ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Finite element analysis of single-particle impact in abrasive

water jet machining
M. Junkara, B. Jurisevica,, M. Fajdigab, M. Grahc
a
Laboratory for Alternative Technologies, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6,
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Laboratory for Structure Evaluation, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6,
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
c
Litostroj E.I., Production of Power Generation and Industrial Equipment, Litostrojska c. 40, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Received 5 April 2004; accepted 20 September 2004

Abstract

This contribution presents an explicit finite element analysis (FEA) of a single abrasive particle impact on
stainless steel 1.4301 (AISI 304) in abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining. In the experimental verification, the
shapes of craters on the workpiece material were observed and compared with FEA simulation results by
means of crater sphericity. The influences of the impact angle and particle velocity were observed.
Especially the impact angle emerged as a very suitable process parameter for experimental verification of
FEA simulation, where crater sphericity was observed. Results of the FEA simulation are in good
agreement with those obtained from the experimental verification. The presented work gives the basis for
further FEA investigation of AWJ machining, where influences such as particles rotation and other process
parameters will be observed.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Abrasive water jet machining; Single-particle impact; Explicit finite elements analysis

Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 4771 710; fax: +386 1 2518 567.
E-mail address: bostjan.jurisevic@fs.uni-lj.si (B. Jurisevic).

0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.09.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Nomenclature

]A abrasive mesh number

A elongation (%)
AE, max area of the largest side of an element (mm2)
c adiabatic sound speed (m/s)
C1,C2 constants describing the abrasive acceleration process in the cutting head
CB0, CB1 bulk viscosity coefficients (Pa)
d1 minor crater dimension (mm)
d2 major crater dimension (mm)
dA diameter of abrasive particles (mm)
dA,FEA abrasive particles diameter in FEA simulations (mm)
dF diameter of the focusing tube (mm)
dO diameter of the orifice (mm)
EA elastic module of abrasive (MPa)
EM elastic module of the workpiece material (MPa)
hSO stand-off distance between the focusing tube and the workpiece (mm)
lF length of the focusing tube (mm)
LE characteristic length (mm)
mA abrasive mass flow (g/min)
mair air mass flow (g/min)
mW water mass flow (g/min)
NA number of abrasive particles
NC number of craters
pW water pressure (MPa)
Ra average surface roughness (mm)
Rm tensile strength (MPa)
Rp 0.2 yield stress (MPa)
SA abrasive particle sphericity
SC crater sphericity
SC,exp measured crater sphericity
SC,FEA simulated crater sphericity
vA abrasive particle velocity (m/s)
vA,0 initial velocity of abrasive before the acceleration process (m/s)
vA,1 final velocity of abrasive at the exit from the cutting head (m/s)
vair,0 initial velocity of air before the acceleration process (m/s)
vair,1 final velocity of air at the exit from the cutting head (m/s)
vT traverse rate of the cutting head (mm/s)
vW,0 initial velocity of water before the acceleration process (m/s)
vW,1 final velocity of water at the exit from the cutting head (m/s)
VE element volume in FEA (mm3)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Greek letters
aI impact angle (1)
DS relative difference between simulated and measured crater sphericity (%)
_KK strain rate (s
1)
nA Poisson’s coefficient for abrasive
nM Poisson’s coefficient of the workpiece material
r specific material density (kg/m3)
rA abrasive density (kg/m3)
rA,FEA abrasive density in FEA simulations (kg/m3)
rM density of the workpiece material (kg/m3)
rW water density (kg/m3)

