g rap h ite
P la stic i n d e n t a ti o n accom
Wada &
m ixed mode 7 1 0 |im p an y in g l a t e r a l crack in g ,
alum ina a ir SEM W atanabe
damage SiC 300 80 c ru sh in g and in te rg ran u la r
(1987)
abrasive crack in g .
T able 2 .5 P aram etric studies of B rittle M aterials
E rodent Im pact Im pact R esu lts

Para Target A nglea R ef.
Erodent A ccel. V el. (R : N o r m a liz e d
m eters M aterial (m /s ) (d e g re e )
M ethod e r o s io n r a t e )
to o l
ste e l
Rc 64
high
d en sity
MgO
1 2 7 [izn
(96.5%)
im pact
angle S heldon
9[i;n
10
m olded |I m a ir 152
F innie
g rap h ite an g u lar 90 (1966,
SiC
127 [1/7? p387)
high
d en sity
alum ina
(99.5%)
p late
glass
210
108
[1 m
297
glass 96.3
|l m
N eilson
475
79.2 40-90
)I m
G rich rist
a ir
(1968)
297 [Xm
g rap h ite 128
alum ina
51
T able 2.5 P aram etric studies of B ritt le M aterials (cont;in u e d )
E rodent Im pact Im pact R esu lts

Para Target R ef.
E rodent A c ce l. V el. A nglea (R: N o r m a l i z e d
m eters M aterial ( m/ s ) (degree)
M ethod erosion rate)
N eilson
20 &
210 pm R
a ir 128 G ilch rist
perspex alum ina
90 (1968)
3 a 90
60-125
glass, pm 10 T illy
R
fib re - irreg u a ir (1969)
104
glass la r 90
guartz
im pact 0 a 90
a n g le ■
30 p m
an g u lar R
65
alum ina
co rn in g Sargent
20 0 a 90
7740 et a l .
a ir
pyrex (1979)
90
glass
10 p m
R
an g u lar 84
alum ina
0 a 90
reactio n 10 R outbort
23 p m slin g er R
bonded ang u lar type 151 et a l .
SiC 90 (1980)
alum ina
0 « 90
15 M orrison
270 pm slin g er R
m u llite 80 e t a l .
alum ina type
90 (1985)
0 « 90
500 - Wada &

20
850 p m a ir R W atanabe
SiC 300
alum ina (1987)
90
0 a 90
52
T able 2 .5 P aram etric stu d ies of B rittle M aterials (continued)
Erodent Impact Impact Results

Para T arget Ref.
Erodent A c c e l . Vel. Angle ct (R: N orm alized
m eter: M aterial (m/s) (degree)
Method erosion rate)
590 - 30
alum ina 7 6 0 urn
(KP-95) an g u lar 90
g lass Wada &
a 90
W atanabe
im pact
angle (1987)
300
500 -
20
8 5 0 Jim
S i 3N4 alum ina
90
( 9S)
a 90
glass 3.0
125 & 2.74

MgO
250 61
g rap h ite 2.69
jj.rn Sheldon
angular 183
velo city 2.53 &
steel,R c64
SiC a ir 90 exponent F innie
alum ina 2.62
(1966,
282 & 4.37 p393)
glass 38.1
4 1 9 jim 2.73
MgO ste e l
107
shot 2.67
g rap h ite
corning 30 2.2 Sargent
28-65
7740 )lm v el. exp. et al.
a ir 90
Pyrex 10 2 .7 (1979)
im pact 58-84
glass Mm
v elo R outbort
reactio n 2 7 0 Jim v e l. ex p.
c ity slin g er 54- e t a l .
bonded angular 10-90 = 2.02 - 2.46
type 151 (1980)
SiC alum ina
23 3.4
Mm
37 S catter-
3.35
single slin g er 32 good &
Mm v e l. exD.
90
cry stal 130 type R outbort
2.7
silic o n 151 (1981)
Urn
270
2.55
M-m
2.2
MaO 2 5 ° C
CO w ieder-
CO
03; 1 5 0 Jim horn &
a ir 37 2.5
i— ( 25 SiC Hockey
a cp 90 v ei. exp.
s
•h n3; p a r ti
stream
(1983,
i—I CJ
94
500 cle p 7 6 6)
03 *H 3.5
TJ - I
O -H °C
CO CO
53
Table 2 . 5 Parametric studies of Brittle Materials (continued)
Erodent Impact Impact Results

Para Target Anglea R ef.
Erodent A c c e l . Vel. (R: N orm alized
meter: Material (m/s) (degree)
Method erosion rate)
<n
3 2.9
Om 25°C
a) o
U -H 500
■U H 3.0
*rl
> CO
o 2 .3
a> 25 C
u
•H 500
JZ 2.4
a
a
fO
CO 1000 3.3
°C
2.3
2 5 °C
a> (0 500
u c 2.8
a) -h
.u £
♦aH Hd
1000 2.7
CO 03 W ieder-
° C 1 5 0 |I m
37 horn &
co SiC air
o 2.3 Hockey
im pact o 25 C parti stream 90 vel. exp.
co (1983,
velo co cle 94
CD (0 500 2.1 p 7 66)
city
4-> D 2.3
O *H 1 0 0 0
.C <0 ° C
2.9
2 5 °C
c
o 500
o 3.3
•H °C
r-H
•H
CO 1000 3.4
°C
H .P. o 1.8
SiC 25 C
V o 2.1
<D 25 C
CO
CO
(I) 500 2.5
u
a
n
4-)
1000 2.4
O -H
JZ CO
°C
37 15 2 . 84 M orrison
p. m slin g er 31-90 2.80 et a l .
60- vel. exp.
m u llite 15 2 . 97
270 type 100 (1985)
dm 31-90 2 .23
A l20 ; 2.9
Shipway
a ir 2.7 &
sin tere d SiC 40-
b la s t 90 ve x . exp. Hutchings
b4 c silica
120 9.4
ing (1991)
600-850 2.8
JU- 1:
54
T able 2.5 P aram etric stu d ies of B rittle M aterials (continued)
Erodent Impac t Im pact R esults

Para T arget
Ê rodent A ccel. V el. A ngle** (R: N o r m a l i z e d R ef.
m eter £ M a te ria
M ethod ( m/ s ) (degree
^ erosion rate)
R is in v ersely
13 kinds p ro p o rtio n al to
Wada &
of 710 pm the sp e c ific g ra
air 300 80 W atanabe
alum ina SiC v ity , co n ten t of
(1987)
ta rg e t ceram ics A l2 03 and V ickers
m at hardness.
e ria l 6 k i n d s ol
R in creases as
prop- alumina:
the ta rg e t hard S riniva-
N orton
e r t i e : M l, a ir ness decreases. san &
PA2, E17
b la s t 80 90 T ran sitio n occur, S catter-
PA3, Alundun
PA4, ing as targ et/ero d en t good
405 pm
Ch a mp i o n , hardness ra tio (1988)
Desussa approaches u n ity
glass 4.25
21. 6 & 3 . 95
MgO
.0
a oAO
u 91
g rap h ite Jim 3.78
Sheldon
ang u lar 152
steel,Rc64 erodent 3.58 £
SiC air 90 diam eter
alum ina Finnie
3.86
exponent (1966,
glass 282 - 5.12
45.7 p 3 93)
940 pm
MgO - 3.3 9
ste e l
76.2
g rap h ite shot 3.1 4
reactio n 270 pm R outbort

slin g er 53 .8 - erod. dia . exp.
bonded an g u lar 4 0 , 90 et a l .
type 107. 6 = 0 . 7 - 0 .95
SiC alum ina (1980)
Erod 23-270 30, eroa. d ia. exp. S catter-
single
ent p m slin g er 50, = 0.667 fo r large good £
cry stal 90
size a n g u la r type 100, dia. and 2.0 for R outbort
silico n
alum ina 151 sm all d i a .. (1981)
23-270 T here e x i s t s a M arshall

p m 107 th resh o ld size et a l .
silico n 90
alum ina (= 2 7 p m ) (1981)
23-270
M orrison
p m slinger erod. dia . exp.
m u llite 100 15-90 et a l .
angular type = 0.68 - 0.83
(1985)
alum ina
kinds
f AI 2 C 2 30
d t h sa me 100
E rod A l2° 3, s R is p ro p o rtio n al
ize Wada
ent 80 to the frac tu re
•5mm) &
(1991)
Prop S i 3N4 , ha r a n e s s J toughness of the
erty bu t 30 erodent p a rtic le .
glass 3 ?nn
cracture
80
cuchness
55
T able 2.6 M aterial rem oval m odeling of b r i tt l e m ate ria ls
Im pact
E rodent 'in g le a Com m ents R eference
M echanism s M aterial (R: single p article m aterial rem oval)
[degree
a) For sp h e rica l p a rtic le
( 3 m \ /2.4m\
R — k q l p m _2 V m _2
sp h erical sm all
Some c o rre la tio n fo r
H ertzian or b) For an g u lar p a rtic le S heldon
b r ittle the v e lo c ity exponent
cone an g u lar /3.6m-. / 2.4m-, & F in n ie
m aterials and p a rtic le rad iu s
crack in g rig id R = k 5 f p ( m- 2 >v( ni-2 * (1966)
ex p o n en t.
p a rtic le
m: ta r g e t m a te ria l flaw
d is tr ib u tio n param eter.
K4, K5: co n stan ts.
T h is equation was
r p‘l G 0 l V i | , l, 1-2
d eriv ed fo r low
Evans &
la te ra l K d 1 5 H d 0 *5 v e lo c ity erosion.
Cn b r ittle so lid W ilshaw
Oi cracking 90 Lack of s u ffic ie n t
m aterials p a rtic le G: shear m odulus of ta rg e t (1976)
experim ental
Kd: dynam ic fra c tu re tou g h n ess
v e rific a tio n .
Hd: dynam ic hardness
r 3 . 7 v 3 . 2 n 0.25
R oc FP V PP
la te ra l Some c o rre la tio n Evans
b r ittle so lid
90 K i: 1 3 II.s0 2 5
w ith experim ental e t a l .
crack in g m aterials p a rtic le
Kc: fra c tu re toughness d a ta . (1978)
Hs: q u a s i-s ta tic hardness
la te ra l b r ittle „ rp3.7v2..tp p l.2 H s0.11 E xperim ental v e r if i c R uff &

so lid
90 a tio n by W iederhorn W iederhorn
crack in g m aterials p a rtic le
K c 1 3 & Hockey (1983) (1979)
T able 2 .6 M aterial rem oval m odeling of b r i tt l e m ate ria ls (co n tin u ed )
Im pact
E rosion T arget E ro sio n E quation
E rodent ^ngle a Com m ents R eference
(degree
In teractio n
C o m p licated fo rm u latio n was o b tain
of H ertzian
ed. See the o rig in a l paper fo r
cone cracks sph erical M ehrotra
b r ittle 90 d e ta ils . A sim p lified equation is : Poor c o rre la tio n
due to t r i - rig id e t a l .
m aterials fo r n.
p let(3 cone p a rtic le R oc ( v 4 ' 5 - v04/5)n ( 1979)
cracks)
Vo: th resh o ld p a rtic le v e lo c ity
form ation
n: co n stan t
p „ rp3.9v2.8pp1.4Hs0.48 O b ta in e d from dim en W iederhorn

b r i tt l e so lid
90 s io n a l a n a ly s is and & Hockey
m ate ria ls p a rtic le
K c>-9 e m p iric a l exponents (1983)
T h is m odel was o b t a i
R oc a t m £ ned by assum ing th e
Y c ra te r siz e is prop-
in te rg ra - so lid R itte r
ceram ics 90 a: g rain size tio n a l to th e p a rticle
n u lar p a rtic le (1985)
k i n e t i c e n e r g y . Good
cracking y: g rain boundary fra c tu re toughness
c o rre la tio n w ith
experim ental d ata.
la te ra l
crack in g p p D°-22Ea 6 7 v2-4d0-67
R = (l - f)Y4 P
plus
h 0 56k 1c>-33
sp allin g Johansson
+ l z P ii” ME v -d In su ffic ie n t
due to b r i tt l e so lid
experim ental e t a l .
m ate ria ls p a rtic le 90
co n ical (1987)
I10 3 3 K ic2 v e r if ic a tio n .
crack
in te ra c f: fra c tio n
tio n Y4, Z4: g e o m e t r i c a l and s ta tis tic a l
facto rs
2.3 Sum m ary
The erosion m echanism s of ductile materials have been classified into seven cat
egories: cutting, extrusion, micro-flaking (or deformation wear), secondary erosion,
m elting Ik splattering, em bedding, ripple formation & macro-flaking. In the event
of cutting, the im pacting particle displaces, along its trajectory, a portion of target
m aterial into a chip by shearing. This mechanism is usually associated with erodents
with sharp edges and relatively small im pact angles. For erodents with rounded edges
or large im pact angles, an extrusion mechanism is usually induced, where the target
m aterial is displaced to form a lip (or ridge). These lips (or ridges) remain attached
to the target surface, but are vulnerable to subsequent im pacts. In some cases, even
sharp erodents im pacting at small angles may result in ridges instead of chips (e.g.,
Tilly, 1969) due to the particle orientation. Impact by the flat face of a particle causes
little dam age (e.g., Smeltzer et al., 1970). A particle oriented with a large negative
rake angle tends to produce a lip while one with a positive or less negative rake angle
tends to produce a chip (e.g., H utchings, 1977). Therefore, both cutting and extru
sion m echanism s often exist in a m ultiple particle erosion process. On the other hand,
the extrusion m echanism observed for single particle im pacts often transforms into
a micro-flaking (or so-called deformation wear) m echanism in the event of multiple
particle erosion, especially at large im pact angles. This is because overlapped impacts
produce highly strained regions where thin platelets spall off from the target surface
when a critical strain is reached (e.g. Rickerby & M acM illan, 1980). Some less signifi
cant m aterial removal m echanism s include secondary erosion, m elting and splattering
and particle em bedm ent. Secondary erosion m echanism is due to th e secondary im
pacts of particle fragments (e.g., Tilly, 1973). This mechanism becomes significant
when fragile and large size particles are used for erodent. A m elting and splattering
m echanism is caused by the local high temperature in the im m ediate impact zone.
58
where the target and/or the particle material is m olten and m olten debris are ejected
(e.g. Smeltzer et al., 1970). Particle embedment produces m aterial removal only
when the em bedded particle is subsequently detached so that some bonded material
is removed (e.g., Smeltzer et al., 1970) or when the em brittled surface layer by the
particle em bedm ent is eventually fractured away (e.g., Ives & Ruff, 1979). Ripple for
m ation is a very im portant erosion phenomenon. Ripples are often formed when the
erosion conditions include a relatively soft target m aterial (e.g., Stringer & Wright,
1987), a relatively small impact angle (e.g., Reddy & Sundararajan, 1986, v l l l ) or
a large stream impact angle with tangential flow com ponent (e.g., Rao et al., 1983).
A typical m aterial removal m echanism in a ripple form ation process is the forma
tion and detachm ent of macro-flakes (torques) at the ripple crests (e.g., Brown et al.,
1981, v70). Formation of these macro-flakes (torques) is usually attributed to surface
plastic flow (e.g., Naerheim, 1985).
Parametric studies of ductile materials have been focused on the effects of these
five erosion parameters: impact angle, impact velocity, target m aterial properties,
erodent size, and erodent hardness. Various studies on ductile m aterial erosion have
shown a consistent trend in which the variation of erosion rate versus impact angle
is peaked at a relatively small impact angle (e.g., Finnie, 1658). This phenomenon
has been treated as a representative erosion behavior of a ductile material. As the
ductility of the target m aterial decreases, the angle associated with the peak erosion
rate shifts toward 90° (e.g., B itter, 1963, pl69; Lin & Shao, 1991). The effect of impact
velocity is usually represented by an exponential relation in which the erosion rate is
proportional to the impact velocity raised to a n-th power (n = velocity exponent).
T he values of the experim ental velocity exponent scatter within the range of 1.5 - 4.0.
The data collected in Table 2.2 give a mean value of 2.46 w ith a standard deviation
of 0.7. Different aspects of the effects of target m aterial properties on the erosion rate
have also been studied. Some general trends are that (1) the erosion rate increases
59
with increasing target material hardness and decreasing ductility (e.g., Ambrosini &
Bahadur, 1987); (2) the erosion rate decreases as the value of the product C p A T (C:
specific heat, p: density and AT: tem perature rise above the m elting point) increases
(e.g., H utchings, 1975). A new parameter “Erosion Efficiency” , defined as the ratio
of the volum e removal to the volum e displaced, has been proposed by Sundararajan
et al. (1990, v l4 0 ) to account for the overall erosion resistance of the target material.
Studies on the effect of erodent size have revealed that the erosion rate increases with
increasing erodent size and there probably exists a transition erodent size at about
100 pm (e.g., Tilly, 1973). The trend of the erosion rate as a function of the erodent
hardness also exhibits a transition point where the ratio of target/erodent hardness
approaches unity and the erosion rate increases dram atically w ith increasing erodent
hardness.
The m aterial removal models listed in Table 2.3 can be classified into two cat
egories: cutting m odel and deformation wear m odel (failure at critical strain). All
the cutting m odels have been originated from or similar to F in n ie’s m odel (Finnie,
1958). The concept of deformation wear was first used by B itter (1963). Its physical
meaning was clarified in the subsequent modeling studies (e.g., H utchings, 1981; Sun
dararajan, 1983). The cutting m odels are associated with sm all im pact angles while
the deformation wear models are associated with large im pact angles (m ost of them
with 90°). B itter’s model (1963) combined both the cutting and deformation wear to
give a better representation of the erosion trend for the im pact angle varying from 0
to 90°. All of these models give the values of the velocity exponent between 2 and
3. Target m aterial properties were included in the cutting m odels in terms of plastic
flow stress. In the deformation wear models, they are included in terms of specific
energy (e.g., B itter, 1963), hardness (e.g., Sheldon and Kanhere, 1972), critical strain
(e.g., Hutchings, 1981), and thermal properties (e.g., Sundararajan, 1983). Erodent
geometric parameters and erodent material properties were included in some models
60
(e.g., H ashish, 1987), but neglected in the others (e.g., Finnie, 1958).
The erosion process of brittle materials is m ore com plex than that of ductile ma
terials. The erosion m echanism s observed in the existing brittle m aterial erosion
studies have been classified into seven categories: (1) conical, radial and lateral crack
system , (2) intergranular and transgranular cracking, (3) ring fracture, (4) microchip-
ping, (5) plastic deform ation and m elting, (6) ripple form ation, and (7) m ixed mode
dam age. The conical, radial and lateral crack system is the m ost commonly ob
served im pact dam ages on brittle m aterials. Its general appearance usually displays
a central plastic impression surrounded by conical, radial and lateral cracks though
some o f these dam ages are som etim es missed. It has been revealed that the conical
and radial cracks form during the loading period of th e p article/target interaction
while the lateral cracks form during the unloading period (e.g., Chaudhri and Walley,
1978). M aterial rem oval is usually due to lateral cracking. Such damages have been
primarily observed for normal (90°) im pacts. The m ajority of the target materials
used in these tests are glass or fine grain ceramics. Various erodent materials, sizes,
and types (angular or spherical) have been used in these tests. The impact velocity
was ranged from 37 m /s to 1000 m /s. Intergranular and transgranular cracks have
been observed on ceramics, especially coarse grain alum ina ceram ics (e.g., Ritter et
al., 1984). T hey have been observed for both large and sm all im pact angles. Ring
fracture dam age includes a m ain ring crack and m any short circum ferential fractures
(Bow den and Field, 1964). This type of damage is associated with impacts by softer
erodents. P lastic deformation has also been observed in m any im pact events of brit
tle m aterials, involving both angular and rounded erodents. Ripple phenomenon was
absent in m ost erosion tests of brittle materials, but an exception was found on a
silica glass sam ple eroded by 1000 mesh SiC particle (Sheldon and Finnie, 1966).
E xisting param etric studies of brittle materials have revealed that the erosion rate
of brittle materials tends to peak at a large im pact angle. However, this behavior may
61
change, under appropriate erosion conditions, into a typical ductile erosion behavior,
i.e., the erosion rate peaks at a small impact angle. Sheldon and Finnie (1966) have
provided such evidence, e.g., the erosion rate of a glass sample peaks at almost 901'
when using 127 iim SiC particles, but when 9 /im SiC particles were used, the peak
occurs at about 25°. In some cases, twin peaks have been observed on the erosion rate -
im pact angle curve (W ada and W atanabe, 1987). This m ay be due to a combination
of ductile and brittle erosion behavior. The velocity exponents listed in Table 2.5
give a m ean value of 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.63. Very few parametric
studies have been conducted to study the effects of target m aterial properties of brittle
m aterials. In one recent study, Srinivasan and Scattergood (1988) disclosed that the
erosion rate increases as the target hardness decreases. The effect of erodent size has
been represented by an erodent diameter exponent. The data provided by Sheldon
and Finnie (1966, p393) give the mean value of the erodent diam eter exponents to be
3.45 with a standard deviation of 1.33. Other investigations have presented smaller
values of the erodent diameter exponents. The effect of erodent properties has been
studied by W ada (1991). Wada concluded that the erosion rate is proportional to the
fracture toughness of the erodent particle.
The brittle m aterial erosion models can be roughly classified into three types:
conical crack m odel, lateral crack model, and intergranular crack m odel. The Hertzian
cone crack m odel of Sheldon and Finnie (1966) was derived by evaluating the volume
of a spherical cap which is fractured by many Hertzian cone cracks. The critical step
in deriving the lateral crack models is to determine the depth of the lateral fracture
and the impression radius (e.g., Evans et al., 1978). The intergranular crack model of
R itter (1985) is an over-simplified m odel, which directly assumes the proportionality
between the crater size and the particle kinetic energy.
62
CHAPTER 3
A SEM S T U D Y O N AW J E R O SIO N M E C H A N ISM S
T he m aterial removal process by a high pressure abrasive water jet is known as
a rapid erosion process. Although the information derived from the literature review
covers a board range o f erosion conditions and m aterials, no one has system atically
investigated the erosion process involved in a high velocity (up to 600 m /s ) abrasive
water jettin g condition. This chapter will present such an investigation.
3.1 A W J Erosion E xperim en t D escription
The experim ents were conducted in the University of Rhode Island Waterjet Lab
oratory. A high pressure abrasive waterjet was generated with a 9X W A TER N IFEr'u
dual intensifier high pressure pump and a PA SER TA/ abrasive waterjet system . An
ASEA industrial robot was used to perform the traverse m otion. A 9 mm thick
sintered alum ina (A D 99.5) plate and a stainless steel (304) plate were used as the
target m aterials, respectively representing brittle and ductile m aterials. The erodent
particle was garnet abrasive (Barton Mine) of m esh No. 50 and 80, which has an
average diameters of 300 and 180 /tm, respectively. Three different erosion conditions
(sweeping, grooving and cutting) were used to generate the eroded surfaces. In the
sweeping and grooving tests two different configurations of the jet impingement an
gles, 20° and 90° with respect to the target surface, were used as shown in Figure
3.1. In the cutting tests, the jet was set perpendicular to the sample surface (Figure
3.2). The cutting process was instantaneously interrupted to retain the cutting front,
which appears as a vertical groove on the side of the sam ple. The parameter settings
for these three erosion conditions are listed in Table 3.1. The differences of traverse
63
AWJ Nozzle
T raverse
d irection
Workpiece
Figure 3.1 Experimental configurations used in sweeping and grooving erosion tests.
Figure 3.2 Experim ental configuration used in cutting tests.
64
Table 3.1 Param eter settings of erosion tests.
E rosion C ondition Sw eeping G rooving C utting
T arget M aterial AD 9 9 . 5 SS 304 AD 99.5 AD 99.5 SS 304
Im pact A ngle (degree) 20 90 20 90 20 90 90
W ater Pressure ( MP a ) 241 207 241
O rifice D iam eter (mm) 0.457 0.457 0 .457
N ozzle D iam eter (mm) 3 .175 1.575 1.575
T raverse Speed (mm/s) 800 20 0.3 2
S tand-off D istance (mm) 1.5 1.5 1.5
A b rasiv e(g arn et) 180

300 (mesh 50) (m esh 80) 300 (mesh 50)
S ize ( pm)
A brasive Flow R ate (g/s) 3 7.56 11.34
W ater Flow R ate (g/s) 4.784 4.432 4.784
E stim ated P article

