Effect of Process Parameters on Machining Time in Abrasive-Waterjet

Cutting of Marble
Adithya Lokesh Hegde,
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, PG Studies,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
B. M. S. College of Engineering,
P. O. Box No 1908, Bull Temple Road, Bangalore – 560 019 Karnataka
adithyahegdekmt@gmail.com

processing a various range of materials [2]. In

Abstract – Abrasive Waterjet is an effective
technology in manufacturing industry for
processing of various materials. Marble has a
wide range of applications in domestic,
commercial and industrial construction, thus
there is a need to investigate the cutting of marble
using Abrasive Waterjet. This paper has
investigated the effect of process parameters on
machining time in Abrasive Waterjet cutting of
Marble. Two different process parameters are
undertaken for this study; Water Pressure and
Abrasive Mass Flow rate. Experiments are
conducted by varying the individual process
parameters at different levels while keeping all
other remaining parameters constant. Graphs are
plotted to show the effect of individual
parameters on machining time.
Keywords— Abrasive mass flow rate, Abrasive
Water-jet, machining time, marble, water
pressure.
I. INTRODUCTION
Abrasive water-jet cutting [AWJC] has
emerged as a wonderful technology with many
advantages over some other non-traditional
machining technologies, such as no thermal
distortion, high machining versatility, minimum
stresses on the work piece, high flexibility and
small cut-ting forces. [1]. It is found to be
superior to many other cutting techniques and
has extensive applications in industry in
this method, water serves primarily as an
accelerating medium while the abrasive
particles take over the role of material removal.
A stream of small abrasive particles is
introduced in the water-jet in such a manner
that water-jet's momentum is partly transferred
to the abrasive particles. Water accelerates
large quantities of abrasive particles to a high
velocity and to produces a high coherent jet.
This jet is then directed towards workpiece to
perform cutting [3]. It is also a cost effective
and environment friendly technique which can
be used to cut particularly hard to cut materials
like ceramics and composite materials [4],[5].
However it has also some disadvantages like
loud compressor and water-jet noises and
splashes of abrasive-water making a mess
around the workplace. At high transverse
speeds it produces tapered edges on the kerf
[6],[7].
Every process has its own performance
characteristics. Here too the AWJM is effected
by its process parameters [8],[9]. There are
many associated parameters in this technique.
They are water pressure, water-jet diameter,
nozzle traverse speed, number of passes,
standoff distance, impact angle, nozzle
diameter, nozzle length, abrasive mass flow
rate, abrasive particle diameter, abrasive
particle shape and abrasive particle hardness.
Among these parameters water pressure,
abrasive flow rate, jet traverse speed, standoff
distance and diameter of focusing nozzle are of system produces no dust fumes etc. thereby
great importance but precisely controllable significantly improving working conditions and
[10], [11]. The main process quality measures environment.
include attainable depth of cut, top kerf width,
bottom kerf width, kerf taper, surface III. EXPERIMENTAL
roughness, surface waviness and material METHODOLOGY
removal rate and machining time. There are
many techniques for improving kerf quality and
A. Material and dimensions
surface finish [10], [11], [12], [13].

In this paper machining time is taken as a The material used for present study is
performance characteristic as it’s of great Makrana white Marble. The marble is a brittle
importance in industrial areas where marbles material and has the various applications as a
are processed. No particular research is done in building/construction material. The dimensions
finding out the machining time of the marble by of these Makrana white marble were 680mm ×
varying the process parameters like Water 50mm × 15mm. The Chemical composition,
pressure and Abrasive mass flow rate. More Mechanical and physical properties of Makrana
work is required in finding out the machining white Marble are shown in Table I & II.
time of marble by varying these above
mentioned parameters. This paper assesses the Table I Chemical Composition Makrana White
effect of these parameters on machining time of Marble
Marble. Lowest machining time for marble is
found out by experimentation in this research. Elements Weight %
Lime (Cao) 38-42%
II. OBJECTIVE Silica (Sio2) 20-25%
Alumina (Al2O3) 2-4%
Because of the present problems
encountered in conventional cutting of marble, Other oxides like Na and 1.5-2.5%
Mg
attempts can be made for cutting of marble
Loss on Ignition (LOI) 30-32%
using non-traditional machine process such as
EDM, WEDM, ultrasonic, Water-jet, Abrasive
Water Jet, laser beam machining etc. Problem
with EDM, WEDM, is that work piece need to
be conductive, while marble is an insulator, so Table II Mechanical and Physical Properties of
these cannot be applied. Ultrasonic machining Makrana White Marble
is a slow and time consuming process. Thus
Abrasive Water-jet is employed in this current Hardness 3-4 on Moh’s Scale
study and the minimum machining time is Density 2.5-2.65 Kg/m3
found out. Precise shape cutting can be Compressive strength 1800-2100 Kg/cm2
achieved with a good surface finish. AWJ cut Water Absorption Less than 1%
kerf width is much smaller than that produced Porosity Quite low
by traditional sawing technologies. AWJ Weather Impact Resistant
cutting systems can be easily integrated with
existing CAD/CAM systems, thereby greatly
optimizing the cutting of intricate profile. The
 B. Equipment