1. Introduction

In abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining the erosion phenomena is amplified to the extremes in
order to allow the mechanical removal of any kind of workpiece material. To achieve that, hard
abrasive particles are accelerated in the cutting head by a high-speed water jet. The cutting head is
composed of an orifice, a mixing chamber, an abrasive inlet and a focusing tube. Water at
pressures up to 400 MPa and more is pressed through an orifice with a diameter between 0.1 and
0.3 mm where a high-speed water jet is generated. The velocity of the water jet is proportional to
the square root of the water pressure and usually reaches values up to 1000 m/s. The abrasive
material is inserted through the side inlet in the mixing chamber, which is placed downstream the
orifice. Abrasive particles are accelerated in the focusing tube, the diameter of which is usually
twice as big as the one of the orifice. During this process, a certain amount of air is sucked
through the abrasive inlet, and droplets start to generate around the jet and abrasive particles
begin to fragment. All this results in a high-speed jet of abrasive particles, water and air, which is
the tool in the AWJ machining. A cross-section and a picture of the cutting head are given
in Fig. 1.
The main motivation of the presented work is to analyze the influence of abrasive particles
rotation on the workpiece material erosion. As reassumed in the sequel, it can be concluded, that
among all attempts to simulate the material removal process, including the finite element analysis
(FEA), there is still a lack of a basic model. Therefore, instead of observing the particle rotation
influence we decided to first make a basic FEA model of a single abrasive impact on the workpiece
material. Once such a model is available, several influences on the material removal process can be
observed with the objective to increase the overall process performance.
In order to understand the physics of the material removal process, many attempts were made,
using different approaches. Lebar and Junkar [1] used a unit event approach to simulate the
machining process, where the amount of material removed by a single abrasive particle at
different impact angles was defined experimentally. A superposition of many such unit events and
supposing a uniform energy distribution over the jet cross-section, results in the generated surface
on the workpiece. Orbanic and Junkar [2] simulated the AWJ cutting process using a cellular
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 1. AWJ cutting head (courtesy of Böhler Hochdrucktechnik, GmbH, Austria).

automata approach, where the jet energy profile was also assumed to be uniform. Henning and
Westkamper [3] introduced a phenomenological approach to simulate the generated surface. They
observed the cross-section of the cut made at an elevated traverse rate, which has a gaussian bell
shape, from where they assume a gaussian distribution of the jet energy. Taking into account
different wear mechanisms as a function of the impact angle and the energy concentration at
different points of the jet cross-section they simulated the generated surface. Hoogstrate et al. [4]
developed a coherent set of models (material, kinematics, jet, process, process quantity and output
quantity) to simulate the AWJ cutting process. Vikram and Ramesh Babu [5] attempt to model
3D topography of the surface cut by AWJ. They use the ballistic theory to predict the trajectory of
the jet in the workpiece material and Bitter’s theory of erosion to predict the material removal. An
overview of several models and approaches, which simulate the AWJ machining process, can be
found in literature [6].
A common characteristic of all the above-described models is, that they globally simulate how
the AWJ removes the workpiece material and the results are generated surfaces on the workpiece.
A weak point of such approaches is that the AWJ structure is not yet fully defined. For instance,
in Ref. [1] Lebar and Junkar like Orbanic and Junkar [2] used a uniform energy distribution of an
AWJ in their simulations; Henning and Westkamper [3] presume a gaussian bell distribution,
while Chen and Siores [7] measured a double slope energy distribution. All these different types of
energy distributions are presented in Fig. 2.
In order to better understand the physics of the observed process, some investigations of the
AWJ material removal process were conducted by means of FEA. Guo et al. [8] made an implicit
FEA simulation of the AWJ drilling process, which was validated by an optical technique. They
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Fig. 2. Different energy distributions of an AWJ.

analyze the stress field in the specimen due to a static load of the jet. The validation was executed
by a moiré interferometry technique. Hassan and Kosmol [9] used an implicit FEA approach to
simulate the erosion of a single abrasive particle. Mohan and Kovacevic [10] simulated the crack
propagation in a Portland cement concrete (PCC) slab slotted by an AWJ.
Since the jet structure is not properly defined yet, we decided to analyze the effect of a single
abrasive particle impact on the workpiece material using an explicit FEA. Once the AWJ structure
will be defined accurately enough, the presented approach will be extended to simulate the
surface generation in AWJ machining. In our FEA approach we made several improvements of
the simulation, by taking into account many aspects of the AWJ process dynamics, as well as the
simulation method itself.
In the following section the explicit FEA simulation is described, which is further
experimentally validated. Both the experimental and the FEA simulation model can be
graphically illustrated as shown in Fig. 3. We firmly believe that this is the first step in the
right direction to better understand the physics of the AWJ machining process.

2. FEA simulation of a single abrasive particle impact

FEA was successfully applied in numerous fields. It proves itself as a powerful tool for design,
evaluation and optimization of new products and constructions [11,12]. FEA drastically reduces
product development time and costs. In this research, FEA was used for better understanding the
physics of a manufacturing process such as AWJ machining.
Previous work done by other researchers in the field of FEA simulation of the AWJ process [9]
disregard the dynamic effects, which take place during the process. From this point of view they
disregard the dynamic component as a consequence of velocity and acceleration. The
elastic–plastic behaviour of the material was also neglected. The majority of analyses have been
done in 2D space with the Hook material model, which is totally inappropriate for real impact
cases. In such events a local plastic deformation always occurs near and in the area of the impact.
According to the Hook material model, the material cannot reach plastic deformations, which is
the main reason why the Hook material model cannot be applied in the presented case.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 3. Experimental and FEA simulation model.