539 457 491
V elocity (m /s)*
* see A ppendix A.
65
speed and abrasive flow rate should be noticed for these three erosion conditions. The
eroded sam ples were coated with carbon and then exam ined w ith a scanning electron
microscope.
3.2 SEM O bservations
3.2.1 E rosion by Sw eeping
SS 304 Sam ple at 20° Impact Angle
A general im pression, given by Figure 3.3, is that a cutting mechanism dominates
the m aterial removal process. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show two typical craters by cutting
actions. A partially enlarged view of the crater in Figure 3.5 (a) is shown in Figure
3.5 (b), indicating clear evidence of plastic flow and m elting (notice the string-like
frozen m etal). Sm all lips are seen on the side edges of the crater shown in Figure
3.4, im plicating a plowing action. However, absence of lips at the exit end of the
crater strongly suggests that majority of the crater m aterial is removed by a cutting
action. Figure 3.4 also shows som e micro-craters distributed around the main crater,
supporting the secondary erosion m echanism caused by the secondary impacts of
abrasive fragm ents. However, it appears that these micro-craters make negligible
contribution to the global m aterial removal as compared to that of the main crater.
Some abrasive fragm ents are evident in Figure 3.5. T hey adhere to the surface, but
not em bedded. Figure 3.6 shows two partially overlapped craters. Existence of the
the first crater (on the left) does not change the cutting action of the second im pact.
The upper portion of Figure 3.7 and an enlarged view in Figure 3.8 show a raised lip
at the exit end of the crater, indicating existence of an extrusion m echanism , probably
caused by a rounded face of an abrasive particle. T he center of Figure 3.7 and its
enlarged view (Figure 3.9) show a m essy crater. Its dam age m echanism s are probably
due to the im pact of a severely fractured abrasive particle on an existing crater.
66
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Figure 3.3 A cutting mechanism dom inates the m aterial removal process of SS 304.
(x 95, im pact angle = 20°)
Figure 3.4 A typical crater observed on the SS 304 sample,
(x 310, impact angle = 20")
67
00
Figure 3.5 A typical crater observed on the SS 304 sample, ((a) x 125 and its enlarged
view (b) x 1900, im pact angle = 20°)
68
Figure 3.6 Two partially overlapped craters observed on the SS 304 sam ple,
Figure 3.7 A raised lip at the exit end of the crater observed on the SS 304 sam ple.
(x l9 0 , im pact angle = 20")
69
Figure 3.8 An enlarged view of the raised lip shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.9 An enlarged view of the m essy crater shown in the center of Figure 3.7.
(x 1260, impact angle = 20°)
70
SS 304 Sample at 90° Impact Angle
Figure 3.10 shows that m ajority of the craters were created by an indentation
m echanism . Shown in Figure 3.11 is a conventional indentation crater. No m ate
rial removal is resulted. However, overlapping of such damage m ay eventually cause
m aterial loss in the form of flaking (deformation wear) when the critical strain is
reached. T he upper left portion of Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.12 show another inden
tation crater. Some grooving traces remaining on the left hand side of the crater
evidences inward m otion of the im pacting particle. On the right hand side, it can be
seen that a large portion of m etal has been raised. In some situations, such raised
portions might have been fractured away (See the two craters at the lower portion of
Figure 3.10, also Figure 3.13). An enlarged view of area A in Figure 3.13 shows some
small dimples (indicated by an arrow), characteristic of ductile fracture. Shown in
Figure 3.14 is a plastic impression created by a particle oriented at its longitudinal
dim ension. Particle em bedm ent is a very common occurance. Figure 3.15 shows an
exam ple. Besides, Figure 3.15 shows that the edge of the crater has been fractured
away. Secondary erosion is also evident in Figures 3.10 and 3.14.
AD 99.5 Sample at 20° Impact Angle
A typical crater is seen in Figure 3.16. It appears that the particle was sliding on
the surface. Many fragments are observed around the crater. This m ay be traced back
to the specimen preparation process which includes grinding and polishing. These
processes tends to yield a top layer of the target surface with some crushed grains.
The im pact of the particle caused loosening of these crushed grains. Some grain
boundary cracking also accompanies the im pact. An interesting feature of this crater
is the feather-like surface marks forming an array on both sides of the crater with a
unique angle. A closer look of these surface marks (Figure 3.16 (b )) suggests that
they were caused by plastic flow. Shown in Figure 3.17 (a) and (b) are another impact
site and its enlarged view, respectively. Surface fragments are observed. They may
71
Figure 3.10 M ajority of the craters on the SS 304 sample were created by an inden
tation action, (x 430, impact angle = 90°)
Figure 3.11 A typical indentation crater observed on the SS 304 sam ple,
72
..
Figure 3.12 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sam ple shows inward grooving traces
and raised material, (x 1900, im pact angle = 90°)
Figure 3.13 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sample shows evidence of ductile
fracture, (x 310 and x 1900, im pact angle = 90°)
73
Figure 3.14 A plastic impression on the SS 304 sam ple due to a longitudinal im pact,
Figure 3.15 An indentation crater on the SS 304 sample with particle fragments
em bedded, (x 310, impact angle = 90°)
74
(b)
Figure 3.16 Overall appearance (a, x 490) and a partially enlarged view (b, x 2500)
of a typical crater observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 20°)
75
.
IVW
(b)
Figure 3.17 Overall appearance (a, x 240) and a partially enlarged view (b, x 970) of
a crater due to an erasing action, observed on the AD 99.5 sample.
(im pact angie = 20°)
76
be caused by an erasing action, in which the im pact particle slides over the surface,
loosening and rolling the crushed grains on the top layer of the surface. Since this
sample is covered with a top layer of crushed grains due to the polishing process
in sam ple preparation, the observations here m ay not be true for the body material
erosion where whole grains are exposed.
An impact crater is shown in Figure 3.18. A piece of m aterial was dug out, which
is com posed of small or crushed grains. At the bottom of the crater, as shown in
Figure 3.18 (b), clear evidences of plastic flow and m elting are observed. Another
such exam ple is shown in Figure 3.19. Figures 3.20 (a) and (b) show two other impact
sites, where plastic flow is not observed, but pieces of small (or crushed) grains are
still evident. Similarly, the small (or smashed) grain phenom enon observed on this
sample m ay not be applicable to the body m aterial erosion. However, the information
on the impact induced plastic flow is of interest.
3.2.2 Erosion by G rooving
Grooving tests were done on AD 99.5 samples only. A traverse speed much lower
than that in sweeping tests was used. A shallow groove, as shown in Figure 3.21 (a)
and (b), was formed on the eroded sample. The general m orphology of the eroded
surface is shown in Figure 3.22 (a) and (b). The “rock-eandy” appearance suggests
that the grain boundary cracking is the failure m echanism (T he cracks appearing on
the grain facets in Figure 3.22 (b) are cracks on the carbon coating). Also shown is
some m essy material, which is probably deformed grains. Individual craters are not
distinguishable on the groove surface due to overlapping of craters. However, some
isolated craters and semi- craters are evident on the edge of the groove (Figures 3.23
(a) and (b )), which support the intergranular cracking m echanism .
77
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(b)
Figure 3.18 Overall appearance (a, x 500) and a partially enlarged view (b, x 1500)
of a crater observed on the AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 90")
78
00
Figure 3.19 Overall appearance (a, x 340) and a partially enlarged view (b, x 990) of
a crater observed on the AD 99.5 sam ple, (im pact angle = 90°)
79
( b)
Figure 3.20 Two fractured craters (a) & (b) observed on the AD 99.5 sample
80
(b)
Figure 3.21 Top view (a, x 33) and side view (b, x 40) of the groove created on the
AD 99.5 sam ple, (impact angle = 90°)
(b)
Figure 3.22 General m orphology of the groove surface on the AD 99.5 sam ple,
(a, x 1500, k b, xlOOO, im pact angle = 90°)
82
(b)
Figure 3.23 Some isolated craters and semi-craters observed on the edge of the groove
of the AD 99.5 sample, (a, x 290 & b, x 860, im pact angle = 90°)
83
Figure 3.24 (a) shows the general damage pattern on the central area of the eroded
surface, where numerous pits are randomly distributed. Figure 3.24(b) shows that the
distribution density of pits is fading towards the exit edge of the groove. Figures 3.25
(a) and (b) reveal that these pits are actually individual craters. Again, the failure
was caused by intergranular cracking. Some deformed grains are also present. The
craters have approxim ately semi-spherical shape and the num ber of grains forming a
crater is of the order of 5. It is interesting to note that these craters do not elongate
along the projected particle im pact direction or any other directions.
3.2.3 Erosion by C u ttin g
SS 304 Sample
Figures 3.26 shows the eroded surface on the top (a), m iddle (b) and bottom area
(c) of the vertical groove on the SS 304 sample. T hey uniquely dem onstrate cutting
action due to abrasive particles im pacting at a glancing angle in respect to the eroded
surface. A chip formed by a cutting action can be seen in Figure 3.27.
AD 99.5 Sample
The overall appearance of the vertical groove on the AD 99.5 sample is shown
in Figure 3.28 (a) (whole view ) and (b) (upper portion). B y scanning through the
groove, similarly, it was found that the surface m orphology appears identical for ma
jority of the groove, as evident in Figure 3.29. The erosion mechanism is primarily
intergranular cracking, accompanied by some transgranular cracking and some plas
tically deforming actions. Figure 3.30 (a) exhibits all of these features. Area A is
obviously due to intergranular cracking while an isolated transgranularly fractured
grain is seen in area B. Area C and its enlarged view in Figures 3.30 (b) and (c) show
a scratching trace, where plastic flow and m elting are evident. Figure 3.31 shows
the very top edge of the groove, where more grain facets are exposed, indicating
84
(a)
:'■ '.. " j : -- ■ *> • ' , - y A

v - ■ ' ■ .■ : - •■ • •> ^
> 0 i- 040k / 250F
(b)
Figure 3.24 General damage pattern on the centered area (a, x 160) and the exit edge
(b, x 40) of the eroded AD 99.5 sample, (im pact angle = 20°)
85
(b)
Figure 3.25 Two individual craters observed on the A D 99.5 sam ple,
86
(c )
Figure 3.26 The top (a), m iddle (b) and bottom (c) areas on the vertical groove of
the cut SS 304 sam ple, (x 200)
87
Figure 3.27 A chip formed by a cutting action observed on the cut SS 304 sample.
(x 500)
0 5 0k % ge& F
Figure 3.28 The vertical groove on the cut AD 99.5 sample, fa) T h e whole view (x
1.5); (b) The upper portion (x 50)
88
(c )
Figure 3.29 The top (a), m iddle (b) and bottom (c) areas on the vertical groove of
the cut AD 99.5 sample, (x 500)
89
(b) (c)
Figure 3.30 (a) Evidence of integranular cracking (area A ), transgranular cracking
(area B ), and scratching trace (area C) on the cut AD 99.5 sam ple, (x 500); (b, x
1400) & (c, x 4500) show enlarged views of area C.
90
29 . 0 V 49 6
Figure 3.31 The very top edge of the vertical groove of the cut AD 99.5 sample,
(x 500)
91
dom ination of intergranular cracking due to large angle im pacts.
H ashish’s(1988, p l5 9 ) visualization experim ents revealed that sequential steps
were developed on the cutting front, which distinguish the upper zone as a steady-
state cutting zone and the lower one an unsteady-state cutting zone. To verify this
phenom enon, the AD 99.5 sample obtained under the cutting condition was cut into
halves along the cutting front. Figure 3.32 shows that steps, indicated by arrows, do
exist on the cutting front.
3.3 C onclusions and D iscu ssion s
D uctile m aterials such as stainless steel 304 exhibit primarily a cutting m echanism
for low im pact angles. Other mechanisms such as plowing, extrusion, secondary
erosion by particle fragm ents occur on a minor scale. Under large impact angles,
surface dam age includes indentation, edge fracture, particle em bedm ent and some
secondary erosion. The m aterial removal is probably caused by flaking at a critical
strain (deform ation wear) or instantaneous edge fracture.
The m ost pronounced im pact damage on ceramic m aterials such as AD 99.5 is
intergranular cracking, applicable to both cases of normal im pacts and low incidence
im pacts. Transgranular cracking occurs in some individual grains, which does not
affect the dom ination of intergranular cracking m echanism . P lastic flow and m elting
occur at the im m ediate im pact site.
The steps observed on the cutting front of the AD 99.5 sample resemble those
observed by H ashish(1988, p .159) on glass, Lexan and Lucite samples. However,
H ashish’s conclusion that these steps lead to large angle im pacts is questionable. To
explain this point, a typical jet/ta rg et interface is illustrated in Figure 3.33. Direct
impact of the original jet only covers the top portion of the cutting front, below
which secondary and tertiary im pacts of the deflected jet occur. Therefore, the entire
92
Direct
Im p ac t
Zone
Secondary
or
steps Tertiary
Im pact
Zone
Figure 3.33 The entire cutting front is
im pacted by the original je t or the
deflected jet at glancing angles.
Figure 3.32 Steps (indicated by arrows) formed on the profile of the cutting front of
the cut AD 99.5 sample, (x 20)
93
cutting front is im pacted by the jet at low incidence angles, except the very top
edge where, as the jet advances into the material, im pacts at large angles occur, as
shown in Figure 3.31. The existence of the steps slightly changes the local curvature
of the cutting front. However, impacts at these steps are clearly not due to large
angle incidence. Actually, this step phenomenon is very sim ilar in form to the ripple
phenomenon observed by Finnie and Kabil(1965, p .60) and m any others. Both the
steps and the ripples develop under low incidence erosion conditions. They both move
downstream as erosion proceeds. Although most of the ripple phenomena have been
observed for ductile m aterials, this does not eliminate the possibility of its occurrence
for brittle m aterials under appropriate conditions. For instance, according to Sheldon
and Finnie(1966), ripples were observed on silica glass eroded by 1000 mesh SiC
particle. T he m echanism of ripple formation has been m ainly attributed to plastic
flow of surface m aterial(Brown & Edington (1982, v. 79), Naerheim (1985, v. 105),
Carter et al. (1980), which is obviously not the case for most brittle materials. Finnie
and I<abil(1965, p .60) proposed that ripples are initiated from a surface with random
roughness. This surface can be described by an infinite series of sinusoidal waves for
which an optim um wavelength corresponding to the m axim um growth rate exists.
The wave with this optim um wavelength eventually grows and produces a ripple
pattern. This theory is based on a ductile material removal m odel and thus may not
be applied to brittle materials.
Based on Figure 3.32 and the results of Hashish’s visualization experim ents, the
following hypothesis (illustrated in Figure 3.34) is developed to explain the step phe
nomenon in abrasive waterjet cutting. As the jet advances into the workpiece from
the right angle edge, a sm ooth cutting front is developed and continuously grows
in size until the rear side of the jet arrives on the edge of workpiece (Figure 3.34
(a)). During this stage, the entire cutting front is directly im pacted by the origi
nal jet. This stage corresponds to the so-called “steady-state” interface observed by
94
Jet Traverse Direction
CO
a . Sm ooth cutting b . S u d d en c h a n g e c. The ste p grow s a n d d . Next cy c le of e. Next ste p forms

front Im p a c te d of curvature m oves d o w nstream . curvature a n d m oves
by th e original d u e to different c h a n g e starts. d o w nstream
Jet. erosion ra te - again.
Initiation of step.
Figure 3.34 A hypothesis for the step form ation in AWJ cu ttin g processes.
H ashish(1988, p. 159). As the jet moves inward further, the area behind the rear
side of the jet is exposed to the secondary im pact by the deflected jet, resulting in a
sudden change in the material removal rate. As a result, the curvature of the cutting
front also has a sudden change (Figure 3.34 (b )). This is the initialization of a step.
Then, the step tends to grow because the inner-most layer of the jet is deflected away
by the front side of the step and becomes a protecting layer for the rest of the step.
However, as the step grows into a certain height, it is exposed to a greater flux of
erosive m edium and its top side begins to erode. B y then, a m ature and stable step is
formed. As the m aterial on the front side o f the step is rem oved, the step appears to
m ove downstream (Figure 3.34 (c)). During the process of step growth and m oving
downstream , another cycle of curvature change will start trailing the jet (Figure 3.34
(d )). However, the next step does not im m ediately follow the previous one. The
reason for this is probably due to the “gouging” effect which often occurs in a pipe
bend. Since the jet is confined by the larger curvature of the step, similar to the bend
profile, the region at the front of the step experiences an optim um erosion condition,
which elim inates the possibility of curvature change. As the step m oves downstream
for a certain distance, far enough to isolate the optim um erosion condition, another
cycle of curvature change starts and leads to the formation of another step, which
again grows and m ove downstream (Figure 3.34 (e)).
Based on the SEM observations and the analysis above, it is concluded that the
AWJ cutting condition is associated with abrasive particle im pacts at glancing angles,
regardless of the type of the target materials. M icrocutting is the sole erosion m ech
anism for ductile m aterials. Ceramic material removal is due m ainly to intergranular
cracking and plastic flow. Sequential steps are formed on the cutting front trailing the
directly im pacted region by the original jet. However, these steps do not significantly
change the im pact angles and thus the low incidence erosion m echanisms continue to
dom inate.
96
CHAPTER 4
SIN G L E PA R T IC L E M ATERIAL R EM O V A L M ODELS
4.1 A n E la sto -P la stic M odeling Approach A pplied to B rittle M aterials
As revealed in Chapter 3, the erosion mechanisms o f polycrystalline ceramics are
due to intergranular cracking and plastic flow. Usually, ceramics have much higher
resistance to plastic deformation than most metals because much fewer slip planes
exist in ceramics than in m etals. However, in the event of a high velocity im pact, the
localized pressure at the im m ediate impact site reaches a very high value so that even
a ceramic will exhibit certain degree of plasticity. Furthermore, the heat generated
from initial plastic deformation is confined to the local zone because of the poor
conductivity of ceramics, which, in turn, produces a softening or even melting effect
and encourages plastic flow.
The cause of intergranular cracking is not so apparent. A large quantity of studies
on solid particle im pacts of brittle materials in the literature have revealed impact
damage in the form of Hertzian cone, radial and lateral cracks, which resembles the
quasi-static indentation or scratching damage. The existing m aterial removal models
for brittle m aterials have been derived based on quasi-static assumptions. However,
another typ e of im pact dam age has also been reported. Intergranular chipping with
out evidence of radial or lateral cracks for alumina ceramics has been observed by
Ritter et al. (1984), Ritter (1985), Ritter et al. (1986), Ritter et al. (1987, p 55-l),
Wada et al. (1988, p l l3 ) , Graham & Ball (1989), as evident in Figure 4.1. High
velocity im pacts by deformable projectiles such as lead, nylon, liquid produce a dam
age m orphology such as that shown in Figure 4.2, characteristic of many short and
discrete circum ferential fractures (Bowden & Field, 1964, Evans & Wilshaw, 1977,
97
Figure 4.1 Scanning electron micrograph of isolated impact site on sintered alumina
(N o. 46 grit, 75 m /s). (A ) bar = 45 fim, (B) bar = 15 fim. (after Ritter et al., 1984)
Figure 4.2 Circumferential cracks outside a central undamaged zone produced by the
im pact of a compressible projectile, (a) Interference reflected light micrograph, (b)
polarized reflected light micrograph, (after Evans et al., 1978)
98
Evans et al., 1978). Figure 4.3 shows orthogonal sections through ZnS targets im
pacted by W C and glass projectiles (Evans et al., 1978). Though the conical, radial
and lateral cracks are similar in form to the traditional quasi-static indentation dam
ages, the fractures are more intense and these cracks tend to intersect and form a
network. A subsurface microfracture zone is also present. Figure 4.4 (after Summers
et al., 1991) shows a crater formed on a glass target by a particle entrained in an
abrasive w aterjet (directly pum ped). The appearance of the fracture surface is dif
ferent from the lateral chipping morphology. It is probably formed by coalesce o f a
number of discrete fractures. All these phenom ena strongly suggest the existence of
a m echanism in which discrete fractures occur sim ultaneously in the vicinity of the
impact site. T hese discrete fractures m ay eventually coalesce to form a crack network
and thus result in material removal.
This typ e of im pact damage resembles the dam age in an explosive loading condi
tion. Figure 4.5 (after Kolsky, 1963) shows that the fracture pattern in a “Perspex”
cone produced by detonation of 0.4 g lead azide. A surface crater was formed at
the site of detonation (the center of the cone base) while the tip of the cone was
fractured off. It has been indicated that if the specim en is large enough, the surface
crater will be the only damage. The surface crater consists of a very large number of
m inute hair-like cracks radiating from the seat of the charge. This damage has been
attributed to stress pulses. Since the duration of the stress pulses is so short, any
cracks formed will not be able to propagate, and, instead of running cracks, a large
number of discrete fractures occur and coalesce to form a continuous but irregular
fracture surface, which is analogous to cavitation in a liquid.
Due to the similarity of the network-type im pact dam age and explosive dam age,
connection of the network-type im pact damage m echanism to the stress wave induced
fractures is natural. Elastic half-space theory has proven the existence of three types
of elastic w aves, compressive wave (P-w ave), shear wave (S-w ave) and Rayleigh wave
99
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
400 um :' / ' ■ '••'o 4
i^ Y ,- i
T1
8 0 0 fim
Figure 4.3 O ptical reflected light micrographs of orthogonal sections through ZnS
targets im pacted by WC and glass projectiles, (a) The extent of the radial and lateral
fracture (parallel to the surface) for a W C projectile target; (b) the same im pact, but
highlights the formation of lateral cracks from radial cracks (e.g. at arrowed location);
(c) the exten t of the radial and lateral fracture for a glass projectile impact; (d) the
same as (c) but indicating the zone of microfracture (arrowed) beneath the center of
im pact, (after Evans et al., 1978)
Figure 4.4 Dam age from a DIA jet
particle im pact on glass, (x 1 0 0 0 )
(after Summers et al., 1991)
Figure 4.5 Fractures in a ‘Perspex’ cone produced by 0.4 g of lead azide. (actual size)
(after Kolsky, 1963)
100
(R-wave) in the event of a dynam ic point loading on a half-space. The P-wave and
S-wave propagate radially outward from the source along hemi-spherical wave front
while the R-wave propagates radially outward on a cylindrical w avefront. The P-wave
is a longitudinal (or dilatational) wave and the S-wave is a transverse (or distortional)
wave. The wave w ith the highest velocity is the dilatational. Its velocity is expressed
as (Kolsky, 1963, p60):
Cl C° \ l ( l + v ) ( l - 2 v ) (4-1)
where C„ is the velocity of longitudinal waves in a thin rod and is expressed as:
Co = J - (4.2)
VP
The velocity of the distortional waves is given by (Kolsky, 1963, p60):
a‘ = ci w ^ ) ( 4 -3 )
There is no an explicit expression that describes the exact solution for the Rayleigh
wave velocity. An approximate expression is given as (Graff, 1975, p326):
= y * (4.4)
l + v
For Poisson’s ratio v = 0.2, it is obtained that C-y/Cy — 0.612, C n / C 2 = 0.912,
and for v = 0.25, C2/ C x = 0.577, C R/ C 2 = 0.920.
As they propagate outward, the waves encounter a rising volum e of material and
therefore, the energy density as well as the displacement am plitude decrease as the
travel distance (r) increases. The energy density as a function of travel distance is
called geometrical damping law, which is 1/r for P-waves or S- waves and l / y f r for
R-waves (W oods, 1968).
The partition of energy among these three types of waves have been computed by
Miller and Pursey (1956) and well illustrated by W oods (1968) in Figure 4.6.
101
circular footing
/v \
RAYLEIGH WAVE
horiz.
■comp.
SHEAR WAVE r ela tiv e a m p litu d e
> £ £ ^ p RESS10N
WAVE TYPE PERCENT OF
shear
TOTAL ENERGY
w indow
RAYLEIGH 67
SHEAR 26
COMPRESSION
Figure 4.6 Stress wave pattern and energy partition, (after W oods, 1968)
102
The P-wave arrives before the S-wave and R-wave. Since it passes as a compressive
pulse (p ositive), it only causes fracture under certain condition (such as when the
wave front expands rapidly causing radial tensions). In contrast, since tensile pulse
(negative) is associated with the wave front of the S-wave and R-wave, these two
types of stress waves have greater destructiveness.
A photoelastic experim ent on an explosively loaded glass specim en, conducted by
Bowden Sz Field (1964), has revealed that fractures are in itiated closely behind the
S- wave, probably on the arrival of the R-wave.
In summary, the proposed elasto-plastic model applied to im pact erosion of brittle
materials includes two com ponents of material removal. One of them is caused by
plastic flow at the im m ediate im pact site. The m aterial removal com ponent due to
plastic flow (P),) can be evaluated with existing ductile erosion m odels. The other
component o f m aterial removal is due to network cracking caused by impact induced
stress waves. T he material removal component due to network cracking (V/) will be
evaluated w ith a crack network m odel derived in the following section. The total
material removal due to a single impact (V ) is thus expressed as:
V = Vp + Vf (4.5)
4.2 A Crack N etw ork M odel
The stress wave energy is dissipated in two ways: fracture and internal friction.
The partition of the stress wave energy between these two dissipating mechanisms is
still not known. In this study it is assumed that a constant fraction /,„ of the stress
wave energy is converted into the fracture energy in the process of forming the crack
network. It is further assumed that the crack network is formed by separate fractures
aiong the grain boundaries, and is modeled by a cluster of cubic ceils of size a (a =
103
grain size or flaw distribution param eter) as shown in Figure 4.7. T he total surface
area of fractures, 2 A j , can be calculated from:
2 A f = (6 a2) N (4.6)
where N is the number of grains w ithin the fractured volum e. The cubic cellular m odel
of crack network can then be analyzed by introducing a “Crack D ensity Function” :
D* = <4 J )
where Vj is the fractured volum e due to a single impact w ith the cubic network model
expressed as:
Vf = a:iN (4.8)
From Equations 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8:
Dc = - (4.9)
a
or
2A j = - V f (4.10)
a
The fracture energy required to form a crack surface of 2 A f can then be expressed
as:
W c = 2 A n = — Vf (4.11)
a
where 7 is the fracture energy per unit area of target material.
The total fracture surface energy is assumed to be a fraction (/,„) of the total
stress wave energy (W ). Thus, the volum e removal due to fractures is solved to be:
104
SINGLE TARGET
MATERIAL CHIP
REMOVAL VOLUME
Figure 4.7 Idealized crack network m odel.
105
where the total stress wave energy (W ) needs to be determined. The stress wave
energy will be evaluated in the following two sections for the two cases of normal
im pact and low incidence im pact.
4.3 N orm al Im pact M odeling
4.3.1 Stress W ave E nergy E valuation
The total energy absorbed by the target during impact can be expressed in terms of
the plastic deformation energy, stress wave energy, and residual energy. The plastic
deformation energy is dissipated in plastic work transferring into heat and stored
energy in the form of residual strain. The stress wave energy transm its into the
body of the target m aterial and is dissipated by fractures and internal friction. The
residual energy is the balance of the total input energy. It is partially dissipated
by the fragmentation of the particle and the rest becomes the kinetic energy of the
rebounding particle or particle fragments.
The propagation of stress waves in an isotropic elastic half space due to a point
load was first investigated by Lam b(1904). In a subsequent investigation, Miller
and Pursey(1954, 1956) studied wave propagation in: (a) an infinitely long strip of
finite width vibrating normal to the free surface; (b) an infinitely long strip of finite
width vibrating parallel to the free surface and normal to the axis of the strip; (c) a
circular disc of finite radius vibrating normal to the free surface; (d) a circular disc
of finite radius rotating about its central axis on the free surface. Utilizing Miller
and Pursey’s result for case (c), Hunter(1957) derived the elastic stress wave energy
produced by a normal particle impact on a half space. H unter’s equation was modified
by H utchings(1979, p 1819) to include the elasto-plastic im pact. Cole and Huth(1958)
106
derived the stresses and displacem ents produced by a m oving line load over an elastic
half-space. Eringen and Sam uels(1959) extended the investigation to a slightly curved
elastic half space. A three-dimensional stress wave propagation m odel was derived
by Chao(1960) for the cases of a tangential and by Chao et al. (1961) for a vertical
point load on an elastic half space. The radiation patterns induced by a horizontally
applied stress on an elastic half-space was studied by Cherry(1962).
The stress wave energy derivations for normal im pact by Hunter (1957) and by
H utchings(1979, p l8 1 9 ) are reviewed in this section. In H unter’s m odel, it was as
sum ed that a circular area of radius 7V is uniformly acted by a transient pressure
pulse of arbitrary profile P (t). The stress wave energy was equated to the work done
by P (t) and calculated with the integral:
W = (4.13)
The expression for surface displacement u, derived by Miller and Pursey (1954),
was applied to evaluate the m ean surface displacement u.
For a pulse of the form of:
m = j|j I I fc (4.14)
the integral above was evaluated to be:
* = ( 4 - 1 5 )
where £(i/) is a function of the P oisson’s ratio (i/). Its value is 0.5324 for v = 1 /4 and
0.415 forv = 1 / 3 (Hunter, 1957). Co is the velocity of longitudinal waves in a thin
rod, as expressed in Equation 4.2.
The Hertz theory of impact was applied to derive the approximate expression of
the pressure pulse for the case of a particle of mass m im pacting on an infinitely large
specim en, yielding:
107
t(t\ - / ~™-Z0u 20 cosu;0t, |t| < t / 2 u „
m ~ I 0, |(| > ir/2w0 <U 6 >
where,
_ .15 . 2^5 1 —v 2 1 —v 2
~ i6 m ii’ g = ~ E ~ +- ^ r (4ir)
lu0 = 1 .068^ - (4.18)

