International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

A strategy for efficient and quality cutting of materials

with abrasive waterjets considering the variation in orifice
and focusing nozzle diameter
J. John Rozario Jegaraj, N. Ramesh Babu*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
Received 7 December 2004; accepted 20 January 2005
Available online 4 March 2005

Abstract
In Abrasive Waterjet (AWJ) cutting, orifice and focusing nozzle diameter undergo continuous change in their dimensions due to erosive
nature of high velocity abrasive waterjet. This particular phenomenon can affect the efficiency and quality of the process. To achieve
maximum efficiency and desired quality with this process, the parameters need to be optimally selected from time to time considering the
changes in the dimensions of orifice and focusing nozzle. In an effort to develop strategies for this purpose and to build the knowledge base
for adaptive control of the process, the present work aims to study the influence of orifice and focusing nozzle diameter variation on the
performance of abrasive waterjets in cutting 6063-T6 aluminum alloy. The performance was assessed in terms of different parameters such as
depth of cut, material removal rate, cutting efficiency, kerf geometry and cut surface topography. In order to maintain the desired
performance, it is essential to monitor the condition of nozzles and suitably adjust the process parameters with a view to control the process.
Towards the latter, the present work attempts to suggest a strategy that can aid in replacing the nozzles at an appropriate time for maintaining
the performance of process within certain limits so as to maintain the precision in machining with abrasive waterjets.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Abrasive waterjet cutting; Orifice size; Focusing nozzle size; Cutting efficiency; Kerf quality

