Bhaskar Chandra et al.

/ International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

A Study of effect of Process Parameters of Abrasive jet machining

Bhaskar Chandra1
Department of Mechanical and Automobile Engineering, ITM University, Sector 23 A Gurgaon- 122017, Haryana ,India

Jagtar Singh2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GTB Institute of Technology, IP University, New Delhi -110064, Delhi, India Abstract As Abrasive jet machining (AJM) is similar to sand blasting and effectively removes hard and brittle materials. AJM has been applied to rough working such as deburring and rough finishing. With the increase of needs for machining of ceramics, semiconductors, electronic devices and L.C.D., AJM has become a useful technique for micromachining. This paper deals with various experiments which were conducted to assess the influence of abrasive jet machining (AJM) process parameters on material removal rate and diameter of holes of glass plates using aluminum oxide type of abrasive particles. The experimental results of the present work are used to discuss the validity of proposed model as well as the other models. With the increase in nozzle tip distance (NTD), the top surface diameter and bottom surface diameter of hole increases as it is in general observation of abrasive jet machining process. As the pressure increases, the material removal rate (MRR) is also increased. Keywords : Abrasive jet machining, Erosion rate, Nozzle tip distance, Material removal rate, Glass 1. INTRODUCTION Abrasive machining is a machining process where material is removed from a work piece using a multitude of small abrasive particles. Common examples include grinding, honing, and polishing. Abrasive processes are usually expensive, but capable of tighter tolerances and better surface finish than other machining processes chances, delectability, costs and safety aspect etc.) The literature study of Abrasive Jet Machining [1-6] reveals that the Machining process was started a few decades ago. Till date there has been a through and detailed experiment and theoretical study on the process. Most of the studies argue over the hydrodynamic characteristics of abrasive jets, hence ascertaining the influence of all operational variables on the process effectiveness including abrasive type, size and concentration, impact speed and angle of impingement [2]. Other papers found new problems concerning carrier gas typologies, nozzle shape, size and wear, jet velocity and pressure, standoffdistance (SOD) or nozzletipdistance (NTD). These papers express the overall process performance in terms of material removal rate, geometrical tolerances and surface finishing of work pieces, as well as in terms of nozzle wear rate. Finally, there are several significant and important papers which focus on either leading process mechanisms in machining of both ductile and brittle materials, or on the development of systematic experimental statistical approaches and artificial neural networks to predict the relationship between the settings of operational variables and the machining rate and accuracy in surface finishing. The abrasive jet machining (AJM) is considered as an attractive and effective machining method for hard and brittle materials [7-19].Machining mechanisms and characteristics of abrasive jet machining are major topics of many research works in the recent years. In recent years abrasive jet machining has been gaining increasing acceptability for deburring applications. AJM deburring has the advantage over manual deburring method that generates edge radius automatically. This increases the quality of the deburred components. The process of removal of burr and the generation of a convex edge were found to vary as a function of the parameters jet height and impingement angle, with a fixed SOD. The influence of other parameters, viz. nozzle pressure, mixing ratio and abrasive size are insignificant. The SOD was found to be the most influential factor on the size of the radius generated at the edges. As the NTD increases the diameter of hole increases which is shown in Figure 1[7]

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

504

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig.1 Effect of nozzle tip distance (NTD) on diameter of hole

The effect of SOD or NTD on material removal rate (MRR) is shown in figure 2[7] as the NTD increases the diameter of hole increases which is general observation in abrasive jet machining.

Fig. 2 Effect of nozzle tip distance (NTD) on material removal rate

The effect of abrasive flow rate on material removal rate (MRR) is shown in Figure 3[7] as the abrasive mass flow rate increases the material removal rate (MRR) increases which is also general observation in abrasive jet machining.