ZiQ
W ith Equation 4.14 replaced by Equation 4.16, the stress wave energy transm itted
into the specim en was obtained to be:
( - )
PQ'C'o
where
r = 1.068=(1 + „ ) ( i - j £ ) i ( l ? ) l c ( „ ) (4.20)
Equation 4.19 was further expressed as the ratio of stress wave energy vs total
input energy, i.e.:
W , 2 t v ~’
. 2 = = , , . (4-21)
2m
Equation 4.21 is valid when the Love criterion is satisfied, i.e., (v j C „ y ^ < < 1 .
For im pacts at a velocity high enough to cause plastic deform ation, as pointed out
by H utchings (1979, p l8 1 9 ), the pressure pulse will not accurately represented by
H ertz’s equation. Hutchings derived a new expression for the pressure pulse in the
case of elastic/p lastic im pact, based on the assum ption that the loading phase of the
im pact is perfectly plastic while the unloading phase is purely elastic. The half pulse
of the perfect-plastic loading was expressed by:
108
f ( t ) = F0sinujpt, 0 < t < tv / 2 u p (4.22)
where
“' =7vlr
r p V 2 Pp (4'24)
Since the force level must be continuous at the point of transition from loading
to unloading and, as proven by Hunter(1957), the elastic force history can be ap
proxim ately expressed by a sinusoidal function of tim e, the half pulse of the elastic
unloading was assum ed to be:
/( « ) = F„cosw,(t - £ - ) , < i < | ( - i + i ) (4.25)
where u;R = u p/ e .
T he pulse expressions 4.22 and 4.25 were used in evaluating the integral 4.14,
yielding:
where
(4.27)
1+ e
a (e ) is a dim ensionless function of the coefficient of restitution (e) and has been
num erically evaluated by Hutchings (1979, p l8 1 9 ).
Based on Equation 4.26, the ratio of stress wave energy vs total input energy was
determined as:
4 / \ >/ w 1 + v 1 - V 2 • 47TV/6 P p ,H d 3 / A rt o \
Ar = a e ) C ( v ) — - ( - ----- — — )2 ( 4 -2 8 )
1+ e 1 - Iv L* p pp
109
Since the im pact velocity associated with the present study is high enough to
produce plastic deformation, H utchings’ equation will be used in the m odel proposed
in this investigation with the following modifications:
(1) An empirical coefficient f e is introduced here to account for the effect of e in
H utching’s equation.
(2) A function of Poisson’s ratio 77( 1/) is defined as:
tj( u ) = CM (1 + (4.29)
(3) The relation C0 = y E / p is used.
Finally Equation 4.28 can be rewritten as:
J L = Ar = / „ , M ( ^ ) * ( § ) t (4.30)
“ 7TIV pp L
4.3.2 M aterial R em oval M odel
The volum e removal due to plastic flow for normal incidence is evaluated with
B itter’s m odel(Bitter, 1963, p5 & p l6 9 ),
v, = (4.3D
where K is the threshold impact velocity at which the elastic lim it is just reached. It
is expressed as:
( 4 -3 2 )
The volume removal due to fracture is evaluated by introducing Equation 4.31
into 4.13, yielding
_ (4.33)
127 pp £/
110
The total volum e removal for a single impact at normal incidence is obtained as:
= p , Hd a m(v - K f
27 KE ' 2e v ‘ '
4.3.3 V erification w ith Erosion E xperim ents
In order to verify Equation 4.34, a group of sintered alumina ceramics, AD 99.9,
AD 99.5, AD 96, AD 94, AD 90, and AD 85 are used as the target materials. The
m echanical and physical properties of these ceramics are listed in Table 4.1.
The erosion experim ents are conducted with the abrasive water jet system at the
University of Rhode Island Waterjet Lab. W ith a water pressure of 241 M Pa and
a jewel orifice of 0.457 mm in diameter, a water flow rate of 95.9 g /s is generated.
Garnet abrasive particles of mesh no. 50 (pp = 4000 k g / m 3) are entrained into the
w aterjet with a flow rate of 16.2 g /s . The velocity of the entrained abrasive particles
is estim ated to be 479 m /s (see Appendix A). The abrasive water jet exits from a
tungsten carbide nozzle of 1.575 mm in diameter, which is set up to be normal to the
specimen with a stand-off distance of 1.5 mm.
Prior to the abrasive erosion experim ents, a plain water erosion experiment is
conducted, to determ ine the effect of plain waterjet on the m aterial removal. The
same experim ental conditions as those for the abrasive erosion are set up except no
abrasive feeding. The plain water jet impinges on the specimens with a traverse
speed of 20 m m /s. The weight losses of the specim ens are determined by means of
a weighing scale w ith resolution up to 0.001 gram. The cutting tim e is calculated
by measuring the traverse speed and the cutting length on the specimen. Then the
water consum ption in the cutting period can be calculated with cutting tim e and the
water flow rate. The ratio of the specimen weight loss to the water consumption is
defined to be the erosion ratio. The resulting erosion ratios from the water erosion
experiment are listed in Table 4.1. It appears that water alone can hardly erode the
111
Table 4.1 Properties of alumina ceramics.
A lu m in a C e r a m i c s AD85 AD90 AD94 AD96 A D 9 9 .5 A D 9 9 .S R e f.
Density P (kg/m3 ) 3410 3600 3700 3720 3890 3960 [1]
Range 2-12 2-1 0 2-25 2 -20 5 -50 1 -6 [1]

G ra in S i z e a
(pm )
A verage 6 4 12 11 17 3 [1]
M o du lus of Elasticity E (GPa) 221 276 303 303 372 386 [1]
P o i s s o n ’s R a tio v 0 .2 2 0.2 2 0 .21 0.21 0 .2 2 0 .2 2 [1]
H ardness, Knoop 1000g (G P a) 9 .4 1 0 .4 1 1 .5 1 0 .7 14.1 1 5 .2 [1]
T e n s il e S t r e n g th (Mpa) 155 221 193 193 262 310 [1]
C om pressive S t r e n g th (MPa) 1930 2482 2103 2068 2620 3792 [1]

[4 1
F r a c tu re T o u g h n e s s K (M P a m) 2 .9 8 3 .0 6 3 .0 9 [2 ] 3.31 4 .0 8 4 .4 4 [3 ]
F ra c tu r e E n e r g y Y (J/m 2 ) 1 7 .0 1 5 .8 1 8 .1 2 2 .4 2 5 .5 *
20 .1
W at. E ro s.(x 0 .00001) 0 .2 2 1.6 4 3 .5 4 0 .6 5 1.84 0 .2 5
9 0 d e g . Abr. Eros.1 5 .2 7 0 .2 4 1.81 1.4 4 2 .1 2 0 .2 7

E r o sio n
9 0 d e g . Abr. Eros. 2 5 .1 0 0.51 2 .3 2 1 .6 2 2 .3 8 0 .1 3
R atios
2 0 d e g . Abr. Eros.1 1 .9 7 6 0.2 6 6 1 .5 6 7 0 .7 3 4 1.8 7 2 0.0 9 6

(g7g)
(X 0 .001) 2 0 d e g . Abr. Eros. 2 2 .1 8 9 0.4 9 5 1.4 7 8 0 .8 9 3 1.8 4 0 0 .0 8 0
0 .1 347f 0.31 90f 3.3 5 1 1 f

9 0 d e g . Model 0 .0 5 9 2 f
0 .0961 f 3 .2 3 0 9 f
2 0 d e g . Model 1 .2 4 6 3.0 2 1 3 .2 4 8
0.8 8 9 2 .1 8 7 0 .5 4 8
' T h e v a l u e s of t h e fracture e n e r g i e s a r e d e t e r m i n e d from t h e v a l u e s of K 1c and E

with t h e re la tio n 2
y = K 1 c / 2E
[1] Material Property Standard 990, Coors Ceramic Co., January, 1989.
[2] Bertolotti, 1973.
[3] Swanson, 1972.
[4] Barker, 1978.
112
alumina ceramics. However, it is anticipated that water plays an im portant role in
washing away the fractured m aterials.
To verify the repeatability of the erosion experim ent, two abrasive erosion ex
perim ents are conducted by varying the traverse speed. T he first experim ent uses a
traverse speed of 20 m m /s and the second, 15 m m /s. The erosion ratio is defined
as the ratio of the specim en weight loss to the abrasive consum ption. T he latter is
determined w ith the cutting tim e and the abrasive flow rate. Since, theoretically, the
erosion ratio is independent of the traverse speed, these two experim ents should give
identical results. The experim ental results, plotted in Figure 4.8, clearly indicate the
consistency of these two experim ents.
Since the m aterial removal by plastic flow is m inim al for normal im pingem ent and
for hard target m aterials, the predicted volume removal neglects the contribution by
the plastic flow. Therefore, Equation 4.33 is used to represent the predicted volume
removal.
Let / = f ef w to be a proportional factor, which is determ ined experim entally.
Then the volum e removal per gram of abrasive can be expressed as:
The mass removal per gram of abrasive, i.e. the erosion ratio is:
< « • >
The results from the second experim ent are chosen to compare with the analytical
erosion m odel. Since the results of the erosion m odel contain an empirical coefficient
f, a direct comparison of the m agnitudes of results betw een the derived m odel and the
experim ent is not appropriate. Therefore, the erosion ratios from both the derived
model and the experim ent are normalized with their respective average values so that
the trends can be observed for both approaches. T he norm alized values of erosion
113
o - 0 ----- EXPERIMENT 1
o
— EXPERIMENT 2
o>
O)
2 -
AD85 AD90 AD94 AD96 AD995 AD999

Alumina Ceramics
Figure 4.8 Erosion ratios for alumina ceramics.
MODEL
4 ■a— EXPERIMENT 2
"ET"
0
AD85 AD90 AD94 AD96 AD995 AD999
Alumina Ceramics
Figure 4.9 Comparison of normalized erosion ratios for six alum ina ceramic
114
ratios are plotted in Figure 4.9 against the different types of alumina ceramics.
Considering the complication of the erosion process as well as the omission of the
other minor effects such as the porosity and the plastic deform ation, the consistency
of the trends arising from the theoretical and the experim ental results is surprisingly
good. A large discrepancy occurs at the data point for A D 85. One of the reasons for
this discrepancy might be the omission of porosity in the calculation of the derived
m odel. A previous study with scanning electron microscope on a hand-m ade fracture
surface of AD85 has indicated the existence of a large am ount of pores in the AD85
microstructure as shown in Figure 4.10. The pores tend to enhance the erosion process
by reducing the actual amount of fully dense material to be removed. In addition,
the water trapped in the pores may generate local fracture network due to the water
wedge effect and it increases the total material removal significantly. The derived
m odel fails to incorporate these effects.
One interesting phenomenon arising from the trend of the erosion ratio versus the
alumina type is that there exist a strong correlation between the erosion ratios and
the grain sizes as well as the fracture energy. The erosion ratio, the grain size and
the ratios of grain size to fracture energy ( a / 7 ) are normalized with their respective
average values and plotted in Figure 4.11 for the purpose of comparison. It appears
that the larger the value of a / 7 , the larger the erosion ratio.
4 .3 .4 S u m m a r y
The modified H utchings’ equation has been used to evaluate the stress wave en
ergy. The crack network model has been applied to predict the relative erosion ratio
among different types of alumina ceramics eroded by the normal impact of an abrasive
water jet. Good correlation with experim ental results is observed. A strong correla
tion also exists between the erosion ratio and the grain size as well as the fracture
energy of alumina. It is also found that erosion of aiumina ceramics by water alone
115
Figure 4.10 Scanning electron micrograph of hand-made fracture surface of AD 85.
(x 800)
5
MODEL
U) 4 EXPERIMENT 2
O
m GRAIN SIZE
CC
</) 3 i- a/ y
O
LU
T3
CD
2
_N
"ca
E
o “0 -
2
0
AD85 AD90 AD94 AD96 AD995 AD999
Alumina Ceramics
Figure 4.11 Correlation of the grain size and fracture energy with the erosion ratio.
116
is very small compared to erosion by abrasives.
4.4 Low Incidence M odeling
4.4.1 Stress W ave E nergy E valuation
The proposed elasto-plastic m odel for a low incidence im pact is illustrated in
Figure 4.12. The top layer of m aterial is removed by a cutting action through plastic
flow. The stress waves transm itted into the vicinity cause fractures along the grain
boundaries, which form a network of cracks. Evaluation of the stress wave energy
first requires the determ ination of the loading forces.
Since the plastic flow occurs in the im m ediate vicinity of an im pact site, Finnie’s
m odel (Finnie, 1958; Finnie & M nFadden, 1978) gives the im pact loading pattern as:
Pv(t) = Pvosinu>t, P/i{t) = Phosinwt (4-37)
where
Pvo = m u jv s i n a , (4.38)
Pho = (4.39)
Kf
» = (4.40)
m
where ay flow stress of target material, b w idth of particle cutting face, if; ratio of the
depth of contact I to the depth of cut y t, and K f ratio of vertical to horizontal force
com ponents.
The total stress wave energy radiated by the im pact is the sum of the work done
by the vertical and horizontal force com ponents over the corresponding superposed
displacem ents, respectively
117
e.g .
Figure 4.12 Idealized picture of an abrasive grain rem oving material by scratching
and network cracking.
118
IF = Wy + W 2 = ~ P 2voG v + j Pa
20Gh (4.41)
where T is the loading contact tim e, T = 7r/u/, and G„ and (?/, is the real part of the
radiation adm ittance Yvand 1/,, defined as a (com plex) ratio of m ean displacement
rate to the applied force (Miller & Pursey, 1956). They are expressed as:
n - r» = p t , (« •« >
PvoC1 Piloe
where ux and u z are the superposed m ean displacements in the horizontal and vertical
direction, respectively.
Since the traverse distance of the m oving load corresponding to the abrasive tra
jectory is very small, it is assumed that the stress energy radiated by a stationary
load applies to the present case, provided that the loading history is equivalent. W ith
reference to cases (a) and (b) in Miller and Pursey’s work (1956), the displacement
components corresponding to a vertical load and a horizontal load can be, thus, ex
pressed in the form of Fourier transform as: (Note: Equations (49) and (50) in Miller
& Pursey’s (1954) can not be used because of some calculation errors in derivation of
these two equations.)
u „ F -- - A rW - - (<4 - 2 { J) e - ' V ^ I (4.43)

<-4u-c (,?;
(4.44)
W = 2y^ ^ -1 (* § -
(4.45)
c „ ( m
«=,.f = + (fe; - (4.46)
119
where
n o = w - k i f - 4? v p - h ^ e - k i (4 .4 7 )
h = J -§ ^ , k2= u i S z ’ <4-48>
- (i-M ti-W = w h > - <4 -49>
r, is the half width of the strip. At the abrasive and target m aterial contact surface(i.e.
z = 0 ), the displacem ent com ponents are expressed as:
_ 2i G j Q s i n t r ,
xvF ~ c , 4f ( o (4-50j
2 kn \M'2 — k%3in£r3
- - W ( 0 ( 4 -5 1 )
w = * ± J g ( 4. 52)
2 z fT (fl« n fr a
(7 , ^ ( 0 ( 1
where
<?(£) = 2 y J ? - k * y / p - k % - (ft| - 2^2) (4.54)
# ( 0 = 2 ^ £ 2 ~ *?v ^ 2 - + (\> - 2£2) (4-55)
Using inverse Fourier transform, one can obtain the displacem ent functions at z
= 0 as:
120
_ _1_ r 2 i G { t ) s i n t r s ,.g
2tt J .oc (7,^(0 *
—2 z*00 G(
= ~ r~ / f ? 7 \ 3 in ( r s s i n i x d i (4 .5 6 )
■
kC ^ J o f'(S )
(N oticing that the first term is odd function and the 2nd term is even function.)
1 /■» 2 y ^ 2 ~ kl kl s i n i r * icX J ,
= * L c ^ m ‘ *
2 r°° \ / Z 2 — k 2k 2
~ n ~ / ~s i n Z r ° c o s ( x d Z (4 -57)
TrCîJo ? ^ (?)
2 ^ 2- - 4 f ) iJ 7 i( r 3
Uzv = J- [ ' ■
2 tt j — < 7 ^ (0
— — ------ a i n c ^ r 3 c o s c , x d c , (4.58)
ttG. 14 -/o
1 2ifT( 0 « n ^ r a _if
"*A = ^ L ~ C ^ W ~ ?
= - 7 ^- [ ^ ^ -sin ir.ain ixdi (4.59)

7 T G 4 4 ,/u r j
Since the pressure distribution is assumed to be uniform, the m ean displacement
over the loaded area is obtained by:
uTV = — f uxvdx = f - § f ^ ainrs i - C°^r-^ d( (4.60)

r„ Jo t C. u J o F{Z) r 3(
1 f T‘ 2 y-oc sjC~ s i n b 3i Jt UR^

Uxh~ r . J o Uxh> irCAJ o £F(t) r,i * ( }
1 r> 2 /■“ yC- - H 2) s i n 2r 3£

u- = v3 L u - dx = ^ c z J o — z m (4-62)
121
- 1 f r3 j H ( 0 ■ >1 — c o s r J ,
v-zh = — / uzhdx = —— / — —•.szn7\,£ -------- -----------------------(4.63)
r 3 Jo trC.,4 -/u F (£ ) r a£ ' K '
Changing the intergration variable from £ to yields:
-2 f°° Go( 0 . , , 1 - cosr3k ^

u xv = / -ir77T 5 m 7’s«iC---------- -i-------d£ (4.64)
TrC+^r yu - ^ ( 0
2 f°° \ / f 2 — u 2u2 s i n 2r 3k i ( 1A,

uxh = J / 4.65
TT^fcf y0 £F0(£)
2 Z*00 V^ 2 — l ^ 2 — 4^2) s i n 2r 3k{£

Uzv = /
r C Mk 22i -/o — —
ô(0 4 -66
_ —2 H0{£) . , . 1 — cosr3k[£
“ '/i = ~ 7 ; To / p / f \ s in r 3ki£ - (4-67)
TrC'.i.iAr ./u ,F0(£) r\,£
where
£ > ( 0 = (2 T - /'j 3 - - M2 (4.68)
<?„(fl = ~ »*2 - (^2 - 2f!) (4.69)
ft(0 = - l ^ 2 - <*2 + (/•" - 2f ) (4.70)
Cu h 2(1 - v ) , „ ,
^ — fe7 — V 1 - 21/ ( )
Therefore, for the loading P„(i) = Pv0e>ul and P/,(t) = P/,0e!“( applied over the
contact area A,
—2r3I \ P voelult
« « = " T tTtAO,,
W " (4 -72)
_ _ 2r3I 2Pi:0elu;t ,.
“ ** ~ TrA^M ( }
122
lutt
2 r sI 3Pvoe"‘
U,„ = (4.74)
k AC, ii
- 2 r J . tPhoeiut
= * A C .U (4’75)
where
r cosrak xi ^ 3& tA ^
/ i = y„ m (~ ^ r )( t m w ( 6)
Jo /' 0(4J (4-77)
/, = (4.78)
Jo ô(?) T*a«iC
I i = /» w (^ r )( r .* ,« )<i? (4-79)
The superposed displacements on the horizontal and vertical coordinates are, re
spectively:
Ux — Uxu T Iti/i
= — — { —[-Re(/!) + i I m { I \ ) \ P V0 + [Re(L>) + i l m ^ P ^ P h o } ^ ' (4.80)

7r
u z = U 2„ + U z h
2r’ {[R e( I3) + i / m ( / 3)]P „0 - [£e(J.,) + Z7 m (/,)]P /lo} e 1"' (4.81)

VAC.U
From Equations 4.42,
2 r3zw - [ R e ( I i ) + i I m ( I i ) ] P vo + \Re(I2) + i I m ( L ) ] P h„ , .
n = ^ ftT ( 4 ' 8 2 )
123
2raiuj [Re(I3) + i I m ( I 3)\PV0 - [Re(I4) + i I m { I A)\Pho fA ooN
= ^ jr (4-83)
The real parts of Y/, and Yv are:
2rsu I m ( I i ) P m - I m ( I 2)Pho
G‘ = T Z c Z K (4 '84)
2r3uj I m ( I A)Pho - I m ( I 3)Pvo

G " = T a c Z ---------------K , (4 '85)
Substituting Equations 4.84 and 4.85 in 4.41 yields:
W = - I m ( h ) - / m ( / 2) ( ^ ) 2} (4.86)
± vo *vo
For r 3k\ < 1 (e.g., r 3kx = 7.85 x 10 - 3 for mesh 50 abrasive and AD 99.5 target),
it can be approximated:
s i n r 3k [£ ss r 3k i£ (4-87)
1 — cosr3k i ( % ^ 3 (4.88)
<4-M>
(4 J 1 )
T'ski f x £2H o( 0
L = % (4.92)
I Fo( 0
124
These integrals can be num erically evaluated using the approach described by
Miller & Pursey (1954). The poles of the integrands in Iy - Iy occur at the zeros of
.F0(£) and are determ ined as solutions of the equation
( 2 e - v 2y = m i ( e - m 2 - v 2) ( 4 .9 3 )
After elim inating the term 16£3 on both sides, this equation is reduced to a cubic
equation of £2. Using a commercial software (M athC A D ) and Program 1 in Appendix
C, this equation is num erically solved for the range of Poisson’s ratio 0. 1 < v < 0.49.
The solutions are listed in Table 4.2. It is assumed that principal values of the radicals
are used in integrals Iy - Iy. Therefore, the only significant zeros of F 0(£) are those
for which £ is real and |£| > |p|, i.e. those corresponding to the 3rd poles (p;)).
Equation 4.86 indicates that only the imaginary parts of these integrals areof
interest. Since only the range 0 < £ < /x and the small semi-circle path above the
pole produce imaginary values, the following expression can be applied to evaluate
the im aginary parts of Iy - R : (for details, see Appendix B)
I m f <j)d£ = I m f 4>d£ + I m f (f}d£ — TrRESIDUE{<j}(ps)} (4.94)

Ju Jo JI
Let
<4 -9 5 >
A = /m f « ( 4 ' 9 6 )
0 (- W
= I m t™ r i( (4,98)
125
Table 4.2 Poles of the integrands.
P o isso n ’s
1st Pole 2nd Pole 3rd Pole
Ratio v
0.1 1.500 0.674 1.000 1.680
0.15 1.558 0.715 0.999 1.727
0.2 1.633 0.771 0.996 1.793
0.21 1.651 0.786 0.994 1.808
0.22 1.669 0.802 0.992 1.825
0.25 1.732 0.866 0.975 1.884
0.3 1.871 0.975 ± 0.1 OOi 2.017
0.333 2.000 1.027 ± 0.147i 2.145
0.35 2.082 1.061 ± 0.171i 2.226
0.4 2.450 1.218 ± 0.253i 2.600
0.45 3.317 1.605 ± 0.400i 3.495
0.49 7.141 3.375 ± 0.947i 7.485
Table 4.3 Numerical results of (3\ - /3,t.
P o isso n 's (33 (34