1. Introduction size and focusing nozzle size are quasi-static variables in

In Abrasive Waterjet (AWJ) cutting, high velocity water
entrained with abrasive particles is employed for cutting a
wide variety of materials ranging from soft to hard materials
[1]. It offers certain unique benefits such as negligible heat
affected zone, high degree of maneuverability and less
machining force [2]. In contrast to this, it is quite complex in
view of several process parameters such as hydraulic,
abrasive, mixing and cutting parameters influencing the
performance of the process [1]. Generally, the process
performance can be evaluated in terms of depth of cut,
material removal rate, cutting efficiency, kerf geometry and
cut surface topography [1,3]. Fig. 1 shows various
parameters influencing the process. Among them, orifice
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C91 44 22578540; fax: C91 44 22570509.
E-mail address: nrbabu@iitm.ac.in (N.R. Babu).
0890-6955/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.01.020
view of their change in their dimensions during the process
[4]. A considerable effort was made in understanding the
influence of dynamic variables such as waterjet pressure,
abrasive flow rate, traverse rate, stand off distance, and
number of passes on depth of cut and material removal rate
[1,3,5–7]. However, the attempts made towards investi-
gating the influence of quasi-static variables on the cutting
performance in terms of depth of cut, material removal rate,
cutting efficiency, kerf geometry and cut surface topography
are limited [3,5,8–10]. Most of the investigations are
performed by choosing the ratio of focusing nozzle to
orifice size at around 3:1 [3,9,10]. The ratio of 3:1 between
focusing nozzle diameter to orifice size was suggested as the
best suited combination out of several combinations of
focusing nozzle to orifice size in order to achieve the
maximum depth of cut in cutting [8]. It was suggested that
the ratio of 5:1 and beyond was found to cause an ineffective
entrainment of abrasives in cutting head [3,5]. Further, it
was noticed that the size of orifice was found to influence
the flow rate and mixing of abrasives in the mixing chamber
1444 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450
Fig. 1. Process parameters influencing the AWJ cutting process.
thus affecting the depth of cut [3,5]. On the other hand,
focusing nozzle size influences the jet coherence thus
affecting the hydraulic power density on the work material
[3]. In AWJ cutting, the efficiency of cutting can be
evaluated in terms of the amount of material removed per
unit mass of abrasive consumed. This efficiency depends on
the size of orifice, focusing nozzle size and abrasive flow
rate. It was observed that the cutting efficiency increased
with the size of orifice and decreased with an increase in the
exit diameter of focusing nozzle [11]. In general, the criteria
employed for optimum performance consider (i) minimiz-
ing the cost per unit volume of material removed, (ii) high
rate of cutting, (iii) achieving good surface finish [3]. Based
on these criteria, the process can be categorized into energy
efficient cutting, i.e. utilizing minimum energy for cutting
and high quality cutting for achieving good surface finish
and low kerf taper. In case of AWJ cutting, it is seen that
energy efficient cutting may result in poor surface finish due
to the complete utilization energy of the jet in cutting. But to
minimize the cost of operation in energy efficient cutting, it
is desirable to operate at maximum cutting efficiency. In
contrast to this, for high quality cutting, large energy of jet is
employed to extend the striation free depth of cut beyond
the desirable thickness of material to be cut so as to ensure a
smooth finish in the region of cut shifting the striation zone
beyond this thickness. Due to this, a considerable portion of
the jet energy is wasted. In any of these cases, for achieving
optimum performance with such cutting, the selection of the
orifice and focusing nozzle size is critical. Apart from
various parametric studies varying several parameters of
AWJ cutting, attempts were made to develop certain models
for suggesting the best set of process parameters with a view
to maintain the consistency in process performance even
with focusing nozzle size variation. A fuzzy modelling
approach was suggested for identifying the best set of
process parameters to achieve the desired depth of cut
considering the variation in focusing nozzle diameter [12].
In precision cutting with AWJs, the geometry of kerf
produced by the jet is important and this kerf geometry is
influenced by the orifice size and focusing nozzle size.
Further, the size of orifice and focusing nozzle affect the cut
surface topography. The influence of orifice size and
focusing nozzle size on surface roughness was considered
[9,13]. However, these investigations have not considered
the combinatorial effect of orifice and focusing nozzle.
Most of the investigations employed a fixed ratio of
focusing nozzle to orifice to study the influence of several
process parameters on the kerf geometry [14,15] and cut
surface topography [13,16]. Thus, the influence of orifice
and focusing nozzle size variation as well as their ratio on
different process outputs such as depth of cut, material
removal rate, kerf geometry and surface finish are not well
investigated. Moreover, such a study would enable one to
consider the influence of orifice and focusing nozzle wear
on the performance of process which in turn aids in
controlling the process with the help of suitable control
strategies. Therefore, the present study aims at investigating
the influence of different sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle
on the performance of AWJs in cutting. This study is
intended to develop a strategy that can aid in utilizing the
high energy abrasive waterjet for efficient cutting as well as
for high quality cutting. At the same time, such a strategy
would help one to replace orifice and focusing nozzle at an
appropriate time so that the performance of AWJs does not
hinder the quality levels set.
2. Methodology
In order to study the influence of orifice and focusing
nozzle diameter on the performance of AWJs in cutting, the
present study considered different sizes of orifice and
focusing nozzles with an assumption that the wear on these
units is uniform. The performance was evaluated in terms of
depth of cut, material removal rate, cutting efficiency, kerf
geometry and cut surface topography. The experiments
were planned by adopting full factorial experimentation
procedure. In these experiments, the waterjet pressure and
abrasive flow rate were varied at different levels and the jet
traverse rate was kept constant. For the purpose of assessing
the complete penetration of jet into the material, exper-
iments were carried out on wedge shaped specimen. For
evaluating the material removal rate, cutting efficiency, kerf
geometry and cut surface topography, experiments were
carried out on uniform thick specimen. From the results of
the study, the influence of orifice and focusing nozzle size
on the process performance was revealed and a strategy for
replacing orifice and focusing nozzle is arrived at with a
view to maintain the process results within certain limits.
3. Experimental
The experimental set up used for this study is shown in
Fig. 2. For conducting these experiments, an injection type
abrasive waterjet cutting machine that can generate a
maximum pressure of 360 MPa with a rated discharge of
2.2 litres/min was employed. All these experiments were
conducted by choosing a standoff distance of 3 mm, jet
impact angle of 908 and traversing the jet along the material
once. Garnet of 120-mesh size was chosen as abrasive
 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450 1445

Fig. 3. The geometry of work material used for experiments. (a) Wedge
shaped specimen and (b) uniform thick specimen.

