International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001
Vol. 5, Issue 3, Jun 2015, 1-10
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ABRASIVE JET MACHINING ON VARIOUS

MATERIALS
DEEPIKA CHENNUPATI1, K. SAMATHAREDDY2, J. VINAYAKUMARI3, D. V. SRIKANTH4
1,2,3
4

Department of Mechanical Engineering, St. Martins Engineering College, Secunderabad, Telangana, India

Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, St.Martins Engineering College, Secunderabad, Telangana, India

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the comparative analysis of abrasive jet machining of various materials namely Glass,
Ceramics, Epoxy and FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic) based on experimental results. AJM (Abrasive Jet Machining) is
performed on these materials and are compared and analyzed the optimal values based on the graphical results. Graphs are
plotted between the Kerf ratio and the Stand-off-distance to obtain optimum Stand-off-distance and also between the
Material Removal Rate (MRR) and Pressure and are compared. In this paper we have discussed the effects of Pressure,
Stand-off-distance and Kerf ratio on the generated shape .The effects of Pressure, Stand-off-distance, and Kerf ratio along
with the MRR are compared with the materials. We performed this experiment such that the results will be helpful for any
further studies on these materials and AJM process. The results are compared with earlier Abrasive Jet Machining Process
and are found satisfactory .Conclusions are drawn from our experiment based on the Results.

KEYWORDS: Abrasive Jet Machining, Material Removal Rate, Kerf Ratio

INTRODUCTION
Ceramics are widely used all over the world for their high toughness, high module of elasticity. Ceramics are used
as tiles in space shuttle program, as coatings of jet engine turbine blades, roof tiles, pipes, etc. Ceramics are inorganic solid
comprising metal, non-metal and metalloid atoms which are bound together by ionic and covalent bonds. Ceramic
materials are tough and are very brittle. Ceramics are one such material which can be machined easily by AJM. Whereas
composite material like FRP have superior advantages over traditional and non-traditional materials for their unique
properties like strength to-weight ratio, high fracture toughness, high modulus and thermal resistance.
FRP is a composite material made of polymer matrix which is reinforced with fiber .The orientation of the
reinforcing fiber can increase strength and also increases the resistance to the deformation of polymer. The direction of
orientation of the fiber, either unidirectional, 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional affects the degree of strength, flexibility as well
as elasticity. When the orientation of the fibers is in the direction of the forces it provides greater resistance to distortion
from these forces.FRP can be easily machined using unconventional machining process like AJM.
Glass is another material subjected to AJM analysis .Glass is silica based amorphous compound. It is very
widely used for industrial, commercial and domestic purposes. Glass is usually brittle and transparent. This transparent
property made glass to be used in many areas. They are durable and erode very slowly. Glass has smooth, nonporous
surface and also resistant to chemical attack. Glass has very important applications like lab apparatus, lens, optical fibers
etc. Glass is very brittle and is hard, which makes AJM a perfect machining technique to machine glass.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Deepika Chennupati, K. Samathareddy, J. Vinayakumari, D. V. Srikanth

Abrasive Jet Machining is an unconventional machining process which is used to machine hard and brittle
materials like Ceramics, Fiber reinforced materials [1]. Unlike with AJM, these materials cannot be machined with ease by
other machining processes. Its low heat production and flexibility makes it more advantageous than other machining
processes.
Abrasive jet machining is one of the economical nontraditional machining process in which high pressure air or
gas carrying abrasive particles is made to impinge on the materials at a very high velocity[5]. The Pressure energy of the
carrier gas or air is converted into kinetic energy to high velocity jet. Abrasive Jet Machining is extensively used in
Industries. The Nozzle directs the high velocity Abrasive jet on the material in a controlled manner. AJM is similar to Sand
Blasting, except that in AJM the parameters can be more effectively controlled which in turn provide much control over
the product quality with improved accuracy [3]. It is a known fact that due to the brittle fracture of the work piece or even
micro cutting by the abrasives the material is removed. The Kinetic energy of the abrasive jet is enough to remove the
material. For accuracy in Machining, proper stand of distance and Pressures are to be provided while machining. Generally
in AJM the grid size of the abrasive particles lie between 40 micron to 80 micron grit size [6].