PI P2
R atio v
0.1 4.107 -3.203 1.423 -1.037
0.15 3.600 -2.890 1.342 -0.943
0.2 3.239 -2.607 1.257 -0.853
0.21 3.173 -2.554 1.241 -0.836
0.22 3.112 -2.503 1.226 -0.819
0.25 2.940 -2.356 1.178 -0.770
0.3 2.712 -2.136 1.100 -0.695
0.333 2.606 -2.007 1.047 -0.651
0.35 2.572 -1.947 1.021 -0.631
0.4 2.584 -1.791 0.943 -0.590
0.45 2.991 -1.665 0.864 -0.612
0.49 5.688 -1.587 0.801 -1.034
The M athCAD software and Programs 2-5 in Appendix C are used to numerically
evaluate the integrals 0 i - 04 for the range of 0.1 < v < 0.49. The results are listed
in Table 4.3.
Equations 4.89 - 4.92 are rewritten as:
I m ( I i ) = ^ r sk\0i, I m ( I 2) = fa (4.99)
I m ( I 3) = 0 3, Im{I.i) = ^ r 3k x0 A (4.100)
Equation 4.86 can thus be rewritten as:
^ = j4.Cz.J4 2 * VO + ( j* V
rO)2]] (4'101)
Introducing A = 2r sb and substituting Equations 4.38-4.40 & 4.49 in 4.101 yields
‘3 t ( f t + | )) ( 4 ' 1 0 2 )
where
ft - f + = V ( i + ' k i - 2. ) - <4 ' 103>
The values of 0$ and 0 6 are calculated for the range 0.1 < u < 0.49 and listed in
Table 4.4.
To sim plify Equation 4.102, it is assumed that 2r 3 = b and b is a fraction of rp.
As observed in the SEM photos, this fraction is in the order of 10- 1 . Therefore,
2ra = b = 0.1rp was used as the preliminary assumption. According to Finnie (1958),
both of the values of 0 and K j are estim ated to be 2 for small angle im pingem ents.
Therefore, Equation 4.102 is rewritten as:
127
W = m v 2s i n 2a ( — )^( - - ) ? [k + 2/?(— ) z (— ) 5] (4.104)
pp t p crj
where
s = 0.0309 ( f t + f t ) f t , (3 = - f t f t ( f t + 4 f t ) . (4.105)
The values of k and (3 are calculated and listed in Table 4.4.
In general, the m agnitudes of pp and p are in the same order and E > 0 7 . There
fore, the value of k is negligible compared to the 2rd term of Equation 4.104. This
implies that the contribution of the uxv and uzh on W is negligible. The expression
of the stress wave energy is approximated as:
w= (4.106)
E
where the value of (3 can be approximated as(Figure 4.13):
/3 = 14.33 - 6.25sin2.8v (4.107)
4.4.2 M aterial R em oval M odel
The volum e removal due to plastic flow (4p) is evaluated with the modified Finnie’s
model (Finnie & M acFadden, 1978), considering only the case where the particle is
not imbedded. The volum e removal for a single impact can, then, be expressed as:
bv2 . 2 15Trbvls i n la
VD = —- ( s m 2 a — 4sin a ) -j ----- ------ (4.108)
u;2 4rpur
For V> = 2, K j = 2, b = 0.1 rp,
2 f
V„ — ( si n 2 a — 4 s i n 2a + 38.12 v s i n 3a. — ) (4.109)
407 y <t/
128
Table 4.4 Numerical results of j3$, 0a, k , & 0.
P o isso n ’s P5 p6 K P
Ratio v
0.1 1.088 1.011 0.027 12.526
0.15 1.119 1.028 0.025 11.749
0.2 1.138 1.054 0.022 11.002
0.21 1.140 1.061 0.022 10.857
0.22 1.142 1.068 0.021 10.718
0.25 1.141 1.095 0.021 10.305
0.3 1.120 1.160 0.020 9.678
0.333 1.089 1.224 0.020 9.303
0.35 1.066 1.267 0.021 9.135
0.4 0.956 1.464 0.023 8.707
0.45 0.745 1.948 0.031 8.402
0.49 0.360 4.137 0.046 8.264
16
P = 14.33 - 6.25 sin2.8 v

14
12
10
8 Real Values
-«— - Approx. Values
6 ------- 1-------- ,-------- j--------,-------- 1-------- .--------r

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
P o isso n 's R a tio
Figure 4.13 Approxim ation of 0 values.
129
The volum e removal due to fractures ( V j ) is obtained by substitutin g 4.106 in
4.12, yielding
= M a < r j T n f 8 in*a
1 37 E K' ’
The total volum e removal by a single im pact is, therefore,
f wf3a(rfmv23in2a
37 E
9 7
77X17** IO
4 ( si n2 a — 4 s in 2a -f 38.12v s i n 3a j — ) (4.111)
4 <rf V °7
4.4.3 V erification w ith Erosion E xperim en ts
The experim ental conditions are similar to those described in Section 4.3.3. The
two sets of erosion test results are plotted in Figure 4.14 in terms of “erosion ratio” .
Consistency of these two experim ents is observed.
The theoretical erosion ratio is expressed as:
pVf C f wf3acrfpv s i n 2a
(4.112)
m 37 E
— [sin 2a — 4 sm 2a + 38.12 v s i n 3a . f ^ - ) (4.113)

m 4c/ v °7
pV = PvL + e v!, }
m m m
where C is an efficiency coefficient, which accounts for the energy loss due to particle
m utual im pacts and particle fragmentation.
For these experim ental conditions, P w = 241 M P a , tj = 0.9, C v = 0.918, Cu =
0.978, R = 0.176, the particle velocity prior to im pact (v), according to Appendix
A, iscalculated to be 477 m /s. The value of flow stress is estim ated with twice the
m aterial hardness (Vickers hardness)(Benchaita, 1980).
130
To estim ate the coefficient C, a similar erosion test is conducted on a target m ate
rial of SS304, which has a Brinell hardness of 149 ( “Sourse Book” , 1978) (equivelent
Vickers hardness 156 kg/ m m 2) and a density of 8027 k g /m m 3. Its flow stress is esti
m ated to be twice the Vickers hardness, i.e., 1529 M Pa. Since the m aterial removal
m echanism on a ductile material is solely due to plastic flow, Equation 4.113 is used to
calculated the total theoretical erosion ratio, which yields 0.1503C g /g . B y equating
this value to the experim ental erosion ratio, 0.01563 g /g , it is determined that C =
0.104. To estim ate the value of the data for AD 99.5 is used in equation 4.112 to
give f w = 6.65 x 10- '1.
Using the values C = 0.104 and f w = 6.65 x 10 1, the total theoretical erosion
ratios for the six aluminas are calculated and plotted in Figure 4.14 to be compared to
the experim ental results. A good correlation betw een the elasto-plastic m odel and the
erosion experim ents is observed. As shown in Figure 4.15, the normalized grain size
correlates the erosion data trend for all ceramics tested except AD 85. In addition,
plotting the ratios of a / 7 in Figure 4.15 shows an even better correlation. Therefore, it
appears that the grain size and fracture energy are the two major material parameters
controlling the erosion process of polycrystalline ceramics.
4 .4 .4 D iscussions
The theory of Miller and Pursey on the elastic response of normal and tangential
loads on an elastic half space has been used to derive the stress wave energy. The
obtained expression of the stress wave energy has been incorporated into the crack
network m odel, leading to an expression for the single particle material removal due
to intergranular network cracking. Finnie’s m icrocutting model has been used to eval
uate the volume removal due to plastic flow. Combining these two m aterial removal
com ponents yields a complete elasto-plastic model for a single impact at low incidence
angles. This model has been verified with erosion experim ents. Good correlation is
131
Water Pressure: 241 MPa Water Flow Rate: 4.784 1pm
Orifice/Nozzle Diameter: 0.457 mm/1 ..575 mm
Abrasive: mesh no. 50 garnet, 16.9 g/s
5 -
Traverse Speed: 15 and 20 mm/s
o Stand-off Distance: 5 mm
©
o' Incidence Angle: 20 degrees
X! 4 -
60
"cS • ----- Model
3 - □— Experiment 1 ( 1 5 m m / s)
a n- - Experiment 2 (20 mm/s)
Oi
c
_o
ou<
W
A D 85 A D 90 A D 94 A D 96 A D 995 A D 999
Alumina Ceramics
Figure 4.14 Comparison of the elasto-plastic model and the experim ental results.
-o — Norm. Grain Size

C3
fid 4 - -•— Norm, a/ y
oU Norm.E. P. Model
a -n - - Norm. Exp. 2
>-
sa
£
C
o
£ 0 ----
AD85 AD90 AD94 AD96 AD995 AD999
Alumina Ceramics
Figure 4.15 Grain size and fracture energy are the two major m aterial parameters.
132
observed.
In a study on the erosion dam age of several ceram ics, Ritter (1985) proposed an
analytical m odel based on the assum ption of grain boundary cracking, which was
described as:
amv2
V oc-- ------ (4.115)
7
This m odel was recently modified by W ata and W atenabe (1987, p5) incorporating
the effect of m aterial hardness. The modified analytical m odel is:
a H vm v 2
V oc (4.116)
-
7
where Hv = Vickers hardness.
However, they were unable to find a correlation betw een this m odel and exper
im ental results. Therefore, an empirical model was proposed for alumina ceramics
as:
(4'117>
The two analytical models, i.e. Equations 4.115 and 4.116 are very similar to the
expression of the volume removal due to fracture derived in this study, i.e. Equation
4.110. It isinteresting to note that the inverse proportionality of the m aterial hardness
in the empirical model( Equation 4.117) is analogous to the F innie’s m odel, i.e.,
Equation 4.109. Therefore, it can be ascertained that combining the contribution of
both brittle fracture and plastic flow, the proposed dynam ic m aterial removal model
is more representative.
Although the study by Wada and W atanabe did not dem onstrate a correlation be
tween the grain size and the erosion rate, the proposed m odel shows a good correlation
between them.
133
4.5 Sum m ary
The cause of intergranular cracking has been related to fractures caused by im
pact induced stress waves. An elasto-plastic m odel is proposed to incorporate the
m aterial removal effects of both the fractures and plastic flow. The fractured volume
due to a single im pact is m odeled by a cluster of cubic cells which is equivalent to
individual grains or fragm ents. A crack network m odel is thus derived by relating
the fracture surface energy required for the network form ation to the input stress
wave energy. The elasto-plastic m odel has been applied for evaluating the material
removal of single particle im pacting at normal incidence or low incidence. The stress
wave energy is expressed with a modified H utchings’ equation for normal incidence
and with an equation derived in this study for low incidence, respectively. The crack
network m odel com bined with B itter’s deform ation wear m odel gives the total ma
terial removal for a single particle impact at normal incidence, and, combined with
Finnie’s m icrocutting m odel, gives the total m aterial removal for low incidence im
pacts. The obtained expressions of material rem oval have been verified by erosion
experim ents. Good correlation is observed. It is also found that the erosion rate is
strongly correlated w ith the grain size and fracture energy of target materials.
134
CHAPTER 5
E N E R G Y D IS SIP A T IO N P H E N O M E N A
5.1 C haracterization of E nergy D issip a tio n P h en om ena
Energy dissipation is a phenomenon com m only seen in abrasive waterjet cutting
as well as other beam cutting processes such as laser, plasma arc, flame cutting,
etc. A typical AWJ cut workpiece displays striation marks on the cut surfaces as
shown in Figure 5.1, and a tapered kerf such as those in Figure 5.2. To characterize
these energy dissipation phenomena, two sets of AWJ kerf cutting experim ents are
conducted and described as follows.
Experim ent 1. Kerf W idth and Taper Variation
T he objective of this experim ent is to provide some information on the kerf width
and taper angle variation in AWJ cutting. A 6.09 mm thick alumna (AD 85) plate
is used as the workpiece. Stand-off distance, traverse speed, water pressure and
orifice/nozzle diameters are fixed. The resulted kerf widths and taper angles are listed
in Table 5.1 and are displayed in Figure 5.3 - 5.10. The general trends are that (1) the
kerf w idth is directly proportional to the exit nozzle diameter and stand-off distance
w hile increasing water pressure and decreasing traverse speed also slightly increase
the kerf width; ( 2 ) the taper angle increases with stand-off distance, exit nozzle
diam eter and the traverse speed, but remains relatively constant with variations in
w ater pressure.
Experim ent 2. Striation Marks
A series of cutting tests is conducted using four different types of m aterials repre
senting both ductile and brittle categories. These materials with different thickness
are cut by varying the cutting parameters as shown in Table 5.2. The striation marks
135
Figure 5.1 Striation marks on an Figure 5.2 Tapered kerfs on an alumina
A1 6061-T6 sample cut by an AW J. (AD 85) plate cut by an AWJ.
Table 5.1 Experimental data of the kerf w idth and taper.
Traverse S tan d -o ff K erf Taper

W ater O rifice/
V a riab le D istan ce W id t h , D e
P ressure N o z z l e Dia. R a t e
P a ra m e te r (degree)
(ksi) (MPa) (inch) (mm) (in/m) (mm/s) (inch) (mm) (inch) (mm)
.037 .940 .050 1.270 3.35
S ta n d -o ff .018' .457 4.660 .063 1.600 5.00
.183
D istan ce 35 241 .047" 1.194 1.1E .50
.330 8.380 .075 1.905 6.19
.12 .05 .054 1.372 1.66
.59 .25 .052 1.321 3.23

T raverse .01 .457
£
.037 .940
35 241 .047" 1.194 1.18 .50 .050 1.270 3.35
R a te
1.89 .80 .049 1.245 3.46
.050 1.270 3.46
30 207
W ater .011 .457 .50 .037 .940 .050 1.270 3.35
35 241 1.1E
P ressure .0 4 7 ' 1.194
.054 1.372 3.58
40 276
.009 .229 .040 1.016 2.74
.031 .787
Orifice/
.018" .457 .050 1.270 3.35
N ozzle 35 241 1.11 .50 .037 .940
047" 1.194
D ia m e ter .457
.018 .070 1.778 4.52
.062 1.575
N ote! Workpiece Thickness: 0.240’ (6.09 mm)

Cutting Angie: 90 degree
Abrasive Size: Mesh No. 120
Abrasive Material: Barton Garnet
Workpiece Material: Alumina AD85
Exit Nozzle Material: Tungsten CarDide
Abrasive Flow Rate: 0.5 ib/min (3.8 g/s)
136
2.0 2.0
1 .8 -
(m m )
E
E
1.6 -
Width
§
Kerf
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S ta n d -o ff D is ta n c e (m m ) T raverse R a te (m m /s)
Figure 5.3 K erf w idth vs stand-off distance, Figure 5.4 K erf w idth vs traverse speed.
w 2. 0 -t----------------------------------------------------------------- 2.0
-j
1. 8 -
E
E
5
r(O
1 .2 -
•) o -J------------------ 1------------------ j-------------------■------------------

200 250 300 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 1.8
W ater P re ss u re (ksi) E x it N o z z l e D i a m e t e r ( m m )
Figure 5.5 Kerf w idth vs water pressure. Figure 5.6 K erf w idth vs exit nozzle diam eter.
7 7
lission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 6
T aper(degree)
0) 5 5
(D
o>
©
4 4
k_
©
Q.
© 3 3
H-
2 2
1 1
2 4 6 8 10 0. 0 0. 2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0
S ta n d -o ff D is a n c e (m m ) T raverse R a te (m m /s)
Figure 5.7 Taper vs stand-ofF distance. Figure 5.8 Taper vs traverse speed.
CO
OO 7
Q) 5
0)
T aper(degree)
cn
©
k_
©
4
CL
m
H 3
1
200 250 300 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
W ater P r e s s u r e (ksi)
E x it N o z z l e D i a m e t e r ( m m )
Figure 5.9 Taper vs water pressure. Figure 5.10 Taper vs exit nozzle diam eter.
Table 5.2 C utting test parameters.
THICK ORIFICE/ ABRASIVE ABRASIVE ST A N D

CUTTING
SAMPLE N ESS WATER NOZZLE TYPE AND R O W RATE OFF
SPEED
LABLE P R E SS U R E SIZE MESH NO. DISTANCE
(mm) (9/s) (mm/s)
(Mpa) (mm/mm) (mm)
Plexiglas 1 5 5 .3 5 .4 5 7 /1 .1 6 8 Barton # 8 0 1 1 .4 2 .5
Plexiglas 2 6 3 .3 6 .4 5 7 /1 .1 6 8 IGE 1 1 .4 1 .0
Maine 1 .0
Marble 1 5 1 .0 6 .4 5 7 /1 .1 6 8 1 1 .4
Garnet
Marble 2 4 2 .4 4 .4 5 7 /1 .1 6 8 # 60 1 1 .4 1 .0
241 1 .5
A I6061-T 6 1 3 8 .2 .3 5 6 /1 .1 6 8 1 1 .4 1.5
A I6061-T 6 2 9 .6 7 .3 5 6 /1 .1 6 8 Barton 7 .6 1 0 .5
A I6061-T6 3 8 9 .3 .3 5 6 /1 .1 6 8 # 80 7 .6 0 .4
Polypropylene 39 .1 . 3 5 6 /1 .1 6 8 7.6 5 .2 5
PLEXGLAS 1
6- PLEXGLAS 2
MARBLE 1
E
E MARBLE 2
c 4- ALUMINUM 1
a
ra ALUMINUM 2
'>
Q 2-
ALUMINUM 3
POLYPROPYLENE
0 20 40 60 80 100
Depth in workpiece (mm)
Figure 5.11 Striation curves.
139
are etched and plotted in Figure 5.11 in terms of the depth in the workpiece and
the deviation referred to the depth coordinate. For a qualitative comparison of these
curves, each curve is normalized with respect to the workpiece thickness (Z maT) in
the z direction and the m axim um deviation (X max) in the x direction, and plotted
linearly and logarithm ically in Figure 5.12 (a) k (b ), respectively. Interestingly, all
of these curves are nearly parabolic. Curve-fitting the data w ith parabolas yields the
correlation coefficients between 0.990 and 0.999. The curve-fitted equations and the
corresponding correlation coefficients are listed in Table 5.3. Therefore, the striation
marks can be characterized in terms of a simple functional expression as:
x = a3(z — b3Y + c, (5-1)
where x is the horizontal deviation of the curve, 2 is the depth in the workpiece and
a3, b3, c, are the coefficients to be determined.
This type of generalization can be used as a first approxim ation for quantifying the
geometric nature of the striation. It is noticed that the curve-fitted expression 5.1 for
striation curves is not applicable in the neighborhood of the top of workpiece, where
x should vanish at z = 0. If the m athem atical expression in this region is needed,
an improved curve-fit is achieved by combining a straight line for 0 < z < b and
Equation 5.1 for z > b. Since energy dissipation is insignificant for small values of 2 ,
Equation 5.1 is used in this study. For a group of preset waterjet cutting parameters,
the striation curves are parallel as shown in Figure 5.13. Therefore, a continuous
cutting process can be m odeled as a curve (parabola) m oving with a constant speed
of u. Considering an infinitesimal tim e change A t, the tw o parallel cutting fronts, as
shown in Figure 5.13, are related by Aa; in the horizontal direction and A h in the
direction perpendicular to the curve. The Aa: and A h have a relation:
A h = AxcoaO (5.2)
140
1
PLEXGLAS1
PLEXGLAS2
MARBLE 1
MARBLE 2
ALUMINUM 1
ALUMINUM2
ALUMINUM 3
RCLYPRCPYLENE
PARABOLA
0
.01 10
N o r m a liz ed d e p th in w o r k p ie c e , X /X m a x
Figure 5.12 Normalized striation curves.
Table 5.3 Curve-fitting data of striation marks.
COEFFICIENT OF
CURVE LABLE CURVE-FITTED EQUATION CORRELATION R2
PLexiglas 1 Y = 2.489 x 10' 3 (X -2.069)2 - 0.0032 0.999
Plexiglas 2 Y = 2.038 x 10 ' 3 (X - 11.51 )2 - 0.1037 0.994
Marble 1 Y = 2.112 x 1 0 ' 3 ( X - 7.311)2 - 0.0629 0.998
Marble 2 Y = 2.115 x 1 0 ' 3 (X - 7.023)2 - 0.0692 0.998
Aluminum 1 Y = 5.414 x 1 0 ' 3 (X - 5.806)2 - 0.0157 0.997
Aluminum 2 Y = 3.072 x 1 0 ' 2 (X - 1.657)2 - 0.0259 0.995
Aluminum 3 Y = 1.352 x 1 0 ' 3 (X - 16.60)2 - 0.0069 0.990
Polypropylene Y = 4.444 X 10' 3 (X -2.495) 2 + 0.0654 0.998
141
AWJ Cutting Head
Workpiece
max
max
max
Figure 5.13 Characterization of striation curves.
142
where 0 is the angle of slope of the cutting front, d x / d t is the traverse speed (u) and
d h / d t is defined as the linear m aterial removal rate ( M ). Therefore,
M = ucosB (5.4)
or
— = , 1 (5-5)
The linear displacement rate u is the desired cutting speed. The linear material
removal rate M is the actual local cutting speed. The ratio M / u represents the cutting
efficiency at the localized zone. Equations 5.4 & 5.5 explicitly indicate the trend that
the cutting efficiency decreases as the angle of slope (9 ) or the depth z increases.
W hen the cutting efficiency is reduced to a certain degree, the abrasive entrained
jet stream becom es unstable and a striation mark starts to develop. The cutting
efficiency eventually reaches a critical point at which the jet stream significantly loses
its cutting power and is “kicked-back” by the target material. This critical point is
associated w ith the m aximum cutting depth for a given cutting condition.
5.2 C ritical J et E xit A ngle
The angle between the vertical coordinate and the jet exiting the bottom of the
workpiece (see Figure 5.14) is the so called "‘jet exit angle”. This angle will increase
with the traverse speed provided that the other parameters remain constant. As the
traverse speed increases to a critical value, the jet will not be able to cut through
the workpiece and the jet exit angle suddenly becomes very large and unstable, i.e.,
143
Figure 5.14 Jet exiting the bottom of workpiece.
144
the jet is “kicked back”. The jet angle beyond which a “kicked back” phenomenon
occurs is defined as the critical jet exit angle ( 6C). From a series of cutting tests,
it is onserved that the value of the critical exit angle (9C) nearly remains constant
regardless of the variation of cutting parameters or workpiece materials.
To verify this hypothesis, a series of cutting experim ents by abrasive waterjet is
conducted. Five different test materials, Aluminum 6061-T6, Polypropylene, Plexi
glass, 901 Tool Steel and W hite Marble, are chosen to include a group of materials
from both ductile and brittle categories. In addition to m aterial properties, the cut
ting process is also tested by varying waterjet parameters such as: traverse speed,
water pressure, abrasive flow rate, orifice/nozzle size, workpiece thickness, and abra
sive type and size. The traverse speed is chosen to be the major controlling parameter.
For each of the three m aterials, Aluminum 6061-T6, Polypropylene and W hite Mar
ble, four sets of cutting tests are conducted. In each set of cutting tests, one of the
four param eters, water pressure, abrasive flow rate, orifice/nozzle size, and workpiece
thickness, is varied while the others are held constant. The values o f these parameters
are listed in Table 5.4.
For each test cut, the cutting speed is started at zero and then increased gradu
ally until the critical point of deflection (kick- back) is reached. At this point, the
cutting speed is im m ediately decreased slightly until the cutting is resumed. Several
photos are taken of the exiting jet with a camera equipped with a telephoto lens and
positioned just far enough from the cutting area to avoid the cloud of water vapor
and dust created during the cutting process. A pressurized air nozzle is also posi
tioned near the cutting area so as to disperse this cloud and increase the clarity of the
photographs. The critical jet exit angle can be measured directly from these pictures
as shown in Figure 5.14. However, this m ethod serves only as an indication of the
feasibility of m onitoring the exit angle during the cutting process. For the purpose
of analysis a simpler m ethod for obtaining the exit angle is used by simply etching
145
Table 5.4 Cutting test parameters and the critical jet exit angles.
THICK ORIFICE/ A BRA SIV E ST A N D CRITICAL

CUTTING
SAM PLE N ESS W A TER NOZZLE FLOW RATE OFF JE T EXIT
PR ESSUR E .S P E E D
MATERIAL SIZE DISTANCI AN G LE
(mm) ( 0 /s)
(Mjpa) (mm/mm) (mm/s)
(mm) (degrees)
Al 6061-T6 2.0 23 .8
Plexiglas 3.5 18.3
Polypropylene 38.1 241 .3 56/1.168 7.6 525 15.2
901 Tool S leel 0.2 2 1 .8
White Marble 3.75 2 4 .0

9.5 10.5 3 5 .4
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7.6 2 .0 2 3 .8
88.9 0 .4 17.2
172 1.3 25.0
38.1 207 .356/1.168 7.S 1.6 17.8
241 2.0 23.8
AJ 6061-T6
.229/.7S 7 0 .7 16.5
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7.6 2.0 2 3 .8
.457/1.575 1.6 16.0
3.8 1.6 19.8
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7.6 2,0 ......... 2 3 .8
11.4 1.5 23.5
9.5 27.0 23.7
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7.6 5.25 15.2
1.5
88.9 0.5 10.2
172 2 .5 17.6
38.1 207 .3 56/1.168 7.6 3.0 18.1
241 5.25 15.2
Polypropylene 17.5
,229 /.7 8 7 2.7
38.1 .356/1.168 7.6 5.25 15.2

241
.457/1.575 7.0 21.9
3.8 3.0 15.3
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7 .6 5.25 15.2
11.4 4.5 26.9
9.5 24.0 3 0 .7
38.1 241 .3 56/1.168 7.6 3.75 24.0
B8.9 1.0 17.6
172 2.3 2 4 .9
38.1 207 .356/1.168 7.6 2.5 21.0
White
241 3.75 2 4 .0
Marble .229/.7S 7 2.0 24.4
38.1 .356/1.168 3.75 24.0