Apart from the field of AWJ machining, Molinari and Ortiz [13] simulate a single-particle
impact using FEA. Similarly, like in the presented contribution they simulate impacts of a solid
particle on a metallic target at different particles velocities and impact angles. The simulated
impact angles and particle velocities are comparable to the ones simulated in our case. The main
difference is in the size of the particles. Compared to Molinari and Ortiz [13], the particles size in
the presented simulation was about 100 times smaller. This brings many additional issues, which
have to be taken into account in the FEA simulation. The mesh has to be much finer and the
simulation time interval has to be properly defined in order to fulfil the contact conditions.
In the presented FEA model we considered dynamic properties such as velocity and gravity,
beside that the elastic–plastic behaviour of workpiece material was correctly modelled as well.
During modelling an impact of an abrasive particle in AWJ machining, high speed of the abrasive
particle (up to few 100 m/s), small dimension of the particle (in range of some 100 mm) and the fact
that the impact takes place in a very short time represents important issues, which inevitably lead
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

to a numerical stability problem. Due to contact problems between the abrasive particle and the
workpiece material, and because of the small duration of the impact, an implicit numerical code
could not be applied. According to that, we have chosen ANSYS/LS-DYNA, which is an explicit
numerical programme, designed to solve different types of impacts.
Because the impact time of an abrasive particle is in the range of few to 1.0 ms, the critical time
interval plays a crucial role in FEA simulation. This critical time interval is used by ANSYS/LS-
DYNA to verify if a contact was established between the abrasive particle and the workpiece. In
case the critical time is too long, it can occur that no impact is perceived in the simulation. On the
other hand, when the critical time interval is too short, the simulation would take too much time
to be practically useful. Those facts reveal the crucial importance of defining an appropriate set of
units. The critical time interval is calculated according to Courant–Friedrichs–Levy criterion as
shown in Eqs. (1)–(4). Due to numerical stability reasons the critical time interval is multiplied by
0.9 [14].
LE
Dt ¼ 0:9 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; (1)
Q þ Q2 þ c2
where Q is a function of the bulk viscosity coefficients CB0 and CB1

C B1 c þ C B0 LE j_KK j for _KK o0;
Q¼ (2)
0 for _KK X0:
For eight-node solids the characteristic length LE:
vE
LE ¼ : (3)
AE;max
For elastic materials with a constant bulk modulus the sound speed is given by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Eð1
nÞ
c¼ : (4)
ð1 þ nÞð1
2nÞr
It can be observed from Eq. (1) that the critical time (Dt) depends on the elastic module (E),
specific material density (r), characteristic element length (LE), Poisson’s coefficient (n) and strain
rate ð_KK Þ: In other words, the critical time interval is derived from length and mass units. The
selected set of units has to fulfil the condition that the critical time interval is much smaller than
the time in which the impact takes place. When this condition is fulfilled, the impact of an abrasive
particle on the workpiece surface will be detected and properly simulated. For the observed case it
showed that an appropriate set of units is defined when the lengths are expressed in micrometres,
time in microseconds and masses in nanograms.
For fast numerical modelling we developed a programme in Python (GPL license), which
creates a text-based file. This file contains APDL (ANSYS Parametric Design Language) orders,
which instructs ANSYS/LS-DYNA how to build and solve the numerical model. As starting
conditions, the initial velocity and gravity are imposed on the abrasive particle.
During the FEA simulation in ANSYS/LS-DYNA, after every time interval is verified, the
contact between the abrasive particle and the workpiece surface takes place. The selected type of
contact has to fulfil two conditions. In the first place, the contact has to be a surface to surface
type. Besides that, the contact type has to allow a surface experience material failure during the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