In order to measure the penetration of jet into work

material, i.e. depth of cut, a wedge shaped 6063-T6
aluminum alloy work material with an included angle of
258 was chosen (Fig. 3(a)). For these studies, waterjet
pressure and abrasive flow rate were varied at three levels.
The maximum depth of cut (h) for each set of parameters
was obtained by measuring the slant length of cut (L) on the
wedge shaped work material and using the relation

h Z L sin 258 (1)

Fig. 2. Photograph of the experimental set up. For determining the material removal rate, cutting
efficiency, kerf geometry and cut surface topography, the
material and 6063-T6 aluminum alloy was chosen as the experiments were conducted on uniform thick aluminum
work material. samples 60 mm!50 mm!10 mm (Fig. 3(b)). This particu-
In the experimental plan, different sizes of orifice such as lar geometry was chosen to observe the geometry of kerf
0.25, 0.3 and 0.4 mm and focusing nozzles of 0.76, 1.02, 1.2 from the cross-section of cut and to measure the surface
and 1.6 mm diameter were considered. The traverse rate roughness along the cut surface. For this particular study,
the waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate were varied at
was kept constant at 60 mm/min. The mass flow rate of
two levels. For all these experiments, the process parameters
abrasives was varied by adjusting the frequency of
such as waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate were chosen
excitation of vibratory type feeding system and the exact
carefully to avoid complete penetration of jet through the
mass flow rate of abrasives was measured before and after
specimen. This also ensures the complete utilization of jet
the experimentation. Different process parameters
energy in material removal. For measuring the loss in
employed for this experimentation are shown in Table 1. weight of target material, a precision electronic balance
‘AFCOSET’ model ER200A with a least count of 0.1 mg
Table 1 was used. From the weight of material removed and traverse
Different process parameters employed for AWJ cutting rate employed for cutting, the material removal rate was
estimated. By knowing the material removal rate and
Parameters Operating range
abrasive flow rate, the cutting efficiency, i.e. the weight loss
Waterjet pressure (P in MPa) of target material per gram of abrasive was determined. The
(a) For 2 levels 100 and 250
(b) For 3 levels 100, 175, 250
kerf width was measured in two regions; upper region, i.e.
Jet traverse rate (v in mm minK1) 60 entry of jet into material and middle region, i.e. middle half
Abrasive flow rate (m in kg minK1) of the total penetration depth. For measuring the kerf
(c) For 2 levels 0.07 and 0.22 geometry, Tool maker’s microscope with a magnification of
(d) For 3 levels 0.07, 0.11, 0.22 29! and a least count of 0.005 mm was used. From these
Stand-off distance (mm) 3
Abrasive type and size Garnet with mesh size 120
measurements, the kerf taper q is estimated with the relation
Primary nozzle (do in mm) F 0.25, F 0.3, F 0.4, sapphire, Wt K Wm
orifice q Z tanK1 (2)
Focusing nozzle (df in mm) F 0.76, F 1.02, F 1.20 and F 1.6 2h1
Number of passes 1
where Wt is the kerf width at top region, Wm is the kerf width
Angle of cutting 908
at middle region and h1 is the half of the total penetration
1446 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450
depth. A stylus type roughness measuring instrument
‘Perthen’, with a tip radius of 2.5 mm, was employed to
measure the average roughness (Ra) on the cut surface. All
the measurements were taken in two regions; upper region,
i.e. at a distance of 2.5 mm from the top of cut surface and at
the middle region, i.e. at the middle half of the total
penetration depth.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of orifice size and focusing nozzle diameter
on depth of cut
Fig. 4 presents the variation in depth of cut with different
sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle. This variation is based
on three different jet pressures and abrasive flow rate.
Fig. 4. Variation of depth of cut with different sizes of orifice ((a) 0.25 mm;
(b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different waterjet
pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa; (ii) PZ175 MPa; and (iii)
PZ250 MPa.
From the results, it can be noticed that the depth of cut
increased with an increase in waterjet pressure for different
combinations of orifice and focusing nozzle size. This is
seen to be more predominant with combinations employing
orifice size of 0.25 and 0.30 mm. But, with an orifice size of
0.40 mm, this effect was less significant. This particular
behaviour can be attributed to the reduction in jet velocity
with a larger orifice. Similarly, the depth of cut has
increased with an increase in abrasive flow rate with
different combinations of orifice and focusing nozzle.
With any particular size of orifice, the depth of cut increased
with an increasing size of focusing nozzle and then reduced
beyond focusing nozzle diameter of 1.2 mm. Similarly,
different sizes of focusing nozzle tend to reduce the depth of
cut when the size of orifice has increased. This is more
predominant with higher waterjet pressures used for cutting.
Further, it may be noticed that the depth of cut is found to be
maximum when the focusing nozzle size to orifice size is in
the range of 3–4.5 for orifice of 0.25 mm and 2.5–3.4 for an
orifice of 0.3 mm diameter. In all the cases, the depth of cut
is seen to be significantly low with an orifice size of 0.4 mm.
This could be due to an inefficient abrasive entrainment and
improper mixing of abrasives with larger size of orifice [3].
From the results, it is clear that an orifice of 0.4 mm
diameter and focusing nozzle beyond 1.2 mm diameter are
found to reduce the depth of cut drastically. In any case, a
slight variation in orifice size is bound to reduce the depth of
cut drastically with higher waterjet pressures. However, the
variation in focusing nozzle is tolerable up to 1.2 mm
beyond which it should be replaced.
4.2. Effect of orifice size and focusing nozzle size on material
removal rate and cutting efficiency
Fig. 5 shows the variation of material removal rate with
different sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle obtained with
different waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate. From the
results, it can be observed that the volume of material
removed increased with an increase in abrasive flow rate
and waterjet pressure. However, the rate of material
removed decreased with an increase in the size of orifice
and is found to be substantially low with an orifice size of
0.4 mm. At the same time, one can clearly notice the higher
volume of material removal with higher waterjet pressures
(i.e. 250 MPa) employed with a smaller size of orifice. In
contrast to this, the volume of material removed increased
with an increase in the size of focusing nozzle up to 1.2 mm
diameter. Beyond this, it is reduced. This is more
predominant with higher waterjet pressure and abrasive
mass flow rate.
Fig. 6 presents the variation of cutting efficiency with
different sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle. From the
results, it can be noticed that the cutting efficiency of
abrasive waterjets is low with lower waterjet pressure
of 100 MPa. On the other hand, a higher waterjet pressure of
250 MPa employed with different sizes of orifice
 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450 1447