Fig. 3 Effect of abrasive mass flow rate and mixing ratio on material removal rate (mrr)

Abrasive jet finishing combined with grinding gives rise to a precision finishing process called the integration manufacturing technology, in which slurry of abrasive and liquid solvent is injected to grinding zone between grinding wheel and work surface under no radial feed condition. The abrasive particles are driven and energized by the rotating grinding wheel and liquid hydrodynamic pressure and increased slurry speed between grinding wheel and work surface achieves micro removal finishing Abrasive water jet machines are becoming more widely used in mechanical machining. These machines offer great advantages in machining complex geometrical parts in almost any material. This ability to machine hard to machine materials, combined with advancements in both the hardware and software used in water jet machining has caused the technology to spread and become more widely used in industry. New developments high pressure pumps provide more hydraulic power at the cutting head, significantly increasing the cutting performance of the machine. Analysis of the economic and technical has been done by researchers. Those technology advancements in applying higher power machining and intelligent software control have proven to significantly improve the overall performance of the abrasive water jet machining operation, thus widening the scope of possible applications of this innovative and promising technology. Quality of the surface produced during abrasive water jet machining of aluminum has been investigated in recent years. M. Kantha Babu and Krishnaiah[16] reported that recycled abrasives reduces kerf taper, improving the parallelism of cut surface. These results indicate that the proper selection of abrasive particle size distribution is necessary for achieving improved results. Finnie [21] reported

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

505

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

that the material removal mechanism of ductile material is by plastic deformation and fracture; Bitter [22] reported that the deformation wear causes crack and spalling of the work piece causes the material removal; Tilly[23] reported that material is extruded to form a lip and the lip is detached by fragmented particles. The effects of stand off- distance on MRR and penetration rates have been reported by Ingulli[24], Sarkar and Pandey [10], Verma and Lal [6]. These investigations indicate that after a threshold pressure, the MRR and penetration rates increase with nozzle pressure. For brittle materials, normal impingement results maximum MRR and for ductile materials, an impingement angle of 15-20 degrees results in maximum MRR. The effects of abrasive grit size and mixing ratio which is the ratio of the weight of the abrasive powder to the weight of the abrasive powder and the air have been thoroughly investigated by many investigators. As the abrasive grit size and mixing ratio increase, the MRR and penetration rate increase but the surfaces finish value which is measured in Ra decreases. The effect of various input parameters on the shape of the abrasive jet machined surface and on abrasive jet deburred edges are not widely investigated and published. Venkatesh[12]and Neema and Pandey [11]reported that the abrasive jet machined surface is reverse bell mouthed in shape and no explanations have been given by them. Balasubramaniam [4] reported that while deburring the external burrs by abrasive jet ,different edge conditions viz. concave radius , convex radius and taper edge were obtained depending on the level of the parameters jet height and impingement angle. Balasubramaniam[4] reported that as the particle size increases , the MRR at the center line of the jet drastically increases; but the increase in the MRR nearer to periphery is very less. As the stand off distance increases, the entry side diameter and entry side edge radius also increase. Increasing stand -off -distance also increases the MRR. F.C. Tsai [5] reported that for a given abrasive granule diameter , the use of a 1:1 mixture of pure water and water solvent machining oil reduces the cutting force applied by the particles to the work piece surface and enables a more refined , mirror like polished surface to be obtained. Wakuda and Yamauchi [2] reported that the softest abrasive, aluminum oxide leads to roughing of the alumina surface but causes no engraving, due to the lack of the abrasive hardness against that of the work piece. AJM with silicon carbide abrasive produce smooth faced dimples, although it exhibits relatively low material removal rates. The material response to the abrasive impacts indicates a ductile behavior, which may be due to the elevated temperature during machining. Azmir and Ahsan[ 18,20] reported that the type of abrasives is most significant control factor on surface roughness during AWJM. Meanwhile hydraulic pressure, transverse rate are equally significant. Standoff distance, abrasive mass flow rate and cutting orientation are insignificant in influencing Ra since they failed the test of significance. M. Junkar and B. Jurisevic[17] reported that the impact angle emerged as a very suitable process parameter for experimental verification of FEA simulation. A.Ghobeity and Getu[1] reported that the introduction of a mixing device within the pressure reservoir ensured that the powder remained loose and able to flow through the orifice to the air stream. This produced a significant improvement in AJM repeatability. J.M Fan [15] reported that predictive mathematical models for the erosion rate in hole and channel machining on glasses by micro abrasive air jets on glasses are in good agreement with the corresponding experimental data. These models provide an essential basis for the process optimization of this micromachining technology to achieve efficient and effective operations in practice. Domiaty and Hafez [8] reported that cutting time decreases with increase in standoff distance. The increase of the nozzle diameter increases the MRR due to the increase of the flow rate of the abrasive particles. In the present study the cutting variables were standoff distance or nozzle tip distance of the nozzle from the work surface; work feed rate and jet pressure. The evaluating criteria of the surface produced were width of cut, taper of the cut slot and work surface roughness. It was found that in order to minimize the width of cut; the nozzle should be placed close to the work surface. Increase in jet pressure results in widening of the cut slot both at the top and at exit of the jet from the work. However, the width of cut at the bottom (exit) was always found to be larger than that at the top. It was found that the taper of cut gradually reduces with increase in standoff distance and was close to zero at the stand off distance of 4 mm. The jet pressure does not show significant influence on the taper angle within the range of work feed and the stand off distance considered. Both standoff distance and the work feed rate show strong influence on the roughness of the machined surface. Increase in jet pressure shows positive effect in terms of smoothness of the machined surface. With increase in jet pressure, the surface roughness decreases. This is due to fragmentation of the abrasive particles into smaller sizes at a higher pressure and due to the fact that smaller particles produce smoother surface. So within the jet pressure considered, the work surface is smoother near the top surface and gradually it becomes rougher at higher depths. Drilling of glass has been carried out by M. Roopa Rani and S.Seshan [7]. The Roopa Rani and S.Seshan [7] results are used in the present work to compare the validation of my experimental work on abrasive jet machining. 2. Experimental set up and procedure Experiments were conducted on test rig. as shown in Fig.5. All results were compared with the results found in Roopa Rani and S.Seshan[7] experimental work to check the validity of my results The experimental work was