8 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

contact. Both demands are fulfilled in case an eroding surface to surface (ESTS) type of contact is
chosen [15].
The selected type of contact correctly models a possible punch in workpiece material, because
numerical instabilities can arise if a different type of contact is chosen. In this way we correctly
modelled the local fracture of workpiece material.
The abrasive particle was modelled using rigid 3D solid (tetrahedral) elements, with properties
showed in Table 1.
The workpiece material was modelled with 3D solid (brick) elements with an elastic–plastic
material model. Workpiece material properties are listed in Table 2. A piecewise linear plasticity
material model was applied, which is very appropriate for steel. In this material model the input is
the True stress–True strain curve.
A single abrasive particle impact was simulated using an explicit FEA at three different impact
velocities and three different impact angles as listed in Table 3. According to that, a total of nine
different simulation scenarios. Beside the particle impact velocity, the gravity (g ¼ 10 m=s2 ) was

Table 1
Characterization of abrasive particles for FEA needs

Particles shape Spherical

dA,FEA, particles diameter 100 mm
rA,FEA, abrasive density 4000 kg/m3
EA, elasticity module 2.48  105 MPa
nA, Poisson’s coefficient 0.27

Table 2
Material properties for stainless steel 1.4301 (AISI 304)

rM, material density 8030 kg/m3

EM, elasticity module 1.95  105 MPa
nM, Poisson’s coefficient 0.27
Rp 0,2, yield stress 316 MPa
Rm, tensile strength 623 MPa
A, elongation 55%
Hardness 91 HRb

Table 3
Process parameters setup in FEA simulations (plan of simulations)

vA, particle velocity at the impact (m/s) 180

200
220
aI, impact angle (1) 90
60
30
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

Fig. 4. Craters simulated at different particle velocities and impact angles.

taken into account as well, even though it could be neglected, taking into account the high particle
velocity and short acceleration paths.
All nine different scenarios (three particle velocities and three impact angles) were simulated
and the magnitudes of displacements of the resulting craters are shown in Fig. 4.
On the simulated craters the major (d2) and minor (d1) dimensions at the workpiece surface
were measured, and therefore, the crater sphericity (SC) was calculated. The results are presented
in Fig. 5. As expected, it can be observed that the crater sphericity value is 1 when the impact
angle of the abrasive particle is set to 901. The sphericity increases up to the value 1.4 when the
impact angle decreases down to 301 as can be observed in Fig. 5.

3. Experimental verification and validation of FEA simulations

According to FEA simulations we try to experimentally reproduce the process as closely as

possible. Due to the complexity of AWJ machining process, several issues have to be addressed.
In the first place, the abrasive particles are being fragmented during the acceleration process
and the actual size at the impact with the workpiece differs from the nominal particles size defined
with the abrasive mesh number (]A). In his experiments, Martinec [16] observed that abrasive
particles get fragmented mostly in the cutting head during their acceleration and not so much
during the workpiece material removal process. Kantha Babu and Krishnaiah Chetty [17] also
observed that abrasive particles are fragmented predominantly during their acceleration phase.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

10 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 5. Simulated craters sphericity as a function of particle velocity and its impact angle.

When the AWJ process is modelled, the fact that abrasive particles get fragmented before the
impact with the target material has to be taken into account, since their shape and size differs
from the initial one. Because of that, in our FEA simulation the abrasive particle diameter was
100 mm, while the abrasive particles used in our experimental verification have an input average
diameter of 190 mm.
Another very important issue is the particle velocity at the impact with the target material
surface. The acceleration mechanisms are not fully understood yet, and at this stage we can only
estimate the particle velocity according to the water pressure and other parameters involved in the
acceleration process. The velocity of the water after the formation of a water jet in the orifice can
be approximated by Eq. (5).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2pW
vW;0 ¼ : (5)
rW

Abrasive particles accelerate due to the momentum transfer from the high-speed water jet,
which can be formalized by
mA vA;0 þ mW vW ;0 þ mair vair;0 ¼ mA vA;1 þ mW vW ;1 þ mair vair;1 ; (6)
where mA, mW and mair are the mass flow rates of abrasive particles, water and air, respectively.
vW,0 is the initial velocity of the water before the acceleration process, which can be approximated
with Eq. (5). vA,0 and vair,0 are the initial velocities of abrasive particles and air, respectively, which
can be neglected, since they are much smaller than the initial velocity of water (vA,05vW,0,
vair,05vW,0). Taking into account the volumetric composition of an AWJ [18] and the densities of
its components, abrasive particles and water constitute each around 49% of the mass flow; the
remaining 2% is represented by air, which in the case of momentum transfer analyses can be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11

neglected. Taking into account all these assumptions, the impact velocity of abrasive particles can
be calculated by