reduced the efficiency of cutting with abrasive waterjets.

Further, it may be seen that even with lower abrasive flow
rate, the cutting efficiency reduced significantly when the
focusing nozzle size increased beyond 1.2 mm. From the
results shown in Figs. 5 and 6, it can be understood that an
orifice of 0.25 mm and the focusing nozzle diameter to
orifice ratio of 3–4.5, at high waterjet pressure results in
maximum material removal rate and cutting efficiency. As
seen earlier, any variation in orifice size is likely to affect the
material removal rate and cutting efficiency significantly. In
contrast to this, the variation in focusing nozzle size can be
tolerated up to a certain limit beyond which it should be
replaced for maintaining the desired material removal rate
and efficiency in cutting. However, this study clearly shows
that one has to limit the abrasive flow rate for optimizing
material removal rate and cutting efficiency.

4.3. Effect of orifice size and focusing nozzle size

on kerf geometry

Fig. 7 shows the variation of kerf width with different

sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle obtained by employing
Fig. 5. Variation of material removal rate with different sizes of orifice ((a) different abrasive flow rate and waterjet pressure in cutting.
0.25 mm; (b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different It can be noticed that the kerf width in the upper and middle
waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa and (ii) PZ regions increased almost linearly with an increase in the size
250 MPa.
of focusing nozzle. The same trend can be noticed even with
higher waterjet pressures. The influence of abrasive flow
and focusing nozzle enhanced the cutting efficiency. It is
interesting to note that the cutting efficiency is high for
lower abrasive flow rate and orifice size of 0.25 and 0.3 mm.
In any case, an orifice of 0.4 mm diameter drastically

Fig. 6. Variation of cutting efficiency with different sizes of orifice ((a)

0.25 mm; (b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different Fig. 7. Variation of kerf width with different sizes of orifice ((a) 0.25 mm;
waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa and (ii) PZ (b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different waterjet
250 MPa. pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa and (ii) PZ250 MPa.
1448 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450