241 7.6
.457/1.575 3.0 2 8 .9
3.8 2 .0 17.2
38.1 241 .356/1.168 7 .6 3.75 24 0
11.4 3.5 19.2
146
the cut surface onto a piece of paper and then m easuring the angle from the etching.
T he results are listed in Table 5.4 and plotted in Figures 5.15 - 5.20.
From Figures 5.15 - 5.19, it appears that the only param eter which exhibits a
significant trend in its relationship w ith the critical jet exit angle is the workpiece
thickness (see Figure 5.19). The curves in Figures 5.15 through 5.18 shows that the
critical angles for the m ajority of the samples lie in a band betw een fifteen and twenty-
five degrees. This can be seen more clearly in Figure 5.20, which is a plot of all the
data obtained from the 38 mm thick workpieces. The m ean value and the standard
deviation of these data are found to be 20.4 degrees and 4.08 degrees, respectively.
T he deviation includes m easurem ent inaccuracy since the values of the exit angle are
measured when the cutting speed had been reduced by a sm all, but varying amount
from the critical point. The instability of the critical cutting condition should be
another im portant factor which makes the jet exit angle fluctuate.
5.3 Sum m ary
The energy dissipation phenom ena in AWJ processes such as striation marks and
tapered kerfs have been docum ented. It is found that the striation marks on the
abrasive jet cut surface can be characterized by parabolic curves. A simple analysis
indicates that the cutting efficiency depends solely on the slope of the striation curve.
A preliminary experim ental study reveals that the critical jet exit angle at the condi
tion of kick-back decreases as the workpiece thickness increases while its dependence
on the other parameters is insignificant.
147
80 - 6 0 6 1 -T6 ALUMINUM
WHITE MARBLE
S’ 70 *
S- 60- POLYPROPLYENE
50-
40 -
30 -
20-
10-
160 180 200 220 240 260
WATER PRESSURE (MPa)
Figure 5.15 Effect of water pressure on the criticla jet exit angle.
90
80 6 0 6 1 -T6 ALUMINUM
m
CD
oID> 70 WHITE MARBLE
n POLYPROPLYENE
60
UJ
a 50
2
< 40
<
O 30
EC 20
O
10
0
.2 2 9 /.7 8 7 .3 5 6 /1 .1 9 4 .4 5 7 /1 .5 7 5
ORRIFICE/NOZZLE DIA (mm)
Figure 5.16 Effect of orifice/nozzle diameter on the critical jet exit an
80 - 6 0 6 1 -T6 ALUMINUM
CD
2□> 70 - WHITE MARBLE
CD
T> 60 - POLYPROPLYENE
50 -
a
2 40 -
<
—I
< 30 -
O
b 20 -
E
O 10 -
2 4 6 8 10 12
ABRASIVE FLOW RATE (g/s)
Figure 5.17 Effect of abrasive flow rate on the critical jet exit angle
148
10-
LU
UJ
C/3
<
WORKPIECE MATERIALS
Figure 5.18 Effect of workpiece m aterial on the critical jet exit angle.
6061-T6 ALUMINUM
WHITE MARBLE
U) POLYPROPLYENE
£
111
o
z
<
-J
<
o
h-
CE
o 10-
0 20 40 60 80 100
WORKPIECE THICKNESS (mm)
Figure 5.19 Effect of workpiece thickness on the critical jet exit angle.
80 - • 6061-T6 ALUMINUM
70: « WHITE MARBLE
at
B POLYPROPYLENE
_i
V-
0 5 10 15 20 25
SAMPLE NUMBER
Figure 5.20 Data of critical jet exit angles for 38 m m thick workpieces.
149
CHAPTER 6
M O D E L IN G OF A W J C U T T IN G P R O C E SSE S
6.1 E quation for D ep th o f C ut
In a visualization experim ent of AWJ cutting processes conducted by Hashish
(1984, p249 & 1988, p l5 9 ), it was observed that the total depth of cut is divided
into two distinct zones associated w ith different m odes of abrasive/target interaction.
In the upper zone, material is removed by abrasive particle im pacting at shallow
angles. In the lower zone, sequential steps are formed which lead to large angle
im pacts. A modeling study (Hashish, 1984, p249) characterized the upper zone as
a cutting wear zone and the lower one a deformation zone. F in n ie’s m icrocutting
m odel (Finnie, 1958) and B itter’s deformation wear model (B itter, 1963, p5 & p l6 9 ),
respectively, were used to evaluate the material removal in the cutting wear zone
and deform ation wear zone. A global cutting equation was then derived for AWJ
cutting of ductile materials. More recently, Hashish (1987, p 6 6 -l) im proved Finnie’s
m odel by incorporating the effects of particle size and shape, resulting in a change
in the particle velocity exponent from 2 to 2.5, which provides better correlation
w ith experim ental values. A corresponding modified version of the cutting equation
was obtained (Hashish, 1989, p l5 4 ) in terms of several non-dim ensional parameters.
Good correlation between the modified equation and cutting experim ents with various
m etal samples was reported.
The step phenomenon was also observed in the SEM study described in Chapter
3. However, in contrast to H ashish’s conclusion that these steps lead to large angle
im pacts, Chapter 3 concludes that the entire cutting front is im pacted by the original
jet or the deflected jet at glancing angles and the existance of the steps slightly changes
150
the local curvature of the cutting front, but does not affect the low incidence cutting
mode. Therefore, the elasto-plastic model for the low incidence im pact, derived in
Section 4.4, applies to the individual particle removal during the cutting process.
The equation for depth of cut is derived by relating the m acro material removal
rate on the cutting front to the accumulated effect of m icrocutting by individual
abrasive particles entrained in the jet. According to Section 5.1 on curve-fitting the
striation marks (traces of the cutting front), a parabola can be used to approximately
represent the striation curve, and thus the curve of the cutting front. The local cutting
efficiency along the cutting front is defined to be the ratio of the linear m aterial
removal rate (M ) to the traverse speed (u ), which is a cosine function of the angle of
slope (6) on the cutting front (Equation 5.4).
The total m aterial removal rate along the cutting front can be calculated by
integrating
Q = / Mdjds (6.1)
Jcp
where dj is the effective jet diameter. As the cutting efficiency decreases from top to
bottom along the curve of the cutting front, the jet diam eter is also reduced. It is
assumed that the effective jet diameter is related to the focusing nozzle diameter and
the cutting efficiency by:
dj = DcosQ (6.2)
where D is the jet diameter at the top of workpiece which is assumed to be equal
to the focusing nozzle diameter. The variation of the effective jet diameter causes
variations in the w idth of the cutting front.
Introducing Equations 5.4 and 6.2 into 6.1 yields
151
= Du J cosddz (6-3)
since dz = dscosO.
For a parabolic curve such as x = \ z 2,
t and = x' = 2Az (6-4)
and
dz — —----- — . (6-5)
2Acos2#
Substituting Equation 6.5 into 6.3 and integrating along the parabolic curve with
6 as the integration variable, the following expression isobtained:
D
/ 7u
7/ trVc riH
dc dO
Q = 2 i L ^ = m )D n k (6-6)
where
A= ^ (6.7)
and
f L( 0c) = - 2 — l n ( 1 + 3™ d c ) (6.8)
t andc cos9c
The total m aterial removal rate along the cutting front can also be interpreted as
the accum ulated effect of individual particle removal. Since the individual abrasive
particles in the jet im pact on the different locations of the cutting front, differences in
the distance that individual particles travel prior to impact lead to a loss in efficiency.
152
B y incorporating an average efficiency into the idealized volum e removal of single
particle, the accum ulated material removal is expressed as:
Q = — ( 4 / c os 9ds) V (6.9)
771 *5 JCp
where V is the idealized volum e removal by individual abrasive particle, m the mass
of single abrasive particle, m the abrasive flow rate, and the term within the brackets
stands for the average efiiciency(S = total curve length of the cutting front).
Since
[ cosOds = f dz — h (6.10)
Jc p Ju
and
dz
= / ds = f
Jcp Jo cosd
d6
= — j
2A Jo cos3 9
tanOe .1 + si n9c
2t an9c cos9c + M I'l ' i r )1»
cos9c (6-n )
it can be shown that
777
Q = f2(0c)(~)V (6.12)
m
where
M V = ^ («-W)
cosOc 'r “ H cosOc )
Combining Equations 6.6 and 6.12 yields:
i = (6.14)
Du v !
where
153
2 ta n 2Qr
m ) = rtanOj (6.15)
Lc o sO (
In Equation 6.14, 8C is the only undetermined parameter. E xperim ental results in
Section 5.2 indicate that the value of Bc is nearly constant regardless of variations in
workpiece m aterial, water pressure, orifice/nozzle size as well as abrasive flow rate,
except that it slightly decreases with increase in workpiece thickness. In any event,
the value of 6C doesn’t exceed 50 degrees. In the range of 0 < 8C < 50°, the variation
of f ( 8 r:) given by Equation 6.15 is less than 2% (see Table 6.1). Therefore, the value
of f ( 8 c) is taken to be constant, i.e., f ( 9 c) = 1.
Table 6.1 Values of f ( 8 c)
9C, deg. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
m 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.998 0.993 0.981 0.953 0.891 0.752 0.053
Equation 4.111 is used to calculate the volum e removal by individual particle.
C f m(3ao'fmv2s i n 2a
V
3jE
C m v 2, . „ . . n „ . rp7>\
4 ------------ ( s i n 2 a — 4 sin a + 3 8 .1 2 u .s z 7 t a. — ) (6.16)
4oy V crf
The contributions of the secondary and tertiary impacts are assum ed to be propor
tional to the m aterial removal of the primary im pacts. They are incorporated into
Equation 6.16 with a coefficient of im pact efficiency (C ), which also accounts for the
efficiency loss due to particle m utual im pacts and particle fragm entation. Since the
incidence angle a is considered to be very small, thus, s i n a « a , and the 2nd and third
terms in the bracket are negligible compared to the first term. It is further assumed
that the variation of the incidence angle along the cutting front is sm all. Therefore,
the value of a is taken to be constant. W ith these sim plifications, Equation 6.16
reduces to
154
+ {en)
with the velocity v calculated w ith Equation 1.1, Equation 6.17 is rewritten as:
_ , r?C'»C'v . 2 C mP , L. . 2 f w/3a<rja2
1 -f R pm Z'yE cf
Substituting Equation 6.18 into 6.14 yields the final equation for the depth of cut:
L ( t] C v C ,j v2 C m P w 2 f wf3acrf a 2 a ,
4 = ( t t r ] + { ]
6.2 V erification w ith C u ttin g E xperim ents
A series of kerf cutting tests is conducted on a group of alumina ceramics (AD
99.9, AD 99.5, A D 94, AD 90 and AD 85). The theoretical values of depth of cuts
are predicted w ith Equation 6.19. To apply Equation 6.19, the coefficients need to
be determ ined. According to A ppendix A, the orifice efficiency C v varies from 0.932
to 0.911, the com pressibility coefficient Cy from 0.985 to 0.974 and the momentum
transfer efficiency rj from 0.805 to 0.936 within the usual water pressure range, 150
- 300 M Pa. The product of these three coefficient TjCvC y varies between 0.739 and
0.831. For sim plicity, the average value of 0.79 was taken. The stress wave energy
coefficient f w was determ ined to be 6.65 x 10--1 in Section 4.4.3. W ithout losing
generality, the value of the average incidence angle a is taken to be 10 degrees, or
0.175 rad. Correlation of Equation 6.19 with the experim ental result gives a coefficient
of impact efficiency (C) of 0.6, instead of 0.104 determ ined in Section 4.4.3. The higher
value of the coefficient of im pact efficiency is probably due to each abrasive particle
interacting more than once with the target material along the cutting front. W ith
these coefficients, the predicted depth of cut is calculated using Equation 6.19 and is
compared with the experim ental results in Figures 6.1 - 6.6.
155
As shown in Figure 6.1, the derived m odel qualitatively predicts the relative re
sponse of the five different alum ina ceramics. Figures 6.2 - 6.6 indicate that, although
certain discrepancies exist, generally good correlation between the m odel and exper
im ental results in the general trends of depth of cut as a function of the five major
process parameters is observed. The m odel over estim ates the effect of increasing
abrasive flow rate. As abrasive flow rate increases, the probability of particle mutual
impingem ent also increases, which is not taken into account in the present study.
Usually, an abrasive flow rate exceeding 11.34 g /s (1.5 lb /m in ) does not produce ad
ditional m aterial removal, as evident in Figure 6.4. W ith the abrasive flow rate below
this value, the derived model provides close estim ates. A large discrepancy is found
in Figure 6.6 for small nozzle diam eters, which is probably caused by the om itted ef
ficiency loss in the case of excess flow passing through a small focusing nozzle. Again,
this indicates that an optim um range of nozzle diameters should be used to reduce
the efficiency loss. W ithin this range, the model becomes applicable.
6.3 Summary
B y relating the macro m aterial removal rate along the AWJ cutting front to the
accum ulated micro m aterial removal rate due to individual particles, the equation for
depth of cut is derived. This equation has been verified by kerf cutting experim ents.
It is concluded that the derived kerf cutting m odel correlates well with experim ental
results although certain lim its are required in the selection of certain process param
eters.
156
20
w ater pressure: 207 MPa
orifice/nozzle diam eter: .457 m m/ 1.27 mm
traverse speed: 0.8 and 1.2 mm/s
stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
16 -
abrasive: mesh 80 garnet, 7.56 g/s
w ater flow rale: 4.432 1pm
u = 0.8 ram/s Model
u = 1.2 mm/s Model
12-
u = 0.8 mm/s Exp.
u = 1.2 mm/s Exp.
8-
4 -
1 , ,-- 1----
AD 85 AD 90 AD 94 AD 99.5 AD 99.9
A lum ina C eram ics
Figure 6.1 Depth of cut for different alumina ceramics.
10
target material: AD 99.5
orifice/nozzle diam eter: .457 m m /1.27 mm
8-
traverse speed: 1.2 mm/s
6-
3
CJ
4 -
q. _ - Exp.
2- D Model
100 150 200 250 300
W ater Pressure (MPa)
Figure 6.2 Depth of cut versus water pressure.
157
20
target m aterial: AD 99.5
orifice/nozzle diam eter: .457 m m /1.27 mm
sta n d -o ff distance: 1.5 mm
15 abrasive: mesh 80 garnet, 7.56 g/s
CJ 10-
Q
5 -
♦ - ' Exp.
Model
— i---------- 1-----------1-----------1----------- 1-----------1---------- 1---------- 1-----------1-----------1----------- 1—
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
Traverse Speed (mm/s)
Figure 6.3 D epth of cut versus traverse speed.
8-
orifice/nozzle diam eter: .457 m m/1.27 mm
7 - stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
traverse speed: 1.2 mm/s y^
abrasive: mesh 80 garnet
6 -
/ S*---------------- •
s ' y
£ / yy
3 5-
O
U
O y r '
/ /
S* 4- / /
a / /
/ -----♦ — Exp.
{ ------H----- Model
3 -
2 - -------- 1-------- 1--------- 1---------1---------1-------- 1---------1---------i-------------------

4 6 8 10 12 14
Abrasive Flow Rate (g/s)
Figure 6.4 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate.
158
10
target m aterial: A D 99.5
orifice diam eter: .228, .305, .356, .406, .457 mm
8- nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm
traverse speed: 1.2 mm/s
6-
u
4-
Q
—*
—- —
2-
*■ — - Exp.
ta Model
W ater Flow Rate (LPM)
Figure 6.5 Depth of cut versus w ater flow rate.
10
orifice diam eter: .305 mm
8- abrasive: mesh 120 garnet, 3.78 g/s
traverse speed: 0.8 m m /s
6-
«■ — Exp.
cj
C
m B—— Model
o
4 -
c.
u
Q
— i---------- 1-----------1----------- 1-----------1---------- 1-----------1-----------1-----------> 1 '
0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1.4 1 .6 1.8
Nozzle Diameter (mm)
Figure 6.6 Depth of cut versus nozzle diameter.
159
CHAPTER 7
M A T E R IA L M A C H IN A B IL IT Y B Y A W J
In the past years, abrasive waterjet technology has gone from being a showcase
technology to becom ing commercially used in various industries. As the capabilities
of AWJ have grown, so have the needs for improved machining processes. In an age of
“space-age” m aterials which demand precision manufacturing, people who once were
astonished by the fantastic cutting edge of AWJ now demand even better control of
the process. A survey report of industrial needs for waterjets(K lavuhn & Baker, 1989)
indicates that the top priority is to establish performance standards and a complete
cutting database. As a preliminary effort to address these needs, this chapter presents
a quantitative evaluation of AWJ m achinability and provides a parameter prediction
m ethod. T heoretical and experim ental studies(K im & Zeng, 89; Zeng &: Kim, 89,
90, 91, 92; Zeng et al., 91; Zeng et al., 92; Hashish, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89) provide a
better understanding of the AWJ process which is applied in this investigation. A
pilot study(Z eng &; Kim, 1989) which used the concept of “M achinability Num ber”
to compare the AW J m achinability of porous materials and fully dense materials
provided encouraging results.
7.1 G overning E quation o f M achinability
M achinability is a quantified kinetic response of a workpiece material subjected
to certain m achining operations and conditions. In this study, the kerf cutting test is
used as a representative process of abrasive waterjet m achining. The results of this
study can then be extended to various other abrasive waterjet applications including
cutting, drilling, m illing, turning, and aeburring. The primary response in an AWJ
160
kerf cutting operation is the depth of cut. The machinability of a certain material is
established by the relation between depth of cut and the preset AWJ parameters as
well as the m aterial properties such as hardness, flow strength, fracture toughness,
density, etc..
The kerf cutting m odel described in Equation 6.19 relates the depth of cut to the
material properties of workpiece and the five major process parameters in a simple
manner. The way the m aterial properties appear in this equation makes it feasible
to define a single parameter to account for the combined effects of several material
parameters. This material characteristic parameter is nam ed “Erosion Resistance”
( Re), which has a dimension the same as that of stress. It is formulated as:
Rp = \ -------- (7.1)
2fu, Satrra- , _a_ ' 7
3~/E (Tj
The value of R e can be determined using Equation 7.1, granted that all the m ate
rial properties are known, or more practically, by conducting erosion or kerf cutting
tests and using the inverse equation:
p _ f 7l ^ ' v Cy ^ Cr h Pw /-m
R e - {T T R ) ' ^ M (7’2)
If the value of R P is determined, the following kerf cutting model becomes appli
cable:
= Thml Pw
2670(m + m w)2D u R e
where metric units should be used for all the variables,i.e., k g / s forabrasive mass
flow rate (m ) and water mass flow rate (ni,v ), pa for water pressure (Pw) anderosion
resistance (J2e), m for nozzle diameter ( D ) and depth of cut (h), and m / s for traverse
speed (u).
The inverse of R P represents the machinability of target material in an AWJ
cutting process.
161
7.2 A n E m p irica l M o d el
To verify the m odel given by Equation 7.3, an empirical m odel is proposed. As the
first step, a large number of AWJ kerf cutting tests are conducted to generate the data
trends of depth of cuts in terms of the five major process parameters: water pressure
(Pw), water flow rate (rhw), focusing nozzle diameter (D ), traverse speed (u) and
abrasive flow rate (m ). W hile the target material evaluated is primarily Aluminum
6061-T6, other materials such as nylon, granite, stainless steel (316L) and alumina
ceramics (A D 99.5) are also tested. These tests are conducted at the University of
Rhode Island Waterjet Lab, equipped with a dual intensifier pump and a P a s e r
abrasive waterjet system . The test results are presented in Figures 7.1 through 7.25.
In Figures 7.1-7.5, water pressure is not the only parameter which is varied, though
it appears so, since the water flow rate is a function of water pressure for a given
orifice diameter. In Figures 7.6-7.10, the water flow rate is regulated by using orifices
of different sizes while m aintaining a constant pressure.
Similarity is found among the data trends for each of the process parameter.
To quantify this observation, the test data with Aluminum 6061-T6 as the target
materials are analyzed with a m ultiple regression m odel based on Equation 7.3. The
effect of each parameter on the depth of cut is represented in exponential given as
^ 7 7 /» Pn^7 7 7 ,nW2 7lf1,

777 13 {rj
D n1no
where n(J, n,[, no, 7x3 , 7z_i, 715 are regression coefficients.
A computer program( Appendix C, Program 6 ) is written to perform the regression
analysis. The following regression coefficients are obtained: n„ = 0.0234, rzj = 1.25,
n 2 = 0.687, 7x3 = 0.343, tx .| = 0.618, 7x5 = 0.866. The correlation coefficient is 0.954
and the determ ination coefficient is 0.911. The correlation between the m odel and
the test data is shown graphically in Figure 7.26.
162
50
u = 2 mm/s
u = 3 mm/s
40- u = 4 mm/s
u = 5 mm/s
u = 6 mm/s
30 -
U
o 20 -
£
Or
10- orifice/nozzle: .381 m m /1.27 mm

abrasive: m esh 80 garnet, 7.56 g/s
target m aterial: A L 6061-T6
—I—
100 150 20 0 250 300
Figure 7.1 D epth of cut versus water pressure for different traverse speed.
40
■0----- m = 5.67 g/s
m = 7.56 g/s
■tt m = 9.45 g/s
30 tit = 11.34 g/s
<--s m = 13.23 g/s
s
3
U
•o 20
a,
CJ
a
10 orifice/nozzle: .381 m m /1.27 mm

traverse speed: 4 m m/s
target m aterial: AL 6061-T6
0 --------- 1---------- 1----------r-
1
100 150 200 250 300
Figure 7.2 D epth of cut versus water pressure for different abrasive flow rate.
163
60
nozzle diameter; 1.27 mm * Do is orifice diam eter
traverse speed: 4 mm/s
50 abrasive: mesh 80 gam et, 7.56 g/s
Q' — Do = .229 mm*
40 - • Do = .305 mm
Do = .356 mm
Do = .406 mm
3
u 30 - Do = .432 mm
o
•S
20 -
10 -
04
100 200 300
Figure 7.3 Depth of cut versus water pressure for different orifice diameter.
60
50 -
abrasive: mesh 120 gam et, 3.78 g/s
target m aterialL: AL 6061-T6
40 -
D = .762 mm* * D is nozzle diam eter
D = 1.016mm
30 - D = 1.270 mm
D = 1.524 mm
D = 1.778 mm
20 -
10
04 —I— —l—
100 150 200 250 300
Figure 7.4 D epth of cut versus water pressure for different nozzle diameter.
164
80
------a ---- • Nylon orifice/nozzle: .457 m m /1.27 mm
stand-off distance: l.S mm
" —• — • Granite
abrasive: m esh 80 gam et, 7.56 g/s
------ 1— ■ AL6061-T6 traverse speed: 8 m m /s(N ylon),
■ SS316L 1.2 mm/s(AD 99.5), 4 mm/s for others
60
------ ■— ■ AD 99.5
3
u
40 -
■3
c.
20-
T
100 150 200 250 300
W ater Pressure (M Pa)
Figure 7.5 Depth of cut versus water pressure for different materials.

nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm
50 stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
— 40
Ej
c
u 30
u_
O
H,
=> 20
2 mm/s
10
u = 5 mm/s
6 mm/s
0
1 2 3 4 5
W ater How Rate (LPM)
Figure 7.6 D epth of cut versus water flow rate for different traverse speed.
165
60
w ater pressure: 207 MPa m = 3.78 g/s
orifice diam eter: .229,
m = 5.67 g/s
.305, .356, .406, .457 mm
5 0 - nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm m = 7.56 g/s
traverse speed: 4 mm/s m = 9.45 g/s
m = 11.34 g/s
40 - abrasive: mesh 80 gam et
o 30-
o
.5
tj*
u
a 20 -
10 H
Figure 7.7 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different abrasive flow rate.
60
orifice Diameters: .229, .305, .356, .406, .432 mm
nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm
P = 138 MPa
5 0 - stand-off distance: 1.5 mm P = 173 MPa
abrasive: mesh 80 gam et, 7.56 g/s P = 207 MPa
target m aterial: AL 6061-T6 P = 242 MPa
40- P = 276 MPa
30 -
■c-s
a 20 -
10 -
—
—.--- —I------- ■
------ 1----
2 3
Figure 7.8 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different water pressure.
166
60
w ater pressure : 207 M Pa
traverse speed: 4 m m /s
50 -
40
D = .762 mm*
D = 1.016 mm
* D is nozzle diam eter
u 30 D = 1.270 mm
D = 1.524 mm
D = 1.778 mm
20
10 -
Figure 7.9 D epth of cut versus water flow rate for different nozzle diameter.
80
water pressure: 207 M Pa
Nylon
orifice diam eters: .228, .305,
Granite .356, .406, .457 mm
AL6061-T6 nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm
S S 3I6L stand-off distance; 1.5 mm
60 -
abrasive: mesh 80 g a m e t, 5.67 g/s
AD 99.5
traverse speed: 8 m m /s(N ylon),
1.2 mm/s(AD 99.5), 4 mm/s for others
cj 40 -
O
20 -
----- ,--------- ,--------- ,---------1---------,--------- j--------- 1------

1 2 3 4 5
W ater R ow Rate (LPM)
Figure 7.10 Depth of cut versus water flow rate for different materials.
167
60
u « 2 mm/s
w ater pressure: 207 M Pa
u = 3 mm/s orifice: .305 mm
50 u = 4 mm/s stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
u = 5 mm/s
u = 6 mm/s
40
£
<-> 30 B-
a 20
10
0
0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1.2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8
N ozzle D iam eter (mm)
Figure 7.11 D epth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different traverse speed.
60
traverse speed: 4 m m /s
50 - abrasive: mesh 120 gam et, 3.78 g/s
40 - P = 138 MPa
P = 173 MPa
P = 207 MPa
u 30 - P = 242 MPa
P = 276 Mpa
20 -
10 -
■’ 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1
0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1.2 1.4 1 .6 1
N ozzle D iam eter .'mm)
Figure 7.12 D epth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different water pressure.
168
60
abrasive: m esh 120 garnet
40 -
5 ------a — m - 1.51 g/s
£**
Sm ..- • ■■■■■ m - 3.02 g/s
3
u 30
....■— ■ m = 4.54 g/s
o m = 6.05 g/s
ja
o. m - 7.56 g/s
a
a 20 -
10 -
— ,--------, , 1 1 1 . 1 . 1------ 1—
0 .6 0 .8 1.0 1.2 1 .4 1.6 1.8
Figure 7.13 D epth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different abrasive flow rate.
60
50 - abrasive: mesh 120 gamet, 3.78 g/s
40 - o— m w = 1.109 LPM
• ----- m w = 1.968 LPM
■— mw = 2680 LPM
30 - 1 '0 — mw = 3.501 LPM
b mw = 4.432 LPM
a.
e
G
20
10 -
-i 1---- 1---- 1---- 1---- 1---- 1---- !---- 1---- 1---- ■—