mW ðvW;0
vW;1 Þ
vA;1 ¼ ; (7)
mA

where vW,1 is the velocity of water after the acceleration process. The relation between the water
pressure and abrasive particle velocity at the impact can be presented in the form given in
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
vA;1 ¼ C 1 pW þ C 2 ; (8)

where C1 and C2 are constants depending on the acceleration process itself and process
parameters like abrasive properties, cutting head geometry, etc. So far, C1 and C2 are not fully
defined yet. Nevertheless, by taking into account the relation between the water pressure and the
velocity of abrasive particles given in Eq. (8), velocities for the FEA simulations can be estimated
from the water pressures used in the experiments.
As a workpiece material, stainless steel 1.4301 (AISI 304) was used. From a cold rolled bar,
samples of dimensions 10  50  50 mm were cut out and the impact surface was additionally
ground, which resulted in an average surface roughness Ra ¼ 0:83 mm:
All experiments were performed on an OMAX type 2652A/20HP cutting system and a Böhler
cutting head as shown in Fig. 6. In order to allow experimentations at different impact angles, a
special workpiece holder was designed, which enables us to expose the workpiece surface
at impact angles between 01 and 901. The impact angle was set with a protractor. For each set
of process parameters, five engraves were made at elevated traverse rate of the cutting head on a
stainless-steel sample. In total, nine samples were used for the experiments.

Fig. 6. Experimental set-up.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

12 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

4. Crater measurement and evaluation

FEA simulations results are compared and validated with the experimental results by means of
crater’s sphericity SC, which is defined as the derivative of the minor crater dimension d2 over the
major crater dimension d1 as illustrated in Fig. 7 and formalized by
d1
SC ¼ : (9)
d2
For each of the nine sets of process parameters, 200 craters were examined. Pictures of craters
were taken by a digital camera JVC TK-870E mounted on a microscope Leitz Ortoplan with
optical magnification 50:1.
In Fig. 8 representative craters for each of the nine sets of experiments are shown in order to
give a better impression of how the real crater actually looks. From each set we pick a crater of
average size and shape.
The size of the craters is distributed in a wide range, since particles velocities, their shape and
size are different at each impact. Partially, this is a consequence of particles fragmentation during
the acceleration process, where from a narrow distribution at the beginning of the acceleration
process, the distribution of particle size and shape at the impact becomes much wider. On the
other hand, abrasive particles accelerate according to their size and shape and to the acceleration
mechanisms, which so far are not fully explained. Consequentially we discovered that the most
reliable attribute to verify the FEA simulation is the sphericity of the craters on the workpiece
material, which significantly depends on the impact angle. Our analysis was extended to three
different particle velocities, which are related to the water pressure as formalized in Eq. (8). In this
way the reliability of the FEA simulation is verified for a wide range of water pressures, which are
commonly used in AWJ machining.
Crater’s pictures were stored on a PC, and imported in a freeware image processing software
Image Tool, where d1 and d2 were measured. The final analysis and graph plots were executed in
MatLab. For each combination of process parameters (water pressure pW and impact angle aI) the
number of craters NC, which has been measured was 200. The resulting experimental values, e.g.
crater sphericity are plotted in histograms in Fig. 9.
From Fig. 9 it can be observed that the highest dispersion of crater sphericity was when the
impact angle was set to 301. The dispersion narrows when the impact angle is increased through

Fig. 7. Geometrical characterization of a crater by means of its sphericity.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 13

Fig. 8. Craters made at different water pressures and impact angles.

601 to the final value of 901. The higher dispersion of crater sphericity at smaller impact angles
could be attributed to the higher influence of other effects during the impacts. These effects are
workpiece surface irregularities, shape of abrasive particles and abrasive particles rotation
induced at the contact with the workpiece surface, especially at small impact angles. In Fig. 10 the
average craters sphericity are plotted as a function of the impact angle at different water pressures.
As expected, the sphericity of the craters increases with the increase of the impact angle. At
impact, an angle of 901 around the crater was expected, but, that was not the case since the
abrasive particles themselves are not perfectly spherical objects. The shape of the craters also
partially depends on the actual shape of abrasive particles. For this reason we measured the shape
in terms of sphericity of the used abrasive particles and the results are given in Fig. 11.
Another very important aspect, which has to be taken into account and takes place in the
cutting head, is the fragmentation of particles during the acceleration process. It is very likely that
after the fragmentation the particles become more spherical compared to their initial shape before
entering the cutting head. Taking this into account, the FEA simulations match extremely well
with the experimental results in the case when the impact angle was set at 901. The simulated
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

14 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Fig. 9. Histograms of crater sphericity measured in the experiments.