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

506

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

carried on a test rig. which was manufactured in the workshops of ITM University, Gurgaon, and Haryana, India. The abrasive grits (alumina) were mixed with air stream ahead of nozzle and the abrasive flow rate was kept constant throughout the machining process. The jet nozzle was made of tool steel to carry high wear resistance. Drilling of glass sheets was conducted by setting the test rig as shown in Fig. 5 on the parameters listed in Table1
TABLE 1 Abrasive Jet Machining Experimental Parameters S.No 1 2 3 4 AJM Parameter Type of abrasive Abrasive size Jet pressure Nozzle tip distance Condition alumina 0.15-1.25 mm 5.5-7.5 k g/cm 2 6-18 mm

Glass was used as a work piece material because of its homogeneous properties. The test specimens were cut into square and rectangular shape for machining on AJM unit having thickness 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, 6mm and 8mm. In machine the initial weights of glass specimens were measured with the help of digital balance. After machining the final weights were measured with the help of digital balance to calculate the material removal rate. In our machine the movement to specimens in x-y directions is provided with the help of cross slide and in z direction with help of worm and worm wheel drive. First the abrasive that was alumina in powder form was fed in the hopper carefully. After that compressor connections were checked. The glass specimen was properly clamped on cross slide with the help of various clamps. As the compressor was switched on, the hopper gate valve was opened so that abrasive grains were mixed with air jet coming from the compressor and focused on the specimen with help of nozzle. Different readings were taken using different process parameters on the glass specimens of different thickness and all results were tabulated. All results were compared with the theoretical results also to check the validity of our results which were listed in the paper.

Fig. 4 Schematic layout of abrasive jet machine test rig.

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

507

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 5 Fabricated model of AJM Table 2 Abrasive jet machine characteristics Mechanics of metal removal Brittle fracture by impinging abrasive grains at high speed.