0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1.2 1.4 1 .6 1.8 2 .0
Nozzle D iam eter (mm)
Figure 7.14 D epth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different water flow rate.
169
80 -
abrasive: m esh 120 gam et, 3.78 g/s
60 - traverse speed: 8 m m/s(Nylon),
.8 mm/s(AD 99.5), 4 mm/s for others
E
3 50 -
1,1 1Q----- Nylon
40 - ------ ■----- AL6061-T6

o
£ ------ o----- SS316L
| 30- ------ ■----- AD 99.5
20 - ' ♦
10 -
0 4 -------,------- j------- .------- j------- ■-------1------- »------- 1------- r-6-----|------- 1----- *1
Figure 7.15 D epth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different materials.
50
P = 138 MPa
P = 173 MPa
P = 207 MPa
40 -
P = 242 MPa
P = 276 MPa
30 -
o
uo
20 -
10 -
orifice/nozzle: .381 mm/1.27
T
T raverse Speed (mm/s)
Figure 7.16 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different water pressure.
170
40
m = 5.67 g/s
m = 7.56 g/s
m = 9.45 g/s
m = 11.34 g/s
m = 13.23 g/s
30
u
(M
O
£
a.
o
a
20

orifice/nozzle: .381 mm/1.27 mm
abrasive: mesh 80 gamet
10
Traverse Speed (m m/s)
Figure 7.17 D epth of cut versus traverse speed for different abrasive flow rate.
60
water pressure: 207 MPa
■O m w = 1.109 LPM
nozzle diameter: 1.27 mm
stand-off distance: 1.5 mm -* m w = 1.968 LPM
50 « ----- mw = 2.680 LPM

■»— mw = 3.501 LPM
« ----- mw = 4.432 LPM

40
u
o 30 -
a.
u
Q
20 -
10 -

Figure 7.18 Depth of cut versus traverse speed for different water flow rate.
171
40
a— D = .762 mm
♦— D = 1.016 mm
■----- D = 1.270 mm
30 - *— D = 1.524 ram
E D = 1.778 mm
S
u
<•*
o 20-
■5
a,
£
10
orifice: .305 mm
Traverse Speed (m m /s)
Figure 7.19 D epth of cut versus traverse speed for different nozzle diameter.

orifice/nozzle: .457 m m /1.27 mm
60 -
u 40 -
u*
O
Nylon
20 - Granite
AL 6061-T6
SS 316L
AD 99.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 7.20 D epth of cut versus traverse speed for different materials.
172
60
— -o — ■ u - 2 mm/s w ater pressure: 207 M Pa
■ u - 3 mm/s orifice/nozzle: .381 m m /1.27 mm
50 ■» ■
—• u = 4 mm/s stand-off distance: l.S mm
abrasive: m esh 80 gam et
• u - 5 mm/s
■■■ » • u- 6 mm/s
40
u
30
o -*■
o.
t) -*
a
20 -
10 -
—I—
4 6 8 10 1122 14
A brasive Flow Rate (g/s)
Figure 7.21 D epth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different traverse speed.
60
P = 138 MPa orifice/nozzle: .381 m m /1.27 mm
P = 173 MPa traverse speed: 4 mm/s
50 - P = 207 MPa stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
abrasive: mesh 80 gam et
P = 242 MPa
P = 276 MPa
40 -
u 30 -
o
20
10 -
—r~ —T-
10 12 14
Abrasive H ow Rate (g/s)
Figure 7.22 D epth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different water pressure.
173
60'
riiw = 1.109 LPM
orifice diam eter: .229,
mw = 1.968 LPM .305, .356, .406, .457 mm
50-
mw = 2.680 LPM nozzle diam eter: 1.27 mm
mw = 3.501 LPM traverse speed: 4 mm/s
mw = 4.432 LPM
40- abrasive: mesh SO garnet
o 30-
U-i
o
£
a,
u 20 -
a
10 -i
Abrasive Flow R ale (g/s)
Figure 7.23 D epth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different water flow rate.
60
w ater pressure : 207 MPa
50 stand-off distance: 1.5 mm
0 40
13----- D = .762 mm
• - D = 1.016 mm
^ 30 ■ D = 1.270 mm
U
0 o D = 1.524 mm
E
o, H D = 1.778 mm
Q 20
10
0• T T
0 2 4 6 8
Abrasive Flow R ale (g/s)
Figure 7.24 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different nozzle diameter.
174
80
-a - — Nylon water pressure: 207 MPa
Granite orifice/nozzle: .457 m m /1.27 mm
-+ ----- AL 6061-T6
traverse speed: 8 m m /s(N ylon),
60- ----- SS316L 1.2 mm/s(AD 99.5), 4 mm/s for others
-* ----- AD 99.5 abrasive: m esh 80 garnet
40 -
20 -
—r~
10 12 14
A brasive Flow Rate (g/s)
Figure 7.25 Depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different m aterials.
60
ex p
x
0
n 60
th e
N o te : h is t h e m e a su r e d d e p t h o f c u t (mm)
exp
h is t h e p r e d ic te d d e p th o f c u t (mm)
th e
Figure 7.26 Correlation between the predicted depth of cut from the empirical model
and the measured values from experim ents.
175
To evaluate the validity of Equation 7.4 for target materials other than 6061-T6,
the data shown in Figures 7.5, 7.10, 7.15, 7.25 are normalized and reproduced in
Figures 7.27-7.31. The data trends for the different target materials are compared
to the norm alized values from Equation 7.4. A general similarity among these data
trends is observed. Therefore, Equation 7.4 can be applied to other engineering ma
terials if an appropriate material characteristic param eter is included. This material
characteristic param eter is called “M achinability N um ber”, N m, which resembles the
inverse of the “Erosion R esistance” i?e in Equation 7.3 or the constant n0 in Equation
7.4. The value o f a m aterial’s “M achinability Num ber” is determined experim entally
w ith an AW J kerf cutting test and the following inverse relation:
= n z, r)U.si8u
,, 0.866
m p 1 .2 5 ^ 0 .6 8 7 ^ 0 .3 -1 3 '
where the constant Ca is a scale factor chosen to give N m values within a preferred
range. Since the “M achinability Num ber” N rn is designated to be dimensionless, the
constant C„ has a nom inal unit to balance the dim ension. The values of (7., are given
for the following tw o unit systems:
Parameter Metric System Inch System

Depth of cut, h mm inch
Nozzle diam eter, D mm inch
Traverse speed, u m m /s in ch /m in
Water pressure, P w M Pa kpsi
Water flow rate, m w lpm (litre/m inute) gpm (gallon/m inute)
Abrasive flow rate, rh g /s lb / m in
ca 8800 14071
7.3 M achinability N u m b er and Its A pp lications
The establishm ent of an AWJ cutting database requires that the “Machinability
Numbers” for all engineering materials be determined. As a preliminary attem pt, a
total of 27 m aterials are selected from the entire spectrum of engineering m aterials,
176
2.0
Nylon
Granite
1.6 - AL6061-T6
SS 316L
3 AD 99.5
u
Model
1.2 -
aa,
Q
•3
0.8 -
O
Z
0 .4 -
0.0
100 15 0 200 250 300
Figure 7.27 Norm alized depth of cut versus water pressure for different materials.
2.0
..Q. Nylon
Granite
AL6061-T6
SS 316L
AD 99.5
v
o
Model
a
0.8 -
•a
c
0 .4 -
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
W ater R ow Rate (1pm)
Figure 7.28 Normalized depth of cut versus water flow rate for different materials.
177
2.0
Nylon
Granite
AL6061-T6
SS 316L
3 AD 99.5
o Model
3.
a
a
-o
0.8 -
a
Z
0 .4 -
0.0
0. 6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Figure 7.29 Normalized depth of cut versus nozzle diameter for different materials.
10 -
Nylon
Granite
AL6061-T6
3
CJ SS 316L
AD 99.5
Model
Q
■3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T raverse Speed (mm/s)
Figure 7.30 Normalized depth of cut versus traverse speed for different materials.
178
------e — Nylon
----- Granite
—* - — AL 6061-T6
----- SS316L
— AD 99.5
------a ----- Model
M---------- B
X •m
£ jf!£ rJ ll4 r “•■a
v /
/
/
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Abrasive Flow Rate (g/s)
Figure 7.31 Normalized depth of cut versus abrasive flow rate for different m aterials.
179
varying from very soft to extrem ely hard m aterials. To determ ine the “M achinability
Num ber” for each selected m aterial, three test cuts are m ade and the process param
eters are substituted into Equation 7.5 to calculate the value o f N m. The average
values of N m determined by the tests are plotted in Figure 7.32.
The m achinability number can be used in various applications. The most im por
tant application is in the selection of optional AWJ process parameters for kerf cutting.
In a typical AWJ kerf cutting operation, the workpiece m aterial and thickness are
readily determ ined. Typically, m ost process param eters are set using rule-of-thumb
values with the traverse speed used as the variable to be adapted to the given m a
terial and thickness. The optional traverse speed is determ ined using the following
equation:
J\T p i.25 ■0.687^0.3-13

u = ( m w w ----- V-15 (7.6)
V C sq h D » ™ ’ K ’
where q is defined as a quality level parameter. The value of q can be chosen between
1 and 5, depending on the desired quality level. Exam ination of the wall surface of a
separation cut (i.e. maxim um depth of cut = workpiece thickness) has revealed that
striation marks are initiated at about 1/3 distance, m easured from the top, of the
total depth. Therefore, to estim ate the traverse speed required for a sm ooth cut, 3
times of the workpiece thickness should be substituted into Equation 7.6 for the value
of h, i.e. q = 3. The values of q for five different quality levels are defined as follows:
Quality Description
Levels
q = 1 Criteria for separation cuts. Usually, q > 1.2 should be used.
q = 2 Rough surface finish with striation marks at the lower half surface.
q = 3 Sm ooth/rough transition criteria. Slight striation marks may appear.
q = 4 Striation free for m ost of engineering m aterials.
q = 5 Very sm ooth surface finish.
It should be always kept in mind that selection of a high quality level results in
180
Hot P r e s s e d S i3N 4 11.1
AD 9 9 .9 223 1.6
B 4C ' 77 7 7 7 7 7 % 4.2
Ti3B 2 m m & 4.3
AD 9 0 '/77/77777777777X10.3
SiC w zm zzzzm 12.6
AD 9 9 .5 7/7/777/7/7777^7777 13.1
AD 9 4 7777777777777777777!?,1 17.3
AD 8 5 777777777777777777m17.3
Oil H a r d e n e d S te e l 777777777777777777777//777777777A so.4
S S 304 7////77/7/77/7/7/777777777777777A 81.9
S S 3 1 6L 77/77//777777777777777777////7777X83.1
ASTM A 36 S te e l W ////////////7 ///7 7 7 ///7 ///////A VJ&
C opper 77//77777777777Z////7////////7/7m 110
T itanium v/?///7/////7//7/////77/////mm\ 115
Z incalloy 777//77777777/7////////////////777Z7\ 1 3 6
AL 6 0 6 1 -T6 213
G ra n ite Z///////////////Z77/77////7//7///Z?V/m77\2Zl
A sp h alt C o n c re te V/////////////7//7777777777777ZZZmZZ!m 461
L ead 7////7/////////7/////7////////7//////////Z////A 490
W hite M arble '77777777777777777777777777777777//////////////A 5 3 5
Nylon W /777777777777777777777777777777777777777777A5 3 8
G la s s V///////////////////////////////////7Z/////77/77A^
P le x ig la s 690
G ra p h ite 7/////Z///7///77777//////////7/77777777//777/7777AW
P o ly p ro p y len e 777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777A9 8 5
P in e W ood 77777777777777777777777777777//////////////7//////////7//77A 2 6 3 7
1 10 100 1000 10000
M a c h in a b ility N u m b e r s
Figure 7.32 M achinability numbers of various engineering m aterials.
181
slow cutting speeds, and therefore increases cost. Selection of a value of q greater
than 5 is unnecessary.
For general cutting purposes, the following rule-of-thum b parameter settings are
suggested: water pressure 242 M Pa (35 kpsi), water flow rate 3.32 1pm (0.877 gpm)
(i.e. orifice diam eter 0.381 m m (0.015”), nozzle diameter 1.016 m m (0.040”) and abra
sive (garnet) flow rate 7.56 g / s ( l lb /m in ). In this case, Equation 7.6 reduces to
„ = (7.7)
where c = 2 for the M etric unit system and 24.7 for the Inch unit system .
Equation 7.7 has been successfully applied in the following two case studies:
(1) C utting a 12 mm thick ceramic (A D 94) plate
As shown in Figure 7.32, the value of N m for AD 94 is 17.3. Using the rule-of-
thum b values for all th e other process parameters, the traverse speed is determined
w ith Equation 7.7 to be 0.69 m m /s for a separation cut and 0.19 m m /s for a smooth
cut(quality level = 3 ) . As shown in Figure 7.33 (a), the cut quality is as expected.
(2) Cutting an unidentified steel plate with a thickness of 26.8 mm.
The workpiece m aterial is suspected to be some kind of stainless steel. Thus,
the appropriate N m is estim ated to be 82. Equation 7.7 yields a 1.63 m m /s traverse
speed for a separation cut and 0.46 m m /s for a sm ooth cut. These cuts are also very
successful(see Figure 7.33 (b) ).
Equations 7.6 k. 7.7 have not incorporated the effects of stand-off distance, abra
sive type and abrasive size. As a general trend, the depth of cut is reduced as the
stand-off distance increases. However, variation of the stand-off within a small dis
tance, say, 3 mm, does not cause significant changes in the depth of cut. On the
other hand, variation o f the stand-off distance is usually unnecessary. A stand-off
distance of 1.5 mm can thus be used as a rule of thum b. Simila.rly, as indicated by
H ashish(1986, p297), variation of abrasive size within the ordinary range (mesh aG -
182
Figure 7.33 Cut surfaces of AD 94 (a) and an unidentified steel plate (b).
183
150) has little effect on the attainable m aximum traverse speed.
The abrasive type is an important parameter. Different types of abrasive may
result in great difference in depth of cut. The derived m odel has not incorporated
this effect because (1) the effect of abrasive type on the material removal m echanism
is not well understood and (2) the abrasive type is difficult to quantify and therefore
to incorporate into an analytical equation. However, Equations 7.6 and 7.7 are still
reliable when abrasives other than garnet are used. For instance, a recent study(K im
et al., 1993) has revealed that, in cutting a brittle m aterial, e.g. AD 85, alumina
abrasive produced 5 tim es the depth of cut as that achieved with garnet abrasive,
but when cutting a ductile m aterial such as AL 6061-T6, little difference between
these two abrasives was observed. Therefore, as a preliminary estim ation, Equations
7.6 and 7.7 can be directly applied for a ductile material cut with alumina abrasive.
Otherwise, the equations can be modified slightly by m ultiplying N m by a factor of 3
- 5 to account for the greater power of alumina abrasive in cutting brittle materials.
For other abrasive m aterials, the following m odification procedure can be used: (1)
Conduct a few cutting tests with the given abrasive material; (2) Calculate the value
of N m using Equation 7.5; (3) Divide the new value of N m by that given in Figure
7.32, leading to a correction factor for this specific abrasive; (5) M ultiply Nm by the
correction factor in Equations 7.5-7.7.
7.4 Sum m ary
An empirical m odel for AWJ kerf cutting has been form ulated using m ultiple re
gression analysis based on a large quantity of experim ental data. This model success
fully relates the depth of cut to the major AWJ process parameters. A “M achinability
Number” has been defined to characterize the m achinability of different materials by
AWJ cutting processes. Proper application of the “M achinability Number” greatly
184
simplifies the param eter selection procedure and elim inates or at least minimizes
tim e-consum ing and som etim es unaffordable trial cuts.
185
C H AP TER 8
CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS
The SEM study on the AWJ eroded samples of stainless steel 304 and alumina
(A D 99.5) has led to the conclusions that (1) Ductile m aterials are eroded by a cutting
mechanism at low incidence im pacts and by a deformation wear m echanism at nor
mal impacts; (2) Erosion m echanism s of brittle m aterials, especially polycrystalline
ceramics, are due to a com bination of plastic flow and network cracking (intergranu-
lar cracking for polycrystalline ceramics); (3) AWJ kerf cutting process is associated
with abrasive particle impacts at glancing angles; (4) Steps exist in the AWJ cutting
front, but their existence doesn’t significantly change the particle impact angles.
The network cracking has been attributed to stress wave induced fractures. An
elasto-plastic m odel has been proposed to include the material removal by both the
fractures and plastic flow. A crack network model has been derived to evaluate the
fractured volum e by relating the required fracture surface energy to the input stress
wave energy. T he stress wave energy for a normal im pact has been evaluated w ith a
modified H utchings’ equation. T he stress wave energy for a low incidence impact has
been derived in this study. The crack network m odels for these two cases are thus
obtained. A com plete elasto-plastic m odel for a single im pact at normal incidence
includes the crack network m odel and B itter’s deformation wear model. For a low
incidence im pact, it includes the corresponding crack network model and Finnie’s
m icrocutting m odel. The obtained elasto-plastic m odels have been verified by erosion
experim ents. Good correlation has been achieved. It is also found that the erosion
rate is strongly correlated with the grain size and fracture energy of target materials.
The study of the AWJ energy dissipation phenom ena concludes that (1) The
striation marks can be characterized by parabolic curves; (2) The cutting efficiency
186
along the cutting front is a function of the slope of the striation curve; (3) The critical
jet exit angle decreases as the workpiece thickness increases while its dependence on
the other parameters is insignificant.
An equation to predict the depth of cut for AWJ cutting operations was derived.
This equation correlates well w ith AWJ kerf cutting experim ents provided that process
parameters are selected within practical limits.
The application study in Chapter 7 successfully extends the theoretical results to
practical applications. The empirical m odel provides a relation between the depth
of cut and the major AWJ process parameters. The “M achinability Number” intro
duced in this stu dy provides a means to quantitatively evaluate the m achinability of
engineering m aterials by AWJ cutting, which also greatly simplifies the parameter se
lection procedure and eliminates or at least minimizes tim e-consum ing and som etim es
unaffordable trial cuts.
Although these studies have yielded informative and useful results, further studies
are recommended for more accurate m odels and better m ethodology. Chapter 3 has
revealed th at, under the AWJ condition, erosion of the target material (AD 99.5)
includes contributions from intergranular cracking and plastic flow. However, the
proportionality between these two m aterial removal com ponents needs to be quanti
fied. The im pact damage on brittle materials other than AD 99.5 also needs to be
investigated. The steps formed on the AWJ cutting front has been noticed. Yet the
mechanism of step formation remains a hypothesis, which requires modeling efforts
and experim ental verification. The cause of network cracking has been attributed
to impact induced stress waves. However, this hypothesis has not been supported
by direct evidences. It is recommended that small detonation experim ents be con
ducted using the same target material and the dam age m orphology be compared to
that caused by the particle impact under the AWJ condition. Photoelastic technique
may also be used on a transparent polvcrystalline ceramic to verify the stress wave
187
propagation and interaction with grain boundaries during the event of particle im
pact. The derived elasto-plastic model does not incorporate the effects of the type
and shape of the particle. The effects of the water droplet impact are also neglected.
To refine this m odel, these factors should be considered. Further m odeling efforts are
also needed to extend the current m odel to cover the cases where the im pact angle has
an interm ediate value (e.g., 45°). For non-crystalline brittle materials such as glass,
a m aterial flaw distribution parameter needs to be defined to replace the grain size
in the current model. The energy dissipation phenom ena in AWJ cutting have been
characterized in terms of the striation marks. Characterization of the tapered kerf
phenom ena is also neccessary. The striation marks are related to the instability of the
AWJ cutting process, which can be the topic of an extensive investigation. Although
the derived equation for depth of cut has been primarily applied to brittle materials,
it can be extended to cover ductile materials. The empirical equation for depth of
cut can be expanded to incorporate the effects of the typ e and size of abrasive. The
definition and application of the “Machinability Num ber” can be also extended to
other AWJ machining processes such as turning, piercing, milling, etc..
188
APPENDIX A
DETERMINATION OF AWJ PARTICLE VELOCITY
According to Equations ( 8 ) and (10) in the reference by Hashish (1989, p221), the
particle velocity in an abrasive waterjet can be calculated by:
1 + R V Pw
where Pw is water pressure, pw water density, R ratio of abrasive/w ater mass flow
rates, 77 m om entum transfer efficiency, Cv orifice efficiency and C y compressibility
coefficient. The values of 77, C„ and C v can be obtained from Figures (A .l) and (A.2)
(after H ashish’s Figures 2 and 9).
0 99 -
0.94 -
0.92 -
0.9 7 *
c
0 .9 6 -
om-
ui
0.9 5 - 0.6 ft -
0
c 0.84-
b?
0.94 -
c
0.9 2 - E
0
3
0.91 •
0.76 •
0.74 -
0.89 0.72
50 150 250 350 450 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 160 260 320
ProMur* (UPa) Pro**** (UPo)
Figure A Effect of water pressure Figure B M om entum transfer
on orifice efficiency and efficiency in abrasive waterjet
com pressibility coefficient. nozzles.
189
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION OF COMPLEX INTEGRALS
Following the procedure described by Miller & Pursey (1954), the integrals in
Equations 4.95 - 4.98 can be represented by a general form:
/= f° W (B.l)
The integrand <f> has singularities at the points £ = 1 , /i and p;), which are such
that 1 < (i < p-i. The range of integration is divided into six parts such that
M rn 'P a -« rp:\+° n
ii = / (j>dZ,i2 = / <j>d£,i3. - / <j>d£,iA = / (f>d£,i5 = / <j>d£,i6 = <$>d(
J (J *1 •'A* vp3—<5 ''P3+(5 •'I
(B.2)
where 5 is a sm all, F a large positive number. Each of the com ponent integrals is
evaluated along the real axis with the exception of F[, for which the path is chosen to
be a small sem i-circle above the pole £ = p3. (The contributions from the semi-circle
paths above the branch-points £ = 1 , fi vanish as the semi-circles shrink to zero.)
To evlauate i.\, is expanded into Laurent series in the neighborhood of if = p;;,
i.e.
m = Z M ( - nT + 1 t t z Jz m (B-3)
rc=0 »=1 P^J
where
A “ = i2tti
r - Jcp
I (<z — p.t) + dz (B A )
c n = —- f (z - p3)"-1 4>{z)dz (B.5)

ZTVZ J c p
190
where cp represents a closed path.
For n > 1 , (z —pi)"~l <j}{z) is analytic so that
[ (z - p 3)n~l4>(z)dz = 0
J cp
Therefore, C n = 0 for n > 1 such that
m = £ M ( - » )” + 7 % (S-6)
n=0 Z - P3
i, = /
•/cir
m i i = n=(J
£ -*» / ( f
Jcir
- + C, / -
Jar £ —
~~ ( B .7 )
The clockw ise semi-circle path above £ = p,3 is represented by the equation £ =
p.3 + <$ell! so that
r d£ i5e‘l . o\
L i ^ r r L ( B -8 )
/ (t-nT tt = f {6e"fi(Se'1) ( B .9 )
Vn+l
= -------- [1 — cos(n + 1W] (B.10)
n + 1
= 25, (B .U )
If the terms 0 ( £ ) are neglected, it is obtained
i , = 26 A a - triCi ( B . 12 )
Using the Residue Theorem, C\ — RESI DU E{( j> {p i)} . Since 26A„ is a real
number, therefore
= - ir R E S I D U E { < j) { p 3)} (B .13)
It can be shown that = I m ( i 6) = 0 such that
191
/•OO fl ft*
I m / (f)d£ = I m / <j)d£ + I m / <j)d£ — irRESIDUE{(j>[p:j)} (B .14)
Jo Jo J 1
192
A P P E N D IX C
COM PUTER PROG RAM S
Program 1 N u m erical Solutions o f th e Integrand P oles
T h is i s a s a m p le MathCAD p r o g r a m , w h ic h s o l v e s t h e f o l l o w i n g
e q u a tio n f o r a s o l u t i o n o f S t o b e r e a l and S > u ,
c o r r e s p o n d in g t o P o i s s o n 's r a t i o = 0 .2 2 .
For <? : = 0.22 (P o is s o n 's r a tio )
2 - (1 - o )
V- :z i.e . ^ = 1 .6 6 9 0 4 6
1 - 2 -cr
G iv e n a g u e s s v a l u e S .‘ = 1 . 1
g iv e n
to l := 0 .0 0 0 0 0 1 (to le r a n c e )
4
2 2 4 2 2 2"
,2 ' s " F * 16- S • S - 1 s - V- .
(e q u a tio n t o b e s o lv e d )
S := f i n d ( S )
S = 1 .8 2 5 2 8 2 (s o lu tio n )
C h eck
r 2 2i
[2 -3 - n J = 2 2 6 . 074142
4 f 2 I f " 2 2
16- S • [S “ 1J • Ls ~ ^ = 2 2 6 .0 7 4 1 4 2
193
P ro g ra m 2 N u m e r ic a l E v a lu a tio n o f th e F irst In teg ra l
T h is i s a s a m p le MathCAD p r o g r a m , w h ic h e v a l u a t e s t h e
f o l l o w i n g i n t e g r a l f o r P o i s s o n ' s r a t i o = 0 .2 2
For <7 := 0 .2 2 (P o is s o n 's r a t io )
1 - <7
2 - ------------- i.e . jx = 1 .6 6 9
1 - 2 • <7
p := 1 .8 2 5 3 ( th e in te g r a n d p o le )
*1
2 2 2 2
2 -i s - 1- > s - jx - jx - 2 •S J_
l := ds
1
2 2 2 2
_1_2- s - jx 4- s • s - 1- s - |X .
(T h e 1 s t te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .2 4 9 3
1
ft*
2 2 2
2- s - 1- s - jx — |jx - 2 'S _
l := ds
2
2 2 2 2
2•s - jx 4- S s - l-> s - jx J
(T h e 2nd te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .2 0 9 8 + 0 . 1 7 9 2 i
2
194
2 2
DO : = U 2 V ] -4 . P - i - 'j P " V- .
dp
2 2 2 2
NU : = P ' _2-->|p - 1-r p - |X - t a - P ,
NU
RES : =
DO
i.e . RES = - 0 . 9 3 3 6 ( r e s i d u e a t p = 1 .8 2 5 3 )
-H
:= Im "i + Im - ir- RES