Fig. 10. Average crater sphericity as function of impact angle at different water pressures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 15

Fig. 11. Abrasive particles shape and sphericity histogram before the acceleration process.

Table 4
Abrasive properties

Type of abrasive Garnet

]A, abrasive mesh 80
dA, average particle size 190 mm
rA, abrasive density E4000 kg/m3
Abrasive hardness 8–9 Mohs scale

crater sphericity is 1, the measured sphericity is around 0.792, while the initial average sphericity
of abrasive particles is 0.688. It seems that the sphericity of abrasive particles is increased from
0.688 to 0.792 during their acceleration in the cutting head. Nevertheless, the difference between
the calculated and measured sphericity of the craters can be attributed to other influences like the
non-homogeneity of the workpiece material and non-symmetry of abrasive particles, which
induces some rotation of the particle at the impact and consequentially a deviation from the
expected crater sphericity (Tables 4–6).

5. Comparison of FEA simulation and experimental results

Results from the FEA simulation and experimental verification are collected and shown in Fig.
12, where a good agreement can be observed.
At all three impact angles (301, 601 and 901), the simulated crater sphericity is always smaller
than the measured sphericity. Relative differences between FEA simulations and experimental
measurements are emphasized in Table 7 beside numeric values of sphericity.
The relative difference between measured and simulated sphericity was calculated according to
S C;FEA
S C;exp
DS ¼ 100%: (10)
S C;FEA
The average measured sphericity of craters, which was obtained at impact angles of 901 differs
from 1, which can be used as a reference point. This deviation can be attributed to the actual
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

16 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table 5
Experimental process parameters

vT, cutting head traverse rate 40 mm/s

hSO, stand-off distance 50 mm
dO, orifice diameter 0.3 mm
dF, focusing tube diameter 0.8 mm
lF, focusing tube length 70 mm
mA, abrasive mass flow 40 g/min

Table 6
Plan of experiments

pW, water pressure (MPa) 200

250
300
aI, impact angle (1) 90
60
30

Fig. 12. Comparison of FEA simulations experimental results.

shape of abrasive particles as already discussed in the previous section. Assuming that this
deviation of crater sphericity is similar also in cases when the impact angle was set at 601 and 301,
it can be concluded that our FEA simulation of single abrasive particle impact reliably describes
the trends of the real process.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 17

Table 7
Comparison of FEA simulation and measurements of experimental results

Impact angle aI (1) 30 60 90

Measured sphericity at pW ¼ 200 MPa 0.4525 0.6034 0.7595

Simulated sphericity at vA ¼ 180 m=s 0.7530 0.9058 1.0000
Relative difference, DS (%) 39.9 33.4 24.0
Measured sphericity at pW ¼ 250 MPa 0.4984 0.6239 0.7933
Simulated sphericity at vA ¼ 200 m=s 0.7479 0.9058 1.0000
Relative difference, DS (%) 33.4 31.1 20.7
Measured sphericity at pW ¼ 300 MPa 0.4922 0.6375 0.8254
Simulated sphericity at vA ¼ 220 m=s 0.7051 0.9242 1.0000
Relative difference, DS (%) 30.2 31.0 17.5

6. Conclusion

An extended analysis of a single abrasive particle impact on the workpiece surface in the case of
AWJ machining has been done and the results are extremely encouraging. First, explicit FEA
simulations of single-particle impacts at different angles and velocities were realized and later on
experimentally validated. Results from explicit FEA simulation are in good agreement with the
experimental results.
The original motivation of this work was to observe the effect of abrasive particles rotation on the
workpiece material erosion process in AWJ machining. After a state-of-the-art preview of FEA
approaches in modelling the AWJ machining process, we conclude that a basic model of a single
abrasive particle impact has to be made before any further, more complex analysis where parameters
like particle rotation can be observed. In our simulations we vary two process parameters, namely the
initial particle velocity and the impact angle in order to make a reliable experimental validation of the
FEA. From the presented work, the following conclusions can be drawn:
– an explicit FEA simulation can be used for better understanding of the AWJ machining process
and influences of process parameters on it,
– results from experimental verification are in good agreement with the applied explicit FEA
simulations,
– when the impact angle is set to 901, valuable information are obtained on the influence of
abrasive particles shape on crater shape,
– the process is more unpredictable at small impact angles and smaller velocities (water pressures),
because abrasive particle shape, workpiece surface integrity, etc. have a stronger influence on
the shape of the craters.