Carrier gas Abrasives

Air , carbon dioxide Alumina , SiC

Pressure Nozzle Critical parameters Material application

2-10 atm WC, sapphire, Abrasive flow rate and velocity, nozzle tip distance abrasive grain size Hard and brittle metals ,alloys, and non metallic

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

508

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

TABLE 3 Various Process Parameters of AJM S. No Process Parameter 1 Carrier gas 2 Nozzle tip distance 3 Type of abrasive 4 Size of abrasive grains 5 Velocity of abrasive jet 6 Mixing ratio 7 Work material 8 Nozzle design 9 Shape of cut

3. Experimental results and discussion 3.1 The following subsections detail the results of experiments that were conducted on test rig. as shown in Fig.2. The results of experiments were tabulated here. In our experiments first we changed the nozzle tip distance (NTD) and observed the effect of NTD on diameter of holes of work pieces. Secondly we changed the pressure of gas and observed its effect on material removal rate (MRR) of the work pieces. We had taken readings at different nozzle tip distance (NTD) and different pressures. After taking readings we plotted our results in the form of graphs here. The following graphs show the effect of nozzle tip distance (NTD) on diameter of holes of work pieces and effect of pressure on material removal rate (MRR).
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Top surface diameter ( mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.6 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and top surface diameter of hole at a set pressure of 5.5 kg/ cm 2

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Bottom surface diameter ( mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.7 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and bottom surface diameter of hole at a set pressure of 5.5 kg/ cm 2

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Top surface diameter ( mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.8 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and top surface diameter of hole at a set pressure6.5 kg/ cm 2

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

509

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Bottom surface diameter mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.9 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and bottom surface diameter of hole at a set pressure6.5 kg/ cm 2

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Top surface diameter ( mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.10 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and top surface diameter of hole at a set pressure 7.5 kg/ cm 2

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Bottom surface diameter mm) Nozzle tip distance (mm)

Fig.11 Graph shows the relationship between nozzle tip distance and bottom surface diameter of hole at a set pressure 7.5 kg/ cm 2

500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 MRR (mg/min) Pressure (kg/ cm 2)

Fig.12 Graph shows the Relationship between pressure and material removal rate (MRR) at thickness 8 mm and NTD 12 mm

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

510

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 MRR (mg/min) Pressure (kg/ cm 2)

Fig.13 Graph shows the Relationship between pressure and material

removal rate (MRR) at thickness 12 mm and NTD 12 mm

3.2 Results of experimental work by Roopa Rani and S.Seshan. They have conducted some experiments on AJM test rig. at department of mechanical engineering, Indian institute of science, Bangalore. These results were shown here in tables 9-10 and graphs (Fig.14-15) which shows the effect of pressure on the material removal rate and effect of NTD on diameter of hole in AJM process. Table 9 and Fig.14 shows the effect of pressure on material removal rate (MRR)
Table 9 Effect of pressure on material removal rate (MRR) S. No. 1 2 3 4 Gas pressure 5 6 7 8 Material removal rate( mg/min) 18 21 23 26

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4

Material removal rate( mg/min) Gas pressure

Fig.14 Graph shows the Relationship between pressure and material removal rate (MRR)

Table 10 and Fig.15 shows the effect of nozzle tip distance (NTD) on diameter of hole. As the distance between the face of nozzle and the working surface of the work increases, the diameter of hole also increases because higher the nozzle tip distance allows the jet to expand before impingement which may increase vulnerability to external drag from the surrounding environment. It is desirable to have a lower nozzle tip distance which may produce a smoother surface due to increased kinetic energy
Table 10 Effect of NTD on diameter of hole S.No 1 2 3 4 Nozzle tip distance (mm) 0.79 5.00 10.01 14.99 Diameter of hole(mm) 0.46 0.64 1.50 2.01

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

511

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Diameter of hole(mm) Nozzle tip distance