.
—i
03
p = 3 .1 1 2 2 (s o lu tio n )
1
195
P rogra m 3 N u m e rica l E v a lu a tio n o f th e S eco n d In teg ra l
T h is i s a s a m p le MathCAD p ro g ra m , w h ic h e v a l u a t e s t h e
For <7 : = 0 .2 2 (P o is s o n 's r a tio )
1 - <7
[a : = 2 - ------------- i.e . (j. = 1 .6 6 9
1 - 2-cr
p := 1 .8 2 5 3 (th e in te g r a n d p o le )
2 2 2
s - jx
d s
2 2 2 2 2
S - (A j 4- s s - 1- s - p. J
(T he 1 s t te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
l = 0 .8 1 6 3 1
1
2 2 2
s - n -|A
i := ds
2
2 2 2 2 2
2 -s - p. 4- s s - 1- s - n JJ
(T he 2n d te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .4 5 2 3 + 0 .1 1 4 1 i
2
196
p "
2
[ 2 2' 2 2 2 2
DO : = .[2 -P ~ F . - 4 - p •\ p - l-> P “ F .
dp
2 2 2
NU : = WP - F 'F J
NU
RES : =
DO
i.e . RES = - 0 . 0 9 4 ( r e s i d u e a t p = 1 .8 2 5 3 )
p : = Im + Im - ir-RES
2
p = 1 .2 2 5 8 (s o lu tio n )
2
197
P ro g ra m 4 N u m e rica l E v a lu a tio n o f th e T h ird In te g ra l
T h i s i s a s a m p le MathCAD p r o g r a m , w h ic h e v a l u a t e s t h e
For o := 0.22 (P o is s o n 's r a tio )
l ~ o
2 ------------- i.e . (A = 1 .6 6 9
1 - 2-0
p := 1 .8 2 5 3 (th e in te g r a n d p o le )
2
4- s s - 1
ds
2
4- s ^
(T h e 1 s t te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = 0 .1905i
1
*F
2 2 2
ja - 4- s s - 1
ds
2 2
4- s ■\ s - 1-
(T h e 2n d te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .1 6 0 3 - 0 .3836i
2
198
2
DO : = - 4- p • > p - 1- P "
dp
DO = - 2 1 . 8 9 2 1
2 2
NU I* - 4- P J p - 1
NU
RES := —
DO
i.e . RES = 0 .7 3 5 3 ( r e s i d u e a t p = 1 .8 2 5 3 )
p := I m f i 1 + Im fi "1 - ir- RES

3 . 1 J L 2 J
p = - 2 .5 0 3 (s o lu tio n )
3
199
P rogra m 5 N u m erica l E v a lu a tio n o f th e F ou rth In teg ra l
T h is i s a s a m p le MathCAD p r o g r a m , w h ic h e v a l u a t e s t h e
F or <? : = 0 . 2 2 ( P o is s o n 's r a tio )
1 - cr
V
- :: 1 - 2-<7
i.e . [J. = 1 .6 6 9
p := 1 .8 2 5 3 ( th e in te g r a n d p o le )
2 2 2 2 2 2
s • s - 1- s - n + JJL - 2 s
ds
2 2 2 2 2
2•s - [X 4- s ^ s - l - \ s - [x .
(The 1 s t te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .0 0 3 4
1
2 2 2 2
s • s - 1- s -fx + [jx - 2- s _
d s
2 2
S - l-> s - jx j j
(T he 2nd te r m o f t h e i n t e g r a l )
i = - 0 .3 6 5 3 - 0 . 0 4 4 3 i
2
20 0
2 2 2 2
DO := — [, P - M - 4- p • > p - 1 m P - N
dp
r *
CO
2
CM
to
2
NU := p • 2 ’ ' p - l - i p - n + jx - 2- p JJ
NU
RES : =
DO
i.e . RES = 0 .2 4 6 7 ( r e s i d u e a t p = 1 .8 2 5 3 )
p : = Im + Im fi - 1T- RES
4 M L2
p = - 0 .8 1 9 3 (s o lu tio n )
4
201
P rogram 6 M u ltip le R e g r e ssio n A n a ly sis
This is a Ma t hCAD p r o g r a m , which p e r f o r m s the

m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s .
LH := READPRN(LH) ( r e a d i n g exp. d a t a of
dept h of c u t s )
X := READPRN( LMATRI X) ( r e a d i n g d a t a of the

p a r a m e t e r s e t t i n g s )
- 1
b : = ( X T ’ X) • ( XT - LH) ( co mpu t i ng the m u l t i p l e
r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s )
H := 249 (number of d a t a s e t s )
-1.63
1.25
0.687
b = 0.618 ( c o mp ut i n g r e g r e s s i o n
0.866 c o e f f i c i e n t s )
0.343
= 1 0 = 0.0234
= b = 1.25
( r e s u l t s of
= b = 0.687 r e g r e s s i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t s )
= 0.343
= - b = 0.618
= - b n = 0.866
202
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5>
T HL H : = b + b •X + b ‘X + b -X + b ' X + b •X
0 1 2 3 4 5
( c o m p u t i n g t h e p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s of dep t h of c u t s
in the l og. form)
SSE
SSE = Z :[< ( LH - THLH) MS E : =
N - 2
MS E = 4 . 1 2 2 - 1 0
i : = 0 . . N - 1 2"
SST : = 'l h - mean(LH)
. i _
SSTO : = 2s ST
RS Q : = 1
SSTO
RS Q = 0. 911 ( c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n )
203
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, W illiam F. and Stephen V. Hooker. “Rain Erosion Mechanisms in Brittle

M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 50, (1978): 11- 38.
Agbede, R. 0 .. “W atejet C utting System as an A lternative to Open Flame Cutting

in Long Wall Mining A pplications.” Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium
on Jet Cutting Technology, BH R A , Am sterdam , Holland, (O ct 31 - Nov 2, 1990):
473-478.
Ambrosini, L. and S. Bahadur. “Erosion of AISI 4140 S teel.” Wear, Vol. 117, (1987):
37-48.
Anand, K.. “Flux Effects in Solid Particle Erosion.” Wear, Vol. 118,(1987): 243-257.
Ashley, Steven. “Advanced Composites Take Flight.” Mechanical Engineering (O c

tober, 1991): 51-56.
Ayers, Gary. W .. “Principles of Waterjet C utting.” Tappi Journal {September, 1987):

91-94.
Barker, L.M .. “Short Rod K \ c M easurements of AUOwT Sym posium on the Fracture
Mechanics of Ceramics, V. 3, Plenum Press, New York, (1978): 483-494.
Behringer-Ploskonka, Catherine A.. “W aterjet Cutting — a Technology Afloat on a

Sea of P otential.” Manufacturing Engineering (November, 1987): 37-41.
Bellman, Jr. and Alan Levy. “Erosion M echanism in D uctile M etals.” Wear, Vol. 70,
(1981): 1-27.
Benchaita, M .T.. “Erosion of M etal Pipe by Solid Particles Entrained in a Liquid.”

Doctoral Dissertation. M assachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980.
Benchaita, M ohamad T .. “Erosion of a Two- Dimensional Channel Bend by a Solid-

Liquid Stream .” Transactions of the CSME, Vol. 9, No. 2, (1985): 98-104.
Benchaita, M., P. Griffith, and E. Rabinowicz. “Erosion of Metallic Plate by Solid

Particles Entrained in a Liquid J et.” Journal of Engineering fo r Industry, ASM E,
Vol. 105, (A ugust, 1983): 215-222.
Bertolotti, R.L.. “Fracture Toughness of Polycryst affine AI 0 O 3 .” Journal of the A m e r

ican Ceramic Society, Vol. 56, (Febuary, 1973): 107.
Bitter, J. G. A.. “A Study of Erosion Phenomenon — Part I.” Wear, Vol. 6, (1963):
5-21.
204
Bitter, J. G. A.. “A Study of Erosion Phenomenon — Part II.” Wear, Vol. 6, (1963):
169-190.
Bloomfield, E.J. and M .J. Yeomans. “Diajet — A Review of Progress.” Proceedings

of the 1st A sian Conference on Recent Advances in Jetting Technology, Singapore,
(M ay 7-8, 1991): 21-30.
Bowden, F. P. and J. E. Field. “The Brittle Fracture of Solids by Liquid Impact, by

Solid Impact, and by Shock.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A,
Vol.282, (1964): 331-352.
Breder, K., J. E. R itter, and K. Jakus, “Strength Degradation in Polycrystalline

Alum ina due to Sharp-Particle Impact Dam age.” Journal of the American Ceramic
Society, Vol. 71, No. 12, (1988): 1154-1158.
Brown, Richard. “T he Effect of Particle Shape and Size on Erosion of Aluminum

Alloy 1100 at 90° Im pact Angles.” Wear, Vol. 88, (1983): 181-193.
Brown, R., E. J. Jun and J. W . Edington. “Erosion of a-Fe by Spherical Glass

Particles.” Wear, Vol. 70, (1981): 347-363.
Brown, R. and J. W . Edington. “The M elting of M etal Targets during Erosion by

Hard P articles.” Wear, Vol. 71, (1981): 113-118.
Brown, R. and Jeff W. Edington. “Subsurface Defect Structure of Eroded Copper

Single C rystals.” Wear, Vol. 72, (1981): 377-381.
Brown, R. and Jeff W . Edington. “Occurrence of M elting During the Solid Particle
Erosion of Copper.” Wear, Vol. 73,(1981): 193-200.
Brown, R. and Jeff W . Edington. “Mechanisms of M aterial Loss during the Threshold
Period of Erosion by Solid P articles.” Wear, Vol. 77, (1982): 347-353.
Brown, R. and Jeff W. Edington. “Erosion of Copper Single Crystals under Condi
tions of 30" Incidence.” Wear, Vol. 79, (1982): 335-346.
Burnham, C. D. and T. J. Kim. “Statistical Characterization of Surface Finish Pro

duced by a High Pressure Abrasive W aterjet.” Proceedings o f the 5th American Water
Jet Conference, W JTA , Toronto, Canada, (August 29- 31, 1989): 165-176.
Burnham, C.. “Abrasive Waterjets Come of A ge.” Machine Design (May 10, 1990).
Burnham, Chip. “On the Beams: Lasers and Abrasive W aterjets.” Modern Machine
Shop (February, 1992): 81-87.
Carter, G., M. J. Nobes, and K. I. Arshak. “T he M echanism of Ripple Generation

on Sandblasted Ductile Solids.” Wear, Vol. 65, (1980): 151-174.
205
Chalmers, E. J.. “Effect of Param eter Selection on Abrasive W aterjet Perform ance.”
Proceedings of the 6th Am ericam W ater Jet Conference, W JT A , Houston, Texas,
(A ugust 24-27, 1991): 345-354.
Chao, C.C.. “Dynam ical Response of an Elastic Half Space to Tangential Surface
Loadings.” Journal of Applied Mechanics (Septem ber, 1960): 559-567.
Chao, C .C ., H .H. Bleich, and J. Sackman, “Surface Waves in an Elastic Half Space.”
Journal of Applied Mechanics (June 1961): 300-301.
Chaudhri, M. M. and S. M. Walley. “A High-Speed Photographic Investigation of

the Impact D am age in Soda-Lime and Borosilicate Glasses by Small Glass and Steel
Spheres.” Sym posium on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceram ics, V .3, Plenum Press,
New York, (1978): 349-364.
Cherry, J.T ., “T he Azim uthal and Polar Radiation Patterns Obtained from a Hori
zontal Stress Applied at the Surface of an E lastic Half Space.” Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, Vol. 52, No. 1, (January, 1962): 27-36.
Cheung, John S. T.. “Basic Equations for Water Jet O perations.” Proceedings of the
1st Asian Conference on Recent Advances in Jetting Technology, Singapore, (M ay
7-8, 1991): 37-42.
Christie, D. G. and H. Kolsky. “T he Fractures Produced in Glass and Plastics by the

Passage of Stress W aves.” Journal of the Society Glass Technology, Vol. 36, No. 168,
(1952): 65-73.
Christm an, T im othy and Paul G. Shewmon. “Erosion of a Strong Aluminum A lloy.”
Wear, Vol. 52, (1979): 57- 70): .
Cole, J. and J. Huth, “Stresses Produced in a H alf Plane by Moving Loads.” Journal
of Applied Mechanics (Decem ber, 1958): 433-436.
Cousens, A. K. and I. M. Hutchings. “A Critical Study of the Erosion of An Alu

minum Alloy by Solid Spherical Particles at Norm al Im pingem ent.” Wear, Vol. 88,
(1983): 335-348.
Dosanjh and Joseph A. C. Humphrey. “T he Influence of Turbulence on Erosion by a

Particle-Laden Fluid J e t.” Wear, Vol. 102, (1985): 309-330.
Emiliani, M. and R. Brown. “T he Effect of M icrostructure on the Erosion of Ti-6A1-

4V by Spherical Particles at 90° Impact A ngles.” Wear, Vol. 94, (1984): 323-338.
Engel, Peter A .. Impact Wear o f Materials. Am sterdam -O xford, New York: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, 1976.
Eringen, A.C. and J.C. Sam uels, “Impact and M oving Loads on a Slightly Curved
Elastic Half Space.” Journal o f Applied Mechanics (Decem ber, 1959): 491-498.
206
Evans, A. G.. “Im pact Damage Mechanics: Solid Projectiles.” Treatise on Materials
Science and Technology, Vol. 16, Erosion, C. M. Preece, Ed., New York: Academic
Press, (1979): 1-67.
Evans, A. G., M. E. Gulden, and M. R osenblatt. “Im pact Dam age in Brittle Materials
in the E lastic-P lastic Response R egim e.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
Seriers A, Vol. 361, (1978): 343-365.
Evans, A. G. and T. R. W ilshaw, “Q uasi-Static Solid Particle Dam age in Brittle

Solids — I. O bservations, Analysis and Im plications.” Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 24,
(1976): 939-956.
Evans, A. G. and T. R. Wilshaw. “Dynam ic Solid Particle Dam age in Brittle M ate
rials: an A ppraisal.” Journal of M aterial Science, V .12, (1977): 97-116.
Fairhurst, R. M. and M. F. Roff. “A Field A pplication of the DIA JET Abrasive

Water Jet C utting Technique.” Proceedings of the 9th Intem atioanl Sym posium on
Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA, Sendai, Japan, (O ctober 4-6, 1988): 399-409.
Fairhurst, R. M ., R. A. Heron, and D. H. Saunders. “‘D IA JE T ’ — a New Abrasive

Water Jet C utting Technique.” Proceedings of the 9th Intem atioanl Symposium on
Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA, Durham, England, (Septem ber, 1986): 395-402.
Finnie, Iain. “T h e M echanism of Erosion of D uctile M etalsCProceedings of 3rd U S

National Congress o f Applied Mechanics, ASM E, New York, (1958): 527-532.
Finnie, Iain, “Erosion of Surfaces by Solid P articles.” Wear, Vol. 3, (1960): 87-103.
Finnie, Iain. “Erosion by Solid Particles in a Fluid Stream .” Sym posium on Erosion
and Cavitation, ASTM S T P # 3 0 9 , (1962): 70-82.
Finnie, I, A. Levy, and D. H. M cFadden. “Fundam ental M echanisms of the Erosive

Wear of D uctile M etals by Solid P articles.” Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applica
tions, ASTM ST P 664, W. F. Alder, Ed., American Society for Testing and M aterials,
(1979): 36-58.
Finnie, I. and D. H. M cFadden, “On the Velocity Dependence of the Erosion of D uctile
Metals by Solid Particles at Low Angles of Indence.” Wear, Vol. 48, (1978): 181-190.
Finnie, I. and Y. H. Kabil. “On the Formation of Surface Ripples during Erosion.”
Wear, Vol. 8, (1965): 60- 69.
Follansbee, P. S., G. B. Singlair and J. G. W illiam s. “M odelling of Low Velocity

Particulate Erosion in Ductile Materials by Spherical Particles.” Wear, Vol. 74, (1981-
1982): 107-122 .
Franz, Norman C.. “Fluid Additives for Improving High Velocity Jet C utting.” P ro
ceedings of the 1st International Sym posium on Jet Cutting Technology, Conventry,
207
England, (April 5-7, 1972): A 7-93/A 7-104.
Gane, N. and M. J. Murry. “T he Transition from Ploughing to Cutting in Erosive

Wear.” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid and Liquid
Impact (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 40.
Gat, Nahum and W iden Tabakoff. “Some Effects of Temperature on the Erosion of
M etals.” Wear, Vol. 50, (1978): 85-94.
Graff, Karl F.. Wave Motion in Elastic Solids Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Gordon, A. Sargent, P. K. Mehrotra, and H. Conrad. “A Model for the Multiparticle

Erosion of Brittle Solids by Spherical Particles.” Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): 28-1/28-7.
Graham, D. H. and A. Ball. “Particle Erosion of Candidate Materials for Hydraulic

Valves.” Wear, Vol. 133, (1989): 125-132.
Green, Gabrielle M ., R. Taggart and D. H. Polonis. “Influence of Microstructure on

the Erosion of Plain Carbon Steels.” Metallography, Vol. 14, (1981): 191-212.
Guha, Jayanta. “High-Pressure Waterjet Cutting: An Introduction.” Ceramic Bul

letin, Vol. 69, No. 6, (1990): 1027-1029.
Gulden, M. E.. “Effect of Number of Impacts on Erosion in the Elastic-Plastic Re

sponse Regim e.” Study of Erosion Mechanisms of Engineering Ceramics — Seventh
Interim Technical Report, Under Contract N00014-73-C-0401, NRO-32-542, for Offlce
of Naval Research Department of the Navy, (March 1979).
Gulden, M. E.. “Solid-Particle Erosion of Highe-Technology Ceramics (Si N , Glass-

Bonded A T O j, and MgF ).” Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM
STP 664, W. F. Adler, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, (1979):
101 - 1 2 2 .
Gulden, M .E.. “Influence of Brittle to D uctitle Transition on Solid Particle Erosion

Behavior”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid and
Liquid Impact (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 31.
Hashish, M.. “T he Application of Abrasive Jets to Concrete C u ttin g.” Proceedings of

the 6th Intem atioanl Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, BH RA, the University
of Surry, U.K ., (April 6-8, 1982): 447-464.
Hashish, M.. “Steel Cutting with Abrasive W aterjets.” Proceedings of the 6th In
tem atioanl Sym posium on Jet Cutting Technology, BH RA , the University of Surry,
U.K ., (April 6-8, 1982): 465-487.
Hashish, M.. “A Modeling Study of M etal Cutting with Abrasive W aterjets.” Journal
of Engineering Materials and Technology, ASME, Vol. 106, (January, 1984): 83-100.
208
Hashish, M.. “Abrasive-W aterjet Cutting Studies.” Proceedings o f the 11th Con
ference on Production and Technology, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
(1984): 101-108.
Hashish, M .. “On the Modeling of Abrasive Waterjet C utting.” Proceedings of the

7th Intem atioanl Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, BH RA , O ttaw a, Canada,
(June 26-28, 1984): 249-265.
Hashish, M.. “Aspects of Abrasive-W aterjet (AW J) Performance O ptim ization.”

proceedings o f the 8th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA,
Durham, England, (1986): 297-308.
Hashish, M.. “An Improved M odel of Erosion by Solid Particle Im pact.” Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cam
bridge, UK, (Septem ber 7-10, 1987): 66-1/66-9.
Hashish, M.. “Turning with Abrasive-W aterjets — a First Investigation.” Journal of

Engineering fo r Industry, ASM E, Vol. 109, (November, 1987): 281-290.
Hashish, M.. “D ata Trends in Abrasive Waterjet M achining.” presented at Autom ated
Waterjet Cutting Processes, SM E, Detroit, Michigan, (M ay 10-11, 1988.
Hashish, M.. “Visualization of the Abrasive- Waterjet C utting Process.” Experimental

Mechanics, June, 1988): 159-169.
Hashish, M.. “Turning, Milling, and Drilling with Abrasive-W aterjets.” Proceedings
o f the 9th Intem atioan l Symposium on Jet Cuttinq Technoloqy, BH R A , Sendai, Japan,
October 4-6, 1988): 113-131.
Hashish, M.. “A M odel for Abrasive-W aterjet (AW J) M achining.” Journal of Engi
neering Materials and Technology, ASME, Vol. I l l , (April, 1989): 154-162.
Hashish, M.. “An Investigation of Milling with Abrasive-W aterjets.” Journal o f En
gineering f o r Industry, ASME, Vol. I l l , (May, 1989): 158-166.
Hashish, M.. “Pressure Effects in Abrasive Waterjet (AW J) M achining.” Journal of

Engineering Materials and Technology, ASME, Vol. I l l , (July, 1989): 221-228.
Hashish, M.. “Advances in Abrasive- Waterjet M achining.” Proceedings of the 1st

Asian Conference on Recent Advances in Jetting Technology, Singapore, (May 7-8,
1991): 43- 60.
Hashish, M.. “Cutting with High-Pressure Abrasive Suspension J e ts.” Proceedings

of the 6th A m ericam Water Jet Conference, W JTA , H ouston, Texas, (August 24-27,
1991): 439-455.
Hein, Le Khac and Paul G. Shewmon. “Effects of Hardness on the Solid Particle
Erosion M echanisms in AISI 1060 Steel.” Wear, Vol. 89, (1983): 291-302.
209
Hitchcox, Alan L.. “Vote of Confidence for Abrasive Waterjet C utting”, Metal
Progress (July, 1986): 33-42.
Hockey, B. J., , S. M. W iederhorn, and H. Johnson, “Erosion of B rittle Materials

by Solid Particle Im pact.” Symposium on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, V.3,
Plenum Press, New York, (1978): 379-402.
Hockey, B. J. and S. M. Wiederhorn. “Erosion of Ceramics Materials: the Role of

Plastic Flow .” Proceedings o f the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid
and Liquid Im pact (Septem ber, 1979): Paper 26.
Hooker, Stephen V. and W illiam F. Alder. “Particle Impact Regimes in Single Crys
tals.” Sym posium on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, Vol. 3, New York: Plenum
Press, (1978): 333-347.
Hockey, B. J. and S. M. W iederhorn. “Effect of M aterial Param eters on the Erosion

Resistance of B rittle M aterials.” Journal of M aterials Science, V ol.18, (1983): 766-
780.
Hunt, D. C., C. D. Burnham, and T. J. Kim, “Surface Finish Characterization in

M achining Advanced Ceramics by Abrasive W aterjet.” Proceedings of the 5th U.S.
W ater Jet Conference, W JT A , The University of California, Berkelly, (August 26-28,
1987): 169-174.
Hunter, S. C.. “Energy Absorbed by Elastic W aves during Im pact.” Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 5, (1957): 162-171.
Hutchings, I. M.. “Prediction of the Resistance of M etals to Erosion by Solid Parti

cles.” Wear, Vol. 35, (1975): 371-374.
Hutchings, I. M.. “Deform ation of Metal Surfaces by the Oblique Impact of Square
P lates.” International Journal o f Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 19, (1977): 45-52.
H utchings, I. M.. “Some Com m ents on the Theoretical Treatment o f Erosive Particle
Im pacts” , Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid and
Liquid Impact (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 36.
Hutchings, I. M.. “M echanisms of the Erosion of a M etals by Solid Particles.” Erosion:

Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664, W. F. Alder, Ed., American
Society for Testing and M aterials, (1979): 59-76.
Hutching, I. M.. “Energy Absorbed by Elastic Waves during Plastic Im pact.” Journal
of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 12, (1979): 1819-1824.
Hutchings, I. M .. “A Model for the Erosion of M etals by Spherical Particles at Normal

Incidence.” Wear, Vol. 70, (1981): 269-281.
Hutchings, I. M., R. E. W inter and J. E. Field. “Solid Particle Erosion of Metals:
210
the Removal of Surface M aterial by Spherical Projectiles.” Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Seriers A, Vol. 348, (1976): 379-392.
Ives, I. K. and A. W. Ruff. “Transmission and Scanning Elestron M icroscopy Studies

of Deform ation at Erosion Impact Sites.” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Wear o f Materials, St. Louis, Missouri, (April 25-28, 1977): 392- 400.
Ives, I. K. and A. W . Ruff. “Transmission and Scanning Elestron Microscopy Studies

of Deform ation at Erosion Impact S ites.” Wear, Vol. 46, (1978): 149-162.
Ives, L. K. and A. W . Ruff. “Electron M icroscopy Study of Erosion Dam age in

Copper.” Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664, W . F. Alder,
Ed., American Society for Testing and M aterials, (1979): 5-35.
Jablonowski, J., editor-in-chief. “Reduced Nozzle Wear in A W J.” Am erican M achinist

(Septem ber, 1989).
Jablonowski, J., editor-in-chief. “Abrasive- W aterjet Job Shop Thrives.” Am erican

M achinist (O ctober, 1989).
Jahanm ir, S.. “T he Mechanics of Subsurface Dam age in Solid particle Erosion.”
Wear, Vol. 61, (1980): 309- 324.
Johansson, Stefan, Fredric Ericson and Jan- Ake Schweitz. “Solid Particle Erosion
— A Statistical M ethod for Evaluation of Strength Properties of Sem iconducting
M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 115,(1987): 107-120.
Kim , T. J., H. A. Costantino, and J. Zeng. “An Experim ental Investigation of N oz
zle Wear in the Abrasive W aterjet System .” to be subm itted for presentation and
publication at the 7th American Water Jet Conference, 1993.
Kim, T. J., J. G. Syvia, and L. Posner, “Piercing and C utting o f Ceramics by Abrasive
W aterjet.” Preceedings of the W inter Annual Meeting of the Am erican Society of
Mechanical Engineers, the Production Engineering D ivision, Miami Beach, Florida,
(Novem ber 17-22, 1985): 19-24.
Kim, T .J. and J. Zeng, “M aterial Removal Kinetics of Advanced Ceramics by a

High Pressure Abrasive W aterjet.” Proceedings o f 1st International Sym posium of
the Society for the Advancement of Materials and Process Engineering, Chiba, Japan,
(Novem ber, 1989).
Kirchner, H. P. and R. M. Gruver. “Localized Impact Dam age in a Viscous M edium

(G lass).” Sym posium on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, V.3, Plenum Press,
New York, (1978): 365-377.
Klavuhn, J.G ., and C.B. Baker. “Industrial Needs Survey — Waterjet C u ttin g.”
Proceedings of the 5th Am erican Water Jet Conference, W JTA , Toronto, Canada,
(A ugust 29-31, 1989): 263-273.
211
Kolsky, H.. Stress Waves in Solids. New York: Dover Pub., 1963.
Kolsky, H. and A. C. Shearman, “Investigation of Fractures Produced by Transient

Stress W aves.” Research: a Journal of Science and its Applications, Vol. 2, (1949):
384-389.
Lamb, H.. “On the Propagation of Tremors over the Surface of an Elastic Solid.”
Philosophical Transactions o f the R oyal Society o f London, A203, (1904): 1-42.
Laitone, J. A.. “Aerodynam ic Effects in Erosion Process.” Wear, Vol. 56, (1979):
239-246.
Lankford, J.. “Com pressive Microfracture and Indentation Dam age in AUO^F S ym
posium on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, V .3, Plenum Press, New York, (1978):
245-255.
Levy, Alan V.. “T he Role of Plasticity in Erosion.” Proceedings o f the Fifth Interna
tional Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, UK, (Septem
ber 3-6, 1979): 39-1/39-10.
Levy, Alan V .. “T he Solid Particle Erosion Behavior of Steel as a Function of Mi

crostructure.” Wear, Vol. 68, (1981): 269-287.
Levy, Alan V. and Pauline Chik. “The Effects of Erodent Com position and Shape
on the Erosion o f Steel.” Wear, Vol. 89, (1983): 151-162.
Levy, Alan V. and Paul Yan. “Erosion of Steels in Liquid Slurries.” Wear, Vol. 98,
(1984): 163-182.
Lhymn, C. and P. Wapner. “Slurry Erosion of Polyphenylene Sulfide-Glass Fiber

C om posites.” Wear, Vol. 119, (1987): 1-11.
Lynn, Randall S.. “On the Particle Size Effect in Slurry Erosion.” Wear, Vol. 149,
(1991): 55-71.
M aji, J. and G. L. Sheldon. “M echanisms of Erosion of a Ductile M aterial by Solid

Particles.” Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664, W . F.
Alder, E d ., Am erican Society for Testing and M aterials, (1979): 136-147.
M alkin, S.. “Correlation between Solid Particle Erosion of M etals and Their M elting
Energies.” Wear, Vol. 68, (1981): 391-396.
Marshall, D. B. and A. G. Evans. “Particle Size D istribution Effects on the Solid

Particle Erosion of B rittle M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 71, (1981): 363-373.
Marshall, D. B ., A. G. Evans, M. E. Gulden, J. L. Routbort and R. 0 . Scattergood.