From this research, many aspects of AWJ machining and FEA emerge, which have to be
further investigated. Some issues, like the fragmentation of abrasive particles and their
acceleration also have to be further explored. For further FEA simulations, more attention will
be dedicated to the influence of abrasive particles shape and size, friction conditions at the impact
interface and characteristics of the workpiece surface.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

18 M. Junkar et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

A combination of the proposed explicit FEA with other methods such as cellular automata
approach and unit event-based model can eventually lead to a better understanding of the AWJ
machining process and its optimization.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Böhler Hochdrucktechnik, GmbH, Austria for
their assistance in supplying a cutting head and its components for experimental purposes. Special
thanks go to the Department of Material Science and Technology at the University of Ljubljana
for their assistance during the measurements of crater and particle shape.

References

[1] Lebar A, Junkar M. Simulation of abrasive waterjet machining based on unit event features. Proc Inst Mech Eng B
J Eng Manuf 2003;217(B5):699–703.
[2] Orbanic H, Junkar M. Cellular automata in mechanical engineering. In: Junkar M, Levy PR, editors. Proceedings
of the sixth international conference on management of innovative technologies. Piran, Slovenia: LAT, TAVO;
2003. p. 139–47.
[3] Henning A, Westkamper E. Modelling of wear mechanisms at the abrasive waterjet cutting front. In: Summers DA,
editor. Proceedings of the 2003 WJTA American waterjet conference. Houston, TX, USA: WJTA; 2003. Paper 3-A.
[4] Hoogstrate AM, Karpuschewski B, van Luttervelt CA, Kals HJJ. Modeling of high velocity, loose abrasive
machining processes. Ann CIRP 2002;51(1):263–6.
[5] Vikram G, Ramesh Babu N. Modelling and analysis of abrasive water jet cut surface topography. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 2002;42:1345–54.
[6] Momber AW, Kovacevic R. Principles of abrasive water jet machining. Berlin: Springer; 1998.
[7] Chen FL, Siores E. The effect of cutting jet variation on surface striation formation in abrasive water jet cutting.
J Mater Proc Tech 2003;135:1–5.
[8] Guo Z, Ramulu M, Jenkins MG. Analysis of the waterjet contact/impact on target material. Opt Lasers Eng
2000;33:121–39.
[9] Hassan AI, Kosmol J. Finite element modeling of abrasive water-jet machining (AWJM). In: Ciccu R, editor. 15th
international conference on jetting technology. Ronneby (Sweden): BHR Group Limited; 2000. p. 321–33.
[10] Mohan RS, Kovacevic R. Finite element modeling of crack propagation in PCC slabs slotted with abrasive water
jet. In: Hashish M, editor. Proceedings of the 10th American waterjet conference. Houston, TX, USA: WJTA;
1999 Paper 5.
[11] Grah M, Nagode M, Fajdiga M. Rekonstrukcija in optimizacija con za akumulacijo energije ob celnem trku
vozila. In: Fajdiga, M, Klemenc J, Kostanjevec A, Trenc F, editors. Sixth conference IAT’03. Koper/Portorož
(Slovenija): ZSITS, SVM, LAVEK; 2003. p. 93–100.
[12] Mahnic M, Janezic M, Orbanic P, Fajdija M. Stress calculation of the BMW PL2: modified pedal box: preliminary
calculations. Report, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, LAVEK, 2002, 30pp.
[13] Molinari JF, Ortiz M. A study of solid-particle erosion of metallic targets. Int J Impact Eng 2002;27:347–58.
[14] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, May 1998.
[15] ANSYS Inc. ANSYS 6.1 Documentation.
[16] Martinec P. Changes of garnets during abrasive water jet generation and cutting of materials. In: Allen NG, editor.
12th international conference on jetting technology. Rouen (France): BHR Group Limited; 1994. p. 543–51.
[17] Kantha Babu M, Krishnaiah Chetty OV. Studies on recharging of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2002;19:697–703.
[18] Tazibt A, Parsy F, Abriak N. Theoretical analysis of the particle acceleration process in abrasive water jet cutting.
Comput Mater Sci 1996;5:243–54.