Fig. 8. Variation of kerf taper with different sizes of orifice ((a) 0.25 mm;
(b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different waterjet
pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa and (ii) PZ250 MPa.
Fig. 9. Variation of surface roughness with different sizes of orifice ((a)
0.25 mm; (b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different
rate is found to be less significant on kerf width. Similarly, a waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ100 MPa, mZ0.07 kg/min;
change in orifice size did not cause much change in kerf and (ii) PZ100 MPa, mZ0.22 kg/min.
width. However, the kerf width variation in upper and
middle regions with an orifice size of 0.4 mm is seen to be
more irregular.
Fig. 8 shows the variation in kerf taper with different
sizes of orifice and focusing nozzle for different waterjet
pressure and abrasive flow rates. From these results, one can
clearly see a larger taper in the kerf when the orifice of
0.4 mm was employed for cutting especially with lower
waterjet pressures. High kerf taper may be attributed to
lesser kinetic energy of the jet with larger orifice size as the
jet cannot remove the material adequately at the lower
section, resulting in a narrow bottom kerf. In any case, the
orifice of 0.25 and 0.3 mm diameter yielded more or less the
same magnitude of kerf taper. This is much lesser at waterjet
pressure of 250 MPa. This study clearly suggests the need to
maintain the orifice size and focusing nozzle size within
certain limits say 0.25–0.3 mm and 1.2 mm, respectively,
for maintaining less taper on kerf.