“Particle Size D istribution Effects on the Solid Particle Erosion of B rittle M aterials.”
Wear, Vol. 71, (1981): 363-373.
212
Marshell, D. B ., B. R Lawn, and A. G. Evans, “E lastic/P lastic Indentation Damage
in Ceramics: the Lateral Crack System .” Journal of the A m erican Ceramic Society,
Vol.65, N o.11, (November, 1982): 561-566.
M ashloosh, K . M. and T.S. Eyre. “Effect of Attack Angle in Abrasive Wear.” Metallic
Materials (Inst M et), Vol. 2, No. 7, (July, 1986): 426-430.
Mason, Frederick. “Water & Sand Cut It.” American M achinist (October, 1989):
85-95.
Material Properties Standard 990. Coors Ceramic Company, January, 1989.
M atsui, S., H. M atsumura, Y. Ikem oto, K. Tsukita, and H. Shim izu. “High Precision
Cutting M ethod for Metallic Materials by Abrasive W aterjet.” Proceedings o f the 10th
Intem atioanl Sym posium on Jet Cutting Technology, BH RA , Am sterdam , Holland,
(October 31 - November 2, 1990): 263-278.
M azurkiewicz, Marian. “Understanding Abrasive Waterjet Perform ance.” Machining

Techbology, SM E, Vol.2, N o .l, (First Quarter, 1991): 1-3.
Mehrotra, P.K ., G.A. Sargent, and H. Conrad, “A Model for the M ultiparticle Ero
sion of B rittle Solids by Spherical Particles.” Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, England, (Septem ber
3-6, 1979): 127-145.
Miller, D. S. and E. J. Bloomfield. “The Future for Abrasive Jet C utting.” Proceedings
o f the 6th A m e ric a m Water Jet Conference, W JTA, H ouston, Texas, (August 24-27,
1991): 561-574.
Miller, G. F. and H. Pursey. “The Field and Radiation Im pedance of Mechanical

Radiators on the Free Surface of a Semi- Infinite Isotropic Solid.” Proceedings of the
Royal Society o f London, Series A, Vol. 223, (1954): 521-541.
Miller, G .F. and H. Pursey. “On the Partition of Energy between Elastic Waves in
a Semi-Infinite Solid.” Proceedings of the Royal Society o f London, A 233, (January,
1955): 55-69.
M ills, D. and J. S. Mason. “Particle Size Effects in Bend Erosion.” Wear, Vol. 44,
(1977): 311-328.
Misra, Ambrish and Iain Finnie. “On the Size Effect in Abrasive and Erosive Wear.”
Wear, Vol. 65, (1981): 359-373.
Misra, Am brish and Iain Finnie. “Correlations between T w o-B ody and Three-Body
Abrasion and Erosion of M etals.” Wear. Vol. 68, (1981): 33-39.
Morrison, C. T. and J. T. Routbort. “Solid Particle Erosion of M ullite.” Wear, Vol.

105, (1985): 19-27.
213
Morrison, C. T ., J. L. Routbort, and R. 0 . Scattergood. “Solid Particle Erosion of
M ullite.” Wear, Vol. 105, (1985): 19-27.
Morrison, C. T. and R. 0 . Scattergood. “Erosion of 304 Stainless Steel.” Wear, Vol.

I l l , (1986): 1-13.
M ortimer, John. “New Technology Brings Quality to M anufacturing.” The Industrial

Robot (June, 1987): 103-104.
Muller, Stefan. “Robots Optim ise W aterjet Cutting at Ford G enk.” The Industrial
Robot (June, 1988): 97-100.
M urugesh, Laxman and Ronald 0 . Scattergood. “Effect of Indentation Load on

Fragm entation of Erosion Particle T ip s.” Wear, Vol. 141, (1990): 115-124.
Naerheim, Yngve. “M aterial Removal M echanism of Ni(200) W hen Eroded by a

Slurry at 30° Incidence.” Wear, Vol. 105, (1985): 123-130.
N aim , M. and S. Bahadur. “T h e Significance of the Erosion Param eter and the
M echanisms of Erosion in Single- Particle Im pacts.” Wear, Vol. 94, (1984): 219-232.
Naim . M. and S. Bahadur. “Work Hardening in Erosion Due to Single-Particle

Im pacts.” Wear, Vol. 98, (1984): 15-26.
Naylor, M. G. S. and Page, T. F.. “T he Effect of Temperature and Load on the Inden
tation Hardness Behavior of Silicon Carbide Engineering Ceramics.” Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact, Cambridge,
UK, (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 32.
Neem a, M. L. and P. C. Pandey. “Erosion of Glass W hen Acted upon by an abrasive

J et.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Wear of Materials, St. Louis,
Missouri, (April 25-28, 1977): 387-391.
Neilson, J. H. and A. Gilchrist. “Erosion by a Stream of Solid Particles.” Wear, Vol.

1 1 ,(1 9 6 8 ): 111-122.
Ninham , Andrew. “The Effect of M echanical Properties on Erosion.” Wear, Vol. 121,
(1988): 307-324.
Norwood, J. A.. “New A daptations and Applications for Waternife C utting.” Proceed
ings of the 7th Intem atioanl Sym posium on Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA, O ttawa,
Canada, (June 26-28, 1984): 369-388.
Pain, H. J.. The Physics of Vibrations and Waves. New York: John W iley h Sons
Ltd, 1968.
Patterson, Jennifer K. and Alan V. Levy. “M ethods for Characterization of Erosion

by Gas-Entrained Solid Particles.” Wear, Vol. 91, (1983 ): 333-347.
214
Posner, Louis A. and T. J. Kim. “M achining of Ceramics by Abrasive W aterjet.”
International W ater Jet Symposium, Beijing, China, (Septem ber 9-11, 1987): 4-45/4-
58.
Pursey, H.. “T h e M echanical Impedance of Simple Sources in an Isotropic Solid.”

British Journal o f Applied Physics, Vol. 4, No. 1, (1953): 12-20.
Preece, C., editor. “Treatise on Materials Science and Technology.” Erosion, V ol.16,
Academic Press, New York, 1979.
Rabinowicz, Ernest. “T h e Wear Equation for Erosion of M etals by Abrasive Par

ticles.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Erosion by Liquid and
Solid Impact, Cam bridge, UK, (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 38.
Rao, P. Veerabhadra, Stanley G. Young and Donald H. Buckley. “ Morphology of

Ductile Metals Eroded by a Jet of Spherical Particles Im pinging at Normal Incidence.”
Wear, Vol. 85, (1983): 223-237.
Rao, P. Veerabhadra, S. G. Young and D. H. Buckley. “M orphology of an Aluminum

Alloy Eroded by a Normally Incident Jet of Angular Erodent Particles.” Wear, Vol.
92, (1983): 31-49.
Reddy, A. Venugopal and G. Sundararajan. “Erosion Behaviour of Ductile Materials

with a Spherical Non-Friable Erodent.” Wear, Vol. I l l , (1986): 313-323.
Rickerby, D.G. and N.H . M acM illan, “M echanisms of Solid Particle Erosion in Crys
talline M aterials.” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Erosion by Solid
and Liquid Impact, Cambridge, UK, (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): Paper 29.
Rickerby, D. G. and N. H. M acMillan. “The Erosion of Alum inum by Solid Particle

Impingement at Normal Incidence.” Wear, Vol. 60, (1980): 369-382.
Rickerby, D. G. and N. H. M acMillan. “The Erosion of Alum inum by Solid Particle

Impingement at Oblique Incidence.” Wear, Vol. 79, (1982): 171-190.
Rinehart, John S.. “Stress Transients in Solids.” U niversity of Colorado, 1975.
R itter, John E .. “Erosion Dam age in Structural Ceram ics.” Materials Science and
Engineering, Vol. 71, (1985): 195-201.
R itter, J. E., K. Jakus, M. Viens, and K. Breder. “Effect of Microstructure on

Impact Dam age of Polycrystalline Alum ina.” Proceedings o f the Seventh International
Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, UK, (Septem ber 7-10,
1987): 55-1/55-6.
Ritter, J. E, L. Rosenfeld, and K. Jakus. “Erosion and Strength Degradation in

Alum ina.” Wear, Vol. 111,(1986): 335-346.
215
R itter, J. E., P. Strzepa, K. Jakus, L. Rosenfeld, and K. J. Buckman. “Erosion
Dam age in Glass and Alum ina.” Journal of the Am erican Ceramic Society, Vol. 67,
No. 11, (Novem ber, 1984): 769-774.
Routbort, J. L., R. 0 . Scattergood and A. P. L. Turner. “T he Erosion of Reaction-

Bonded SiC.” W ear, Vol. 59, (1980): 363-375.
Ruff, A. W . and S. W . W iederhorn. “Erosion by Solid Particle Im pact.” Treatise on

M aterials Science and Technology, Vol. 16, Erosion, C. M. Preece, Ed., New York:
Academic Press, (1979): 69-126.
Sarfarazi, M.. “A M icromechanical M odel of Microcracking for B rittle Polycrystalline

Solids.” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 1, (1989): 1-20.
Sargent, G. A., P. K. M ehrotra, and H. Conrad. “M ultiple Erosion of Pyrex G lass.”

Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, ASTM STP 664, W . F. Alder, Ed.,
American Society for Testing and M aterials, (1979): 77-100.
Sargent, Gordon A ., P. K. Mehrotra, and H. Conrad. “A M odel for the Multiparticle

Erosion of B rittle Solids by Spherical P articles.” Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact (Septem ber 3-6, 1979): 28-1/28-7.
Sarkar, P. K. and P. C. Pandey. “Som e Investigations on Abrasive-Jet M achining.”

IE (I) Joum al-M E, Vol. 56, (May, 1976): 284-287.
Scattergood, R. O. and J. L. Routbort. “Velocity and Size Dependence of the Erosion

Rate in Silicon.” Wear, Vol. 67, (1981): 227-232.
Sharma, Sunita. “Solid Particle Erosion of Steels at 30° Impact Angle.” Master
Thesis, The University of Rhode Island, 1984.
Shayler, P. J. and K. H. Yee. “Erosion of AISI 303 Steel by Fine (about 5 /im and
about 50 p m ) Ash P articles.” Wear, Vol. 98, (1984): 127-140.
Sheldon, G. L. and I. Finnie. “On the D uctile Behavior of Nom inally Brittle Materials
during Erosion C utting.” Journal of Engineering f o r Industry, ASM E, (November,
1966): 387-391.
Sheldon, G. L. and I. Finnie. “The M echanism of M aterial Removal in the Erosive

C utting of B rittle M aterials.” Journal of Engineering fo r Industry, ASM E, (Novem
ber, 1966): 393-400.
Sheldon, G. L. and Ashok Kanhere. “An Investigation of Im pingem ent Erosion Using
Single Particles.” Wear, Vol. 21, (1972): 195-209.
Shetty, D. K., I. G. Wright and A. H. Clauer. “Effects oi Com position and Mi
crostructure on the Slurry Erosion of W C-Co Cerm ets.” Wear, Vol. 114, (1987):
1-18.
216
Shewmon, Paul G.. “M echanics of Erosion of Alum inum A lloys.” Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, UK,
(Septem ber 3-6, 1979): 37-1/37-5.
Shewmon, Paul G.. “Particle Size Threshold in the Erosion of M etals.” Wear, Vol.
68, (1981): 253-258.
Shida, Y. and H. Fujikawa. “Particle Erosion Behavior of Boiler Tube Materials at

Elevated Tem perature.” Wear, Vol. 103, (1985): 281-296.
Shipway P. H. and I. M. Hutchings. “The Influence of Particle Properties on the

Erosion Wear of Sintered Boron Carbide.” Wear, Vol. 149, (1991): 85-98.
Shukla, A., D. C. Holloway and W. W ilson. “Influence of Nose Shape of Ceramic Pro
jectiles on Dam age in Granite Rock.” Proceedings of the 5th International Congress
on Experim ental M echanics, Montreal, 1984.
Sm eltzer, C. E., M. E. Gulden, and W. A. Com pton. “M echanisms of M etal Removal

by Im pacting D ust P articles.” Journal of Basic Engineering (Septem ber, 1970): 639-
654.
Source Book on Industrial Alloy and Engineering Data. Ohio: American Society for
M etals, 1978.
Sparks, A. J. and I. M. Hutchings. “Transitions in the Erosion Wear Behaviour of a

Glass Ceramic.” Wear, Vol. 149, (1991): 99-110.
Srinivasan, Sreeram and Ronald 0 . Scattergood. “Effect of Erodent Hardness on

Erosion of B rittle M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 128, (1988): 139-152.
Steinhauser, John, “Abrasive Waterjets: the C utting Edge of Technology”, Cutting

Tool Engineering (O ctober, 1986): 37-39.
Stringer, John and Ian G. Wright. “Some Views on the Formation of Ripples on
Eroded Surfaces.” Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Erosion by
Liquid and Solid Impact, Cambridge, UK, (Septem ber 7-10, 1987): 47-1/47-7.
Summers, D. A ., J. Yao and S. Yazici, “Basic Considerations in Waterjet C utting.”

Proceedings o f the 1st Asian Conference on Recent Advances in Jetting Technology,
Singapore, (M ay 7-8, 1991): 93-99.
Summers, D. A ., J. Yao and W.-Z. Wu. “ A Further Investigation of DIAjet cut

tin g.” Proceedings of the 10th International Sym posium on Jet Cutting Technology,
Am sterdam , the Netherlands, (Oct 31 - Nov 2, 1990): 181-192.
Sundararajan, G. and P. G. Shewmon. “A New M odel for the Erosion of M etals at

Normal Incidence.” W ear, Vol. 84, (1983): 237-258.
217
Sundararajan, G.. “T he Effect of Temperature on Solid Particle Erosion.” Wear, Vol.
9 8 ,(1 9 8 4 ): 141-149.
Sundararajan, G.. “A Comprehensive Model for the Solid Particle Erosion of Ductile
M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 149,(1991): 111-127.
Sundararajan, G.. “T he Depth of Plastic Deformation beneath Eroded Surfaces: the

Influence of Impact Angle and Velocity, Particle Shape and Material Properties.”
Wear, Vol. 149, (1991): 129-153.
Swain, M. V .. “Microcracking Associated with the Scratching of B rittle Solids.”

Sym posium on the Fracture Mechanics o f Ceramics, V.3, Plenum Press, New York,
(1978): 257-272.
Swanson, G .D.. “Fracture Energies of Ceramics” Journal of the Am erican Ceramic

Society, Vol. 55, (January, 1972): 48-49.
Tan, D. K. M.. “A M odel for the Surface Finish in Abrasive W aterjet C utting.”
Proceedings of the 8 th Intem atioanl Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA,
Durham, England, (Septem ber 9-11, 1986): Paper 31.
Tabor, D.. The Hardness o f Metals. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.
Tilly, G. P.. “Erosion Caused by Airborne P articles.” Wear, Vol. 14, (1969): 63-79.
Tilly, G. P.. “A Two Stage Mechanism of D uctile Erosion.” Wear, Vol. 23, (1973):
87-96.
Tilly, G. P.. “Erosion Caused by Impact of Solid Particles.” Treatise on Materials

Science and Technology, Vol. 13, Wear, D. Scott, Ed., New York: Academ ic Press,
(1979): 287- 319.
W ada, Shigetaka. “Effect of the Fracture Toughness of Impact Particles on the Ero
sion Wear of Ceram ics.” Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and P ow der M etal
lurgy, Vol. 38, (1991): 55-56.
Wada, S. and N. W atanabe. “Solid Particle Erosion of Brittle Materials (Part 4) —

The Erosion Wear of Thirteen Kinds of Commercial AloOj Ceramics.” Yogyo-Kyokai-
Shi, Vol. 95, No. 9, (1987): 5-10.
W ada, Shigetaka and Naoyoshi W atanabe. “Solid Particle Erosion of Brittle Materials
(Part 5) — The Effect of Impingement Angle.” Journal of the Ceramic Society of
Japan, International Edition, Vol. 95, (1987): 925-932.
W ada, Shigetaka, Naoyoshi W atanabe and Toshihiko Tani. “Solid Particle Erosion of
B rittle Materials (Part 6) — The Erosion Wear of AI 2 O 3 —S i C C om posites.” Journal
of the Ceramic Society of Japan, International Edition, Vol. 96, (1988): 113-119.
218
(Part 7) — The Erosion Wear o f Commercial Ceramic Tools.” Journal of the Ceramic
Society of Japan, International Edition, Vol. 96, (1988): 323-325.
(Part 8) — The Erosion Rate of ZrOn Ceram ics.” Journal of the Ceramic Society of
Japan, International Edition, Vol. 96, (1988): 587-590.
Wada, Shigetaka, Naoyoshi W atanabe and Toshihiko Tani. “Solid Particle Erosion of
B rittle M aterials (Part 9) — The Erosion Wear of AI 2 O 3 —S i C Particle C om posites.”
Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan, International Edition, Vol. 96, (1988): 737-
740.
Walley, S. M ., J. E. Field and P. Yennadhiou. “Single Solid Particle Impact Erosion

Dam age on Polypropylene.” Wear, Vol. 100, (1984): 263-280.
W iederhorn, S. M ., B. J. Hockey. “Effect of M aterial Param eters on the Erosion

Resistance of Brittle M aterials.” Journal of M aterials Science, Vol. 18, (1983): 766-
780.
W iederhorn, S. M. and B. R. Lawn. “Strength Degradation of Glass Im pacted with

Sharp Particles: I, Annealed Surfaces.” Journal of the A m erican Ceramic Society,
Vol. 62, (Jan.-Feb., 1979): 66-70.
W inter, R .E. and I.M . Hutchings, “Solid Particle Erosion Studies Using Single An
gular P articles.” Wear, Vol. 29, (1974): 181-194.
W inter, R. E. and I. M. Hutchings. “T he Role of Adiabatic Shear in Solid Particle

Erosion.” W ear, Vol. 34, (1975): 141-148.
W oods, Richard D .. “Screening of Surface Waves in Soil.” Journal of the Soil Mechan
ics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
(July, 1968): 951-979.
Young, J. P. and A. W . Ruff. “Particle Erosion M easurem ents on M etals.” Journal

of Engineering Materials and Technology (April 1977): 121-125.
Yust, C. S. and R. S. Crouse. “M elting at Particle Impact Sites during Erosion of

Ceram ics.” Wear, Vol. 51, (1978): 193-196.
Zahavi, Josephand and George F. Schm itt, Jr.. “Solid Particle Erosion of Reinforced
Com posite M aterials.” Wear, Vol. 71, (1981): 179-190.
Zahavi, Josephand and George F. Schm itt, Jr.. “Solid Particle Erosion of Polymeric
Coatings.” Wear, Vol. 71, (1981): 191-210.
Zeng, J., R. Heine, and T.J. Kim , “Characterization of Energy Dissipating Phe-
nomenan in Abrasive Waterjet C utting.” Proceedings of the 6 th American W ater Jet
219
Conference, H ouston, Texas, (A ugust 24-27, 1991): 163-177.
Zeng, J. and T .J. Kim. “A Study of B rittle M echanism Applied to Abrasive Wa
terjet Processes.” Proceedings o f the 10th In tem atioan l Sym posium on Jet Cutting
Technology, B H R A , Am sterdam , the Netherlands, (O ctober 31 - Novem ber 2, 1990):
115-133.
Zeng, J. and T .J. Kim. “M aterial Removal of Polycrystalline Ceramics by a High

Pressure Abrasive W aterjet — a SEM Study.” International Journal of W ater Jet
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, (1991): 65-71.
Zeng, J. and T. J. Kim. “An E lasto-Plastic M odel of B rittle Material Rem oval in
Abrasive W aterjet C utting.” subm itted for publication in th e Journal of Engineering
M aterials and Technology, 1992.
Zeng, J. and T . J. Kim. “Developm ent of an Abrasive W aterjet Kerf C utting Model
for B rittle M aterials.” accepted for presentation at the 11th International Conference
on Jet C utting Technology and publication in its proceedings, St Andrews, Scotland,
(Septem ber 8-10, 1992).
Zeng, J., T. J. Kim, and R. J. W allace. “Q uantitative Evaluation of M achinability

in Abrasive W aterjet M achining.” subm itted for presentation at the Sym posium on
Precision M achining at the 1992 ASME W inter Annual M eeting and publication in
ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Industry.
Zu, J. B ., G. T. Burstein and I. M. Hutchings. “A Com parative Study of the Slurry

Erosion and Free-Fall Particle Erosion of A lum inum .” Wear, Vol. 149, (1991): 73-84.
220

Mechanisms of Brittle Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Mechanisms of Brittle Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanisms of Brittle Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

300 N o r t r Z e e b R o a d A n n A rb o r V H a s 'Q Q ' 346 U S A

3 1 3 761 -4 BOO 6 0 0 5 3 '- 0 6 0 0

permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

M echanism s o f b rittle m aterial erosion associated w ith

Zeng, Jiyue, P h.D .

University of Rhode Island, 1992

W ITH HIGH PR ESSU R E ABRASIVE W ATER JET PRO CESSING

— A M ODELING AND APPLICA TIO N ST U D Y

A DISSERTATION SU BM ITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLM ENT OF THE

REQUIREM ENTS FO R THE D E G R EE OF

M ECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND A PPLIED MECHANICS

UN IVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

D issertation Com m ittee

An introduction on the developm ent history and the state-of-the-art of abrasive

waterjet technology is presented. An intensive review of literature is given on th

cracking occurs along grain boundaries. Based on this observation, an elasto-plastic

phenom enon is attributed to fractures caused by impact induced stress waves. A

in abrasive waterjet cutting are characterized. Consequently, the individual particle

“M achinability Number” is applied to the parameter prediction of abrasive waterjet

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIG URES ........................................................................................................................ ix

NO M EN CLA TU RE .................................................................................................................. xvii

1.1 Introduction of Abrasive Waterjet Technology 1

1.1.1 H istorical Review 1

1.1.2 Abrasive Waterjet Technology State of the Art 5

1.2 Statem ent of the Problem 18

1.3 Approach of the Study 18

CH A PTER 2 A LITER A TU R E REVIEW OF EROSION STUDIES ..................... 22

2.1 D uctile M aterial Erosion 20

2.2 B rittle M aterial Erosion 22

2.3 Sum m ary 58

CH A PTER 3 A SEM ST U D Y ON AWJ EROSION M ECHANISM S .................... 63

3.1 AW J Erosion Experiment Descriptions 63

3.2 SEM Observations 66

3.2.1 Erosion by Sweeping 66

3.2.2 Erosion by Grooving 77

3.2.3 Erosion by Cutting 84

3.3 Conclusions and Discussions 92

CH A PTER 4 SINGLE PARTICLE M ATERIAL REM OVAL M ODELS .............. 97

4.2 A Crack Network M odel 103

4.3 Normal Impact M odeling 106

4.3.1 Stress W ave Energy Evaluation 106

4.3.2 M aterial Removal M odel 110

4.3.3 Verification with Erosion Experim ents 111

4.3.4 Sum m ary 115

4.4 Low Incidence M odeling 117

4.4.1 Stress Wave Energy Evaluation 117

4.4.2 M aterial Removal M odel 128

4.4.3 Verification w ith Erosion Experim ents 130

4.4.4 Discussions 131

4.5 Summary 134

C H A PTER 5 E N E R G Y DISSIPATIO N PH ENOM ENA 135

5.1 Characterization of Energy Dissipation Phenom ena 135

5.2 Critical Jet Exit Angle 143

5.3 Summary 147

4.2 Circumferential cracks outside a central undamaged zone produced by the im