Fig.15 Graph shows the Relationship between NTD and diameter of hole

Small metal removal rates at a low NTD is due to a reduction in nozzle pressure with decreasing distance, whereas a drop in material removal rate at large NTD is due to a reduction in the jet velocity with increasing distance. So we have to select a optimum value of NTD to get maximum material removal rate in AJM process. 4. CONCLUSION This paper presents various results of experiments have been conducted by changing pressure, nozzle tip distance on different thickness of glass plates. The effect of their process parameters on the material removal rate (MRR), top surface diameter and bottom surface diameter of hole obtained were measured and plotted. These were compared with the Roopa Rani and S.Seshan results [7] and with it was observed that as nozzle tip distance increases, the top surface diameter and bottom surface diameter of hole increases as it is in the general observation in the abrasive jet machining process. As the pressure increases material removal rate (MRR) was also increased. References:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Ghobeity, A.; Spelt, J. K.; Papini Abrasive jet micro machining of planar areas and transitional slopes , M.Publication: Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp. 055014. Publication Date: 01/ 05/2008 M. Wakuda, Y. Yamauchi and S. Kanzaki Effect of work piece properties on machinability in abrasive jet machining of ceramic materials, Publication: Precision Engineering, Volume 26, Issue 2, April 2002, Pages 193-198 R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan and N. Ramakrishnan , An experimental study on the abrasive jet deburring of cross drilled holes , Publication: Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Volume 91, Issues 1-3, 30 June 1999, Pages 178-182 R. Balasubramaniam, J. Krishnan and N. Ramakrishnan A study on the shape of the surface generated by abrasive jet machining, Publication: Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Volume 121, Issue 1, 14February 2002, Pages 102-106 F.C.Tsai, B.H. Yan, Kuan,HuangA Taguchi and experimental investigation into the optimal processing conditions for the abrasive jet polishing of SKD61 mold steel, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacturer, 48 , 2008, Pages 932-945. A. P. Verma and G. K. Lal Publication An experimental study of abrasive jet machining, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, Volume 24, Issue 1, 1984, Pages 19-29 M. Roopa Rani & S. Seshan AJM - Procees Variables And Current Applications, Publication- Journal of Metals Materials& Process,1995 Vol.7 No. 4 PP.279-290 A.EI-Domiaty, H.M.Abd EI Hafez, and M.A. Shaker Drilling of glass sheets by abrasive jet machining, World Academy of Science , Engineering and Technology 56,2009 Neelesh K. Jain,V.K. Jain, K. Deb, Optimization of process parameters of mechanical type advanced machining processes using genetic algorithm, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacturer(2006). Sarkar, P.K., Pandey, P.C., Some investigations on abrasive jet machining, Journal of Inst. Eng.(56),1976. Neema, M.L., Pandey, P.C., Erosion of glass when acted upon by abrasive jet machining, Int. Conference on wear of materials, 1977. Venktesh V.C., Parametric studies on abrasive jet machining,CIRP Ann 1984;33(1):109-120. Ramachandran N, Ramakrishnan N., A review on abrasive jet machining, J Mater Proc Tech 1993;39:21-31. M.A. Azmir,A.K. Ahsan, A study of abrasive water jet machining process on glass/epoxy composite laminate, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209(2009)6168-6173. J.M. Fan, C.Y.Wang, J.Wang, Modelling the erosion rate in micro abrasive air jet machining, Wear 266(2009)968-974. M.Kantha Babu,O.V. Krishnaiah Chetty, A study on recycling of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining, Wear 254(2003)763773. M.Junkar, B Jurisevic,Fajdiga and Grah Finit element analysis of single particle impact in abrasive water jet machining, Indian Journal of Impact Engineering , 32(2006) 1095-1112. M.A. Azmir,A.K. Ahsan, Investigation on process on glass/epoxy composite surfaces machined by abrasive water jet machining, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 198(2008)122-128. Alireza Moridi, Jun Wang, Yaseer M. Ali, Philip Mathew and Xiaoping Li, A study of Abrasive Jet Micro- Grooving of Quartz Crystals, Key Engineering Materials Vol. 443(2010)645-651. M.A. Azmir, A.K. Ahsan, A study of abrasive water jet machining on glass/epoxy composite laminate, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209(2009) 6168-6173. I. Finnie, Some observations on the erosion of ductile materials, Wear 121(2002) 102-106.

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

512

Bhaskar Chandra et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

[22] J.G.A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomenon part 1 and 2, Wear 6(1963) 5-159. [23] G.P. Tilly, Two stage erosion mechanism of ductile etrosion, Wear 23(1973) 87. [24] C.N. Ingulli, Abrasive jet machining, Tool Manuf. Engg. 59 (5) (1967) 284.

ISSN : 0975-5462

Vol. 3 No. 1 Jan 2011

513