4.4. Effect of orifice size and focusing nozzle size

on surface roughness

For quality cutting with AWJs, it is important to

maintain good surface finish on the cut surface apart from
the kerf taper. Figs. 9 and 10 show the variation in surface
roughness with different sizes of orifice and focusing
nozzle when different abrasive flow rates and waterjet
pressures were employed for cutting. It can be noticed that
the surface roughness in the upper region of cut is more or
Fig. 10. Variation of surface roughness with different sizes of orifice ((a)
0.25 mm; (b) 0.30 mm; and (c) 0.40 mm) and focusing nozzle at different
waterjet pressure and abrasive flow rate (i) PZ250 MPa, mZ0.07 kg/min;
and (ii) PZ250 MPa, mZ0.22 kg/min.
 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450
less the same with different conditions chosen with an
orifice size of 0.25 and 0.3 mm, but it has increased with an
orifice size of 0.4 mm. However, the roughness in the
middle region of cut is higher than that noticed in the upper
region in all cases. An increase in jet pressure has further
increased the roughness in the middle region of cut.
Interestingly, the surface roughness in middle region of cut
is found to be low with a larger size of focusing nozzle.
This can be attributed to the fact that the energy density of
the jet is low with larger size of focusing nozzles and
orifice size resulting in lesser striations in the bottom
region of cut thus reducing the roughness in the middle
region of cut. From the above, it is clear that the variation
in orifice and focusing nozzle size does not likely to
deteriorate the quality of cut surface much.
5. Strategy for efficient and effective cutting of materials
with abrasive waterjets
As discussed earlier, an efficient use of AWJs deals with
the realization of larger depth of penetration, higher material
removal rate and cutting efficiency with AWJs. In contrast
to this, quality cutting with AWJs need to focus on good
quality on cut surface and low kerf taper. In order to
maintain the efficiency and quality of AWJ cutting
considering the variation in size of orifice and focusing
nozzle from time to time, it is essential to arrive at a strategy
that can suggest the replacement of orifice and focusing
nozzle at an appropriate time with a view to maintain the
efficiency and quality of cutting within reasonable limits.
Based on the investigations carried out in this work, the
following conclusions are drawn to suggest a strategy for
maintaining the quality and efficiency in cutting materials
with practical consideration of employing high waterjet
pressure for cutting applications.
1. Any increase in the size of orifice is bound to reduce the
depth of cut significantly in contrast to focusing nozzle
size whose variation can be tolerated up to 1.2 mm.
2. Any increase in the size of orifice is likely to affect the
material removal rate and cutting efficiency significantly.
But, the variation in focusing nozzle size can be
permitted up to 1.2 mm diameter. However, smaller
abrasive flow rates associated with high waterjet pressure
are found to be advantageous for attaining maximum
efficiency with different sizes of focusing nozzle.
3. A change in the size of orifice and focusing nozzle is
found to have less influence on kerf width in contrast to
kerf taper. Larger size of orifice, i.e. 0.4 mm and
focusing nozzle size beyond 1.2 mm is found to alter
the kerf taper significantly.
4. Any increase in the size of orifice and focusing nozzle is
not likely to deteriorate the quality on cut surface much.
However, larger size of orifice is found to produce a
better surface finish on cut surface.
1449
From the above discussion, a strategy for both efficient
and quality cutting of materials with AWJs is that the orifice
size set initially to 0.25 or 0.3 mm should be maintained, but
the variation in focusing nozzle size can be permitted up to a
size of 1.2 mm.
6. Conclusions
In this work, a detailed investigation on the influence of
orifice size and focusing nozzle size on the performance of
abrasive waterjets is covered. These studies are essentially
focused on maintaining the cutting efficiency and quality in
cutting with limited discharge capacity abrasive waterjet
cutting system when the variation in the size of orifice and
focusing nozzle occurs during cutting. These investigations
revealed an interesting fact that both quality and efficiency
in cutting with abrasive waterjets can be maintained by
keeping the orifice sizes in the range of 0.25–0.3 mm
and maintaining the focusing nozzle sizes in the range of
0.76–1.2 mm with the ratio of focusing nozzle size to orifice
size in between 3 and 4.5. These efforts could help in
building models towards developing the knowledge base for
our ongoing research on building strategies for adaptive
control of abrasive waterjet cutting system.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to the
Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India, New Delhi for the financial support rendered to
undertake this research work.
References
[1] M. Hashish, A modeling study of metal cutting with abrasive
waterjets, ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
106 (1984) 88–100.
[2] R. Kovacevic, M. Hashish, R. Mohan, M. Ramulu, T.J. Kim,
E.S. Geskin, State of the art of research and development in abrasive
waterjet machining, ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering 119 (1997) 776–785.
[3] M. Hashish, Optimization factors in abrasive-waterjet machining,
ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 113 (1991) 29–37.
[4] M. Hashish, Waterjet machine tool of the future, Proceedings of Ninth
American Waterjet Conference, Dearborn, 1997, pp. 769–778.
[5] M. Hashish, Aspects of abrasive-waterjet (AWJ) performance
optimization, Proceedings of Eighth International Symposium on Jet
Cutting Technology, Durham, 1986, pp. 297–308.
[6] M. Hashish, Pressure effects in abrasive waterjet (AWJ) machining,
ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 111 (1989)
221–228.
[7] H. Blickwedel, N.S. Guo, H. Haferkamp, H. Louis, Prediction of
abrasive jet cutting performance and quality, Jet Cutting Technology
1991; 163–179.
1450 J.J.R. Jegaraj, N.R. Babu / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1443–1450
[8] E.J. Chalmers, Effect of parameter selection on abrasive waterjet
performance, Proceedings of Sixth American Waterjet Conference,
Houston, 1991, pp. 345–354.
[9] P.J. Singh, W. Chen, J. Munoz, Comprehensive evaluation of abrasive
waterjet cut surface quality, Proceedings of Sixth American Waterjet
Conference, Houston, 1991, pp. 139–161.
[10] A.W. Momber, R. Kovacevic, Principles of Abrasive Waterjet
Machining, Springer, London, 1998.
[11] M. Nanduri, D.G. Taggart, T.J. Kim, Cutting efficiency of abrasive
waterjet nozzles, Proceedings of 10th American Waterjet Conference,
Houston, 1999, pp. 217–232.
[12] R. Kovacevic, M. Fang, Modeling of the influence of the abrasive
waterjet cutting parameters on the depth of cut based on fuzzy rules,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 34 (1)
(1994) 55–72.
[13] N.S. Guo, H. Louis, G. Meier, Surface structure and kerf geometry in
abrasive waterjet cutting: formation and optimization, Proceedings of
Seventh American Waterjet Conference, Seattle, 1993, pp. 1–14.
[14] M.S. Niu, R. Kobayashi, T. Yamaguchi, Kerf width in abrasive waterjet
machining, Proceedings of Fourth Pacific Rim International Con-
ference on Waterjet Technology, Shimizu, 1995, pp. 59–70.
[15] J. Wang, W.C.K. Wong, A study of abrasive waterjet cutting of
metallic coated sheet steels, Internationl Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture 39 (1999) 855–870.
[16] R. Kovacevic, Surface texture in abrasive waterjet cutting, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 10 (1) (1991) 32–40.