Model of Abrasive water-jet used in research is

MAXIEM 1515 by OMAX Corporation. It is
useful in job shops and metal service centers. The
robust 1515 machine can productively cut stock
up to 1.5 meters by 1.5 meters from a broad range
of materials and thicknesses. It comes loaded
with Windows 8 and latest Intelli-Max Software
Suite. This employs a 3,450 bar direct drive pump
that regulates the electricity input to the motor to
reduce energy costs. This increased efficiency
enables the pump to deliver more power at the
cutting nozzle, no matter the pressure, than
intensifier designs at any pump power rating. It is
a 5-axis machine with maximum of 520 taper
option. It has a Footprint of 2819mm*3302mm.
Fig 2. Side view of MAXIEM 1515 abrasive
Height of 3200mm and with an empty tank, a
water-jet machine.
weight of 1361kg. Work envelope – X-Y Cutting
Envelope of 1575mm*1575mm and a Z-axis
C. Experimental Design
travel of 305mm. Table size is
There are many process parameters effecting
2235mm*1727mm. Speed of 12700mm/min,
the machine time of abrasive water-jet cutting of
Linear Positional Accuracy of +/-0.0762mm and
marble. But two important parameters, Water
a Repeatability of +/-0.0254mm and Ballbar
pressure and Abrasive mass flow rate have been
Circularity of +/-0.1270mm.
taken as control parameters and are shown in
below table.

Table III. Levels of parameters used in AWJ

cutting of Marble

AWJ Units Symbol Levels

Cutting 1 2 3 4
parameter

Water psi A 15000 20000 25000 30000

Pressure

Abrasive g/min B 200 301.7 405.4 599.4

flow rate

The parameters and their levels are selected based

on the pilot study and the literature review. Rest
of the parameter kept as constant which are
Fig 1. Front view of MAXIEM 1515 shown in table IV. The parameters and levels
abrasive water-jet machine.
were selected primarily based on the literature
review of some studies that had been documented
on AWJ machining on graphite/epoxy laminates
[14], Kevlar composite [15], ceramic materials
[16], structural metal alloys [17], metallic coated
sheet steels [18], fibre-reinforced plastics [19]
and Cast iron [20]. The preliminary experiments
were carried out to find out the minimum value of
water pressure as well as abrasive flow rate at
which through cutting can take place. In the
for machining is noted as 1.211min. Four graphs
are plotted with four levels of abrasive flow rates
kept constant and varying pressures from 15000
psi to 30000psi.
Graph 1. Machining time versus water pressure
at 200g/min abrasive mass flow rate.
at 200g/min abrasive flow rate
5.398
6

Machining time (min)

3.337
present study these come out to be 15000 psi & 4
2.316
1.729
200 g/ min respectively. 2

0
Table IV. Constant Parameters and Their Values 15000 20000 25000 30000
Sl No Constant Parameters Values Water pressure (psi)
Name
1 Orifice diameter 0,3556mm
2 Nozzle diameter 0.7620mm Graph 2. Machining time versus water pressure
at 301.7g/min abrasive mass flow rate.
3 Nozzle length 101.625mm
at 301.7g/min abrasive flow rate
4 Abrasive type Garnet 4.584
5
Machining time (min)

5 Abrasive size (grit no) 80 mesh size 4 2.838

3 1.973
6 Carrier medium Water 2
1.478

1
7 Standoff distance 1.5mm
0
15000 20000 25000 30000
Water pressure (psi)
Since there are two parameters and four levels, all
possible combinations of Pressure and Abrasive
flow rates have been employed. Total 16 square
Graph 3. Machining time versus water pressure
blocks of equal dimension of
at 405.4g/min abrasive mass flow rate.
20mm*20mm*15mm have been cut out.
Individual machining time is noted in all the at 405.4g/min abrasive flow rate
experiments. 5 4.071
Machining time (min)