Figure 1: Abrasive Jet Machining

Figure 2: Abrasive Particles Used (SiC, Al2O3)

METHODOLOGY
The experimental setup of AJM is established at SMEC, Secunderabad, the experiments are carried out at the
workshop by using the AJM setup. The method used for this process of approach is the influence of pressure and
stand-off-distance on metal removal rate and kerf width. The formulas regularly used for finding the metal removal rates
established by are given below
Neema & Pandey (1977) proposed an equation for material removal rate by equating the kinetic energy of the
particles impinging on to the work of deformation during indentation [3].
Q = k N d3v3/2(8a/12y)

(1)

Where k is a constant; N is the number of abrasive particles taking quite a time; d= the size or diameter of an
abrasive particle; fa= the density of the abrasive material; v= the velocity of the abrasive particle; and y, =the yield stress
of the work material. [2].

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934

NAAS Rating: 2.45

Comparative Analysis of Abrasive Jet Machining on Various Materials

Finnie (1960) showed that volume of Material (Q) eroded by impacting Particles of mass M carried in a stream of
air can be calculated as
Q = Cf () M vn,

(2)

Where C& n are constants H s =Minimum flow stress of work material, I is Impingement Angle. [3].
Sarkar & Pandey (1980) suggested a model to calculate MRR (Q) during AJM.
Q = x Zd3v3/2 (8/12Hw)/4

(3)

Where Z is no of particles impacting per unit time, d is the mean diameter of Abrasive grain, K is the density, V is
the velocity of abrasive particles, how is hardness of work material, X is a constant. [4].
But in our experimentation we used a simple and easy way of deriving the material removal rate i.e.
MRR = (Initial Weight Final Weight) gms/Time (secs)
Kerf is generally called as width of cut. In AJM process the drilled surface attained after machining is in the form
of cone. By maintaining the proper stand of distance between the tool and the work piece the kerfs can be reduced to
maximum extent .The kerf can be analyzed as
Kerf Ratio = Difference between diameters on two faces of sheet.
By considering these objectives we are conducted experiments on the test rig.

EXPERIMENTATION
Experiments were performed in the mechanical workshop; St.Martins Engineering Experiments are conducted to
compare and analyze Abrasive jet machining on various materials and to conform the validity of models presented in the
literature. College, Dhulapally, Secunderabad. The experiment was carried on by the Abrasive jet Machine on various
materials. In the machining process we used two different types of abrasives namely Silicon Carbide(SiC) and Aluminum
Oxide of grit size 40microns and 60 microns, to make holes on various materials with different pressures and
Stand-off-distances. We have machined holes using nozzle of diameter 2mm, with pressures 6kg/sq.cm and 8kg/sq.cm, on
the four materials mentioned earlier. After obtaining the experimental results, we generated the graphs by using MINITAB
Software and compared the obtained graphical results.

Figure 3: Drilling of Glass Sheet by AJM

www.tjprc.org

Figure 4: Nozzles of Various Diameters

editor@tjprc.org

Deepika Chennupati, K. Samathareddy, J. Vinayakumari, D. V. Srikanth

Experimentation with Glass

First the experiments are conducted on borosilicate glass based on pressure and Stand-off-distance and found the
effect of these parameters on MRR and kerf.
These tables (Table 1, Table 2) indicate the variation in MRR and kerf by changing the values of pressure and
stand-off-distance. Based on these values graphs are plotted and found the variations.
Table 1: Tabulations for Glass Material Indicating Variations of MRR and SoD with Different Pressures

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.

8
6
6
8

Stand-offDistance : SoD
(mm)
8
8
6
6

5.
6.

8
6

4
4

11
9
11
10

Material Removal
Rate :
MRR(mm/sec)
0.448
0.427
0.486
0.468

9
13

0.336
0.289

Time(sec)

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

For GLASS
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For GLASS
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm

0.475

0.475

0.450
0.450

0.425
0.425

M RR

M RR

0.400
0.375

0.400

0.350
0.375

0.325
0.350

0.300
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 5: Mapping between MRR and SoD for Glass Material with Different Pressures
Table 2: Tabulations for Glass Material Indicating Variations of Kerf and SoD with Different Pressures

S.no:

Pressure (kg
f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

8
6
6
8
8
6

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934

Stand-OffDistance :
SoD(mm)
8
8
6
6
4
4

Time(sec)

Kerf(mm)

11
9
11
10
9
13

3
4
1
0.5
1.5
2

NAAS Rating: 2.45

Comparative Analysis of Abrasive Jet Machining on Various Materials

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

For GLASS
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm

For GLASS
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

3.0
4.0

2.5

3.5
3.0

Kerf

Kerf

2.0

1.5

2.5
2.0

1.0
1.5

0.5

1.0

SoD

SoD

Figure 6: Mapping between kerf and SoD for Glass Material with Different Pressures
Experimentation with Ceramics
Second, the experiments are conducted on Ceramic based on pressure and Stand-off-distance and found the effect
of these parameters on MRR and kerf.
Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

For CERAMIC
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For CERAMIC
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm
0.475

0.40
0.450

0.35

M RR

MRR

0.425

0.400

0.30
0.375

0.25

0.350

SoD

SoD

These tables below (Table 3, Table 4) indicate the variation in MRR and kerf by changing the values of pressure
and stand-off-distance. Based on these values graphs (see Figure 7, 8) are plotted and found the variations.
Table 3: Tabulations for Ceramic Indicating Variations of MRR with Sod

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

Stand-Off-Distance
: SoD (mm)

Time(sec)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

4
4
6
6
8
8

36
30
14
22.26
31.95
30.06

Material
Removal Rate :
MRR(mm/sec)
0.2277
0.215
0.4428
0.2072
0.3072
0.3016

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

For CERAMICS
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For CERAMICS
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm
2.8
3.0

2.6
2.4
2.5

Kerf

Kerf

2.2
2.0

2.0
1.8
1.6

1.5

1.4
1.2

1.0

1.0
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 7: Mapping between MRR and SoD for Ceramic Material with different Pressures
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Deepika Chennupati, K. Samathareddy, J. Vinayakumari, D. V. Srikanth

Table 4: Tabulations for Ceramic Indicating Variations of Kerf with Sod

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

Stand-offDistance :
SoD(mm)
4
4
6
6
8
8

Time(sec)

Kerf(mm/sec)

36
30
14
22.26
31.95
30.06

1.8
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.2
3

Experimentation with FRP

Next to Ceramic the experiments are conducted on FRP based on pressure and Stand-off-distance and found the
effect of these parameters on MRR and kerf.
These tables below (Table 5, Table 6) indicate the variation in MRR and kerf by changing the values of pressure
and stand-off-distance. Based on these values graphs (see Figure 9, 10) are plotted and found the variations.
Table 5: Table for FRP Indicating Variations of MRR and SoD with Diff Pressures

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

Stand-OffDistance :
SoD(mm)
4
4
6
6
8
8

Material Removal
Rate :
MRR(mm/sec)
0.0241
0.00568
0.9090
0.0324
0.02551
0.3090

Time(sec)
29
13.04
11
16.94
18.16
13.96

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

For FRP
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For FRP
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm

0.033

0.9

0.032

0.8

0.031

0.7

0.030

MRR

MRR

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.029
0.028
0.027

0.3

0.026

0.2

0.025

0.1

0.024

0.0
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 8: Mapping between Kerf and SoD for Ceramic Material with Pressure Variation
Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

For FRP
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm

For FRP
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

2.0

3.0

1.8

2.8

1.6

Kerf

Kerf

2.6

1.4

2.4

1.2
2.2

1.0
2.0

0.8
1.8

0.6
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 9: Mapping for FRP between MRR and SoD with different pressures

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934

NAAS Rating: 2.45

Comparative Analysis of Abrasive Jet Machining on Various Materials

Table 6: Tabulations for FRP Indicating Kerf and SoD Variations with Different Pressures

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

Stand-OffDistance :
SoD(mm)
4
4
6
6
8
8

Time(sec)

Kerf(mm)

29
13.04
11
16.94
18.16
13.96

2
1.7
0.7
1.8
3
2

Experimentation with Epoxy

Next to FRP the experiments are conducted on Epoxy based on pressure and Stand-off-distance and found the
effect of these parameters on MRR and kerf. These tables below (Table 7, Table 8) indicate the variation in MRR and kerf
by changing the values of pressure and stand-off-distance. Based on these values graphs (see Figure 11, 12) are plotted and
found the variations.
Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

Graph plotted between MRR and SoD

For EPOXY
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For EPOXY
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm
0.024

0.045

0.022

0.040

0.020

0.035

0.018

MRR

MRR

0.030
0.025

0.016

0.020

0.014

0.015

0.012

0.010

0.010
0.008

0.005
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 10: Mapping for FRP between Kerf and SoD with Different Pressures
Table 7: Tabulations for Epoxy Indicating MRR and SoD Variations with Different Pressures

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

Stand-OffDistance :
SoD(mm)
4
4
6
6
8
8

Material Removal
Rate :
MRR(mm/sec)
0.00824
0.005714
0.0407
0.0224
0.01285
0.01974