4
2.522
3
IV. Results and Analysis 2
1.756
1.317
1
0
After the conduction of experiments, all the 15000 20000 25000 30000
machining times are duly structured into a line Water pressure (psi)
graph and are displayed. Without the need of any
models or analysis one can easily note the
minimum machining time for the combination of
mentioned parameters. Maximum time for
machining is noted as 5.398min. Minimum time
 Graph 4. Machining time versus water pressure
at 599.4g/min abrasive mass flow rate.
at 599.4g/min abrasive flow rate
3.785
4
Machining time (min)
3 2.333
1.619
2 1.211
1
0
15000 20000 25000
Water pressure (psi)
Thus from the graphs it is evident that
machining time decreases as water pressure and
abrasive mass flow rates increase.
V. Conclusion
On the basis of the experimental results the
drawn conclusion is, minimum machining time
is achieved when both water pressure and
abrasive mass flow rates are kept at maximum
possible limit. Even if any one of the factor is
not at possible maximum, then machining time
will not be absolute minimum. Even though
there are many other parameters that can effect
machining time remotely, these two parameters
are the major effectors of machining time. Thus
marble is cut at the least possible time in the
provided machine by keeping the parameters,
Water Pressure and Abrasive mass flow rate at
possible maximum.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Hascalik, A., Caydas, U., Gurun, H. “Effect
of traverse speed on abrasive waterjet
machining of Ti-6Al-4V al-loy”.Meter.Des.28:
pp 1953-1957, 2007.
[2] Momber, A., Kovacevic, R. “Principles of
Abrasive Waterjet Machining”. Springer-
Verlag, London, 1998.
[3] Hashish M. “A model for abrasive waterjet
(AWJ) machining”. Transactions of ASME
Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, vol. III: pp 154-162, 1989.
[4] Siores E., Wong W C K., Chen L., Wager J
G. “Enhancing abra-sive waterjet cutting of
ceramics by head oscillation tech-niques”. Ann
CIRP, 45[1]: pp 215-218, 1996.
30000 [5] Wang J. “Abrasive Waterjet Machining of
Engineering Mate-rials”. Uetikon-Zuerich
[Swizerland]: Trans Tech Publications, 2003.
[6] M.A. Azmir, A.K. Ahsan. “Investigation on
glass/epoxy compo-site surfaces machined by
abrasive waterjet machining”. Jour-nal of
Materials Processing Technology, vol.198, pp
122-128, 2008.
[7] C. Ma, R.T. Deam. “A correlation for
predicting the kerf profile from abrasive
waterjet cutting”. Experimental Thermal and
Flu-id Science, vol.30, pp 337-343, 2006.
[8] Kovacevic R. “Monitoring the depth of
abrasive waterjet pene-tration”. International
Journal of Machine Tools & Manufac-ture, vol
32(5), pp 725-736, 1992.
[9] Hashish, M. “Optimization factors in
abrasive waterjet machin-ing”. Transaction of
ASME J. Eng. Ind. 113: pp 29-37, 1991.
[10] John Rozario Jegaraj J., Ramesh Babu N.
"A soft computing approach for controlling the
quality of cut with abrasive water-jet cutting
system experiencing orifice and focusing tube
wear", Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, vol.185, no.1–3: pp 217–227,
2007.
[11] Shanmugam D. K., Wang J., Liu H.
“Minimization of kerf ta-pers in abrasive
waterjet machining of alumina ceramics using a
compensation technique”. International Journal
of Machine Tools and Manufacture 48: pp
1527–1534, 2008.
[12] Shanmugam D. K., Masood S. H. “An
investigation of kerf characteristics in abrasive
waterjet cutting of layered compo-sites”.
International Journal of Material Processing [20] Selvan M. Chithirai Pon, Raju and N.
Technology 209: pp 3887–3893, 2009. Mohana Sundara (2012),
[13] E. Lemma, L. Chen, E. Siores, J. Wang. “Analysis of surface roughness in abrasive
“Optimising the AWJ cutting process of ductile waterjet cutting of cast
materials using nozzle oscillation technique”. iron”, International Journal of Science,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Environment and Technology,
Manu-facture 42: pp 781–789, 2002. Vol. 1, pp 174-182.
[14] Arola D. and Ramulu M. (1996), “A study
of kerf characteristics in
abrasive waterjet machining of graphite/epoxy
composite”, Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol.
118, pp 256–265.
[15] Rahmah A., Khan A.A. and Ramulu M.
(2003), “A study of abrasive
waterjet machining of Kevlar composite”, In:
Proceedings of the 12th
U.S. Water Jet Conference, 4-F.
[16] Schwetz K.A., Sigl L.S., Greim J. and
Knoch H. (1995), “Wear of
boron carbide ceramics by abrasive waterjets”,
10th International
Conference on Wear of Materials, Vol. 181-
183, pp 148-155.
[17] Conner I., Hashish M. and Ramulu M.
(2003), “Abrasive waterjet
machining of aerospace structural sheet and
thin plate materials”. In:
Proceedings of the 12th U.S. Water Jet
Conference, 1-G.
[18] Wang J. and Wong W.C.K. (1999), “A
study of abrasive water jet
cutting of metallic coated sheet steels”,
International Journal of
Machine Tools & Manufacture, Vol. 39, pp
855–870.
[19] Hocheng H., Tsai H.Y., Shiue J.J. and
Wang B. (1997), “Feasibility
study of abrasive-waterjet milling of fibre-
reinforced plastics”.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, Vol. 119, pp 133–
142.