Time(sec)
33
14
13
14.71
13.30
12.61

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

Graph plotted between Kerf and SoD

For EPOXY
With pressure 6kgf/sq.cm

For EPOXY
With pressure 8kgf/sq.cm
2.6

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.3

Kerf

Kerf

2.0
1.8
1.6

2.2
2.1

1.4

2.0

1.2

1.9

1.0

1.8
4

SoD

SoD

Figure 11: Mapping between MRR and SoD of Epoxy with Different Pressures
Figure 12: Mapping between Kerf and SoD for Epoxy with Different Pressures

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Deepika Chennupati, K. Samathareddy, J. Vinayakumari, D. V. Srikanth

Table 8: Tabulations for Epoxy Indicating Variations of Kerf and SoD with Different Pressures

S.no:

Pressure
(kg f/sq.cm)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

6
8
8
6
6
8

Stand-OffDistance :
SoD(mm)
4
4
6
6
8
8

Time(sec)

Kerf(mm)

33
14
13
14.71
13.30
12.61

2.3
2
0.9
1.8
2.5
2.5

Figure 13: The Comparative Work Made on Different Composite Materials with Variation in Parameters

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above observations it was found that the optimal kerf was obtained at the exact pairing of parameters
like pressure, SoD, Nozzle diameter. Experiments conducted with different pressures and SoD resulted that, very high and
very low SoD gives more kerf.
On comparison between materials it was found that

The optimal kerf value for glass obtained by the observations made from Table 1, 2 and Figure 5, 6 was 0.5mm at
8kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD.

Similarly, for ceramic the optimal kerf obtained by the observations made from Table 3, 4 and Figure 7, 8 was
0.9mm at 8kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6934

NAAS Rating: 2.45

Comparative Analysis of Abrasive Jet Machining on Various Materials

For FRP, the optimal kerf obtained was 0.7mm at 8kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD from table 5, 6 and Figure
9, 10.

The optimal kerf obtained for Epoxy was 0.9mm at 8kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD referred from table7, 8
and Figure11, 12.
The experiment conducted on MRR and SoD with different pressures revealed that the MRR initially increases

and falls down gradually with increase in SoD. The critical MRR i.e. the MRR that shows a sudden change, was compared
between materials as below
The critical MRR for glass was 0.486mm/sec at 6kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD, whereas for 8kg f/sq.cm
pressure it was 0.468mm/sec at 6mm SoD. In both of these minimum kerf was found at 0.468mm/sec i.e. 0.5mm.
The critical MRR for ceramic was 0.4072mm/sec at 6kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD, whereas for 8kg f/sq.cm
pressure it was 0.4428mm/sec at 6mm SoD. In both of these minimum kerf was found at 0.4428mm/sec i.e. 0.9mm.
The critical MRR for FRP was 0.0324mm/sec at 6kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD, whereas for 8kg f/sq.cm
pressure it was 0.9090mm/sec at 6mm SoD. In both of these minimum kerf was found at 0.9090mm/sec i.e. 0.7mm.
The critical MRR for epoxy was 0.0224mm/sec at 6kg f/sq.cm pressure and 6mm SoD, whereas for 8kg f/sq.cm
pressure it was 0.0407mm/sec at 6mm SoD. In both of these minimum kerf was found at 0.0407mm/sec i.e. 0.9mm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are greatful to the Management & Principal of St.Martins Engineering College for Permitting to utilise
the facilities available in the collge and also for providing assistance to carry out this work.

REFERENCES
1.

D.V.Srikanth, M.Sreenivasa Rao:Effects of process parameters on kerf in abrasive jet drilling of glass, Int conf on
emerging trends in mech engg,Volume 1page 56-61.

2.

D.V.Srikanth, M.Sreenivasa Rao : Investigation Of Drilling Time V/S Depth Of Cut & Kerf Using Abrasive Jet
Machining,NCETSTM-14,Volume 1,pages 127-132.

3.

D.V.Srikanth et al.: Abrasive jet machining-Research review, International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Technology, Volume II,April-2014,Pages 18-24.

4.

Bhaskar Chandra Kandpal et al : Machining Of Glass And Ceramic With Alumina And SiliconCarbide In Abrasive
Jet Machining, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, IJAET/volII/issue IV/Oct-2011/pages
251-256

5.

I Finnie. 'Erosion of Surface by Solid Particles'. Welr, vol 3,1960.

6.

A P Verma and G K Lal. 'An Experimental Study of Abrasive Jet Machining'. International Journal of Machine
Tool Design and Research, Vol 24,-110 I,1984.

7.

D. V. Srikanth, M. Sreenivasa Rao :Application Of Optimization Methods On Abrasive Jet Machining Of

Ceramics, IJIET, TJPRC, Vol 4, issue 3, 2014, Pages 23-32.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org